Effects Of Three Types Of Teacher Error Feedback On The Accuracy Of Senior High School Students’ English Writing

A quantity of earlier studies(Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ashwell, 2000; Fathman &Whalley, 1990; etc.) have demonstrated that teacher error feedback has positive effects on learners’ writing accuracy improvement, and surveys of learners’ opinions about teacher error feedback have consistently revealed that L2 students show a positive attitude towards error feedback from their teachers. The present study examines three types of error feedback—direct error feedback, coded error feedback and uncoded error feedback. Direct error feedback refers to that teachers directly provide correct form of each error for the students in their writing. Coded and uncoded error feedback are indirect error feedback, with the former refers to that teachers point out the position of errors in students’ writing, and mark them with coded symbols(i.e., “S” means “incorrect spelling”), the latter refers to that teachers only point out the position of errors without giving any revising suggestion for the students. Most of the previous studies selected participants from EFL or ESL classrooms, there remained plenty room for the senior high school. Therefore, the present study examines effects of these three types of error feedback on senior high school students’ writing accuracy. In order to know whether there is one type of teacher error feedback that not only caters to students’ preferences but also generates positive effects, two research questions are addressed:(1). Which type of teacher error feedback is more effective in improving students’ writing accuracy?(2). What are students’ perceptions regarding these three types of error feedback?The research was designed based on the relevant studies on teacher error feedback abroad and at home. 125 participants were selected from two parallel classes in the senior high school, who were divided into three groups(G1 received direct error feedback; G2 received coded error feedback; G3 received uncoded error feedback) to complete 8 times of writing tasks. At first, they were asked to write the first draft of the first writing task, with the scores served as the pretest in order to make sure that the three groups were at the same proficiency level at the beginning of the research. Then they were required to complete the first draft of the second writing task. After their writing drafts were handed in, the teacher gave error feedback according to the treatments. When the students received error feedback from theteacher, they were required to make revisions and corrections by themselves. Time was limited to 15 minutes for their making corrections. At last, they were asked to write the composition again and hand in the second draft. As for the eighth writing task, the students completed the first draft, and the scores were used to conduct posttest. All the writing tasks were finished in 30 minutes. The research lasted 19 weeks over one semester.The results indicated that all three groups performed significantly better in the eighth writing task than in the first writing task, but there were no significant differences between the three groups. Therefore, it was hard to say which type of error feedback is more effective in improving students’ writing accuracy. However, the findings of this study provided support that error feedback has positive effects on students’ writing accuracy. Besides, making revisions and corrections plus providing error feedback could help students make more improvement.When it comes to the students’ perceptions, a majority of the students showed positive attitude towards teacher error feedback, and suggested that teacher should provide appropriate error feedback for different kinds of errors, and modify feedback styles according to students’ errors and current knowledge.