You are on page 1of 8

Fire your proofreader!

Grammar
correction in the writing classroom
Sang-Keun Shin

Introduction

This is just completely different worlds, this engineering and English. The
claim that language courses tailored to students needs will increase their
motivation and facilitate their learning is hardly a new claim. This response
from a second language (L2) student writer in Leki and Carson (1997),
however, powerfully reminds us how difficult it is to decipher precisely what
student needs are and how to best go about meeting those needs.
Student writers academic needs have been explored through two main
avenues of research. One line of research has investigated the range and
nature of writing tasks assigned by university instructors in a wide variety of
subject areas (for example, Zhu 2004). Other studies have explored
discipline-specific discourse through genre analysis (for example,
Kanoksilapatham 2005). Numerous studies and projects have been devoted
to helping students write in English in their discipline like economists,
engineers, etc. Yet we know very little about how they actually write and what
their precise writing needs really are. This is perhaps a result of the gap in
the reporting of research focused on students work but not including the
students voices (Leki 2001: 18).
Recent debate on the usefulness of grammar correction does not appear to
be an exception. Since Truscott (1996) claimed that grammar correction is
ineffective and can even be harmful, grammar correction in writing classes
has become a topic of heightened interest to L2 writing teachers. Truscotts
rather radical stance against the value of error correction has led to a heated
discussion (for example, Ferris 1999), and the debate is far from settled.
Interestingly, however, students voices with respect to grammar correction
have seldom been heard. To understand the value of grammar correction,
we need to listen to our students and consider their needs in deciding if,
when, and how to provide error feedback and correction to student writers
(Ferris op. cit.).

358

E LT Journal Volume 62/4 October 2008; doi:10.1093/elt/ccm089

The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication December 6, 2007

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

This article critically reviews the usefulness of grammar correction in second


language writing instruction through the eyes of five second-language writers. It
first examines the validity of four teaching principles that appear to influence how
writing instructors approach error correction in classrooms and concludes with
discussions as to why grammar correction is necessary for second-language writers.

The study

Drawing on these data, this paper first examines the validity of four teaching
principles often advocated in L2 composition literature, focusing on their
implications for error correction. It then goes on to address the centrally
important question concerning grammar correction: why should we correct
students grammar errors?

Four principles in L2
writing pedagogy

This section addresses the validity of four principles writing teachers often
take for granted in L2 writing classrooms. Each principle is first presented,
and then the student voices are reported. Finally, critical reviews of the
principle will follow. The quotes presented below are part of student
responses at the interviews.
Principle 1: Editing should be a clean-up activity
In a process-oriented L2 composition classroom, editing is considered to be
one of the last tasks that L2 writers need to perform in order to finish a paper.
Students are encouraged to focus on content at earlier stages of composing
and postpone their concerns for correct language use until later drafts
(Zamel 1983). However, the following stories suggest quite convincingly
that editing takes place as an integral part of the writing process at all stages
of composition.
I often get stuck because I cannot think of appropriate expressions, so
often I have to spend a few minutes completing a single sentence.
I sometimes spend a great deal of time looking for appropriate
expressions by leafing through articles and books related to the topic
I am working on.
I always waste a lot of time dealing with stupid, minor grammar issues
such as vocabularies and even prepositions.
When I was working on literature review section, I was not sure whether I
should use the present or the past tense when I was referring to previous
studies. I got confused because some writers used the present tense and
others used the past. I decided to use the present tense in the paper.
I am still having a hard time finding a correct subject for a sentence. I have
questions like should it be an active sentence or a passive sentence? or
should I take it as a subject or an object? When I write in Korean, I dont
Grammar correction

359

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

The goal of this study was to critically review the current debate over the
efficacy of grammar correction in L2 writing classrooms through the eyes of
L2 writers. Five (three female, two male) ES L students of advanced English
proficiency volunteered to participate in this study. They were Korean
learners of English and were graduate students at a major research
university in the western part of the United States of America. Employing
stimulus recall methodology, they reported the composing processes they
had gone through while producing academic papers for their content
courses. They were also interviewed to obtain their perspectives on
grammar correction. They were asked specifically about the type(s) of error
feedback they prefer to receive. The interviews were semi-structured and
conducted in a consistent order. Thus, even though the interview questions
were designed beforehand, they were flexible in the sense that each
generated further questions contingent on the students responses.

need to worry about these questions at all because it comes out naturally,
but in English, I have to think about these issues in many cases.

