Forging Paths to Improvement in Writing

Providing Our Students With the Tools They Need*

While the field of first language (L1) writing instruction is rich in its history and depth of research, the field of second language (L2) writing is still in its developmental stages.  Most of what L2 writing teachers have done in the past is based on what they could apply from the L1 writing field.  As a result, numerous controversies have presented themselves and become commonly debated topics for pedagogues at all levels and institutions.  And so they should.  The very nature of the teaching profession has always lent itself to debate, and the dilemmas and decisions we face as English teachers of second language writing should not be exempt.  As an experienced writing teacher and willing participant in these debates, I have come to understand that the very nature of my profession requires reflective thinking and diligent scrutiny if I am to have any level of success in the language classroom.  

            It can be said that all second language writing teachers need to stay abreast of the aforementioned issues in order to make the proper decisions that will lead to a greater understanding of how they conduct their classrooms.  However, this article deals with one of the most interesting and important of these issues.  This issue involves the paths we take to help our students improve their second language writing ability.  In exploring this issue I will deal primarily with the topics of error correction and positive feedback.  The first half of the article reviews the error correction debates between Dana Ferris, Jean Chandler, and John Truscott, looks at some more recent views on the same topic by Danielle Guenette, and examines the ideas of Peter Elbow regarding feedback and liking.  The second part of this article will look at how I dealt with these issues in the past and how I will continue to deal with these issues in my future classrooms while shaping my constantly evolving pedagogical beliefs and practices.  

Some Issues Surrounding Improvement 

             Central to any teacher’s core beliefs in education is how students can improve their skills in what is being taught.  How we guide our students in a way that not only provides the quickest and most reliable path to this improvement but also provides the longest lasting results is a key dilemma.  In the L2 writing field this is a particularly difficult dilemma due to the two-fold nature of the teacher’s job.  Not only must we teach students how to communicate in a foreign language, but we must also teach them how to communicate effectively through the medium of writing.  

            One of the most important considerations involved in improvement is how we provide feedback on what our students have done.  In recent times, the pedagogical practice of grammar correction has become a controversy in the L2 writing field.  John Truscott leads the march against grammar correction and in the late nineties and early in the new millennium he engaged in debates with Dana Ferris and Jean Chandler, two of the most vocal opponents to his theories.  In Truscott’s (1996) article his strong position that “grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned” (p. 327) was a pedagogical slap in the face for most teachers.  In his paper he explained the three reasons for his conclusions in this way.  

(a) Substantial research shows it to be ineffective and none shows it to be helpful in any interesting sense; (b) for both theoretical and practical reasons, one can expect it to be ineffective; and (c) it has harmful effects. (p. 327)

Three years later, Ferris (1999) responded to his assertions about the futility of grammar correction by discussing some of the points that she was in agreement and disagreement with.  She concluded that his position was “premature and overly strong” (p. 1).  Her stance on the subject seems to lean more towards becoming better error correctors.  This is apparent in the following quote. 

Perhaps a fairer assertion is that many students can improve their writing as a result of judicious and well executed teacher feedback and that instead of doing away with grammar correction, we should devote ourselves to making our corrections even more effective. (p. 7)  

I believe that Ferris was echoing the consensus among L2 writing teachers at the time but in her article she did not disagree with all of Truscott’s findings and she concluded by stressing that “the issue of helping students to develop their written language skills and improve their accuracy in writing is too important to be ruled on hastily.” (p. 10).  She also urged teachers to be cautious and use Truscott’s ideas as a springboard to “determine if there really is a better way to proceed.” (p. 10).  Truscott (1999) replied by quickly stating his desire to avoid a situation where “one questionable view becomes so dominant that most teachers can scarcely conceive of an alternative, let alone seriously consider it as an option for their own teaching.” (p. 111).  He then went to work systematically refuting Ferris’ objections to his work.  Following this he points out the positions that she left unchallenged and finally, expresses his belief in a “burden of proof bias” (p. 119).  He believes that this bias is important because the two sides of the debate do not have equal standing to begin with.  He continued by saying, “Instead, those who reject correction are expected to produce an absolutely conclusive case that it is always a bad idea, while those who support correction need only raise doubts about the case against it.”  (p. 119). 

