名古屋外国語大学論集第2号

2018年2月

Research Note

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese
University Context
Nicholas BRADLEY

Introduction
Learners of English will inevitably make mistakes and most teachers engaged
in English teaching agree that correction of mistakes is a fundamental partof teaching. However, research on the effectiveness of correction strategies /corrective feedback seems far from conclusive. Despite this lack of consensus,
teachers, in most cases, must employ corrective feedback and the choice of which
variety to use should, ideally, be based on some form of research evidence.
This paper will assess the strengths and weaknesses of the main strategies
for delivering corrective feedback and consider their suitability to the Japanese
university communicative classroom. To do this it is first necessary to clarify
what exactly is meant by an error and why correction of these errors is important.

Errors, mistakes and the importance of correction
Edge (1989) suggests that errors are just one of three categories that comprisea mistake:•Slips, which a student can self-correct;•

Errors, which a student can’t self-correct, but where it is clear which form
187the students wanted to use, and where the class is familiar with that form;•

Attempts, where students have no real idea how to structure what theywant to mean, or where intended meaning and structure are not clear to
the teacher.

(Edge, 1989:11).
Despite errors here being a subgroup, the majority of research on the subjectof correction (e.g. Lyster, 1998, Ammar & Spada, 2006; Nicholas, Lightbown& Spada, 2001) uses the term ‘error’ as Edge (1989) uses the term ‘mistake’ i.e.
to encompass all of the three categories above. One notable exception of this is
Johnson (1988) who suggests that errors result from faulty or absent knowledge
while mistakes, which are not affected by knowledge, are a consequence of theoperating conditions that impact learners’ ‘processing ability’. Such inconsistency in the use of these terms may prove problematic for teachers wishing toinvestigate correction strategies and does not bode well for researchers who may
be talking about different things.
Despite the lack of uniformity in terminology, this paper will use the term
‘error’ as a collective term inline with most current research. In this usage
errors demonstrate a lack of linguistic knowledge, whereas mistakes can beconsidered slips that result from the real-time use of language, confidence
issues, etc. Learner errors may occur through the use of lexis and grammar, or
the way sentences are organised and linked to create texts (Thornbury, 1999)
and phonological errors (Lyster, 1998a). This paper will focus on grammaticaland lexical errors.
There is a greater consensus on why errors occur with transfer from the L1
and developmental errors that occur from learners working within the rulesof the L2 being seen as being responsible for most errors (Thornbury, 1999;
Harmer, 2007). Ignoring these errors is seen by most as potentially damaging
to the linguistic development of the learner as correction may be necessary to
prevent fossilization and encourage students’ ability to self-correct (Dekeyser,
188

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■1993, Thornbury, 1999).
Despite such warnings about ignoring errors, few writers advise correcting
everything and Edge (1989:17) advises teachers to “think of correction as a wayof giving information or feedback to your students, just when it will support theirlearning”. Edge’s belief that correction should be employed when it benefits
students’ learning rather than as a matter of course is supported by other writers
who advocate that teachers consider certain factors before employing a correction strategy. Thornbury (1999), for example, suggests that, before correcting
an error, a teacher should consider:•

The type of error – does it have a major effect on communication? Can
it be self-corrected?

•

The type of activity – what effect will correction have on the activity?

•

The type of learner – will correction discourage participation? Do learners
expect correction?

These three factors which Thornbury advises teachers to consider have more
to do with the context than the effectiveness of the correction strategy employed.
With this in mind, it is prudent to consider the contextual features relevant tomany Japanese university communicative classrooms before examining theactual correction strategies that may be used within.

