Correcting Errors in Student Writing Lecture 3 Teaching Writing in EFL/ESL Joy Robbins

A quick review… genre ‘Genres are ways in which people “get things done” through their use of language in particular contexts. An academic essay is an example of a genre. It is a socially-approved way in which students show what they know, what they can do, and what they have learned in a course of study. In drafting their essays, writers use language in particular ways according to the aim and purpose of the genre and the relationship between the writer and the audience.’ (Johns et al 2006: 235)

A quick review… genre based teaching Explicit rather than inductive Empowers students – gives them the ‘keys’ to particular discourse communities Develops critical understanding Assists teacher development (Hyland, 2004) Chapter 1 ‘We are developing researchers, not dogmatists, students who explore ideas and literacies rather than seek simple answers’ (Myskow G & Gordon K, 2010 citing Johns A, 1997) ….

We’re going to have a look at the following questions today: Today’s Session We’re going to have a look at the following questions today: Why try to correct students’ writing errors? Does correcting errors work? When should we correct errors (i.e. early in the writing process, for instance during a first draft vs. later in the process, for instance during a final draft)? Which errors should we correct? (Some? None? All?) How should we correct errors? (By using red pen? By using correction symbols? etc.)

Why try to correct students’ errors? Make a list of arguments for and against correcting students’ writing errors

Arguments for Students expect it and want their writing corrected Error correction works (i.e. students become better writers as a result of having their errors corrected) Parents/sponsors/stakeholders expect it (if teachers don’t correct errors, they might think ‘the teacher isn’t doing their job’) It can motivate students to try harder and make fewer mistakes next time It gives students a record of what they do wrong, so that they can work on specific grammar points they need to put right

Arguments against Students ignore the teacher’s corrections, file their writing away (or throw it away!), and learn nothing from their mistakes It doesn’t work It can demotivate students: when they see all the teacher’s red ink, they feel they’re no good at writing and never will be There is research evidence that shows that students sometimes can’t understand teachers’ corrections (‘What have I got wrong?’ ‘Why?’ ‘What should I do to correct my mistake?’)

The case in favour of correcting writing According to Ferris & Hedgcock (1998), there are 3 main reasons why teachers should correct students’ written errors: Students expect to have their writing corrected and think this is very important. A failure to correct may result in frustrated/ demotivated students There is evidence that university lecturers find non- native speakers’ written errors annoying and penalize students for their errors (Janopoulos 1992; Santos 1988; Vann et al 1991, 1984) Students need to be able to correct their errors on their own, and teachers must show them how to do this. If teachers don’t correct errors, they’re sending out the message that error correction isn’t important, and students won’t learn how to edit their own texts

Does error correction work? There are a number of studies (Kepner 1991; Leki 1990; Polio et al 1998) and scholars (Truscott 1996; Zamel 1985) that suggest error correction doesn’t work, that students don’t necessarily become better writers when teachers correct their mistakes The most influential recent anti-correction researcher is Truscott. Here’s a summary of Truscott’s views: ‘Veteran teachers know that there is little direct connection between correction and learning. Often a student will repeat the same mistake over and over again, even after being corrected many times. When this occurs, it is tempting for the teacher to say the student is not attentive or lazy; however, the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, even with successful students, argues against any such explanation. Rather the teacher should conclude that correction simply is not effective.’ (p.341) Would you agree or disagree with Truscott? Why?

Because he has claimed error correction is a waste of time, Truscott has made a lot of researchers very upset, and caused lots of controversy!! So let’s have a look at his arguments in more detail…

What Truscott is against: correction, not feedback Truscott doesn’t object to teachers providing feedback on content, organization, or clarity of student writing. His problem is with feedback on grammatical errors—because he claims this correction doesn’t work.

Does error correction work over the long term? Truscott makes the point that studies of written error correction aren’t longitudinal, i.e. they don’t measure students’ abilities over a long period of time. So even if error correction appears to work over the short term, as in studies like Fathman & Whalley (1990), we don’t know whether the students’ writing really improves as the result of error correction over the longer term

Correction & SLA (1) Truscott argues that second language acquisition (SLA) research shows that written error correction cannot work SLA research shows that the way learners develop their interlanguage is complex. However, the way we correct is (overly) simple. We notice the learner has made an error, we correct the error, and we expect the learner to acquire the correction The problem, then, is that we expect the learner to acquire the correction immediately, although SLA research suggests this acquisition can take a long time

