Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong

Error correction in L2 secondary writing

classrooms: The case of Hong Kong

Icy Lee*

Department of Education Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University, University Road Campus,

1/F, R2, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

Error correction research has focused mostly on whether teachers should correct errors in student

writing and how they should go about it. Much less has been done to ascertain L2 writing teachers’

perceptions and practices as well as students’ beliefs and attitudes regarding error feedback. The

present investigation seeks to explore the existing error correction practices in the Hong Kong

secondary writing classroom from both the teacher and student perspectives. Data were gathered

from three main sources: (1) a teacher survey comprising a questionnaire and follow-up interviews,

(2) a teacher error correction task, and (3) a student survey made up of a questionnaire and follow-up

interviews. The results revealed that both teachers and students preferred comprehensive error

feedback, the teachers used a limited range of error feedback strategies, and only about half of the

teacher corrections of student errors were accurate. The study also showed that the students were

reliant on teachers in error correction, and that the teachers were not much aware of the long-term

significance of error feedback. Possible implications pertaining to ways to improve current error

correction practices were discussed.

# 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Error correction; Second language writing; Secondary writing; Writing in Hong Kong

1. Introduction

The reasons why teachers should correct errors and how they should do it are topics of

constant debate. Although there is research that suggests error correction is ineffective as a

Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312

* Tel.: +852 3411 7726; fax: +852 3411 7894.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001

means of improving student writing (Cohen & Robbins, 1976; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998;

Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Truscott, 1996), writing teachers know too well that

students are frustrated by the lack of feedback on their written errors. There is research

evidence to show that L2 students want error feedback and believe that they benefit from it

(Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). However unnecessary and out of vogue error

correction is to some writing researchers, in the classroom, error correction is a real and

urgent issue that commands teachers’ attention. This study seeks to explore the existing

error correction practices in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom. It attempts to

investigate error correction from both the teachers’ and students’ perspectives—i.e., what

teachers and students think and believe as well as how teachers actually correct errors in

writing.

1.1. Terminology

Since a number of similar and related terms pertaining to ‘‘error correction’’ have been

used in the literature, a clarification of terms is in order here. When writing teachers

‘‘mark’’ student errors in writing, they provide ‘‘feedback’’ on errors using different

strategies; that is, they provide ‘‘error feedback’’ on student writing. The kind of feedback

in ‘‘error feedback’’ is limited to responses to and comments on grammatical errors. When

teachers ‘‘correct’’ errors in student writing, or when students say they want their teachers

to ‘‘correct’’ their errors, ‘‘correcting’’ errors can be used to convey a dual meaning. It can

refer to the general activity of the teacher providing feedback on student errors. It can also

refer specifically to the teacher providing corrections for student errors, which is one

specific error feedback strategy. To avoid confusion, in this paper, ‘‘error correction’’ is

used to refer to the general activity of providing ‘‘error feedback’’ on student errors. Thus,

the terms ‘‘error correction’’ and ‘‘error feedback’’ are used interchangeably. The specific

error feedback strategy where the teacher provides corrections for student errors is referred

to as ‘‘overt correction’’ or ‘‘direct error feedback.’’

1.2. Literature review

A great deal of error correction research has focused on the effects of strategies—i.e.,

how various error correction techniques impinge on student writing (e.g., Ferris, Chaney,

Komura, Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Frantzen, 1995; Sheppard, 1992).

The research findings, though inconclusive, have raised several significant issues for

writing teachers to consider. First, writing teachers have to decide whether they should give

direct or indirect feedback on student errors. Direct error feedback (i.e., overt correction)

involves the provision of the correct forms or structures for students’ faulty sentences

(Hendrickson, 1980). Indirect error feedback refers to providing feedback on student errors

without giving the correct forms or structures, e.g., by simply underlining the errors. There

is research evidence suggesting that indirect error feedback brings more benefits to

students’ long-term writing development than direct error feedback (see Ferris, 2003;

Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982) through ‘‘increased student engagement and attention to

forms and problems’’ (Ferris, 2003, p. 52). Ferris (2002) maintains that the danger of direct

error feedback is that teachers may misinterpret students’ meaning and put words into their

I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312286

mouths, though direct feedback may be appropriate for beginner students and when the

errors are ‘‘untreatable’’ (i.e., errors that students are not able to self-correct, such as syntax

and vocabulary errors) (see Ferris, 2002, 2003).

In giving indirect error feedback, writing teachers have to decide whether to indicate

error location directly (e.g., by circling or underlining errors) or indirectly (e.g., by

indicating in the margin that there is an error on a certain line). Robb et al. (1986) found that

students’ performance in error correction is not affected by the salience of the error

feedback, including whether error location is made explicit for students. Contrary results

are obtained in Lee’s (1997) investigation, which shows that direct prompting of error

location is more helpful than indirect prompting, since students are able to correct more

errors when errors are directly located for them. In Lee’s study, however, the students read a

text not written by themselves. The results might have been different if students had edited

their own texts.

Another decision writing teachers have to make in giving indirect error feedback is

whether they should identify error types for students. This involves the use of error codes

(e.g., using ‘‘T’’ to indicate a verb tense error) and is referred to as coded error feedback (as

opposed to uncoded error feedback, where errors are underlined or circled only). Raimes

(1991) thinks that error identification is worthwhile and meaningful, as it is a useful starting

point for discussing errors with students. Ferris (2002), however, argues that identifying

errors can be ‘‘cumbersome for the teacher and confusing for the student’’ (p. 67). Lee

(1997) cautions that teachers may be over-estimating students’ ability to interpret marking

codes, as teachers may be ‘‘using a wider range of metalinguistic terms than students could

understand’’ (p. 471). The usefulness of error codes (or symbols) is further questioned by

Ferris et al. (2000) as well as Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found no significant

differences in self-editing performance between students who receive coded error feedback

and those who receive uncoded error feedback.

