Non- vs. Native English Instructors’ Treatment of Oral Errors Research Paper

Introduction

In the course of teaching a language, it is common to encounter errors on the part of the teacher. Scholars like Zhu (2010) and Lyster (2002) have found that errors are brought about by an individual’s background. The same explains why a non-native speaker of a language has a high tendency to make errors (Pinker, 2007). When such a situation presents itself, the teacher’s approach in dealing with the learners is brought into scrutiny. The converse is also true.

The current literature review addresses oral errors by students and how the nativity of their instructors informs corrective measures. The review examines the various ways through which native and non-native teachers of the English language address oral mistakes committed by their learners. Zhu (2010) points out that a native speaker of a language will approach oral errors in a different manner compared to a non-native. Zhu (2010) argues that a native might overlook certain errors, whereas a non-native will address each and every oral mistake.

The review is divided into 2 sections. The first section looks at theoretical aspects of the subject. After this, a definition of errors are outlined and the attitudes towards mistakes made by students mentioned. Within the first section, the review also looks at error treatment. The notion of errors is well illustrated by such scholars as Kamila (2011), Pinker (2007), and Ferris (2011). The second section examines empirical aspects of the subject.

Theoretical Framework

The Notion of Errors

Ferris (2011) addresses the notion of error by looking at the various contributing factors. The scholar opines that errors in a language are defined variously by different scholars. There are a number of definitions suggesting that errors are associated with multiple components. Allwright and Bailey (as cited in Pinker, 2007) define an error as the deviation of a given linguistic aspect from its correct format.

The two researchers (Allwright and Bailey) argue that the ‘correct format’ of a language is that which is produced by a native speaker (Pinker, 2007). From their definition, it becomes apparent that when certain utterances are made (with regards to a given language), their correctness is determined by approval from a native speaker. One such example is evident in the pronunciation of certain words. An example is the word potato. A native English speaker will pronounce it as “pot-ay-to.” However, a non-native speaker will easily say “po-tah-to.”

The element of pronunciation as a causative agent for errors is advanced in a definition suggested by Brumfit, Broughton, Flavell, Hill, and Pincas (as cited in Ferris, 2011). They posit that linguistic errors act as violations of the tenets of a given language. It follows that these mistakes are considered as such when they are viewed as the property of the nativity of a particular language.

Separately, George (as cited in Kamila, 2011) suggests that errors are linguistic elements in nature. From the perspective of a language instructor, the elements become errors when they do not fit into the required matrix of a particular language. While pointing out this definition, Kamila (2011) cites the evident flaw in the aforementioned definition. To this end, a learner may provide responses that are not expected or accepted by the teacher. In some cases, the student may be a native speaker of the language, while the teacher is a non-native. In such cases, the definition of errors becomes problematic. However, George (as cited in Kamila, 2011) introduces the element of correctness as expected by a teacher.

Separately, linguist Brown Douglas (as cited in Kamila, 2011) argues that errors in a language are the noticeable discrepancies between a native speaker and a non-native or a learner. From this definition, the emphasis is placed on the correctness of grammar. For instance, one cannot say “Peter can eat a mango” to imply “Peter is eating a mango.”

The different definitions advanced to suggest that errors are determined upon an analysis of the originality of a given language. Consequently, the corrective measures to be employed are determined by whether the instructor is native to a language or not. However, Kamila (2011) issues a disclaimer by arguing that certain native speakers overlook grammatical requirements. Some non-native speakers have a firm grasp of grammatical aspects of a language, given that most of these elements are taught.

Definition of Error Treatment

Language instructors have different approaches to their treatment of errors. The manner in which the teacher or student responds to the given mistake is referred to as error treatment (Kamila, 2011). Different students and individual instructors will respond to these errors in various ways. Error treatment looks at the instances where such omissions and commissions occur. The same extends to the nature of the circumstances under which such errors take place. However, Kamila (2011) argues that the ‘nature’ treatment of these mistakes is best realized when the corrective measures of the errors are outlined.

