The Case Against Grammar Correction & a Response to Truscott, Article Review Example

In the 1996 article “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes,” John Truscott of the National Tsing Hua University argues that correcting grammar errors and mistakes in papers written by ESL (English as a Second Language) students in L2 writing classes is a waste of time and should be abandoned for three specific reasons–1), the body of evidence demonstrates that correcting grammar errors is ineffective and that “none of it shows it to be helpful in any interesting sense;” 2), that because of “theoretical and practical reasons, one can expect it to be ineffective;” and 3), the correction of grammar errors and mistakes can result in harmful effects (327).

Truscott breaks his argument down into a number of specific points concerning his claim that correcting grammar errors and mistakes made by ESL students in an L2 writing class is a worthless endeavor and should be abandoned by ESL teachers. First of all, current evidence and research shows that the process of grammar correction does not work; secondly, grammar correction cannot work because of theoretical problems and what Truscott refers to as “pseudo-learning”; third, 3), grammar correction creates a number of harmful effects related to maintaining a positive attitude, the overall quality and complexity of the student’s writing, and waste precious time regarding the learning process itself; fourth, there is no reason to correct grammar errors in the first place; and fifth (Truscott’s basic thesis for his article), “grammar correction should be abandoned” and replaced with a more practical approach for ESL teachers (329-360).

In response to Truscott’s claim, Jean Chandler, an instructor for ESL students at a post-secondary institution, openly agrees that the “efficacy (or efficiency related to making ESL students better writers) of error correction is a central issue for the theory and practice of writing instruction” but only in relation to ESL students and not “first language learners” such as traditional American students, and “other ages and populations of second language learners,” such as bright and often gifted East Asian students studying music at the New England Conservatory of Music in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a “population” which Chandler points out is “convinced. . . that receiving error feedback on their writing is an important way to learn English” (“Dialogue: A Response to Truscott,” 345-346).

Although Chandler does agree with Truscott at the foundational level, she insists that in order to fully accept his claim related to abandoning the practice of grammatical correction, additional studies are required via 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.” Chandler then cites a much earlier study (1978) which revealed that “correcting learners’ errors helps them discover the functions and limitations of the syntactical and lexical forms of the target language,” in this case English (“Dialogue: A Response to Truscott,” 348).

In response to both Truscott and Chandler’s statements and viewpoints, it seems logical to assume that correcting grammatical errors and mistakes in papers written by ESL students would help them to more fully understand the intricacies and complexities of the English language and make fewer grammatical errors in the future. Also, Truscott appears to be suggesting that ESL students do not and cannot learn anything when grammatical errors are pointed out in a paper; therefore, ESL teachers should simply let them go (i.e., the errors and mistakes) as if they did not even exist. In addition, Chandler hits the mark with her observation that other studies should be done so as to determine if correcting grammatical errors is truly a waste of time or if it does indeed serve a useful purpose when it comes to teaching presumably immigrant students how to write the English language properly.

Bibliography

Chandler, Jean. “Dialogue: A Response to Truscott.” Journal of second Language Writing 13 (2004): 345-348.

Truscott, John. “The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.” Language Learning 46:2 (June 1996): 327-369.