Rationale of the Study
Feedback is a crucial element in the learning process, fostering reflection and student development by highlighting strengths and weaknesses It enables learners to evaluate their performance and improve future work, while also promoting greater autonomy (Kirkwood, 2000) Teacher feedback facilitates the transition from external regulation to self-regulation, empowering students to take control of their learning However, teachers often lack insight into how their feedback is perceived by students While some research has explored students' views on written corrective feedback, few studies have focused on their perceptions of specific feedback types (Karim, 2015) This gap in research is particularly relevant in the high school setting where I teach, prompting this study to investigate the matter further.
This study employed a questionnaire survey to explore students' attitudes towards various types of written corrective feedback from teachers and their perceptions of its usefulness in enhancing their English writing skills Additionally, the research aimed to determine whether students' English proficiency levels influence their attitudes and perceptions regarding teacher feedback To achieve this, two groups of 11th-grade students were selected: those specializing in English and those not specializing, with the assumption that the English-specializing group would demonstrate higher proficiency in the language.
Aims of the Study, Research Questions and Scope of the Study
Aims of the Study
A survey study was conducted at Chu Van An Gifted High School in Lang Son province, focusing on 11th-grade learners The primary objective was to investigate teachers' approaches to providing feedback on student writing and to assess students' attitudes towards this feedback The findings aim to guide teachers in meeting students' expectations for written corrective feedback, ultimately enhancing students' writing skills.
The study is designed and conducted in an effort to achieve the following objectives:
- To identify the common types of feedback that teachers provided on their students‟ writings as reported by the students;
This study aims to explore students' perceptions of their teachers' feedback on their writing and evaluate how they view the effectiveness of this feedback in enhancing their writing skills.
Research Questions
In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the study as stated in 2.1., this study is designed and conducted to find answers to the following research questions:
1 What are the common types of corrective feedback that English language teachers provide on their students‟ writings according to the students‟ self- report?
2 What are the students‟ attitudes towards their teachers‟ feedback on their writings?
3 Is there any difference between two groups of students – English-specialising and non-English-specialising – regarding their attitudes towards their teachers‟ written corrective feedback types?
Scope of the Study
This survey study focuses on the attitudes of 11th-grade students at a gifted high school regarding teacher-written corrective feedback on their writing It does not aim to evaluate the effect of such feedback on the students' writing skills.
Method of the Study
To investigate students' attitudes towards teacher written corrective feedback, a questionnaire was utilized as the primary data collection tool The quantitative analysis of participants' responses revealed common patterns in their opinions on this feedback method The analysis categorized student responses into three key areas: (a) the frequency of written corrective feedback as reported by students, (b) their preferences for types of teacher feedback, and (c) their perceptions of the effectiveness of various corrective feedback forms With a total of 314 11th graders at the school, the questionnaire was distributed to all students, achieving a remarkable return rate of 100%.
Significance of the Study
The study's findings will guide teachers at the researched school in understanding students' perceptions of the feedback provided on their writing Despite inconclusive evidence regarding the effectiveness of different types of written corrective feedback, the insights gained will enable educators to adjust their feedback methods to better align with student expectations This alignment has the potential to enhance students' writing skills significantly.
Structure of the Thesis
The thesis is composed of three main parts as follows:
This study aims to explore the underlying rationale, research questions, and methodology, highlighting its significance within the broader academic context The introduction outlines the scope of the research and provides a clear organization of the thesis, ensuring a coherent framework for the subsequent analysis.
Part B of the development section comprises three chapters: the first chapter examines literature on attitudes and feedback, including its various types and the impact of feedback on students' perceptions; the second chapter outlines the research methodology employed in the study; and the final chapter presents the findings and discussion of the research outcomes.
Part C – Conclusion – offers the summary of the study and its implications This part also touches upon the limitations of the study and offers suggestions for further study.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Attitudes
A student's attitude and motivation play a crucial role in language learning success (Ushida, 2005) Attitudes, defined as a tendency to respond positively or negatively towards various aspects of learning, are influenced by individual beliefs and opinions (Gardener, 1995) These attitudes significantly impact behaviors, including the choice of learning activities and responses to teaching content and methods (Ellis, 1994).
Learners' attitudes are crucial variables that significantly impact their outcomes, as highlighted by research These attitudes, which can be either positive or negative, are influenced by various social factors and can be altered over time.
Attitudes consist of three key aspects: behavioral, cognitive, and emotional (Kara, 2009) The behavioral aspect focuses on how individuals react in specific situations, while the cognitive aspect pertains to language learners' beliefs about the knowledge they acquire and their comprehension of the language learning process Additionally, the emotional aspect reflects learners' feelings of liking or disliking certain objects or situations Research indicates that the emotions and inner feelings of English language learners significantly shape their attitudes and perspectives toward the target language (Choy & Troudi, 2006).
This study focuses exclusively on the emotional aspect of students' attitudes towards teachers' written corrective feedback (WCF) Emphasizing this aspect is crucial, as research indicates that the learning process is inherently emotional and influenced by various emotional factors Both teachers and students participate in numerous emotional activities during learning, resulting in diverse emotional outcomes.
Definitions of Feedback
Feedback is essential in the learning process as it helps learners comprehend the what, how, and why of their studies (Petchprasert, 2012) By providing insights into performance, effective feedback on tasks and outcomes significantly benefits learners (Bitchener, 2008; 2010; Leki, 1991).
