Nowadays, many teachers agree that “the main concern as language teachers is not to inform our students about the language but to develop their ability to use the language for a variety of communicative purposes” (Byrne, 1991, p. 1), and “the aim of our teaching is to train students for communicative efficiency” (Harmer, 1994, p. 42) that is why communicative activities are commonly incorporated into the production stage of the learning process.
2.3.1 Oral Communicative Activities
According to Stern (1993), “the term ‘Communicative Activity’ designates motivated activities, topics and themes which involve the learner in authentic
communication.” (p. 177). Harmer (1994) uses the term “Communicative Output” to
“refer to activities in which students use language as a vehicle for communication because their main purpose is to complete some kinds of communicative tasks” (p. 40).
Harmer (1994) suggests some oral communicative activities such as: reaching a consensus, discussion, relaying instructions, communication games, problem solving, talking about yourself, simulation and role-play. Doff (1988) recommends “guessing games, information gap exercises, personal information exchange” (p. 208). Ur (2000) advocates “pair work, group work, discussion, role-play” as some of the most commonly used forms of oral communicative activities. Whereas Littewood (1991) proposes to distinguish communicative activities as “functional communicative activities” which
emphasize on functional efficiency and “social communicative activities” which focus on successful social interaction.
Although different methodologists suggest different activities, all of these activities create opportunities for learners to use English to communicate meaningfully with other learners.
2.3.2 Error Correction in Oral Communicative Activities
Although many researchers and educators (Doff, 1980; Gover& Walter, 1983;
Harmer, 1994; Ur, 2000;) agree that errors should be corrected when the activity focus is on accuracy and errors should be ignored or delayed if students are in a fluency activity, there are still disagreements about error treatment in communicative activities.
While Edge (1990) claims that “spoken accuracy is most important for our learners when they are practicing carefully something that has just been presented to them” (p. 23), Truscott (1999) maintains that “oral correction does not improve learners’
ability to speak grammatically” (p. 1). He also gave evidence from research of Frantzen (1995), Kadia (1988), Schumann (1978), which showed that oral correction was
ineffective. DeKeyser’s studies (1993) showed that “there was no overall effect for correction” and he concludes that “oral correction should be abandoned” (p. 10). Krashen (1987) also emphasizes that correction is not effective.
However, many teachers believe that errors can be used “as a type of input to promote learners’ acquisition process” (Gebhard, 1996, p. 189). Lynch and Maclean (2003) also found out in their studies that “ the learner’s perception of the value and
effect of feedback were matched by real improvements in their spoken performance”
(p. 1)
Then, if teachers have decided to correct an error in oral communicative activities, they also have to consider these questions: Which errors should be treated? When should errors be corrected? Who should treat them? How can they be treated?
Hendrickson (as cited in Krashen, 1987) claims that we should correct the mistakes that affect communication or mistakes that are common among students or mistakes that are irritating to someone. Littlewood (1991), however, states that teachers should not correct linguistic errors because students will then believe that linguistic forms are more important than meanings in communication. If teachers want to correct
linguistic errors, they should do it in pre-communicative activities, which are somewhat controlled, not in communicative activities. In Huynh Thi Thu Suong’s thesis (2006) when she conducted a research about correction of spoken errors in her university, she found that teacher treated lexical and discourse errors most and grammar errors were treated more often than pronunciation errors (p. 68).
Because the focus of communicative activities is in communication, not linguistic forms, Littlewood (1991) suggests that if there are some mistakes, correction should be delayed until after the activity. Edge (1990) also adds that if teachers correct one error during a communicative activity, they will miss many others. Instead, they should walk around the class, listen to students doing their activity, note down the commonest mistakes and then write them on the board so that students can correct them after the
activity. In her study, however, Huynh Thi Thu Suong (2006), found that teachers preferred immediate treatment techniques more than delayed ones (p. 68)
Many researchers and educators (Doff, 1980; Edge, 1990; Hadfield, 1997;
Harmer, 1994) agree that the teachers should go around the class and listen, if there are some mistakes, teachers will note down. They will write them on the board after the activity and the whole class will discuss how to correct them. If teachers have to correct, they should do it in a “natural and relaxed way”.
How should errors be corrected in a communicative activity? Some teachers give an explicit correction whereas other teachers can choose implicit correction or let
students correct the errors themselves. When teachers correct the errors explicitly, they show students what the mistakes are and provide them with the correct form. Teachers can choose to correct the errors implicitly by using fingers, gestures to show students that they have made a mistake; or by reformulating students’ utterances or by indicating that what the students have said is unclear or incorrect with a marked intonation to highlight the errors. While Gebhard (1996) maintains that teachers should make it clear to students that their mistakes are being treated, Byrne (1991) states that when teachers have to correct an error, do it obliquely rather than directly, so that the learners perceive their mistakes for themselves. And Ur (2000) agrees that correction should be “tactful and encouraging”.
Doff (1980) adds that teachers should “avoid humiliating students or making them feel that making a mistake is bad” (p. 190) and teachers should correct errors quickly.