257
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A
Sample Technology-supported Approach
to Teaching Grammar and Improving
Writing for ESL Learners
VOLKER HEGELHEIMER
DAVID FISHER
Iowa State University
ABSTRACT
English language learners are frequently unable to benefit from the prevailing
process-writing approaches due to a lack of grammar and vocabulary knowledge relevant to academic writing. This paper describes how the need for explicit
grammar instruction as part of preparing students to write can be addressed by
using a collection of learner texts and transforming that collection into an online
grammar resource for intermediate nonnative speakers (NNS) of English. Drawing on research in grammar and writing, the use of learner texts, and online interactivity, we outline the development and the prototype of the Internet Writing
Resource for the Innovative Teaching of English (iWRITE). We discuss how the
judicious use of advanced technology (e.g., XML) facilitated the implementation of iWRITE, an example of one possible approach to embodying aspects of
second language acquisition (SLA) theory while taking advantage of the Web’s
potential for interactivity.
KEYWORDS
ESL Writing and Grammar, Learner Corpus, Web-based Resource Development, XML/
XSL, Interactivity
INTRODUCTION
Despite participating in courses specifically aimed at improving the writing proficiency of English as a second language (ESL) learners, nonnative speakers (NNS)
are frequently not prepared to produce acceptable academic writing (Hinkel,
2004). Hinkel (2002) points out that, among other problems, the relative absence
of direct and focused grammar instruction, the lack of academic vocabulary development, and the exclusive use of a process-writing approach contribute to this
problem. Even high intermediate and advanced NNS do not have the grammatical
CALICO Journal, 23 (2), p-p 257-279.
© 2006 CALICO Journal
258
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
and lexical wherewithal to benefit from the process-writing-teaching approaches.
Thus, researchers (Hinkel, 2002, and others) recommend to specifically include
grammar and vocabulary relevant to academic writing in the curriculum of writing classes for NNS. The availability of advanced technology coupled with recent
research dealing with learner texts allows for the creation of systems specifically
designed to address learner needs (Kuo, Wible, Chen, Sung, Tsao, & Chio, 2002;
Wible, Kuo, Chien, Liu, & Tsao, 2001). An ideal platform for implementing these
recommendations into functional systems is the World Wide Web (WWW).
In this paper, we draw on research in the area of grammar in writing approaches
and suggest that technology can be instrumental in creating an innovative online
grammar resource aimed at raising learner awareness of troublesome grammatical
features. In particular, we show how, by harnessing the capabilities of technology
and implementing the principles of computer-assisted language learning, learner
texts can be transformed and integrated into an effective online resource. In doing
so, we proceed as follows: First, we reiterate and highlight the need for including
grammar instruction as part of ESL writing courses, review work that has been
done to date using learner corpora to assist with such instruction, suggest features
to be included in a Web-based resource based on information derived from an
interactionist view of second language acquisition (SLA), and review existing
writing systems. Second, we outline four stages used in the development of the
Internet Writing Resource for the Innovative Teaching of English (iWRITE), describe the system’s components, and give examples of its pedagogical uses. In the
last part, we propose empirical research to evaluate the usefulness of this Web
application.
WRITING AND GRAMMAR
Hinkel (2004) points out the mismatch between what is taught and what can be accomplished by intermediate- and advanced-level ESL writers. Often, she argues,
“intensive, individualized help with sentence-level syntax […]” is needed despite
the explicit grammar instruction learners have received. Since learners frequently
do not have the competence they need, they are required to enroll in ESL writing courses. However, even these courses fail to adequately prepare NNS for the
academic writing expected of them. One important concern is that since the 1980s
writing classes have shifted away from a product approach to embrace a process
approach to writing (Hairston, 1982). While important for the personal development of the learners, “the new instructional methodology centered squarely and
almost exclusively on the writing process that fundamentally overlooked the fact
that NNS writers may simply lack the necessary language skills (e.g., vocabulary
and grammar) to take advantage of the benefits of writing process instruction”
(Hinkel, 2004, p. 9). A related problem accompanying writing process instruction is the change of focus, whereby meaning and overall success in communication receive exclusive attention at the cost of accuracy (Williams, 1995 as cited
in Granger and Tribble, p. 13; James, 1998). This lack of the required range of
lexical and grammar skills for successful academic writing has been investigated
by numerous researchers (e.g., Nation, 1990; Raimes, 1983; Read, 2000; Vann,
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
259
Meyer, & Lorenz, 1984; Vann, Lorenz, & Meyer, 1991). The findings reported in
these investigations play an important role in the design and creation of the type
of resource presented in this paper.
In addition to these concerns, it is the product, not the process that is evaluated in academic testing situations in which students are asked to produce written
texts, such as for assignments in most (if not all) higher-education classes—except writing classes. Strikingly, even in most placement test situations in English,
only the product (i.e., the essay) is evaluated, while the teaching approach remains
process oriented.
A distinct, yet related aspect of process-writing approaches is that they integrate
peer editing. Research (e.g., Hyland, 2002; Hinkel, 2004) supports classroom experience that peer editing, while often perceived as helpful, may not lead students
to improved error awareness and error recognition. Helping learners focus on errors typically committed by learners from a particular L1 can raise the awareness
of such problem areas and facilitate the detection (and prevention) of certain error
types. In fact, learners often want to focus on form and wish for a pedagogical tool
to serve as a reference and an easy-to-use resource. Nevertheless, the exclusive
use of model texts that are not accessible to students is viewed skeptically by students and may lead to unrealistic expectations.
