Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms

Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312
Error correction in L2 secondary writing

classrooms: The case of Hong Kong
Icy Lee*
Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, University Road Campus,
1/F, R2, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China
Abstract
Error correction research has focused mostly on whether teachers should correct errors in student
writing and how they should go about it. Much less has been done to ascertain L2 writing teachers’
perceptions and practices as well as students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding error feedback. The
present investigation seeks to explore the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong
secondary writing classroom from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were gathered
from three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire and follow-up interviews,
(2) a teacher error correction task, and (3) a student survey made up of a questionnaire and follow-up
interviews. The results revealed that both teachers and students preferred comprehensive error
feedback, the teachers used a limited range of error feedback strategies, and only about half of the
teacher corrections of student errors were accurate. The study also showed that the students were
reliant on teachers in error correction, and that the teachers were not much aware of the long-term
significance of error feedback. Possible implications pertaining to ways to improve current error
correction practices were discussed.
# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Error correction; Second language writing; Secondary writing; Writing in Hong Kong
1. Introduction
The reasons why teachers should correct errors and how they should do it are topics of
constant debate. Although there is research that suggests error correction is ineffective as a
* Tel.: +852 3411 7726; fax: +852 3411 7894.

E-mail address: icylee@hkbu.edu.hk.
1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
286 I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312
means of improving student writing (Cohen & Robbins, 1976; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998;
Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Truscott, 1996), writing teachers know too well that
students are frustrated by the lack of feedback on their written errors. There is research
evidence to show that L2 students want error feedback and believe that they benefit from it
(Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). However unnecessary and out of vogue error
correction is to some writing researchers, in the classroom, error correction is a real and
urgent issue that commands teachers’ attention. This study seeks to explore the existing
error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom. It attempts to
investigate error correction from both the teachers’ and students’ perspectives—i.e., what
teachers and students think and believe as well as how teachers actually correct errors in
writing.
1.1. Terminology
Since a number of similar and related terms pertaining to ‘‘error correction’’ have been
used in the literature, a clarification of terms is in order here. When writing teachers
‘‘mark’’ student errors in writing, they provide ‘‘feedback’’ on errors using different
strategies; that is, they provide ‘‘error feedback’’ on student writing. The kind of feedback
in ‘‘error feedback’’ is limited to responses to and comments on grammatical errors. When
teachers ‘‘correct’’ errors in student writing, or when students say they want their teachers
to ‘‘correct’’ their errors, ‘‘correcting’’ errors can be used to convey a dual meaning. It can
refer to the general activity of the teacher providing feedback on student errors. It can also
refer specifically to the teacher providing corrections for student errors, which is one
specific error feedback strategy. To avoid confusion, in this paper, ‘‘error correction’’ is
used to refer to the general activity of providing ‘‘error feedback’’ on student errors. Thus,
the terms ‘‘error correction’’ and ‘‘error feedback’’ are used interchangeably. The specific
error feedback strategy where the teacher provides corrections for student errors is referred
to as ‘‘overt correction’’ or ‘‘direct error feedback.’’
1.2. Literature review
A great deal of error correction research has focused on the effects of strategies—i.e.,
how various error correction techniques impinge on student writing (e.g., Ferris, Chaney,
Komura, Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Frantzen, 1995; Sheppard, 1992).
The research findings, though inconclusive, have raised several significant issues for
writing teachers to consider. First, writing teachers have to decide whether they should give
direct or indirect feedback on student errors. Direct error feedback (i.e., overt correction)
involves the provision of the correct forms or structures for students’ faulty sentences
(Hendrickson, 1980). Indirect error feedback refers to providing feedback on student errors
without giving the correct forms or structures, e.g., by simply underlining the errors. There
is research evidence suggesting that indirect error feedback brings more benefits to
students’ long-term writing development than direct error feedback (see Ferris, 2003;
Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982) through ‘‘increased student engagement and attention to
forms and problems’’ (Ferris, 2003, p. 52). Ferris (2002) maintains that the danger of direct
error feedback is that teachers may misinterpret students’ meaning and put words into their
I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312 287
mouths, though direct feedback may be appropriate for beginner students and when the
errors are ‘‘untreatable’’ (i.e., errors that students are not able to self-correct, such as syntax
and vocabulary errors) (see Ferris, 2002, 2003).
In giving indirect error feedback, writing teachers have to decide whether to indicate
error location directly (e.g., by circling or underlining errors) or indirectly (e.g., by
indicating in the margin that there is an error on a certain line). Robb et al. (1986) found that
students’ performance in error correction is not affected by the salience of the error
feedback, including whether error location is made explicit for students. Contrary results
are obtained in Lee’s (1997) investigation, which shows that direct prompting of error
location is more helpful than indirect prompting, since students are able to correct more
errors when errors are directly located for them. In Lee’s study, however, the students read a
text not written by themselves. The results might have been different if students had edited
their own texts.
Another decision writing teachers have to make in giving indirect error feedback is
whether they should identify error types for students. This involves the use of error codes
(e.g., using ‘‘T’’ to indicate a verb tense error) and is referred to as coded error feedback (as
opposed to uncoded error feedback, where errors are underlined or circled only). Raimes
(1991) thinks that error identification is worthwhile and meaningful, as it is a useful starting
point for discussing errors with students. Ferris (2002), however, argues that identifying
errors can be ‘‘cumbersome for the teacher and confusing for the student’’ (p. 67). Lee
(1997) cautions that teachers may be over-estimating students’ ability to interpret marking
codes, as teachers may be ‘‘using a wider range of metalinguistic terms than students could
understand’’ (p. 471). The usefulness of error codes (or symbols) is further questioned by
Ferris et al. (2000) as well as Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found no significant
differences in self-editing performance between students who receive coded error feedback
and those who receive uncoded error feedback.
Regardless of which of the above error correction techniques teachers use, a
fundamental issue writing teachers are faced with is whether to mark all student errors.
Research on error correction has repeatedly emphasized the disadvantages of
comprehensive error feedback, i.e., marking all student errors. Two decades ago, Zamel
(1982, 1985) pointed out that excessive attention to student errors turned writing teachers
into grammar teachers, distracting them from other more important concerns in writing
instruction. Hairston (1986) warns that writing teachers should not be ‘‘composition
slaves’’ (p. 117). Unfortunately, many ESL teachers are still slaving over student writing,
rendering error correction exhausting for teachers (Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 2002;
Mantello, 1997) and frustrating for students (Reid, 1998).
The literature on error correction has also underlined the importance of error treatment
beyond teacher error correction (see Ferris, 2002). It is suggested that teachers should use
error correction in conjunction with other strategies to help students treat their own errors.
Error logs, for example, are put forward as a useful way to help students monitor and assess
their own progress (see Ferris, 2002).
Apart from research on teachers’ error correction, there are studies on student
preferences about, reactions to, and coping strategies for teacher feedback (Cohen, 1987,
1991; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris et al., 2000; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996;
Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). Overall, the research findings suggest that students
want teachers to correct errors for them. For instance, Leki’s (1991) investigation into ESL
students’ preferences regarding error correction in writing shows that the majority of the
ESL students in the study want their teachers to correct errors for them. Hedgcock and
Lefkowitz (1994) found in their investigation that FL college students tend to value teacher
comments and corrections on grammatical, lexical, and mechanical features more than
those on content and style, while the opposite is true for ESL college students. In their
study, both ESL and EFL students express moderate preference for the use of correction
symbols, and both dislike the teachers’ use of the red pen.
2. The study
2.1. Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom
In Hong Kong secondary schools, writing in English is considered crucial to students’

