on the students' performance in error correction with Hong Kong English learners
. ... These strategies were: “Translating into English translation…, checking in.
Belinda Ho
[email protected]
Using Error Codes to Help Error Correction
Perspectives Working Papers in English & Communication Volume 16, Issue 1 Spring 2004
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004
Using error codes to help error correction Belinda Ho Abstract This study investigates how error codes helped 43 second year Computer Studies students correct their errors. Sources of data included a revised proposal assignment, a questionnaire and interviews. Results showed that the coding of errors was useful for error correction. The types of codes which led to more successful error correction than others, the strategies used most often by the students to determine how to correct the coded errors and the reasons for the students’ choices of strategies are reported. Pedagogical implications of these findings are also discussed.
- 24 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004
Using error codes to help error correction – Belinda HO
Introduction This study examines the use of error codes to help university students in Hong Kong correct errors. The use of error codes to help students correct their writing has often been propounded in the literature as an effective method to facilitate error correction. For example, The Syllabus for English in Hong Kong (CDC 1983:47) states that the correction code, “which is a list of grammatical items such as nouns, articles, prepositions and so on, is a common error feedback technique in the ESL classroom”. It is believed to be a useful method of helping students correct their own errors. As both Allwright (1975) and Long (1977) point out, it is important for teachers not to correct learner errors or give the right answers to them immediately. Cues should be given to the students so that they can correct their own errors. This will further activate their linguistic competence. Lalande (1982) found that American students who used error codes to correct errors in German had greater improvement in writing than the students who had their errors corrected by their teachers. Mantello (1997) found that coded feedback was effective for weak students learning French. Makino (1993) showed that Japanese learners of English were helped to correct errors better when cues were given than when they were not. Kubota (2001) also reports that her Japanese learners found coding errors useful in helping them correct errors. It must be noted that the subjects in the above studies were not Chinese learners of English. Lee (1997) did carry out a study on the students’ performance in error correction with Hong Kong English learners. However, she has reservations about using error codes. Though she suggests that error feedback is more desirable than overt correction, she warns teachers that error feedback with the help of error codes must be handled with care. Since the results of her study are not entirely in line with those generated from the above studies, which were carried out in non-Chinese contexts, it is worthwhile investigating further to confirm whether using error codes is an effective way to help Hong Kong university students correct errors. Thus far, what is reported in the literature mainly focuses on whether error codes help error correction. Not much investigation has been made into how error codes help and the strategies that the students employ when making use of the error codes to correct errors. Such information is important because it will provide clues as to how error codes can effectively be made use of to help students successfully correct their errors.
- 25 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Many studies of learning strategies in general are available (e.g. Flaitz & Feyten 1996; O’Malley and Chamot 1990; Oxford 1990, 1996; Yang 1996). However, literature on strategies employed for error correction is scarce. Kubota (2001) states that not much attention has been paid to students’ strategies employed for error correction. Cohen (1987) reports that both L1 and foreign language students seem to be limited in their repertoire of strategies for revising their compositions. Most students in the studies of Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) claimed that they initially “made a mental note” of their teacher’s feedback. Then, they identified the points they needed to ask the teacher and asked for clarification of those points. The strategies that they reported were limited and had a narrow focus. Kubota (2001) reports on a larger number of specific strategies that led to successful corrections by Japanese students. These strategies were: “Translating into English translation…, checking in dictionaries…, asking if the sentences sound right…, applying appropriate knowledge…, checking a textbook when a student remembered an appropriate example…, and deleting the sentences which contained errors.” However, the frequency of use of the strategies was not identified. Ferris (1995:43) identifies two stages in which different strategies were used. She reports that many ESL students in the USA referred to an outside source (such as instructors, friends, grammar books, dictionaries) for help in correcting errors in early drafts. On final drafts, about half of the students said that they tried to “make corrections themselves, think about the teacher’s comments or do nothing rather than taking any further steps to respond to the feedback.” However, no investigation has been made into the reasons that the students chose certain strategies. The subjects of Cohen’s (1987) and Ferris’ (1995) studies were US university learners and Kubota’s (2001) study investigated strategies used by Japanese university learners. Little investigation has been made into the