published_or_final_version / Education / Master / Master of Education

While various studies have investigated the effectiveness of certain types of error treatment methods, there has been little linguistic research conducted to examine how actual language teachers have been dealing with L2 learners’ written errors. The current research was designed to investigate the types of written errors ESL teachers corrected and the types of error treatment methods they used to correct those errors in the context of Bond University on the Cold Coast. Moreover, it was intended to highlight the relationship between the literature and actual practice in terms of error treatment of written work. In this study, sixty-six students’ written texts corrected by nine different teachers were collected and examined. The teachers’ treatment of the learner errors found in each sample were identified and classified according to their features. The findings from both quantitative and qualitative data on the patterns of error treatment were analysed, and following this, various comparisons were made. The results of the study indicated that despite the current trend of language teaching, error treatment was frequently provided by the teachers in the ESL classrooms. Moreover, the teachers constantly corrected the deviations of local aspects of the language, which did not seriously influence the intelligibility. In addition, the results of the study also demonstrated that the teachers used both explicit types and implicit types of correction methods in a hybrid manner, and they altered their mode of correction depending on the types of errors. They tended to provide explicit correction for wrong vocabulary and sentence construction errors whereas other surface features, such as grammatical and mechanical errors were generally highlighted with implicit correction, especially with correction codes. The findings of this study suggest that increasing the use of less-time consuming error treatment methods for rule-governed lexical errors and educating learners to be able to carry out self-correction could reduce the teachers’ burden of written error treatment. Moreover, constant information exchange would allow the teachers to revise, refine and change their ways to deal with errors. Until clear effectiveness of certain patterns of error treatment is proven by further studies, these suggestions could be made in order to maximise the benefits of the teachers’ treatment of written errors.

This qualitative study describes and interprets the interactions of participants in a community college writing class delivered by computer-mediated communication (CMC). The class represented a best practice model of learner-centered instruction in a CMC class. The description and the discussion are framed by five aspects of CMC instruction: (1) context; (2) technology; (3) communication; (4) learning; and (5) community. Offered via a computer bulletin board system (BBS), the class was an ongoing asynchronous electronic meeting. The participants actively accessed the class to interact and collaborate at all hours of the day and night and on almost every day of the term. The relational communication style adopted by the students reflected the formality, immediacy, and social presence of the instructor. Expressing the tone of friendly letters, most of the messages combined salutations, personal or social content, task-oriented content, closing comments and signatures. The mix of assignments and activities required students to act and interact individually, collaboratively and cooperatively. The students accepted the responsibility for interaction and initiated a majority of the messages. The instructor's communications were predominately responsive, facilitative, and coaching type messages. Assignments and activities that required interaction and information sharing stimulated the development of a sense of community for participants. The qualitative analysis and interpretation of the data generated two hypotheses: Hypothesis One Four elements of CMC instruction have critical impact on student participation, satisfaction, learning, and achievement: (1) the functionality and operational transparency of the technology; (2) the course design; (3) the instructor's attitude, style and expertise; and (4) the students autonomous choices about participation, interaction, and cooperation. Hypothesis Two In CMC instruction student participation, satisfaction, learning, and achievement are positively impacted when: (1) the technology is transparent and functions both reliably and conveniently; or (2) the course is specifically designed to take advantage of the CMC characteristics of time/place independence and interactivity to support learner-centered instructional strategies; or (3) the instructor's style is collegial and he/she operates as facilitator, model and coach; or (4) there is a reasonable level of flexibility to accommodate the autonomous choices students make about interaction and collaboration. / Graduation date: 1996

Creative Imitation is an alternative strategy to help students improve their expository writing in college composition. It combines writing by imitation with process modeling to increase student fluency with both the products and processes of writing. For centuries, a technique of "imitatio" was used to teach oral and written language traditions. Isocrates, Quintilian, and Cicero shaped the tradition of imitating writing models. Their principles were revived in the 60s by two neo-classical educators, Corbett and D'Angelo. Objections to the principles of imitation to teach writing are analyzed: models intimidate students, imitation focuses on the products instead of the processes of writing, and imitation reduces individual creativity. Some teachers have reported success with student-centered writing-by-imitation exercises in college composition classrooms. They assert that imitation exercises increase student awareness of correct usage, grammar conventions, rhetorical strategies, and paradoxically enable students to develop an "authentic" voice in their own writing.