language development. The English syllabus for secondary schools states that writing is an
important skill ‘‘because in real life people often have to communicate with each other in
writing . . . . Writing is also important in that it helps learners learn. It reinforces the
language structures and vocabulary that learners acquire’’ (Curriculum Development
Council [CDC], 1999, p. 84). It is interesting to note that in the English syllabus, which is
the only official guide for English teachers in Hong Kong, ‘‘reinforcing language structures
and vocabulary’’ is stipulated as a very important goal of writing instruction, appearing in
the third sentence of the first paragraph about the teaching of writing. The importance to
provide ‘‘learners with ample opportunities to demonstrate their creativity, originality and
independent thinking,’’ on the other hand, is mentioned only in the last sentence of the
same paragraph (CDC, 1999, p. 84). The typical writing classroom in Hong Kong is
dominated by the teaching of grammar and the teaching of language, with less attention
paid to the discourse features of writing (Lee, 1998). A primarily product-oriented
approach is adopted, and writing is treated as a ‘‘one-off’’ activity—i.e., students write a
composition and submit it immediately afterwards (Lee & Lee, 1997). Writing is tested
rather than taught. A secondary-level English teacher teaches an average of three English
classes, with about 40 students in each class. Students submit a composition once every 2 or
3 weeks. Students in Grades 7–8 (i.e., Forms 1–3) are required to write compositions of
120–250 words on average, in Grades 9–10 (i.e., Forms 4–5) an average of 250–300 words,
and in Grades 12–13 (i.e., Forms 6–7) an average of 450–500 words. The topics students
write on are often linked to the composition topics suggested in their coursebooks.
Teachers generally respond to student writing using a product-oriented approach—i.e.,
treating each piece of writing as a final draft. When students receive the marked
compositions, they correct the errors by re-writing either the whole composition or those
sentences that contain errors. Rewriting of content is not normally required. Although the
Hong Kong Education Department (currently known as the Education and Manpower
Bureau) has issued some error correction guidelines in the English language syllabus for
secondary teachers of English (e.g., suggesting teachers mark errors selectively) (CDC,
1999), how teachers should correct errors in their own classrooms is not mandated. It is
worth nothing that the English panel of each school normally formulates its own policy to
guide teachers’ error correction. The control individual teachers have over how and how
much they correct errors, however, may vary from school to school. In the main, there is a
general lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the classroom insofar as error
correction is concerned. A recent local survey of writing teachers suggests that teachers
tend to treat error feedback as a job with little long-term significance, as they appear to be
more concerned with ‘‘the immediate goal of helping students avoid the same errors than
with the more long-term goal of equipping students with strategies to edit and proofread
their writing independently’’ (Lee, 2003, p. 220). Conferencing is seldom conducted in the
classroom, nor is peer review (see Tsui & Ng, 2000).
2.2. Aims of study
In Hong Kong, error correction is a relatively unexplored area. Since the way teachers
handle student errors may directly affect student writing, it is crucial that we find out the
existing error correction practice and come up with effective measures to cope with this
most time-consuming and exhausting aspect of teachers’ work. While the majority of the
previous error correction studies have been conducted in the United States, and most of
them at college or university level, not much has been done to investigate error correction
in the secondary writing classroom outside of the United States. The present study aims to
ascertain how error correction is perceived and carried out by ESL writing teachers in Hong
Kong secondary classrooms and how it is perceived by students. It aims to answer the
following two research questions:
1. What are teachers’ perspectives and practices regarding error correction in writing?
2. What are students’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding error correction?
3. Method of study
3.1. Research instruments
To answer the first research question, two instruments were used: (1) a survey that
consisted of a questionnaire (in English) (see Appendix A) and follow-up telephone
interviews (conducted in English) (see Appendix B for teacher interview guide); and (2)
an error correction task (see Appendix C) where teachers were asked to mark a Form 2
(i.e., Grade 8) student paper. The questionnaire survey aimed to find out teachers’
perspectives, problems, and self-reported practices regarding error correction in writing,
while the error correction task was used to investigate how teachers actually corrected
errors in student writing. In the error correction task, the teachers were asked to mark a
student essay in the way they normally did in their own teaching situation. At the end of
the task, they were asked several questions about how they had approached the error
