Ways of error correction

Students shouldn’t be afraid of using the wrong tense or omitting an article as making mistakes is the proof of learning, but the question is how teachers handle these mistakes. Too much error-correction can demotivate students, on the other hand, to let the conversation flow and not to correct any mistakes can also cause some problems in the future. The difficulty, of course, is in finding the middle ground. What should we correct, when should we correct it, and how should it be corrected?

Step 1 — Identify the reason for making mistakes (what to correct):

1. L1 interference — happens when the learner’s mother tongue affects performance in the target language. For example, learners make grammatical mistakes because they apply the same grammatical patterns as in their L1.
Read more in “Learner English”, a practical reference guide which compares the relevant features of a student’s own language with English, helping teachers to predict and understand the problems their students have. It has chapters focusing on major problems of pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary and other errors.
2. A developmental error — an error that occurs as a natural part of the learning process when a learner tries to say something that is above their level of language.
3. Overgeneralization of a rule — the process of extending the application of a rule to items that are excluded from it in the language norm.
4. A fossilized error — the process in which incorrect language becomes a habit and cannot easily be corrected.
5. A slip — a mistake made by a learner because they are not attentive or tired.
6. The nature of English — some set collocations, idiomatic expressions may cause errors.
7. Bad model — students learnt poor example and incorrect language from any available resources.

Some tips:

• We shouldn’t correct slips as they happen not because students don’t know the material but are caused by tiredness, inattention or just having too much to think about at the time.
• We should be careful with correcting developmental errors. Making such errors is a natural part of learning a language. You may just ignore them, as the student hasn’t studied the essential material yet or you can just articulate the correct sentence and that you are going to study that grammar or vocabulary later.
• We must correct all other types of mistakes, but don’t try to correct all the mistakes students make, choose ones which are relevant to the lesson/topic/activity.  

Step 2 — Choose the best time to correct (when)

There are two kinds of error correction:

1. Hot correction — as soon as we notice a student making an error.  
2. Cold correction (delayed error correction) — in order not to interrupt the learner during a speaking activity- as we are focusing more on oral fluency, we need to monitor and record the language of the learner to focus on the errors when the activity is complete. Conduct an error correction after the activity of at the end of the lesson.

Some tips:

• Use hot error correction during the presentation of the target language or controlled practice, as we are more focused on accuracy here. You should encourage SELF CORRECTION n first and then peer correction if needed, therefore ask CCQs (concept checking questions) that focus on meaning and form.
• Use cold (delayed) error correction while students are doing freer activity. Monitor the students and take notes of mistakes.

Step 3 — Choose an error correction technique (how)

There are many ways to correct errors:

Non verbal:

1. Finger correction — use fingers to show the mistake in the sentence.

2. Gestures — every teacher has a set of gestures to show students they’ve made a mistake. Teachers might gesture backwards with their hands to show students they haven’t used the verb in the past. Students often use the wrong pronouns, for example “She walked your dog.” You can point to yourself with a look of shock or surprise.

3. Facial expressions — when a student makes a mistake you can use an exaggerated facial expression to signal the mistake.
4. Cards (visual reminders) — some students often omit “-s”, “be”, etc. So you can just prepare a card with a big “S” or “AM/IS/ARE” and raise it every time students do this mistake, students instantly know they should go back and say it again. Later, you can just stick an empty card on the desk and point at it when necessary.
5. Visual analysis — write the sentence on the board and highlight indicators, question marks, everything that might help the student to correct the mistake, e.g.:

Verbal:

6. Repeat up to the error — repeat the whole sentence up to the error and make a pause waiting for the student to say the correct word/phrase. If the student has a difficulty correcting the mistake, give options.

S: My mum is really interesting in politics.

T: Your mum is really …

S: Interesting.

T: InterestING or interestED?

7. Demonstrate more examples — elicit or demonstrate more sentences with the same vocabulary or constructions.

S: I love SHocolate.

T: Read the words “chair, chicken”, now read this word “CHocolate”

8. Echoing — echo the mistake with emphasis on the mistake.

S: He like listening to rock music.

T: He LIKE?

S: He likeS listening to rock music.

9. Ask for clarification — ask your student to repeat the sentence.

S: I went to the magazine.

T: Sorry? Where did you go?

10. Recast — reformulate the utterance into a correct version (emphasising the place of the mistake) and encourage to continue the conversation.

S: Yesterday I went in the shop.

T: Oh really, you went TO shop. Which shop?

!!Try to elicit the corrections as much as possible. Get students to fix their own mistakes.

What error correction techniques do you prefer?



Mistakes and errors are an inseparable part in process of learning foreign languages. Error correction and its importance in the foreign language classroom have received considerable attention during the past decades. According to Corder (1967), correcting learners’ errors is substantial in three different ways: First, they tell the teacher about the progress of the learner, and therefore what remains to be learnt. Second, they supply evidence of how a language is acquired and what strategies the learner employs in learning a language. Thirdly, they are indisputable to the learning process because making errors is regarded as a device the learner uses in order to learn.

Key words: error correction, error analysis (EA), global and local errors, ways of error correction.

Ошибки являются неотъемлемой частью процесса изучения иностранных языков. За последние десятилетия значительное внимание уделялось исправлению ошибок и их важности в классе иностранных языков. Согласно Кордер(1967), исправление ошибок учащихся является существенным по трем различным причинам: во-первых, они рассказывают учителю о прогрессе ученика, и, следовательно, о том, что еще предстоит узнать. Во-вторых, они свидетельствуют о том, как приобретается язык и какие стратегии использует учащийся для изучения языка. В-третьих, они бесспорны для процесса обучения, потому что ошибки рассматриваются как устройство, которое ученик использует для того, чтобы учиться.

Ключевые слова: исправление ошибок, анализ ошибок (АО), глобальные и локальные ошибки, способы исправления ошибок.

Nowadays, in modern life, learning any foreign language is becoming more acceptable and easy. But during learning process still learners and teachers face the errors which made the learners. And it is natural that if someone makes the mistake in learning process, but it is not good to correct his or her mistake on the spot. Learners and teachers of foreign languages cannot pass it without making any errors during learning process. Because, in learning and teaching foreign languages avoiding language mistakes or not correcting them can be the reason of avoiding speaking and writing in foreign language. Besides it, many scientists argued that making mistakes and correcting them is a good way to learn language easily. In this way, learners could work out on their mistakes. Where no one can predict what will work, people who try and fail have a higher probability of success than those who are doing nothing for fear of failure. So errors should be and should be corrected as well by teachers.

Errors and error correction is a complex problem for language teachers, a problem in which the following steps in the cases of decisions have to be run through. Errors must be identified, arranged, corrected, and in the majority of the cases they must also be evaluated.

What kind of errors should be corrected?

Learners’ errors are usually classified in different categories. Burt (1975) made a distinction between “global” and “local” errors. Global errors hinder communication and they prevent the learner from comprehending some aspects of the message. Local errors only affect a single element of a sentence, but do not prevent a message from being heard. According to Hendrickson (1980), global errors need not be corrected and they are generally held true. But the expressions such as “a news”, or “an advice” are systematic errors, and they need to be corrected. As for pre-systematic errors, teachers can simply provide the correct one. For systematic errors, since learners have already had the linguistic competence, they can explain this kind of errors and correct them themselves. So teachers just remind them when they commit such errors. As to what kind of errors should be corrected, it needs teachers’ intuition and understanding of errors. At the same time, the teacher should consider the purpose of the analysis and analyze them in a systematic way.

