The effects of peer feedback on the first year students’ writing performance an action research at hanoi law university

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỒNG HOÀNG MINH

THE EFFECTS OF PEER FEEDBACK ON THE FIRST YEAR
STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE: AN ACTION RESEARCH
PROJECT AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

Ảnh hưởng của phản hồi từ bạn học đến kỹ năng viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên
năm thứ nhất đại học Luật Hà Nội

MA MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111

HANOI – 2016


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỒNG HOÀNG MINH

THE EFFECTS OF PEER FEEDBACK ON THE FIRST YEAR
STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE: AN ACTION RESEARCH
PROJECT AT HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

Ảnh hưởng của phản hồi từ bạn học đến kỹ năng viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên
năm thứ nhất đại học Luật Hà Nội

MA MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60140111
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Nguyễn Văn Trào

HANOI – 2016


DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I declare that this thesis submitted for the Master of Art degree at the
University of Languages and International Studies is a presentation of my own
research and has not been previously submitted at any other universities for any
degrees. Wherever contributions of other researches are involved, every effort is
made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and
acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussion. The work was done
under the guidance of Associate Professor Nguyen Van Trao, at Hanoi University.

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To complete this thesis, I owe profound indebtedness to many people who
have assisted me a lot when I carried out the research.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Mr. Nguyen
Van Trao for all the helpful support, guidance and encouragement he gave me while
I was conducting the research. I am truly grateful to him for his advice and

suggestions right from the beginning when this study was only on its formative
stage.
I would like to send my sincere thanks to my colleagues and the first year
students at Hanoi Law University who have enthusiastically filled out my survey
questionnaire and provided me with their writing papers. Without their assistance, it
would have been really difficult for me to handle the task.
I own a great debt of gratitude to my family for all the support I received to
finish this thesis.

ii


ABSTRACT
Peer feedback plays an essential part in enhancing students’ writing skills.
The reality of the students’ writing performances at Hanoi Law University suggests
that they still repeat common writing mistakes after their writing products are
reviewed carefully by the teachers.
This study is aimed at finding out students’ attitudes towards the use of peer
feedback activities in English writing classes and the extent peer feedback affects
their writing performances. An action research project, realized by means of survey
questionnaire and student writing analysis, was conducted in this study to achieve
the desired aims.
The results indicate that the students hold positive attitudes towards peer
feedback activities in learning English writing and a large number of them will
continue to use peer feedback in the future. The analysis of the students’ writing
papers show that the students made considerable improvement in writing English
under the application of peer feedback in learning process. In addition, the number
of writing mistakes in the students’ writing papers sharply fell after the action
research.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY ................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ vii
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ................................................................ viii
PART A: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................1
1. Rationale ..............................................................................................................1
2. Aims and objectives of the study .........................................................................3
2.1. Aims of the study ..........................................................................................3
2.2. Objectives of the study ..................................................................................3
3. Research questions ...............................................................................................3
4. Scope of the study ................................................................................................3
5. Methods of the study ...........................................................................................3
6. Significance of the study .....................................................................................4
7. Design of the study ..............................................................................................4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................6
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................6
1.1. Theoretical background to the teaching of writing ...........................................6
1.1.1. Definition of writing ...................................................................................6

iv


1.1.2. Approaches to the teaching of writing: product versus process approaches

..............................................................................................................................7
1.2. Peer feedback in writing teaching.....................................................................8
1.2.1. Definition of feedback ................................................................................8
1.2.2. The importance of corrective feedback ......................................................9
1.2.3. Types of feedback ....................................................................................10
1.2.4. Definition and types of errors ...................................................................12
1.2.5. The training section ..................................................................................13
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY .........................................................................17
2.1. Research method .............................................................................................17
2.2. Data collection instruments ............................................................................19
2.2.1. Questionnaire............................................................................................19
2.2.2. Students’ writing analysis ........................................................................21
2.3. Participants of the study..................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ......................................23
3.1. Answer to the first research question: What are the students’ attitudes
towards peer feedback in English writing skills learning? ....................................23
3.1.1. Data collected from questionnaires ..........................................................23
3.2. Answer to the second research question: To what extent does the use of peer
feedback affect the students’ writing performance? ..............................................36
3.2.1. Data collected from first drafts and revised drafts of the writings ...........36
3.3. Summary .........................................................................................................40
PART C: CONCLUSION.......................................................................................41
1. Summary of the major findings .........................................................................41

v


3. Limitations of the study .....................................................................................43
4. Recommendations for further studies ............................................................43
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................44