Regardless of which of the above error correction techniques teachers use, a

fundamental issue writing teachers are faced with is whether to mark all student errors.

Research on error correction has repeatedly emphasized the disadvantages of

comprehensive error feedback, i.e., marking all student errors. Two decades ago, Zamel

(1982, 1985) pointed out that excessive attention to student errors turned writing teachers

into grammar teachers, distracting them from other more important concerns in writing

instruction. Hairston (1986) warns that writing teachers should not be ‘‘composition

slaves’’ (p. 117). Unfortunately, many ESL teachers are still slaving over student writing,

rendering error correction exhausting for teachers (Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 2002;

Mantello, 1997) and frustrating for students (Reid, 1998).

The literature on error correction has also underlined the importance of error treatment

beyond teacher error correction (see Ferris, 2002). It is suggested that teachers should use

error correction in conjunction with other strategies to help students treat their own errors.

Error logs, for example, are put forward as a useful way to help students monitor and assess

their own progress (see Ferris, 2002).

Apart from research on teachers’ error correction, there are studies on student

preferences about, reactions to, and coping strategies for teacher feedback (Cohen, 1987,

1991; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris et al., 2000; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996;

Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988). Overall, the research findings suggest that students

I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 285–312 287

want teachers to correct errors for them. For instance, Leki’s (1991) investigation into ESL

students’ preferences regarding error correction in writing shows that the majority of the

ESL students in the study want their teachers to correct errors for them. Hedgcock and

Lefkowitz (1994) found in their investigation that FL college students tend to value teacher

comments and corrections on grammatical, lexical, and mechanical features more than

those on content and style, while the opposite is true for ESL college students. In their

study, both ESL and EFL students express moderate preference for the use of correction

symbols, and both dislike the teachers’ use of the red pen.

2. The study

2.1. Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom

In Hong Kong secondary schools, writing in English is considered crucial to students’

language development. The English syllabus for secondary schools states that writing is an

important skill ‘‘because in real life people often have to communicate with each other in

writing . . . . Writing is also important in that it helps learners learn. It reinforces the

language structures and vocabulary that learners acquire’’ (Curriculum Development

Council [CDC], 1999, p. 84). It is interesting to note that in the English syllabus, which is

the only official guide for English teachers in Hong Kong, ‘‘reinforcing language structures

and vocabulary’’ is stipulated as a very important goal of writing instruction, appearing in

the third sentence of the first paragraph about the teaching of writing. The importance to

provide ‘‘learners with ample opportunities to demonstrate their creativity, originality and

independent thinking,’’ on the other hand, is mentioned only in the last sentence of the

same paragraph (CDC, 1999, p. 84). The typical writing classroom in Hong Kong is

dominated by the teaching of grammar and the teaching of language, with less attention

paid to the discourse features of writing (Lee, 1998). A primarily product-oriented

approach is adopted, and writing is treated as a ‘‘one-off’’ activity—i.e., students write a

composition and submit it immediately afterwards (Lee & Lee, 1997). Writing is tested

rather than taught. A secondary-level English teacher teaches an average of three English

classes, with about 40 students in each class. Students submit a composition once every 2 or

3 weeks. Students in Grades 7–8 (i.e., Forms 1–3) are required to write compositions of

120–250 words on average, in Grades 9–10 (i.e., Forms 4–5) an average of 250–300 words,

and in Grades 12–13 (i.e., Forms 6–7) an average of 450–500 words. The topics students

write on are often linked to the composition topics suggested in their coursebooks.

Teachers generally respond to student writing using a product-oriented approach—i.e.,

treating each piece of writing as a final draft. When students receive the marked

compositions, they correct the errors by re-writing either the whole composition or those

sentences that contain errors. Rewriting of content is not normally required. Although the

Hong Kong Education Department (currently known as the Education and Manpower

Bureau) has issued some error correction guidelines in the English language syllabus for

secondary teachers of English (e.g., suggesting teachers mark errors selectively) (CDC,

1999), how teachers should correct errors in their own classrooms is not mandated. It is

worth nothing that the English panel of each school normally formulates its own policy to


guide teachers’ error correction. The control individual teachers have over how and how

much they correct errors, however, may vary from school to school. In the main, there is a

general lack of understanding of what is actually going on in the classroom insofar as error

correction is concerned. A recent local survey of writing teachers suggests that teachers

tend to treat error feedback as a job with little long-term significance, as they appear to be

more concerned with ‘‘the immediate goal of helping students avoid the same errors than

with the more long-term goal of equipping students with strategies to edit and proofread

their writing independently’’ (Lee, 2003, p. 220). Conferencing is seldom conducted in the

classroom, nor is peer review (see Tsui & Ng, 2000).

2.2. Aims of study

In Hong Kong, error correction is a relatively unexplored area. Since the way teachers

handle student errors may directly affect student writing, it is crucial that we find out the

existing error correction practice and come up with effective measures to cope with this

most time-consuming and exhausting aspect of teachers’ work. While the majority of the

previous error correction studies have been conducted in the United States, and most of

them at college or university level, not much has been done to investigate error correction

in the secondary writing classroom outside of the United States. The present study aims to

ascertain how error correction is perceived and carried out by ESL writing teachers in Hong

Kong secondary classrooms and how it is perceived by students. It aims to answer the

following two research questions:

1. What are teachers’ perspectives and practices regarding error correction in writing?

2. What are students’ perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes regarding error correction?

3. Method of study

3.1. Research instruments

To answer the first research question, two instruments were used: (1) a survey that

consisted of a questionnaire (in English) (see Appendix A) and follow-up telephone

interviews (conducted in English) (see Appendix B for teacher interview guide); and (2)

an error correction task (see Appendix C) where teachers were asked to mark a Form 2

