(LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students writing performance an action research approach with 12th form english major students

Aims of the study

This study investigates the impact of various forms of teacher written corrective feedback on the writing performance of 12th-grade English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School in Ninh Binh Additionally, it explores students' attitudes toward this feedback and offers recommendations for effectively incorporating it into writing classes.

In short, the research paper aims to address the following questions:

 How do three common types of teacher written corrective feedback (namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic) influence students’ writings as reflected in their revised essays and new essays?

 How are students’ preferences to the feedback types related to their writing improvement?

Scope of the study

Teacher corrective feedback can be delivered through both oral and written methods This study specifically concentrates on written corrective feedback provided by teachers within the context of a graduation paper.

This study focuses on a specific group of participants, consisting solely of students from the class I directly teach at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, rather than including all gifted students from the institution.

Method of the study

This study aimed to enhance students' English writing skills through an action research approach focused on improving educational practices Following a preliminary investigation, a tailored writing instruction course was developed, incorporating various forms of teacher-written corrective feedback Data were gathered by analyzing students' writings and free narratives before, during, and after the feedback delivery to assess their writing performance progress Additionally, students' free narratives were evaluated at the research's conclusion to gauge their attitudes towards the different feedback types and their perceived effects.

Significance of the study

The findings of this study can inform classroom teachers of how to provide feedback on their students’ writings, thereby raising the quality of students’ writings.

Structure of the study

The study consists of 3 main parts:

This part deals with the rationale, aims, scope, research questions, research methods, significance and structure of the study

Part B: Development This part has three chapters:

Chapter 1: Literature Review explores key concepts related to the research topic, including the role of corrective feedback (CF) in language teaching and learning It also examines previous studies on various written feedback strategies and their impact on students' writing performance.

Chapter 2: Research Methodology outlines the methods employed in the study, details the current state of English teaching and learning at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, and provides general information about the study subjects Additionally, it emphasizes the instruments and procedures used for data collection.

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Discussion presents a comprehensive analysis of data derived from students' writings and free narratives This section includes discussions and interpretations of the study's findings, along with recommendations for enhancing written correction in writing lessons.

This part summarizes the main issues mentioned in the research, points out some limitations of the study and provides some plans for the next cycle.

LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Corrective feedback

Definition of corrective feedback

Providing feedback on student writing is a contentious issue in second language instruction Researchers define feedback in various ways, with Keh (1989) describing it as "input from a reader to a writer that provides information for revision." Teacher feedback serves as a vital communication tool that helps students improve their writing skills According to Furnborough and Truman (2009), feedback highlights the gaps between a learner's current abilities and their target competence, facilitating the necessary adjustments through directions, suggestions for revision, and positive reinforcement (Ferris, 1997) Lightbown and Spada (1999) further emphasize that feedback indicates to learners when their use of the target language is incorrect, guiding them toward improvement.

Second language teachers provide feedback on various aspects of their students' writing, including content, organization, and vocabulary However, the focus of much research has been on corrective feedback, which addresses linguistic errors Yeh and Lo (2009) define corrective feedback as responses to texts containing errors, offering either direct or indirect indications of what is unacceptable This feedback may highlight the location and type of errors, provide the correct form of the target language, or include metalinguistic information about the mistakes This comprehensive definition aligns closely with the objectives of this study, as it encompasses the various ways teachers respond to student errors, and thus it is adopted for this research.

Forms of feedback

Feedback can be categorized into two main types: oral and written While written feedback is more prevalent, it is often seen as a traditional and time-consuming approach for reviewing student drafts Both forms of feedback are valuable and should be taken into account.

Oral feedback, delivered by teachers during or after student performances, is a quick form of correction and guidance that allows for immediate improvement in discourse However, it may not be as effective for enhancing students' writing due to time constraints, often leading teachers to rely on written feedback instead Despite this, oral feedback can effectively supplement written comments, as it requires only a few minutes and has the potential to positively impact students' future performance This study focuses solely on the exploration of written corrective feedback.

In written feedback, comments, correction or marks are given to students’ written work The marks may be on words or symbols such as underlining, circles and other signs

Written feedback is essential in English language courses, particularly with the emphasis on the process approach to writing, which necessitates instructor input on student drafts This feedback can be categorized into various subtypes, enhancing the learning experience.

Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing

Written feedback in writing can be divided into three main types, namely self- evaluation or self-assessment, peer feedback and teacher’s feedback

1.1.3.1 Self-evaluation (Self-directed feedback)

Self-evaluation empowers students to identify and correct their own mistakes, fostering a sense of responsibility for their writing According to Wei and Chen (2004), self-assessment encourages students to engage critically and analytically with their work, transforming them from passive recipients of feedback into active participants in the evaluation process.

Self-evaluation fosters student independence by encouraging them to identify their own mistakes, which helps reinforce their learning and prevents future errors Additionally, it is an effective time-saving strategy in large classrooms However, it may not be suitable for students with low English proficiency when revising their writing.

Peer feedback in language education involves students providing constructive criticism to one another As defined by Bartels (2004), this practice allows students to exchange drafts and offer comments, fostering collaborative learning By engaging in peer feedback, students enhance their understanding of the assignment and improve their writing skills through mutual support.

Peer feedback in writing classes enhances student learning by encouraging collaboration and interaction among peers By taking on the roles of both reader and advisor, students deepen their engagement with the writing process Additionally, incorporating structured face-to-face discussions fosters constructive controversy, which can lead to valuable insights and increased involvement in tasks (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).

Despite the benefits of peer feedback, several challenges persist A significant issue is the questionable quality of responses, as students often perceive their peers' feedback as vague, unhelpful, or inaccurate due to a lack of proficiency in the target language or specific subject knowledge Additionally, students may struggle to accept that their peers possess the qualifications necessary to assess their writing effectively (Rollinson, 2005).

In the process writing approach, teachers are crucial in assisting students with revising their writing drafts Teacher feedback, which includes both implicit and explicit corrections, serves to guide learners in identifying and addressing errors in their work.

Written corrective feedback is a teacher's written response aimed at enhancing a student's essay by focusing on grammatical accuracy, including spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and idiomatic usage like word order and choice In contrast, written feedback encompasses broader commentary on both form and content This thesis emphasizes the distinct nature of written corrective feedback, highlighting its importance in the educational process While both types of feedback are interconnected and discussed within the thesis, the primary focus is on exploring the impact of various teacher strategies for providing written corrective feedback.

Research shows that students appreciate corrective feedback from teachers, believing it significantly enhances their learning (Leki, 1990) Studies by Ashwell (2000) and Ferris (2003) reveal a positive link between the accuracy of student writing and teacher feedback Additionally, Ellis (1998) and Lightbown (1998) emphasize that such feedback helps adult learners prevent fossilization and continue advancing in their second language proficiency.

Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies

Written corrective feedback is considered essential in second language and foreign instruction programs, though its implementation varies significantly Various researchers have proposed different classifications for corrective feedback strategies, highlighting the diverse approaches to this important instructional practice.

Ellis (2009) presents a typology which consists of six main strategies to provide corrective feedback (see Table 1)

Table 1.1: Ellis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98)

Types of CF Description Studies

1 Direct CF The teacher provides students with the correct form e.g Lalande(1982) and Rob et al.(1986)

2 Indirect CF The teacher indicates that an error exists but does not provide the correction a Indicating + locating the error

This takes the form of underlining and the uses of cursors to show omissions in the students’ text

Various studies have employed indirect correction of this kind (e.g Ferris and Roberts 2001; Chandler

This takes the form of an indication in the margin that an error or errors have taken place in

Fewer studies have employed this method (e.g Robb et al

The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue as to nature of the error a Use of error code

Teacher writes code in the margin (e.g ww = wrong word; art article)

Various studies have examined the effects of using codes (e.g Lalande 1982; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Chadler 2003) b.Brief grammatical descriptions

Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text

Sheen (2007) compared the effects of direct CF and direct

3 The focus of the feedback

The approach a teacher takes in addressing student errors can vary significantly; they may choose to correct all or most errors, or focus on one or two specific types This distinction is crucial in understanding the effectiveness of error correction strategies in the classroom.

Most studies have investigated unfocused CF (e.g Chandler 2003; Ferris

2006) Sheen (2007), drawing on traditions in SLA studies of CF, investigated focused

Unfocused CF in extensive b Focused CF Focused CF is intensive

The teacher indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a concordance file that provides

Milton (2006) examples of correct usage

Reformulation involves a native speaker revising a student's text to enhance its fluency and naturalness, ensuring that the original content remains unchanged This process aims to make the language sound more native-like while preserving the core message of the original writing.

