Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary

Students

Using Written Corrective

Feedback to Improve Writing
Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students
Selena T. C. Tam & Dr. Eva Chiu
HHCKLA Buddhist Leung Chik Wai College

Abstract
Written corrective feedback (WCF) has long been considered
effective in improving students’ writing accuracy. However, it is still
uncommon in writing classes in secondary schools in Hong Kong (Lee,
2011, 2013). In this study, a Planning, Experimentation and Reflection
(PER) model of change was adopted to investigate the individual
responses to the focused feedback and the peer feedback as well
as the individual factors affecting their responses. Findings of the
study show that the numbers of mistakes students had made reduced
while the numbers of errors corrected increased. More able students
were also able to mark their peers’ writing. It was found that language
abilities might be a factor affecting students’ uptake of WCF.

Introduction
Two types of WCF namely selective marking and peer feedback,
have long been promoted in the Curriculum Guide since 1999 (CDC,
1999) and believed to be effective in improving students’ writing
accuracy. However, they are still uncommon in writing classes in
secondary schools in Hong Kong (Lee, 2011, 2013). Teachers usually
have to mark all aspects of students’ writing and students sometimes
find it uneasy to make improvements in all these aspects. In fact, a lot
of research has revealed that selective marking and peer feedback are
more effective than their traditional counterparts (which are unfocused
marking and teacher feedback) in improving students’ accuracy as
well as their long-term language development in the western contexts

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 105

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

and even the local context (Ferris, 1999, 2006; Lee, 2005, 2013).
Focused marking may help learners pay attention to fewer types
of error so that they can understand the errors more (Ellis et al.,
2008). Peer feedback can let students understand more about their
strengths and weaknesses (CDC, 2002). Overall, it is worth trying out
these WCF in the secondary writing class. This study aims at helping
students improve their writing accuracy through the use of these WCF.
In this study, a Planning, Experimentation and Reflection (PER) model
of change was adopted to investigate the individual responses to the
focused feedback and the peer feedback as well as the individual
factors affecting their responses.

Literature Review
Theoretical Perspectives of Written Corrective Feedback

Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), which is also called

error correction or grammar correction, refers to the “correction of
grammatical errors for the purpose of improving a student’s ability to
write accurately” (Truscott, 1996, p. 329). WCF has been regarded as
a normal way of improving students’ writing accuracy and a necessary
part of the writing curriculum (Hendrickson, 1978, 1980; Truscott,
1996). It originated from the field of second language acquisition (SLA).
Before 1960, language experts who believe in the Contrastive Analysis
Hypothesis claim that learners make errors in the second language
because they are affected by their first language. In other words, their
errors can be avoided if they realize the differences between the two
languages. Error correction is needed for this reason (Hendrickson,
1978; Selinker, 1969). Also, the audiolingual approach in 1960s
encourages the teaching of a second language by memorizing
dialogues, studying all the grammatical rules, and avoiding the making
of errors (Hendrickson, 1978). In the late 1960s, SLA scholars found
that even first language (L1) students would make a lot of errors during
their first language acquisition. Therefore, they believed that students’
errors were just a natural part of their language learning process. It
means that teachers should tolerate some of students’ errors so as
to help them become more confident in expressing themselves using
the second language. Also, errors are just as a signal which shows
students’ progress in the language learning process (Corder, 1967;
Hendrickson, 1978; Lantolf, 1977).

Different learning theories have different views on WCF. For

the subscribers to SLA theories, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis
informs them of the importance of comprehensive marking. However,

106 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

Krashen’s (1985) Monitor Model implies that WCF is ineffective

because learning is different from acquisition, which is a subconscious
process. In addition, learners acquire the linguistic features of the
second language in a predictable order which is not affected by the
teaching order. Thus, corrective feedback, which is a conscious
process that requires teaching, does not have any role in developing
students’ acquired knowledge. However, interaction theories by Long
(1996) and Swain (1985, 1995) support the positive role of WCF.
These theories state that L2 input must be pushed to give modified
output in interactions. That is, learners need to pay attention to the
form in the input and the output in order to incorporate the explicit
linguistic knowledge into their L2 system as L2 intake, and internalise
the knowledge into their long-term memory. The internalisation
process is affected by mediating factors such as learners’ amount of
attention, motivation, individual cognition and affection.

