Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A study into teachers' and students' beliefs.
Citation preview
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background of the study
Errors are an integral element of language learning. Students are likely produce errors
in the process learning a language. Error is defined as the production of a linguistic
form which deviates from the correct form (Allwright, 1975). In second language
acquisition, errors are classified into modality, linguistic levels, form, type, cause and
norm (Coder, 1967). Errors are often regarded as the indicators that language learning
is actually taking place. Ellis (1990) argues that errors are recognized as a part of the
learning process which are inevitable but helpful in providing teachers the information
on how the students’ are progressing in the language learning. A similar idea is
emphasised in the early stages of research on error analysis by Coder (1967). He
suggests that errors tell the teacher how far the learner has progressed towards the
goal and consequently, how much the learner still has to learn. Thus, errors are
regarded as a guide for language teachers to approach teaching constructively and
adapt it according to the needs of their students.
Giving errors a constructive role in the teaching and learning of a language, teachers
of second language (L2) have approached errors with a positive outlook and has
responded to students’ errors particularly in writing by providing error correction.
Perhaps, error correction is viewed by both teachers and students as a straightforward
and effective way in responding to students’ errors in writing (Ferris, 2003). Many L2
teachers view error correction as a feedback strategy that will help improve their
students’ writing accuracy (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Brown, 2007). In addition, students
also want, expect, and value error correction in their written works (Ferris & Roberts,
2001; Lee, 2004).
However, there are growing debates on the effectiveness and contribution of error
correction in the L2 writing classroom. Truscott (1996) put forth his belief on the
ineffectiveness of written error correction particularly grammatical errors. He argues
that, error correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned. He based his
arguments on previous studies which highlighted that error correction in L2 writing had
little or no effect on students’ writing ability. Whereas, Ferris (1991) counters Truscott’s
arguments and provides an extensive analysis into studies that have shown positive
implications attained through error correction in L2 writing classes. Since then,
numerous studies have been done in the field of written error correction with an
attempt to either support or oppose the use of error correction in L2 writing pedagogy
(Truscott, 1999; Fazio, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2004; Lee, 2004; Bitchener,
2008).
Despite the debates, the practice of providing error correction in L2 writing classes are
still widely prevalent. Truscott (1999) states that, no matter what conclusions are
drawn from the studies pertaining to the effectiveness of error correction in L2 writing,
the decision lies in the hands of the teachers as teachers are the ones who will
determine whether error correction is beneficial or not for their students.Thus, this
study aims to explore teachers’ beliefs along with students’ beliefs towards providing
error correction in L2 writing classroom. Ferris (2004) highlights that, the belief that
students have regarding the value of providing error correction is the strong reasons
for teachers to continue providing it despite the arguments on its detrimental impacts
on the quality of students’ writing. However, it is apparent that there are very few
studies that have addressed this issues and investigated the L2 teachers’ and
students’ beliefs on the provision of error correction in writing classes. In addition, no
study has been done in analysing factors that contribute to teachers’ and students’
beliefs.
1.2 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to explore English As Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’
and students’ beliefs in Isle of Wight (IOW) College regarding the provision of error
correction in the L2 writing classroom. This study also aimed to analyse possible
factors that may influence EFL teachers’ and students’ beliefs on provision of written
error correction.
Specifically, this study sought to answers the following questions:
1. What are the beliefs of EFL teachers regarding the provision of error correction
in the L2 writing classroom?
2. What are the beliefs of EFL students regarding the provision of error correction
in the L2 writing classroom?
3. What are the factors that influence EFL teachers’ and students’ beliefs towards
the provision of written error correction?
This study has adopted an ethnographic approach to investigate the research
questions. Three types of ethnographic data collection tools were used; (1) qualitative
interview, (2) focus group interview and (3) classroom observation. The beliefs of three
EFL teachers were elicited through an initial qualitative interview, and a follow-up
interview after the classroom observations. The beliefs of twenty EFL students were
explored through an initial focus group interview and follow-up interviews after the
classroom observations. Classroom observations were utilised to obtain further
information on the researche question which may have been overlooked during the
initial interviews and further rectify the data collected through initial interview.
Observation made during the classroom observations were recorded in the
observation form.
1.3 Scope of the study
The present study focused on error correction in L2 writing. Other types of error
correction techniques such as oral and peer feedback were not addressed in this
investigation. Moreover, in the context of this study, error feedback and written error
correction are similar in meaning and refer to error correction in writing. In addition the
setting of this study will be an English As Foreign Language (EFL) classroom and the
participants were also from this aspect of English language teaching and learning. The
reason for choosing this setting is to ensure the transferability of the study to the
Malaysia context in the future as the researcher is from a Malaysian English As
Second Language (ESL) teaching and learning background.
The present study was conducted at a college in England which offers EFL courses to
private students. There are three EFL teachers and twenty adult intermediate EFL
students who are currently teaching and learning in an EFL class in this college.
1.4 Importance of the study
Written error correction is regarded as a vital element in L2 writing. Therefore, teachers
must be prepared to exploit it competently, carefully, and consistently in order to fully
utilise its potential to improve students’ writing accuracy (Ferris, 2004). The findings of
this study may expand a new perspective on provision of written error correction
through its focus on current ongoing. Moreover, this study is hoped to contribute to the
literature on written error correction and provide a basis for further exploration in this
field. The findings of this study may be helpful for L2 teachers to reflect upon their error
correction practices and self-evaluate its suitability to their students’ needs.
This study can potentially be adapted into the Malaysian context of English language
teaching (ELT) in order to contribute to good practice of error correction in the writing
classroom. It is hoped that, the provision of written error correction will be helpful in
guiding Malaysian students to become a better writer of English.
This chapter will be followed by a review of the literature, methodology, findings,
discussion and finally, conclusion.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 The Error Correction Debate
Over the years, there have been a lot of argument and debate regarding the
effectiveness of providing error correction in second language writing (Truscott, 1996;
Ferris, 1999; Chandler, 2003), despite the traditional teaching beliefs on its
effectiveness in improving L2 writing accuracy (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2004;
Brown, 2007).