APPENDIX I.............................................................................................................. I
APPENDIX II ........................................................................................................... V
APPENDIX III: Criteria for writing assessment ................................................ IX

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
ESL: English as a Second Language
HLU: Hanoi Law University
L1: First Language
L2: Second Language

vii


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: Error codes ...........................................................................................14
Figure 1: The students’ involvement in peer feedback ..........................................
before its application in class .............................................................................23
Figure 2: The students’ involvement in peer feedback ..........................................
after its application in class ................................................................................24
Figure 3: The focuses of peer feedback per different aspects before its
application in class .............................................................................................25
Figure 4: The focuses of peer feedback per different aspects after its application
in class ................................................................................................................25
Figure 5: Reasons why students do not understand their peer feedback ...........27
Figure 6: Students’ reactions when they do not understand peer feedback .......28
Figure 7: The students’ attitudes towards the effect of peer feedback before its

application in class .............................................................................................29
Figure 8: The students’ attitudes towards the effect of peer feedback after its
application in class .............................................................................................29
Table 2: The reasons why the students found peer feedback useful before and
after the application (data from the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire) 30
Table 3: The reasons why the students found peer feedback not useful before
and after its application (data from the pre-questionnaire and postquestionnaire) .....................................................................................................34
Figure 9: The students’ opinions on their future use of peer feedback ..............35

viii


Table 4: The scores for first drafts of the writing……………………………..35
Figure 10: The scores for first drafts of the writings .........................................37
Table 5: The scores for revised drafts of the writings ........................................37
Table 6: The results from the first drafts and revised drafts of the students’
writings ...............................................................................................................38
Figure 11: Number of errors in different aspects in the students’ first drafts and
revised drafts ......................................................................................................39

ix


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
Writing plays an important role in foreign language learning and students are
often required to do a great deal of writing. Among the four skills of English,
writing is a very difficult skill because non-native speakers often think in their own
native language when they write. Writing is therefore an intricate and complex task
and is affirmed to be “the most difficult of the language abilities to acquire” (Allen

& Corder, 1974, p.23), (cited in Abisamra, 2003).
The reality of teaching English writing at Hanoi Law University (HLU) has
shown that the students face many problems with their academic writing. After
some discussions with other English teachers of English Division at HLU, I found
out that students’ writing performances in English classes were very poor and the
results of their writing tests were fairly low. The teachers of English at HLU
highlighted that the students frequently made basic errors in their writing. They also
stated that the students made little and slow improvement in writing even after
lectures and tutorials in class. Although their writing papers were often carefully
corrected by the teachers, they still repeated common mistakes. Therefore, the
students were afraid of learning writing.
On carefully considering the students’ problems of English writing and the
potential causes, I made an assumption that the traditional academic writing classes
deter the students from performing excellently in their English writing classes.
Thus, the teachers need to motivate their students and create interest in English
writing. To do that, the teachers should offer the students chances to communicate
in fulfilling writing tasks and make a friendly and comfortable learning atmosphere.
Furthermore, in order to enhance the students’ writing quality, the teachers are

1


likely to assign more writing practice tasks, which allow the students to do revision
and exchange their writing papers with their partners in class.
It is important for both teachers and students to accept the fact that errors are
an inevitable part of the learning process (Davies and Pearse, 2002). That is why
errors are often a sign of learning in language acquisition process. In reality,
feedback plays an integral part in students’ writing ability. As a teacher of English, I
have been constantly searching for appropriate methods to help the students become
more confident in writing. I share a view with Hedge (2000) that “learners progress