correction task, e.g., whether they had marked all the student errors and their criteria for
error selection. These questions appeared on the back page of the error correction task,
and the teachers were asked to answer the questions only after they had completed the
task. To answer the second research question, students were surveyed using a bilingual
questionnaire (in both Chinese and English) (see Appendix D for the English version) and
follow-up interviews (conducted in Chinese) (see Appendix E for student interview
guide). The questionnaire contained statements about their teacher’s error correction
practices as well as the students’ own beliefs and attitudes about error correction. The
follow-up interviews invited students to elaborate on some of the questionnaire
statements. All the above research instruments were piloted. Based on the pilot results,
the instruments were revised and finalized (final versions appear in Appendices A–E). It
was hoped that these three sources of data (i.e., teacher survey, error correction task, and
student survey) would yield useful information about how error correction was perceived
by teachers and students, how teachers practiced error correction in student writing, and
also what problems teachers might face.
3.2. Subjects
The teachers and students who participated in the study were all selected based on
convenience sampling. Altogether, 206 teachers completed the questionnaires. Among
them, 139 were participants on the English language education courses held in four Hong
Kong universities, and 67 were secondary teachers who responded to the questionnaires
sent to them through a contact teacher in their schools. Of the 206 teachers who completed
the questionnaires, 19 of them participated in the follow-up telephone interviews by
consent. The error correction task was completed by 58 teachers who were enrolled on an
English language education programme at one of the four participating universities. The
error correction task was administered to these 58 teachers immediately after they had
completed the questionnaires.
Overall, the teacher group was a heterogeneous one. Table 1 shows that of the 206
English teachers who took part in the survey, 34% of them (70) had less than 5 years’
teaching experience, 27% (56) had 5–10 years’ teaching experience, and 39% (80) had over
10 years’ teaching experience. Of the 206 participants, 10% (21) were the English panel
chairpersons of their schools. Regarding their education and qualifications, 55% of them
(113) have a degree in English, and 37% (76) have professional qualification in the
teaching of English.
As regards the student survey, convenience sampling was also adopted. The
questionnaires were sent to eight different secondary schools through a contact teacher
in each school. In the end, 320 students from these eight schools (165 from Forms 1 to 3
Table 1
Participating teachers’ profiles
Teacher experience and education % of teachers with level of experience/
education (number of teachers)
Less than 5 years’ teaching experience 34 (70)
5–10 years’ teaching experience 27 (56)
Over 10 years’ teaching experience 39 (80)
English panel chair 10 (21)
Degree in English 55 (113)
Professional qualification in teaching English 37 (76)
Table 2
Form and grade levels of participating students
Form level (grade level) % of students at form level
(number of students)
Forms 1–3 (Grades 7–9) 51.5 (165)
Forms 4–5 (Grades 10–11) 24.7 (79)
Forms 6–7 (Grades 12–13) 23.8 (76)
[Grades 7 to 9], 79 from Forms 4 to 5 [Grades 10 to 11], and 76 from Forms 6 to 7 [Grades
12 to 13]) completed the questionnaires (see Table 2). A total of 27 students were randomly
selected to take part in the individual interviews that followed.
3.3. Data analysis
The teacher and student questionnaire data were subjected to SPSS analysis, yielding
mainly descriptive data. The student interview data were translated from Chinese to
English, and the data from both the teacher and student interviews were transcribed,
summarized, and categorized. The translation and transcription work was carried out by a
research assistant with an English degree and a postgraduate English teaching
qualification. As for the teacher error correction task, before the teachers’ corrections
were subjected to detailed analysis, the same student essay was read and marked by four
teacher educators, including the researcher. The errors identified and corrected were
compiled, and in the end 19 errors were identified in the student essay (see Table 3). The
error types are summarized in Table 4. The errors identified and corrected by the
participating teachers were compiled and analyzed to ascertain the errors the teachers
marked, the error correction strategies they used, as well as the accuracy of the
corrections.
4. Results
Since a large amount of data was collected in the study, only the most salient findings are
presented in this section. Where statistics are involved, only descriptive statistics are
reported as statistical testing did not find any significant differences resulting from the
teachers’ background (i.e., qualification, training, and form level they were teaching) or the
students’ grade level. Where appropriate, the interview data are presented verbatim. In this
section, the results are presented to address the following aspects pertaining to error
correction:
1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback

2. Direct versus indirect error feedback
3. The use of error codes
4. Effectiveness of error correction
5. Error correction: whose responsibility?
292
Table 3
Analysis of errors and error types in error correction task
Error Line where Student error (underlined) Correction Error category
number error appears
I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312

1 4 on the breach, on the breach, beach Spelling
2 4 on the breach, on the breach, . On Punctuation
3 5 Glasses Glass Noun ending (plural)
4 5 some an other things an Word choice (unnecessary article)
5 6 weather pollution water Spelling
6 6 on the sea in Word choice (preposition)
7 6 on the sea, in Shek O, . In Punctuation
8 6 I had seen saw/have seen Verb tense
6 7 on the sea in Word choice (preposition)
9 7 Ex: For example,/For instance, Spelling
10 7 The sea had There were . . . in the sea Sentence structure
11 7 And there have were Word choice (verb)
6 8 on the sea too In Word choice (preposition)
12 9 The third problem was about the toilet, toilets Noun ending (plural)
because in Shek O the toilet were very dirty
13 10 I had gone went Verb tense
14 10–11 I saw the floor had some water and had many I saw some water and many dirty Sentence structure
dirty things things on the floor
15 11 go to toilet go to the toilet Article (missing)
16 11 Had did Word choice (verb)
17 13 must use think of Word choice (verb)
18 13 some idea ideas Noun ending (plural)
19 13 to take make/help Word choice (verb)
Table 4
Summary of error types in error correction task
Error type Number of errors in task
Word choice 8
Noun ending 3
Spelling 3
Punctuation 2
Verb tense 2
Article 1
Total 19
4.1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback
The questionnaire data (see section 2, question 2 in Appendix A) show that the
majority of the teachers (72%), irrespective of the form level(s) they were teaching, said
they marked student errors comprehensively (see Table 5). In the error correction task,
67% of the teachers indicated they had marked all the student errors. In the follow-up
interviews, the reasons teachers preferred comprehensive error correction were
compiled. Most of the teachers said comprehensive error correction was required by
the school or the English panel. Some teachers said they marked errors comprehensively
because their students liked it, while some suggested that it was their responsibility to
point out all errors for students to let them know what errors they had made.
Those teachers who said they practiced selective marking (see section 2, question 3 in
Appendix A) tended to mark a large number of student errors. Of those who said they
marked errors selectively, 88% of the teachers said they marked 2/3 or more of errors in
student writing. When asked about the major principle for error correction, 35% of them
said they selected errors on an ad hoc basis. Overall, a smaller percentage of teachers (26%)
said that error selection was directly linked to grammar instruction.
Table 5
Questionnaire and error task results regarding comprehensive vs. selective error feedback
Teachers’ perceptions of their error feedback % of teachers
Said they marked errors comprehensively 72
Of those who said they marked errors selectively–
Said they marked 2/3 or above of the errors 88
Said they selected errors on ad hoc basis 35
Said they selected errors linked to grammar instruction 26
Teachers’ error feedback performance on error correction task % of teachers

Marked all student errors 67
Student perceptions of their teacher’s error correction feedback % of students

Said that teachers marked all errors 60
Wanted teachers to mark all errors 83
The student questionnaire data show that students were aware of teachers’ error
correction practices (see question 1 in Appendix D). Over half of them (60%) indicated that
their English teachers underlined or circled all their errors. When asked what they preferred
(see question 3 in Appendix D), 83% said they wanted their teachers to mark all their
errors. In the interviews, the reasons stated mainly relate to the idea of cognition, i.e.,
students wanted to know what errors they had made. One student said, ‘‘When my teacher
marks all my errors, I know what they are.’’
4.2. Direct versus indirect error feedback
The teacher questionnaire data (see section 2, question 8 in Appendix A) show that the
error correction strategies teachers used were mainly direct feedback and indirect coded
feedback (see Table 6). On average, 36% of the teachers indicated that they always or often
used direct error feedback. On the other hand, 43% always/often used indirect coded
feedback. The error correction strategies the teachers said they rarely or never used were
‘‘hinting at the location of errors’’ and ‘‘hinting at the location of errors and categorizing
them,’’ both are indirect feedback involving indirect error location techniques. These two
techniques are more demanding for students, since the teachers indicate error location
indirectly and students have to locate errors themselves.
Teachers’ preference for direct feedback and indirect coded feedback was supported by
the data gathered from the error correction task. The analysis shows that direct feedback
was given for 55% of the errors by those teachers who marked all errors and for 65% of the
errors by those who marked errors selectively. On average, more than half of the errors
were overtly corrected by the teachers—i.e., the errors were marked with correct forms/
structures provided. Throughout the error correction task, the teachers used only one
indirect feedback strategy—direct location of errors plus the use of error codes (i.e., coded
feedback). Other than direct feedback and indirect coded feedback strategies, no other error
feedback technique was evident in the error correction task.
The student survey data again show that students were aware of the teachers’ practice.
About 40% of students said that their teachers gave direct feedback on all their errors
Table 6
Questionnaire and error correction results regarding direct vs. indirect error feedback
Teachers’ perception of their type of error feedback % of teachers
Said they always/often gave direct error feedback 36
Said they always/often gave indirect coded feedback 43
Teachers’ error feedback type on error correction task % of teachers

Gave direct feedback (comprehensive marking group) 55 of errors
Gave direct feedback (selective marking group) 65 of errors
Students’ perceptions of type of error feedback given by their teacher % of students

Said that teachers gave direct feedback on all errors 40
Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on all errors 76
Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on some errors 22
(see question 4 in Appendix D). In terms of student preference, there was a gap between
what students wanted and what their teachers did. The majority of students (76%)
indicated they wanted their teachers to provide corrections for all errors (see question 5
in Appendix D), while only 22% of them wanted teachers to provide corrections for
some errors. In other words, students preferred teachers to play a primarily active role in
error correction. The interview data suggest that students wanted teachers to provide
corrections for all errors because this would make life easier. One student said, ‘‘If my
teacher corrects all my mistakes, I can do the correction easily, and I don’t have to ask
her.’’
4.3. The use of error codes
The teacher questionnaire data (see section 2, question 6 in Appendix A) show that the
large majority of teachers (87%) used error codes in marking student writing, and 80% said
that they were required by the school to use codes (see Table 7). This practice is in line with
the Hong Kong Education Department’s recommendation (see CDC, 1999). For almost
half of the teachers (45%), the marking code was designed by another teacher (see section
2, question 7 in Appendix A). Of the other teachers who used error codes, 38% adapted the
marking code designed by another teacher, and only 10% designed their own marking
code.
While the questionnaire findings show that, generally, many of the teachers liked error
codes, some problems were mentioned in the follow-up interviews; for example,
sometimes the codes could not be applied to syntax level errors, and students were unable
to correct errors using error codes. One teacher said, ‘‘When students don’t understand the
codes, they come to ask me individually. I’d rather correct the errors for them because I
don’t want all of them to come out and ask for the corrections.’’
The data obtained from the error correction task show that teachers tended to use a wide
range of error types in the error codes. Analysis of the error codes indicates that a total of 14
Table 7
Questionnaire results regarding use of error codes
Teachers’ perceptions of their use of error codes % of teachers
Said they used errors codes in marking papers 87
Said they were required by school to use error codes 80
Said they used a marking code designed by another teacher 45
Said they adapted a marking code designed by another teacher 38
Said they designed their own marking code 10
Students’ perceptions of their teacher’s use of error codes % of students