error correction strategies of Hong Kong students, the frequency of their use of strategies, and the reasons for their choices. This study attempts to investigate the usefulness of error codes to help Hong Kong university English learners correct their errors, which error codes help these students correct their errors more successfully, the strategies used by them when they correct their errors based on correction codes put on their drafts, the frequency of use of the strategies, and the reasons for their choices of strategies. Research method Forty-three second year Computer Studies students were asked to write a proposal as one of their written assignments in a communication skills course. After the students - 26 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 submitted the first draft of their proposals, the teacher-researcher put codes for error correction on the students’ work. These codes were developed by the teacher-researcher based on common errors made by past students in writing proposals in this course so that they were tailor-made for this particular assignment (See Appendix 1). Following James’ (1998:95) guideline that description of students’ errors must be “simple, self-explanatory and easily learnable”, examples of wrong and right sentences were given for each code on the editing checklist to help the students understand how to correct the error. The teacher went over the editing checklist with the students in class and explained the errors and how they should be corrected before the draft was returned to the students. Some exercises were given to the students to practise how to use the editing checklist. When the drafts with error codes were returned to the students, the students were allowed to use whatever strategies they thought appropriate to correct their errors. They had to submit the revised version of the proposal to the teacher-researcher. The frequency of the types of errors on the first draft and that of the successfully corrected errors on the final draft were compared to investigate how successful error correction had been when using error codes. The students were not informed about the research when they corrected the errors. They regarded this activity as part of the curriculum. This avoided the Hawthorne effect, which is an effect that leads participants, “pleased by having been singled out to participate in an experimental project, to react more strongly to their pleasure than to the treatment” (Tuckman 1978:103). Towards the end of the course, students had no objections to completing a questionnaire (See Appendix 2) to find out whether they thought the coding system was useful, which codes led to more successful correction, and what strategies they had used for error correction with the help of error codes. Descriptive statistics of the data on the questionnaire were analysed using SPSS. The results of the open-ended questions were analysed using the content analysis method, which was done by “fairly simple classifications or tabulations of specific information” (Borg and Gall 1989:520). Five proficient and five less proficient students were selected to be interviewed, based on their final grades, to find out the reasons for their choices of strategies. The students were paid for attending the interviews. The interviews were taped and the interview data was analysed using the content analysis method. Research questions The four research questions were: (1) How useful was coding errors for error correction?
- 27 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 (2) Were there any types of codes which led to more successful error correction than others? (3) What strategies were used by the students for error correction with the help of error codes? (4) What were the reasons for the students’ choices of strategies? Results Usefulness of using error codes to help error correction Most students (72.1%) reported on the questionnaire that the error code was useful in helping them correct errors. The interview results showed that all of them had been exposed to or had been taught the grammatical terms in secondary school. Thus, they had no problem using the error codes. They reported liking the use of error codes because the codes helped them locate an error and identify easily the type of error made. If they knew which type of error was made, they could refer to the examples on the editing checklist and compare these with their own errors. They could avoid making similar mistakes again because they could review the errors by studying the editing checklist.
How successful the error codes were in helping error correction The frequencies of the number of errors on the first draft and the number of successfully corrected errors on the second draft were compared to find out how successful error correction was with the help of error codes. Results show that a total of 1165 errors were made on the first draft of the proposal written by the students and 992 (85.2%) errors were successfully corrected in the final draft. The rate of successful correction was high. Students’ opinions on how successful each error code was in helping them correct errors as indicated on the questionnaire are shown in Table 1 below.
- 28 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Table 1
How successful each error code was in helping error correction according to student self-report data
Codes Very successful
Art.
5 44.2
4 41.9
3 11.6
2
86.1 no.
33.3
39.5
50
2.4
11.9
n. t. Adv. v. prep.
27.9 76.7 27.9 69.8 26.8 75.6 25.6 72.1 31 66.7 18.6 72.1
sp. 29.3 70.7 Voice 26.8 70.7 20.9 a ← → 58.1 18.6 conj. 53.5 12.2 vf. 56.1 16.7 if. 38.1 11.9 ww. 33.3 7.3 ss. 29.3
Std
4.3
0.8
2.4
4.1
0.9
2.3
4
1
4
0.9
3.9
0.9
3.9
0.9
3.9
0.9
3.9
1
3.8
0.8
3.8
1
2.4
3.8
1.1
2.3
3.6
1.1
2.3
3.5
1.1
4.9
3.5
1
2.4
3.3
1.1
4.8
3.2
1
7.3
2.9
1.1
4.8 27.9
2.3
27.9
67.4 adj.
Mean
2.3
83.3 punc.
