英语论文网

harmful for students. The article has provoked heated discussions and since then, different responses have been published from both of the parties, those in favor of error correction, and those against error correction, and basically it is the former who according to Polio, Fleck and Leder (1998) are the side responsible to prove their claim.

There is a good body of research to suggest that error correction in L2 writing is helpful for learners. Ferris, the head of the pro-correction camp, maintains that there is some “potentially positive research evidence” on the effects of error correction in L2 writing instruction (2004, p. 50). This supports the findings of Kepner’s study (1991) that accuracy improves over time when students received error feedback. Chandler’s study (2003), too, showed significant positive effect for error feedback. Ashwell (2000) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) also found that error correction is favorable over no correction.

One of the difficulties in making any generalization as to whether error feedback in L2 writing is beneficial or destructive is the ethical dimension of conducting studies to compare correction with no-correction control groups. Also studies comparing correction and no-correction control groups are not many, and their results need to be viewed with caution since there are some factors which are usually ignored when comparing the two groups (for instance, see Ferris & Roberts, 2001) and as Guénette correctly notes, it is not sufficient in such studies simply to have a control group (2007). The two groups must be comparable in every way which is not usually the case in the research studies conducted so far.

There are, on the other hand, some studies which have found no clear empirical evidence in support of error feedback. Sheppard (1992), for instance, conducted a 10-week longitudinal study and found no positive effect for error feedback. Polio et al. (1998) found that in terms of linguistic accuracy, the performance of the students who were asked to revise their writings and received additional grammar exercises was no better than the control group of the study. The findings of Cohen and Robbins (1976) and Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) also side with the same view.

At the same time, a number of studies have found detrimental effects for error feedback. Truscott (1996) can be considered as a fervent adherent of this view. Also, there are others who seem to have reached a similar conclusion. For instance in a longitudinal study, Fazio (2001) found that after five months, students, both those who received feedback on form and those who received feedback on content, made more errors in their writings.

As can be inferred from this brief review, the findings and ideas of researchers working in the area of error feedback in L2 writing do not seem to have converged on a clear conclusion, and Ferris (2004) is probably right in asserting that “we have barely gotten started on the question of ‘Does error feedback help?’ ” (p. 55). Students, however, seem to be less confused as to what they want their teachers to do. L2 student writers want their teachers to provide feedback on their errors (Chandler, 2003; Ferris 1995, 2004; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996, to name but a few). According to Lightbown and Spada (1999),”virtually all learners, particularly, older ones, have strong beliefs