(i.e., Grade 8) student paper. The questionnaire survey aimed to find out teachers’

perspectives, problems, and self-reported practices regarding error correction in writing,

while the error correction task was used to investigate how teachers actually corrected

errors in student writing. In the error correction task, the teachers were asked to mark a

student essay in the way they normally did in their own teaching situation. At the end of

the task, they were asked several questions about how they had approached the error

correction task, e.g., whether they had marked all the student errors and their criteria for

error selection. These questions appeared on the back page of the error correction task,

and the teachers were asked to answer the questions only after they had completed the

task. To answer the second research question, students were surveyed using a bilingual


questionnaire (in both Chinese and English) (see Appendix D for the English version) and

follow-up interviews (conducted in Chinese) (see Appendix E for student interview

guide). The questionnaire contained statements about their teacher’s error correction

practices as well as the students’ own beliefs and attitudes about error correction. The

follow-up interviews invited students to elaborate on some of the questionnaire

statements. All the above research instruments were piloted. Based on the pilot results,

the instruments were revised and finalized (final versions appear in Appendices A–E). It

was hoped that these three sources of data (i.e., teacher survey, error correction task, and

student survey) would yield useful information about how error correction was perceived

by teachers and students, how teachers practiced error correction in student writing, and

also what problems teachers might face.

3.2. Subjects

The teachers and students who participated in the study were all selected based on

convenience sampling. Altogether, 206 teachers completed the questionnaires. Among

them, 139 were participants on the English language education courses held in four Hong

Kong universities, and 67 were secondary teachers who responded to the questionnaires

sent to them through a contact teacher in their schools. Of the 206 teachers who completed

the questionnaires, 19 of them participated in the follow-up telephone interviews by

consent. The error correction task was completed by 58 teachers who were enrolled on an

English language education programme at one of the four participating universities. The

error correction task was administered to these 58 teachers immediately after they had

completed the questionnaires.

Overall, the teacher group was a heterogeneous one. Table 1 shows that of the 206

English teachers who took part in the survey, 34% of them (70) had less than 5 years’

teaching experience, 27% (56) had 5–10 years’ teaching experience, and 39% (80) had over

10 years’ teaching experience. Of the 206 participants, 10% (21) were the English panel

chairpersons of their schools. Regarding their education and qualifications, 55% of them

(113) have a degree in English, and 37% (76) have professional qualification in the

teaching of English.

As regards the student survey, convenience sampling was also adopted. The

questionnaires were sent to eight different secondary schools through a contact teacher

in each school. In the end, 320 students from these eight schools (165 from Forms 1 to 3


Table 1

Participating teachers’ profiles

Teacher experience and education % of teachers with level of experience/

education (number of teachers)

Less than 5 years’ teaching experience 34 (70)

5–10 years’ teaching experience 27 (56)

Over 10 years’ teaching experience 39 (80)

English panel chair 10 (21)

Degree in English 55 (113)

Professional qualification in teaching English 37 (76)

[Grades 7 to 9], 79 from Forms 4 to 5 [Grades 10 to 11], and 76 from Forms 6 to 7 [Grades

12 to 13]) completed the questionnaires (see Table 2). A total of 27 students were randomly

selected to take part in the individual interviews that followed.

3.3. Data analysis

The teacher and student questionnaire data were subjected to SPSS analysis, yielding

mainly descriptive data. The student interview data were translated from Chinese to

English, and the data from both the teacher and student interviews were transcribed,

summarized, and categorized. The translation and transcription work was carried out by a

research assistant with an English degree and a postgraduate English teaching

qualification. As for the teacher error correction task, before the teachers’ corrections

were subjected to detailed analysis, the same student essay was read and marked by four

teacher educators, including the researcher. The errors identified and corrected were

compiled, and in the end 19 errors were identified in the student essay (see Table 3). The

error types are summarized in Table 4. The errors identified and corrected by the

participating teachers were compiled and analyzed to ascertain the errors the teachers

marked, the error correction strategies they used, as well as the accuracy of the

corrections.

4. Results

Since a large amount of data was collected in the study, only the most salient findings are

presented in this section. Where statistics are involved, only descriptive statistics are

reported as statistical testing did not find any significant differences resulting from the

teachers’ background (i.e., qualification, training, and form level they were teaching) or the

students’ grade level. Where appropriate, the interview data are presented verbatim. In this

section, the results are presented to address the following aspects pertaining to error

correction:

1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback

2. Direct versus indirect error feedback

3. The use of error codes

4. Effectiveness of error correction

5. Error correction: whose responsibility?


Table 2

Form and grade levels of participating students

Form level (grade level) % of students at form level

(number of students)

Forms 1–3 (Grades 7–9) 51.5 (165)

Forms 4–5 (Grades 10–11) 24.7 (79)

Forms 6–7 (Grades 12–13) 23.8 (76)

I.L

ee/Jo

urn

al

of

Seco

nd

La

ng

ua

ge

Writin

g1

3(2

00

4)

28

5–

31

22

92

Table 3

Analysis of errors and error types in error correction task

Error

number

Line where

error appears

Student error (underlined) Correction Error category

1 4 on the breach, on the breach, beach Spelling

2 4 on the breach, on the breach, . On Punctuation

3 5 Glasses Glass Noun ending (plural)

4 5 some an other things an Word choice (unnecessary article)

5 6 weather pollution water Spelling

6 6 on the sea in Word choice (preposition)

7 6 on the sea, in Shek O, . In Punctuation

8 6 I had seen saw/have seen Verb tense

6 7 on the sea in Word choice (preposition)

