1 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
o0o PHẠM THỊ VIỆT DUNG

TEACHERS' CORRECTION OF WRITTEN ERRORS
AND STUDENTS' UPTAKE
( Cách chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên và sự tiếp nhận của học sinh )
M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS
METHODOLOGY
CODE: 601410
HA NOI, AUGUST 2010

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i
Acknowledgements ii
Abstract iii
Table of contents iv
List of abbreviation vii
Part 1: Introduction
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 1
3. Scopes of the study 2
4. Method of the study 2
5. Design of the study 2
Part 2: Content
Chapter 1: Literature Review
1.1. Errors in language learning process
1.1.1. Definition of errors 3
1.1.2. Errors and mistakes 3
1.1.3. Error Analysis in second language acquisition. 4
1.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second Language
Learning
1.2.1. Definition of feedback 6

2.7. Data analysis 25
2.8. Learner Responses to Feedback: Uptake and Repair 30
Chapter 3: Implications and Suggestions for written error correction
3.1. General Implications 34
3.2. Suggestions for written error corrections 35
Part 3: Conclusion
3.1. Conclusion 39
3.2. Limitations and suggestions for further research 40
References 41
Appendices I

9 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. ART ARTICLE
2. A.G AGREEMENT BETWEEN SUBJECT AND VERB

four skills in language learning process and it is seen as a language skill which is the most
difficult and complex because it‘s required widely perception and needs good understanding
on grammar and structures. It is a task that no two people do the same way. However, there
are some logical steps that every writer seems to follow in the creation of a paper. In writing
process that need grammatical and spelling understanding well to make the composition well
and can be understood.
English is very complicated for Vietnamese learners, as English and Vietnamese are of
two different linguistic types. Besides, there are quite a lot of differences in the way of
thinking, lifestyle, and literature between the two cultures. These contrasts themselves have
caused Vietnamese learners to meet some difficulties and commit errors while learning
English.
Most teachers hope their feedback will not only improve their students‘ current writing,
but also help their writing and language development. How to deal with and when to give feed
back to the errors are vital in teaching English as it may either result in motivation or
discouragement in language learning.
There have been a number of B.A, M.A thesis making error analysis by Vietnamese
ELT methodologists and applied linguists, such as Nguyen Van Loi (1999), Do Hong Yen
(2002), Tran Thi Hai Binh (2005), etc, but none of them mentioned the responding of students
to their teachers‘ correction. It is hoped that the findings of this thesis in the area of writing
and the influence of teachers‘ correction as well as students‘ uptake would be relevant to
teachers as well as students at school.
2. Aims of the study
This study investigates the effect of teacher corrective feedback and is aimed at
making an analysis of the errors made by students of English in learning writing skill. Basing
on the results of the above error analysis, the researcher finally hopes:
- giving a better awareness of pupils‘ errors in written English
11 - helping teachers have positive attitudes towards students‘ written errors


PART II: CONTENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Errors in language learning process
1.1.1. Definition of errors
According to Corder (1975:112), an error is referred to as a linguistic form which is
either superficially deviant or inappropriate in terms of the target language. Besides, James
(1998: 1) provisionally defines a language error as an unsuccessful bit of language.
In an article about some problems of definition, identification, and distinction, Lennon
(1991: 181), from the university of Kassel, suggested that notwithstanding native speaker
intuitions, errors do not constitute as easily recognizable a feature in production as might be
imagined.
It can be therefore, said that it is not easy to define what can be considered to be errors
in terms of linguistics. In order to limit the scope of the research and to have a clear, consistent
set of corpus as the subject of the research, the researcher would like to propose this working
definition: The language usages which are, to some extent, contrary to the general rules or
styles in English, or any deviated forms or structures that cannot account for the English
model of usage assumed by educated users are considered erroneous, ungrammatically or
unacceptable, thus being regarded as errors.
1.1.2. Errors and mistakes
A distinction is sometimes made between an error, which results from incomplete
knowledge, and a mistake made by a learner when writing or speaking and which is caused by
lack of attention, fatigue, carelessness, or some other aspects of performance. Mistakes are of
no significance to the process of language learning. However, the problem of determining
what is a learner‘s mistake and what a learner‘s error is one of some difficulty and involves a
much more sophisticated study and analysis of errors than is usually accorded them.
Corder (1967: 59) made a distinction between a mistake and an error. Whereas a
mistake is a random performance slip caused by fatigue, excitement, etc, and therefore can be
13