Sachs and Polio (2007) compared the effects of direct correction and reformulation on students’ revisions of their text

According to Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006), teachers typically respond to students' errors using three main strategies: first, they offer feedback that highlights the existence of an error; second, they provide the correct form of the target language.

This research explores the impact of three primary types of written corrective feedback—direct, indirect, and metalinguistic—on enhancing students' writing performance By integrating Ellis’ typology of written corrective feedback, the study aims to determine how teacher feedback, particularly metalinguistic information regarding the nature of errors, contributes to improving students' writing skills.

1.1.4.1 Teacher direct corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Direct corrective feedback involves teachers providing students with the correct form of their mistakes, which can be done by striking out incorrect elements, inserting missing words, or writing corrections nearby (Ellis, 2008; Ferris, 2006) Research indicates that this method is particularly effective for students with low proficiency, as it facilitates accurate revisions (Chandler, 2003) However, while direct feedback requires minimal effort from learners, it may not enhance long-term learning (Ellis, 2009) Additionally, Sheen (2007) found that direct feedback is effective for acquiring specific grammatical features, supporting the notion that direct correction is more suitable for grammatical errors, whereas indirect correction is better for non-grammatical errors (Van Beuningen, Dejong, and Kuiken, 2012).

Direct written corrective feedback can be particularly advantageous for learners with limited linguistic knowledge, as it minimizes confusion, provides essential information for addressing complex errors, and offers immediate guidance (Chandler, 2003).

According to Lee (2005), direct feedback is beneficial for beginner students and is particularly useful in cases of "untreatable" errors, such as those related to sentence structure and word choice This approach helps teachers guide students in recognizing error patterns that necessitate correction on the part of the students.

1.1.4.2 Teacher indirect corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Indirect written corrective feedback involves teachers signaling that an error has occurred without offering a direct correction, encouraging students to identify and rectify their mistakes independently This feedback method can include underlining or circling errors, noting the number of mistakes in the margins, conducting confirmation checks, and asking for clarification (Bitchener, 2008).

Advocates of indirect written corrective feedback argue that it promotes deeper language processing by encouraging students to engage in guided learning and problem-solving, ultimately leading to reflection on linguistic forms that support long-term acquisition While this type of feedback may not result in immediate revisions, it offers significant advantages for students' long-term development, particularly for advanced learners, as noted by Ferris and Roberts (2001) Consequently, indirect corrective feedback is deemed more beneficial for higher proficiency students, who possess a more developed understanding of language, as it requires them to identify and correct their mistakes independently.

Research by Ferris (2002) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) indicates that while direct feedback enhances accuracy in text revisions, indirect feedback helps reduce initial errors over time Bitchener et al (2005) and Bitchener and Knoch (2010) caution that complex errors may not be suitable for indirect feedback, as learners often struggle to self-correct these mistakes However, Lyster (2004) suggests that for aspects where students possess some explicit knowledge, indirect corrective feedback can facilitate their transition from declarative to procedural knowledge.

Research on the effectiveness of direct versus indirect feedback has yielded mixed results For instance, a study by Ferris and Helt (2000) indicates that indirect feedback may be more effective in helping students identify and correct their errors.

Indirect feedback effectively highlights errors for students, promoting guided learning and problem-solving, as noted by 1982 (p 140) However, Frantzen (1995) discovered that there is no significant difference in effectiveness between direct and indirect corrective feedback.

1.1.4.3 Teacher metalinguistic corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Metalinguistic feedback can be delivered in two primary ways: through error coding or concise grammatical descriptions In the error coding approach, teachers annotate margins with specific codes to indicate the types of errors made, accompanied by a reference list to help students understand the codes Alternatively, the second method involves numbering the errors within the text and offering a brief explanation for each at the end, providing clarity on the mistakes identified.

Research comparing error codes to other forms of written corrective feedback indicates mixed effectiveness Robb et al (1986) suggest that error codes are not more effective than direct or indirect feedback Ferris (2006) found that while error codes can enhance student accuracy in two out of four error categories, they are no more effective than indirect feedback for self-editing Sheen (2007) demonstrated that both direct and metalinguistic corrective feedback significantly improve accuracy in article usage in subsequent writing, with metalinguistic feedback proving more effective over time Additionally, Bitchener and Knoch (2010) highlighted the advantages of metalinguistic feedback, noting that students who received only circling or underlining were less able to retain improvements in delayed post-tests compared to those who received metalinguistic explanations, underscoring the long-term benefits of this feedback type.

Roles of teacher written corrective feedback

The role of teacher written corrective feedback in student writing has sparked extensive debate, with opinions divided on its effectiveness While many researchers, teachers, and students acknowledge that such feedback is essential for enhancing writing skills and fostering a positive attitude toward writing (Leki, 1990, p.58), others argue that it can be time-consuming and ineffective This divergence in perspectives highlights the varying judgments individuals hold regarding the value of teacher feedback in the writing process.

1.2.1 Arguments for the role of teacher written corrective feedback

Corrective feedback is essential in language learning and acquisition, as it helps learners identify discrepancies between their own language use and the target structures This process enhances their awareness of the linguistic elements they are studying, ultimately facilitating more effective learning.

Teacher feedback is considered to be an important aspect of every school day and play a critical role in the teaching and learning process (Konold, Miller and Konold, 2004)

Effective feedback is essential for promoting and solidifying learning, as it reinforces positive learner behavior, informs students about their progress, and expands their learning opportunities.

Teacher feedback plays a crucial role in second language writing by enhancing students' writing skills It serves specific purposes, including supporting writing development, reinforcing academic conventions, and highlighting strengths and weaknesses in a student's work Additionally, teacher corrective feedback helps clarify grades and provides actionable suggestions for improvement in future writing assignments.

Written corrective feedback is a powerful motivator for learners, as it allows them to assess their progress, gauge their competence, and sustain their efforts toward achieving realistic goals (Riviere, 2000).

From the output hypothesis perspective, Swain (1985, 1995) emphasizes the importance of feedback for learners to achieve grammatical accuracy This feedback helps learners "notice the gap" between their intended message and their actual output Without being made aware of their errors, learners may remain oblivious to their mistakes, missing valuable opportunities for practice and self-correction Consequently, the principle of "learning from mistakes" becomes less likely to occur (Swain, 2000).

Corrective feedback is crucial in language learning as it helps prevent fossilization, which Brown (2007) describes as the permanent integration of incorrect language forms into a learner's second language skills Dekeyser (2010) supports this by asserting that timely corrective feedback not only provides additional practice opportunities but also helps avoid the automatization of uncorrected errors, thereby reducing the risk of fossilization.

Corrective feedback also helps to overcome the first language interference Van Patten

Parameter setting, as defined in 1990, refers to the variations in languages based on their abstract properties, indicating the grammatical possibilities of sentences Corrective feedback plays a crucial role in language learning by highlighting what is not permissible in a target language Research by Trahey and White (1993) suggests that certain second language structures cannot be effectively acquired through positive evidence alone, particularly when they are absent in a learner's first language Consequently, corrective feedback serves as a vital pedagogical intervention, potentially triggering the parameter restructuring process and aiding learners in overcoming first language interference.

Written corrective feedback fosters student autonomy by encouraging them to identify and rectify their own mistakes A key objective of this feedback is to guide learners towards self-discovery of errors, as teachers often highlight the location and type of mistakes without providing direct corrections This approach not only promotes learner-centeredness but also motivates students to engage in active and critical learning Consequently, it is essential to implement effective strategies for corrective feedback in teaching and learning, particularly in writing skills, to enhance students' abilities to critically analyze their work.

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback

Despite extensive research on written corrective feedback in language education, its role remains ambiguous due to ongoing inconsistencies in findings While some researchers advocate for its effectiveness, others present arguments against its use, highlighting a divide in the academic community (Robb, Ross & Shortreed, 1986; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007).

In his critiques from 1996 and 1999, Truscott argues that error correction in second language writing is not only ineffective but also detrimental, suggesting it should be discontinued He notes that while second language learners often seek grammar correction, teachers should refrain from providing it, as it may be beneficial for non-grammatical errors but not for grammatical ones Truscott posits that written corrective feedback can hinder student writing by encouraging oversimplification and discouraging the use of more complex structures, ultimately making students wary of experimenting with their writing.

