Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A Sample Technology-supported Approach to Teaching Grammar and Improving Writing for ESL Learners

8/11/2019 Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A Sample Technology-supported Approach to Teaching Grammar and Improvin

1/24

Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 1

CALICO Journal, 23(2), p-p xx-xx. 2006 CALICO Journal

Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A

Sample Technology-supported Approachto Teaching Grammar and Improving

Writing for ESL Learners

VOLKERHEGELHEIMER

DAVIDFISHER

Iowa State University

ABSTRACT

English language learners are frequently unable to benefit from the prevailing

process-writing approaches due to a lack of grammar and vocabulary knowl-

edge relevant to academic writing. This paper describes how the need for explicit

grammar instruction as part of preparing students to write can be addressed by

using a collection of learner texts and transforming that collection into an on-

line grammar resource for intermediate nonnative speakers (NNS) of English.

Drawing on research in grammar and writing, the use of learner texts, and on-line interactivity, we outline the development and the prototype of theInternet

Writing Resource for the Innovative Teaching of English(iWRITE). We discuss

how iWRITE, through the judicious use of advanced technology (e.g., XML), is

an online embodiment of second language acquisition (SLA) theory that takes

advantage of the Webs potential for interactivity.

KEYWORDS

ESL Writing and Grammar, Learner Corpus, Web-based Resource Development, XML/

XSL, Interactivity

INTRODUCTION

Despite participating in courses specifically aimed at improving the writing profi-

ciency of English as a second language (ESL) learners, nonnative speakers (NNS)

are frequently not prepared to produce acceptable academic writing (Hinkel,

2004). Hinkel (2002) points out that, among other problems, the relative absence

of direct and focused grammar instruction, the lack of academic vocabulary de-

velopment, and the exclusive use of a process-writing approach contribute to thisproblem. Even high intermediate and advanced NNS do not have the grammatical


2/24

2 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2

and lexical wherewithal to benefit from the process-writing-teaching approaches.

Thus, researchers (Hinkel, 2002, and others) recommend to specifically include

grammar and vocabulary relevant to academic writing in the curriculum of writ-

ing classes for NNS. The availability of advanced technology coupled with recent

research dealing with learner texts allows for the creation of systems specificallydesigned to address learner needs (Kuo, Wible, Chen, Sung, Tsao, & Chio, 2002;

Wible, Kuo, Chien, Liu, & Tsao, 2001). An ideal platform for implementing these

recommendations into functional systems is the World Wide Web (WWW).

In this paper, we draw on research in the area of grammar in writing approaches

and suggest that technology can be instrumental in creating an innovative online

grammar resource aimed at raising learner awareness of troublesome grammatical

features. In particular, we show how, by harnessing the capabilities of technology

and implementing the principles of computer-assisted language learning, learner

texts can be transformed and integrated into an effective online resource. In doingso, we proceed as follows: First, we reiterate and highlight the need for includ-

ing grammar instruction as part of ESL writing courses, review the work that has

been done to date using learner corpora to assist with such instruction, suggest

features to be included in a Web-based resource based on information derived

from an interactionist view of second language acquisition (SLA), and review

existing writing systems. Second, we outline four stages used in the development

of theInternet Writing Resource for the Innovative Teaching of English(iWRITE),

describe the systems components, and give examples of its pedagogical uses. In

the last part, we propose empirical research to evaluate the usefulness of this Webapplication.

WRITING AND GRAMMAR

Hinkel (2004) points out the mismatch between what is taught and what can be ac-

complished by intermediate- and advanced-level ESL writers. Often, she argues,

intensive, individualized help with sentence-level syntax [] is needed despite

the explicit grammar instruction learners have received. Since learners frequently

do not have the competence they need, they are required enroll in ESL writing

courses. However, even these courses fail to adequately prepare NNS for the aca-demic writing expected of them. One important concern is that since the 1980s

writing classes have shifted away from a product approach to embrace a process

approach to writing (Hairston, 1982). While important for the personal develop-

ment of the learners, the new instructional methodology centered squarely and

almost exclusively on the writing process that fundamentally overlooked the fact

that NNS writers may simply lack the necessary language skills (e.g., vocabulary

and grammar) to take advantage of the benefits of writing process instruction

(Hinkel, 2004, p. 9). A related problem accompanying writing process instruc-

tion is the change of focus, whereby meaning and overall success in communica-tion receive exclusive attention at the cost of accuracy (Williams, 1995 as cited

in Granger and Tribble, p. 13; James, 1998). This lack of the required range of

lexical and grammar skills for successful academic writing has been investigated

by numerous researchers (e.g., Nation, 1990; Raimes, 1983; Read, 2000; Vann,


3/24


Meyer, & Lorenz, 1984; Vann, Lorenz, & Meyer, 1991). The findings reported in

these investigations play an important role in the design and creation of the type

of resource presented in this paper.

In addition to these concerns, it is the product, not the process that is evalu-

ated in academic testing situations in which students are asked to produce writtentexts, such as for assignments in most (if not all) higher-education classesex-

cept writing classes. Strikingly, even in most placement test situations in English,

only the product (i.e., the essay) is evaluated, while the teaching approach remains

process oriented.

