Effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students writing performance an action research approach with 12th form english major students at luong van tuy gifted high school

Aims of the study

This study investigates the impact of various types 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 towards this feedback and offers recommendations for its effective use in 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 in both oral and written formats However, 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, as it only includes students from the class I directly teach at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, rather than all gifted students at the institution.

Method of the study

This study aimed to enhance students' English writing skills through an action research approach focused on improving educational outcomes A writing instruction course was developed following a preliminary investigation, incorporating various types of teacher-written corrective feedback Data collection involved analyzing students' writings and free narratives before, during, and after the feedback delivery to assess progress in writing performance Additionally, students' free narratives were evaluated at the study'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: The 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 study's methods, detailing the teaching and learning environment of English at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, along with general information about the study subjects It emphasizes the instruments and procedures used for data collection.

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Discussion presents a comprehensive analysis of the 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

Responding to student writing and providing feedback is a contentious issue in second language instruction Feedback, as defined by Keh (1989), is input from a reader to a writer that facilitates revision Teacher feedback serves as a crucial communication tool, enabling students to improve their writing skills According to Furnborough and Truman (2009), feedback highlights the gaps between a learner's current abilities and the desired competencies, and aims to bridge these gaps through requests for additional information, directional guidance, suggestions for revision, and positive reinforcement (Ferris, 1997) Lightbown and Spada (1999) further clarify that feedback indicates to learners when their use of the target language is incorrect.

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 feedback related to linguistic errors, commonly known as "corrective feedback." Yeh and Lo (2009) describe corrective feedback as responses to texts with errors, indicating what is unacceptable in students' writing This feedback can highlight the location and type of errors, offer correct forms of the target language, or provide metalinguistic information Their definition is particularly relevant to this study as it encompasses the different ways teachers respond to students' errors, making it the foundation for this research.

Forms of feedback

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

Oral feedback, provided by teachers during or after student performances, is a quick way to offer correction and guidance, allowing for immediate improvement in discourse However, its effectiveness in enhancing student writing is limited due to time constraints, often leading teachers to rely on written feedback instead Despite this, oral feedback remains a valuable supplement to written comments, as it can be delivered in just a few minutes and has the potential to positively influence students' future performance This study focuses exclusively 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 plays a crucial role in English language courses, particularly in the context of the process approach to writing, which emphasizes the importance of instructor feedback on student drafts This feedback can be categorized into various subtypes, enhancing the writing process and supporting student development.

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 a critical and analytical approach, transforming students from passive recipients of feedback into active participants in their own evaluation process.

Self-evaluation fosters student independence by encouraging them to identify their own mistakes This process helps students remember their errors, reducing the likelihood of repeating them in the future Additionally, self-assessment can be time-efficient in large classrooms However, it may not be an effective revision method for students with low English proficiency.

Peer feedback in language education involves students providing constructive comments to one another As defined by Bartels (2004), this practice allows students to exchange drafts and critiques on their assignments, fostering collaborative learning and enhancing their writing skills.

Peer feedback in writing classes enhances student learning by encouraging collaboration and interaction By assuming the roles of both reader and advisor, students deepen their understanding of the writing process Additionally, incorporating structured face-to-face discussions fosters constructive controversy, leading to valuable insights and increased engagement with the task at hand (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).

Despite the advantages of peer feedback, several challenges persist, primarily concerning the quality of responses Students frequently perceive their peers' feedback as vague, unhelpful, or inaccurate due to a lack of proficiency in the target language or insufficient knowledge in specific subject areas Additionally, individual student characteristics can hinder the effectiveness of peer feedback, as many students struggle to accept that their classmates possess the qualifications necessary to assess their writing (Rollinson, 2005).

In the process writing approach, teachers are crucial in guiding students through the revision of their writing drafts Teacher feedback, which includes both implicit and explicit corrections, highlights students' errors and fosters improvement in their writing skills.

Written corrective feedback is a teacher's written response aimed at enhancing a student's essay by improving grammatical accuracy, including spelling, punctuation, and idiomatic usage In contrast, written feedback encompasses commentary on both the form and content of the essay Although written corrective feedback and written feedback are interconnected, this thesis primarily focuses on exploring the impact of various teacher strategies for providing written corrective feedback.

