Rethinking error correction: More effective pathways for grammatical development

Student with feedback

Haga clic aquí para la traducción al español (Google Translate)

Introduction

The role of error correction in second language (L2) instruction has long divided scholars & practitioners. On one side, researchers such as Dana Ferris (1995, 1997, 1999, 2012; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) contend that selective & focused corrective feedback can promote accuracy & aid some students to develop as writers. On the other, critics like John Truscott (Mohebbi, 2021; Truscott, 1996, 1999b, 1999a, 2001, 2004, 2007a, 2007b, 2009; Truscott & Hsu, 2008) argue that grammatical correction is largely ineffective & potentially harmful, discouraging linguistic exploration & risk-taking & impeding fluency. Bridging these opposing positions, Charlene Polio (2012) suggests that corrective feedback may be beneficial under certain conditions; if students attend to it, apply it immediately, & if it targets structures within their developmental reach. Yet even under such circumstances, its long-term effects on acquisition remain uncertain.

Recent insights from cognitive neuroscience, particularly Michael T. Ullman’s (2001b, 2001a, 2014) declarative/procedural model of language, offer a powerful framework for reassessing this debate. Ullman’s theory not only clarifies why explicit correction rarely leads to durable grammatical competence but also highlights alternative, evidence-based methods that better align with how languages are learned & used.

I'll say it again. Explicit form-focused correction is ineffective.
“I’ll say it again. Explicit form-focused correction is ineffective.”

The debate on error correction

Proponents of error correction argue that explicit feedback helps students notice gaps between their interlanguage & the target form, fostering self-awareness & self-editing skills. Within skill-acquisition theory (Anderson, 1982; DeKeyser, 2020; Ellis, 1999), feedback is seen as a key mechanism for transforming declarative knowledge, i.e. “knowing that,” into proceduralised skill, i.e. “knowing how.” In contrast, detractors maintain that grammatical correction has negligible effects on long-term acquisition, since it primarily develops explicit knowledge that students typically fail to apply spontaneously. Moreover, repeated focus on linguistic form can reduce students’ confidence & willingness to experiment with new structures.

Polio’s synthesis (2012) of theoretical perspectives captures the tension at the heart of this issue. While certain models of second language acquisition, such as usage-based & interactionist approaches, see form-focused feedback as potentially facilitative, generative & processability frameworks (Pienemann, 1984, 1984, 2015; Pienemann, et al., 2005) predict minimal impact from such interventions. The question, therefore, is not whether error correction can ever work, but rather whether it meaningfully contributes to the implicit, procedural skills that underlie fluent, accurate language use.

Ullman’s model & its implications for error correction

Ullman’s (2001b, 2001a, 2014) declarative/procedural distinction provides a compelling cognitive explanation for why explicit corrective feedback often fails to yield lasting grammatical improvement.

Different memory systems, different learning mechanisms: Declarative memory, which stores conscious, factual, encyclopedic knowledge, including explicit grammar rules, is fast to acquire but fragile & slow to access. Procedural memory, by contrast, governs the automatic, implicit processing required for fluent speech & writing. Grammatical competence depends primarily on the procedural system. Because corrective feedback mainly enhances declarative knowledge, it strengthens the wrong memory system for fluent grammatical performance.

The limits of conscious rule application: Even when students understand a corrected rule, the retrieval of declarative knowledge during writing or conversation is too effortful to support real-time production. This explains why students who can explain grammatical rules often continue to produce errors in spontaneous tasks. Error correction, therefore, builds awareness without ensuring proceduralisation.

Proceduralisation requires implicit practice, not explanation: Procedural memory develops through repeated exposure & use in meaningful contexts. Telling students what is wrong or why a form is incorrect may increase short-term awareness but does little to strengthen implicit, automatic control.

Interference with implicit processes: Excessive focus on form can divert attention from meaning, reducing opportunities for procedural learning, i.e. making form-meaning pairings. In this sense, error correction may inadvertently impede the very system responsible for grammatical fluency.

Variability across students: Individual differences in reliance on declarative versus procedural memory further limit the effectiveness of correction. Adult students may initially depend on declarative learning, but without opportunities to proceduralise through practice, their grammatical accuracy remains unstable.

Insufficient practice opportunities: Classroom feedback rarely provides the volume of contextualised, repeated practice required for procedural consolidation. As a result, the gains from correction, if any, tend to be only declarative, fragile, & temporary.

Alternative methods for developing grammatical competence

Given these cognitive constraints, educators should reconsider their investment in written or oral correction as the primary means of improving grammatical accuracy. Instead, instructional approaches that activate procedural learning mechanisms are more consistent with how grammar is acquired & retained.

Task-based & input-rich instruction: Designing communicative tasks that encourage repeated use of target structures promotes implicit learning. When students focus on meaning but encounter & produce forms frequently, proceduralisation occurs naturally. N.B. Typical grammar drills & grammar practice activities are rarely genuinely communicative.

Input enhancement & conscious language processing: Techniques such as text enhancement & input flooding can draw attention to form within meaningful input without interrupting communication. These methods stimulate conscious language processing, helping to develop both explicit language awareness & deeper implicit language processing, i.e. form-meaning pairings.

Reformulation & collaborative revision: Instead of marking errors directly, teachers can reformulate students’ writing or engage them in guided revision or re-study activities. Comparing their drafts with improved versions encourages self-discovery & pattern recognition, reinforcing both noticing & procedural integration.

Structured Input: In particular, Structured Input (A. G. Benati & Lee, 2010; A. Benati & Lee, 2008; Lee & Benati, 2009; VanPatten, 2004, 2018) has shown great promise in guiding students’ attention to form & meaning simultaneously, thereby increasing the probability that they will make form-meaning connections. However, the technique has narrow applications, only where clear, consistent ‘A vs. B’ language choices can be made, e.g. Present Simple for habitual actions vs. Past Simple for single actions in the past.

Structured output & repetition: Activities that require the use of specific structures, such as information gaps, role-plays, or storytelling with linguistic constraints, provide the repeated, goal-oriented practice necessary for procedural development & strengthening.

Delayed, reflective feedback: When explicit feedback is used, it should serve as a reflection tool after communicative use rather than as an interruption during it. This sequencing allows students to connect conscious awareness with learning through use, as well as identifying language features that they should pay more attention to in future encounters.

Conclusion

The cumulative evidence suggests that explicit, form-focused instruction & error correction alone cannot drive grammatical acquisition, as they primarily engage declarative memory rather than the procedural mechanisms responsible for fluent performance. While explicit feedback may raise awareness & aid short-term editing, sustainable grammatical competence emerges from meaningful practice, repeated exposure, & implicit learning opportunities. By aligning pedagogy with the cognitive architecture of language learning described by Ullman (ibid.), educators can move beyond the corrective tradition toward more effective, research-informed approaches. The goal is not to abandon feedback altogether, but to reposition it within a broader framework that prioritises proceduralised, communicative, & context-rich learning experiences, the true engines of grammatical development.

References/further reading