The student—an invaluable source of information in the writing process |
|
Chris Alexander (Bristol) |
The aim of this paper is to present the findings of an analysis into the kind of things students are concerned about when writing, and then to compare these concerns with what a teacher-assessor feels is wrong. I, for many years as an EAP teacher, believed the best way to help a student was to underline mistakes and to write in a corrected version, laborious as it was. In this paper I would like to question the effectiveness and usefulness of this technique without resorting to the student as a source of information i.e. we can learn a lot about student concerns by getting students to underline areas of concern while they are writing, and then by getting them, if necessary, to clarify these sections at a later stage. I would also like to show that students are not only concerned about things that are incorrect, they seem to be concerned about things that are ‘correct’.
References
Burt ,M. (1975).
Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 9: 53-63
monitoring
technique. ELT Journal. 44/4
Chenoweth, N.
(1987). The need to teach writing. ELT
Journal 41/1 : 25-29
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: OUP
Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-monitoring in student writing: developing learner responsibility.
ELT Journal 54/3 :235-244
Davies, E.
(1983). Error evaluation: the importance of viewpoint. ELT Journal. 37/4: 304-
311
Dyer, B. (1996).
L1 and L2 composition theories: in Hillocks ‘environmental mode’ and
‘task-based language teaching’. ELT
Journal 50/4: 312-317
Ericsson, K. A., and Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Ferris, D., and Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it
need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing. 10/3: 161-184
Frankenberg-Garcia,
A. (1999). Providing student writers with pre-text feedback. ELT
Journal 53/2: 100-106
Hughes, A. and Lascaratou, C. (1982). Competing criteria for error gravity’. ELT Journal 36-
3: 175-82
James, C. (1977).
Judgement of error gravity. English
Language Teaching Journal 31: 116-24
Jordan, R. R.
(2000). English for Academic Purposes. Cambridge:
CUP
Kleinmann, H. (1978). The strategy of avoidance in adult second language acquisition. In
Ritchie (ed.) 1978 Second Language acquisition research. New York: Academic Press
Kowel, S., and O’
Connell, D. C. (1987). Writing as language behaviour: myths, models,
methods.
In A. Matsuhashi (ed.). Writing in Real
Time: Modelling production processes. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Lee, I. (1998).
Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: teachers’ beliefs and
practices. Hong Kong Journal of
Applied Linguistics 3/1 : 61-76
composition,
translation and picture description. Working
Papers on Biligualism 8: 59-86
McDonough, J., and McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language
Teachers. London: Arnold
Nisbett, R., and Wilson, D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review 84: 231-259
Nunan, D. (1992).
Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge:
CUP
Schachter, J.
(1974). An error in error analysis. Language
Learning 27: 205-14
White, R., and
Arndt (1991). Process Writing. London: Longman
Zamel, V. (1985).
Responding to student writing. TESOL
Quarterly 19/1