It is true that editing deals with local level issues of writing. However, this
does not mean that the influence of these local level issues is at all local in
L2 writing. Since language problems constrain the entire composing
process, editing is a critical and necessary facet of the text creating process,
not just a clean-up activity. This is not to say that editing skills should be the
central focus of L2 writing courses. L2 writers need to learn that good
writing is not necessarily correct writing. The point is, however, that we
should not simply assume that L2 student writers will be able to magically
come up with appropriate vocabularies and expressions simply on the
basis of being allowed enough time. If too much time and attention is
devoted to revising stages of writing at the expense of dealing with language
issues, L2 writers may be ill-served by process-oriented pedagogy.
Principle 2: Composing is a process of discovering meaning
This is a principle taken for granted by many, if not most, writing instructors
who often tell their students: Composing is the making of meaning out of
chaos and Explore your topic through writing. Writing instructors often
assure their students that they do not need to know what they are going to
write beforehand (Zamel 1982). It should be noted, however, the evidence
that we have in support of this view has come primarily from L2 composing
studies, most of which were conducted under heavily controlled conditions
(Polio 2003). What follows, on the other hand, more accurately reflects the
reality of what our students actually do when they write in drafted writing
situations.
Its so hard to write in English. Even though I know exactly what I want to
say, when it is translated into English, it is no longer what I wanted to say.
Everything becomes so simple.
I usually start to read more than required to choose a doable topic and to
find useful linguistic expressions I can use in my paper. Then I usually
type important paragraphs verbatim on the computer and arrange them
into the proper sequence. Later, I paraphrase those paragraphs into my
own words. Even though these processes are often very unproductive,
I employ this strategy mainly because of my language problems.
Otherwise I will not be able to translate all of my ideas to English.
360

Sang-Keun Shin

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

According to these writers, they edited their texts while creating meaning
because they did not have enough language to express their ideas. Since
language problems plagued them throughout the composing process,
editing was not a clean-up activity for these writers. In first language (L1)
writing, the translating process (i.e. turning pre-linguistic ideas into
language) is, if not automatic, at least not problematic. L1 writers can just
ignore minor language problems and focus on creating meaning. They can
also make changes on the basis of how their writing sounds. In L2 writing,
however, the translating process can generally results in major problems
because L2 writers access to necessary words and structures is by their very
nature much more limited. They struggle with surface level features of
writing throughout the entire composition process as a result of their lack of
linguistic resources as compared to L1 writers.

I often have to discard very important paragraphs because I failed to


translate the ideas into appropriate English.
I start with reading books and taking notes while reading. I usually put
down key words or sentences which I find interesting or problematic and
revise the notes twice. I usually summarize my ideas into one or two
paragraphs. I then make a detailed outline and proceed to refine the ideas
little by little before I begin writing the first draft.
I usually start writing my papers after completing all the data analysis.
I usually spend a great deal of time generating and refining my ideas
before starting to produce texts. I cannot produce error-free essays, so
I try to compensate with the content of the paper.

How do L2 writers compose in real-life composing situations? As the above


data show, the participants started to write with preconceived and wellformed ideas and spent the majority of their composing time translating
their ideas rather than creating meanings. Even though they knew more or
less what they wanted to say, they often got stuck because they did not have
enough control of English to write fluidly. This is not to say that L2 writing is
not a process of creating meaning or that it is not recursive. The point is that
labelling the composition process a discovery of meaning can be quite
misleading, because it does not accurately reflect the real challenges that L2
writers encounterchallenges that have much more to do with language
issues than global issues of composition. For these writers, then, the
emphasis on rewriting may be prove less than fruitful because figuring out
what to write about is not so much a problem as how to say it in clear
English.
Principle 3: L2 writers composing difficulties are largely the result of
difficulties with composing than linguistic skills
Most process-oriented L2 composition guides suggest that difficulties in
composing in L2 result more from a lack of composing competence than
from a lack of linguistic competence (Zamel 1982). This view of writing has
led to a decreased emphasis of the importance of the role of grammar in L2
composition classrooms. Again, we should teach L2 writers to put more
emphasis on creating content rather than on correcting forms. However, the
following stories serve as a powerful reminder of the simple fact that L2
writers are still L2 learners who face a constant struggle with form, which in
turn limits the content of their paper.
I just received three reviews of my paper that I submitted for publication.
All three reviewers liked both content and organization. But all of them
Grammar correction

361

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

After I had decided upon the topic, I undertook an extensive search of the
available sources and read all of them before starting to write the paper. I
also talked to my advisor and a statistics consultant regarding research
methodology. I continued to make my research design more
sophisticated and to clarify research questions. One week before the due
date, I made an outline consisting of section titles and articles that I had
decided to cite in the proposal. My first draft was simply an expansion
of the outline I had made because I just wrote down the main points in
each section.

commented that the paper needed to be more carefully edited for


language because there were various awkward sentences. I did multiple
drafting and I even asked two native speakers to proofread it. I was really
frustrated because language problems are really beyond my control.
I became angry at the feedback from the professor, who was also a nonnative speaker of English. She commented that she had trouble reading
my paper because of my poor English.
I know that I should not copy sentences from reading materials verbatim
but I do not know how not to. They are exactly what I want to say and I do
not know how to paraphrase them.