In 2007, it was argued that written corrective feedback may be an inefficient use of time, proposing instead that the effort devoted to corrections could be better spent on additional writing practice to enhance students' writing skills Concerns were raised regarding teachers' ability to provide consistent and effective feedback, as well as students' willingness and capability to utilize such feedback effectively.

Trustcott argues, in agreement with Van Beuningen et al (2012), that written corrective feedback prompts learners to steer clear of previous errors This perspective is further backed by Sheppard (1992), who found that written corrective feedback negatively impacts the structural complexity of learners' writing.

Krashen (1982) suggests that when students are made aware of their errors through corrective feedback, it can induce stress and anxiety about repeating those mistakes in future writing This anxiety may cause learners to steer clear of complex constructions, leading to a simplification of their writing Consequently, corrective feedback may result in a decrease in the linguistic complexity of learners' written output.

Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

The counter-arguments by scholars as presented in 1.2 are not empirically supported

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback is influenced by various factors, including the timing and quality of the feedback, the types of errors being addressed, and the students' attitudes and expectations Additionally, the learning environment, situational variables, and teacher-related factors play a significant role Learner variables such as first language, learning style, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation, and future goals also contribute to the impact of corrective feedback The following sections will explore some of these critical factors in detail.

The issue of which type of error should be corrected has also attracted much researchers’ attention Relating the nature of error to written corrective feedback, Ferris

In 1999, a distinction was made between "treatable" and "untreatable" errors in language learning Treatable errors are easily identifiable and follow specific patterns, such as verb tense, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments These errors can be addressed by referring learners to grammar resources or rules Conversely, untreatable errors are more complex and do not lend themselves to straightforward correction.

Errors in writing, such as word choice mistakes and unidiomatic sentence structures, can be challenging to address, especially when clear guidelines for correction are lacking (Ferris, 1999, 2010) The effectiveness of written corrective feedback can vary based on the type of error, indicating that feedback methods should be tailored to specific error types (Ferris, 2006) To optimize learning, it is recommended that a combination of feedback forms be utilized, taking into account the nature of the errors and the individual characteristics of students.

Ferris (2002) outlines criteria for teachers to determine which writing errors to correct, emphasizing the importance of addressing frequent mistakes and those that may negatively impact the reader's perception By categorizing errors and selecting appropriate corrective feedback strategies, teachers can enhance the effectiveness of their feedback It is crucial for educators to focus on selective error correction and to implement strategies that raise students' awareness of their most significant and recurring writing issues.

The adoption of corrective feedback in learning is significantly influenced by various individual learner factors, including aptitude, learning styles, language proficiency, and attitudes towards written feedback Additionally, learners' preferences, first language, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation, and future goals also play a crucial role in shaping their response to corrective feedback.

Students' ability to utilize written corrective feedback is influenced by their proficiency level Research by Frantzen and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010) indicates that lower proficiency students may find underlined errors insufficiently informative, as they struggle to identify the specific mistake Ferris (2002) suggests that while indirect feedback is generally preferable, learners with lower second language proficiency may require direct feedback for better understanding.

Another research (Hedcock and Lefkowitz, 1996) has also shown the impact of student background on the effectiveness of error correction The authors concluded that

Learners' perceptions of effective feedback differ significantly based on their educational environment and literacy levels Additionally, a student's motivation is closely tied to their desire for corrective feedback.

Improving writing skills and achieving better grades often hinges on effective error correction, particularly for students with low motivation Gue’nette (2007) highlights that learner motivation is crucial for the success of corrective feedback in writing improvement If students lack commitment, any form of feedback is likely to be ineffective Teachers frequently observe that less motivated students neglect the written corrective feedback provided, prompting them to require revisions for writing tasks Ultimately, for students to internalize corrective feedback and achieve long-term improvement, it must align with their individual learning goals (Carroll).

Goldstein (2006) asserts that written corrective feedback is only effective when learners notice and comprehend it Highly motivated learners tend to engage more deeply with corrective feedback, which is essential for evaluating its overall effectiveness Sensitivity to feedback cues is necessary for learners to make meaningful progress (Ferris & Robert, 2001; Robb, Ross & Shortreed).

Teacher factors encompass various elements such as educators' attitudes towards specific students, their perceptions of the curriculum, the number of classes they are required to teach, and the multiple institutions they may work at to sustain their livelihoods Additionally, the effectiveness of the written corrective feedback strategies employed by teachers plays a crucial role in influencing student outcomes.

The quality of teacher-written corrective feedback significantly influences its effectiveness As highlighted by Goldstein (2004) in Hyland & Hyland (2006), effective feedback should be text-specific, relevant, and clear to truly benefit students Constructive comments can enhance students' attitudes toward writing and foster improvement, while unclear feedback may lead to confusion and discouragement Therefore, it is essential for educators to ensure their feedback is consistent and helpful Additionally, Ferris & Hedgcook (1998) emphasize that evaluating the effectiveness of error correction requires careful consideration of how feedback is delivered—selectively, systematically, and accurately Teacher variability in marking and coding errors can also impact student performance, as noted by Ferris (2006).

Timely and contextually appropriate feedback is essential for students, particularly for second language writers Teachers should leverage their experiences and intuitions while actively listening to their students' needs to determine the most effective ways to provide feedback and corrections By continuously seeking answers and exploring methods to enhance their responsiveness, educators can better support their students' writing development.

When delivering corrective feedback on students' writing, it's essential to consider various contextual variables Goldstein (2004, cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006) identifies these factors as including sociopolitical issues affecting teacher status, class size, and specific program and curricular requirements, along with the entrance and exit criteria for students.

According to Evans et al (2010), situational or contextual variables encompass all elements that shape the learning context, distinct from learner or methodological variables These situational factors can include aspects such as the learning atmosphere and the physical environment.

Methodological variables play a crucial role in enhancing the learning process, as highlighted by Evans et al (2010), who emphasize that these variables encompass the design of instruction, including what is taught and how it is delivered Key features of effective instructional methodologies include the appropriate sequencing of materials, ample practice opportunities, effective pacing, and the use of repetition Additionally, even highly motivated students may struggle to absorb information if they receive excessive corrective feedback, which can hinder their learning experience Consequently, it is essential for teachers to consider these principles and contexts when delivering feedback to optimize student learning outcomes.

Research design

This study utilizes an action research approach to enhance teaching practices, as it focuses on addressing specific classroom challenges According to Nunan (1992), action research is essential for teachers seeking solutions to particular teaching situations This method allows educators to engage in a self-reflective and systematic exploration of their teaching contexts (Burns, 2010) The action research conducted aimed to improve students' writing skills and was executed by the teacher-researcher within an intact class Thus, the action research design was deemed appropriate for achieving these objectives.

Action research models, while varying in steps, consistently incorporate key elements: the researcher starts by identifying a problem, develops a plan of action, implements that plan, and ultimately evaluates its effectiveness, leading to proposed next steps to further address the issue.

In this study, I utilized the model by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, cited in Burns, 2010, p 9) due to its structured approach that facilitates the research process This model accurately outlines the necessary steps for conducting the study According to Kemmis and McTaggart, the action research process consists of four key steps, as depicted in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: Steps in the action research cycle

The authors emphasize that each action research cycle must include four key components: planning an action, implementing the action, observing the process and its outcomes, and reflecting on the action This study followed these steps to effectively apply the action research model.

Because of the limited time, the researcher would not continue the action in the next cycle.

Research setting

Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, situated in the heart of Ninh Binh City, Ninh Binh province, employs around 145 teachers and accommodates approximately 1,300 students English holds significant importance at the school, being one of the three compulsory subjects required for students to qualify for the General Education Diploma Many students also select English as their primary subject for university entrance examinations In English major classes, students engage in eleven periods of English instruction each week, utilizing both the official textbooks provided by the Ministry of Education and Training and supplementary materials adapted by teachers The responsibility for delivering quality English education rests with the dedicated English faculty at the school.

The 12 th form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School are eighteen years old and have been learning English for six years; their English knowledge is, in general, quite good especially English grammar and vocabulary

2.2.2 Participants and data collection instruments

A total of 35 English major students from the 12th form at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School participated in the research, comprising 32 girls and 3 boys, all of whom were enrolled in my class.

In a six-month research cycle, I explored the impact of various forms of written corrective feedback on the writing performance of 35 students The study involved analyzing students' written assignments and free narratives to gather comprehensive data Ultimately, the collected writings were thoroughly examined and discussed to assess the effects of the feedback provided.