The Japanese Context
One of the key influences on English language teaching in universities is
the students’ experience before they enter university. The Japanese educational
system is famous for its university entrance examinations and the ‘examination
hell’ or preparations for the university entrance examination begin in earnest
many months before the first tests are taken.
The English requirement for the first entrance examination is the same for all
students (at the time of writing) with the individual universities then demandingthat further tests be taken as their courses or prestige demands. Given that the first189

entrance exam is taken by all and is often all that is required, schools across Japan
feverishly prepare their students for the test to such a degree that this extends far
beyond the classroom and has become a national obsession (Shimahara, 1991).
As Hyland points out, “Written examinations alone determine grades and future
success” (Hyland, 1993 pp73).
With English being a compulsory element of the entrance examination it
is unsurprising that it exerts an enormous impact on English teaching at highschools, an impact that is considered by many to be overly negative (Terauchi
1995, Shimahara 1991, Fujimoto 1999). The English component of the entrance
examination overwhelmingly focuses on the students understanding of grammar
and vocabulary. As such, the teaching methods, curriculum and energy of teachers and students at high schools are devoted to meeting the requirements of theentrance examination.
One consequence of these examinations is that all students will have received
instruction designed to help them reach a certain level of grammatical and lexical
knowledge. However, this knowledge has been largely taught, practiced and tested through written forms and so does not necessarily translate in to a proficiencyof output. Despite the Japanese Ministry of Education attempting to increase
the number of communicative classes students attend at high school (MEXT,
2002, 2003, 2004), the literature and my own personal experience teaching inJapan suggest that students entering the communicative classroom in Japanese
universities will have a good deal of grammatical and lexical knowledge but little
experience or proficiency in any kind of production, particularly oral.
From this mismatch one may predict a high number of errors. However, thenumber of errors might not be as high as one may think due to well documented
problems with a low willingness to communicate among Japanese students(Yashima, 2002). Though empirical evidence to support the generalisation of
low levels of willingness to communicate among Japanese students is limited,
many writers engaged in language education suggest it is the case (McVeigh,190

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■2002; O’Sullivan, 1996; Helgesen, 1993). There are several reasons suggested
for this lack of willingness to communicate, reasons that would seem to havebearing on the choice of correction strategies.
Literature on the characteristics of Japanese students (Karan, 2005, Dorji,1997) suggests that Japanese students tend to be quiet and reserved and research
conducted in the classroom found that Japanese students do not like to takerisks (Dorji, 1997). Japanese students have also been characterised as being
unable to express their opinions, debate or even discuss issues (Allen, 1996).
One frequently cited reason for this lack of personal expression in class is astrong group mentality and preoccupation with maintaining group cohesion(O’Sullivan, 1996, Anderson, 1993). The Japanese saying of “The nail that sticks
up gets hammered down” is often used to illustrate this phenomenon. Anotherreason is that Japanese teachers and students hold a belief that ‘teachers are toteach’ (Azuma 1998) and, therefore, students are to sit and learn; a belief thatis manifest in the classroom through the dominance of traditional methods andmaterials, and passivity of students (Hyland, 1993).
Though there is undoubtedly a grain of truth in such generalisations, personal
experience suggests that these characteristics may not be as common as believed.
Indeed, a number of studies suggest that students wish to move in anotherdirection. When asked why they studied English, 60% of university students
answered that communication was most important (Terauchi, 1995). A desire
for more semi-free to free task types was also expressed by university students(Davies, 2006).
These preferences among Japanese students would seem to contradict writers
who suggest that, due to university entrance examinations, English ceases to bea means of communication and becomes a collection of rules and forms to bememorised to pass the examination (Terauchi 1995, Shimahara 1991, Fujimoto
1999, McVeigh, 2002). English for the entrance examination may be a simple
matter of remembering and regurgitating grammar and lexis but once this has191been done it seems university students are looking for more communicative
English. The desire for communicative English, however, would seem to beinconsistent with the widely held characterisation of the Japanese learner ofEnglish and supports the calls of those pressing for a more accurate and lessjudgemental representations of culture in TESOL (Atkinson, 2004, Kachru,
1995).

Correction Strategies
Before evaluating correction strategies in relation to the Japanese context, itis necessary to examine the different strategies themselves. The first thing one
notices when looking at texts offering guidance on correction strategies (Harmer,
2007; Thornbury, 1999; Edge, 1989) is the great number of strategies that exist.
Lyster & Ranta (1997) identified the six main types of corrective strategy usedin the classroom:
1. Explicit Correction – The Correct form is supplied by the teacher and theerror is clearly indicated.
2. Recasts – The teacher implicitly reformulates the student’s sentence into
the correct form.
3. Elicitation – The teacher elicits a reformulation from the student byquestioning what was said, suggestive pausing, or directly asking forreformulation.
4. Metalinguistic Clues – The teacher provides information on the wellformedness of the utterance.
5. Clarification Requests – The teacher questions what was said, forexample, “I don’t understand”.
6. Repetition – The teacher repeats the error using intonation to highlightthe error.
The frequency of use of the above strategies was found to differ greatly. The
frequencies expressed as a percentage were:192

