Weekly Reflection (W12) by Myong Hee
On Thursday (L2 writing & error correction)
Covered Bitchener, Young, & Cameron (2005) and Ferris (2004)
About Design
• Three groups were different; not equivalent (Yao)
• In reality, we are likely to take intact classes and this can create very different contexts; so problematic.
• Another methodological dilemma in error correction: Longitudinal studies (hard to control invariable) vs. One-shot experimental studies (not being longitudinal)
• Pre-test seems missing (Yun Deuk)
• 1st essay can be used as a pre-test or administering a relevant grammar test can be another option.
• Conference for each individual seems very short and not clearly described (Sang-ki)
Probably it is done for a fast check; however 20 min. conference may not be doable.
• Number of errors in Table 1 is just row numbers; so, it is not based on the length of individual essay (Kevin).
• Keeping (internal) ethical requirement for control groups should be considered.
Possible ways for a Better Design
• In Table 2, stating N size may be a good idea
• MANCOVA may be a better tool to analyze since students may have different starting points at the 1st essay, and we have to check individual’s progress in the four essays.
• The design seems complicated, so make the design simpler (one feedback group vs no feedback group)
About Conclusion
• Students showed ups and downs in improving their grammar. Do we need a longer longitudinal study in order to have better ideas?
• Try to look at different categories of errors (rather than all the categories) in order to check students’ improvement
• Conferencing is working, so it should be implemented.
• Treatable vs. not treatable definitions are problematic (e.g., articles in English grammar). These terms are based on intuition.
MyongHee’s thought: In most studies in this area, NS teachers provide error correction in NNS students’ L2 writing. However, in reality, most English teachers in EFL contexts (e.g., Korea, Japan, & China) are NNSs whose English language skills including grammar are not perfect. I wonder to what extent the findings/suggestions and studies of these NS teachers-NNS students studies in written error correction are applicable/relevant to NNS teachers-NNS students contexts.
2 comments:
Correcting intermediate students' writing is particularly hard, if you don't understand what exactly students are trying to express. I think it's much easier to understand what your students mean in their writing, if you share a same cultural background. I was often asked by my NS colleagues to help them understand what some of their Japanese students are trying to say in their writing, so that they can provide appropriate feedback.
We mainly discuss error in terms of grammar (like in Bitchner's study) in the seminar, but writing class is more than that. If the goal of the class is not only boosting students' grammar accuracy, there's a lot more to think about other than grammar correction...
Good point, Myong Hee, it would be really interesting to have studies of error correction in EFL contexts, and to examine issues of effectiveness, the relational, and so on when the teacher giving the feedback on the language accuracy is a non-native speaker. Great area all open for someone to make a career out of it :-)
Post a Comment