A distinct, yet related aspect of process-writing approaches is that they integrate

peer editing. Research (e.g., Hyland, 2002; Hinkel, 2004) supports classroom ex-

perience that peer editing, while often perceived as helpful, may not provide to

lead students to improved error awareness and error recognition. Helping learners

focus on errors typically committed by learners from a particular L1 can raise theawareness of such problem areas and facilitate the detection (and prevention) of

certain error types. In fact, learners often want to focus on form and wish for a

pedagogical tool to serve as a reference and an easy-to-use resource. Neverthe-

less, the exclusive use of model texts that are not accessible to students is viewed

skeptically by students and may lead to unrealistic expectations.

What is needed is direct instruction coupled with explicitly pointing out mis-

takes in essays written by language learners. Hinkel (2004) calls for innovative

ways of teaching rather than more of the same. Recent development in the area of

corpus linguistics in general and in working with learner corpora in particular, aswell as advances in technology, may be ideally suited to play a key role in rein-

venting (or at least supplementing) grammar teaching as part of a writing course.

Each is discussed in turn below.

LEARNER CORPORA

Since being called a revolution in applied linguistics in the early 1990s (Granger,

1994), learner corpora have become a major source for learning about various

errors, including L1 interference errors, particularly in ESL writing. One major

project, the International Corpus of Learner English1(ICLE) consisting of argu-mentative writings by ESL learners from different countries, provides learners

with access to not only an error corpus, but also to a comparison group corpus

consisting of essays written by native speakers (NS) of English (Virtanen, 1996).

This type of research frequently informs pedagogy. For example, Granger and

Tyson (1996) looked at the overuse of connectors, which they hypothesized stems

from teaching learners lists of supposedly interchangeable connectors. Using a

fairly large corpus of over 1,000 texts, Hinkel (2003) looked at the level of com-

plexity exhibited by advanced NNS and compared it to texts written by NS. She

found that significantly more markers of simplicity or basicness such as thebe-copula or vague nouns were present in essays written by NNS. These learner

corpora have been used to shed light on various aspects of learner language, in-

cluding the use of connectors (Milton & Tsang, 1993), adjective intensification

(Lorenz, 1998), adverbial connectors (Altenberg & Granger, 2002), overpassiv-


4/24


ization errors (Cowan, Choi, & Kim, 2003), and syntactic and lexical construc-

tions in academic writing (Hinkel, 2003). Other contributions highlight the impor-

tance of the corpus design (Granger, 19093; Meunier) and the possibilities for the

creation of corpus-informed learning materials (Granger & Tribble, 1998).

In order to transform these learner corpora into useful learning and teachingtools, we must draw from the current research in CALL and online interactivity.

The next section situates the interactionist theory of SLA within the more general

discussions of online writing and pedagogical interactivity. In doing so, we pro-

vide a heuristic for the development and assessment of online tools.

CALL, WRITING SYSTEMS, AND WEB INTERACTIVITY

Phinney (1996) realized the importance of technology in writing and recognized

the following paradigm shift: As part of the changing culture of composition

instruction, there is a new emphasis on de-centering authority, coupled with arecognition of the importance of collaborative learning, and a realization of the

need for new models of writing and rhetoric (p. 140). A gradual shift from word

processing to collaborative writing in the late 1980s to mid-1990s necessitated the

development of tools to accommodate this shift in pedagogy.

However, writing systems were often developed by writing teachers in response

to a lack of appropriate writing tools (Phinney, 1996). This led to the creation

of more collaboratively oriented writing environments such as theDaedalus In-

tegrated Writing System and Prep Editor. The focus of these tools was in line

with the predominant process approach to writing and, therefore, teachers or peersused these tools mostly to make organizational and rhetorical comments.

Milton (1998) outlined an electronic resource aimed at creating electronic

language learning experiences. He described how a comparison of a nonnative

learner corpus, called interlanguage corpus, with a corpus of NS could inform

the creation of electronic exercises, tutorials, and tools (p. 186). Cowan et al.

(2003) discussed one example of a comprehensive electronic tool. Their extensive

CALL program, ESL Tutor, is aimed at investigating whether persistent errors

can be eradicated (p. 457).

Since the widespread availability of the Web and numerous Web- and com-puter-based writing systems, Wible et al. (2001) noted that content providers

often end up accommodating their content to existing systems rather than imagin-

ing first how the technology should be designed to accommodate the needs of the

content and the learners (p. 298). Maddux (2002), noting the exponential growth

in the number of Web-based educational systems, attributed part of the failure of

Web-based instruction to a lack of effective interactivity, which he called the

most promising, yet scarce characteristic that can be built into Web pages (p.

10). Maddux distinguished between two types of uses of technology. Type I uses

make it quicker, easier, or more convenient to teach in traditional ways whileType II uses make it possible to teach in new and better ways that are not oth-

erwise available (p. 10). Similarly, Wible et al. argued that Web-based writing

environments should be developed expressly to meet the unique needs of partic-

ular learning domains in ways that traditional classrooms can not (p. 298). Kuo


5/24


et al. (2002) described theIntelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning

(IWiLL) system they developed to address these needs.