Said that teachers used error codes 91
Said they were able to follow over 3/4 of error codes 44
Said they were able to follow 1/2 to 2/3 of error codes 41
Said they were able to correct over 3/4 of errors based on error codes 36
Said they were able to correct 1/2 to 3/4 of errors based on error codes 47
Said they wanted teachers to use error codes 76
Table 8
Error codes used by teachers in error correction task
Error type Error code used by teachers
Tense/verb T/v/v.t./T (present)/T (past)/past simple/Tn/tv/vb/past
par/vF v1v2, e.g., I had (v1) not go (v2)
Article Ar/art/A
Auxiliary verb Aux
Spelling Sp
Number Num/no/N/si/sing/plural/plu/pl
Agreement agr/ag
Preposition Prep/P/Pr/p.p./Pre
Pronoun Pr
Punctuation/case P/Punct/P/Ca/C
Wrong word w.w./ww/w/W
Wrong word order Wo
Expression Exp
Rewrite sentence <rewrite>
Chinglish <Chi-English>
Unclassified (RS) (FS)
error types were used, including tense, article, spelling, preposition, and pronoun errors
(see Table 8). Six teachers voluntarily returned the error correction task sheets with the
marking codes they used in school. An initial analysis of these marking codes shows that
the number of error types range from 15 to 26, which suggests that schools tend to adopt
fine categories in their marking codes. For instance, one marking code breaks the large
category ‘‘verb errors’’ down into smaller categories such as ‘‘tense,’’ ‘‘infinitive,’’
‘‘gerund,’’ ‘‘verb form,’’ ‘‘agreement of subject and verb,’’ and ‘‘voice.’’
The student survey data consistently show that students were aware of the teachers’
practice. A total of 91% of them indicated that their teachers used error codes in marking
their compositions (see question 6 in Appendix D). However, a number of students
admitted that they did not always fully understand the codes. For instance, 44% of them
said they were able to follow and understand over 3/4 of the codes when correcting errors in
their compositions (see question 7 in Appendix D). About 41% of the students said that
they could follow about 1/2 to 3/4 of the codes. Students were also asked if they could
correct errors based on the codes. About 36% of them said they could correct over 3/4 of
the errors, and 47% said they could correct 1/2 to 3/4 of the errors (see question 8 in
Appendix D). In Cohen and Cavalcanti’s (1990) study, the students also remarked that
they were not able to handle all teachers’ comments.
Interestingly, although students said they could not always cope with the codes used by
teachers, 76% of them expressed preference for the use of error codes. The interview data
indicate that students’ preference for error codes was mainly based on the fact that the
codes could enable them to understand the types of errors they made. In other words, the
codes could facilitate error identification. As one student said, ‘‘If there’s no marking
code, I don’t know what the errors are.’’ However, error codes are not without problems.
Some students remarked that they could not follow the codes because they did not know
the grammar rules or they were unclear about the grammar concepts involved. Knowing
Table 9
Questionnaire results regarding effectiveness of teacher error feedback
Teachers’ perception of effectiveness of their error feedback % of teachers
Said their error correction brought about some student progress in writing accuracy 61
Said their error correction brought about good student progress in writing accuracy 9
Students’ perception of effectiveness of their teacher’s error feedback % of students

Said they thought they were making good progress in writing accuracy 9
Said they thought they were making some progress in writing accuracy 46
Said they thought they would make the same errors again 67
the codes is one thing, but correcting errors is quite another. One student remarked: ‘‘I
don’t have clear concepts of the parts of speech. I know the codes, but I’m not clear
about the grammar.’’ Another point raised is that the teacher might not have explained all
the codes to students, so the students found them difficult to use. One student said: ‘‘For
some codes, my teacher hasn’t explained to me so I don’t know how to use them.’’
Although a large number of students seemed to favour the use of error codes, the
interview data suggest that error codes may not be as easy and straightforward as they
appear to be. Some students commented that there were far too many error codes for them
to handle. For these students, error codes were perceived to be a source of trouble: ‘‘It’s
troublesome and time wasting. If the teacher corrects it for me, I think it’s easier for me to
handle.’’
4.4. Effectiveness of teacher error correction
When teachers were asked to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their error correction
practices in the questionnaire survey, the findings show that over half of the teachers (61%)
thought their practices brought about ‘‘some’’ student progress in writing accuracy (see
section 2, question 13 in Appendix A). Only a small number of teachers (9%) thought their
students were making ‘‘good’’ progress (see Table 9).
What did the students think about their own progress in writing (see question 11 in
Appendix D)? Overall, 46% of the students said that they were making some progress.
Only 9% thought they were making good progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.
When asked if they would make the same errors after the teacher had corrected them (see
question 9 in Appendix D), over half of the students (67%) answered in the affirmative.
Most of the students interviewed put forward several reasons; for example, they could
not apply the same rule in all situations, the topic and/or the context of the next
composition would be different, and they might forget what they had learnt. The
disadvantage of comprehensive error correction was indirectly pointed out by one
student: I think I can’t handle so many things. There’re lots of things, lots of vocabulary
items.
The effectiveness of the teachers’ error correction was also ascertained in the error
correction task to find out how well the teachers fared in correcting student errors in
writing. In the error correction task, four types of teacher error corrections were identified
(see Table 10): (1) accurate feedback—location and correction; (2) inaccurate feedback—
Table 10
Types of teacher error correction in error correction task
Type of error correction Explanation Example
Accurate correction 1. Errors accurately located and 1. On the breach ! beach
corrected
2. Errors accurately located 2. On the breach
3. Errors accurately located and coded 3. On the breachsp
Inaccurate correction 1. Errors accurately located but 1. Some an other things !
inaccurately corrected some many other things
2. Errors accurately located but 2. In Shek O the toilet wereT
inaccurately coded very dirty
Unnecessary correction 1. Marking that leads to stylistic 1. I am writing to inform you
difference or improvement about . . . ! complain
2. Marking that changes original meaning 2. So next time . . . ! From
then onwards . . .
3. No error is involved – teacher correction 3. . . . the three problems that are
leads students to make an error causing damage ! damages
Omission (only applicable An error that is treated as correct some rubbish on the sea
to teachers who marked (treated as correct)
errors comprehensively)
location and/or correction; (3) unnecessary feedback—style and/or meaning changes or

