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 Approach
to Teaching Grammar and Improving
Writing for ESL Learners
VOLKER HEGELHEIMER
DAVID FISHER
Iowa State University
ABSTRACT
English language learners are frequently unable to benet 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 the Internet
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 specically aimed at improving the writing pro-
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 this
problem. Even high intermediate and advanced NNS do not have the grammatical
2 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
and lexical wherewithal to benet from the process-writing-teaching approaches.
Thus, researchers (Hinkel, 2002, and others) recommend to specically 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 specically
designed 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 doing
so, 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 the Internet 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 Web
application.
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 benets 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,
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 3
Meyer, & Lorenz, 1984; Vann, Lorenz, & Meyer, 1991). The ndings 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 written
texts, 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 the
awareness 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, as
well 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 English
1
(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 signicantly more markers of simplicity or basicness such as the
be-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 intensication
(Lorenz, 1998), adverbial connectors (Altenberg & Granger, 2002), overpassiv-
4 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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 teaching
tools, 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 a
recognition 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 the Daedalus 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 peers
used 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 rst 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 while
Type 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
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 5
et al. (2002) described the Intelligent Web-based Interactive Language Learning
(IWiLL) system they developed to address these needs.
The signicant 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 more
emphasis 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 difculty, clear feedback, and accessible meta-
language), teacher needs (e.g., elimination of repetitive tasks, increased learner
independence, and identication 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 the
role 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 benecial. Chapelle
(1998) proposed seven criteria for the development of multimedia CALL based
on 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 modiable for negotiation of mean-
ing, and
7. 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 systems 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 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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 content
Adaptability 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 iWRITE system, 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-
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 7
ing expository writing. The essays were rated by two independent readers who
both agreed on the specic placement of students.
2
Perfect interrater reliability
was the primary criterion for selection. Once typed, the total collection of learner
texts amounted to 45 essays, or 12,839 words. In total, 1,268 errors were identi-
ed and marked. The following information was also captured and/or prepared for
entry into the relational database:
1. nationality, TWE score, and TOEFL scores of the writers of the essays;
2. essay topic;
3. contexts, solutions, and corrected contexts (all described below) for marked
errors; and
4. pointers to Flash movies, Word documents (marked during lming of
Flash movies), and reference (Additional Information) les.
Figure 1
Overview of the Creation of iWRITE
Stage 2: Learner Text Mark Up and Solution Production
At rst, ve essays were analyzed in detail, and the initial error categories were
modied according to the actual errors found in the essays. Subsequently, the
remaining 40 essays were marked using the coding scheme outlined in the Ap-
pendix, resulting in marked-up essays like the one illustrated in Figure 2. The
error codes were derived from error codes currently in use at the university and
modied to t the errors exhibited by the learners in this subsample. In addition
to grammatical errors, lexical errors, which Santos (1988) found to be considered
the most serious errors by professors who evaluated nonnative writers, were also
Stage Activity Corpus Relational
Database
Corpus and Design spreadsheets
Database Design Collect student writing
and Assembly Identify corpus
characteristics
Corpus Markup/ Assess essays (generate
Solution Production audio and video of
assessment sessions)
Collate Errors
Create XML versions of essays
Create general help/advice
Corpus Transformation Transform using XSL
Transform from Camtasia
to Flash
Interactive Corpus View errors and solutions
by error type
View errors and solutions
in essays sorted by TOEFL
score and L1
Generate worksheets from
essays sorted by TOEFL score
and L1
Watch and listen as instructor
marks an essay
Use concordancing program
to research uses of words
Placement
essays
XML
marked
essays
HTML
marked
essays
XSL
Reference
info
Camtasia
movies
Marked
essays
(Word)
Flash
movies
Interactions
enabled by
iWRITE
Corpus
Ancillary
Document
Meta-data:
Solutions
Contexts,
File pointers,
Test scores,
Etc.
8 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
included. The importance of focusing on both grammatical and lexical errors is
also supported by ndings reected 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 denition) 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 iWRITE to
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
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 9
1. draw on the relational database table that contains one possible solution for
the identied 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 link
in 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 the Excel Error Spreadsheet
Column name Brief explanation Example
EssayID Essay identier Spr0244 (i.e., Spring 2002, #04)
MainID Main error category Word-level erro
SubID Error description misspelling
MainSubNum Instance identier, the Nth oc-
currence of the same error
1
Item recently
ItemCorrect The corrected form of the
item. (Needed for identica-
tion purposes)
recent
Context The most recently problem I
met 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 signicance 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 <errorWord03 =subVerbForm08 mainSub=1>think</errorWord03> of being a parent?
Figure 3
XML Mark-up Illustration
10 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Video Recording
The research team also annotated Word versions 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
les were then transformed into Flash movies 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 identied, 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 x 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, iWRITE employs 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 iWRITE uses 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 iWRITE contain a set
of instructions about how to display each element (i.e., error type) for which a
tag has been dened. 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 iWRITE produce HTML docu-
ments that appear in the students browsers with certain error types highlighted
and linked to solutions.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 11
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 iWRITE soft-
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 iWRITE application (Fig. 5) gives learners access to ve
main components: Solutions, Essays, Practice, Marking, and Corpus, and a logout
option (see Figure 5).