Bitchener and Ferris (2011) suggest that the approach requires the treatment to be categorized into different clusters. In point form, the following are considered as the categories of error treatment with respect to a given language:

1. The ability of learners to correct themselves.
2. They are getting learners to make correct responses.
3. Activities of the teacher that necessitate improvement of errors.
4. Approval or disapproval depending on the particular error.

From the categories highlighted, it is apparent that both the teacher and the student have a role to play in the rectification. Oral errors made by the student can be corrected by the teacher in a manner that allows for self-correction. As such, the instructor is required to come up with activities that respond to the errors. Repetition is an example of such activities. A learner is made to repeat the correct version several times. The learner and the language instructor should accept their responsibilities in that regard (Bitchener & Ferris, 2011).

Error treatment requires the learners to give positive feedback to the corrective measures advanced by the language instructor. It is the only way through which the two parties can move beyond the error and continue to learn the language. According to Ferris (2011), such feedback is necessary to ensure that certain flaws noted in the language are effectively dealt with. At the end of the learning process, the deviation from the correctness of a given aspect of a language is realized with the help of error treatment.

Empirical Study

Attitudes towards Oral Errors in Language Learning and Teaching

Attitudes towards oral errors vary depending on whether the teacher is native or non-native. A native English teacher will have a negative attitude towards oral errors, especially when the learner is non-native. Pinker (2007) affirms the notion of attitudes and adds that oral errors elicit different attitudes from the teachers and the students. In this section, the specific attitudes are highlighted in detail.

Teachers

Dlangamandla (as cited in Kamila, 2011) suggests that teachers have varied attitudes to oral errors committed by their students. The scholar argues that the varied opinions are brought about by several factors, key among them being inconsistency. The attitudes of the instructor towards their student are formed depending on the behavior of the latter. The opinions are shaped by the likelihood of the student to repeat the same mistakes, even after correction. Kamila (2011) suggests that such an attitude is common among native English teachers. Lack of precision and ambiguities on the part of the student are other factors that influence their instructors’ attitudes.

According to Kamila (2011), teachers can either form positive or negative attitudes with regard to their students’ responses to the corrective measures established. In such situations, their attitudes are informed by the factors illustrated above. In a separate study by Sadek (and cited in Kamila, 2011), it is made apparent that a positive attitude is developed by teachers when their students express the intent to improve their proficiency in the said language.

The participants in the study by Sadek (as cited in Kamila, 2011) included a group of Palestinian children who were taught English by non-native English instructors. As mentioned by Ferris (2011), the lack of precision is a factor that informs the opinions of the teacher towards the learners. In the study by Sadek, the students who participated sought to improve their precision in terms of oral speech. Their precision in addressing the oral errors resulted in a positive attitude from their instructors. By virtue of being non-natives, the teachers appreciated the quick effort exhibited by the students.

According to Bitchener and Ferris (2011), a positive attitude on the part of the teachers depends on improvements made by the students. Such improvements are only possible once the students are exposed to a number of corrective measures. When ambiguity is resolved, teachers generally develop positive attitudes in relation to the oral errors committed by their students. The same is realized when the teachers have a precise amount of time with respect to the correction of errors.

There are certain cases where the teachers develop a negative attitude towards the errors. A number of factors are attributed to such developments. Under such circumstances, the teachers get the impression that the students do not want to rectify their mistakes. Ferris (2011) suggests that the negative attitudes are often compounded in cases where the teacher is a non-native to the language they are dealing with. An illustration is in the case of a Palestinian teacher who is teaching the English language.

The learners may be unwilling to take the corrective measures proposed by the teacher since English may not be their first language. Consequently, the students are likely to doubt the credibility of their teacher. Ferris (2011) adds that a similar situation arises when there is ambiguity in the corrective measures advanced by the teacher.