incorrect feedback; (4) omission (applicable only to the comprehensive feedback group)—
errors uncorrected.
For those teachers who marked all the student errors, 57% of their corrections were
accurate, 40% unnecessary, and 3% inaccurate (see Table 11). There was a total of 172
errors which were not marked (referred to as ‘‘omission’’). On average, there were 4
omissions in each teacher’s error correction task. In the main, only slightly over half of the
teachers’ error feedback was accurate. Other feedback was either unnecessary or
inaccurate—mainly unnecessary. Some of the unnecessary teacher feedback was found to
be misleading because it created errors as a result (see Table 11 for examples).
4.5. Error correction: Whose responsibility
In the teacher questionnaire (see section 2, question 14 in Appendix A), when asked
whether it is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students
Table 11
Results of error correction task
Type of error feedback given % of total number of corrections
on error correction task from all 58 teachers
Accurate feedback 57%
Inaccurate feedback 3%
Unnecessary feedback 40%
Errors not marked on error correction task Total number 172
Table 12
Questionnaire results regarding responsibility for error correction
Teachers’ perception of responsibility for error correction % of teachers
Said it is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students 60
Said students should learn to locate their own errors 96
Said students should learn to locate and correct their own errors 99
Students’ perception of responsibility for error correction % of students

Said it is mainly the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students 45
Said it is mainly the students’ job to locate and correct their own errors 55
(statement C), 60% of the teachers expressed their agreement (see Table 12). This is a
rather high percentage and could explain why many teachers favoured direct error
feedback. However, when asked if students should learn to locate and correct errors
(statement H), 96% of them believed that students should learn to locate their own errors,
and 99% of them believed that students should learn to locate and correct their own errors
(statement I). Teachers, therefore, seem to contradict themselves. Although they are aware
of the importance of asking students to take on the responsibility of error location and
correction, in reality the teachers are doing the work for the students.
During the interviews, teachers were asked to elaborate on the views expressed in the
questionnaire. Most of the teachers explained that because students are unable to locate and
correct errors, teachers have to help them. One teacher said:
Actually, if the students can really locate errors, they can learn a lot from it. However,
usually it’s the teachers who do the error correction. If teachers do most of the things,
students have less work to do; then they can learn more. I tried to ask them to locate
errors themselves, but the result was not good. Maybe they had never tried this before
or maybe my instruction was not clear. I didn’t know the exact reason, so I didn’t try
it again. I also tried to ask them to correct others’ work, but they tended to have many
arguments. Then I never tried it again. Anyway, they couldn’t do it well.
This teacher took an avoidance approach—since putting the onus on students did not
work well, the teacher decided to give it up. This problem may be shared by other teachers.
One teacher said, ‘‘For the less capable students, they can’t locate and correct their errors,
and we don’t force them.’’
The teachers’ tendency to embrace error correction as their responsibility could be
traced to their belief about the main purpose in correcting student errors in writing. In the
teacher questionnaire, teachers were asked an open-ended question regarding the main
purpose of error correction (see section 2, question 1 in Appendix A). Their answers
predominantly suggest that teachers are more concerned with the immediate goal of
helping students avoid the same errors than the more long-term goal of equipping them
with strategies to edit and proofread their writing independently. Table 13 summarizes the
teachers’ comments and how often a certain comment was mentioned by teachers. The
teachers’ primary concern is to help students become aware of their errors and to fix them.
Only a very small number of teachers think that the main purpose of error correction is to
Table 13
Questionnaire results regarding main purpose of error feedback
Purpose of error feedback Number of time
comments mentioned
To increase students’ awareness of errors 65
To help students avoid the same errors/learn from the errors 45
To help students improve their writing 30
To help students correct errors 15
To give students encouragement 9
To teach students how to express ideas/write better 7
To teach grammar/cohesion/coherence 5
To help students reflect on their writing 4
To help students locate their errors 2
To develop long-term benefits, e.g., promote self-learning 2
help students locate errors, to encourage them to reflect on those errors, and to promote
self-learning.
What did the students think about the responsibility for error correction (see question 12
in Appendix D)? Nearly half of the students (45%) thought that it was mainly their
teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students, and 55% believed that it was mainly
the students’ job. During the interview, when asked to elaborate on the question about
whether error correction is their teacher’s or the students’ responsibility, most of the
students said that it was the teacher’s responsibility. The only student who thought that
students should be responsible for correcting errors, however, added that students would
not like doing the job: ‘‘I think students should have the responsibility to learn how to
locate and correct the mistakes, but I am too lazy. I don’t like doing this.’’ Two other
students mentioned ‘‘laziness’’ as a reason why teachers should correct errors for them.
The reasons most of the other students put down were mainly about teacher competence in
error correction, such as ‘‘I don’t think I can locate the mistakes. The teacher’s
responsibility is greater. Since my proofreading is not good, I think teachers should locate
the mistakes for me.’’ From the students’ perspective, the one who can do the job better
