Teachers' correction of written errors and students' uptake = Cách chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên và sự tiếp nhận của học sinh

1


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
o0o





PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG

TEACHERS' CORRECTION OF WRITTEN ERRORS
AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE
( Cách chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên và sự tiếp nhận của học sinh )



M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410

HA NOI, AUGUST 2010

2


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
o0o





PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG

TEACHERS' CORRECTION OF WRITTEN ERRORS
AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE
( Cách chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên và sự tiếp nhận của học sinh )



M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410

SUPERVISOR: CAO THỊ PHƯƠNG

HA NOI, AUGUST 2010

6


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
List of abbreviation vii
Part 1: Introduction
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 1
3. Scopes of the study 2
4. Method of the study 2
5. Design of the study 2
Part 2: Content
Chapter 1: Literature Review
1.1. Errors in language learning process
1.1.1. Definition of errors 3
1.1.2. Errors and mistakes 3
1.1.3. Error Analysis in second language acquisition. 4
1.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language
Learning
1.2.1. Definition of feedback 6

7


1.2.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second 7
Language Learning
1.3. Written Error Correction Strategies 8
1.3.1. Direct corrective feedback 9
1.3.2. Indirect corrective feedback 10
1.3.3. Metalinguistic corrective feedback 11
1.3.4. Focus of the feedback 12
1.3.5. Reformulation 12
1.4. Effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies 12
1.5. Error Correction and Learners‘ Uptake 13
Chapter 2: The Study
2.1. Research questions 15
2.2. The setting of the study 15
2.3. Informants 15
2.4. Instrumentation 16
2.5. Procedures
2.5.1. Data collection 16
2.5.1.1. Task 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied) 17
2.5.1.2. Task 2: (Indirect corrective feedback applied) 17
2.5.1.3. Task 3: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied) 18
2.5.2. Techniques of analysis 18
2.5.3. Presentation of results 19
2.6. Discussion of results 21
8

2.7. Data analysis 25
2.8. Learner Responses to Feedback: Uptake and Repair 30
Chapter 3: Implications and Suggestions for written error correction
3.1. General Implications 34
3.2. Suggestions for written error corrections 35
Part 3: Conclusion
3.1. Conclusion 39
3.2. Limitations and suggestions for further research 40
References 41
Appendices I













9


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. ART ARTICLE
2. A.G AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND VERB

3. CA CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS
4. CF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
5. EA ERROR ANALYSIS
6. ESL ENGLISH SECOND LANGUAGE
7. L1 FIRST LANGUAGE
8. L2 SECOND LANGUAGE
9. PREP PREPOSITION
10. PS PAST SIMPLE TENSE
11. SVA SUBJECT VERB AGREEMENT
12. WF WORD FORM
13. WO WORD ORDER












10


PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
English serves as a major language for international communication and people all over
the world are making increasing use of English as their ―second language‖. Writing is one of

four skills in language learning process and it is seen as a language skill which is the most
difficult and complex because it‘s required widely perception and needs good understanding
on grammar and structures. It is a task that no two people do the same way. However, there
are some logical steps that every writer seems to follow in the creation of a paper. In writing
process that need grammatical and spelling understanding well to make the composition well
and can be understood.
English is very complicated for Vietnamese learners, as English and Vietnamese are of
two different linguistic types. Besides, there are quite a lot of differences in the way of
thinking, lifestyle, and literature between the two cultures. These contrasts themselves have
caused Vietnamese learners to meet some difficulties and commit errors while learning
English.
Most teachers hope their feedback will not only improve their students‘ current writing,
but also help their writing and language development. How to deal with and when to give feed
back to the errors are vital in teaching English as it may either result in motivation or
discouragement in language learning.
There have been a number of B.A, M.A thesis making error analysis by Vietnamese
ELT methodologists and applied linguists, such as Nguyen Van Loi (1999), Do Hong Yen
(2002), Tran Thi Hai Binh (2005), etc, but none of them mentioned the responding of students
to their teachers‘ correction. It is hoped that the findings of this thesis in the area of writing
and the influence of teachers‘ correction as well as students‘ uptake would be relevant to
teachers as well as students at school.
2. Aims of the study
This study investigates the effect of teacher corrective feedback and is aimed at
making an analysis of the errors made by students of English in learning writing skill. Basing
on the results of the above error analysis, the researcher finally hopes:
- giving a better awareness of pupils‘ errors in written English
11


