Emily B. Allen and Professor Norman Evans, Linguistics and English Language

Main Text

Demosthenes, a Greek orator and statesman, affirmed that “small opportunities are often the beginning of great enterprises.” I feel that my receipt of an ORCA grant has been one such small opportunity which has been the beginning of many great enterprises for me personally and also for my chosen field. My faculty mentor, Dr. Norman Evans, and I have made great progress and had many remarkable experiences with the pursuits of our ORCA project. Together we have designed and launched a successful online survey, presented in two conferences, and are now in the process of composing several manuscripts for future publication.

Corrective feedback is a long-standing educational practice that can arguably be linked to almost everything we learn. In the field of English as a Second Language (ESL) writing, however, the use of written corrective feedback (WCF) has not been so straightforward. According to Russell and Spada (2006), “…the term corrective feedback [refers] to any feedback provided to a learner…that contains evidence of learner error of language form” (p. 134). The value of such feedback in second language writing has been debated in the ESL literature for several decades (Zamel 1985, Truscott 1996, Lee 2004, Ferris 2007, Bitchener & Knoch 2009, Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa 2009, and many others).

While the literature relative to the use of WCF in second language writing is extensive, one important question has remained unanswered: what are writing teachers theorizing and practicing with regards to WCF in their classrooms? In his 1994 article on the “postmethod condition,” Kumaravadivelu posits that the demands of language teaching drive teachers to autonomous development of their own principled pragmatism, even amid the voices of publishing theorizers (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p.30). To date, the teachers’ perspective in the literature on WCF has been fundamentally absent, and this absence is problematic. Hence, our project has sought to understand what is currently theorized and practiced by teachers with regards to WCF.

Throughout December 2009 and early January 2010, Dr. Evans and I, in collaboration with Dr. K. James Hartshorn of the BYU English Language Center, designed a Qualtrics online survey to assess the current WCF practices of ESL writing teachers. Hoping to represent the voices of educators that have not been adequately heard in the literature to date, we worked hard to generate a list of potential survey participants, pulling together names from assorted scholarly forums. After launching our survey in mid- January, we had 1,053 respondents, more than 40% of whom were participants from outside the United States. The data we received is extensive, but what has come through clearly is that teachers do error correct and have strong philosophies and motivations behind their practice.

While an undergraduate student, I was accepted to present on our survey findings in the Graduate Student Forum of the annual TESOL (Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.) convention in Boston, Massachusetts. I attended this conference from March 23-27, 2010. I presented on our survey findings in a presentation entitled “Current Nationwide Practices of Written Corrective Feedback.” My participation in this forum was an excellent experience, and I enjoyed attending my first professional academic conference. Following a subsequent proposal submission, Dr. Evans, Dr. Hartshorn, and I were also accepted to present on our survey findings in a more intimate academic venue, the Symposium on Second Language Writing, held May 20-22, 2010 at the University of Murcia in Murcia, Spain.

Prior to our trip to Spain we spent time analyzing our data and preparing our presentation. From January to March 2010, I researched and wrote the literature review for the project. From May 14-24, 2010, Dr. Evans, Dr. Hartshorn, and I traveled to Spain, where we were able to tour a good part of the country and presented on our survey findings at the Symposium on Second Language Writing. Our presentation was extremely well-received. As part of the symposium, we attended many interesting presentations, workshops, and plenary addresses, which furthered my awareness of the work being done in the field of ESL writing.

Prior to our presentation in Spain, we were contacted by the editors of the International Journal of English Studies who expressed interest in publishing the results of our study following the symposium. We are currently in the process of preparing a manuscript, entitled “Written Corrective Feedback: The Practitioners’ Perspective,” for this journal. We will be turning in the preliminary version of our manuscript to these editors within the next week or so, and anticipate publication in December of this year. While at the symposium we also met with the editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing and discussed the possibility for further publication and divulgence of our study findings in that journal.

Additionally, we have already submitted a proposal to present our study at the 2011 TESOL Convention which will take place in New Orleans, Louisiana in March of the coming year.

Brigham Young University is truly a remarkable institution. I express my gratitude for the vision and generosity of those who made possible my ORCA grant and the incredible experiences I have had as a result of my participation in this mentored research project.

References

• Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322–329.
• Ferris, D.R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language
  Writing, 16, 165-193.
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The Postmethod Condition: (E)merging Strategies for Second/Foreign
  Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1),27-48.
• Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of
  Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
• Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2
  grammar. In J. Norris (ed.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (133-163). Philidelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written
  correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
• Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46
  (2), 327-369.