One of the things we are asked to do as teachers is provide feedback to students to help move their learning forward. It appears on any rubric for evaluation, and is a natural and necessary part of the teaching and learning process.
Best practice in teaching dictates that we set a clear goal for our learners to begin the feedback cycle. Then, we describe to the learner both where they are relative to that goal, as well as what the next steps for that learner are to meet or go beyond the original goal.
Often, we find ourselves giving lots of comments on student work, and then watch that marked-up work end up in the garbage after a cursory glance at the grade. So, to complete the feedback process, we have to create a need for students to use the feedback as part of their learning. The cycle begins again after students produce a new product or draft using the feedback given.
Here’s the thing…
These processes and practices have been researched and developed as relates to the explicit teaching and learning of facts and processes. Think skills like describing the functionality of a cell, crafting a historical analysis, or modeling a real-world situation using mathematical notation. If students “miss” something or make an “error,” the teacher can show students areas to consciously focus on to improve.
With language acquisition, we can say that there are no “errors,” but rather “developmental forms.” (I take this term from the writings of Bill Van Patten.) A learner’s linguistic system develops in an ordered way in response to basically one thing: comprehended input. Any of the “developmental forms” we hear in a learner’s production along the way are just indicators of where they are in their development, and this development is to be honored and celebrated.
So…the answer for what feedback is needed to develop learners’ linguistic systems: more input! Any explicit feedback about things like verb endings, adjective agreement, etc. will not necessarily make its way into the learner’s linguistic system, because language (in its abstraction, complexity, and implicit nature) does not reside in the realm of consciously learned facts and skills. Indeed, studies on explicit error correction show no lasting benefits for students’ accuracy so…let’s ditch it!
Our challenge, then…
…is to find ways to keep our learners calm and focused on input in a school system that shows great value in always being correct, getting things perfectly on the first try, and ranking systems like grades. To that end, teachers who have moved away from traditional language teaching must make clear to students what acquisition is going to look and feel like, that it’s okay to make errors in efforts to communicate, that progression is going to be messy and seem nonlinear, and that it all just takes time. We as teachers cannot be too explicit about these values – otherwise, students will have no reason to believe that this class is unlike any other class in school, when really, I think it should be. Language is special and different from content area courses.
I also know that there are the linguistics kids out there (bashfully raises hand because I was/am one of those) who want to know more about “proper” L2. It never hurts to throw them a bone with grammar pop-ups during readings once meaning has been thoroughly established! Meaning has to come first, so then we can draw connections between the forms and the meanings they create.
My experience has also shown me that it’s not until usually the third year (or even later!) that many students start to take an interest in how the language works at that grammar-y level, so I’m giving myself permission to hold off on too much grammar-y stuff until that interest bubbles up after lots and lots of input. Again, they need lots and lots of meaningful experiences with the language to contextualize any grammatical musings so, for now (and especially in this age of limited input because of all-virtual teaching!), I’m just going to focus on meaningful classroom interactions.
What about marking up student output?
Some kids might want it – most won’t know what to do with it. I have borrowed Meredith White’s idea of giving an option on any assignment to get corrective feedback on output, if students want it. I usually focus on one or two big ideas that students can focus on, and try to explain “fixes” in non-grammar-y terms that spotlight how the grammar contributes to meaning. (“Oh, this -o at the end of the verb tells us that we’re talking about ourselves, so if you’re talking about yourself, double check that it has that -o!”) Less is more, in this case – no one wants an assignment back that has been given the Red Pen of Death. 🙂