- overgeneralization
- developmental
- induced errors
- errors of avoidance
- errors of overproduction
- simplifications
- communication-based errors
An Interlingual error is an error which results from language transfer, which is caused by the
learner‘s native language transference ( also called negative transfer). For example,
Vietnamese learners of English may produce such errors:
(*) He was died last year. ( interference from mother tongue “bị”)
(**) I prefer this book than that one ( interference from mother tongue “hơn”)
Corder (1974) elaborated the procedure for Error Analysis, distinguishing five stages, as
follows:
- selection of a corpus of language
- identification of errors in the corpus
- classification of the errors identified
- explanation of the psycholinguistic causes of the errors
- evaluation or error gravity ranking of the errors
Choon (1993) gives some suggestions on carrying out an error analysis research. According to
her, one has to identify the errors first, then the errors are classified according to categories
such as : semantic errors ( wrong words, wrong forms, etc.), grammatical errors ( tense,
prepositions, etc.), global errors and local errors. She suggested that ― the system of classifying
errors should be flexible‖ ( Choon, 1993:2). The last step is determining how much they
deviate from the target language norm, to what extent they affect communication. Error
Analysis can help language teachers manner the specific and common language problems
students have so that he or she can know what should be focused more in a syllabus. Choon
(1993) advised teachers to conduct Error Analysis at the beginning of the course when the

Skill theory: ‗the learner needs feedback on how well he or she is doing‘
16 1.2.2. Second Language Acquisition Perspectives on Error Correction in Second
Language Learning
Error correction in L2 writing is a source of great concern to writing instructors and of
controversy to researchers and composition theorists. Over the past twenty years, approaches
to responding to students‘ grammar problems have included ―opposing extremes of obsessive
attention to every single student error and beginning neglect of linguistic accuracy‖ (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998, p. 198). Real-life teachers, however, have always known that students‘ errors
are troublesome, that students themselves are very concerned about accuracy, and that
responding effectively to students‘ grammatical and lexical problems is a challenging
endeavor fraught with uncertainty about its long-term effectiveness. Teachers of L2
composition who regularly provide grammar oriented feedback would doubtless report that
this is one of the most time-consuming and exhausting aspects of their jobs. Because of the
perceived importance of error correction and the amount of emphasis both teachers and
students place on it, it is reasonable to ask whether grammatical correction is effective and
appropriate at all, and if so, what the best ways are to approach it.
Truscott‘s thesis and major points (1996: 328-329) are stated clearly: Grammar
correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned. The reasons are: firstly,
research evidence shows that grammar correction is ineffective; secondly, this lack of
effectiveness is what should be expected, given the nature of the correction process and the
nature of language learning; thirdly, grammar correction has significant harmful effects.
Finally, the various arguments offered for continuing it all lack merit. He concludes that not
only is grammar correction ineffective, it is actually harmful to students (and teachers). He
claims that correction causes stress and demotivate students and it takes up too much teacher
and student time which could be more productively and pleasantly spent on other aspects of
writing.
There is tremendous variability in students‘ ability to benefit from grammar instruction

attracted enormous interest from researchers and teachers alike. However, as a recent review
of feedback on L2 students‘ writing (Hyland & Hyland 2006) makes clear, despite all the
research there are still no clear answers to the questions researchers have addressed. Hyland
18 and Hyland observed: while feedback is a central aspect of L2 writing programs across the
world, the research literature has not been equivocally positive about its role in L2
development, and teachers often have a sense they are not making use of its full potential. A
basic distinction needs to be made between the options involved in (1) the teacher‘s provision
of CF and (2) the students‘ response to this feedback. Clearly, CF can only have an impact if
students attend to it. Thus, any account of CF must consider both aspects.
Two dimensions of corrective feedback: 1. Strategies for providing corrective feedback
2. How students respond to the feedback
From these aspects above, researchers have given out 5 Strategies for Corrective Feedback :
1. Direct
2. Indirect
3. Metalinguistic
4. Focus of the feedback
5. Reformulation
1.3.1. Direct corrective feedback
With this strategy, the teacher provides the student with the correct form. As Ferris
(2006) notes, this can take a number of different forms – crossing out an unnecessary word,
phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form
above or near to the erroneous form.
An example:
A a a the
the dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When
a a a
the dog was going through bridge over the river he found dog in the river.

