The Art and Science of Correcting Students

There are two equal and opposite errors into which we ESL teachers tend to fall: that of 1) constantly correcting our students’ every error, and that of 2) never correcting anything. The former erroneous practice is easy enough to refute: Common sense and kindness argue against compulsively correcting students into a cowed muteness. The latter error, however, has been in vogue for some decades because of several comforting, well-publicized fallacies, to which I have given names:

1. The Crazy-Optimist Fallacy:
“Students will learn correct English if we simply model correct English. Don’t actually correct them. Just repeat the sentence correctly in the course of the conversation” 

2. The Quantity Trumps Quality Fallacy:
“It is unseemly, wrong-headed, and prescriptivist for teachers to care so much about correctness! If our students can get their meaning across, they – and we – have been successful.”

3. The Infantilization Fallacy:
“If we correct our students’ mistakes, we will break their spirits and crush their motivation.”

All three fallacies work together to cause well-meaning teachers to cheat well-motivated students out of their birthright: to be well-taught in the use the English language.

Regarding the Crazy-Optimist Fallacy, it is simply untrue (except in the case of small children absorbing a first or second language through immersion) that all or most students will correct their errors just through our “modeling” of the language, as anyone knows who has endeavored to learn OR teach a second language.  Consider this example.

Omar: “Today I want go to shopping.”

Teacher: “Oh, you want to go shopping?”

Omar: “Yes, I want go to shopping.”

Moving on to the Quality Trumps Quantity Fallacy: I have had students who have arrived in my class with a surprising fluency but exceedingly and distractingly flawed English, with errors made harder to unlearn precisely due to the students’ very fluency and also by the length of time they had been making those errors, uncorrected. Though they had come with a large quantity of English, they depended on my colleagues and me to help them improve its quality – i.e., help them extinguish as many of their errors as was feasible.

These two fallacies lead naturally to the Infantilization Fallacy. And it is a fallacy, because if we as professional educators provide respectful, good-humored correction to our students, at appropriate times, in appropriate ways, the number of students who will object is negligible, and the number who express their gratitude – is enormous. This is an assertion I make based on four decades of teaching and hearing students say, “Thank you! You’re the first one who ever corrected me!”

Of course, therein lie the need for art and science. It is indeed true that we should at times abstain from correcting a student when her English is flowing, her train of thought percolating, her enthusiasm brimming:

During, for example, an oral presentation or a skit. Also, when a student is barely emerging from the stage of mute pre-beginner to beginner-that-is-starting-to-speak, we may appropriately wait a bit to launch into correction mode. At times it is better to  make notes of errors, for future lessons that will benefit both the student in question and others in the class. But particularly after a language form has been taught, we can and should correct a student: “Remember, remember! Verb TO verb! ‘I want TO go!’ Say it!” And then we should express our genuine delight when Omar or Nora or Sara says it correctly.

Our students come to us hoping that we will teach them as much English as possible, as efficiently as possible, and ultimately as correctly as possible, so that their ideas will shine forth through their speech, without being obscured by avoidable errors. They deserve no less from us.