Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:21:06.297Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adapting a grammar checker for learner writers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Mike Levy  and
James Garton
Mike Levy
Affiliation:
Languages and Applied Linguistics, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4229, Australia (email: [email protected])
James Garton
Affiliation:
Division of Education, Nathan, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the potential and limitations of Grammatik 5 as a tool for revising writing, particularly as a grammar checker and adviser. It will examine the proposition that writing strategies can be enhanced when the program is 'tuned' to suit a group of ESL writers, with grammar rules and advice written to meet the learner's specific needs.

The rules and advice designed by the authors for Grammatik 5 have been chosen and written on the basis of an analysis of errors in a corpus of learner scripts within the academic genre of essay writing. The corpus contains a set of 28 essays written by 4 students over a period of 14 weeks in a university course designed to develop ESL students' writing skills.

In the role of corrector the computer has to be unfailingly accurate. If, on the other hand, the computer is cast in the role of tool, to simply identify elements of the language to the learner, the shortcomings of the computer as infallible assessor can be avoided. This role is a more appropriate one given the complexities of evaluating written work and limitations in the capacity of the current generation of computer programs to correct reliably.

A basic assumption of the paper is that the goal in using a grammar checker in this way is to extend the learners' capacity to review their written drafts and develop a critical approach to the writing process. While grammar checkers and advisers are not infallible in their analyses of English sentences, good use can be made of commercial programs when they are adapted appropriately.

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , November 1994 , pp. 3 - 8
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brierley, W. Natural language processing, in Brierley, W. & Kemble, I. (eds.). Computers as a Tool in Language Teaching. Ellis Horwood. London, 1991, pp 71–85Google Scholar
Brock, M.Can the computer tutor? An analysis of a disk-based text analyser. System, 18(3), 1990a, pp 351–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, M.Customising a computerised text analyser for ESL writers: cost versus gain. CALICO Journal. 8(2), 1990b, pp 51–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brookes, A. and Grundy, P.Writing for Study Purposes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990Google Scholar
Cohen, A. Student processing of feedback on their compositions, in Wenden, A. and Rubin, J., Learner Strategies in Language Learning, Prentice Hall, New York, 1987Google Scholar
Knowles, S. Software review: Grammatik IV. ON-CALL, 6(3), 1992Google Scholar
Levy, M. Concordancing in the classroom: theory and practice. Proceedings of the ACTA/ATESOL 7th Summer School, Sydney, 1991Google Scholar
Levy, M.Integrating Computer-Assisted Language Learning into a writing course. CAELL Journal, 3(1), 1992, pp 17–27Google Scholar
Liou, H.Development of an English grammar checker: a progress report. CALICO Journal, Autumn (1991).Google Scholar
Reference Software International. Grammatik 5. Washington, DC, 1992Google Scholar