Error Correction

Here I would like to address Truscott's (1996) article on the ineffectiveness of grammar correction in L2 writing. While I had heard of this article before, and even read the responses to it, I had never actually read it until now. I see that it has caused quite a controversy in SLA research, and the subfield of corrective feedback. I will outline my issues with Truscott's argument and hopefully provide some counter-arguments.

Truscott argues that grammar correction on L2 writing is ineffective ("proved" by evidence and non-evidence in the field) and harmful to students; therefore, he concludes, that it should not be carried out in the L2 writing course.

My first concern is that it seems Truscott himself did not conduct any research as to the effectiveness of grammar correction in this context. Rather, he summed up researchers' work that also summed up others' findings (these studies were quite dated as well). While reviewing the works of others, Truscott seems to leap to the conclusion that grammar correction was more than unhelpful, it was harmful (using Robb et al's (1986) study, which did not have a control "no correction" group to compare!).

Though Truscott does admit to the possible limitations to the reviewed studies, he dismisses all of them as inconsequential. I would disagree with most of these dismissals, the different types of instruction used and learner variables (or the combination of any of the variables he "dismissed"). For example, grammar correction would be ineffective in a writing course in which grades are based on content, then students would not care about grammar correction. However, if accuracy was a goal, then I assume grammar correction (the "correct" type) would be useful. Additionally, if the learner in question is a "good language learner," as in Griffith's (2006) study with Kay and Meg, then s/he is likely to notice corrections, learn from them, and use the correct form later.

Another concern was Truscott's emphasis on the acquisition order and how instructors' corrections do not fall in line with the developmental sequence that their students go through. However, in my experience, an L2 writing class comes later in the language course sequence as well (possibly third year). By this time, students should have reached (dependent on the language) a high proficiency and therefore have likely gone through much of the developmental sequence. Therefore, L2 writing students should be able to understand most corrections.

I do agree with Truscott's argument that some instructors are inconsistent in their correction (and unfortunately, some do not recognize errors and/or cannot explain why an error is incorrect). However, I do not think an L2 writing instructor must be required to catch every single error a student makes- that is their job in revising and editing- though, errors that seriously impede comprehension could be addressed by the instructor. Additionally, as later studies have shown, direct grammar correction (i.e. providing the correction) is not helpful to students as they likely do not internalize the correction. Rather, instructors should indicate errors (i.e. coding, circling, tally marks) and subsequently corrected by the student.

Though Truscott admitted to the literature indicating students expect and want grammar correction (see Shultz's 1999 study), he still claims it is unpleasant. I believe a good language learner will still find correction beneficial. Not to mention, if students need feedback to become accuracy and fluent L2 learners. "Experience," as Truscott believes, is not sufficient in my view; some form of feedback is necessary to hopefully avoid fossilization of incorrect forms. Truscott also states that going over corrections is basically a waste of students' time; personally, I believe developing accuracy is a perfectly productive use of student time.

Truscott's article sparked much debate, and I can see why now. It appears to me that his argument is based on old research, leaps to conclusions, and has many gaps in logic. However, this is just my opinion, and I am sure there are those who would disagree with me.