9 7 Ex: For example,/For instance, Spelling

10 7 The sea had There were . . . in the sea Sentence structure

11 7 And there have were Word choice (verb)

6 8 on the sea too In Word choice (preposition)

12 9 The third problem was about the toilet,

because in Shek O the toilet were very dirty

toilets Noun ending (plural)

13 10 I had gone went Verb tense

14 10–11 I saw the floor had some water and had many

dirty things

I saw some water and many dirty

things on the floor

Sentence structure

15 11 go to toilet go to the toilet Article (missing)

16 11 Had did Word choice (verb)

17 13 must use think of Word choice (verb)

18 13 some idea ideas Noun ending (plural)

19 13 to take make/help Word choice (verb)

4.1. Comprehensive versus selective error feedback

The questionnaire data (see section 2, question 2 in Appendix A) show that the

majority of the teachers (72%), irrespective of the form level(s) they were teaching, said

they marked student errors comprehensively (see Table 5). In the error correction task,

67% of the teachers indicated they had marked all the student errors. In the follow-up

interviews, the reasons teachers preferred comprehensive error correction were

compiled. Most of the teachers said comprehensive error correction was required by

the school or the English panel. Some teachers said they marked errors comprehensively

because their students liked it, while some suggested that it was their responsibility to

point out all errors for students to let them know what errors they had made.

Those teachers who said they practiced selective marking (see section 2, question 3 in

Appendix A) tended to mark a large number of student errors. Of those who said they

marked errors selectively, 88% of the teachers said they marked 2/3 or more of errors in

student writing. When asked about the major principle for error correction, 35% of them

said they selected errors on an ad hoc basis. Overall, a smaller percentage of teachers (26%)

said that error selection was directly linked to grammar instruction.


Table 4

Summary of error types in error correction task

Error type Number of errors in task

Word choice 8

Noun ending 3

Spelling 3

Punctuation 2

Verb tense 2

Article 1

Total 19

Table 5

Questionnaire and error task results regarding comprehensive vs. selective error feedback

Teachers’ perceptions of their error feedback % of teachers

Said they marked errors comprehensively 72

Of those who said they marked errors selectively–

Said they marked 2/3 or above of the errors 88

Said they selected errors on ad hoc basis 35

Said they selected errors linked to grammar instruction 26

Teachers’ error feedback performance on error correction task % of teachers

Marked all student errors 67

Student perceptions of their teacher’s error correction feedback % of students

Said that teachers marked all errors 60

Wanted teachers to mark all errors 83

The student questionnaire data show that students were aware of teachers’ error

correction practices (see question 1 in Appendix D). Over half of them (60%) indicated that

their English teachers underlined or circled all their errors. When asked what they preferred

(see question 3 in Appendix D), 83% said they wanted their teachers to mark all their

errors. In the interviews, the reasons stated mainly relate to the idea of cognition, i.e.,

students wanted to know what errors they had made. One student said, ‘‘When my teacher

marks all my errors, I know what they are.’’

4.2. Direct versus indirect error feedback

The teacher questionnaire data (see section 2, question 8 in Appendix A) show that the

error correction strategies teachers used were mainly direct feedback and indirect coded

feedback (see Table 6). On average, 36% of the teachers indicated that they always or often

used direct error feedback. On the other hand, 43% always/often used indirect coded

feedback. The error correction strategies the teachers said they rarely or never used were

‘‘hinting at the location of errors’’ and ‘‘hinting at the location of errors and categorizing

them,’’ both are indirect feedback involving indirect error location techniques. These two

techniques are more demanding for students, since the teachers indicate error location

indirectly and students have to locate errors themselves.

Teachers’ preference for direct feedback and indirect coded feedback was supported by

the data gathered from the error correction task. The analysis shows that direct feedback

was given for 55% of the errors by those teachers who marked all errors and for 65% of the

errors by those who marked errors selectively. On average, more than half of the errors

were overtly corrected by the teachers—i.e., the errors were marked with correct forms/

structures provided. Throughout the error correction task, the teachers used only one

indirect feedback strategy—direct location of errors plus the use of error codes (i.e., coded

feedback). Other than direct feedback and indirect coded feedback strategies, no other error

feedback technique was evident in the error correction task.

The student survey data again show that students were aware of the teachers’ practice.

About 40% of students said that their teachers gave direct feedback on all their errors


Table 6

Questionnaire and error correction results regarding direct vs. indirect error feedback

Teachers’ perception of their type of error feedback % of teachers

Said they always/often gave direct error feedback 36

Said they always/often gave indirect coded feedback 43

Teachers’ error feedback type on error correction task % of teachers

Gave direct feedback (comprehensive marking group) 55 of errors

Gave direct feedback (selective marking group) 65 of errors

Students’ perceptions of type of error feedback given by their teacher % of students

Said that teachers gave direct feedback on all errors 40

Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on all errors 76

Wanted teachers to give direct feedback on some errors 22

(see question 4 in Appendix D). In terms of student preference, there was a gap between

what students wanted and what their teachers did. The majority of students (76%)

indicated they wanted their teachers to provide corrections for all errors (see question 5

in Appendix D), while only 22% of them wanted teachers to provide corrections for

some errors. In other words, students preferred teachers to play a primarily active role in

error correction. The interview data suggest that students wanted teachers to provide

corrections for all errors because this would make life easier. One student said, ‘‘If my

teacher corrects all my mistakes, I can do the correction easily, and I don’t have to ask

her.’’

4.3. The use of error codes

The teacher questionnaire data (see section 2, question 6 in Appendix A) show that the

large majority of teachers (87%) used error codes in marking student writing, and 80% said

that they were required by the school to use codes (see Table 7). This practice is in line with

the Hong Kong Education Department’s recommendation (see CDC, 1999). For almost

half of the teachers (45%), the marking code was designed by another teacher (see section

2, question 7 in Appendix A). Of the other teachers who used error codes, 38% adapted the

marking code designed by another teacher, and only 10% designed their own marking

code.

