Art of Error Correction - ETAS Learning Journal The Art of Error Correction ... Dictogloss The Art of Error Correction Activity: ... Promotes listening,

The Art of Error Correction

Emilia Siravo - E-TAS Professional Day - Zug, Switzerland – September 2016

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" Hamlet (Act II, Sc. II).

1

Overview

TerminologyIssues

2

Terminology Group Work H:1

The Art of Error Correction Definitions: Lyster, Ranta (1997)

Work alone, then in pairs to define the following relevant terms (3 min)

Scenario 4: ____________________Student: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: for 2 years.Student: Ah, yes. For 2 years.

Scenario 5: ____________________Student: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: What preposition do we use when we talk about a period of time ‘since or for’?

Scenario 6: ____________________Student: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: 2 years? I worked here …. 2 years? What do we use?

Scenario 1: RepetitionStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: I’ve worked here since 2 years.

Scenario 2: ____________________Student: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: No, that’s incorrect. You mean, ‘for 2 years.’

Scenario 3: ____________________Student: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: Excuse me? I didn’t understand.

1. Repetition2. Recasts3. Metalinguistic cue

4. Explicit correction5. Clarification request6. Uptake7. Elicitation

Terminology Group Work

The Art of Error Correction Definitions: Lyster, Ranta (1997)

Work alone, then in pairs to define the following relevant terms (3 min)

Scenario 4: Recast & UptakeStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: for 2 years.Student: Ah, yes. For 2 years.

Scenario 5: Metalinguistic cueStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: What preposition do we use when we talk about a period of time ‘since or for’?

Scenario 6: ElicitationStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: 2 years? I worked here …. 2 years? What do we use?

Scenario 1: RepetitionStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: I’ve worked here since 2 years.

Scenario 2: Explicit CorrectionStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: No, that’s incorrect. You mean, ‘for 2 years.’

Scenario 3: Clarification RequestStudent: I’ve worked here since 2 years.Teacher: Excuse me? I didn’t understand. How many years?

Issues: Pros/Cons Error Correction H:2


In pairs identify 1-2 pros/ cons surrounding Error Correction (2 minutes)

Pros Cons

Issues: Error Correction in Perspective


Nelson Brook (1960) – “Like sin, error is to be avoided and its influence overcome..”

Audiolingual Approach

1960s

1970

Communicative ApproachChastain (1971), “More important than error-free speech is the creation of an atmosphere in which the students want to talk.”

Krashen:Comprehensible input hypothesis

(1977-2010)

Swain:Output

Hypothesis (1995)

Long:Interactive Hypothesis

(1996)

Schmidt:Noticing

Hypothesis (1990)

Debate

Issues: 5 Questions


Hendrickson’s 1978 (Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching)

Was there an error? (Fanselow, 1977)Students want correction

(Oladejo, Carthcart and Olsen)Student characteristics (DeKeyser, 1993)

01 Correction

Should we correct?

When?

Immediate vs Delayed(Hattie & Timperley, 2007)

02 Timing

Which errors?

Impede meaning, stigmatized, frequent (Ferris, 2005)Phonological, Syntax, Lexical, Orthographic, Cohesive

03 Selection

How?

Explicit vs. Implicit(Sheen, 2007)

04 Method

Who?

TeacherSelfPeersAutomated

05 People

"But, for my own part, it was Greek to me". -(Julius Caesar Act I, Scene II).

Issues: Effectiveness?

The Art of Error Correction Lyster & Ranta (1997) 18.5 hours / 4 French immersion classrooms / Grades 4-5

Errors, Feedback and Uptake

Errors with feedback

63%

No feedback

Feedback

Uptake55%

No Uptake45%

Uptake

Repair27%

Needs repair

Repair

However, research is often incomplete, flawed, often not longitudinal, and rarely comparable.

"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose". (Merchants of Venice, Act I).

Recasts

IssuesActivity

Recasts: most frequently used error correction technique yet least effective (Lyster & Ranta, 1997)

9

Video: Recasts


Read transcript (H3), make additional notes on (1) how the teacher provides feedback: recasts, repetition, prompts, praise and (2) if teacher gives opportunity for uptake.

Minute 0-1:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVjeee6qKuk

Watch video, make notes on (1) does the teacher correct (2) if so, how does she correct (3) do you think effective?