The action research was conducted during the first semester of school year 2015-

2016 Adapting steps in Kemmis’ and Mc Taggart’s action research cycle (1988, cited in Burns, 2010 p.9), the action was developed in four steps as follows:

With over a decade of experience as a teacher, I have observed that my students often struggle with writing skills despite having a solid grasp of English grammar and vocabulary After teaching an English major class for one semester, it became clear that this gap in writing proficiency needed to be addressed.

Many students showed a lack of interest in improving their writing skills, despite performing well in reading and listening and possessing a solid grasp of English grammar and vocabulary To understand the issues affecting their writing, I collected data by asking students to write narratives about their writing challenges It was revealing that 30 out of 35 students expressed that they rarely received regular, detailed feedback from their teachers, leaving them unclear about their writing weaknesses During 45-minute writing sessions, teachers could only provide general instructions on content and organization, often resulting in limited feedback due to time constraints Consequently, students frequently repeated the same mistakes, leading to error fossilization In writing assessments, they typically received grades and minimal comments, and many did not take the opportunity to revise their work, perpetuating the cycle of errors in subsequent assignments The large class sizes further complicated the feedback process, hindering individual attention to each student's writing development.

In grades 10 and 11, students primarily focused on completing their textbooks, with only those qualifying for the national examination for gifted students receiving regular, detailed feedback on their writing Notably, 28 students acknowledged that writing was their most challenging skill Following the analysis of these results, a study was initiated to enhance the writing abilities of the students.

To enhance students' writing performance, I implemented various forms of written corrective feedback during the pilot teaching phase I believe that, in addition to providing writing instructions, teachers' corrections and comments can effectively address students' writing accuracy issues and improve their attitudes towards writing In essence, effective feedback strategies from teachers can motivate students to revise their work and sustain their interest in writing.

This study examined the effects of three written error correction strategies on students' writing performance, focusing on a short essay task of approximately 200 words related to their English curriculum Students were given 35 minutes to complete the essay independently, without access to dictionaries or books After receiving feedback primarily on language use, they were required to revise and resubmit their essays The research was conducted in three stages, each utilizing a different feedback approach The collected essays were analyzed to minimize errors caused by carelessness or psychological factors, categorizing mistakes into five types based on Ferris & Roberts (2001): verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, articles, language expression (including lexical errors like incorrect word choice and collocation), and sentence structure.

The following is the planned timetable (see Table 2.1) the researcher followed during six months of the action implementation (For essay topics, see appendix B)

Table 2.1: Timetable of the action implementation

Stage 1 Week Essay Types of CF applied

1 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Direct Feedback

2 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Direct Feedback

3 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Direct Feedback

8 Delayed Test 1 Stage 2 9 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Metalinguistic Feedback

10 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Metalinguistic Feedback

11 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Metalinguistic Feedback

16 Delayed Test 2 Stage 3 17 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Indirect Feedback

18 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Indirect Feedback

19 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Indirect Feedback

Stage 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied)

With this strategy, the teacher provided the students with the correct form above or near to the erroneous form

- After having corrected the students’ essay 1 for the first time, the teacher counted errors

- Then, the teacher handed back written work, the students had chance to look at the papers carefully and rewrote the tasks and resubmitted the papers

- The teacher got the papers back, kept reading and correcting the second time, then counted the errors committed and returned the papers to the students

- One week later students were required to write new essays following the same procedure

- One month later, delayed test 1 was conducted to see the long-term effect of direct feedback

Stage 2: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied)

Due to the large class size, I implemented the first form of metalinguistic corrective feedback by utilizing error codes Students received a comprehensive list of error codes (Appendix A), which included detailed explanations for each code This list, adapted from the International English Language Testing System code list, features abbreviations and symbols along with their corresponding meanings.

After the initial collection of students' written assignments, the teacher identified various types of errors by marking their locations within the text or in the margins, followed by tallying the total number of mistakes.

- Students then got the writings back

- Next, they rewrote the tasks with correction and resubmitted the essays

- The teacher got the papers back, read and counted the errors still committed

- The teacher returned the papers to the students

- One week later students were asked to write new essays following the same procedure

- One month later, delayed test 2 was conducted to see the long-term effect of metalinguistic corrective feedback

Stage 3: (Indirect corrective feedback applied)

After collecting the students' written papers for the first time, the teacher marked errors by underlining or circling them without providing corrections or explanations Subsequently, the teacher tallied the total number of errors.

- Then, students got them back and rewrote the tasks with their own correction, and handed in the papers

- The teacher got the papers back, read the second time, counted the errors committed

- The teacher then returned the written work to the students

- One week later students were required to write new essays following the same procedure

- One month later, delayed test 3 was conducted to see the long-term effect of indirect feedback

At the end of the semester, students were tasked with writing a narrative to share their views on the impact of three types of feedback They expressed their preferences for specific types of corrective feedback and offered suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of teacher feedback.

The analysis of data collected during the implementation phase, along with students' narratives, revealed the impact of various types of written corrective feedback on their writing performance These findings were instrumental in addressing the research questions and evaluating the effectiveness of the action taken Moreover, the criteria for success in the action plan highlighted the specific areas of concern that the teacher aimed to enhance within the teaching and learning process.

At the conclusion of the cycle, a reflection was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the implemented action The analysis results indicated whether the action achieved its intended outcomes Due to time constraints, the researcher decided not to pursue further actions in the next cycle.

Summary

This chapter outlines the comprehensive methods of data analysis and the essential steps for conducting action research, which include problem identification, action planning, implementation, and reflection Key data collection instruments consist of students' writing papers and free narratives The research findings will be detailed in the subsequent chapter.

FINDINGS AND REFLECTION 3.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ writing performance.33 3.1.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ revised essays

The effects of three common types of feedback on students’ new pieces of writing

This section outlines the findings from a study examining how various types of corrective feedback impacted learners' accuracy in writing by addressing five specific linguistic errors The outcomes are illustrated through data presented in the subsequent three tables.

3.1.2.1 Description of the students’ performance in Stage 1 - Direct corrective feedback applied

Table 3.2: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 1

Error frequency Essay 1 Essay 2 Essay 3 Delayed Test

In the first stage of data collection, 35 students exhibited a total of 231 errors in Essay 1, 224 errors in Essay 2, and 215 errors in Essay 3 Among the five types of errors identified, issues related to articles, sentence structure, and language expression—including incorrect word choice, collocation, and idiomatic usage—were the most prominent Language expression errors were particularly significant, with 67 errors (29%) recorded in Essay 1 and 63 errors (28%) in Essay 2.

In the analysis of essay errors, Essay 3 exhibited the highest number of total errors, with 60 mistakes (27.2%) Sentence structure errors were prominent, with 52 errors (22.5%) in Essay 1, 46 errors (20.5%) in Essay 2, and 48 errors (22.5%) in Essay 3 Article errors ranked third, showing 40 errors (17.3%) in Essay 1, 44 errors (19.6%) in Essay 2, and 40 errors (18.7%) in Essay 3 Subject-verb agreement errors followed, with 37 errors (16%) in Essay 1, 35 errors (15.6%) in Essay 2, and 34 errors (16%) in Essay 3 The least frequent errors were related to verb tense and form, accounting for 15%, 16.1%, and 15.4% in Essays 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

The analysis of delayed test data revealed a total of 219 errors, slightly fewer than the 231 errors in Essay 1, 224 errors in Essay 2, and 215 errors in Essay 3 Notably, errors in language expression decreased from 60 (27.2%) in Essay 3 to 55 (25%) in the delayed test, while sentence structure errors fell from 48 (25.5%) to 40 (18.3%) Conversely, article errors increased from 40 (18.7%) in Essay 3 to 45 (20.5%) in the delayed test Overall, minor variations in error types were observed between Essay 3 and the delayed test.

3.1.2.2 Description of the students’ performance in Stage 2 - Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied

Table 3.3: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 2

Error frequency Essay 1 Essay 2 Essay 3 Delayed Test

The analysis of error distribution across three essays reveals a total of 215 errors in Essay 1, 203 errors in Essay 2, and 202 errors in Essay 3 Language expression errors were the most prevalent, accounting for 25% of errors in Essay 1, 26.1% in Essay 2, and 26.7% in Essay 3 Sentence structure errors followed closely, comprising 21.8% in Essay 1, 22.2% in Essay 2, and 23.3% in Essay 3 Article errors ranked third, representing 20.5% (44 errors) in Essay 1 and 18.7% in subsequent essays.