Bitchener and Ferris (2011) suggest that a positive attitude on the part of the teacher is very important in ensuring that the oral errors are rectified and dealt with effectively. Under such circumstances, the teacher’s effectiveness in addressing the oral errors is required. Kamila (2011) proposes that addressing oral errors with a positive attitude is one of the avenues through which such activities contribute towards a student’s learning process. A positive attitude is also important in ensuring that the learning process is beneficial to the student and to the teacher. Attitudes and opinions can be viewed as the fuel necessary in driving the learning process.

Students

The attitudes developed by students with regard to oral errors are determined by their perceptions of their teacher. In a similar fashion to the attitudes discussed previously, the students can either have a positive or a negative perception towards their teacher (Kamila, 2011). Attitudes developed by the students are brought about by their personal biases or the teaching approach adopted by the instructor. An example is where an instructor of Asian origin is teaching English in a London based school. The students’ stereotypes inform their bias towards the professional capabilities of the teacher. As such, it is important to determine the impacts of the learning process on the students. The learners benefit when errors are rectified if they adopt a positive attitude towards the instructor.

Zhu (2010) carried out a study to determine the attitudes of students with regards to the correction of errors. In the study, the researcher found out that most learners prefer to have their oral errors corrected. The same is brought about by their need to acquire aptitude in the said language. However, in the same study, Zhu (2010) establishes that some students do not like being corrected. In such cases, the students often develop a negative attitude towards their teachers. Out of the reasons pointed out with respect to the negative attitude, the participants in the study argued that the correction was annoying.

The negative attitude illustrated above results in instances where the student is corrected while speaking. According to Zhu (2010), most learners find public correction humiliating. As a result, they will often resist such corrective measures. The negativity is worsened in cases where the teacher is a non-native to a language. Zhu (2010) adds that there are exceptional cases where a student who is corrected while speaking decides to forfeit classes altogether. However, it is important to note that negative attitudes, such as the ones described above, are few compared to positive opinions.

According to Lyster (2002), the attitudes developed by students provide a window into the actual treatment of oral errors. For instance, when the students insist that they do not like being corrected while speaking, the same provides the teacher with an idea of when such corrections should be carried out. Zhu (2010) argues that a positive attitude will inform the teacher on whether or not the learner actually requires correction. Students with a positive attitude towards correction often have the ability to ‘self-correct’ oral mistakes. Such are the aspects that inform the methods employed in correcting the common oral errors among students.

Treatment of Oral Errors

According to Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009), the process of learning a particular language is essential in terms of communication. As such, it is important to look at the interventions associated with errors made in the process of learning the language. However, at this juncture, the focus extends to how teachers treat such errors. It is observed that the attitudes of both the students and the teachers play an important role in the intervention mechanisms associated with oral error treatment. Ferris (2011) makes a case for intervention. Ferris argues that failure to treat oral errors among the learners may lead to communication setbacks.

Mechanisms of Oral Error Treatment

Having discussed that oral errors contribute towards the incorrectness of a language, it is important to question how oral treatment actually works. In response to this, Zhu (2010) suggests that the attitudes of both parties in the learning process inform the mechanism to be employed on oral error treatment. It is important for a language instructor to appreciate that their students are bound to make oral errors. In such circumstances, the mechanism involved to rectify such errors must incorporate the interest of the student. Consequently, a teacher must come up with material that is not complex to the extent of reducing the esteem of students in the event they are corrected.

A closer look at the mechanism of oral error treatment reveals that the same is best realized through a sequential approach. According to Zhu (2010), there are a number of steps that need to be followed when it comes to the correction of oral errors. The first and most important step is the determination of the student error. In this regard, it is important that a non-native language instructor of English be versed with the relevant knowledge in terms of speech patterns. The idea is to ensure that they determine the oral error based on the correctness of the speech in native English.

The second step is the feedback, which comes from the language instructor. According to Zhu (2010), a teacher may decide to make the instantaneous correction. The same is evident in the manner through which students are corrected while speaking. Also, the feedback step looks at elemental techniques like recasting, elicitation, and clarification feedback, just mention but a few. Thereafter the student is required to give a response based on the feedback (Zhu, 2010). The student’s response is considered as the third step in the mechanics of oral error correction.