What is needed is direct instruction coupled with explicitly pointing out mistakes in essays written by language learners. Hinkel (2004) calls for innovative
ways of teaching rather than more of the same. Recent development in the area of
corpus linguistics in general and in working with learner corpora in particular, as
well as advances in technology, may be ideally suited to play a key role in reinventing (or at least supplementing) grammar teaching as part of a writing course.
Each is discussed in turn below.
LEARNER CORPORA
Since being called a revolution in applied linguistics in the early 1990s (Granger,
1994), learner corpora have become a major source for learning about various
errors, including L1 interference errors, particularly in ESL writing. One major
project, the International Corpus of Learner English1 (ICLE) consisting of argumentative writings by ESL learners from different countries, provides learners
with access to not only an error corpus, but also to a comparison group corpus
consisting of essays written by native speakers (NS) of English (Virtanen, 1996).
This type of research frequently informs pedagogy. For example, Granger and
Tyson (1996) looked at the overuse of connectors, which they hypothesized stems
from teaching learners lists of supposedly interchangeable connectors. Using a
fairly large corpus of over 1,000 texts, Hinkel (2003) looked at the level of complexity exhibited by advanced NNS and compared it to texts written by NS. She
found that significantly more markers of simplicity or “basicness” such as the
be-copula or vague nouns were present in essays written by NNS. These learner
corpora have been used to shed light on various aspects of learner language, including the use of connectors (Milton & Tsang, 1993), adjective intensification
(Lorenz, 1998), adverbial connectors (Altenberg & Granger, 2002), overpassiviza-
260
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
tion errors (Cowan, Choi, & Kim, 2003), and syntactic and lexical constructions
in academic writing (Hinkel, 2003). Other contributions highlight the importance
of the corpus design (Granger, 1993; Meunier, 2002) and the possibilities for the
creation of “corpus-informed learning materials” (Granger & Tribble, 1998).
In order to transform these learner corpora into useful learning and teaching
tools, we must draw from the current research in CALL and online interactivity.
The next section situates the interactionist theory of SLA within the more general
discussions of online writing and pedagogical interactivity. In doing so, we provide a heuristic for the development and assessment of online tools.
CALL, WRITING SYSTEMS, AND WEB INTERACTIVITY
Phinney (1996) realized the importance of technology in writing and recognized
the following paradigm shift: “As part of the changing culture of composition
instruction, there is a new emphasis on de-centering authority, coupled with a
recognition of the importance of collaborative learning, and a realization of the
need for new models of writing and rhetoric” (p. 140). A gradual shift from word
processing to collaborative writing in the late 1980s to mid-1990s necessitated the
development of tools to accommodate this shift in pedagogy.
However, writing systems were often developed by writing teachers in response
to a lack of appropriate writing tools (Phinney, 1996). This led to the creation
of more collaboratively oriented writing environments such as the Daedalus Integrated Writing System and Prep Editor. The focus of these tools was in line
with the predominant process approach to writing and, therefore, teachers or peers
used these tools mostly to make organizational and rhetorical comments.
Milton (1998) outlined an electronic resource aimed at creating “electronic
language learning” experiences. He described how a comparison of a nonnative
learner corpus, called interlanguage corpus, with a NS corpus could inform the
creation of “electronic exercises, tutorials, and tools” (p. 186). Cowan et al. (2003)
discussed one example of a comprehensive electronic tool. Their extensive CALL
program, ESL Tutor, is aimed at “investigating whether persistent errors can be
eradicated” (p. 457).
Since the widespread availability of the Web and numerous Web- and computer-based writing systems, Wible et al. (2001) noted that “content providers
often end up accommodating their content to existing systems rather than imagining first how the technology should be designed to accommodate the needs of the
content and the learners” (p. 298). Maddux (2002), noting the exponential growth
in the number of Web-based educational systems, attributed part of the failure of
Web-based instruction to a lack of effective interactivity, which he called “the
most promising, yet scarce characteristic that can be built into Web pages” (p.
10). Maddux distinguished between two types of uses of technology. Type I uses
“make it quicker, easier, or more convenient to teach in traditional ways while
Type II uses make it possible to teach in new and better ways that are not otherwise available” (p. 10). Similarly, Wible et al. argued that Web-based writing
environments should be developed “expressly to meet the unique needs of particular learning domains in ways that traditional classrooms can not” (p. 298). Kuo
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
261
et al. (2002) described the Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning
(IWiLL) system they developed to address these needs.
The significant features these more recent resources have in common are that
they are built on or around learner texts (a learner corpus), that they are searchable, and that they are Web-based. Also, the tools in these resources put more
emphasis on grammatical and lexical errors rather than on organizational and rhetorical problems. Finally, the systems attempt to simultaneously address learner
needs (e.g., appropriate level of difficulty, clear feedback, and accessible metalanguage), teacher needs (e.g., elimination of repetitive tasks, increased learner
independence, and identification of error patterns), and researcher needs (e.g.,
tracking student use of the system).