In this thesis, feedback is characterized as written corrections regarding a student's performance on written assignments This traditional educational practice involves teachers offering written feedback, which can be either anecdotal—highlighting strengths and weaknesses—or presented as markup, where errors are underlined, circled, or fully corrected The frequency of feedback provided by teachers may differ, with some opting to correct only a few errors while others address all instances of mistakes.
L2 teachers provide feedback on various aspects of their students' texts, including content, organization, and vocabulary use However, the primary focus of research has been on corrective feedback, which addresses linguistic errors in non-targetlike language production Corrective feedback specifically targets incorrect grammatical and lexical usage, playing a crucial role in language learning and improvement.
Feedback on content involves comments, suggestions, questions, or requests for clarification from the teacher, focusing on the ideas, organization, style, and rhetorical structure of a text (Hyland, K & Hyland, F., 2006).
Types of Feedback
Written corrective feedback (WCF), which is the focus of this study, is classified into four major types: direct feedback; indirect feedback; metalinguistic feedback; and focused/unfocused feedback (Ellis, 2009) Table
1.1 summarises these four types of feedback
Table 1.1: A typology of written corrective feedback types
Type of CF Description Studies
1 Direct CF The teacher provides the student with the correct form e.g Lalande (1982) and Robb et al (1986)
2 Indirect CF a Indicating and locating the error b Indication only
The teacher indicates that an error exists but does not provide the correction
This takes the form of underlining and use of cursors to show omissions in the student‟s text
This takes the form of an indication in the margin that an error or errors have occurred in a line of text
Various studies have employed indirect correction of this kind (e.g Ferris and Roberts 2001: Chandler
Fewer studies have employed this method (e.g Robb et al
3 Metalinguistic CF a Use of error codes b Brief grammatical descriptions
The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue as to the nature of the error
The teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g ww = wrong word; art = article)
The teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text
Various studies have examined the effects of using error codes (e.g Lalande 1982; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Chandler 2003)
Sheen (2007) compared the effects of direct CF and direct
4 The focus of the feedback a Unfocused CF b Focused CF
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 effective 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
Direct corrective feedback refers to offering the correct linguistic form or structure in proximity to the identified error (Bitchener, Young, and Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 2002) This type of feedback can involve crossing out unnecessary words, inserting missing elements, or writing the correct form directly above or near the mistake.
Direct corrective feedback offers explicit guidance for learners to correct their errors, which is particularly beneficial for those who struggle to self-correct According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), this type of feedback is often more effective than indirect feedback for less proficient writers However, a drawback is that it requires minimal cognitive processing from the learner, potentially limiting its impact on long-term learning Despite this, Sheen (2007) indicates that direct corrective feedback can effectively promote the acquisition of specific grammatical features.
On the other hand, indirect corrective feedback, which has been reported to be favoured by teachers and L2 writing researchers (e.g., Ferris & Hedgcock,
In educational settings, identifying errors can be approached in various ways, such as underlining or circling mistakes, marking lines with checks or crosses in the margin, or noting the number of errors present (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986) Instead of offering direct corrections, this method encourages students to identify and resolve their own errors, fostering a deeper understanding of the material.
Indirect feedback is often favored over direct feedback as it promotes guided learning and problem-solving, encouraging students to reflect on linguistic forms, which may lead to long-term learning However, research findings on the effectiveness of indirect feedback are inconsistent While some studies indicate that indirect feedback helps students correct errors more effectively, others show no significant difference between direct and indirect corrective feedback Furthermore, no research has yet examined how these two types of feedback influence accuracy in new writing tasks.
Ferris and Roberts argue that indirect feedback, which does not specify error locations, may promote deeper cognitive processing in students compared to indirect feedback that does indicate errors Robb et al explored four feedback types, including direct and indirect feedback with error counts per line, and found no significant differences in effectiveness Conversely, Lee (1997) demonstrated that learners were more successful in correcting errors when their locations were indicated rather than merely marked with a check or cross in the margin, although Lee's study did not assess the long-term benefits of either feedback method.
Metalinguistic corrective feedback provides learners with explicit comments regarding their errors, typically through the use of error codes These codes are abbreviated labels that identify different types of mistakes and can be placed directly over the error in the text or in the margin When placed in the text, students must deduce the necessary correction from the provided clue, while margin notes may require students to first identify the error's location before determining the appropriate correction.
Research comparing error codes to other forms of written corrective feedback reveals mixed results Lalande found that L2 German learners using error codes improved their writing accuracy, but the difference compared to those receiving direct correction was not statistically significant Similarly, Robb et al discovered that error codes were as effective as other corrective feedback types, including direct and indirect methods Ferris noted that while error codes contributed to accuracy improvements in two out of four error categories, longitudinal analysis showed no significant progress in noun, article, lexical, or sentence errors Additionally, Ferris and Roberts indicated that error codes aided students in self-editing, but not more effectively than indirect feedback Overall, evidence suggests that error codes offer limited benefits for enhancing writing accuracy over time and do not significantly outperform other corrective feedback methods in promoting self-editing skills.
Metalinguistic corrective feedback involves providing students with explanations of their errors, which is less common due to its time-consuming nature and the need for teachers to have strong metalinguistic knowledge Research by Sheen indicates that both direct and metalinguistic feedback effectively improve students' accuracy in using articles in their writing Notably, metalinguistic feedback was found to be more beneficial than direct feedback for long-term retention, as evidenced by improved performance in writing tasks completed two weeks after the feedback was given.
3.4 Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback
Teachers have the option to provide unfocused corrective feedback by addressing all student errors, or they can choose to focus on specific types of errors for correction This differentiation between unfocused and focused feedback is relevant to all previously discussed methods of correction.
