Correcting Errors

in the Communicative Speaking Class

Hairus Salikin

Abstrak
Peranan pengoreksian dalam pengajaran Bahasa Inggris, terutama kelas
‘speaking’ menjadi perdebatan sejak lama, demikian juga cara pemberian umpan
balik atau pengoreksian. Belum dapat diketahui dengan pasti metode yang efektif
untuk pengoreksian kesalahan, sebab setiap pembelajar bahasa asing
mempunyai kepekaan yang berbeda terhadap umpan balik yang diberikan.
Namun demikian, masih dapat disajikan beberapa pandangan dan hasil
penelitian para ahli di bidang linguistik yang dapat membantu para pengajar dalam
memberikan umpan balik kepada pembelajar dalam kelas ‘speaking’. Tiga
kategori cara pengoreksian yang dapat digunakan yaitu pengoreksian secara
selektif, mengoreksi istilah yang propduktif, dan pengoreksian konstruktif.

Kata-kata kunci:
speaking errors, signs of learning, types of errors, errors correction, classroom
atmosphere.

Introduction
The role of correction in foreign language (FL) teaching has been an issue
for quite some time and opinions vary as to whether correction is effective or not.
That is why, it is necessary to know way of correcting errors. This project will
discuss how to correct errors in the communicative speaking class. Although there
has been a small number of research conducted on the reaction of students to the
correction of their errors (Chenoweth et al, 1983), there is a great need to hear
what the learners think of oral error correction. The teachers often correct the
students without considering what the learners think of oral error correction.
Jacobovits, as cited in Holey and Freday (1971), believes that students’ inability to
speak the foreign language may be due to their teachers’ unreasonable high
demands.
The problems of how to handle errors have always perplexed foreign
language teachers, and this situation becomes even more perplexing with the
advent of Communicative Approach. Prior to this, during the Audiolingual, Structural
and Behaviorist period, classroom drills were designed so that students would do
their pattern drills without making mistakes. However the Communicative Approach
sends a different message to the teachers; ‘Get your students to communicate at
all costs’ (Mendelson, 1990). This means that teachers should be tolerant to their
students errors. The central discussion of this paper is that how should teachers
handle errors when they occur in speaking class. In the speaking class. teachers

JIBS (Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra) Vol. 1/ No. 1/ Januari – Juni 2001 28
are faced with the dilemma of how to correct errors without causing the students
become hesitant or nervous about talking.

Problems in Defining Errors

Defining errors in FL teaching is not a simple matter because it is probably
not seen in the same way by different observers. Lennon (1991) points out that a
universal and applicable definition of FL cannot be formulated since it could be
defined according to situation, reference group, interlocutor, style and pronunciation
pressure. However, working definition of error is needed as a reference point for
this discussion. Allwright and Bailey (1991) point out that the teacher’s response to
the student’s utterances could be considered the most important criterion for
judging error in formal classroom instruction of FL teaching. From their perspective,
it might be beneficial to define error as ‘ student’s utterances that need to be
improved’. In addition, there are some factors that have to be accounted for when
defining errors in the communicative speaking class; Are we able to be consistent
in handling errors?, How do we correct. Who does the corrections. When do we
correct and what do we correct?.

The Importance of Errors

There is a significant shift in attitude towards learner errors. If traditional
review of errors in FL learning agues that errors are like sin, they should be avoided
(Brook cited in Hendrickson, 1978), to day, errors are viewed as an integral part of
the language learning, process and they are very significant (Dubin and Olshtain,
1990). Clark cited in Cohen (1975) proposes another notion by saying that
information about errors must be regarded as punishment. It should be treaded as
a form of information to the learner as well as the teachers. Hendrickson (1978)
cited a number of studies which found that errors are essential as signal that
learning is taking place and students’ progress and success could be indicated by
error occurrence. He believes that when teachers are tolerant of some students
errors, they might feel more confident about using the target language than if the
errors are corrected. Furthermore, Gorbert (1979) suggests that errors must be
seen not as signs of failure, but as signs of learning itself.

Error Correction
It is very essential to note that there are two types of errors; performance
errors and competence errors. Performance errors are those that can be corrected

Correcting Errors in the Communicative Speaking Class (Hairus Salikin) 29

by the learners and competence errors are made as a result of an inaccurate rule
or absence of that rule in the learners interlanguage (Mendelson 1990). Teachers
should always refer to learners and ask them to correct whatever they can before
having other given their feedback, because a number of the errors identified are
bound to be performance errors,
Mendelshon (1990) added that error correction is divided into two very broad
categories; linguistic correction and sociolinguistic correction. The first includes
correction of grammar, pronunciation and other linguistic system. Sociolinguistic
correction includes register, tone of voice and body language. Providing linguistic
feedback and sociolinguistic one are important in the FL teaching. However, it must
be noted that sociolinguistc correction is much more important than linguistic
correction. In normal communication, even when people talking in their mother
tongue, linguistics errors often exist without breaking the communication.
It is a conventional wisdom not to destroy the flow of communication by
stopping the learners to correct them. Teachers must avoid interrupting
communicative exchanges. This means a postponement of error correction until the
end of the exchange or interaction could be a good idea. There are, however,
certain situations in which immediate correction is necessary, and this is when
communication has broken down because of both some linguistics and
sociolinguistic difficulties. It is very essential to note that the correction must not
make learners lose their face so that they do not like to communicate.