The significant features these more recent resources have in common are that

they are built on or around learner texts (a learner corpus), that they are search-

able, and that they are Web-based. Also, the tools in these resources put moreemphasis on grammatical and lexical errors rather than on organizational and rhe-

torical problems. Finally, the systems attempt to simultaneously address learner

needs (e.g., appropriate level of difficulty, clear feedback, and accessible meta-

language), teacher needs (e.g., elimination of repetitive tasks, increased learner

independence, and identification of error patterns), and researcher needs (e.g.,

tracking student use of the system).

One theoretical framework that can serve as a basis for the development and

assessment of an online resource that integrates grammar, writing, and the use

of learner corpora is the interactionist theory of SLA. Focusing mainly on therole input and interaction plays in instructed (or classroom-based) settings (Pica

1994; Long, 1996; Gass, 1997), the hypotheses in the interactionist theory are

pertinent to the design of CALL activities and resources. Acquisition occurs only

when linguistic input becomes intake, that is, is comprehended syntactically and

semantically by the learner. Noticing linguistic input is viewed as a prerequisite

for acquisition (Schmidt, 1990), and noticing is more likely to occur during inter-

action. Hence, software features that enhance noticing in general and that help the

learner to focus on form (FoF) (Long, 1991) are viewed as beneficial. Chapelle

(1998) proposed seven criteria for the development of multimedia CALL basedon hypotheses that derive from interactionist-based research:

1. make linguistic characteristics salient,

2. help learners comprehend semantic and syntactic aspects of input,

3. learners need to be able to produce output,

4. learners need to be able to notice errors in their output,

5. learners need to correct their linguistic output,

6. target language interactions need to be modifiable for negotiation of mean-

ing, and7. learners need to engage in L2 tasks designed to maximize opportunities for

good interaction.

Chou (2003) sought to assist those developing what Maddux called Type II uses

of technologyor what we can conceive of as interactionist learning systems

by providing a list of interactivity dimensions culled from the past 15 years of re-

search on instructional design. These dimensions help us envision how Chapelles

interactionist criteria can be concretely embodied in a Web-based system while

also providing a rubric of sorts for assessing such a system s level of interactivity(see Table 1). Guided by these considerations, we describe in the next part the

development, implementation, and anticipated use of iWRITE.


6/24


Table 1

Interactivity dimensions (adapted from Chou, 2003)

Interactivity dimensions Brief description

Choice Ability to access information of varying types(i.e., multimedia)

Nonsequential access of

choice

Ability to choose route through information

Responsiveness to learner Systems responds to users requests quickly

Monitoring information use System collects data about users and their use

patterns. Users can access data about their use

Personal-choice helper Information helps learner make better choice

of contentAdaptability System adapts learning experience to

individual users

Playfulness Information arouses curiosity and encourages

learners to play and explore

Facilitation of interpersonal

communication

Users (instructors and students) can

communicate with each other online

Ease of adding information Users (instructors and students) can add

information to the system

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Taking into consideration the issues surrounding the opportunity presented by the

collection of genuine learner data in the form of placement essays, the advantages

of learner corpora, and principles derived from SLA theory, the development of

an appropriate Web-based resource also needs to include issues related to the Web

environment to arrive at an application that truly transforms a learner corpus.

Project Development

Figure 1 provides an overview of the iWRITEsystem, which includes the learner

corpus, documents and activities that support student/instructor interaction with

it. For clarity, we have divided the process into four stages which correspond to

the type of work undertaken on (or the instructional value we are adding to) the

corpus. In each stage, the corpus remains at the center of the process, and the

materials and activities that surround it serve to make the corpus useful to stu-

dents and instructors by enabling the interactivity that characterizes the iWRITE

interface.

Stage 1: Corpus and Database Design and Assembly

All essays selected for inclusion in the corpus were handwritten as part of an Eng-

lish placement test at Iowa State University on one of four different topics requir-


7/24


8/24


included. The importance of focusing on both grammatical and lexical errors is

also supported by findings reflected in other studies (Vann et al., 1984; Vann et al.,

1991), in which lexical and semantic errors were found to be most problematic,

particularly when committed by NNS. In subsequent versions of iWRITE, a dis-

play of errors based on error gravity will be considered, but the current incarna-tion does not assign weights to errors.

Figure 2

Example of a Marked-up Essay

Database Build and Load

In the next step, each error was put into a spreadsheet, along with identifying

information, and one possible solution (see Table 2). However, many times, sen-

tences contained multiple errors. Therefore, an error-free solution of the entire

sentence (or context) was entered into the spreadsheet. The marking and entering

was done by two different members of the research team in order to minimize

errors and to double check the marking of the errors. After the marking was com-

plete, the spreadsheet was loaded into a table in the relational database.

XML Mark Up: Creating Smart Documents

After the errors were uploaded into the database, the essays were marked up with

tags developed using XML. A set of tags (technically known as elements within

a document type definition) that represented each of the error categories (para-graph, sentence, word, determiner, and miscellaneous) was created. By identify-

ing each error uniquely within the error-category tags, and therefore within the

text of corpus itself (i.e., by establishing the linkage between the corpus and the

database), we were able to design iWRITEto

spr0204

The most recently problem I met was just few days ago when I first arrived the

University. Its my fault as being a 4-year University student. Campus is so Large, and

the wather is so cold. I totally did not know what I going to do when I arrived since I

was Late for the orientation program.