            Early in the new millennium Chandler (2003) tried to promote the positive effects of error feedback on both accuracy and fluency in a research article she published but it only took Truscott (2004) a few months to respond by claiming that her study was flawed.  Chandler concluded that giving error correction for one group of L2 students while providing no correction for a similar group resulted in evidence supporting correction.  However, in her study she explains that one group received corrections that had to be dealt with immediately while the other group received corrections but didn’t have to deal with them until the end of the course.  Chandler was bound by what she considered to be her ethical responsibility to provide correction in some way to her students.  Truscott was quick to point out that evidence for or against correction “cannot come from research that compares one type of correction to another without showing how either compares to the lack of correction.” (p. 337).  He also offered that conjecture was the main basis for her findings and furthermore, that his conjecture was better supported by the research and results.  On points of accuracy, overall writing quality, and fluency he turns all her conclusions around to show how her study could actually work to prove his point.  He concludes by reiterating his assertion that correction is bad in the quote, “Thus, the state of the evidence, especially regarding grammar errors, points to a clear conclusion: Correction is a bad idea.” (p. 342).  Whether Truscott is playing the pedagogical devil’s advocate or really does believe fully in his assertion that no correction is the best correction, it is hard not to admire the fierce conviction with which he defends his stand.  

            Another perspective on this debate was provided recently in an article by Danielle Guenette (2007).  Guenette’s article tried to shed some light on the corrective feedback issue by taking a closer look at the nature of the research that has been done to date.  According to Guenette some of the inherent problems with the studies include complications in research design and methodology coupled with the presence of external variables.  The article tries to answer some of the questions surrounding the difficulty of research in this area, and by doing so, to draw some conclusions on how teachers should go about dealing with the issue in their classrooms.  The success of the article to do the latter seems debatable.   

            In the first section of the article Guenette points out the flaws in research design that have led to varying results on previous studies.  The first criticism is the one about differing levels of the subjects in each study.  Guenette claims that “it cannot be assumed that all students were at the same level of proficiency.” (p.42) and that in order to compare the studies regarding feedback issues, “proficiency levels have to be carefully measured and reported.” (p.42).  The second criticism tries to explain the practical limitations of trying to compare correction versus non correction.  In this portion of the study, despite what seems to be some confusion by the author on the distinction between correction and feedback, Guenette points out that the perfect study is hard to create because there are too many differences between the combinations of ways that correction is examined.  This includes problems that rise when studies are done on the same piece of writing versus a new piece, or they are done using some variation of feedback on form versus feedback on content.   In the article Guenette states that, 

What is needed is a control group that is in every way comparable to the experimental groups in terms of proficiency level, writing conditions, and instructional context.  Only then can the correction/no correction comparison be really informative and help further our understanding of the effectiveness of error correction. (pp. 43-44)  

The third criticism deals with the problems in studying this issue using longitudinal and cross-sectional designs.  The article quite correctly raises the point that, “What is of particular interest to teachers is whether or not students can sustain this improvement on subsequent writing.” (p.44).  The only way to do this would be by using more thorough longitudinal studies, however the nature of these longitudinal studies comes under some scrutiny in the article.  Guenette explains that while longitudinal studies may show us that, “feedback on form does not play a role in the development of accuracy over time.” (p. 45) it is important to realize that the many studies that draw us to this conclusion are flawed because, “the elicitation task and the feedback techniques chosen might have had a greater effect than was expected.” (p. 45).  

            In the second section on research methodology Guenette looks at the problems with treatment and procedures.  In this section the author expresses that the various types of feedback and how it was administered might play too large a part in the studies to make results comprehensible or even valid.  In the portion on treatment Guenette concludes that, “studies that compared feedback on content with feedback on form found that the former was just as effective as the latter.” (p. 48) while studies that focused on form only were varied.  Guenette continues by examining the procedures.  This part of the article shows that variables, such as the actual activities that students take part in and how much incentive the students have to perform, present even more problems that can result in unreliable results.  Guenette concludes this portion by saying that “the context in which the study is carried out, as well as the pedagogical activities that students are involved in during the experiment, might have an impact on the results.” (p. 50). 

            Guenette’s article concludes by pointing out that despite all the problems with the research that lead to the undesirable conclusion that this issue is nearly impossible to resolve, there are some important contributions that the studies have made.  Namely, how the studies “contribute in giving us a clearer picture of not only what feedback is used for…but also how it is administered by the teachers and how it is perceived by the students.” (p. 50).  Guenette also redeems these studies by claiming, 

The merit of these studies is that they reveal other dimensions of feedback, such as students’ ability to engage with feedback, the type of errors that benefit from feedback, the inconsistency of feedback provided by teachers, students’ perceptions and preferences, and individual differences. (p. 50)

Unfortunately, as stated above, there is little in the way of offering teachers a way to deal with this issue in their classrooms.  The author believes, although it is not entirely clear why, that it is indeed necessary to continue error correction.  However, there is a warning that “there is no ‘corrective feedback recipe.’” (p. 51).  Guenette’s final point is that “if the students are not committed to improving their writing skills, they will not improve, no matter what type of corrective feedback is provided.” (p. 52).  While this may seem to undermine the main point of the article it does remind us that teaching second language writing is a multi-faceted job that requires numerous skills and approaches.  