When to correct the errors?

Concerning this problem, the most controversial issue is to treat them immediately or to delay. First, we are confronted with a dilemma—fluency versus accuracy. For communicative purpose, delayed correction is usually preferred. Some advanced students believe that when to correct errors is determined by the type of errors committed. For instance, if they are pronunciation or grammatical errors, immediate correction is preferable, for post-correction cannot make learners remember anything. Furthermore, the overall situation in the classroom is also important. When the whole class is familiar with a word, but only one of them is singled out for being corrected, he or she would feel awkward. So, we can see that when to correct is very complicated. Both the teachers’ intuition and the feedback from the students are equally important.

How to correct the errors?

According to James (1998), it is sensible to follow the three principles in error correction. Firstly, the techniques involved in error correction would be able to enhance the students’ accuracy in expression. Secondly, the students’ affective factors should be taken into consideration and the correction should not be face-threatening to the students.

Some scholars believed that teachers’ indirect correction is highly appreciated. They either encourage students to do self-correction in heuristic method orpresent the correct form, so students couldn’t feel embarrassed. Compare the two situations:

(1) Student: “What means this word?”

Teacher: “No, listen, what does this word mean?”

(2) Student: “What means this word?”

Teacher: “What does it mean? Well, it is difficult to explain, but it means…”

It is obvious that teacher’s remodeling in (2) is more natural and sensible than the direct interruption in (1). Up till now, both the theory and the application have been illustrated, in the next section we are going to deal with both the significance and limitations of error analysis in language teaching and learning.

Significance and limitations of error analysis in language teaching and learning.

Firstly, by error analysis, teachers will get an overall knowledge about the students’ errors. Foreign language learning is a process of hypothesis and trial and error occurrence is inevitable. So the teacher should learn to tolerate some errors, especially some local errors. Secondly, errors can tell the teacher how far towards the goal the learner has progressed and consequently, what remains for him or her to learn. So students’ errors are valuable feedbacks. We can do some remedial teaching based on their errors. Thirdly, errors are indispensable to the learners themselves, for we can regard the making of mistakes as a device the learner employs in order to learn.

Finally, some errors need to be handled, otherwise, they will become fossilized. In a sense, error analysis theory together with other theories have enriched the foreign language learning theory in that learning involves in a process in which success comes by profiting from mistakes and by using mistakes to obtain feedback from the environment. With the feedback they make new attempts to achieve the more closely approximate desired goals.

Certainly, error analysis is significant, but it also has its limitations. First, there is a danger in too much attention to learners’ errors and in the classroom teacher tends to become so preoccupied with noticing errors that the correct utterance in the foreign language will go unnoticed. While the diminishing of errors is an important criterion for increasing language proficiency, the ultimate goal of second language learning is the attainment of communicative fluency in a language. Another shortcoming in error analysis is the overstressing of production data. Factually language comprehension is as important as production. It also happens that production lends itself to analysis and thus becomes the prey of researchers, but comprehension data is equally important in developing an understanding of the process of language acquisition. Thirdly, it fails to account for the strategy of avoidance. A learner who for one reason or another avoids a particular sound, word, structure or discourse category may be assumed incorrectly to have no difficulty therewith. The absence of error therefore does not necessarily reflect native like competence since learners may be avoiding the very structure that poses difficulty for them. Finally, error analysis can keep us too closely focused on specific languages rather than viewing universal aspects of language.

Ways of Correction.

There are several ways of correction that can be employed in the classroom.

Self-correction: After the student recognizes what is incorrect in his/her response, s/he should be able to correct him/herself. Self-correction is the best technique, because the student will remember it better.

Peer correction: If the student cannot correct him/herself the teacher can encourage other students to supply correction. This technique is to be applied tactfully, so that the student who originally made the mistake will not feel humiliated. In the case of errors, it is useful if after peer correction the teacher goes back to the student who made the error and gets him/her to say it correctly. Edge (1990) mentions the following advantages of peer correction:

– It encourages cooperation, students get used to the idea that they can learn from each other

– Both learners (who made the error and who corrects) are involved in listening to and thinking about the language

– The teacher gets a lot of important information about the learners’ ability — if students learn to practice peer correction without hurting each other’s feelings, they will do the same in pair-work activities. However, it may happen that whenever the teacher asks for peer correction from the whole class, it is always the same students who answer. In this case the teacher has to make sure that other students are involved as well.

Teacher correction: If no one can correct, the teacher must realize that the point has not yet been learnt properly. In that case the teacher can re-explain the problematic item of language, especially if the teacher sees that the majority of the class has the same problem. There might be more repetition and practice necessary. We must not forget that the main aim of correction is to facilitate the students to learn the new language item correctly. That is why it is important that after correction the teacher has to ask the student who originally made the error or mistake to give the correct response.

Conclusion

In order to improve teaching, we need to explore the learners’ psychological process in language learning so that we can enhance our understanding of learners’ errors. Based on the analysis of the causes of their errors, we provide our timely guide and help. In addition, while placing an emphasis on error correction in the classroom, we should take the teaching objectives, students’ linguistic competence, their affective factors and the effectiveness of the error correction into consideration. Consequently, we can employ more flexible strategies in error correction and make more contributions to the EFL classroom teaching and learning.

References:

1. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Longman, Inc.
2. Burt, M. K. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9: 53–63.
3. Corder, S.P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review ofApplied Linguistics, (9): 147–159.
4. Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice // K. Croft. Readings on English as a second language (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishers.
5. Jame, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

In English language teaching, error correction is something which is expected of teachers, so what error correction techniques are there to make the most out of the errors we correct? And how can we make sure that correction is helping our students?

As teachers, we are told that error correction is necessary. However, the value of error correction has long been discussed. Is what we are doing enough or should we stop altogether? In our post-method, eclectic, throw-everything-at-them-and-something-is-bound-to-stick era we need to be aware of the options available so we can decide what is best for us and our students.

Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong

Expert opinions on error correction have evolved over the years. Take a look at these quotes and consider which one most closely represents your personal opinion.

• Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome, but its presence is to be expected – Brooks (1960)
• Error correction is a serious mistake because it puts students on the defensive and causes them to avoid complex constructions – Krashen (1982)
• You should tell students they are making mistakes, insist on accuracy and ask for repetition – Harmer (1983)
• There is a place for correction, but we should not overestimate it – Ur (1996)
• Feedback on learners’ performance in an instructional environment presents an opportunity for learning to take place – Larsen-Freeman (2003)
• Correction works best when done in context at the time the learner makes the error – Mackay (2007)

From error being seen as sin during the height of audiolingualism to viewing error as opportunity to learn, errors and correction have been a hotly debated topic in the ELT world.

This is why there is such a challenge for teachers. We must withdraw ourselves from our opinions and expectations in order to evaluate students on an individual level when it comes to errors. We then have to balance this with an institutional and cultural expectation to be corrected in the classroom.

Importantly, we have to ensure the learner has understood the correction, internalised it and improved their personal language system or interlanguage.