According to studies conducted by Semke (1984), Hillocks (1986), Kepner (1991),
Sheppard (1992) and Truscostt & Hsu (2008), providing error correction is not only
ineffective in aiding student’s learning of grammatical forms but also detrimental to L2
writing development.
However, based on the studies by Chandler (2003), Williams (2003), Bitchener, Young
& Cameroon (2005), Bitchener (2008) and Sheen (2009), error correction in L2 writing
found to be effective and helpful in the development and improvement of learners’
writing accuracy.
In the next section of this chapter, these contrastive views towards error correction in
L2 writing will be further explored and discussed further.
2.1.1 Negative Views
Truscott (1996) published the review article “The Case Against Grammar
Correction in L2 Writing Classes.’’ This paper is a very important literature in the
study of error correction. This is due to Truscott’s strong arguments against error
correction which have initiated the ongoing debates among scholars regarding the
value of error correction in L2 writing classroom. Truscott (1996) argues that ‘’grammar
correction in L2 writing classes should be abandoned’’ (p.327). He supports his
arguments by providing three reasons: (1) previous research has shown that error
correction is ineffective and not helpful in any sense, (2) it is ineffective in terms of
theoretical and practical reasons, and (3) it has harmful effects on students. With
reference to Truscott’s (1996) second (2) reason, it is apparent that Truscott has based
his arguments upon theories of second language acquisition (SLA). Thus, it is believed
that, by evaluating the relationship between SLA theories and error correction, a clear
viewpoint regarding the drawbacks of error correction in L2 writing could be made.
Krashen (1982) in his ‘’Monitor Hypothesis” states that comprehensible input is a
sufficient condition for an effective L2 acquisition. In other words, in order for language
acquisition to occur, the students need to be exposed to vast variety of experiences of
using the target language through constant interactions and practice. Truscott (1996)
based his arguments upon Krashen’s Monitor Hypothesis, by arguing that, students’
accuracy in L2 writing will possibly be more effective if the students are allowed to
have extensive experiences in the target language through variety of reading and
writing exercises but not by correcting their errors.
Furthermore, several studies have found that error correction is ineffective. For
instance, Kepner’s (1991) study indicates that students who received error correction
in their journal entries did not perform significantly better than those who did not
received any correction on their errors. Moreover, in a separate study by Sheppard
(1992), a similar conclusion is made regarding error correction. Sheppard
experimented with two groups of students in which the first group, the students error
were corrected comprehensively and their errors were discussed for improvement.
Contrastively, the errors made by the students in the second group were dealt
exclusively, which means they did not receive any discussion or feedback on the
corrected errors. The results of this study shows that the quality of the written work of
the students from both groups was nearly similar even though, the first group students’
errors were lesser. Sheppard (1992) further suggests that “students who had been
frequently corrected, their fear of making mistakes led them to limit the complexity of
their writing. Consequently, based upon the studies discussed, it could be argued that,
error correction in L2 writing may help the students to reduce the numbers of
grammatical errors they make in their writing. However, the correction process
appears to hinder the students from making any progress in terms of the content of
their writing. Truscott (1996) in his review has made a similar conclusion based on his
evaluation of Kepner’s (1991) and Sheppard’s (1992) investigation. He asserts that
‘’correction was not only unhelpful in these studies but also actually hindered the
learning process’’ (p.333).
In a separate argument, Truscott (1996) affirmed that, ‘’the acquisition of a
grammatical structure is a gradual process, not a sudden discovery as the view of
correction would imply’’ (p.342). This idea can be related to Pienemann’s (1984)
‘’teachability hypothesis’’. This hypothesis explains that L2 students can benefit from
language instruction only when their current level of language development is ready
for it. Pienemann (1984) in his study of a group of Italian children learning German as
a second language, he found that some of the participants have progressed in the
language structure while other did not even though there are exposed to the similar
amount of classroom interaction in the target language. Based on this study,
Pienemann argues that, all L2 student have distinct language acquisition stages that
they are in. Therefore the language instruction that fits the current acquisition stage of
the students will result in effective language learning. Truscott’s (1996) argument
aforementioned, every L2 learner has an individualised pace of progressing through
the stages of instruction on grammatical rules, some students may comprehend more
grammatical rules than other students who are the same level or class. Hence, the
error correction has little value when the teachers correct errors that the students are
not yet ready to learn or developed in that particular level.
Based on the evaluations discussed above, it would be pointless to draw a conclusion
without looking at the other side of the argument. In the next section, the effectiveness
of error correction in L2 writing will be evaluated and discussed.
2.1.2 Positive Views
The need to provide error correction in L2 writing as an assistance to students’ L2
learning have been a common practice among L2 teachers (Brown, 2007; Casanave,
2007; Goldstein, 2008). Recent studies by advocates of error correction in L2 writing
have shown the potential effectiveness of providing error correction. For example
Chandler (2003) presents two studies on the effects of error correction. The first study
is determines the efficacy of error correction while second study compares the
effectiveness of different types of error correction. In the first study, a group of 16
English as Second Language (ESL) students were designated as a control group
where they did not receive any feedback on grammatical errors. While another group
of 15 ESL students within the similar proficiency as the first group were designated as
experimental group. Throughout the study, the experimental group received error
feedback and later corrected their errors. The findings of this study evaluated from a
series of five papers written by the students from both groups over the period of a
semester. Results from Chandler (2003) shows greater improvement in the
grammatical accuracy of students who received error correction than of those who did
not. It is evident in Chandler’s study that students who received error correction
improved in L2 writing accuracy over time.
Bitchener (2008) conducted a study on the efficacy of written error correction to 75
lower intermediate ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand for a period of two months.
His study shared methodical similarities with Chandler’s (2003) studies where, four
groups of ESL students were studied and one out of the four groups of students were
maintained as a control group. Students in the control group were not given any error
correction. The results of the study show that with reference to accuracy, the students
who received error correction outperformed those in the control group. Bitchener’s
(2008) and Chandler’s (2003) studies indicate positive implications towards the
effectiveness of error correction in L2 writing.