While the questionnaire findings show that, generally, many of the teachers liked error

codes, some problems were mentioned in the follow-up interviews; for example,

sometimes the codes could not be applied to syntax level errors, and students were unable

to correct errors using error codes. One teacher said, ‘‘When students don’t understand the

codes, they come to ask me individually. I’d rather correct the errors for them because I

don’t want all of them to come out and ask for the corrections.’’

The data obtained from the error correction task show that teachers tended to use a wide

range of error types in the error codes. Analysis of the error codes indicates that a total of 14


Table 7

Questionnaire results regarding use of error codes

Teachers’ perceptions of their use of error codes % of teachers

Said they used errors codes in marking papers 87

Said they were required by school to use error codes 80

Said they used a marking code designed by another teacher 45

Said they adapted a marking code designed by another teacher 38

Said they designed their own marking code 10

Students’ perceptions of their teacher’s use of error codes % of students

Said that teachers used error codes 91

Said they were able to follow over 3/4 of error codes 44

Said they were able to follow 1/2 to 2/3 of error codes 41

Said they were able to correct over 3/4 of errors based on error codes 36

Said they were able to correct 1/2 to 3/4 of errors based on error codes 47

Said they wanted teachers to use error codes 76

error types were used, including tense, article, spelling, preposition, and pronoun errors

(see Table 8). Six teachers voluntarily returned the error correction task sheets with the

marking codes they used in school. An initial analysis of these marking codes shows that

the number of error types range from 15 to 26, which suggests that schools tend to adopt

fine categories in their marking codes. For instance, one marking code breaks the large

category ‘‘verb errors’’ down into smaller categories such as ‘‘tense,’’ ‘‘infinitive,’’

‘‘gerund,’’ ‘‘verb form,’’ ‘‘agreement of subject and verb,’’ and ‘‘voice.’’

The student survey data consistently show that students were aware of the teachers’

practice. A total of 91% of them indicated that their teachers used error codes in marking

their compositions (see question 6 in Appendix D). However, a number of students

admitted that they did not always fully understand the codes. For instance, 44% of them

said they were able to follow and understand over 3/4 of the codes when correcting errors in

their compositions (see question 7 in Appendix D). About 41% of the students said that

they could follow about 1/2 to 3/4 of the codes. Students were also asked if they could

correct errors based on the codes. About 36% of them said they could correct over 3/4 of

the errors, and 47% said they could correct 1/2 to 3/4 of the errors (see question 8 in

Appendix D). In Cohen and Cavalcanti’s (1990) study, the students also remarked that

they were not able to handle all teachers’ comments.

Interestingly, although students said they could not always cope with the codes used by

teachers, 76% of them expressed preference for the use of error codes. The interview data

indicate that students’ preference for error codes was mainly based on the fact that the

codes could enable them to understand the types of errors they made. In other words, the

codes could facilitate error identification. As one student said, ‘‘If there’s no marking

code, I don’t know what the errors are.’’ However, error codes are not without problems.

Some students remarked that they could not follow the codes because they did not know

the grammar rules or they were unclear about the grammar concepts involved. Knowing


Table 8

Error codes used by teachers in error correction task

Error type Error code used by teachers

Tense/verb T/v/v.t./T (present)/T (past)/past simple/Tn/tv/vb/past

par/vF v1v2, e.g., I had (v1) not go (v2)

Article Ar/art/A

Auxiliary verb Aux

Spelling Sp

Number Num/no/N/si/sing/plural/plu/pl

Agreement agr/ag

Preposition Prep/P/Pr/p.p./Pre

Pronoun Pr

Punctuation/case P/Punct/P/Ca/C

Wrong word w.w./ww/w/W

Wrong word order Wo

Expression Exp

Rewrite sentence <rewrite>

Chinglish <Chi-English>

Unclassified (RS) (FS)

the codes is one thing, but correcting errors is quite another. One student remarked: ‘‘I

don’t have clear concepts of the parts of speech. I know the codes, but I’m not clear

about the grammar.’’ Another point raised is that the teacher might not have explained all

the codes to students, so the students found them difficult to use. One student said: ‘‘For

some codes, my teacher hasn’t explained to me so I don’t know how to use them.’’

Although a large number of students seemed to favour the use of error codes, the

interview data suggest that error codes may not be as easy and straightforward as they

appear to be. Some students commented that there were far too many error codes for them

to handle. For these students, error codes were perceived to be a source of trouble: ‘‘It’s

troublesome and time wasting. If the teacher corrects it for me, I think it’s easier for me to

handle.’’

4.4. Effectiveness of teacher error correction

When teachers were asked to evaluate the overall effectiveness of their error correction

practices in the questionnaire survey, the findings show that over half of the teachers (61%)

thought their practices brought about ‘‘some’’ student progress in writing accuracy (see

section 2, question 13 in Appendix A). Only a small number of teachers (9%) thought their

students were making ‘‘good’’ progress (see Table 9).

What did the students think about their own progress in writing (see question 11 in

Appendix D)? Overall, 46% of the students said that they were making some progress.

Only 9% thought they were making good progress in grammatical accuracy in writing.

When asked if they would make the same errors after the teacher had corrected them (see

question 9 in Appendix D), over half of the students (67%) answered in the affirmative.

Most of the students interviewed put forward several reasons; for example, they could

not apply the same rule in all situations, the topic and/or the context of the next

composition would be different, and they might forget what they had learnt. The

disadvantage of comprehensive error correction was indirectly pointed out by one

student: I think I can’t handle so many things. There’re lots of things, lots of vocabulary

items.