should do it, so teachers should correct errors for students.
5. Discussion of findings and implications
Before any conclusion can be drawn about the study, one has to take note of the
limitations of the study. First, the study made use of convenience sampling; hence, the
results cannot be generalized. Second, information about the strategies teachers use in error
correction and the accuracy of their corrections was gathered from a single task, which is an
artificial error correction exercise based on an essay not written by the teacher’s own
student. The way the teachers marked errors in the essay might deviate from their normal
practice. Also, the effectiveness of error correction (i.e., student progress in written
accuracy) is based on teachers’ reports and students’ self-reports rather than analysis of
student writing samples. Nonetheless, the study has shed light on how error correction is
carried out in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom. The following implications,
based on the results of the study, may be applicable to similar ESL contexts.
5.1. Extent of error feedback
The study has shown that teachers tend to mark errors comprehensively. Many error
correction advocates have advised against comprehensive error feedback because of the
risk of ‘‘exhausting teachers and overwhelming students’’ (Ferris, 2002, p. 50). Ferris
(2002) suggests that error correction may be most effective ‘‘when it focuses on patterns of
error, allowing teachers and students to attend to, say, two or three major error types at a
time, rather than dozens of disparate errors’’ (p. 50). In the local English syllabus for
secondary English teachers, it is recommended that ‘‘teachers need not correct all the
mistakes in learners’ work’’ (CDC, 1999, p. 95). One problem associated with
comprehensive error feedback is that once teachers decide to go for comprehensive
error feedback, there is a tendency to over-mark errors, as demonstrated in the study. It is
also difficult to define an error, e.g., to distinguish between an error and a difference or
improvement in style—and thus to decide whether to correct or not. Additionally, however
‘‘comprehensively’’ a teacher marks errors, there is bound to be omission, as shown in the
findings of the study. Thus, comprehensive error feedback is an elusive goal, and such a
practice has to be avoided. The study suggests that teachers may not know how to do
selective marking systematically, as quite a few of the teachers tend to select errors on an ad
hoc basis. To implement selective marking successfully, it is important that English
teachers at the school level discuss the error correction policy, share concerns and
problems, and look for ways to link error correction systematically with grammar
instruction.
5.2. Range of error feedback strategies
The study has shown that the teachers mainly relied on two error correction strategies—
direct error feedback and indirect coded feedback. The results suggest that teachers need to
be made aware of and to experiment with a wider range or error correction strategies. For
example, uncoded correction or error correction that prompts students about error location
could be used with more proficient students, requiring them to locate and correct errors.
Teachers could reserve direct feedback for errors that are not amenable to self-correction
(e.g., vocabulary and syntax errors) and use this strategy with less proficient students.
5.3. Use of error codes
Despite the popularity of error codes among teachers, the findings of the study suggest
that error codes may not be as effective as some teachers think. Assuming that the error
types have been covered in grammar lessons, the error codes can help students reinforce
their learning. However, when teachers mark errors comprehensively, when an essay is full
of errors, and when a large number of errors are coded, a student essay can be filled with
error codes of different kinds. In that case, it is questionable if students would be able to
correct their errors. Also, it could be very time-consuming for teachers to use codes to
categorize a wide range of errors, and it could be overwhelming and frustrating for students
to correct their errors based on the codes. The study has also indicated that teachers tend to
use a large number of error codes in error correction and that students may not necessarily
understand and be able to cope with teachers’ error correction, however explicitly coded it
is. Thus, teachers have to handle correction codes with a great deal of care. To make the
codes easier to interpret for students, teachers may consider reducing the number of codes
they use in correcting errors, concentrating on specific error patterns. It would also be
beneficial if teachers link error correction directly with grammar instruction. If teachers
adopt these strategies, error codes could be less problematic for students, and students may
also benefit more from the use of codes.
5.4. Teacher training in error correction
The study has shown that only slightly over half of the teachers’ error feedback was
accurate. To some extent, the findings of the study cast doubt on teachers’ competence in
error correction. When teachers’ own corrections go wrong, the effectiveness of error
feedback is questionable. As Ferris (1999) has pointed out, ‘‘poorly done error correction
will not help student writers and may even mislead them’’ (p. 4). In Hong Kong, English
teachers are required by the government to pass the Language Proficiency Assessment for
Teachers of English (LPATE) to be benchmarked for English language teaching. The first
tests were conducted in 2001, and the results in each of the subsequent years, which were
widely reported in the media, have repeatedly shown that teachers perform worst in
correcting student errors in the writing test (LPATE comprises tests on speaking, listening,
reading, writing, and the teacher’s use of classroom language). Coupled with the findings
of this study, it could be concluded that teachers need more training and practice in error
correction. In order for teacher error feedback to be made more effective and beneficial for
students, teacher education courses have to put more focus on helping pre-service and in-
service teachers cope with this time-consuming and painstaking task of error correction.
5.5. Impact of teacher practice on student beliefs and expectations regarding

