Clozing in on oral errors

Glenn T. Gainer

Correction is provided in the oral language classroom to help learners

identify problematic areas, reformulate rules in their minds, and thus speak
more accurately. However, many correction techniques seem to frustrate
and intimidate rather than enlighten. This article reviews the literature on
correction and discusses some of the shortcomings of commonly used
correction techniques. It then goes on to describe how certain features of
the cloze procedure can be adapted into a simple correction procedure
which is effective in eliciting self- and peer-corrections from students.

A quandary

In recent years the value of correction

in the language
classroom
has been
questioned
by second-language
acquisition
theorists
and researchers.
Several empirical
studies have indicated
that correction
did not significantly decrease
the number
of student errors (Hendrickson,
1976, 1977b,
cited in Hendrickson,
1978; Cohen and Robbins,
1976). Krashen
(1982)
has also discussed
the inhibiting
effect of correction
on communication
in
the classroom.
However,
Cathcart
and Olsen (1976) reported
that all of
their subjects (188 ESL students
in the San Francisco
area) responded
in a
questionnaire
that they wanted
to have their oral mistakes
corrected.
Approximately
59 per cent of the subjects indicated
that they wished to be
corrected
all the time (ibid. p. 45).
These findings obviously
place the classroom
teacher in a quandary.
As
teachers, we have learned (usually the hard way) how inhibiting
correction
can be for learners
struggling
with a new language.
However,
those of us
who are attempting
to learn a second language
also realize that at times, a
simple correction
administered
by a teacher or even a friend can do exactly
what it was intended
to do: help us as learners
reformulate
a rule in our
minds and consequently
speak more accurately.
Unfortunately,
many commonly
used correction
techniques
often interrupt, intimidate,
or confuse rather than enlighten.
One problem
is that
many correction
techniques
fail to locate errors precisely
for the students.
Fanselow
(1977:588)
has observed
that teachers
frequently
respond
to
errors by shaking their heads or making responses
such as again. These
responses
neither locate errors nor do they clearly indicate that errors were
made. If the students do not know the location of the errors, and also which
then self-correction
is difficult
if not
parts of an utterance
are correct,
impossible.
Another
problem
is that teachers
tend to provide
correct
responses
without
giving the students
adequate
time to formulate
their utterances.
students
teaching
a
Holley and King (1971:496) o b served that graduate
course in German
responded
to hesitation
from the students
by providing
correct answers.
Allwright
(1975) has used the term error creating
to
describe
this type of teacher behaviour:
ELT Journal

Volume 43/1 January

1989

45

Oxford University Press 1989

articles

welcome

The teacher defines the failure by intervening

at a certain point in time
after the original elicitation.
One moment
later the learner might have
begun a perfectly acceptable
response.
(p. 100)
A third problem is that it may not be clear to a student that he or she is
actually
being corrected.
Chaudron
(1976 cited in Chaudron,
1977) has
mentioned
that affirmative
and corrective
responses
are often so similar
that learners
may have difficulty
in telling
the difference.
Fanselow
(1977:588) has also noted that teachers
provide correct models after both
correct and incorrect
student
utterances.
A suggestion

