Title

A study of the effectiveness of code-marking in

enhancing grammatical accuracy in secondary ESL
writing in Hong Kong
Author(s) Chow, Oi-man, Betsy.; ThD.
Citation
Issue Date 1999
URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/28122
Rights
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent
rights) and the right to use in future works.
Betsy
Studentnumber: 1997-97074-9
Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsfor
theDegreeofMasterofArts
attheUniversityofHongKong
September 1999
but only a fewteachers
employ code-marking asthe process isusually considered tobe very time-
consuming. It is hopedthatthe findings ofthe studymighthelpteachersof
Englishtogaininsightsintotheeffectiveness ofcode-marking.
Inthisstudy,thesixtysubjectsinvolvedwerefromtwoFormFourscience
classes in a local school. Quantitative data was collected from six
compositionssubmittedwithinfivemonths. Twodifferentmethodswereused
formarking compositions: error correction forthe Control Groupand code-
markingfortheExperimental Group. Focuswasonthirteenerror types for
instance, agreement and tenses. The study ended with a small-group
discussion and the filling in of questionnairesboth by subjects fromthe
ExperimentalGroup. Finally,therewas a comparisonoftheperformanceof
botibt groups inthewritingpaper intheMid-yearExamination andthe Final
Examination,
After analyzing all the relevant information, it was foundthat subjects
fromtheExperimental Groupmadefewererrorsintheirwriting,especiallyin
agreementconjunctions, infinitives,tenses and forms of verbs. Moreover,
they showed moreimprovement in the Final Examination. Although other
factors may have been involved in the differentperfonnance of the two
groups it ispossiblethatcode-marking might makethesesubjects aware of
tiieirerrorssothattheycouldavoidrepeatingtheminfuturecompositions.
listening and speaking, and their
interrelationship. Itistrueto saythatreading writing,listening and speaking
areofequalimportanceandthatthefailuretomasteranyoneoftheseaspects
may render communication ineffective. However, it seems that writing
receivesmoreattentioninESLclassroomsinHongKong. Thiscanbeseen
by Looking at the examination syllabus for the Hong Kong Certificate of
Education Examination (HKCE) and the Hong Kong Advanced Level
Examination (HKAL). Out of a total of nine papersinthesetwo important
publicexaminations seventeststudents'abilitytowrite. As lj r e s u l t language
teachersdevotemostoftheirlessonhourstotheteachingofwritingjwhichof
course isfollowedbypractice.
However,howshouldwedefinetheterm
Tl
goodwriting"? Ifwritingisfor
communication, then we will havet ojudge whether the latter is effective
enough. Hendrix(1981 p.67)haspointedoutthatthequalityofwritingmight
be judged according to effectiveness in communication and that
communicative effectiveness is "a relatively modest, though clearly
meaningfiil
5
standard of good wri t i ng, 0He also describes communicative
effectivenessas "areasonablenormforalmostajlwriting"(1981 p,67).
for
instance,bookreportsaswell astheextendedwrittentasksinPartB ofPaper
III of the HKCE English Language Paper and those in Section E of the
HKALEUseofEnglishExamination, Onceanassignmenthasbeengiven,it
is expected that there should be someone to see that work has been done
properly and correctly andneedlessto say
5
iti stheresponsibilityofteachers
of English, Themarkingofcompositionsisalways consideredastheirmost
importantduty.
Infact,theworkloadofanaverageEnglishteacherisextremelyheavy. In
theschoolwherethestudywasconducted halfofthemembersoftheEnglish
PanelhavetoteachthreeclassesofEnglishand nonecanbeexempted from
teachingone ortwoother subjectslike GeographyorHistory in at leasttwo
otherclasses. It shouldbeborne inmindthatclass-size isusuallybiginmost
schools inHong Kong with atotaloffortyinmanyclasses. However, such
workloadi snotunusualinmanyschools. Itisthereforequitecommontohear
Englishteacherssaythattheydreadmarking compositions N t h e y f e a r b o t h
t h e q u a n t i t y a n d t h e q u a l i t y . V e r y o f t e n t h e y t o i l a w a y s e v e r a l d a y s t o g o
these teachers will
soon feel frustrated when they discover that their students repeat the same
eirors that they have madei ntheirprevious compositions. This leads to a
question frequentlyasked by language teachers is thereanefficientand
effectiveway of marking compositionsthat canmake studentsawareofthe
errorsmadeandthusavoidsuchmistakesinfuturecompositions?
13 Marking of Compositions
In Hong Kongteachers of English usually adopt one of the three
commonly used methods of marking compositions: error correction, code-
marking and a mixture of both. Dueto the failureto locate a proper term
commonly used in the literature to describe the process of marking
compositions whereby a teacher supplies a word or a phrase to replacethe
error made theterm "error coirection'^isused. "Code-marking
11
^ontheother
hand istheuseofacodetoindicatethe type ofcorrectionthathastobemade.
Examplesof suchcodesinclude"adv"foradverbsand s p forspelling. Toa
certain extent,both errorcorrectionand code-marking canbeconsidered as
forms of analytical scoring. According to Najimy (1981 p.9X analytical
scoringrequires"thecloseexaminationofmanycomponentsofeachpaper N
t h e c o n t e n t , o r g a n i z a t i o n , s e n t e n c e s t r u c t u r e pimctuation,spellingand soon0
Thatistosay witherrorcorrection andcode-marking,allerrorsinapieceof
writingwillbepointedout clearlytothe writer. Onthe otherhand,holistic
scoring whichrequiresa teachertoreadacompositionquicklyandthengive
a score seemsnottobewidelyadoptedinthewritingclassesi nmostofthe
where English is learnt as a second language.
Although the score is sometimes based on a scoring guide, students and
sometimesevenconcernedparentsmay stillwanttoknowexactlywhereand
whymistakeshavebeenmade.Withholistic scoring^ diagnosticfeedbackwill
notbeprovided. AsdescribedbyHamp-Lyons(1991,p.244),holisticscoring
reduces "the writer's cognitively and linguistically complex responses to a
singlescore". Thismethod isthereforemainlyforassessingcompositions in
testsandexaminationsinHongKong.
In ESL writing classes in Hong Kong, after compositions have been
marked theusualpracticeformostteachersistoaskstudentstodocorrection.
The term "correction
11
can have a wide meaning from recopying the
compositionsalready "proofread"bytheteacher either inclassor athometo
correcting the errors made with the help of the teacher in class or using
dictionaries or other means after class. The teacher's attitude to students
1
compositioncorrectionalsovaries alot. Somemayjustput a tickacrossthe
pagewithoutreadingitwhileothersmaycarefullyrereadthecorrection.
In schoolswhere thereis an absence of an agreed set of rules governing
howfeedbackonstudents'writingshouldbegiven,teacherswilladoptaway
whichtheythemselvesfeelcomfortablewith.
1.4 OverviewofCode-marking
A suggestionmadebytheinspectors fiomtheEducationDepartmentafter
a fullinspectionofEnglishteachingnotlongago arousedtheinterestof tiie
researcher in the effectivenessof code-marking in enhancing grammatical
accuracy. Teachersgenerally complainedaboutthetremendousworkloadof
markmg compositions. Code-marking was then recommended to help
on theotherhand canmakestudentsawareof theirerrors
whichhavebeenindicated. Attentioncanthenbepaidtospecificproblemsso
that remedial action can betaken. By recording the occurrences of errors
madeinwriting, ateachercanalsoknowthestrengthsandweaknessesofhis
students. Atthesametime,studentscanalsogaininsightsintowhichtypesof
errorarethemostproblematic.
1.5 Purpose of theStudy
Inthe secondary school where the research was conducted, all thethree
methods of markingwriting N e i r o r c o r r e o t i o n
?
c o d e - m a r k i n g a n d a m i x t u r e
o f b o t h N a r e u s e d . T e a c h e r s a r e g i v e n t h e f r e e d o m t o c h o o s e a m e t h o d
w h i c h t h e y t h i n k c a n s u i t t h e i r s t u d e n t s ' n e e d s . H o w e v e r , p e r s o n a l
o b s e r v a t i o n s o v e r t h e p a s t e i g h t y e a r s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t o t h e r e s e a r c h e r t h a t
c o d e - m a r k i n g m i g h t b e a n e f f e c t i v e m e a s u r e . C l a s s e s t a u g h t b y t e a c h e r s w h o
p e r s i s t i n e m p l o y i n g c o d e - m a r k i n g f o r c o r r e c t i n g c o m p o s i t i o n s u s u a l l y g i v e
s t u d e n t s a n i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e y a r e c a p a b l e o f d o i n g b e t t e r i n b o t h i n t e r n a l
a n d e x t e r n a l e x a m i n a t i o n s . I m p r o v e m e n t c a n o f t e n b e s e e n i n b o t h
this studywasconductedtoinvestigate
theeffectivenessofcode-markingwhencomparedwitherrorconection. Itis
alsobelievedthatthe findings ofthe study can provethatcode-markingis a
rewardinglong-term "investment". As a matter of fact someteachersmight
notacceptcode-marking. Theymaythinkthattheprocessistime-consuming
and thatmarkingonecompositionisequivalenttomarkingtwo fortheyalso
needtomarkthe compositioncollection. If such findings couldbe shown
hopefully
5
theymightmaketheseteacherschangetheirmind.
Inthis study, distinctionhasnotbeendrawnbetween correction symbols
andmarkingcodesbothareconsideredt obethesame. Thestudythatwill
be reported in the following chapters aimed at answering the following
question;
Howeffectiveiscode-markinginenhancinggrammaticalaccuracyin
secondaryESLwritii^inHongKong?
responsestostudents'L2
writinghas arathershorthistory. AsFerris &Hedgcock(1998)havepointed
out,intermsofL2writing therehasbeenverylittleworkdoneonotherforms
ofteacherresponseexceptthatonerrorconection.
Perhaps a quick glance at some research onL2writing could provide a
better understanding of the importance of teacher feedback. Silva 1993)
conducted a studybasedonseventy-tworeportsofempiricalresearch. These
reports were reread and then analysed. He noticed that L2 writing was
differentfiromand simplerthanLI writing. Moreover L2writingwas "less
fluentless accurate and less effective"(p.668). L2writersspent lesstimein
planning but more time in revising their work. However, they had more
difficultyrevisingtheirwrittentexts. TheseL2 learnersalsofoundithardto
set goals generateideasandorganizematerialswhenwriting.
Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected foranalysis inthe
studieswhichwillbedepictedinthefollowingsections. Thesubjectswereof
variouslinguisticandculturalbackgrounds,forexample,ChineseVietnamese
and Japanese, andmost ofthem studied a second or foreignlanguage. LI
learners were also involved in one ofthese studies with their performance
being compared with that of L2 learners. Methods included examining
markings made by teachers on subjects* drafts and rewrites, giving out
s and 90
f
s
Findings can be classified into five categories: teachers response to
student writing, effectsof teacher feedback on students' writingstudents'
responsetoteacherfeedback,effectivenessofstudent-teacherconferences,and
thereasonforpractice.
2.1.1Teachers
1
Response to StudentWriting
AccordingtoZamel(1985),teachersweremoreconcernedwithlanguage-
