While researchers and educators agree that making errors is a natural and unavoidable part of the foreign learning process, there are still arguments about what, when and how to correct an error.
The different opinions in error correction may be based on different theories of language learning and methodologies as Ur (2000) summarized:
“Audio-lingualism: learner mistakes are, in principle, avoided by the limiting of progress to very small, controlled steps: hence there should be little need for correction. The latter (positive assessment) is, in any case, not useful for learning; people learn by getting things right in the place and having their
performance reinforced.
Cognitive-code learning: Mistakes are regrettable, but an unavoidable part of learning: they should be corrected whenever they occur to prevent them occurring again.
Interlanguage: Mistakes are not regrettable, but an integral and important part of language learning; correcting them is a way of bringing the learner’s “interlanguage” closer to the target language.
Communicative Approach: Not all mistakes need to be corrected: the main aim of language learning is to receive and convey meaningful messages, and
correction should be focused on mistakes that intervene with this aim, not on inaccuracies of usage.
Monitor theory: Correction does not contribute to real acquisition of the language, but only to the learner’s conscious “monitoring” of speech or writing. Hence the main activity of the teacher should be to provide
comprehensible input from which the learner can acquire the language, not to correct”
(Ur, 2000, p. 244)
Although many teachers and educators nowadays choose a combination of these theories and methodologies in their language teaching, “Correct or not correct?” is still the most important question regarding to correction (Edge, 1990).
While Ur (2000) claims that if teachers pay too much attention to learners’ errors, it can be very discouraging and demoralizing and it can also distract learners and teachers from the content or hinder communication, and Zoubair (2000) maintains that correcting mistakes should be “kept to the minimum”, other researchers believe that if teachers do not pay enough attention to learners’ errors, these errors will become “fossilized” – irremediably fixed in the learner’s interlanguage. However, many authors (Brown, 2000;
Edge, 1990; Harmer, 1994;Hendrickson, 1978 as cited in Krashen, 1987; Ur, 2000;) agree that errors should be corrected but not all the time.
2.2.1 Which Errors should be Corrected?
Edge (1990) suggests “it is more important to correct mistakes which affect the meaning of several sentences than to correct small grammatical points inside one
sentence.” (p. 50). Doff (1980) agrees that only serious errors should be corrected. Brown (2000) also advises “local errors usually not to be corrected since the message is clear
and correction might interrupt a learner in the flow of productive communication. Global errors need to be corrected in some way since the message may otherwise remain
garbled” (p. 221) whereas Gover &Walter (1983) suggest that we should only correct a mistake if a learner asks us to. Hendrickson (1978, as cited in Krashen, 1987) maintains that errors should be corrected if:
They are “global” errors, errors that interfere with communication or impede the intelligibility of a message. Such errors deserve top priority in correction.
Errors that are the most stigmatized, that cause the most unfavorable reactions, are the most important to correct.
Errors that occur most frequently should be given top priority
(Krashen, 1987, p. 116)
Thus, before correcting an error, teachers should consider the frequency and irritability of the error, whether the error is serious or only a slip of tongue, whether the error affects the meaning of the message and interrupts communication.
2.2.2 When should Errors be Corrected?
Many researchers (Doff, 1980; Gover& Walter, 1983; Harmer, 1994; Ur, 2000;) believe that errors can be corrected if it is an accuracy work, because at this stage, the main focus is on grammatical correctness; and if it is a fluency activity, errors should be ignored or delayed so that the correction does not interrupt communication. Hendrickson (1978,as cited in Brown, 2000 and Krashen, 1987) also suggests that:
“error correction be limited to ‘manipulative grammar practice’- more errors may be tolerated during ‘communicative practice’, etc. We should focus our students on form, and correct their errors, only when they have time and when such diversion of attention does not interfere with communication. This implies no error correction in free conversation, but allows for error correction on written work and grammar exercises”
(Krashen, 1987, p. 117)
Long (1988, as cited in Brown, 2000) believes that “error treatment and focus on language forms appear to be most effective when incorporated into a communicative, learned-centered curriculum and least effective when error correction is a dominant pedagogical feature, occupying the focal attention of students in the classrooms.” (p. 234)
2.2.3 Who should Correct the Errors
Edge (1990) advises that teachers should not correct the mistakes but they should show students that a mistake has been made and the students should correct the mistake themselves. This kind of correction is called self-correction. If the students cannot correct the mistake, teachers can ask another student or the whole class to correct. This kind of correction is called peer-correction. Peer-correction is very useful because students can learn how to cooperate and help them less dependent on teachers. However, if students are not used to correcting each other, it can be useless or even damaging. And if that student cannot correct his/her mistake nor other students in the class, then teachers have to correct it, called teacher-correction. But Edge (1990) also emphasizes that “correction should not mean insisting on everything being absolutely correct. Correction means helping students to become more accurate in their use of language” (p. 33)
2.2.4 How should Errors be Corrected
Hendrickson (as cited in Krashen, 1987) provides the two most widely used methods of correction:
- providing the correct form (“direct” correction) - the discovery (inductive) approach
(Krashen, 1987, p. 118)
However, Hendrickson, as well as Brown (2000) also note that research on error correction still cannot conclude which method is the most effective, but some research shows that direct correction is not effective, students who had had direct correction of their oral and written work did not produce fewer errors.
Krashen (1987), on the other hand, claims that teacher correction is not effective and will not produce results that they expected.
In summary, error correction is still an argumentative matter in foreign language learning and teaching. However, we should also consider a taxonomy suggested by Bailey (1985, as cited in Brown, 2000):
Basic Options:
1. To treat or ignore
2. To treat immediately or to delay
3. To transfer treatment (to, say, other learners) or not
4. To transfer to another individual, a subgroup, or the whole class 5. To return, or not, to original error maker after treatment
6. To permit other learners to initiate treatment 7. To test for the efficacy of the treatment Possible Features:
1. Fact of error indicated 2. Location indicated
3. Opportunity for new attempt given 4. Model provided
5. Error type indicated 6. Remedy indicated 7. Improvement indicated 8. Praise indicated
(Brown, 2000, p. 238)