Chiến lược chữa lỗi bài viết trong giảng dạy kỹ năng viết cho người học ngoại ngữ

Trong những năm gần đây đã có rất nhiều những tranh luận xung quanh hiệu quả của việc chữa

lỗi bài viết cho người học ngoại ngữ trong giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết. Những nghiên cứu đầu tiên

về chữa lỗi viết được thực hiện bởi Truscott (1996). Ông cho rằng, không nên chữa lỗi ngữ pháp

trong bài viết của người học, bởi việc này không hiệu quả đối với việc nâng cao kỹ năng Viết cho

người học. Phản đối quan điểm của Truscott, Ferris (2008) cho rằng, việc xử lý lỗi viết, bao gồm

việc chữa lỗi của giáo viên, là rất quan trọng trong việc giảng dạy kỹ năng viết. Xung quanh vấn

đề này còn có rất nhiều nghiên cứu về cách tiếp cận lỗi của người học ra sao cho phù hợp cũng

như các chiến lược chữa lỗi hiệu quả cần được áp dụng như thế nào trong giờ dạy kỹ năng Viết

cho người học ngoại ngữ. Do có nhiều tranh luận về các biện pháp chữa lỗi khác nhau nên bài

viết sẽ nghiên cứu các chiến lược chữa lỗi với mục đích phân tích những điểm mạnh và điểm yếu

khác nhau của mỗi phương pháp, để từ đó giúp giáo viên có lựa chọn chiến lược phù hợp trong

giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết cho người học ngoại ngữ.