Not successful at all 1 2.3
4.7 48.8
16.3
41.9
25.6
48.8
17.1
46.5
18.6
35.7
23.8
53.5
20.9
41.5
12.2
43.9
14.6
37.2
20.9
34.9
27.9
43.9
26.8
21.4
35.7
21.4
42.9
22
34.1
7 7 4.7 4.7 4.9 7.3 9.3 9.3 9.5 9.5 7 7 17.1 17.1 12.2 14.6 18.6 20.9 16.3 18.6 12.2 17.1 23.8 26.2 19 23.8 29.3 36.6
2.4
The following codes as shown in Table 2 had higher successful correction rate. They had a mean value of 4 or above:
- 29 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Table 2 Codes which helped to have more successful error correction according to student self-report data Codes Art. No. Punc. Adj.
Mean 4.3 4.1 4 4
Standard Deviation 0.8 0.9 1 0.9
The reasons why they thought the above codes could bring them success were given by the students in the questionnaire. The errors that all four codes represented frequently occurred and were easy to correct. The codes could help them recognize and locate the errors easily and they were familiar with the codes. For errors represented by “punc.” and adj.”, the correct answers could easily be found from the dictionary. They also mentioned that the code “no.” was easy to remember. These codes were easily recognizable and easy to remember because they were the abbreviated forms of the grammatical terms used for the parts of speech. In addition, these codes indicated errors that were easy to correct because there was a limited choice of possible answers. The following codes as shown in Table 3 had lower successful correction rate. They had a mean value below 3.5:
Table 3 Codes which led to less successful error correction according to student self-report data Codes
Mean
If. ww. ss..
3.3 3.2 2.9
Standard Deviation 1.1 1.0 1.1
The reasons why they did not succeed in correcting the errors indicated by the above codes were given by the students in the questionnaire. The main reason was that “if” and “ww” did not frequently occur. It was hard to remember what “if” meant. It was difficult to recognize “ww” and “ss”. It seems that codes which were not abbreviations of certain grammatical items could not easily be decoded by the students, especially when these codes did not frequently occur.
- 30 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 The frequency of the strategies used in error correction How often the following strategies were used by the students for error correction as reported by them in the questionnaire is shown in Table 4. The strategies are ordered by frequency, with the strategy having the highest mean value at the top. Table 4
The frequency of the strategies used in error correction
Strategies Try to draw on my knowledge about grammar to find out how to correct the error Try to remember the grammatical points taught in this course to help me find out how to correct the error Can understand the code immediately and get the error corrected Ask classmates Need to look up the editing checklist to find out what the symbol means first Just guess the answer by myself Ask the teacher Need to look at the examples in the editing checklist in order to understand what the symbol means first Look up the dictionary Ask friends or family members Use online Grammar Check to help me Look up some grammar books or notes
Always Often 5 4 14 60.4
Sometimes 3 25.6
Seldom 2 /
Never 1 /
Mean
Std
3.9
0.6
4.7
58.1
34.9
/
2.3
3.6
0.7
7
48.8
41.9
2.3
/
3.6
0.7
7 7
51.2 44.2
30.2 37.2
9.3 11.6
2.3 /
3.5 3.5
0.9 0.8
37.2
30.2
27.9
4.7
3
0.9
2.3 9.3
23.3 11.6
46.5 46.5
25.6 30.2
2.3 2.3
3 3
0.8 1
9.5 2.3
21.4 20.9
26.2 30.2
40.5 30.2
2.4 16.3
3 2.6
1.1 1.1
4.7
16.3
20.9
39.5
18.6
2.5
1.1
4.8
11.9
16.7
54.8
11.9
2.4
1
As a general practice, when the students had difficulties correcting an error, it seems that at the initial stage, most of them chose not to use strategies that involved searching for information and/or explanation first. They tried to draw on their knowledge of grammar or tried to recall the grammatical points taught in the course to help them figure out how to correct the error. If they still could not find the answer, they appealed to their classmates or teachers for help or tried to guess the answers by themselves. The last step was to look up the answer from reference materials. The first source of reference that they referred to was the editing checklist which was right - 31 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 in front of them. They looked at the examples in the editing checklist to understand what the codes meant, to see if they could correct the error by themselves first. If they still failed to find the answer, they used the dictionary, and then used Grammar Check in Microsoft Word to help them. As a final source of reference, they referred to grammar books or notes. Reasons for the choice of strategies The main reason for their choice of strategies was that they wished to find the answer by the quickest and most convenient way first. It was time consuming and painstaking to look up information from reference sources. One less proficient student admitted that he was lazy. He said in the interview: I’m too lazy to look up the dictionary to correct the errors marked by the codes. I’d just try to think of another suitable word myself. Another less proficient student made the following remark about grammar books: I don’t know that I can use grammar books to correct the errors. I don’t even have a grammar book. When the interviewees were asked why they chose to use the dictionary first after they had decided to use reference materials, some students made the following comments: I think I can find an appropriate word in the dictionary easily… I can easily find different