Theoretical Development of Writing Skills in ELT
2.10 Feedbacks and Error Correction in Teaching Writing Skills in ELT
looking at letters to the newspaper. They are asked to make notes of particular vocabulary and grammar constructions in the letters; for example to find any language which expresses approval or disapproval, or to note down sentences if they come across. They can use dictionary or any other resources they need to check understanding. At the end of a week they bring the results of their research to the class and make a list of commonly occurring lexis or grammar patterns. The teacher now gets the students to read controversial articles in the day's paper and plan letters (using language they have come across in the data collection phase) in response to those articles. Where possible they should actually send their letters in the hope that they will be published.
A genre approach is especially appropriate for students of English for specific purposes. Students who are writing within a certain genre need to have knowledge of the topic, the conventions and the style of genre as well as the context in which their writing will be read, and by whom, considering writing not as imitation but as reproduction. Many of our students writing tasks do not have an audience other than the teacher, of course, but that does not stop them and us working as if they did.
feedback is intrinsic to the task: finishing a task successfully implies that the communication has been effective (Littlewood, 1981, p. 90).
Feedback plays a vital role in the success of the teaching-learning process. Basu (2006, pp. 164–180) maintains that the most prominently used methods of feedback fall into two common categories: feedback on form or surface features and feedback on content and organisation. The most common methods of feedback on form include correction of surface errors, indicating the place and type of error but without correction, and underlining to indicate only the presence of error (Basu, 2006, pp. 164–165). The best way would be to indicate the place not the error; this indirect feedback will prove more fruitful than the direct one. In case of feedback on content, the students have different kinds of reactions. The students may not read the annotations at all; they may read and may not understand and finally may understand them but may not know how to respond to those. Feedback can be given in different phases; teacher feedback on grammar, peer feedback on the organisation of the mid-draft, and then teacher feedback on the content and organisation on the final draft (Basu, 2006, pp. 164–180).
In some cases teachers are found to focus mainly on language forms in their feedback. But they should be aware of the fact that the most important thing in a piece of writing is its content. Since the purpose of writing is the expression of ideas and the conveying of a message to the reader, the ideas should be considered the most significant aspect of writing (Ur, 1991, p. 163). But the formal aspects are equally important. Careful constructions, precise and varied vocabulary and correctness of expression in general are expected in writing. Next comes the organisation or presentation. And finally comes the question of language forms––whether the grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation are acceptable or not. The teacher must maintain a fair balance between content and form when he defines the requirements and assessing. He will have to be aware that content and organisation are important, and must not convey the tacit message that language forms are the only important things. Consequently, language mistakes should be corrected without bearing the message that these are the only things that matter.
Making mistakes is a normal part of the learning process and correcting of mistakes are an inevitable part of language teaching. Too much correction can interfere with the learner’s development and become discouraging. Excessive negative feedback can prove
harmful (Lindsay, 2000, p. 199). The teacher should correct simply the basic or serious mistakes in order to soften the disheartening effect of too many corrections. He should only correct those mistakes that in fact alter or affect meaning. Moreover, the teacher should not write down the correct form where s/he feels that it is possible for the student to find out the correction. He should only point out the error. The students themselves must study their mistakes and find out what is correct. Importantly, the teacher should encourage free writing, even if it is full of mistakes. In the feedback session, the teacher should draw students’ attention to the things they have got right besides the things they have got wrong.
And he should make it clear that writing-with-mistakes is an important stage in learning.
In an accuracy-based activity, the error should be pointed out as soon as it is made, but in a fluency-based activity the student should not be stopped in the middle of his/her speech. The teacher should make a note of the errors and come back to them when the activity is over. But this should not be established as a rigid rule. When the speaker is obviously floundering, gentle and supportive intervention by the teacher can be helpful.
Conversely, even when the teacher is conducting an accuracy-based activity, s/he may not always choose to correct. On the whole, when the learner got most of the structures correct, s/he may avoid pointing out a comparatively minor mistake. The teacher should carefully note the errors and give remedial practice at an appropriate time. According to Lindsay (2000, p. 199) there are three types of correction:
1) Self-correction: The student makes his/her own corrections.
2) Student to student correction: Students correct one another.
3) Teacher to student correction: The teacher corrects the students.
Self–correcting leads to non-reliance on the teacher and enhances motivation when the students become able to make the correction. In student-to-student correction the learner who corrects another student gains self-confidence. But here the student who makes the error may lose his/her confidence because his/her classmate scores at his/her expense. In teacher to student correction the error is detected quickly and the right form is provided reliably. But it may lead to over-dependence on the teacher. The teacher needs to exercise his/her common sense and sensibility to decide which method will be proper in a particular situation.
The teacher must make the corrections in a supportive manner and create an environment in which corrections are seen as an inevitable part of language learning.
He/She must not injure the self-esteem of the learner. Only the error should be highlighted, not the person, because learners are usually sensitive to being corrected. If a particular error is a common one in a group, the teacher should treat it publicly. It will be ultimately helpful for the learners if the teacher minimizes error correction and maximizes opportunities for practice (Lindsay, 2000, p. 199). The teacher should not only tell the students what was wrong. S/He must acknowledge what is right and particularly praise- worthy. Drawing attention to learners’ success will boost their morale and reinforce learning. However, the most important kind of feedback is some kind of informative feedback other than mistake correction and overall assessment, intended to assist students to improve. It is especially helpful if the teacher imparts knowledge that particularly helps the students to solve specific problems. In the case of written feedback, the teacher writing down the full correct form may sometimes prove useful because then the student gets the acceptable form quickly and clearly. Furthermore, rewriting corrected work like long compositions or essays may help the learners to eliminate errors when they deal with the same structures next time.
Ur (1991) makes six worth-mentioning statements about feedback:
1) A power hierarchy in the classroom, with the teacher in charge and students subordinate, is evident. Underlying and offsetting this apparent dominance is the teacher’s role as server and supporter of the learners. These two roles are complementary and essential for healthy classroom relationships.
2) Assessment is potentially humiliating. The teacher must ensure that the potential is not realised.
3) Negative feedback, if given supportively and warmly, will be recognised as constructive.
4) Frank and friendly criticism contributes to the strengthening of the relationship between the teacher and the students.
5) Giving of praise can be devalued through overuse. Students may not be encouraged by it. Overused, uncritical praise can be irritating.
6) Peer-correction may cause conflict and tension between individuals when relationships are not particularly warm or trusting between them.
At the advent of process approach, student-revision and teacher-response have become important in all stages of the writing process. In such cases, feedback can be given in six different ways: self-monitoring, peer feedback, conferences, teachers’
comment, error correction and evaluation by teachers (Chaudhury, 2001, pp. 51–60).