Within the third step, the teacher determines whether the said response is in order or is in further need of repair. Zhu (2010) argues that there are certain cases when a student makes the same oral mistake. The same necessitates the fourth and final step of the sequence, which revolves around the teacher’s assertion on the correctness of the response. It is important to note that the said assertion is an occasional occurrence. As such, the sequence ideally ends in the third step.

Suggested Techniques

Repetition

According to Kamila (2011), most oral errors are a result of a student’s inability to retain a certain aspect of the language in their mind. The researcher goes on to provide a solution to the same through repetition. The understanding is that repetition of linguistic aspects helps to improve long term memory. The idea is to ensure that an individual retains the verbal elements of speech. In such cases, a teacher might decide to use a wide array of repetitive techniques. However, anadiplosis and anaphora appear as the best techniques (Kamila, 2011). The two require repetition of the initial and final words of a sentence, respectively.

Recast

In the opinion of Bitchener and Ferris (2011), recasting is a linguistic technique used to correct mistakes in speech. Consider a teacher and a student in the following dialogue:

Student: I want to reads

Teacher: What would you prefer to READ?

As evidenced above, the student had made an oral error. Noting the error, the teacher responded by emphasizing the word that requires correction. Ferris (2011), thus, suggests that recasting is a form of feedback in which the teacher corrects the student by giving a correct statement.

Elicitation

Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) argue that the best corrective technique is to have the learners figure out their mistakes. Under such circumstances, elicitation comes in. In this technique, the teacher is expected to ‘elicit’ information from the learners. They are not required to provide the correct information. Consider a situation where a teacher requires students to complete a sentence using words written on the chalkboard. Rather than say out the word, the teacher will read out the sentence and point to the required word to be placed in the sentence. The students are expected to say out the word.

Metalinguistic Feedback

This technique of correction is similar to recast. Ferris (2011) points out that the process has some peculiarity in the sense that the student is forced to examine the functions of a language. A case in point is a situation where a teacher requires their student to say a certain word in English. Assuming the two are non-native English speakers, the teacher would ask, “what is this word in English?”. Evidently, the student will be forced to examine the word as used in the language in reference.

Explanation

Whenever an oral error is made, a teacher is supposed to correct the student and explain the reason for their being faulted (Kamila, 2011). In the event that the error is brought about by tenses, a language instructor is required t explain to the student the reason why saying the word is wrong. Such a corrective technique is important as it helps to reinforce the student’s understanding of the correctness of the language. Zhu (2010) also points out that explanation helps to improve the attitude of the student. Positive attitudes, as aforementioned, are essential in minimizing oral errors.

Explicit Correction

Building upon the recast technique, explicit correction is a technique that is used in specific oral error correction. According to Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009), explicit correction is very clear. As such, the learner is able to identify the specific errors committed and act on them individually.

Conclusion

Oral errors are a key aspect in eliminating communication setbacks (Zhu, 2010). However, as established in the discussions, the nativity of a language instructor plays a crucial element in ensuring that the said errors are resolved. The same is evident in the attitudes formed by the students in the process of correction. Thus, a language instructor should ensure that their corrective approach focuses more on the skill element to ensure there is no backlash from the student. The positive attitude created through this will go a long way in making communication effective.

The Need to Correct Oral Errors

In their study, Kamila (2011) looks at memory span with respect to linguistic features. To this end, the researcher poses the question of whether or not learners should be corrected. In a separate study, Zhu (2010) responds to the question raised by Kamila (2011). Zhu (2010) argues that the efficacy of a language relies on its speakers’ ability to deliver information correctly. The correctness alluded to by Zhu (2010) relies on the absence of errors. As such, it is important for teachers to correct oral mistakes made by their students by addressing the memory span of the learners.