With reference to Truscott’s (1996) bold statement against the provision of error
correction in L2 writing, it could be argued that error correction has no detrimental
effects on the development of L2 students’ writing accuracy. In fact, error correction
has shown to be beneficial in improving ESL students’ accuracy in writing (Chandler,
2003; Bitchener, 2008).
Ferris (1999; 2004) shares a similar positive view towards the effectiveness of error
correction in L2 writing. Ferris (1999) in her paper, ‘’The case for grammar correction
in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996)’’ maintained a firm belief in the
effectiveness of giving error correction. She argues that, ‘’rapidly growing research
evidence pointing to ways in which effective error correction can and does help at
least some student writers, providing it is selective, prioritised and clear.’’ (Ferris, 1999,
as cited in Bitchener et al., 2005). Furthermore, Ferris (1999) provides rebuttal to
Truscott’s (1996) arguments by outlining two obvious weaknesses in his arguments:
(1) that there are more and less effective ways to approach error correction in L2
writing, and (2) that Truscott has under- or over-stated the results and claims of
previous studies to support his own research agenda. In reference to point (2),
Chandler (2003) has also commented that “Truscott did not always take into account
the fact that reported differences need to be supported with statistically significant
evidence.’’ In another words, it could be argued that, Truscott’s (1996) arguments
against error correction lack obvious evidences, therefore more research needs to be
done in this particular field for a clearer picture on whether error correction in L2 writing
is effective or the contrary.
Evaluating into Ferris’s (1999) arguments, there seems to be a new direction in the
error correction debate. Scholars are coming to a consensus where, error correction
is a wide field in which several crucial issues still need to be addressed empirically
with reference to statistics and academic studies. Truscott (1999) in his response to
Ferris, acknowledges that many interesting questions remain open and that it would
be premature to claim that research has proven error correction can never be
beneficial under any circumstances (Bitchener et al., 2005).
Truscott (1999) states that, no matter what conclusions are drawn from the studies
pertaining the effectiveness of error correction in L2 writing, the decision lies in the
hand of the teachers. As teachers are the individuals who will be deciding whether
error correction is beneficial or not to their students. Ferris (2004) highlights that, the
belief that students have regarding the value of providing error correction is the strong
reasons for teachers to continue providing it despite the arguments on its detrimental
impacts on the quality of students’ writing
In the next section the available literature addressing the issue above will be explored.
2.2 Teachers’ Beliefs
Teachers’ beliefs are the crucial factors that influence their classroom practices.
Firstly, it is vital to clarify the definition of belief operationalized in this study. Borg
(2001) defines beliefs as a set of consciously or unconsciously held propositions that
reflect and guide the thoughts and behaviours. Teachers’ beliefs in the context of
written error correction, refer to the set of ideas that a teacher has regarding the
benefits and also the drawbacks on the provision of error correction in L2 writing.
These ideas, are reflected in their classroom practices and their responses to students’
written errors. There are very few studies that have approached the issue of teachers’
beliefs regarding the provision of written error correction.
A study by Hyland & Anan (2006) has addressed this issue. Three groups of teacher
were selected; (1) a group of L2 English speaking teachers, (2) a group of L1 English
speaking non-teachers and (3) a group of L1 English speaking teachers to participate
in the study. They were given a 150-word text and were required to evaluate and
correct all the errors while ranking it according to the seriousness of occurrence.
Following that, they participants were requested to complete a questionnaire to gather
information on the beliefs regarding error correction. The results of the study indicated
that all the participants viewed error correction as an effective pedagogical tool. It was
apparent that, participants with different beliefs approached the correction task in
different ways. Thus, this study illustrates the relationship between teachers’ beliefs
and their approach towards error correction.
In another study Montgomery and Baker (2007) investigated the beliefs and practices
of fifteen ESL writing teachers in relation to preferences of the students. The results
revealed that, teachers’ beliefs were reflected in their error correction practices in the
classroom. This can be taken into consideration for further studies, where the
influencing factors for teachers’ beliefs can be analysed. Up till now, no studies have
attempted to investigate these issues as the researcher felt the need for such studies
in contribution to the growing body of literature in the field of written error correction.
2.3 Students’ Beliefs
Previous studies have investigated students’ attitudes and preferences on the
provision of written error correction. These studies consistently reported that L2
students want, expect and value teacher feedback for the improvement of their writing
accuracy (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991).
Moreover, based on a study by Lee (2004) students depend on their teacher for error
correction as they believe it will improve their writing. Furthermore, in two studies by
Ferris (1997, 2001), the findings indicate that all the student-participants preferred
error correction to be provisioned by their teachers on their written works. Even though
these studies investigated ESL students’ preferences between two types of error
correction method, but it is interesting to notice that students’ preferences towards
written error correction were driven by their belief that it will improve their writing
accuracy.
Realizing that the relationship between students’ beliefs and written error correction,
further studies can be done in order to attain holistic comprehension of this issue.
2.4 Implications of Present Study
The present study seeks to address these gap indicated by the research on the
provision of written error correction by exploring EFL teachers’ and students’ beliefs
and analysing the factors that influence their beliefs. It is hoped that this study will
contributes to the existing research and studies by providing a comprehensive outlook
on the written error correction with supported experimental evidence.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
The previous chapter has provided an insight into the ongoing debates regarding the
need for error correction in L2 writing and studies that have been conducted in
addressing this issue. As mentioned in the literature review, previous studies on
written error correction focused primarily on determining the effectiveness of providing
written error correction and deciding whether written error correction should be
abandoned or not. There has been very little investigations that explored teachers’
and students’ beliefs towards error correction in L2 writing classroom and factors that
may influence their beliefs. An ethnographic study approach was utilised to investigate
the research questions.
3.2 Research Design
An ethnographic study attempts to place specific encounters, events and
understanding into a comprehensive and more meaningful context (Tedlock, 2000).
According to Creswell (2005), an ethnographic study is a type of qualitative research
that features procedures to describe, analyse, and interpret the beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours of a culture-sharing group within a specified context. Suitable with the
nature of this study which explores the beliefs of teachers and students towards written
error correction, an ethnographic research approach will be able to provide rich and
in-depth explorations of their beliefs.