There is nobody know me, and nobody will come through and tell what going to

do next. Standing in cold wind, totally mess in the mind, such thing being a painful and

unforgettable experience for me.

0305 0307 0402 0507

0303 0307 0303

0401 0303

0301 0601 0307

0303

0106 [who]0105 0502 0107 [me] 0307

0401 0505 0402 0307


9/24


1. draw on the relational database table that contains one possible solution for

the identified error as well as a corrected context, in which all of the errors

in the text surrounding the marked error are corrected (these had been en-

tered into spreadsheets and uploaded into the database as described above),

and thus enable students to get solution information by clicking on a linkin the essay; and

2. make available the additional help reference pages for each type of error

from a variety of contexts.

Table 2

Contents of theExcelError Spreadsheet

Column name Brief explanation Example

EssayID Essay identifier Spr0244 (i.e., Spring 2002, #04)

MainID Main error category Word-level erro

SubID Error description misspelling

MainSubNum Instance identifier, the Nth oc-

currence of the same error

1

Item recently

ItemCorrect The corrected form of the

item. (Needed for identifica-

tion purposes)

recent

Context The most recently problem Imet was just few days ago []

Solution 1 The most recent problem I met

was just few days ago []

ContextCorrect The corrected version of the

entire sentence

The most recent problem I had

just a few days ago []

Figure 3 shows how these error tags look and how they correspond with the

entries in the relational database. This activity allowed yet another examination

of the texts to ensure the accuracy of the error marking. The significance of this

mark-up system is described in Stage 3: Corpus Transformation below.

Error category Error description Instance identifier

instance : Table

Tags indicating beginning and ending of error text

Have you ever think of being a parent?

Figure 3

XML Mark-up Illustration


10/24


Video Recording

The research team also annotated Wordversions of placement essays using the

Track Changes feature. This activity, along with oral comments made by an

annotator, was recorded using Camtasia, a program that allows users to capture

and replay motion that takes place on a computer monitor. These audio/video

files were then transformed into Flashmovies to permit speedier delivery over

the Web. The annotator did not have access to the marked-up version of the text.

Rather, 5 minutes were allotted to allow the annotator to glance at the essay before

making suggestions and corrections, which were often more qualitatively oriented

and included praise and constructive suggestions rather than only syntactic and

lexical corrections, mimicking an interaction between a student and an instructor

while reviewing an essay.

Reference Page Creation

After the major error types were identified, the team created a number of refer-

ence, or Additional Information pages. These pages contain detailed explana-

tions of the error, examples of how to fix the error, and links to websites where

students could go for more information.

Stage 3: Corpus Transformation

An important part of creating layered interactivity lies in providing students with

the ability to query the essays in various ways. In essence, the XML tags encode

some of the expertise that has traditionally resided in instructors and makes it ac-

cessible to students.

XSL: Displaying Documents Smartly

Like all tags developed using XML, iWRITEs error-category tags contain se-

mantic information only, not layout or other appearance information (as HTML

tags do). To display the marked-up essays in a meaningful (and pedagogically

effective) way, iWRITEemploys a number of transformations to output essays

in HTML so that students can view and interact with them. This output provides

students a means of using the marks provided by the essay evaluators without

displaying an overwhelming number of marks simultaneously. To provide this in-

teractivity iWRITEuses XSLT (eXtensible Stylesheet Language for Transforma-

tions) to highlight errors of a particular category within an essay while providing

links to solutions for the errors.

XSL (eXtensible Stylesheet Language) transformations involve a marked-up

document (like the learner corpus), a transformation stylesheet, and software that

creates a new document out of the two. The stylesheets in iWRITEcontain a set

of instructions about how to display each element (i.e., error type) for which a

tag has been defined. The transformation software creates a new document that

renders the data associated with each tag in the way that the stylesheet instructs.

In other words, the transformations that occur in iWRITEproduce HTML docu-

ments that appear in the students browsers with certain error types highlighted

and linked to solutions.


11/24


Figure 4 shows this transformation process. The XSL stylesheet (on the left) is

combined with an essay from the learner corpus (on the right). The iWRITEsoft-

ware uses the XSL stylesheet to create an HTML page in which errors of particu-

lar types (e.g., paragraph, sentence, and word errors) are hyperlinked to solutions

for those errors.

Figure 4

Transformations on an Essay from the Learner Corpus

Stage 4: Corpus presentation: iWRITE; a smart corpus-based proto-

type

The homepage of the iWRITEapplication (Fig. 5) gives learners access to five

main components: Solutions, Essays, Practice, Marking, and Corpus, and a logout

option (see Figure 5).