One theoretical framework that can serve as a basis for the development and
assessment of an online resource that integrates grammar, writing, and the use
of learner corpora is the interactionist theory of SLA. Focusing mainly on the
role input and interaction plays in instructed (or classroom-based) settings (Pica
1994; Long, 1996; Gass, 1997), the hypotheses in the interactionist theory are
pertinent to the design of CALL activities and resources. Acquisition occurs only
when linguistic input becomes intake, that is, is comprehended syntactically and
semantically by the learner. Noticing linguistic input is viewed as a prerequisite
for acquisition (Schmidt, 1990), and noticing is more likely to occur during interaction. Hence, software features that enhance noticing in general and that help the
learner to focus on form (FoF) (Long, 1991) are viewed as beneficial. Chapelle
(1998) proposed seven criteria for the development of multimedia CALL based
on hypotheses that derive from interactionist-based research:
1. make linguistic characteristics salient,
2. help learners comprehend semantic and syntactic aspects of input,
3. learners need to be able to produce output,
4. learners need to be able to notice errors in their output,
5. learners need to correct their linguistic output,
6. target language interactions need to be modifiable for negotiation of meaning, and
7. learners need to engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for
good interaction.
Chou (2003) sought to assist those developing what Maddux called Type II uses
of technology—or what we can conceive of as interactionist learning systems—
by providing a list of interactivity dimensions culled from the past 15 years of research on instructional design. These dimensions help us envision how Chapelle’s
interactionist criteria can be concretely embodied in a Web-based system while
also providing a rubric of sorts for assessing such a system’s level of interactivity
(see Table 1). Guided by these considerations, we describe in the next part the
development, implementation, and anticipated use of iWRITE.
262
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Table 1
Interactivity dimensions (adapted from Chou, 2003)
Interactivity dimensions
Brief description
Nonsequential access of
choice
Ability to choose route through information
Choice
Responsiveness to learner
Monitoring information use
Personal-choice helper
Adaptability
Playfulness
Facilitation of interpersonal
communication
Ease of adding information
Ability to access information of varying types
(i.e., multimedia)
System responds to users’ requests quickly
System collects data about users and their use
patterns. Users can access data about their use
Information helps learner make better choice
of content
System adapts learning experience to
individual users
Information arouses curiosity and encourages
learners to play and explore
Users (instructors and students) can
communicate with each other online
Users (instructors and students) can add
information to the system
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
Taking into consideration the issues surrounding the opportunity presented by the
collection of genuine learner data in the form of placement essays, the advantages
of learner corpora, and principles derived from SLA theory, the development of
an appropriate Web-based resource also needs to include issues related to the Web
environment to arrive at an application that truly transforms a learner corpus.
Project Development
Figure 1 provides an overview of the iWRITE system, which includes the learner
corpus, documents and activities that support student/instructor interaction with
it. For clarity, we have divided the process into four stages which correspond to
the type of work undertaken on (or the instructional value we are adding to) the
corpus. In each stage, the corpus remains at the center of the process, and the
materials and activities that surround it serve to make the corpus useful to students and instructors by enabling the interactivity that characterizes the iWRITE
interface.
Stage 1: Corpus and Database Design and Assembly
All essays selected for inclusion in the corpus were handwritten as part of an English placement test at Iowa State University on one of four different topics requir-
263
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
ing expository writing. The essays were rated by two independent readers who
both agreed on the specific placement of students.2 Perfect interrater reliability
was the primary criterion for selection. Once typed, the total collection of learner
texts amounted to 45 essays, or 12,839 words. In total, 1,268 errors were identified and marked. The following information was also captured and/or prepared for
entry into the relational database:
1. nationality, TWE score, and TOEFL scores of the writers of the essays;
2. essay topic;
3. contexts, solutions, and corrected contexts (all described below) for marked
errors; and
4. pointers to Flash movies, Word documents (marked during “filming” of
Flash movies), and reference (“Additional Information”) files.
Figure 1
Overview of the Creation of iWRITE
å
ç
Stage
Activity
Corpus and
Database Design
and Assembly
• Design spreadsheets
• Collect student writing
• Identify corpus
characteristics
Corpus Markup/
Solution Production
• Assess essays (generate
audio and video of
assessment sessions)
• Collate Errors
• Create XML versions of essays
• Create general help/advice
XML
marked
essays
HTML
marked
essays
é
Corpus Transformation
• Transform using XSL
• Transform from Camtasia
to Flash
è
Interactive Corpus
• View errors and solutions
by error type
• View errors and solutions
in essays sorted by TOEFL
score and L1
• Generate worksheets from
essays sorted by TOEFL score
and L1
• Watch and listen as instructor
marks an essay
• Use concordancing program
to research uses of words
Corpus
Relational
Database
Placement
essays
XSL
Reference
info
Camtasia
movies
Marked
essays
(Word)
Meta-data:
• Solutions
• Contexts,
• File pointers,
• Test scores,
• Etc.
Flash
movies
Interactions
enabled by
iWRITE
Corpus
Ancillary
Document
Stage 2: Learner Text Mark Up and Solution Production
At first, five essays were analyzed in detail, and the initial error categories were
modified according to the actual errors found in the essays. Subsequently, the
remaining 40 essays were marked using the coding scheme outlined in the Appendix, resulting in marked-up essays like the one illustrated in Figure 2. The
error codes were derived from error codes currently in use at the university and
modified to fit the errors exhibited by the learners in this subsample. In addition
to grammatical errors, lexical errors, which Santos (1988) found to be considered
the most serious errors by professors who evaluated nonnative writers, were also
264
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
included. The importance of focusing on both grammatical and lexical errors is
also supported by findings reflected in other studies (Vann et al., 1984; Vann et al.,
1991), in which lexical and semantic errors were found to be most problematic,
particularly when committed by NNS. In subsequent versions of iWRITE, a display of errors based on error gravity will be considered, but the current incarnation does not assign weights to errors.