Zhu (2010) asserts that students should deliver information correctly. To achieve this, the learners should develop a positive attitude towards the whole learning process. Such an attitude helps them to adopt a culture of auto-correction. As a result, language learners end up taking the initiative to resolve the said commissions. Consequently, the language instructor will encounter little or no mistakes on the part of the students. Such scenarios may suggest that mistakes by the student may not necessarily require correction by teachers. However, the objective of the intervention is to ensure that the correctness of a language is maintained.

Occasions for Correction of Learner Errors

Treatment of oral errors requires the language instructor to gauge the right moment for correction. It is important to appreciate that a learner may not grasp certain linguistic aspects immediately. In the case where students are non-natives, the instructor is required to allow the learner to make attempts at speech (Ferris, 2011). After this, they can point out the oral errors. Kamila (2011) suggests that a non-native teacher of a language (like English) is required to understand the speech patterns of their students before determining whether or not there are any oral errors. As already indicated in this paper, some scholars believe that teachers are better placed to determine such errors compared to other parties. However, other analysts dispute this position.

Bitchener and Ferris (2011) reaffirm the element of timing with regards to correction. There are instances where a language instructor corrects their student during speech and elicit rebellious reactions in the process. As illustrated in the study by Zhu (2010), there are a number of learners who do not like the idea of being corrected while speaking. As pointed out earlier, such habits result in a negative attitude on their part. Pinker (2007) prefers that a teacher should seek to build a positive attitude among their students by responding to the errors in private.

The frequency of correction also matters. According to Zhu (2010), there are students who better appreciate correction when the same is done repeatedly. In the case of a non-native language instructor, it is preferable to keep on making corrections as often as possible. Such ‘high frequency’ of corrections can also be problematic. In their study, Zhu (2010) reveals that students develop negative attitudes whenever their teachers keep on correcting their oral errors. As mentioned, the situation is made worse when the teacher is non-native. As such, non-native teachers of English should establish a moderate frequency they can employ to correct oral errors.

Errors

Zhu (2010) argues that there are multiple oral errors that a learner might make during the speech. For instance, there might be errors relating to the pronunciation, tense, word order, among several others. Under such circumstances, Zhu (2010) insists that a language instructor should not be random in the correction of errors. The researcher points out the benefits of a systematic approach to addressing the errors. Thus, a teacher should focus on the errors which, in their opinion, will inhibit coherent communication.

In line with the systematic approach, Lyster (2002) argues that a language instructor should focus on errors that are likely to hinder comprehension. An example would be evident when a student is required to make the following speech, “John ate a fruit.” A student might make a tense related error and say, “John, eated a fruit.” The second statement is incorrect as far as the tense used is concerned. Thus, the language instructor should focus on ensuring the students make use of the correct tense.

Another specific cluster of oral errors that ought to be addressed is the ones that are recurrent. Bitchener and Ferris (2011) suggest that a teacher should specifically address the oral errors that students keep on repeating. The understanding behind this is that the recurrent mistakes are the most crucial. Pinker (2007) points out that a student can make an oral error despite their familiarity with the language. Such errors happen either when the person is speaking fast. For instance, when a person is saying a tongue twister, they might make certain errors. The same would not be considered serious when the same person makes tense related errors.

Person Corrected

According to Kamila (2011), oral errors are committed by both the teacher and the instructor. Consequently, a non-native language instructor requires an element of self-correction. The same is necessary to ensure that they do not make flaws that would present incorrectness in their speech. Similarly, the learners are expected to be corrected despite their nativity. In most cases, there are certain elements of English with which the students are not quite conversant. In such cases as grammatical and oratory skills, the teacher is at an advantage owing to advanced training. Thus, both parties ought to be corrected to ensure the correctness of the language is kept intact.

References

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, R. (2011). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.

Ferris, R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language writing. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

Kamila, P. (2011). The influence of linguistic structure on memory span: Repetition tasks as a measure of language ability. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). City University, London.

Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183-218.

Pinker, S. (2007). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Varnosfadrani, D., &Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37(1), 82-98.

Zhu, H. (2010). An analysis of college students’ attitudes towards error correction in EFL context. English Language Teaching, 3(4), 127-130.