error correction
The study does not show huge differences between teachers’ self-reported error
correction practice and students’ preferences. For instance, the majority of teachers mark
errors comprehensively, and similarly, the large majority of students prefer such a practice.
Indeed, student expectations and preferences may be easily influenced by teachers’
practices. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) maintain that ‘‘learners’ expectations and
preferences may derive from previous instructional experiences, experiences that may not
necessarily be beneficial for the development of writing’’ (p. 173). If throughout students’
language learning experience their English teachers have marked their errors
comprehensively and done the corrections for them, students may feel that these are
the right things to do and that it is the teacher’s job to correct errors. Without changing
teachers’ beliefs and their actual practices, it is unlikely that students will alter their
expectations, since learner expectations are often shaped by teacher practice. It is,
therefore, important to raise teachers’ awareness of the possible harm done to students and
themselves by treating errors comprehensively and by correcting all errors for them, e.g.,
student frustration and teacher burnout (Ferris, 2002). It is also crucial that teachers adopt
long-term measures to help students become independent editors, make expectations clear,
and make error correction an integral part of teaching and learning in the writing
classroom, so that students will not regard error correction as a mundane chore that has no
direct relevance to their own writing development. When correcting errors in student
writing, teachers should abandon a get-the-job-done attitude. Instead, they should consider
the long-term significance of error correction, how to link it to pre- and post-writing
grammar instruction, and how to help students take on greater responsibility for learning.
6. Further research
The present study surveyed current error correction practices in Hong Kong secondary
classrooms from the teacher and student perspectives, acknowledging the significance of
the teacher and student variables in error correction research. Further research could
explore in greater depth how the teacher and student factors influence error correction and
how these two factors impact teachers’ error correction and students’ ability to learn from
it. Teacher variables such as prior grammatical knowledge, training and experience,
knowledge and philosophies regarding error correction strategies, as well as learner
characteristics such as proficiency, motivation, attitudes, and beliefs provide useful
avenues for future research.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Direct Grant from the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.
References
Cohen, A.D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cohen, A.D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,
133–159.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports.
In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between
selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ expectations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.
Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for secondary schools: English language Secondary 1–5.
Hong Kong: Education Department.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193–204.
Ferris, D.R. (1996). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press.
Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and
practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000, March). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2
writing classes? Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal
of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish
content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 244–329.
Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C. W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college
composition (pp. 117–124). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in
L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback
in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308.
Hendrickson, R. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–221.
Lalande, J. F. II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing. System, 25, 465–477.
Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practice. Hong Kong Journal
of Applied Linguistics, 3, 61–76.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing
Writing, 8, 216–237.
Lee, I., & Lee, M. (1997). Facilitating writing in the language classroom. Guidelines, 19, 73–86.
Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign
Language Annals, 24, 203–218.
Mantello, M. (1997). Error correction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 127–131.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on
essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16,
355–365.
Raimes, A. (1991). Errors: Windows into the mind. College ESL, 1, 55–64.
Reid, J. (1998). ‘‘Eye’’ learners and ‘‘ear’’ learners: Identifying the language needs of international students and
U.S. resident writers. In P. Byrd & J. M. Reid (Eds.), Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on
teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 3–17). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.
TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 9, 147–171.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.
Appendix A. Teacher questionnaire
A.1. Error feedback on student writing
This questionnaire aims to find out how you mark grammar errors in students’ writing,
your beliefs about error feedback, and the concerns you may have regarding the subject. All
your answers will be treated confidentially.
Appendix B. Teacher interview guide
1. Are you in favour of comprehensive or selective error feedback? Why?

2. What error corrections strategies do you use? Why do you choose these strategies?
3. Are your error correction strategies linked to grammar instruction? Elaborate on your
answer.
4. Do you think it is a good idea to provide corrections for student errors in writing (i.e.,
direct error feedback)? Explain your answer.
5. Do you use error codes? Why or why not? What problems, if any, can you see in using
error codes? How can the problems be solved?
6. Is it the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students? Explain your answer.
7. Who should be responsible for error correction? Why?
8. What concerns or problems, if any, do you have in correcting student errors in writing?
9. Do you think teachers need any help or special training in error correction? Explain
your answer.
10. In your opinion, what is the best way to go about error correction? Explain your
answer.
Appendix C. Error correction task
C.1. Composition topic
Try to find out the environmental problems in Shek O on the picnic day. Then write a
letter of complaint about these problems to the Director of the Environmental Protection
Department.
Appendix D. Student questionnaire
D.1. Marking of English compositions
This questionnaire aims to find out your views about how English compositions should
be marked. Please answer the questions with reference to how your present English teacher
marks your compositions in this academic year. All your answers will be treated
confidentially.
Appendix E. Student interview guide
1. Do you want your teacher to respond to all errors or only some errors in writing? Why?
2. Do you want your teacher to provide corrections for all your errors or only some errors?
Why?
3. Do you want your teacher to use error codes in error correction? Why or why not?
4. Are error codes easy or difficult to use? Elaborate on your answer.
5. Do you think you are making good progress in writing accuracy? In your opinion, does
teacher error correction help? Explain your answer.
6. Whose responsibility is it to correct errors in student writing? Why?

Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Error Correction in L2 Secondary Writing Classrooms

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312

Error correction in L2 secondary writing

* Tel.: +852 3411 7726; fax: +852 3411 7894.

1.2. Literature review

2.1. Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom

In Hong Kong secondary schools, writing in English is considered crucial to students’

2.2. Aims of study

3.1. Research instruments

3.3. Data analysis

1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback

I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312

4.1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback

Teachers’ error feedback performance on error correction task % of teachers

Student perceptions of their teacher’s error correction feedback % of students

4.2. Direct versus indirect error feedback

Teachers’ error feedback type on error correction task % of teachers

Students’ perceptions of type of error feedback given by their teacher % of students

4.3. The use of error codes

Students’ perceptions of their teacher’s use of error codes % of students

Students’ perception of effectiveness of their teacher’s error feedback % of students

4.4. Effectiveness of teacher error correction

location and/or correction; (3) unnecessary feedback—style and/or meaning changes or

4.5. Error correction: Whose responsibility

Students’ perception of responsibility for error correction % of students

5. Discussion of findings and implications

5.1. Extent of error feedback

5.2. Range of error feedback strategies

5.3. Use of error codes

5.4. Teacher training in error correction

5.5. Impact of teacher practice on student beliefs and expectations regarding

Appendix A. Teacher questionnaire

A.1. Error feedback on student writing

Appendix B. Teacher interview guide

1. Are you in favour of comprehensive or selective error feedback? Why?

Appendix C. Error correction task

C.1. Composition topic

Appendix D. Student questionnaire

D.1. Marking of English compositions

Appendix E. Student interview guide

Potrebbero piacerti anche