Correction & SLA (2) Truscott points out how SLA research suggests learners learn things in a certain order, which means: ‘When students are corrected on a point for which they are not yet ready, the correction is not likely to have much value.’ (1996: 344) ‘This is not how grammar correction is normally done in L2 writing classes.’ (1996: 344) Teachers correct without knowing whether students are ready to acquire the correction We don’t yet know enough about the order of acquisition to teach according to it: ‘Research on English learning is sufficient to tell us that such sequences exist, but as a general guide for teachers it is hopelessly inadequate.’ (1996: 345) Truscott says that if teachers try to avoid this issue by correcting everything, this won’t help, because learners will get distracted by the corrections on language they’re not ready to acquire

The complexity of the error correction process Truscott also points out that the process by which errors are corrected is complex… First, the teacher must realize a mistake has been made. This sounds a trivial argument, but a study by Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) found many cases in which teachers failed to notice errors. And arguably some less proficient non-native teachers may have particular problems noticing errors Truscott also claims that ‘busy teachers grading large numbers of written assignments have serious problems with time and patience, problems that can easily affect the quality of their comments’ (p.350). Cohen and Robbins (1976) and Zamel (1985), in fact, found serious problems regarding the quality of teachers’ written responses to L2 compositions. Often students can’t understand the teachers’ corrections

The complexity of the error correction process (2) And even if students do understand, SLA research suggests they’ll forget the correction unless they’re ready to acquire it anyway… Truscott also claims learners are likely to become bored and demotivated in trying to correct errors, and may not even try to learn from the teacher’s feedback. Cohen’s (1987) survey revealed that learners only made a mental note of the corrections; and Radecki and Swales (1988) found that ESL students didn’t really take advantage of their teachers’ feedback, because they were reluctant to do any rewriting.

Correction is harmful Truscott not only claims correcting students’ grammar is a waste of time, but also that it is harmful… Truscott says learners learn best when they don’t feel stressed and under pressure: ‘People do not like to be told that they are wrong, especially to be told repeatedly that they are constantly making mistakes. Even students who believe that correction is a necessary part of learning do not enjoy the sight of red ink all over their writing and probably find the experience extremely discouraging.’ (1996: 354) He claims students simply become less ambitious if they know they’re going to be corrected every time they make a mistake, and write simpler sentences which are grammatically correct

Correction is harmful (2) The correction process is very time-consuming, both for teachers (who have to spend hours correcting writing) and for students (who have to think about and correct their mistakes). Truscott says this is harmful because teachers and students could spend their time on something else that isn’t a waste of time, like focusing on the organization or content of the students’ writing

Truscott’s conclusion (1): learning and successful correction aren’t the same thing Truscott & Hsu (2008) conducted an experimental study with two groups of non-native writers: Group A had errors in their writing underlined Group B received no feedback Both groups tried to correct their writing, and group A was more successful However, a week later, both groups wrote another composition, and writing from students in group A contained as many errors as writing from group B Truscott & Hsu therefore conclude: ‘Improvements made during revision are not evidence on the effectiveness of correction for improving learners’ writing ability’ (p.292)

Problems with Truscott’s research However, Bruton (2009) has identified flaws in Truscott & Hsu’s research: although the learners made roughly the same number of errors, they were often different errors to those which had been corrected!

Truscott’s conclusion (2): stop correcting If correcting students’ writing errors doesn’t work, let’s stop—even though we know most students want to be corrected Truscott’s conclusion is extremely provocative: ‘This leaves the question of what teachers should do in writing classes. The answer…is straightforward: anything except grammar correction’ (1996: 360)

Ferris & Hedgcock’s reply to Truscott Ferris & Hedgcock (1998) claim that Truscott goes too far in claiming that correcting written errors doesn’t work. They say 3 questions must be answered before we can be sure if error correction works or not: Is grammar feedback and correction carried out selectively, systematically, and accurately? Are individual student differences (including language proficiency, literacy skills, learning styles, motivation and attitude, first language, etc.) adequately addressed? Are studies that assess the effectiveness of error correction designed and executed appropriately?

