Errors under the spotlight Pete Clements examines learner uptake of correction techniques. ‘Tanie + >| Explict- clearly highlighting ‘Wow otoraicorecion | and corecting the student's error ‘ow and when to correct learmer errorsis an sportant consideration for Janguage teachers. Approaches such as the audiolingual ‘method and other behaviourist theories placed great emphasis on error correction, in the classroom, whilst later theories focusing on affective factors of learning (uch as that proposed by Stephen Krashen) suggested that too mucit correction may inerease earner anxiety, During the early years of my teaching career, error correction was certainly one of my weaknesses. I tended to use the ‘affective filter’ as an excuse to avoid correcting earners, when realy it was my lack of knowledge about how to correct that made me avoid it. ‘As part of my Dip TESOL stucles last year, undertook a peer observation task to help improve my skills in oral error correction, For anyone wishing 10 do the same, Roy Lyster and Leila Ranta’s article isan essential read. These authors categorised a range of error correction techniques employed by observed teachers, and judged their ‘ffoctiveness based on ‘learner uptake’ ie the learner's response to being corrected), ‘Table 1 gives some examples of oral correction types with classroom examples ‘Table 2 gives examples of types of learner uptake, again with classroom examples. ‘Student: /‘signfikant/. ‘Teacher: No, I's /sg'niftkont/ ‘Metalinguistic - the teacher refers. to motalanguage to highlight and ‘correct the error The student has used /1/ instead of Vs/ ‘T(points to phoneme chart What co these dots mean? 'S: Long sound. Elicitation - the teacher asks tho student questions to elicit ‘the correct form 'S: She made her homework 7: Do we make homework? ‘8: No, she did her homework. Self-repair ~ the learner corrects their own error after being prompted ‘St 'm going to work as a/volon'ta/ T:Sory, you're going to work as 2.2 : /volan'tr9/ Peer-repair- the learner is corrected by a classmate ‘SA: | couldn't study for my work ‘THe said, couldn't study for my work..." ‘SB: Because of my work. Partial repair ~ the learner attempts ‘to correct the error and may recognise where the errors occurs, but doesn't correct appropriately 'S: She's making a daydream, Tr She's what? 'S: She's having a daydream. [The student moant She's daydreaming) +s erenuateratematonal.com + ENGUSH TEACHING professional: 0 8 ly 2018+ OFErrors under the spotlight Lyster and Ranta’s study, plus the ‘comprehensive overview of follow-up research by Victoria Russell, provided a {great introduction to this area of enquiry Tt helped me to realise that, upon reflection, the ew correction techniques 1 did use may actualy be the least effective, ‘These included reeasts ~ reformulating the student's error impli ly: 'S: He make lots of money. ‘T: Yes, hie makes lots of money. Recognising the types of corrections that Land other teachers made was the fist step to refining my own technique. 1 used an observation instrument adapted from that proposed by Ruth Wajnryb to help me gather classroom data and learn more about our pra Tobserved experienced teachers at my school on ‘numerous occasions — with a general focus on how and when they used correction. I noted down the errors ‘made by the students, the teacher response, the lesson stage atthe time, and whether the stage focus was primarily on accuraey or fluency. These initial observ ms revealed that most corrections were made during accuracy Stages, with delayed error correction undertaken after fuency tasks, Much good practice was evident, although the instrument didn't include a section for recording learner uptake, so it was rather limited, I then came up with this revised instrument, which was more effective Leaner [Teacher | Correction] Learner error | response | type | uptake He make | Yes, ho | Recest | None lotsof | makes money. | (ots of ‘money: ‘Example instrument, adapted trom Wainry> Choosing a qualitative-based instrument can lead to some difficulties in recording data quickly and verbatim, An alternative might be to video the teachers’ lessons, although this can be intimidating. Tape-recording classroom conversation aso has its limitations, as important visual prompts and body Tamguage used by the teacher to 4B «ssn 99 Juy 2015 ENGLISH TEACHING professional + wore encourage leamer uptake would be lost Either way, gathering data verbatim at this stage was very important as it provided real dialogue from the classroom, which could be analysed and categorised after the observation During the initial observations, only completed the ‘Correction type’ column (cgelicitation, explicit, repetition, recast) during post-observation analysis, bbut I came to recognise the type of ‘correction far more quickly during later observations. Similarly, with the “Learner uptake’ columa, I began by recording the leamer responses verbatim and categorising the uptake type post-observation, found the qualitative data very Useful for improving my understanding, However, with more knowledge of correction and uptake types, Iwas able to codify the observation instrument to ‘make it even easier to use in clas. These are the codes I used: Errors ‘Code Meaning Pr Pronunciation Grammar Vv Vecabulary Clarification Metalinguistic feedback Explicit correction Uptake Re E © Repetition M Ex Code Meaning R Repetition SR Salfrepair PR Peesrepair SE Same error DE Different eror O Oftetarget P Partial repair A Acknowladgement Errortype | Correction | Learner ‘ype uptake Pr & R 6 E PR 6 Re None Tee ee Arranging the data in such a way ‘made it easier to analyse, although it did create some problems. Without having recorded the qualitative data it means that error categorisation must be accurate. Itis often difficult to achieve this quickly during 2 classroom, observation, when