verb forms of a word in the dictionary. Besides, under each word in the dictionary, I can see several related words… I think looking up the dictionary is the most effective and efficient way to correct errors. Besides, I think it is easily accessible. I can check the correct vocabularies and correct tenses easily. In short, most of them said that they could usually find the information they needed from the dictionary, such as words, verb forms, adjectives, adverbs, tenses, gerunds and infinitives. The dictionary was comparatively easily accessible. Some students still preferred using the dictionary even though it was more convenient to use a Grammar Checker that offered automatic grammar checking, especially when Microsoft Word was used as the word processor. This was because the corrections made by the computer were often inaccurate and it sometimes provided incorrect - 32 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 suggestions. One student said: The Grammar Check in Microsoft Word is not helpful to me. Sometimes it will highlight the correct sentences in my text. That’s why I don’t rely too much on the Grammar Check in Microsoft Word. The software also could not help with vocabulary and sentence structures. It was only when they could not obtain the information they needed from the dictionary and the computer that they would turn to grammar books or notes. Here is a comment from one student: Since I can find the details of each grammar type in the grammar books, I can correct the errors more easily. When I made mistakes in my writing, I couldn’t correct some of the mistakes such as sentence structure easily. I had to look up some grammar books to help me. Another student said that grammar books could also provide him with examples. One interesting phenomenon was that the proficient students were all of the opinion that the Grammar Checker could not help them because it was inaccurate and usually failed to help them identify the errors that they had made. However, the less proficient students tended to like the Grammar Checker. One student commented: I think the correction made by the Grammar Check is accurate. It could easily find out mistakes like plural and singular. In summary, they claimed that the software was convenient and helped them identify many errors, such as in spelling and the plural and singular forms. Discussions and implications Usefulness of using error codes to help error correction The results of this study support the views of CDC (1983), Allwright (1975) and Long (1977) and confirm previous research findings (Mamtello 1997; Makino 1993 and Kubota 2001) that error codes are useful in error correction. This study indicates more clearly than Lee (1997) that error codes are also useful to Hong Kong university students. Lee (1997) states that students fail to correct errors not because they lack grammatical knowledge but because they cannot detect the errors. They can correct more errors when direct clues are provided. This study confirms that using error codes is an effective way to help the students solve this problem at an initial stage, especially - 33 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 when the students have acquired basic grammatical knowledge. Makino (1993) states that using error codes helps to activate students’ linguistic competence. Such a method of error correction is a successful strategy in helping students correct their errors because it can help them practice error correction on their own with the assistance of helpful but not patronizing guidelines. This is a good training for the students in problem-solving. Ingram (1975) and Biggs (1976) contend that “if learners are urged to discover relevant concepts and principles for themselves, then learning is enhanced. Problem-solving affords one the opportunity to reconstruct grammatical structures with the expressed intent of making them more adequate than would otherwise be the case.” (Cited in Lalande 1982:140). Regarding errors that the students did not know how to correct even with the hints given by the codes, the teacher needed to teach them how to correct these errors, for example, through teacher-student conferences. The use of error codes could best be supplemented by teacher explanations when necessary. Importance of common understanding about grammatical knowledge The students in this study succeeded in correcting the errors because they were taught grammatical terms and rules in their secondary schools. Since the use of error codes is based on the assumption that the students know the grammatical terms and understand the concepts associated with the grammatical terms used in the correction code before error codes are introduced (Lee 1997), it is important to discover the grammatical knowledge held by the students before error codes are introduced. It must be ensured that both the teacher and the students use the same metalanguage and have the same understanding about the meaning of grammatical terms before they can communicate successfully through the codes. If the students lack this knowledge, they have to be taught the grammatical terms first. Even if the students have such previous knowledge, teachers should review relevant grammatical concepts with the students before the codes are put on their work. Teachers should pay more attention to the types of codes which lead to less successful error correction as identified through this study. They could also spend more time teaching the students the grammatical items related to those codes so as to help them correct their errors more successfully.
