Error correction

Error correction is often done by the teacher providing corrections for mistakes made by students. However, it is probably more effective for students to correct their own mistakes. In order to do this, students and the teacher should have a common shorthand for correcting mistakes.

When it comes to error correction we are dealing with one individual's reaction to a student's piece of writing or utterance. It is in 2 parts. In the first part we look at ...

• Attitudes to error correction
• Categorising errors
• A model for correcting writing
• Practical techniques / ideas for correcting writing

 

 

Attitudes to error correction 
Attitudes to error correction vary not only among teachers but also among students. A teacher may be influenced by:

• The fact that English is their second language and great emphasis was placed on correctness at their teacher training college.
• The fact that as a native speaker they have never had to worry about their English.
• A particular methodology / approach. In the 1960s a teacher using Audiolingualism would have adopted a behaviourist approach to error. More recently a teacher following the Natural Approach (influenced by second language acquisition theory) would have adopted a wholly different approach. Other methodologies / approaches, such as Suggestopaedia and Total Physical Response, highlight the psychological effects of error correction on students.

 
As for students, we not only have to consider their age but also their approach to learning. Some students are risk-takers, while others will only say something if they are sure it is correct. While being a risk-taker is generally positive as it leads to greater fluency, some students only seem to be concerned with fluency at the expense of accuracy. The same can be true when it comes to writing. Some students take an eternity to produce a piece of writing as they are constantly rubbing out what they have written while at the opposite extreme the writing is done as fast as possible without any planning or editing. 
 
Categorising errors 
We can categorise an error by the reason for its production or by its linguistic type.

• What's the reason for the error?
• It is the result of a random guess (pre-systematic).
• It was produced while testing out hypotheses (systematic).
• It is a slip of the tongue, a lapse, a mistake (caused by carelessness, fatigue etc.) (post-systematic).

To be sure about the type of error produced by a student we need to know where the student's interlanguage is (the language used by a student in the process of learning a second language).

• What type is it? 
  We can classify errors simply as productive (spoken or written) or receptive (faulty understanding). Alternatively we can use the following: 
• A lexical error - vocabulary
• A phonological error - pronunciation
• A syntactic error- grammar
• An interpretive error - misunderstanding of a speaker's intention or meaning
• A pragmatic error - failure to apply the rules of conversation

 

 

A model for correcting writing 
When writing we do not have the chance to rephrase or clarify what we are saying. Our message must be clear the first time. Written errors are also less tolerated than spoken errors outside the classroom. 
Look at this model for correcting written work and evaluate it for your teaching situation.

• 1. Comprehensibility
• Can you understand the output?
• Are there areas of incoherence?
• Do these affect the overall message?
• Does communication break down?
• 2. Task
• Has the student addressed the task?
• 3. Syntax and Lexis
• Are they appropriate to the task?
• Are they accurate?

 

 

The role of planning 
Giving students time to plan not only results in a wider range of language being used, it also helps students to avoid some of the following:

• Inappropriate layout
• No paragraphs
• Lack of cohesion
• Inappropriate style

 

 

Whichever style of plan (linear notes or a mind map) these questions will help students to plan their writing:

• What am I going to write? (An informal letter etc.)
• What layout do I need?
• What information am I going to include?
• How many paragraphs do I need?
• What grammar / vocabulary am I going to use?
• What linking words (because, and etc.) am I going to use?

 

 