Ferris’ reply In a number of recent books and articles (including a 2004 article in Journal of Second Language Writing), Ferris persuasively shows how Truscott’s radical conclusions must be treated with caution, because we still have very little evidence to say whether correction works or not The problem is that, although there have been a number of studies, they looked at different things, and the teachers corrected errors in different ways— so we cannot confidently say ‘correction does not work’, because we simply don’t have enough evidence yet…

Ferris’ reply (2): previous studies Ferris and other scholars (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch 2010) have pointed out that some of the error correction studies were badly designed, and so we can’t say with confidence whether their results are sound or not. For instance, Bitchener & Knoch (2010) point out that seven well-known error correction studies didn’t include a control group (i.e. a group that received no corrections). So it may have been that the error correction didn’t improve accuracy of the writing, but the fact the students had to re-draft and try to notice the errors themselves…

Ferris’ reply (3): correction & SLA Truscott used the SLA literature to talk about correction, but so does Ferris She claims that the SLA literature ‘predicts positive effects for written error correction’ (Ferris 2004: 54) She claims that focus on form and getting students to notice their errors should help them acquire the language

More on the debate about error correction: recent publications Anthony Bruton, Dana Ferris, John Truscott, Rod Ellis, and others are still writing (and arguing!) about this: see their articles in Journal of Second Language Writing and System

Recent research: Bitchener & Knoch (2010) A longitudinal study, conducted over 10 months, to see if low-intermediate learners’ writing improved as a result of error correction The study only focused on learners’ use of articles (‘a’ and ‘the’) Different types of error correction led to more accurate writing. The writing of the control group who received no feedback improved a little, but to a much lesser extent

Recent research: Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken (2012) a study on comprehensive correction with 268 secondary school L2 learners Experimental group 1 – direct corrective feedback Experimental group 2 – indirect corrective feedback Control group 1 – self-correction Control group 2 – additional writing practice All groups had four sessions: Initial writing, writing revision (except for control 2), writing test 1 week after, writing test 4 weeks after

Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken’s (2012) results Students who received corrective feedback made fewer errors in new pieces of writing than learners who did not receive CF (those who did self- correction or additional writing) Students who received CF did not produce simpler sentences, as Truscott claimed they would Direct correction promoted durable improvement in grammatical accuracy, indirect correction promoted non-grammatical accuracy Overall, they find Truscott is wrong: ‘even a single CF treatment proved to have long-lasting positive effects 4weeks later’ (2012: 34)

So what should teachers do? Probably keep correcting, because most teachers and most students believe it works, at least some of the time… Consider Ferris & Hedgcock’s (1998: 202) summary of what research tells us about how written errors should be corrected. There are 3 points. They focus on When to correct errors Which errors to correct How to correct errors Let’s look at each in turn…

Claim 1: when to correct errors ‘Most sentence-level mechanical corrections are best left to the latter stages of the editing process. However, generalized feedback about students’ major error patterns in early drafts may be helpful to them.’ (Ferris & Hedgcock 1998: 202) Similarly, Ferris (2003) claimed recently: ‘Feedback is most effective when it is delivered at intermediate stages of the writing process’ (p.122) In other words, what Ferris and Ferris & Hedgcock are claiming is that it’s best to correct grammar only after students have done 1 or 2 drafts of their writing…

When do you give students feedback? What are the pros and cons of giving students feedback on their writing: After they’ve produced a first draft, but before they’ve produced a final draft? After they’ve produced a final draft? When do you normally give students feedback? Why? If you were the student learning the language, when do you think you’d prefer to be given feedback on your writing? Why?

Refusing to correct errors early Some teachers refuse to correct students’ writing early in the writing process because they fear students will become obsessed by avoiding bad grammar (e.g. 3rd person ‘s’, etc). Instead, the teacher is far more concerned with students producing good ideas, arguments, and organization… Some teachers also point out that students’ writing may change substantially during the writing process. What’s the point of correcting mistakes early on when students’ final drafts will look nothing like their 1st drafts?

When to correct: student expectations The problem with refusing to correct errors early in the writing process is that students might not accept this: they might want their grammar corrected So Ferris & Hedgcock suggest a compromise: the teacher should focus mostly on students’ ideas and organization early in 1st drafts, with a few, general comments on grammar… In later drafts, the teacher can focus more heavily on grammar

Claim 2: which errors to correct ‘It is important for teachers to be selective in addressing students’ written errors. Errors that should receive the greatest attention should include serious (“global”) errors that interfere with the comprehensibility of the text, stigmatizing errors that most disturb [native speaker] audiences, and the student’s most frequent errors.’ (Ferris & Hedgcock 1998: 202) In other words, teachers shouldn’t try to correct every error… Do you agree with Ferris & Hedgcock? Why (not)?

