ERROR TREATMENTIN THE ESL CLASSROOM

Jorge Mallén Mercè Pizà

Irma RodríguezBlanca L. SánchezVictoria Villarino

Table of contents1 Theoretical framework and strategies...........................................................................................3

1.1 How does the correction grid work?................................................................................42 Where was the grid implemented?................................................................................................5

CASE 1..................................................................................................................................5Context description.................................................................................................................5How was the grid implemented?............................................................................................5 CASE 2 .................................................................................................................................6Context description.................................................................................................................6How was the grid implemented?............................................................................................6

3 Overall conclusions and further suggestions................................................................................64 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................8

1 Theoretical framework and strategies

This paper aims to discuss the importance of error treatment in the ESL class, to review the types

of errors students make and how teachers give feedback and assess them. It will also analyze the

implementation of a grid for students’s self-correction for writings in two different classroom

environments and will present its results as well as students’ reception to this grid as a way to

enhance language learning.

Error correction started to gain importance in ESL classrooms and be a concern of language

teaching in 1950’s and 1960’s. In this period of time, the audio-lingual approach was the

predominent method used for teaching a second or a foreign language. However, this approach

did not tolerate errors in the performance of the language and therefore they had to be corrected

immediately to avoid becoming fossilized. Years later, with the growing of importance of the

communicative methodology, this view of error correction experimented a radical change,

considering it as a natural part of the student’s learning process. It is also important to mention

that error treatment should not be confused with error correction because it may not involve

correction as it is focused on detection of the error and on any kind of attempt to inform students

they have made an error (Chaudron 1977: 29-46)1.

According to Chastain (1971: 249), the most important attainment of ESL classes is to create an

atmosphere in which students want to talk instead of achieving an error-free speech. However, as

the ESL classroom and error treatment are inseparable, it is important to promote self and peer

correction among students to complement the teacher’s role in error correction. It is a fact that

ESL students make different types of error when learning the target language and they can be

distinguished among slips, which learners can correct themselves, errors, for which learners need

an explanation from the teacher and attempts,which occur when learners try to express

themselves but they do not know the correct way of saying it.

It is also necessary to state that the sources of errors caused by students who are learning a

1 apud Shahin (2011: 207-208).

foreign or a second language are different to the causes of errors that native speakers can make

and therefore this has to be taken into account. The main causes of errors are: L1 interference,

which is produced by the contact of L1 and L2 and which can appear at the level of sound,

grammar and word usage, and developmental errors, which occur when a rule is overgeneralized

by the learner as it has been subconsciously learnt.

Error treatment is useful in order to identify, describe and justify in a systematic way the errors

made by learners. As Sanal (2008) states, second language teachers should seize this analysis

technique as errors provide fundamental feedback —these account for the effectiveness of the

teaching materials and methodologies, and lead teachers to revise what segments of their syllabi

have been unsatisfactorily learned and need additional consideration.

For a better understanding of what this corrective feedback means, Lightbown and Spada (1999)

have described it as “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is

incorrect. […] When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’, corrective feedback

can be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes he goes to school

every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information.”

Most findings on error treatment in second language acquisition prove that students getting error

feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time (Liu, 2008). According to El Tatawy

(2014), the latest analyses on this subject show that techniques involving reformulation (e.g.

clarification and comprehension checks) have been more efficient. Chaudron (1988) underlined

that those feedbacks that stimulate self-correction are more likely to make a greater progress in

the process of learning. It is also argued by El Tatawy (2014) that corrective feedback is more

effective when there is the presence of metalinguistic hints.

In this sense, Olajedo (1993) argued that their students’ preferred error treatment technique was

that of the teacher giving relevant remarks that helped them self-correct their oral and writing

productions —other techniques such as pointing out the wrong items without providing the

answers, showing the wrong items and providing the answers or grading their performance

without specifying the errors were less popular.