While various studies have investigated the effectiveness of certain types of error treatment methods, there has been little linguistic research conducted to examine how actual language teachers have been dealing with L2 learners’ written errors. The current research was designed to investigate the types of written errors ESL teachers corrected and the types of error treatment methods they used to correct those errors in the context of Bond University on the Cold Coast. Moreover, it was intended to highlight the relationship between the literature and actual practice in terms of error treatment of written work. In this study, sixty-six students’ written texts corrected by nine different teachers were collected and examined. The teachers’ treatment of the learner errors found in each sample were identified and classified according to their features. The findings from both quantitative and qualitative data on the patterns of error treatment were analysed, and following this, various comparisons were made. The results of the study indicated that despite the current trend of language teaching, error treatment was frequently provided by the teachers in the ESL classrooms. Moreover, the teachers constantly corrected the deviations of local aspects of the language, which did not seriously influence the intelligibility. In addition, the results of the study also demonstrated that the teachers used both explicit types and implicit types of correction methods in a hybrid manner, and they altered their mode of correction depending on the types of errors. They tended to provide explicit correction for wrong vocabulary and sentence construction errors whereas other surface features, such as grammatical and mechanical errors were generally highlighted with implicit correction, especially with correction codes. The findings of this study suggest that increasing the use of less-time consuming error treatment methods for rule-governed lexical errors and educating learners to be able to carry out self-correction could reduce the teachers’ burden of written error treatment. Moreover, constant information exchange would allow the teachers to revise, refine and change their ways to deal with errors. Until clear effectiveness of certain patterns of error treatment is proven by further studies, these suggestions could be made in order to maximise the benefits of the teachers’ treatment of written errors.

Thesis (DAppLing)--Macquarie University, Division of Linguistics and Psychology, Department of Linguistics, 2008. / Bibliography: p. 404-418.

Published version of: Dissertation--University of Auckland (New Zealand), 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 215-233).

Thesis (MPhil (General Linguistics))--Stellenbosch University, 2009. / This study examined the impact of SMS speak on the written school work of English first language (L1) and English second language (L2) high school learners. The general aims of the study were to establish how widespread the use of SMS language is among high school learners, and to assess whether there is any evidence of the use of features of SMS speak in the English written work of these learners. Eighty-eight learners from an English-Afrikaans dual medium school in a middle class neighborhood in the Western Cape participated in this study. The participants included 43 grade 8s and 45 grade 11s, of which 51 were English L1 speakers and 37 English L2 speakers. The participants completed questionnaires from which the frequency and volume of their SMS use was determined, as well as the features of SMS speak they reportedly use while SMSing. In addition, samples of the learners’ English written work were examined for specific features of SMS speak. These features included (deliberate) spelling errors, lack of punctuation, over-punctuation, the omission of function words, the use of abbreviation or acronyms, and the use of emoticons and rebus writing. The results of this study indicate that high school learners are avid users of SMS and/or MXit. All participants reported using features of SMS speak in their SMSes, and many reported using SMS speak in their written school work. Despite this, the samples of written work did not contain a great number of incidences of SMS speak features. It seems that the general lack of SMS speak in the written work of these learners is a result of being able to assess when it is and is not appropriate to use a certain variety of language: These learners are proficient in SMS speak and use it when chatting to friends on MXit, but they can produce written work that adheres to the formally approved standards of written high school English. That said, a number of SMS speak features were indeed present in their formal written work, which indicates that SMS speak had some impact on the written work of these learners, which could in turn be attributed to the high frequency of their SMS usage. However, not all of the non-standard features of their written English could necessarily be attributed to the influence of SMS speak; specifically some of the spelling and punctuation errors could be unrelated to SMS speak, as they have been noted in the written English of high school learners from before the advent of cellphones. The learners in this study were from a school that has a strict language policy, one which does not tolerate the use of SMS speak in written work. Seven of the teachers completed a questionnaire compiled for all teachers at the school in question. Responses to this questionnaire, especially those of the language teachers, indicated that teachers either deduct marks for features of SMS speak in written language or refuse to mark written work that does not conform to the formally approved standards that the school has set in place. It is possible that the actions of the teachers and the language policy of the school play a significant role in the lack of SMS speak features in the written language use of the learners.

Thesis (M.A. (English Studies)) -- University of Limpopo, 2020 / This study explored the perceptions of students and lecturers with regard to written and oral corrective feedback in a first-level English course at the University of Limpopo. Specifically, the study was designed to establish the views of first entering students and lecturers around oral and written feedback. This study responds to widely-held views that students do not pay much attention to feedback, that even if feedback is provided, some do not know how use feedback systematically to improve their works, and that some lecturers are not investing sufficiently on provision of detailed, usable feedback. This study made use of classroom observations, questionnaires and focus group interviews to establish from students’ perceptions about oral and written corrective feedback in their studies and overall attainment of study goals. Furthermore, lecturers were also invited to participate in interviews to ascertain their perception on whether they consider written feedback essential and how it improves the students’ written English grammar. The study uncovered among others that students view oral and written corrective feedback as a tool that improves their grammar in English challenging long standing views that students are mostly interested in marks obtained in assessments. Data emerging from this study further suggests that participants view oral and written feedback as a device that helps students to improve in their usage of grammar and highlight the need to provide detailed, timely and constructive feedback in student’s academic work.

published_or_final_version / Language Studies / Master / Master of Arts