Error Correction in Second Language Writing

Over the past twenty years, US colleges and universities have witnessed

exponential growth in the numbers of non-native English speaking students who enter

their programs, creating a need for more specialized approaches in English composition

programs. During this time, writing theorists have been busy developing the process

approach to writing instruction, de-emphasizing grammar correction in favor of content, a

necessary and positive shift within the field. Process approach adherents leave grammar

correction until later drafts in the writing process, if they correct errors at all. Instructors

at all levels report success using this method, but developmental English instructors are

especially fond of the process approach which is less troublesome for students who often

feel inferior because of their non-standard written English.

The non-native English speakers who began to fill developmental studies

classrooms by the eighties led to division within the field over how best to apply the

process approach in teaching second language writers. Clearly, new methodologies were

needed to assist these students in becoming fluent writers. Practically all non-native

speakers of English need continued assistance with developing their writing skills for

years after they become fluent English speakers. Second language writers need

instruction in English rhetorical patterns and style, but they also need explicit instruction

in grammar to correct grammatical errors in their writing that obscure meaning. Without

intervention, most non-native speakers' prose will require a great deal of effort on the part

of the reader. Many composition instructors trained in the process approach were timid

about correcting students' errors early in the writing process, fearing that students might

lose confidence in their abilities. But, most second language writers know that errors
exist in their writing and want error correction as part of the writing process (Ferris 29).

As the number of non-native English speakers studying in US universities increased,

institutions developed individual policies for helping these students develop their writing.

Some universities created academic English programs in their linguistics departments,

ESL classes that separated non-native English speakers from native speaking students

(Leki 11). Others created similar programs in their English departments or simply

continued to mainstream non-native speakers into developmental English. Regardless of

where the program was housed, faculty generally agreed that they would not treat the

grammatical errors of second language writers. English departments were concerned

with process and freewriting. Linguistics departments taught students the rhetoric of

their chosen disciplines with an emphasis on the monitor model of instruction. The

monitor model explains that error is a natural part of the language learning process that

cannot and should not be treated by instructors (Leki 12). Neither the English

departments nor the linguistics departments were concerned with treating student errors.

During the nineties, as English departments became increasingly concerned with

teaching rhetoric, faculty looked to contrastive rhetoric as a means of teaching writing to

non-native speakers by explaining English rhetoric as compared to rhetoric in other

languages. This type of instruction would help students better understand how to write

English and also how to read English prose with greater understanding. If non-native

speakers read more English prose, that exposure will naturally decrease their grammatical

errors through the natural process of language development. In 1997 Ilana Leki of the

University of Tennessee wrote Understanding ESL Writers, an influential book on

applying contrastive rhetoric in teaching.

 As English departments stayed away from error correction, linguistics

departments were modifying their application of the monitor model. During the late

nineties, faculties in academic English programs began discussing the need to correct

some student errors in order to help students become fluent writers for any audience. In

2002, Dana Ferris of California State University at Sacramento wrote Treatment of Error

in Second Language Writing, a book that very likely could have ended her career as a

researcher just ten years earlier when scholars in the field accepted no discussion about

the virtues of error correction. Ferris explains that the problem is that most instructors, if

they are willing to correct errors, are unsure of how to correct second language writers'

errors. Most instructors likely do not know where to begin correcting, as most second

language writers have a high frequency of errors in their compositions.

Leki develops her argument by explaining the accepted patterns of making an

argument in Romance, Semitic and far east language groups. She contrasts the complex

rules for making an argument in these languages with the simple, rigid structure of

English arguments. She contrasts these patterns in a way that helps English instructors

better understand why second language writers structure their writing in ways different

from English speakers so that these instructors can better help their non-native English

speaking students (Leki 21).

Leki provides diagrams that help the reader visualize the structures of arguments

in other language. Romance languages, she explains, present a thesis and then digress

into already accepted arguments that are related and are intended to prove the thesis at

hand. This pattern is represented by an arrow pointing downward at the end of a zig-

zagging line. Arabic arguments develop in a similar manner, relating agreed upon
arguments throughout the composition, but with the added characteristic of reiterating the

same arguments throughout using different words that carry slightly different meanings.

English writing from students who are native speakers of Arabic or Romance languages

might seem disjointed or convoluted. Leki explains that the instructor's job is to teach the

difference between the rhetorical approaches in various languages. Then, students will

write more coherently (Leki 87).

Paul Stapleton agreed with Leki in a journal article published in 2002. He argued

for returning emphasis in second language writing pedagogy to "...argumentation skills

and ideas..." and away from either form-based instruction or authorial identity (1). In like

manner, Wang and Wen asserted in their 2002 article that students should write in the

rhetorical form of their native languages in the early stages of the writing process, even

drafting essays in their native language if they feel it's necessary (3). Shchoonen (et al.)

investigated the importance of focusing on structure while producing writing in a second

language, asserting that faculty must focus more on teaching students the structure of

their second language over grammatical forms (168).

Ferris explains that treating errors is not so simple, advocating explicit grammar

instruction. She explains that most second language writers make a multitude of errors in

their writing, from incorrect verb tense to article misuse to improper word choice. The

instructor must first decide which errors in a student's paper most adversely affect

meaning, the global errors as opposed to the local errors. Then, the instructor must

identify which of those occur most frequently. These are called patterns of error (Ferris

59). The instructor may decide to address two or three of these at a time.
Ferris goes on to explain that if they correct grammar, many composition instructors have

a system for correcting student papers. They may or may not be conscious of this system.