Having said that, corrective feedback strategies have not been always observed as uniformly

effective. It seems appropriate to mention Liu’s study (2008), which explored the extent to which

two types of feedback on three error types (morphological, semantic and syntactic errors) helped

second language learners improve their accuracy: the first type of feedback involved a direct

correction supplied by the teacher, while the second one was an indirect correction that showed

the existence of an error, but no corrections were provided. Both sorts of feedback helped

students self-correct their writings —however, even though direct feedback diminished students’

errors in their second writing, it did not improve their accuracy in a different one. On the other

hand, indirect corrections helped students make less morphological errors than semantic ones

and they proved a higher accuracy in a new text than direct correction could do. Now it is time to

approach how the grid analyzed in this paper performed in terms of reflective learning, which

seems to be the ultimate method to create language awareness in students.

1.1 How does the correction grid work?

The grid is thought to be a reflective tool for the students to improve their writing skills. Given a

correction code (---- model), students will have to correct their own writings. Errors will be only

highlighted and specyfied by their corresponding sign. It will be the student the one who will

have to propose a correction to the error, which means that students will have to go over the

work done in class and reflect on their learning; they will have to use their analytic skills in order

to find an improvement or a correction to their work.

The pocess described above entails a previous training to become effective, but surely promotes

reflective learning, which has been proved by many experts as the best way to enhance learning,

given that language reflection fosters students’ language awareness (meta-knowledge: students

are aware of learning). It is a dual process, being aware of what and how they learn, students

become more effective learners.

This grid is an adaptation from the one used in an L3 class at EOI Santa Coloma de Gramanet.

To this original grid, it was added a column with the marking codes to easy the task of self-

correcting.

2 Where was the grid implemented?

CASE 1

Context descriptionThe second self-correction grid was meant to be implemented in a Vocational Training group

from a school in the outskirts of Barcelona. It was a reduced group of 13 students from ages 17

to 48 in the second year of Mecanització. Their schedule sets English once a week for three

hours with a thirty minutes break after the first two hours. Regarding their level of English, the

vast majority of the students hardly reached A1 and two of them were learning the language for

the first time in their life; therefore, they were complete beginners. However, according to the

contents programmed for the unit, they had to write a Cover Letter to apply for a job. After

working with some models, the students had to produce their own letter following some

guidelines.They were asked to write a first draft where they would get some feedback in order to

reflect and rewrite their final version.

How was the grid implemented?After working with them for three hours and realizing that their level was lower than expected, it

was decided not to use the grid or the marking codes to provide the feedback. They were

considered too complex for them to understand in the limited time provided. It is not that it could

not be used with students at their early stages but it certainly needs time to be explained in more

detail than when it is used with more advanced students. Instead of using them, when the

students wrote their first draft, problematic structures, misspelled words or wrong words/tenses

were underlined. Then, they were asked to reflect on the underlined pieces and to reflect on the

errors. Most of the students were able to correct some of the errors right away, however, they

were also allowed to use the computers to check wordreference.com or usingenglish.com. Then,

they had to rewrite the letter with the changes suggested.

The act of rewriting one's own production is sometimes considered as something dull, however,

as they were told that they had to write a first draft before the final version they did not feel they

were rewritting it. Furthermore, it seemed that they were motivated to correct their own errors as

any time someone could corrrect something without checking it in the computer we could hear:

Oh! Claro!, Toma!, Es verdad!. It turned out to be something which improved their autonomy

and their self-esteem. Finally, by their comments, there was a feeling that the task was seen as a

chance to get a better mark and this seemed to motivate them as well. It cannot be predicted what

whould have happened if the grid had been implemented. However, the marking codes, with the

proper explanation, would have been of a great use because they would have been a guide for the

type of error to be corrected.

CASE 2

Context descriptionL5 EOI Santa Coloma de Gramanet enrolls students within a broad range of backgrounds,

previous educational experiences, interests, motivations and levels of prior knowledge and skills.

In many instances, this diversity is manageable and, if handled skillfully, can provide substantial

benefits to the educational context of the classroom.

Adult learners, such as the ones at EOI’s L5, are often guided by instrumental motivation,

meaning that they already know what they want to get out of their language learning. Due to this

fact, adult learners can be critical of teaching methods they are not familiar with.