(38 errors) for Essay 2, and 16.8% (34 errors) for Essay 3 Errors of verb tense and form and errors of subject-verb agreement ranked in fourth and fifth place respectively

Table 3.3 reveals that the delayed test recorded a total of 205 errors, which is slightly lower than the 215 errors in Essay 1, 203 errors in Essay 2, and 202 errors in Essay 3 Notably, among the five error categories, only article errors experienced a minor decline, decreasing from 34 errors (16.8%) in Essay 1.

The analysis revealed that the delayed test resulted in 3 to 26 errors, accounting for 12.7% In contrast, errors related to language expression and sentence structure remained relatively stable, with language expression errors fluctuating between 54 (26.7%) for Essay 3 and 58 (28.3%) for the delayed test Similarly, sentence structure errors increased slightly from 47 (23.3%) in Essay 3 to 49 (24%) in the delayed test Notably, other types of errors did not show any decrease, indicating minimal variation in error rates between Essay 3 and the delayed test.

3.1.2.3 Description of the students’ performance Stage 3 - Indirect corrective feedback applied

Table 3.4: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 3

Essay 1 Essay 2 Essay 3 Delayed Test

The data from stage 3 indicates a significant reduction in total errors across the essays, decreasing from 201 errors in Essay 1 to 183 in Essay 2 and further to 157 in Essay 3 Language expression errors were the most prevalent, with 55 errors (27.4%) in Essay 1, 53 errors (29%) in Essay 2, and 33 errors (49%) in Essay 3 Sentence structure errors followed closely, recording 44 errors (21.9%) in Essay 1, 38 errors (20.8%) in Essay 2, and 35 errors (22.3%) in Essay 3 Article errors ranked third, comprising 17.9% (36 errors) in Essay 1, 18% (33 errors) in Essay 2, and 15.9% (25 errors) in Essay 3 Additionally, errors related to verb tense, form, and subject-verb agreement showed a consistent decline over time, maintaining their respective positions among the error types.

It is also demonstrated in Table 3.4 that the total number of errors for the delayed test was 121 compared to 201 errors for Essay 1, 183 errors for Essay 2 and

In Essay 3, a total of 157 errors were recorded, indicating a significant reduction in grammatical mistakes Specifically, subject-verb agreement errors decreased from 22 (14%) in Essay 3 to 10 (8.3%) in the delayed test However, language expression errors increased slightly, rising from 52 (33%) in Essay 3 to 49 (40.5%) in the delayed test Additionally, sentence structure errors remained relatively stable, with 35 errors (22.3%) in Essay 3 compared to 34 (28.1%) in the delayed test.

Discussion of results

The analysis of students' writing performance across multiple essays and a delayed test indicated that while rewriting based on direct teacher corrections led to fewer errors during revisions, this short-term improvement did not translate into long-term gains, as evidenced by a comparable number of errors in subsequent assignments and the delayed test Despite students making fewer errors in later essays, the overall change was minimal, and a notable increase in errors was observed in the delayed test This suggests that the limited time for applying direct feedback hindered the students' ability to integrate their learning into future writing Additionally, the teachers' provision of correct forms for every mistake resulted in minimal student engagement with the revision process, leading to a lack of lasting impact from the feedback Consistent with Ellis's findings, the direct feedback required little processing, which may not foster long-term retention Notably, errors related to verb tense, verb form, subject-verb agreement, and articles did not decrease, while errors in language expression and sentence structure improved, likely due to students utilizing fixed phrases and structures provided by the teacher This outcome aligns with Lee's assertion that direct feedback is beneficial for "untreatable" errors but contradicts Van Beuningen, Dejong, and Kuiken's claim that direct correction is more effective for grammatical errors.

In stage 2, the application of metalinguistic feedback yielded only a slight reduction in errors in Essays 2 and 3 compared to Essay 1, as shown in Table 3.3 However, a month later, the error count in the delayed test did not follow the same downward trend Some students, upon receiving coded corrective feedback, tended to avoid previously identified errors by creating new structures, which led to unavoidable mistakes This observation contradicted the findings of Bitchener and Knoch (2010), who noted a lasting positive effect of metalinguistic feedback While the frequency of article errors decreased consistently, as supported by Sheen (2007), other error types, particularly in language expression and sentence structure, showed little improvement Students reported that even with feedback, they often struggled to find the right words to replace their errors, resulting in continued mistakes in subsequent essays Additionally, the accuracy of participants varied significantly across the four writing times in this stage, indicating a non-linear improvement pattern, consistent with earlier research that highlights the fluctuating accuracy of L2 learners when acquiring new linguistic forms (Ellis, 1994; Lightbow & Spada, 1999; Pienemann, 1989).

Rewriting based on a teacher's underlining resulted in fewer errors in subsequent assignments and delayed tests A study involving 140 students demonstrated statistically significant reductions in errors across three categories over four writing sessions, highlighting the effectiveness of underlining as a corrective feedback strategy When students only received underlining in their final assignment, the necessity to self-correct likely enhanced their self-editing skills, making them more aware of linguistic errors in future essays This indirect feedback may have contributed to their long-term improvement by consistently drawing attention to errors and facilitating guided learning and problem-solving, as suggested by Lalande (1982) Consequently, students exhibited fewer errors in their second essay.

In the analysis of students' writing performance across three essays and a delayed test, significant improvements were observed in language usage, particularly in grammar Notable reductions in errors related to verb tense, subject-verb agreement, and article usage highlighted that students became more attentive to language accuracy when composing new essays, even with less explicit feedback While this heightened awareness cannot be solely linked to the indirect corrections received in prior essays, the self-driven process of identifying correct forms during the revision of their first essay appeared to aid in the internalization of grammatical rules Consequently, students were able to avoid similar mistakes in their later writing However, it is important to note that the errors in language expression and sentence structure did not show a consistent decline from Essay 1 to Essay 2 and Essay 3, nor in the delayed test results.

Lexical errors present a greater challenge than grammatical errors due to their non-rule-based nature, making them harder to correct Although students may address some lexical mistakes during revisions, they often introduce new errors in subsequent writing This aligns with Bitchener et al (2005), which found that while indirect corrective feedback improved accuracy in areas like the simple past tense and definite articles, it did not significantly impact vocabulary usage The acquisition of non-rule-governed linguistic features may require more frequent exposure and a longer time frame than rule-based knowledge, suggesting that the study's treatment may not have provided sufficient input or duration for meaningful improvement Additionally, the process of acquiring language knowledge can vary across different language domains Ferris (1999) distinguishes between “treatable” errors, which follow predictable patterns and can be addressed through grammar resources, and “untreatable” errors, such as word choice and unidiomatic structures, which require deeper understanding of the target language This indicates that written indirect corrective feedback is most effective for “treatable” errors.

After three stages of correction, the overall number of errors decreased, but the effectiveness of different feedback strategies varied by individual error types Data from Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 indicate that positive feedback strategies significantly aid students in reducing writing errors Among these strategies, indirect corrective feedback, when implemented with appropriate procedures, proves to be particularly effective Research suggests that indirect feedback is more beneficial than direct or metalinguistic feedback in the long term, as it encourages students to engage in guided learning and problem-solving This approach fosters reflection, noticing, and attention, which are crucial for long-term language acquisition (Ferris and Roberts, 2001).

Students’ attitudes towards different types of CF and their effectiveness

A significant 97.1% of students (34 out of 35) reported that teacher corrective feedback positively impacted their writing performance, expressing a desire for more feedback in the future They attributed their improvements to the feedback received, with one student noting, “Now I can see the positive impact of the error correction on my essay,” highlighting a transformation from struggling to complete writing tasks to making substantial progress Other students echoed similar sentiments, stating that feedback led to significant enhancements in their writing skills and helped them avoid repeating mistakes One student emphasized the importance of receiving feedback to prevent the entrenchment of errors, saying, “I want feedback in order not to fossilize wrong information in my mind.” This positive attitude towards corrective feedback correlates with a noticeable decrease in errors in students’ essays before and after receiving feedback.

One student expressed skepticism about the role of corrective feedback in enhancing writing accuracy, attributing her improvement over six months primarily to consistent writing practice, emphasizing that "practice makes perfect." She believed that thorough instruction from her teacher before writing was sufficient, and that reviewing her own work post-completion helped her catch careless errors influenced by psychological factors An analysis of her essays revealed that while some were nearly error-free, others contained minor linguistic mistakes This perspective aligns with another student’s insight that, while practice is essential, effective learning, particularly in writing, also requires careful instruction from teachers, highlighting the notion that "good practice makes perfect."