specificerrorsandproblemsandtheyseldomexpectedstudentstorevisetheir
writtenworkbeyondthesurfacelevel. In fact theyjudgedmostwriting as a
finished product and so students were rarely given any encouragement for
rewriting their work, Zamel (1985) furtherremarked that teachers seldom
made content-specific comments or suggested specific strategies to help
studentsrevisetheir compositions andthatmuchoftheireffortwas spent on
error-oorrectioB. The phenomenon that teachers tended to focus on form
insteadofcontentwhenmarkingcompositionswasalsorevealedinthestudies
by Robb
3
Ross & Shortreed (1986), Moreover, it was not unusual to see
teachers sometimes over-emphasizenegativepointsinbothformand content
(Cohen&Cavalcanti 1990).
However,toomucheffortonerrorcorrectionmightsometimesproveitself
t obefutile. Kepner(1991)pointedoutinherstudythaterrorcorrectionmight
nothelpbothhigh-andlow-verbalabilitygroupstoavoidsurface-levelerrors,
1986). Fathman & Whalley (1990)however, considered
error correction as having a positive value in the sense that it could help
studentsimprovegrammaticalaccuracyintheirrewrites. Theysuggestedthat
students should be given both content and grammar feedback, either
simultaneouslyor separately,sothattheycouldimprovetheirrewritingmore.
2N 2 E f f e c t s of T e a c h e r F e e d b a c k on S t u d e n t s Writing
Generally speakingteacher feedbackdoeshelp studentsto improve the
quality oftheirwriting (Robb Ross & Shortreed 1986;Fathman & Whalley,
1990; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz
5
1944; Ferris, 19951997). Longer, text-
specificcommentshelpstudentstoimprovemore(Ferris, 1997). Ferris(1997)
alsopointsoutthatmarginalrequestsforinformationandsummarycomments
ongrammar could leadtothemostsubstantiverevisions,whereasstatements
or questions that provided information were less influential. Sometimes
however, positive comments might hinder students ftom making
improvement.
2N 3 S t u d e n t s
1
R e s p o n s e t o T e a c h e r F e e d b a c k
I n t h e s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d b y Z a m e l ( 1 9 8 5 ) , C o h e n & C a v a l c a n t i ( 1 9 9 0 ) a n d
F e r r i s ( 1 9 9 5 )students found that teachers' comments were inaccurate,
unclear abstract and difficulttounderstand. Moreover,Cohen& Cavalcanti
(1990) reportedthat LI students would be more likely than L2 students to
disagree with teachers* comments. On the other hand, some students did
whether the method of providing
feedbackwaseffectiveornotwasnottheirmajorconcern. Sofar,notmuch
workhasbeendonebyresearcherstoseewhichmethodofmarkingL2writing
isthemostbeneficialt olearners. Mechanics of assessingwritinghavebeen
suggested by Hamp-Lyoas (1991) and Bailey (1998). Suchmethods include
objectivescoring,analyticscoring,portfolioassessment,multipletraitscoring
andprimarytraitscoring.
10
p.102)whichaimedatexploring "thedegreetoand
manner in which these students could monitor (self-correct) their written
output when their attention drawn to errors". Compositions were
corrected and then returned to students for correcting eirors. Circles were
usedtoindicateerrors. Wheretherewasamissingword,acirclewouldbeput
initsplace. Othererrorswouldbecircled. Studentswererequiredtosubmit
theircorrections adftertenminutesandwouldbeofferedahighergradeifthey
managedtocorrectatleast75percentofthecirclederrors. Hintsweregiven
tostudentsthefirsttimetheyhadtodotheir corrections. Frantzen & Rissel
1987, p.106) concluded that students could correct errors "by applying
conscious rules with varying degrees of success" when their attention was
drawntothoseerrors.
The study quoted above aimed at investigating the role played by
consciousgrammarinhelpingstudentstoedittheirwriting. Althoughitmight
seemthatthe study had nothingto do withcode-marking,themechanicsof
correcting students' compositionswereworthnoticing. Circleswereusedto
indicateerrorsinthestudybyFrantzen&Rissel(1987)whereasinthepresent
study, errors were specified with codes. Composition correction was more
difficultforthesubjectsinthestudybyFrantzen& Rissel,fora circlemight
hint at a number of possibilitieslikewrongtense,wrongnumberandwrong
gender. Ontheotherhand,thesubjectsinthepresentstudyweregivenmore
hintsfortheircorrections. Withacodelike v b " a subjectwouldknowthat
hehadtousethecorrectformoftheverbmarked
11
p.212), teacherscould give studente
more responsibility for error correction as the latter "progress in their
acquisition of English syntax, morphology, and vocabulary, aswell as their
formal learning of grammatical r ul es: They introduced fifteencorrection
symbols. For example, m o d a l " m e a n s " i n c o r r e c t u s e o r f o r m a t i o n o f a
m o d a T w h i l e " n u m " r e f e r s t o " p r o b l e m w i t h t h e s i n g u l a r o r p l u r a l o f a n o u n
1 1
( F e r r i s & H e d g c o c k , 1 9 9 8 ) . T h e y a l s o c l a i m e d t h a t s u c h s y m b o l s m i g h t h e l p
i n t e r m e d i a t e - l e v e l s t u d e n t s t o d e v e l o p " t h e i r k n o w l e d g e a b o u t s p e c i f i c
l i n g u i s t i c f o i m s t h a t m a y b e p r o b l e m a t i c " a s w e l l a s " t h e i r a b i l i t y t o d i a g n o s e
a n d c o i r e c t e r r o r s
1 1
( p - 2 1 2 ) . H o w e v e r , s u c h a n e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n s y s t e m h a d t o
b e i m p l e m e n t e d v v i t h g r e a t c a r e . I f s t u d e n t s
1
k n o w l e d g e o f f o r m a l g r a m m a r
w a s l i m i t e d , i n t r o d u c i n g s u c h a s y s t e m m i g h t b e a c o m p l e t e f a i l u r e . T h a t i s
w h y F e r r i s & H e d g c o c k ( 1 9 9 8 ) r e c o m m e n d e d m o d i f i c a t i o n s a n d e x p l a n a t i o n s
t o a i d i t s i m p l e m e n t a t i o n w h e n e v e r i t w a s n e c e s s a r y .
12
studentswouldsee
thesymbol "A"whichmeant o m i s s i o n " . T h e y t h e n h a d t o t a k e t h e n e c e s s a r y
a c t i o n . T h e s e s y m b o l s d e a l t w i t h p r o b l e m s i n f o u r d i f f e r e n t a r e a s : w o r d s ,
s e n t e n c e s , p a r a g r a p h s a n d p u n c t u a t i o n . A s p o i n t e d o u t b y N a j i m y ( 1 9 8 1
p. 11) using an agreed set of correction symbolswasnot meantto "focuson
the conventions of writing more than on the content, language, and
organization". Instead, it was meant to "prevent confusion about whatthe
symbols meant". Najimy (1981) held the same view as Ferris & Hedgcock
(1998): the use of correction symbols should cater for students' needs.
Symbols would be meaningless if their meaning was beyond students'
understanding. Teacherswere advised to choosethose symbolswhichwere
t h e m o s t r e l e v a n t t o t h e c l a s s " ( N a j i m y , 1 9 8 1 ) . B e f o r e u s i n g a n y c o r r e c t i o n
s y m b o l s , t e a c h e r s s h o u l d " e x p l a i n t h e s y m b o l s , g i v e e x a m p l e s o f t h e e r r o r
e a c h s y m b o l s i g n i f i e s , a n d d e m o n s t r a t e w a y s t o a v o i d o r c o r r e c t t h o s e e r r o r s "
( N a j i m y , 1 9 8 1 p,11-12).
Theabove studieshaveshownthatteacherfeedbackaswellastheuseof
correction symbolsmighthelp students improvethequality oftheir writing.
However^ thereseems tobe a lack of researchonthe effectivenessof code-
marking inL2writii^, especially in HongKong schools. Moreworkmay
have t obe done in this area in the hope of raising students
1
standard of
English, which is considered tobe declining every year, (This remark has
13
whiletheremainingones excepttwohaveChina astheirbirth-
place. TheothertwowerebominCanadaandTaiwanrespectively,
3N 1 F a m i l y B a d ^ r o u n d
T T i e s o c i o - e c o n o m i c b a c k g r o u n d o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' f a m i l i e s a n d t h e i r b i r t h -
p l a c e s d e s e r v e a t t e n t i o n , f o r t h e y m a y a f f e c t t h e a c a d e m i c p e r f o r m a n c e a s w e l l
a s t h e d i s c i p l i a e o f t h e s u b j e c t s . F o r e x a m p l e subjectswhocomefromsingie-
parentfamiliesmay find ithardto sustaintheirinterestintheirstudyasthey
may oftenbe distracted by family problems. Subjects from the so-called
middle-classfamiliestendtohavemoreadvantagesovertheaforesaidstudents
interms of parentalguidanceandmonetarysupport. Manyofthese students
attend supplementaryEnglishcoursesconductedby organizations such asthe
British Council on a regular basis while one evenjoins overseas English-
speaking summer camps every year. Another group comprises subjectswho
cametoHongKongfromMainlandChinanotlongago. Thesestudentsmight
haveproblemswithlearning Englishmainlybecausethey arrivedhereatan
15
withEnglishasthemediumofinstruction. Sinceonlyscience
subjecteareofferedinForm Sixclassesandperhapsboysare generallymore
interested in science subjects it has become a tradition in the school for
academically better students to choose to study in a science class. Upon
completion of theirFormThreestudies,thestudentswere allocatedtoForm
Four classes according to their personal preference and their examination
results.
The students study nine similar subjectsnamely, English^ Chinese,
Economics, Computer, Physics, Chemistry Biology Mathematics, Religious
StudiesandPhysicalEducation,andtheonlydifferenceisthatthestudentsin
the Control Group study Principles of Accounts while those In the
Experimental Group study Additional Mathematics. Based on the factthat
these two subjectsmainly train students' mathematical skills, iti sunlikely
that a difference in the subjects studied could cause one group to excel in
16
30), ThosefromtheControl Groupwere from oneclasswhile
studentsfromtheotherclasswereassignedtotheExperimentalGroup.Itwas
alphabetical order that decided whether a student was to be involved inthe
studyor not. However,as fiveofthe subjects from theControlGroupfailed
to submittheircompositions,theywereexcluded fromthestudyandreplaced
by the first five students, also in terms of alphabetical order, from the
remaininglist.
Inaddition,thesubjectswerenotinformedthattheywouldbeengaged in
a study so that their performancewould be genuine, and it wasalso one of
safetyprecautions taken by the researcher to minimize all sorts of possible
problemsthatmightaffectthereliabilityofthestudy.
StandardizationisAe key wordtodescribeteaching intheschool Both
groupshavethe sameteaching and examination syllabuses. They aretaught
exactlythesamecontentinEnglishclasses. Theyusethesametextbooksand
receivethe same supplementary grammar exercises. The only differenceis
thattheirteachers axe notthesame N t h e r e s e a r c h e r t e a c h e s t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l
G r o u p a n d t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p i s t a u g h t b y a n o t h e r t e a c h e r . Y e t t h e t w o
t e a c h e r s s h a r e s o m e s i m i l a r i t i e s . F o r e x a m p l e both are female and both
majoredin Englishwhileat university. Perhaps themajordifferencei sthat
theresearcherhastenmoreyears'teachingexperiencethantheotherteacher.
17
it is the policy of the school not to have such m
arrangementandthusitwasnotpossible.
3.2How the StudyWas Conducted
The study started after the Mid-year Examination that was held in