Figure 5

iWRITEHomepage

XMLmarked

essays

HTMLError

Type

Docs

XSL

spr0136

Have you ever think of being a parent? Before you

have

decided to raise a child, you must have to develop

some skills to communciate with them and think of some

advicesthat you might give them, in order to provide a

good environment for them to grown up with. As I have been advised

by my aunt when I was a child, my emotional quotions (EQ) and

communication skills are better thanthe others of my age

Word Errors:

Paragraph Errors: spr0136


have decided to raise a child, you must have to

develop some skills to communicate with them andthink of some advices that you might give them, in

order to provide a good environment for them to grownup with. As I have been advised by my aunt when I

was a child, my emotional quotions (EC) and

communication skills are better than the others of myage.

Sentence Errors: spr0136


have decided to raise a child, you must have todevelop some skills to communicate with them and

think of some advices that you might give them, in

order to provide a good environment for them to grownup with. As I have been advised by my aunt when I

was a child, my emotional quotions (EC) andcommunication skills are better than the others of my

age.

Word Errors: spr0136

Have you ever think of being a parent? Before youhave decided to raise a child, you must have to

develop some skills to communicate with them and

think of some advices that you might give them, inorder to provide a good environment for them to grown

up with. As I have been advised by my aunt when I

was a child, my emotional quotions (EC) andcommunication skills are better than the others of my

age.


12/24


The Solutions section provides learners with access to all marked-up errors con-

tain in the learner corpus. Learners can select a specific error and look at all the

instances in which that error occurred (see Figure 6).

Figure 6

Solutions Section

In addition to viewing the error, the context in which it occurred, and its solution,

learners have the option of viewing the error in the context of the essay by click-

ing on the image in the left-hand column (see Figure 7).

Figure 7

Specific Errors and Solutions

When clicking on the error in the context of the entire essay, the program provides

an error description, corrected context, and a link to additional information (see

Figure 8). Additionally, for all word-level errors, the program includes a link to

an online corpus.


13/24


Figure 8

Highlighted Error in the Essay

The Essays section provides learners with the opportunity for in-depth work

with essays based on native country, essay topic, and TOEFL scores. Essays are

initially displayed in unmarked form so that learners can choose an error category

(word or sentence level) and see the errors highlighted, with the explanations ofthe errors appearing on demand in the right frame (see Figure 9). Here, both the

solution for the specific error as well as the corrected context are presented. As in

the Solution section, a link to additional information is provided at the bottom of

the page.

Figure 9

Essay Viewer


14/24


The Practice section permits learners to generate worksheets in which the errors

in one error category are highlighted (see Figure 10). While it is possible simply

to complete the textboxes next to the errors and print them out, the recommended

procedure is to create and download worksheets in Word format, whereby the

errors remain salient through the use of font colors. Learners can then focus onspecific error categories and attempt to correct individual errors. They can then

save the worksheets for later use.

Figure 10

Practice Section

The Marking section allows learners to select essays and to watch and listen as

an instructor annotates them verbally and electronically (using the Track Changes

features in Word). A link to the marked-up version of the essay lets learners down-

load the file for reference or discussion (see Figure 11).

Classroom Application

The iWRITEhas immediate pedagogical applications in that it can be used to raise

learners grammatical awareness, encourage learner autonomy, and help learners

prepare for editing or peer editing. In this section, sample classroom applications

of each of the four major sections of iWRITEare outlined.

First, iWRITEs Solutions section can be used to help learners understand theterminology (or metalanguage) necessary to begin to ask specific questions about

grammar, which is one important aspect of becoming an autonomous learner. The

Solutions section presents the error terms and examples using appropriate gram-

matical terminology. The Essays section allows learners to dissect essays in lay-


15/24


ers since they can look at different categories of errors at the word, sentence, or

paragraph level. This section is ideally suited to classroom settings because it

does not confront learners with an overwhelming number of errors at the same

time. Plus, the essays are accessible by the writers country of origin. Therefore,

this section can be used to prepare for upcoming peer-editing sessions in thatreaders can review essays written by a writer from the same country as the one

they will read during the peer-editing session. The Practice section can be used

to generate worksheets as Worddocuments, which can be used in a small group

activity in which each group member is responsible for finding (and correcting)

specific mistakes at the word, sentence, or paragraph level. Upon completion, the

individual members can collectively correct the essay and compare the errors they

detected with the ones accessible through iWRITE. The last major section, the

Marking section is aimed at encouraging learners to interact cognitively with the

audio/video annotations of an essay. It can be used for peer-editing or error-detec-tion exercises in which unmarked essays can be downloaded and marked up and

corrected by learners who can then verify their choices using iWRITE.

Figure 11

Marking: Listen to and watch annotating in progress

Applications like iWRITEcan also be utilized during teacher training. In par-

ticular, the Marking section holds promise especially for nonnative teachers since

it is possible to observe model behavior of a writing instructor who is marking up

an essay. Similarly, the other sections could be used in teacher-training classes in

which the trainees would act as students while going through various essays try-

ing to identify problems. This might be especially fruitful for future teachers who

share the same L1 with their students and may be less likely to identify errors thattheir students could commit.

These are just a few potential uses of applications like iWRITE. Future develop-

ment of this application will need to include more learner texts so that multiple

essays from learners of specific L1s can be made available.


