Friday, September 10, 2010

GRAMMAR CORRECTION IN SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING CLASSES:Should grammar correction be abandoned?

Andreia Tobias, Monica  Recusani and Rosana Marcondes
September 2010
Introduction
A lot of discussion has been emerging concerning the grammar correction in second language (L2) writing classes. Authors have been discussing the effects of those corrections and if it may have good or ineffective effects on students. Among all authors we have chosen John Truscott who is assumed against grammar correction and states this practice must be abandoned. On the other hand we are going to present Chandler and Ferris opinions on writing correction once they believe that grammar correction may be effective. This present article aims to understand based on Truscott discussions the reasons that we must abandon written correction to present some arguments to show how ineffective and harmful the practice of grammar correction might be for learners and to point out the reasons why grammar correction is still being practiced.

Discussion
According to Truscott, learners will not improve their grammar ability by being corrected. Both teachers and especially students believe in correction and think this practice should work and may develop their writing ability. There are evidences that corrected students tend to write shortly and simplify their writing in order to avoid making mistakes. On the other hand there are studies that show that uncorrected students are more motivated and confident to write because they are free of correction, consequently they write much more than corrected learners. Truscott claims that such practice is ineffective, once does not improve student’s writing skill and for this reason should be abandoned.

Different points of views related to grammar correction in writing classes
According to Truscott, Grammar correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned, once correction is not helpful, may be harmful and does not improve student’s writing ability.
In contrast to Truscott Chandler (2004) and Ferris (1996, 1999) have argued about grammar correction and think it may be effective. Chandler states that correction and revision are beneficial and correction by itself is more or less neutral. Ferris (1999) welcomes critical discussion of correction, but asserts that no one should abandon the practice and points out that sometimes corrections are done poorly and this is the reason that it is ineffective. Therefore, she says we cannot evaluate grammar in general because some kinds of correction may have more problems than others.  According to her, students benefit from correction when it is clear, consistent, intelligent, that is, when it is a well-done grammatical correction. However, Truscott concludes that evidence for good correction is not a meaningful part of case for grammar correction. But the meaning of a well done correction remains unclear.
Also Ferris believes that correction is not only high valued by students but many teachers spend too much time and energy with it because they think they are helping learners to improve the accuracy of their writing. And she continues to argue that teachers must take in account the students ‘necessities in deciding if, when and how to give error feedback and correction to L2 student writers.
Chandler defends that correct learners ´error after either receiving direct correction or having the location of their errors pointed out. Truscott points out that Chandler (2003) showed evidence on the relative effects of different kinds of corrections, but not on the effects of correcting relative to not correcting.
We may argue that actually correction is a standard part of writing classes, but it does not improve students writing ability and does not make students better writers. Correcting students do not mean they will write more accurately in the future.

Grammar correction has harmful effects
As we support Truscott’s point of view we will present some of his arguments to show how ineffective and harmful correction might be to learners in L2 writing classes.
Learning is most successful when students are relaxed, and confident and enjoy their English classes, but the use of correction encourages exactly the opposite condition. Correction turns out to be stressful because people do not like to be told that they are wrong. Even students who believe that correction is a necessary part of learning process do not like seeing the red ink all over their writing and probably find the experience discouraging.
Students who do not receive correction have a more positive attitude toward writing than those who do. The uncorrected students are not better writers, but they definitely write more, because they are not afraid of making mistakes. Corrected learners tend to simplify their writing while uncorrected students show a superior grasp of sentence structure. Learners who are corrected simplify and shorten their writing in order to avoid correction, thus they do not learn as well as uncorrected students, once they have developed a less favorable attitude toward learning.
The time factor is another reason to classify correction as ineffective. Students who take correction seriously will spend much time reading, thinking about and correcting their mistakes. Time might be better used by practicing the ability of writing. The time problem is even greater for teachers once the correction of grammar errors can may absorb teacher’s energy and time with many students and many writing assignments. Time that might be spent more productively and perhaps more pleasantly on other things.

Why is Grammar Correction still widely practiced in writing classes?
Tradition is one of the reasons that grammar correction is still practiced, but according to Truscott there is no good reason to correct grammar errors.
The literature reveals several arguments for continuing the practice of grammar correction. One of these arguments is that learners often cannot identify their own mistakes and therefore need a more knowledgeable person to point them out. Also students will benefit by having their errors pointed out. Uncorrected students become stuck at a low level of grammatical skills; however those who were corrected might avoid this problem. Literature claims that feedback helps in the development of grammatical ability.
However, according to Truscott, none of these arguments offer any evidence that language learner’s benefit from grammar correction. On the contrary, researches show that this practice leads to signs of frustration, lack of motivation or confidence in learners. Besides that, as stated before students who are corrected tend to short and simplify their writing, and this attitude might lead them to a low level of writing development. On the other hand, students who are not corrected feel more secure to write, once they are not afraid and consequently they will write much more, making use of different language structures.
Perhaps the strongest reason to keep grammar correction is that students want correction and believe it is helpful. So, we should continue the practice. But this does not mean that teachers should give it to them. Teachers have to teach in a way that will help students to learn and they can start to do this by abandoning grammar correction, trying to show their students that their false belief about learning will not lead them to an improvement of their writing ability. Studies comparing corrected learners and uncorrected ones showed that , the latter did not show any harmful effects on learning or motivation and upset students on the absence of correction, apparently got over it quickly and went on to make good progress.

Conclusion
Based on Truscott’s point of view and analyzing all the evidences against grammar correction that he has presented, we may suggest that correction is really ineffective or harmful to learners and may be disadvantageous to students fluency and their overall writing quality. Rested on his evidences, especially regarding grammar errors we may say that classes without correction will provide students more time to practice writing; consequently they will be able to become better writers. The errors will reduce with the process of writing: Therefore, we may conclude that teachers must constantly make decisions about what to do in class, how to correct students but we are never sure how to proceed, because research never puts an end to doubt. The best to do is to provide students enough time to practice writing and this will be done if they avoid correction as much as possible, once learners will not improve writing ability with this practice. If the student is still making a certain mistake is because he or she is not ready to incorporate it and correction will not make the student any better. On the contrary this practice may even worsen the situation; making students feel inferior, frustrated and demotivated.
We expect that future discussions and researches regarding to this controversial topic happens once it has an important role to students and also teachers who are always making decisions in our teaching.

References
CHANDLER J. A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2004,13 345–348.
DANA F. The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, 8 (1) l-l 1.
TRUSCOTT J. The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning 46:2, June 1996, pp. 327-369.
TRUSCOTT J. The Case for “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1999, b(2), 111-122.
TRUSCOTT J. Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2004, 13  337–343.