Practical techniques / ideas for correcting writing

• Training students to edit 
  Even though they have invested time in doing a writing task, students often don't spend a few more minutes checking their writing. The following activities not only help to develop students' editing skills in a fun way, but also enable the teacher to focus on key errors without individual students losing face. 
• Grammar auctions: (From Grammar Games by M.Rinvolucri CUP) Students receive a number of sentences taken from their written work. Some are correct, some wrong. Students in groups have to try to buy the correct ones in the auction. They have a limited amount of money. The team with the most correct sentences wins.
• Mistakes mazes: (From Correction by Bartram and Walton Thomson Heinle). Students have a list of sentences. Their route through a maze depends on whether the sentences are right or wrong. They follow white arrows for correct sentences and black ones for incorrect ones. If they have identified all the sentences correctly they escape, if not they have to retrace their steps and find out where they went wrong.
• Correction techniques 
  It can be difficult to decide on what and how much to correct in a student's piece of writing. Students can develop a negative attitude towards writing because their teacher corrects all their errors or if the teacher only corrects a few, they might feel that the teacher hasn't spent sufficient time looking at their work. Evaluate the following techniques and decide which would be appropriate for your teaching situation. Underline inappropriate language in a piece of writing using a specific colour.
• Using a different colour from above, underline examples of appropriate language.
• Correct errors by writing the correct forms in their place.
• Use codes in the margin to identify the type of error(s), for example, VOC = a lexical error. Students have to identify the error(s) and if possible make a correction.
• Alternatively put crosses in the margin for the number of errors in each line. Students then try to identify the errors and make corrections.
• Put students into pairs / groups. They correct each other's work using one or more of the techniques above.
• From time to time give students an individual breakdown of recurring problems in their written work.

At first glance these two terms seem interchangeable, but in fact they are quite different from each other.

In everyday conversation people use the words "mistake" and "error" interchangeably. these two words have different meanings. All native speakers make mistakes, or have a "performance lapse" (Brown) every once in a while. "A mistake refers to a performance error that is either a random guess or a "slip", in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly." (Brown) The key difference between a mistake and an error is that "mistakes, when attention is called to them, can be self-corrected". (Brown)

An error...reflects the competence of the learner." (Brown) "While mistakes can be self-corrected" (Brown), "an error cannot be self-corrected." (Brown) Student errors are an inevitable part of their learning process and need to be treated as a teachable moment. There are many causes of errors including "interlingual errors...from the native language, intralingual errors within the target language, the sociolinguistic context of communication, psycholinguistic or cognitive strategies, and...affective variables." (Brown)

Where do errors come from? When learning a second language it is natural for students to at first apply their knowledge of their native language to the target language. Depending on the similar or contrasting characteristic of these languages this may or may not be a successful strategy for the student. "In the beginning stages of learning a second language... (negative) interlingual transfer is a significant source of errors...as the native language is the only previous linguistic system upon which the learner can draw." (Brown) An example of this would be students applying their L1 grammar structure to the target language. 

Errors also stem from intralingual transfer, which is an indicator to the teacher that the student has moved out of the beginning stages of learning. "Once learners have begun to acquire parts of the new system, more and more intralingual transfer-generalization within the target language-is manifested". (Brown) The field of corpus linguistics had amassed copious amounts of data on this subject and provides a great resource to help teachers learn what errors to look out for. 

A third significant source of student errors can be the result of inferior classroom materials or from the teachers themselves, these are called induced errors. "Students often make errors because of a misleading explanation from the teacher, faulty presentation of a structure of word in a textbook, or even because of a pattern that was rotely memorized in a drill but improperly contextualized". (Brown)

When and how to correct errors. "While it is important to accentuate the positive in learners' journeys to success" it's up to the teacher to discern when to correct or not correct the student. One of the criterions when deciding when to correct student errors is whether the error is global or local. A local error, at the discretion of the teacher, can often be overlooked for the greater good of the students learning process. This is because "Local errors do not prevent the message from being heard, usually because there is only a minor violation of one segment of a sentence, allowing the hearer/reader to make an accurate guess about the intended meaning." (Brown) On the other hand when a student makes a global error, this is probably an error that should be corrected. This is because "global errors hinder communication; they prevent the hearer from comprehending some aspect of the message" (Brown) the student is trying to convey. 

There are many strategies and styles of error correction that teachers use, this choice usually coincides with the teaching method the TESOL professional is using. While early L2 teaching methods that focused on rote learning and emphasized students creating perfect output (for example the Audio-Lingual method) used error correction excessively, newer models based on a natural approach emphasize communicative competence and recognize that not correcting all student errors is more productive. 

A useful tool for interpreting types of error correction is Vigil and Oller's affective and cognitive feedback model. "Vigil and Oller's (1976) communication feedback model offered one of the first models for approaching error in the language classroom". (Brown) They employ the simple concept of a traffic light and categorize teachers' styles of error correction as green light, yellow light and red light. "Green light (correction)...allows the sender to continue attempting to get a message across; a red light causes the sender to abort such attempts." (Brown p. 274) "A yellow light ... causing the learner to adjust, to alter, to recycle, to try again in some way". (Brown) 

It is important to balance the types of error corrections. A consequence of the excessive use of green light strategies may result in fossilization of the students learning as the teacher has not provided a framework from which the student can build. Superfluous use of red light corrections "often leads learners to shut off their attempts at communication. They perceive that so much is wrong with their production that there is little hope to get anything right."