faster with meaningful language practice in a rich linguistic environment and with
an informed policy of error correction on the part of the teacher” (p.15).
In the writing instruction in the EFL/ESL context, teachers meet some
difficulties in correcting the students’ errors in writing papers. The teachers have to
endure huge workload of correcting writing mistakes of all sorts due to the large
number of students. Furthermore, the students normally pay attention to the marks
they receive rather than the mistakes corrected by teachers. Worst of all, if a
student’s writing paper is full of red ink, he may be frustrated and his interest and
confidence in learning may be destroyed (Harmer, 2007, p. 120). Therefore,
teachers should find out more effective ways to enhance their writing teaching and
improve the students’ writing ability.
Besides the traditional teacher feedback, peer response has been proved to be
an effective type of feedback because it gives opportunities for students to write for
an immediate audience apart from the teacher, familiarize themselves with actual
readers who critically respond to their work, boost their confidence, and work
collaboratively (Hairston & Keene, 2003). Because of the tendency of
communicative language teaching and learner-centered teaching, students are
strongly encouraged to actively participate in language teaching. As a result, peer
feedback has become increasingly popular among the practitioners. Peer feedback is
also regarded as a method to improve writing skill for the students at HLU. This
2


study is an attempt to examine the effects of peer feedback on the students’ writing
performance at this university.
2. Aims and objectives of the study
2.1. Aims of the study
As the title suggests, the overarching aim of this thesis is to investigate the
effects of peer feedback on the students’ writing performance at HLU.
2.2. Objectives of the study

To achieve the above aim, the following objectives are set for exploration:
a. to investigate the students’ attitudes towards peer feedback
b. to examine the extent the use of peer feedback affects the students’
writing performance
c. to suggest some recommendations to enhance the quality of peer
feedback at HLU.
3. Research questions
To make the task manageable, the above objectives are translated into the
following research questions:
(1). What are the students’ attitudes towards peer feedback in English writing
skills learning?
(2). To what extent does the use of peer feedback affect the students’ writing
performance?
4. Scope of the study
The researcher will deal with peer feedback on the first year students at
HLU. Moreover, within the framework of this minor thesis, the study examines only
peer written feedback but not other types of feedback such as oral feedback.
5. Methods of the study

3


The study adopts qualitative and quantitative method for data collection and
data analysis. Document analysis of students’ peer feedback drafts with peer
feedback is done to find out how the students provide peer feedback to their peers’
writing. Then, the students’ first drafts are compared with their second drafts to see
if peer feedback helps them improve their writing. Furthermore, a survey
questionnaire was administered on the students to examine their attitudes towards
peer feedback in writing lessons.
6. Significance of the study

The findings of the present study are hoped to contribute a new implication
to teaching EFL writing, particularly to the area of error treatment. If peer feedback
is proven to be useful, it will be practiced as an alternative method to treat errors in
the students’ writing, and thus to improve the students’ writing performance.
7. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three parts, namely Introduction, Development and
Conclusion.
Part A: Introduction
This part presents the rationale, the aims, the scope, the methods and the
design of the study.
Part B: Development
This part includes three chapters, namely Literature Review, Methodology
and Data analysis and Discussion.
Chapter 1: Literature Review provides an overview of the writing teaching, errors
in general and peer feedback in particular.

4


Chapter 2: Methodology presents the participants of the study, the research
instruments, the data collection procedure and the data analysis procedure from
which answers to the research questions could be found.
Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Discussion analyze the data collected from the survey
questionnaire and document analysis and present discussions with regards to the
findings presented.
Part C: Conclusion
In this part, the major findings, some recommendations, limitations of the
research as well as suggestions for further study are presented.
The appendices are the last part of the study following the reference.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Theoretical background to the teaching of writing
1.1.1. Definition of writing
Writing is a necessary and difficult skill to learn for second language
learners. Byrne (1991) stated that writing can be seen as a process of using graphic
symbols to translate our thoughts into language. In the process of writing, we use
graphic symbols which can be a letter or combination of letters and relate to the
sounds we make. Byrne (1982) also found that we did not write just one sentence or
even a number of unrelated sentences. We made a sequence of sentences organized
in a particular order and linked together in certain ways. Writing is a process of
discovery when the writers try to find their way by managing to think, compose and
put their ideas together.
In their study to examine the cognitive effort of students while writing,
Olive, Favart and Beauvais (2009) found that the cognitive effort interacted with
genres. They showed that students’ cognitive writing effort decreased or increased
when writing certain types of texts such as argumentative and narrative texts. The
writers are likely to discover an idea which is new to him and he has never thought
of before during the process of writing. Zamel (1983) argued that writers discover
and formulate ideas as they go through the process of writing. For that reason,
writers should be placed in writing situations that require authentic use of language
to communicate.
In short, writing is a complex process which involves a number of separate
skills from the basics of handwriting and spelling to the nuances of tone and
organization (Veit, Gould & Clifford, 2001). Thus, to produce a piece of writing,