Interlanguage is a concept that refers to each learner’s personal knowledge of a 2nd language. It is the language which they know as they have learned it with potential for influence from their 1st language and overgeneralization of certain rules learned about their 2nd language. Hence the potential for error.

A learner’s interlanguage is unique to them. It is all they are able to use to communicate and it is what, as teachers, we are aiming to improve in each class, even in each interaction we have with students.

What is an error?

In ELT there have traditionally been two categories, errors and slips.

Errors happen when a learner doesn’t have sufficient knowledge of the language. This could occur when they have never been exposed the language and make an error because they have no prior knowledge to refer to. These are known as attempts. Or errors could come from the language having been acquired incorrectly and as far as they are concerned they are correct. These are fossilized errors.

Slips are the opposite end of the error spectrum. Slips happen when a learner knows the language but due to the speed of conversation or other factors, they say or write something incorrect. These are often self-corrected or ignored. They even happen to native speakers when we mispronounce a word or mix up words in an idiom that we’ve used a million times. One interesting thing to note is that even at the highest bands of C2 level, Cambridge writing scales say that inaccuracies that occur as slips are perfectly acceptable. They are not something to be punished.

Personally, I think there a bit of a gap here. We need something to fill in the middle ground. That is what I refer to as mistakes. Mistakes happen when a learner forgets the language that they have already acquired. It’s not that they don’t have the language, it’s that they haven’t accessed it correctly. Typical mistakes would come from L1 influence and often involve the use of false cognates or word order. The over-application of L1 rules in L2 frequently causes mistakes. This could happen to native speakers too, especially children. The typical example is when they conjugate an irregular past verb incorrectly (e.g. teached) because they have learnt a new rule and they start applying it too much.

When should we correct?

Correcting errors

Errors are the most difficult to correct, because not only are you providing a correction, you are also providing the knowledge necessary to fill the student’s gap in understanding. Errors should always be corrected, however, you need to be very careful about when and how to correct them.

We’ve all been in the situation where we try to correct an error quickly, only to get pulled down a rabbit hole where before we know it the board is covered in example sentences, phonemes and an explanation of the present perfect continuous. So correction of errors has to be structured and formulated in a way that allows students to recognise how to form the correct language, but without breaking the flow of the class.

Correcting mistakes

Mistakes should be dealt with completely differently. Mistakes are not due to lack of knowledge. Therefore, if you delay correction, the student will look at the error and instantly know what the problem is. They will think something along the lines of “Oh yeah, I knew that”. So what have we achieved as a teacher at that point? We haven’t helped to fill any gaps in knowledge.

That’s why mistakes should be corrected the moment they are made, even during a fluency activity. If you correctly identified the problem as a mistake, not an error, the correction should be quick and easy.

Correcting slips

Slips don’t need to be corrected at all. Slips are like your mother always confusing you and your sibling’s names. You know that she knows who you are, she just can’t ever seem to get it right. Correcting your mother may be satisfying for you as the corrector, but it’s not going to help her understand better who you are. And it might just make her flustered.

Correction in exam preparation classes

This is a blog about exam preparation after all. In many ways, everything that applies to error correction in general also applies to exam preparation classes. However, if anything, correction is even more important and even more expected. In general, we want our students to achieve successful communication and be intelligible. Unfortunately, for exams, this is often not enough.

The burden of correction falls even harder on the exam teacher. Insist on accuracy and demand the most of your students. They will thank you for it in the end.

Error correction techniques

There are many different types of error correction. Some of these we are taught how to do, while some of them come naturally. Some of them we would use in normal everyday situations.

Have you ever been in a shop and someone walks up to you to ask you where something is because they think you work there? How would you correct that person? You would probably say “I don’t work here” and for some reason apologise for their mistake. What you wouldn’t do is launch into a long explanation of why you choose to be an English teacher, not a shop assistant. And you wouldn’t start miming confusion and pointing across the shop to the employees who do work there.

That’s because certain correction techniques work better in some situations than others. Some work better for one type of error than for another. As teachers in the post-method era, we need to have an extensive bank of error correction techniques that we can dip into whenever we feel it’s necessary.

That’s our responsibility as teachers, to have the knowledge to be able to employ different techniques in different contexts.

Classic error correction techniques

Metalinguistic explanation S – She has a long black hair. T – Hair is an uncountable noun so it doesn’t take the indefinite article.

Repetition S – In the morning, I get up at seven o’clock, clean my tooth, have breakfast and go to work. T – You clean your tooth?

Direct explicit correction S – It is dangerous to smoke while you become pregnant. T – While you become pregnant is very different. You mean while you are pregnant.

Peer correction During an in class written activity where students complete a letter in pairs: S1 – Feel free to contact me if you are a problem. S2 – I think it’s have a problem.

Delayed correction S – The cheerleaders threw up high into the air. T writes the sentence down in a notebook and puts it up on the board after the activity. The whole group corrects the sentence.

Recast S – When we won, I was so exciting. T – You were excited.

Paralinguistic explanation S – Last night, while I was eating dinner, I started /dʒəʊkɪŋ/ so my friend hit me. T – Makes a facial expression of confusion. Mimes laughing and choking.

Elicitation S – Waiter, could you bring me some tissues, please? T – Could you bring me some ……, please?

Clarification request S – You can’t sleep in my room because it is too crowded, but you can sleep with my sister. T – Excuse me?

Tell them they are wrong Teacher hands out a worksheet S – I hope this the last /ʃɪt/ for today. T – That’s not how you pronounce that word.

Any and all of these correction techniques are acceptable and recommendable in the classroom. However, it is your role as a teacher to choose the best form of correction for the moment you correct.

Studies have shown, for example, that recasts, despite being the most common form of correction, are often overlooked. Students don’t notice they are being corrected. This happened more often with groups of Italian students than it did with groups of Japanese students. That’s because Japanese students have a significantly different mentality towards learning languages and were more attuned to the recast being an opportunity to learn.

Similarly, some students may like having their errors highlighted and displayed on the board after an activity while for others this could cause substantial embarrassment, thus lowering their motivation and causing them to avoid complex language in future interactions in order to avoid error in the future.

This is why we have to have a bag of tricks when it comes to error correction. There is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Adapted error correction techniques

While all of the above techniques are useful and acceptable depending on the context and circumstances, there is definitely a way to make error correction more interesting and ensure you are improving your students’ interlanguage.

Here are a couple of ideas that I have found to be effective:

Post-it correction

Method:

• Write errors on post-its or small
  pieces of paper.
• Slip those papers to the pair or
  group when they are done with the activity.
• They work together to write
  corrections on the same paper.

Benefits:

• Students are correcting their own
  errors rather than the smartest student in the group correcting everyone’s
  errors.
• Great for fast finishers.
• Post-its are fun.

Error collection

Method:

• Keep a record of errors on Google
  Slides or Quizlet.
• Add to this record whenever there is
  a recurrent error.
• Use as a warmer or cooler to recycle
  correction.
• Can be adapted into games like
  back-to-the-board.

Benefits:

• Helps with fossilised errors.
• Avoids the judgemental effect of
  constantly correcting the same mistake.
• Can be shared with students.

Stem correction

Method:

• Write only the stem of the incorrect
  sentence on the board.
• Students think of different ways to
  finish the sentence correctly.
• The mistake is never explicitly
  stated, but the student who made it will probably realise that it was something
  they said.

