8/9/2019 xiwangneng

1/2

Introduction of Issue

One major issue that remains controversial in second language (SL) grammar

teaching and learning is that should learners grammar errors be corrected in their writing.

That is, should written corrective feedback (WCF) continue to be provided on learners

grammar errors as a way of helping them to improve on their linguistic accuracy. Errors are

deviant forms that usually cannot be corrected by learners themselves. They are caused by

gaps in learners developing interlanguage system. Withdrawing WCF from learners may

therefore deny learners the opportunities to notice the gaps in their interlanguage system.

Besides that, traditionally SL learners have been expecting to obtain feedback from their

teachers regarding the grammar errors they make in their writing. The abolishment of WCF

may not fulfil their expectations about L2 teaching and learning and this may have adverse

effects on their motivation and confidence to learn the target language in the long run. All

these consequences have to be taken into consideration while making decisions on whether to

continue or discontinue the use of WCF in L2 teaching and learning.

Given the importance of this issue, this presentation seeks to discuss the differing

views on this issue, together with the theoretical arguments underpinning the different

perspectives and the empirical evidence. The implications of this issue for grammar teaching

and learning in a SL context will also be discussed.

The Differing Views on the Issue

The major arguments that call for the abolishment of WCF are that learners

acquisition of grammar structures are subject to the natural order of acquisition, which is not

amenable by language instruction (Pinneman, 1987). Just as with explicit teaching of

grammar rules, teachers trying to correct learners grammar errors in their writing may not

necessarily result in the acquisition of these grammar items unless learners are

developmentally ready to acquire them and possess the processing capacity to process them.

In other words, there are developmental constraints when it comes to acquiring the grammar

items corrected by teachers. Following this argument, it is therefore contended that it is

pointless and not economical for teacher to invest a large amount of time in correcting

learners grammar errors if it is uncertain that learners will necessarily have the capability to

process and acquire them. The time spent on error correction could be spent more

productively on other activities which could assist learners to acquire the grammar structures

more effectively.

8/9/2019 xiwangneng

2/2

While it is uncertain that error correction will necessarily result in the acquisition of

the grammar structures corrected, it is argued that it does brings about the process of noticing

and comparing, which prepares the grounds for the acquisition of the target structures at later

stages when learners are developmentally ready to handle them. Noticing refers to learners

being conscious of a linguistic feature that they have previously ignored, while comparing

refers to learners comparing the correct form and their production (registering to what extent

there is a gap between the target form and their production). Noticing takes place when

teachers draw learners attention directly or indirectly to a linguistic feature (by underlining

or circling the linguistic feature they have failed to produce correctly), whereas comparing

takes place when learners compare their production with the correct model provided by

teachers or by referring to other sources which provide them with the information as to what

is correct (such as dictionary or grammar reference book). Noticing and comparing can take

place at any time; they are not developmentally regulated. While noticing and comparing may

be insufficient for learners to integrate the linguistic feature corrected into their mental

grammar, it does aid in the construction of an explicit representation of the feature, which can

be stored separately and subsequently accessed when the learners are developmentally

primed to handle it. This kind of explicit representation also serves to help learners to

continue to notice the feature in future input (such as observing how other students or native

speakers use the forms correctly in their speaking and writing), thereby facilitating its

subsequent acquisition.

Empirical Evidence on WCF

Implications for Grammar Teaching and Learning in a SL Context

For adult ESL learners

Conclusions