Paper Review: Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think?

Lee, Icy (2005). Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? TESL Canada Journal. Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 1 - 16.

This paper starts with the same old argument whether or not error correction leads to better writing. For sure, the debate mentioned here is the one between Truscott (1996) and Ferris (1997, 2002). I have read somewhere about the argument put forward by Truscott in which all research cited have nothing in common, therefore the argument is somewhat invalid. You can't compare chicken to a duck, can you? Well, now I surely have to look for that paper (I wish I have made note somewhere!).

Lee mentions that there are two factors why error correction is still in practice:

       1. Teachers seem to believe that it is their job to mark errors;

       2. Students value such feedback and think that they benefit from it.

In the next section, Lee discusses the elements of error corrections. First of all, there is explicit and implicit error marking. Explicit refers to the marking in detail - like, teacher marks every single error. Implicit is the opposite. Interestingly, implicit error correction is more of the teacher commenting about the essay as a whole. More likely, the comment is about the organisation of the essay, content of the essay and the sentence structure as a whole, rather than highlighting every error made. 

As for the explicit error correction, there are selective or comprehensive. When a teacher marks selectively, she/he would select certain errors to be mark, not everything. For example, she/he may want to mark spelling only, and disregard all other errors. Comprehensive marking refers to correct every single error made by the student writer.

Lee then discusses the problems with error marking. She mentions that error correction may not help the students at all because of the teacher's arbitrariness and inconsistency in error correction. This is related to the code used by teachers- do the students understand it? The other factor relates to timing the feedback is given. For example, we are talking about the essay as draft, or as the final piece. 

Just a thought: Let say a student writes a few essays a year, the first essay should serves as a benchmark for the next essay? So, if that is the case, shouldn't that student improves from the first essay to the last piece?

Lee then describes the gap, i.e. many research has focuses on the teacher, but not the students. 

The context of her study is Hong Kong where 320 students answered the questionnaire. The Research Question is rather simple - What are students' perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding error correction in the writing classroom?

My study surely will use the same RQ, but I think I should add more, should I?

The result:

60.3% teachers mark ALL their errors, 82.9% students prefer comprehensive error correction, 91.2% teachers use code, only 44.1% could understand three quarters of the codes used, only 8.6% students thought they are making a good progress over the year and finally, 54.8% believes that it is teachers' responsibility to locate and correct errors. 

In the Implication and Conclusion section, Lee concludes that there is a huge gap between teachers' practice and students preferences. About 40% teachers mark selectively while 82.9% students prefer comprehensive marking. Thus it implies that teachers should mark comprehensively. However, Lee argues that it is not who mark the errors, but why and how. Teachers should discuss the error correction policy and make sure students shoulder responsibility to their learning. Students on the other hand should realise that in the long run, they should reduce their reliance on teachers as they need to improve their editing strategies in order to write better. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper has actually made me think of a few issues-

1. as mentioned in the findings section, the HK English Syllabus asserts that teachers should mark selectively (although been ignored by many HK teachers). The Question now is: Do we have that in Malaysian English syllabus? I doubt it. 

2. I know in Malaysia we practice CLT, but in reality, it is not CLT at all. I remember when I marked SPM paper in 2010, the marking rubric was nothing but all Grammar. The essay is graded based on how flawless it is. There is no such thing as "oh, I can understand this essay, although there are many errors in it" grade. This is related to what Lee mentions in this paper- writing classes' focus would be on Grammar, not the discourse of the writing. 

3. Error correction should equip the students to be independent learners. There is one thing in Grammar teaching that is called noticing the form. I believe in it. That is why I teach Grammar explicitly (although it is prohibited in CLT, well, Malaysian context at least). So by marking the essay explicitly, students' attention is being shifted to the forms. But then again, how many of these students actually take note of the marking and the comment?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my next entry, I will discuss a paper of the same topic; Radecki & Swales (1988). ESL Students Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work.

Brief Outline "Gifted Students Reaction Towards Teachers' Feedback"

To begin, the title is GIFTED STUDENTS REACTION TOWARDS TEACHERS’ FEEDBACK ON ESL WRITING. This is a replication of a study done by Prof Icy Lee entitled Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? I think it worth to mention that this study is not the sole study done by Lee on the topic. She has done numerous studies on the topic even when she was in Canada. Many of her respondents are Chinese speaker, even those studies done in Canada. So that is the starting point for my research – my respondents are Malaysians, mainly Malay speakers (I cannot assured it now that it is 100% Malay since MRSM do have non-Bumi).

Speaking of gifted students, I got the idea when I thought of what is available for me for the study. Surely enough, as I am teaching at an SBP, my students are readily accessible for me. I kept asking myself over and again, “what would make these kids different of those Lee’s population?”. As if there was a light shining so brightly above me, I found the answer – these kids are gifted.

Now, I am sure many of you think that SBP students are not all gifted. I thought the same too. Well, I still am. Because this is a scientific-adhered research, a definition is a must. Therefore I googled the term and came to a definition in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (taken from the US National Association for Gifted Children) which says:

                “Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities.”

Hence, from this definition, students of SBP and MRSM are deemed gifted, at least when we consider the fact that these children are selected based on their UPSR or PMR.

