Giving Back Feedback in the Classroom

By Dr. David Shaffer

Making errors is inherent to learning English as a first or second language; it is part of the language learning process. Correcting students’ errors, or drawing students’ attention to their errors, is almost as inherent for the second language teacher. As teachers, we all do it in our own way. But how much thought do we give to the process of error correction, or “corrective feedback” – the process that we employ every time we step into the language learning classroom?

Should learners’ errors be corrected?

At first, it seems that the answer in an unqualified “yes,” and student surveys show that most students want all their errors corrected. However, if we were to correct every error that our students made in class, we wouldn’t get much else done. Students would not be able to carry on an authentic-like dialogue. Activities would never get completed before the bell rang. We need to be selective in our error correction, selecting the errors that we think are most important to correct for the benefit of the student and the class.

When should errors be corrected?

In surveys, whether Korean or not, students most often say that they want their errors corrected immediately. But if you try to do this, you are likely to find resistance. Some students are worried about losing face and turn red or stop speaking. Others seem more annoyed by the interruption than pleased by the correction; they are more interested in communicating their meaning than in the grammaticality of the form. If you think interrupting the flow of the class is detrimental to the lesson, there are other options. You can collect the errors and discuss them at the end of the activity or class. And another option is to make notes of a student’s errors and give them to the student after the activity is completed.

Which errors should be corrected?

Though a considerable majority of students may say that they want their teacher to correct all their errors, this is not most feasible or most effective. Importantly, as pointed out in Lightbown and Spada (2006), research provides evidence that some linguistic structures are acquired in a specific order, regardless of learner, and a certain structure cannot be acquired before a prior structure in the order is learned. We must do our best to determine which structures are at the student’s or class’s proficiency level for acquisition to occur and provide corrective feedback for these errors, passing on other errors until the students are at the proper developmental stage to absorb them.

How should errors be corrected?

There are a number of different ways to correct student errors; one very common method is explicit correction. It is clear that an error is being corrected, and the teacher provides the correct form (e.g., “No, it’s not ‘I seed the movie.’ We say ‘I saw the movie.’”). Recasts are a favorite among many teachers. Rather than explicitly pointing out the student error, it is recast in its correct form in the continuing student-teacher dialogue (e.g., “Oh, you saw the movie!”). Clarification requests can be made by the teacher, indicating that the teacher, for some reason, did not understand and suggesting that the student utterance may have contained an error. And then, there’s metalinguistic feedback, in which the teacher provides comments or information about the error, often using linguistic terminology, without providing the correct form (e.g., “See” is an irregular verb. We don’t say “seed”…). Another corrective feedback method in which the teacher does not provide the correct form, but encourages the student to do so, is elicitation. Here the teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking a question (e.g., “How should we say that?”), by repeating the utterance up to the incorrect form and pausing for the student to complete the utterance correctly, or by asking the student to reformulate the utterance. Finally, there is repetition, where the teacher repeats the student’s error, giving emphatic intonation to the incorrect part, inviting the student to provide a revised formulation (e.g., “I SEED the movie?”). Studies have shown that recasts are a huge favorite among teachers because of their implicitness, but studies have also shown that recasts are quite ineffective in having students notice that they have committed an error. It is up to the teacher to determine which of these error correction forms is most effective.

Who should be doing the correcting?

“The teacher, of course” is our immediate thought. But considering that learning is best achieved through discovery, the student will better remember the correct form if they arrive at it through teacher scaffolding. If that is unsuccessful, the teacher can invite the classmates or the whole class to provide the correct form; if that fails, the teacher can then provide it.

There are many ways to provide students with corrective feedback, and many things to consider in determining which to use in which situation. Just as it takes practice for a student to learn a language, it takes practice for the teacher to select the best correction method for the occasion. But we all know that “practice makes perfect.”

References

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398. doi:10.2307/326176.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

__________________________________________________

Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL

Annual Conference

Date & Time: March 12 (Saturday)

Place: Gwangju National University of Education

Theme: SERVICE – A Tradition in Teaching

• Plenary Session by Prof. Robert Dickey, JD
• 20 Presentations to choose from.
• Multiple presenters from Japan.
• ELT presentations include Service strand and Social Justice strand.
• Morning (10:30) Reflective Practice Session

For more details:

Website: http://koreatesol.org/gwangju

Facebook: Gwangju-Jeonnam KOTESOL

__________________________________________

 The Author

David E. Shaffer is President of the Gwangju-Jeonnam Chapter of Korea TESOL (KOTESOL). On behalf of the Chapter, he invites you to participate in the teacher development workshops at their monthly meetings and the March Chapter Conference. For many years, Dr. Shaffer has been a professor of English Language at Chosun University, where he has taught graduate and undergraduate courses. He is a long-time member of KOTESOL and a holder of various KOTESOL positions, including First Vice-President and Publications Committee Chair. He credits KOTESOL for much of his professional development in English language teaching.