3.3 Participants
The participants of the study are 3 English language teachers and 20 adult students
(aged between 21-40 years old) who are learning English as Foreign Language (EFL).
All of the participants were selected from Isle of Wight (IOW) College which is located
in a Southern British Island, Isle of Wight. The participants were selected based on the
relevance of their field of teaching and learning to the topic of this research. For
example, the student-participants are the only group of students in the IOW College
who are non-native speakers of English. While English is a second language (L2) for
most students, for others it is a third or fourth language. However, for the purpose of
this study, English will be referred to as L2 for all the student-participants. The student-
participants have been learning English for the past two years and are at an
intermediate level which means, they are able to compose essays in between 250 to
300 words. This made the student-participants a suitable sample as their experience
of error correction in writing could be reflected upon in the study. The teacher-
participants are native speakers of English and have been teaching EFL classes for
more than five years and have experience in teaching English for more than ten years.
Therefore, it could be assumed that, the teacher-participants have ample knowledge
regarding error correction in L2 writing that could prove to be beneficial for this study.
3.4 Data Collection Tools
The data for this study was collected through three ethnographic research tools:
qualitative interview, focus group interview and classroom observation.
3.4.1 Data Collection Outline
The table below outlines the data collection process.
Participants Teacher Student
Data Collection
Processes
(Chronologically)
Qualitative Interviews (QI)
Weekly Classroom
Observation
Post-observation QI
Analysis
Focus Group Interviews
(FGI)
Weekly Classroom
Observation
Post-observation FGI
Analysis
Table 1: Data Collection Process Outline
3.4.2 Qualitative Interview
Qualitative interview or ‘conversation with purpose’ (Burgess, 1984, p.102) involves
semi-structured interviews and revolves around a topic or theme. Through the
interview, the researcher hoped to generate data through meaningful interaction and
conversation which is directed to the topic of the study. According to Mason (2000)
qualitative interviews enable the researcher to gain access to the thoughts and
accounts of the participants by talking and listening to them.
Qualitative interview are suitable for this study as the interactions will enable the
researcher to explore the beliefs of the teachers towards providing written error
correction. Moreover, due to the nature of the qualitative interview which is semi-
structured and resembles an informal conversation, the researcher will have the
flexibility to alter the interview questions to fit the needs of the participants and the
situation while unravelling more possible answers for the issues. By getting the
participants to talk and share their opinions freely, it is believed that genuine responses
could be obtained.
Two rounds of interviews were conducted separately with three English language
teachers from IOW College. The first round of interviews was conducted prior to the
classroom observations and follow-up interviews were conducted after the
observations. The questions for the initial teacher interviews were adapted from Lee
(2008) study (Refer to Appendix 1). These questions explored teachers’ beliefs on the
importance, needs and strategies in correcting students’ errors in writing.
After the classroom observations, teachers were interviewed for the second time
(follow-up interview).The questions for the second interviews were constructed after
the classroom observations. This is because, error correction practices in the
classroom vary according to the teacher. The intention of the follow-up interview was
to explore further the teachers’ beliefs on written error correction and to clarify
underlying beliefs for some of the correction practices observed in the classroom.
3.4.3 Focus group interview
The students’ interviews were conducted in a focus group, where the students were
divided into small groups of five people and were interviewed together. A focus group
interview is a data collection process through interaction with a small group of people
to gather information on shared understanding, attitudes and beliefs (Creswell, 2005).
Focus group interviews were suitable for this group of participants based on four
reasons: (1) time constraints where the students are only allocated 30 minutes for
break and it is the only opportunity for interview sessions (2) data collection was
quicker than individual interviews (3) enables the participants to engage freely as the
interview session is among their friends and not with strangers (researcher) and (4)
enable large amount of data to be obtained in a single session as the interaction was
between five participants.
For the first round of interviews, the interview questions were adapted from Lee’s
(2004) study (Refer to Appendix 3). These questions explored student-participants
beliefs and understanding on the effectiveness of error correction in their writing. While
the follow-up interviews, the researcher merely discussed aspects observed in the
observations in order to gather further information on the students’ beliefs and their
acceptance to some of the teachers’ error correction practices.
3.4.4 Classroom Observation
Classroom observation was used as an extensive data collection procedure in this
study. Theoretically, observation is a qualitative data collection procedure that initiates
data gathering by observing participants in order to identify and record behaviour and
interactions occurring at a research site (Creswell, 2005, Glatthorn & Joyner, 2005).
In relation with the exploratory nature of this study, classroom observation is a suitable
tools to record and identify written error correction practices by the teachers and also
observe students behavioural reactions towards it (written error correction).
Furthermore, the researcher acted as a non-participant observer, who was not
involved in any of the classroom activities. Thus giving the advantage of recording
classroom practices realistically. Gay (1996) has states the benefit of this approach:
‘’Certain kinds of behaviours can only/best be observed as they occur naturally.
In such a situation, the observer purposely controls or manipulates nothing, and
in fact works very hard at not affecting the observed situation in anyway. The
intent is to record and study behaviour as it normally occurs…”(p.265).
However, one of the disadvantages of classroom observation is that a number of
variables may emerge as the observation is focused on a wider context of teaching
and learning in a classroom. Therefore, in order to get the observation directed to only
written error correction practices, a checklist (Refer to Appendix 3) was prepared and
used to record data during the observation. This checklist highlights the aspects of
written error correction practices that have been observed in the classroom.
In this study, an EFL class in IOW College has been observed thrice in the period of
three months.
The students were only meeting once a week and spent three hours in EFL lessons.
Initially it was hoped that classroom observations will help in identifying how far the
teachers and the students have materialized their beliefs (as mentioned in the
interviews) towards written error correction in the real classroom context. However,
very little date were obtained during the classroom observation due to limited contact
hours and also writing lesson was conducted only once within the observation period.
Therefore, this may contributes to the limitations of the study where the data mostly
were from the interviews.