With your partner, discuss and compare notes.

Transcript: Recasts H:3


T: Where do you work?S: I work at StarT: Starbucks. S: Starbucks T: Very good. T: Where does she work? Where does she work?S: She works at T: (Whispers) Starbucks. S: Starbucks. T: Ok. Good. Very good, everyone. T: Where do I work? (Pointing to herself) I, I. Where do I work?S: IT: (Pointing to student’s book) The second one S: You work in Starbucks.T: Very good. You work at Starbucks. Ok let’s turn to the next page.

(Recast)(Uptake with repair)(Praise)

(Provides answer)(Repetition/ Uptake with repair)

(Praise)

(Praise) (Recast) (No opportunity for uptake)

Recasts: Pros and Cons


Time saving, less disruptive to communication, focus on meaning (Loewen, Philp 2006, Long 2006)

Allow teacher to remain in control (Loewen, Philp 2006)

Juxtapose incorrect/ correct info (Saxton, 1997 in Loewen and Philp 2006)

Ambiguous, unclear, inconsistent (Fanselow 1977, Lyster & Ranta 1997)

Work done by teacher, no opportunity for repair (Swain 2000)

Most used, yet least effective (Lyster & Ranta, 1997)

However, recasts can be effective if there is …


Combined with repetition(Doughty & Varela, 1998)

Multiple feedback moves(Loewen, 2002)

Shorter, fewer changes(Egi 2004, Philp 2003)

1-2 words (Loewen & Philp 1996)

Salience, consistency(Loewen & Philp 1996, Hans 2002)

Lexical / Phonological items (Sheen, 2007, Mackey 2003)

ExplicitnessDevelopmental readiness, advanced learners, low anxiety (DeKeyser, 1993, Mackey & Philp, 1998, Hans, 2002)

Readiness

Opportunity for uptake(Oliver, 1995)

Wait time (Rowe, 1996)

Opportunity

Go wisely and slowly. Those who rush stumble and fall. (Romeo and Juliet)

Activity: Improving our recasts H:4


Work with your partner to identify some potential issues with these recasts. (e.g., not explicit delivery, students not ready, no opportunity for repair) (5 minutes)

Scenario 3: (B2 level)St: This man was mobbed at work.T: harassed. Ok, let’s move on.

Potential issues with recast:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Scenario 2: (A2 level)St: If I would have money, I stop to work.T: If I had money, I’d stop working. Next student.


Scenario 1: (C1 Level)St: I went to dinner with a good colleague of mine from school.T: I went to dinner with a good friend of mine from school. Ok, next.


Prompting

VideoWhen to use what

Prompting: not frequently used yet most effective (Lyster & Ranta1997, Lyster 2004)

15

Activity: Prompts Review H:5


Identify what type of correction technique the teacher uses with this C1 student: e.g., Explicit correction, Clarification request, Metalinguistic cue, Elicitation (Question, Gestures, etc) (3 min)

Student: I research the use of blockchain. (pronounced by student as blɔg ʤeɪn(blog jane) instead of blɑk ʧeɪn (block chain))Teacher: Excuse me? I didn’t understand. _________________________Student: Blog jane – it’s a complex algorithm and database. It’s the future of our internet. Teacher: But why is it called Blog Jane? Is it a blog written by Jane? ________Student: No, no it’s not a blog. It’s a ‘blog’ like a brick and a ‘jane’ like that metal that binds a bike so that no one steals it. Teacher: Oh, you mean Block Chain? ____________________Student: Yes. Isn’t that what I said?Teacher: Ok, look at my mouth (teacher gestures ʧ sound)- Chain. _____________Student: Chain.

Then discuss with your partner: do you think this was effective for the student or not? Explain.

Prompts: Pros and Cons


Effective (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, Lyster 2004 )

Explicit (Sheen, 2007)

Self discovery

Takes time, interrupts communication

Generally form focused

Difficult to do on the spot

Video: Eliciting using Cuisenaire Rods


Minute 0-0:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaQzlkm5ZsA

Read transcript (H6) make additional notes on (1) how the teacher provides feedback: recasts, repetition, prompts, praise and (2) if teacher gives opportunity for repair.

Watch video, make notes on (1) does the teacher correct (2) if so, how does he correct (3) do you think it is effective?