Processing corrections can be challenging with unfocused corrective feedback, as learners must juggle multiple errors, limiting their ability to reflect on each one In contrast, focused corrective feedback allows learners to concentrate on specific errors, facilitating a deeper understanding of their mistakes and how to correct them This targeted approach enhances learning by promoting greater attention to form Additionally, focused metalinguistic corrective feedback not only draws attention to errors but also fosters comprehension of their nature While unfocused feedback addresses a broader range of errors, making it less effective for specific corrections in the short term, it may offer long-term benefits by providing a comprehensive understanding of various error types.
Most corrective feedback studies have focused on unfocused feedback; however, Sheen's research demonstrated the effectiveness of focused corrective feedback, specifically addressing errors in article usage for first and second mentions Despite this, there is a lack of studies comparing the impacts of focused versus unfocused corrective feedback.
Effects of Corrective Feedback
The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in enhancing second language (L2) fluency and accuracy remains a topic of debate among theorists This feedback plays a crucial role in fostering students' attitudes towards self-correction, ultimately reducing the need for teacher intervention.
Corrective feedback plays a crucial role in second language (L2) learning by guiding learners to recognize and understand L2 syntax, grammar, and semantics (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010) By identifying errors, teachers aim to motivate students to explore the reasons behind their mistakes, grasp the concepts being taught, self-edit, and correct their work in future writings, ultimately leading to a reduction in errors and an improvement in fluency.
Since the 1970s, the effectiveness of error correction in writing, especially in second language (L2) acquisition, has been a topic of academic debate (Amrhein and Nassaji, 2010) Research, such as that conducted by Truscott (1996) and Hendrickson, has shown limited or negligible improvements in students' L2 writing as a result of error correction.
(1977, 1980) and Robb et al (1986), Kepner (1991), Polio, Fleck, & Leder
Truscott (1996) challenges the effectiveness of written corrective feedback, suggesting it may harm L2 learners by fostering a negative orientation He critiques various feedback methods identified by Ellis (2009), such as direct correction and electronic feedback, arguing that written correction is ineffective for both L1 and L2 learners Instead, Truscott advocates for enhancing accuracy and fluency through experiential learning and consistent practice in the target language.
The focus on error correction by certain theorists raises questions about the validity of their conclusions due to factors such as the amount of data, frequency of rewriting, and the lack of distinction among L2 students' majors Growing literature indicates varying degrees of success in L2 writing following corrective feedback (Chandler, 2003) For instance, Leki (1991) found that L2 tertiary students desired direct feedback on their writing but did not receive it, while Ferris (1995) noted that these learners were interested in receiving comments on both content and grammar.
Numerous theorists advocate for the use of written corrective feedback, as studies indicate that it can enhance students' error correction and minimization in their writing over time (Chandler, 2003) A notable study by Bitchener (2008) involving 144 ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand, explored the effectiveness of various feedback methods—including direct corrective feedback, written and oral metalinguistic explanations, and combinations thereof—on improving accuracy in the English article system ('a' and 'the') The results revealed that students who received comprehensive written corrective feedback significantly outperformed those who did not, with no notable differences in improvement between migrant and international students.
Robb et al (1986) found that Japanese students learning English as a Second Language showed significant improvements in accuracy and fluency when provided with direct correction, error coding, text location notations, and marginal feedback on the number of errors.
In Frantzen's (1995) study of intermediate Spanish learners at U.S colleges, both the grammar-supplementation group, which received direct corrections, and the non-grammar group, whose errors were only marked, demonstrated improvements in overall grammar usage in their post-essays However, neither group exhibited significant advancements in written fluency throughout the semester Additionally, Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) found that combining written corrective feedback with oral conference feedback helps enhance some aspects of structural accuracy among students, though it does not address all areas effectively.
A study by Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined the impact of different types of teacher feedback on students' writing accuracy, revealing that direct correction resulted in a higher rate of correct revisions (88%) compared to indirect feedback (77%) Although the study remains unpublished, Ferris (2002, p 20) noted that students receiving primarily indirect feedback significantly reduced their error frequency ratios over the semester, outperforming those who received mostly direct feedback.
Research by Ferris (1995), Ferris & Roberts (2001), and Leki (1991) highlights the strong connection between motivation and long-term success for second language (L2) learners, indicating that student writers actively seek error feedback Ferris and Roberts (2001) found that the most preferred feedback method among students was underlining with descriptive comments, followed by direct corrections, with underlining being the third most favored option.
Students‟ Attitudes towards Teachers‟ Corrective Feedback
With a shift into student-centered learning (Rust, 2002) feedback and a student‟s perception of its usefulness is important for educators in affecting the pedagogy of best practice (Weaver, 2007)
In a review of the Journal of Second Language Writing from 2006 to 2009, Storch (2010) highlights the publication of 16 articles focused on teacher-provided written corrective feedback Notably, a similar trend is observed in the past decade, with 17 articles published, indicating a sustained scholarly interest in the topic of written corrective feedback in language learning.
Leki's (1991) research highlights the significance of feedback in the learning process, indicating that students view corrective feedback as crucial and deeply personal, with 70% expressing strong preferences for its delivery.
100 students wanting errors indicated by teachers in improving grammar accuracy over time
In a study conducted by Schulz (2001), a questionnaire was distributed to 607 Colombian foreign language students and 122 teachers, along with 824 U.S foreign language students and 92 teachers, to assess perceptions regarding grammar instruction and corrective feedback in language learning The findings indicated that students generally held a positive attitude towards corrective feedback However, Hyland (2003) found through case studies that such feedback could negatively impact students' motivation and self-confidence as writers This sentiment is echoed by the research of Storch and Wigglesworth, highlighting the complex relationship between feedback and student attitudes in foreign language education.