Benefits:

• Helps students upgrade language.
• Forces students to notice the
  language.
• Takes the pressure off the teacher
  and the student.

Anticipation

Method:

• Think about the errors students
  always make, especially before a certain grammar point that you have taught
  before.
• Before the activity write them up on
  the board with a big cross through them. Tell the students to be careful about
  these mistakes.

Benefits:

• Reminds students to think before
  they misspeak.
• Can be used as a visual aid if
  anyone does make the mistake.
• Makes you look like a clairvoyant.

Conclusions

Whether you are teaching 1-to-1, exam preparation or conversation classes, ensure that error correction is present in all your lessons. The expectation for correction is clear and its benefit is established.

One of the best things you can do as a teacher is aid language acquisition through targeted and effective corrective feedback that embraces the concepts of noticing and demanding high while ensuring the advancement of learners’ individual language systems.

Writer and content creator on ELT-Connect.com, Director of Studies at ATC Language Schools, Ireland.

Related

18 Responses

1. 

   marina

   Think back and reflect on your teaching strategies connected with error correction. Provide specific examples to support your ideas.

2. 

   Hassan Shehab

   Thanks ,,,,,,,,,I got it.
3. 

   Roger X.P.

   Should I correct one students in front of the class at the moment of speaking, even if he/she is really shy? If not, when? Does fluency and accuracy matter at the same time, or it can be graded separately?

   • 

     Cheryl Malanek

     If your student is really shy I would try delayed error correction. Write any errors up on the board and keep them anonymous. Students then talk in pairs to try and find the mistake. In terms of fluency v accuracy I think it depends on what your goals are. Do your students at that moment need more help with fluency or accuracy? Tell your students before the task what you will be looking out for to help them focus on those areas.

   • 

     aoife mcloughlin

     Hi Roger – this is a difficult one. As a teacher you need to make a judgement on when and how to error correct. Sometimes teachers are too sensitive towards their shy/introvert students and end up not correcting them at all. They need correction just as much as your extrovert students. I think for all students, there should be a balance between on the spot and delayed correction. If your focus is on accuracy then teachers tend to correct more often than they would if you are focusing on fluency and your students will expect you to correct them. Try out various ways such as class delayed correction, self-correction, peer correction and immediate correction and see what works for you and your students.

4. 

   naleeni das

5. 

   Bea Radics

   I use all the 6 method depending on the student’s age, sensitivity, their way of learning and the situation.

6. 

   Bea Radics

   I teach on one on one. After checking my student(s) written homework or exercises during class, I tell them that in this or that sentence there is an error. I ask them if they know what is it. In this way they have to read it again and think. After thinking a little while they usually come up with the right word or structure. If not, I correct the sentence and we practice it through some sample sentences.

7. 
8. 

   Pete

   I’ve never thought of metalinguistic feedback like that, I’ve always thought it would involve specific reference to metalinguistic terms… good point

9. 

   Keshab Bhatta

   • 
10. 

    Rajdeep Sinha

    • 

      aoife mcloughlin

      Thanks Rajdeep, do you have any other techniques you use for correcting your students?

11. 

    Herman Palemmai

    In correcting my students’ errors, particularly in speaking, I usually do it immediately when the errors occur by repeating the students’ wrong utterences with the correct ones.
    i.e. the students utter “yesterday, I don’t go to school because I’m sick. I immediately reply it by saying “you mean you didn’t go to school because you were sick?” And I give a stress on the wrong words.

    • 

      aoife mcloughlin

      Hi Herman, do you find that recasting errors works well for you? I sometimes feel that students don’t realise they have even made a mistake when recasting and continue to make the same errors.

      • 

        Stephanie

        I agree Aoife, mine usually just say Oh yes! Without correcting themselves.

In information theory and coding theory with applications in computer science and telecommunication, error detection and correction (EDAC) or error control are techniques that enable reliable delivery of digital data over unreliable communication channels. Many communication channels are subject to channel noise, and thus errors may be introduced during transmission from the source to a receiver. Error detection techniques allow detecting such errors, while error correction enables reconstruction of the original data in many cases.

Definitions[edit]

Error detection is the detection of errors caused by noise or other impairments during transmission from the transmitter to the receiver.

Error correction is the detection of errors and reconstruction of the original, error-free data.

History[edit]

In classical antiquity, copyists of the Hebrew Bible were paid for their work according to the number of stichs (lines of verse). As the prose books of the Bible were hardly ever written in stichs, the copyists, in order to estimate the amount of work, had to count the letters.^[1] This also helped ensure accuracy in the transmission of the text with the production of subsequent copies.^[2][3] Between the 7th and 10th centuries CE a group of Jewish scribes formalized and expanded this to create the Numerical Masorah to ensure accurate reproduction of the sacred text. It included counts of the number of words in a line, section, book and groups of books, noting the middle stich of a book, word use statistics, and commentary.^[1] Standards became such that a deviation in even a single letter in a Torah scroll was considered unacceptable.^[4] The effectiveness of their error correction method was verified by the accuracy of copying through the centuries demonstrated by discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947–1956, dating from c.150 BCE-75 CE.^[5]

The modern development of error correction codes is credited to Richard Hamming in 1947.^[6] A description of Hamming’s code appeared in Claude Shannon’s A Mathematical Theory of Communication^[7] and was quickly generalized by Marcel J. E. Golay.^[8]

Introduction[edit]

All error-detection and correction schemes add some redundancy (i.e., some extra data) to a message, which receivers can use to check consistency of the delivered message, and to recover data that has been determined to be corrupted. Error-detection and correction schemes can be either systematic or non-systematic. In a systematic scheme, the transmitter sends the original data, and attaches a fixed number of check bits (or parity data), which are derived from the data bits by some deterministic algorithm. If only error detection is required, a receiver can simply apply the same algorithm to the received data bits and compare its output with the received check bits; if the values do not match, an error has occurred at some point during the transmission. In a system that uses a non-systematic code, the original message is transformed into an encoded message carrying the same information and that has at least as many bits as the original message.

Good error control performance requires the scheme to be selected based on the characteristics of the communication channel. Common channel models include memoryless models where errors occur randomly and with a certain probability, and dynamic models where errors occur primarily in bursts. Consequently, error-detecting and correcting codes can be generally distinguished between random-error-detecting/correcting and burst-error-detecting/correcting. Some codes can also be suitable for a mixture of random errors and burst errors.

If the channel characteristics cannot be determined, or are highly variable, an error-detection scheme may be combined with a system for retransmissions of erroneous data. This is known as automatic repeat request (ARQ), and is most notably used in the Internet. An alternate approach for error control is hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ), which is a combination of ARQ and error-correction coding.

Types of error correction[edit]

There are three major types of error correction.^[9]

Automatic repeat request[edit]

Automatic repeat request (ARQ) is an error control method for data transmission that makes use of error-detection codes, acknowledgment and/or negative acknowledgment messages, and timeouts to achieve reliable data transmission. An acknowledgment is a message sent by the receiver to indicate that it has correctly received a data frame.

Usually, when the transmitter does not receive the acknowledgment before the timeout occurs (i.e., within a reasonable amount of time after sending the data frame), it retransmits the frame until it is either correctly received or the error persists beyond a predetermined number of retransmissions.

Three types of ARQ protocols are Stop-and-wait ARQ, Go-Back-N ARQ, and Selective Repeat ARQ.

