1. Error Correction as an Option in Form-focused Instruction

2. Error correction The common belief: Error correction is considered as an isolated phenomenon that just happens in the classroom because learners are bound to produce inaccurate language forms and teachers have to deal with them in one way or another, as it is part of their job.

3. Such an approach (assuming error correction a general aspect of language teaching) is visible in many of the textbooks and research studies. -Hedge (2000): for learners, classroom error correction is part of a wider process of recognizing and understanding their errors and then having opportunities to try and try again. -Brown (2001): considers the role of error treatment in grammar instruction alone.

4. A merit of this approach It provide the teachers with guidelines on what to do in specific situations in the classroom in order to achieve two goals: -Encouraging learners to participate in classroom exchanges as much as possible -Ensuring at the same time that the language they produce is up to standard.

5. weaknesses of this approach -It fails to link error correction with the instructional goals being pursued in a particular classroom. -It fails to demonstrate how it could most beneficially be used to assist the achievement of goals. -It will divert learners’ attention from what is being taught -It will be insufficient to lead to the acquisition of the forms that are to be acquired.

6. A new approach to corrective feedback Corrective feedback is considered as one of the options in form-focused instruction. It is understood as any attempt on the part of the teacher to encourage learners to attend to, understand, and gain greater control over the target language features (grammatical, lexical, phonological, pragmalinguistic). - It can be planned or spontaneous. - It can vary along numerous dimensions. - It can be applied with the purpose of developing the knowledge of rules and the ability to use them in real- time communication.

7. It is intended to: -provide a brief overview of crucial issues related to corrective feedback (CF). -The concepts of error and error correction will be defined. -Discuss the place of error correction in the language classroom. -The distinction between implicit and explicit knowledge and learning will be discussed. -Discuss the role of CF within different frameworks in FFI.

8. Definitions and scope There is no agreement among specialists as to how the notion of error itself should be defined. The definitions presented so far over the years are far from satisfactory. The most common approach: Comparing the utterances generated by learners with those that native speakers would produce is a similar situation, and to determine whether and to what extent the linguistic forms deviate from the accepted. This is supported by specialists such as Lennon (1991) and James (1998).

9. James (1998) suggested that learners’ ignorance of the target language norms should be judged according to 4 criteria: 1.Grammaticality (adherence to pertinent rules) 2.Acceptability ( suitability in a particular context) 3.Correctness (compliance with prescriptive normative standards) 4.Strangeness and infelicity (purposeful breaches of the code and problems connected with pragmatics)

10. Weaknesses of this approach The reference to native speaker norm suffers from a number of weaknesses: 1.There exists different varieties of the target language 2.There exists different dialects within each variety. 3.The way people speak depends on a multitude of variable (age, gender, education, social status, context) 4.The majority of teachers are not native speakers, and the model they provide for their learners is far from perfect.

11. The weaknesses mentioned above necessitate the proposition of a definition that is more reflective of classroom reality. George (1972): the main criterion is deciding whether or not an utterance is erroneous is the response on the part of the teacher. -Learners might say something that is grammatical, acceptable, correct, and felicitous, bur is still subject to the teacher’s corrective reaction, since it might break the rules of classroom discourse. e.g. failure to produce a complete answer.

12. A reasonable solution seems to be the definition offered by Chaudron (1986). Errors are: 1.Linguistic forms or content that differ from native speaker norms or facts. 2.Any other behavior which is indicated by the teacher as needing improvement This view; however, has a caveat: It is combined with the view that reference to native speakers norms is a definitive factor is error recognition and correction.

13. Error correction/ feedback Many specialists distinguish between error correction and feedback on the grounds that feedback is a much broader concept and encompasses error correction. All error correction is feedback. All feedback is nor error correction. This view is justified when: Feedback includes different types of repair (negative, positive), cognitive (relating to comprehension), and affective (concerning attitudes) information.

14. The place of error correction in the foreign language classroom -The provision of corrective feedback on learners’ errors is one of the hallmarks of foreign language teaching. Two points to keep in mind: 1.Learners expect to be corrected on their inaccurate oral and written production in the hope of learning something from it. 2.Most teachers feel the error correction is one of their responsibilities.

