INVESTIGATING THE EFFICACY OF CODED FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING ASSIGNMENTS

ESTER D. JIMENA, HERWINDY MARIA TEDJAATMADJA, AND MENG TIAN

Assumption University of Thailand

One of the most frustrating tasks in L2 writing class is correcting students’ recurring errors. As teachers, we are always in search of the most suitable method to use in error correction for our students. This empirical study investigates how coded feedback, as opposed to the direct correction method, helps students improve accuracy in grammar, vocabulary, and spelling in in-class writing assignments. Its research findings come from analyzing data gathered from freshmen students taking Preparatory English Course at the Assumption University of Thailand.

INTRODUCTION

To most teachers, correcting students’ errors is one of the most frustrating tasks in language

teaching. Being in the field, we share the sentiments of such frustrations when our students

keep on making similar errors even after being corrected. Although some students were

eager to read the comments and corrections we made in their writings, most of them made

similar errors in their succeeding works. We appreciated those who approached us after

class and inquired about their mistakes, but not many of them did. At times we even

wondered whether our comprehensive correction actually helped the students make

progress or not. In other words, does the time we spend in correction do really help boost

students’ learning experience in class? Does it lead to learner progress? How can we help

them to become responsible for reducing their errors?

As we reflected on it, we realized that students needed more than just transcribing teachers’

correction in their writing to avoid making similar errors in their future writing. The

realization of helping students fix their errors on their own prompted us to conduct this case

study to investigate the efficacy of coded feedback, as opposed to direct correction, in

correcting the L2 writing assignments of students taking up Preparatory English Course, a

six-hour English course every week.

This case study is expected to help teachers to deal with the selection of error correction

methods. As it compares two common error correction methods, the result will show which

error correction is effective to reduce students making errors in grammar, vocabulary and

spelling. This paper also provides several practical suggestions for teachers to adapt in their

teaching context.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

However, there were several limitations we faced when conducting the research. First,

participants who did not complete the three writing assignments were excluded from the

study. Second, the data used in this study were limited to those taking English Preparatory

Class of the academic year 2005. Therefore, our study only represents the results of the

group selected.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Scholars and linguists agree with the idea that errors are predictors of language learning.

Davis and Pearse explain that “errors are integral part of language learning and not

evidence of failure to learn” (2000: 103). Thus, they should be percevied as rites of passage

between what has been and what has to be learned still (Smith, 1994) since they are

considered “provisional forms” (Yule and Tarone, 1995: 7). More specifically, in second

language learning, Hedge points out that “errors are now seen as reflections of a learner’s

stage of interlanguage development” (2000: 15). Hence, errors should be treated carefully

from the perspectives of both the teachers and the students.

Truscott (1996, cited in Ferris, 2003: 42) emphazises the goal of error correction for the

betterment of students’ writing accuracy; so, in order to achieve that purpose, grammatical

error correction is emphasized; which is in accordance with Stern’s definition of error

correction (1992); that it is an inevitable process learners have to go through if they want to

learn grammar. This way, Krashen (1987: 11) says, it helps learners to stimulate grammar

learning. Richards & Lockhart (1996: 188) add that error correction includes not only

grammar; but also content improvement. To reiterate, error correction is an integral part of

learning process to enhance students’ progress.

Among the four skills in language learning, writing is the easiest to correct because it is

something concrete, but it is also problematic in terms of assessment. It is possible for a

considerable gap to exist between the learners’ and the teachers’ views on what errors in

writing should be treated and how. For example, a study conducted by Leki (1991 cited in

Scott, 1996) of ESL freshmen writing indicates students’ interest in having their errors

pointed out and not just comments on their writing’s organization and content. She, along

with Raimes (1983 in Scott, 1996) and Krashen (1987) agree that not all errors are to be

corrected, instead the focus should be on errors that need immediate attention. Hence, error

correction will be more effective if errors are manageable and portable to learners’ level

and readiness to self-correct (Ellis, 1994 and Davies and Pearse, 2000).