Other learning theories tend to advocate the positive role of

WCF. The skill acquisition models developed by McLaughlin (1990)
in the 1980s claim that language learning is just like the learning
of cognitive skills and simple processes that can eventually lead to
the development of complex behaviour. The socio-cultural theory by
Vygotsky’s (1987) states that cognitive development is a result of
social interactions between people. Learning happens when a less
knowledgeable person interacts with someone more knowledgeable.
Lantolf and Thorne (2007) think that if scaffolding occurs in the zone
of proximal development in the learner, it can successfully help him or
her develop his L2 abilities and become more ‘self-regulated’. As WCF
is a way of interaction that is based on students’ levels, it can foster
the mastery of the second language.

Types of Written Corrective Feedback

WCF can be categorised into three types. The first type is about
who should give feedback, i.e. teacher feedback or peer feedback.
The second type is related to how to give feedback, i.e. indirect
feedback or direct feedback. The third type is about the extent to
which feedback is given, i.e. focused feedback or unfocused feedback
as well as treatable or untreatable errors. Teacher feedback means
that teachers are responsible for providing WCF to students in L2
writing classes while peer feedback refers to the comments provided
by learners’ peers. Direct WCF is defined as that “provides some form
of explicit correction of linguistic form or structure above or near the
linguistic error. It may consist of the crossing out of an unnecessary

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 107

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

word/phase/morpheme, the insertion of a missing word/phrase/

morpheme, and the provision of the correct form or structure”. Indirect
WCF refers to that “indicates that in some way an error has been
made but it does not provide a correction” (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010,
p. 209). According to Ellis et al. (2008), focused WCF refers to “(the
selection of) specific errors to be corrected and ignores other errors” (p.
356). The extent to which it is focused is dependent upon the number
of errors selected. Unfocused WCF refers to the extensive correction
of all the errors in students’ written work. It responds to multiple errors
and is believed to be a common practice in foreign language writing
classrooms (Furneaux et al., 2007). For treatable and untreatable
errors, Ferris (1999) explained that errors occur in a patterned and
rule-governed way. Students can use a grammar book or set of rules
to handle the error. Untreatable errors are the problems with missing
words, unnecessary words and word order. They are idiosyncratic and
so students need to use their acquired knowledge of the language to
correct the error. Thus, according to Ferris (2006), indirect feedback
could be given to treatable errors while direct feedback can handle
untreatable errors.

Empirical Evidence on Written Corrective Feedback

A lot of research has been conducted in Western contexts to

show the efficacy of WCF. For the role of WCF, Truscott (1996) argued
that error correction did not have a role in writing courses, as proved
by his study and the SLA insights. However, Ferris (1999) found
that the empirical evidence presented in Truscott’s study was limited
and the methodologies of the previous studies were problematic.
Short-term studies revealed that WCF helped students improve their
accuracy in their text revision. Also, students believed it is useful.
Her belief is that effective grammar correction is selective, prioritized
and clear. Regarding different types of WCF, Bitchener and Knoch
(2010) found that indirect WCF succeeded in engaging L2 learners
in guided learning and problem-solving. It allowed students to reflect
on the existing knowledge and foster long-term written accuracy
and acquisition. Ellis et al. (2008) claimed that focused CF was
theoretically more effective because students could pay attention to a
limited number of types of errors and they might understand the nature
of errors and the correction more. Empirical studies showed that
focused WCF was more effective than unfocused WCF for improving
accuracy in text revision as well as immediate and delayed post-tests
(Bitchener & Knoach, 2009, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007; van
Beuningan et al., 2012).
In terms of the Asian context, Lee (2005, 2011) investigated
108 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

the current feedback practices in the L2 writing classrooms in Hong

Kong secondary schools using case studies approach. The results
revealed that the majority of teachers used unfocused, direct and
comprehensive WCF which was extremely time-consuming and
ineffective. However, it was perceived to be useful and it was the panel
policy. Another study (Lee, 2008) pointed out that more proficient
students preferred more WCF strategies while less proficient students
benefited more from the focused WCF. For peer feedback, research
by different scholars found that trained peer’s responses could
enhance the quality of students’ revision (Berge, 1999; Harmer, 2004).
Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1992) observed that students appreciated
the peer WCF because they could understand how teachers think and
have a new conception of what writing involved.

Empirical Evidence on Individual Factors

Bitchener (2012) stated that individual and contextual factors

were the mediating factors affecting the extent to which students
engage with WCF. They resulted in learning in terms of uptake,
internalization and consolidation. Sheen (2007) found that two
individual factors might affect students’ retention and uptake from
WCF, which were analytic ability and learners’ attitudes. She reported
that direct CF was more effective for students with higher analytic
ability with or without the meta-linguistic explanation. Also, high-
aptitude students benefit more from meta-linguistic explanation (Sheen,
2007). Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) found that three affective
factors mediated the process of WCF uptake, which were beliefs,
goals and attitudes. Findings of research on how learners’ attitudes
affect peer responses vary (Hu, 2005; Srichanyachon, 2012).