ARQ is appropriate if the communication channel has varying or unknown capacity, such as is the case on the Internet. However, ARQ requires the availability of a back channel, results in possibly increased latency due to retransmissions, and requires the maintenance of buffers and timers for retransmissions, which in the case of network congestion can put a strain on the server and overall network capacity.^[10]

For example, ARQ is used on shortwave radio data links in the form of ARQ-E, or combined with multiplexing as ARQ-M.

Forward error correction[edit]

Forward error correction (FEC) is a process of adding redundant data such as an error-correcting code (ECC) to a message so that it can be recovered by a receiver even when a number of errors (up to the capability of the code being used) are introduced, either during the process of transmission or on storage. Since the receiver does not have to ask the sender for retransmission of the data, a backchannel is not required in forward error correction. Error-correcting codes are used in lower-layer communication such as cellular network, high-speed fiber-optic communication and Wi-Fi,^[11][12] as well as for reliable storage in media such as flash memory, hard disk and RAM.^[13]

Error-correcting codes are usually distinguished between convolutional codes and block codes:

• Convolutional codes are processed on a bit-by-bit basis. They are particularly suitable for implementation in hardware, and the Viterbi decoder allows optimal decoding.
• Block codes are processed on a block-by-block basis. Early examples of block codes are repetition codes, Hamming codes and multidimensional parity-check codes. They were followed by a number of efficient codes, Reed–Solomon codes being the most notable due to their current widespread use. Turbo codes and low-density parity-check codes (LDPC) are relatively new constructions that can provide almost optimal efficiency.

Shannon’s theorem is an important theorem in forward error correction, and describes the maximum information rate at which reliable communication is possible over a channel that has a certain error probability or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). This strict upper limit is expressed in terms of the channel capacity. More specifically, the theorem says that there exist codes such that with increasing encoding length the probability of error on a discrete memoryless channel can be made arbitrarily small, provided that the code rate is smaller than the channel capacity. The code rate is defined as the fraction k/n of k source symbols and n encoded symbols.

The actual maximum code rate allowed depends on the error-correcting code used, and may be lower. This is because Shannon’s proof was only of existential nature, and did not show how to construct codes which are both optimal and have efficient encoding and decoding algorithms.

Hybrid schemes[edit]

Hybrid ARQ is a combination of ARQ and forward error correction. There are two basic approaches:^[10]

• Messages are always transmitted with FEC parity data (and error-detection redundancy). A receiver decodes a message using the parity information, and requests retransmission using ARQ only if the parity data was not sufficient for successful decoding (identified through a failed integrity check).
• Messages are transmitted without parity data (only with error-detection information). If a receiver detects an error, it requests FEC information from the transmitter using ARQ, and uses it to reconstruct the original message.

The latter approach is particularly attractive on an erasure channel when using a rateless erasure code.

Error detection schemes[edit]

Error detection is most commonly realized using a suitable hash function (or specifically, a checksum, cyclic redundancy check or other algorithm). A hash function adds a fixed-length tag to a message, which enables receivers to verify the delivered message by recomputing the tag and comparing it with the one provided.

There exists a vast variety of different hash function designs. However, some are of particularly widespread use because of either their simplicity or their suitability for detecting certain kinds of errors (e.g., the cyclic redundancy check’s performance in detecting burst errors).

Minimum distance coding[edit]

A random-error-correcting code based on minimum distance coding can provide a strict guarantee on the number of detectable errors, but it may not protect against a preimage attack.

Repetition codes[edit]

A repetition code is a coding scheme that repeats the bits across a channel to achieve error-free communication. Given a stream of data to be transmitted, the data are divided into blocks of bits. Each block is transmitted some predetermined number of times. For example, to send the bit pattern «1011», the four-bit block can be repeated three times, thus producing «1011 1011 1011». If this twelve-bit pattern was received as «1010 1011 1011» – where the first block is unlike the other two – an error has occurred.

A repetition code is very inefficient, and can be susceptible to problems if the error occurs in exactly the same place for each group (e.g., «1010 1010 1010» in the previous example would be detected as correct). The advantage of repetition codes is that they are extremely simple, and are in fact used in some transmissions of numbers stations.^[14][15]

Parity bit[edit]

A parity bit is a bit that is added to a group of source bits to ensure that the number of set bits (i.e., bits with value 1) in the outcome is even or odd. It is a very simple scheme that can be used to detect single or any other odd number (i.e., three, five, etc.) of errors in the output. An even number of flipped bits will make the parity bit appear correct even though the data is erroneous.

Parity bits added to each «word» sent are called transverse redundancy checks, while those added at the end of a stream of «words» are called longitudinal redundancy checks. For example, if each of a series of m-bit «words» has a parity bit added, showing whether there were an odd or even number of ones in that word, any word with a single error in it will be detected. It will not be known where in the word the error is, however. If, in addition, after each stream of n words a parity sum is sent, each bit of which shows whether there were an odd or even number of ones at that bit-position sent in the most recent group, the exact position of the error can be determined and the error corrected. This method is only guaranteed to be effective, however, if there are no more than 1 error in every group of n words. With more error correction bits, more errors can be detected and in some cases corrected.

There are also other bit-grouping techniques.

Checksum[edit]

A checksum of a message is a modular arithmetic sum of message code words of a fixed word length (e.g., byte values). The sum may be negated by means of a ones’-complement operation prior to transmission to detect unintentional all-zero messages.

Checksum schemes include parity bits, check digits, and longitudinal redundancy checks. Some checksum schemes, such as the Damm algorithm, the Luhn algorithm, and the Verhoeff algorithm, are specifically designed to detect errors commonly introduced by humans in writing down or remembering identification numbers.

Cyclic redundancy check[edit]

A cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is a non-secure hash function designed to detect accidental changes to digital data in computer networks. It is not suitable for detecting maliciously introduced errors. It is characterized by specification of a generator polynomial, which is used as the divisor in a polynomial long division over a finite field, taking the input data as the dividend. The remainder becomes the result.

A CRC has properties that make it well suited for detecting burst errors. CRCs are particularly easy to implement in hardware and are therefore commonly used in computer networks and storage devices such as hard disk drives.

The parity bit can be seen as a special-case 1-bit CRC.

Cryptographic hash function[edit]

The output of a cryptographic hash function, also known as a message digest, can provide strong assurances about data integrity, whether changes of the data are accidental (e.g., due to transmission errors) or maliciously introduced. Any modification to the data will likely be detected through a mismatching hash value. Furthermore, given some hash value, it is typically infeasible to find some input data (other than the one given) that will yield the same hash value. If an attacker can change not only the message but also the hash value, then a keyed hash or message authentication code (MAC) can be used for additional security. Without knowing the key, it is not possible for the attacker to easily or conveniently calculate the correct keyed hash value for a modified message.

Error correction code[edit]

Any error-correcting code can be used for error detection. A code with minimum Hamming distance, d, can detect up to d − 1 errors in a code word. Using minimum-distance-based error-correcting codes for error detection can be suitable if a strict limit on the minimum number of errors to be detected is desired.

Codes with minimum Hamming distance d = 2 are degenerate cases of error-correcting codes, and can be used to detect single errors. The parity bit is an example of a single-error-detecting code.