December 1998.Bothgroupsweregiventhesametopicforcompositionsonce
everytwo cycles with six school-days comprisingone cycle. Altogether six
topicsweregivenandthesubjectshadtowrite300wordsoneachtopicwithin
onehourandtenminutes.TheresearcherandtheteacherteachingtheControl
Groupworkedtogethertochoosethetopics. Argumentativeessayswerenot
given forthemajorityofthesubjectslackedtheabilitytoexpressthemselves
clearly inreasonably good English. Moreover,pastexperience hastoldthe
researcherthatnarrativescouldusuallyarousestudents'interestinwriting.
ThreetopicsweretakenfrompastHKCEpaperswhiletheremainingthree
were from popular English textbooks in Hong Kong. It is a very common
practice amongteachers inHongKongtochoosetopics from pastHKCEor
HKALwritingpapers so asto gettheirstudentsfainiliarizedwiththeformat
ofsuchexaminations. Itisusualtoseethatstudentswillpayextraattentionto
these topics. The firstcompositionwas an imagmaxy situationinwhichthe
subjects had to mi t e an informal letter seeking advice on howto solve a
problemfacedby a lovetriangle(SeeAppendix 1A). Thesixthcomposition
wasalsoaninformalletterdepictinganembarrassingfirstdayatanewschool
(SeeAppendix IF). Theremaining four compositionswereshortstories(See
AppendicesIB-IE), Thesubjectshadtodescribehowtheytookcareoftheir
motherwhohadchangedsize,whathappenedto aboywhohadbeenmissing
and whytheirhomework^ a s missing. Theyalsohadtowrite
a ghoststory. Pictures orpartsofthestorywereprovidedtohelpthesubjects
inallcompositionsexceptthe fifth one wheretherewasonlya pictureinthe
formof a posterwithquestionsaskingforbasic informationsuch as w h e r e "
a n d w h a t " .
T h e f i r s t c o m p o s i t i o n w a s w r i t t e n i n J a n u a r y 1 9 9 9 the second one in
February,tbethirdoneinMarch,andthefourthandthefifthonesweregiven
tothe subjectin April, The sixth compositionwasdonein May 1999. In
otherwords the studylastedforfivemonths,withtwolongholidays,namely.
LunarNewYear and Easter, in between. Thishastobementionedbecause
thesubjectswerenotgiven any compositionduringthetwolongholidaysand
thismighthaveaffected tiae performanceof someofthem inthecomposition
givenrightafteralongholiday.
Beforethe study both teachershadagreedthathelpgiventothe subjects
shouldbereducedto aminimumwhiletheywerewritingtheir compositions,
otherwise,thevalidityofthefindingswouldbeaffected. Bothteachersagreed
torestricttheirhelptogivingsinglewordsin"criticalsituations.
3.3 Markingof Compositions
The compositions were handled in two different manners. Since the
emphasis of the study was on thirteen grammatical categories only holistic
scoringwasnotconsidered,fortheactualnumber of errorswouldberequired
foranalysis. Afterobservingthesubjects
5
performanceinwritingforthe first
half ofthe school year, itwasfoundthat errorsinthese thirteen categories
werethemostcommon. Afteratrialmarkingoffivecompositions fromeach
group,itwasdiscoveredthata smallnumberofveryweakstudentsproduced
19
everyjumbleofwordswouldberegardedas
aproblemwithphrasingand it wouldnotbeincludedinthestudy. However,
suchoccunenceswererare.
The two teachers marked the compositions of their students using two
differentmethods. Theywerealso firee togivethecompositionseitheragrade
or a mark, for the performance of the subjects in writing practice sessions
would notbeusedasabasisforassessment inthetwo examinations. Inthe
Control Group, the teacher employed 'error correction" the errors made
wouldbe crossed outandthenthe correct words orphrases wouldbe given.
IntheExperimentalGroup,howeverthirteenmarkingcodeswereused. Since
code-markingwasnewtotheExperimental Group the subjectswere given a
list of the thirteen codes used with detailed explanations of what the codes
meant (See Appendix 2). Examples included "plur
11
for "plural forms and
"prep"for"prepositions". Compositions of studentswhowerenotchosenfor
the study weretreated in the same manner as those oftheir classmateswho
hadbeenselected.
All the compositions were correctedby one rater only N t h e r e s e a r c h e r
h e r s e l f , f o r t h i s c o u l d h e l p t o m a i n t a i n a h i g h e r d e g r e e o f c o n s i s t e n c y d u r i n g
t h e p r o c e s s o f m a r k i n g ( S e e A p p e n d i x 3 ) , P h o t o c o p i e s o f t h e u n m a r k e d
c o m p o s i t i o n s w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p f o r m a r k i n g a n d
r e c o r d i n g t h e e r r o r s i n t o t h i r t e e n c a t e g o r i e s b y r e s e a r c h e r . W h e n o n l y
c o p i e s o f m a r k e d w o r i c w e r e a v a i l a b l e , t h e o r i g i n a l v e r s i o n s o f t h e s u b j e c t s '
c o m p o s i t i o n s w o u l d b e r e f e r r e d t o i f t h e r e w a s a n y a m b i g u i t y . O n e v e r y
2 0
the subjects were provided with the beginning and/or the
ending,andmsuchcases thewordsgivenwouldnotbecounted. Afterallthe
six essays had been marked, necessary information was entered in an
individual recordform(SeeAppendix 5), The averagesofthepercentage of
errors made in the six compositions written by the Control Group were
compared with those forthe Experimental Group to see if there was any
significantdifference.
3.4CompositionCorrections
Both groups were requiredto do composition corrections during lessons
aftertheirworkhad been marked. These correctionswerethen marked but
they would not beused forthe study. The subjectsfiromthe Experimental
Group might experience difficultybecause of their lack of knowledge of
grammatical terminology. These subjects lack formal training in English
grammar. ItmightbethattheteachingofEnglishintheschoolhasneverbeen
giventhe attention and emphasis that it should receive. As a result, some
might not be competent enough to correct the errors by themselves. To
combat such a problem,hintsweregivenwhenever it was necessary,i nthe
formofprovidingthe first letter or some oftheletters ofthewordrequired.
Onthe other hand,doing composition corrections was easyforthe subjects
fromtheControlGroup theymerelyhadtocopythemarkedcompositions
21
they wereinvitedtocommentonthecorrection symbolsusedthisyear.
Thecourseofthe discussionwastaped transcribed andthentranslated from
ChineseintoEnglish,
3.5.2Questionnaires
In order to investigate students' acceptance of code-marking, afterthey
had finished their correction for Composition 6 in early June, the thirty
subjectefromtheExperimental Group and the remainingten studentsinthe
class who were not included in the study were asked to complete a survey
form(SeeAppendix6). The aimofthe survey was given right atthetop of
theform:theywereinvitedtohelptheirteachertoevaluatetheeffectiveness
of code-marking so that improvements or changes could be made in the
coming academic year. Such an act was intended to make sure that the
subjectswouldbeseriousbecausetheresultwould concernthem. The same
aimwasrepeatedverballybeforethesubjectsweretoldtostart.
Inordertokeepthesubjectsfocustheirattentiononthesurvey,theywere
givenonlyfourquestionson a singlepage. Twoofthe questionswereopen-
endedbutbecauseofthecarelessnessoftheresearcher,theinstruction"please
explainyouranswer"wasleftoutforQuestion4. Toremedythesituation,the
subjectsweretoldthattheywerewelcomedtoexpresstheiropinionsfireelyon
thechoicethattheywouldmake in Question4 rightbeforetheystartedtheir
work. Englishhadtobeusedforansweringthequestions.
23
they were requested to submit the formsaccording to their class numbers.
Only the first thirty forms belonging to the subjects would be read and
analysed.
3.6 CoUection of ExaminationResults
All FormFour students were required to takethewriting paper (English
LanguageSyllabusBPaperIorinshortPaperI)intheMid-yearExamination
held inDecember 1998 andthe Final ExaminationinJune 1999. The sixty
subjects were no exception. In each of these examinationsstudents were
offereda choiceofthreetopics (onebeing a narrative) andtheyhadtowrite
one essay only. Theywererequiredtowrite300wordswithin onehourand
tenminutes.
ItshouldbenotedthattheresearcherandtheteacherteachingtheControl
Groupwerenotinvolved inthesettingandmarkingofthewritingpaperi nthe
twoexaminations. TwootherteachersofEnglishwereresponsibleforthejob.
It isthepolicyoftheschooltohavethesameteachersetapaperandmarkthe
scripts of all the students in a form so as to ensurethe highest degree of
consistency. Thesubjects'compositionswereassessedholistically. Thusthe
examinationmarksprovidedindependentevidenceforlanguageimprovement
bythetwogroups.
2 4
Findings
The findings ofthestudywillbeprovidedinthesectionsthatfollow.
4.1Subjects'PerformancemtheSixCompositions
Afterall the six compositions had been rated, relevant information was
entered intherecord sheets designedforthepurposeaad classifiedintothree
categories: thetype and number of errors the totalnumber of errors and the
totalnumberofwordswritten. Thepercentageoferrorswasthencalculated.
4.1.1MeanofErrorsMadePerGrammaticalIteminEachComposition
Aftereachofthecompositionshadbeenmarked theerrorswereclassified
into thirteen categories and then the total number for each category was
counted(SeeAppendices7A-L). Finally,themeanforeachtypeoferrorwas
calculated(SeeTable 1).
TableX A summaryoftheaveragenumberoferrorsmadeper
composition
Comp Group Typ and numberoferror
adi adv a r t c o n j d i n f p l u r p r e p p r o sp t
1 C o n 1 . 6 3 0 . 5 0 0 . 4 7 1 . 0 7 0 . 9 7 4 . 6 7 0 . 4 3 0 . 4 0 3 . 1 7 1 . 9 3 1 , 0 0 9 . 2 7
E x p 0 , 2 7 0 , 2 7 0 . 8 0 1 . 5 3 1 J 0 5 , 7 0 0 . 7 0 0 . 6 3 2 . 9 7 1 . 0 3 2 . 0 0 9 . 6 3
2 C o n 2 . 3 3 0 . 7 3 0 . 4 0 2 . 3 7 1 +5 7 5 . 3 3 1 . 1 3 0 . 3 0 3 . 7 0 2 . 6 0 1 . 2 7 1 1 . 3 7
E x p 0 , 9 3 0 . 1 7 0 . 6 3 2 . 6 7 1 2 3 8 . 5 0 1 . 1 3 0 . 8 7 4 . 1 7 2 . 0 7 2 , 2 3 1 2 . 3 0
3 C o n 1 . 8 3 0 , 7 7 1 . 3 3 2 . 8 0 1 . 6 3 6 . 6 0 0 . 9 0 1 . 6 0 3 . 9 0 2 . 2 0 2 . 0 3 9 . 4 0
B x p 1 . 3 3 0 . 4 7 1 . 4 0 3 . 9 7 1 . 2 0 7 . 5 7 0 . 9 0 1 . 7 7 4 , 8 0 1 . 8 3 2 , 1 0 1 0 , 2 0
4 C o n 1 1 3 0 8 3 0 . 9 7 1 . 7 3 1 . 2 0 4 . 9 3 0 . 6 7 0 . 8 0 2 . 4 7 2 . 6 7 0 , 8 3 1 2 . 2 0
E x p 1 . 1 7 0 8 7 0 , 9 7 2 . 4 0 1 . 0 7 5 . 7 7 0 , 8 0 1 . 1 0 3 . 5 3 2 . 7 7 1 , 3 3 1 0 . 3 0
5 C o n 2 . 4 7 1 - 9 0 1 3 7 4 . 1 7 1 . 7 7 6 . 2 7 1 . 1 3 2 . 5 3 4 . 2 7 2 . 9 0 2 , 3 0 15 17
E>t p 1 . 6 3 0 . 8 7 1 2 0 3 , 1 0 1 . 2 3 5 . 9 7 0 . 8 3 1 . 6 7 4 . 1 7 1 , 2 3 2 . 3 3 8 . 0 3
6 C o n 3 . 0 3 1 . 3 0 0 . 4 0 3 . 5 0 1 . 3 3 6 . 9 0 1 . 1 7 1 . B 7 6 . 8 7 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 3 1 2 . 1 7
E x p 1 . 6 3 0 . 6 3 0 . 4 3 2 . 9 3 1 . 2 0 6 . 2 7 0 . 6 7 0 . 7 7 4 . 8 3 1 . 3 0 2 , 3 3 8 . 1 7
N ote: Comp - composition Con = C o n t r o l Group E x p = Experimental Group
2 6
however,the
averagenumber oferrors madebytheExperimental Groupwas 0.04 higher
than that for the Control Group. The averages for the Control Group did
fluctuatea lot, ranging J&om the lowest L13 errors in Composition 4 tothe
highest 3.03 error in Composition6. Atthe sametime,the averagesforthe
Experimental Group show a noticeable increase from 0.27 errors in
Composition 1 to 1.63 errors i n Compositions 5 and 6. A slight fallwas
reportedinComposition4(SeeC^aph 1).
. 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 4 . 3 , 2 1 . 0 .
2
0
X
1
3

