Should I Correct Students’ Mistakes?

After reading chapter 8 of Coelho’s book, ​Adding English: A Guide to Teaching in

Multilingual Classrooms​, one theory that resonated with me was the discussion around
correcting students’ mistakes. As an English teacher, a large part of my job is to teach
standard English to all students, provide guidance, help students identify their errors and help
them to improve; however, there are many sides to the debate if correcting L2 students’
mistakes is effective at all. I would like to explore what Coelho says in this chapter compared
to the cited texts (Truscott and Lyster et. al) to inform and support my own thoughts
surrounding corrective feedback. All of these sources are in conversation with each other and
rebutting back and forth on this issue, that is why I can say with confidence that this is not a
conclusive theory and there are several factors one must take into consideration when
discussing corrective methods not only for English Language Learners but for all learners.

Coelho:

“Most mistakes are very similar among students of all language backgrounds, however, and
are the result of overgeneralizing a pattern in English...These are developmental errors that
indicate that students are at a particular stage in acquiring English. For teachers,
understanding the source of a specific error is not as important as knowing how to respond”
(158).
→ It is important to note Coelho’s expanding on the earlier discussion of how
important it is to recognize ELLs stage of development and adjusting your teaching and
feedback to that individual student.

“English language learners may also respond positively and negatively to correction” (159).
→ I found this to be Coelho’s way of mediating between two polarizing arguments
surrounding corrective feedback: it is not a one-size-fits all method, nor should it ever be.
The research exposes generally positive and negative responses to ​some f​ orms of corrective
feedback. It is important to remember that similarities in learning can be drawn between two
students, but they will each require different methods of feedback.

“Research has discovered no positive link between correction and the speed or accuracy with
which students learn English” (159).
→ I wish Coelho would have linked to the research being referred to here, but
Truscott reinforces this, while Lyster et. al provided research that did show a positive link
between correction and accuracy (importantly not speed, however) with which students
would learn English. I think the research is inconclusive, but the argument has been made
that there is a positive link between grammatical correction and L2 learners systemic
development. I think “learning English” here is ambiguous, at what point has anyone fully
mastered the English language? Perhaps more clarity on what Coelho meant by this statement
is needed here.
“As a compromise, think about errors not as problems, but as markers on the path to
proficiency in English. If a student's errors show that he is going in the wrong direction,
provide some helpful information but don't get in his way” (159).
→ Coelho does a remarkable job of finding a middle path between theoretical debates
to help real ELL students now by providing readers with practical approaches to giving
corrective feedback to ELLs: “Respond to the message first...be selective in deciding which
errors to respond to...focus on one error at a time...don’t expect students to use the corrective
form right away...don’t be dismayed if students seem to forget something they appeared to
know a few days earlier (159-160). Out of the two theories I explore below I did not see this
level of practical consideration and mediating between the two options (do away with
corrective feedback altogether or continue on the same path with corrective feedback). It is
also important to note there is a heavy focus on grammar correction in the theories below as
opposed to Coelho who touches upon grammatical errors but focuses more on oral
communication.

Truscott:

“There is, in my opinion, no situation more undesirable than this for the teaching profession:
when one questionable view becomes so dominant that most teachers can scarcely conceive
of an alternative, let alone seriously consider it as an option for their own teaching” (111).
→I agree here that dominant narratives in teaching close the door to other ways of
knowing and learning that could be significant in our students’ learning and development. I
think the need for offering an argument against correcting students is valid and critically
interrogates current corrective strategies that can be harmful.

“How much of students’ false faith in correction is due to the reinforcement it receives from
their teachers? To some extent, the argument from students’ beliefs is circular: By using
correction, teachers encourage students to believe in it; because students believe in it,
teachers must continue using it” (116)
→This point was specifically poignant for me because as a student I disliked handing
in work to only get back a grade. Why did I receive this mark? What did I do right? Where
did I go wrong? Feedback comes with the meritocratic system we currently have in place and
I find that my students have always appreciated by feedback to their work as we are in
conversation with one another. I will respond to a student’s work to discuss where they
excelled and where there is room for improvement: is this because I have been taught to
believe in this way of teaching and learning? Of course. But I am not yet convinced that it is
always a harmful practice and should be abandoned completely. I think the methods of
corrective feedback must be interrogated and differentiated based on each student.

“My general theoretical point [is] that effective correction would have to be based on an
understanding of complex learning processes, rather than relying on simplistic ideas of
transferring information from teacher to learner, as it currently does” (117).
 →Here, I think Truscott touches on the important theoretical thread of perhaps it is
not a question if corrective feedback should exist at all, but that we must interrogate how it is
implemented, especially for ELL learners where correcting errors can do irrevocable harm to
students’ confidence, development, and learning. The curse of the red ink is one I’m sure we
can all relate to and it has little benefits when a student doesn’t understand the reason for the
error and only sees their work covered in pen, their meaning and message behind their
writing going uncommented on, and therefore their ideas are being disregarded in comparison
to their grammatical errors.

Lyster, Lightbrown, and Spada:

“Truscott’s claim that lack of knowledge about developmental sequences makes corrective
feedback impossible is also untenable...we would argue that evidence from current research is
far from overwhelming that learners benefit ​only​ from developmentally matched instruction
and feedback” (458-9).
→The important point I took away here is how do teachers establish the
developmental phase their student’s are currently at? This leaves room for potentially harmful
and unsubstantial valued judgements being made onto the student. It is important to have the
appropriate resources available to assist each student in assessing their developmental stage
and creating individual education plans that are constantly updated with student and parent
involvement.

“Krashen (1982)...claimed that the teaching of grammar should be abandoned because it

interfered with the natural course of L2 learner’s development….since that time, L2
classroom researchers have had the opportunity to investigate the effects of ‘correction-free’
and meaning-based instruction on L2 learning, and the results have revealed persistent
problems in L2 learners’ syntactic development” (464).
→Krashen is a popular theorist and Lyster et. al provide sources for research done to
interrogate his suggestion that grammar correction interferes with L2’s natural language
development; however, I return to my previous point that correcting grammar can be harmful
for L2 learners and that as with all teaching it must be communicative, contextual, and
personal to the student.

“What is needed is continued systematic and rigorous research to investigate whether

different types of feedback are more effective than others and to what extent this may be
dependent on the instructional contexts and the characteristics of learners within them” (464)
→This debate has not reached a conclusive end but it is important to continue the
research and ensure, as always, that students are receiving the best education possible in our
classrooms and that our techniques are not harmful to their language acquisition.
 It can be considered a fall down the rabbit hole to expose both sides of this debate
with no conclusive answer, but what I find valuable and what I hope other educators find
valuable here is the criticality we must have in practices we take as absolute. Corrective
feedback has been part of Western education since its inception and one that I grew up with
and continued in my teaching practice. What I have altered are the ways in which I deliver
feedback (formative for example and as Coelho mentions I always respond to the message
first). Exploring these theories is essential work in order to affect change in real classrooms
and for all learners as well as ELL learners. The fact that students have had negative
responses to corrective feedback should be reason enough for teachers to revisit their
methods of feedback and respond accordingly.