The effectiveness of the teachers’ error correction was also ascertained in the error

correction task to find out how well the teachers fared in correcting student errors in

writing. In the error correction task, four types of teacher error corrections were identified

(see Table 10): (1) accurate feedback—location and correction; (2) inaccurate feedback—


Table 9

Questionnaire results regarding effectiveness of teacher error feedback

Teachers’ perception of effectiveness of their error feedback % of teachers

Said their error correction brought about some student progress in writing accuracy 61

Said their error correction brought about good student progress in writing accuracy 9

Students’ perception of effectiveness of their teacher’s error feedback % of students

Said they thought they were making good progress in writing accuracy 9

Said they thought they were making some progress in writing accuracy 46

Said they thought they would make the same errors again 67

location and/or correction; (3) unnecessary feedback—style and/or meaning changes or

incorrect feedback; (4) omission (applicable only to the comprehensive feedback group)—

errors uncorrected.

For those teachers who marked all the student errors, 57% of their corrections were

accurate, 40% unnecessary, and 3% inaccurate (see Table 11). There was a total of 172

errors which were not marked (referred to as ‘‘omission’’). On average, there were 4

omissions in each teacher’s error correction task. In the main, only slightly over half of the

teachers’ error feedback was accurate. Other feedback was either unnecessary or

inaccurate—mainly unnecessary. Some of the unnecessary teacher feedback was found to

be misleading because it created errors as a result (see Table 11 for examples).

4.5. Error correction: Whose responsibility

In the teacher questionnaire (see section 2, question 14 in Appendix A), when asked

whether it is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students


Table 10

Types of teacher error correction in error correction task

Type of error correction Explanation Example

Accurate correction 1. Errors accurately located and

corrected

1. On the breach ! beach

2. Errors accurately located 2. On the breach

3. Errors accurately located and coded 3. On the breachsp

Inaccurate correction 1. Errors accurately located but

inaccurately corrected

1. Some an other things !some many other things

2. Errors accurately located but

inaccurately coded

2. In Shek O the toilet wereT

very dirty

Unnecessary correction 1. Marking that leads to stylistic

difference or improvement

1. I am writing to inform you

about . . . ! complain

2. Marking that changes original meaning 2. So next time . . . ! From

then onwards . . .

3. No error is involved – teacher correction

leads students to make an error

3. . . . the three problems that are

causing damage ! damages

Omission (only applicable

to teachers who marked

errors comprehensively)

An error that is treated as correct some rubbish on the sea

(treated as correct)

Table 11

Results of error correction task

Type of error feedback given

on error correction task

% of total number of corrections

from all 58 teachers

Accurate feedback 57%

Inaccurate feedback 3%

Unnecessary feedback 40%

Errors not marked on error correction task Total number 172

(statement C), 60% of the teachers expressed their agreement (see Table 12). This is a

rather high percentage and could explain why many teachers favoured direct error

feedback. However, when asked if students should learn to locate and correct errors

(statement H), 96% of them believed that students should learn to locate their own errors,

and 99% of them believed that students should learn to locate and correct their own errors

(statement I). Teachers, therefore, seem to contradict themselves. Although they are aware

of the importance of asking students to take on the responsibility of error location and

correction, in reality the teachers are doing the work for the students.

During the interviews, teachers were asked to elaborate on the views expressed in the

questionnaire. Most of the teachers explained that because students are unable to locate and

correct errors, teachers have to help them. One teacher said:

Actually, if the students can really locate errors, they can learn a lot from it. However,

usually it’s the teachers who do the error correction. If teachers do most of the things,

students have less work to do; then they can learn more. I tried to ask them to locate

errors themselves, but the result was not good. Maybe they had never tried this before

or maybe my instruction was not clear. I didn’t know the exact reason, so I didn’t try

it again. I also tried to ask them to correct others’ work, but they tended to have many

arguments. Then I never tried it again. Anyway, they couldn’t do it well.

This teacher took an avoidance approach—since putting the onus on students did not

work well, the teacher decided to give it up. This problem may be shared by other teachers.

One teacher said, ‘‘For the less capable students, they can’t locate and correct their errors,

and we don’t force them.’’

The teachers’ tendency to embrace error correction as their responsibility could be

traced to their belief about the main purpose in correcting student errors in writing. In the

teacher questionnaire, teachers were asked an open-ended question regarding the main

purpose of error correction (see section 2, question 1 in Appendix A). Their answers

predominantly suggest that teachers are more concerned with the immediate goal of

helping students avoid the same errors than the more long-term goal of equipping them

with strategies to edit and proofread their writing independently. Table 13 summarizes the

teachers’ comments and how often a certain comment was mentioned by teachers. The

teachers’ primary concern is to help students become aware of their errors and to fix them.

Only a very small number of teachers think that the main purpose of error correction is to


Table 12

Questionnaire results regarding responsibility for error correction

Teachers’ perception of responsibility for error correction % of teachers

Said it is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students 60

Said students should learn to locate their own errors 96

Said students should learn to locate and correct their own errors 99

Students’ perception of responsibility for error correction % of students

Said it is mainly the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students 45

Said it is mainly the students’ job to locate and correct their own errors 55

help students locate errors, to encourage them to reflect on those errors, and to promote

self-learning.

What did the students think about the responsibility for error correction (see question 12

in Appendix D)? Nearly half of the students (45%) thought that it was mainly their

teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students, and 55% believed that it was mainly

the students’ job. During the interview, when asked to elaborate on the question about

whether error correction is their teacher’s or the students’ responsibility, most of the

students said that it was the teacher’s responsibility. The only student who thought that

students should be responsible for correcting errors, however, added that students would

not like doing the job: ‘‘I think students should have the responsibility to learn how to

locate and correct the mistakes, but I am too lazy. I don’t like doing this.’’ Two other

students mentioned ‘‘laziness’’ as a reason why teachers should correct errors for them.

