“Should learner errors be corrected? If so, when should learner errors be corrected? Which learner errors should be corrected? Who should correct learner errors? And how should learner errors be corrected?” (Hendrickson 1978, p. 389). This series of questions, raised by Hendrickson, frame the diverse decisions a teacher has to make within only few seconds in his/her daily teaching according to a learner’s error.
To explore special parts of this extensive topic more precisely and to find out what role teacher and learner play exactly in the treatment of oral errors should be the aim of the following investigation.
First of all the theoretical concept of error and correction itself will be dealt with to make clear from which perspective the subject of oral error treatment in the L2 classroom will be considered. Then the paper will have a practical orientation to the L2 classroom: in this connection the focus will lie on answering one of the questions raised above namely “Should learner errors be corrected?”. With reference to this we try to find out on which factors the decision of correcting/not correcting students’ errors depends. Answering the question how learners’ errors should be corrected represents such a complex issue that it would be impossible to get a complete look at it in this research. Therefore recasts and elicitations, as special kinds of corrective feedback used in L2 classrooms, are considered in detail to get a deeper impact of possible ways students’ errors are treated in oral work. Simultaneously it should be found out if recasts/elicitations are effective examples of oral error treatment and whether there are differences in terms of the effectiveness according to the type of error that is made.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Definitions
2.1 Error vs. Mistake
2.2 Correction
3. Reaction to Learners’ Oral Errors
3.1 Should Learner Errors Be Corrected?
3.1.1 The Focus of the Lesson
3.1.2 Further Influencing Factors
3.1.3 Discussion: Chances and Risks of Correcting/not Correcting Errors
3.2 Recast and Elicitation – Two Types of Corrective Feedback
3.2.1 Recast
3.2.2 Elicitation
3.2.3 Discussion: Two Effective Examples of Oral Error Treatment?
Objectives & Core Topics
This academic paper examines the complex decision-making process teachers face regarding the treatment of oral errors in second language (L2) classrooms, specifically evaluating the effectiveness of different feedback strategies.
- The theoretical distinction between errors and mistakes in language learning.
- Factors influencing whether a teacher should intervene or ignore student errors.
- A detailed analysis of "recasts" and "elicitations" as corrective feedback techniques.
- The psychological impact of error correction on student motivation and learning.
- The correlation between specific error types and the efficacy of different feedback methods.
Excerpt from the Book
3.2.3 Discussion: Two Effective Examples of Oral Error Treatment?
With reference to a study by Lyster and Ranta (1997), which investigated the usefulness of six different feedback types in a Canadian immersion context, recasts were determined to be the most frequently used form whereas the amount of elicitations of all teacher turns containing feedback was considerably lower: more than half of the provided feedback types, 55% exactly, were recasts and only 14% were elicitations (p. 53). But according to the effectiveness in leading to student uptake recasts can be seen as ineffective by leaving approximately two thirds of teacher feedback without any learner uptake. On the contrary elicitations led to uptake in all of the feedback moves, and therefore seem to be much more effective than recasts (cf. ibd., p. 54).
Findings by Calvé (1992), adopted by Lyster and Ranta, stated “that the goal of the teacher should be for the learner to self-correct or to have another student correct the error” (ibd.) because a repair which is only a repeated form of the teacher’s utterance does not automatically mean that the error was noted by the learner (cf. ibd.). However, in the study mentioned above recasts did not lead to any student-generated repairs at all. The obvious reason for that is the fact that the technique of recasts already provide correct forms to students. Besides a striking proportion of 43% of all student-generated repairs were triggered by elicitations (cf. ibd., p. 55). Thus, one can say that elicitations “provide signals that engage learners more actively by assisting them to draw on what they already know” (Lyster 1998a , p. 53) whereas using recasts means to let “teachers do the work, [...], while students remain passive” (ibd., p. 76).
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the central research questions regarding the timing, selection, and method of correcting learner errors in L2 settings.
2. Definitions: Clarifies the terminological distinction between errors and mistakes, opting to focus on "errors" for the scope of this study.
3. Reaction to Learners’ Oral Errors: Investigates the pedagogical necessity of error correction, influenced by lesson focus, student proficiency, and psychological impact.
4. Conclusion: Summarizes that balancing feedback is crucial and highlights that the effectiveness of corrections depends significantly on the method chosen and the type of error addressed.
Keywords
Second Language Acquisition, Oral Error Treatment, Corrective Feedback, Recast, Elicitation, Learner Uptake, Pedagogical Intervention, Error Correction, Language Proficiency, Classroom Interaction, Teacher-Student Discourse, Fluency vs. Accuracy, Error Analysis, Interlanguage, Language Learning Theories
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper explores the complexities of oral error treatment in second language classrooms, specifically focusing on whether, when, and how teachers should provide corrective feedback to students.
What are the primary thematic areas explored?
The study covers the definitions of errors, factors influencing the teacher's decision to correct, the psychological effects of feedback, and the comparison of specific techniques like recasts and elicitations.
What is the main research objective?
The primary aim is to analyze how teachers treat oral errors and to evaluate the effectiveness of recasts versus elicitations in promoting student uptake and self-correction.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The paper relies on a qualitative literature review and analysis, drawing on established studies by researchers such as Lyster, Ranta, and Allwright to compare feedback strategies.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section evaluates the "accuracy vs. fluency" lesson focus, discusses the risks and benefits of correction, and provides a comparative analysis of corrective feedback techniques.
What key terms define this work?
Key terms include "Corrective Feedback," "Recast," "Elicitation," "Learner Uptake," and "Second Language Classroom."
Why are recasts considered less effective than elicitations in some contexts?
According to the cited studies, recasts often leave students passive, whereas elicitations force students to draw on their own knowledge, making them more effective at fostering active learning and student-generated repairs.
How does the type of error influence the choice of feedback?
Research indicates that teachers tend to use recasts for grammatical and phonological errors, while lexical errors are more often met with negotiation of form (e.g., elicitation).
What is the "auto-input" hypothesis mentioned in the text?
It suggests that when a student produces faulty language that goes untreated, that incorrect output can serve as flawed input for both the speaker and other students in the class.
What conclusion does the author reach regarding the "right" approach to correction?
The author concludes that there is no universal rule; rather, teachers must find a balance between correcting and allowing fluency, ensuring they do not over-correct or neglect essential learning opportunities.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Steffi Joetze (Autor:in), 2007, Oral Error Treatment in the Second Language Classroom, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/174060