            In Peter Elbow’s (1993) article he discusses liking and how it is related to feedback in the writing classroom.  Indeed, the teacher is responsible for helping the students to improve but as Guenette (2007) pointed out commitment and motivation by the students is also a huge part of the equation.  Elbow addresses this topic and makes some very strong statements about why he believes “that the phenomenon of liking is perhaps the most important evaluative response for writers and teachers to think about.” (p. 199).  Elbow starts by making the assertion that people become better writers when they start to like their writing and feel some pride in it.  He points out that, “Only if we like something will we get involved enough to work and struggle with it.” (p. 200).  Elbow follows up this assertion by explaining that it is not only getting the students to start liking their writing, but also getting the teachers to like the student’s writing.  He explains that, “good writing teachers like student writing (and like students).” (p. 200) and further supports his position by saying “Good teachers see what is only potentially good, they get a kick out of mere possibility – and they encourage it.” (p. 200).  Elbow expands even further by saying that this will lead the teacher to become a better evaluator of student writing and in turn help students to improve even more.  He explains by saying that, “If I like it [student writing], I can criticize it better.  I have faith that there’ll still be something good left, even if I train my full critical guns on it.” (p. 201).  In essence, Elbow shows that liking students and the writing that they do will lead to more effective feedback.  This feedback will subsequently empower students and have a positive effect by helping them to like their own writing.  So while Truscott and others continue the debate on grammar correction, and Guenette provides some clarity and knowledge regarding the research on correction, Peter Elbow seems to have given teachers some more concrete, and perhaps inspiring, pedagogical guidance.  

 Experiences and Future Implications for My Classroom

            The issue of error correction and feedback has been one of the most thought provoking and troublesome issues that I have grappled with over my initial years as both a first and second language teacher.  The knowledge base that has helped me in this struggle was developed through the influence of a number of internal and external factors. The internal factors involved are basically my personality and my preferences regarding what teaching strategies I employ.  The external factors that have influenced me up to this point are the suggestions and teachings I obtained while training in university, the philosophies I gleaned from the various teaching materials I have used, and whatever teacher training literature I could get my hands on.  As a conscientious teacher I have also strived to reflect on which pedagogical approaches have worked in my classrooms and which have not.  Despite these influences I have not been, and probably will never fully be, convinced as to what type of error correction and feedback to use.  However, the review of the recent literature above has shed a great deal of light on what has taken place so far in my teaching experience.  It has also done a great deal to point me in a better direction as I continue to develop and mold my pedagogical approaches to second language writing.  

            In my past experiences as an L2 writing teacher I witnessed first hand the results of grammar correction on my students.  As I meticulously checked, corrected and re-checked my students’ writing I began to notice a lack of general improvement.  While it was obvious that the students wanted me to provide this feedback, it was not so obvious that it was leading them to create more sophisticated writing pieces.  They seemed to respond to my corrections by avoiding certain problematic structures and reducing the amount of writing that they did.  This was not just limited to the journal work that they did for class each day.  It was also the case for their academic writing.  It would seem that some of John Truscott’s ideas were being displayed in my classroom.  At the time I had not read his research and all I could do in response was to ask the students to write more while I corrected less.  I felt that if they were not limited by a feeling of having to write perfectly then perhaps they would express themselves more.  In time, this turned out to be the case.  At first my students were a little skeptical about the lack of correction but as they slowly began to write more I heard fewer of their complaints.  As long as I supplemented this with reading and other receptive activities that employed models of natural English, the students were able to learn new structures and have a non-corrective environment to experiment with them.  When it came to their academic writing, I continued to give them feedback on content and rhetorical structure.  This helped them to organize their thoughts better and fulfill their need to receive feedback.  In a way Truscott’s (1996) pedagogical stance was displayed to me by my students and the longitudinal studies that Guenette (2007) talks about were happening in my own classroom.  

            The concept of liking that Peter Elbow (1993) talks about also became a real life concept in my past experiences.  In my classroom a number of years ago I was faced with a group of students who were having a lot of trouble understanding the concept of how to write an essay.  In order to make the concept a little clearer to them I thought that if I could create a proper model for them and show enthusiasm for writing while presenting it, then perhaps they would understand how to write an essay and feel better about doing it.  I proceeded to sit down at my computer and type out an essay about the topic, “The room of the house I enjoy the most.”  An amazing thing happened.  I began to remember all the recreational writing I had done back in university and I rediscovered the passion for writing that had been laying dormant all those years.  I presented my essay to the class and shared my enthusiasm about the writing process with the students. I was amazed to see the faces of the students light up when the concept was finally understood.  I had a number of journal entries in the following weeks that told of how impressed they were to see a teacher that obviously loved what he was teaching.  I also found myself more attracted to the idea of guiding students to see the good parts of their writing and then fostering a desire to build on their success.  Through this experience I realized that beyond teaching students how to write, there lies a duty to teach them how to like to write.  