3.5 Ethical Considerations
The ethical issues in this study were considered by obtaining approval and consent
from several parties such as Teacher-participants and student-participants.
3.5.1 Teacher-participants
The teacher-participants involvement in the study is voluntary and their approval for
participations were obtained through consent forms (Refer to Appendix 6). It is
guaranteed that their personal details such as name, and educational qualifications
will not be mentioned in any part of this research. Their opinions and answers to the
interview questions will be recorded based on their approval. Besides that, the
interview sessions were conducted according to the teachers’ availability and it is
ensured that their teaching sessions were not disrupted.
3.5.2 Student-participants
The student-participants involvement in the study is voluntary and their approval for
participations were obtained through consent forms (Refer to Appendix 6). During the
grouping of participants for the focus group interview, it is randomly done. The
participants were grouped based on the choice and their availability at the point of
interview. The personal information were kept anonymous and their opinions and
answers were recorded based on their approval. Finally, at any point of the study, the
student-participants were allowed to withdraw, and the reasons for it would not be
questioned.
Chapter 4: Findings
This study aimed to explore teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding error correction
in the L2 writing classroom and analyse factors that may influence their beliefs.
Extensive data were collected through qualitative interviews, focus group interviews
and classroom observations. In this chapter, the findings from the study will be
presented.
The data regarding teachers’ beliefs towards providing error correction in L2 writing
were collected through qualitative interviews and classroom observations. This
contributed to rich data which needed to be organised for a clear presentation of
findings.
As Cohen et al. (2007) suggests, there are five possible ways of organising and
presenting qualitative data: (1) by groups of participants (2) by individuals (3) by issues
(4) by research questions and (5) by instruments. By taking these suggestions into
consideration, the data of this study will be presented by a combination of way (1) and
(3).
4.1 Teachers’ Beliefs
Based on the data collected through series of qualitative interviews and classroom
observations, it is evident that the English language teachers of IOW College showed
positive belief towards error correction in the L2 writing classroom. They believe that
error correction in L2 writing helps their students to:
Be able to write better
Attain grammatical accuracy in writing
4.1.1Be able to write better
The teachers’ positive belief towards written error correction are reflected in their
answers during the interview sessions. There are obvious patterns in the teachers’
answers as they confidently believe that error correction in L2 writing helps their
students to be better writers. Below are excerpts from the interview:
Teacher A: I prefer to correct students’ errors…not just limited to grammatical aspects, if
possible other language aspects too.
Teacher A: This is because, error correction makes the students a better writer, they know
their mistakes and they can work on it.
Teacher B: Definitely I would correct their errors, if not the teacher points out their
errors…it’s impossible for them to write accurately.
Teacher B: Corrected errors help them when they are doing their revision and remember
what mistakes that they have done and not repeat it again.
Teacher C: I don’t correct much errors they make during speaking because it’s normal for
L2 learners…but in writing, it is important to get the grammar right and the spelling
correct…I always correct my students’ essay with extra eye on the errors.
Teacher C: Correction helps them to write better in the future, if not why would a teacher
spend so much time and effort in correcting errors…definitely for a fruitful reasons.
Table 2: Responses highlighting teachers’ beliefs.
From the recurring pattern in the responses, it can be observed that, all the English
language teacher-participants of IOW College provided error correction in their
students’ writing. Besides, they strongly believe and are confident that their correction
practice would help the students to write better and improve their writing skills through
an increased awareness on their errors. Apart from the responses from the interviews,
the teachers’ positive beliefs towards written error correction is reflected in their
classroom practice. During observations in the EFL classroom in IOW College, it was
evident that the teachers regularly provided error correction in the students written
work. For example:
In a writing session, Teacher A asked a student to construct a sentence to introduce
a paragraph. The student wrote the following sentence on the whiteboard.
This essay will show which factors that contribute to career development.
Immediately, Teacher A started to discuss the obvious errors in the sentence and
provided the correct version of the sentence by selectively correcting the errors. For
example:
Discusses contribute
This essay will show which factors that contributes to career development.
After that, Teacher A began to check on other students’ sentences and started to
provide correction to the errors made. This is an example of classroom practice in an
EFL lesson in IOW College that clearly portrays the English language teachers’
positive approach towards providing written error correction.
4.1.2 Attain grammatical accuracy in the writing
Another important result that emerged from this study is that the English language
teachers in IOW College believe that error correction helps in improving grammatical
accuracy in their students’ written work. This result is attained noticeably through the
follow-up interviews, where all three teacher-participants responded somewhat
similarly a surprising outcome in the context of this study. Below are the excerpts from
the interview sessions.
Teacher A: Yes…certainly, I use many strategies to correct grammatical errors in my
students’ work because that’s what my student or I can assume most EFL students are
weak in. Sometimes, I allocate individual sessions for my students to go through
grammatical errors specifically because based on my experience as an EFL teacher this
helps to improve their grammar as well as writing.
Teacher B: …By focusing on grammar errors, students know where they make mistakes,
because often for my students grammar is a tough part in language learning. Just
correcting the errors is not enough, I help them to notice their errors and compare it with
the correct form. They learn better that way.
Teacher C: …Students are aware of grammar errors. Teaching just grammar rules not
enough…sometimes I give them short essays so that they can make mistakes and learn
from it. Last week we had a session on peer correction, students correct each other essays
and it really works to clarify some grammar rules…Sometimes…actually most of the time
we learn by going wrong.
Table 3: Responses on teachers’ beliefs
4.1.4 Drawbacks of error correction in L2 writing
Although English language teachers in IOW College believe that written error
correction is helpful in certain aspects of language teaching and learning, they do not
deny its drawbacks. They believe to an extent that, written error correction is
Time consuming
Sometimes the students may not understand the correction feedback.
This was apparent in their responses during the interview sessions.
Teacher A: Well, it takes a lot of time, either in class or during my own time.
Teacher B: Of course…my major concern is, we don’t have much...enough time to teach
and also correct students’ errors. Sometimes it tiring.