Prioritizing error correction Ferris & Hedgcock claim it is important to correct only the most important errors, because teachers have neither the time nor the patience to correct everything: ‘Dealing with student errors in written work can be tedious, tiring, and frustrating. This is no doubt why researchers have found that teachers are often erratic and even inaccurate in providing grammar feedback on student writing.’ (p.209)

Claim 3: how to correct errors As we have seen, there are 2 different methods of correcting writing: direct correction, where the teacher writes what the student should have written indirect correction, where the teacher gives the student a clue where/what the error is, but doesn’t provide the correction ‘Except for students at very beginning levels of language proficiency, direct correction techniques … are not effective or appropriate. Indirect techniques, such as noting the location and/or type of error and asking students to find and correct their own errors, are most effective for intermediate to advanced students.’ (Ferris & Hedgcock 1998: 202) Do you agree? Why (not)? How do you correct errors?

How to correct errors: research evidence As Bitchener & Knoch (2010) point out, however, research comparing the efficacy of direct and indirect correction has produced contradictory results: some work suggests indirect error correction may work better, while other studies report both direct and indirect correction works equally well Perhaps as Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken (2012) suggest, different kinds of correction work best for different errors (direct for grammatical, indirect for non-grammatical) We don’t know yet…

How to correct errors: an exception Although Ferris & Hedgcock prefer indirect correction, they admit that direct correction may be better with lower level students, ‘those whose grammatical competence in the L2 is not sufficiently developed for them to self-correct even when an error is pointed out to them.’ (p.206) Let’s now go on to have a look at some indirect correction techniques…

Indirect correction: techniques Using correction symbols (e.g. sp. for spelling; wo for word order, etc.) Marking a line which contains an error with a cross (x); marking a line which contains 2 errors with 2 crosses (xx), etc. Writing at the end of the text that there are 5 word order mistakes that you want the student to find and correct

Correction symbols Did any of your teachers use correction symbols with you when you were learning a language? How (un)successful was it? If you’re a teacher, have you ever used correction symbols? How (un)successful was it? In your opinion was this better than direct correction? Why (not)?

Varying correction techniques There’s a case to be made for varying how we correct students’ writing. Different techniques make students more or less dependent upon teachers…

Varying error correction to empower students Ferris & Hedgcock suggest that students will become better editors of their own work if they learn to take responsibility for correcting their own errors. They show how they reduce teacher intervention over the course of a term: Early in the course: The teacher marks all examples of a particular error type in an essay draft (e.g., by underlining), also pointing out in an end comment or on an essay feedback form that the writer has a particular problem to work on (e.g., “Please go through your draft and try to correct all of the noun errors I have underlined”). Mid-course: The teacher underlines a few examples of the error (perhaps only on the first page), again commenting on the error type, and asking the peer editor to underline the rest of the errors of this type in the essay. Late in the course: The teacher makes a verbal comment (e.g., “You still have too many noun errors—keep working on this!”) but doesn’t mark any of them, instead asking the writer to find them him or herself. (p.218)

What are error correction practices like at the chalkface? We’ve talked about what (predominantly North American) researchers say about error correction, and how error correction should be done… However, North American researchers teach writing in very different conditions to many other teachers around the world… This is why Icy Lee’s (2004) recent study is interesting, because it shows how teachers in Hong Kong correct written errors and what kind of correction students want…

Teaching writing in Hong Kong Lee (2004) talks about how writing is typically taught and how error are corrected in Hong Kong classrooms: ‘The typical writing classroom in Hong Kong is dominated by the teaching of grammar and the teaching of language, with less attention paid to the discourse features of writing…. A primarily product- oriented approach is adopted, and writing is treated as a “one-off” activity—i.e., students write a composition and submit it immediately afterwards…. Writing is tested rather than taught. […] Teachers generally respond to student writing using a product- oriented approach—i.e., treating each piece of writing as a final draft. When students receive the marked compositions, they correct the errors by re-writing either the whole composition or those sentences which contain errors. Rewriting of content is not normally required.’ (Lee 2004: 288)

Hong Kong teachers’ practices Lee (2004) used questionnaires, interviews, and error correction tasks to find out how Hong Kong teachers corrected writing The questionnaire data revealed that 72% of the teachers said they corrected every error

Hong Kong students’ wishes Lee (2004) used questionnaires to find out how Hong Kong students wanted teachers to correct their writing Lee’s (2004) study also shows that 83% of the students studied wanted teachers to correct all their errors