The reasons most of the other students put down were mainly about teacher competence in

error correction, such as ‘‘I don’t think I can locate the mistakes. The teacher’s

responsibility is greater. Since my proofreading is not good, I think teachers should locate

the mistakes for me.’’ From the students’ perspective, the one who can do the job better

should do it, so teachers should correct errors for students.

5. Discussion of findings and implications

Before any conclusion can be drawn about the study, one has to take note of the

limitations of the study. First, the study made use of convenience sampling; hence, the

results cannot be generalized. Second, information about the strategies teachers use in error

correction and the accuracy of their corrections was gathered from a single task, which is an

artificial error correction exercise based on an essay not written by the teacher’s own

student. The way the teachers marked errors in the essay might deviate from their normal

practice. Also, the effectiveness of error correction (i.e., student progress in written

accuracy) is based on teachers’ reports and students’ self-reports rather than analysis of

student writing samples. Nonetheless, the study has shed light on how error correction is


Table 13

Questionnaire results regarding main purpose of error feedback

Purpose of error feedback Number of time

comments mentioned

To increase students’ awareness of errors 65

To help students avoid the same errors/learn from the errors 45

To help students improve their writing 30

To help students correct errors 15

To give students encouragement 9

To teach students how to express ideas/write better 7

To teach grammar/cohesion/coherence 5

To help students reflect on their writing 4

To help students locate their errors 2

To develop long-term benefits, e.g., promote self-learning 2

carried out in the Hong Kong secondary writing classroom. The following implications,

based on the results of the study, may be applicable to similar ESL contexts.

5.1. Extent of error feedback

The study has shown that teachers tend to mark errors comprehensively. Many error

correction advocates have advised against comprehensive error feedback because of the

risk of ‘‘exhausting teachers and overwhelming students’’ (Ferris, 2002, p. 50). Ferris

(2002) suggests that error correction may be most effective ‘‘when it focuses on patterns of

error, allowing teachers and students to attend to, say, two or three major error types at a

time, rather than dozens of disparate errors’’ (p. 50). In the local English syllabus for

secondary English teachers, it is recommended that ‘‘teachers need not correct all the

mistakes in learners’ work’’ (CDC, 1999, p. 95). One problem associated with

comprehensive error feedback is that once teachers decide to go for comprehensive

error feedback, there is a tendency to over-mark errors, as demonstrated in the study. It is

also difficult to define an error, e.g., to distinguish between an error and a difference or

improvement in style—and thus to decide whether to correct or not. Additionally, however

‘‘comprehensively’’ a teacher marks errors, there is bound to be omission, as shown in the

findings of the study. Thus, comprehensive error feedback is an elusive goal, and such a

practice has to be avoided. The study suggests that teachers may not know how to do

selective marking systematically, as quite a few of the teachers tend to select errors on an ad

hoc basis. To implement selective marking successfully, it is important that English

teachers at the school level discuss the error correction policy, share concerns and

problems, and look for ways to link error correction systematically with grammar

instruction.

5.2. Range of error feedback strategies

The study has shown that the teachers mainly relied on two error correction strategies—

direct error feedback and indirect coded feedback. The results suggest that teachers need to

be made aware of and to experiment with a wider range or error correction strategies. For

example, uncoded correction or error correction that prompts students about error location

could be used with more proficient students, requiring them to locate and correct errors.

Teachers could reserve direct feedback for errors that are not amenable to self-correction

(e.g., vocabulary and syntax errors) and use this strategy with less proficient students.

5.3. Use of error codes

Despite the popularity of error codes among teachers, the findings of the study suggest

that error codes may not be as effective as some teachers think. Assuming that the error

types have been covered in grammar lessons, the error codes can help students reinforce

their learning. However, when teachers mark errors comprehensively, when an essay is full

of errors, and when a large number of errors are coded, a student essay can be filled with

error codes of different kinds. In that case, it is questionable if students would be able to

correct their errors. Also, it could be very time-consuming for teachers to use codes to


categorize a wide range of errors, and it could be overwhelming and frustrating for students

to correct their errors based on the codes. The study has also indicated that teachers tend to

use a large number of error codes in error correction and that students may not necessarily

understand and be able to cope with teachers’ error correction, however explicitly coded it

is. Thus, teachers have to handle correction codes with a great deal of care. To make the

codes easier to interpret for students, teachers may consider reducing the number of codes

they use in correcting errors, concentrating on specific error patterns. It would also be

beneficial if teachers link error correction directly with grammar instruction. If teachers

adopt these strategies, error codes could be less problematic for students, and students may

also benefit more from the use of codes.

5.4. Teacher training in error correction

The study has shown that only slightly over half of the teachers’ error feedback was

accurate. To some extent, the findings of the study cast doubt on teachers’ competence in

error correction. When teachers’ own corrections go wrong, the effectiveness of error

feedback is questionable. As Ferris (1999) has pointed out, ‘‘poorly done error correction

will not help student writers and may even mislead them’’ (p. 4). In Hong Kong, English

teachers are required by the government to pass the Language Proficiency Assessment for

Teachers of English (LPATE) to be benchmarked for English language teaching. The first

tests were conducted in 2001, and the results in each of the subsequent years, which were

widely reported in the media, have repeatedly shown that teachers perform worst in

correcting student errors in the writing test (LPATE comprises tests on speaking, listening,

reading, writing, and the teacher’s use of classroom language). Coupled with the findings

of this study, it could be concluded that teachers need more training and practice in error

correction. In order for teacher error feedback to be made more effective and beneficial for

students, teacher education courses have to put more focus on helping pre-service and in-

service teachers cope with this time-consuming and painstaking task of error correction.