6


we must use a series of words and sentences which are grammatically and logically
linked.
1.1.2. Approaches to the teaching of writing: product versus process
approaches
Product approach is the traditional approach to teaching writing which
focuses on the final product, the coherent and the error-free text (Nuan, 1999). The
writing teachers who subscribe to the product approach pay more attention to see a
final writing paper and evaluate it against criteria of vocabulary use, grammar use,
and medical considerations such as spelling and punctuations, as well as content and
organization (Brown, 1994). Therefore, the teachers who favor product approach
typically provide their students with model essays and foster them to mimic these
pieces of writing to produce a similar product. Teacher feedback focuses on
correcting forms of essays, paragraphs and sentences. The major limitation of the
product approach is that learners might become passive and dependent on teachers
and textbook. In the 1970s, as a consequence of the limitations of this approach,
students were restricted in what they could write and how they could write it
(Jordan, 1997), the process approach began to develop.
Process approach is concerned with the processes of writing that enable the
product to be achieved. In this approach, writing is no longer regarded as a “linear
and fragmented procedure” (Hairston, 1982, p. 78) with the mere target at an error
free product. The aim of writing, as stated by Stewart (1988, as cited in Joe, 2006,
p.48), is a written communication with the writer himself, with his fellow leaners,
with his teacher and with his intended readers. Thus, the key role of writing is the
idea/the meaning rather than the form. Students are given instructions on how to
generate ideas for writing, identify the purpose and audience and write a series of
drafts so as to present written products that communicate their own ideas. In this
way, students can gradually discover how to express their ideas efficiently. In

7


addition, teacher feedback often focuses on the development of multiple drafts of a
text and on quantity rather than on quality.
In short, the process approach nurtures learners’ creativity and motivation in
learning and students play an active role in learning process while the product
approach puts more emphasis on the final product, the coherent and the error-free
text. It can be evidently seen that the two approaches provide different perspectives
on peer feedback of students’ writing.
1.2. Peer feedback in writing teaching
1.2.1. Definition of feedback
Keh (1990) defined feedback as “any input from a reader to a writer that
provides information to the writer for revision” (p. 294). In other words, it is the
comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer in order to produce
reader-based prose as opposed to writer prose.
Hyland and Hyland (2001) considered feedback as “a formative development
process that gives writers the opportunities to discuss their texts and discover
others’ interpretations of them” (p. 6). According to Ur (1996, p. 242), feedback is
the process of giving information to the learner about his or her performance of a
learning activity in order to improve this performance.
The definition given by Liu and Hansen (2002) is seen as the most
comprehensive one. According to them, feedback is the use of learners as
information sources and communications with each other. In this way, learners are
in charge of roles normally taken on by teachers in giving comments on and
criticizing each other’s drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of
writing” (p.75).

