If you’d read the previous post, you’d know that we’d been dealing with the topic of holidays, and also that I’d thought that lesson was somewhat low-key. To introduce a little “fun” and to deal with pronunciation issues I’d noticed in the previous lesson, the first thing I did was to beam this slide up.
Deciphering phonetic transcription by Chiew Pang
The words were laid out in two columns, and I split the class into two teams of boys and girls. I’d introduced them to the phonetic script from the first day, but, of course, I didn’t expect them to remember much. Besides, there have been new students since that first day. Still, that didn’t perturb me unduly. Some teachers are hesitant in using the script in class, but I personally believe it is useful. I don’t expect them to learn the script off by heart – I myself am not an expert – but it’s valuable that they recognise the sounds they represent so that when they look words up in the dictionary, they will be able to pronounce them.
Surprisingly, both teams did extremely well. The boys, claiming that their list was trickier, were hesitant in a few of the words, especially “adventurous”. They looked as though they enjoyed the activity. I also made sure they pronounced the words well, and that they knew the number of syllables each had.
That done, I proceeded to beam up 3 different slides on a series of common errors they often make in their writing. I encouraged them to keep a list of these and to check all their essays against it before submitting their work.
Common errors by Chiew Pang
They then moved on to a guided discovery of past tenses (past simple vs continuous and used to): they saw them in usage, established the rules, and did some controlled practice.
The last time I did the orang utan circular writing activity, they enjoyed it very much, so I decided to do it again for their free practice session. This time I adapted the one I used for the CAE group; instead of starting it off with “On a dark and stormy night”, they wrote “For the first time, X was…”
As usual, while they write, I went around monitoring and correcting. Judging from their feedback, they, again, enjoyed this.
“I liked to do the last exercise. I think it´s good to improve your creativity and to have ideas when you do a writing.”
“I liked the writing game, because it’s a good way for improving our writing skills and for spending a nice time at the same moment.”
My thoughts
It was a livelier lesson, and I think quite productive. I’ve been wanting to group their common errors together for quite some time and was glad to have finally done it. I’m hoping that by seeing them side by side, they will take my advice and start a list so that I don’t have to be highlighting the same errors over and over again!
I’ve taken to do more writing in class as they don’t always do their home assignments, and I find they get more out of on-the-spot, as opposed to delayed, help.
What about you? Do you do writing in class often? Do you have frequent error-correction sessions?
Hi Chiew,
I must have started about 4 or 5 five posts in the past year on error correction but left each one in the elephant graveyard of unifinished rambling so it’s nice to have the chance to just leave something in comment form.
I too have thought a lot about on-the-spot versus delayed. I’ve also asked students’ opinions and considered the matter in my second-language learning.
The general consensus amongst those whom I asked was that delayed correction misses the mark in two ways: first, there’s more temporal distance between the learner and the error, which has an effect on learners’ accountability for their language in terms of accuracy of their message. Second, there’s more contextual distance. Consider the amount of context which aids your comprehension of a text. Obviously, reducing it and asking a learner to perform a challenging task raises the difficulty.
Correction, after all, is teaching on a very immediate basis. A teacher must pull learners out on their errors, work with them to adjust the language and then return then to the context in which the error germinated. I believe that on-the-spot has the most lasting effect provided that teachers invest more time into the error than just a reformulation.
That’s not to say that delayed correction doesn’t have a place. Quite the contrary, I think it serves as an effective way of reinforcing errors (provided they have been collected and commented on) from the lesson, giving learners a chance to write down this information when not under the strain of constant interaction.
What do you think? Have you ever considered having mini focus-on-form sessions in activities to correct? I heard a nice idea at the ETAS conference, you freeze-frame roleplays at certain points to allow the rest of the class to benefit from the situation. I’ve used this one quite a lot and follow it with a quick boarding of some language and then put the class back into their simulations. Uptake on language is normally pretty high.
Thanks for giving me the chance to share,
Dale
Thanks, Dale, for this very insightful comment. I believe there is a place for all kinds of correction – pre-activity, post-activity, delayed, on-the-spot, reformulation, etc. It also depends on the type of error, doesn’t it? Is it form or lexis? Is it new, repeated, fossilised? Is it a result of translation or is the student going +1? Teachers often have too much information to process in any given one time and have to make instantaneous decisions so much so that, more often than not, they have to rely on their intuition. Of course, the more ‘tricks and tools’ they have in their bag, the more chances they have of getting it intuitively right.
I do, from time to time, have mini mid-activity form-sessions, but this depends on two main criteria: is the form in question useful to the whole group at that stage and do I feel prepared enough to guide them? Sometimes, starting on a path when you’re not quite ready gives rise to more confusion instead of clarifying the doubts. Not every teacher is capable or confident enough to do off-the-cuff form sessions. They’d have to first answer two questions instantly: What is the main error here? (As you know, it’s not always a straightforward problem, and often, there are several errors involved, e.g. word order, wrong tense, spelling, structure… all in one sentence.) The second question is then, ok, so I know the problems. Can I help them understand this, here and now?
If the answer is “I don’t really know” to the first question, then the solution is simple, isn’t it? If you get past this first question, you will have to decide on the answer to the second in a fraction of a second. Not surprising, then, why many teachers live in fear of dogme. Hehe.
Have I been digressing? What was your question? LOL. Seriously, although I often do mid-activity correction stages, I’d like to do more and in more detail (or as you say “invest more time into the error”), and I’d like to be able to expertly bring the students back to the point just before the problems so that they can repeat the situation error-free this time.
hi chiew,
dale makes some good points above about immediate feedback, the research supports this but it also suggests that delayed feedback could be better for transfer of learning; the recommendation is that you choose feedback depending on your desired learning outcome.
did a post about feedback on my blog and will update it since information about timing of feedback was not included, so thanks to this discussion for prompting me.
ta
mura
Thanks for the pingback, mura. Just as I said in my reply to Dale, there is a place for all kinds of correction. There are many factors involved, and only a teacher in tune with his class can decide which is best. That’s my humble opinion. That’s the artist in me. Is teaching an art of a science? Can we pigeonhole everything? Should we, for that matter? We can generalise but that’s about it. One thing can work for one class at one time, but may not work even for the same class in another. We can only try to increase our knowledge so that we can make the right decision at the right time.
Hi Mura, glad that my comments had that effect. There’s a complex interplay between so many factors in error correction that a one-size-fits-all theory is in my opinion unachievable. I believe it’s a case of making an informed decision on what works best to your strengths and your students’ goals. I know it’s the classic response that everyone is prone to giving, but in this case I think it carries some extra weight, don’t you?
Dale
for sure, and i think that ‘complex interplay’ has been/is being attacked by research so that along with one’s teaching experience will form a solid basis.
ta
mura
Pingback: What the research says – Feedback « EFL Notes
Pingback: Correction and Timing « languagemoments
Pingback: Error correction Part 2 « The Dogme Diaries