I remember when I was in MRSM not so long ago. OK, it has been over ten years now (I was in MRSM Tun Ghaffar Baba, Jasin in 2000 – 2001). The Principal, Mr Mohd Hussin Ibrahim (we called him MHI, like that morning talk show at TV3), would give speech about giftedness like in every assembly. Of course I didn’t understand it back then because I had a miserable life there (it was not easy to live in hostel crowded with smart students). All right…this paragraph serves no purpose for the study. End.

Among other things that are related to gifted students is the fact that they are highly perfectionist. So there is a gap there – how would these perfectionist utilise the feedback given by the teacher? Logically, they would make the best out of it. They would make sure they don’t do the same mistake again in the next task. So that is the hypotheses.

I remember when I was in MRSM, I actually went to see the teacher asking for that 1 more mark. The argument was simple – mine is just as good as my friend’s, why I get less mark? The argument was obviously fruitless. The teacher ignored me. If she actually discuss with me what is wrong with my essay, I think I would take it more positively. That is actually part of my readings (which I cannot remember which) in which the study looks into the effectiveness of post-essay feedback conference. Now being a teacher myself, I would not do the same to my students. I am always available for the students to discuss about their essay. But surely I have that one rule – if that 1 extra mark doesn’t change the grade, don’t bother to see me.

For the purpose of this study, the same survey questionnaire used in the original study will be used. I added a question to the questionnaire as I was curious myself of what do they students do when they get their essays back. The same question will be asked again during the focused-group interview. The reason why there is no open-ended question in the survey is that I have decided to do the interview. Well, even in Lee’s original study, no open-ended question is put in the questionnaire. The data collection will be done in two ways – survey and interview. Surely enough, the data collected from the interview will be used to support the data collected through the survey. The questionnaire has been translated into Malay and verified by my colleague who happens to be Guru Cemerlang Bahasa Melayu. I have done a pilot study to check the clarity of the questions and no problem was found.

Prior to this, I have actually administered the survey to two schools (as I mentioned in the previous entry). I wanted to get done and over with the thesis so I did it without consulting my supervisor. Well, obviously there are lotsa issues raised by her. And that was the trigger point of me to think harder and deeper into the study. Luckily for me now, even though I alter the study slightly, I can still use the responds given by the students.

I have to say that this master degree takes a lot more than what I expected. Time, energy, money, worries and headache and I have come to the point where I suffered migraine and insomnia. I wonder if I don’t do this, would my life becomes better. But one thing for sure, I’d be bored to dead as I don’t have much to do then J

It's been a while...

I know it has been awhile since the last time I put up an entry in this blog. Frankly speaking, I have (almost) forgotten about this blog. And this blog was created for the purpose of my M.Ed subject, i.e. Introduction to Educational Research (or something like that). Hence, right after the end of that semester, this blog has been forgotten.

So I came across this blog when I was bored at my mum's place over the Hari Raya break. So I googled myself (yeah, like I don't have anything better) and I found this long-forgotten blog. I am still in the break but I was thinking, I should do this blog because I can see my thoughts flow from all the readings.

Since the last entry, there were so much had happened. I am no more in Pekan, but now back to my hometown, Bentong. It's been a year now since I am back. About my master degree, I am technically done, if and only if, this thesis is not part of the degree. And I have been assigned to a supervisor, based on my second proposal.

Now, talking about the proposal, or proposals to be exact, I have changed the study like millions of times so to speak. But what have came up, or rather written down, are three. As you may have read, my initial proposed study was on MBMMBI. I scrapped that out at the end of 2010 because frankly speaking, who'd want me to come into their classroom and observe? So I decidedly to change to "Implementing Project-based Instruction in ESL Classroom". God, I think I spent like two years on this alone. I wrote the proposal in between marking the SPM papers and my Bali trip back in 2010 (the trip was a disaster- went with a drama queen), and continued with it until last year. I even pilot studied it- and as expected, it is just almost impossible to be done in school.

So after thinking about it over and again, I went through all my assignments and decided to just replicate a study. So I took a study done by Prof. Icy Lee of HK University. Actually, I have been dwelling with this like a year now, but come to nothingness. Until recently when I started to really think about it really, really hard. It was because my supervisor seems doesn't like the idea much. She asked lotsa questions that I just wanna give up.

So what have I thought? I wanna replicate the study "Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think?", but with different respondent. Yes, many say that by switching to Malaysian context, I'd get a whole new different set of result, but it seems very much difficult to state that in the Statement of Problem section. Hence, I have decided to change the study to "Gifted Students Reaction Towards Teachers' Feedback on ESL Writing."

Since I have the access to these so-called gifted students, I think I will be able to get more authentic result, that hopefully, will add to the knowledge of TESL. At the moment now I am still reading (yes, it seems endless) on the topic and since I have decided on gifted students as my respondents, I now need to read on them. So far, I think I am on the right direction.

For the purpose of this blog, my next entry will give the definitions of key terms as well as discussion on the original paper by Prof Icy Lee. From there I hope to give a more structured entries which covers the main topic (students reactions on teacher feedback) and the respondents (gifted students).

I hope, I really, really hope that I can get this done and over by November. For the initial study of the same topic, I have actually done the survey on two schools, namely SBP Integrasi Tun Abdul Razak (my previous school) and MRSM Tun Abdul Razak, Pekan. I have also done the same survey on my students here in SMA Persekutuan Bentong (SUPERB - I gave the acronym :-) ). So now I have more than 300 respondents. Hope that will be sufficient.

Next entry- detailed proposal of the current study.