Teacher C: I usually spend at least two hours to correct my students’ written
work…correcting takes a huge amount of your time and energy too.
Teacher A: Apart from time, sometimes it is hard for students to understand the error
correction symbols.
Teacher B: Either the repeat the same errors or don’t understand where it is marked
incorrect. The symbols is hard for them to comprehend.
Teacher C: After correcting the errors, I will go through the errors individually with my
students…and normally the questions they would ask me were...’’what do you mean by
this?’’ or ‘’I don’t understand what error is this.’’
Table 4: Responses on the teachers’ perceived drawbacks.
4.2 Students’ Belief
Data regarding EFL students’ beliefs in IOW College was gathered through series of
focus group interview and classroom observations. The data was analysed by
categorising recurring patterns in the students-participants’ answers and practices in
the classroom. From the findings, it is evident that EFL students in IOW College
believe that error correction in their writing helps them to:
Locate their errors in writing
Improves their writing accuracy
4.2.1 Locate errors in writing
The EFL students in IOW College believe that error correction practice by their
teachers have helped them to locate errors in their essays. Below are the excerpts
from the interview sessions with various student-participants:
Student 1: Yes, it let us see clearly the errors in our writing.
Student 2: …It shows me what is wrong with my sentences…my essay.
Student 3: I like because it make me clear with my mistakes…easy for me to correct it.
Student 4: …It tells me whether I’m doing good or not…if there is less red mark then I’m
good.
Student 5: …Easy to find my errors.
Student 6: …Help me see clearly where the mistakes are.
Student 7: Yeah I like it…easy for me to do correction.
Student 8: …We could see our errors clearly.
Table 4: Responses on the students’ beliefs.
4.2.2 Improve writing accuracy
During the initial focus group interviews and also in the follow-up interview sessions,
majority of the EFL students-participants in the IOW College have shown an extensive
belief that error correction in their written work have resulted in improved writing
accuracy. This belief is perceptible from their responses, for example:
Student 1: My grammar gets better after my teacher corrected my errors.
Student 2: I used to be weak in writing, I always get my tenses wrong…teacher really
helps me by marking red on my errors and write the correct answers. I learn to write
better.
Student 3: I can write with less errors compared to two years back, I can write a short
story now…my teacher said it’s good.
Students 4: Grammar is hard and I make a lot grammatical mistakes in my essays.
Correction by teacher helps a lot.
Student 5: I write better if teacher correct my errors.
Student 6: Past tense is my weakness. Teacher always comments on my tenses and after
few exercises I write better now.
Table 6: Students’ responses on improved writing accuracy.
4.2.3 Drawbacks of Error Correction in L2 writing
Despite the positive beliefs expressed by the EFL students in IOW College regarding
written error correction, the researcher noticed distinctive recurrences in the
responses from the student-participants that claimed error correction to an extent is:
Sometimes may demotivating
Hard to understand the correction symbols used by the teacher.
These beliefs in the drawbacks of written error correction (referring to demotivation)
were limited to few number of students, however the researcher felt that it was
important to acknowledge this issue. This is due to the seriousness of these belief to
language development of L2 students and also towards written error correction as an
element that could facilitates language learning.
These beliefs were evident in some of responses for example:
“too much of red marks in my essays make me feel that I am very weak in English’’,
“sometimes I try my best to avoid errors by still I get it wrong… I feel bad”, “Many errors
mean not a good essay” and “…grammar is very hard…I always get a lot of correction…I can
speak well, but writing not so.’’
Furthermore, some responses received from the student-participants claimed that
sometimes the error correction symbols used by the teachers are hard to comprehend.
This led to a situation where the students could not respond to the errors in their writing
and make necessary improvements. Even though, they realized that the teacher
provided feedback sessions and personal tutorial in assisting the error correction,
often they (student-participants) do not have enough time to discuss on the
significance of some symbols, thus some errors are let undiscovered. This situation
was observable during the EFL classroom observation in IOW College, where the
teacher allocated 10 minutes for a feedback session at the end of each lesson, which
is clearly not enough to discuss all aspects of errors made by the student in their
written works.
Chapter 5: Analysis and Discussion
5.1 Introduction
This study sought to explore teachers’ and students’ beliefs in the EFL classroom in
IOW College regarding error correction in L2 writing and analyse possible factors that
may influence their beliefs. The findings obtained through qualitative interviews, focus
group interviews and classroom observations were presented in the previous chapter.
Following that, in this chapter the findings of the study will be explained further and
with references to previous studies and the available literature in the field of L2 written
error correction.
5.2 Overview of Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs
The study found that both teachers and students of EFL in IOW College have positive
beliefs towards error correction in L2 writing. The teacher-participants believe that
written error correction helps their students to write better, attain grammatical accuracy
in writing and fosters independent learning. Whereas, the EFL students if IOW College
believe that error correction in their written work helps them to locate their errors in
writing and improve their writing accuracy. Despite the positive beliefs, both teacher
and student-participants to a certain extent expressed what they believe to be the
drawbacks of correcting errors in writing. The teacher-participants believe that written
error correction is time consuming and sometimes the students may not understand
their corrective feedbacks. While the student-participants report that error correction
may be demotivating and sometimes it is hard for them to comprehend correction
symbols used by the teachers.
5.3 Teachers’ Beliefs
Similar results with the beliefs of EFL teachers’ of IOW College on the benefits of
written error correction were obtained in the studies conducted by Ferris, (1999);
Montgomery & Baker, (2007) and Bitchener et al, (2005). These studies suggest that
error correction particularly in writing helps the students to write better. In Bitchener et
al’s study, the participants (EFL students) showed improvement in writing over a 12
week period when error correction was provided. Moreover, Huntley (1992) maintains
that correction on content, organizational and form errors should be incorporated in
the English language teaching and learning. There is evidence that such correction is
necessary and indeed results in improved student writing (Fathman & Whalley, 1990;
Huntley 1992; Kepner 1991). Moreover, Borg (2001) and Hyland & Anan (2006) assert
that teachers should include written error correction in their teaching practice as they
believe in its capability to guide and facilitate the development of their students’ writing
skills.