15. In language classes, much of the teacher-led interaction is dominated by a three-phase discourse structure known as the IRF (initiation, response, and feedback). 1.The teacher asks a question. 2.The learner provides a response. 3.And the teacher provides feedback (corrective or evaluative) The feedback in IRF is in most cases: Immediate, explicit, output-based

16. Error correction in language classes is also commonplace in written production, both in product- oriented approaches and process-oriented approaches. In this case, in contrast to feedback given in oral utterances, there is no danger of getting in the way of meaning and message conveyance, disturbing learners’ thought processes, or triggering negative affective reactions.

17. Changing perspectives on the role of error correction Russell (2009): “Error correction has a long and controversial history, whether and how to correct errors usually depends on the methodological perspective to which a teacher ascribes” (p.21). The importance of corrective feedback can be viewed as a function of the changes in the perceptions of the role of FFI in foreign language teaching.

18. Three major perspectives are visible on the role of corrective feedback: 1.Focus on forms approach (Long, 1991) 2.Focus on meaning approach 3.Focus on form approach (Long, 1991)

19. Focus on forms approach -It is the traditional language teaching. -The assumption is that language is a system of linguistic forms and functions and classroom learners (adults) can learn linguistic features explicitly. -Learners were presented with sequence of forms planned in advance -The forms should be learned in an additive way.

20. In this approach error correction was used extensively. It was considered a complement of the techniques and procedures employed in the classroom. Criticisms: -Learners couldn’t use the learned forms in authentic communication [Knowledge problem (Larsen-Freeman)]. -Some theoretical positions began to question the utility of formal instruction such as Krashen’s (1981) Monitor Model.

21. Focus on Meaning approach -Advocated zero grammar option -Learning and acquisition are distinctive processes. -Little or no place for the correction of learners’ errors. -Non-interventionist approach Criticisms: -Having limited impact on classroom reality in many parts of the world. -FOM was insufficient to lead to high levels of proficiency -FFI works and its effects are more durable.

22. Focus on form approach -Drawing learners’ attention to forms in the course of meaningful communication. -Combination of FonFs and FoM. -The provision of corrective feedback is clearly one of the most important techniques used in this approach.

23. Behaviorism, nativism, interactionism and corrective feedback Behaviorism: -Language learning is similar to other types of learning. -It involves the process of habit formation. -Use of external feedback (positive/ negative) -Errors should be avoided at all costs.

24. Nativism: -The ability to learn language is innate. -Existence of LAD and UG. -In language learning we only need positive evidence or access to language data.

25. Interactionism: -It is psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic in nature. e.g. interaction hypothesis, output hypothesis, sociocultural theory - Corrective feedback is an integral part of learning since it triggers noticing, output modifications.

26. Explicit and implicit learning and knowledge Explicit learning is input processing with the conscious intention to find out whether the input information contains regularities and. If so, to work out the concepts and riles with which these regularities can be captured (Hulstijn, 2005, p. 131). Implicit learning is input processing without such intention, taking place subconsciously. The processes of explicit learning and implicit learning can contribute to the development of explicit and implicit knowledge respectively.

27. The distinction between explicit and implicit knowledge can be similar to the distinction between: Formal practice / functional practice Learned knowledge / acquired knowledge (Krashen, 1981) Declarative knowledge/ procedural knowledge

29. Why do explicit and implicit knowledge gain importance? The influence of FFI, including corrective feedback is often considered in terms of its influence on explicit and especially implicit knowledge. A question which remains unanswered: However, it is never entirely clear whether superior performance in a communication task can be attributed to the development of the implicit knowledge or the automatization of the explicit knowledge.

30. The obvious fact is: formal instruction facilitates in the vast majority of cases mostly the development of explicit 2 nd language knowledge. If we accept this fact, some questions will arise that need to be answered: 1.What is the relationship between the two types of knowledge representation? 2.Are the two systems distinct, or are there any intermediary stages of expliciteness in knowing a specific linguistic feature? 3.Can explicit knowledge turn into implicit knowledge and the other way round?

31. Controversial opinions regarding the above questions - Krashen (1981); and Paradis (2004): the two systems are dichotomous rather than continuous. -Karmiloff-Smith (1992); Doughty and Williams (1998); and Ullman (2001): explicitness and implicitness are a matter of degree -Three positions regarding the interface between the two: a)The non-interface position b)The string interface position c)The weak interface position

32. The importance of explicit/ implicit knowledge becomes conspicuous when we realize the fact that these two systems tie with the issue of instruction, or “an attempt to intervene in interlanguage development” (Ellis, 2009, p.16). The fact is: differentiating between the two instructional approaches by listing their distinctive features, oversimplifies these two concepts. For instance: Ellis (2009)  both explicit and implicit instruction can be planned or spontaneous. Therefore, the distinction between the two should be viewed in terms of a continuum rather than a dichotomy.

