You are here:

Grammar Instruction and Computer-Assisted Self Error Correction
PROCEEDINGS

, , Lunghwa University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

Global Learn, in Online, Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

Abstract

This single subject, pre-experimental research aims at examining the effects of grammar instruction on students’ grammar comprehension and the ability of self error correction in their English writings via the assistance of an online English writing evaluation system. Five mini grammar lessons were given along with the writing practices in a 15-week implementation period. The results of the pre- and the post-test show that students’ grammar comprehension improves slightly. The progress is further verified by the reduction of grammar errors made by participants in their first and last essays. The findings show that having the indirect error feedback from an online evaluation system with consistent marking standard, students should be able to correct most errors by themselves. However, to improve their written accuracy, mini-lessons of related grammar points are suggested to be supplemented in writing classes.

Citation

Jan, L.C. & Chao, C.T. (2012). Grammar Instruction and Computer-Assisted Self Error Correction. In Proceedings of Global Learn 2012: Global Conference on Learning and Technology (pp. 109-114). Online,: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 23, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal 78, 465-483.
  2. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12, 267-296.
  3. Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 345-348.
  4. Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 57-58.
  5. Ferris, D.R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
  6. Ferris, D.R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal
  7. Ferris, D.R. (2004). The“ grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime … ?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 49-62.
  8. Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 40-53.
  9. Gulcat, Z. And Ozagac, O. (2004). Correcting and giving feedback to writing. Bogazici University SFL.
  10. Hajimohammadi, R., and Mukundan, J. (2011). Impact of Self-Correction on Extrovert and Introvert, Students in EFL Writing Progress. English Language Teaching, 4 (2), 161-168.
  11. Sadler, D.R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science 18(2), 119-144.
  12. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46, 327-369.
  13. Truscott, J. (1999). What’ s wrong with oral grammar correction? The Canadian Modern Language Review 55, 437-467.
  14. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 337-343.
  15. Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 59-60.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.

Slides