8

1.2.2. The importance of corrective feedback
The aim of giving corrective feedback is to help the students find out a
problem with their production, thereby using the correct form following feedback.
According to Hyland (2004), students can enhance particular grammatical features
through corrective feedback within communicative second language programs.
Peer feedback is often considered as the process of giving students a chance
to “read and constructively criticize each other’s writing.” (Jacobs, 1987, p.325).
Students can identify their own strengths and weaknesses through the comments,
and later on will make students realize how to improve themselves. Tsui and Ng’s
(2000) also affirmed that students are likely to get a genuine sense of audience, a
sense of ownership of the text, and awareness of the weaknesses of their own
writing. The significance of corrective feedback is also stressed by Cole and Chan
(1994). They said that feedback can be either positive or negative and may function
as not only letting learners know how well they have performed but also increasing
encouragement and creating a supportive classroom atmosphere. The objective of
corrective feedback is to help the learners identify problems with their production
and they can use the correct form after feedback. Hyland (2004) claimed that
students can improve particular grammatical features through corrective feedback
within communicative second language programs. With regard to the teachers’
benefit, corrective feedback can save teachers’ time, especially in large classes.
Many researchers have given different definitions of feedback in language
learning. In fact, almost all of these definitions state that “feedback is what learners
get about the quality of their production on a given task, knowledge of results,
comments on skill performance, notes on writing assignments, approving nod and
forms of feedback that teachers often used with learners” Wlodkowski & Jaynes
(1990, p.93). In summary, providing feedback helps students develop their
sensitivity and their writing style. In other words, feedback is a significant factor of

9


a writing approach when it motivates the learners through the writing process on to
the final product.
1.2.3. Types of feedback
1.2.3.1. Direct and Indirect feedback
Ferris (2002) suggest that several options are often used in teachers’
corrective feedback, such as direct versus indirect, error location versus error
identification, larger versus smaller categories of errors, codes versus symbols
versus verbal comments, textual corrections versus end notes and so on. Direct
feedback is explicit correction in response to errors when the teacher finds out an
error and provides the correct form, while indirect feedback might take various
forms like omitting a redundant word or phrase; inserting a missing word or adding
the correct form near the wrong one. With indirect feedback, the teacher points out
that an error has been made but does not provide a correction. For direct feedback,
what students need to do is to transcribe their peers’ corrections into the texts. On
the other hand, indirect feedback give students the opportunity to fix errors
themselves (Ferris, 2002).
According to Lalande (1982), indirect feedback is greatly effective in
students’ writing than direct feedback. Indirect feedback often leads to better
cognitive engagement, reflection, guided learning and problem-solving. It provides
feedback on errors, advising students about the location of errors but forcing them
to figure out the way to correct the mistakes on their own. In the long run, it helps
encourage students’ critical thinking and the ability to self-edit their writing
products. Besides, students will remember the mistakes better if they have to correct
these errors by themselves. As a result, the students are likely to avoid them in the
future.
However, some researchers have stated that students did not perceive recasts
as corrective feedback; instead, they regarded direct feedback as simple repetitions

10


of their utterances due to their implicitness and ambiguity (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
Inspite of that limitation, many teachers prefer recasts as corrective feedback in the
L2 classroom because of the benefits of providing recasts. The direct feedback
should be provided for complicated mistakes so that learners of low level of
language proficiency find it easier. Furthermore, recasts can provide correct forms
without risking embarrassing the learners (Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Lyster, 2004).
1.2.3.2. Text-specific feedback versus general feedback
Text-specific feedback refers to the feedback which has close relation to the
text at hand while general feedback adheres to any paper. Regarding the issue of
text-specific feedback or general feedback, most researchers agree that text-specific
feedback is of greater benefits to students than general feedback. According to
Seow (2002), text-specific response will facilitate students reclaiming meanings and
make the revision of initial drafts easier. As text-specific feedback accurately states
the kinds of mistakes students make, the causes of these mistakes and also makes
some recommendations for improvement; it is more likely that the errors are
corrected properly. According to Reid (1993), the feedback should be “detailed
enough to allow students to act, to commit to change their writings” (p. 218). On the
other hand, general feedback is also necessary in order for students to have a
general view of their writing. Therefore, text-specific and general feedback should
be combined together to enhance the quality of students’ writings.
1.2.3.3. Feedback focus on form versus on content
The problem of how teachers should respond to students’ writings is
controversial and there is little agreement among researchers about the type of
feedback to help students improve their writing skill. Much of the conflict over
teacher response has been whether feedback should focus on form (e.g., grammar,
mechanics) or on content (e.g., organization, amount of detail).