+ Learners may be able to correct but will not be certain that they
are correct.
20 1.3.3. Metalinguistic corrective feedback
This involves providing learners with some form of explicit comment about the nature of the
errors they have made:
- Using of error codes (i.e. abbreviated labels for different kinds of errors placed over the
location of the error in the text or in the margin).
Examples: art. x 3; WW A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone.
Prep.; art. When the dog was going through bridge over the river he
art. found dog in the river.
- Metalinguistic explanations of their errors (e.g. numbering errors and providing
metalinguistic comments at the end of the text).
Examples: (1 ) (2) (3)
A dog stole bone from butcher. He escaped with having bone. When the dog
(4) (5) (6) (7)
was going through bridge over the river he found dog in river.
(1), (2), (5), (6) – „a‟ before the noun when a person or thing is mentioned for the first time.
(3), (7) - „the‟ before the noun when the person or thing has been mentioned previously
(4) – you need „over‟ when you go across the surface of something; you use „though‟ when
you go inside something (e.g. „go through the forest‟).
Robb et al (1986) suggested that the use of error codes no more effective than three
other types of CF they investigated (i.e. direct feedback and two kinds of indirect feedback).
Besides, Ferris (2006) supposed that error codes helped students to improve their accuracy
over time in only two of the four categories of error she investigated. Ferris and Roberts
(2001) pointed out that error codes helped students to self-edit their writing but no more so
than indirect feedback.
Overall, then, there is very limited evidence to show that error codes help writers to achieve

feedback occurs when the teacher identifies an error and provides the correct form, while
22 indirect strategies refer to situations when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but
does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to diagnose and correct it.
Additionally, studies examining the effect of indirect feedback strategies have tended
to make a further distinction between those that do or do not use a code. Coded feedback
points to the exact location of an error, and the type of error involved is indicated with a code
(for example, WW means an error in the use of word order). Uncoded feedback refers to
instances when the teacher underlines an error, circles an error, or places an error tally in the
margin, but, in each case, leaves the student to diagnose and correct the error.
The studies by Lee (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) did have control groups
which received no corrective feedback. Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined the effects of
three different feedback treatments (errors marked with codes; errors underlined but not
otherwise marked or labeled; no error feedback) and found that both error feedback groups
significantly outperformed the no-feedback control group, but, like Robb et al. (1986), they
found that there were no significant differences between the group given coded feedback and
the group not given coded feedback.
Furthermore, it needs to be noted that Ferris and Roberts (2001) investigated text
revisions rather than new pieces of writing over time. Discussing the findings of the study,
Ferris (2002) reported that direct error correction led to more correct revisions (88%) than
indirect error feedback (77%). Over the course of the semester, however, it was noted that
students who received indirect feedback reduced their error frequency ratios substantially
more than those who received direct feedback. Compared with this growing but far from
conclusive body of research on the written feedback strategies of teachers, virtually no
research has investigated the effect of other feedback strategies, such as teacher–student
conferences, peer-editing sessions, and the keeping of error logs (Ferris, 2002).
1.5. Error Correction and Learners’ Uptake
Learners‘ uptake is the student‘s response to the feedback. Uptake refers to different

