A Survey of 2nd Year Students’ Frequent English Writing Errors and the Effects of Participatory Error Correction Process

The purposes of this study are 1) to study the effects
of participatory error correction process and 2) to find out the
students’ satisfaction of such error correction process. This study is a
Quasi Experimental Research with single group, in which data is
collected 5 times preceding and following 4 experimental studies of
participatory error correction process including providing coded
indirect corrective feedback in the students’ texts with error treatment
activities. Samples include 52 2nd year English Major students,
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Suan Sunandha Rajabhat
University. Tool for experimental study includes the lesson plan of
the course; Reading and Writing English for Academic Purposes II,
and tools for data collection include 5 writing tests of short texts and
a questionnaire. Based on formative evaluation of the students’
writing ability prior to and after each of the 4 experiments, the
research findings disclose the students’ higher scores with statistical
difference at 0.00. Moreover, in terms of the effect size of such
process, it is found that for mean of the students’ scores prior to and
after the 4 experiments; d equals 0.6801, 0.5093, 0.5071, and 0.5296
respectively. It can be concluded that participatory error correction
process enables all of the students to learn equally well and there is
improvement in their ability to write short texts. Finally the students’
overall satisfaction of the participatory error correction process is in
high level (Mean = 4.39, S.D. = 0.76).

• Chaiwat Tantarangsee

• Coded indirect corrective feedback
• participatory error correction process
• error treatment.

[1] Knight, P. Learning and Teaching English. Oxford; Oxford University
Press, 2001.
[2] Waters, A. “Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology” ELT
journal, 66(4), 2012, pp. 440-449.
[3] Nunan, D. Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
[4] Mutsuda, P., K. “Teaching Writing as a Nonnative Speaking Teacher”
Conference Handbook 2014, Bangkok; The 34th Annual Thailand
TESOL International Conference.
[5] Paran, A. “Language skills: questions for teaching and learning.” ELT
Journal, 66 (4), 2012, pp. 450-458.
[6] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. “The value of a focused approach to written
corrective feedback.” ELT Journal, 63, 2009, pp. 204-211.
[7] Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. “The effects of
focused and unfocused written correction feedback in an English as a
foreign language context.” System, 36, 2008, pp. 353-371.
[8] Tompkins, G. E. Teaching Writing, Balancing Process and Product.
New Jersey: Pearson, 2008.
[9] Lewin, L. “Integrating reading and writing strategies using an alternating
teacher-led, student-selected instructional pattern.” The Reading
Teacher, 45, 1992, pp. 586-591
[10] Harmer, J. How to teach writing. Essex; Pearson Longman, 2007.
[11] Scrivener, J. Learning Teaching. Oxford: Macmillan Heinemann, 1998.
[12] Amrhein R., H., &Nassaji, H. “Written Corrective Feedback: What do
students and teachers prefer and why?” Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics. CJAL 2010, 13: 95-127.
[13] Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. “The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL students writing.” Journal of Second
Language Writing, 14 (3), 2005, pp. 191-205.
[14] Thornbury, S. “Reformulation and reconstruction; tasks that promote
‘noticing’.” ELT Journal, 51, 1997, pp. 326-335.
[15] Ferris, D. R. “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes:
A Response to Truscott (1996).” Journal of Second Language Writing,
8, 1999, pp. 1-10.
[16] Atai. M. “The Impact of Self, Peer, and Teacher Evaluation on Iranian
EFL Students’ Writing Performance.” Islamic Azad University of Karaj.
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, 2000.
[17] Ferris, D. R. “The Grammar Correction debate in L2 writing: Where are
we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime
…?).” Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 2004. pp. 49-62.
[18] Roebuck, R., F. “Teaching Composition in the College Level Foreign
Language Class. Insights and Activities from Sociocultural Theory.”
Foreign Language Annuals. 34 (3), 2001, pp. 206-215.
[19] Furr, M. Summary of Effect Size and their Links to Inferential Statistics.
Psychology Department. Wake Forest University. Retrieve from
http://psuch.wfu.edu/furr/EffectSizeFormular.pdf. on November 1, 2009.
[20] Ferris, D. R. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing.
Michigan; University of Michigan Press, 2002.
[21] Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. “Error feedback in L2 writing class: How
explicit does it need to be?” Journal of Second Language Writing, 10,
2001, pp. 161-184.
[22] Abedi, R., Latifi, M., &Moinzadeh, Ahmad. “The Effect of Error
Correction vs. Error Detection on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL
Learners’ Achievement.” English Language Teaching, 3 (4), 2010, pp.
168-174.
[23] Doughty, C., & Williams, J. Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C.
Doughty and J. Williams (eds). Focus on form in classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 1998.