11


A few studies have concentrated on content alone. Huntley (1992) affirmed
that feedback on content should be provided to students while feedback on form
should be limited and she suggests that peer feedback and student-teacher
conferences need to be incorporated in teaching as two important feedback methods
to traditional error correction. In other words, these views imply that there should be
more content feedback than form feedback between first and final drafts of writing
products.
In contrast, some findings have found that the teacher should pay more
attention to focus on form rather than focus on content. Enginarlar (1993), after a
survey of 47 EFL students’ attitudes towards the feedback procedure process in
their class, found out that the students perceive attention to linguistic mistakes as
effective teacher feedback. Ferris (1995) conducted surveys of students’ attitudes
towards feedback in an EFL context and also reached the same conclusion that
students preferred feedback focusing on form.
1.2.4. Definition and types of errors
A number of experts in linguistics have given various definitions of errors.
Norrish (1983) considers errors as a systematic deviation, when a learner has not
learnt something and consistently gets it wrong. According to Norrish, errors can be
categorized into three types, namely the error, the mistake and the lapse. After a
learner is taught the language form, he or she may be able to use it appropriately or
not. The inconsistent deviation is termed mistake. The type of wrong usage which is
neither an error nor a mistake is a lapse. The reasons for a lapse might be lack of
concentration, shortness of memory, fatigue and so on. However, many teachers
also name a similar type of mistake caused by the learner’s inattentiveness in class a
careless slip.
Chomsky (1965) categorized errors into two types, competence errors and
performance errors. Competence errors are systematic errors in the linguistic

12


system of the learner, while performance errors are just an imperfect reflection of
the learner’s linguistic competence. The occurrence of performance errors does not
mean that the learner does not know the language. In fact, errors occur due to such
factors as tiredness, drunkenness or external distraction.
Errors can also be classified into another two types in relation to
comprehensibility (Burt and Kiparsky, 1972). The two types are “global” and
“local” errors, which are also known as communicative and non-communicative
errors respectively (Hendrickson, 1978). The global or communicative errors are the
mistakes affecting the interpretation of the whole sentence, while the local or noncommunicative ones are just a part of it, a clause or a phrase. Errors that cause
irritation but do not prevent comprehension are recommended to receive a lower
priority of treatment than those hindering comprehension or deceiving the listeners.
Therefore, the “global” errors, rather than the “local” ones deserve most attention
and correction. On the other hand, there remains a risk that when a foreign language
learner could be well understood by well-meaning native speakers in spite of the
errors, the errors will become an enduring component of the learner’s competence.
1.2.5. The training section
Training the respondents on this technique is necessary so that they have a
clear understanding of what peer feedback is and how to carry it out.. In the first
lesson, there was a training stage for learners so that they have an idea of what peer
correction is and how to do it. According to Raimes (1983, p. 147), training learners
on this technique is vital because it directs students’ attention to the elements which
should be focused on. Stanley (1992, p. 230) also stated that it is unfair to require
students to be able to carry out these challenging tasks without being offered
organized practice with and discussion of the skills involved. Thus, the theory and
the results of this study strongly support the training to the students in the process of
applying peer feedback in writing class. One class-time period training was spent to

equip students with the technique of peer correction and facilitate the action
13


research. Common error correction codes were used for both teacher and students
during the training as well as the treatment period. The teacher always cares about
clearly explaining and giving examples to make sure that they were all explicit to
the students.
First, the students were trained how to correct their peers’ writings using
correction codes by a checklist which is demonstrated in the table below:
Table 1: Error codes
Symbols

Meaning

Examples

SV

Subject – Verb agreement

He do the job every morning.

Sp

Spelling mistake

We sometime get lost.

R

Redundant words

I am keen on for listening to music.

Vt

Verb tense

Yesterday, I go to the park.

VF

Verb form

She enjoys to read books.

N

Number

There are 40 worker in the factory.

Art

Article

A book is on the table.

WC

Wrong use of word

Mary often helps his mother.

P

Punctuation

I like dancing P chatting and
watching TV.

^

Word missing

I am interested ^ jazz music.

V

Voice

The bike repaired yesterday.

Ps

Part of speech

That is an interest movie.

Prep

Preposition

Mark is in school now.

Cap

Capitalization

I have lived in london for two years.

Frag.

Fragment sentence

Because it snowed.

Run-on

Run-on sentence

The ship was enormous, its mast was
almost 40 feet high.

Cs

Comma splices

She is a teacher, she teachers

14