Error correction by Chiew Pang Copyright 2012
I started writing a comment as a reply to Dale’s vlog, which was a result of our comment-chat in my Correction, correction and correction post, but it was, I felt, too long as a comment, and so I decided to blog it instead.
If only we could quantify learning, Dale, life would be so much easier, huh? And a lot more boring, too! As we all know, language learning is a complicated process, which, in turn, makes language teaching complicated. Error correction is merely a small part of this, and yet, in itself, poses so many debates and disagreements. I’m not an expert and I don’t expect anyone to stand up and take notice of what I say, but I have my opinions. As I mentioned in my reply to your comment, the best method is a combination of the two you mentioned plus subtle variations of them.
And, yes, I agree that on-the-spot reinforced by delayed correction works very well. In fact, language teaching is a continuing process of reinforcements, don’t you think?
I’d like to reflect on how I correct; perhaps, in this way, we could come to some conclusion… or pose more questions. 
First, what do we correct? Errors (for want of a better term) can occur in or away from class. They can occur in oral or written production. If they happen away from class, correction can only be delayed. The shorter the delay, the better it is, I’m sure most will agree.
If they happen in class, what I do varies depending on whether it is during oral or written production. If it’s written, I address the error on the spot, privately, pencil on paper. However, if it’s a point which I consider beneficial to the whole class, I will board it (not necessarily going from the student to the board immediately, which addressed the naming-and-shaming issue) and first ask the class if it was right or wrong, and, if wrong, how we could make it better.
If it’s oral, I do variations of the two methods. I may board problems (or good sentences because feedback doesn’t always have to be negative) while they’re speaking or jot them down on my pad. Either way, I will elicit responses from the class as a whole at a delayed time, at a time I consider to be appropriate. This could be during production and not necessarily at the end of it, and the delay could be seconds or minutes. No naming and shaming here either.
I may address the issue on the spot if I intuitively feel that it’s right to do so. I’ve mentioned this before, but I consider teaching an art not a science. I think, I’m reflecting aloud here, I am more likely to do on-the-spot corrections when it’s to do with pronunciation or lexis rather than form, unless it’s of a fossilised nature, such as “depend of” or “I’m studying English for to go abroad”. Then again, sometimes I ignore the errors, especially if I felt it would interrupt the flow, especially if I felt the content is worth more than the form.
However I choose to correct, I’d like to think that naming and shaming hardly ever comes into play.
My answers to your questions, Dale…
Product or process? The reason why you were going round in circles is because they’re both, innit? Errors are both a product and a process of language learning at the same time. You make errors because you’re learning and only by making errors, will you learn, as I keep telling my students.
Which scaffolds more? Both and neither. In my opinion, it doesn’t depend on how you correct as much as the type of problem.
Proofs of learning? I think I’ve answered this one at the every beginning.
My question now is this: which is more of an issue? When to correct or how to monitor oral production effectively? How do you detect errors when you have several people talking at the same time? Do you tune in to a group at a time? Do you listen to one group until you hear an error, then move on? Do you attempt to listen to several groups at the same time? Video gamers are able to see up to 5 (maybe more) different objects on the screen moving constantly. Are we supposed to be able to hear 5 (or more) students speaking simultaneously?
What do you readers think?
Refreshing to see people rejecting the “correct during accuracy work, delay / omit correction during fluency work”. Surely things are far more complicated than that. Thank you!
And thank you, Luis, for coming and for the thumbs-up!
Luiz, I want to reply to both you and Chiew in this comment so the first part will be dedicated to you comments and the second to the post.
The line between fluency and accuracy is a fine one and if there’s a communicative need for a focus then I see it best to exploit that to the learner’s advantage. It’s not something that’s taught in your first training course so much and I’ve heard it commented on a lot after having trainees observe me; nonetheless, it’s one that deserves some consideration, wouldn’t you say? When I started my journey in teaching, I was hesitant to correct during fluency work and it’s not been a short transformation into what I do now and I imagine the road ahead is also a long one. I work on the basis that individual work in fluency practice can give each learner something personalised to walk out of the lesson with and sure appreciate it when I finish language class with something to take home similar.
