The errors’ study is an important
part of students learning process, since they could be viewed by teachers and
students as potential indicators of weaknesses and important sources of
improvement. However, in some cases, teachers are not well prepared to give a
special treatment of those errors and some of them lost useful opportunities to
make their students aware about their importance. In fact, researchers have
tried to answer many questions related to the study of errors, some focused on
their taxonomy, others in their evaluation and others in their causes but those
studies have presented a lot of debilities and they have generated new doubts.
According to Hedge, Tricia (2000)”Errors are
conceived as undesirable forms of language, accuracy in grammatical rules are
one of the strongest aspects”. Fortunately, in spite of that the principles of
the communicative approach argue that teachers´ main task is providing students
with chances to use the language to interact with others. On this respect,
Brown(2004) claims that “Beyond grammatical and discourse elements in
communication, we are probing the nature of social, cultural and pragmatic
features of language and exploring pedagogical means for “real-life”
communication in classroom” (p.77)
In first place, one of the most
important aspects of error correction models is the way teachers conceive the
language assessment. It could be influenced by the way they perceive language,
since some teachers based their practices on behavioristic or audio-lingual models( among others) where
learning a language is thought as an accurate report of speech or writing texts,
more than as a mean to relate with others. The point is not just to frame
language learning in a correct production of well-structured forms but in a
natural process of interaction with others for both: comprehending what others
want to express and being understood. Based on Allwright D and Baley K (1994)”
Research on error treatment to date has been limited largely to accuracy
errors, which are relatively easy to identify, but clearly we will not be able to
say we know very much about the error treatment” (p. 85)
For that reason, giving an
adequate and meaningful feedback is the desired final step in teacher´s
assessment. This is the opportunity for students to make it better. However, we
often assigned tasks and evaluated them only once, without giving our students opportunities
for revising, reflecting, editing and delivering or presenting again evidencing
a process of growing which is followed step by step through practice. Skilbeck
(1984) says that “assessment is a process of determining and passing judgments
on student´s learning potential and performance”. However, we focus our
attention in detecting incorrect forms of language while they are trying to
produce something. So, what is the purpose to detect only failures in our
students? If we did so what is our role as a teachers in the learning process?
Secondly, based on the
behavioristic approach as cited by Ellis (1994) errors are the result of a
negative transfer of L1 habits. On the contrary, for mentalistic approaches
errors are considered as natural part of the learning process and labeled as intralingual
because they are constructed in the basis of L1.If errors correction is leaded
as the whole assessment of a process as a end-of term of a topic it will give
as just a part of the all learning process carried out by the student. That it
to say, the whole process imply a view not just on student´s failures as in a
countable corpus but also student´s strengths. For that reason, it is vital for
us as teachers to ask ourselves: Have students gained a clear idea of their errors
importance or how to overcome them? Do students have to opportunities to
correct and learn from their own errors?
Thirdly, it implies a
redefinition of errors analysis since the learner´s perception. Most of them
just view the paper full of red marks looking for the score and that´s all. The
majority of them do not analyze what their failures where and why. A good
process of errors corrections provides students with meaningful data to know
and to grow through the language reinforcement. Similarly, when they are
speaking and they are corrected they feel unsecured for a next time
participation so, they decide avoid the communicative situations and do not
take risks.
Finally, I would like to reflect
about the situation my little daughter of eight years old is facing up in her
English class, which is closely related with those wrong conceptions that some
teachers have about error corrections. Some weeks ago, when I was revising her
English notebook, I read a note made by the principal about my daughter´s lack
of quality to do things. He wrote “there is a lack of quality in everything”
and writes a 3.0 as a final score followed by his signature (see appendix 1). I
was really concerned about this situation because of many reasons: firstly, I
assumed it was a qualification of her notebook in terms of esthetic form
because he also made comments about her calligraphy and the use of pen. Secondly,
he was evaluating a process through a notebook record which was well presented
in terms of classroom work and esthetics. Thirdly, he is not an English teacher
so he does not know anything about its teaching and learning processes, so what
kind of criteria could he have to asses and to assign a mark? Then I talked to
my daughter, who is in fourth grade, and she told me she was really sad about
the score because her partners got a better mark and she did not comprehend why?
