Dana Ferris

The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to truscott (1996)

Abstract John Truscotts 1996 Language Learning article, “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes,” has led to a great deal of discussion and even some controversy about the best way to approach issues of accuracy and error correction in ESL composition. This article evaluates Truscotts arguments by discussing points of agreement and disagreement with his claims and by examining the research evidence he uses to support his conclusions. The paper concludes that Truscotts thesis that “grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned” (1996, p. 328) is premature and overly strong and discusses areas for further research.

Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice

Contents: Preface. Theoretical and Practical Issues in ESL Writing. ESL Writing and L2 Literacy Development. Syllabus Design and Lesson Planning in ESL Composition Instruction. Text Selection, Materials Development, and Task Construction in ESL Composition. Teacher Response to Student Writing: Issues in Oral and Written Feedback. Building a Community of Writers: Principles of Peer Response. Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment in the Composition Class. Classroom Approaches to ESL Writing Assessment. Technology in the Writing Class: Uses and Abuses.

Response to student writing : implications for second language students

Contents: Preface. Part I: Research. An Overview of L1 Composition Research on Response and Its Influence on L2 Writing Theory and Practice. Teacher Feedback on L2 Student Writing. Error Correction. Research on Peer Response. Student Views on Response. Part II: Practice. Preparing Teachers to Respond to Student Writing. Suggestions for Error Correction. Implementing Peer Response.

SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA

For more than a decade now, a great deal of research has been done on the topic of written corrective feedback (CF) in SLA and second language (L2) writing. Nonetheless, what those research efforts really have shown as well as the possible implications for practice remain in dispute. Although L2 writing and SLA researchers often examine similar phenomena in similar ways, they do not necessarily ask the same questions. SLA-focused researchers investigate whether written CF facilitates the acquisition of particular linguistic features. In contrast, L2 writing researchers generally emphasize the question of whether written CF helps student writers improve the overall effectiveness of their texts. Understanding these differences in starting points is important because it provides a possible explanation for the conflicting methodologies and conclusions of various reviews on this topic (e.g., Ferris, 2003, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 2007). This article briefly traces the history of these two parallel lines of research on written CF and notes both contrasts and convergences. It then moves to a focused discussion of the possible implications and applications of this body of work for the L2 language and writing classroom and for future research efforts.

Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing Studies.

Section One - Introduction 1: What is WCF? Section Two - Theoretical Perspectives 2: Differences and overlap between short-term development 3: Insights from SLA research on oral corrective feedback (OCF ) 4: OCF parallels with WCF Section Three - Evaluating the Empirical Evidence 5: Questions/issues investigated - overview 6: Other empirical questions about WCF Section Four -Applications for Language & Writing Classes 7: Transfer of research findings to classroom practice 8: Teacher education/preparation Section Five - Conclusion 9: Directions/Agenda(s) for future research

Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982)

Written corrective feedback (CF) has been the most heavily researched topic in second language (L2) writing over the past 20 years. As a recent research timeline article in this journal (Ferris 2012 ; see also Bitchener & Ferris 2012 ) shows, studies of error correction in student writing have crossed disciplines (composition and rhetoric, foreign language studies, applied linguistics) and have utilized a range of research paradigms, including descriptive text analysis, quasi-experimental designs, and quantitative and qualitative classroom research. This article highlights two landmark studies on this topic, both from the 1980s, representing two of these research traditions. It explains why replication of these two studies would further advance our knowledge about written CF and makes specific suggestions about how the replications should be completed.

Guiding Junior Scholars into and Through the Publication Process

This chapter focuses on the challenges that newer scholars face in learning to write for publication and on the role that doctoral supervisors and other mentors can play in helping these scholars to climb the learning curve (or “crack the code”) and become successful academic writers. Subtopics include the types of feedback and other instructional interactions that can be helpful in scaffolding the writing process and special considerations for co-authoring papers with current or former students. In addition to the literature on response to student writing and especially the mentoring of doctoral students, the author draws upon several decades of experience of supervising MA theses and doctoral dissertations, co-authoring with students, and providing mentoring as a journal reviewer and editor.