3.2.2 Students’ preference for each type of teacher corrective feedback

Students’ preference for each type of teacher corrective feedback is demonstrated in the following pie chart

Figure 3.1: Students’ students' attitudes towards the use of teacher written corrective feedback

As for types of written corrective feedback, 40% of the students (14 out of 35

Direct correction is favored by many students as it provides immediate identification of correct forms, enhancing clarity during revision One student emphasized, “It is because it would be clearer for me when revising my writing,” highlighting the importance of certainty in feedback Concerns about error codes leading to confusion were also expressed, with one student stating, “If the teacher does not provide the correct answer, then I may not be sure that the one I write can be correct.” This feedback approach helps alleviate misunderstandings and builds confidence in their writing abilities However, some students cautioned that while direct feedback is beneficial, indirect feedback should be reserved for early writing stages, as prolonged use could be time-consuming for teachers and may foster laziness among students.

Research indicates that students who received direct feedback on their revised essays demonstrated significant improvements compared to those who received other feedback types While students expressed a preference for direct feedback in their narratives, its long-term effectiveness was found to be limited when compared to indirect feedback methods.

A significant portion of students, specifically 15 individuals (42.86%), preferred metalinguistic corrective feedback in their writing They expressed a desire for underlining combined with error codes to better understand the types of mistakes they were making While direct correction was acknowledged as a straightforward method for error correction, students often struggled to grasp the reasons behind their mistakes, leading to repeated errors in different contexts By utilizing underlining and descriptive feedback, students can gain insights into their errors, enabling them to independently identify and correct their writing issues.

One student expressed the need for clearer feedback on mistakes, stating that simply underlining errors can lead to confusion and incorrect assumptions Interestingly, during the error-marking process, it became apparent that this student sometimes misinterpreted word choice errors as word form errors, despite receiving coding guidance In contrast, other students who shared similar views on metalinguistic feedback successfully revised their work even without codes This analysis revealed a notable discrepancy between students' preferences for different types of feedback and the actual effectiveness of those feedback methods in improving their essays.

Indirect feedback emerged as the most effective type of feedback for students' writing, yet it was surprisingly preferred by only 17.14% of them Those who favored it highlighted its role in fostering learner autonomy, with one student noting, “It will help me in learning from my mistakes and to be more independent in identifying my errors.” This feedback type encouraged students to take responsibility for their learning, enhancing their self-correction abilities and retention of knowledge As one student remarked, “Indirect feedback helps me become more responsible for my writing,” while another emphasized its impact on memorization and understanding of grammar Despite its effectiveness, the lack of preference for indirect feedback among students underscores the disconnect between what is effective and what is preferred, as noted by Ferris (2003), who stated that “what is preferable cannot be equated with what is effective.”

The analysis of student papers revealed a notable discrepancy between their preferences for corrective feedback and the actual effectiveness observed in their writing While most students expressed a preference for explicit corrective feedback, the evidence from their writing demonstrated that implicit corrective feedback was more effective over time.

3.2.3 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher corrective feedback

Students provided valuable suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of teacher feedback While opinions varied on the best type of written corrective feedback, there was a consensus that feedback should be tailored to students' proficiency levels, the nature of the errors, and the timing of the feedback Additionally, a combination of different types of corrective feedback was recommended to optimize learning outcomes.

Many learners expressed the desire for their instructors to encourage them to produce at least two drafts for each writing topic This practice significantly enhances their writing skills by improving ideas, organization, language use, and grammatical structures As one student noted, "The teacher should ask students to write more than one draft because it gives us more opportunities to expand our vocabulary, structure, and grammar." Additionally, students emphasized the importance of receiving frequent feedback from their teachers on multiple drafts They also agreed that having some revised drafts checked is crucial for self-correction and ensuring the accuracy of their revisions.

Students expressed a desire for their teacher to analyze and explain common errors made in class, along with providing additional revision exercises for recurring mistakes One student emphasized, “The common errors should be analyzed and explained in class followed by additional exercise if many of us made the same error type.” Furthermore, they suggested a preference for receiving written corrective feedback alongside other forms of guidance, such as conferences and oral comments from the teacher when their essays are returned.

A significant number of students (26) emphasized the importance of considering individual differences when selecting corrective feedback types One student noted that teachers should account for varying writing abilities, suggesting that indirect feedback is more appropriate for advanced learners, while direct feedback benefits those with limited skills This aligns with the perspectives of Frantzen and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010), who argue that simply marking errors may not suffice for lower proficiency students, as they often struggle to identify the nature of their mistakes Ferris (2002) supports the use of indirect feedback generally but warns that students with lower second language proficiency may require direct feedback for effective learning.

Students have varied preferences for feedback types, yet they all desire a combination of methods when teachers assess their essays They expect specific feedback tailored to different categories of errors, with many requesting detailed guidance and direct corrections for issues related to word choice, collocation, and non-idiomatic sentence structures While they prefer to self-check minor errors such as verb tense and subject-verb agreement, some students believe teachers should assist them in identifying vocabulary and idiomatic errors, leaving less critical grammatical mistakes for self-correction As one student expressed, “I can recognize my spelling mistakes and grammar mistakes, but mistakes in sentence structure and word choice are difficult for me to recognize, and my teacher should help me by highlighting all these mistakes.”

Students suggest that a combination of direct and indirect corrective feedback should be utilized simultaneously in writing courses One student emphasized the importance of using both feedback types concurrently, stating that indirect feedback is beneficial for grammar, prepositions, and word forms, while direct feedback is more effective for issues like word repetition, collocations, idioms, and complex sentence structures Another student highlighted the need for English gifted students to identify their own problems and seek solutions, advocating for an initial focus on indirect feedback to encourage self-correction Only when students struggle to correct their mistakes should teachers provide direct corrections.

While many students preferred coded feedback, others found it unnecessary, citing compelling reasons One student argued that understanding errors and correcting them is often sufficient, stating, “Why do we need code when we can identify and fix the errors ourselves? Underlining is enough for us.” They noted that certain errors, like collocation and unidiomatic structures, remain uncorrectable regardless of coding Additionally, they pointed out that coding takes more time than simply underlining, which could streamline the feedback process for teachers This perspective aligns with findings showing that indirect feedback led to 88 percent of accurate revisions, highlighting the importance of considering this suggestion carefully.

Reflection

The study revealed that teacher corrective feedback significantly enhanced students' writing performance over six months, resulting in increased interest among all 35 students in writing lessons Prior to the intervention, many students showed disinterest and frequently made errors in their essays However, throughout the implementation, students became more engaged and focused on their writing tasks The research indicated that teacher feedback effectively reduced linguistic errors in both revised essays and subsequent writings, a finding supported by students' free narratives Notably, 34 students acknowledged their writing skills improved due to the feedback, while one student credited her progress to consistent practice but also recognized a newfound interest in writing.

As a teacher and also the researcher, I also learnt a lot from this action research

One of the most challenging aspects of teaching language is the repetitive nature of correcting errors in students' writing Despite dedicating significant time to this task, teachers often find themselves addressing the same mistakes repeatedly It is essential for educators to recognize that errors are a natural part of second language (L2) writing and to focus on helping learners develop effective self-correction strategies After students engage in self-correction, it is beneficial to conduct activities that involve revising drafts and discussing common errors, fostering a deeper understanding and improvement in their writing skills.

Students generally appreciate the teacher's use of corrective feedback; however, their preferences for specific feedback types vary significantly While students may have individual concerns and preferences, these do not always correlate with the effectiveness of the feedback provided It is crucial for teachers to identify and address these preferences in their feedback strategies Feedback should be delivered with clear objectives in mind, rather than solely based on students' preferences.

For English major students, encouraging self-correction is essential, though direct correction may be needed at times Teachers should adapt their feedback based on individual student needs and the types of errors made Initially, teachers can provide indirect feedback, allowing students the opportunity to self-correct; if students struggle to do so, direct feedback can then be applied In this context, metalinguistic feedback may not be necessary.

In conclusion, evidence from student essays and narratives indicates that teacher corrective feedback positively influences students' writing performance and their overall attitudes toward writing and feedback While the changes observed were modest, they suggest the potential benefits of such feedback in writing classes Future research cycles are anticipated to yield even more significant results.

For more effective use of teacher written corrective feedback, teachers and students should bear the following suggestions in mind

Teachers should provide feedback during the intermediate stages of the writing process, allowing students to receive guidance on their drafts and engage more actively with the teacher's comments Before giving feedback, educators should consider whether their input fosters positive learning experiences, shapes students' understanding of revision, and guides them on necessary actions for improvement Additionally, teachers should review students' revised work to ensure they are effectively using various sources for self-correction and accurately addressing errors Discussing common writing mistakes in class encourages students to reflect on their self-correction strategies, making the learning process more engaging and motivating Furthermore, identifying and explaining these common errors not only benefits students but also informs teachers on future instructional strategies.