16/24


CONCLUSIONS

Building collections of online resources that focus on the needs of users is not a

simple process (Calverley & Shephard, 2003). We envision our effort, then, as

an attempt to create a prototype of what Maddux (2002) called a Type II system

in which pedagogical value is added to a learner corpus by providing a numberof different kinds of interactivity. As we took up the challenge of creating a Type

II system, we decided to use a browser interface and Web pages, rather than a

more proprietary model that might have been housed on a few computers in our

language-learning lab. We made this choice for two main reasons. First, Hillman,

Willis, & Gunawardena (1994) noted that the extent to which a learner is pro-

ficient with a specific medium correlates positively with the success the learner

has in extracting the desired information (p. 32). Many of the students who will

be using iWRITEhave a good deal of experience searching the Web and working

with browsers and thus should be comfortable working with a system that usesfamiliar Web conventions (e.g., links and back buttons). Second, we hope eventu-

ally to make this resource available to a number of teachers/learners around the

world at no or minimal cost, so the Web seemed the ideal medium. If readers

are interested in using the system, they should contact Volker Hegelheimer at

[email protected].

Next we worked to decide which kinds of interactivity would be most helpful

in (a) enabling our students to achieve the learning goals set forth in the ESL class

in which they would be using the system and by means identified in current SLA

theory and (b) enabling us as researchers to determine how (or if) the system waseffective in helping students with their language-learning efforts. Table 3, an ex-

panded version of Table 1 above, relates Chous (2003) interactivity dimensions

to student needs and instructor goals and outlines how this is accomplished in

iWRITE.

We view iWRITEas a prototype of smart, dynamic, and learner-corpus-based

applications that will enhance language learning in the near future. In this paper,

we illustrated one approach on how to transform a learner corpus into a sound

online resource using theory-supported design features and an iterative, dynamic

approach. This incarnation of iWRITEdeals with predefined syntactic problems.

However, the underlying architecture of this program can be used to address other

problems as well, be they more rhetorical aspects of writing or writings composed

by NS on a variety of topics.

While preliminary feedback from learners and teachers suggests that iWRITE

is viewed as a potential asset for language learning, what needs to be examined

in greater detail next is how language learners and language teachers perceive

iWRITEin terms of its potential to transform learners awareness of grammatical

errors and their writing. Among the various notions driving this line of research,

one ideal outcome would be to generate an automatic profile of a learner (e.g.,

Granger & Rayson, 1998). Since the creation of the first version of iWRITE in

June 2003, the resource has been used by approximately 200 learners in interme-

diate and high-intermediate academic-writing classes at Iowa State university.


17/24


Table 3

Interactivity dimensions and ESL considerations

Interactivity

dimensions

Needs of ESL students/

Goals of instructors

System function (Interaction)

Choice NNS may learn best

through multimodal

presentation of material

(i.e., aural, visual, reading)

Audio/video movies of assessment;

layered essay presentation; corpus

look up; reference sources; worksheets

Nonsequential

access of

choice

Students with varying L1s

and L1-specific problems;

students with varying levels

of L2 competence

Homepage with five choices for initial

access; access to layered essays and

solutions from multiple points within

the system

Responsiveness

to learners

Immediate, performance-

based feedback encourageslearning

Not an intelligent system in its current

iteration; upgrade of hardware andsoftware will become necessary at

certain intervals

Monitoring

information use

Need to correlate student

activity on the system

with writing/classroom

performance

Elaborate tracking feature tracks

learner access, which can be accessed

and viewed directly or through report

generating queries*

Personal choice

helper

Need to help students find

the content that would

prove most helpful to them

Advice/instructions provided on each

webpage

Adaptability Activities at hugely

different proficiency levels

are ineffective

Not yet implemented as of yet;

adaptability based on learners

interaction (e.g., searches) being

envisioned

Playfulness Need for students to

examine a number of

works/examples

Many essays; ability to explore

various error types; dynamic, layered

presentation

Facilitation of

interpersonalcommunication

Need for students to

work together in variousinteractions with tool

(handled in classroom)

Handled in classroom through

carefully assigned tasks and groups

Ease of adding

information

Need to add each years

placement essays to corpus

Information can currently only

addable by the savvy instructor; future

iterations need to allow students to

become active contributors

*Additionally, postuse feedback sheets combined with focused interviews complete the

data-gathering phase of the program.

As is the case with other additions to the curriculum, the instructors are experi-

menting with various ways to integrate iWRITE into their curriculum and their

classrooms. It is currently used to raise learners grammatical awareness, to intro-

duce metalanguage related to grammar, and to prepare for peer-editing sessions.


18/24


Indicative of how students perceive the resource is the following quote of one

intermediate-level student: When I revised my partners essay I used iWRITE

to help. We did it in class but I also did it outside of class. I think it helped, but

I still think its really hard to detect errors on my own. The use of this resource

also promises increased motivational appeal. During a semistructured interview,one student expressed his enthusiasm about the program by saying I particularly

like the marking component of the program. I love it! It feels like my tutor is sit-

ting beside me. Another students remark (When I peer-edit I look at paragraph

level, sentence level, [and] word level now.) hints at a positive analytical devel-

opment in that the notion of a layered approach towards peer editing seems to be

growing. However, while these reactions are promising, more research is needed

before conclusions can be drawn.