Conclusion. Student error is inevitable and a natural part of student learning. While the word "error" conjures up feelings of negativity, we must not look on it as such. Student errors are not a negative reflection on the student, but rather a critical pedagogical feedback tool. By correctly interpreting the source of student errors teachers can gain meaningful knowledge about the students learning process and L2 knowledge deficiencies. A true TESOL professional also realizes student errors can be a reflection of our own deficiencies in knowledge, lesson plans and teaching methods. Teachable moments are not just for students but also for ourselves. 

Reference: Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. (5th ed.). New York: Longman 

Мои исследования

Error correction is a controversial topic. A lot of people have strong emotions about it. 

Most English teachers believe that error correction is necessary. In fact, they think it’s vital. Many students, who have been trained by their schools and teachers, also believe that they need to have their speaking errors constantly corrected. 

My students, therefore, are a little confused when I tell them, “I will never correct your spoken errors”. 

Some people get upset when I say this. Other English teachers get upset. They feel I am committing a sin– that I am committing English education heresy! 

Some students even get upset. They beg me, “AJ, please correct my speaking errors”. I always say “no”. 

Of course, traditional English classes love error correction. When a student speaks, the teacher will directly or indirectly focus on their mistakes. For example, a student stands up in class. She says, “Yesterday I had good time. I go to store and go shopping”. 

At this moment, the student feels nervous because all of the class, and the teacher, are listening to her. But she also feels happy– she just spoke English. She just communicated information clearly in English. 

But her happiness is soon destroyed by the teacher. If the teacher is nice, he will say, “OK. Yesterday you had A good time. You WENT to THE store and WENT shopping.” 

If the teacher isn’t nice, he will say, “No. You need to say A good time… and you didn’t use the past tense. You’re talking about yesterday. What is the past tense of go“? 

Either way, the student now feels foolish and stupid. She now thinks, “English is so difficult,… I’ll never be good at English”. Her motivation is destroyed. 

But it’s even worse. Because error correction is TOTALLY ineffective. There have been many, many studies of spoken error correction. For example, they divide students into two groups. Group 1 has their mistakes corrected constantly, for 3 months, or 6 months, or 1 year. Group 2 never has their speaking errors corrected. 

At the end of several months or years, they test each group. Surprisingly, there is still absolutely no difference in their speaking accuracy or errors. Each group still makes the same number and type of mistakes. 

Correcting speaking errors is a waste of time… and it hurts the student. Error correction kills speaking speed and fluency. Every time a spoken error is corrected, the student stops, thinks, and analyzes English grammar. 

Over time, their speech gets slower and slower. They think slowly and carefully about everything they say. They are paralyzed by the worry of making mistakes. 

If you have a tutor, NEVER ask them to correct your spoken mistakes. Instead, focus on listening to correct English. The more you listen to correct English from native speakers, the more you automatically correct your own mistakes. 

Your speech becomes more accurate AND faster– and it happens effortlessly and automatically. 

So forget error correction. Don’t focus on the negative. Don’t focus on mistakes. 

Focus on the positive. Focus on listening to a lot of real English from native speakers. 

And when you speak… just relax and speak. Focus on communicating ideas, not on perfect grammar. With time, your grammar will improve automatically. 

!!!!The name of my work is “Teaching Grammar”. And the main aim is to clearly recognize how to teach grammar right.

Language is the chief means by which the human personality expresses itself and fulfills its basic need for social interaction with other persons.

Robert Lado wrote that language functions owing to the language skills. A person who knows a language perfectly uses a thousand and one grammar lexical, phonetic rules when he is speaking. Language skills help us to choose different words and models in our speech. 