Correcting
wh-question
production

46

error

The deficiencies
mentioned
above may be partly due to the fact that
correction
of oral errors is usually provided
through
the oral medium.
When correction
is provided orally, the student must first hear the teachers
response
and realize that the response
was intended
to elicit a correction.
The student also has to figure out what the teacher is trying to correct, and
remember
the original utterance
which contained
the error. If the student is
able to do these things, then he or she can start to consider an appropriate
correction.
This is a complex set of steps and failure can occur at any point.
Fanselow
(1977:590) has stated that providing
correction
in written form
makes correction
more explicit and increases
redundancy.
I have an
additional
suggestion:
in written
forms of correction,
errors
can be
graphically
located with blanks such as those used in the cloze procedure.
By writing correctly produced
portions of an utterance
on the blackboard
in
the proper positions,
and drawing
cloze-type
blanks at the trouble spots,
the teacher can indicate
the location
of errors precisely
to the students.
Even utterances
which contain more than one error can be treated.
In addition to locating errors precisely, this form of correction
has several
other advantages.
First, it gives the students
more time to think, because
oral time constraints
are no longer in effect. Errors written on the blackboard in the manner described
can be thought of as problems
for solving,
and the students
can be given as much time as they need. In addition,
the
attention
of the entire class is focused on the error or errors, and all of the
students
can participate
in the correction
process.
The technique
also shows the students which parts of their utterances
are
correct. This occurs when the teacher writes the correctly
produced
words
on the blackboard.
In this way, the students
see that their attempts
are not
completely
wrong,
even if they do contain
errors. Thus, the technique
acknowledges
the students
present
level of competence
while providing
guidance toward more acceptable
forms. In the next section, I describe how
this technique
can be applied
to correct specific errors which occur in
wh-question
production.
I first devised this correction
technique
while using a listening comprehension approach
with Japanese
university
students.
I used a series of specially
prepared
talks and lecturettes
on various topics of general interest.
After
several months, the students were able to comprehend
this kind of material
well enough to answer true-false,
multiple-choice,
and short-answer
questions on the content.
They were also able to retell the main points of the
passage in their own words, if given time to prepare.
I had also hoped that the students
would ask questions
on points in the
passages that they did not understand
completely.
However,
the majority of
the students
seemed reluctant
to do this. There may be several linguistic
Glenn T. Gainer

articles

welcome

and sociolinguistic
reasons
for this reluctance.
First, many courses
at
Japanese
universities
are taught by the lecture method in large classes, and
questions
are not really expected or encouraged.
In addition,
grammatical
accuracy is highly stressed throughout
English education
in Japan; consequently,
many students
hesitate
to speak unless they are absolutely
sure
that their utterances
are grammatically
perfect.
This leads to a kind of
Catch-X
situation where the students avoid producing
syntactically
complex forms. To provide practice in the production
of wh-questions,
I decided
to have the students
attempt
to reproduce
comprehension
questions
that
I used cloze-type
blanks to locate the
they had answered.
In addition,
students
errors on the blackboard.
The first time I tried the technique
was after a listening
passage on the
life of Bruce Lee, the late kung fu actor. After the passage, I asked a series of
wh-questions
such as, Where was Bruce Lee born?, When was he born?, How many
brothers and sisters did he have?, etc. The students
were told to write the answer
to each question.
After reading all of the questions,
I called on individual
students
to read their answer and then reproduce
the question
answered.
Here is a sample transcript
of what happened:
T: Miss Tanaka. What is your answer for the first question?
S: San Francisco.
T: Correct.
Now, do you remember
the question?
(Student
looks a bit puzzled).
T: Do you remember
the first question
I asked you?
S: Where did Bruce Lee born?
T: Very close.
(Teacher writes correctly
produced
words on the blackboard
with a
blank in the second spot as follows: Where_____
Bruce Lee born?)
S: (Student
consults with a classmate).
Was.
T: Correct.
After the first question
was reproduced,
I continued
through
the list,
asking students
to read their answers and then reproduce
the questions.
I
found that locating
the errors in the manner
described
above usually
provided
the students
with enough
of a clue to make the appropriate
corrections.
The students
also seemed to enjoy the game-like
quality of the
exercise.
I also found that utterances
which contained
more than one error could
be treated effectively.
Here is another
example from the transcript.
T: Do you remember
the question
you just answered?
S: What kind work his father do?
T: Almost.
(Teacher
writes correctly
produced
words on the blackboard
with
blanks in the third and fifth spots as follows and points to the first
work______ his father do?)
blank: What kind____
s: Of.
T: Right. (Teacher writes of in the first blank and points to the second
blank).
S: Did.
T: Correct.
(Teacher
writes did in the second blank.)
At times, of course, some students
were not able to make the proper
corrections.
However, at these times I was usually able to elicit the required
47

