Assessment and Corrective Feedback in Grammar Writing

Over this week, I have been thinking about all the types of assessment I have received of my writing over the many years of my schooling and career.  When I finished high school, I thought I was a fairly good writer.  However, at university I learned I had much more to learn, and I have continued to learn and sometimes think I have also regressed.  Fortunately, I have had many good writing mentors who have been very patient with corrections and guidance to help me improve.  Therefore, I feel an obligation to ensure that I am a very good example, and also have a very positive influence on the writing skills of my ESL students.  So how do I do that?

First, it is helpful to understand why students make certain errors.  Is it just part of the learning process (developmental errors), or are there other reasons.  In ESL the main reason is L1 interference (Harmer 2001), so understanding the contributions of their L1 for each individual can help to focus on they why, and work toward a correction.  For example, some languages do not have pronouns, or the same verb tenses. Some lack prepositions altogether.

There are several types of methods for corrective feedback and it seems that there is still much discussion amount scholars on what is best (Ellis 2008).  I believe that the method will varying depending on the context.  I also do not think that one method has to exclude another. The direct method give explicit guidance on error correction, while indirect methods tells the student there is an error but asks the student to correct it.  I would suggest that for some things that students should easily self-correct such as punctuation and spelling, an indirect method would be fine.  For more complicated grammar that students might not necessarily know, a more direct approach would be good.  Coding, using editing markings, is another approach.  However, students must learn the code (Harmer 2001).  Simpler versions of code can be used for lower level students.

However, I also remember the frustration of having to do all the corrections, with many rewrites sometimes. I think we have to keep this in mind with our learners, in that we have to encourage learning while trying not to increase frustration with their errors. This is why some suggest that we focus the error correction (Ellis 2008; Harmer 2001) to highlight a particular grammar feature to avoid over correction.

 I've noticed that some students take error correction in stride, while others get somewhat defensive, and some just don't want to be bothered much.  There is a whole range. And I think there are a number of factors which contribute to this (personality, L1 learning situation, motivation, etc).  Teachers need to be sensitive to their students, and act and react to the individual learner regarding error correction, because each will be different. Research does suggest that the teacher must give sincere individualized comments of constructive criticism for the student to improve (Harmer 2001).   Positive and negative comments must be balanced, appropriate, and foster improvement to be effective.

I think teachers can also be proactive in writing to ensure students are assessing their own work prior to handing it in. One thing I saw a teacher do, is to give students their own correction list prior to the writing exercise.  It was simple, such as 1) capital 2) periods 3) subject and verb, etc.  This reminded the students as they were writing, and then to check again when finished, helping with self-correction.  A simple reminder will often go a long way to improve outcomes.

Ellis, R. (2009, April). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Harmer, J. (2004). The practice of English language teaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education
Limited.

Some of the tools in the grammar toolbox

I was recently chatting with some old friends about perhaps getting back to learning/brushing up on a second language.  I mentioned there are some good apps out there that some people do well with, but for me they were a boring way to learn.  I like learning with other people, in an experiential way, either in person or virtual.  However, my friend said one of her friends had good luck with one, but she wasn't sure if she would try one.  For me this highlights that there are difference instructional methods that work well for some and not for others.

The instructional methods for teaching grammar fall under a wide spectrum.  Because many students have differences in the way they learn or prefer to learn, I think it's important that we use a variety of methods in the classroom.

Thornbury (1999) gives a good summary of these approaches.  Grammar translation (translating from one language to another) may see like a relic from the past (going way back), but depending on the teaching context there may be some use for this method.  A class where you have learners with the same L1 may benefit from some grammar translation.  At the other end of the spectrum is the natural approach and deep-ended Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), where students learn from full language immersion with no rules for grammar teaching.  When I was a preschooler, I remember watching a French children's show called Chez Helene.  It was designed to teach French to English children without using English.   I loved it.  I think children can easily learn with these methods.

In between these methods on the spectrum are the Audio lingual and Direct Methods, which both claim to be more 'natural based'.  The Direct method focuses more on oral skills with little grammar instruction, requiring students to pick up the language from immersion, just as children learn language too.  The audiolingual method focuses on learned behaviour and uses a series of pattern drills.  Therefore, it's not surprising that it was developed to teach soldiers languages during the second world war, and is also called the Army Method (TEFL, n.d.).  Its primary focus is on the memorization of material. These methods might be very difficult for older learners where memorization of material can be difficult.

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) (shallow-ended) is an inductive method that allows students to study material and work out the grammar rules themselves, so it falls closer to the Grammar Translation end of the scale with more focus on the rules of grammar.  In addition to these methods, there is also a movement to incorporate 'focus on form' and 'consciousness raising', which draw attention to the rules of grammar, helping students notice the features of the language (Thornbury 1999, pg. 24). This is very important, and without it, students can stall in their learning, risking fossilization of language. This develops critical thinking skills, and allows students to apply what they have learned.  This often requires more preparation and longer time periods, but is more learner-centered (Sikorzynska 1995).

My preference for teaching and learning of these grammar approaches would be the shallow-ended CLT.  I think it gives students a more balanced approach in learning and also encompasses a wider range of the way individual students learn. It provides both for experiential learning and the 'discovery' of the language, as well as guidance with rules of the language providing a scaffold for learning the language.