We end by reminding readers that Chapelle (2001) proposed a three-tiered

approach to CALL evaluation consisting of a judgmental (or logical) analysisof CALL systems and of tasks completed by learners engaged in such systems

followed by an empirical analysis. In this paper, we focused on the judgmental

analyses. Now empirical studies need to follow to evaluate CALL systems like

iWRITE and the effectiveness of tasks students can and should engage in. We

would like to invite researchers to make use of our system, to collaborate, and to

conduct empirical investigations.

NOTES1The ICLE is being compiled at the University of Louvain in Belgium. A detailed descrip-

tion of this effort is presented in Granger (1993).

2The raters had three choices: place learners in the first level of ESL writing instruction,

place learners in the second level of ESL writing instruction, or exempt learners from tak-

ing ESL writing courses and recommend their immediate placement into regular composi-

tion classes

REFERENCESAltenberg, B., & Granger, S. (2002).Lexis in contrast: Corpus-based approaches. Amster-

dam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Calverley, G., & Shephard, K. (2003). Assisting the uptake of on-line resources: Why good

learning resources are not enough. Computers & Education, 41 (3), 205-224.

Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on in-

structed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 22-34. Retrieved Sep-

tember 22, 2005, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1

Chapelle, C. A. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Chou, C. (2003). Interactivity and interactive functions in web-based learning systems: A

technical framework for designers. British Journal of Educational Technology,

34 (3), 265-279.


19/24


Cowan, R., Choi, H. E., & Kim, D. H. (2003). Four questions for error diagnosis and cor-

rection in CALL. CALICO Journal, 20 (3), 451-463.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Granger, S. (1993). International corpus of learner English. In J. M. G. Aarts, P. d. Haan,& N. Oostdijk (Eds.),English language corpora: Design, analysis and exploita-

tion: Papers from the thirteenth International Conference on English Language

Research on Computerized Corpora, Nijmegen 1992(pp. 57-71). Amsterdam;

Atlanta, GA.

Granger, S. (1994). Learner Corpus: A revolution in applied linguistics.English Today, 10

(3), 25-29.

Granger, S., & Rayson, P. (1998). Automatic profiling of learner texts. In S. Granger (Ed.),

Learner English on computer (pp. 119-131). London: Addison Wesley Long-

man.Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom:

Form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger (Ed.),Learner

English on computer(pp. 199-211). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Granger, S., & Tyson, S. (1996). Connector usage in the English essay writing of native and

non-native EFL speakers of English. World Englishes, 15 (1), 17-27.

Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teach-

ing of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33 (1), 76-88.

Hegelheimer, V. (2003). iWRITE[Web application]. available at http://iwrite.engl.iastate.

edu/placement/]. Ames, IA: Author.

Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interac-

tion in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies

for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (2), 30-42.

Hinkel, E. (2002). Teaching grammar in writing classes: Tenses and cohesion. In E. Hinkel

& S. Fotos (Eds.),New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language

classrooms(pp. 181-198). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 aca-

demic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37 (2), 275-301.

Hinkel, E. (2004). Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary

and grammar. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hyland, K. (2002).Teaching and researching writing. Harlow, Essex: Longman

James, C. (1998).Errors in language learning and use. London: Longman.

Kuo, C.-H., Wible, D., Chen, M.-C., Sung, L.-C., Tsao, N.-L., & Chio, C.-L. (2002). The

design of an intelligent web-based interactive language learning lystem.Journal

of Educational Computing Research, 27 (3), 229-248.

Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology.

In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research incross-cultural perspective(pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In

W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia, (Eds.),Handbook of second language acquisition

(pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.


20/24


Lorenz, G. (1998). Overstatement in advanced learners writing: Stylistic aspects of adjec-

tive intensification. In S. Granger (Ed.),Learner English on computer. London:

Addison Wesley Longman.

Maddux, C. D. (2002). The web in education: A case of unrealized potential. Computers in

the Schools, 19 (1/2), 7-17.Meunier, F. (2002). The pedagogical value of native and learner corpora in EFL grammar

teaching. In S. Granger, J. Hung, & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner

corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching(pp. 119-

142). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Milton, J. (1998). Exploiting L1 and interlanguage corpora in the design of an electronic

language learning and production environment. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner

English on computer(pp. 186-198). London: Addison Wesley Longman.

Milton, J., & Tsang, E. (1993) A corpus-based study of logical connectors in EFL students

writing. In R. Pemberton & E. Tsang (Eds.)Studies in lexis. (215-246) HongKong: HKUST.

Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and learning vocabulary.New York: Newbury House.

Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: Computers in the second language writ-

ing classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL(pp. 137-152). Hous-

ton, TX: Athelstan.

Pica, T. (1994, September). The language learners environment as a resource for linguistic

input? A review of theory and research.ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 105-

106, 69-116.

Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Read, J. (2000).Assessing vocabulary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Santos, T. (1988). Professors reactions to the academic writing of non-native speaking

students. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 69-90.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Lin-

guistics,11, 129-158.