Research shows that students prefer 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 sustain their progress in second language proficiency.

Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies

Written corrective feedback is essential in second language and foreign instruction programs, though its delivery methods vary significantly Various researchers have proposed different classifications of corrective feedback strategies, highlighting the diverse approaches to this critical aspect of language education.

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 is crucial; they may choose to correct all errors or focus on specific types This distinction plays a significant role in 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 entire text to enhance its language quality, making it sound more natural while preserving the original content.

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 student errors using three key strategies: first, by indicating that an error has occurred; second, by providing the correct form of the target language.

This research examines the impact of three main types of written corrective feedback—direct, indirect, and metalinguistic—on improving students' writing performance By adapting existing categorizations and Ellis' typology of written corrective feedback, the study aims to provide valuable insights into how metalinguistic information regarding errors can enhance student learning outcomes.

1.1.4.1 Teacher direct corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Direct corrective feedback involves teachers providing the correct form of a mistake directly to students, 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 effectively encourages revisions, particularly for students with low proficiency who struggle to self-correct (Chandler, 2003) However, while it requires minimal effort from learners, it may not foster long-term learning (Ellis, 2009) Additionally, Sheen (2007) found that direct feedback is most effective for specific grammatical features, a conclusion supported by Van Beuningen, Dejong, and Kuiken (2012), who noted that direct correction is more suitable for grammatical errors, whereas indirect feedback is better for non-grammatical mistakes.

Direct written corrective feedback is considered advantageous as it minimizes confusion, provides essential information to address complex errors, and offers immediate responses This type of feedback is particularly beneficial for learners with limited linguistic knowledge, enhancing their understanding and error resolution.

According to Lee (2005), direct feedback is particularly beneficial for beginner students or in instances where errors are "untreatable" and cannot be self-corrected, such as issues with sentence structure and word choice This approach allows teachers to focus students' attention on specific error patterns that need correction.

1.1.4.2 Teacher indirect corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Indirect written corrective feedback involves teachers highlighting errors without providing direct corrections, encouraging students to identify and rectify their mistakes This method can include underlining or circling errors, noting the number of mistakes in the margins, and using confirmation checks or requests 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 This reflective approach to linguistic forms can enhance long-term language acquisition, making indirect feedback more beneficial for advanced learners compared to direct feedback, which may not yield immediate revisions Research suggests that, by requiring students to identify and correct their own mistakes, indirect corrective feedback is particularly effective for those with higher proficiency levels due to their existing linguistic knowledge.

Research by Ferris (2002) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) indicates that while direct feedback enhances accuracy in text revisions, indirect feedback leads to fewer 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 indirect corrective feedback can effectively support students with some existing explicit knowledge in transitioning from declarative to procedural knowledge.

Research on the effectiveness of direct versus indirect feedback has yielded mixed results While some studies, such as those by Ferris and Helt (2000), indicate that indirect feedback is more successful in helping students correct their errors, the overall findings remain inconclusive.

Indirect feedback effectively highlights errors for students, promoting guided learning and problem-solving processes (1982, p.140) However, Frantzen (1995) observed 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 ways: through error coding or concise grammatical descriptions In the error coding approach, teachers annotate margins with specific codes indicating the types of errors, accompanied by a reference list to help students understand Alternatively, the second method involves teachers numbering the errors and providing succinct explanations at the end of the text, clarifying the mistakes made.

Research indicates that error codes may not be more effective than direct or indirect feedback in improving student writing Robb et al (1986) found no significant advantage in using error codes, while Ferris (2006) noted that they only enhance accuracy in two out of four error categories Ferris and Roberts (2001) also highlighted that error codes assist students in self-editing but are not superior to indirect feedback In contrast, Sheen (2007) demonstrated that both direct and metalinguistic corrective feedback effectively improve accuracy in students' writing, with metalinguistic feedback proving more beneficial in long-term retention Bitchener and Knoch (2010) further supported this by showing that students receiving only circling or underlining feedback did not maintain their improvements in delayed post-tests, underscoring the lasting benefits of metalinguistic explanations.