- 34 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Methods to help the students acquire common understanding about grammatical knowledge An editing checklist with examples given, like the one designed for this study, is a useful means to help the students acquire grammatical knowledge or review what they have learnt in the past. To address Lee’s (1997) doubt that mere provision of example sentences in the correction code can help students correct their errors, the examples on the editing checklist in this study were supplemented by teacher explanation of the concepts in class and some exercises given to the students to practise how to use the editing checklist. In other words, putting good examples relevant to the students’ type of writing on the editing checklist, carefully explaining the rules in class and providing students with enough practice on how to use the error codes on the editing checklist are useful methods to help the students make proper use of the error codes to correct errors effectively. The success of this study suggests that the techniques mentioned above need to be used in conjunction with the codes when students want to correct errors successfully with the help of codes. The methods used in this study worked well with the students, and they could become a framework for other teachers to follow in the design and use of editing checklists in teaching. Design of the error codes Several principles related to the design of the error codes can be derived from the results of this study. Firstly, the codes need to be designed using grammatical terms understood by both the teacher and the students so that error correction can be done successfully through common understanding. Secondly, codes should be designed in such a way that they are easily recognizable and remembered, as the students in this study found that some error codes brought success to their error correction because they were easily recognized and remembered. Using the abbreviated form of the grammatical term, such as using “adj” to represent “adjective” is an effective way to design codes that can achieve this purpose. Such a design is particularly helpful if the error frequently occurs because frequent occurrence of an error also makes it possible for the code to be remembered more easily due to more exposure to and practice in using the code to help error correction. Strategies of error correction The strategies used by the students in this study are partly in line with those used by the students in the studies of Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cacalcanti (1990). Cohen - 35 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 (1987) and Cohen and Cacalcanti’s (1990) students initially made a mental note of the teacher’s comments, identified the points they needed to ask the teacher about and then asked about these points. However, in this study, when the students did not know how to correct an error indicated by the error code, they first referred to their own grammatical knowledge or the grammatical points taught in the course to work out how to correct their errors. Without the teaching of the grammatical points, the students might have turned to the teacher for help immediately, like the students in the studies of Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cacalcanti (1990). However, in this study, the tendency was to turn to their own memories for help rather than immediately appealing to their teacher. This habit of consulting oneself instead of others first is intellectually beneficial to the students in the long term because their teacher will not be available to help them throughout their lives. This implies an important need for effective teaching of the items on a good editing checklist and the preparation of well designed editing checklists, used properly in class, as helpful and immediate sources of help for the students. Like the students in Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cavalcanti’s (1990) studies but unlike the students in Ferris’s (1995) study, the students in this study used reference materials as their last resort in solving error correction problems. This might be due to the general mode of learning in Hong Kong. High school students are often spoon-fed with information provided by the teachers in class. Most of them do not have the habit of or desire to look for answers from reference materials themselves. It might also be because most of them were so busy with other activities that they did not have time for research work, which was often not chosen as their priority. They were more interested in a quick fix of the problem rather than a time-consuming investigation of the problem and a painstaking search for detailed information which could in fact bring them more long-term value. When students fail to correct certain errors, they should be encouraged to search for answers from references instead of trying to find an easy way out. This can ensure that they find accurate answers with clear explanations. This also helps them to develop the habit of learning independently, which will be useful to them in their life-long learning. Searching for answers from reference materials could be built into the curriculum so that the students would not be tempted to go for an easy way first and might be more likely to spend time looking for answers by themselves. This could help them build a good foundation in grammar. Student training in strategies for handling the codes could also help them produce productive and enjoyable writing (Cohen and Cavalcanti 1990). - 36 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004