- helping teachers have positive attitudes towards students‘ written errors

- to find out solutions to the problems in the students‘ learning process as well as the
teachers‘ teaching process so that students‘ errors in writing can be avoided.
3. Scopes of the study
Due to the limited time, this research confines itself to errors in written language,
which are collected from written tasks performed by second language high school students.
4. Method of the study:
This is a quantitative research using compositions as a technique of eliciting data for
the analysis and statistical counting as measurement of results.
5. Design of the study:
For achieving the aims stated above, the research starts with an introduction giving an
overview of what is researched, why and how it can be done. Followed are three chapters
presenting the main part of the research.
In chapter one, literature related to the study is reviewed. It is divided into 5 main
sections. Section 1 introduces some Errors in language learning process. The notion of errors
is discussed in the opinions of Corder, Duskova, and Richards. Section 2 summarizes Second
Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language Learning. In
section 3, the researcher provides some Written Error Correction Strategies, which are
suggested by the former. Section 4 and section 5 mention the effectiveness of corrective
feedback strategies and how learners uptake.
Chapter two is composed of two parts: research design and discussion of results. In the
first part, the research method is clearly described with specific procedures in collecting and
analyzing data. The statistical results are shown up to determine the most effective corrective
feedback among those applied in the research.
Chapter 3 is finished with some implication and suggestions to elimination and
prevention of errors.
Finally, the study closes with a conclusion, which gives a summary of the whole study
problem, and provides suggestions for further study.

12

PART II: CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Errors in language learning process
1.1.1. Definition of errors
According to Corder (1975:112), an error is referred to as a linguistic form which is
either superficially deviant or inappropriate in terms of the target language. Besides, James
(1998: 1) provisionally defines a language error as an unsuccessful bit of language.
In an article about some problems of definition, identification, and distinction, Lennon
(1991: 181), from the university of Kassel, suggested that notwithstanding native speaker
intuitions, errors do not constitute as easily recognizable a feature in production as might be
imagined.
It can be therefore, said that it is not easy to define what can be considered to be errors
in terms of linguistics. In order to limit the scope of the research and to have a clear, consistent
set of corpus as the subject of the research, the researcher would like to propose this working
definition: The language usages which are, to some extent, contrary to the general rules or
styles in English, or any deviated forms or structures that cannot account for the English
model of usage assumed by educated users are considered erroneous, ungrammatically or
unacceptable, thus being regarded as errors.
1.1.2. Errors and mistakes
A distinction is sometimes made between an error, which results from incomplete
knowledge, and a mistake made by a learner when writing or speaking and which is caused by
lack of attention, fatigue, carelessness, or some other aspects of performance. Mistakes are of
no significance to the process of language learning. However, the problem of determining
what is a learner‘s mistake and what a learner‘s error is one of some difficulty and involves a
much more sophisticated study and analysis of errors than is usually accorded them.
Corder (1967: 59) made a distinction between a mistake and an error. Whereas a
mistake is a random performance slip caused by fatigue, excitement, etc, and therefore can be
13

