International E-publication: Publish Projects, Dissertation, Theses, Books, Souvenir, Conference Proceeding with ISBN.  International E-Bulletin: Information/News regarding: Academics and Research

Unified Approach in Correction of Errors among Students’ Written Work

Author Affiliations

  • 1Laguna State Polytechnic University, Santa Cruz Main Campus, Laguna, Philippines

Int. Res. J. Social Sci., Volume 5, Issue (4), Pages 30-38, April,14 (2016)


Philippines is one among the Asian countries where people utilize English as L2 or second language. Despite this phenomenon, mistakes among students’ written work are undoubtedly inevitable. This is a natural phenomenon occurring when learning a second language. Hence feedback to students’ written work alerts them to discover their writing strengths, weaknesses, and work improvement. As Riddel disclosed, it is feedback that allows students to discover inner intellectual energies in the most productive way. Needless to say that one of the most fundamental responsibilities and demanding tasks among teachers is giving feedback through marking and commenting on students written outputs accurately and reliably. This paper explored the use of unified approach in error correction of students' written work to practically help the student teachers face the problem of "which" error to check and "how" to check errors utilizing unified coded correction of errors by Johanna Klassen. Two kinds of correction methods were introduced to BSED student teachers, major in English at LSPU such as using unified codes and the other one is using their own technique of correction. The effectiveness of the coded correction system was measured and it was found out that coded correction system as a unified approach was a meaningful and strategic means of error correction in students’ written work.


  1. Riddel D. (2003)., Teach yourself. Teaching English as aForeign Language., London: Hodder Headline Ltd.ISBN-10:0340868562.
  2. Klassen J. (1991)., Using Student Errors for TeachingEnglish., Creative Classroom Activities Teaching Forum,134-139.
  3. Sawalmeh Murad Hassan Mohammed. (2007)., ErrorAnalysis of Written English Essays: The Case ofStudents of the Preparatory Year Program in SaudiArabia., English for Specific Purposes World, 40(14),209-232. OI:10.1515/iral.197210-1-4- 209
  4. Yugandhar K. (2014)., Practicing Correction Codes toImprove English Writing Skills., International Journal onStudies in English Language and Literature, 2(8) 7-12 ISSN 2347-3134.
  5. Hedge T. (2000)., Teaching and Learning in the LanguageClassroom., Oxford: Oxford University Journal, 56 (3)337-341.
  6. Corder S.P. (1967)., The Significance of Learners, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5(4) 161-170.
  7. Hossein Hashemnedzhad and Saeed Mohammdnejad(2012)., A Case for Direct and Indirect Feedback: TheOther Side of Coin, English Language Teaching. 5 (3) 1-10
  8. Al-Buainain H. (2006)., Students Writing Errors in ESL:A Case Study., 2nd International AUC OXF Conference inLanguage and Linguistics 24-25-3 2006, Cairo Egypt.
  9. Gimena E.D., H.M Ted. and M. Tran (2005)., Investigating the Efficacy of Coded Feedback in L2Writing Assignments., (Case Study) AssumptionUniversity of Thailand.
  10. Ferdouse Farhana (2013)., Learning from Mistakes: UsingCorrection Code to Improve Student, Stamford Journal of English.7 62-86.
  11. Cohen A. (2011)., Error Correction and the Training ofLanguage Teachers., The Modern Language Journal. 59(8) 414-422. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-4781
  12. Lalande J. (1982)., Reducing Composition Errors: AnExperiment., The Modern Language Journal. 66 (2) 140-149. DOI:101111/j.1540-4781
  13. Makino T. (1993)., Learner self-correction in EFL writtencompositions., ELT Journal, 47(4), 337-341.
  14. Kubota M. (2001)., Error correction strategies used bylearners of Japanese when revising a writing task., System, 29(4) 467-480 DOI: 10.10161/S0346-251v(01)000264.
  15. McLead ( 2007)., Skinner – Operant Conditioning.,,published 2007, updated 2015
  16. Selinker L. (1972)., Interlanguage. International Reviewof Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 40(14)209-232. DOI:10.1515/iral.1972 10-1-4 209.
  17. Ellis R. (2006)., Implicit and Explicit CorrectiveFeedback and the Acquisition of L2 Grammar., Studies inSecond Language Acquisition, 28(2) 339-368 72263106060141
  18. Pienemann M. (1984)., Psychological Constraints on theTeachability of Languages., Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 6(2), 186-214,
  19. Polio C. (2003)., Research on Second Language Writing:An Overview of What We Investigate and How., Cambridge University Press. Cambridge New York, 35-67. ISBN 978-0-521-82292-3 (hbk)
  20. Ferris D. and Roberts B. (2001)., Error Feedback in L2Writing Classes. How Explicit Does it Need to be?, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
  21. Lee I. (1997)., ESL Learners Performance in ErrorCorrection in Writing Some implications for teaching., System. 25(4), 465-477,
  22. Abdullah A. Khuwaileh and Ali al Shoumali (2000)., Writing Errors: A Study of the Writing Ability of ArabLearners of Academic English and Arabic University., Language Culture Curriculum, 13(2) 174-183.