grammar correction in l2 writing class
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
1/43
Language Learning 46:2, June 1996, pp
Review Article
The Case Against Grammain L2 Writing Clas
John Truscott National Tsing Hua Unive
The paper argues that grammar corre
ing classes should be abandoned, for the f(a) Substantial research shows it to be inefshows it to be helpful in any interesting stheoretical and practical reasons, one caineffective; and (c) it has harmful effectsand reject a number of arguments prev
favor of grammar correction.
In second language (L2) writing course
is something of an institution. Nearly all L
it in one form or another; nearly everyonsubject recommends it in one form or an
researchers hold a widespread, deeply en
grammar correction should, even must, be p
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
2/43
328 Language Learning
few serious attempts to justify the practice onthose that exist pay scant attention to the s
that has found correction ineffective or harmfu
the subject simply takes the value of gram
granted. Thus, authors often assume the pr
without offering any argument or citing any
someone cites evidence, it generally consists
token sources, with no critical assessment of
Researchers have similarly failed to lo
nature of the correction process. Work on considers the many practical problems inv
correction and largely ignores a number of
which, if taken seriously, would cast doubt on
Finally, researchers have paid insufficie
side effects of grammar correction, such as itsattitudes, or the way it absorbs time and energy
Commentators seem to feel that we cannot el
lems through limited adjustments in the correc
simply have to live with them. They assu
correction must be used in writing classesproblems it creates; this assumption is ver
seriously.
Grammar correction is too important to
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
3/43
Truscott
Before proceeding with the argumentclarify a few points. First, I do not deny the
accuracy; the issue is whether or not gram
contribute to its development. Nor do I gene
as a teaching method; I will have very little to
to the content, organization, or clarity of instance, and I certainly will not suggest tha
misguided. Finally, the key term needs so
grammar correction, I mean correction of gr
the purpose of improving a student's ability
This correction comes in many different fopurposes such distinctions have little significa
there is no reason to think any of the variatio
writing classes, and there is considerable rea
all misguided.
Grammar Correction Does No
A large number of studies have attempte
(or lack of effects) of grammar correction. Tstraightforward: The researchers compare th
who have received grammar correction over a
that of students who have not. If correcti
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
4/43
530 Language Learning
different types of grammar correction. They f
had little or no effect on students' writing a
difference who the students were, how m
corrected, which mistakes were corrected, how
ments were, or in what form they were presen
had no effect. The conclusion for LI, then, isnot helpful.
These studies on LI learning certainly
correction is ineffective in L2 language learn
technique that is not helpful in the one case co
other. But they certainly provide strong groview of their results, it would be folly to assu
evidence, that correction is useful in L2 learni
the effect of the LI research is to place the bur
on those who would claim that correction is h
So I turn now to the research on L2 learn
made that correction works? Clearly and una
fact, the L2 evidence fits very well with that
correction is clearly ineffective.
Hendrickson (1978) reviewed the avaiconcluded that little was known. He claimed
be corrected, but the work he reviewed did
view. His own work (1978, and in more det
1981) i di d h i ll
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
5/43
Truscott
but offered no reason that better-done co
helped.
Semke's (1984) large, 10-week study
produced similar results. She divided th
'; groups, each receiving a different type of
^received only comments on content, with nGroup 2 received only comments on errors. G
types of comments, and Group 4 had their e
were expected to make corrections themselv
significant differences among the groups in
writing. In addition, Group 1 (comments osignificantly better than all the others on flu
test. Thus, feedback on errors was not onl
harmful to learners. Those who received c
' plus correction were significantly inferior to
;! only comments on content. Semke also f
correction) inferior to all the other groups
against the use of a technique frequently r
S literature (but always with little or no supp
JBartram & Walton, 1991; Hendrickson, 1978?Hyland, 1990; Raimes, 1983).
Grammar correction's futility also sho
; Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986). They us
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
6/43
332 Language Learning
for grammar correction are reasonably clear n
thing, the amount of information contained in
so much among the four groups that one wou
differences among them if the information w
That there were no differences argues strongl
any value. Moreover, the practical difference
thetical fifth group and the actual fourth grou
small. In fact, Frantzen and Rissel (1987) fou
told the exact location of an error, learnersdetermine exactly what that error was; in vie
would be extremely surprising if the learners
gained any insights from their much more limi
one can reasonably treat these learners as a
lack of any contrast between them and the gmore informative feedback thus provides goo
ineffectiveness of grammar correction.
More evidence of this ineffectiveness c
(1991), who experimented with two forms of f
diate Spanish as a foreign language (FL) participants received comprehensive correctio
errors with brief explanations or statements
half received comments on content instead w
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
7/43
Truscott
errors (and nothing else) in conferences with
the other group, feedback and conferences de
the content of the students' writing. Thus, if e
helpful, the content group should have suffe
grammatical ability. However, Sheppard fouthe error-correction group, the results actuall
tent group. In accuracy of verb forms, there
between the groups, both improving signific
marking of sentence boundaries (through a
tion), the content group made significant ga
did not, and the difference was significant. F
of the complexity of students' writingthe
with which they used subordinate clausesth
no significant changes, although the error gro
worse (though there was no significant differe
groups on this measure). Sheppard attribute
an avoidance strategy on the part of the stud
frequently correctedtheir fear of making m
limit the complexity of their writing.
Thus Sheppard's (1992) work resembles
and Kepner (1991). Correction was not onl
studies but also actually hindered the learni
Fi ll f dditi l t di
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
8/43
334 Language Learning
pretations, though. The variable relevant her
nonuse of grammar correction, but a number of o
have influenced the results of the experiments.
obvious candidates can be discounted.
