Abstract
Despite the efforts exerted on error correction by teachers and students during English for Academic Purposes (EAP) courses, the literature is split about whether such instruction succeeds in reducing grammatical and lexical errors in student writing. In this study, a longitudinal corpus of essays and reports collected at three key data points along a tertiary EAP course (pre-course, immediate post-course and final assessment) totalling 205,682 words was annotated for 12,996 errors across 10 grammatical and lexical error types. The results, including a mixed-effects linear model, showed a general significant decline in the number of errors produced over the duration of the course. However, closer examination revealed that the frequencies of the majority of individual lexical and grammatical error categories remained unchanged over time, despite specific out-of-class instruction on these errors as well as numerous occasions where teachers provided written corrective feedback. The overall usefulness of the error correction feedback and instruction resulting from the EAP course in question therefore remains inconclusive, although students and other stakeholders may still call for the inclusion of such feedback and instruction on EAP curricula.
References
Ang, L. H., H. A. Rahim, K. H. Tan & K. Salehuddin. 2011. Collocations in Malaysian English learners’ writing: A corpus-based error analysis. 3L; Language, Linguistics and Literature, The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies 17(special issue). 31–44.Search in Google Scholar
Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3). 227–257.10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8Search in Google Scholar
Barnard, R. & D. Scampton. 2008. Teaching grammar: A survey of EAP teachers in New Zealand. New Zealand Studies in Applied Linguistics 14(2). 59–82.Search in Google Scholar
Bestgen, Y. & S. Granger. 2015. Tracking L2 writers’ phraseological development using collgrams: Evidence from a longitudinal EFL corpus. In ICAME 36.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2). 102–118.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004Search in Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2009. The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied linguistics 31(2). 193–214.10.1093/applin/amp016Search in Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch. 2010. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(4). 207–217.10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002Search in Google Scholar
Bruce, E. & L. Hamp-Lyons. 2015. Opposing tensions of local and international standards for EAP writing programmes: Who are we assessing for? Journal of English for Academic Purposes 18. 64–77. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2015.03.003Search in Google Scholar
Castello, E., K Ackerley & F. Cocceta (eds.). 2016. Studies in learner corpus linguistics: Research and applications for foreign language teaching and development. Berlin: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0736-4Search in Google Scholar
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(3). 267–296.10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9Search in Google Scholar
Christ, O. 1994. A modular and flexible architecture for an integrated corpus query system. In Proceedings of COMPLEX’94: 3rd conference on computational lexicography and text research, Budapest.Search in Google Scholar
Chuang, F. Y. & H. Nesi. 2006. An analysis of formal errors in a corpus of L2 English produced by Chinese students. Corpora 1(2). 251–271.10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.251Search in Google Scholar
Chuang, F.-Y. & H. Nesi. 2007. Grammar talk: Developing computer-based materials for Chinese EAP students In O. Alexander (ed.), New approaches to materials development for language learning Oxford, UK: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Chuang, F. Y. & H. Nesi. 2008. Grammar talk: International students’ responses to an online grammar resource. In M. Edwardes (ed.), Proceedings of the BAAL annual conference: Technology, ideology and practice in applied linguistics, London, UK: Scitsiugnil Press.Search in Google Scholar
Cotos, E. 2014. Enhancing writing pedagogy with learner corpus data. ReCALL 26(2). 202–224. doi:10.1017/S0958344014000019.Search in Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. (2016a). A longitudinal multidimensional analysis of EAP writing: Implications for pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 22, 166–178. doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2016.04.005.Search in Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. (2016b). L2 English Article Use by L1 Speakers of –ART Languages: A Learner Corpus Study. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 2(1),68–100.10.1075/ijlcr.2.1.03croSearch in Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. (in press) Retesting the limits of data-driven learning: Feedback and Error correction. Computer-Assisted Language Learning.Search in Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. & Jiang, F.K. (in press). Does EAP affect written L2 academic stance? A longitudinal learner corpus study. System.Search in Google Scholar
Dagneux, E., S. Denness & S. Granger. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26. 163–174.10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3Search in Google Scholar
Dahlmeier, D., H. T. Ng & S. M. Wu. 2013, June. Building a large annotated corpus of learner English: The NUS corpus of learner English. In Proceedings of the eighth workshop on innovative use of NLP for building educational applications, 22–31.Search in Google Scholar
de Haan, P. 2000. Tagging non-native English with the TOSCA-ICLE tagger. Language and Computers 33. 69–80.10.1163/9789004490758_007Search in Google Scholar
Evans, S. & B. Morrison. 2011. The first term at university: Implications for EAP. English Language Teaching Journal 65(4). 387–397.10.1093/elt/ccq072Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31. 315–339.10.2307/3588049Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. 1999. The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1). 1–10.10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. 2006. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81–104. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007Search in Google Scholar
Ferris, D. & B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3). 161–184.10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-XSearch in Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. 1981. Statistical methods for rates and proportions, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Friginal, E. & S. Weigle. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 26. 80–95. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007.Search in Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. 2005. Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? TESL-EJ 8(4). 1–39.Search in Google Scholar
Gardner, S. & H. Nesi. 2012. A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics 34(1). 1–29. doi:10.1093/applin/ams024.Search in Google Scholar
Gaskell, D. & T. Cobb. 2004. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System 32(3). 301–319.10.1016/j.system.2004.04.001Search in Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., T. Alexopoulou & A. Korhonen. 2013. Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 databases: The EF-Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). In Proceedings of the 31st Second Language Research Forum, Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Search in Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2016. From design to collection of learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research, 9–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139649414.002Search in Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2003. Error-tagged Learner Corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. Calico Journal 20(3). 656–480.10.1558/cj.v20i3.465-480Search in Google Scholar
Hasko, V. & F. Meunier (eds.). 2013. Capturing L2 development through learner corpus analysis. Modern Language Journal 97(S1), 1–10.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01425.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hyland, F. 1998. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3). 255–286.10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, K & F. Hyland. 2006. Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching 39(2). 83–101.10.1017/S0261444806003399Search in Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S. 2013. The ICNALE and sophisticated contrastive interlanguage analysis of Asian learners of English. In S. Ishikawa (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, 91–118. Kobe, Japan: LCSAW2013.Search in Google Scholar
Izumi, E., K. Uchimoto & H. Isahara. 2005, October. Error annotation for corpus of Japanese learner English. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, 71–80. Jeju Island, Korea: Association for Computational Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1991. From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (eds.), Classroom concordancing: English language research journal, 4, 27–45.Search in Google Scholar
Johnston, J. E., K. J. Berry & P. W. Mielke. 2006. Measures of effect size for chi-squared and likelihood-ratio goodness-of-fit tests. Perceptual and motor skills 103(2). 412–414.10.2466/pms.103.2.412-414Search in Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. 1991. An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal 75. 305–31310.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lee, I. 2004. Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(4). 285–312.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001Search in Google Scholar
Lee, I. 2005. Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal 22(2). 1–16. doi: 10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, I. 2008. Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2). 69–85.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Y. W., M. Chodorow & C. Gentile. 2016. Investigating patterns of writing errors for different L1 groups through error-coded ESL learners’ essays.