Effective teacher corrective feedback should consider individual and contextual variables, especially for students with lower English competence, as their inability to self-correct can lead to negative attitudes towards writing and hinder improvement Tailoring feedback to students' language proficiency, writing abilities, and needs is crucial, as teachers must be aware of their students' prior experiences and expectations However, a study indicated a disconnect between students’ preferences for feedback types and their actual effectiveness, highlighting the importance of teachers not being swayed by these preferences Instead, feedback should be selected based on its effectiveness for the individual student Teachers are encouraged to clarify the purpose of feedback and explore students’ beliefs about writing and error correction, bridging any gaps between expectations and reality Incorporating classroom discussions on these topics can help teachers understand and adapt to their students’ beliefs about effective feedback Additionally, fostering a positive and supportive environment is essential, as students may feel frustrated by errors Teachers should view errors as insights into student understanding and provide additional practice to reinforce learning.

Effective teaching relies on students' willingness to engage and provide accurate responses Corrective feedback is essential for learners to evaluate and monitor their progress Without personalized attention and adequate error feedback, improvement is unlikely Therefore, students must actively participate in the error correction process A strong interaction between teachers and students is vital for creating a conducive learning environment However, it can be challenging for teachers to recognize and address students' writing issues and their self-correction efforts Consequently, student cooperation is crucial for enhancing writing accuracy.

Students should actively track their progress by focusing on their frequent mistakes Utilizing various resources for self-correction, they can document their errors and the corresponding corrections in a notebook or error record sheet This practice allows for regular review of their work, helping them to remember and avoid repeating these mistakes in the future.

Students' progress relies on both the efforts of teachers and their own engagement in the learning process Actively participating in error correction enhances language acquisition, fostering autonomy in learners This involvement enables students to self-correct their writing, ultimately leading to greater independence in their educational journey.

1 Summary of the main findings

The study examined the impact of three types of teacher corrective feedback on the writing performance of 35 12th form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School over a six-month period Data were gathered from students' essays and narratives, leading to insights that addressed the two research questions posed in the study.

1 How do three common types of teacher written corrective feedback (namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic) influence students’ writings as reflected in their revised essays and new essays?

2 How are students’ preferences to the feedback types related to their writing improvement?

Research indicates that teacher corrective feedback significantly reduces students' linguistic errors over time, with all three types of feedback—direct, indirect, and metalinguistic—showing positive revision effects However, only indirect feedback demonstrated a notable long-term impact Direct feedback was particularly effective in revised essays, as students often copied corrections directly from the teacher Immediate revision effects were evident in stages 2 and 3 when metalinguistic and indirect feedback were utilized This suggests that students possess declarative knowledge about grammar, enabling them to correct their mistakes when guided In new writing tasks, the three feedback types exhibited varying effects on different error types, with indirect feedback proving most effective for long-term reductions in treatable or rule-based errors Direct feedback showed limited immediate impact on language expression and sentence structure errors, while metalinguistic feedback was effective in addressing article errors.

This study indicates that indirect corrective feedback (CF) was effective in specific contexts, including students with intermediate to advanced English proficiency, a primary focus on essay writing, and targeted feedback on five particular linguistic errors Additionally, it was found that only rule-based or treatable errors showed significant improvement due to indirect feedback, and the process included rewriting essays with the provided feedback.

In response to the second question, nearly all students (34 out of 35) recognized the significant positive impact of teacher corrective feedback on their writing performance Only one student suggested that their improvement might be attributed to practice rather than the feedback received While students acknowledged the effectiveness of corrective feedback in enhancing their writing skills, their preferences for the type of feedback varied widely, with most expressing a desire for more explicit guidance from their teacher.

CF while from the analysis of their writings, implicit types of CF proved its effectiveness in the long run

The evaluation results demonstrated that teacher feedback was highly effective in enhancing students' writing performance and had a moderate impact on improving their attitudes towards writing skills and the feedback provided by teachers.

Limitations of the study

Although all the research questions are addressed and the aims of the research are achieved, the study still has the following major limitations

This action research was conducted in a single cycle with only a one-week interval between each stage, which may have affected the effectiveness of teacher feedback in stages 2 and 3 due to the influence of the preceding stage Due to time constraints, the researcher was unable to continue the action into a subsequent cycle to assess the practicality of students’ expectations and suggestions in their narratives Despite these limitations, the researcher aims to contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning writing skills at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School.

Plans for the next cycle

In the upcoming cycle, the study will explore the types of written corrective feedback preferred by students, aiming to assess the correlation between these preferences and their writing performance improvement Additionally, incorporating interviews as a research instrument is suggested to enhance the reliability of the findings It is also crucial to consider students' suggestions from their narratives to evaluate their practicality in the feedback process.

Ashwell,T (2000), “Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a Multiple- Draft Composition Classrooms: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method?”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), pp 227-257

Barkhuizen, G., Benson, P., & Chik, A (2014) Narrative inquiry in language teaching and learning research New York: Routledge

Bartels, N (2004) Written peer response in L2 writing, Retrieved on October 22, 2012 from http:/exchange.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/No1/p34.html

Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of

Bitchener, J & Knoch, U (2010) The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-

Brown, D H (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching (5 th ed.) NY: Pearson Educations, Inc

Burns, A (2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching Newyork: Routledge

Carroll, S E (2001) Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Chandler, J., 2003 The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing

Chaudron, C (1984) “The effect of feedback on students’ composition revisions”,

Dekeyser, R M (2010) Practice for second language learning: Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater International Journal of English Studies, 10, 155-165

Ellis, R (1998) Teaching and Research: Options in Grammar Teaching TESOL

Ellis, R, Loewen, S., & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of 12 grammar Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28,339-368 Ellis,R (2008) A typology of written corrective feedback types ELT Journal, 28(2),

Ellis, R 2009 "A typology of written corrective feedback types", English Language Teaching Journal, 63, pp 97-107

Evans, N.W., Hartshorn, McCollum, R.M, & Wolfersberger, M (2010) Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language pedagogy Language Teaching

Ferris, D (1995) Can advanced ESL students become effective self-editor? The CATESOL Journal, 8(1), 41-61

Ferris, D R (1997) The Influence of teacher commentary on student revision TESOL

Ferris, D R., & Hedgcock, J (1998) Teaching ESL Composition: purpose, process, and practice Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, New Jersey

Ferris, D R (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1),1-11

Ferris, D R., & Roberts, B (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184

Ferris D.R (2002), Treatment of error in second language writing, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press

Ferris, D (2003) Responding to writing In B Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Ferris, D 2006 ‘Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long- term effects of written error correction’ in K Hyland and F Hyland

(eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues Cambridge:

Ferris, D R (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F Hyland

(Eds.), Feddback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81-104)

Ferris, D R (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA Studies in Second Language acquisition, 32, 181-201

Ferris, D R & Helt, M (2000) Was Truscott right? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds.),

Perspective on response Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Frantzen, D (1995) The effects of grammar supplemention on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course Modern Language Journal, 79,329-344

Frantzen, D & Rissel, D (1987) Learner self- correction of written compositions: What does it show us In B VanPatten, T R Dvorak, & J F Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp 92-107) Cambridge: Newbury House

Furnborough, C., & Truman, M.(2009) “Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback” Distance Education, 30, 399-418

Goldstein, L (2006) Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variable In K Hyland & F Hyland (Eds), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp 185-205) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

Guenette, D (2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53

Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996) conducted an analysis of student responses to expert feedback on second language (L2) writing, highlighting the importance of effective feedback in enhancing writing skills Similarly, Hyland and Hyland (2006) provided a comprehensive overview of feedback mechanisms for L2 students, emphasizing its critical role in the language learning process Both studies underscore the necessity of constructive feedback to improve writing proficiency among second language learners.

Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T (1987) Learning together & alone: Cooperative, competitive, & individualistic learning (2 nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Keh, C L (1989) Feedback at the product stage of writing: comments and corrections

Konold, K.E., Miller, S.P.,& Konold, K B (2004) Using teacher feedback to enhance student learning Retrieved July 27, 2006 from http://journals.sped.org/EC/Archive_Articles/VOL.36NO.6JulyAugust2004_TECKona ld%2036-6.pdf

Krashen, S (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition (U of S California, Pergamon) Internet Edition, at

Lalande, J.F., 1982 Reducing composition errors An experiment Modern Language

Lee, I (2005) Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think?