Roles of teacher written corrective feedback

The role of teacher written corrective feedback has sparked ongoing debate among researchers, teachers, and students, with many acknowledging its importance in enhancing students' writing skills and attitudes toward writing (Leki, 1990, p.58) While some view feedback as essential and beneficial for improving writing, others criticize it as time-consuming and ineffective This divergence in opinions highlights the varying perspectives 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 crucial in language learning, as it helps learners identify discrepancies between their own language use and the target structures This process enhances their awareness of the grammatical and structural elements they are acquiring, ultimately facilitating more effective language acquisition.

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 (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Konold et al.).

Teacher feedback plays a crucial role in second language writing by focusing on specific aspects of students' writing performance Corrective feedback from teachers supports the development of students' writing skills, reinforces key disciplinary content, and clarifies academic writing conventions It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of a student's work, provides explanations for grades, and offers suggestions for improvement in future writing assignments.

Written corrective feedback is a powerful motivator for learners, as it allows them to assess their progress and gain insights into their competence levels This feedback encourages students to persist in their efforts and work towards achievable goals, fostering a productive learning environment (Riviere, 2000).

From the output hypothesis perspective, Swain (1985, 1995) emphasizes the importance of feedback for learners to improve 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 unaware of their mistakes, missing crucial opportunities for self-correction and practice Consequently, the concept of "learning from mistakes" becomes less likely to occur (Swain, 2000).

Corrective feedback is crucial in language learning as it helps prevent fossilization, a term defined by Brown (2007) as the permanent integration of incorrect linguistic forms into a learner's second language skills Dekeyser (2010) supports this notion, asserting that timely corrective feedback not only provides additional practice opportunities but also mitigates the risk of automatizing uncorrected errors that could result in fossilization.

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

Parameter setting, as defined by 1990, refers to variations in languages based on their abstract properties, indicating the possibility of sentence formation 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 fully acquired through positive evidence alone, particularly when they are absent in the learner's first language grammar Thus, corrective feedback serves as an effective pedagogical intervention, potentially triggering the parameter restructuring process and aiding learners in overcoming first language interference.

Written corrective feedback fosters student autonomy by guiding them to identify and rectify their own mistakes Teachers often point out the location and type of errors without providing direct corrections, encouraging students to engage in self-discovery and critical analysis of their work This approach not only promotes learner-centeredness but also motivates students to actively participate in their learning process To enhance writing skills effectively, it is essential to implement corrective feedback in appropriate and impactful ways, sharpening students' abilities to critically evaluate their writing.

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback

Despite extensive research, the role of written corrective feedback in language classrooms remains ambiguous While some researchers advocate for its use, others, including Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) and Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007), present arguments against it for various reasons.

Trustcott (1996, 1999) strongly opposes error correction in second language writing, arguing that it is not only ineffective but also detrimental He asserts that while second language learners often seek grammar correction, teachers should refrain from providing it, as correction may be beneficial for non-grammatical errors but not for grammatical ones Trustcott claims that written corrective feedback can be counter-productive, leading students to simplify their writing and avoid more complex structures due to the emphasis on their errors.

In 2007, it was argued that written corrective feedback may be an inefficient use of time, proposing that the effort devoted to corrections could be better spent on providing students with more writing practice to enhance their skills This perspective raises practical concerns regarding teachers' ability to deliver consistent and effective feedback, as well as students' willingness and capability to utilize the feedback they receive.

Trustcott (2012) emphasizes that written corrective feedback helps learners steer clear of past mistakes, a perspective echoed by Sheppard (1992), who found that such feedback can negatively impact the structural complexity of students' writing.

Krashen (1982) suggests that making students aware of their errors through corrective feedback can induce stress and anxiety about repeating those mistakes in future writing This anxiety may cause learners to avoid using complex structures, ultimately leading to simplified writing As a result, corrective feedback can reduce the linguistic complexity of learners' 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 made, students' attitudes and expectations, and the overall learning environment Additionally, situational variables, teacher characteristics, and learner-specific factors such as first language, learning style, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation, and future goals play a crucial role The following sections will delve into some of these key factors.

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 governed by grammatical rules, such as verb tense, subject-verb agreement, article usage, and sentence fragments These errors can be effectively addressed by referring learners to grammar resources Conversely, untreatable errors do not conform to such clear patterns, making them more challenging to resolve.