Vann, R., Lorenz, F., & Meyer, D. E. (1991). Error gravity: Response to errors in the writ-

ten discourse of nonnative speakers of English. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.),Assess-

ing second language writing(pp. 181-196). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Vann, R. J., Meyer, D. E., & Lorenz, F. (1984). Error Gravity: A Study of faculty opinion

of ESL errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18 (3), 427-440.

Virtanen, T. (1996). Exploiting the international corpus of learner English (ICLE). AFin-

LAn vuosikirja, 54, 157-166.

Wible, D., Kuo, C.-H., Chien, F.-Y., Liu, A., & Tsao, N.-L. (2001). A web-based EFL writ-

ing environment: Integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers.

Computers & Education, 37( 3-4), 297-315.


21/24


APPENDIX

Error Codes and Examples used in iWRITE

Code Numeric

Code

Brief description Example

Paragraph

REP 0204 repetition of words,

phrase, or ideas

Im now experiencing this challenge

at this moment.

PRREF 0203 incorrect/unclear

pronoun reference

The teacher just sat there doing their

own stuffs.

TRANS 0202 transitions and

connectors

By the time passing on, he tried to

talk to me frequently and eventually

we had become friends. During that

moment, he was the only friend thatI had.

TC 0201 tense consistency Finally, I join them and we used to

smoke in the toilet.

Sentence

WO 0108 word order No matter how tough is my future,

I wont be afraid because I am his

daughter.

CS 0101 comma splice When I was a young girl, my parents

told me that Im not a lonely man, I

lived in society.

MW 0109 missing words But all in all it [?] a good rule.

MDO 0107 incorect or missing

direct object

I tried to persuade [?] not to smoke

in school but they just ignored me.

MRP 0106 incorrect or missing

relative pronoun

I walk through the campus and get

into the building seeking someone

[?] could help me.

SV 0105 S-V agreement My parents wants the best out of me.PS 0104 parallel structure Therefore, he had tried to influence

me and modified the concept of my

life.

FRAG 0103 fragment From that moment.

RUNON 0102 run-on I like her advice and use her advice

so Im very healthy and I have a

very good life now.

SENT 0110 embedded sentence

problem

When I was a child, my parents

always told me that not to play

basketball.


22/24


Word

PLURAL 0306 plural/singular

confusion

So with my eye wet, I went to sleep.

POS 0305 part of speech error Anyway, my mother always advice

me not to waste food.

VBUSE 0307 verb usage So, we all allow to play a game.

VBFORM 0308 verb form Have you ever think of being a

parent?

CHOICE 0309 word choice I know the truth and I may throw

their advice.

COUNT 0311 countable/uncountable

noun confusion

When I was still a child, my parents

used to give me a lot of advices.

SPELL 0301 misspelling I realy appriciate my parents advice.

Determiner

DET 0403 wrong article He is a optimistic person.

DET 0404 unnecessary article He brought a gambling cards.

DET 0402 missing indefinite

article

For example, I had [?] experience

before.

DET 0401 missing definite article Now, he is running a very good

restaurant in [?] local community.

Misc

PREP 0503 preposition selection She saw us lining up at the corridor

to receive our punishment.

EXP 0504 idiomatic expression People who study smart in the exam

will get flying color result.

UNCLEAR 0505 unclear meaning,

ambiguous

I think its a very good method in

ones growed way.

PREP 0506 unnecessary

preposition

I have listen to this sentence for

hundreds of times since I was achild.

PREP 0507 missing preposition She always works from early

morning until late [?] night.

PHVRB 0502 phrasal verb Finally they were caught by the on-

duty staff and kick off from school.


23/24


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Carol Chapelle for her insightful comments and sug-

gestions on earlier versions of this manuscript and the anonymous reviewers for

CALICO Journalfor their concrete recommendations. The Corpus section is pro-

vided as a resource for learners that allows them to search for occurrences ofwords as used by NS. The search queries the Brown corpus using the application

program interface (API) provided for interfacing with a concordance application

written and provided by Chris Greaves. Parts of iWRITEwere developed as part

of a research project funded by a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Faculty

Development Grant at Iowa State University.

AUTHORS BIODATA

Volker Hegelheimer is currently Assistant Professor in the Department of Eng-

lish and the M.A. Program in Teaching English as a Second Language/Applied

Linguistics at Iowa State University. He teaches graduate courses on technology

in language teaching and research and undergraduate and graduate courses in

English as a Second Language. His research interests include applications of the

WWW and emerging technologies in language learning and language testing. His

publications have appeared in journals such as Language Testing, System, Re-

CALL, andLanguage Learning & Technology. He is the author of iWRITE.

David Fisher is a Ph.D. student in Rhetoric and Professional Communication at

Iowa State University. He has worked for several years in the software-develop-ment industry as a designer, writer, trainer, tester, analyst, and project manager.

His research interests include situated learning, school-workplace transitions, and

instructional design. He is the chief programmer and designer of iWRITE.

AUTHORS ADDRESSES

Volker Hegelheimer


Department of English

341 Ross Hall

Ames, IA 50011

Phone: 515/294-2282

Email: [email protected]

David Fisher


Department of English

451 Ross Hall

Ames, IA 50011Phone: 515/294-2180

Email: [email protected]


24/24