I got an A- in another course because of language problems even though


the instructor found the contents of my paper excellent.
Assuming that the drafting process itself will take care of many language
problems, some L2 writing teachers tend to believe that good writing is the
result of rewriting (Frodesen and Holten 2003). Clearly, however, the
process of translating does not just happen for L2 writers, at least, until they
reach a very high level of proficiency. The five writers who participated in
this study did rewrite their papers because they wrote for a real audience.
They also produced multiple drafts. However, they complained that their
essays were still full of errors because drafting processes did not take care of
many of the language problems that they encountered. Simply put, it was
not creating meaning itself but the translating process that they found most
hard to deal with.
If grammar is dealt with at all in todays process-oriented writing
classrooms, it is typically limited to attempts by instructors to correct the
errors that students make. What is all too often ignored in the processoriented writing classrooms is the value of the proactive focus on form
(Frodesen and Holten ibid.). By addressing the grammar points that the
instructor believes will be especially useful for the students in question, the
proactive approach helps to expand L2 writers grammar knowledge to
higher levels, thereby helping them to more fully reach their potential as
a writer.
Principle 4: Teachers comments should not be directive
Recent L2 composition research advocates providing indirect rather than
direct error feedback, so that their students are encouraged to further
develop their ideas. Directive response to language errors is largely
discouraged (Bates, Lane, and Lane 1993) because excessive attention to
word- or sentence-level concerns may tend to short-circuit the writers
attention from substantive revision to micro level correction. These are
some of the beliefs they hold true: Teacher response may appropriate
student texts by being too directive or prescriptive and Respond only to
students ideas and organization on early drafts and saving feedback on
362

Sang-Keun Shin

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

I got the following comments from my advisor: Your substance is


generally fine. Ive made some suggestions for this. However, there are so
many problems with your writing usage that I could not finish reading
the paper. Please clean up the paper and I will read it again. He drew
a line on page 11 and stopped reading from there.

grammar and usage until the final stages of the writing process. However, it
is not entirely clear how well these guidelines do indeed serve the writing
needs of L2 writers.
I prefer more directive comments on language forms and more
facilitative comments on writing style.

Somehow, I developed a bad habit of distrusting people when they,


especially ESL instructors, say that my writing is good because I know
I always make errors in grammar somewhere unwittingly. My distrust
was proved valid when my professor said to me, Fire your proofreader
as she read my research proposal and pointed out some errors, which
were generously passed on by my colleagues.
When I am struggling with a certain thought or a sentence, I want to
know how I can correct it or paraphrase it better. I am usually not satisfied
when my teacher just comments on the last page, good job or good
points. Of course, such comments make me feel confident but I expect to
see corrections on my grammar and more specific instructions on
improving it, unless my paper is perfect, you know, which I dont think
was ever the case.
I prefer directive comments because I want to know what I need to do for
my next draft and how I can satisfy the teacher. Some teachers would even
reword my phrases and rearrange them without really asking me what
my original idea was. Even during conference, I would merely consent to
the instructors suggestion without fighting over questions of validity of
some of my expressions or ideas. I even cried in the middle of one
conference because I felt so bad about my inability to express myself.
When it comes to the content of the paper, the preference for non-directive
comments found in L1 writing pedagogy appears to be considered equally
valid for L2 writing pedagogy. The process of negotiation of meaning is
particularly important in L2 writing classrooms because L2 writers
comparative lack of composing skills is only one of the reasons why their
arguments are presented in a manner which is unclear or unsophisticated.
Oftentimes, L2 writers have to simplify their content in order to bring it
down to a level their proficiency in language permits. If we just reword or
criticize their ideas without the process of negotiation, the chances are that
we may indeed appropriate their texts.
When it comes to form, on the other hand, students often do not
comprehend, or else understand but do not know how to implement many
non-directive comments such as wc (word choice) and unclear. This may
not be surprising at all because certain necessary words or structures are
often simply not there as L2 writers grope for translation. How are they
Grammar correction

363

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

For me, it is very hard to know all the correct expressions in English, so
I assume certain expressions and if they are not corrected, I believe
I am right, so those expressions become fixed in my brain. But, when
I heard the correct expression from a native speaker somehow, somehow,
I easily recognize that I have been wrong and I can fix my problem and
I dont forget that expression because I have had the fixed expression
in me even though that was wrong.

supposed to correct their errors if they do not know where their errors are or
even how to correct them? I am not suggesting that we should always
provide directive comments on L2 writers language problems. Rather, I am
simply suggesting that there are many L2 writers who desire to know what
they are doing incorrectly and how they might learn how to correct their own
mistakes, and these students would like very much to have teachers who
offer them grammar correction tools, not well-meaning bystanders
(Hyland 2003: 19).