corrections, they would have shown similar improvements in accuracy to the group that
revised following the CF. Clearly, corrections can only work if writers notice and process
them.
24 CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. Research questions: Basically the research seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What are the types of common errors that high school students often commit in
writing?
2. How to overcome those errors?
3. What are the effectiveness of teachers‘ corrective feedback and students‘ uptake?
2.2. The setting of the study
The study was conducted at Huynh Thuc Khang High School, Vinh, Nghe An, in
which the 11th form students are learning basic English with the very new course book named
Tieng Anh 11 by Hoang Van Van, Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa, Dao Ngoc Loc, Vu Thi Loi, Do
Tuan Minh, Nguyen Quoc Tuan. This course book is theme-based including 16 units and 6
Test Yourself sections. Each unit has its own purposes with specific topics falling into 5
sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus with two main parts:
Pronunciation and Grammar and Vocabulary.
2.3. Informants
The subjects involved in this study were one hundred students ( age 16-17 ) from two
intact low intermediate classes 11A 1 and 11A 5 ( there are 50 students in each class). They
were selected purposefully. To be more exact, these students were learning English as a
compulsory subject and the researcher herself was a teacher currently teaching this group. The
writing syllabus is mandated by the Ministry of Education and Training.
The reasons for the selection is that the selected subjects are accessible. All these
students have been learning English for more than 5 years and most of them have got
acquaintance with teaching and learning methods at middle level. The number of 100 students
due to the fact that this number can provide both the variety and the objectiveness of the

applied to one task. The subjects were invited to cooperate in the collection process. After
giving a clear written model, the researcher asks students to write compositions in given time
around 40 minutes. During the composing time, they were encouraged to do it on their own
and not to consult any dictionaries, or grammar books.
26 However, it is often advantageous to correct the written work in front of the whole
class. One useful way of doing this is to ask the students to do the written work in a paper and
collect them when the time is over. The main unit of analysis was the error treatment
sequence, which contains teacher and student turns in the following order:
. learner error
. teacher feedback
. learner uptake, with either repair of the error or needs-repair.
This order reflects what usually happens when a teacher responds to an utterance containing
an error and when the student attempts to respond to the teacher‘s feedback move.
2.5.1.1. Task 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied)
With this strategy, the teacher provides the students with the correct form above or near to the
erroneous form.
- After having their tasks corrected for the first time, the teacher counts errors
- Then, the teacher hands back written work, students have chance to look at the
papers carefully without bringing them back home.
- Next, they rewrite the tasks and hand in 2 days later.
- The teacher gets the papers back, she keeps reading and correcting the second time,
then count the errors committed.
- Return the papers to her students and let them have a look at the papers for a while
- Ask her students to write the task for the third time with the same way before
- Collect the papers, and count the errors remaining.
2.5.1.2. Task 2: (Indirect corrective feedback applied)
- After collecting and having students‘ written work underlined for the first time, the teacher

28 the same ones as ever favored by researchers on this field: identification, labelization,
transferation to indexes and classification. Especially, the error recognizing and identifying
model of Corder (1975) was employed.
Firstly, all the papers were carefully read and deviated forms or structures were
identified and marked. During this process, the problem in recognition was overcome. An
interpretation was made to reconstruct what the subjects in their writings intended. Superficial
well-formed sentences or structures were considered in reference to their surrounding contexts
and the content of the compositions. Having been labeled as wrong use of prepositions,
subject-verb agreement, etc, the errors were then transferred to separate index each according
to their class respectively. Finally, occurrence frequency counting was performed for each
type of errors, and the effectiveness of each strategy of error correction were put forwards for
comparison.
2.5.3. Presentation of results:
Students were asked to do 3 tasks dealing with writing composition related to the main
topics of specific units in their English book. The time allowance for doing all these three
tasks is about 40 minutes at the class. Besides, there are some points to be noticed before the
result was presented. Firstly, the research makes no claim to completeness because what we
intended is not a statical count but a pure examination of error sources. As a result, it is
uncertain that errors of all kinds have been covered. Secondly, the data-collecting process
helped in eliminating slips due to carelessness or performance mistakes induced by
psychological factors. Some errors presented in the table below might derive from the same
source. Thus, in the analysis process, they were naturally excluded. Thirdly, in this study, most
of the errors focus locally on parts of sentence.
Nevertheless, the researcher herself is doing the survey on the students of 11
th
form, and
she wants to pay much attention to what course book‘s grammatical points are around and