readily self-corrected, an error is a systematic deviation made by learners who have not yet
mastered the rules of the second language. A learner cannot self-correct an error because it is a
reflective product of his or her current stage of second language development or underlying
competence. In other words, he associates errors with failures in competence and mistakes
with failures in performance.
1.1.3. Error Analysis in second language acquisition.
Errors are now viewed as natural and important part of learning process because they
can yield information about language. This positive attitude towards errors is especially
important in the wake of the Communicative Language Learning and Teaching. Many
researchers on errors in second language learning have been done by several scholars like
Corder (1967), Richard (1992), and Spelunker (1992).
Error Analysis is the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign
language learners. Error Analysis may be carried out in order to:
- identify strategies which learners use in language learning
- identify the causes of learners‘ errors
- obtain information on common difficulties in language learning, as an aid to
teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials.
Error Analysis developed as a branch of applied linguistics in the 1960s, and set out to
demonstrate that many learners‘ errors were not due to the learners‘ mother tongue but
reflected universal learning strategies. Error Analysis was therefore offered as an alternative to
contrastive analysis. Attempts were made to develop classifications for different types of
errors on the basis of the different processes that were assumed to account for them. A basis
distinction was drawn between intralingual and Interlingual errors.
An Intralingual error is one which results from faulty or partial learning of the Target
language, rather than from language transfer. Intralingual error may be caused by the influence
of one target language item upon another. For example, a learner may produce He is comes,
based on a blend of the English structures He is coming, He comes. Intralingual errors can be
classified as follows:
14

- overgeneralization
- developmental
- induced errors
- errors of avoidance
- errors of overproduction
- simplifications
- communication-based errors
An Interlingual error is an error which results from language transfer, which is caused by the
learner‘s native language transference ( also called negative transfer). For example,
Vietnamese learners of English may produce such errors:
(*) He was died last year. ( interference from mother tongue “bị”)
(**) I prefer this book than that one ( interference from mother tongue “hơn”)
Corder (1974) elaborated the procedure for Error Analysis, distinguishing five stages, as
follows:
- selection of a corpus of language
- identification of errors in the corpus
- classification of the errors identified
- explanation of the psycholinguistic causes of the errors
- evaluation or error gravity ranking of the errors
Choon (1993) gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research. According to
her, one has to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories
such as : semantic errors ( wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors ( tense,
prepositions, etc.), global errors and local errors. She suggested that ― the system of classifying
errors should be flexible‖ ( Choon, 1993:2). The last step is determining how much they
deviate from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication. Error
Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common language problems
students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more in a syllabus. Choon
(1993) advised teachers to conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when the

items have not been fully learnt and remedy these first.
15


By classifying errors that learners made, researchers could learn a great deal about the
second language acquisition process by inferring the strategies that the learners were adopting.
For learners themselves, errors are ―indispensable‖ since the making of errors can be regarded
as a device the learners use in order to learn ( Selinker, 1992: 150 ).
1.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language
Learning
1.2.1. Definition of feedback
Feedback is a fundamental element of a process to writing. It can be defined as input
from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision.
Through feedback, the writer learns where he or she has misled or confused the reader by not
supplying enough information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or
something like inappropriate word-choice or tense.
The crucial point is that the teacher‘s role in student writing is not the last event in the
process. Feedback must be interactive to be genuinely effective, and this requires us to find
ways of correcting papers which both encourage students to think about what they have done
and lead them to improve on it.
Corrective feedback (CF) is an area that bridges the concerns of teachers and SLA
researchers. Teachers are concerned with whether or not to correct learners‘ errors, and when
and how to do it. SLA researchers are concerned with whether corrective feedback has any
effect on learners‘ interlanguage development and what type of CF is most effective.
According to Ur (1996), corrective feedback is allocated a very different role in different
methods.
Audiolingualism: ‗negative assessment is to be avoided as far as possible since it
functions as ‗punishment‘ and may inhibit or discourage learning‘.
Humanistic methods: ‗assessment should be positive or non-judgemental‘ in order to
‗promote a positive self-image of the learner as a person and language learner‘.

