The Pedagogy of Error Correction: Surviving the Written Corrective Feedback Challenge

Abstract

Should we correct our students’ language errors? Most ESL teachers would an- swer this question with a resounding Yes while at the same time wondering how to meet the challenge. The collaborative project reported below was designed to provide ESL teacher trainees with an opportunity to experience the ups and downs of providing corrective feedback on writing and develop their awareness in this regard. To this end, the teacher trainees acted as corrective-feedback tutors to high school learners during one school semester. During the course of the proj- ect, they kept journals documenting their reflections in regard to this demanding pedagogical practice. Time constraints, motivation, and fear of making mistakes themselves or of not providing adequate guidance to the learners were among the major hurdles encountered by the tutors. In interviews conducted at the end of the project, the tutors offered suggestions for overcoming these difficulties and surviving the corrective-feedback trials and tribulations. The survival tips pre- sented were drawn from the tutors’ recommendations as well as from insights from corrective-feedback research.Devrait-on corriger les erreurs de langue de nos étudiants? La plupart des en- seignants d’ALS répondraient à cette question par un oui catégorique tout en se demandant comment relever ce défi. Le projet collaboratif décrit ci-dessous a été conçu pour fournir aux stagiaires en ALS une occasion de vivre les hauts et les bas liés au fait de présenter de la rétroaction corrective aux travaux écrits, et de se conscientiser à cet égard. À cette fin, les stagiaires ont joué le rôle de tuteurs fournissant de la rétroaction corrective à des élèves du secondaire pendant un se- mestre. Au cours de projet, ils ont tenu un journal pour noter leurs réflexions relatives à cette pratique pédagogique exigeante. Parmi les obstacles les plus im- portants auxquels les tuteurs ont fait face, notons les contraintes de temps, la motivation et la peur de se tromper eux-mêmes ou de ne pas fournir des conseils adéquats aux élèves. Lors d’entrevues qui ont eu lieu à la fin du projet, les tuteurs ont offert des suggestions pour surmonter ces difficultés et survivre aux vicissi- tudes de la rétroaction corrective. Les conseils de survie présentés sont tirés des recommandations des tuteurs et des perspectives découlant de la recherche sur la rétroaction corrective.

First additional language teaching in selected grade 4 – 6 classes in Western Cape urban schools: The case of Afrikaans

“…Overt error correction can also have a negative impact on the learners' confidence and attitude towards the target language; therefore it would be wise of the teaches rather to use the common errors made by the learners and design language activities and games around those, which may be fun, in order to allow the learners to internalise the language structures and rules. Guenette (2012) is of the opinion that this indirect way of error correction is preferable, as it involves the learners in cognitive problem solving.…”

Teaching The Writing Process As A First And Second Language Revisited: Are They The Same?

“…However, whether that input as a process should treat students' inaccuracies or not remained an area of argument among scholars (Ferris, 2002;Guénette, 2012;McMartin-Miller, 2014). Ferris (2002) provided literature that represents these opposing views and she asserts that treating students' errors is a necessary step that teachers should provide to help develop ELL students' writing skills and "overall second language acquisition" (p.49).…”

“…Researchers have suggested that when ELL teachers want to choose the right way for providing feedback, they must be careful about which approach to adopt (Ferris, 2002;Guénette, 2012;McMartin-Miller, 2014) regarding the type and time of feedback (Ferris, 2002).…”

“…In direct feedback, teachers are information "providers" (Guénette, 2012, p. 121). Teachers treat ELL students' errors by correcting them in the text and giving direct suggestions about the right linguistic structure (Ferris, 2002;Guénette, 2012;McMartin-Miller, 2014). Then students respond to teachers' suggestions in a new draft.…”

“…There are those who see the two groups of students as using different processes due to the cognitive and mental efforts that ELL students practice during writing. Therefore, teachers who think this process is different argue that teachers should be selective-treating ELL students' errors to help them improve their writing skills (Bates, Lane &Lange, 1993;Ferris, 2002;Guénette, 2012;McMartin-Miller, 2014;Silva, 1997).…”