Figure 2
Example of a Marked-up Essay
spr0204
0305
0402
0307
0507
The most recently problem I met was just few days ago when I first arrived the
0303
0307
0401
0303
0303
University. It’s my fault as being a 4-year University student. Campus is so Large, and
0301
0601
0307
the wather is so cold. I totally did not know what I going to do when I arrived since I
0303
was Late for the orientation program.
0106 [who]
0105
0502
0107 [me]
0307
There is nobody know me, and nobody will come through and tell what going to
0401
0505
0402
0307
do next. Standing in cold wind, totally mess in the mind, such thing being a painful and
unforgettable experience for me.
Database Build and Load
In the next step, each error was put into a spreadsheet, along with identifying
information, and one possible solution (see Table 2). However, many times, sentences contained multiple errors. Therefore, an error-free solution of the entire
sentence (or context) was entered into the spreadsheet. The marking and entering
was done by two different members of the research team in order to minimize
errors and to double check the marking of the errors. After the marking was complete, the spreadsheet was loaded into a table in the relational database.
XML Mark Up: Creating Smart Documents
After the errors were uploaded into the database, the essays were marked up with
tags developed using XML. A set of tags (technically known as elements within
a document type definition) that represented each of the error categories (paragraph, sentence, word, determiner, and miscellaneous) was created. By identifying each error uniquely within the error-category tags, and therefore within the
text of the corpus itself (i.e., by establishing the linkage between the corpus and
the database), we were able to design iWRITE to
265
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
1. draw on the relational database table that contains one possible solution for
the identified error as well as a corrected context, in which all of the errors
in the text surrounding the marked error are corrected (these had been entered into spreadsheets and uploaded into the database as described above),
and thus enable students to get solution information by clicking on a link
in the essay; and
2. make available the “additional help” reference pages for each type of error
from a variety of contexts.
Table 2
Contents of the Excel Error Spreadsheet
Column name
Brief explanation
MainID
Main error category
MainSubNum
Instance identifier, the Nth occurrence of the same error
EssayID
Essay identifier
SubID
Error description
Item
ItemCorrect
The corrected form of the
item. (Needed for identification purposes)
Context
Solution 1
ContextCorrect
The corrected version of the
entire sentence
Example
Spr0244 (i.e., Spring 2002, #04)
Word-level error
misspelling
1
recently
recent
The most recently problem I
met was just few days ago […]
The most recent problem I met
was just few days ago […]
The most recent problem I had
just a few days ago […]
Figure 3 shows how these error tags look and how they correspond with the
entries in the relational database. This activity allowed yet another examination
of the texts to ensure the accuracy of the error marking. The significance of this
mark-up system is described in “Stage 3: Corpus Transformation” below.
Figure 3
XML Mark-up Illustration
Tags indicating beginning and ending of error text
Have you ever <errorWord03 =sub”VerbForm08” mainSub=”1”>think</errorWord03> of being a parent?
Error category
instance : Table
Error description Instance identifier
266
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Video Recording
The research team also annotated Word versions of placement essays using the
“Track Changes” feature. This activity, along with oral comments made by an
annotator, was recorded using Camtasia, a program that allows users to capture
and replay motion that takes place on a computer monitor. These audio/video
files were then transformed into Flash movies to permit speedier delivery over
the Web. The annotator did not have access to the marked-up version of the text.
Rather, 5 minutes were allotted to allow the annotator to glance at the essay before
making suggestions and corrections, which were often more qualitatively oriented
and included praise and constructive suggestions rather than only syntactic and
lexical corrections, mimicking an interaction between a student and an instructor
while reviewing an essay.
Reference Page Creation
After the major error types were identified, the team created a number of reference, or “Additional Information” pages. These pages contain detailed explanations of the error, examples of how to fix the error, and links to websites where
students could go for more information.
Stage 3: Corpus Transformation
An important part of creating layered interactivity lies in providing students with
the ability to query the essays in various ways. In essence, the XML tags encode
some of the expertise that has traditionally resided in instructors and makes it accessible to students.
XSL: Displaying Documents Smartly
Like all tags developed using XML, iWRITE’s error-category tags contain semantic information only, not layout or other appearance information (as HTML
tags do). To display the marked-up essays in a meaningful (and pedagogically
effective) way, iWRITE employs a number of transformations to output essays
in HTML so that students can view and interact with them. This output provides
students a means of using the marks provided by the essay evaluators without
displaying an overwhelming number of marks simultaneously. To provide this interactivity iWRITE uses XSLT (eXtensible Stylesheet Language for Transformations) to highlight errors of a particular category within an essay while providing
links to solutions for the errors.
XSL (eXtensible Stylesheet Language) transformations involve a marked-up
document (like the learner corpus), a transformation stylesheet, and software that
creates a new document out of the two. The stylesheets in iWRITE contain a set
of instructions about how to display each element (i.e., error type) for which a
tag has been defined. The transformation software creates a new document that
renders the data associated with each tag in the way that the stylesheet instructs.
In other words, the transformations that occur in iWRITE produce HTML documents that appear in the students’ browsers with certain error types highlighted
and linked to solutions (see Figure 4).