Leki, I (1990) Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response In B Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Insights for the classroom (pp.57-68) Cambridge,

Lightbown, P 1998 The Importance of Timing in Focus on Form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp 177-196) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Lightbown, P M & Spada, N (1999) How languages are learned Oxford, UK:

Lyster, R (2004) Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66

Nunan, D (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning Cambridge; New York: CUP

Pienemann, M (1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses Applied linguistics, 10, 52-79

Riviere, A (2000) Feedback: Enhancing the performance of Adult Learners with Learning Disabilities The Academy for the Educational Development (AED) and the

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp 83–93

Rollinson, P (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class, ELT Journal, 59

Scarcella, R C & Oxford, R L (1992) The tapestry of language learning: The individual in the communicative classroom Boston: Heinle & Heinle / Thomson

Sheen, Y (2007) The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283 Sheppard, K (1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,

Schmidt, R (1994) Awareness and Second Language Acquisition Annual Review of Applied Linguistic, 12, 206-266

Swain, M (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development In S Gass & C Madden (Eds), Input in second language acquisition (pp 235-253) Rowley, MA: Newbury House

Swain, M (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning In G Cook

& B Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H G Widdowson (pp 125-144) Oxford University Press

Swain, M (2000) French immersion research in Canada: Recent contributions to SLA and applied linguistics Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 199-212

Trahey, M & White, L (1993) Positive evidence and preemption in the second language classroom Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 181-204

Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes

Truscott, J (1999) What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction Canadian Modern

Truscott, J (2001) Selecting Errors for Selective Error Correction Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27, 93-108

Truscott, J (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N.,& Kuiken, F (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing Language learning, 62(1), 1-41

Van Patten, B (1990) Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Vyatkina, N (2010) The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German Foreign Language Annals, 43, 671-689

Wei,Y & Chen, Y., Supporting Chinese learners of English to implement self- assessment in L2 writing, 2004, Retrieved February 26, 2013, from http://www.independentlearning.org/uploads/100836/ila03_wei_and_chen.pdf

Yeh, S., & Lo, J (2009) Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback Computer & Education, 52(4), 882-889 doi:

SV Subject verb agreement problem

Art Incorrect / wrong / missing article

1 Write an essay of about 250 words about the advantages of living in a family with three or four generations

2 Write an essay of about 250 words about the benefits of playing sports/ doing physical exercise

3 Write an essay of about 250 words about the benefits of national and international sports events

4 “Children should be engaged in doing house work.” Do you agree or disagree?

5 Write an essay of about 250 words about the importance of examination

6 Write an essay of about 250 words to express your answer to the following question:

“How important is tertiary study to you?”

7 Would you prefer to do an undergraduate course abroad or in your country? Explain your choice

8 Should high school students be encouraged to take a part-time job?

9 What do you think of the cooperation among high school students nowadays?

10 Which do you prefer: team learning or individual learning?

11 Write an essay of about 250 words about the benefits of reading books?

12 Write an essay of about 250 words about the roles of women in our society

When I started practising writing essays for the first time, my skill was very bad Now,

Choosing the right words in English has been challenging for me, often leading to meaningless sentences due to my tendency to translate directly from Vietnamese However, after writing multiple essays on various topics, I've seen significant improvement in my writing skills, largely thanks to the constructive feedback I received from my teacher This feedback has helped me identify and avoid errors in future writing I prefer indirect corrective feedback because it encourages me to recognize my mistakes and seek solutions independently Unlike direct feedback, which I tend to overlook, indirect feedback prompts me to analyze my errors and find alternative words or structures Ultimately, I believe that indirect corrective feedback is more beneficial, as it fosters skill development more effectively than the other types of feedback.

Practice is essential for improving writing skills, as it helps individuals become accustomed to the English style, reducing the influence of their first language By identifying and correcting my own mistakes, I deepen my understanding and retention of the language As we prepare to become independent writers at the end of this school year, it is crucial to develop the ability to self-correct in our future writing endeavors.

In the University entrance Examination, essay writing may carry fewer points compared to other sections, but it plays a crucial role in achieving a high mark in English At the beginning of the school year, many students excelled in multiple-choice exercises and overlooked the importance of writing However, after six months of dedicated practice, my writing skills have significantly improved This progress is largely due to increased practice, but the most vital factor has been the corrective feedback we received Without checking and correcting our mistakes, our growth would not have been as substantial.

Initially, I preferred direct feedback for its clarity in identifying mistakes and solutions However, I now find indirect feedback to be more effective This method encourages deeper thinking, as mistakes are underlined rather than directly corrected, prompting me to engage with the material and remember it longer Indirect feedback has illuminated errors I previously overlooked, helping me avoid misconceptions Additionally, it enhances my retention of vocabulary, phrases, and structures, proving invaluable in my grammar and vocabulary exercises.

Using codes and symbols for feedback on essays can be inefficient, as it often requires significant time to reference error code sheets I believe a more effective marking system should be tailored to each student's abilities and the specific types of errors they make I appreciate your consideration of these suggestions for the upcoming semester Thank you.

From grade 10 to the end of grade 11, I neglected my writing practice until weekly assignments and the requirement to draft two versions of each essay prompted improvement Through this structured approach, I learned to create outlines and write concise essays in approximately 35 minutes After more than a semester of consistent writing, I noticed significant enhancements in my writing skills, particularly due to your effective feedback methods.

Coded corrective feedback (CF) is the most effective approach for addressing writing mistakes, as it provides essential information about errors rather than merely underlining them, which can lead to confusion and further mistakes While direct feedback can be time-consuming for teachers and may encourage complacency among students, coded feedback is less effective for sentence structure errors, as students often recognize the mistake but lack guidance on how to correct it For minor errors like word form, verb tense, and subject-verb agreement, indirect feedback is beneficial More detailed corrections are necessary for sentence structure and word choice to enhance understanding and prevent future errors Encouraging multiple drafts fosters vocabulary expansion and skill improvement, while frequent writing allows for consistent feedback from teachers Sharing exemplary work from peers is valuable for learning, and common errors should be analyzed in class with additional exercises Combining written corrective feedback with conferences and oral comments can further enhance the learning process when returning essays.

After one semester of writing instruction, I have significantly improved my writing skills Receiving feedback on my mistakes has been crucial, as it prevents the entrenchment of incorrect information The process of collecting, correcting, and requiring us to rewrite and resubmit our essays has been instrumental Initially, you provided the correct forms, which helped us clearly identify our issues and understand the proper structure.

Feedback plays a crucial role in improving writing skills Direct correction is effective as it provides clear guidance on errors, making revisions easier However, the subsequent method of underlining errors and using symbols encourages self-correction, which helps in retaining knowledge of mistakes Although this approach can be challenging due to the difficulty in remembering symbols and needing to consult error code sheets, it ultimately fosters a deeper understanding Recently, the focus has shifted to simply underlining errors, prompting us to identify our mistakes and seek solutions independently This evolution in feedback methods highlights the balance between guidance and self-discovery in the learning process.

Corrective feedback (CF) is highly effective, especially as writers become more skilled For addressing errors in spelling, verb tenses, and forms, indirect feedback is appropriate In the upcoming semester, it's advisable to implement various types of CF simultaneously and tailor the feedback methods to individual students based on their writing abilities and English proficiency levels.

After a semester of writing practice, I've noticed significant improvement in my skills I particularly favor indirect feedback among the three correction types, as it proves to be the most effective for my learning This approach compels me to identify and rectify my own mistakes, enhancing my ability to self-correct Moreover, the process of discovering and addressing my errors contributes to better retention of knowledge over time.

In the upcoming semester, it's essential to utilize varied feedback methods tailored to different types of errors Direct feedback should be reserved for students who are new to writing, as prolonged use can be time-consuming for teachers and may foster complacency in students This type of feedback is particularly effective for issues related to language expression, such as word choice, order, and collocation Many students, including myself, often translate directly from Vietnamese to English, resulting in incorrect phrasing In this context, coded corrective feedback may be unnecessary, as even with guidance, students may struggle to identify and rectify their mistakes.

I recognize that I've used incorrect words but struggle to find suitable replacements For grammatical errors, I prefer indirect feedback; I typically correct my mistakes regardless of the context For these types of errors, simply underlining them allows me to self-correct I believe that receiving accurate feedback alone is insufficient.

We need to be exposed to many other sources of materials accumulate more words and phrases (Vu Thi Huyen Trang)