Clozing in on oral errors

articles

welcome

corrections
from other members
of the class. Only rarely did I have to
provide the correction.
The students
worked together,
and at times several
students
contributed
to the reproduction
of one question.
In subsequent
classes, I found that the technique
could be modified to
various situations.
For example,
if a student
had difficulty
in starting
a
reconstruction,
I drew one blank for each word in the question.
Drawing
the complete
set of blanks gave the student extra time and also provided
a
clue to the form of the question.
In addition,
I would tell the student to look
at the answer again and consider what wh-word could possibly elicit such
an answer.
For example,
if the answer
was a place, the wh-word was
probably
where; if it was a time or a date, it was probably
when, etc. For
longer more difficult questions,
I would also provide some of the necessary
words as clues.
I also encouraged
the students
to attempt
paraphrases
if they did not
remember
the original
question
exactly.
This meant
that I had to be
prepared
to provide the appropriate
corrective
treatment
if the paraphrases
were produced
with errors. However,
it also provided
the opportunity
to
discuss the fact that there are always several ways of expressing
a particular
meaning.
Later I also found that the activity could be turned into a written task.
Instead
of asking the students
to reconstruct
the questions
orally,
I
instructed
them to refer to their answers and reproduce
all of the questions
in writing.
After the students
had finished
writing
all of the questions,
individual
students
were called on to read their reproductions
of each
question.
I then corrected
errors in the manner described
earlier.
Of course, use of the technique
is not restricted
to the correction
of errors
which occur in wh-question
production.
I have found that the technique
can be used effectively
to elicit corrections
for errors which occur in any
syntactic environment.
This is not to say that the technique
should be used
to correct all errors. When the students are involved in strictly communicative activities,
I agree that correction
should be omitted
or postponed.
However, when the students
are concentrating
on form, the teacher can use
the technique
to provide
the kind of feedback
that the students
need in
order to make self- and peer-corrections.
Conclusion

48

The purpose
of this article was to review some of the deficiencies
of
standard
correction
techniques
and to introduce
a technique
which the
writer has found to be more effective in eliciting corrections
from students.
The main features of the technique
are that it presents correction
in written
form and utilizes blanks to locate errors precisely
for the students.
This
makes correction
more explicit, gives the students
more time to think, and
allows the entire class to participate
in the correction
process.
It also
demonstrates
to the students
that their attempts
are not completely
wrong,
while, at the same time, providing
guidance
toward more grammatically
accurate
forms.
Perhaps
the main benefit of using this form of correction
is that it
increases
the amount
of self-correction
and peer-correction,
and reduces
the amount
of teacher-correction.
Now, empirical
research
is needed to
determine
if self- and peer-correction
does, in fact, lead to more acceptable
utterances
from the students.

Received September 1987

Glenn T. Gainer

articles

welcome

References

Allwright, R. 1975. Problems

in the study of teachers treatment
of learner
error in M. K. Burt and H.
Dulay (eds.): New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Bilingual Education: On TESOL 75.
Washington,
D.C.: TESOL,
1975.
Cathcart, R. L. and Judy E. W. B. Olsen. 1976.
Teachers
and students
preferences
for correction
of classroom
conversation
errors in J. Fanselow
and
R. Crymes (eds.): On TESOL 76. Washington,
D.C.:
TESOL,
1976.
Chaudron, C. 1977. A descriptive
model of discourse
in the corrective
treatment
of learners
errors. Language Learning 27: 29-46.
Cohen, A. and M. Robbins. 1976. Towards
assessing
relationship
interlanguage
performance:
the
between
selected
errors,
learners
characteristics,
and learners
explanations.
Language Learning 26:
45-66.

Fanselow, J. 1977. The treatment

of error in oral
work. Foreign Language Annals 10/5:583-93.
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.
Holley, F. M. and J. F. Ring. 1971. Imitation
and
correction
in foreign language
learning.
Modern Language Journal 55:494-98.
Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.

The author

Glenn T. Gainer is a lecturer at Fukuoka

University
in
Japan.
He has taught EFL in Japan for over nine years
and has co-authored
several listening-comprehension
textbooks.
His major interests
are listening
and classroom-oriented
research.

Clozing in on oral errors

49

articles

welcome