Skill theory: ‗the learner needs feedback on how well he or she is doing‘
16


1.2.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second
Language Learning
Error correction in L2 writing is a source of great concern to writing instructors and of
controversy to researchers and composition theorists. Over the past twenty years, approaches
to responding to students‘ grammar problems have included ―opposing extremes of obsessive
attention to every single student error and beginning neglect of linguistic accuracy‖ (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998, p. 198). Real-life teachers, however, have always known that students‘ errors
are troublesome, that students themselves are very concerned about accuracy, and that
responding effectively to students‘ grammatical and lexical problems is a challenging
endeavor fraught with uncertainty about its long-term effectiveness. Teachers of L2
composition who regularly provide grammar oriented feedback would doubtless report that
this is one of the most time-consuming and exhausting aspects of their jobs. Because of the
perceived importance of error correction and the amount of emphasis both teachers and
students place on it, it is reasonable to ask whether grammatical correction is effective and
appropriate at all, and if so, what the best ways are to approach it.
Truscott‘s thesis and major points (1996: 328-329) are stated clearly: Grammar
correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned. The reasons are: firstly,
research evidence shows that grammar correction is ineffective; secondly, this lack of
effectiveness is what should be expected, given the nature of the correction process and the
nature of language learning; thirdly, grammar correction has significant harmful effects.
Finally, the various arguments offered for continuing it all lack merit. He concludes that not
only is grammar correction ineffective, it is actually harmful to students (and teachers). He
claims that correction causes stress and demotivate students and it takes up too much teacher
and student time which could be more productively and pleasantly spent on other aspects of
writing.
There is tremendous variability in students‘ ability to benefit from grammar instruction

and feedback and to learn to self-correct, and many students have made dramatic
improvements in their accuracy over the course of a semester ( Ferris, 1995a). It is vitally
17


important for teachers to commit themselves to selective error feedback and to a strategy for
building students‘ awareness and knowledge of their most serious and frequent grammar
problems. Careful prioritizing increases teachers‘ chances of being accurate and thorough in
their feedback (because they are focusing on only a few problems at a time).
As noted by Ferris & Hedgcock (1998: 202), efforts to find answers to the question
―Does error correction work?‘ must consider three crucial factors: (1) Is grammar feedback
and instruction carried out selectively, systematically, and accurately? (2) Are individual
student differences (including language proficiency, learning styles, motivation and attitude,
first language, etc.) adequately considered and accounted for? and (3) Are studies which
assess the effectiveness of error correction designed and executed appropriately?
Specific questions for further research might include (but are certainly not limited to)
the following: Do teachers respond accurately to students‘ errors? Does training and practice
help them to do so more effectively? Are students more able to make progress in monitoring
for certain types of errors than others (e.g., morphological or syntactic errors versus lexical
errors)? Which individual student variables affect learners‘ willingness and ability to benefit
from error correction, and can student problems be mitigated by thoughtful pedagogical
practices? Which methods, techniques, or approaches to error correction lead to short or long-
term student improvement (assuming that student, teacher, and contextual variables are
adequately controlled for)? Teachers keep their own experiences and intuitions in mind, listen
to our students, and consider their needs in deciding if, when, and how to provide error
feedback and correction to L2 student writers. As teachers, we can only hope that we will
continue to find answers and discover ways to respond more thoughtfully and effectively to
our student writers‘ needs.
1.3. Written Error Correction Strategies
How teachers correct second language (L2) students‘ writing is a topic that has

attracted enormous interest from researchers and teachers alike. However, as a recent review
of feedback on L2 students‘ writing (Hyland & Hyland 2006) makes clear, despite all the
research there are still no clear answers to the questions researchers have addressed. Hyland
18


and Hyland observed: while feedback is a central aspect of L2 writing programs across the
world, the research literature has not been equivocally positive about its role in L2
development, and teachers often have a sense they are not making use of its full potential. A
basic distinction needs to be made between the options involved in (1) the teacher‘s provision
of CF and (2) the students‘ response to this feedback. Clearly, CF can only have an impact if
students attend to it. Thus, any account of CF must consider both aspects.
Two dimensions of corrective feedback: 1. Strategies for providing corrective feedback
2. How students respond to the feedback
From these aspects above, researchers have given out 5 Strategies for Corrective Feedback :
1. Direct
2. Indirect
3. Metalinguistic
4. Focus of the feedback
5. Reformulation
1.3.1. Direct corrective feedback
With this strategy, the teacher provides the student with the correct form. As Ferris
(2006) notes, this can take a number of different forms – crossing out an unnecessary word,
phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form
above or near to the erroneous form.
An example:
A a a the
the dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When
a a a
the dog was going through bridge over the river he found dog in the river.