Chiew, we’re definitely singing from the same hymn sheet regarding correction; I use many of the same techniques as you like the paper and fingers, non-verbal gestures. Also, with the fossilized stuff like “it depends of” and “the people, the love, the nature” – correcting those every time will only serve to frustrate students; with time and input these things smooth themsevles out. Obviously, it takes some effort and consciousness on behalf of the learner too.
In answer to a few of your questions:
First of all, I added a cheeky extra part to my blog post with a format I bring into most classes that I use to note down errors and interesting areas to exploit for further learning. It’s useful because it gives me a structure in the madness of 8 people chatting away and then I can choose to move in, tune in or tune out of a conversation.
I like to monitor all students at the start to listen to the gist of what they are saying and make some predictions on the direction in which they are going. Then, I move in and tune into individuals but try and keep an ear peeled for the others. Occasionally, I get the consent of students to put my ipod on the table and record and often encourage them to do the same – very handy for delayed correction. The skill is difficult to master, by no means am I at that stage yet but I’m trying.
For a while I tried to encourage learners to note down their errors and their partners, which worked as a reflection activity but I tend not to use it too often. Feedback has shown me that, at least in my context, learners like the trained ear of a language expert to listen to them and offer corrections. With my tail between my legs, I started to do it less and less in class but often return to it when I do self-evaluation lessons.
Dale
I’m glad to be singing from the same hymn sheet, Dale, but I’ll have to warn you that I can’t sing to key
Your monitoring sheet is commendable – do you think it works better for you than having just a blank sheet? Does it help you to focus? You know, I’ve made recordings before, but found that, in the end, it was too much work to listen to! I must try to make more focussed recordings – smaller chunks. so that they don’t feel overwhelming.
I meant to ask this in the comment I made in your blog, but I’d forgotten: do you follow Underhill & Scrivener’s demand-high ELT? Do you practise some of what they preach?
Chiew, you’re welcome! Forgot one word: “… during fluency work PARADIGM”
Haha, but I’m sure we all knew what you meant
And thanks for following the blog 
To me the most important thing said above is “sometimes I ignore the errors, especially if I felt it would interrupt the flow, especially if I felt the content is worth more than the form.” In an ideal world, in an ideal classroom, the content is always worth more than the form. If an error hinders communication, I’ll ask the person to be more explicite, or I’ll question their meaning until I’m sure I’ve understood. Other mistakes, which leave no doubt about meaning, do not require Immediate attention, in my mind. I keep track of them if they are recurrent, will devise an activity to teach the correct form by supplying my students with abundant repetitions of a correct model. If they are ready to hear it, they will acquire it. If they have other, more urgent problems, I’ll try to identify those problems and work on them.
Thanks for the comment, Judy. I have a question for you – in the case of an error hindering communication, what do you do if this happens during PW? Do you address the student there and then, or would you pause the activity and address the whole class?
PW? I’m not familiar with that. Assuming that the student is trying to communicate, I’ll signal that I don’t understand. Sometimes they can self-correct. If not, I’ll try to guess and suggest possibilities. Just as you would do in any conversation. It’s not correction; it’s negotiating the meaning.
Sorry. PW= pair work. GW=group work.
Generally, during oral pairwork activity, I don’t intervene; however, if I consider it important to the activity, I may pause the whole class, and explain the issue. It could also be a pronunciation issue. I don’t normally spend a lot of time though because too long a pause from the activity may affect the flow of their conversation adversely.
Hmmmm. I teach using TPRS and we do not do a lot of pair work or group work because of the poor quality of the input. I was interested by Dogme mostly because it does resemble TPRS (Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling) in some ways. But we try to avoid asking students to produce until they are ready to do so spontaneously. The “silent period” can be shorter or longer depending on the student’s individual personality. So, in a TPRS class the student would be speaking to me or to the class as a whole, usually retelling a story they have helped create. Or answering questions about themselves.
OK, I can imagine error correction being rather different in your class. For one thing, monitoring is easier, I suppose.