267
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
Figure 4
Transformations on an Essay from the Learner Corpus
XSL
XML
marked
essays
HTML
Error
Type
Docs
<?xml version=”1.0” encoding=”UTF-8”?>
<!--edited with XMLSy v5rel4. U (http://www.smlspy.com)by David
Fisher (Iowa State University)-->
<xsl:stylesheet vesion=”1.0”
xmins:xsl=”http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform”
xmins:xsl=”http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format”>
<xst:output method=”html”/>
<xst:template match=”/”>
<html>
<head>
<title>
<xsl:value-of select=”/studentEssay/essayid”/>
<title>
<link href=”placement.css” rel=”stylesheet”
type=”text/css”>
<link>
<head>
<xsl:apply-templates/>
<html>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match=”essayid”>
<h3>Word Errors: <xsl:apply-templates/>
</h3>
<xsl:template>
<?xml version=”1.0” encoding=”UTF-8”?>
<!--edited with XMLSy v5rel4. U (http://www.smlspy.com)by David
Fisher (private)-->
<!DOCTYPE student Essay SYSTEM
“http://129.186.46.171/placement/xml/studentEssay1.dtd”>
<studentEssay>
<essayID>spr0136
</essayID>
<essayBody>
<paragraph>Have you ever <errorWor03 sub=”verForm08”
mainSub=“1”>think</errorWord03> of being a parent? Before you
<errorParagraph02 sub=”TenseConsistency01” mainSub=“1”>have
decided</errorParagraph02> to raise a child, you <errorWord03
sub=”VerbUsage07” mainSub=“2”>must have to develop
</errorWord03>some skills to communciate with them and think of some
<errorWord03 sub=”CountUncountNounConfusion11” mainSub=“1”>
advices</errorWord03>that you might give them, in order to provide a
good environment for them to grown up with. As I have been advised
by my aunt when I was a child, my emotional <errorWord03
sub=”Misspelling01” mainSub=“1”>quotions<errorWord03> (EQ) and
communication skills are better than<errorSentence01
sub=”WordOrder08” mainSub=“1”>the others of my age
</errorSentence01>
<paragraph>
Paragraph Errors: spr0136
HaveSentence
you everErrors:
think ofspr0136
being a parent? Before you
have decided to raise a child, you must have to
Word
Errors: spr0136
Have
you ever
of being a parent?
Before
develop
some
skills think
to communicate
with them
and you
decided
to raise
child,
yougive
must
haveinto
thinkhave
of some
advices
that a
you
might
them,
Have
you skills
ever think
of being a parent?
Before
some
to communicate
with them
and you
orderdevelop
to provide
a good environment
for them
to grown
have
decided
to raise
a child,
yougive
must
haveinto
thinkAs
ofI some
advices
that you
them,
up with.
have been
advised
by might
my aunt
when
I
develop
some
skills
to
communicate
with
them
and
to my
provide
a good
environment
for them to
grown
was order
a child,
emotional
quotions
(EC) and
thinkAsofI some
advices
that you
might
give
them, in
up with.
haveare
been
advised
by my
aunt
communication
skills
better
than the
others
ofwhen
my I
order
tomy
provide
a good
environment
for them to grown
was
a
child,
emotional
quotions
(EC)
and
age.
up with. As skills
I have
been
advised
by my
auntofwhen
communication
are
better
than the
others
my I
age. was a child, my emotional quotions (EC) and
communication skills are better than the others of my
age.
The XSL stylesheet (on the left) is combined with an essay from the learner
corpus (on the right). The iWRITE software uses the XSL stylesheet to create an
HTML page in which errors of particular types (e.g., paragraph, sentence, and
word errors) are hyperlinked to solutions for those errors.
Stage 4: Corpus presentation: iWRITE; a smart corpus-based prototype
The homepage of the iWRITE application gives learners access to five main components: Solutions, Essays, Practice, Marking, and Corpus, and a logout option
(see Figure 5).
Figure 5
iWRITE Homepage
268
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
The Solutions section provides learners with access to all marked-up errors contain in the learner corpus. Learners can select a specific error and look at all the
instances in which that error occurred (see Figure 6).
Figure 6
Solutions Section
In addition to viewing the error, the context in which it occurred, and its solution,
learners have the option of viewing the error in the context of the essay by clicking on the image in the left-hand column (see Figure 7).
Figure 7
Specific Errors and Solutions
When clicking on the error in the context of the entire essay, the program provides
an error description, corrected context, and a link to additional information (see
Figure 8). Additionally, for all word-level errors, the program includes a link to
an online corpus.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
269
Figure 8
Highlighted Error in the Essay
The Essays section provides learners with the opportunity for in-depth work
with essays based on native country, essay topic, and TOEFL scores. Essays are
initially displayed in unmarked form so that learners can choose an error category
(word or sentence level) and see the errors highlighted, with the explanations of
the errors appearing on demand in the right frame (see Figure 9). Here, both the
solution for the specific error as well as the corrected context are presented. As in
the Solution section, a link to additional information is provided at the bottom of
the page.
Figure 9
Essay Viewer
270
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
The Practice section permits learners to generate worksheets in which the errors
in one error category are highlighted (see Figure 10). While it is possible simply
to complete the textboxes next to the errors and print them out, the recommended
procedure is to create and download worksheets in Word format, whereby the
errors remain salient through the use of font colors. Learners can then focus on
specific error categories and attempt to correct individual errors. They can then
save the worksheets for later use.