Errors in writing, such as word choice mistakes and unidiomatic structures, can be challenging for students to correct without clear guidelines (Ferris, 1999, 2010) The effectiveness of written corrective feedback is influenced by the type of errors present, suggesting that feedback methods should be tailored to specific error types (Ferris, 2006) To enhance learning outcomes, it is recommended that a combination of feedback forms be employed, taking into account both the nature of the errors and the individual characteristics of the students.

Ferris (2002) outlines key criteria for teachers to consider when deciding which writing errors to correct, emphasizing the importance of addressing frequent errors and those that negatively impact the reader's perception By categorizing errors and implementing appropriate corrective feedback strategies, teachers can enhance the effectiveness of their feedback Therefore, it is crucial for educators to focus on selective error correction and develop strategies that raise students' awareness of their most significant and recurring writing issues.

The adoption of corrective feedback is significantly influenced by various individual learner factors, including aptitude, learning styles, language proficiency, and attitudes toward written corrective feedback Additionally, learners' preferences, first language, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation, and future goals 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 unhelpful, as they struggle to identify the nature of the mistakes Ferris (2002) suggests that while indirect feedback is generally preferred, students with lower second language proficiency may require more direct feedback to effectively improve their writing.

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

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

To enhance writing skills and achieve better grades, students often rely on error correction as a vital strategy, though this approach may not resonate with those lacking motivation Gue’nette (2007) highlights that learner motivation significantly impacts the effectiveness of corrective feedback, asserting that without commitment, such feedback is unlikely to lead to improvement Teachers frequently observe that less motivated students neglect the written corrective feedback provided, prompting many educators to require revisions for writing assignments as a solution Ultimately, for students to internalize corrective feedback and achieve long-term skill acquisition, it must align with their individual learning goals (Carroll).

According to Goldstein (2006), written corrective feedback is effective only when it is noticed and understood by learners Highly motivated students tend to engage more deeply with corrective feedback, which is essential for assessing its overall effectiveness Sensitivity to feedback cues is crucial for learners to make progress in their writing skills (Ferris & Robert, 2001; Robb, Ross & Shortreed).

Teacher factors encompass various elements such as educators' attitudes towards specific students and their instructional materials, the number of classes they are required to teach, the multiple institutions they may work at to earn a livelihood, and the effectiveness of their written corrective feedback strategies.

The quality of teacher-written corrective feedback significantly influences its effectiveness, as highlighted by Goldstein (2004) in Hyland & Hyland (2006), who emphasize that feedback should be text-specific, relevant, and clear to benefit students Effective feedback can enhance students' attitudes toward writing and foster improvement, but unclear or confusing comments may have the opposite effect Therefore, it is essential for teachers to ensure that their feedback is consistent, clear, helpful, and constructive Additionally, as noted by Ferris & Hedgcook (1998), addressing whether error correction is effective requires careful consideration of how corrective feedback is delivered—selectively, systematically, and accurately Ferris (2006) further points out that variations in teachers' marking or error coding can also impact student performance.

Effective feedback for students must be timely and contextually relevant Teachers should draw on their experiences, listen to students, and assess their needs when determining the best approach to provide feedback and corrections to second language writers Our ongoing goal as educators is to discover more effective and thoughtful ways to meet the needs of our student writers.

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

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 variables can include various factors, such as the learning atmosphere and the physical environment.

Methodological variables play a crucial role in enhancing the learning experience According to Evans et al (2010), these variables encompass the specific design elements of instruction, including the content and delivery methods Key features involve the appropriate sequencing of materials, ample practice opportunities, effective pacing, and repetition Additionally, even highly motivated students may struggle to process information if they receive excessive corrective feedback Consequently, teachers must carefully consider these principles and contexts when delivering feedback to optimize student learning.

Research design

This study employs an action research approach aimed at enhancing teaching practices, as highlighted by Nunan (1992), who notes that such research investigates specific teaching situations to find effective solutions Action research is conducted by teachers within their classrooms, focusing on resolving problems and improving the overall teaching and learning experience It involves a self-reflective and systematic exploration of the teacher's own educational context (Burns, 2010) This particular action research was designed to identify strategies for improving students' writing skills and was implemented by the teacher-researcher in an intact class setting, making it a suitable choice for achieving the study's objectives.

