Response and the social construction of error

Anson, Chris M.

doi:10.1016/s1075-2935(00)00015-5

Cited by 36 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, L2 writers in mainstream composition courses often receive limited language instruction (Bitchener & Ferris, ; Hartwell, ; MacDonald, ; Santa, ) even as teachers reduce grades for grammatical flaws and mark student errors (Anson, ; Matsuda, ; Matsuda et al., ). Marking errors, however, is not the same as providing grammar instruction, yet grammar instruction has declined precipitously in mainstream composition theory and practice (Conners, ; MacDonald, ; Myers, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition

Eckstein

Ferris

2017

TESOL Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars have at various points discussed the needs of second language (L2) writers enrolled in "mainstream" composition courses where they are mixed with native (L1) English speakers. Other researchers have investigated the experiences of L2 writers in mainstream classes and the perceptions of their instructors about their abilities and needs. Little research, however, has directly compared L1 and L2 students (mostly Generation 1.5) taking composition classes together. For this article, the researchers collected writing samples from 56 L1 and 74 L2 students enrolled in a university (mainstream) first-year composition course. Using a mixed-methods design, they analyzed the texts for language error counts as well as measures of lexical and syntactic complexity; they juxtaposed these with insights from survey responses of both groups of writers and in-depth interviews. They conclude that, although L1 and L2 students have much in common, the L2 students had observed and (self-)perceived language needs that were significantly different from those of the L1 students. These included differences in linguistic accuracy, lexical diversity, and language-related anxiety. Implications for pedagogy include recommendations for teaching L2 writers to self-edit for common patterns of errors and sensitize students to the value of nuanced and purposeful lexical variety in their writing. S ince the 1980s, scholars of second language (L2) writing have debated whether the differences between first language (L1) writers and L2 writers are substantial enough to separate these learners into different courses and/or teach them differently in mixed or sheltered classes-for example, the TESOL Quarterly Forum discussion between

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition

Eckstein

Ferris

2017

TESOL Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, most early studies on second language (L2) teacher feedback were "too decontextualized, looking at the student paper and teacher feedback in isolation without considering anything else about the writing class or the relationships between teachers and students" (Ferris, 2003, p. 120). Clearly, they overlooked the relationships between teachers and students that might influence how teachers read and interpret student texts and how students attend to and address their teachers' feedback in their revisions (see Anson, 2000;Goldstein, 2005;Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997;Lee, 2008;Mathison-Fife & O'Neill, 2001;Reid, 1994).…”

Section: Towards Considerations For Responding To Student Writingmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Do EFL Students React to the Native English-speaking Teacher’s Feedback Anyway?

Huh¹,

Lee²,

Kim³

2013

englishteaching

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates the relationship between a native English-speaking teacher and EFL students in the response-and-revision process. The data consisted of drafts and revisions produced by three students in response to teacher comments and interviews with students. In order to examine how EFL students react to the feedback, teachers' written feedback on the papers was evaluated by calculating frequency counts on the same types of feedback. We then examined the extent to • which students made use of teacher feedback in their revisions. In addition, we supplemented our interpretations by extracting aspects of the students' views through analysis of the interview data. All three students believe that only native speakers can correct language errors in their writing. Furthermore, the students prefer or indeed demand native English-speaking teachers as writing teachers. In fact, dissimilar student reactions to native English-speaking teacher feedback probably arise from whether and how they positioned themselves as a writer in the EFL writing classroom.

show abstract

“…(Taylor, 1986, p. 151) This unproblematic view of errors and error detection in EA appears unjustified when contrasted with the understanding of errors from the composition perspective. For instance, under the influence of post-modernist and social constructionist theories, which conceptualise reading as an act of interpretation, both errors and responses to errors have been seen as subjective, relative and variable (see, for example, Anson, 2000;Taylor, 1986;Wall & Hull, 1990;Williams, 1981). Given that the success of EA depends on the identification of errors (Bartholomae, 1980), SLA research that subscribes to an unproblematic view of errors may produce questionable insights (Hamid, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The problematic of second language errors

Hamid

Doan²

2014

ARAL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The significance of errors in explicating Second Language Acquisition (SLA) processes led to the growth of error analysis in the 1970s which has since maintained its prominence in English as a second/foreign language (L2) research. However, one problem with this research is errors are often taken for granted, without problematising them and their identification. Against this background, the present study aimed to: (a) measure L2 English teachers’ ability to interpret L2 learner intentions in idiosyncratic expressions, and (b) bring to light factors that facilitate error identification. Findings show that: (1) there is a significant difference between L2 students’ intentions and teachers’ interpretations of those intentions; and (2) L2 English teachers’ knowledge of students’ L1 is not an advantage in error detection. Teacher interview data were drawn on to explicate text interpretation, reconstruction and error identification, suggesting implications for L2 research and pedagogy.

show abstract

Response and the social construction of error

Cited by 36 publications

References 19 publications

Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition

Comparing L1 and L2 Texts and Writers in First‐Year Composition

How Do EFL Students React to the Native English-speaking Teacher’s Feedback Anyway?

The problematic of second language errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About