When learners are producing language I class, whether speaking or writing, they usually want to know when they make any serious mistakes in their production. Do your learners ever ask, "Teacher, is that okay?" Certainly, they most probably do. In that case then, some form or forms of error correction techniques should prove to be useful. While it's not typically recommended to correct learner errors while they are speaking, some speech or pronunciation correction should be done immediately after their discourse. If many of the learners produce similar speech or pronunciation mistakes on a consistent basis, a lesson on that particular aspect may well be called for. English or other foreign language learners might also self or peer correct written work and reading in class. (M. Spratt, 2003) 
 

There are essentially three basic forms of error correction: 

o Self-correction 

o Peer correction 

o Teacher correction 

Of these the most effective in English or foreign language skills acquisition is self-correction. When learners realize and correct their own mistakes, they are more effectively internalizing the language. The next most desirable and effective form is peer correction. When learners are able to recognize and correct their mistakes collectively, they actually help each other to develop English language skills with less interference of their respective Affective Filters. (Krashen-Terrell, 1983) Finally, there is correction of errors by the teacher. An effective means, but one that should be last and the least frequently used form of English or other foreign language correction. In cases where the EFL teacher may not be a native or near-native speaker, has grammar or pronunciation problems, heavy accent or speech traits or may otherwise desire to do so, recorded audio or video materials could be used to provide corrective modeling. (B. Kashru, 1983) 

Identify the Errors and Correct 

Just for fun, let's try a few interesting examples. Can you identify and correct the tag question, modal and other errors in the following sentences? Also, the corrected sentences should be true. 

Today is Wednesday, aren't they? 

It's raining today, isn't we? 

She doesn't have a book, do he? 

He like coffee, do you? 

Students should be allowed to fail exams. 

Teachers must to study everyday. 

Students can fail all their exams and pass the course, does he? 

You don't must to pay the university registration fee, can't you? 

Yesterday was Monday, isn't they? 
 

Yet research conducted since the late 1970's has firmly established

that immersion students' L2 productive skills are not on a par with those of their

native-speaking counterparts.  In other words, immersion students do not attain

native-like proficiency in speaking and writing.

The reasons for this phenomenon are many and varied, but some are related

to instructional issues.  Most immersion teachers tend to focus their attention on

the instruction of subject matter content; academic achievement usually receives

increased emphasis because of school district expectations and parental concerns.

Yet "...subject-matter teaching does not on its own provide adequate language

teaching" (Lyster & Ranta, 1997, p. 41).  It has also been observed that lack of

systematic approaches for teaching specific language structures in meaningful

contexts and for attending to student errors contribute to less than optimal levels of

proficiency in immersion students (e.g., Chaudron, 1986; Harley, 1989; Kowal &

Swain, 1997; Lyster, 1987, 1994; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Salomone, 1992; Swain &

Lapkin, 1986).

The focus of this issue's Bridge insert is on one of these instructional issues:

immersion teachers' responses to students' language errors.  Roy Lyster's research

in this area is highlighted in particular because we had the opportunity to learn

about his recent work during the 1997 Summer Institute for Immersion Teachers

held at the University of Minnesota.

Errors and Correction:  What Do Students Learn?

Lyster and Ranta (1997) point out that the research that has focused on the

issue of error treatment in second language classrooms in the past 20 years has

continued to pose the questions framed by Hendrickson in his 1978 review of

feedback on errors in foreign language classrooms. These questions are:•  Should learners' errors be corrected?

•  When should learners' errors be corrected?

•  Which errors should be corrected?

•  How should errors be corrected?

•  Who should do the correcting?

Appearing on the surface to be simple and straightforward, these questions

have been explored by scholars over the past two decades in a variety of L2

classroom settings and have been found to be quite complicated.  Recent work by

Lyster and Ranta (1997) in Canada, however, may help to provide some practical

advice for immersion teachers.  Lyster and Ranta's work is of particular interest

because it combines different types of error treatment, or corrective feedback, with

student responses to that feedback, or "learner uptake" (1997, p. 40). They were

especially interested in finding what types of error treatments encourage learners'

self-repair.  In other words, what types of corrective feedback lead students to correct

their own errors with an eye toward grammatical accuracy and lexical precision

within a meaningful communicative context?