Although teacher’s perceptions of errors varies and, in most cases, subjective, the types of

errors to be corrected depend on what is being asked or what is being taught to the students.

When these conditions are not met, the teachers turn to their individual judgement of

learners’ performance in class. In addition, the goal of language learning and teaching

highlights the pedagogical decision to correct only what is being taught and to give teachers

direction about what information is lacking (Wajnryb, 1992: 51).

What have been discussed here put forward the fact that errors are integral parts of

language learning carefully from the perspectives of the students and the teachers; and thus,

appropriate error correction method is needed.

It is an error correction method that directly provides the correct form to learners’ errors.

The strength of direct correction is that it is

less threatening and helpful to low proficiency learners (Ferris, 2002) . These students are

not yet capable of self-correct; thus, they need remedial guidance which is provided by

direct correction. However, it can increase learners’ dependency on teachers since they

might assume that it is just the teachers’ responsibility to correct their errors; this way,

students will just copy and the purpose of giving correction will not be achieved (Harmer,

1998 and Hedge, 2000). Furthermore, it is also possible that teachers might misinterpret

students’ original meaning, especially with ambiguous sentence. (Ferris, 2002)

On the other hand, coded feedback indicates not only where errors are located, but also

types of mistakes by using a correcting code (Bartram and Walton, 1991: 8). This method

makes correction much neater and faster due to the simple and systematical codes (Harmer,

2001). After the teachers and students are familiar with the codes, this method can actually

lessen the correction time and busy teachers, especially, will benefit more from it. The

responsibility given by

this method helps students to learn more effectively in the long run by being more

responsible through the process of self correction (Ferris, 2002 and Gower, Phillips and

Walters, 1995). However, t

he weaknesses of this method can not be ignored since

errors not specified in the error correction codes may be ignored, especially idiosnycratic

errors (Gower, Phillips and Walters, 1995: 168). It might be

threatening for low proficiency learners who are not equipped with the ability for self-

correct and confusion might occur when students and teachers are not yet familiar with the

codes (Bartram and Walton, 1991 and Ferris, 2002)

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This case study sought answers to the following questions:

1. Do students who receive coded feedback produce more accurate writing in grammar,

vocabulary and spelling than those who receive direct correction within the period of two

months?

2. What kinds of errors are reduced by coded feedback?

3. What kinds of errors are reduced by direct correction?

METHODOLOGY

21 freshmen students from two classes of the Institute for English Language Education at

Assumption University who are currently enrolled in the English Preparatory Class

participated in this study. Nine students received direct correction and the rest were treated

with coded feedback. The average age of the subjetcs is eighteen and they have learnt

English at high schools and achieved more or less the same level of proficiency, pre-

intermediate. Since some of them graduated from international schools, their English

background is varied.

The data collection for this study took place for two months, from the middle of July until

the middle of September. To indicate students’ starting point of L2 writing proficiency,

both groups had to compose an in-class essay on a certain topic, treated as the pre-test or

the starting point of L2 writing proficiency. We marked this essays with comments to

motivate them to write. After the pre-test, we oriented our students with the use of codes to

help them accustomed to it since they were required to keep an error awareness sheet to

record their errors to monitor the frequency of errors they made. Then, 3 in-classs writing

assignments were administered to measure their progress. Students were required to revise

their writing according to the feedback marked on their writing. Finally, students had to

work on the post-test essay on a similar topic as the pre-test at the end of two months,

treated as their final point of L2 writing proficiency. To evaluate the efficacy of coded

feedback, teachers compared the progress from both groups.

The following codes in the table below were used in correcting students’ written works. They are adapted from Lalande’s ECCO (in Scott 1996: 103), Harmer (2001),

Hogue (1996), and Bartram and Walton (1991).