j
o

J
a
q
u
l
n
z

2 7
rising and then falling. The averages for the Experimental
Group could be seen to be always higher than those forthe Control Group
exceptinComposition4,wherethe averagewas 0.97 errors forbothgroups
(SeeGraph3).
0 o o o 5 -

p
5 . 0
1
i f
o o
S
J
O
X
I
L
U
J 9 ^ n z
2 9
ControlGroup!
I
Experimental N(
G r o u p
I n t h e f i r s t f o u r c o m p o s i t i o n s , t h e a v e r a g e n u m b e r s o f e r r o r m a d e b y t h e
C o n t r o l G r o u p w e r e l o w e r t h a n t h o s e f o r t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p . A r e c o r d o f
a g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e a v e r a g e s w a s m a d e i n C o m p o s i t i o n 2 , w h e n t h e
a v e r a g e f o r t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p w a s 5 . 3 3 e r r o r s w h i l e t h a t f o r t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l
G r o u p w a s 8 5 0 e r r o r s . H o w e v e r , l o w e r a v e r a g e s w e r e r e c o r d e d f o r t h e
E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p i n C o m p o s i t i o n s 5 a n d 6 ( S e e G r a p h . 6 ) .
S
J
O
J
J
U
J

M - - 0


J

a

c

l

i

z

3 2
ControlGroup
1 1
Experimental j
G r o u p
I n f i n i t i v e s s e e m e d n o t t o b e a b i g p r o b l e m f o r b o t h g r o u p s o f s u b j e c t s .
T h e h i g h e s t a v e r a g e w a s 1 . 1 7 e r r o r s f o r t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p i n C o m p o s i t i o n 6 .
T h e s a m e a v e r a g e s w e r e r e c o r d e d f o r b o t h g r o u p s i n C o m p o s i t i o n s 2 a n d 3 . I n
C o m p o s i t i o n s 1 , 4 , 5 a n d 6 , t h e r e w a s a n i n c r e a s e i n t h e a v e r a g e s f r o m 0 . 4 3 t o
1 . 1 7 e r r o r s f o r t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p . T h e a v e r a g e s f o r t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p
a l s o r o s e f i r o m 0 . 7 0 t o 0 . 8 3 e r r o r s b u t f e l l t o 0 . 6 7 e r r o r s i n t h e l a s t c o m p o s i t i o n
( S e e G r a p h 7 ) .
5 0
0 0
5 0
0 0
S
J
O
J
J
u
i
N

J
a
^
s
n
N

33
the situationwasjusttheopposite. Theaverage
forthe Experimental Group was higher thanthat forthe Control Group by
0.10. ItwasalsofoundthattheaveragesfortheExperimentalGroupfollowed
aregularpattern:therewasalwaysariseafterafall. ExceptinComposition3,
theaveragesfortheControlGroupshowedageneralincreaseintheremaining
compositions(SeeGraph 10).
o o o o o o o o o o A s . C N i l . d

S

J

O

J

J

L

L

J

J

a

q

u

l

n

z

36
ControlGroup
hb~~Experimental
Group
It seemedthat subjects from theControl Groupdid better m thisrespect,
withtheaveragesalwayslowerthanthoseforthe Experimental Group. The
averages forthe Experimental Group rose steadily from Composition 1 to
Composition 3,butdroppedto 1.33 errorsinComposition4. Thentheyrose
andremainedconstant(2.33errors)inthelasttwocompositions. Ontheother
hand,therewasmorefluctuationintheaveragesfortheControlGroup (See
Graph 11).
o o o o o o o o & 2 .N8 0 .
S J O J L l i i
T

J
o
q
l
u
l
n
z

3 7
ControlGroup
Experimental
Group
Composition
SubjectsfromtheExperimentalGroupseemedtomakemoreimprovement
intenses. Bylookingatthetwo sets of averages,it couldbeseenthatinthe
firstthreecompositions,theaveragesfortheExperimentalGroupwerehigher.
Thisshowedthefactthatmoreerrors intenseshadbeenmade. Nevertheless,
therewas achange from Composition4 onwards,withthethreeaveragesfor
theExperimentalGrouplowerthanthosefortheControlGroup. Theaverages
for Composition 5 were worth mentioning because of the presence of a
remarkable differenceof 7.14. The lowest average number of errors (8.03)
was madebythe Expeiimental Groupi nComposition 5. Moreover,i nthe
same composition., subjectsfiromtheControl Group alsobroketherecordby
making anaverage of 15.17 errors intenses. Suchanaveragewasalsothe
highestwhencomparedwiththeaveragesfortheothererrortypes. Reasons
forsuchabigdifference willbediscussedlater. TheaveragesfortheControl
Group ranged from 9.27 errors in Composition 1 to 15.17 errors in
Composition5(SeeGraph12).
S
J
O
J
J
u
i


J
a
c
l
i
z

38
ControlGroup
Experimental
Group
Although subjects from theExperimental Group mademore errorsinthe
first three compositions and the fifth one, improvement was shown i n
Compositions 4 and 6. The averages for the Control Group showed a
downward trend in the last three compositions, which meant a fall in the
number of errors made. However, the rate of improvement shownby the
ControlGroupwaslowerthanthatoftheExperimentalGroup(SeeGraph 13).
The figures quoted above might serve to give a general picture ofthe
perfonnance of both groups in the six compositions. Such figures were
obtainedonanerror-countbasisandtheirproportioninrelationtothelength
of the compositionswas not considered. It seemedtrueto say that subjects
fromboththeControlGroupandtheExperimentalGroupmademoreerrorsin
mostoftheerrortypesastimepassed. Nevertheless,whentheirperfonnance
in Composition 1 was compared with that in Composition 6, some
improvementcouldbeseeninseveral grammaticalcategories. Tobespecific,
in Composition 6,the Control Group only made fewer errors in agreement
whereas the Experimental Group showed improvement m agreement.
o o o o 0 . 0 0
0
3
2 *
1 o
S
J
O
J
J
m