            All of this research and experience is well and good, but the best teachers take this combination and apply it to the lives and successes of their future students.  So what pedagogical decisions regarding improvement can I take and apply to my future classrooms?  The answer is quite a lot.  By examining the research and debates on error correction and applying it to what I have experienced in my own classrooms, I can make three important conclusions for the future.  The first conclusion is that I need to be extremely careful not to continue any pedagogical practices just because they happen to be the most popular or unchallenged.  Truscott’s (1999) arguments have opened my eyes to the fact that what methods were used on me, and what methods were taught to me in the past, are not necessarily the methods that will provide the greatest success for my students in the future.  Guenette’s (2007) article led to the second conclusion which is that just because one or two studies show certain results, it does not mean that we should assume that there are not other variables that lead to those results.  If we are to continue making improvements on our pedagogical practices then research needs to continue as well.  Finally, Peter Elbow’s (1993) article provided what I believe to be one of the most important conclusions.  His article reminded me that it is important that I remember just how much I enjoy writing, and how much my students can benefit from learning to enjoy it.  Helping students find the potential of what they can do is a more proactive form of education than merely telling them what they did wrong.  Furthermore, if it is possible to enjoy the act of reading my students’ writing then I believe that I can, as Elbow puts it, “train my full critical guns on it.” (p.201). 

            In the future I will try to use a combination of non-correction and correction in my writing classrooms.  I will do this by continuing to use daily, correction-free journals for students to explore their second language.  Using journals to create a healthy and intellectual one-on-one dialogue with my students where they can improve their English as well as their critical thinking skills is a tool that is extremely important in my opinion.  In addition, I plan to set up certain academic writing assignments were the main goals of the task will be fluency and not accuracy.  Despite the fact that I have a strong dislike for the importance put on tests like the TOEFL and the TOEIC, they are a reality that I have to deal with as a teacher in Japan.  Any help I can provide for my students that results in them improving their fluency on these tests is a positive step.  However, in order to keep balance in the classroom, I will also make content and form corrections on other academic writing assignments done in the class.  Students will be students, and as such, they will always want me to correct their English.  I have no problems indulging them as long as I can make the benefits of my teaching style perfectly clear to them.  Many years ago, as a university student in Canada, I reached the conclusion that there should not be any secrets in the teacher-student relationship and I have yet to see anything that would prove otherwise. 

            This feedback, whether it is form-focused or content-focused, needs to be of the type that keeps students on a straight path to improvement.  For the journal writing I plan to make minimal remarks that will include questions that seek clarification and engage the students in meaningful dialogue in English.  Examples may be something like, “How did you reach this conclusion?” or “Do you know of any other examples of this?”  For the academic writing, I plan to continue the same type of questions as the ones found in the journals but I will also add comments that focus on rhetorical structures and content.  Examples of this may be something like, “I like the point you’re making here, but don’t you think it belongs in the body of the essay?” or “I think your introduction would be better if you had a stronger topic sentence.”  As for corrections that involve grammar or spelling, I plan to use special grammar exercises and vocabulary building activities that include immediate feedback.  In addition, I will set aside time for students to do peer evaluation as another exercise to help them become better readers and writers.  Finally, depending on resource and time constraints, I plan to set up an extensive reading program for my students in order to achieve the amount of input needed to increase their vocabulary and knowledge of the target writing structures.  As a pedagogical blueprint I believe that nothing should be set in stone, however, I believe that in the future my L2 writing students will benefit from this type of plan. 

Conclusion

            Second language teaching and the narrower field of second language writing teaching will continue to benefit from the debates and controversies that educators engage in.  Amongst the many issues that face L2 writing teachers in Japan the issue of improvement is one of the most commonly debated.  I enjoy examining the research and discussing the debates but most importantly, I enjoy becoming a more informed educator.  The responsibility to educate and inspire that is thrust upon us is not one that should be taken lightly, and the best way we can meet this responsibility is to stay aware of the recent research and adapt what we learn to our own teaching styles.  When it comes to the paths our students take to improve their writing there is no simple map we can give them.  Instead, we can only provide the tools, the vision and the motivation to get them where they are going.  

Cited Articles

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267- 296.

Elbow, P. (1993). Ranking, evaluating, and liking: Sorting out three forms of judgment.  College English, 55, 187-206.

Ferris, D. R. (1999a). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11. 

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46, 327-369.

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of second language Writing, 8, 111-122.

Truscott, J. (2004). Dialogue: Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.    

*Originally published in edited form in “Issues in Second Language Writing: From Theory to Practice”, July 2009. Temple University Japan Studies in Applied Linguistics.