Selective vs. comprehensive grammar correction in writing pedagogy: Counter evidence to Truscott’s view مقالة

مؤلف: Modirkhamene، Sima ؛ Soleimani، Maryam ؛ Sadeghi، Karim ؛

Applied Research on English Language Spring & Summer 2017, Volume 6 - Number 2 ، العلمية - البحثية (Ministry of Science/ISC (‎20 صفحة - من 193 إلی 212 )

الکلمات المفتاحية: writing accuracy Comprehensive Feedback Selective Feedback No Correction EFL CF SLA Correction ESL Ellis

خلاصة:

To date, controversy among scholars exists on whether or not teachers should react to EFL learners' written grammar errors. This study investigated the effect of three feedback types (i.e., selective, comprehensive, and the one recommended by Truscott (1999), that is, no correction) with regard to possible improvements in accuracy in the writings of a total of 66 elementary EFL learners. It, further, sought whether such an effect would last in the long run. During 11 weeks, selected global (e.g., past tense, countable/uncountable, and comparative adjectives) and all grammar errors in the written pieces of the subjects in two treatment groups (n = 22 in each) were reacted through coded underlining. However, in line with Truscott, the only reaction participants in the third group (n = 22) received were comments such as great, good, ok, etc. Analysis of the written pieces in the immediate and delayed post tests revealed that selective feedback had a significantly more positive influence on learners' accurate use of selected grammatical structures both in the short and in the long run. The implications are discussed in terms of effective guidelines for teaching writing in EFL contexts.

ملخص الجهاز:

Comprehensive Grammar Correction in Writing Pedagogy: Counter Evidence to Truscott’s View Sima Modirkhamene 1*, Maryam Soleimani 2, Karim Sadeghi 3 1 Assistant professor, Department of English, Urmia University, Iran 2 PhD, Iran Language Institute, Urmia, Iran 3 Associate professor, Department of English, Urmia University, Iran Received: 10/10/2016 Accepted: 28/12/2016 To date, controversy among scholars exists on whether or not teachers should react to EFL learners' written grammar errors. Abstract: Keywords: Comprehensive Feedback; Selective Feedback; No Correction; Writing Accuracy Introduction Writing teachers have traditionally viewed written error correction as playing an integral role in improving Second Language (L2) writing accuracy (Brown, 2007; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2004), but debate regarding its effectiveness has emerged in the past decades (Chandler, * Corresponding Author. g. Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Storch, 2016, Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Ellis, 2009) challenge Truscott's claims against the effectiveness of grammar correction and have produced research evidence that supports the potential benefits of providing written error correction as far as development and improvement in learners' L2 writing accuracy are concerned. Literature Review Truscott’s (1999) strong opposition to WCF has faced numerous challenges and received critiques from researchers, who, through empirical research or other scholarly synthesis, have basically argued that grammar feedback is essential for second language acquisition (SLA) and should remain an important component of L2 instruction (Liu & Brown, 2015).

استلام ملف الإرجاع :
(پژوهیار, , , )

تحميل
تحميل HTML

رابط قصير:

صفحة:

دخول / الاشتراک

تحتاج الدخول لعرض محتوى المقالة. إذا لم تكن عضوًا ، فتابع من الجزء الاشتراک.

دخول