Most of the less proficient students found the Grammar Checker helpful because it could help them correct the most common and simple errors such as “spelling”, “agreement” or “number” problems, which were common errors frequently made by the less proficient students. Even though the software failed to help them solve more complicated errors such as “sentence structure”, they still had a feeling that a lot of errors had been corrected for them with the help of the software. The more proficient students, however, had fewer problems with the simple errors. When the software could not help them correct the more complicated errors, they became frustrated and found the software unhelpful. What the students reported echoes James’ (1998: 252) comments on grammar checkers. He found that grammar checkers are still crude and detect only about half the errors committed. Thus, it would be desirable for grammar checking software to be upgraded to become a more accurate instrument to help more students, especially the proficient ones, correct their errors. Limitations of this study and directions for further research As the sample size of this study is small and the subjects are limited to students from one discipline, the results are not generalisable to all learners. This study could be replicated with a larger number of students in the same discipline at all tertiary levels or even with students at all levels in other disciplines to check if the results can be generalised. Think-aloud protocols can also be used in collecting data on student strategy use so that more light will be shed on the process of learner error correction. The issue as to whether error correction with the help of error codes has an impact on subsequent student writing could also be explored in further studies. Conclusion In error correction studies, many researchers examine more than one method of error correction in one study (e.g. Ashwell 2000; Fathman and Whalley 1990; Robb and Boss 1986). Almost no studies focus solely on an in-depth investigation of the error-code method of correction. This study does so. One important finding of this study is that error codes are not only useful for error correction of non-Chinese students but for Chinese university students as well. While most research studies (e.g. Ferris and Roberts 2001; Kutota 2001) focus on identifying the types of error that are most successfully corrected, this study narrows down the focus and brings new insights into the types of code symbols, in particular, that can lead to more successful error correction than others. In comparison with the strategies identified by students in - 37 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 previous studies (e.g. Cohen 1987; Cohen and Cavalcanti 1990; Ferris 1995; Kubota 2001), a longer and more comprehensive repertoire of strategies was reported by the students in this study. The frequency of students’ uses of strategies and reasons for the choices of strategies were also identified. The reasons why certain types of code symbols led to more successful error correction and the reasons for the students’ choices of strategies are new findings which have not been explored or recorded in the literature. The methods used to help the students use error codes successfully in this study could become a framework on which future design of error codes and related activities. All the results of this study help to throw light on both previously explored and unexplored areas of error correction and lay a groundwork on which further research can be built. Acknowledgements I would like to thank Professor John Flowerdew for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. This paper was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China. (Project no.: CityU 9030936-660).
- 38 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Appendix 1 Editing checklist
a
=
agreement
←→ (a)
(a)
←→ ←→ e.g. The cashier read the price of each items. (reads) (item)
adj.
=
adjective (adj.) e.g. It is more accurately than the old system. (accurate)
adv.
=
adverb (adv.) e.g. The efficiency is extreme high. (extremely)
art.
=
article e.g. The dot matrix printer can provide cheaper (art.) printing whereas
laser printer can provide
^ (the) high quality printing.
- 39 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Conj.
=
conjunction (conj.) e.g. Their main functions are to retrieve, store (and) data in the server.
if.
= informality (if.) e.g. We’ve gotta look at your comments first. (would have to)
n.
=
noun (n.)
e.g. The bulky of data can be easily manipulated. (bulk)
no.
=
number
(no.) e.g. The chance of making mistake is great. (mistakes)
prep.
=
preposition (prep.) e.g. The interview was held at 24-9-2001. (on)
punc.
=
punctuation (punc.) e.g. They have to do a lot of work, (.)
- 40 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 sp.
=
spelling (sp.) e.g. They have to check the shock of items. (stock)
ss.
=
sentence structure (ss.) e.g. They are easy to use the package. (It is easy for them to)
t.
=
tense (t.) e.g. The interview had been held on 24-9-2001. (was held)
v.
=
verb e.g. The operator has to know how to import (v.) data to Microsoft Excel and some ^ (have) experience in drawing charts with Excel.
vf.
=
verb form (vf.) e.g. The staff members will concerning about (be concerned) the customers’ service.
- 41 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 voice
=
active or passive voice (voice) e.g. The web materials can share by all (be shared) students.
ww.
=
wrong word (ww.) e.g. It filters out those people that carry (who) unauthorized items.
- 42 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Appendix 2 Group no.: ________________________________ Student number: ____________________________ Please indicate your choice by circling the most appropriate answer. 1. How useful are the error codes (symbols marked on your draft by your teacher) in helping you correct your errors? Very useful 5
Not useful at all 4
3
2
1
Reasons:______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________
- 43 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004
2. How successful you are in correcting errors with the help of the following symbols on the editing checklist? Please give the reasons for your choice. Symbols on How successful you are in using editing checklist the symbol to correct your errors Very Successful 5
4
3
2
Not successful at all 1
a ÅÆ adj.