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■Recasts – 55%
Elicitation – 14%
Clarification Requests – 11%
Metalinguistic Clues – 8%
Explicit Correction – 7%
Repetition of Error – 5%
(Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
Lyster & Ranta (1997) divided correction strategies into two groups; thosethat require the negotiation of form between teacher and learner (elicitation,clarification requests, metalinguistic clues, repetition of error) and those where
the correct form is simply given (recasts, explicit correction).

Recasts and explicit correction
With recasts representing over half of all correction it is perhaps unsurprisingthat they are the subject of most research in the field (Lyster, 1998b; Nicholas
et al, 2001; Ellis & Sheen, 2006, Leeman, 2003; Carpenter & Seon Jeon, 2006).
When compared to no corrective feedback, recasts have been found to have apositive impact on student learning (Doughty & Varela, 1998). Though this‘better than nothing’ conclusion is not a strong endorsement of recasts, theinfluence they have can be enhanced. Their positive impact was found to be
most significant “when it is clear to the learner that the recast is a reaction to
the accuracy of the form, not the content of the original utterance” (Nicholas etal, 2001:720).
Suggesting that recasts are better than nothing is not necessary high praise
and, unsurprisingly, most of the attention on recasts has tended to be negative.
One major criticism of recasts is that they are ambiguous (Lyster, 1998b; Ellis &Sheen, 2006). It is quite possible that learners may miss the corrective functionof recasts as they are delivered in the same way as “noncorrective repetition following well-formed learner utterances” (Lyster 1998b: 187) and “because they193

are so frequent, and because they appear to be as likely to be accompanied byexpressions of approval as are repetitions of correct utterances, learners may beless sensitive to recasts as ‘corrective’” (Nicholas et al, 2001:743). Ellis & Sheen(2006) add that even if the corrective use of a recast is noticed, it may still not beclear what corrective function it takes. Recasts may be used to correct meaningor form, and the learner may be left wondering which is the subject of the recast.
Consequently, recasts are seen by some (Lyster, 1998a; Lightbown & Spada,
1990) as an implicit form of correction and, therefore, it is unsurprising thatlearners may miss the correction. However, Ellis & Sheen (2006) suggest thatrecasts can be both implicit and explicit. Some recasts may be quite transparent
and “it is not difficult to find examples of recasts that are just as explicit asso-called explicit correction” (Ellis and Sheen, 2006:596). Explicit correction
would simply be, therefore, a more salient recast.
This point also highlights a problem, not so much with recasts themselves,
but with how they are viewed. What a recast actually is and how it is ‘performed’
seems to differ among writers. This issue has implications for the entire field
because as Ammar & Spada (2006:548) point out, studies that examine recasts“cannot be directly compared because of a fundamental difference in the way
recasts were operationalized”. In addition, recasts differ across contexts, suchas in New Zealand and Korea where they are characterised by rising intonation(Carpenter & Seon Jeon, 2006). It would seem reasonable to assume also thatrecasts will likely differ across teachers, learners, and type of error. Such a viewis held by Ellis & Sheen (2006:575) who indicate that “recasts can take manydifferent forms and perform a variety of functions (not all corrective), whichmakes definition difficult” and that as a consequence, recasts should not betreated as a homogeneous construct. Despite such cautions, no reclassification
seems to be forthcoming.