The studies mentioned above have approached written error correction from various
respects and angles such as comparison of different types of error correction
strategies and comparison of achievement in writing between students who have
received error correction with those who have not. However, comparable the results
were obtained where this study along with previous studies have emphasized that
error correction enables the students to write better and improved their grammatical
accuracy. Thus raising the question, what factors influence teachers’ beliefs regarding
error correction in writing?
5.3.1 Emphasis on writing in ELT techniques and resources literatures.
Insight gained from the available literature on the English language teaching
techniques and resources, reveal that writing helps students to learn a language
(Raimes, 1983). Writing is claimed to be helpful in reinforcing grammatical structures,
idioms and vocabulary that the students have been learning in the classroom.
Moreover, writing enables the students to experiment with the target language and
become actively involved in the language learning processes. Furthermore, according
to Wingard (1985) writing facilitates the process of learning important elements of the
language and developing good command of the language. He reinforces that in
language learning, writing is crucial as it develops the students’ ability to fulfil such
purposes as note-taking, summarising, narrating, reporting and replying which is
required for various real-life situations. Even though the purpose of learning a
language is for communication, Rivers and Temperley (1978) explain that writing
serves as medium of communication where information is transferred in a situation
where place and time are isolated. Therefore, for comprehensible written
communication, the communicators must be able to transmit the information through
conscious and deliberate choice of language. This can only be achieved by being able
to write well.
Thus it can be inferred that, the beliefs of EFL teachers’ of IOW College regarding the
benefits of written error correction may be influenced by the emphasis placed on the
development of writing skills as mean for effective language learning in the English
language teaching techniques and resources literature.
Such emphasis on writing is evident in the interview responses, for example:
…in writing, it is important to get the grammar right and the spelling correct
Correction helps them to write better in the future…
Therefore, the researcher assumes that English language teachers in IOW College
strive to improve their students writing skills through various teaching strategies
including error correction. The teachers believe that, by correcting errors made by the
students in their written work will increase their students’ awareness on the aspects of
good writing which is crucial for the development of writing skill and also L2 acquisition
as a whole.
5.3.2 Noticing Hypothesis
The researcher suggests that the Noticing Hypothesis put forward by Schmidt (1994)
may be one of the factor that influences the teacher-participants’ beliefs towards error
correction in L2 writing. Noticing Hypothesis claims that, L2 learners’ conscious
noticing of grammatical forms of the target language facilitates their acquisition of the
grammar (Schmidt, 1994, 2001). This hypothesis can be related to error correction,
where the corrective feedback given by the teachers draw L2 students’ attention to
notice the correct grammatical features of the language. Thus, by regularly correcting
students’ errors in writing, teachers are actually helping the students to notice correct
grammatical features of the target language and promote effective L2 learning through
grammatical acquisition. Such correlation between Noticing Hypothesis and written
error correction have been discussed in Bitchener et al. (2005) study which argues
that error correction feedback strategies such as discussing errors, clarifying the rules
and illustrating with additional examples would help learners to notice the difference
between their errors and the recommended corrections. In this regard, noticing such
differences is widely accepted in SLA as crucial to L2 uptake and long-term grammar
acquisition (Gass, 1997; Schdmit, 1990, 1994).
In relation to this study, based on the responses obtained from the qualitative
interviews for example:
“I help them to notice their errors and compare it with the correct form. They
learn better that way.”
It is evident that the teacher-participants believe that written error correction helps the
students to notice grammatical errors and clarify correct language form. This may have
encouraged the teacher-participants to continue providing written error correction on
their students’ grammatical errors.
5.4 Students’ Beliefs
It is observable in this study that the student-participants believe that written error
correction is helpful to locate their errors in writing and also improve their writing
accuracy. Similar results were obtained in the studies by (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock &
Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991) that have investigated L2 students’
preferences towards written error correction. Even though these studies differ in terms
of aspect of investigation (preferences) with current study, the results were
comparable because preferences are a reflection of beliefs. The sets of beliefs that an
individual has, contributes to the expression through preferences. Thus, these
previous studies have consistently shown that L2 writing students want, expect and
value teachers’ written error correction for the improvement of the writing accuracy.
This raises the question what is/are the influencing factor(s) for student-participants
beliefs regarding written error correction.
5.4.1 Good language leaner must be able to produce error-free writing
According to a survey comparing 100 ESL students’ preferences for error correction,
Leki (1991) found that students equate good writing in English with error-free writing
and that they have a strong desire to perfect their English (p.204). As a result, they
expect teachers to point out and correct every error. Nevertheless, Leki (1991) argues
that many students cling to the belief that ‘’error correction moves them much farther
along the path to complete mastery of English’’ (p.209). Moreover, in a study by
Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994), it is commented that L2 writing teachers’ inordinate
focus on grammatical accuracy in their feedback may also have led students to believe
that producing error-free writing is the most significant goal in learning to write.
Furthermore, in a study comparing EFL teachers’ and students’ preferences in the
writing classroom, Diab (2006) found that 90 per cent of the students indicate that it is
important to have as few errors as possible in the written work and a slight majority of
students feel that correction of grammar errors is more important than correction of
other features.
Therefore, based on the findings of this study and also the provided analysis of
previous studies on written error correction field of SLA, the researcher suggests two
possibilities that may be the cofactors that influence student-participants beliefs toward
written error correction as being helpful in improving writing accuracy: (1) the students’
perception that a good language learner must be able to produce error-free writing
and (2) the emphasis being placed by the teachers in the teaching and learning of
writing. The second possibility has been discussed and explained above (see section
5.2) which is also presumed to be a contributing factor that may have influenced
teacher-participants belief towards the importance of written error correction.
However, these assumptions (both on the teachers’ and students’ beliefs) were made
based on the responses by participants of this study and also researcher’s analysis
from the data obtained from previous studies. Therefore, the proposed assumptions
should be treated with caution as they (assumptions) may not be generalised to a
wider context unless an extensive study has been done in that particular context.