With your partner, discuss and compare notes.

Transcript: Eliciting using Cuisenaire Rods


T: Ok, Gabriella. Can you show me, I’ve got 2 green rods?

S: Ok. (Takes 2 green rods from pile of Cuisenaire rods and places them on the table).

T: And say the sentence.

S: I’ve got 2 green rods.

T: What do you think, is that good?

Sts: Yeah.

T: They’re on the table. Has she got them?

S: Not got

T: Can you try again?

S: (Takes the 2 rods in her hand). I’ve got 2 green rods.

T: Ah. So they’re yours now. That’s a good answer. Ok, let’s try another one. All the orange rods are in the box. All the orange rods are in the box.

(Elicitation, Question)

(Elicitation with CQ and Cuisenaire)

(Uptake)

(Opportunity for repair)

(Uptake with repair)

(Praise)

H:6

(Elicitation, Question)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaQzlkm5ZsA

Resource: When to use what


Clarification RequestsPronunciation, Vocabulary, GrammarEx: Sorry, I didn’t understand. Please repeat.

Cuisenaire rods/ Gestures:Tangible Meaning, Word OrderEx. You speak very well German. T: Uses last 3 fingers to indicate error in order.

Elicitation / CQ (Workman, 2007)Vocabulary, Grammar meaningEx. You worked here …… 2 years?

Metalinguistic CuesGrammar (Sheen, 2007)Ex. What’s the past tense of go?

For more ideas on how to use Cuisenaire rods: Zakhareuski, busyteacher.org

What prompt(s) would you use to correct these students’ mistakes? Combine as necessary.

1. Please send the email until Monday.2. Yes, I’m looking for Jackie – spelled

J, A, C, K, E, EH3. My work at the moment is very

heavy.4. He explained me the issue.

H:7

Student learning journalVideo message

Seeding the task

Communicative Correction Activities

Lyster & Ranta (1997) “ teachers might want to consider the whole range of techniques they have at their disposal rather than relying so extensively on recasts.” (56) 21

Student Learning Journal


What was said:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Explanation:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Correction:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

New Vocabulary:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Translation:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Learning Journal: things noticed in class____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date: _______________

Used in every classKept as journal, repeatedTeacher keeps similar journal, uses errors to structure future classes

Self correction, recastsDelayed Repetition or what student notices

Metalinguistic information

Completed at end of task or class

H:8

Activity # 1: Video Messages

The Art of Error Correction Activity: Adapted from Michael Berman, Guerrilla Pronunciation Teaching TESOL 2016

Think 1 thing love / 1 thing change about SwitzerlandMake a short 30 second video on your phone (in your 2nd language) on topic.

Discuss: What would you have done differently had this been a real assignment. Practiced several times or recorded just once?

Feedback: Repetition + Recast (Video/ Written)Students: Repeat activity

Homework Assignment: Promotes self correct through repetition and recasting, self, peer and teacher correction

Give task to be completed by video message

Self correction

Feedback, opportunity for

uptake

Activity # 2: Dictogloss

The Art of Error Correction Activity: Adapted from Scott Thornbury (2006), Grammar, OUP.

Promotes listening, writing and grammar and self correct through repetition and group work

Students then write down everything they remember.Compare notes with peersText is read 1-2 more times. Students amend text.

Group work

Students are asked to compare their text to the original (written on board) and highlight difference.

Errors are corrected (use student learning journal). Personalize task to focus on grammar.

Feedback, opportunity for

uptake

Listening task

Read text to students. Students mustn’t write.Text < 100 words

Activity # 2: Dictogloss

The Art of Error Correction Activity: Adapted from Scott Thornbury (2006), Grammar, OUP.

Promotes listening, writing and grammar and self correct through repetition and group work

Dictogloss Notes

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Three men were stuck on a desert island and a fairy came along and offered them a free wish each. ‘I wish I was back with my family and friends,’ said the first man, and in a flash he disappeared back home. ‘I too wish I was back with my family and friends,’ said the next man, and he too disappeared. ‘It’s very lonely here,’ said the last man. ‘I wish my two friends were here with me….!’

