She is particularly interested in the various research methods and measures used in studying L2 writing as well as the interface between the fields of L2 writing and second language acquisition. She has also published and done research in the areas of second language acquisition, foreign language classroom discourse, and behavior differences in novice vs. experienced teachers. For a list of Charlene Polio's numerous publications, visit: https://www.msu.edu/~polio/
Dr. Polio conducts workshops for foreign language teachers through MSU's Center for Language Education and Research and the Center for Language Teaching Advancement, where she is in charge of professional development. She has been a visiting instructor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto and Teachers College, Columbia University. She has taught ESL at MSU, UCLA, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Graduate School in Beijing, and Philadelphia Community College.
She is the current editor of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, served on the editorial board of Journal of Second Language Writing for eight years, and completed a term on the board of TESOL Quarterly.
Plenary: The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate
The controversies surrounding written error correction can be traced to Truscott (1996) in his polemic against written error correction. He claimed that empirical studies showed that error correction was ineffective and that this was to be expected “given the nature of the correction process and the nature of Language learning” (p. 328, emphasis added). Although many empirical studies have investigated the effectiveness of written error correction, few researchers have delved into the claim that written error correction is incompatible with theories of second language acquisition (SLA). This presentation discusses written error correction from the perspective of various approaches to SLA and what they might have to say about written error correction. In addition, studies that are conducted within the various approaches are described. I argue that
despite differences in the various approaches, some conclusions can be drawn, most notably, that written error correction could be effective in certain conditions. I also argue that L2 writing studies done within certain approaches to SLA could move the field forward. Finally, I end with a research agenda that can help clarify the error correction controversy.
Workshop: How to give (and not give) feedback on written language
In this workshop, I will first review different methods for providing language feedback on student writing, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods. In addition, I will present ways to help students pay attention to and use the feedback effectively. Finally, I will argue that not all writing needs to be corrected and that teachers can structure assignments to provide opportunities for students to self-correct.