1 0

J
Q
q
u
I
n
N

39
"prep" (preposition),
"sp"(spelling) and" vb^" (verbform). Therangeofdifferencesbetweenthe
averagesof errorsmadeby thetwogroupsinthese six typeswas small,with
the smallest being 0.02 errors and the greatest being 0.85 errors. p r e p "
( p r e p o s i t i o n ) w a s t h e t y p e o f e r r o r w i t h t h e s m a l l e s t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e
a v e r a g e s f o r b o t h g r o u p s w h i l e t h e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d b e d e t e c t e d i n t h e
t y p e " d " ( w r o n g w o r d ) ( S e e T a b l e 2 ) .
"pro" (pronoun) and
T
,t,
T
(tense). However,thedifferencesbetweentheaveragesofthetwogroupsin
theseseventypesvariedalot,fromthegreatest 1.83errorstothesmallest0.07
errors. The greatestdifference(1,83 errors)couldbeseeninthecategory "t"
(tense)whereasthesmallest(0.07errors)wasrecordedfortheerrortype"inf"
(mfmitive) (See Table 2). Code-marking could be effective in helping
subjectsfromtheExperimentalGrouptoimprovetheiraccuracyintheuse of
tenses.
4.1.3 Mean of Total Number of WordsWrittenin the Six Compositions
Bymerelylookingatthetotalnumberoferrorsmadeineachcomposition
it ishardto decidewhichofthetwo groupsperformedbetterafterthe study.
Very often,the length of a compositionmightaffectthe quality of writing.
Thetotalnumberofwordswrittenineachcompositionwasaisorecordedand
then anoverall average foreach ofthe six compositionswas calculated for
bothgroups(SeeAppendices8A-B). Withthetotalnumberofwordswritten^
a percentage of errors per composition could then be calculated so that a
clearerpictureoftheperfoimajaceofbothgroupscouldbeobtained.
Table3 A summary of the average number of words written per
composition
Group
Averagenumberofwordswntten
Group Comp 1 Comp2 Comp3 Comp4 Comp5 Comp6
Control 207$3 27833 26097 230 57 312 90 31740
Expcnmcntal 30773 36140 325 50 325 77 392 47 34S 87
Note Comp=composition
Itwasfoundthatsubjects from the Experimental Group generallywrote
morewordsthanthose&omtheControlGroup. Thegreatestdifferenceinthe
average number of words written was recorded in Composition 1. The
4 1
subjects fromtheExperimental Groupmanagedtoproduce
more than 300 words in each composition, which was the minimum
requirementthattheyhadtomeet. SubjectsfromtheControlGroup however,
failedtomeetsucharequirementbywritingfewerthan280wordsinthefirst
fourcompositions. Theymanaged to exceedtheword limit by about5%in
thelasttwocompositions, A great increaseinthenumberofwordswrittenin
twoconsecutivecompositionswas seeninComposition 5 withanincreaseof
82.33 words for the Control Group and 66J words forthe Experimental
Group (See Table 3). Reasons for this increase will be suggested in the
sectionfordiscussion.
4*1.4 Mean of Percentages of Errors Madein the Six Compositions
For each of thecompositions submitted the totalnumber of errors made
wasrecordedand laterexpressedasapercentageofthetotalnumber ofwords
written(SeeAppendices9A.B). Whenallthepercentagesoferrorsforallthe
six compositions wereavailable,anoverall average ofthesepercentagesfor
eachcompositionwasthencalculated.
Table4 A sammary of the mean percentages of errors per
composition
Group
Meanpercfintsgeof errors
Group Comp 1 Coznp2 Comp3 Comp4 Comp5 Comp6 Overall
Contiol 1286 1236 1434 1439 15 71 143S 1401
ExpenmenUl 9 3 6 10 89 1246 10 3 913 9 6 3 1035
Note:Comp
s
composition
42
which was the composition with the fewest guidelines
given. Inthe same composition, subjects fromtheExperimental Group also
madethelowestpercentageoferrorseverrecordedforbothgroups. Themean
percentageoferrorsforthatcompositionwas9.13%(SeeTable4).
Concerning the performanceof each group in the six compositions, the
averagepercentagesfortheControlgroupreflectedanincrease from 12.36%
in Composition 2 to 15.71% in Composition 5. A fallby 1.33% couldbe
observedinComposition6. However,therewasanincreaseby 1.52% in tiie
mean percentages of errors when Composition 1 was compared with
Composition 6. Subjects from the Experimental Group showed a gradual
increase in the mean percentages of errors made in the first three
43
a fall
instead of a rise in the mean percentage of errors was recorded for the
ExperimentalGroup andtherateofincreasewas0.5%. It wasalsofoundthat
subjectsfromthe Experimental Group made more errors In Composition 6
than in Composition 1. A differenceof 0.27% in the mean percentage of
errorswasdetected(SeeTable40
Generally speaking, both groups shared one similarity: they mademore
errorsintheirlastcompositionthanintheirfirstone. Tbeonlydifferencewas
thatthesize of increasewasnotthesame. Ifthedifferencesbetweenthemean
percentages oferrorsforbothgroupsmCompositions 1and6weretakeninto
consideration,itcouldbeseenthatthedifferenceasshownin Composition 6
(4,75%)wasgreater than thatin Composition 1 (3.5%). It seemedtruethat
subjectsfromthe ControlGroupmademoreerrorsin theircompositionsthan
thosefromthe ExperimentalGrouptowardstheendofthestudy. Theoverall
mean percentages of errors for both groups also showed a noticeable
differenceof3.66%(SeeTable4andAppendices9A-B).
All thedifferencesmentionedabovemightimplythat moreimprovement
in grammatical accuracy could be seen in the compositions of the
ExperimentalGroupthaninthoseoftheControl Groupuponthe completion
ofthe study. It might show that code-marking was effectivein enhancing
grammaticalaccuracyinwriting.
4,2 Small-groupDiscussion
Ttiediscussionlastedforabout five and ahalfminutes. Thefivesubjects
were asked if they found code-marking useful. Next, they were invited to
they could rememberthe correctionmuch
better and avoid repeating the error. One of the subjects considered the
process of composition correction as doing proof-reading exercises. Atthe
sametime somesubjectsrequestedmorehelp fromtheteacherwith sentence
structure. They also asked ifthey couldbeprovided with a list of common
errors.
Fromthediscussion itwasfoundthatthesubjectsmighthavedifficultyin
usingthethirteen correctionsymbols. Thismightimplya lackofknowledge
of grammatical terminology. One complained that there were too many
symbols and that they were complicated, though the same person also
mentionedthatthesymbolsforindicating errorsinspelling,tensesandforms
ofverbswere useful. He also mentioned that code-marking might change
students'meaning. Thentherewasthesuggestionofsimplifyingthesymbols.
Inconclusion,all agreedthatcode-markingshouldbeadoptedagainnext
yearasitwasthemosteffectivemethodatthemoment-
4,3 Questionnaires
Although the researcher had stressed that class ntimbers were optional
when fillinginthequestionnaires,stilltwenly-onesubjects(70%ofthetotal)
supplied their numbers (Appendix 11)- This might reflectthat they were
45
"pro"
(pronoun)and "t"(tense).
30 outof30subjects(100%)agreedtokeepthesymbols "adj"(adjective)
and "sp" (spelling). Onlyoneofthesubjectswantedtocrossoutthesymbol
morethan20% ofthesubjectsproposed
tocancelthe symbols "agr" (agreement), "art" (article), "pro" (pronoun)and
Tt
vb(f)
IT
(formof verb). About 20% of the subjects also foundthe symbols
"iitT (infinitive) and "plur" (plural form) not useful for improving their
4.3.4 Question4
Initially 29 subjects (96.67% ofthe total) circled the answer "yes" and
supportedtheideathat correction symbolsshould beused againformarking
compositionsinthecomingacademicyear. Therewasnoresponse from one
of the subjects,butupon checkingthesurvey formcarefiilly theword "yes"
could be seen clearly right at the beginning of the reason given. If the
responseofthissubjectwasalsotakenintoconsideration,the figure optingfor
usingcorrectionsymbolsforcompositionmarkingwouldincreaseto30.
Sevenofthesubjectsfailedto givereasonsfortheirresponse. Ofthe23
subjectswhohad giventheirreason0tenofthemusedtheadjective "useful
11
to describe code-marking. Others stated that with correction symbols^ they
couldunderstandandcorrecterrorseasily. Itshouldbenotedthatonesubject
gavealmostthesameresponse asthatgiven by his classmatetoQuestion2:
somecorrectionsymbolswerequitedifficulttounderstand.
Basedontheresponsesgiveninthequestionnaires itcouldbeconcluded
that all of the thirty subjects agreed with the use of code-marking m the
coming school year, asit could help themimprovegrammatical^cur acyin
4 7
the performanceof bothgroupsof
subjects in the Mid-year Examination and the Final Examination was
compared. The two writing papers were marked by two other teachers of
English but not by the researcher or theteacherteaching the Control Group,
Scoresgivenwereout ofamaximumtotalof 52andthepassingmarkwas21
1
Table5 Subjects'scores In theMid-yearExamination
Mid-year
Examination
Scores
Subjectnumber ControlGroup Expenmental
Group
l 25 27
2 22 27
j
4
JA
22 28
5 24 24
6 22 32
7 27 32
8 24 25
9 25 26
10 29 26
11 22 2S
12 27 27
13 20 30
14 24 26
15 27 30
16 23 26
17 24 21
18 25 26
19 29 27
20 30 2%
21 25 21
22 23 27
23 29 26
24 23 28
25 27 36
26 25 32
27 30 2S
28 24 24
29 25 30
30
] 24
Mean 2 4 8 27. 6
48
it could be seen thatthere were onlytwo failuresintheMid-
yearwritingpaperandbothwerefromtheControlGroup. Scoresgiventothe
Control Group rangedfirom30, the highest to 18 the lowest. The mean of
scores forthe group was 24,8, All of the subjects from the Experimental
Grouppassedthe Mid-yearwritingpaper. Thehighest score was 36whereas
thelowestwas24. Themean ofscoresforthisgroupwas27.6 (SeeTable5).
Adifferenceof2-8wasfoundbetweenthetwo setsofmeanof scores(See
Table5).
In the Final Examination, the majority of subjects from both groups did
makeimprovementinthewritingpaper.
Table6 Subjects'scoresintheFinalExamination
Final
Examination
Scores
Subjectnumber ControlGroup Experimental
Group
1 27 34
2 23 27
3 27 26
4 22 30
5 24 29
6 21 39
7 2S 36
8
9
2/
25 28
10 30 21
U 21 27
12 28 27
13 19 33
14 27 23
15 27 32
16 25 2S
17 25 28
18
19
Zo
27
Zo
30
20 30 31
21 25 30
22 24 26
23 28 23
24 22 30
25 29 33
26
25 3 ?
27 n 29
2S 26
25
29 26 33
30 17 25
Mean 25. 4 2 9 3
49
there was no improvement at all. However,
fifteen subjectshad ahigherscorethistime. The increaserangedfromoneto
three scores. It was also foundthat the mean of the scores forthe Control
Grouphadincreased by 0.6, Themeanscoreforthewholegroupwas25.4in
theFinalExamination(SeeTable6).
Subjectsfromthe ExperimentalGroupseemedtoperformbetterthan their
counterpartsfromthe Control GroupintheFinalExamination. Twenty-twoof
them were given a mark which was higher than that scored inthe Mid-year
Examination. The increaseranged fromonetoseven scores. Thesituationin
whichtherewasafallinthe scoresalsoappliedto six ofthesubjects.Thefall
varied &om onetofivescores. However,thisrangeof fallwaswiderthanthat
fortheControl Group. Two subjectsmade no progressand scored exactlythe
same marks as in the previous examination. On the whole, there was an
increaseof 1,7 inthemeanofscoresfortheExperimental Group. The mean
was29,3scoresintheFinalExamination(SeeTable6).
Whenthetwosetsofmeanscoresforbothgroupsinthetwoexaminations
were compared, it could be noticedthatthedifferencewas 2.8 scores in the
Mid-year Examination whereas the differencewas 3-9 scores in the Final
Examination. In otiier words, the differaacebetween thetwo sets of mean
scores in the Final Examination was greater than that in the Mid-year
Examination by 1 N S u c h a s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e m i g h t a l r e a d y b e s u f f i c i e n t t o
5 0
it may be trueto say that subjects from both
groups actuallymademore errors astimepassed. A quick glance at Table 1
will definitely give people the impression that there are more increases than
decreases in thenumberoferrorsmade. Fromthepointofviewofan English
teacher, it is very depressing to see the number of errors increasing after
teachingandpractice. However,afterexaminingcloselythenumber of errors
madepercomposition,itwasfoundthattherewassomeimprovementforboth
the Control Group and theExperimental Group. Fewer errorsweremade in
agreement conjunctions infinitiveSjtenses and formsofverbs inComposition
6whichmarkedthe end of the study. Nevertheless when a comparisonwas
madebetweentheperformanceof subjectsfrombothgroups, it could be seen
that subjectsfromthe Control Group made fewer ertoi^ in agreement only,
whereastheircounterpartsfromtheExperimentalGroupshowedimprovement
notonlyinagreementbutalsoinconjunctions infinitives tensesandformsof
