Today we come to the sixth and last of the High-Leverage Teaching Practices presented by Glisan and Donato in their book Enacting the Work of Language Instruction; High-Leverage Teaching Practices.
This HLTP comes with controversy, and Glisan and Donato address that in their introduction to the practice. Kudos to them. However, I believe the issue deserves greater discussion than the authors give it.
So, we’ll discuss the issue of corrective feedback a bit more here.
In their introduction to the practice, Glisan and Donato state,
“A key issue that has been explored extensively in research in second-language acquisition and L2 teaching and learning is the place of teacher feedback, either provided to call learners’ attention to errors in their speech or to respond to the content of a learner utterance. While there is evidence to indicate that extensive focus on error correction by the teacher can undermine L2 performance and demotivate learners, the research also shows that learners benefit from attention to form, which cans serve as a meaning making resource … Further studies have revealed that learners prefer to receive feedback as opposed to having their errors ignored … It is not surprising that novice language teachers are faced with a daunting task when it comes to deciding what types of feedback they should provide to learners and under what circumstances …” (2017, p. 141)
It’s important to understand what the authors do and do not advocate.
It’s also important to understand what the term “Oral Corrective Feedback” means.
Glisan and Donato certainly do not advocate extensive use of corrective feedback. Nor do they advocate striving for error-free production. As the authors write,
“… the teacher’s expectations during oral interaction should never be error-free performance by learners.” (2017, p. 141)
In fact, “… calling learners’ attention to and correcting every single error has no place within a language program that prioritizes meaning-making and communicative interaction.” (2017, p.141)
Nor do Glisan and Donato advocate error correction apart from negotiating meaning. After noting that the term “Corrective Feedback” has traditionally been defined as a move by the teacher that focuses learners’ attention to the grammatical accuracy of their utterance, the authors suggest that the contemporary understanding of Corrective Feedback as “a tool for mediating language learning and development.” (2017, p.142)
Many studies have indicated that Error Correction has little or no effect on acquisition. (cf. Truscott, J. (1999). What’s wrong with oral grammar correction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 437-455.) Other studies have found it at least somewhat productive. (cf. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2005). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.)
In 1978, J. Hendrickson identified five fundamental questions for the discussion of Corrective Feedback. (HENDRICKSON, J. (1978) Error correction in foreign language teaching: recent theory, research, and practice. In K. Croft (Ed.) Readings on English as a Second Language. Cambridge, Ma.: Winthrop. pp. 153-175.) These five questions are
1. Should errors be corrected?
2. If so, when should errors be corrected?
3. Which learner errors should be corrected?
4. How should learner errors be corrected?
5. Who should correct learner errors?
These questions remain valid.
With regard to the first question, Glisan and Donato clearly come down on the side of “Yes, errors should be corrected.” This is obvious from the inclusion of “Providing Oral Corrective Feedback to Improve Learner Performance” as a High-Leverage Teaching Practice.
Krashen and VanPatten would reply, “It depends.”
While maintaining that Error Correction has no value for acquisition, Krashen does not reject it as having no value whatsoever. For him, it has Monitor value. (See Krashen, Stephen D. (2009). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Internet edition, pp. 10, 116-119.)
Thus, Error Correction can be beneficial when certain restricted conditions are met: 1) Errors corrected are limited to learnable and portable rules; 2) Errors are corrected under conditions that allow Monitor use (reading and writing are key activities that fulfill this restriction); 3) Measures evaluating the efficacy of error correction are administered under conditions that allow Monitor use, to allow the learner time to refer to his or her conscious knowledge; 4) Learners are Monitor users.
For Krashen, “This implies no error correction in free conversation, but allows for error correction on written work and grammar exercises.” (2009, p. 117)
VanPatten indicates that Corrective Feedback could have benefit for acquisition when it is used to negotiate meaning. (See VanPatten, B. (2003). From input to output: A teacher’s guide to second language acquisition. Mahwah, MJ: Erlbaum.) This seems consistent with VanPatten’s insistence that acquisition takes place only during communication, i.e. whenever the expression, comprehension, and negotiation of meaning take place.
The consensus seems to be that there is not no place for Error Correction. (Yes, the double negative is deliberate and meaningful.)
However, there is great difference of opinion on the other questions.
We’ll take a look at those questions in later posts. That will take us into the HLTP itself.
I’m stopping here for today since I was at the California Language Teachers Association (CLTA) conference in Ontario over the weekend and need to get ready for classes and get a good night’s rest. Changing to Daylight Saving Time is always difficult.
The conference was good, and I enjoyed seeing friends and meeting new friends. I also picked up some tips and ideas as well as being reminded of practices and strategies and getting a dose of encouragement and inspiration.
If you are interested in knowing more about my take on the conference, read my Facebook posts under Compelling Input Productions over the next few days.