A 2010 case study reveals that learners' attitudes towards feedback significantly influence their responses to it, ultimately impacting the effectiveness of long-term learning.
Research has highlighted significant differences in attitudes towards written corrective feedback between teachers and students Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) found that these groups not only disagree on the methods of providing feedback but also on the underlying reasons for its necessity The authors suggest that understanding these discrepancies is crucial for effective feedback implementation in educational settings.
Students often prefer written corrective feedback (WCF) that demands less effort on their part, indicating a tendency to shift the responsibility for error correction to teachers To address this, educators should engage in open discussions with students about the purpose of WCF, fostering an understanding of its importance and encouraging students to take responsibility for their own corrections It is also crucial for both students and teachers to recognize any differing views on what constitutes effective written corrective feedback, allowing them to adjust their expectations collaboratively (Leiki, 1991).
This thesis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective feedback by measuring its usefulness and analyzing its relationship with students' attitudes and feelings towards different forms of feedback Research indicates that factors such as student background, teacher delivery, school culture, and students' intellectual levels significantly influence the effectiveness and reception of corrective feedback (Weaver, 2007; Leki, 1991).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Method
This study investigates students' self-reported perceptions of the written corrective feedback strategies employed by their teachers and their attitudes towards these strategies As a survey-based research, it aims to gather insights on students' perspectives regarding various aspects of a language program, following Brown's (2001) definition of survey goals The primary method of data collection utilized in this study is questionnaires, as outlined by Dürnyei (2007).
Data Collection Instrument
According to Dửrnyei (2007: 102), questionnaires can gather three types of data: factual, behavioral, and attitudinal information This study employs a Likert-scale questionnaire to collect data from 11th graders regarding their teachers' written corrective feedback and their attitudes towards it The questionnaire is divided into two parts; Part I includes ten items focused on the types of written corrective feedback commonly used by teachers, while Part II contains ten items assessing students' attitudes towards these feedback types The items are based on the typology of written corrective feedback types outlined by Ellis (2009: 98) and are presented bilingually in English and Vietnamese.
The questionnaire was administered in-person at the high school over one week, with purposefully selected student participants completing it outside of class time Although students had unlimited time to respond, none took longer than twenty-five minutes, and all 314 questionnaires distributed were returned, achieving a 100% response rate.
Research Site
The research took place at Chu Van An Gifted High School in Lang Son province, where I have been an English teacher since graduating in 2003 This prestigious institution attracts the top students from across the province, who must pass stringent entrance exams to gain admission and pursue one of several academic disciplines.
Participants
This study examined the entire 11th-grade population of Chu Van An Gifted High School, comprising 314 students All participants were engaged in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) according to the prescribed curriculum.
The Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) classified students into two distinct groups: English-specialising students (N=38) and non-English-specialising students (N=276) The English-specialising students engaged in seven classroom hours of English per week, utilizing the advanced English textbook, Tiếng Anh nâng cao, as designated by MOET In contrast, non-English-specialising students attended only three English lessons weekly, using the basic English textbook, Tiếng Anh 11.
Data Analysis
The questionnaire responses were first categorised according to Ellis‟s
In 2009, a comprehensive taxonomy was developed for analyzing survey responses, with a total of 314 entries collected and categorized into distinct distribution groups Each response was meticulously recorded in an Excel spreadsheet, where the total percentage of student responses was aggregated by question element and grouped accordingly The analysis involved quantitatively ranking the responses based on frequency of use, preferred learning styles, and perceived usefulness, providing valuable insights into student opinions.
A researcher created a bilingual questionnaire in English and Vietnamese to assess the attitudes of 11th-grade students toward various types of written corrective feedback from English teachers The survey was conducted with 314 students, including 38 who specialized in English, to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of these feedback methods.
A total of 276 students, who did not specialize in English, participated in the study Questionnaires were distributed and collected within one week The responses were analyzed to identify any correlations between the teachers' use of written corrective feedback and the students' preferences and perceptions of its effectiveness.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Written Corrective Feedback
Question 2 surveyed the groups of learners to elicit their awareness of how much/frequent various forms of written corrective feedback were used Feedback types included Direct Corrective Feedback (CF) (Q 2a, 2b, 2c) of teacher correcting errors in its entirety; Indirect CF (Q 2d, 2e, 2f) where teachers indicated that an error has occurred such as circling, underlining or noting in the margin; Metalinguistic CF (Q 2g, h) whereby the teacher provided a clue/code that an error occurred by providing an indication of error, a code such as „ww‟ for wrong word, or a grammatical description; or Unfocused/ Focused CF (Q.2i, 2j) where teachers corrected all or just focused on one or two specific error types such as tenses and articles Student respondents were given the option of reporting “always”, “usually”, “sometimes”, “rarely”, or “never” for each type of feedback
1.1 Teachers’ Frequency of Use of Direct Corrective Feedback
Table 3.1: Students’ self-reports on teachers’ use of direct corrective feedback techniques
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
2a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
2b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
2c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
Direct corrective feedback often involves crossing out unnecessary letters, words, and phrases This feedback method is prevalent among both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students, with many reporting its frequent use by teachers However, non-English-specializing students tend to receive this type of feedback less often than their English-specializing peers.
The survey revealed that non-English-specializing students receive direct corrective feedback more frequently in the form of inserting missing letters, words, or phrases, with 29% and 32% indicating they receive this feedback always and usually, respectively In contrast, only 18% and 16% of English-specializing students reported similar experiences.