faced with a possible ‘mixture of correction techniques: The student has used /1/ instead offi: 1: (points to phoneme chart) What do these dots mean? In this example, the teacher has actually used two techniques: metalinguistic correction followed by elicitation. The observer must recognise this, and decide hhow to record this effectively. Avoiding the use of recording equipment in class (for fear of being intrusive} can result in such difficulties forthe observer. Analysis and findings Around 12 hours of lessons were ‘observed in total, The data from each observation, having been categorised, was combined and analysed for trends ‘The observation data was collated, to censure anonymity forthe teachers. ‘However, I did give the teachers individual feedback on my observations after each class T found it was often convenient todo this by creating a simple graph of the individual lesson ‘data and talking about this with the teacher. There is an example on page 49, ‘Analysis of the data set revealed the following: «© Correction happened mainly when the lesson stage focused on accuracy. Exceptions included when the meaning ‘or pronunciation of an utterance was hindered or unclear, to the extent that i affected understanding, ‘¢ Explicit correction and elicitation were the most commonly used techniques. Metalinguistic feedback was more frequent when the lesson type required a greater level of accuracy, such as in exam classes, Recasts were used fairly often, more so ina teacher-centred classroom, ‘Intuitively the techniques used most often were generally the most, cffective. However, the only technique that shoved 100% learner uptake (clarification requests) appeared to be rather underused,Frequency of error correction and learner uptake during an adult IELTS lesson Recasts tation Clarification requests Metalinguistic feedback ‘Frequency = Learner uptake Example graph used during post-observaton discussions Here is an example ofa repetition! Clarification request witha self-repair from the student: ‘8: Something lke noodtes. T: Noodles? S:No, needles. ‘¢ Explicit correction was particularly effective for pronunciation errors, although this depends on whether the students repeating the correct form (as, ‘modelled by the teacher) could be classed as effective uptake. Importantly, explicit correction did not outwardly lead to affective issues (such as inhibition) in any contest observed. Roy Lyster and Hirohide Mori suggest that reeasts may be more effective in form-focused classrooms, and licitations in meaning-focused classrooms, Recasts used in a segment ‘of the observations loosely supported this idea, and there was plenty of. evidence supporting the effectiveness of clicitation techniques. These are both considered interactional techniques, as they prompt further communication, but corrective techniques such as explicit teaching definitely proved useful in specific contexts. ‘The findings were limited by the ificulies in assessing long-term learner uptake — students are often at our school fora short time only: However, ifthe goal of correction is to prompt effective ‘and immediate learner uptake (ie repetition, selE-repair and peer-repair), then the findings show that a majority ‘of observed corrections were effective. kkk ‘Well: focused peer observation i always likely 10 be of benefit to developing teacher, This series of observations really helped inform my practice. 1 learnt that some correction techniques work better in certain contexts ~ such as ‘explicit correction for pronunciation ‘Teehniques which T assumed might be ineffective (auch as eeasts) cam have some benefits, depending on teaching style or approach. I observed a particularly useful way to improve my delayed feedback technique (by asking the students to ‘categorise’ rather than “comect errors, to entend metalinguistic asvarenes), which Ihave subsequently used in my own clases to good elect. ‘The broader benefits of these ‘observations are that they provide specific feedback for other teachers on their own practice Individual feedback can be given, oF a teacher development session delivered to present the findings and discus their implications. Ultimately, teachers could alter their practice, where necessary, to ensure their Gorrection techniques are the most elective forthe learners. However, ‘aration in learning styles makes it hard to generalise ~one student may respond completly differently to a particular {ype of eorrestion compared with another student. Where generalisations fare concerned, one might be inclined to conduct further observations, to establish whether certain correction types seem more effective for learners of particular nationalities as they may share common past earning experiences However the findings are used, ertor correction and learner uptake isa fascinating area to research. GD Explicit Repetition correction Krashen, § Princoles and Practice in ‘Second Language Acauston Pergamon 982 Ayster Rand Mod H ‘interactional eedback and istuctionl ‘courteroalance’ Studies in Second Language Acautsiion 28 2) 2000 yster Rand Ranta, L‘Comective feedback ‘and learner uptake: negotiation of form in ‘Communicative classrooms! Studies in ‘Second Language Acquistion 19 1) 1997 Russell V ‘Cortective feedback, ovo a ‘cade of research since Lyster and Fanta (1997) Where do we stand today” iectronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching 6 (1) 2008, Walneyd,R Glassroom Observation Tasks: ‘A Resource Book for Language Teachers {and Trainers CUP 1982 iateing eaters in tase. He curity works fore Eantoourne, UK. Yauean vist his blog at ‘ips Foptanning. worabresscom. It really worked for me! Did you got inspired by something ‘you ead in £Tp? Did you do somathing sis wth your tons? Did itrealy work in practice? Do shart with vs holona,gomm@pavpub.com 1s ENGL TEACHING professional »eeve 00 July 2015 + BS