Types of Errors Corrective Symbol

1. Tense T

2. Verb Form VF

3. Subject Verb Agreement SV

4. Passive / Active Voice P/A

5. Singular / Plural S/P

6. Pronoun PR

7. Article Art

8. Wrong Word VOC

9. Spelling SPE

10. Word Order WO

11. Something is missing Λ

12. Not Clear ?

13. Omit

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1. Coded feedback: summary of the pre-test and post-test result reveals a 21% decrease in the total number of errors

Types of Errors Pre-test (192) Post test (152)

No. of errors No. of errors

T 11 7

VF 11 9

SV 35 9

PA 0 1

S/P 6 5

PR 13 8

WO 1 2

ART 0 2

VOC 13 25

SPE 13 13

MISS 39 28

OMIT 36 38

NC 14 5

Based on Table 1, the pretest and post test results reveal that students reduced their total

number of errors by 21% from 192 to 152. The results highlight the importance of self-

correction in helping students become more responsible for their own progress in attaining

writing accuracy. This coincides with previous research (Lalande, 1982, Ferris, 1995c,

Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998, Reid, 1998b cited in Ferris, 2002: 19, Bates, Lane and Lange,

1993, Gower, Phillips & Walters 1995, Xiang, 2004) which signify that coded feedback is

effective in reducing errors gradually.

In particular, coded feedback reduced the following errors: T, VF , SV, S/P, PR, ^ and NC.

According to Ferris (2002: 23), these errors are categorized as treatable because they are

related to linguistic structure that occurs in a rule-governed way. On the other hand, errors

on PA, WO, ART, VOC, and OMIT were increased. Except for PA and ART errors, the

rest are classified by Ferris (2002: 23) as untreatable because of their idiosyncratic and

individualistic nature. Significantly, the error on SPE maintained its frequency from the

pre-test to the post-test results, which means this mechanical error needed more attention

and practice.

Table 2 Errors frequency of the three in-class writing assignments in Coded Feedback

Types of Errors 1st Writing (29) 2nd Writing (38) 3rd Writing (47)

No. of errors No. of errors No. of errors

T 0 6 2

VF 2 11 8

SV 2 2 0

PA 0 0 0

S/P 0 0 0

PR 1 2 5

WO 0 0 0

ART 0 0 0

VOC 5 9 10

SPE 0 3 6

MISS 7 3 6

OMIT 9 1 7

NC 3 1 3

Table 2 indicates students’ inconsistency in correcting their errors as revealed in their

revised writing. This is due to the fact that in the process of receiving coded feedback

students were figuring out the correct form of their errors, which, we believe, is the starting

point of language awarness indicated by noticing (Ellis, 1994: 361).

Table 3 Direct Correction: a summary of pre-test and post-test result reveals a 17% increase in the total number of errors

Types of Errors Pre-test (110) Post test (132)

No. of errors No. of errors

T 8 1

VF 10 7

SV 13 20

PA 1 1

S/P 6 6

PR 2 1

WO 0 1

ART 0 0

VOC 13 15

SPE 8 10

MISS 23 24

OMIT 26 40

NC 0 6

Table 3 shows that students increased their total number of errors by 17% from 110 in the

pre-test to 132 of the post-test. Nonetheless, errors on T, VF and PR are reduced.

Meanwhile, errors on SV, VOC, SPE, WO, ^ , OMIT and NC are increased. However,

errors on PA and S/P are neither reduced nor increased. On the other hand, the students

committed no error on article in the course of the investigation. This implies the method’s

weakness of providing the correct form to students’ errors without allowing them to self-

correct. Thus, students’ progress is less likely to thrive.

