This document discusses a study that promoted learner autonomy for self-correction in English writing among Thai university students. The study engaged 32 students in interactive writing tasks that required self-evaluation, peer review, and self-correction of drafts using technology without teacher feedback. Results showed significant improvement in writing scores from pre-to-post-tests. A questionnaire found that while students were unsure initially if they could correct their own mistakes, many believed they could become better writers by using strategies and technology for self-directed learning. The study suggests promoting autonomy this way is feasible but future research should include strategy training and measure autonomy gains directly.

1. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction in ESP writing
through task-induced load
Mrs. Manashi G. Dutta
Khon Kaen University
manshigdutta@gmail.com

2. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Claim made by Benson (2001) :
 Learner autonomy as a multidimensional construct
 A sufficient account of learner autonomy in language learning
should include three levels of control over learning
-1. Control over learning management,
-2. Control over cognitive processes and
-3. Control over learning content.
 Murase (2007): All these are interrelated.

3. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Benson (2011) :
• Educational technologies and autonomy have always been there.
• New challenge is that the new generations of technologies like Web 2.0
and other internet based ones do not tend to foster autonomy or train.
• They presuppose autonomy.

4. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Jiménez Raya, Lamb & Vieira (2007) :
Both teacher and learner autonomy
competence that involve attitudinal dispositions, knowledge, abilities to
develop self-determination, social responsibility and critical awareness to
develop learners as self-determined, socially responsible and critically
aware participants in (and beyond) educational environments, within a
vision of education as (inter)personal empowerment and social
transformation.

5. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
A continuous process in which different degrees of self-
management and self-regulation may take place at different
moments and in diverse aspects of learning.
Denotes a proactive and interactive role and it is desirable and
feasible in a formal education context.
This study engaged learners in interactive roles and investigated
whether it is feasible or not in a formal educational context.

6. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Participants:
84 Fifth year students of Faculty of Dentistry and 2 students of
Faculty of Medicine
“Writing in English for Health Sciences”
Out of 86, 11 - high proficiency, 10 - mid proficiency and 11 - low
proficiency were purposefully randomly chosen for this study on
the basis of their Midterm and Final test scores.
32 participants.

7. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
• A regular semester of 16 weeks.
• Students and the teachers met once a week for 3-4 hours.
• Areas of learning : Summary, Narrative, Paragraph, Letter, Essay, Case
report, Abstract and Presentation outline.
• Graded : Grammar and vocabulary, Content, Organization (the way a
piece of writing is put together), Mechanics, Fluency (style and ease of
communication).

8. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Task model
• Manual
• Teacher's
handout
First draft
ZPD zone
• Self evaluation
• Peer review
• Technology
• Self-correction
Second draft
ZPD + 1 zone
• Technology
• Self-
correction
Third draft
ZPD + 1 =

9. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
1. Grammar & Vocabulary
2. Content
3. Organization (The way a piece of writing is put
together)
4. Mechanics
5. Fluency (Style and ease of communication)

10. Grammar &
Vocabulary
Student’s responsibility to edit
using technology/computer
applications. Teachers played
no role on correcting errors.
Use of tenses.
Use of persons.
Subject Verb agreement.
Correct word order.
Range of vocabulary (Variety and
sophistication).
Use of vocabulary is consistently
correct and appropriate.

11. Content
Students used checklists to
understand the area of
content development.
Teacher didn’t provide
feedback on contents of the
writings.
Task achievement.
Audience is addressed.
Subject matter is dealt.
Title is appropriate.
Topic development.
Work completed.

12. Organization
Students used checklists to
understand the area of
organization development.
Teacher didn’t give any
corrective feedback on
organization of the writings.
Teacher asked for clarity at
times only if coherence was
lost.
Introduction with orientation
who/when/where.
Identify the main idea that pervades
the composition. Does everything in
the composition contribute to the
main idea?
Paragraphing.
Ending is suitable.
Coherence refers to the linking of
ideas through logical sequencing.
Overall progression of ideas and
writing.