Lyster and Ranta observed a variety of lessons in four different classrooms

representing two types of immersion programs.  Data were collected in one fourthgrade class in an early total immersion school (in which students had received

instruction in all areas in French since first grade, with approximately one hour per

day in English) and in three classrooms (two fourth-grade and one fourth /fifth

split) in a middle immersion school.  In this latter setting, the students had received

all instruction in English except for a daily one-hour French lesson until the fourth

grade. Beginning in fourth grade, approximately 60% of the school day is in French.

Subject areas in French include science, social studies, math, and French language

arts.  Approximately 18 hours of lessons in these four subject areas were observed

and audiotaped for analysis.  The data analysis yielded six different feedback types.  A

definition and examples of each type follow (Lyster, 1997; Lyster & Ranta, 1997).

Types of Corrective Feedback

1. Explicit correction. Clearly indicating that the student's utterance was incorrect,

the teacher provides the correct form.

2. Recast. Without directly indicating that the student's utterance was incorrect,

the teacher implicitly reformulates the student's error, or provides the correction.

3. Clarification request. By using phrases like "Excuse me?" or "I don't

understand," the teacher indicates that the message has not been understood or

that the student's utterance contained some kind of mistake and that a repetition

or a reformulation is required.

4. Metalinguistic clues. Without providing the correct form, the teacher poses

questions or provides comments or information related to the formation of the

student's utterance (for example, "Do we say it like  that?" "That's not how you

say it in French," and "Is it feminine?").

5. Elicitation. The teacher directly elicits the correct form from the student by asking

questions (e.g., "How do we say that in French?"), by pausing to allow the student

to complete the teacher's utterance (e.g., "It's a....") or by asking students to

reformulate the utterance (e.g., "Say that again."). Elicitation questions differ

from questions that are defined as metalinguistic clues in that they require more

than a yes/no response.

6. Repetition. The teacher repeats the student's error and adjusts intonation to

draw student's attention to it.

Uptake, or Learner Responses to Feedback

Lyster and Ranta's data also revealed different types of student responses to

teachers' corrective feedback.  Uptake is defined in their work as "a student's

utterance that immediately follows the teachers' feedback and that constitutes a

reaction in some way to the teachers' intention to draw attention to some aspect of

the student's initial utterance" (1997, p. 49).  Put another way, uptake shows what

the student tries to do with the teacher's feedback.

Two types of student uptake appeared in the data:  uptake that produces an

utterance still needing repair and uptake that produces a repair of the error on

which the teacher's feedback focused.  This latter type—uptake with repair—doesnot include self-initiated repair but rather those types of repairs that students

produced in direct response to the feedback provided by the teacher.

Results:  What did the classroom data reveal?

Lyster and Ranta found that approximately 34% of the student utterances

audiotaped during those 18 hours of class time contained some type of error.

Teachers responded with some type of corrective feedback to 62% of all the errors

produced by students.  Of all the feedback utterances produced by the teachers in

response to learner errors, 55%, or slightly over half, were found to lead to uptake of

some type on the part of the learner.  However, only 27% of the feedback utterances

led to student repair.  When Lyster and Ranta (1997) looked at the total number of

errors produced by students and the total number of repairs they produced, they

found that just 17% of the total errors made by students were repaired in some way

by students.

The study produced interesting results in terms of feedback types. Lyster and

Ranta found that the teachers in their study provided corrective feedback using

recasts over half of the time (55%).  Elicitation feedback was offered in 14% of the

cases, clarification requests 11%, metalinguistic feedback 8%, explicit correction 7%,

and repetition 5%.  Lyster and Ranta point out that the low percentage of repetition

feedback is rather deceptive because teachers often produce repetitions along with

other types of feedback.  More interesting still is Lyster and Ranta's analysis of what

types of corrective feedback lead to uptake that contained student-generated repairs.

These results are summarized in Table 1.

TABLE 1. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF REPAIRS ATTRIBUTED TO EACH FEEDBACK TYPE

Feedback Type All Repairs

(n = 184)

Student-Generated Repairs

(n = 100)

Recast (n = 375) 66 (36%) 0

Elicitation (n = 94) 43 (23%) 43 (43%)

Clarification request (n = 73) 20 (11%) 20 (20%)

Metalinguistic feedback (n = 58) 26 (14%) 26 (26%)

Explicit correction (n = 50) 18 (10%) 0

Repetition (n = 36) 11 (6%) 11 (11%)

As clearly shown in Table 1, recasts and explicit correction did not result in

student-generated repair at all, because those two feedback types provide students

with the correct forms and thus can only lead to student repair that is a repetition of

the correct form provided by the teacher.  On the other hand, when the other fourtypes lead to repair, it must be student-generated because these feedback types do not

provide the correct form.