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
adv.
5
4
3
2
1
art.
5
4
3
2
1
conj.
5
4
3
2
1
If.
5
4
3
2
1
n.
5
4
3
2
1
no.
5
4
3
2
1
prep.
5
4
3
2
1
punc.
5
4
3
2
1
sp.
5
4
3
2
1
ss.
5
4
3
2
1
t.
5
4
3
2
1
v.
5
4
3
2
1
vf.
5
4
3
2
1
voice
5
4
3
2
1
ww.
5
4
3
2
1
- 44 -
Reasons for successful or unsuccessful correction with the help of the symbol
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004
3. How frequently did you use the following strategies to correct the errors marked by the symbols on the editing checklist by the teacher? Strategies Frequency Always Often Sometimes Seldom Nev er Can understand the code 4 3 2 1 5 immediately and get the error corrected Need to look up the editing 3 2 1 4 5 check list to find out what the symbol means first Need to look at the examples 3 2 1 4 5 in the editing checklist in order to understand what the symbol means first Try to remember the 4 3 2 1 5 grammatical points taught in this course to help me find out how to correct the error Try to draw on my 5 4 3 2 1 knowledge about grammar to find out how to correct the error Just guess the answer by myself 5 4 3 2 1 Look up the dictionary 5 4 3 2 1 Look up some grammar books or notes 5 4 3 2 1 Use online Grammar Check to help me 5 4 3 2 1 Ask the teacher 5 4 3 2 1 Ask classmates 5 4 3 2 1 Ask friends or family members 5 4 3 2 1
- 45 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 References Allwright, R. L. 1975. Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error. In M.K. Burt & H.C. Dulay (Eds). New Directions in Second Language Learning Teaching and Bilingual Education. Selected papers from the Ninth Annual TESOL Convention, Los Angeles, March 1975. Washington, D.C. TESOL. Biggs, M. 1976. Learning Theories for Teachers, 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row. Borg, W. and Gall, M. 1989. Educational Research: An Introduction, 5th ed. New York: Longman. Cohen, A.D. 1987. Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A.L. Wenden and J. Rubin (Eds.), Learning Strategies in Language Learning, pp.57-69. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Cohen, A.D. and Cavalcanti, M.C. 1990. Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Corder, S.P. 1981. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) 1983. Syllabus for English (Forms I-V). The Government Printer, Hong Kong. Fathman, A. and Whalley, E. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, pp.178-190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 29. 33-53. Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 161-184. - 46 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Flaitz, J. & Feyten, C, 1996. A two-phase study involving consciousness raising and strategy use for foreign language learners. In R. Oxford (Ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives, pp.211-225. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Ingram, E. 1975. Psychology and language learning. In J.P.B. Allen and S. P Corder (Eds.) Papers in Applied Linguistics, James, C. 1998. Errors in Language Learning and Use. London: New York. Knoblauch, C.H. and Brannon, L. 1981. Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4. Kubota, M. 2001. Error correction strategies used by learners of Japanese when revising a writing task. System 29, 467-480. Lalande, J.F. 1982). Reducing compostition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal 66, 140-149. Lee, I. 1997. ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: some implications for teaching. System, 25 (4): 465-477. Long, M. 1977. Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. In Brown, Yorio and Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ‘77: Teaching and Learning English as a Second Language: Trends in Research and Practice, pp. 278-293. TESOL: Washington, D.C. TESOL.. Makino, T. 1993. Learner self-correction in EFL written compositions. ELT Journal 47 (4), 337-341. Mantello, M. 1997. A touch of-class! Error correction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review 54 (1), 127-131. O,Malley, J.M. & Chamot, A.U. 1990. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. - 47 -
Perspectives: Working Papers in English & Communication, 16 (1) Spring 2004 Oxford, R.L. 1990. Language Learning Strategies – What Every Teacher Should Know. Washington: Newbury House. Oxford, R.L. 1996. Afterword: what have we learned about language learning strategies around the world. In R. Oxford (Ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives, pp.247-249. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Robb, T., Ross, S.& Shortreed, I. 1986. Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20 (1), 83-93. Tuckman, B.W. 1978. Conducting Educational Research, 2nd Ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanorich, Inc. Yang, N-D. 1996. Effective awareness-raising in language learning strategy instruction. In R. Oxford (Ed.) Language Learning Strategies Around the World: Cross-cultural Perspectives, pp.205-210. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
- 48 -