This approach to corrective feedback has some advantages and disadvantages, which are
discussed below:
19


- Advantages: + provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their
errors. Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest direct CF is probably better than indirect CF
with student writers of low levels of proficiency.
- Disadvantages: + it requires minimal processing on the part of the learner and thus,
although it might help them to produce the correct form when they revise their writing,
it may not contribute to long-term learning.
1.3.2. Indirect corrective feedback
This can be done by underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the
students text or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error. In effect,
this involves deciding whether or not to show the precise location of the error. The teacher
will need symbols for spelling, wrong tense usage, concord, wrong word order, etc. Whatever
the symbols are the students should understand clearly what they mean. When the teacher first
uses the system of symbols, she may underlines the word in the text and put the symbol in the
margin. Later it will only be necessary to put the symbol in the margin for the students to
identify the error.
An example: A dog stole X bone from X butcher. He escaped with X having X X
bone. When the dog was going X through X X bridge he found X dog in the river.
X = missing word X __X = wrong word
This approach to corrective feedback has some advantages and disadvantages, which are
discussed below:
- Advantages: + caters to ‗guided learning and problem solving‘ (Lalande, 1982) and
encourages students to reflect about linguistic forms.
+ considered more likely to lead to long-term learning (Ferris and
Roberts 2002).
- Disadvantages: + learners cannot correct if they do not know the correct form

+ Learners may be able to correct but will not be certain that they
are correct.
20


1.3.3. Metalinguistic corrective feedback
This involves providing learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the
errors they have made:
- Using of error codes (i.e. abbreviated labels for different kinds of errors placed over the
location of the error in the text or in the margin).
Examples: art. x 3; WW A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone.
Prep.; art. When the dog was going through bridge over the river he
art. found dog in the river.
- Metalinguistic explanations of their errors (e.g. numbering errors and providing
metalinguistic comments at the end of the text).
Examples: (1 ) (2) (3)
A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When the dog
(4) (5) (6) (7)
was going through bridge over the river he found dog in river.
(1), (2), (5), (6) – „a‟ before the noun when a person or thing is mentioned for the first time.
(3), (7) - „the‟ before the noun when the person or thing has been mentioned previously
(4) – you need „over‟ when you go across the surface of something; you use „though‟ when
you go inside something (e.g. „go through the forest‟).
Robb et al (1986) suggested that the use of error codes no more effective than three
other types of CF they investigated (i.e. direct feedback and two kinds of indirect feedback).
Besides, Ferris (2006) supposed that error codes helped students to improve their accuracy
over time in only two of the four categories of error she investigated. Ferris and Roberts
(2001) pointed out that error codes helped students to self-edit their writing but no more so
than indirect feedback.
Overall, then, there is very limited evidence to show that error codes help writers to achieve

greater accuracy over time and it would also seem that they are no more effective than other
types of CF in assisting self-editing.
21


