The Extent to Which Classroom Teaching Options and Independent Learning Activities Can Help L2 Writers Improve the Accuracy of Their Writing

In recent years there has been an increasing awareness amongst L2 writing researchers and teachers that classroom-based instruction can play a significant role in helping L2 learners improve the accuracy of their written texts (Ferris , 2002, 2003, 2004). While less evidence is currently available on the role that various independent learning activities may also play in such development, it has been suggested that learners can continue the language learning process outside the classroom if they are prepared to engage in some form of independent learning activity such as self-editing early drafts of written work, keeping error logs on progress that is made in mastering problematic error categories, and following up on grammar instruction with 'self-study' materials and activities. This paper examines the published research findings on the effectiveness of these options and offers suggestions for classroom teachers designing strategies to help their L2 writers become more effective as independent learners and as critical self-editors of their texts. Section One considers the published research on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on L2 writing errors. Section Two examines the research evidence on the effect of integrating different teaching feedback strategies and independent learning activities. Particular attention is given to (a) written teacher feedback, (b) oral teacher feedback, and (c) error logs. The research evidence presented in section three looks at the effect of different linguistic error categories and the extent to which L2 writers can work independently on overcoming particular types of error. Research Evidence on Whether Error Correction Results in Improved Accuracy Only a few studies have attempted to directly investigate whether L2 students, who receive written corrective feedback on their errors, are able to improve the accuracy of their writing compared with those who do not receive error feedback. Each of these studies (Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992) has reported no significant difference in the writing accuracy of the students. However, it needs to be noted that three of the studies (Polio et al., 1998; Robb et al., 1986; Sheppard, 1992) did not include a non-feedback control group so the extent to which we can rely on these claims is debatable. Although Fathman and Whalley (1990) found that fewer grammatical errors were made by students who received error feedback, it should be