Conclusion

Let us return to the original question of why we should correct students


errors. Pedagogically speaking, grammar correction is one of the few ways
we can help L2 writers with language issues. Theoretically speaking, while
producing papers, they are forced to pay attention to the forms with which
their intended meaning is expressed and thus make a great number of
hypotheses about the structure and meaning of L2 (Swain 1985). Grammar
correction represents one of the most crucial forms of feedback for the
verification of these hypotheses. Where else will they be able to get those
crucial inputs if not from the teacher?
Even after a grammatical feature has been corrected, students may fail to use
it accurately in their own writing, as noted by Truscott (op. cit.). This does not
mean, however, that error correction is of little use. We need to remember
that second language acquisition is sustained deep learning (Schumann
1997), and it is characterized as sustained because of the extended period of
time that is required to achieve it.
Clearly, however, further work is necessary to enrich our understanding of
the value of error correction in L2 composition classrooms. Note that the
participants of the study were advanced L2 writers who were already quite
familiar with the writing conventions of their discipline. It is also possible
that they had placed such a high emphasis on grammar because some of
their writing tasks, such as journal articles, required a high level of accuracy.
Thus, the results may not be generalized to L2 writers with different
academic needs.
Pointing out the problems of accuracy-oriented L2 composition teaching,
Raimes (1983) argues that L2 composition teachers had stressed the L2 part
of L2 composition at the expense of the composition part. Now, over 20 years
later, the scenario appears quite different. As attested by the stories of the
five L2 writers analysed in this paper, the pendulum has now swung too far
to the other side. Process-oriented L2 composition classrooms appear to
364

Sang-Keun Shin

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

The stories presented and analysed earlier clearly demonstrate that some of
the most widely-held beliefs concerning L2 composition pedagogy do not
necessarily reflect the realities of how L2 writers actually write and what they
actually need. We have learnt, for instance, that the following two claims
concerning grammar correction are not true for all L2 writers: Students
favor their intuitions over the thing they are told by writing teachers and
ESL students were not particularly serious in the way they dealt with
corrections and more often than not were reluctant to do any rewriting,
many seeing it as a form of punishment (Truscott op. cit.). This is clearly not
the case with the five writers who were hungry for higher levels of support
and assistance from their instructors with respect to grammar.

place too much emphasis on the composition part of L2 composition, and


thus it is time to place equal weight on the L2 part of L2 composition.
Final revised version received May 2007

Grammar correction

I. Pringle, and J. Yalden (eds.). Learning to Write: First


Language/Second Language. New York: Longman.
Schumann, J. 1997. The Neurobiology of Affect in
Language. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Swain, M. 1985. Communicative competence: some
roles of comprehensible input and comprehensive
output in its development in S. Gass and C. Madden
(eds.). Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley:
Newbury House.
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar
correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning
46/2: 32769.
Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: the process of discovering
meaning. T ES O L Quarterly 16/2: 195209.
Zamel, V. 1983. The composing process of advanced
E SL students: six case studies. T E S OL Quarterly
17/2: 16588.
Zhu, W. 2004. Writing in business courses: an
analysis of assignment types, their characteristics,
and required skills. English for Specific Purposes 23/2:
11135.
The author
Sang-Keun Shin is an assistant professor at Ewha
Womens University, Seoul, Korea, where he teaches
E LT methods and language testing. He earned his
PhD from the University of California at Los Angeles
in 2004 and has published mainly in the area of
language testing and language teaching
methodology.
Email: sangshin@ewha.ac.kr

365

Downloaded from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ at Universidad Autnoma de Tlaxcala on March 5, 2015

References
Bates, L., J. Lane, and E. Lane. 1993. Writing Clearly:
Responding to ES L Compositions. Boston: Heinle and
Heinle Publishers.
Ferris, D. 1999. The case for grammar correction in
L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996).
Journal of Second Language Writing 8/1: 111.
Frodesen, J. and C. Holten. 2003. Grammar and the
ES L writing class in B. Kroll (ed.). Exploring the
Dynamics of Second Language Writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. 2003. Genre-based pedagogies: a social
response to process. Journal of Second Language
Writing 12/1: 1729.
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2005. Rhetorical structure of
biochemistry research articles. English for Specific
Purposes 24/3: 26992.
Leki, I. 2001. Hearing voices: L2 students
experience in L2 writing courses in T. Silva and
P. K. Matsuda (eds.). On Second Language Writing.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leki, I. and J. Carson. 1997. Completely different
worlds: E A P and the writing experiences of E SL
students in university courses. T E S O L Quarterly
31/1: 3969.
Polio, C. 2003. Research on second language
writing: an overview of what we investigate and how
in B. Kroll (ed.). Exploring the Dynamics of Second
Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Raimes, A. 1983. Anguish as a second language?
Remedies for composition teachers in A. Freedman,

You might also like