1.3.4. Focus of the feedback:
Focused corrective feedback means correcting just one type of error. It provides
multiple corrections of the same error and is more likely to be attended to. Moreover, it is
more likely to develop understanding of the nature of the error
Whereas, unfocused corrective feedback means correcting all or most of the errors. It
addresses a range of errors, so while it might not be as effective in assisting learners to acquire
specific features as focused CF.
1.3.5. Reformulation
This involves a native-speaker rewriting the student‘s text in such a way as ‗to preserve
as many of the writer‘s ideas as possible, while expressing them in his/her own words so as to
make the piece sound native-like‘ (Cohen 1989: 4). The writer then revises by deciding which
of the native-speaker‘s reconstructions to accept.
In essence, reformulation involves two options ‗direct correction‘ + ‗revision‘ but it
differs from how these options are typically executed in that the whole of the student‘s text is
reformulated thus laying the burden on the learner to identify the specific changes that have
been made.
Examples: Original version: As he was jogging, his tammy was shaked.
Reformulation: As he was jogging, his tummy was shaking.
Tummy shaking
Error correction: As he was jogging his tammy was shaked.
1.4. Effectiveness of corrective feedback strategies
An increasing number of studies have also been investigating whether certain types of
corrective feedback are more likely than others to help L2 students improve the accuracy of
their writing. Many studies have distinguished between direct and indirect feedback strategies
and investigated the extent to which they facilitate greater accuracy. Direct or explicit

feedback occurs when the teacher identifies an error and provides the correct form, while
22


indirect strategies refer to situations when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but
does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to diagnose and correct it.
Additionally, studies examining the effect of indirect feedback strategies have tended
to make a further distinction between those that do or do not use a code. Coded feedback
points to the exact location of an error, and the type of error involved is indicated with a code
(for example, WW means an error in the use of word order). Uncoded feedback refers to
instances when the teacher underlines an error, circles an error, or places an error tally in the
margin, but, in each case, leaves the student to diagnose and correct the error.
The studies by Lee (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) did have control groups
which received no corrective feedback. Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined the effects of
three different feedback treatments (errors marked with codes; errors underlined but not
otherwise marked or labeled; no error feedback) and found that both error feedback groups
significantly outperformed the no-feedback control group, but, like Robb et al. (1986), they
found that there were no significant differences between the group given coded feedback and
the group not given coded feedback.
Furthermore, it needs to be noted that Ferris and Roberts (2001) investigated text
revisions rather than new pieces of writing over time. Discussing the findings of the study,
Ferris (2002) reported that direct error correction led to more correct revisions (88%) than
indirect error feedback (77%). Over the course of the semester, however, it was noted that
students who received indirect feedback reduced their error frequency ratios substantially
more than those who received direct feedback. Compared with this growing but far from
conclusive body of research on the written feedback strategies of teachers, virtually no
research has investigated the effect of other feedback strategies, such as teacher–student
conferences, peer-editing sessions, and the keeping of error logs (Ferris, 2002).
1.5. Error Correction and Learners’ Uptake
Learners‘ uptake is the student‘s response to the feedback. Uptake refers to different

types of student responses immediately following the feedback, including responses with
repair of the nontarget items as well as utterances still in need of repair (Lyster & Ranta,
23


1997). An essential feature of CF is how the student responds to the corrections provided. The
student‘s response frequently takes the form of revision of the initial draft—an important stage
in writing process. Much of the research that has investigated written CF has centered on
whether students are able to make use of the feedback they receive when they revise.
One approach has been to describe and classify the types of revisions that students
make. Ferris (2002), for example, identified a number of revision categories in the redrafts of
146 ESL students‘ essays. Overall, Ferris found that 80.4 per cent of the errors subject to CF
were eliminated in the redrafted compositions by correcting the error, by deleting the text
containing the error, or by making a correct substitution. 9.9 per cent of the errors were
incorrectly revised while in a further 9.9 per cent no change was made. This study (along with
a number of others) suggests that CF is effective in helping students to eliminate errors in
redrafts of their writing.
However, from the perspective of L2 learning, such research is of limited interest, as
Truscott (1996) pointed out, as showing that CF helps students to correct their errors in second
drafts tells us nothing about whether they are able to use them in new pieces of writing.
Revision can also be viewed as part of written CF.
Chandler (op. cit. 2003) compared indirect CF plus the opportunity to revise with
indirect CF where there was no opportunity to revise. Chandler reported that accuracy
improved from the first to the fifth piece of writing significantly more in the group that was
required to correct their errors than in the group that just received indication of their errors.
Also, this increase in accuracy was not accompanied by any decrease in fluency. Chandler
noted that ‗what seems to be a crucial factor is having the students do something with the error
correction besides simply receiving it‘.
In the Chandler study, the no-revision group was simply handed back their corrected
writing. It is possible, however, that if they had been asked to carefully examine the

corrections, they would have shown similar improvements in accuracy to the group that
revised following the CF. Clearly, corrections can only work if writers notice and process
them.
24


CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. Research questions: Basically the research seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What are the types of common errors that high school students often commit in
writing?
2. How to overcome those errors?
3. What are the effectiveness of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake?
2.2. The setting of the study
The study was conducted at Huynh Thuc Khang High School, Vinh, Nghe An, in
which the 11th form students are learning basic English with the very new course book named
Tieng Anh 11 by Hoang Van Van, Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa, Dao Ngoc Loc, Vu Thi Loi, Do
Tuan Minh, Nguyen Quoc Tuan. This course book is theme-based including 16 units and 6
Test Yourself sections. Each unit has its own purposes with specific topics falling into 5
sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus with two main parts:
Pronunciation and Grammar and Vocabulary.
2.3. Informants
The subjects involved in this study were one hundred students ( age 16-17 ) from two
intact low intermediate classes 11A 1 and 11A 5 ( there are 50 students in each class). They
were selected purposefully. To be more exact, these students were learning English as a
compulsory subject and the researcher herself was a teacher currently teaching this group. The
writing syllabus is mandated by the Ministry of Education and Training.
The reasons for the selection is that the selected subjects are accessible. All these
students have been learning English for more than 5 years and most of them have got
acquaintance with teaching and learning methods at middle level. The number of 100 students
due to the fact that this number can provide both the variety and the objectiveness of the

answers she would get from the informants. If a greater number of participants were involved,
the reliability of the data collected might have been greater but it would go beyond
researcher‘s management.
25


2.4. Instrumentation
Students‘ writings were the main instrument of data collection for the present study.
Error research workers employ a variety of ways to provoke errors. They, for instance, ask the
study subjects to translate selected sentences or passages into the target language, to rewrite
sentences with guided words or phrases or tell a story by looking at pictures. All of these are
done under control and aimed at eliciting errors of certain points which they assume the
learners may find it difficult. These are not objective because the errors are characteristically
mechanic. Etherton (1977) disapproves of using them, holding that they have a defect. He
suggests employing free compositions written without help under supervision, for these
contain the most natural use of language despite the fact that the writers may avoid producing
linguistic structures about which they feel uncertain.
With the idea that actual errors will come up in spontaneous production either by
means of speaking or writing, the researcher, for the purpose of the study, selected free
compositions as a means of eliciting natural errors with the help of the subjects who were
requested to write in English on one of the given topics. The focus is laid on narrative and
descriptive as well as expositive writing since they are believed to suit the students‘ up-to-date
level. An attempt was made to choose such topics as to allow the subjects to write
compositions as freely as possible with their own motivation. Almost no psychological effects
namely anxiety or pressure from anything were assumed to exert on them since the situation is
much the same as that when they are given composing time in class sessions.
2.5. Procedures
2.5.1. Data collection
This study is limited to the investigation of the impact of 3 written error correction
strategies on students‘ uptake and students had 3 tasks to do at the class, each of which was

applied to one task. The subjects were invited to cooperate in the collection process. After
giving a clear written model, the researcher asks students to write compositions in given time
around 40 minutes. During the composing time, they were encouraged to do it on their own
and not to consult any dictionaries, or grammar books.
26