(Taken from Brough Girling. The Great Puffin Joke Directory. Puffin Books, 1990) in Thornbury, S. 2006, Grammar. OUP

WritingSupplement

Teaching ESL Writing is no joke


De-Cluttering/ EditingContent

Cohesion

Organization Register

Thornbury, 2005, Zinsser 1976

While also dealing with L2 issues

Audience

And we tend to focus on L2 issues

The Art of Error CorrectionWriting correction code taken from: https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files/code.pdf

That can be self corrected

And are not considered by students (Cohen, 1998)

And there is debate as to effectiveness: Ferris vs Truscott

Correcting ESL: How to minimize L2 issues


1. Error Analysis: Set goals based on students’ error needs, take samples

2. In class: Focus on form(s):

Beneficial and necessary (Doughty & Williams, 1998, Ellis, 2002 in Ferris, 2005)

Mini-grammar lessons: prior to /after writing assignments based on students’ work (Ferris, 2005)

Correcting ESL: How to minimize repeat L2 issues


Individualize feedback:

Students create their own corrective checklist based on learning journals, teacher feedback

Teachers try to conference 1:1 with students if possible

And then: Get them to do it again!

Issue Self Correction

PeerCorrection

Teacher Correction

In my last assignment I made the following mistakes:

In class I generally have issues with:

Thank you


Emilia [email protected]

Twitter: esiravoBlog: emiliasiravo.com

Allow students’ to see, to work with and to own their errorsGive students’ time for uptakeMake message explicit, but process implicitRepeat, recycle, reviewAnd don’t forget to use errors for future lesson planning

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our starsBut in ourselves (Julius Caesar, Act 1, Sce. II)

31

mailto:[email protected]

Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research 12.2, 183–210.Ammar, A. & M. Sato (2010). How should noticing be measured? Evidence from classroom research on correctivefeedback. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association for AppliedLinguistics, Atlanta, GA.Ammar, A. & N. Spada (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 28.4, 543–574.Carpenter, H., S. Jeon, D. MacGregor & A. Mackey (2006). Recasts as repetitions: Learners’interpretations of native speaker responses. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28.2, 209–236.Cathcart, R. & J. Olsen (1976). Teachers’ and students’ preferences for correction of classroomconversation errors. In J. Fanselow & R. Crymes (eds.), On TESOL ’76. Washington, DC: TESOL,41–53.Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors.Language Learning 27, 29–46.Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Chenoweth, N. A., R. Day, A. E. Chun & S. Luppescu (1983). Attitudes and preferences of ESLstudents to error correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6.1, 79–87.Clark, S. (1995). The generation effect and the modeling of associations in memory. Memory&Cognition23, 442–455.DeKeyser, R. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing secondlanguage grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.), Focus on form in classroom second languageacquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 42–63.DeKeyser, R. (2001). Automaticity and automatization. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second languageinstruction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 125–151.Doughty, C. & E. Varela (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (eds.),Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 114–138.Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The role of linguistic target, length, anddegree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29.4, 511–537.Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses aslanguage awareness. The Modern Language Journal 94.1, 1–21.Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27.2, 305–352.Ellis, R. (1994). A theory of instructed second language acquisition. In N. Ellis (ed.), Implicit and explicitlearning of languages. New York: Academic Press, 79–114.Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instrucion. Language Learning 51 (Supplement1), 1–46.Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review 19,18–41.Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A.Mackey (ed.), 339–360.Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Ellis, R., H. Basturkmen & S. Loewen (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. LanguageLearning 51.2, 281–318.Ellis, R. & Y. Sheen (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition 28.4, 575–600.Erlam, R. & S. Loewen (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The CanadianModern Language Review 67.4, 877–905.Goo, J. & A.Mackey (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35.1.Hattie, J. & H. Timperley (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research 77.1, 81–112.Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, andpractice. The Modern Language Journal 62.8, 387–398.Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form of –te i (ru) by learners ofJapanese as a foreign language. Language Learning 54.2, 311–394.Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction: Differentialeffects of L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25, 1–36.Kowal, M. & M. Swain (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’awareness. Language Awareness 3.1, 73–93.Lightbown, P. & N. Spada (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative languageteaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12, 429–448.Loewen, S., S. Li, F. Fei, A. Thompson, K. Nakatsukasa, S. Ahn & X. Chen (2009). L2 learners’ beliefsabout grammar instruction and error correction. The Modern Language Journal 93.1, 91–104.Loewen, S. & T. Nabei (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. InA. Mackey (ed.), 361–377.Loewen, S. & J. Philp (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness,and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal 90.4, 536–556.Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot,