The survey examined the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback, specifically focusing on the practice of writing correct letters or words adjacent to incorrect ones Findings revealed that non-English-specializing students received this type of feedback more frequently than their English-specializing counterparts.
1.2 Teachers’ Frequency of Use of Indirect Corrective Feedback
Table 3.2: Students’ self-reports on teachers’ use of indirect corrective feedback techniques
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin
A study revealed that English-specializing students are more likely to receive indirect corrective feedback, such as underlining or circling errors, with 68% reporting frequent use of this method by their teachers, compared to only 31% of non-English-specializing students.
Students reported receiving minimal feedback on their written work, particularly regarding errors marked in the margins In response to question 2e, a significant majority indicated that feedback was rarely or never provided, with 231 out of 314 respondents stating that teachers did not note the number of errors in the margins.
1.3 Teachers’ Frequency of Use of Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback
Table 3.3: Students’ self-reports on the teachers’ use of metalinguistic corrective feedback techniques
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
“wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors
2h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors
Items 2g and 2h examined how often students encounter metalinguistic corrective feedback, specifically through the use of error codes, such as “ww” for “wrong word,” to highlight various types of mistakes Additionally, the study looked into the provision of grammar rules and examples that relate to the errors made by students.
Metalinguistic corrective feedback using error codes was infrequently provided, with 76% of English-specializing students and 80% of non-English-specializing students indicating they never received this type of feedback.
In terms of feedback regarding grammar rules and examples related to student errors, both groups received similar levels of input; however, students specializing in English were more frequently provided with this type of feedback.
1.4 Teachers’ Frequency of Use of Unfocused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.4: Students’ self-reports on teachers’ use of unfocused corrective feedback techniques
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
The study explored unfocused corrective feedback, where teachers address all student errors Among English-specializing students, 47% reported that teachers rarely corrected all errors, while 26% said sometimes, and only 5% indicated always In contrast, non-English-specializing students had different experiences: 32% reported sometimes, 20% usually, and 17% always received comprehensive error correction This indicates that non-English-specializing students are more likely than their English-specializing counterparts to receive feedback that addresses all their errors.
1.5 Teachers’ Frequency of Use of Focused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.5: Students’ self-reports on teachers’ use of focused corrective feedback techniques
Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
2j Selecting specific types of errors
(e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction
According to Table 3.5, a significant portion of English-specializing students (39%, N = 15) indicated that they typically received teacher feedback targeting one type of error at a time In contrast, 32% (N = 12) reported receiving such feedback occasionally, while only 5% rated it as always Similarly, 31% (N = 85) of non-English-specializing students noted that they sometimes received focused feedback from their teachers.
Students‟ Preference for Teacher Corrective Feedback Types
This section presents the results of the students‟ preference for various corrective feedback types Data are presented according to the adopted taxonomy of written corrective feedback as described above
2.1 Students’ Preference for Direct Corrective Feedback
Both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students show a clear preference for specific types of feedback from their teachers However, a significant difference emerges between the two groups in their preference for feedback that involves writing the correct letters or words next to or above the incorrect ones.
Table 3.6: Students’ preference for direct corrective feedback techniques
Like most Like No idea Like least
Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
3c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
2.2 Students’ Preference for Indirect Corrective Feedback
The difference between the two groups is slight regarding the indirect corrective feedback techniques (see Table 3.7)
Table 3.7: Students’ preference for indirect corrective feedback techniques
Like most Like No idea
3d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
3e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
3f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin
Both English-specialising and non-English-specialising students expressed a strong aversion to corrective feedback that involved underlining or circling errors without providing corrections Specifically, 45% of English-specialising students and 59% of non-English-specialising students reported that they did not like this type of feedback at all, with an additional 23% of English-specialising students indicating it was their least preferred method This highlights a significant preference for more constructive feedback approaches among both groups.
Both student groups displayed a comparable attitude toward the second type of indirect corrective feedback, where teachers mark errors by placing a check or cross in the margin of a given line.
In a study examining teacher feedback methods, students showed slight variations in their preferences for feedback that involved tallying errors in the margin of a given line.
On the whole, despite the slight variation, both groups of students had similar attitudes towards different types of indirect corrective feedback
2.3 Students’ Preference for Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback
Table 3.8: Students’ preference for metalinguistic corrective feedback techniques
Like most Like No idea Like least
Not like at all 3g Using error codes
“wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors
3h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors
Table 3.8 reveals significant differences in how students perceive the use of metalanguage by teachers Notably, 74% of English-specialising students appreciate when teachers offer grammar rules and examples related to their errors, while only 56% of non-English-specialising students share this preference.
2.4 Students’ Preference for Unfocused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.9: Students’ preference for unfocused corrective feedback techniques
Like most Like No idea Like least
Both groups of students showed a preference for unfocused written corrective feedback, with half of the English-specializing students expressing a strong appreciation for their teachers correcting all their errors Interestingly, non-English-specializing students exhibited a slightly higher preference in this category, with a 3% increase.
2.5 Students’ Preference for Focused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.10: Students’ preference for focused corrective feedback techniques
Students’ Responses Like most Like No idea Like least
Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction
Table 3.10 illustrates the varying preferences of students regarding focused corrective feedback When asked about their inclination towards teachers addressing specific types of errors, such as article or verb tense mistakes, the responses revealed a mix of preferences among the student participants.
Among English-specializing students, 37 percent (N = 14) were uncertain about their preference for focused feedback, where teachers address only specific types of errors, while 29 percent (N = 11) expressed a liking for this approach.
Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Various Forms of Corrective
3 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Various Forms of Corrective Feedback
Question 4 was designed to elicit responses from L2 students on how useful they felt each form of corrective feedback their teachers used The results are presented in Tables from 3.11 to 3.15 below
3.1 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Direct Corrective Feedback
Table 3.11: Students’ perception of usefulness of direct corrective feedback techniques
Very useful Useful No idea
Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
4c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
The technique of crossing out unnecessary letters, words, or phrases is a highly effective corrective feedback method appreciated by both English and non-English-specializing students In question 4a, the majority found it to be very useful, with only a small percentage of non-English-specializing students indicating that they did not find this strategy helpful.
Both groups of students found the second form of direct corrective feedback to be very useful, with only a small percentage of non-English-specialising students not appreciating this strategy English-specialising students were notably more inclined to value direct corrective feedback from teachers, particularly when it involved inserting missing letters, words, and phrases However, a similar percentage of both English-specialising and non-English-specialising students reported finding this feedback beneficial.
Indirect corrective feedback, where teachers write the correct forms near or above students' errors, was considered a highly effective strategy by both English-specializing and non-English-specializing respondents, with 47% and 45% finding it useful, respectively.
3.2 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Indirect Corrective Feedback
Table 3.12: Students’ perception of usefulness of indirect corrective feedback techniques
Very useful Useful No idea
Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin
The trend observed in 4d shows that both groups agree on the ineffectiveness of indirect corrective feedback, where teachers underline or circle errors without providing corrections Notably, non-English-specializing students found this type of feedback significantly less useful compared to their English-specializing counterparts.
The study examined a type of indirect corrective feedback where teachers mark errors in students' work with a check or cross in the margins Findings revealed that both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students perceived this feedback as minimally useful, if at all.
Feedback from teachers, specifically through the recording of errors in the margins of students' work, was perceived similarly to previous feedback methods Both groups of students expressed a consensus that this form of indirect corrective feedback was largely ineffective, with most considering it to be quite unhelpful.
3.3 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Metalinguistic Corrective
Table 3.13: Students’ perception of usefulness of metalinguistic corrective feedback techniques
Very useful Useful No idea
Not useful at all 4g Using error codes
(e.g., WW for “wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors
Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors
As regards metalinguistic CF, the two groups began to show more striking differences in their perception of usefulness
Both groups did not find metalinguistic corrective feedback with error codes beneficial However, English-specialising students considered it more useful, with 13% rating it as very useful compared to just 4% of non-English-specialising students.
The second type of metalinguistic written corrective feedback involved students evaluating the usefulness of feedback that included grammar rules and examples related to their errors Both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students found this feedback to be beneficial, with English-specializing students expressing a higher level of appreciation for its usefulness.
3.4 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Unfocused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.14: Students’ perception of usefulness of unfocused corrective feedback techniques
Very useful Useful No idea Not very useful
Unfocused corrective feedback from teachers, which addresses all errors of L2 learners, may seem like an easy option for students Interestingly, only non-English-specializing students reported this feedback as not very useful, indicating that they prefer the challenge of self-correcting their English In contrast, all English-specializing students found this strategy to be very useful, useful, or were uncertain, suggesting that it effectively directs their focus and helps them recognize and internalize their errors for future improvement.
3.5 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Focused Corrective Feedback
Table 3.15: Students’ perception of usefulness of focused corrective feedback techniques
Very useful Useful No idea
4j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction
A study on the effectiveness of focused corrective feedback revealed minimal differences between two student groups Around 70% of participants acknowledged the value of selective error correction by teachers, indicating its usefulness in their learning process.
Discussion
A comparative analysis of responses to question 2 reveals that both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students exhibit a similar frequency in the use of corrective feedback forms The subtle variations in results suggest that the frequency of corrective feedback provided by teachers is not influenced by whether a second language learner majors in English.
This study's findings align with previous research, such as Schulz (2001), indicating that students, regardless of their specialization in English, generally hold a positive attitude towards corrective feedback The results reveal minor differences in preferences and perceptions of the effectiveness of various written corrective feedback techniques on writing skills between English-specializing and non-English-specializing learners.
The findings of this study align with previous research by Leki (1991) and Amrhein & Nassaji (2010), indicating that students generally prefer to leave error correction to their teachers rather than self-correcting However, they also value a sense of learning autonomy, as shown by their preference for indirect feedback, where teachers point out errors without providing corrections, and focused corrective feedback that targets specific types of errors This approach allows students to actively engage in improving their writing skills by addressing the errors identified by their teachers.
Teachers at the researched school demonstrate a basic awareness of effective corrective feedback strategies, as evidenced by the limited use of error recording and coding methods However, these feedback types are generally unpopular among L2 students and are not considered effective in promoting language development.
Survey results show that teachers commonly utilize various forms of corrective feedback, including Indirect, Direct, Metalinguistic, Focused, and Unfocused methods, regardless of students' preferences or their perceptions of effectiveness in learning This indicates a pedagogical implication that certain types of feedback may need to be reevaluated and potentially discontinued.
This synopsis is evident in this result;
Indirect CF: Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Teachers often utilized the technique of underlining or circling errors made by students without providing direct corrections, serving as a form of feedback Notably, 12% of L2 learners reported that their teachers consistently employed this method of corrective feedback.
24% of learners noted teachers usually provided this corrective feedback and 28% stating that it was sometimes utilised by their teachers
The significant discrepancy between the high percentage of teachers utilizing feedback forms and the 56% of respondents expressing dissatisfaction with this feedback, alongside 42% of students finding it unhelpful, highlights a clear misalignment between educators' objectives and students' expectations in second language acquisition.