Action research models, while varying in their specific steps, consistently encompass key elements The process starts with the researcher pinpointing a problem, followed by the development of an action plan After the plan is put into practice, the researcher assesses its effectiveness and suggests subsequent actions to continue addressing the issue.

In this study, I utilized the model by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988, cited in Burns, 2010, p 9) due to its convenience and clarity in guiding the research process This model accurately outlines the steps I will follow throughout 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

Each action research cycle should encompass four key steps: planning an action, implementing it, observing the process and its outcomes, and reflecting on the action This study adhered to this model by following these essential steps.

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, is home to approximately 145 teachers and 1,300 students English is a key subject at the school, being one of the three compulsory subjects for the General Education Diploma examinations Many students also select English as their primary focus for university entrance exams In English major classes, students receive eleven periods of instruction each week, utilizing both the official textbook provided by the Ministry of Education and Training and supplementary materials developed by the teachers The responsibility for delivering quality English education lies 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 research study was conducted with 35 English major students from the 12th grade at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, comprising 32 girls and 3 boys, all of whom were part of my teaching class.

In a comprehensive study lasting six months, I explored the impact of various forms of written corrective feedback on the writing performance of 35 students This research involved analyzing students' written assignments and free narratives to gather data, which was subsequently analyzed and discussed to draw meaningful conclusions about their writing development.

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:

As a teacher with over a decade of experience, I have observed that my students, despite having a solid grasp of English grammar and vocabulary, struggle significantly with writing skills This became particularly evident after teaching an English major class for one semester, highlighting the need for targeted support in developing their writing abilities.

Many students displayed a lack of interest in improving their writing skills, despite performing well in reading and listening, and possessing a solid understanding of English grammar and vocabulary To investigate this issue, I collected data by asking students to write narratives about their writing challenges and the reasons behind them Astonishingly, 30 out of 35 students reported receiving insufficient, detailed feedback from teachers, leaving them unaware of their specific weaknesses in writing During 45-minute writing sessions, teachers provided limited feedback primarily focused on content and organization, often unable to address individual student revisions due to time constraints As a result, students frequently repeated the same mistakes, leading to error fossilization In writing assessments, students typically received only grades and brief comments on content, with many not revising their work, further perpetuating their errors The large class sizes and limited feedback contributed significantly to this ongoing issue.

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 A significant number of students, 28 in total, reported that they found writing to be the most challenging skill Following the analysis of these results, a study was initiated to address and improve the writing difficulties faced by 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, teacher corrections and comments can significantly address issues related to students' writing accuracy and their overall attitudes towards writing Effective feedback strategies from teachers can stimulate students to revise their work and motivate them to sustain their interest in writing.

This study examined the effects of three written error correction strategies on students' writing performance Students were instructed to write a 200-word essay on topics from their English textbook within a 35-minute timeframe, without consulting dictionaries or other resources After receiving feedback focused on language use, they revised their essays and submitted a revised draft The research was conducted in three stages, each utilizing a different type of feedback All essays were collected and analyzed, allowing for the identification of errors without the influence of carelessness or psychological factors Errors were categorized into five types based on Ferris & Roberts (2001): verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, articles, language expression (including lexical errors and collocations), and sentence structures.

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

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

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 these error codes (Appendix A), which included detailed explanations This list, featuring abbreviations and symbols along with their meanings, was adapted from the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) code list.

After the initial collection of students' written assignments, the teacher identified various types of errors by marking them directly in the text or in the margins, and subsequently tallied the total number of errors.

- 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 the initial collection of students' written papers, the teacher marked errors by underlining or circling them without providing corrections or explanations Subsequently, the teacher tallied the number of errors present in each paper.

- 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 semester's conclusion, students were tasked with composing a free narrative to articulate their perspectives on the impact of three feedback types They also expressed their preferences for specific corrective feedback methods and offered suggestions for enhancing the effectiveness of teacher feedback.