Applications[edit]

Applications that require low latency (such as telephone conversations) cannot use automatic repeat request (ARQ); they must use forward error correction (FEC). By the time an ARQ system discovers an error and re-transmits it, the re-sent data will arrive too late to be usable.

Applications where the transmitter immediately forgets the information as soon as it is sent (such as most television cameras) cannot use ARQ; they must use FEC because when an error occurs, the original data is no longer available.

Applications that use ARQ must have a return channel; applications having no return channel cannot use ARQ.

Applications that require extremely low error rates (such as digital money transfers) must use ARQ due to the possibility of uncorrectable errors with FEC.

Reliability and inspection engineering also make use of the theory of error-correcting codes.^[16]

Internet[edit]

In a typical TCP/IP stack, error control is performed at multiple levels:

• Each Ethernet frame uses CRC-32 error detection. Frames with detected errors are discarded by the receiver hardware.
• The IPv4 header contains a checksum protecting the contents of the header. Packets with incorrect checksums are dropped within the network or at the receiver.
• The checksum was omitted from the IPv6 header in order to minimize processing costs in network routing and because current link layer technology is assumed to provide sufficient error detection (see also RFC 3819).
• UDP has an optional checksum covering the payload and addressing information in the UDP and IP headers. Packets with incorrect checksums are discarded by the network stack. The checksum is optional under IPv4, and required under IPv6. When omitted, it is assumed the data-link layer provides the desired level of error protection.
• TCP provides a checksum for protecting the payload and addressing information in the TCP and IP headers. Packets with incorrect checksums are discarded by the network stack, and eventually get retransmitted using ARQ, either explicitly (such as through three-way handshake) or implicitly due to a timeout.

Deep-space telecommunications[edit]

The development of error-correction codes was tightly coupled with the history of deep-space missions due to the extreme dilution of signal power over interplanetary distances, and the limited power availability aboard space probes. Whereas early missions sent their data uncoded, starting in 1968, digital error correction was implemented in the form of (sub-optimally decoded) convolutional codes and Reed–Muller codes.^[17] The Reed–Muller code was well suited to the noise the spacecraft was subject to (approximately matching a bell curve), and was implemented for the Mariner spacecraft and used on missions between 1969 and 1977.

The Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 missions, which started in 1977, were designed to deliver color imaging and scientific information from Jupiter and Saturn.^[18] This resulted in increased coding requirements, and thus, the spacecraft were supported by (optimally Viterbi-decoded) convolutional codes that could be concatenated with an outer Golay (24,12,8) code. The Voyager 2 craft additionally supported an implementation of a Reed–Solomon code. The concatenated Reed–Solomon–Viterbi (RSV) code allowed for very powerful error correction, and enabled the spacecraft’s extended journey to Uranus and Neptune. After ECC system upgrades in 1989, both crafts used V2 RSV coding.

The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems currently recommends usage of error correction codes with performance similar to the Voyager 2 RSV code as a minimum. Concatenated codes are increasingly falling out of favor with space missions, and are replaced by more powerful codes such as Turbo codes or LDPC codes.

The different kinds of deep space and orbital missions that are conducted suggest that trying to find a one-size-fits-all error correction system will be an ongoing problem. For missions close to Earth, the nature of the noise in the communication channel is different from that which a spacecraft on an interplanetary mission experiences. Additionally, as a spacecraft increases its distance from Earth, the problem of correcting for noise becomes more difficult.

Satellite broadcasting[edit]

The demand for satellite transponder bandwidth continues to grow, fueled by the desire to deliver television (including new channels and high-definition television) and IP data. Transponder availability and bandwidth constraints have limited this growth. Transponder capacity is determined by the selected modulation scheme and the proportion of capacity consumed by FEC.

Data storage[edit]

Error detection and correction codes are often used to improve the reliability of data storage media.^[19] A parity track capable of detecting single-bit errors was present on the first magnetic tape data storage in 1951. The optimal rectangular code used in group coded recording tapes not only detects but also corrects single-bit errors. Some file formats, particularly archive formats, include a checksum (most often CRC32) to detect corruption and truncation and can employ redundancy or parity files to recover portions of corrupted data. Reed-Solomon codes are used in compact discs to correct errors caused by scratches.

Modern hard drives use Reed–Solomon codes to detect and correct minor errors in sector reads, and to recover corrupted data from failing sectors and store that data in the spare sectors.^[20] RAID systems use a variety of error correction techniques to recover data when a hard drive completely fails. Filesystems such as ZFS or Btrfs, as well as some RAID implementations, support data scrubbing and resilvering, which allows bad blocks to be detected and (hopefully) recovered before they are used.^[21] The recovered data may be re-written to exactly the same physical location, to spare blocks elsewhere on the same piece of hardware, or the data may be rewritten onto replacement hardware.

Error-correcting memory[edit]

Dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) may provide stronger protection against soft errors by relying on error-correcting codes. Such error-correcting memory, known as ECC or EDAC-protected memory, is particularly desirable for mission-critical applications, such as scientific computing, financial, medical, etc. as well as extraterrestrial applications due to the increased radiation in space.

Error-correcting memory controllers traditionally use Hamming codes, although some use triple modular redundancy. Interleaving allows distributing the effect of a single cosmic ray potentially upsetting multiple physically neighboring bits across multiple words by associating neighboring bits to different words. As long as a single-event upset (SEU) does not exceed the error threshold (e.g., a single error) in any particular word between accesses, it can be corrected (e.g., by a single-bit error-correcting code), and the illusion of an error-free memory system may be maintained.^[22]

In addition to hardware providing features required for ECC memory to operate, operating systems usually contain related reporting facilities that are used to provide notifications when soft errors are transparently recovered. One example is the Linux kernel’s EDAC subsystem (previously known as Bluesmoke), which collects the data from error-checking-enabled components inside a computer system; besides collecting and reporting back the events related to ECC memory, it also supports other checksumming errors, including those detected on the PCI bus.^[23][24][25] A few systems^[specify] also support memory scrubbing to catch and correct errors early before they become unrecoverable.

See also[edit]

• Berger code
• Burst error-correcting code
• ECC memory, a type of computer data storage
• Link adaptation
• List of algorithms § Error detection and correction
• List of hash functions

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• Shu Lin; Daniel J. Costello, Jr. (1983). Error Control Coding: Fundamentals and Applications. Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-283796-X.
• SoftECC: A System for Software Memory Integrity Checking
• A Tunable, Software-based DRAM Error Detection and Correction Library for HPC
• Detection and Correction of Silent Data Corruption for Large-Scale High-Performance Computing

External links[edit]

• The on-line textbook: Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms, by David J.C. MacKay, contains chapters on elementary error-correcting codes; on the theoretical limits of error-correction; and on the latest state-of-the-art error-correcting codes, including low-density parity-check codes, turbo codes, and fountain codes.
• ECC Page — implementations of popular ECC encoding and decoding routines

1. Collect the errors for later
You can then correct them later in the same class (with a game like a grammar auction or just eliciting corrections from the class) or in a future class (for example writing error dictation pairwork worksheets or using the same techniques as can be used in the same class). Make sure you give positive reinforcement as well, e.g. “Someone said this sentence, and that is really good.”
Useful language:
“Here are some things that people said in the last activity”
“I heard several people say this one”
“Can anyone correct this sentence? It has one missing word/ one word missing/ You need to add one word”
“The words are in the wrong order/ You need to change the words around/ change the word order/ mix the words up”
“This is a typical mistake for students from…”
“Don’t worry, even native speakers make this mistake sometimes/ every nationality makes this mistake”
“This mistake is something we studied last week”

2. Facial expression
For example, raise an eyebrow, tilt your head to one side or give a slight frown. Most people will do this naturally, but there is a slight chance a teacher’s expression will be too critical or too subtle for your students to pick up on, and you can (amusingly) practice facial expressions in a teaching workshop by participants communicating certain typical classroom messages (“move over there to work with this person”, “work in pairs” etc.) using just their heads and faces, including feedback on spoken errors in that list.