Table 4 Errors frequency of the three in-class writing assignments in Direct Correction

Types of Errors 1st Writing (8) 2nd Writing (0) 3rd Writing (1)

No. of errors No. of errors No. of errors

T 0 0 0

VF 2 0 0

SV 0 0 0

PA 0 0 0

S/P 0 0 1

PR 0 0 0

WO 0 0 0

ART 0 0 0

VOC 0 0 0

SPE 1 0 0

MISS 2 0 0

OMIT 3 0 0

NC 0 0 0

Students’ dependency on the teachers as sole providers of correct forms of the language is

clearly seen from Table 4. During the process of receiving direct correction, students

eliminated almost all of their errors. This is due to the fact that correct forms are provided,

hence easier for revision purposes. Since the method does not give students the opportunity

to self-correct (Brannon and Knoblauch, 1982, Sommers, 1982, Zamel, 1985, cited in Ferris

2002: 65), it spoon feeds the students as they mainly transcribe teachers’ correction without

making further attempt to self- correct (Hedge, 2000).

In conclusion, coded feedback reduces treatable errors more effectively than direct

correction. It is the result of giving the students oppportunities to reflect on and correct their

own errors. Direct correction, on the other hand, is helpful in reducing idiosyncratic errors

and may take longer time to facilitate students’ progress in writing accuracy.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

Based on the results, coded feedback helps students improve their writing accuracy in terms

of grammar. In terms of vocabulary and spelling, students need guidance. Teachers should

provide ample assistance through activities like brainstorming, using concrete objects,

visuals like pictures, posters and so on to elicit words.

In addition, coded feedback might not be as effective as direct correction in treating

untreatable errors, which are individualistic in nature. These errors might be reduced

through highlighting them during class discussion, however teachers should be careful not

to offend those who made the errors. On the other hand, the treatment of these errors

depends on students’ level of proficiency regardless of what method is adopted. Thus, it is

vital for teachers to get to know their students’ capacities and potentialities.

In addition, the use of error awareness sheet serves as teachers’ guide in determining which

errors need immediate attention. Hence, the instruction in the remedial class can focus on

these errors. However, to enhance the effectiveness of the remedial class, the use of error

awareness notebook should be encouraged among students as a means to monitor their

errors and correction received.

The result also indicates that in order to make direct correction more effective, it could be

modified by simply underlining students’ recurring errors and requiring them to self correct

first. Correct forms are later provided in their revised version as a comparison of their own

correction with the teachers’, thus giving the students the opportunity to self-correct.

RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER STUDY

Lastly, since this study was limited in scope, replication of this study with students in more

than one academic years is highly recommended. A longitudinal approach is proposed to

yield a long-term result.

REFERENCES:

Bartram, M. & R. Walton (1991). Correction. London: Language Teaching Publications. 

Bates, L., J. Lange, & E. Lange (1993). Writing Clearly. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.

Davies, P. and E. Pearse (2000). Success in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press. 

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing.

Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. 

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to Student Writing. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates. 

Gower, R., D. Phillips and S. Walters (1995). Teaching Practice Handbook. Oxford: Macmillan Education

.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. Essex: Longman. 

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Edinburgh:Pearson Education Ltd.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Hogue, A. (1996). First Step in Academic Writing. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition.

Hertfordshire: Prentice-hall International Ltd. 

Richards, J. C. & C. Lockhart (1996). Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Scott, V. M. (1996). Rethinking Foreign Language Writing. New York: Heinle &

Heinle Publishers. 

Smith, M.S. (1994). Second Language Learning: Theoretical Foundations. Harlow: Longman.

Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and Options in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford

University Press. 

Tarone, E. and G. Yule (1995). Focus on the Language Learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wajnryb, R. (1992). Classroom Observation Task. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xiang, W. (2004). Encouraging self monitoring in writing by Chinese Students. ELT Journal 58(3): 238-246.

 

ESTER D. JIMENA is an English lecturer at Central Philippine University, Philippines. Her research interests are error analysis, reflective teaching, motivation, and learners autonomy in language teaching.

HERWINDY MARIA TEDJAATMADJA is an English lecturer at Petra Christian University, Indonesia. Her present research interests are language learning strategies, EFL writing and language teaching methodology.

MENG TIAN is an English lecturer at Foreign Languages Faculty in Shanxi Teachers University, China. Her main research interests are group dynamics, fluency and creative writing.