Error Correction Criteria

Nunan (1989) asserts that one of the functions of the teachers in the
classroom is to correct learner’s errors. However, whether it is effective or not
remains open to discussion. That is why this paper only proposes some criteria of
error correction that might work effectively. Mendelson (1990) argues that there are
three criteria for efficient and effective errors correction; correct selectively, choose
productive items, correct constructively.

Selective Error Correction

It is essential to note that it is impossible for the teachers to correct all the
errors that students make. When they are overcorrected they may become
discouraged and confused, this would probably stifle the communication. That is
why it is necessary to view errors from the learners’ point of view. Chenoweth et al
(1989) claim that learners preferences to error correction is essential, since
corrective feedback is provided for the sake of the learners. Teachers are not

JIBS (Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra) Vol. 1/ No. 1/ Januari – Juni 2001 30
encouraged to correct every errors the learners make while they are talking. The
teachers must understand the students preferences of errors that should be
corrected. Cathcart and Olsen (1976) found that students preferred pronunciation
to be corrected when talking. According to their findings pronunciation is important
to be corrected because when learners mispronounce certain words,
communication can be confusing. Grammar mistakes or errors should be tolerated
as long as they did not break the communication. Hendrickson (1978) believes that
the learners do not like to be corrected for each minor errors they made because
this practice destroys their confidence to use the target language. It is suggested
that the teachers should be more tolerant to errors that do not destroy
communication. Correction often creates a lack of confidence in speaking, and
overt correction can lead to loss of face with may discourage the learners further
attempts to practice (Allan, 1991). It is common knowledge that lots of learners do
not care about accuracy as long as they get the message across.

Choice of Productive Items for Correction

The decision as to what to correct should be based on the rule that the
teachers should concentrate on that will be most productive for the learners in
future communication. This criterion applies to all aspects of language correction;
lexical, syntactic, phonological etc. Regardless of those errors, the teachers should
make a snap decision using the criterion of what will be most productive to the
students, and concentrate on those errors. This is not an easy job for the teachers,
because the teachers usually are not consistent in treating errors. It should be
remembered that the role of correction in language learning is still far from clear.
Chaudron (1988) argues that effectiveness of correction is difficult to demonstrate.
It is interesting to note that although the learners need correction (Holley and
King, 1971, Cohen 1990, Cathcart and Olsen 1976), it is not acceptable to correct
every errors when they are speaking. Hendrickson (1978) found that the learners
prefer not to be marked down for each minor speaking error and writing error
because this practice destroys their confidence and forces them to spend so much
effort on details that they lose to overall ability to use the language. There is no a
single theory that tells us the whole story of effective items of correction.
Nevertheless, it might be beneficial to present Hendrickson’s idea (1978) that
correcting three types of errors might be useful to foreign language learning; errors
that impair communication significantly, errors that have highly stigmatizing effects
on the listeners or readers, and errors that occur frequently in learner’s speaking
and writing.

Correcting Errors in the Communicative Speaking Class (Hairus Salikin) 31

Constructive Error Correction
Creating a very good atmosphere in the classroom is very essential to gain
the successful language learning. According to Mendelshon (1990) this is
connected to classroom management , and the attitudes that develops in the class.
It is strongly believed that the classroom atmosphere should be built on a premise
of mutual respect. This means learners and the teachers should respect each
other. The classroom must be healthy ; in a communicative speaking class there
should be a place where there is a lot laughing with others, but there is never any
laughing at anyone. The speaking class should be a sheltered environment in which
it is always safe to take risk for the students to try thing out without fear or ridicule.
By this the learners might be more confident to use the language they are learning.
Correcting errors is a delicate matter because everyone has a fragile ego
and not everyone responds positively to unsoftened correction. Therefore,
correction must always be handled with care. The teachers should be careful when
correcting errors. Different learners will react to feedback given by their teachers in
different way.

Suggestion
Correcting errors in a communicative speaking class needs a serious
treatment since every learner will give different reaction to the feedback given by
teachers. The aim of speaking class is to make the learners use the language they
learn. That is why, it is worth considering that teachers should be more tolerant to
the students errors in speaking class. It is hoped that the teachers correct
selectively, choose productive items, and correct constructively.

Bibliography
Allan, Diana (1991) ‘Tape Journal : bridging the gap between communication and
correction’. English Teaching Journal, Volume 45
Allwright, Dick and Bailey, Kathleen M (1991) Focus on the language classroom:
introduction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge University
Press
Chenoweth, N. Anne; Day, Richard R; Chun Ann E and Luppescu, Stuart (1983), ‘ Attitude
preferences of ESL students to error correction’ Studies in second language
acquisition, volume 56
Cohen, Andrew D (1975) Error correction and the training of language teachers’.Modern
Language Journal, Volume 56
Dubin, Faraida; Olshtain, Elite (1986) Course Design Cambridge University Press
Gorbet, Frances (1979) ‘To Err is Human’: Errors Analysis and Child Language Acquisition.
English Language Teaching Journal, Volume 34

JIBS (Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra) Vol. 1/ No. 1/ Januari – Juni 2001 32
Hendrickson, James H (1978) ‘Error correction in foreign language teaching; recent theory,
research and practice’. Modern Language Journal, Volume 62
Holey, Freday M and King, Janet K (1971) Imitation and correction in foreign language
learning’ Modern Language Journal, volume 55
Lennon, Paul (1991) Error : Some problems of Definition, Identification and Distinction’.
Applied Linguistics, Volume 12
Mendelson, David (1990) How to Correct Errors in the Communicative Language Talking
Class. Prospect, Volume 5
Nunan, D (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning Cambridge University Press

Correcting Errors in the Communicative Speaking Class (Hairus Salikin) 33