5.5 Drawbacks
5.5.1 Comprehending Written Error Correction Symbols
In the findings of the study, the teacher and student-participants have expressed their
beliefs regarding the drawbacks of written error correction. It is evident that both
groups of participants share similar beliefs on the aspect of comprehending written
error correction symbols. Teacher-participants are aware that some of their error
correction symbols were difficult for students to understand, whereas, students-
participants have also reported similar views.
Parallel claims were evident in the study by Lee (2005), which investigated L2
students’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes about error correction in the writing
classroom. 44.1 per cent of the students reported that they did not always understand
the correction codes. In Cohen and Cavalcanti’s (1990) study, the students also
reported the same concern. Despite the challenges in comprehending the correction
symbols/codes student-participants still believe that written error correction plays an
integral part in improving their writing accuracy and did not expresses frustration
towards error correction due to this drawback which is also evident in the previous
studies mentioned above.
Contrastively, a cross reference with previous investigations revealed little evidence
on L2 teachers’ responses that they were aware of the students’ difficulties in
comprehending their correction symbols. Therefore, it can be assumed that, this
particular concern by the teacher-participants is an important discovery in this study.
However, the researcher felt the need to approach this issue cautiously, as it may not
be generalised to a wider L2 teachers’ context. It is because the number of L2 teachers
who have participated in this study is too little to represent the beliefs of the majority
of the teaching community in L2 writing.
Based on these findings, it can be argued that L2 teachers should be aware of the
difficulties faced by their students in comprehending their written error correction
symbols. These arguments were made based on two reasons formulated from the
current study’s findings: (1) error correction codes facilitates in error identification
therefore they must be comprehensible by the students and (2) over time, this
drawback may lead to demotivation in language learning.
5.5.2 Demotivation
Even though the belief regarding written error correction as being demotivating (refer
to section 4.2.3) is raised by a very small number of student-participants, yet the
researcher felt the need to address this issue with great attention. This is to ensure
that, demotivation will not be a major drawback of L2 writing error correction, while
realizing the fact that written error correction have contributed to improved writing
accuracy to student-participants of this study.
Similar concerns were raised by some researchers. Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996)
state that, weak students whose writing is often receive more error correction unlikely
to be motivated in learning the target language. Moreover, they have pointed out that
teachers too many correction of errors can deprive student writers of ‘’the drive to
improve proficiency in general’’ (p.290).
Lee (2004) proposes that L2 teachers should selectively approach errors in students
writing by focusing only on the errors that the students are capable of correcting. This
argument could possibly be implemented as it is underpins Pienneman’s (1984)
Teachability Hypothesis (Refer to Chapter 2). Contrastively, Cardelle and Corno
(1981) maintain that a balance between criticism and praise may be the best means
to reduce the chances of demotivation in helping students improve their writing skills.
Scrivener
Chapter 6: Conclusion and Recommendations
This study explored teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding the provision of error
correction in L2 writing classroom and analysed possible factors that may influence
their beliefs. This study was conducted in an EFL classroom in IOW College. Data was
obtained through qualitative interviews, focus group interviews and classroom
observations. In the previous chapter the findings of the study were discussed
thoroughly with reference to previous studies and literature. This chapter will
summarise the study and provides a brief explanation on the limitations of the study
and recommendations for further studies.
Results of this study indicated that both EFL teachers and students in IOW College
have positive beliefs towards error correction in L2 writing. The teacher-participants
believe that written error correction helps their students to write better and attain
grammatical accuracy in writing. While, the EFL students in IOW College believe that
error correction in their writing helps them to locate their errors in their writing and
improve their writing accuracy.
Despite the positive beliefs reported by the participants, both teachers and students
expressed what they believe to be the drawbacks of correcting errors in writing. The
teacher-participants believe that written error correction is time consuming and
sometimes the students may not understand their corrective feedbacks. While the
student-participants claim that error correction may be demotivating and sometimes it
is difficult for them to comprehend correction symbols used by the teachers.
Following this, the study suggested that, the teachers’ beliefs may have been
influenced by the emphasis placed by ELT techniques and resources literature in the
writing and the Noticing Hypothesis. Whereas, the students’ beliefs may have been
influenced by the students’ perception that a good language learner must be able to
produce error-free writing and the emphasis being reinforced by L2 teachers in the
teaching and learning of writing.
With reference to the methodology of this investigation, a number of important
limitations need to be considered. This study adopted an ethnographic approach to
explore the research questions where a series of qualitative interviews, focus group
interviews and classroom observations were conducted in an EFL classroom in IOW
College. The data collected through interviews were self-reflective in nature, where
the possibility for misconception or unnoticed responses may undoubtedly occur.
Therefore, more variability in data elicitation tools may contribute to the reliability of
study. The researcher suggests that, a questionnaire may be used as an addition to
the interview in order to further verify the data. Furthermore, future studies may also
require the data through interview to be collected by two researchers for an increased
validity in the findings and to avoid misconception.
Next, a small cohort of respondents participated in this study, specifically, three EFL
teachers and twenty EFL students. Therefore, the responses provided by the
participants may not represent the overall beliefs of the wider context EFL teachers’
and students’. Moreover, the assumptions made on the influencing factors of the
teachers and student-participations beliefs regarding providing written error correction
were made based on the study’s findings and also the researcher’s understanding of
the available literature in this field. Thus, these assumptions may not be generalised
to a wider context. Future investigation may take this factors into consideration.
The results of this study are reinforced by the findings of previous investigation in the
field of written error correction. Through this study, the researcher has surveyed the
teacher’ and students’ orientations towards written error correction while contributing
to the growing body literature in this subject matter. It is evident that teachers and
students in IOW acknowledge that error correction helps to improve students’
accuracy in writing. This view is prominent in the data collected through the study.
However, due to constraints of time and resources the researcher was unable to
investigate specific error correction practices of EFL teachers in IOW College. In
addressing the pedagogical implications that may arise from good written error
correction practice specifically in improved grammatical accuracy and higher level of
motivation, the researcher proposes that further investigation needs to be conducted
to analyse these practices with an aim to devise a framework to test the effectiveness
of specific written error correction approaches.
