IMPROVING STUDENTS’
GRAMMAR THROUGHERROR LOGS
Christopher Adam Lear
Jane Hislop

INTRODUCTION

The Problem• Repeated written errors/mistakes by L2learners
Research aim• Find an effective method which improves
specific L2 learner grammar without explicitly
teaching it

LITERATURE REVIEW• The “Grammar Correction” debate in L2 writing(Ferris, 2004; Truscott, 1996)• Corrective feedback (CF) – can only beeffective if students respond to it (Ellis, 2008)

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Direct feedback• Teacher provides correct form
• Students’ preferred feedback
type

Indirect feedback• Teacher indicates error• Teacher does not correct
 Indicating (coded) +locating (underlining) Indication only

• Cognitive problem-solving

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Uncoded

FocusedAn error has been
located in some way(highlighted,underlined, circled)

Intensive (specific errors)

FeedbackLITERATURE REVIEW CONT’D• Error logs
• Little research on the effectiveness of error
logs after receiving CF (Ferris, 2004)
Which errors to correct?

GlobalImpedes understanding e.g. verb tense (VT)

Merely distracting e.g. subject-verb
Local
agreement (SVA), plural/singular(PL/S)• Corrections of most frequent errors are encouraged.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Can error logs in combination with uncoded, focused feedback
reduce the frequency of SVA, PL/S, or VT errors in student writing?

2. Are error logs with CF more effective than only using uncoded,focused feedback?

METHODOLOGY
Academic Writing Course Participants Test Control

First-year

26

14

12

Second-year

331815METHODOLOGY CONT’D• Data collection (Quantitative)• Control and test groups• Groups selected randomly• Every five weeks

METHODOLOGY CONT’D• Errors tracked:Local

Subject-verb agreement (SVA)
Plural / singular nouns (PL/S)
GlobalVerb tense (VT)METHODOLOGY CONT’D• First submitted draft
errors recorded• Uncoded focused CF for
SVA, PL/S, and VT errors• Other errors given either
direct or indirect
feedback

METHODOLOGY CONT’D• Test group• Only SVA and

PL/S errors

1ST YEAR RESULTS - SVA
N = 14

N = 13

1st Year Control Group

SVA avg errors per word

SVA avg errors per word

7006005004003002001000700600500400300
200
10000012345y = -20.99x + 343.21
Treatments
R² = 0.1257
SVA avg errors per word

Linear (SVA avg errors per word)

67

1st Year Test Group

12345

Treatments

y = 23.615x + 334.83
R² = 0.0812
SVA avg errors per word

Linear (SVA avg errors per word)67

1ST YEAR RESULTS – PL/S
N = 14

N = 13

1st Year Control Group

PL/S avg errors per word

PL/S avg errors per word

600
500
4003002001000

1st Year Test Group

600
500
400
300
200
100
0012345Treatments
y = 28.07x + 119.2
R² = 0.7487
SPl avg errors per word
Linear (SPl avg errors per word)

670

12345

y = 72.06x + 64.73
Treatments
R² = 0.9751
SPl avg errors per word

Linear (SPl avg errors per word)67

1ST YEAR RESULTS – VT
N = 14

N = 13

1st Year Control Group2500

VT avg errors per word2500

VT avg errors per word

1st Year Test Group

2000

1500

1000

500

02000

1500

1000

500

00

12345y = 37.232x + 585.58
Treatments
R² = 0.0965
VT avg errors per word

Linear (VT avg errors per word)

67012345Treatments
y = 307.24x - 320.89
R² = 0.5471
VT avg errors per word
Linear (VT avg errors per word)

67

2ND YEAR RESULTS - SVA
N = 24

N = 24

2nd Year Control Group600

SVA avg errors per word

SVA avg errors per word

600

2nd Year Test Group

500
400

300
200
1000500
400
300
200
10000

12345Treatments
y = 19.212x + 225.21
R² = 0.1993
SVA avg errors per word
Linear (SVA avg errors per word)

67012345y = 35.957x + 142.22
Treatments
R² = 0.7114
SVA avg errors per word

Linear (SVA avg errors per word)

67

2ND YEAR RESULTS – PL/S
N = 24

N = 24

2nd Year Control Group600

PL/S avg errors per word

PL/S avg errors per word

600

2nd Year Test Group

500
400
300
200
1000500
400300200
1000012345y = 32.872x + 105.48
Treatments
R² = 0.8414
SPl avg errors per word

Linear (SPl avg errors per word)

6701234y = 27.116x + 141.65
Treatments
R² = 0.8709
SPl avg errors per word

5Linear (SPl avg errors per word)

67

2ND YEAR RESULTS - VT
N = 24

N = 24

2nd Year Control Group2500

VT avg errors per word

VT avg errors per word

2500

2nd Year Test Group

2000
1500
1000
500

2000

1500
1000
500
000

12345y = 32.65x + 105.64
Treatments
R² = 0.8408
VT avg errors per word

Linear (VT avg errors per word)

67012345y = 26.89x + 141.71
Treatments
R² = 0.8699
VT avg errors per word
Linear (VT avg errors per word)

67

RESULTSSINGLE FACTOR ANOVA
Statistical Analysis –1st Year P-values

Test

Control

Test vs Control

Subject-verb
Agreement

0.000009

0.0005

0.222

Plural/Singular

0.0000002

0.00009

0.074

0.000000000
Verb Tense
0.000000007
00004

0.0997

RESULTSSINGLE FACTOR ANOVA
Statistical Analysis –2nd Year P-values

Test

Control

Test vs Control

Subject-verb
Agreement

0.00030.00150.963

Plural/Singular

0.069

0.00230.074

0.000000000
Verb Tense
0.0000000092
096

0.0997DISCUSSION

What can be said about CF and error logs?
• CF does help reduce learner errors• Uncoded focused CF does result inimprovements in L2 written grammar• Error logs are not detrimental to theimprovements• Error logs have little influence on theextent of the improvements

RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVIEWED
1. Can error logs in combination withuncoded, focused feedback reduce thefrequency of SVA, PL/S, or VT errors instudent writing?

Yes and no.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS REVIEWED
2. Are error logs with CF more effective
than only using uncoded, focusedfeedback?

Error logs seem to have littleadditional effect on reducing specificerrors.

LIMITATIONSLimitations of this study• Only English majors• The number of errors and mistakes werenot individually tracked• The frequency of specific errors in theerror logs were not individually tracked

FUTURE RESEARCH

Limitations of this study• Comparison of errors versus mistakes• Track repeated identical errors• Comparison of global versus local errors
via error log

REFERENCES•

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63(2), 97107.

•Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we,and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…? Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.

•Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A responseto Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1-11.

•Hartshorn, K. J. Evans, N. W. Merrill, P. F. Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. &Anderson, N. J.(2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL wiring
accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.

•Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46, 327-369.