52
short-term results may be misleading. Code-marking may beusefiil in the
longrun,butthereistheneedforlong-termstudiesbeforewecan get anything
conclusive.
Withtheuseof codes subjectsfirom theExperimental Grouphad to think
ofwhyanerrorwasmade and thencorrectit. Duringtheprocess ofthinking,
they had to search for all possible answers using their knowledge of the
English language that they had acquired already. Such a process required
subjects
r
activeparticipation. Asaresult, they could rememberthecorrection
wellandavoidrepeatingtheerrorinfuture"writings.
Of thefiveerrortypesmentioned above, the greatest improvement could
be seen in tenses. This is especially obvious in Composition 5 because the
lowest mean of errors in tenses (8.03) was recorded for the Experimental
Group. In the same composition, the Control Group also made a record by
creating an average of 15A7 errors in tenses (See Table 1). Such a big
differenceintheperformancebetweenthetwogroupsmightalsobecausedby
code-marking. The first language (Chinese) of the subjectsisvery different
from English in this respect It is thereforenot unusual to hearteachers of
English complaining that their students have much difficultyin the use of
tenses. The reason for such a complaint is simple; English verbs are
completely new to the students. For instance, verbs are inflectedtoindicate
tenseandnumberofsubjects. An
n
s"addedtotheverb "walk"indicatesthat
the subject is third person sii^ular and that the present tense is used. In
Chinese, such inflections are absent. Quantifiers can be used to show the
number ofsubjectsandadverbsoftimemayreplacethefunctionoftenses. As
53
itwaslikelythathewouldexercisegreatcare in
ordertoavoidrepeatingthesame errorwhenwritingcompositionsagain. This
resulted in a general fallin the number of such errors. On the other hand,
subjectsfromtheControl Groupmightnotbe awareofthetype of errorwhich
was the most problematic for them for all errors were not specified. The
teacher corrected all the errorsforthe subjects. As aresult,the subjectshad
no idea ofthe types and the number of errorsthatthey had made. To these
subjects,composition correctionwasmerely an act of recopying. Theymight
not leam anything during the process, not to say avoid repeating errors in
futurecompositions.
In Composition 5 it was quite common to see a great number of "fs"in
theworksubmittedbythesubjectsfromthe Control Group. Asmentionedin
the previous chapter. Composition 5 was the one withthe fewestguidelines
given. Only onesinglehintwasavailable:theuseoftheword "happened"in
two of tbe short questions (See Appendix IE), v^iich was an indication that
the past tense had to be used to relate past events. Because of a lack of
awareness of the proper use of tenses, subjects from the Control Group
54
thus makingthe number of errors
in tenses a new record. The use of tenses seemed not to be so difficultfor
subjectsfromtheExperimental Group, They had beentrainedthrough code-
marking to be aware of this type of error, which seemed to be the most
problematic for tbem. It might be this type of awareness that helped these
subjectsto reducethe number of errors intenses,infinitivesas well as forms
ofverbs
3
allofwhichwerecloselyrelated. Theawareness oferrorscouldalso
help to explain why subjects from the Experimental Group made fewer
mistakesinadjectives,adverbs,pluralformsandpronouns(SeeTable2),
Of course one might argue that the average percentage of errors forthe
Experimental Groupshowed ageneralupwardtrendastimepassed anddoubt
if code-marking was really effectivein enhancing grammatical accuracy in
writing. Nevertheless,thesepercentageswerealwayslowerthanthoseforthe
Control Group and in Composition 5 the average percentagewasevenlower
than that for Composition 1- Such improvement could only be seen in
Composition2fortheControlGroupattheinitialstage ofthe study andfrom
Composition 3 onwards, the percentages always remained over 14% (See
Table 4), Such differences could again suggest that code-marking is an
effectivemeasure.
5-2LengthofCompositions
Subjects ftom the E 6 e r i m e n t a l G r o u p w r o t e l o n g e r c o m p o s i t i o n s t h a n
t b o s e f r o m t h e C o n t r o l G r o u p . O n e r e a s o n m i g h t b e t h a t t h e y r e a l l y e n j o y e d
t h e p r o c e s s o f w r i t i n g . T h e y a l s o b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e y c o u l d i m p r o v e t h e i r
w r i t t e n E n g l i s h t h r o u g h p r a c t i s i n g m o r e . C o m p o s i t i o n 5 w a s t h e o c c a s i o n o n
w h i c h s u b j e c t s f i r o m t i i e E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p p r o d u c e d t h e h i g h e s t a v e r a g e
5 5
these subjectswouldwritemore so thatthey
couldexperimentmorewiththelanguage.
5.3Subjects'PerformancemtheFinalExamination
It was found that subjects firom the Experimental Group made more
improvement than those from the Control Group in the Final Examination.
The difference between tiie two sets of mean scores for both groups was
greater in the Final Examination than in the Mid-year Examination. In
addition, more subjects from tiie Experimental Group than from the Control
Group scoredhighermarksintheFinalExamination(SeeTable 6). Itistrue
that subjects from the Control Group also made some improvement in this
examination but their improvement was not as great as tiiat made by the
56
subjectsfrombothgroupsweregiveneitheramark
or a grade for their compositions during the course of the study and the
perfonnanceof the subjects in these six compositionshad nothingto dowith
the scoring ofthewriting paper inthe Finai Examination. Thismightbe the
reasonwhy some subjects,especiallythosefiromthe Control Group had not
tried their besttodobetter inthe six compositions. Other subjectslikethose
fromtheExperimentalGroupmight experimentwiththesentencepatternsand
thevocabularythatthey hadacquiredand explorevariouswaysofexpressing
theirideas. Veryoften suchanactmightresult intheincreaseinthenumber
oferrors.
Thesituationwascompletelydifferentintheexaminations. Subjects from
bothgroupsknewthatthenumberoferrorswould directly affecttheirscores,
so they exercised great care when they wrote their compositions. For this
reason,thedifference between thetwo sets ofmeanscoresmightbestreflect
the performance of both groups of subjects after the study. Greater
improvement shown by subjects fromthe Experimental Group might mean
that code-marking was more effective
grammaticalaccuracyintheirwriting.
5.4Subjects*Viewson Code-marking
than error correction in enhaacing
The findings of the small-group discussion and the questionnaires might
haveconfinnedthesubjects'acceptance of code-marking- Allofthesubjects
agreed unanimously that code-marldng was useful for helping them to
57
with more training and guidance from the teacher these subjects
willsoonovercomethisdifficulty.
It seemed that the whole group of subjects held a positive view on the
effectiveness of code-marking. Perhaps the reasons given by one of the
subjectscouldbestrepresenttherest(SeeAppendix 11):
Because it improvesmyEnglish, In the past,when I didmycorrection, I didn't know
whyIhave [had]this grade, (Was itbecause)mygrammari snotgoodorwhatever [for
someother reasons]? Butnow Iknowwhy Iwas[am]wrongand Iwi l l not (be)wrong
likethatagain.
Subjectsfirom theExperimentalGroupalso showedtheirsupportforcode-
marking by consenting to the idea of using the same method to mark
compositionsinthecomingacademicyear,
5*5 CompositionCorrection
Althoughtheeffectivenessofcompositioncorrectionwasnot lj p a r t o f t h e
s t u d y , i t s t i l l d e s e r v e s m e n t i o n i n g b e c a u s e s u b j e c t s ' i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e p r o c e s s
c o u l d r e f l e c t t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o f c o d e - m a r k i n g . A s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , s u c h a n
a p p r o a c h i s l e a r n e r - c e n t r e d . I t h a d b e e n o b s e r v e d t h a t s u b j e c t s f r o m t h e
E x p e r i m e n t a l G r o u p p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y i n c o r r e c t i n g t h e i r e r r o r s . T h e y
5 8
sample size,
59
pes genres of writing and amount of
grammaticalinstmctiongivencouldhaveinfluencedtheresult.
5.7.1 Time
Timeisaconstraint. Thepresentstudy only lastedforfivemonths which
is a short period of time. Progress in writing varies &om one subject to
another. Some might take a short time to make improvement while others
mightneedalongperiodoftimeforslightimprovement. In Hiepresentstudy,
some subjects showed improvement only after Composition 4. If time
allowed it would be more desirableto assign a period of two years forthe
study. For example the study could involve subjectsfi:omForms4 and 5 or
Foims 6 and 7. Upon completionoftheir studies,these subjectswillhave to
takeeitheroneofthetwomostimportantpublicexaminations:theHongKong
Certificate of Education Examination (HKCE) or the Hong Kong Advanced
LevelExamination (HKAL). It is in such examinationsthattheperforniance
ofaverylargesampleof studentswillbeavailableforcomparisonwiththatof
the subjects chosen. The performance of subjects &om both the Control
Group and the Experimental Group inthesepublicexaminationsmight serve
betterthepurposeofverifyingwhethercode-markingiseffectiveornot
5.7.2SampleSize
Sixty subjectswere involved in the study. The sample sizemightnot be
large enough to ensure the reliability of the findings, forany change inthe
performanceofjust one single subjectmight have a considerable impact on
thewholegroup. Ifthesamplesizewereatleastdoubledorifthesamplewas
madeupof subjectsrecruitedfiromBand 1toBand
5 schoolsinHongKong,
thefindingsmigbtbemoreconvincing.
60
Zinkgraf,
Wormuth,Hartfiel&Hughey, 1981), Anindependentraterwouldbeideal If
there was an independent rater, preferably someone also teaching English
each composition couldbe marked twice and the number of errors might be
more accurate. Howeverbecause of the enormous workload oftheteachers
working in the school where the study was conducted it seemed totally
impossibletofindsomeonetobethesecondrater.
5.7.4Numberof ErrorTypes
The focus of the study was on thirteen error types. However, after
calculating the total number of errors, it was found that students had more
difficultyin using some types only for instance
,r
art
tf
(article), d
T
, ( w r o n g
w o r d ) "prep" (preposition),
M
sp_
T
(spelling) and "t,
T
(tense). Infact,the focus
could have been narrowed dovm to half of the error types now existii^.
Perhaps effortshould be concentrated on the number of errors made in
,T
d
T1
(wrongword), "sp
IT
(spelling)and "t" (tense)beforeandafterthestudy.
5.7.5GenresofWriting
Subjects from both the Control Group and the Experimental Group were
given narrativesthroughoutthe study. It is generally believed that students
usually do not have problemswithwriting nairatives. However theremight
besome subjectswhocouldworkmuchbetter whentheywereaskedtowrite
descriptionsorarguments. Asaresult,thesesubjectsmightloseinterestinthe
61
special attention will be paid tothe summary ofthe
results of the study, directions for further research and pedagogical
implications.
6-1SummaryofResultsofStudy
The study aimed at investigating the effectiveness of code-marking in
enhancing grammatical accuracy in secondary ESL writing in Hong Kong,
Stepshad beentakentotest if code-markingwas effectiveand hopefully,the
quantitative data collected from the compositions as well as the examination
results could helpto supporttheclaimthatcode-marking might help students
improvegrammaticalaccuracy. Fromthedatacollected, it couldbeseenthat
subjectswhose compositions were marked with correction symbolsdid show
moreimprovement,especiallyinfiveerrortypestowardstheendofthestudy.
These error types included agreement, conjunctions, infinitives, tenses and
forms of verbs. When students* errors were corrected by the teacher, they
might show less improvement in future compositions. This applied to the
subjects from the Control Group. The data collected showed that they only
made fewer errors in agreement at the end of the study. Their wonit
performance was in the type t