pdf9 trang | Chia sẻ: phuthai499 | Ngày: 18/12/2020 | Lượt xem: 106 | Lượt tải: 0download
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Chiến lược chữa lỗi bài viết trong giảng dạy kỹ năng viết cho người học ngoại ngữ, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
derstanding or metalinguistic strategy should 
be applied which allows for and surely benefits 
from the conscious monitoring in writing. When 
taking direct and metalinguistic feedback into 
account, it is suggested that whether the teachers 
should combine direct and metalinguistic into 
direct metalinguistic feedback. Sheen (2007) 
takes the view that direct metalinguistic group 
in the study shows a consistent increase over 
time whereas the direct – only group shows a 
slight decrease in their writing process. At this 
point, Sheen (2007) cites the view of Schmidt 
on second language acquisition. Schmidt 
distinguishes awareness at the level of noticing 
and at the level of understanding which is a 
higher level of awareness. Noticing involves 
simply attending to exemplars of specific forms 
which direct feedback provides. Understanding 
entails knowing a rule or principle that governs 
an aspect of language which metalinguistic 
feedback contributes to. 
 In terms of reformulation, a study conducted 
by Sachs and Polio (2007) gives an insight into 
reformulation on linguistic writing accuracy. It 
is noted that different types of feedback which 
were written in a familiar way on the learners’ 
papers in purple ink, indicating the locations 
more clearly than the case in the reformulation 
conditions and the learners do not have to find 
the errors as well. Yet reformulation lets learners 
search for differences by themselves and then 
they might be better able to devote cognitive 
resources to understanding and remembering the 
corrections longer.
To sum up, the debate about the different 
effect of feedback strategies is still inconclusive. 
Ferris (2008) states that teacher may decide to 
combine different types of feedback strategies, 
depending on whether he/she expects the 
learners to focus on some certain patterns of 
error. As a result, some pedagogical implications 
which hope to contribute to the quality in writing 
instruction will be given in the following part.
In the study, Deng (2010) offers some 
implications on how to apply error feedback 
strategies effectively in writing instruction. 
Firstly, the researcher confirms the value 
and benefit of error feedback on the learners’ 
written output. In order to take advantage 
of error feedback strategies, teacher should 
apply focused feedback in helping learners to 
discover the rules of language by responding 
to errors selectively. Secondly, so as to avoid 
mismatches between the teachers and learners 
in feedback strategies’ preferences, it is 
recommended that the teachers should establish 
better communication with learners with 
regards to the feedback strategies used such as 
listening to learners’ views on feedback strategy 
application or discussion on the effectiveness 
of the teachers’ actual feedback methods.
Furthermore, according to Deng (2010), 
when error codes used, the teachers should pay 
attention to systematic application of error codes 
as learners can be easily confused about the 
meanings denoted by different codes. 
Moreover, Ferris (2008) suggests that learners 
have demonstrated an overwhelming desire 
for feedback and each type of error feedback 
certainly has its own benefit. In the study of 
Ferris, it was observed that direct feedback led 
to greater accuracy in text revision while indirect 
feedback resulted in the production of fewer 
initial errors. Thus, it is suggested that learners 
may be served best when the method of feedback 
is dictated by the error type and context. 
For example, when examining the actual 
error feedback strategies provided by the 
teachers, Ferris saw that direct and indirect 
feedback are used most of the time. The treatable 
errors received indirect feedback in about 59% 
of the time while untreatable errors received 
direct feedback in 65% respectively. To sum up, 
Ferris hypothesizes that perhaps teacher should 
consider the type of error and their own belief 
of each situation to come to the final conclusion 
which would be most helpful to learners.
Lastly, learners’ autonomy should be 
encouraged along with error identification and 
correction. Various activities can be utilized like 
peer editing or self-check lists to promote more 
learners’ responsibility, which leads to the success 
in the learners’ written output in a long term.
As Chandler (2003, p. 348) notes in her 
rebuttal of Truscott’s (1999, 2007) criticism 
of written error correction, the controversy 
surrounding the effectiveness of error feedback 
on written output can only be resolved through 
carefully designed studies:
I accept [his] argument that the efficacy of 
error correction for accuracy of subsequent 
writing can only be demonstrated by studies 
containing a control group which receives no 
correction and experimental groups which 
correct their errors after either receiving direct 
correction or having the location of their errors 
pointed out. So I hope someone will do such a 
well-designed study.
So far the discussion in this paper has 
provided the overview of error feedback 
strategies on EFL learners’ written output with 
pedagogical implication in writing instruction. It 
is obvious that the effectiveness of error feedback 
addresses various aspects which lead to ceaseless 
controversy among researchers. At this point, the 
role of error feedback strategies is undeniable in 
learners’ writing ability improvement. The paper 
set out to determine the main issues about the 
effect of different error feedback strategies on 
EFL learners’ writing skill. After discussing the 
pros and cons of each strategy, the results of this 
paper suggest that it seems to be a bias if some 
certain types are concluded to be more preferred 
over the others as they can be applied at the same 
time for the best results. The findings from this 
paper hope to make several contributions to the 
current literature which highly recommended 
that the teachers need to be aware that the 
destination of any error feedback strategies is the 
learners’ writing ability improvement. Thus, the 
teachers could make the most of error feedback 
strategies’ advantages by combining or using 
them separately in accordance with particular 
situation’s consideration to find how these 
strategies would be most helpful to learners.
1. Abedi, R., Latifi, M. & Moinzadeh, A. 
(2010), “The Effect of Error Correction vs, 
Error Detection on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL 
Learners’ Writing Achievement” [Electronic 
version], English Language Teaching, 3, 168-174.
2. Bitchener, J. (2008), “Evidence in Support 
of Written Corrective Feedback”, Journal of 
Second Language Writing, doi: 10.1016/j.
3. Chandler, J. (2003), “The Efficiency 
of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for 
Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 
Student Writing”, Journal of Second Language 
Writing, 12, 267-296.
4. Delgado, R. (2002), “Effects of Different 
Error Feedback: Approaches in Students’ Ability 
to Self-edit Their Writing”, Revista de Studios 
Linguisticos y Literarios, 4(2), 3-16.
5. Deng, K. (2010), “Rethinking Error 
Feedback on L2 Writing”, In A.M. Stoke (Ed.), 
JALT2009 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo: JALT.
6. Ellis, R. (2008), “A Typology of Written 
Corrective Feedback Types”, ELT Journal, 
63(2), 97-107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023.
7. Fathman, A. & Walley, E. (1990), “Teacher 
Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form 
versus Content”, In: B. Kroll (Ed.), Second 
Abstract: Debate about the effect of providing error feedback on English as Foreign Language 
(EFL) writing has been the outstanding issue in recent years. The preliminary work on error 
correction was undertaken by Truscott (1996) which claims that grammar error feedback should 
be abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and harmfulness. In response to Truscott, Ferris 
(2008) states in her summary that error treatment, including error feedback by the teachers, 
is a necessary component of second language (EFL) writing instruction. In order to settle the 
debate, the investigation into how error feedback should be given to learners or the error feedback 
strategies applied in writing instruction needs addressing. As the error feedback strategies have 
received numerous controversies with different views, the paper intends to give an insight into 
error feedback strategies with different strengths and weaknesses of each strategy, which aims to 
support EFL teachers in selecting the most appropriate ones in their writing classes. 
Keywords: error feedback, English language teaching, writing skill.
Language Writing: Research Insights for the 
Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University 
Press, 178-190.
8. Ferris, D.R. (2008), Treatment of Error in 
Second Language Student Writing, Michigan: 
University of Michigan Press.
9. Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B. (2001), “Error 
Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit 
Does It Need to Be?”, Journal of Second 
Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
10. Sachs, R., & Polio, C.G. (2007), “Learners’ 
Use of Two Types of Written Feedback on a 
L2 Writing Revision Task”, Studies in Second 
Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
11. Truscott, J. (1999), “The Case for 
Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: 
A Response to Ferris”, Journal of Second 
Language Writing, 10, 111-122.
12. Truscott, J. (2007), “The Effect of 
Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write 
Accurately”, Journal of Second Language 
Writing, 16, 255-272.
13. Zamel, V. (1985), “Responding to Student 
Writing”, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.

File đính kèm:

  • pdf60_6712_2137245.pdf