Please fix my Errors

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 (pp.81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press.

In this article Ferris investigates the effectiveness of error correction on students writing. She begins by pointing out that the efficacy of written error correction has been long debated in L2 writing.  Scholars, such as Truscott (1996) and Krashen (1984) argues that all error correction should be “eliminated because is it unnecessary, ineffective and even counterproductive” (Ferris, p. 81). On the contrary, the supporters, Ferris included, argue that empirical research does lend support to corrective feedback. She further points out that although there is a disagreement on error correction among the scholars they somehow feel there are ethical reasons for teachers to correct students’ errors.  L2 writers claim to need and value error feedback from their teachers and professionals in academia seems to appreciate accuracy in L2s’ writing. Ferris further argue that if both the “readers and writers of the L2 academic discourse” (Ferris, p.81) seems to appreciate corrective feedback, than the effectiveness of error correction in L2 students’ writing should be an open question.

By means of a longitudinal study Ferris collected data form an ESL composition class where students (N-92) wrote four three draft of essay over the semester. In her findings she was able to show that students were able to successfully edit errors marked by teachers. Overall, students show progress in written accuracy over the semester. However, the nature of an error as well as corrective method the teachers used yield different results depending on the length of time. The reduction in verb (form and tense) errors over the semester was high compare to certain types of errors, such as articles errors and sentence errors, which was slightly worse at the end of the semester. She accredits these differences to the type of corrective methods (direct or indirect) used by the teachers for the different kinds of error. L2 writing teachers used the indirect method for error correction for verb errors and the direct method for sentence structure errors. According to Ferris, teachers did not use the direct method for verb errors because they felt they were “treatable”, and students can consult handbooks to fix the errors. Whereas, for the sentence structure and article errors teachers used the direct because they felt they were “untreatable”, and there is no handbook that students can consult to fix the errors (p. 96)

I find the findings in this study particularly interesting because it will help ESL writing teachers to know the type of corrective method to use for different type of errors, depending on the proficiency level of the students. However, if an ESL  teachers wants to make use of a corrective method which will  have a long-term effect on students’ article and sentence errors, if needed, we need evidence from linguistics features which are not so treatable but prove to be treatable by correction feedback. This article was also of interest to me , because although some scholars in the L2 writing field do not agree as to whether error correction is worth doing, they also seems to be no hard evidence showing that the practice might harm students. If the students appreciate written error feedback from the teachers, than I think it is important for ESL writing teachers to know the type of error correction practice or methods to use to treat different types of errors.