Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and PracticeAuthor(s): James M. HendricksonSource: The Modern Language Journal,Vol. 62, No. 8 (Dec., 1978), pp. 387-398Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language TeachersAssociationsStable URL: Accessed: 09-08-2019 10:02 UTCJSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a widerange of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity andfacilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available atNational Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wileyare collaboratingwith JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language JournalThis content downloaded from 184.108.40.206 on Fri, 09 Aug 2019 10:02:49 UTCAll use subject to
Error Correction in Foreign LanguageTeaching: Recent Theory, Research,and Practice *JAMES M. HENDRICKSON, Lansing Community College, MichiganAn Historical Perspective of Learner Errors'A udiolingualism and Error PreventionT HROUGHOUT the 1950s and well intothe 1960s, the audiolingual approach toteaching foreign languages was in full swing.Language students were supposed to spend manyhours memorizing dialogs, manipulating patterndrills, and studying all sorts of grammaticalgeneralizations. The assumed or explicit aim ofthis teaching method could be called "practicemakes perfect," and presumably some day, whenstudents needed to use a foreign language tocommunicate with native speakers, they woulddo so fluently and accurately.We now realize that this was not what in mostcases occurred. Some highly motivated studentsfrom audiolingual classrooms managed to be-come fairly proficient in a foreign language, butonly after they had used the language in com-municative situations. Predictably, most stu-dents who could not or did not take the effort totransfer audiolingual training to communicativeuse soon forgot the dialog lines, the patterndrills, and the grammatical generalizations thatthey had studied or practiced in school. Putsimply, the students had learned what they weretaught - and soon forgot most of it.Not only did many supporters of audiolin-gualism overestimate learning outcomes for mostJAMES M. HENDRICKSON (Ph.D., The Ohio State Univer-sity) is Assistant Professor of Spanish and English as a SecondLanguage at Lansing Community College, Michigan. He hasconducted numerous teacher workshops, published articleson travel and error analysis, and recently co-authored (withAngela Labarca) The Spice of Lzfe: An IntermediateESL/EFL Reader (Harcourt BraceJovanovich, 1979).
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 13 pages?
- Fall '19