During the action implementation period, data was collected and analyzed alongside students' narratives to assess the impact of various types of written corrective feedback on their writing performance The findings from this analysis were instrumental in addressing the research questions Additionally, the criteria for success in the action reflected the teacher's focus on enhancing students' writing performance within the teaching and learning process.

At the conclusion of the cycle, a reflection was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the implemented action based on the analysis results Due to time constraints, the researcher decided not to pursue further actions in the next cycle.

Summary

This chapter outlines the comprehensive methods for data analysis and the systematic steps involved in conducting action research, which include problem identification, action planning, action implementation, and reflection on the action Key data collection instruments utilized in this research are students' writing papers and free narratives The findings from this research will be discussed 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 details the findings of a study examining how various types of corrective feedback on five specific linguistic errors influenced learners' writing accuracy in new texts The outcomes are illustrated through data presented in the following 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 stage 1, data revealed that 35 students made a total of 231 errors in Essay 1, 224 in Essay 2, and 215 in Essay 3 The analysis highlighted five types of errors, with the most significant being in article usage, sentence structure, and language expression, which includes issues like incorrect word choice, collocation, and idioms Notably, language expression accounted for the highest number of errors, with 67 errors (29%) in Essay 1 and 63 errors (28%) in Essay 2.

In the analysis of essay errors, Essay 1 exhibited a total of 60 errors (27.2%), while Essay 2 had 56 errors (25.5%), and Essay 3 recorded 52 errors (22.5%) Sentence structure errors ranked second, 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 were the third most common, totaling 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 came fourth, 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, compared to 231 errors in Essay 1, 224 in Essay 2, and 215 in Essay 3 Notably, errors in language expression and sentence structure decreased slightly, with language expression errors dropping from 60 (27.2%) in Essay 3 to 55 (25%) in the delayed test, and sentence structure errors decreasing from 48 (25.5%) to 40 (18.3%) Conversely, article errors rose from 40 (18.7%) in Essay 3 to 45 (20.5%) in the delayed test Other types of errors showed minor variations 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

Table 3.3 reveals that the total number of errors across the essays ranged from 215 errors in Essay 1 to 203 in Essay 2 and 202 in Essay 3 The most prevalent errors were related to language expression, accounting for 53 errors (25%) in Essay 1, 53 errors (26.1%) in Essay 2, and 54 errors (26.7%) in Essay 3 Following closely, sentence structure errors ranked second, with 47 errors (21.8%) in Essay 1, 45 errors (22.2%) in Essay 2, and 47 errors (23.3%) in Essay 3 Article errors held the third position, comprising 20.5% (44 errors) in Essay 1 and 18.7% in the 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 found 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, representing 16.8% in Essay 1.

In the analysis of errors across two assessments, the delayed test showed a range of 3 to 26 errors, accounting for 12.7% Conversely, 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, there was no reduction in other types of errors, indicating only minor variations between the two assessments.

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 analysis from stage 3 indicates a significant reduction in total errors across three essays, decreasing from 201 errors in Essay 1 to 183 in Essay 2 and further to 157 in Essay 3 Notably, 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, comprising 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, accounting for 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 remained consistent, with a gradual decrease observed over time.

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 grammatical errors were identified, reflecting a notable decrease in errors overall Specifically, subject-verb agreement errors decreased from 22 (14%) in Essay 3 to 10 (8.3%) in the delayed test However, language expression errors slightly increased from 52 (33%) in Essay 3 to 49 (40.5%) in the delayed test Additionally, sentence structure errors showed a minor change, with 35 errors (22.3%) in Essay 3 compared to 34 errors (28.1%) in the delayed test.

Discussion of results

A comparison of students' writing performance across Essay 1, Essay 2, Essay 3, and a delayed test revealed that while rewriting after direct corrections led to fewer errors in revisions, it did not result in long-term improvement, as evidenced by a similar number of errors in subsequent assignments and the delayed test Despite students making fewer mistakes in Essays 2 and 3, the overall reduction was minimal, and errors increased in the delayed test, indicating that the time for applying direct feedback was insufficient for lasting language retention The teachers' provision of correct forms for every error limited students' engagement with the revision process, leading to a lack of enduring learning, a finding consistent with Ellis’s (2009) research on direct feedback requiring minimal learner processing Notably, errors in verb tense, verb form, subject-verb agreement, and articles did not decrease, while language expression and sentence structure errors showed improvement, likely due to students adopting fixed phrases and structures from teacher corrections This aligns with Lee’s (2005) assertion that direct feedback is effective for "untreatable" errors but contradicts Van Beuningen, Dejong, and Kuiken’s (2012) claim that direct correction is more suited for grammatical errors.