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie& T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 413–468.Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Long, M., S. Inagaki & L. Ortega (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models andrecasts in Japanese and Spanish. The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 357–371.Lyster, R. (1998a). The ambiguity of recasts and repetition in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 20.1, 51–81.Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types andlearner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 48, 183–218.Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 26.3, 399–432.Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.Lyster, R. & J. Izquierdo (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning 59.2,453–498.Lyster, R. & H. Mori (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition 28.2, 269–300.Lyster, R. & L. Ranta (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form incommunicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19.1, 37–66.Lyster, R. & K. Saito (2010).Oral feedback in classroom SLA: Ameta-analysis. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition 32.2, 265–302.Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics 27.3,405–430.Mackey, A. (ed.) (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mackey, A., M. Al-Khalil, G. Atanassova, M. Hama, A. Logan-Terry & K. Nakatsukasa (2007).Teachers’ intentions and learners’ perceptions about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom.Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 1.1, 129–152.Mackey, A., S. Gass &K.McDonough (2000).How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studiesin Second Language Acquisition 22.4, 471–497.Mackey, A. & J. Goo (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. InA. Mackey (ed.), 407–452.Mackey, A. & R. Oliver (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System 30,459–477.Mackey, A., R. Oliver & J. Leeman (2003). Interactional input and the incorporation of feedback:An exploration of NS–NNS and NNS–NNS adult and child dyads. Language Learning 53.1,35–66.Mackey, A. & J. Philp (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts,responses, and red herrings? The Modern Language Journal 82.3, 338–356.Mackey, A., J. Philp, T. Egi, A. Fujii & T. Tatsumi (2002). Individual differences in working memory,noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. In P. Robinson (ed.), Individual differences andinstructed language learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 181–209.Norris, J. & L. Ortega (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitativemeta-analysis. Language Learning 50.3, 417–528.Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal 10.2, 71–89.Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition17.4, 459–481.Oliver, R. & A.Mackey (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. TheModernLanguage Journal 87.4, 519–543.Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Panova, I. & R. Lyster (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom.TESOL Quarterly 36.4, 573–595.Saito, K. (2013). Re-examining effects of form-focused instruction on L2 pronunciation development:The role of explicit phonetic information. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 35.1.Saito, K. & R. Lyster (2012a). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2pronunciation development of /®/ by Japanese learners of English. Language Learning 62.2, 595–633.Saito, K.&R. Lyster (2012b). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel acquisition.TESOL Quarterly 46.2, 385–396.

Rowe, Mary Budd. Science, Silence and Sanctions. Science and Children. September 1996, pp. 35- 37 Schmidt,R. (1995).Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention andawareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning. Honolulu,HI: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, 1–63.Spada, N. & P. Lightbown (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms.Studies in Second Language Acquisition 15.2, 205–224.Mackey & C. Polio (eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction. New York: Routledge, 157–175.Swain, M. & S. Lapkin (2011). Languaging as agent and constituent of cognitive change in an olderadult: An example. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 14.1, 104–117.Thornbury, S. (2006) Grammar. Resource books for teachers. OUP.Yang, Y. (2009). Feedback and uptake in Chinese EFL classrooms: In search of instructional variables.The Journal of ASIA TEFL 6.1, 1–22.Yoshida, R. (2008a). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals41.3, 525–541.Yoshida, R. (2008b). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types. LanguageAwareness 17.1, 78–93.

How to Use Cuisenaire Rods: http://busyteacher.org/2471-how-to-teach-english-using-cuisenaire-rods-15.html

The Art of Error Correction, References

Dekeyser, R. M. (1993), The Effect of Error Correction on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77: 501–514. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.Han, Z-H. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-72.Krashen, S. (1987). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Prentice-Hall International. Loewen, S. & J. Philp (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal 90.4, 536–556.Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal 10.2, 71–89.Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS–NNS conversation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 17.4, 459–481.Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369 32

Documents

Art of Error Correction - ETAS Learning Journal The Art of Error Correction ... Dictogloss The Art of Error Correction Activity: ... Promotes listening,