Methodology
Background of the Study

As mentioned above, this study used the PER design to examine

how students respond to the focused WCF and peer feedback as
well as the possible factors affecting this. The participants were
an average-ability class of Form One students in a Band Two CMI
(Chinese as the medium of instruction) school in the New Territories.
Most of them did not live in an English-rich environment because they
were from the less well-off districts and they studied nearly all the
subjects in Chinese. They usually could not write error-free sentences
in English. About one-third of them joined tutorial classes after school.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 109

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

It was a normal practice for teachers to use unfocused and direct

feedback in marking students’ writings.

All the 21 students in this class completed the study. Most of

them were weak at writing, especially in the areas of idea elaboration
and grammatical accuracy. For the sake of in-depth case study, six of
them were selected according to their results of the Usage Paper and
the Writing Paper in English Language examinations in the first term
as well as their motivation to learn English. Two of them were of higher
ability. Two of them were of average ability while the remaining two
were of weaker ability. Their motivation to learn English, as observed
by the main researcher, varied. The Usage Paper, the full mark of
which was 50, involved eight marks for explicit tense questions and
24 marks for implicit tense questions (e.g. forming questions, cloze
passages). The Writing Paper was based on a descriptive passage in
the past tense. The backgrounds of the students were as follows (Table
1),

Table 1 The examination results and background of the participants

Name Usage Writing Total Background
50 marks 70 marks 300 marks
motivated to learn English
Mary 27 50 201.5 but not good at writing
accuracy
not very motivated but the
Ann 32 33 180.8 English foundation is fairly
good
motivated to learn English,
Peter 17.5 46 162.3 but especially weak at
writing accuracy
motivated to learn English,
good at subject-verb
Lucy 22.5 28 151.0
agreement but not good at
sentence structures
not very motivated but
Paul 21 22 137.5 willing to try when being
encouraged
lower IQ, unable to write
Kate 6.5 13 61.6 accurate sentences, but
motivated to learn
The numbers in italics mean that they are below the passing marks.
110 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

This study covered four writing cycles. In each writing cycle,

students were first taught the target grammar item and asked to use
it to write a text of about 150 words. The teacher then marked their
texts using the focused WCF and students were asked to do the
corrections. For peer feedback, it was the students who marked their
peers’ texts instead of the teacher. The writing cycles were conducted
by the main researcher, who was the subject teacher of the class. The
co-researcher supervised the implementation of the study, analysed
the data and evaluated the whole project.

Research Questions

The study aims to investigate the following questions,
1. How do Form 1 students respond to focused marking and peer
feedback and how do the two types of WCF affect students’ writing
accuracy?
2. What are the individual factors affecting students’ responses of
these feedback?

Research Design
The three-stage PER model of change was adopted in this
study (Taylor et al., 2005). During the planning stage, the aim was to
identify goals and design strategies for improving students’ writing
accuracy. Students were expected to use the target grammar items
to write personal letters and descriptive texts. The experimentation
stage consisted of implementation, observation and evaluation. The
use of WCF strategies and target grammar items was emphasized
during the pre-writing lessons while students were asked to finish their
work during the writing lesson. They were required to revise their texts
within the class time during the post-writing lesson. The reflection
stage was about reviewing the actions and planning for future actions
by asking students to respond to a questionnaire and conducting
semi-structural interviews with them. According to Law et al. (2010),
there were advantages of using the PER model in action research. By
using a problem-solving and critical approach in learning and teaching,
changes in pedagogy, which become an open venture, can be located
and shared. It is expected that focused WCF and/or peer WCF can
become part of the regular curriculum in our junior form English
Language classes after this study.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 111

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Planning

Data were collected with two tense tests, four texts with focused
marking and revisions, bilingual student questionnaires as well as
semi-structural interviews. A pre-tense test and a post-tense test were
used to see if there was any improvement in the acquisition of the
target linguistic items (see Appendix 1). The four writing cycles were
all videotaped and conducted in timed settings. Two writing cycles
focused on the present tense (pre-present tense assessment and post-
present tense assessment) while the other two focused on the past
tense (pre-past tense assessment and post-past tense assessment).
Four writing topics with which students were familiar were used as
prompts for students to write up to the word limit (150 words). As the
simple present tense and the simple past tense are the key grammar
items in the Form one English Language Curriculum and the major
verb forms used in different text types, they would be set as the target
grammar items in all the writing cycles. Indirect feedback was given
since tenses were the linguistic items that occurred in a systemic way
and students were able to use the set of rules to handle their tense
errors. Only the errors relating to the main verb would be marked
as students were used to making grammatical mistakes relating to
sentence structures and other grammatical rules which made their
writing difficult to understand. In addition, the main researcher would
use direct WCF to correct a few of their major errors to make their
writing comprehensible.