3. Body language
The problems with using body language to show errors could also be that it is taken as very serious criticism or that it is too vague. Possibilities include using your hands (rolling a hand from side to side to mean “so-so attempt”; making a circle by moving your index finger to mean “one more time”; or a cross with fingers, open palms or even forearms to show a very clear “no” or “wrong”- probably only suitable for a team game etc where the responsibility is shared), head (tilted to one side to mean “I’m not sure that sounds correct”), or shoulders (hunched to reinforce “I don’t understand what you are saying”). Again, practising this in a teaching workshop can be useful, as can eliciting other body language teachers could have used after an observation.

4. Point at the correct language
If you have something on the correct form easily accessible on the whiteboard, in the textbook or on a poster, just pointing at it can be a subtle but clear way of prompting students to use the correct language. What you point at could be the name of the tense or word form they are supposed to be using, a verb forms table or the actual correct verb form, a grammatical explanation, or another grammatical hint such as “future”, “prediction” or “polite”.
Useful language:
“Have a look at your books/ the board”
“The correct version is somewhere in this chart/ poster/ table”
“You copied this down earlier. Have a look in your notebooks”

5. Repeat what they said
This can mean repeating the whole sentence, one section of it including the wrong part, the sentence up to the wrong part, the sentence with the wrong part missed out (with maybe a humming noise to show the gap that should be filled) or just the wrong part. You can illustrate that you are showing them an error and give some hint as to which bit is wrong by using a questioning tone (for everything you say or just for the wrong part). This method is overused by some teachers and can sound patronising if used too often or with the wrong tone of voice, so try to mix up the different versions of it described here and to alternate with methods described in the other tips.
Useful language:
“The man GOED to the shops?”
“The man GOED?”
“GOED?”

6. Just say the right version
The students can then repeat the correct version or tell you what the difference between the two sentences was and why their version was wrong. Because the students don’t do much of the work in this way of being corrected, it might not be as good a way of remembering the correction as methods where you give more subtle clues. Its advantages are that it is quick and suits cultures, classes and students that think of elicitation as shirking by the teacher. It can also be more face-saving than asking them for self-correction, as trying to correct themselves risks making even more mistakes. The “right version” could mean the whole sentence or just the correction of the part that was wrong. In the latter case, you can then ask them to put it into the sentence in the right place and repeat the whole thing.
Useful language:
“I understand what you are saying, but you need to say…”
“We studied this last week. “Hardly” has a different meaning to “hard”, so you need to say…?”
“The past of say is pronounced /sed/. So your sentence should be…?”

7. Tell them how many mistakes
This method is only really suitable for controlled speaking practice, but can be a very simple way of giving feedback in that situation. Examples include “Most of the comparatives were right, but you made two mistakes” and “Three words are in the wrong position in the sentence/ are mixed up”. Make sure you only use this method when students can remember what you are referring to without too much prompting.
Other useful language:
“Very good, but you made just one mistake with the passive”
(For a tongue twister) “Good attempt/ Getting better, but in two places you said /sh/ where it should have been /s/. Can you guess which words?”

8. Use grammatical terminology to identify the mistake
For example, “(You used) the wrong tense”, “Not the Present Perfect”, “You need an adverb, not an adjective” or “Can change that into the passive/ indirect speech?” This method is perhaps overused, and you need to be sure that the grammatical terminology isn’t just going to confuse them more.
Other useful language:
“Because that is the present simple, you need to add the auxiliary (verb) ‘do’”
“Say the same sentence, but with the comparative form”

9. Give the rule
For example, “‘Since’ usually takes the Present Perfect” or “One syllable adjectives make the comparative with –er, not more + adjective” This works best if they already know the rule, and you at least need to make sure that they will quickly understand what you are saying, for example by only using grammatical terminology you have used with them several times before.

10. Give a number of points
This is probably best saved for part of a game, especially one where students work together, but you can give each response a number of points out of 10. The same or other teams can then make another attempt at saying the same thing to see if they can get more points. If you don’t want students to focus on accuracy too much, tell them that the points will also give them credit for good pronunciation, fluency, politeness, persuasiveness and/ or originality of ideas.
Useful language:
“Very good fluency and very interesting, but a few basic mistakes, so I’ll give your team a score of (IELTS) 5.5. Practice your script in your team again for 5 minutes and we’ll try it one more time”
“You got all the articles right this time, so I’ll give you 9 out of 10”

11. Just tell them they are wrong (but nicely)
Positive ways of being negative include “nearly there”, “getting closer”, “just one mistake”, “much better”, “good idea, but…”,”I understand what you mean but…”, “you have made a mistake that almost everyone does/ that’s a very common mistake”, “we haven’t studied this yet, but…” and “much better pronunciation, but…” With lower level and new classes, you might have to balance the need to be nice with the need to be clear and not confuse them with feedback language that they don’t understand, perhaps by sticking to one or two phrases to give feedback for the first couple of months. It can also be useful to give them translations of this and other classroom language you will use, for example on a worksheet or a poster.

12. Tell them what part they should change
For example, “You need to change the introduction to your presentation” or “Try replacing the third word with something else”

13. Ask partners to spot errors
This is a fairly well-known way of giving feedback in speaking tasks, but it can be a minefield if the person giving feedback has no confidence in their ability to do so or in how well the feedback (i.e. criticism) will be taken, and even more so if the person receiving the feedback will in fact react badly. This method is easier to do and easier to take when they have been told specifically which language to use while speaking and so to look out for when listening, usually meaning controlled speaking practice tasks. The feedback can be made even simpler to give and collect and more neutral with some careful planning, e.g. asking them count how many times their partner uses the target form as well as or instead of looking for when it used incorrectly.

14. Try again!
Sometimes, students don’t need much help at all but just a chance to do it again. This is likely to be true if you have trained them well in spotting their own errors, if there was some other kind of mental load such as a puzzle to solve that was distracting them from the language, or if they have had a chance to hear someone else doing the same speaking task in the class or on a recording.
Useful language:
“One more time (but think about the grammar more this time/ but concentrating on making less mistakes instead of speaking quickly)”
“Give it another go”
“Do you want one more chance before you get the final score”

15. Remind them when you studied that point
For example, “Nearly right, but you’ve forgotten the grammar that we studied last week” or “You’ve made the same mistake as everyone made in the last test”.