Figure 10
Practice Section
The Marking section allows learners to select essays and to watch and listen as
an instructor annotates them verbally and electronically (using the Track Changes
features in Word). A link to the marked-up version of the essay lets learners download the file for reference or discussion (see Figure 11).
Classroom Application
The iWRITE has immediate pedagogical applications in that it can be used to raise
learners’ grammatical awareness, encourage learner autonomy, and help learners
prepare for editing or peer editing. In this section, sample classroom applications
of each of the four major sections of iWRITE are outlined.
First, iWRITE’s Solutions section can be used to help learners understand the
terminology (or metalanguage) necessary to begin to ask specific questions about
grammar, which is one important aspect of becoming an autonomous learner. The
Solutions section presents the error terms and examples using appropriate grammatical terminology. The Essays section allows learners to dissect essays in lay-
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
271
ers since they can look at different categories of errors at the word, sentence, or
paragraph level. This section is ideally suited to classroom settings because it
does not confront learners with an overwhelming number of errors at the same
time. Plus, the essays are accessible by the writer’s country of origin. Therefore,
this section can be used to prepare for upcoming peer-editing sessions in that
readers can review essays written by a writer from the same country as the one
they will read during the peer-editing session. The Practice section can be used
to generate worksheets as Word documents, which can be used in a small group
activity in which each group member is responsible for finding (and correcting)
specific mistakes at the word, sentence, or paragraph level. Upon completion, the
individual members can collectively correct the essay and compare the errors they
detected with the ones accessible through iWRITE. The last major section, the
Marking section is aimed at encouraging learners to interact cognitively with the
audio/video annotations of an essay. It can be used for peer-editing or error-detection exercises in which unmarked essays can be downloaded and marked up and
corrected by learners who can then verify their choices using iWRITE.
Figure 11
Marking: Listen to and watch annotating in progress
Applications like iWRITE can also be utilized during teacher training. In particular, the Marking section holds promise especially for nonnative teachers since
it is possible to observe model behavior of a writing instructor who is marking up
an essay. Similarly, the other sections could be used in teacher-training classes in
which the trainees would act as students while going through various essays trying to identify problems. This might be especially fruitful for future teachers who
share the same L1 with their students and may be less likely to identify errors that
their students could commit.
These are just a few potential uses of applications like iWRITE. Future development of this application will need to include more learner texts so that multiple
essays from learners of specific L1s can be made available.
272
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
CONCLUSIONS
Building collections of online resources that focus on the needs of users is not a
simple process (Calverley & Shephard, 2003). We envision our effort, then, as
an attempt to create a prototype of what Maddux (2002) called a Type II system
in which pedagogical value is added to a learner corpus by providing a number
of different kinds of interactivity. As we took up the challenge of creating a Type
II system, we decided to use a browser interface and Web pages, rather than a
more proprietary model that might have been housed on a few computers in our
language-learning lab. We made this choice for two main reasons. First, Hillman,
Willis, & Gunawardena (1994) noted that the “extent to which a learner is proficient with a specific medium correlates positively with the success the learner
has in extracting the desired information” (p. 32). Many of the students who will
be using iWRITE have a good deal of experience searching the Web and working
with browsers and thus should be comfortable working with a system that uses
familiar Web conventions (e.g., links and back buttons). Second, we hope eventually to make this resource available to a number of teachers/learners around the
world at no or minimal cost, so the Web seemed the ideal medium. If readers
are interested in using the system, they should contact Volker Hegelheimer at
volkerh@iastate.edu.
Next we worked to decide which kinds of interactivity would be most helpful
in (a) enabling our students to achieve the learning goals set forth in the ESL class
in which they would be using the system and by means identified in current SLA
theory and (b) enabling us as researchers to determine how (or if) the system was
effective in helping students with their language-learning efforts. Table 3, an expanded version of Table 1 above, relates Chou’s (2003) interactivity dimensions
to student needs and instructor goals and outlines how this is accomplished in
iWRITE.
We view iWRITE as a prototype of smart, dynamic, and learner-corpus-based
applications that will enhance language learning in the near future. In this paper,
we illustrated one approach on how to transform a learner corpus into a sound
online resource using theory-supported design features and an iterative, dynamic
approach. This incarnation of iWRITE deals with predefined syntactic problems.
However, the underlying architecture of this program can be used to address other
problems as well, be they more rhetorical aspects of writing or writings composed
by NS on a variety of topics.
While preliminary feedback from learners and teachers suggests that iWRITE
is viewed as a potential asset for language learning, what needs to be examined
in greater detail next is how language learners and language teachers perceive
iWRITE in terms of its potential to transform learners’ awareness of grammatical
errors and their writing. Among the various notions driving this line of research,
one ideal outcome would be to generate an automatic profile of a learner (e.g.,
Granger & Rayson, 1998). Since the creation of the first version of iWRITE in
June 2003, the resource has been used by approximately 200 learners in intermediate and high-intermediate academic-writing classes at Iowa State University.