Figure 5
iWRITE Homepage
XML
marked
essays
HTML
Error
Type
Docs
XSL
<?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?>
<!--edited with XMLSy v5rel4. U (http://www.smlspy.com)by David
Fisher (private)-->
<!DOCTYPE student Essay SYSTEM
http://129.186.46.171/placement/xml/studentEssay1.dtd>
<studentEssay>
<essayID>spr0136
</essayID>
<essayBody>
<paragraph>Have you ever <errorWor03 sub=verForm08
mainSub=1>think</errorWord03> of being a parent? Before you
<errorParagraph02 sub=TenseConsistency01 mainSub=1>have
decided</errorParagraph02> to raise a child, you <errorWord03
sub=VerbUsage07 mainSub=2>must have to develop
</errorWord03>some skills to communciate with them and think of some
<errorWord03 sub=CountUncountNounConfusion11 mainSub=1>
advices</errorWord03>that 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 <errorWord03
sub=Misspelling01 mainSub=1>quotions<errorWord03> (EQ) and
communication skills are better than<errorSentence01
sub=WordOrder08 mainSub=1>the others of my age
</errorSentence01>
<paragraph>
<?xml version=1.0 encoding=UTF-8?>
<!--edited with XMLSy v5rel4. U (http://www.smlspy.com)by David
Fisher (Iowa State University)-->
<xsl:stylesheet vesion=1.0
xmins:xsl=http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform
xmins:xsl=http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Format>
<xst:output method=html/>
<xst:template match=/>
<html>
<head>
<title>
<xsl:value-of select=/studentEssay/essayid/>
<title>
<link href=placement.css rel=stylesheet
type=text/css> <link>
<head>
<xsl:apply-templates/>
<html>
</xsl:template>
<xsl:template match=essayid>
<h3>Word Errors: <xsl:apply-templates/>
</h3>
<xsl:template>
Paragraph Errors: 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 communicate with them and
think of some advices that 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 (EC) and
communication skills are better than the others of my
age.
Sentence Errors: 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 communicate with them and
think of some advices that 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 (EC) and
communication skills are better than the others of my
age.
Word Errors: 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 communicate with them and
think of some advices that 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 (EC) and
communication skills are better than the others of my
age.
12 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
The Solutions section provides learners with access to all marked-up errors con-
tain in the learner corpus. Learners can select a specic 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
Specic 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.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 13
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 of
the errors appearing on demand in the right frame (see Figure 9). Here, both the
solution for the specic 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 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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 on
specic 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 le for reference or discussion (see Figure 11).
Classroom Application
The iWRITE has 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 iWRITE are outlined.
First, iWRITEs Solutions section can be used to help learners understand the
terminology (or metalanguage) necessary to begin to ask specic 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-
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 15
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 that
readers 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 Word documents, which can be used in a small group
activity in which each group member is responsible for nding (and correcting)
specic 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 iWRITE can 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 that
their 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 specic L1s can be made available.
16 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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 number
of 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-
cient with a specic medium correlates positively with the success the learner
has in extracting the desired information (p. 32). Many of the students who will
be using iWRITE have a good deal of experience searching the Web and working
with browsers and thus should be comfortable working with a system that uses
familiar 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
volkerh@iastate.edu.
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 identied in current SLA
theory and (b) enabling us as researchers to determine how (or if) the system was
effective 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 iWRITE as 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 iWRITE deals with predened 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
iWRITE in 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 prole of a learner (e.g.,
Granger & Rayson, 1998). Since the creation of the rst 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.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 17
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-specic problems;
students with varying levels
of L2 competence
Homepage with ve choices for initial
access; access to layered essays and
solutions from multiple points within
the system
Responsiveness
to learners
Immediate, performance-
based feedback encourages
learning
Not an intelligent system in its current
iteration; upgrade of hardware and
software 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 nd
the content that would
prove most helpful to them
Advice/instructions provided on each
webpage
Adaptability Activities at hugely
different prociency 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
interpersonal
communication
Need for students to
work together in various
interactions 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 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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) analysis
of 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.
NOTES
1
The ICLE is being compiled at the University of Louvain in Belgium. A detailed descrip-
tion of this effort is presented in Granger (1993).
2
The raters had three choices: place learners in the rst 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
REFERENCES
Altenberg, 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.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 19
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 proling 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 in
cross-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 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
Lorenz, G. (1998). Overstatement in advanced learners writing: Stylistic aspects of adjec-
tive intensication. 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) Hong
Kong: 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.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 21
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 that
I 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 inuence
me and modied 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 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2
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 indenite
article
For example, I had [?] experience
before.
DET 0401 missing denite 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 ying 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 a
child.
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.
Volker Hegelheimer and David Fisher 23
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 Journal for their concrete recommendations. The Corpus section is pro-
vided as a resource for learners that allows them to search for occurrences of
words 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 iWRITE were 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, and Language 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
Iowa State University
Department of English
341 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515/294-2282
Email: volkerh@iastate.edu
David Fisher
Iowa State University
Department of English
451 Ross Hall
Ames, IA 50011
Phone: 515/294-2180
Email: ddshe@iastate.edu
24 CALICO Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2