Lynch (n.d.) suggests the implicit teaching of grammar through acquisition and learning, combined with application of the skills in a task-based learning for the best approach for students to develop language skills.  However, there are some aspects of grammar that require an explicit or deductive approach which teaches the grammar rule, and then allows students to practice it.  This method sometimes works well for beginner learners, or with complicated grammar structures, such as prepositions, conjunctions, modal and phrasal verbs and other parts of language that are not common in many languages.

Betty Azar (2008) suggests that we really need a balance of approaches in teaching grammar. She describes a young man who the system utterly failed in grammar learning.  As a high school graduate and college student he was unable to write properly. The naturalist approach to language learning had failed him. It was an excellent example of fossilized usage with the student stuck with little knowledge of grammar rules.  This really emphasizes to me the importance of incorporating grammar teaching into language learning, and as Azar suggests you really need to use different approaches and include both grammar teaching and CLT.

Another factor in grammar teaching is distinguishing with learners that grammar in speech and grammar in writing can be very different (Crystal 2005; Bright 2012).  There are a number of aspects to consider such as more formality and structure in written grammar, especially in formats of essays, reports, letters, etc. Speech grammar is less formal and looser, with more colloquialisms and idioms, and partial sentences.  Also, when speaking there are more facial expressions and gestures which we rely on to make our point, whereas with the written word we must often work hard to express ourselves.  There are many other differences which we have to consider, but the main point I have garnered is to ensure that our students recognize and understand that speech grammar is often not the same as written grammar.

Every student is a different learner. Every class has a different makeup of learners. Every lesson has its nuances, difficulties and strengths. And one approach to teaching grammar does not fit all the time.  One of my co-learners (Theresa Hunt) made an important point this week, suggesting teachers are always adjusting as they go, even within a class.   As teachers one of the hardest things is to adapt and learn, often on the fly, to the context of our teaching.  With grammar teaching, as with other aspects of teaching English, it’s very important to have many tools in our toolbox.

References:

Azar, B. (2012, October 30). Teaching Grammar in Today's Classroom—Part 1 [Youtube video].
 Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YJwbnQOguEk
Bright, W. (2012). What’s the Difference between Speech and Writing? Linguistic Society of
America, Retrieved from https://www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/whats-difference-between-speech-and-writing

Crystal, D. (2005). Speaking and Writing. Toronto, ON: Pearson, Longman.

Lynch, L. (n.d.). Grammar Teaching: Implicit or Explicit. Retrieved
from https://www.eslbase.com/teaching/grammar-teaching-implicit-explicit

Sikorzynska, A. (1995). Discover it yourself. Wydawnictiwa Szkolne: Pedagogiczne.

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

How to teach grammar: sitting on the fence.

I've learned or attempted to learn three languages in my life so far.  English is my L1.  I learned French in high school and one class of German in university.  Right now I speak very little French, and remember only a few words of German, and much of the grammar rules of French and German are well beyond me.

My schooling was in the 60's and 70's, so there was quite a bit of focus yet on proper grammar. I vaguely remember some drills and worksheets in early school with less focus on learning (and more using) in high school.  I myself like rules and form and function, so was quite fine with that.  French was a lot of vocabulary and grammar with very little conversation practice.  By the time I took German in university, there was more emphasis on speaking, but still a large amount of grammar. The conjugation of verbs and sentence structure seemed to be a large part of the course, both of which seemed rather complicated to me.

So what is the best way to teach grammar in current practices?  Thornbury (1999) outlines a number of different historical arguments and methods, both for and against the formal teaching of grammar.  He suggests that teaching grammar rules are necessary for fine-tuning language from the written to the spoken, increasing linguistic competence, allowing for noticing of language to increase acquisition, breaking language down for digestability, transmitting knowledge about language, and satisfying learning expectation for grammar rules.  Those arguments for not teaching grammar are to learn by doing (experiential learning), developing grammar through our communicative competence, natural acquisition rather than formal learning, learning using chunks of language, and learner expectation of using conversation for learning grammar.
Thinking back on it now I believe that I would have retained more of the languages had I used them more in the classes in conversations, with a more practical approach to the language.  I think a balance between language acquisition through grammar teaching and natural language learning is required when teaching/learning a new language.  I have seen many people who have learned English through a mostly written experience and they have good grammar, but are greatly lacking in conversational skills. I have seen students regress in conversation skills when they advance to a class where the focus is more on writing and less on conversation.  However, I have also seen students who have picked up language only through daily conversation and listening, and many have terrible grammar. They tend to just pick chunks of language they know without the appropriate adjustment for tense, adverb, adjectives, etc.  So, a balance of grammar teaching and natural learning through conversation and listening is what I think is necessary for most learners.

Brown and Lee (2007) suggest that current approaches are a balanced methodology where grammar becomes a part of the overall teaching perspective, where techniques:
“-are embedded in meaningful, communicative contexts,
-contribute positively to communicative goals,
-promote accuracy within fluent, communicative language,
-do not overwhelm students with linguistic terminology,
-are as lively and intrinsically motivating as possible.”
They suggest that teaching grammar is essential and expedites the learning process.  I very much agree with this. Now the important aspect of this is how to practically incorporate grammar skills into our learning plans. That is what we are about to learn!


References:

Brown, H. D. and Lee, H. (2007). Form-Focused Instruction. In Teaching by principles: An
interactive approach to language pedagogy, 3rd Edition (pp. 419-442).

Thornbury, S. (1999). How to teach grammar, Chapter 2: Why teach grammar?