The Effect of Error Correction on Grammatical Structures
The Proceedings of the ninth International
Symposium on English Teaching, 2000
The Effect of Error Correction on
Grammatical Structures[1]
Chia-chen Chang gchang@m1.sayhi.net This study aimed to discover the insight of error correction by implementing two correction systems on three Chinese university students in the local context of Taiwan. The three students were asked to write four in-class essays throughout the term, in which their verb errors and individual-selected errors were corrected with the Code Correction System and the Individual Correction System respectively. At the end of the study, the students’ change of verb errors and individual errors from the first to the last in-class essays was calculated to examine the effectiveness of the two correction systems in this study. Moreover, to uncover the students’ perceptions and opinions toward the two correction systems, three researcher-student conferences were conducted each time after the correction. The findings of this study suggested that (1) Conferences are important for students to clarify confusing ideas and enhance their interaction with the teacher and their errors. It is recommended to be used in error correction to make the correction procedure a two-direction communication; (2) Learner-centered correction in which the control rests on learners may contribute to learners’ autonomy of learning and intrinsic motivation, and may further result in the effectiveness of error correction; (3) While correcting students’ errors, teachers may need to pay more attention to less-advanced students, as they may need more help and may benefit much from the correction; (4) The better way to solve Chinese university students’ problem in using English tenses may be to expose them to more authentic English, but not in over-simplified rules; and (5) Teachers should avoid putting answers directly on students’ written errors, but adopt more implicit error identification techniques for
Symposium on English Teaching, 2000
The Effect of Error Correction on
Grammatical Structures[1]
Chia-chen Chang gchang@m1.sayhi.net This study aimed to discover the insight of error correction by implementing two correction systems on three Chinese university students in the local context of Taiwan. The three students were asked to write four in-class essays throughout the term, in which their verb errors and individual-selected errors were corrected with the Code Correction System and the Individual Correction System respectively. At the end of the study, the students’ change of verb errors and individual errors from the first to the last in-class essays was calculated to examine the effectiveness of the two correction systems in this study. Moreover, to uncover the students’ perceptions and opinions toward the two correction systems, three researcher-student conferences were conducted each time after the correction. The findings of this study suggested that (1) Conferences are important for students to clarify confusing ideas and enhance their interaction with the teacher and their errors. It is recommended to be used in error correction to make the correction procedure a two-direction communication; (2) Learner-centered correction in which the control rests on learners may contribute to learners’ autonomy of learning and intrinsic motivation, and may further result in the effectiveness of error correction; (3) While correcting students’ errors, teachers may need to pay more attention to less-advanced students, as they may need more help and may benefit much from the correction; (4) The better way to solve Chinese university students’ problem in using English tenses may be to expose them to more authentic English, but not in over-simplified rules; and (5) Teachers should avoid putting answers directly on students’ written errors, but adopt more implicit error identification techniques for
References: Brown, H. D. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. NJ: Prentice Hall. Chiang, T. H. (1981). Error Analysis: A Study of Errors Made in Written English by Chinese Learners. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co., Ltd. Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ explanations. Language Learning, 26, 45-66. Dekeyser, R. M. (1993). The Effect of Error Correction on L2 Grammar Knowledge and Oral Proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77, 501-513. Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In Catherine Doughty & Jessica Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, E. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39-60. Hendrickson, J. M. (1981). Error analysis and error correction in language teaching. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre. Huang, H. S. (1994). An Analytic Study on Tense Errors Committed by Chinese Learners of English in Southern Taiwan. M. A. thesis, National Kaohsiung Normal University. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313. Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149. Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477. Leki, I. (1986). ESL student preferences in written error correction. Paper presented at the Southeast Regional TESOL Conference, Atlanta, Ga., Oct. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Makino, T. Y. (1993). Learner Self-Correction in EFL Written Compositions. ELT Journal, 47(4), 337-341. Manley, J. H., & Calk, L. (1997). Grammar instruction for writing skills: Do students perceive grammar as useful? Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 73-83. Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing equality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95. Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 342-364. Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. Shappard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110. Truscott, J. (1996). Review article the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. Yu, H. Y. (1997). A Study on the Use of English Tense-Aspect Forms in Narrative Compositions by Taiwan College Students and Its Pedagogical Implications. Ph. D. dissertation, National Taiwan Normal University.