And finally, a tip that isn’t included in the count of fifteen points as it is the opposite of what the article is supposed to be about:

16. Don’t
Sometimes students won’t benefit from any feedback on spoken errors. I could write another whole article on how to choose when to correct and when not to, and I may well do so…
Useful language:
“We’re concentrating on fluency today, so we’ll leave the error correction until next week”
“There is practice of this in your homework, so we’ll just try and use the language for communication today, and concentrate more on getting the grammar right next week

Introduction

Whenever anyone learns to do something new, it is extremely rare for them to be able to perform it perfectly on their first attempt. The same must also be true with learning a new language. Children acquiring their mother tongue within the critical period will often also make errors, however, they will often naturally be corrected over time.

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), was proposed by Lenneberg in 1967, which suggested the learning of a child’s first language happens naturally before the age of puberty. Although other writers disagree to an extent over where CPH is true, most people accept learning a new language after the Critical Period is over is more difficult (Newport et al 2001).

When Krashen based his “Natural Approach” (Krashen, 1983) on the CPH, he believed that errors were signs that natural development was occurring. Krashen further defined acquisition of a language, as developing language proficiency by communication, as opposed to learning which required formal teaching and error correction. Moerk, (1994) showed that even when acquiring your mother tongue correction is needed to improve. This essay will be looking into what, how and when errors should be corrected.

What should be corrected in language learning?

There is a clear need to give correction however, the impact of too much feedback can also be detrimental to student motivation (Hattie & Yates, 2013). This makes it more important to prioritise which errors to correct. When considering which errors to correct Hendrickson, (1978) suggested correction based on the student’s ability, starting with errors that affect commutation, then common errors, finally errors that will irritate. Following on from this, it is clear that you will need to correct beginners differently from advanced students. Furthermore, it is worth considering abstaining from correcting specific errors until you have introduced that area of knowledge to the students, for example, if you were correcting sentences for students trying to use the past perfect continuous when the students are still coming to grips with the simple past.

Teachers should correct mistakes based on what the students have previously learned, rather than errors they use from trying content they are as yet unready for. This is in line with Chaudron’s work (1988), which summarised students should be corrected when their error is the focus of the lesson. It is also important to correct mistakes in things previously studied, as peers hearing the mistake will question their understanding of what they’d previously learnt (Allwright,1981).

When to correct mistakes in language learning?

I will concentrate on when, to correct errors and mistakes occurring in oral speech, as written mistakes are not as time-sensitive and will be visible for much longer. The time at which you correct may depend on several factors such as what you are teaching. For example, if you happen to be teaching new vocabulary words and a student mispronounced one. You will likely correct the mistake right away, whereas if you were teaching reading fluency and a student mispronounced a word, you would probably wait until the end of the reading to correct it.

Other factors which will determine when teachers choose to correct mistakes are student confidence and class flow. Teachers should be careful not to interrupt the flow of class with excessive feedback. For example, you could share feedback with a single student after the next task has started, this will also help to reduce embarrassment. I should also mention the possibility that if errors are left uncorrected, the students will develop a habit of repeating the same mistakes. This is known as the error becoming fossilised, which will be more difficult to correct, at a later date.  

How should teachers correct mistakes?

There are many ways to correct mistakes that occur in oral speech. A teacher will often use many different ways in a single lesson. I will list a few that are commonly used.  

• Echoing, or repeating the mistake, can be used with a questioning tone. This will give the student a chance for self-correction. Echoing is often useful if you believe the mistake was a slip. Common slips like she/he or third person can be brought to students’ attention by this method.

• Gestures indicating an incorrect tense, for example, behind could mean you were expecting the past tense. Even raising your eyebrows could be a clue that something isn’t correct. 

• Another example I remember reading about a teacher who stuck a big “S” on a wall and pointing to it every time students forgot to use the third person. Later the «S» was removed, but they would still point to the wall. Teachers can agree on gestures with the class previously.

• Repeating the sentence up until the mistake will give the student a chance to understand where in their sentence the mistake had occurred. This would again give them the opportunity to self-correct.

• Using fingers again while repeating the sentence to show where a word was missing. Can be used when students miss words like “a” or “the”.

• Recasting, I am not a fan of this one, as it gives students the correct answer and doesn’t give them a lot of chances to reflect on the mistake. I can see this being used for words that have been mispronounced as they should hear a good model rather than continuing to guess as to what the correct pronunciation is. 

• Contrast the correct and the incorrect forms, for example, “I’m loving it” or “I love it” which do you think is correct? Let’s discuss. (sorry McDonalds).

• Peer-correction, if the student is unable to self-correct, maybe a peer can help correct it. This can be done by asking another student to help. This may also be achieved by allowing peers to give suggestions and let the student chose which is the correct answer.  

Correcting written errors

Similarly, to correcting oral mistakes too much correction can be disheartening for students. Many teachers will use a correcting rubric this can be shared with students so that they try to correct their mistakes. Examples of such a rubric may be using “sp.” to indicate a spelling mistake. It is advantageous for students to have a chance to try to self-correct their mistakes before the teacher looks again to share the correct answers.

Tasks where students share and critique with their classmates’ work is also useful to help students become aware of their mistakes. It’s also useful to help them become more aware of different writing styles and gain ideas for their works. When giving feedback on written work it is important to understand feedback received is not the same as feedback understood. The most effective feedback is that which includes what the next step is (Hattie, 2013).  

Conclusion

A lot of research has gone into what, how and when to correct, however the final decision usually lies with the teacher. Although most researchers agree that students need feedback and correction, the methods are left down to the teacher. Teachers should consider carefully when giving feedback as not to upset the flow of the class. Teachers must also be careful not to try to correct every error as too much correction can demotivate students. Teachers have many different kinds of ways to give feedback and corrections and teachers should not be afraid to use other students to suggest corrections.

by Vojtech Fiser

References citied.

Allwright, R.L., 1981. What do we want teaching materials for?. ELT journal, 36(1), pp.5-18.

Arora, S., 2015. Defossilising the errors of ESL learners through feedback. Innovation in English Language Teacher Education, 192.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press.

Clark, E. V. ,2009. First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.

Hattie, J., & Yates, G. C. ,2013. Visible learning and the science of how we learn. Routledge.

Hendrickson, J. M., 1978. Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The modern language journal, 62(8), 387-398.

Hendrickson, J. M., 1980. The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216-221.

Hoxha, E. K., 2015. Errors in the foreign language learning process. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research and Development, 2(1), 97-100.

Ingram, D., & David, I. ,1989. First language acquisition: Method, description and explanation. Cambridge university press.

Krashen, S. D., & Krashen, S. D.,1983. Natural approach (pp. 20-20). New York: Pergamon.

Lee, I., 2003. L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), pp.216-237.

Lenneberg, E.H., 1967. The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), pp.59-67.

Moerk, E. L., 1994. Corrections in first language acquisition: Theoretical controversies and factual evidence. International Journal of Psycholinguistics.

Newport, E.L., Bavelier, D. and Neville, H.J., 2001. Critical thinking about critical periods: Perspectives on a critical period for language acquisition. Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler, pp.481-502.

Roberts, M., 1995. Awareness and the efficacy of error correction. Attention and awareness in foreign language learning, pp.163-182.

Touchie, H. Y., 1986. Second language learning errors: Their types, causes, and treatment. JALT journal, 8(1), 75-80.

Walz, J. C. ,1982. Error Correction Techniques for the Foreign Language Classroom. Language in Education: Theory and Practice, No. 50. Center for Applied Linguistics, PO Box 4866, Hampden Station, Baltimore, MD 21211.