33. Explicit / implicit instruction as a continuum and the role of corrective feedback: There is a lot of feedback options that can be placed within this continuum. -An entirely explicit indication of an erroneous form: You made a mistake! It is the past tense. Try again! -An implicit error correction such as recast Even in this case, there may be a difference between the perceptions of the teacher and learners in terms of the nature of instruction: e.g. the teacher’s recast which is intended to be implicit may be followed by a question from a learner who needs explicit explanation.

34. Corrective feedback in frameworks of FFI Different definitions of FFI have been proposed by specialists, e.g. Long and Robinson (1998), Spada (1997), Ellis (2001), and Loewen (2011). Spada (1997): any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners’ attention to form either implicitly or explicitly, within meaning based approaches to L2 instruction, and in which a focus on language is provided in either spontaneous or predetermined ways.

35. All of these definitions of FFI, with their similarity and differences stress that corrective feedback is an indispensable component of FFI. Long’s (1991) original formulation of the concept of FonF provides a strong rationale for reliance on error correction, because it is the most obvious way in which learners’ attention can be temporarily diverted to formal aspects of the target language.

36. Long and Robinson (1998): in FonF approach explicit and implicit negative feedback are prevalent. -Implicit negative feedback is the most promising especially if it happens through corrective recasts which reformulates the learner’s utterance to make it more target-like and at the same time preserve its intended meaning. -It is unobtrusive. -It should be immediately contingent (directed at previously occurring utterances). -Such an approach promotes simultaneous processing of form, meaning and function within optimal cognitive window of opportunity. -In that case, the learner still holds in memory his/her output and the contingent input of the interlocutor.

37. All the perspectives in FFI and FonF stress the importance of the provision of corrective feedback. However, the most flexible and inclusive is the stance adopted by Doughty and Williams (1998). They allow the possibility of the following focus on form: Reactive: in response to learner need Proactive: planned in advance Explicit: with learner awareness Implicit: without such awareness Integrated: embedded within communicative activities Sequential: preceding or following such activities

38. Techniques and procedures in Doughty and Williams (1998) viewpoint These techniques are ordered from the most implicit to the most explicit: Input flood: seeding the text with the target feature Task essentialness: using tasks whose completion depends on the use of the form Input enhancement: enhancing the salience of the target form in the text Negotiation: using confirmation checks or clarification requests in response to erroneous utterances Recasts: corrective reformulations

39. Techniques and procedures in Doughty and Williams (1998) viewpoint Output enhancement: using clarification requests to target a specific structure Interaction enhancement: a three-phase procedure combining input enhancement, output enhancement, and explicit grammatical explanation Dictogloss: collaborative reconstruction of a text Consciousness raising: solving target language grammatical problems interactively Garden path: learners are deliberately induced to make an overgeneralization error.

40. Error correction and the FonF techniques: Many of the techniques and procedures in FonF rely on error correction (negotiation, recasting, output enhancement, interaction enhancement). Some of these techniques include a stage in which error correction is indispensable (task essentialness, consciousness raising).

41. Many of the taxonomies presented by different specialists (Ellis, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2002; Williams, 2005; and Loewen, 2011) regarding the FonF approach have overlapping parts. The main differences reside in the use of terminology.

42. A taxonomy of options in FonF (Williams, 2005)

43. Corrective feedback and FonFs In FonFs, instruction typically adheres to the well-known principle of gradual progression from the introduction of a structure, having students use it in controlled exercises, and finally encouraging them to employ it in more communicative ways. This procedure is known as PPP (presentation, practice, production). Error correction has an important role in all three stages. However, it will perform different functions, and it will be carried out through different techniques.

44. Presentation: When a particular linguistic feature is introduced, the teacher may react when students display their erroneous understanding of a deductive explanation, or discover the wrong rule in the case of an inductive presentation.

45. Practice: Corrective feedback is necessary as it helps students better understand the rules and test their hypotheses when they are working on oral and written accuracy-based activities. - The corrective feedback should perhaps be explicit and rely on explanations in order for it to have good effects.

46. Production: When learners are using the features to attain communicative goals, the treatment of error in their spoken and written output is inevitable.

47. Options in FonFs (Ellis, 1997; Pawlak, 2004)

48. Learner performance options: techniques to elicit the use of the targeted language item from the learners Feedback options: devices used to tell learners if such use was accurate