They might use coded feedback, in which abbreviations stand for parts of speech, such as

vt for verb tense. Or, they might use uncoded feedback, writing out a description of the

specific error. Research indicates that second language writers are often frustrated by

coded feedback, which they must then decipher (Ferris 20).

Instructors will also have a preference for either direct feedback, in which

sentences with errors are partially rewritten, or indirect feedback, in which an error is

indicated but is not corrected. While direct feedback may be appropriate for students

with a low level of language proficiency, it generally does not promote learning. Indirect

feedback leaves it to students to identify the type of error and make the necessary

correction, applying classroom instruction to their own work. Indirect feedback is often

provided by circling or underlining the error. Indirect feedback is markedly more

effective at reducing the frequency of errors. It engages students in self-editing, which

should be the goal of any grammar instruction (Ferris 19). But, for indirect feedback to

be effective, classroom instruction must teach the grammatical errors most prevalent in

students' writing.

Ferris suggests grammar minilessons become part of writing instructors' courses.

In these minilessons, students receive a brief explanation of a grammatical concept.

Then, students analyze an authentic student text that contains errors of the type discussed;

students must find and correct the errors. Students then do the same with their own

writing and that of their peers. This type of lesson takes students through several

different applications of the concepts taught. Research has proven this method effective
as a means of helping students reduce the frequency of specific errors in their writing

(Ferris 97).

In a 2002 article, Irene Koshik expanded on Ferris's work by advocating

individual conferences with students as a means of addressing errors. She devised and

tested a method she calls designedly incomplete utterances. Using this method the

instructor reads the student's sentence up to the point of error, leaving the student to

complete the sentence correctly (279). This represents one approach to indirect, uncoded

feedback.

Personally, I do not see any inconsistency in either of these approaches. I will

likely help students correct their global errors as I teach them about English rhetorical

patterns. I think both sides of the scholarship have valid classroom applications.
 Works Cited

Ferris, Dana. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press, 2002.
In this book on error treatment, Dana Ferris explores the ways in which writing
instructors can help second language writers reduce the frequency of grammatical
errors in their writing. In the first three chapters, Ferris presents research on the
subject and in the final two chapters she presents suggestions for reducing error
frequency. Ferris presents this information to writing instructors in order to help
them better meet the needs of their students. The audience is writing instructors,
especially those teaching academic English as a second language.

Koshik, Irene. "Designedly Incomplete Utterances: A Pedagogical Practice for

Eliciting Knowledge Displays in Error Correction Sequences." Research on
Language and Social Interaction 35 (2002): 277-309.
In this academic journal article, Irene Koshik presents her study of a highly
successful method she's devised to point out errors to students in one-on-one
conferences. She begins by summarizing the research on error correction, then
explains her method and presents the data to support it. Koshik writes to linguists
and writing theorists in order to indirectly influence pedagogy.

Leki, Ilana. Understanding ESL Writers. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook.

In this introductory book on teaching writing to non-native speakers of English,
Ilana Leki examines the challenges teachers of writing face in working with non-
native English speakers. Leki begins by recounting the history of ESL writing
instruction, then moves on to discuss the implications of contrastive rhetoric.
Leki writes to a general population of writing instructors in order to better inform
those with no background in ESL teaching about the challenges of working with
non-native English speakers.

Schoonen, Rob; Van Gelderen, Amos; De Glopper, Kees; Hulstijn, Jan; Simis,
Annegien; Snellings, Patrick; Stevenson, Marie. "First Language and Second
Language Writing: The Role of Linguistic Knowledge, Speed of Processing, and
Metacognitive Knowledge." Language Learning 53.1 (2003): 165-202.
In this academic journal article, the authors present the findings of a study of
successful and unsuccessful second language writers that explained the
participants' relative success based on whether they focused more on grammar or
structure, explaining the results based on the capacity of working memory. The
authors develop their thesis by explaining the need for research, then presenting
their methods and findings. They write primarily to linguists and psychologists,
despite certain applications to education.
Stapleton, Paul. "Critiquing Voice as a Viable Pedagogical Tool in L2 Writing:
Returning the Spotlight to Ideas." Journal of Second Language Writing 11.3 (2002): 177-
190.
In this academic journal article, Paul Stapleton argues that issues of voice and
authorial identity are best kept at a minimum when teaching second language
writers, opting instead for a more rhetorical model that focuses on argumentation
skills and ideas. Stapleton develops his thesis by explaining the need to teach
English rhetoric to non-native speakers, comparing it with rhetorical patterns of
other languages. Stapleton writes to other teachers of second language writers in
hopes they will forego their lessons on voice and authorship.

Wang, Wenyu; Wen, Qiufang. "L1 Use in the L2 Composing Process: An

Exploratory Study of 16 Chinese EFL Writers." Journal of Second Language Writing
11.3 (2002): 225-246.
In this academic journal article, Wang and Wen present the findings of their study
of sixteen Chinese second language writers, exploring how these students used
their first language in writing English. The authors present the findings of
previous studies and make the case for the current study before presenting their
own findings. The authors write to teachers of second language writers in order
to argue for greater flexibility in allowing students to use their first language as
part of the writing process.