Each cycle consisted of three steps. The first step was to explain
the target grammar items explicitly. Students were given a focused
marking sample and the main researcher explained what focused
marking was and how they could correct the underlined errors
(Appendix 2). They were asked to write the topic in about 30 minutes
(Appendix 3) with relevant key words given as an aid. The researcher
then underlined their errors selectively. The second step was to ask
students to revise their texts within 20 minutes. They had to correct
the underlined errors by themselves. The third step was to ask them
to fill out a questionnaire to express how far they could understand the
focus of the tasks, the type of teacher feedback they preferred and
their views on the focused WCF (see Appendix 4). The third writing
cycle, which was about peer assessment, had a different second
step. The main researcher allocated copies of students’ writings to
their classmates and asked them to underline the errors regarding

112 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

the past tense in the main verbs. Students then corrected their errors
based on their peers’ marking and their own judgment. Later on, the
main researcher marked the photocopies of the writing and asked
students to correct their own work once more. The two sets of text
plus revisions were compared. Students had to fill out a questionnaire
about how far they could understand the focus of the tasks, what they
could learn from their peer assessment, and what they could learn
from assessing their peers’ writing (see Appendix 5). At the end of
the four writing cycles, six students participated in the semi-structural
interviews (Appendix 6) about how far they had understood focused
WCF and peer feedback when compared with the normal marking
practice of the teacher and how they felt about these. A post-tense test
was administered after the study to investigate their performances of
using the present tense and past tense (Appendix 7).

Experimentation
A pre-tense test was given to students before the start of the
project to assess their ability to use the correct verb forms. The results
showed that students’ performance in using the simple present tense
was more stable while that in using the simple past tense varied.
Also, their pre-tense test results generally aligned with their First Term
English Language Examination results, except for Peter and Lucy (see
Table 2).

Table 2 Students' results of the pre-tense test

Name Present Tense Past Tense

% of correct items % of correct items
Mary 75% 76.9%
Ann 75% 92.3%
Peter 25% 0.0%
Lucy 75% 84.6%
Paul 75% 46.1%
Kate 25% 15.4%

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 113

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

The first writing cycle is about writing a 150-word description of a

friend using the simple present tense. The uses of the present tense
and the forms of ‘be’ and other verbs were taught explicitly. Results
showed that only Peter was able to write about the word limit while
others wrote about 100 words, except Kate who had difficulties in
writing. The number of mistakes they made in the use of present tense
ranged from four to seven. Students who made more mistakes were
more able to correct their errors. Paul and Peter, who was not good at
English and not very motivated, corrected nearly all of the errors. Kate,
who had a lower IQ, was also able to correct 71% of the errors. Lucy,
who was an average student, was willing to try to correct her errors,
although she could not use the correct verb forms (see Table 3).

Table 3 Students’ results in the first writing cycle (Pre-present tense

assessment)

No. of errors
Name No. of words No. of mistakes % corrected
corrected
Mary 99 4 2 50%
Ann 104 4 1 25%
Peter 146 6 5 83%
Lucy 94 4 0 0%
Paul 113 6 6 100%
Kate 53 7 5 71%

Data from the first questionnaire revealed that all students except
Kate realised the focus of the task was on present tense. The majority
of them wanted the English teacher to highlight some of their errors.
Only Lucy preferred comprehensive marking. All of them believed that
selective marking was useful because they knew their errors about the
present tense.

The second writing cycle focused on the simple past tense the
task required asking students to write a descriptive text of a trip to
Ocean Park in 150 words. After delivering the past tense lesson,
students were given some key words about the park to prompt them
to write more (e.g. names of the places). Three of them could reach
the word limit. The number of mistakes regarding the past tense
ranged from one to six. Mary and Ann, who were more able students,

114 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

corrected nearly all the past tense errors and realized that they
needed to use the past tense. However, Mary made mistakes in the
verb forms (i.e. spelling) whereas Ann failed to locate the main verbs.
Kate was willing to do the corrections but could not correct most of her
errors (see Table 4).