194

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■Negotiation of form
Edge (1989:24) suggests that “the best form of correction is self-correction”,
a belief that appears to be well supported (Allwright, 1975; Hendrickson, 1978).
The importance of allowing learners to self-correct is central to correction
strategies that require a ‘negotiation of form’ (elicitation, clarification requests,
metalinguistic clues, repetition of error). Lyster & Ranta (1997) assessed learners uptake (if the learner reacts to the correction in anyway) and repair (if thestudents self-correct), and found that recasts had the lowest rate of both uptake
and repair where as elicitation resulted in the highest levels of both. Althoughmeasuring uptake would seem unnecessary as recasts do not require any response
from learners and elicitation by its very nature will likely always guarantee areaction of some kind, the results do seem significant as they point to elicitation(as well as other varieties of negotiated form) as resulting in higher levels of
repair.
This finding was supported by the work of Ammar & Spada (2006) who
found that prompts (techniques that push learners to self-correct) were more
effective than recasts. Whereas Lyster (1998a) had judged effectiveness ofcorrection on uptake and repair, Ammar & Spada gave students both immediate
and delayed post tests. They found that low level learners performed better following the use of prompts rather than recasts. Higher level learners were foundto show no significant difference in performance between recasts and prompts
though all students were found to benefit greatly from both types of correction
when compared to no correction (Ammar & Spada, 2006). Ultimately, correction strategies that require a negotiation of form be it through the elicitation of
output from learners (Lyster, 1998a, 2004) or metalinguistic clues (Carroll &Swain, 1993) have been found to be more effective in terms of repair and recall
than recasts.

195

Discussion
Though the evidence seems to point to strategies of negotiation, such as
elicitation, as being the most effective, one must question the studies themselves.
Studies that suggest the value of such strategies (Lyster,1998a; Ammar & Spada,
2006; Carroll & Swain, 1993) do so by contrasting them with recasts. Yet, as wehave seen, there seems to be a clear difference among operationalized definitions of recasts and so too in the consistency in implementation of them withinclassrooms across the globe. In addition, the evidence that does exist does notseem to warrant the immediate abandonment of recasts in favour of more negotiated forms of correction. Indeed, Ammer & Spada (2006) found no significant
difference between the use of recasts and prompts among advanced learners.
By questioning the consistency of meaning and use of ‘recasts’ it would be
prudent to question elicitation and other forms of correction through negotiation of meaning. In his work on correction, Edge (1989) offers many different
strategies such as:•

Finger correction used by the teacher to indicate something is missing.

•

Repeating a sentence up to the mistake and inviting someone to continue.

•

Repeating the sentence including the mistake and indicating by intonation
or body language where the mistake is and invite correction.

•

Going on to invite peer elicitation should the answer not be forthcomingfrom the learner.

All strategies on this list, which is in no way exhaustive, can be termed
elicitation, or at the very least, ‘negotiation of form’ or ‘prompts’. Just as it seems
that there is little consistency in the operationalized form of recasts, so too is it
the case for elicitation. Even if a valid operationalized forms are consistently
applied, most research in the field is conducted in the laboratory and one canquestion its relevance to the communicative classroom.
When examining the research conducted on recasts, Ellis and Sheen(2006:597) point out that “recasts do not occur in a social vacuum, and their196

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■efficacy might be influenced by sociopsychological factors that determine learners’ receptivity to them”. Correction strategies have only been viewed in terms of
their effectiveness on acquisition, cultural variables and relevancy have not been
considerations. As an EFL teacher in Japan, cultural appropriacy is extremely
important for me when considering classroom strategies and so I find its absence
among the research to be quite startling.
With cultural factors overlooked and the empirical evidence being rather
inconsistent, it seems that one should listen to the advice of authors such as
Thornbury (1999), Johnson (1988) and Harmer (2007:142) who suggest that“decisions about how to react to performance will depend upon the stance ofthe lesson, the activity, the type of mistake and the particular student who ismaking that mistake”.
In a communicative classroom elicitation would seem to be more suitable.
Students engaged in conversation may miss the meaning of a recast and suchan interjection may disrupt or stem the flow of communication. Elicitation on
the other hand can represent a digression in conversation rather than a pause orend. By requesting clarification or eliciting a response from students the teacher
is continuing communication. By ‘negotiating’ with students the teacher not
only encourages communication but, as Edge (1989:27) suggests, “the more
the students are involved in correction, the more they have to think about thelanguage”. Japanese students at university have been through intensive grammar
study and now demand communicative English, elicitation would seem to beappropriate to this demand.
However, as Japan is an EFL context and Japanese students will have had
little opportunity to engage in communicative activities prior to university, onemust be wary of excessive correction. With Japanese students typically possessing a good knowledge of grammar and lexis by the time they enter university,
the focus must be on fluency over accuracy and so the teacher must exercise
restraint in correction, correcting only when it is necessary for understanding or
197

to prevent possible fossilization of a frequent mistake. Restraint in correction
may be forced upon the teacher also as university classes tend to be large andso the time available may not allow for as many corrective elicitations as theteacher would like.