What Lee’s (2004) study tells us Teaching writing in general, and correcting errors in particular, in some parts of the world is not done in the way (North American) researchers say it should be There may be some contextual factors which explain some of these differences: for instance, the fact that Hong Kong teachers have far fewer classroom hours to devote to writing than their North American counterparts helps explain why there seems to be less drafting and redrafting of writing in Hong Kong…

What Lee’s (2004) study tells us (2) However, just because there’s less time available for teachers, this shouldn’t mean these teachers don’t try to take research evidence into account. With regard to drafting and redrafting, they could ask the students to do this at home And with regard to error correction, they could try to correct selectively, in line with the research evidence…BUT

Institutional requirements In a later study, Lee (2008) found that Hong Kong teachers may be forbidden to correct selectively… (‘If marking was not detailed enough, according to the teachers, they were considered “lazy and irresponsible”.’) (p.79)

Do teachers practise what they preach? Lee (2009) has also published a fascinating study which identifies how what Hong Kong teachers do when they correct writing clashes with what they believe about correcting writing Her study involved examining teachers’ feedback, to see what teachers do, and questionnaires and interviews, to see what teachers believe they should do

Mismatches between what teachers believe and do Here are some of Lee’s (2009) findings: Teachers pay most attention to language form but they believe there’s more to good writing than accuracy Teachers mark errors comprehensively although selective marking is preferred Teachers tend to correct and locate errors for students but believe that through teacher feedback students should learn to correct and locate their own errors Teachers use error codes although they think students have a limited ability to decipher the codes Teachers award scores/grades to student writing although they are almost certain that marks/grades draw student attention away from teacher feedback

Error correction at the chalkface Teachers may feel constrained to adopt correction practices they don’t believe in because of their context… There’s a message here about learners’ (mistaken?) beliefs, but also about the (mistaken?) beliefs and practices about error correction imposed on teachers by schools, directors, etc…

References Bitchener J & Knoch U (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: a ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31: 193-214. Bruton J (2009) Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were… System 37: 600-613. Cohen AD (1987) Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (eds.), Learner Strategies in Language Learning. New York: Prentice-Hall, pp.57-69. Cohen AD & Cavalcanti MC (1990) Feedback in compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.155-77. Cohen AD & Robbins M (1976) Toward assessing interlanguage performance: the relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ explanations. Language Learning 26: 45-66. Fathman A & Whalley E (1990) Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp.178-190. Ferris D (1995a) Can advanced ESL students become effective self-editors? CATESOL Journal 8: 41-62. Ferris D (1995b) Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self- editors. TESOL Journal 4(4): 18-22. Ferris D (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31: 315-339.

References (2) Ferris D (2003) Responding to writing. In B Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.119-140. Ferris D (2004) The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 49-62. Ferris D & Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillocks G (1986) Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English. Hyland K (2004) Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Janopoulos M (1992) University faculty tolerance of NS and NNS writing errors. Journal of Second Language Writing 1: 109-122. Johns, A. M. et al (2006) Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: commentaries by experts. Journal of Second Language Writing 15: 234-249. Kepner CG (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 75: 305-313. Knoblauch CH & Brannon L (1981) Teacher commentary on student writing: the state of the art. Freshman English News 10: 1-4. Lalande JF (1982) Reducing composition errors: an experiment. The Modern Language Journal 66: 140-149. Lee I (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: the case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 285-312. Lee I (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 69-85.

References (3) Lee I (2009)Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal 63(1): 13-22. Leki I (1990) Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll (ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57-68. Myskow G & Gordon K (2010) A focus on purpose: using a genre approach in an EFL writing class. ELT Journal 64(3): 283-292. Polio C et al (1998) ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 43-68. Radecki PM & Swales JM (1988) ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System 16: 355-65. Robb T et al (1986) Salience of feedback and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20: 83-93. Santos T (1988) Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly 22: 69-90. Truscott J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46: 327-369. Truscott J & Hsu A.Y. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 292-305. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1– 41. Vann R et al (1984) Error gravity: a study of faculty opinion of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly 18: 427-440. Vann R et al (1991) Error gravity: faculty response to errors in written discourse of nonnative speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (ed.), Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts. Norwood: Ablex, pp.181-195. Zamel V (1985) Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly 19: 79-102.

This week’s reading Process writing: Read the introductions, and have a look at some of the teaching activities in: Hedge T (1988) Writing Nation ISP (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. White RV & Arndt V (1991) Process Writing White RV (1995) New Ways in Teaching Writing. Error correction: Ferris D (2004) The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 49-62. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.