Lyster and Ranta summarize that student-generated repairs are important in

language learning because they indicate active engagement in the learning process

on the part of students.  This active engagement occurs when there is negotiation of

form, or when the students have to think about and respond to the teacher's

feedback in some way.  And this negotiation of form occurs when the teacher does

not provide the correct form but instead provides cues to help the student consider

how to reformulate his or her incorrect language.

Implications:  What Does This All Mean To The Classroom Teacher?

Lyster and Ranta are careful to conclude that their research on teacher

feedback and student uptake does not yield conclusive claims related to language

learning and that more research is needed.  Nevertheless, it is possible to suggest

some ideas for teachers based on their findings.  We offer four general suggestions

for teachers based on the classroom experiences of Ms. de Gortari and her colleagues.

* Consider the context. Before you plan systematic error correction practices for

your classrooms, you need to consider the context in which student language use

and errors occur.  As immersion teachers are well aware, students in the early stages

of cognitive development and language acquisition need to be encouraged to

produce language that communicates meaning; error correction techniques that

require student reflection on language structures or vocabulary are not appropriate

for learners in those early stages.  The types of corrective feedback techniques that

elicit student-generated repairs are clearly more appropriate for the more cognitively

mature and L2 proficient learners.

❷ Become aware of your current practices. Immersion teachers can benefit by taking

time to find out how they currently address student errors.  Ask a colleague or

classroom aide to observe you while focusing specifically on your feedback

techniques.  Or, should a colleague or aide not be available, audio record a number

of your lessons and reflect on the recording.

❸ Practice a variety of feedback techniques. Good teachers understand that one size

does not fit all.  Individual learners may well differ in terms of the particular error

correction technique most appropriate for their unique language development

needs.  Choosing to learn and use a few different types of feedback that seem to

produce student-generated repairs increases your chance of reaching more students.

❹ Focus on the learner—it's important to let the learner self-correct. Remember that your

students may well be more capable than you think!  As teachers we often feel an urge to

rush in with the correct response before students have had enough time to process the

information. If we allow time and provide appropriate cues for the learner to self-repair,

more often than not the student will come through.  The least effective technique for

correcting a student's incorrect language use is to simply give them the answer. ❍References

Chaudron, C. (1986). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French

immersion classes. In R. Day (Ed.),  Talking to learn: Conversation in second

language acquisition (pp. 64-84). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom

experiment.  Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-359.

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,

research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.

Kowal, M. & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we

promote it in the immersion classroom? In R.K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.),

Immersion education: International perspectives  (pp. 284-309). NY:

Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R. (1987). Speaking immersion.  Canadian Modern Language Review, 43(4),

701-17.

Lyster, R. (1994). La négociation de la forme: Stratégie analytique en classe

d'immersion.  Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 447-465.

Lyster, R. (1997, July).  Attention to language in immersion classrooms. Presentation

at Meeting the Challenges of Immersion Education: Summer Institute for

Immersion Teachers, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of

form in communicative classrooms.  Studies in Second Language Acquisition,

19, 37-66.

Salomone, A. (1992). Student-teacher interactions in selected French immersion

classrooms. In E.B. Bernhardt (Ed.),  Life in language immersion classrooms

(pp. 97-109). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Swain, M., & Johnson, R. K. (1997). Immersion education: A category within bilingual

education. In R.K. Johnson & M. Swain (Eds.),  Immersion education:

International perspectives (pp. 1-16). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1986). Immersion French in secondary schools: "The goods"

and "the bads." Contact, 5(3), 2-9.

You can contact authors Diane J. Tedick and Barbara de Gortari at, respectively, the

University of Minnesota, 150B Peik Hall, 159 Pillsbruy Drive SE, Minneapolis,

Minnesota 55455 (612) 625-1081; <[email protected]>; and Forest Glen Spanish

Immersion Elementary School, 6333 Lee Road, Indianapolis, Indiana 46236

(317) 823-5446; [email protected]