Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 5960

Dialogue
Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler
Chandlers criticisms of my recent article (Truscott, 2007), along with our earlier exchange, appear to reflect
fundamental differences between us on central issues. And genuine disagreements certainly do exist on a number of
specific points, some of which I will discuss in the second half of this response. But on the central issues, I actually find
little or no substantive disagreement; the appearance of conflict is just thatappearance.
The central point of my response to Chandler (2003) was that a mismatch existed between her findings and the
conclusions she drew from them (Truscott, 2004). The study found error feedback plus revision better than error
feedback alone, but she went beyond this, claiming to have shown that the former is effective and that teachers should
therefore adopt it. Such claims, I argued, represent conjectures, not research findings. In her subsequent response to my
criticisms (Chandler, 2004), these claims were notably absent. The same is true of her current response. While its tone
is one of strong, fundamental disagreement, the continuing absence of these claims suggests that the central issue
between us no longer exists. Her experiment did not in fact provide evidence that error feedback plus revision is an
effective teaching technique; discussion of its effectiveness in the study is conjecture.
On a related issue, Chandler writes that I erroneously said her no-revision group received correction and was
therefore not a control group. Here again the conflict is more appearance than substance. Her argument is in effect a
definition: These students had their errors pointed out but were not asked to correct them, so no correction occurred.
But when I said they received correction I used the term in the way Ive always used it, to refer to error feedback in
general, which of course includes that given to Chandlers no-revision group. This usage follows traditional practice
and is also common in Ferriss writing. Our apparently differing positions follow from this contrast in definitions. On
her definition, we can agree that the no-revision group did not receive correction. On mine, we can (presumably) agree
that they did. Disagreement over whether the experiment was controlled is a direct consequence of these differing
definitions, with equally little substance. Its unfortunate that Chandler doesnt distinguish the two uses of
correction, instead writing as if my statements assumed her definition when in fact they did not.
I would also suggest that my definition is the more useful of the two, at least in the context of the correction debate.
The anti position, as Ive promoted it, is a rejection of attempts to improve students writing ability by means of
responses to their errorswhat I and very many others have called correction. The pro side is a rejection of this
position. This contrast is captured by my definition. The line drawn by Chandlerbetween feedback and feedback
plus revisionhas no bearing on the debate, as it contrasts two versions of the pro position. Statements that assume
this definition are not relevant to anything Ive written on this topic.
In discussing Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986), I argued that their marginal tally group was in effect a control
group because its feedback contained no useful information. Chandler quotes this explanation, without challenging
it, and then wonders why I dont give the same treatment to an underline group. This is surprising, as her writing
clearly indicates that she does think underlining provides useful information, as do I and everyone else I can think of.
She goes on to give a partial summary of my view of Robb et al., apparently for the purpose of showing that its
misguided (cf. Chandler, 2003, 2004), but never says why she disagrees with it, or even if she disagrees. This
approach makes constructive dialogue difficult. On one point she is explicit: that only one of Robb et al.s groups
received correction. Since this group did no better than the others, the logical implication is that the study found
correction ineffective, apparently contradicting her earlier discussions of Robb et al., as well as her previous position
(2003) that all four groups received correction. I think the explanation is that her definition of correction has
changed.
1060-3743/$ see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.001

60

Dialogue / Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (2009) 5960

She says she doesnt understand my argument about students experience with English during the period of the
study in explaining the significant difference in improvement in accuracy between the groups. In fact, that discussion
was not about differences between groups; it was about the finding that one of them declined in accuracy. She also
expresses confusion about my statement, which Ive explained twice before (Truscott, 2004, 2007), that correction
probably harmed that group. During the study, this group was of course taking a writing course, with all the writing
practice, on a consistent topic, that Chandler (2003) said contributes greatly to improvement. They also had extensive
exposure to English in this class and outside it, in a university ESL setting. These factors should have produced
improvement, with or without correction (in my sense of the term). Instead, this group declined in accuracy. The
explanation, I suggest, is that correction was harmful, consistent with the overall body of evidence that I reviewed. I
have yet to see an alternative account.
I pointed out previously (Truscott, 2004, p. 342) that of the 23 error types listed by Chandler (2003) about half
were not grammar errors and conjectured that improvements in these types greatly contributed to the difference
between groups. I returned to this point in Truscott (2007). Chandler responds that she tried removing errors in spelling
and word division and found that with spelling errors removed the revision group still had significant gains and the norevision group did not. The switch from spelling and word division (two distinct error types for Chandler, 2003) to
spelling is left unexplained. In any case, removal of two (one?) of the non-grammar error types could not possibly
provide evidence against my conjecture, which was that the set of ten or so played an important role in the results. Nor
could a finding that one group still made significant gains and the other still did not. The appropriate indicator would be
effect size, not presence or absence of significance. Finally, my conjecture was not, as Chandler suggests, that only
non-grammatical error types showed improvement, but that only these types showed improvement as a result of
correction. Grammar errors could well have dropped due to avoidance, for example, and/or in response to the input
students received during the period of the study.
I conclude that on the central issues Chandlers comments do not reveal any substantive disagreements. On some
secondary issues, while the disagreements are genuine, I find no force in her criticisms. Some additional secondary
points cannot be addressed here because of space limitations, particularly avoidance and some issues regarding the
findings of her Study 2. I will respond to them elsewhere.
References
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12, 267296.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345348.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 8395.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on students ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255272.

John Truscott
National Tsing Hua University,
Department of Foreign Languages & Literature, Hsinchu, Taiwan
E-mail address: truscott@mx.nthu.edu.tw