Table 4 Students’ results in the second writing cycle (Pre-past tense

assessment)

No. of errors
Name No. of words No. of mistakes % corrected
corrected
Mary 152 6 5 83%
Ann 130 5 5 100%
Peter 143 2 1 50%
Lucy 75 5 1 20%
Paul 97 1 1 100%
Kate 65 6 1 17%

Results from the second questionnaire were similar to those from

the first. Kate still misunderstood the focus of the task. This time, it
was Peter who preferred comprehensive marking. Again, all of them
showed their positive attitude towards focused marking. Lucy said it
helped her memorize the verb forms better. Mary thought that it could
give her more practices on tenses. Paul expressed that it focused on
the tenses and so he could correct them by checking the tense table.

The third writing cycle was about peer assessment (the past
tense). Students were asked to write a personal letter about teenage
problems using. The main researcher then distributed their writings
and to their peers based on their abilities. Two pieces of writing were
marked by more able students. Two were marked by average students
while the other two were marked by less able students. As the topic
was something new, none of them were able to write up to 150
words. Results indicated that average and more able peers tended
to identify and correct more corrected mistakes while the less able
students failed to locate them. Also, the percentages of the number
of errors corrected based on teacher assessment were higher than
those based on peer assessment. From the perspective of post-past
tense assessment, the percentages of errors corrected were obviously
higher than that in pre-past tense assessment, especially for the
weaker ones namely Peter, Lucy and Kate (Table 5).

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 115

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Table 5 Students’ results in the third writing cycle (Past tense/peer

Assessment)

Name No. of No. of No. of Marked No. of No. of % %

words corrected mistakes by errors errors corrected corrected
mistakes marked student corrected corrected based on based on
marked by who was based on based on peers Teacher
by peers teacher peers Teacher
Mary 98 1 1 less able 1 1 100% 100%
Ann 102 4 6 average 3 6 75% 100%
Peter 116 1 5 less able 0 4 0% 80%
Lucy 120 7 10 average 4 8 57.1% 80%
Paul 84 2 2 more able 1 2 50% 100%
Kate 91 5 6 more able 0 3 0% 50%

The results of the third questionnaire survey indicated that less

able students tended to misunderstand the focus of the task. They,
except Paul, believed they could learn from marking their peers’
writing. Mary stated in the interview that she could learn from marking
her peers’ writing. Paul and Lucy did not think they could learn from
their peer’s feedback.

The fourth writing cycle served as a post-present tense

assessment. Students were asked to describe a member in their
families in the present tense. As the cycle was conducted right after the
second term test, students were not very motivated and they, except
Mary, wrote only about 100 words. The percentages of error corrected
were also higher than those in the pre-present tense assessment.
Lucy was the only one who did not show any improvement (see Table
6).
Table 6 Students’ results in the fourth writing cycle (Post-present
tense assessment)

No. of errors
Name No. of words No. of mistakes % corrected
corrected
Mary 141 5 4 80%
Ann 103 2 2 100%
Peter 81 4 4 100%
Lucy 85 6 0 0%
Paul 60 2 2 100%
Kate 70 6 4 67%

116 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

A test on tenses was administered after the writing cycles. Results

revealed that students generally showed improvements in their use of
the present tense. However, they performed worse with regard to the
past tense. The weaker ones even got no marks in past tense items
(Table7).

Table 7 Students’ results in the final test

Name Present Tense Past Tense

% of corrected items % of corrected items
Mary 50% 20%
Ann 88% 20%
Peter 88% 40%
Lucy 88% 0%
Paul 88% 0%
Kate 25% 0%

Semi-structural interviews were conducted after the post-

tense test. The results showed that all students found focused WCF
useful because they could focus on a few errors only. However, as
the focused WCF was indirect, Paul and Kate expressed that they
preferred “direct answers from the teacher”. Lucy found indirect WCF
difficult but she still liked it.

All of the writing cycles were observed by the two researchers.

During the WCF lessons, students were found to be more focused
when they revised the texts when compared with their regular writing
lessons. They were more aware of the importance of subject-verb
agreement, as proven by the fact that they asked the teacher what
verb forms they should use after different subjects. Also they were
more willing to correct the errors by themselves.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 117

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Reflections
Despite the growth of WCF research studies showing its
effectiveness, the adoption of WCF strategies in Hong Kong is still
under-investigated. The present study provides empirical evidence
on how students responded to the focused and peer feedback and
how WCF strategies affected their writing accuracy. The majority of
students responded to focused WCF on the present tense positively.
They understood the focus of the task and claimed that they liked
focused marking. When the pre-present tense assessment was
compared with the post-present tense assessment, students showed
improvements in reducing the numbers of mistakes made and also
increasing the numbers of errors corrected. Students,except Kate and
Lucy, performed obviously better in the post-tense test than the pre-
tense test. Kate was a very weak student and tended to misunderstand
the focus of the task. Lucy, who was weak in writing, failed to benefit
from focused WCF in terms of accuracy. She still made a lot of present
tense mistakes in her writing and could not correct them. However,
she had shown some improvements in tense tests.

