霍鑫紅++田雪靜

【Abstract】This paper reports on a study which investigated the effects of correction of students grammatical mistakes on acquisition. Specifically， it compared the effects of when to correct， immediate vs. delayed correction， and how to correct， explicit vs. implicit correction. It also investigated the relative effects of correction of morphological vs.syntactic features and correction of developmental early vs. developmental late features.Data for the study were collected from 50 intermediate level students of English as a foreign language in Dalian University of Finance and Economy. Each participant was required to read and then retell a written text in their own words during an oral interview with the researcher. During or following the interview， the researcher corrected the participants grammatical mistakes implicitly or explicitly. Individualized tests focusing on the mistakes that had been corrected were constructed for each participant and administered. Statistical analyses were conducted on the scores participants received on their individualized tests.

【Key words】mistake correction； acquisition； pedagogy； morphological； syntactic

1. Introduction

Mistake correction has been widely recognized as vital in second language acquisition and teaching in the last two decades.

According to the error analysis hypothesis， students production of erroneous structures can assist us in understanding their cognitive processes. More specifically， mistakes are evidence of the processes and strategies of language acquisition. Learners are assumed to create a language system known as inter-language， in which learners themselves impose structure on the available linguistic data， drawing upon their knowledge of the mother tongue and of the second foreign language. Inter-language refers to independent systematic knowledge of a second language native language children as well as second language learners hold in the process of learning. Learners formulate an internalized system which enables them to synthesize linguistic data， the system being distinct from both the learners native language and the target language.

2. Form-Focused Instruction

Focus on Forms and focus on Form

Form-focused instruction can further be divided into two types， distinguished from each other nominally only by singular vs.plural terms： focus on Forms and focus on Form. The focus on Forms approach involves teaching grammar in isolated linguistic forms in accordance with a structural syllabus. Here the teacher preselects specific forms for attention， and meaning and communication play a lesser role in this type of instruction. In other words， it is not a meaning -centered approach. And it is believed that focus on Forms cannot help learners acquire structures and that it hinders language learning.

By contrast focus on Form involves focusing the learners attention on form when the primary purpose is on meaning rather than on grammar. For acquisition to take place， attention to meaning alone is not sufficient and that some degree of attention to form is also required.

However， as well as the issue of focus on form or forms， the issue of learner attention emerged as another significant factor in language acquisition. Attention is believed by some researchers to have a crucial role in learning. Some of these researchers go so far to claim that subliminal learning is impossible and that learning is the product of the conscious noticing of forms and that attention is essential for focus on forms to be beneficial to learners.

Focus on for can be classified into two different classes： proactive focus on form and reactive focus on form. The former refers to occasions when focus on form is planned in advance， and the latter refers to the reaction of the interlocutor to learners mistakes. Instruction can be regarded as a proactive response to problem areas， which is to say， teachers can plan in advance to ensure that focus on form will occur. By contrast， mistakes correction is considered to be a reactive focus on form.

Reactive focus on form （mistake correction） can be categorized according to whether the response to the learners errors is given immediately after they make the mistakes or after some delay. This allows investigation of whether mistake correction works better when it takes place in an inter-actional context or an isolated setting. Some researchers argue that the best time to provide feedback to learners is when they are processing the input， at a time when there is a need for a form to fill the gap between their inter-language and the target language.

3. Mistake correction study

The study investigated the effects of correction of learners grammatical mistakes on acquisition. Data for the study were collected from 5o intermediate-level students of English as foreign language in Dalian University of Finance and Economy. Each participant was required to read and then retell a written text in their own words during an oral interview with the researcher. During or following the interview the researcher corrected the participants on their grammatical mistakes implicitly and immediately （using recast） or explicitly and immediately （providing meta-linguistic information）， or explicitly and in a delayed fashion. Individualized tests focusing on the mistakes that had been corrected were constructed for each participant and administered. Statistical analyses were conducted on the scores the participants received on their individualized tests. There were four research questions to be investigated.

3.1 Research question one investigated whether there was a difference in learning between the learners who were immediately corrected and those who were corrected later. The findings showed that immediate mistake correction and delayed mistake correction were equally effective in drawing the learners attention to discrepancies between their inter-language and target language forms. A number of reasons were suggested： （a） in both treatments learners received mistake correction in meaningful contexts， （b） the negotiation between the learner and the interlocutor make mistakes salient enough to increase their awareness， （c） feedback increased salience， （d） negotiation led to attention， （e） individualized attention was effective. Probably the main reason why there was no difference in the immediate and delayed correction was that in both treatments learners had available their erroneous utterances before corrections were provided. In other words， the researcher in both treatments recalled the erroneous utterance that the learner had made.

3.2 Research question two attempted to determine whether there was a difference in the effects of explicit correction and of implicit correction on language learning. The answer was ‘yes. Explicit correction was significantly more effective than implicit correction. A number of reasons for this were suggested： （a） explicit correction created more attention， （b） the fact that learners were explicitly corrected on their mistakes created a contrast with the form in their inter-language， （c） the provision of the correct form in implicit correction may not have been effective because it was less clear to learners what was wrong with their erroneous utterance and， without such understanding， hypothesis revision was not possible， （d） learners probable perceived the explicit corrections as corrective feedback requiring them to correct their mistakes， whereas this was not the case with the implicit feedback.

3.3 Research question three examined whether there was a difference in the effects of mistake correction on the learning of morphological and on the learning of syntactic features. The results indicted that correction of the morphological mistakes was significantly more effective than correction of the syntactic mistakes. It was suggested that morphological features were easier to learn because they were easier to understand meta-linguistically and easier to acquire， and also because many of them involved item learning， whereas the syntactic features entailed system learning.

3.4 Research question four examined whether there was any difference between the effects of the correction on early and late developmental errors. The results indicated that correction had a significantly greater effect on the learning of early developmental mistakes than it did on late developmental mistakes. This could be explained in terms of learners readiness to notice and understand early features. There was no interaction between the time of correction and the type of structure， indication that the effect of the timing of correction was the same for both early and late mistakes.

4. The implications of these results for both Chinese students English acquisition and language pedagogy are significant.

4.1 Whenever the right opportunity arises， teachers are advised to provide learners with meta-linguistic feedback on their mistakes.

4.2 Teachers are advised to use both types of correction depending on their goals of instruction. Teachers dont need to be scared of providing immediate correction when there is a need for such a correction. However， If they want to emphasize fluency in the context of a communicative activity， it might be better if they correct students in a delayed fashion. On the other hand， if they are less concerned with fluency and， instead， intend to focus on accuracy in the context of a communicative task， immediate correction would perhaps be the right choice.

4.3 Students developmental readiness is an important factor when deciding what types of mistakes to correct. The evidence from this study indicates that explicit meta-linguistic feedback works better with rules that are generally acquired in the early stages of language learning. If the feature is beyond the students current developmental stage， the corrective feedback is unlikely to work.

4.4 Implicit correction is more effective in correction complex structures， most of which are syntactic items. Teachers can correct students on their difficult features while they are talking， but this can be done by recasting their erroneous utterances.

References：

[1]Long，M（1991）.Focus on form.

[2]霍鑫紅，（2016）.Teaching Language and Cross-Cultural Skills though Drama.

[3]Tomasello，M.and Herron，C.（1989）.Feedback for language transfer errors.

[4]霍鑫紅，（2015）.Effect on Collaborative Assessment on Language Development and Learning.