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.
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. PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATION 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 60 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 07 - 5/2017 v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY 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. CONCLUSION 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. References: 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. jslw.2007.11.004. 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 61KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 07 - 5/2017 PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v FEEDBACK STRATEGIES IN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING CLASSES LE THU HUONG 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:
- 60_6712_2137245.pdf