Students believed that focused WCF on the past tense was

useful and commented very positively about it despite making quite
a lot of mistakes in the post-past tense assessment. They said that
it helped them memorise the verb forms better. Paul, who was weak
and not motivated to learn, even pointed out that focused and indirect
WCF helped him focus on the verb forms in the main verbs and so
he could correct them by checking the tense table on his own. As
conended by Ellis et al. (2008), focused WCF might help learners pay
attention to fewer types of error so they understand the errors more.
Also, the increase in the percentages of error corrected in the post-
past tense assessment was obvious, especially in the cases of weaker
students. These conformed to previous studies that less proficient
students could correct treatable errors by themselves and benefit from
focused and indirect feedback (Ferris, 2006, Lee, 2008). Students did
not perform well in the post-tense test probably because it was more
difficult than the pre-tense test.

The results of the peer assessment depicted that more able

students were able to mark their peers’ writing. Mary even expressed
that she could learn from the process. The possible reason was that
peer feedback let students understand more about their strengths and
weaknesses (CDC, 2002). The weaker ones, however, did not believe
in their peers’ assessment, as shown by the lower percentages of the
number of errors corrected. Lucy, Paul and Peter were concerned
118 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

that their peers might not be able to mark their errors. Their worry was
in line with Harmer’ findings (2004) that peers had to be trained in
order to provide useful feedback. Nevertheless, most of the students
claimed that peer assessment was useful because it could help them
check their writing one more time.

With respect to individual factors, learners’ language abilities

might have an effect on students’ uptake of WCF. Mary and Ann, who
are more able students, showed improvements in the percentages of
numbers of errors corrected in post assessments. They might have
better metalinguistic knowledge and so could use grammar rules to
handle focused and “treatable” errors. For the weaker students, the
main researcher observed that the focused WCF successfully helped
them focus on the errors, but they failed to correct them because they
did not know the correct verb forms, as proven by the fact that they
kept asking the researcher the spelling of the verb forms. The second
possible factor was students’ beliefs. The weaker ones did not believe
in their peer’s judgement on their writing and so they did not respond
to their WCF even though some of them were correct. After all, the
effect of learners’ attitudes was not very obvious as less motivated
students were still able to benefit from the WCF.

There are some limitations in the present study. All the writing
tasks in this study were low-stakes. Students knew that these were
for research purpose only so they became less and less motivated
towards the end of the study. They were not very willing to respond
to the indirect WCF because it required problem-solving and was
different from their feedback they received in regular lessons. In terms
of research design, the levels of difficulty of the two tense tests were
different and so it might slightly affect the reliability of the study. Due
to time-frame limitations, peer assessment and the post-past tense
assessment needed to be done in one writing cycle. Training can be
provided to students on how to use selective mark before the study.

In terms of future actions, the writing cycles could become part of

the regular curriculum or even daily assessment in order to encourage
students’ active use of the language. Also, indirect feedback should be
used in some of the writing lessons to familiarise them with feedback.
Further research could be conducted with more than one class of
students in quasi-experimental settings to determine the efficacy of
WCF in between-subject groups. Contextual factors such as social
relationships between teachers and learners as well as learners’
educational background can also be investigated.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 119

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Conclusion
This study has adopted a PER model of change to examine
students’ responses to the focused and peer WCF and the individual
factors affecting the responses. Students found focused WCF useful in
helping them acquiring the present and past tenses. The weaker ones
had also benefitted from focused and indirect feedback as they could
focus on a few errors and use the grammar rules to handle errors. The
more able students could mark their peers’ writing selectively, but the
weaker students did not believe in their peers’ feedback. Learners’
language abilities and students’ beliefs might be the factors affecting
the uptake of WCF. It is obvious that students overall responded to the
focused WCF and peer assessment positively.