Conclusion
The aim of this paper had been to examine the research on corrective strategies with a view to finding the strategy that is proven to be most effective andculturally relevant. A review of several studies in the field made it clear that thework carried out not only fails to consider culture as a variable or identify the
relative effectiveness of the different corrective strategies, but also begs the question of whether the evidence that does exist is reliable and relevant to ‘real-life’classrooms. It would seem that no two corrections are the same as they will bedependent on numerous variables. If this is the case, research into their effecton acquisition would seem to produce tentative results at best. Though elicitation would seem to be most relevant to the Japanese university communicativeclassroom context, the teacher should select their correction strategies on theexact context in which they teach.

References
AMMAR, A & SPADA, N. (2006). One Size Fits All? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
ALLWRIGHT, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error.
In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), New directions in second language learning, teaching and bilingual
education. Washington, TESOL.
ANDERSON, F.E, The Enigma of the College Classroom: Nails that Don’t Stick Up, IN WADDEN,
P. (Ed) A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
AZUMA, H. (1998) Japanese collectivism and education. IN PARIS, S. G. & WELLMAN, H. M.
(Eds) Global Prospects for Education: Development, Culture and Schooling. Washington DC,
American Psychological Association.
CARROLL, S., & SWAIN, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of198

Error Correction Strategies and the Japanese University Context ■the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357–386.
DAVIES, A. (2006) What do learners really want from their EFL course? ELT Journal, 60(1) 3–12.
DEKEYSER, R. M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral
proficiency. The Modern Language Journal. 77(4), 501–514.
DORJI, L. (1997) A comparative analysis of Japanese students’ learning styles and British TEFL
teaching styles. The Japanese Learner, 11(1), 23–39
EDGE, J. (1989). Mistakes and Correction. London, Longman.
FUJIMOTO, H. (1999) The examination backwash effect on English language education in Japan.
The Japanese Learner 19(2) 115–132.
HARMER, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow, Pearson.
HELGESEN, M. (1993) Dismantling a Wall of Silence: The “English Conversation” class. IN
WADDEN, P. (Ed) A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities.
Oxford, Oxford University Press.
HENDRICKSON, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research,and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.
HYLAND, K. (1993) Culture and learning: A study of the learning style preferences of Japanese
students. RELC Journal 24(2), 69–87.
JOHNSON, K. (1988). Mistake Correction. ELT Journal. 42(2), 89–96
KARAN, P.P. (2005) Japan in the Twenty-First Century: Environment, Economy and Society.
Lexington, The University of Kentucky Press.
LYSTER, R., & RANTA, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form incommunicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66.
LYSTER, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit correction in relation to error types andlearner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48(2), 183–218.
LYSTER, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.
LYSTER, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
MCVEIGH, B. J (2002) Japanese Higher Education as Myth. Armonk, Eastgate
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2002) Developinga strategic plan to cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities”. Accessed online at http://www.
mext.go.jp/english/news/2002/07/020901.htm.
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2003). The
Course of Study for Foreign Languages. Accessed online at http://www.mext.go.jp/english/
shotou/030301.htm
MEXT (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology). (2004). English
Forum 2004: Regarding the Establishment of an Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English
Abilities”. Accessed online at http://www.mext.go.jp/english/news/2004/03/04031201.htm
NICHOLAS. H, LIGHTBOWN, P & SPADA, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners.
Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.

199

O’SULLIVAN, J (1996) Teaching English in Japan, Brighton, International House.
SHIMAHARA, N. (1991) Examination rituals and group life. IN FINKELSTEIN, B, IMAMURA, A& TOBIN, J. Transcending Stereotypes: Discovering Japanese Culture and Education. Yarmouth,
Intercultural Press.
TERAUCHI, H. (1995) Issues in English language teaching in Japanese universities. The Japanese
Learner 7(2) 95–112.
THORNBURY, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow, Longman.

200