Concluding Remarks
This study, based on a questionnaire distributed to 11th grade students, reveals a significant correlation between students' preferences for teachers' corrective feedback methods and their perceived effectiveness of these strategies It underscores that while teachers generally adhere to best practice methodologies, there are instances where they fall short This inconsistency may stem from a scattergun approach to corrective feedback, where educators employ various strategies in hopes that some will resonate with students, or from the belief that all forms of written corrective feedback are inherently valuable.
This study investigated the relationship between the frequency of corrective feedback strategies and students' preferred learning styles, as well as their perceptions of the feedback's usefulness, focusing on both English-specializing and non-English-specializing students The findings revealed that teachers at the researched school demonstrated a limited awareness of effective corrective feedback methods, as evidenced by their infrequent use of error recording and coding, which were rated poorly by L2 students and considered ineffective for language development.
Survey results reveal that teachers frequently employed various forms of corrective feedback, regardless of students' preferences or perceptions of its effectiveness This suggests that certain methods of corrective feedback may need to be reconsidered Notably, 11th-grade students demonstrated an understanding of corrective feedback and its impact on their learning Furthermore, these students exhibited advanced learner autonomy and awareness of effective self-application This development marks a positive step toward fostering intrinsic motivation in teaching and learning practices.
Implications
This study highlights the importance of teachers frequently utilizing written corrective feedback to foster learner autonomy To achieve this, it is crucial to effectively communicate motivations and strategies Engaging in individual dialogues about preferences, effectiveness, and autonomy between L2 learners and teachers can enhance learning outcomes This approach helps students become more aware of their learning styles, allowing teachers to tailor their methods accordingly Additionally, managing expectations on both sides should consider the holistic aspects of the student, including their subject orientation, background, barriers to learning, and preferred learning styles.
This study expands existing research on corrective feedback by presenting unique findings from a high school for gifted students, supporting previous studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of corrective feedback in specific contexts The results emphasize the importance of further research on corrective feedback and its impact on student perceptions English language teachers working with EFL students can leverage these findings to adopt a more directive approach in their feedback methods, ensuring that students grasp the conventions and purposes behind the corrective feedback provided.
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study
The study focuses on a specific group of students from a gifted high school, known for their higher motivation and academic performance compared to those in regular high schools However, the findings are primarily descriptive and do not explore the underlying reasons behind the students' responses.
The study highlights students' perceptions of different types of written corrective feedback; however, it lacks an analysis of how these perceptions correlate with their actual writing performance This limitation reduces the pedagogical significance of the findings Future research should aim to explore the relationship between students' perceptions of written corrective feedback and their writing outcomes to enhance understanding in this area.
Amrhein, H R., & Nassaji, H (2010) Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Students and Teachers Prefer and Why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquee, v13 n2 p95-127 2010
Beuningen, C V (2010) Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions International Journal of
Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-124
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214
Brown, J D (2001) Using surveys in language programs New York:
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, 12 267-296
Choy, S C., & Troudi, S (2006) An investigation into the changes in the perceptions of and attitudes towards learning English in a Malaysian college
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2),
Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics Oxford: Oxford
Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford
Ellis, R (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types ELT Journal, 63/2
Fahim, Mansoor (2011) Corrective Feedback Provision: Mixed Pattern Vs Separate Pattern Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 1, No 8, pp 1019-1024, August 2011 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland
Fazio, L 2001 „The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students‟ Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 235–49
Feng, R., & Chen, H (2009) An analysis on the importance of motivation and strategy in postgraduates‟ English acquisition English Language Teaching, 2, 93-
Ferris, D R (1995) Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53
Ferris, D., & 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 student writing
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Gardner, R C (1995) Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation London: Edward Arnold
Gass, S M., & Selinker, L (2001) Second language acquisition: An introductory course London: Lawrence Earlbaum
Hendrickson, J M (1977) Error analysis and selective correction in the adult ESL classroom: An experiment ERIC Document Reproduction Services, ED
Hendrickson, J M (1980) The treatment of error in written work Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221
Hounsell & S.Thompson (Eds) Tutoring and demonstrating: a handbook
(Sheffield, Higher Education Staff Development Agency)
Hyland, F 2001 Does teacher feedback make a difference? Paper presented at BALEAP 2001 Conference, Glasgow, 9 April, 2001
Hyland, K & Hyland, F (2006) „Feedback on second language students‟ writing‟ Language Teaching 39, 83-101
Kara, A (2009) The effect of a „Learning Theories‟ Unit on Students‟ Attitudes towards Learning Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 100-113
Kepner, (1991) Kepner, C G (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313
Lalande, J.F (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment Modern Language Journal 66: 140-9
Leki, I (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college- level writing classes Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218
Liu, Yingliang (2008) The Effects of Error Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Second Language Acquisition and Teaching The University of Arizona Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, Vol 15, 65-79 (2008)
Petchprasert, Anongnad (2012) Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning Your US-China Foreign Language, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand ISSN 1539-8080 April 2012, Vol 10, No 4, 1112-1120
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N (1998) „„If only I had more time‟‟: ESL learners‟ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions Journal of Second
Richard-Amato, Patricia Making It Happen: From Interactive to Participator Language Teaching (4th ed.) Epstein Educational Enterprises Epstein
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortseed, I (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95
Rust, C (2002) The impact of assessment on student learning, Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158
Sachs, R and C Polio (2007) „Learners‟ use of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing task‟ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29: 67–100
Sampson, Andrew (2001) Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Columbian EFL learner‟s writings www.sciencedirect.com System 40 (2012) 494e504 Retrieved 30 th March 2015
Semke, H D (1984) Effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals, 17(3),
Sheen, Y (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 255-283
Sheppard, (1992) Sheppard, K (1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110
Schulz, R A (2001) Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback USA- Colombia The Modern Language Journal, 85 2, 244-258
Storch, N (2010).Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research
International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G (2010) Learners‟ processing, uptake and rentention of corrective feedback on writing Case studies Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1-32
Truscott, J (1996) „The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes‟ Language Learning 46: 327–69
Ushida, E (2005) The role of students‟ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses CALICO Journal , 23(1), 49-78
Van Lier, L (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity London: Longman
Vyatkina, Nina (2010) The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Teaching Beginning German, University of Kansas Foreign Language Annals vol 43, No.4
Weaver, Melanie A, (2007) Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors‟ written responses Nottingham Trent University, UK Published online:
Title of the study: 11 th graders’ attitudes towards their teachers’ written feedback
Tên đề tài: Thái độ của học sinh lớp 11 đối với phản hồi dưới dạng viết của giáo viên
This questionnaire is intended for an investigation into 11 th graders‟ attitudes towards English language teachers‟ written corrective feedback The collected data will be used for research purposes only
Bài khảo sát dưới đây nhằm nghiên cứu thái độ của học sinh lớp 11 đối với phản hồi sửa lỗi viết từ giáo viên tiếng Anh Tất cả thông tin mà các em cung cấp sẽ chỉ được sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu.