n
(tense) whereas subjects from the
ExperimentalGroupmademuchimprovementmthistype(SeeTable 1),
Fromthediscussion and thequestionnaires,it couldbeseenthatsubjects
fiom the Experimental Group had positive views on code-marking- They
claimed that code-marking could train them to be more independent in the
process of improvingtheirwritten English. Thsyhadto correct an errorby
themselves and as a result they could avoid repeatir^ the error. They all
63
though a few complained about the number and the complexity of the
correction symbols. The case of the subjects from the Experimental Group
might be a good example of self-fulfilling prophecy. They believed in the
effectiveness of code-marking and so they made more improvement in the
writing paper than their counterparts from the Control Group in the Final
Examination.
In conclusion, it is likely that code-marking made subjects from the
Experimental Group aware of errorsthat they had made and they could thus
avoidrepeatingsuch errors infuturecompositions. Theassumptionthat code-
markingmightbeeffective in enhancinggrammaticalaccuracyinESLwriting
in Hong Kong could then bejustified. There may be many other methods
which can also help students improve their written English, for example,
asking students to keep writing profiles. In Hong Kong, however, both
teachers and students have to compete with time to finish the syllabus
assigned. Given thattherewill not be any changes inthepresent education
system inthenearfuture
5
itseemsthatcode-markingmaybethebestchoiceto
meetthistarget.
6*2 DirectionsforFutureResearch
It ishopedthat inthenear future,therewillbelarge-scale studies oft t e
effectivenessofusingcorrectionsymbolstomarkcompositions. Suchstudies
shouldinvolveagreaternumberofsubjectsfromschools ofdifferenttypesof
bandingsoastoensurethereliabilityofthe findings. Thespanofsuchstudies
should also be longer. Future research can ako be geared towards tiie
direction of investigatii^ the effectiveness of code^marking in helping
qualitative datamayalsobe
collectedbyaskingsubjectsfordiariesorjournals.
6.3PedagogicalImplications
Thepreliminary indications suggest that code-marking is really worth the
effortandtime ofteachers of English foritappearstohelpstudents enhance
grammaticalaccuracy. Ifweteacherswant tomakecode-marking successful,
special attention should be paid to the process of composition correction.
More time shouldbe devotedtothe process as students need ampletimeto
reflectontheerrorsthattheyhavemade in their writing. Atthe sametime,
the teacher also needs timetowalk around the classroom, offeringhelp and
giving explanations. If time is limited, studentswill tend to lose interest in
knowingwhyanerrorhasbeenmadewhenimmediatehelpfromtheteacheris
notavailable. Itisthereforeadvisableforschoolstoallocate moreperiodsto
theteachingofEnglish.
There is always a complaintthat the ratio of teachers to students is too
highinHong Kong. It is not unusualto see one teacher teaching overforty
students in an English language classroom in any localschool Such a ratio
may sometimes render individual attention and help impossible. Students'
activeparticipationincompositioncorrectioncontributesmuchtothe success
ofcode-marking. If a studentwho lackspatiencehastowaitfora longtime
beforethe teacher can attend tohis question he may give up the chance of
asking forhelp. Lowering the ratio of teachersto students may bethebest
solution to the problem but one very possible way is to get every student
involved inthe process ofcorrecting errors N t h e y s h o u l d b e e n c o u r a g e d t o
6 5
alistofcommonerrorsmadebytheclasscanbeprovidedand studentscanbe
asked to correct these errorstogetherbeforethey start theirowncomposition
correction. Explanations and examples of usage should also be given when it
is necessary. Such common errors can also be used for designing proof-
readingexercises. Drillsingrammaticalitemswhicharethemostproblematic
should be given to studentstohelp them consolidate what they have learnt.
Other complementary activities such as using concordances and listening to
examplesfromnativespeakerdiscourse,forexample,movieextracts,arealso
highlyrecommended.
66
K. &Nxman, D.(Eds.)(1996). Voices from the Language Classroom:
Qualitative research in second language education. Nevt York:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
BaUey K. M.(1998). Learning about Language Assessment: Dilemmas, decisions,
and directions. Boston:Heinle&Heinle.
Breland,H.MCamp R.,Jones,R. J, Morris,M.M.&Rock,D.A.(1987)-
Assessing Writing Skill NewYork:CollegeEntranceExaminationBoard.
Chamberlain,J.&OWeili E. F.(1994). New Effective English 4: Writing (Paper
1)-HongKong:Witman.
Chamberlain J.&O'Neill,E.F. (1995). New Effective English 5: Writing (Paper
I). HongKong:Witman.
Chaudron,C.(1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on teaching and
learning. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Cohen,A.D.&Cavalcanti,M.C.(1990). Feedbackoncompositions:Teacherand
studentverbalreports. InKroll,B.(Ed) Second Language Writing: research
insights for the classroom, 155-177, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Cmrnning A-H.(Ed.)(1994), Bilingual Performance in Reading and Writing.
Michigan:ResearchClubinLanguageLearning.
CurriculumDevelopmentCommittee(1983). Syllabus for English (Forms J-V)
HongKong:CurriculumDevelopmentCommittee.
Ebbitt W.R.&Ebbitt,D.R.(1978). Writer's Guide and Index to English (6
th
ed,)*
Glenview:Scott,Foresmanand Company.
Faigley, L , Cherry,R. D" J o U i f f e D. A. & Skinner, A- M (1985). Assessing
Writer's Knowledge and Processes of Composing, Norwood:Ablex.
Fathman A.K.&Whalley,E.(1990), Teacherresponsetostudentwriting:Focus
onformversuscontent. InKroll,B.(Ed) Second Language Writing: Research
insights for the classroom^178-190, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Ferris,D.&Hedgcock I S. (1998), Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, process,
and practice. Mihwah:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Ferris,D.I t (1995), Studentreactionstoteacherresponseinmultiple-draft
compositionclassrooms. TESOL Quarterly,29 33-53-
Ferris,D.R.(1997), Theinfluenceofteachercommentaryonstudentrevision.
TESOL Quarterly, 31
9
315-39.
67
B. Dvorak, T- R.& Lee J. F, Foreign
Language Learning: A research perspective. Cambridge:NewburyHouse,92-107.
Frederiken,C H.&Dominic.J.F.(Eds.)(1981). Writing. The Nature,
development, and teaching of written communication, Volume 2 Writng: Process,
development and communication. Hillsdale;LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Freedmaa, S+ W.(1987). Response to Student Writing. Urbana:NationalCouncil
ofTeachersofEnglish,
Goldstein, L. & Conrad,S.(1990). Studentinputandnegotiationofmeaningin
ESLwritingconferences, TESOL Quarterly,24 443-60.
Grabe W. & Kaplan^ R.B, (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. New York:
AddisonWesleyLongman.
Hamp-LyonSs L, 1991). Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic
Contexts. NewJersey:AblexPublishingCorporation.
Hedgcock J. & Lefkowitz N,(1994), Feedbackonfeedback:Assessinglearner
receptivitytoteacherresponseinL2composing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3 141-163.
Hendrix R. (1981). Thestatusandpolitics ofwritinginstruction. InWhitemaji
5
M.
F.(Ed.) Writing: The nature, development, and teaching of written communication,
Volume 1 Variation in Writing: Functional and linguistic-cultural differences.
Hillsdale:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates 53-70.
HongKongExaminationsAuthority(1988 1989 1993): HKCE English Language
Syllabus B Paper I HongKong:HongKongExaminationsAuthority.
Jacobs, XL L. Zinkgraf,S,AWormuth,D. R. Hartfiel V.F&Hughey,J.B.
(1981). Testing ESL Composition: A practical approach. Rowley:Newbury
House,53-57.
Kelly,P, (1989), Theory,research andpedagogyin ESLwriting. InC Candlin&
T- McNamara (Eds,) Language Learning and Community- NCELTR
5
Macquarie
University,Sydney,NSW
s
77-90.
Kepnetj C.G.(1991). Anexperimentintherelationshipoftypesofwritten
feedbacktothedevelopment ofsecond-languagewritingskills. The Modern
Language Jovrnal^ 75 306-13,
Najimy,N.C.(Ed.) (1981). Measure for Measure: A Guidebookfor Evaluating
Students' Expository Writing. Urbana:NationalCouncilofTeachersofEnglish,6-
15.
Nunan,D.(1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
68
L (1996). New Steps & Skills: Writing Paper I HongKong:Witman.
Robb T Ross, S. & Shortreed I, (1986). Salienceoffeedbackonerrorandits
effectonEFLvmtingquality, TESOL Quarterly, 20 83-93.
Shaughbessy,M.P.(1997). Errors and Expectations. NewYork:Oxford
UniversityPress,
Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: developments, issues
and directions in ESL. In Kroll, B. (Ed.) Second Language Writing: Research
insights for the classroom. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 11-23.
Silva T. (1993).Towardanunderstandingofthedistinctnatureof L2writing:The
ESLresearchand its implications. TESOL Quarterly,27,657-77.
Skehan,P.(1989). Individual Differences in Second4anguage Learning. London:
EdwardArnold.
White,E.M.(1985J. Teaching and Assessing Writing, SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Zamel
s
V.(1985). Respondingtostudentwriting. TESOL Quarterly, 19 79-101.
69
it's up toyouwhichoneyoti
You arc hurt and confused. Y<hi deckfetowiiteto Auntie Angela,
answersprtblemIdlersinaTicwspspci,WriteHitletterexplammgtbefiituadofiand
whathashappenedAskforadvice.Signyourletter'RC.
s p
1
7 0
dK>oI y o o u e g o i t i c t a t ^ I
&d i magi t t at i ve storyi q y o u r f d l o w s t o dc nc s . Y o u r s t o i y masi b e b o e d e n
t b e k n o w i n g ^dea:
W h e n y o u w o f c p T5 h s t S u n d a y y o u f o u n d t h a t y o u r m o t h e r h a d m d d e n f y
d u m g e d J t zandbecomejtmdismaller.She mis<mfy20anutUi Youhad
10 lake careofherall day umU shegrew badeto harnormal size that
ip r e p a r a t wn f o r E n g l t s b We e k .
Source: 1993HKCEEnglishLanguageSyllabusBPaperI
71
newsp&perm gtveabcbw.
() how he turnedhomo.
Source: 1988HKCEEnglishLanguageSyllabusBPaperI
rher wardx Ytiterday u: Hh t a r y h o m e w o r k M f o f t o f t
w a s m y h o m e w o r k . Wh a t w ^ t h ^ p f n t n f ?
er i A o r t ^ s t o t y c o m p t d t k m , y o u h m t o w r i t e t h e rest <i f t t i f t eY o i y , edto|
I vm my htppy that the mystery htd Amk sohtd^^nd that my noeftcniwn
donemyko ihml
Wi l utl wsi oi y,
Source: 1989HKCEEnglishLanguageSyllabusBPaperI
stofya really scarv story0
happened?Towho7WTiar?When?Whathappenedin w*d?
Source:Chamberlain,J.&O'Neill,E.F.(1994). New Effective English 4:
Writing (Paper 1).HongKong:Witman,p.90-91.
74
rc tto new studem* Wtito i letiv to yourfiimd ChiU in Cm^t,
deicdbing what tuqipened during yoor u d how ycxi hiiuSfid die pnMenu,
Bueyourdefct^tioafmlhedimpActu^tfKiuliiieyoQrintt^nstioatoAddstJeBttoiie
itKve proMenu Do NOT write any addittt. Sign ycaxtletter'KK\
Source:Potter, JL (1996). New Steps & ShUs Writing Paper I HongKong:
Witman,p 139-140,
75
Correct the mistake in comparing the
adjectivemarked.
Reconsideryourchoice of adjective,
Supplythecorrectadjective.
Supplythemissingadjective.
adv adverb
Correctthemistakeincomparingtheadverb
marked.
Correcttheformoftheadverb.
Reconsideryour choiceof adverb.
agr agreement
Make the verb agree with its subject or the
pronounagreewithitsantecedent
art article
Reconsideryourchoiceofarticle.
Supplythemissingarticle.
conj conjunction
Make this conjunction more accurate or
moreappropriatetothestyleofthepassage.
Supplythemissingconjunction.
d wrongword
Replace this word with one that is more
appropriate,moreexactormoreeffective.
Spell outtheabbreviation.
inf infinitive
Correct the mistake in the form of the
infinitivemarked.
plur pluralform Usethepluralform.
prep preposition Correctthemistakeintheprepositionused.
Insertthemissingpreposition.
pro pronoun
(form)
Correctthemistakeintheformofpronoun.
Supplytherequiredformofpronoun.
sp spelling Correctthemistakeinspelling.
t tense Correctthemistakeintense.
Supplythemissingword.
Usethecorrectformofvoice.
vb(f) verbform Usethecorrectformofverb.
Adaptedfrom:EbbottW.R,&EbbittD. IL 1978). Writer's Guide and Index
to English(6
th
ed) Glenview:Scott,ForesmanandCompany.
7 6