23(1). 169–190.10.15334/FLE.2016.23.1.169Search in Google Scholar
Leńko-Szymańska, A. & A. Boulton (eds.). 2015. Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.69Search in Google Scholar
Li, J. & N. Schmitt. 2009. The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study. Journal of Second Language Writing 18. 85–102.10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.001Search in Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A. & H. Hirschmann. 2016. Error annotation systems. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research, 135–157. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139649414.007Search in Google Scholar
McEnery, T, R Xiao & Y. Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Meunier, F. 2016. Developmental patterns in learner corpora. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research, 379–400. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139649414.017Search in Google Scholar
Meunier, F. & G. Gentil. 2014. Tracking learners’ progress in nominalization use: A quantitative and qualitative longitudinal corpus analysis. Paper presented at GURT 2014-Georgetown Roundtable in Linguistics: Usage-based approaches to language, language learning and multilingualism, Washington, USA (14/03/2014-16/03/2014).Search in Google Scholar
Meunier, F. & D. Littré. 2013. Tracking learners’ progress: Adopting a dual ‘Corpus-cum-experimental data’ approach. Modern Language Journal 97(1). 61–76. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01424.x.Search in Google Scholar
Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781009030199Search in Google Scholar
Nicholls, D. 2003, March. The Cambridge learner corpus: Error CODING AND ANALYSIS FOR LEXICOGRAPHY and ELT. In Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 conference, Vol. 16, 572–581.Search in Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2008. The UAM corpustool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Proceedings of the XXVI Congreso de AESLA, 3–5. Almeria, Spain.Search in Google Scholar
Pica, T. 1983. Methods of morpheme quantifications: Their effect on the interpretation of second language data. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 6. 69–78.10.1017/S0272263100000309Search in Google Scholar
Polio, C., C. Fleck & N. Leder. 1998. ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1). 43–68.10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, J. 2012. Acts of reference and the miscommunication of referents by first and second language speakers of English. University of Waikaito, NZ Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Ryan, J. 2015. Overexplicit referent tracking in L2 English: Strategy, avoidance, or myth?. Language Learning 65(4). 824–859.10.1111/lang.12139Search in Google Scholar
Salteh, M. A. & K. Sadeghi. 2015. Teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward error correction in L2 writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL 12(3). 1–31.10.18823/asiatefl.2015.12.3.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Schachter, J. & M. Celce-Murcia. 1977. Some reservations concerning error analysis. TESOL Quarterly 11(4). 441–451.10.2307/3585740Search in Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11(2). 129–158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129.Search in Google Scholar
Shin, S. K. 2008. ‘Fire your proofreader!’ Grammar correction in the writing classroom. ELT Journal 62(4). 358–365. doi:10.1093/elt/ccm089.Search in Google Scholar
Tono, Y., Y Satake & A. Miura. 2014. The effects of using corpora on revision tasks in L2 writing with coded error feedback. ReCALL 26. 147–162. doi:10.1017/S095834401400007X.Search in Google Scholar
Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46(2). 327–369.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.xSearch in Google Scholar
Truscott, J. 2004. Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(4). 337–343.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002Search in Google Scholar
Truscott, J. 2007. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4). 255–272.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003Search in Google Scholar
Vyatkina, N. 2012. The development of second language writing complexity in groups and individuals: A longitudinal learner corpus study. The Modern Language Journal 96(4). 576–598.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2012.01401.xSearch in Google Scholar
Yates, R. & J. Kenkel 2002. Responding to sentence-level errors in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(1). 29–47.10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00051-6Search in Google Scholar
Young, S. S. & A. Karr. 2011. Deming, data and observational studies. Significance 8(3). 116–120.10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Syntactically–driven algorithmic processing of PP-attachment ambiguity in a second language
- Learner and native-speaker differences in the acceptability of gustar-type psychological verbs in Spanish
- Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports
- The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight month investigation
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Syntactically–driven algorithmic processing of PP-attachment ambiguity in a second language
- Learner and native-speaker differences in the acceptability of gustar-type psychological verbs in Spanish
- Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports
- The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 pragmatics: An eight month investigation