TABLE OF CONTENTS Content Page SUB-COVER PAGE STATEMENTS OF THE AUTHORSHIP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .1 LIST OF TABLES .4 LIST OF FIGURES. JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY. AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY. Aims of the Study.
Objectives of the study. SCOPE OF THE STUDY. THE ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY .10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. Definition of error.
Error and Mistake. Types of errors. Causes of making errors. Teachers‟ and students‟ roles in error correction.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS .37 Chapter 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. DATA ANALYSIS OF STUDENT‟S SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE. The frequency of making errors in students‟ writing. The common errors students make in their writing.
The difficulties with students‟ English writing. The necessity to correct students‟ written errors. The satisfaction of students in their teacher‟s correction techniques. The techniques that teacher often use to correct students‟ written errors.
Techniques students want their teacher to correct their errors. The types of correction techniques that students like. The means of self – correction students often use. The frequency of using of pair / group work in peer correction.
The frequency of teacher correction used in students‟ written errors. The frequency of peer correction used in students‟ written errors. The frequency of self - correction used in students‟ errors. The usefulness of the current technique that teachers use to correct students‟ errors.
The most effective technique to correct written errors. DATA ANALYSIS OF TEACHER‟S SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE. The frequency that students make errors. The common errors students make in students‟ writing.
The difficulties that students have with their English writing. The written errors should be given priority in correction. The necessary for teacher to give written errors correction. The common techniques.
The frequency of using of pair / group work in peer correction. The frequency of using correction techniques in student‟s written errors. The helpful of teacher‟s current written error correction. The most effective technique to correct written errors.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .3 THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY. LIMITATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES.66 APPENDICES 3 LIST OF TABLES Tables Page Table 4.1: Common errors students make in their writing .2: The techniques teacher use to correct their students‟ errors .3: The frequency of correction techniques used in student‟s written errors.53 4 LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page Figure 4.1: The frequency of making errors in students‟ writing .2: The difficulties with students‟ english writing .3: The necessity to correct students‟ written errors .4: The satisfaction of students in their teacher‟s correction techniques .6: Techniques students want their teacher to correct their errors .7: Types of correction techniques that students like .8: Means of self – correction students often use .9: The frequency of using of pair / group work in peer correction .10: Frequency of teacher correction used students‟ written errors.11: Frequency of peer correction used students‟ written errors .12: The frequency of self - correction used in students‟ written errors .13: Usefulness of the current technique to correct students‟ errors .14: Most effective technique to correct written errors .15: Common errors students make in students‟ writing .16: Difficulties that students have with their english writing.17: The written errors should be given priority in correction .18: Frequency of using of pair / group work in peer correction .19: The helpful of teacher‟s current written error correction .54 5 ABSTRACT Many language educators and researchers claim that matching the expectations of teachers and students is important for successful language learning. Accordingly, it is beneficial for teachers to discover their students‟ written errors and teacher‟s techniques to correct student‟s errors. This study investigates the effective errors correction techniques in writing classes at Nguyen Hue high school in Hue city.
The participants included 15 teachers of English and 100 students in Grade 11. The data were collected from survey questionnaires for students and the interview for teachers. The results show that there is a slight mismatch between students‟ ideas and teacher‟s various features of writing, in term of error correction techniques.