Gascoligne concluded that correction had a "profound effect": 88% of corrections were successful, 8% led to an incorrect change, and only 3% were ignored.

Summary of Correction Studies

These studies represent the most optimal conditions for correction to work: All students were university-level and were able to understand grammar. All were motivated to do well, in some cases grades were at stake. All had plenty of time, from 30 minutes to one week to make corrections and all had access to their grammar texts. All they were asked to do was rewrite their own corrected essay. Thus, all conditions for Monitor use were met.

When students are told only where the error is, they can only correct from 1/3 to 1/2 of their errors. They get better when given more information, but even when they are given the actual rule, and need only copy, they still miss 10% of the errors. This is hardly a compelling case for correction.

Ferris (2004) claims that successful editing of one’s text in the short term is "likely a necessary, or at least helpful, step on the road to longer term improvement in accuracy" (p. 54). It is considered a given that students’ accuracy improves when editing from one draft to the next. The "big question," according to Ferris, is whether correction helps students improve over time. My conclusion is that we have not even provided a positive answer to the "little question," whether correction under optimal conditions works even in the short- term.

THE ROLE OF OUTPUT

The Comprehension Hypothesis claims that we acquire language by input, not by output, a claim is supported by studies showing no increase in acquisition with more output (Krashen, 2002b). Studies show, however, consistent increases in acquisition with more input.

This does not mean that output should be forbidden. Oral output (speaking) invites aural input, via conversation. If you talk, somebody might answer back. The Comprehension Hypothesis predicts, however, that the contribution of conversation to language acquisition is what the other person says to you, not what you say to them.

Comprehensible input-based methods encourage speaking but do not force it. Students are not called on; rather, participation is voluntary.

Written output, in addition to its communicative value, makes a profound contribution to thinking. In short, writing makes you smarter. As we write, as we put our ideas on paper and revise them, we come up with better ideas. When it does not happen, when we have "writing blocks," it is often because we are not using what is called "the composing process," strategies for using writing to come up with new ideas. Strategies included in the composing process are planning (but having flexible plans), being willing to revise, delaying editing, rereading what one has written, and allowing periods of "incubation" for new ideas to emerge (see Krashen, 2002b).

5