The Impact of Coded Indirect Corrective Feedback with Error Treatmenton Frequent English Writing Errors

Authors

  • Chaiwat Tantarangsee

Keywords:

Coded Indirect Corrective Feedback, Error Correction, Error Treatment, Frequent English Writing Errors

Abstract

The objectives of this study are to review the frequent English writing errors of the students registering for the course: Reading and Writing English for Academic Purposes II. This study researched the impact of coded indirect corrective feedback with error treatment on the students’ writing ability and the amount of writing errors. This study is a Quasi Experimental Research with a single group, in which the data is collected five times preceding and following four experimental studies. Samples included fifty-two 2nd year English Major Students registering for the course, Reading and Writing English for Academic Purposes II, in their first semester of 2013.The Faculty of Education assisted with the student’s registration process at Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University. Research tools included a lesson plan and five writing tests of short texts.
These research results ascertain frequent English writing errors; including seven types of grammatical errors. This was concluded from summative evaluation of the students writing ability before and after the experiment. The research findings reveal that the increase of the students’ achievement in writing short texts; had significant differences of pre-test and post-test mean scores. The cessation reduction of the overall writing errors was 0.00.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Amrhein R., H., & Nassaji, H. Written Corrective Feedback: What do students and teachers prefer
and why? Canadian Journal of Applied
Linguistics. CJAL 2010, 13, pp. 95-127.
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 Unpublished M.A. Thesis, 2000.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. The value of a
focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 69, 2009, pp. 204-211.
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.
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.
Mutsuda, P. K. Teaching Writing as a Nonnative Speaking Teacher. Conference Handbook, 2014. The 34th Annual Thailand TESOL International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand. Paran, A. Language skills: questions for teaching and learning. ELT Journal, 66, 2012, (4), pp. 450- 458.
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.
Scrivener, J. 1998. Learning Teaching. Oxford:
Macmillan Heinemann.
Thornbury, S. Reformulation and reconstruction; tasks that promote ‘noticing’. ELT Journal, 51,
1997, pp. 326-335.
Tompkins, G. E. 2008. Teaching Writing,
Balancing Process and Product. NewJersey: Pearson.
Waters, A. Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology. ELT Journal, 66(4), 2012, pp. 440- 449.
Yamane, Taro. 1976. Statistic: An Introduction Analysis. 2nd edition. New York : Harper and Row.

Published

2019-09-04

How to Cite

Tantarangsee, C. (2019). The Impact of Coded Indirect Corrective Feedback with Error Treatmenton Frequent English Writing Errors. Research and Development Journal Suan Sunandha Rajabhat University, 7(1), 125. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/irdssru/article/view/214583