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.