2 Indicate how often your English language teacher gives you the following types of corrective feedback by putting a tick (√) in the appropriate cell
Hãy cho biết tần suất các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà giáo viên dạy tiếng Anh của bạn sử dụng khi chấm bài viết Vui lòng đánh dấu √ vào ô thích hợp để thể hiện ý kiến của bạn.
Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Always
Không bao giờ a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
Gạch bỏ một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
Bổ sung một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
Viết chữ cái hoặc từ đúng bên cạnh hoặc bên trên chữ cái hoặc từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Gạch chân hoặc khoanh tròn những lỗi sai nhưng không sửa những lỗi sai đó e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
Báo hiệu có lỗi sai trong một dòng chữ bằng cách đánh dấu ở bên lề f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin
Ghi ở bên lề số lượng lỗi sai trong một dòng chữ g Using error codes (e.g., WW for
“wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors
Chỉ ra các loại lỗi sai bằng các kí hiệu
(ví dụ như kí hiệu “WW” báo hiệu lỗi sử dụng từ sai) h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors
Cung cấp quy tắc ngữ pháp và/ hoặc ví dụ liên quan đến lỗi sai của em i Correcting all your errors
Sửa tất cả các lỗi sai trong bài viết của em j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction
Chọn một số loại lỗi sai trong bài viết của bạn để sửa, chẳng hạn như lỗi sử dụng mạo từ và lỗi chia động từ Việc này không chỉ giúp cải thiện chất lượng bài viết mà còn nâng cao khả năng diễn đạt và truyền đạt thông tin một cách rõ ràng hơn Hãy chú ý đến các quy tắc ngữ pháp và cách dùng từ để bài viết trở nên chuyên nghiệp và dễ hiểu.
3 How do you feel about each type of your teacher’s corrective feedback? Indicate the ones which you like most, like, have no idea, like least, and do not like at all by putting a tick (√) in the appropriate cell Đánh dấu √ vào những loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà em thích nhất, thích, không biết thích hay không, thích ít nhất, và không hề thích giáo viên sử dụng khi chữa bài viết cho em
Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Like most
Không biết thích hay không
Không hề thích a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
Gạch bỏ một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
Bổ sung một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
Viết chữ cái hoặc từ đúng bên cạnh hoặc bên trên chữ cái hoặc từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Gạch chân hoặc khoanh tròn những lỗi sai nhưng không sửa những lỗi sai đó e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
Báo hiệu có lỗi sai trong một dòng chữ bằng cách đánh dấu ở bên lề f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin
Ghi ở bên lề số lượng lỗi sai trong một dòng chữ g Using error codes (e.g., WW for
“wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors
Chỉ ra các loại lỗi sai bằng các kí hiệu
(ví dụ như kí hiệu “WW” báo hiệu lỗi sử dụng từ sai) h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors
Cung cấp quy tắc ngữ pháp và/ hoặc ví dụ liên quan đến lỗi sai của em i Correcting all your errors
Sửa tất cả các lỗi sai trong bài viết của em j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction
Để cải thiện bài viết của em, hãy chọn một số loại lỗi sai để sửa, chẳng hạn như các lỗi liên quan đến việc sử dụng mạo từ hoặc các lỗi trong việc chia động từ Việc chỉnh sửa những lỗi này sẽ giúp nâng cao chất lượng bài viết và tăng tính chính xác trong ngôn ngữ.
4 In your opinion, how useful is each type of corrective feedback that your teacher gives you? Put a tick (√) in the appropriate cell
Theo em, các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà giáo viên tiếng Anh sử dụng hữu ích như thế nào? Đánh dấu √ vào ô thích hợp
Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Very useful
Không biết hữu ích hay không
Không hề hữu ích a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases
Gạch bỏ một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases
Bổ sung một hoặc những chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones
Viết chữ cái hoặc từ đúng bên cạnh hoặc bên trên chữ cái hoặc từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them
Gạch chân hoặc khoanh tròn những lỗi sai nhưng không sửa những lỗi sai đó e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin
Báo hiệu có lỗi sai trong một dòng chữ bằng cách đánh dấu ở bên lề