The aim ofthisquestionnaireistohelpyourteachertoevaluatethe

effectivenessofusingcorrectionsymbolstomarkyourcompositionssothat
improvements or changescan be madeintheconiingacademic year if it is
necessary Pleaseread allthequestionscarefiillybeforeyougiveyour
responses. Forsomequestions,youwillberequiredtogiveshortwritten
answers.
Yourresponseswill be keptconfidential,
1. Doyoufindcode-markinguseful?
Yes/ No(Pleasecircleyouranswer)
IfyouranswertoQuestion 1 is
l
yQs\pleaseanswerQuestion2a.
IfyouranswertoQuestion 1 is'no',pleaseanswerQuestion2b,
2a.Why do youthinkthatcode-marking is useful?
2b. Whyiscode-markingnotuseful?
whichdoyoufindhelpfultoimproveyourwrittenEnglishand
wanttokeepforthenewschoolyear?
Pleasetickyouranswers.
Correctionsymbols
helpfulandshouldbekeptfor
nextschoolyear Correctionsymbols
Yes No
1 adi
2 adv
3 agr
4 art
5 conj
6 d
7 inf
8 plur
9 prep
10 pro
11 SP
12 t
13 vb(f)
4. Shouldcorrectionsymbolsbeusedagainformarkingcompositionsinthe
comingacademicyear?
Yes/ No(Pleasecircleyouranswer)
Thankyouforyourhelp!
3 i 3 3 1 6 1 0 5 3 2 18 1
7 2 3 1 2 0 4 2 0 0 4 O 7 0
S 3 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 6 3 1 4 1
9 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 4 1 2 0
10 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 12 0
11 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 3 3 1 10 1
12 2 0 2 2 1 4 0 0 6 3 3 13 3
13 3 1 1 4 1 10 1 0 3 4 0 11 2
14 3 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 2 2 2 7 0
15 1 1 0 3 1 4 1 0 4 3 1 5 1
16 3 1 0 6 2 4 5 0 5 2 2 12 1
17 5 3 1 2 1 2 1 0 5 0 0 9 0
!8 2 0 0 5 1 6 1 0 5 3 1 8 1
IP 2 1 0 3 1 6 1 0 0 3 4 7 1
20 1 0 0 2 1 G 1 0 3 3 2 5 1
21 6 0 0 4 2 6 1 0 12 1 0 10 2
22 0 0 0 1 1 4 2 0 1 4 3 2
23 1 3 1 1 1 4 0 0 1 2 2 IS 0
24 8 0 0 3 1 4 2 0 2 1 0 8 1
25 0 0 0 3 3 8 1 0 S 2 0 5 1
26 4 2 0 0 1 3 3 3 5 0 2 22 0
27 0 1 0 1 0 10 0 0 3 0 3 8 0
5 0 1 2 3 2 0 0 1 3 2 23 3
29 0 0 2 0 6 7 2 0 7 4 2 18 1
30 7 3 0 4 5 15 2 2 4 2 0 28 0
meiD 2,33 0 J 3 0,40 2.37 1.57 5.33 1.13 0.30 3.70 2.50 1.27 11.37 0.90
83
dj adv agr art conj d inf plur prep pro sp t vb(f)
1 2 0 1 3 1 t o 0 0 6 0 1 9 1
2 Q
0 1 0 1 12 2 2 4 1 0 11 1
3 0 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 0 1 0 11 2
4 2 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 14 3
5 1 1 0 5 1 11 0 1 4 2 0 15 2
6 1 0 1 1 0 11 0 0 1 1 2 7 0
7 1 0 0 3 0 5 1 0 2 2 4 6 1
8 0 0 0 2 1 9 0 0 3 2 2 11 2
9 1 1 0 3 0 7 3 2 3 2 2 5 0
10 0 0 0 4 1 1t 0 1 8 e 1 40 4
U 1 0 0 3 1 8 0 0 4 4 1 8 1
12 0 0 0 3 1 10 2 2 5 3 4 13 0
13 2 0 a 1 2 a 1 2 3 2 0 9 0
14 0 0 1 6 5 5 2 3 8 1 8 27 4
15 1 0 1 0 1 7 3 1 3 2 1 11 1
16 1 2 1 2 3 7 1 0 2 1 0
Q
0
17 1 0 0 1 1 14 3 0 5 2 6 17 4
IS 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 5 13
S 3
1 9 2 0 1 2 D 1 0 1 1 a 1 5 1 0
2 0 2 0 1 6 2 9 3 0 7 0 2 2 2
2 1 3 0 0 1 5 9 1 0 9 4 1 1 6 4
2 2 1 a 2 2 1 9 1 3 4 2 5 1 3 6
2 3 0 0 0 6 3 9 2 0 9 3 3 1 2 2
2 4 2 0 1 3 1 4 1 1 5 1 4 d 1
2 5 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 5 1 5 0
2 6 0 i 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 6 2
2 7 0 0 0 2 1 7 0 0 3 2 1 4 2
2 S 2 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 7 2
2 9 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 4 2 2 1 9 3
3 0 2 0 3 4 1 1 1 0 1 4 7 3 1 9 4
meau 0 . 9 3 0 . 1 7 0 . 6 3 2 , 6 7 1 , 2 3 8 , 5 1 . 1 3 0 , 8 7 4 , 1 7 2 . 0 7 2. 23 1 2 . 3 1 . 9
89
2 0 1 5 2 9 0 6 1 1 10 3
3 0 2 1 2 2 5 0 2 3 2 1 3 3
4 3 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 8 2 1 7 1
5 1 1 0 6 2 L 6 0 0 6 5 1 10 2
ti 1 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 1 3 5 3 1
7 1 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 2 1 3 1
2 2 0 3 1 10 i O 2 5 2 12 2
9 2 0 2 2 0 11 0 3 6 2 1 9 1
10 3 0 0 5 0 9 5 1 5 1 1 13 1
11 4 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 3 0 7 0
12 2 0 1 2 0 7 1 2 7 2 3 9 0
13 0 1 0 4 2 11 0 1 7 1 2 4 1
14 4 1 0 2 D 7 0 1 5 3 19 1
15 0 0 2 5 1 4 0 1 5 a 3 6 0
16 0 0 0 5 2 9 0 0 7 3 2 9 0
17 0 2 1 1 0 9 0 0 4 1 5 13 2
1 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 4 8 1 2 1 4 1
1 9 2 0 1 1 1 4 1 0 5 0 3 3 0
2 0 4 0 0 2 3 5 1 1 4 1 3 3 0
2 1 1 1 0 3 2 4 1 a 1 3 7 1
2 2 5 2 1 0 3 1 1 1 0 8 1 5 s 0
2 3 1 1 0 8 0 8 1 0 5 1 6 1 0 1
1 4 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 2 2
2 5 3 0 0 2 1 5 1 0 4 4 5 8 0
2 6 0 1 0 1 0 5 D 4 2 2 8 1
2 7 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 0 5 2 0 1 0
2 8 1 1 2 5 1 4 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 0
2 9 2 1 0 2 3 6 3 1 7 0 6 1 4 1
3 0 2 1 0 6 1 7 0 1 4 2 1 9 3
mean 1 . 6 3 0 . 6 3 0 , 4 3 2 . 9 3 1 . 2 0 6 . 2 7 0 , 6 7 0 , 7 7 4 . 8 3 1 . 8 0 2 . 3 3 8 . 1 7 0 . 9 7
we'llremember
themwell.
52(SubjectZ): Whenwecorrect a spelling mistakeby consultingthe dictionary
we'llavoidthesamespellingmistakenexttime.
53(Subject3): Afteran error has beenpointedoutto us we'llknowwhy weare
wrong. We'llremembernottorepeattiieerror.
54(Subject4): Onthewhole,code-markingisgood,butthesymbolsaretoomany
and too complicated. Wehaveto look att t e list beforeknowing
whatthecodesmean.
T Anyexamples? Whatcoddoyoufindmostuseful?
S4: The codes for spelling, tenses and formsof verbs are useful. If
there'sanerrorinthesentencestructure,it'sbetterfortheteacherto
correctit.
55(Subject5): Code-marking is good, r i l know what is wrong. Doing
composition correctioii is the same as doing proof-reading
exercises. Afterconectii^anerroronce,Icanrememberitwell-
T: Anyothercomments?
SI: Ifthereisnoneedtorefert othelistofcorrectionsymbolsfor N_ e i r
m e a n i n g s , i t ' l l b e m u c h b e t t e r ,
T Doyoumean,,.
98

means.[Thesymbol"f_does notappearonthelist.]
Jmtlikewhatthatstudent(S4)hassaid you alwayshavetoreferto
thelist Right?
Yes.
Any other opinions? Soyouthinkcode-markingmightbe a little
bit complicated and you wantto reduce the number of symbols.
Right?
It'sbettertosimplifythesymbols.
Thesymbols are alreadyvery simple. For example, "adj
11
means
adjective. Wewill discuss that later. Doyou agree tousecode-
markinginFormFive? Thecoursenextyear isshort Youcan see
that composition correction takes a longtime. Doyou still think
code-markingisworthkeeping?
For the time beingjit (code-marking) seems good, but if there's
anothergoodmethod,weshouldchangetoanewone.
Anyotheropinions?
1agreetokeepcode-marking.
Forthetimebeing,keep i t
Isthereanyspecialreasonforkeepingit?
It'sgoodforleaming(grammar)becauseyouhavet othink. Ifyou
don'thavetothink,what'stheuseofcorrection?
Whafstheopinionoftheothers?
Whendoing correction, dieteachershould explain whythere's an
error. Don'tjustpointouttheerror.
9 9
Ifthereareno othermethods,itisgood.
T Anyotheropinions...Good. Thankyou.
100
acmaire yourteacher to theeffectivenessofusmg cimvetioD
to markyourcompo^utona s t f i a t i m p r o v e R i n ^ o r c h i n g w c s n be m a d e m the c o m i n g f t C B d e m i c
P l c f t s e r e a d a l l A c q u e s t cons c a r e f i i l t y b e f o r e yem p v e y o u r r e s p o n s e s F o r s o m e
i o f t h i s q g e ^ i o E m a i r e t s t o h e l p
3 t O
y e a r i f i t is n c c c s s a ^ n a d a l l d i e q u c s t t o n s a r e f i i D y b e f o r e
q u e s t i o n s , y o c w i l l be r e q u i r e d t a g i v e s h o r t w r u t e n a n s w e n
Y c r n r r e s p o n s e s w i U b e k e p i c o n f u l e i i t i a l
1 D o y o u f i n d c o d e - m a r k i n g t i s e r d ?
N o [ P l e n a e c i r c l e y o u r a n s w e r )
I f y o u r a n s w e r to Q u e s t i e m I is yes* p l e a s e a n s w e r Q u e s t i o n 2 &
I f y o u r a o & w e r to Q u e s t i o n 1 i s n o p l e a f i e a n s w e r Q u a s h c h i 7 b
2 a W h y d o y o u t h i n k t h a t c o d e m a r i e m g i s u s e f i P
e M " VuT : ^ 1 ^ i mk O T J i d p -
- d a M
2 b W h y i s c o d e ^ n a r k m g n o t u s e f u E ^
3 O f A e t h t f t e c n c o r r t c t i o a s j m t K j i l j u s e d m t h f i i d w o l t c f t n , w h i c h d a
y o u f m d h f i l p f W t o m t p r o v f r y o u r w r t t w i E n g b a h a n d v r a n t t o l cpibrthcnewscaoolyef i r
Pleasetickyouranswws
Correctipnsymbols
htlpfiilandshould bekqfornext
sclicioL year
Correctipnsymbols
Y Mo
1
Hdj
2
adv _ 7
+
3 u:
i /
4 a r t

S OOTVI
fT
d J
7
S
10
11
u
m i
p l u r
Drop
p r o
T O
vbCO

J
0 f
4 shouldcomcuonflrymboli beusedagiur ftr rnstaUEcoi ^wi t i t t i smthtcaniMa a a t o w o ye7
- :
101