13. 4. Mechanics
Students used checklists to
understand the area of
mechanics. Teacher didn’t
give corrective feedback on
mechanics of the writings.
Teacher asked for clarity at
times only if cohesion was
lost.
Cohesion (Varied and appropriate use
of cohesive devices such as logical
connectors, pronouns and
conjunctions).
Conceptual and referential
relationships between and within
sentences are clear.
Use of punctuation.
Use of capital letter (including Title).
Space between word and sentences.
Sentence formation (Ease and
communication).

14. 5. Fluency
Teacher asked questions to
clarify at times whether
editing was done or not.
There was no corrective
feedback or suggestions
provided for improving
learner’s fluency.
Consistent grammatical control of
complex language.
Syntactically fluent and appropriate
for the genre.
Easy to read expressively.
Variety in length of sentences with
accuracy.
Edit for conciseness, run on
sentences, and fragments.
Show how no two sentences start
alike.

15. Band scores:
1= Emerging
(1.5)
2= Developing
(2.5)
3=Proficient

16. Duration of the course: January – April, 2015
res taught in 16 weeks Summary, Narrative, Letter, Paragraph, Essay, Case Report, Abstract, Presentation outline
sen genre Summary writing Total number of writing pieces
k 1
Pre test was conducted immediately after the course
started. Students were provided with basic guidelines
on how to write a summary.
Students wrote the first draft of the 3rd activity as
homework and exchanged with peers for review. Typed
the 2nd draft in MS word and sent for teacher’s comments
using Google doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was
submitted for final grading after 2nd time self-editing.
Used for teaching the whole class about summary writing
through handouts and students sent the first draft for
teacher’s comments using Google doc.
k 2
k-1
Four
Classroom practice
Used for Pre and Post tests
Written as homeworkk 3
Task load on students
-Information about useful online
resources and computer applications.
- Submit error (local) free drafts (withou
any highlight).
-Self report on strategies application >
create readiness. -Students reflected
through self report on their knowledge
summary writing.
-Peer-review using teacher’s evaluation
rubric.
-Awareness for self-evaluation and
strategies.
k 2
k-15
k 4
Written as homework
First draft of the 4th activity was a home work and
exchanged with peers for review. 2nd draft typed in MS
word and sent for teacher’s comments using Google
doc after 1st self-editing. 3rd draft was submitted for final
grading after 2nd self-editing.
-Peer-review using guidelines aiming for
better understanding of coherence and
organization in writing.
-Awareness for self evaluation and
strategies.
Used for Pre and Post tests Pre test writings were returned to the students at the
time of Post test along with the evaluation rubric
without grading and any corrective feedback from
teacher.
-Students could self-evaluate their first dr
of the writing and reproduced a new piece
on the same topic and following the same
test instructions.

17. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Data collection
Data for the study were collected through several instruments: Tasks,
Tests, Questionnaire and Self-reports.

18. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
All 3 groups with three proficiency levels displayed
P value .000 < α (.05) which is highly significant.
Test Statisticsb
-4.861a
.000
Z
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)
post - pre
Based on negative ranks.a.
Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Testb.

19. Self reports

23. Questionnaire on Strategy for Learning Better writing in English
- Based on SILL (Strategy Inventory for Language Learning) Oxford
(1989, 1990)
- 39 questions prepared on self help strategies.
- 35 questions directed towards writing strategies only.
- Modified to make students aware of the individual actions expected
to be taken by them to achieve learning goals.
- Not in the beginning , in the mid of the semester.

24. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
A student reported:
 Using technology for only online dictionary in the beginning .
In the questionnaire survey, she reported:
Using technology for:
Internet for planning writing.
App for editing writing
Look for guidelines for designing writing
Using book for grammar rules.

25. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
37. Do you think you can help yourself to become a better writer?
Majority – Yes (42/13) - Autonomy
38. Do you believe that you can correct your own mistakes?
Majority - May be and not sure
39. Do you think you can be a better writer using technologies?
Majority - May be and not sure

26. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Limitations:
-No training to learners on strategies.
-No training to learners on think aloud.
-Data collection on strategy application should have
been included with PRE and POST tests.

27. Promoting learner autonomy for self-correction
Future studies:
About measuring self-correction strategy applications
by learners through trained think aloud self-reports
and measure autonomy and technology use
simultaneously.