273
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
Table 3
Interactivity dimensions and ESL considerations
Interactivity
dimensions
Needs of ESL students/
Goals of instructors
System function (Interaction)
Nonsequential
access of
choice
Students with varying L1s
and L1-specific problems;
students with varying levels
of L2 competence
Homepage with five choices for initial
access; access to layered essays and
solutions from multiple points within
the system
Choice
NNS may learn best
through multimodal
presentation of material
(i.e., aural, visual, reading)
Responsiveness Immediate, performanceto learners
based feedback encourages
learning
Monitoring
Need to correlate student
information use activity on the system
with writing/classroom
performance
Personal choice Need to help students find
helper
the content that would
prove most helpful to them
Adaptability
Activities at hugely
different proficiency levels
are ineffective
Playfulness
Need for students to
examine a number of
works/examples
Facilitation of
interpersonal
communication
Ease of adding
information
Need for students to
work together in various
interactions with tool
(handled in classroom)
Need to add each year’s
placement essays to corpus
Audio/video movies of assessment;
layered essay presentation; corpus
look up; reference sources; worksheets
Not an intelligent system in its current
iteration; upgrade of hardware and
software will become necessary at
certain intervals
Elaborate tracking feature tracks
learner access, which can be accessed
and viewed directly or through report
generating queries*
Advice/instructions provided on each
webpage
Not implemented as of yet;
adaptability based on learner’s
interaction (e.g., searches) being
envisioned
Many essays; ability to explore
various error types; dynamic, layered
presentation
Handled in classroom through
carefully assigned tasks and groups
Information is currently only addable
by the savvy instructor; future
iterations need to allow students to
become active contributors
*Additionally, postuse feedback sheets combined with focused interviews complete the
data-gathering phase of the program.
As is the case with other additions to the curriculum, the instructors are experimenting with various ways to integrate iWRITE into their curriculum and their
classrooms. It is currently used to raise learners’ grammatical awareness, to introduce metalanguage related to grammar, and to prepare for peer-editing sessions.
274
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Indicative of how students perceive the resource is the following quote of one
intermediate-level student: “When I revised my partner’s essay I used iWRITE
to help. We did it in class but I also did it outside of class. I think it helped, but
I still think it’s really hard to detect errors on my own.” The use of this resource
also promises increased motivational appeal. During a semistructured interview,
one student expressed his enthusiasm about the program by saying “I particularly
like the marking component of the program. I love it! It feels like my tutor is
sitting beside me.” Another student’s remark (“When I peer-edit I look at paragraph level, sentence level, [and] word level now.”) hints at a positive analytical
development in that the notion of a layered approach towards peer editing seems
to be growing. However, while these reactions are promising, more research (e.g.,
Hegelheimer, in press) is needed before conclusions can be drawn.
We end by reminding readers that Chapelle (2001) proposed a three-tiered
approach to CALL evaluation consisting of a judgmental (or logical) analysis
of CALL systems and of tasks completed by learners engaged in such systems
followed by an empirical analysis. In this paper, we focused on the judgmental
analyses. Now empirical studies need to follow to evaluate CALL systems like
iWRITE and the effectiveness of tasks students can and should engage in. We
would like to invite researchers to make use of our system, to collaborate, and to
conduct empirical investigations.
NOTES
The ICLE is being compiled at the University of Louvain in Belgium. A detailed description of this effort is presented in Granger (1993).
1
2
The raters had three choices: place learners in the first level of ESL writing instruction,
place learners in the second level of ESL writing instruction, or exempt learners from taking ESL writing courses and recommend their immediate placement into regular composition classes
REFERENCES
Altenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002). Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.
Calverley, G., & Shephard, K. (2003). Assisting the uptake of on-line resources: Why good
learning resources are not enough. Computers & Education, 41 (3), 205-224.
Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 22-34. Retrieved September 22, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A
technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology,
34 (3), 265-279.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
275
Cowan, R., Choi, H. E., & Kim, D. H. (2003). Four questions for error diagnosis and correction in CALL. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 451-463.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Granger, S. (1993). International corpus of learner English. In J. M. G. Aarts, P. D. Haan,
& N. Oostdijk (Eds.), English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploitation: Papers from the thirteenth International Conference on English Language
Research on Computerized Corpora, Nijmegen 1992 (pp. 57-71). Amsterdam;
Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.
Granger, S. (1994). Learner corpus: A revolution in applied linguistics. English Today, 10
(3), 25-29.
Granger, S., & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.),
Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom:
Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner
English on computer (pp. 199-211). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and
non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15 (1), 17-27.
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33 (1), 76-88.
Hegelheimer, V. (2003). iWRITE [Web application]. available at http://iwrite.engl.iastate.
edu/placement/]. Ames, IA: Author.
Hegelheimer, V. (in press). Helping ESL writers through a multimodal, corpus-based, online grammar resource. CALICO Journal.
Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies
for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 30-42.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel
& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms (pp. 181-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2), 275-301.
Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary
and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, Essex: Longman
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.
Kuo, C.-H., Wible, D., Chen, M.-C., Sung, L.-C., Tsao, N.-L., & Chio, C.-L. (2002). The
design of an intelligent web-based interactive language learning lystem. Journal
of Educational Computing Research, 27 (3), 229-248.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.
In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in
cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
276
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In
W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia, (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition
(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lorenz, G. (1998). Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: Stylistic aspects of adjective intensification. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 5366). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Maddux, C. D. (2002). The web in education: A case of unrealized potential. Computers in
the Schools, 19 (1/2), 7-17.
Meunier, F. (2002). The pedagogical value of native and learner corpora in EFL grammar
teaching. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner
corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 119142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Milton, J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and interlanguage corpora in the design of an electronic
language learning and production environment. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner
English on computer (pp. 186-198). London: Addison Wesley Longman.
Milton, J., & Tsang, E. (1993) A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students
writing. In R. Pemberton & E. Tsang (Eds.), Studies in lexis (215-246). Hong
Kong: HKUST.
Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Newbury House.
Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: Computers in the second language writing classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 137-152). Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Pica, T. (1994, September). The language learner’s environment as a resource for linguistic
input? A review of theory and research. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 105106, 69-116.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Santos, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of non-native speaking
students. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (1), 69-90.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Vann, R., Lorenz, F., & Meyer, D. E. (1991). Error gravity: Response to errors in the written discourse of nonnative speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing (pp. 181-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Vann, R. J., Meyer, D. E., & Lorenz, G. (1984). Error Gravity: A Study of faculty opinion
of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (3), 427-440.
Virtanen, T. (1996). Exploiting the international corpus of learner English (ICLE). AFinLAn vuosikirja, 54, 157-166.
Wible, D., Kuo, C.-H., Chien, F.-Y., Liu, A., & Tsao, N.-L. (2001). A web-based EFL writing environment: Integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers.
Computers & Education, 37 (3-4), 297-315.
277
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
APPENDIX
Error Codes and Examples used in iWRITE
Code
Numeric Brief description
Code
Example
REP
0204
PRREF
0203
I’m now experiencing this challenge
at this moment.
TRANS
0202
TC
Paragraph
repetition of words,
phrase, or ideas
incorrect/unclear
pronoun reference
The teacher just sat there doing their
own stuffs.
0201
tense consistency
Finally, I join them and we used to
smoke in the toilet.
WO
0108
word order
CS
0101
comma splice
MW
0109
missing words
MRP
0106
incorrect or missing
relative pronoun
SV
0105
S-V agreement
FRAG
0103
fragment
SENT
0110
embedded sentence
problem
Sentence
MDO
PS
RUNON
0107
0104
0102
transitions and
connectors
incorect or missing
direct object
parallel structure
run-on
By the time passing on, he tried to
talk to me frequently and eventually
we had become friends. During that
moment, he was the only friend that
I had.
No matter how tough is my future,
I won’t be afraid because I am his
daughter.
When I was a young girl, my parents
told me that I’m not a lonely man, I
lived in society.
But all in all it [?] a good rule.
I tried to persuade [?] not to smoke
in school but they just ignored me.
I walk through the campus and get
into the building seeking someone
[?] could help me.
My parents wants the best out of me.
Therefore, he had tried to influence
me and modified the concept of my
life.
From that moment.
I like her advice and use her advice
so I’m very healthy and I have a
very good life now.
When I was a child, my parents
always told me that not to play
basketball.
278
Word
CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
PLURAL
0306
POS
0305
VBUSE
0307
verb usage
CHOICE
0309
word choice
COUNT
0311
SPELL
0301
countable/uncountable
noun confusion
DET
0403
wrong article
He is a optimistic person.
DET
0402
missing indefinite
article
For example, I had [?] experience
before.
VBFORM
Determiner
DET
DET
Misc
0308
0404
0401
plural/singular
confusion
part of speech error
verb form
misspelling
unnecessary article
So with my eye wet, I went to sleep.
Anyway, my mother always advice
me not to waste food.
So, we all allow to play a game.
Have you ever think of being a
parent?
I know the truth and I may throw
their advice.
When I was still a child, my parents
used to give me a lot of advices.
I realy appriciate my parents’ advice.
He brought a gambling cards.
missing definite article Now, he is running a very good
restaurant in [?] local community.
PREP
0503
preposition selection
EXP
0504
idiomatic expression
UNCLEAR
0505
PREP
0506
unclear meaning,
ambiguous
PREP
0507
missing preposition
PHVRB
0502
phrasal verb
unnecessary
preposition
She saw us lining up at the corridor
to receive our punishment.
People who study smart in the exam
will get flying color result.
I think it’s a very good method in
one’s growed way.
I have listen to this sentence for
hundreds of times since I was a
child.
She always works from early
morning until late [?] night.
Finally they were caught by the onduty staff and kick off from school.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher
279
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Carol Chapelle for her insightful comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this manuscript and the anonymous reviewers for
CALICO Journal for their concrete recommendations. The Corpus section is provided as a resource for learners that allows them to search for occurrences of
words as used by NS. The search queries the Brown corpus using the application
program interface (API) provided for interfacing with a concordance application
written and provided by Chris Greaves. Parts of iWRITE were developed as part
of a research project funded by a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Faculty
Development Grant at Iowa State University.
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Volker Hegelheimer is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of English and the M.A. Program in Teaching English as a Second Language/Applied
Linguistics at Iowa State University. He teaches graduate courses on technology
in language teaching and research and undergraduate and graduate courses in
English as a Second Language. His research interests include applications of the
WWW and emerging technologies in language learning and language testing. His
publications have appeared in journals such as Language Testing, System, ReCALL, and Language Learning & Technology. He is the author of iWRITE.
David Fisher is a Ph.D. student in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at
Iowa State University. He has worked for several years in the software-development industry as a designer, writer, trainer, tester, analyst, and project manager.
His research interests include situated learning, school-workplace transitions, and
instructional design. He is the chief programmer and designer of iWRITE.
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Volker Hegelheimer
Iowa State University
Department of English
341 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515/294-2282
Email: volkerh@iastate.edu
David Fisher
Iowa State University
Department of English
451 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515/294-2180
Email: ddfishe@iastate.edu