120 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

References

Berge, Z.L., (1999). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendation

from the field. Educational Tecnology, 35(1), 22-30.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on" The Language Learning Potential" of
written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective
feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied
Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of
advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
Corder, S. (1967). The significance of learner' s errors. International Review
of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching , 5, 161-170.
Curriculum Development Council. (1999). Syllabus for English Language
(Secondary 1 - 5) . Hong Kong, Government Printer.
Curriculum Development Council. (2002). English Language Education: Key
Learning Area Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 – Secondary 3). Hong
Kong, Government Printer.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of
focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a
foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes:
A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1),
1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence
on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K.
Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing:
Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected
in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school
teachers in five countries. IRAL-International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (1), 69-94.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach English: An Introduction to the practice of
English Language . London: Longman.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing
learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3 (2), 141-163.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 121

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Hendrickson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching:

Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal ,
62, 387–398.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of errors in written work. The
Modern Language Journal, 64 (2), 216-221.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language
Teaching Research, 9 (3), 321-342.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications  (Vol. 1,
p. 985). London: Longman.
Lantolf, J. P. (1977). Aspects of change in foreign language study. The
Modern Language Journal, 61 (5-6), 242-251.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second
l a n g u a g e l e a r n i n g .  T h e o r i e s i n s e c o n d l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n : A n
introduction , 201-224.
Law, E.H.F., Wan, S.W.Y., Galton, M. and Lee, J.C.K. (2010). Managing
school-based curriculum innovations: a Hong Kong case study. The
Curriculum Journal , 21(3), pp. 313-332.
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students
think? TESL Canada Journal , 22(2), 1-16.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (3), 144-
164.
Lee, I. (2011). Working smarter, not working harder: Re-visiting teacher
feedback in the L2 writing classroom. The Canadian Modern Language
Review, 67(3), 377-399.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language
Teaching, 46 (01), 108-119.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language
acquisition.  Handbook of second language acquisition , 2, 413-468.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious”
learning.  TESOL quarterly, 24 (4), 617-634.
Selinker, L. (1969). Language transfer. General linguistics, 9 (2), 67-92.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible
input and comprehensible output in its development.  Input in second
language acquisition, 15 , 165-179.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning.
Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of HG
Widdowson , 125-144.

122 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and

l a n g u a g e a p t i t u d e o n E S L l e a r n e r s ' a c q u i s i t i o n o f a r t i c l e s .  T E S O L
Quarterly,41 (2), 255-283.
Srichanyachon, N. (2012). An investigation of university EFL students
attitudes toward peer and teacher feedback. Educational Research and
Reviews, 7 (26), 558-562.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and
retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 32 (2), 303-334.
Taylor, A.R., S. Anderson, A. Meyer, M.K.Wagner, and C. West (2005).
Lesson study: A professional development model for mathematics reform.
Rural Educator 26, no.2: 17-22.
Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in
L2 writing classes. Language Learning , 46, 327–369.
Van Beuningan, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the
effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual
classroom. Language Learning , 62, 1–41.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987).  The collected works of LS Vygotsky: Volume 1:
Problems of general psychology, including the volume Thinking and
Speech (Vol. 1). Springer.

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 123

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Appendix 1 Pre-Tense test

Fill in the blanks with the correct tense of verbs.

One day Leonado da Vinci came (come) to an old man. He

1. _____________(want) the old man to 2. ___________ (teach) him
to draw. The old man 3. _________________ (welcome) him, then
4. ____________ (give) him an egg and 5. ______________ (tell)
him to draw it. Leonado 6. _______________ (work) quickly and 7.
_____________ (show) his drawing to the old man.

“8. ________________ (draw) it again!” 9. _________________

(say) the old man. Soon after, Leondao 10. ________________
(draw) another egg. His picture 11. ________________(look) good
but the old man 12. ________________(make) him do it again and
again. Then Leonado 13. ______________ (become) angry. He 14.
________________ (say), ‘I can 15. _______________ (draw) an egg
in two minutes. Why 16. ______________ you ____________ (keep)
me waiting? Please 17. ______________ (teach) me how to draw
now.”

The old man 18. ________________(smile) and said, ‘Yes, you 19.
_____________(be) right. You can draw an egg quickly, but it 20.
__________________(take) you many years to draw on very well.’

(Items 2 and 16 are excluded)

124 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

Appendix 2 Focused Marking Sample to Students

Sandy is my classmates. She is 12 years old. She wear a long

ponytail. She was energetic and intelligent.

She like sports and she always get good marks in exam. She likes tell
jokes. We think she is always funny.

She is sporty. She hobby are dancing. She in many place join dance
club. She joins many competitions and was won many prizes. She
teach me how to dance.
play ( )
She have other hobby. She like play guitar. Every Sunday, I shows the
guitar with her.

I very like her! She is my best friend!

