Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
IN L2 WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
ESTER D. JIMENA, HERWINDY MARIA TEDJAATMADJA, AND MENG TIAN
Assumption University of Thailand
One of the most frustrating tasks in L2 writing class is correcting
students recurring errors. As teachers, we are always in search of the
most suitable method to use in error correction for our students. This
empirical study investigates how coded feedback, as opposed to the
direct correction method, helps students improve accuracy in
grammar, vocabulary, and spelling in in-class writing assignments.
Its research findings come from analyzing data gathered from
freshmen students taking Preparatory English Course at the
Assumption University of Thailand.
INTRODUCTION
To most teachers, correcting students errors is one of the most frustrating tasks in language
teaching. Being in the field, we share the sentiments of such frustrations when our students
keep on making similar errors even after being corrected. Although some students were
eager to read the comments and corrections we made in their writings, most of them made
similar errors in their succeeding works. We appreciated those who approached us after
class and inquired about their mistakes, but not many of them did. At times we even
wondered whether our comprehensive correction actually helped the students make
progress or not. In other words, does the time we spend in correction do really help boost
students learning experience in class? Does it lead to learner progress? How can we help
them to become responsible for reducing their errors?
As we reflected on it, we realized that students needed more than just transcribing teachers
correction in their writing to avoid making similar errors in their future writing. The
realization of helping students fix their errors on their own prompted us to conduct this case
study to investigate the efficacy of coded feedback, as opposed to direct correction, in
It is an error correction method that directly provides the correct form to learners errors.
The strength of direct correction is that it is
less threatening and helpful to low proficiency learners (Ferris, 2002) . These students are
not yet capable of self-correct; thus, they need remedial guidance which is provided by
direct correction. However, it can increase learners dependency on teachers since they
might assume that it is just the teachers responsibility to correct their errors; this way,
students will just copy and the purpose of giving correction will not be achieved (Harmer,
1998 and Hedge, 2000). Furthermore, it is also possible that teachers might misinterpret
students original meaning, especially with ambiguous sentence. (Ferris, 2002)
On the other hand, coded feedback indicates not only where errors are located, but also
types of mistakes by using a correcting code (Bartram and Walton, 1991: 8). This method
makes correction much neater and faster due to the simple and systematical codes (Harmer,
2001). After the teachers and students are familiar with the codes, this method can actually
lessen the correction time and busy teachers, especially, will benefit more from it. The
responsibility given by
this method helps students to learn more effectively in the long run by being more
responsible through the process of self correction (Ferris, 2002 and Gower, Phillips and
Walters, 1995). However, t
he weaknesses of this method can not be ignored since
errors not specified in the error correction codes may be ignored, especially idiosnycratic
errors (Gower, Phillips and Walters, 1995: 168). It might be
threatening for low proficiency learners who are not equipped with the ability for selfcorrect and confusion might occur when students and teachers are not yet familiar with the
codes (Bartram and Walton, 1991 and Ferris, 2002)
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following codes in the table below were used in correcting students written
works. They are adapted from Lalandes ECCO (in Scott 1996: 103), Harmer (2001),
Hogue (1996), and Bartram and Walton (1991).
Types of Errors
Corrective Symbol
1. Tense
2. Verb Form
VF
SV
P/A
5. Singular / Plural
S/P
6. Pronoun
PR
7. Article
Art
8. Wrong Word
VOC
9. Spelling
SPE
WO
13. Omit
Pre-test (192)
No. of errors
11
11
35
0
6
13
1
0
13
13
39
36
14
Based on Table 1, the pretest and post test results reveal that students reduced their total
number of errors by 21% from 192 to 152. The results highlight the importance of selfcorrection in helping students become more responsible for their own progress in attaining
writing accuracy. This coincides with previous research (Lalande, 1982, Ferris, 1995c,
Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998, Reid, 1998b cited in Ferris, 2002: 19, Bates, Lane and Lange,
1993, Gower, Phillips & Walters 1995, Xiang, 2004) which signify that coded feedback is
effective in reducing errors gradually.
In particular, coded feedback reduced the following errors: T, VF , SV, S/P, PR, ^ and NC.
According to Ferris (2002: 23), these errors are categorized as treatable because they are
related to linguistic structure that occurs in a rule-governed way. On the other hand, errors
on PA, WO, ART, VOC, and OMIT were increased. Except for PA and ART errors, the
rest are classified by Ferris (2002: 23) as untreatable because of their idiosyncratic and
individualistic nature. Significantly, the error on SPE maintained its frequency from the
pre-test to the post-test results, which means this mechanical error needed more attention
and practice.
Table 2 Errors frequency of the three in-class writing assignments in Coded Feedback
Types of Errors
T
VF
SV
PA
S/P
PR
WO
ART
VOC
SPE
MISS
OMIT
NC
Pre-test (110)
No. of errors
8
10
13
1
6
2
WO
ART
VOC
SPE
MISS
OMIT
NC
0
0
13
8
23
26
0
1
0
15
10
24
40
6
Table 3 shows that students increased their total number of errors by 17% from 110 in the
pre-test to 132 of the post-test. Nonetheless, errors on
Meanwhile, errors on SV, VOC, SPE, WO, ^ , OMIT and NC are increased. However,
errors on PA and S/P are neither reduced nor increased. On the other hand, the students
committed no error on article in the course of the investigation. This implies the methods
weakness of providing the correct form to students errors without allowing them to selfcorrect. Thus, students progress is less likely to thrive.
Students dependency on the teachers as sole providers of correct forms of the language is
clearly seen from Table 4. During the process of receiving direct correction, students
eliminated almost all of their errors. This is due to the fact that correct forms are provided,
hence easier for revision purposes. Since the method does not give students the opportunity
to self-correct (Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982, Sommers, 1982, Zamel, 1985, cited in Ferris
2002: 65), it spoon feeds the students as they mainly transcribe teachers correction without
making further attempt to self- correct (Hedge, 2000).
In conclusion, coded feedback reduces treatable errors more effectively than direct
correction. It is the result of giving the students oppportunities to reflect on and correct their
own errors. Direct correction, on the other hand, is helpful in reducing idiosyncratic errors
and may take longer time to facilitate students progress in writing accuracy.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
Based on the results, coded feedback helps students improve their writing accuracy in terms
of grammar. In terms of vocabulary and spelling, students need guidance. Teachers should
provide ample assistance through activities like brainstorming, using concrete objects,
visuals like pictures, posters and so on to elicit words.
In addition, coded feedback might not be as effective as direct correction in treating
untreatable errors, which are individualistic in nature. These errors might be reduced
through highlighting them during class discussion, however teachers should be careful not
to offend those who made the errors. On the other hand, the treatment of these errors
depends on students level of proficiency regardless of what method is adopted. Thus, it is
vital for teachers to get to know their students capacities and potentialities.
In addition, the use of error awareness sheet serves as teachers guide in determining which
errors need immediate attention. Hence, the instruction in the remedial class can focus on
these errors. However, to enhance the effectiveness of the remedial class, the use of error
Writing.
Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
Oxford
University Press.
Tarone, E. and G. Yule (1995). Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Task. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Xiang, W. (2004). Encouraging self monitoring in writing by Chinese Students. ELT
Journal 58(3): 238-246.