I asked her about her comprehension of the hard expression” lack of quality”
and she answered to me” it is my ugly calligraphy, drawings and coloring”. I
felt so terrible when I heard that but I just forgot that first signal.
That weekend was the beginning of
holy week and my sister was asked to write 20 sentences with the pronouns and
verb to be, also, to describe some members of the family supported by drawings.
I have noticed that she was studied at school something about present
continuous, then some adjectives and vocabulary related to clothing, and then
she was just working with pronouns and verb To Be in present. She was confused
about the use of Have, Ing forms, To Be and to wear and I thought teacher did
not deal a well coherent process because she was teaching at the end, the topic
she should be taught at the beginning. So, I gave my daughter some vocabulary
related to professions and places as necessary input to perform the first task described
above (to write the 20 sentences) it was easy for her to construct them and she
drew some images to associate the new words. When, she delivered her homework
her teacher looked at the sentences and they were good but when she looked at
the drawings she got angry and told to my daughter to pull the homework’s
sheets out and to repeat the whole task again. Finally, she wrote on the
notebook “do the homework again. There is a lack of quality!! (see appendix 1)
This time I was angry because of
teacher´s attitude, my daughter came back home sad saying she did not do things
well; she did not know anything about English that I was teaching her in a
wrong way. I decided to go to the school and to talk to the teacher. When I
arrived she began to make negative comments about my daughter’s low performance
in the subject and she affirmed that will lose the subject that period for sure
since she could not do anything correctly, for example she said “she did not
draw and color as a child of fourth grade”, also, she claimed that she was the
unique student who lost the oral evaluation and the written exam presented two
days before. I was in shock because I knew my daughter had the competence, so
what was happening with her performance? I required the exam to make some
analysis about it and when the teacher came back she told me “I apologize with
you because she passed the oral exam I was confused “. In that moment I felt
she was making judgments of my daughter performance based on her subjective
impressions.
However, she got a bad score in the written exam (2,0). I noticed that my daughter was ashamed, sad and unmotivated. When I was revising the text I realized my daughter had answered everything and her answers were related to the questions. Her errors were misspelling words and the incorrect use of noun- adjective (pants blue) but in general terms she tried to accomplish with the task (see appendix 2). As a teacher I consider there were a lot of big mistakes inside this assessment process, the use of disqualified and level appropriated comments for the teacher and the principal, the principal´s intromission in the process, the teacher preferences towards esthetics aspects more in the communicative purpose of language, her subjective wrong impressions about my daughter which were centered on her failures and the inadequate score she gave at the written text focused on detecting well written words and forms of language more than in the language function. According to Oller´s (1976) as cited by Allwright D and Baley K (1994) “teacher must provide learners with appropriate cognitive feedback as well as affective support” (p.99)
However, she got a bad score in the written exam (2,0). I noticed that my daughter was ashamed, sad and unmotivated. When I was revising the text I realized my daughter had answered everything and her answers were related to the questions. Her errors were misspelling words and the incorrect use of noun- adjective (pants blue) but in general terms she tried to accomplish with the task (see appendix 2). As a teacher I consider there were a lot of big mistakes inside this assessment process, the use of disqualified and level appropriated comments for the teacher and the principal, the principal´s intromission in the process, the teacher preferences towards esthetics aspects more in the communicative purpose of language, her subjective wrong impressions about my daughter which were centered on her failures and the inadequate score she gave at the written text focused on detecting well written words and forms of language more than in the language function. According to Oller´s (1976) as cited by Allwright D and Baley K (1994) “teacher must provide learners with appropriate cognitive feedback as well as affective support” (p.99)
REFERENCES:
Allwright, D and Bailey, K (1994). Focus on the
language classroom. The treatment of oral errors in language
classrooms (p. 82-86) Cambridge:
Unversity Press.
Brown, H. Douglas (1994). Teaching by principles. USA: Editorial Paramount.
Ellis,R (1994). The
study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hedge, Tricia(2000). Teaching and learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford U.P
Skilbeck (1984. School
Based Curriculum development. London:
Paul Chapman