Appendix 3 Topics of the Writing Tasks

Writing Topic Focus of the Cycle

Cycle
1 Describing a friend Pre-present tense assessment
2 A trip to Ocean Park Pre-past tense assessment
3 A personal letter Post-past tense assessment
Peer assessment
4 Describing a family member Post-present tense assessment

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 125

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Appendix 4 Questionnaire for the First and Second Writing Cycles

Form 1 English Language

WCF Study Questionnaire
This study aims to find out your views about the use of selective
marking and peer feedback. Circle the answer that suits you most. All
your answers will be treated confidentially.
此研究的目的是找出你對選擇性修改文章及學生互評的意見。請選擇最
適合你的答案。所有答案均會保密。

1. What is the target grammar item in this writing practice?

是次寫作練習是著重於哪一種文法 ?
A. Present tense
B. Past tense
C. Future tense
D. Prepositions

2. Which of the following do you like best?

以下哪一種你最喜歡？

A. My English teacher highlights all of my errors.

我的英文老師指出我的作文中的所有錯誤。
B. My English teacher highlights some of my errors.
我的英文老師指出我的作文的某些錯誤。
C. My English teacher does not highlight any of my errors.
我的英文老師沒有指出我的作文中的任何錯誤。

3. Do you think selective marking (e.g. only marking the tense in your
compositions) can help you learn tense better? Why or why not?
你認為選擇性改修改文章 ( 例如只修改文章中的時態 ) 能幫你學習時
態學得更好嗎？為什麼？

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

126 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

Appendix 5 Questionnaire for the Third Writing Cycle

This study aims to find out your views about the use of selective
marking and peer feedback. Circle the answer that suits you most. All
your answers will be treated confidentially.
此研究的目的是找出你對選擇性修改文章及學生互評的意見。請選擇最
適合你的答案。所有答案均會保密。

1. What is the target grammar item in this writing practice?

是次寫作練習是著重於哪一種文法 ?
A. Present tense
B. Past tense
C. Future tense
D. Prepositions

2. Do you think you can learn tense better through peer assessment
(e.g. helping your classmates mark their writing) Why or why not?
透過學生互評 ( 例如幫助同學改文 )，你認為你能從中學習時態學得
更好嗎？為什麼？

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________
3. Do you think you can learn tense better from your classmates’
feedback (e.g. letting your classmates mark your writing) Why or
why not?
你認為你是否能從同學的反饋中 ( 例如讓同學改你的文章 ) 能幫你學
習時態學得更好嗎？為什麼？

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 127

Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior
Secondary Students

Appendix 6 Semi-structural Interview Questions

1. 你知道選擇性修改文章和綜合性修改文章 ( 即平時老師的改文方式 )
的分別嗎 ?
2. 就第一篇作文而言，這是一篇個人檔案，要形容一個人，你知道要用
什麼時態嗎 ?
3. 你知道為什麼要把某些字劃下橫線嗎 ?
4. 你認為這種方法能提點你用正確的時態嗎 ?
5. 就第二篇作文而言，這是一篇記叙文，你知道要用什麼時態嗎 ?
6. 就第三篇作文而言，你認為如果同學先幫你修改文章，你能更容易發
現自己的錯誤嗎 ?

128 教育研究報告匯編
 Using Written Corrective Feedback to Improve Writing Accuracy of Junior Secondary
Students

Appendix 7 Post Tense Test

Complete each blank using the correct form of the given verb. The first
one has been done for you as an example.

Sasha’s Blog

First Day 1 September 2013

I (e.g.) am (be) really nervous about the more difficult work for this
year. I (1)_____________________(not do) very well last year, but I
(2)_________________(hope) I can (3)______________________
(do) better this year.

In addition, I (4)__________________(be) a Form 1 student this

year, so the school (5)__________________(be) new to me. I
(6)_____________________(try) to cope with the new environment.
I’m afraid I am not at the same level as my classmates. I am so glad
Michelle and I are in the same class.

My class teacher (7)__________________(be) Miss Ho, and she

(8)___________________(seem) to be a very nice teacher. This
morning she (9)___________________(talk) to us patiently about
the school, and the things we (10)___________________(do) in the
next two months. I (11)_______________(feel) so happy when she
(12)___________________(tell) us she would also be our English
teacher.

I (13)____________________(hope) I can do well this year, and I

(14)_____________________(want) to make as many new friends as
possible.

How (15)___________________(be) your first day at school, Janet?

Posted: 1 Sep 9.45 p.m.

(Item 10 is excluded)

教育研究獎勵計劃 14/15 129

130