First, the results probably cannot be explain
ence between FL and SL learning, the ident
language, or the learners' LI. The studies that
ineffective included ESL, EFL, German FL, a
besides, the students' origins and LIs differed w
Another factor that can probably be dismiss
correction used. The studies varied between
(learners given correct forms for each error) a
(errors pointed out, usually by means of a code, b
not given). In addition, Robb et al. (1986) alo
different degrees of directness. The case is somew
the other major variable of this sortthe dif
comprehensive and selective correction. Moreviewed here relied on the former, but Hendrick
both types and found no difference between the
research described above found comprehensiven
irrelevant. Additional reasons to doubt the v
correction will be presented below.Another explanation of the results is that th
in these studies could have had a delayed effect t
up during the research. However, available
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
9/43
Truscott
1991; Hoekje & Linnell, 1994; Skehan, 1988,1
quite well. Second, they used a variety of meas
these included counts of all grammatical and l
studies (plus style in one of them), verb form
others, and an independent measure of sente
one. They also frequently included measur
complexity of writing, and one study added a c
of these measurements found any significa
students whose writing had been corrected. T
used in some of the studies did find significant d
groupsalways favoring the uncorrected stud
found significant gains (and occasionally loss
posttest. Clearly, these measures can detec
Thus, that none of them found any significant
sort for corrected students must be taken ser
Similar comments apply to differences in
tion used in the various studies. The auth
limited information, but this information s
variation. In Robb et al.'s (1986) research, mo
was devoted to correction practice and sentence-
(1991) described her classes as proficiency-b
concern for personal growth and the deve
Sheppard's (1992) students, in addition to
experience, read two novels and underwent
instruction (on topics overlapping the points
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
10/43
336 Language Learning
ability and was inferior to the uncorrected gr
and to all the other groups on fluency.) Hendri
use rewriting, but after each assignment was
class time for students to study the correction
It is also unlikely that the lack of benefi
by the students' proficiency level or ability. ranged from beginning to advanced levels of la
In addition, Hendrickson (1981) included co
ciency as one of his independent variables,
included verbal ability; neither found any eff
Of course, other learner variables could blearners differ from one another in an enormo
and the research discussed here considered
However, though such a possibility cannot be r
no more than speculation.
However, assume for the sake of argvariables are crucial to the effects of gramm
certain types of students do benefit. A new p
because the knowledge that such students exis
unless instructors can determine exactly who
now this is not realistic. The (hypothetical) those who benefit and those who do not could
of variables, such as gender, age, educationa
tude field independence tolerance for ambig
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
11/43
Truscott
which learners acquire certain grammatica
research has found these same sequences in
learning situations, in spite of instructional
counter to them. This raises the possibility
used in the research described above failed b
respect these sequences: Teachers corrected
mar points for which they were not yet ready
The research on developmental sequenc
morpheme studies of Dulay and Burt (1973,
den, and Krashen (1974), and Perkins an
(1975). This work has since become the sub
(Dulay, Burt, & Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Free
Freeman & Long, 1991; Rosansky, 1976) and
considered conclusive. However, subsequent w
languages (e.g., Cancino, Rosansky, & Sch
1984, 1988, 1989; Felix, 1981; Hyltenstam1984,1989; VanPatten, 1987; Weinert, 1987; W
little doubt that developmental sequences are
sion has met wide acceptance among SLA res
1993; Dulay et al., 1982; Ellis, 1990; Ha
Freeman & Long, 1991; Lightbown & Spad1984; VanPatten, 1986b). It signifies, for pr
grammar instruction (or correction) that doe
sequences will probably encounter problems
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
12/43
338 Language Learning
Nonevidence for Grammar Correction
The discussion of possible limitations on
arrived at the same conclusion reached pre
correction (at least in any form now available) is not enough, though, to show that many stu
negative results. A number of additional stud
presented as evidence favoring grammar corr
sary to look at these as well. However, none of
negative findings described above, primarilythem actually address the present issue: Doe
tion in writing classes make students better wr
sense)?
First, it is not unusual to find vague refere
seem, in the context of the discussion, to procorrection works, but actually do not even attem
examples will suffice: Higgs (1979) and Gau
former is simply a detailed description of Higgs
of correction. Similarly, Gaudiani simply provi
writing course along with guidelines for teacimplement it. Neither provided, or claimed
evidence for the effectiveness of correction; th
is effective.
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
13/43
Truscott
tion, this oral research's credibility is weaken
other studies that found oral (or in some case
oral and written) correction ineffective (EUis
Holley & King, 1971; Lightbown, 1983a; Pla
Fathman and Whalley (1990) studied thehaving one group of ESL students revise the
the benefit of comments from the teacher, whi
their revisions without such comments. N
former group produced better final drafts th
result, though interesting and valuable, doquestion: Does grammar correction make stu
Fathman and Whalley have shown that stu
better compositions when teachers help them
lar compositions. But will those students be
future because of this help? Nothing in thpositive answer.
Lalande's (1982) work appears more rel
the effects of correction procedures in writi
concerned with effects beyond the particula
considered. But it too actually dealt with a qthat being considered here. Lalande's pur
composition teaching method he developed, in
sive correction by means of a special code
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
14/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
15/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
16/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
17/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
18/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
19/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
20/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
21/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
22/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
23/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
24/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
25/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
26/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
27/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
28/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
29/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
30/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
31/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
32/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
33/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
34/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
35/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
36/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
37/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
38/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
39/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
40/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
41/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
42/43
-
8/3/2019 Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Class
43/43