5.5. Impact of teacher practice on student beliefs and expectations regarding

error correction

The study does not show huge differences between teachers’ self-reported error

correction practice and students’ preferences. For instance, the majority of teachers mark

errors comprehensively, and similarly, the large majority of students prefer such a practice.

Indeed, student expectations and preferences may be easily influenced by teachers’

practices. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) maintain that ‘‘learners’ expectations and

preferences may derive from previous instructional experiences, experiences that may not

necessarily be beneficial for the development of writing’’ (p. 173). If throughout students’

language learning experience their English teachers have marked their errors

comprehensively and done the corrections for them, students may feel that these are

the right things to do and that it is the teacher’s job to correct errors. Without changing

teachers’ beliefs and their actual practices, it is unlikely that students will alter their

expectations, since learner expectations are often shaped by teacher practice. It is,

therefore, important to raise teachers’ awareness of the possible harm done to students and


themselves by treating errors comprehensively and by correcting all errors for them, e.g.,

student frustration and teacher burnout (Ferris, 2002). It is also crucial that teachers adopt

long-term measures to help students become independent editors, make expectations clear,

and make error correction an integral part of teaching and learning in the writing

classroom, so that students will not regard error correction as a mundane chore that has no

direct relevance to their own writing development. When correcting errors in student

writing, teachers should abandon a get-the-job-done attitude. Instead, they should consider

the long-term significance of error correction, how to link it to pre- and post-writing

grammar instruction, and how to help students take on greater responsibility for learning.

6. Further research

The present study surveyed current error correction practices in Hong Kong secondary

classrooms from the teacher and student perspectives, acknowledging the significance of

the teacher and student variables in error correction research. Further research could

explore in greater depth how the teacher and student factors influence error correction and

how these two factors impact teachers’ error correction and students’ ability to learn from

it. Teacher variables such as prior grammatical knowledge, training and experience,

knowledge and philosophies regarding error correction strategies, as well as learner

characteristics such as proficiency, motivation, attitudes, and beliefs provide useful

avenues for future research.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Direct Grant from the Department of Curriculum and

Instruction of The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

References

Cohen, A.D. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),

Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cohen, A.D. (1991). Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13,

133–159.

Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports.

In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, A. D., & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between

selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ expectations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.

Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabuses for secondary schools: English language Secondary 1–5.

Hong Kong: Education Department.

Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193–204.

Ferris, D.R. (1996). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal

of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.


Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Ferris, D.R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and

practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada.

Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000, March). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2

writing classes? Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver,

British Columbia, Canada.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal

of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish

content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 244–329.

Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In C. W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college

composition (pp. 117–124). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in

L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback

in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308.

Hendrickson, R. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–221.

Lalande, J. F. II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing. System, 25, 465–477.

Lee, I. (1998). Writing in the Hong Kong secondary classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practice. Hong Kong Journal

of Applied Linguistics, 3, 61–76.

Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing

Writing, 8, 216–237.

Lee, I., & Lee, M. (1997). Facilitating writing in the language classroom. Guidelines, 19, 73–86.

Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign

Language Annals, 24, 203–218.

Mantello, M. (1997). Error correction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 127–131.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on

essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.

Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16,

355–365.

Raimes, A. (1991). Errors: Windows into the mind. College ESL, 1, 55–64.

Reid, J. (1998). ‘‘Eye’’ learners and ‘‘ear’’ learners: Identifying the language needs of international students and

U.S. resident writers. In P. Byrd & J. M. Reid (Eds.), Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on

teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 3–17). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.

TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

Tsui, A., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language

Writing, 9, 147–171.

Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.



Appendix A. Teacher questionnaire

A.1. Error feedback on student writing

This questionnaire aims to find out how you mark grammar errors in students’ writing,

your beliefs about error feedback, and the concerns you may have regarding the subject. All

your answers will be treated confidentially.





Appendix B. Teacher interview guide

1. Are you in favour of comprehensive or selective error feedback? Why?

2. What error corrections strategies do you use? Why do you choose these strategies?

3. Are your error correction strategies linked to grammar instruction? Elaborate on your

answer.

4. Do you think it is a good idea to provide corrections for student errors in writing (i.e.,

direct error feedback)? Explain your answer.

5. Do you use error codes? Why or why not? What problems, if any, can you see in using

error codes? How can the problems be solved?

6. Is it the teacher’s job to locate and correct errors for students? Explain your answer.

7. Who should be responsible for error correction? Why?

8. What concerns or problems, if any, do you have in correcting student errors in writing?

9. Do you think teachers need any help or special training in error correction? Explain

your answer.

10. In your opinion, what is the best way to go about error correction? Explain your

answer.


Appendix C. Error correction task

C.1. Composition topic

Try to find out the environmental problems in Shek O on the picnic day. Then write a

letter of complaint about these problems to the Director of the Environmental Protection

Department.


Appendix D. Student questionnaire

D.1. Marking of English compositions

This questionnaire aims to find out your views about how English compositions should

be marked. Please answer the questions with reference to how your present English teacher

marks your compositions in this academic year. All your answers will be treated

confidentially.


Appendix E. Student interview guide

1. Do you want your teacher to respond to all errors or only some errors in writing? Why?

2. Do you want your teacher to provide corrections for all your errors or only some errors?

Why?

3. Do you want your teacher to use error codes in error correction? Why or why not?

4. Are error codes easy or difficult to use? Elaborate on your answer.

5. Do you think you are making good progress in writing accuracy? In your opinion, does

teacher error correction help? Explain your answer.

6. Whose responsibility is it to correct errors in student writing? Why?

Documents

Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong