Jennifer Pacioianu
English 801
Dr. Reiff
October 29, 2012
Bibliography: Responding to L2 Writing: Error Correction
Ashwell, Tim. “Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple-Draft
Composition Classroom: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best
Method?” Journal of Second Language Writing 9.3 (2000): 227-257. Print.
Ashwell’s article begins by questioning the assumption that separating feedback (content
first, then form) in the drafting process will encourage students to make more meaningful
overall changes before attending to form changes. He also wonders if there’s truth to the
assumption that students will be confused about what to address if both types of feedback
(content and form) are given together. And will students avoid revision when sentence
level error is given priority? Ashwell credits the debate spurred by John Truscott’s
controversial 1996 article (a full attack on error correction) as the catalyst for the research
he presents. He notes that, in his opinion, missing from this debate is the focus on how
error correction can improve particular pieces of writing, as opposed to improving overall
writing for an L2 learner. However, as often happens in research, well thought-out
wonderings don’t often hold up in the results. The different types of feedback given in
Ashwell’s study (content followed by form, form followed by content, a mix of content
and form) did not differ significantly when comparing end results in student work. Near
the end of the article, as Ashwell wonders about flaws and variables in the research, I
wondered what compass we should be using regarding error correction in our own
students’ work.
Evans, Norman W., et al. “Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing
Pedagogy.” Language Teaching Research 14.4 (2010): 445-463. Print.
Despite opinions (Truscott is cited) that error correction should be abandoned based on
discouraging research findings of its practice, Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and
Wolfersberger claim that multiple variables contribute to learning in the L2 classroom,
including appropriate feedback on error. The article focuses not on the question of
whether or not feedback should be given if the first place, but rather on how instructors
can best attend to the particular learning needs of students. The authors assert that error
correction has a place in the classroom but that further study is needed to help us find the
best way to perform it. Furthermore, in addition to variables surrounding the teacher and
learning environment, we must consider individual variables such as “first language (L1),
nationality, cultural identity, learning style, values, attitudes, beliefs, socioeconomic
background, motivations, future goals, and many additional factors” (448). The authors
encourage instructors to move away from the practice of offering L2 writers the same
Pacioianu 2
type of instruction as they offer L1 writers. Sound advice probably, but it’s difficult to
imagine the practicality of it in the 101 composition classroom.
Ferris, Dana R. “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to
Truscott (1996).” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1 (1999): 1-11. Print.
Ferris points out the controversy of Truscott’s conclusion that error correction should be
completely done away with, though she acknowledges that she “was
secretly hoping” (2) Truscott was correct, because like many teachers, she’d be happy to
have the chore removed. Instead, she abandons such hope and illustrates her
disagreements with Truscott on points such as his vague definition of error correction and
dismissal of any significance in the difference in forms of correction. Ferris asserts that
instructors cannot dismiss the wishes of students to have their errors corrected or we risk
their loss of confidence in us and in their own ability to improve their writing. However,
she also highlights areas of agreement with Truscott regarding how students acquire
language proficiency in several different ways, rendering useless a one-size-fits-all
approach to grammar correction. She agrees, as well, that teachers are not all well
prepared or consistent in their practice of error correction. The article served to temper
the strength of Truscott’s conclusions and reminded me, as a new teacher, to suspend
judgment and looks for ways to improve my system of responding to all student work.
Ferris, Dana R. “The ‘Grammar Correction’ Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, where do we
Go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?)” Journal of Second Language
Writing 13 (2004): 49-62. Print.
Ferris acknowledges the lack of longitudinal research and states that “we are virtually at
Square One” regarding clear findings on error correction of L2 writing. The author
compares the existing studies, citing lack of consistency in research methods. She also
points to the need to continue correcting error until such a time, after much study, there
exists a clear case against it. However, Ferris concludes that teachers need to be
adequately prepared to provide error correction by becoming knowledgeable about
grammar as well as the specific needs of L2 students in the writing classroom. As a
new teacher with little formal instruction in grammar, I wondered about my own
ability to competently guide students in recognizing and learning to correct errors.
Ferris, Dana R. “Responding to Student Errors: Issues and Strategies.” Treatment of Error in
Second Language Student Writing. Ed. Diane Belcher and Jun Liu. Ann Arbor, MI: The
University of Michigan Press, 2002. 49-76. Print.
In chapter four of her book, Ferris identifies and addresses the multiple considerations a
teacher must be aware of in the L2 classroom. For instance, the importance of
understanding the common errors made by ESL writers, but also of recognizing that
“different students may make distinct types of errors” (53) based on different
backgrounds in learning English, different first language influences, and different levels
of proficiency in English. Ferris also addresses the various ways, along with their
Pacioianu 3
advantages and disadvantages, in which teachers can decide what, when and how to
respond to errors. The chapter briefly weaves in relevant research while concisely
defining and demonstrating several types of error correction (direct or indirect, location
or identification, in-text or end comments, codes or symbols or verbal cues, large
category or small category) (63-70). Near the end of the chapter, there was also a list of
strategies for how to avoid teacher burnout from too much time spent on error correction.
I found the chapter overwhelming in the amount of considerations we face in the
classroom with regard to L2 students, but also helpful in that I gained a practical
understanding of different methods of error correction.
Land, Robert E., Jr. and Catherine Whitley. “Evaluating Second-Language Essays in
Regular Composition Classrooms: Toward a Pluralistic U.S. Rhetoric.” Second
Language Writing in the Composition Classroom. Ed. Paul Kei Matsuda, Michelle
Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s,
2006. 324-332. Print.
In evaluating L2 writers, the authors encourage us to broaden our acceptance of alternate
organization styles. Land and Whitley state that what may seem circular and unclear in
organization to a SWE reader does not mean that L2 writers “are ‘bad’ writers or that
their essays are ‘badly organized’; it could mean that they are very skillfully
manipulating patterns of organization that we don’t recognize” (328). Moving away
from a “rigid” view toward a more inclusive view of alternate strategies can help
instructors look for meaning rather than for adherence to the SWE form. In the
conclusion, the authors also site studies that show focusing on error as “a waste of the
teacher’s time” and “confusing and even harmful to students” (330). Getting away from
our “surface-level tunnel vision” (330) frees us to respond to the bigger issues in L2
writing.
Reid, Joy M. “Responding to Student Writing.” Essentials of Teaching Academic Writing. Eds.
Patricia Byrd, Joy M. Reid, and Cynthia M. Schuemann. Boston, MA: Thomson Heinle,
2006. 115-123. Print.
In this short chapter, Reid provides instruction on responding to student writing through
advice and examples. She begins by asking us, as teachers, to complete the assignments
ourselves before responding to student work so we can better empathize with them. She
also suggests a well thought-out design for our responses that we can teach to our
students prior to their receiving the feedback. Clarity and consistency while still allowing
for addressing individual student needs is encouraged as is teaching our students exactly
how we’d like them to read our comments. Reid shares her own strategy for revision by
modeling the process in her own work in front of students. Incorporating these strategies
in our classrooms seems to align us with rather than against our students, reminding them
we also practice and struggle through drafting, revision and proofreading.
Shin, Sarah J. “Understanding ESL Writers: Second Language Writing by Composition
Pacioianu 4
Instructors.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College 30:1 2002: 68-75. Print.
Shin begins her article by reflecting on mistakes early in her career when correcting the
work of ESL students. In remembering a specific student, she illustrates what she did
wrong – correcting everything line by line, not explaining or prioritizing errors, failing to
encourage effort and progress. In promoting “fluency before accuracy” (70), Shin set out
to build empathy in other ESL teachers by asking them to participate in second language
learning and writing. Some of the participating teachers reported feeling the pressure of
evaluation when writing in their second languages, responding most negatively to heavyhanded error correction. One participant reported that she changed her attitude and
methods of correcting error in her own classes and saw improvement in students’
enthusiasm and attention to her comments. Shin concludes by noting that many college
English teachers find themselves ill-equipped and inexperienced in teaching
ESL students and proposes that more teachers try putting themselves through the
same experiences they ask of their students. The article reminded me that I also struggle
with writing in a second language and would likely suffer harsh evaluation if held to a
high standard of grammatical accuracy. It also reminded me that empathy with my
students, regardless of their language background, remains a priority.
Truscott, John. “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes” Language
Learning 46:2, June 1996, 327-369. Print.
Truscott systematically builds his case against grammar correction. He begins by citing
study after study done in the examination of error correction, comparing their methods
and results in detail. He uses their findings to underscore his assertion that not only is
correction a waste of good class time and teacher effort spent on something that has no
effect, but also that it is harmful and should be done away with completely. The case is
compelling in that studies consistently show improvement in students’ writing when
grammar is not corrected and claims that opinions in favor of error correction are not
supported by evidence. Truscott’s article sparked much interest, anxiety and debate. In
the classroom, I have to wonder what I’m actually accomplishing by correcting grammar
in the face of evidence to the contrary. Yet, considering how adamantly Truscott makes
his claims, I was compelled to look to other researchers to balance the extremes in his
conclusions.
Truscott, John. “The Case for ‘The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes’:
A Response to Ferris” Journal of Second Language Writing 8.2 (1999): 111-122. Print.
Truscott’s article responds to Ferris’ rejection of his position in his previous article, “The
Case Against Error Correction in L2 Writing Classes” (1996). He reinforces his
argument against the practice of error correction the L2 classroom, citing lack of
evidence proving its worth. Truscott asserts that there’s a “lingering pro-correction bias,”
that favors tradition rather than actual proof that correction of error improves L2 student
writing. The article concludes with the implication that teachers have to make the
decision of correction vs. non-correction without sufficient data.