However, it is often advantageous to correct the written work in front of the whole
class. One useful way of doing this is to ask the students to do the written work in a paper and
collect them when the time is over. The main unit of analysis was the error treatment
sequence, which contains teacher and student turns in the following order:
. learner error
. teacher feedback
. learner uptake, with either repair of the error or needs-repair.
This order reflects what usually happens when a teacher responds to an utterance containing
an error and when the student attempts to respond to the teacher‘s feedback move.
2.5.1.1. Task 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied)
With this strategy, the teacher provides the students with the correct form above or near to the
erroneous form.
- After having their tasks corrected for the first time, the teacher counts errors
- Then, the teacher hands back written work, students have chance to look at the
papers carefully without bringing them back home.
- Next, they rewrite the tasks and hand in 2 days later.
- The teacher gets the papers back, she keeps reading and correcting the second time,
then count the errors committed.
- Return the papers to her students and let them have a look at the papers for a while
- Ask her students to write the task for the third time with the same way before
- Collect the papers, and count the errors remaining.
2.5.1.2. Task 2: (Indirect corrective feedback applied)
- After collecting and having students‘ written work underlined for the first time, the teacher

counts errors.
- Then, students get them back home.
27


- Next, they rewrite the tasks with their own correction, and hand in 2 days later.
- The teacher gets the papers back, she keeps reading and underlining the second time, then
count the errors committed.
- Return the written work to her students.
- Ask students to write the new papers for the third time basing on the old ones.
- Collect the papers, and count the errors remaining.
2.5.1.3. Task 3: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied)
Because of the big size of the class, the researcher herself only uses the first form, Using of
error codes.
For instance: WO I very much like you
- After collecting students‘ written work for the first time, the teacher labels for
different kinds of errors placed over the location of the error in the text or in the
margin, then counts errors.
- Secondly, students get them back
- Next, they rewrite the tasks with correction and hand in 2 days later.
- The teacher gets the papers back, she keeps reading and labeling errors for the
second time, then count the errors still committed.
- Return the papers to her students.
- Ask students to write the new papers for the third time basing on the old ones with
their own correction.
- Collect the papers, and count the errors remaining.
2.5.2. Techniques of analysis:
Students‘ errors were analysed statistically with an emphasis on the frequency of
certain error types. These error types were counted statistically over different writings to
measure the impact of teacher correction. The techniques employed in the analysis process are

28


the same ones as ever favored by researchers on this field: identification, labelization,
transferation to indexes and classification. Especially, the error recognizing and identifying
model of Corder (1975) was employed.
Firstly, all the papers were carefully read and deviated forms or structures were
identified and marked. During this process, the problem in recognition was overcome. An
interpretation was made to reconstruct what the subjects in their writings intended. Superficial
well-formed sentences or structures were considered in reference to their surrounding contexts
and the content of the compositions. Having been labeled as wrong use of prepositions,
subject-verb agreement, etc, the errors were then transferred to separate index each according
to their class respectively. Finally, occurrence frequency counting was performed for each
type of errors, and the effectiveness of each strategy of error correction were put forwards for
comparison.
2.5.3. Presentation of results:
Students were asked to do 3 tasks dealing with writing composition related to the main
topics of specific units in their English book. The time allowance for doing all these three
tasks is about 40 minutes at the class. Besides, there are some points to be noticed before the
result was presented. Firstly, the research makes no claim to completeness because what we
intended is not a statical count but a pure examination of error sources. As a result, it is
uncertain that errors of all kinds have been covered. Secondly, the data-collecting process
helped in eliminating slips due to carelessness or performance mistakes induced by
psychological factors. Some errors presented in the table below might derive from the same
source. Thus, in the analysis process, they were naturally excluded. Thirdly, in this study, most
of the errors focus locally on parts of sentence.
Nevertheless, the researcher herself is doing the survey on the students of 11
th
form, and
she wants to pay much attention to what course book‘s grammatical points are around and

how students uptake, so that the study mainly discusses 10 subtypes: Subject-Verb agreement,
Tenses, Word order, Prepositions, –ing forms and infinitives, conditional sentences, reported
speech, Omission of “that” in that-clause subject, Relative clauses, Cleft sentences.