However, adults can be less reluctant to feedback and error correction, given precisely to their

instrumental motivation. Students at EOI, for example, aim for an official certificate which will

give credit of their langauage proficiency. That is why, in most cases, they are interested in

learning and often see errors as an opportunity to learn.

As to add a motivational ingredient to the grid, we decided that every “improvement” made by

students in the grid, would represent a 0,1 points to the final mark on their writing, in the case

that they were correct.

How was the grid implemented?In the case of Santa Coloma de Gramanet EOI the grid was implemented as an additional tool to

to a writing task. Students had to do a “for and against” essay over a given topic. In previous

sessions the grid was introduced and the correcting code explained. They were told to write their

essays, and once they would have been assessed (the correcting code would be used), they would

have to use the grid.

As for the second case, the grid was implemented in two Level 5 classes of 30 students each, at

EOI Santa Coloma de Gramanet, but only 15 students handed out their grids back, so the sample

is even lower than expected.

As we are talking about a sample of 10 individuals out of 55 (taking into account the ones who

did not attend), this means that only a 5,5% of the students were interested in using the grid. It is

known that most adults have problems with coping with taking time aside for the course tasks,

therefore, teachers at EOI are warned not to push students too much with loads of homework.

Another case to be considered here is that students might have not liked the grid, or understand it

properly, so we would like to think that just one try is not enough to get students used to exerting

a new item.

3 Overall conclusions and further suggestions.

After having dealt with error treatment with this paper, we realized several things that shall be

noticed as to conclude.

Firstly, and very important, corrections need to be constructive in order to be meaningful.

“Constructive correction” means specific corrections, that somehow reflects on their previous

work and their development and progress in their language learning process. Also, it is important

to bare in mind to be consistent with marks and comments. Teachers need to take corrections and

error treatments seriousl so that students take it seriously, too.

Secondly, as it has already been mentioned, it is important to get the students to correct

themselves in order to increase self-awareness of their language improving, but there are also

some behavioural tips for teachers that should be taken into account, such as the avoidance of

“mistake” or “error” and the use of “good tries” or “attempts” instead; approaching errors as a

natural and necessary evidence of the students’ learning process; and, finally, focusing on

correcting errors that interfere to the meaning of a whole sentence, not just tiny minor errors or

points.

Regarding to the conclusions of the two already presented practical cases, it could be said that

the first case is a great example of what happens when students are able to correct their own

mistakes. In that case, they knew what was wrong and just needed to look for the right option.

They felt like they were learning without any specific mark, and it kept them engaged and

motivated. The second case, however, is a little bit different. Students used a grid to correct

themselves and 7 out of 10 said that it had been useful, whereas 2 said that it had not been that

much help and only 1 student said that he preferred written feedback. Nevertheless, it is worth

saying that all the 10 students of the sample came out with very interesting solutions, and most of

these solutions were right - or almost right. Moreover, those 7 students claimed that knowing the

kind of mistake made it easier for them to provide new solutions, which they had never done

before, and therefore they would probably remember the mistake.

However, we can state that we need a larger sample and more time to come to relevant

conclusions, but the grid has proved to be a reflective tool for 7 out of 10 students and that is a

positive sign - needless to say that it is still not representative.

All in all, we could say that the improved grid with the correcting codes on it allows students to

reflect more about their mistakes and solutions provided, given that currently students are

improving their corrections and are asking about feedback of them, so more grids have been

handed out during this time.

4 Bibliography

— Chastain, K. (1971). ‘The Development of Modern Language Skills.’ Theory to Practice,

Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.

— Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

— El Tatawy, Mounira (2014). Corrective feedback in second language acquisition.

— Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford

University Press.

— Liu, Yingliang (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona

Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, vol. 15, p. 65-79.

— Oladejo, James (1993). Error correction in ESL: learners’ preferences. TESL Canada

Journal/Revue TESL du Canada, vol. 10, n. 2.

— Sanal, Fahrettin (2008). Error-analysis based second language teaching strategies.

— Shahin, Nafez (2011) Error Treatment in TESOL Classrooms. J. J. Appl. Sci.: Humanities

Series 13 (1): 207-226.