In stage 2, the application of metalinguistic feedback resulted in only a slight decrease in errors in Essay 2 and Essay 3 compared to Essay 1, as shown in Table 3.3 However, after one month, the number of errors in the delayed test did not show a similar decline Some students, when given coded corrective feedback, tended to avoid previous errors by creating new structures, leading to unavoidable mistakes This finding contrasts with the expected long-term benefits of metalinguistic feedback highlighted by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) While there was a consistent reduction in article errors when metalinguistic feedback was applied, 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 struggled to find appropriate replacements for word choice errors, resulting in continued mistakes Additionally, the overall accuracy of participants varied significantly across the four writing times, indicating a non-linear pattern of improvement, consistent with previous research on L2 learners' performance variability (Ellis, 1994; Lightbow & Spada, 1999; Pienemann, 1989).

Rewriting based on a teacher's underlining significantly reduced errors in subsequent assignments and delayed tests, as evidenced by a study of 140 students' papers The analysis revealed a statistically significant decrease in errors across three categories over four writing periods, highlighting the effectiveness of underlining as a corrective feedback strategy When students received underlining feedback only on their last assignment, the need to self-correct likely enhanced their self-editing skills, making them more aware of linguistic errors in future essays This indirect feedback consistently brought attention to their mistakes, fostering guided learning and problem-solving, as suggested by Lalande (1982) Consequently, students demonstrated fewer errors in their second essays, indicating the long-term benefits of this feedback approach.

In Stage 3, students demonstrated significant improvement in language usage, particularly in grammar, as evidenced by a notable reduction in errors related to verb tense, subject-verb agreement, and articles This suggests that even with less explicit feedback, students became more attentive to their language use in subsequent essays While the awareness gained cannot be solely attributed to indirect corrections from previous essays, the process of self-correcting during the revision of their first essay appeared to aid in internalizing grammatical rules, helping them avoid similar mistakes in future writing However, the number of errors related to language expression and sentence structure did not show a consistent decrease from Essay 1 to Essay 2 and Essay 3, nor in the delayed test.

Lexical errors, unlike grammatical ones, are not rule-based and therefore more challenging to address While students can sometimes correct marked lexical errors in revisions, they often introduce new errors in subsequent writing This aligns with Bitchener et al (2005), who found that indirect corrective feedback improved accuracy in simple past tense and definite articles but had no impact on vocabulary use The acquisition of linguistic features that are not rule-governed requires more frequent exposure and time, suggesting that the study's treatment may not have provided sufficient input or duration for significant improvement Additionally, the acquisition process varies across different language domains Ferris (1999) distinguishes between "treatable" errors, which follow patterns and can be corrected through rules, and "untreatable" errors, such as word choice and unidiomatic structures, which require deeper knowledge of the language This indicates that written indirect corrective feedback is most effective for "treatable" errors.

After three stages of correction, the total number of errors decreased, though the impact of different feedback strategies varied among individual error types Data from Tables 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 indicate that positive feedback significantly aids students in reducing writing errors Among the three feedback strategies examined, indirect corrective feedback proved to be the most effective, promoting guided learning and problem-solving Research suggests that indirect feedback fosters reflection and attention, enhancing long-term language acquisition, making it more beneficial than direct or metalinguistic feedback (Ferris and Roberts, 2001).

Students’ attitudes towards different types of CF and their effectiveness

A study revealed that 97.1% of students (34 out of 35) acknowledged the positive impact of teacher corrective feedback on their writing performance and expressed a desire for more feedback in the future Students attributed their wish for additional feedback primarily to the significant improvements in their writing skills One student noted, “Now I can see the positive impact of the error correction on my essay,” while others emphasized that their teacher's feedback led to noticeable enhancements in their writing abilities They highlighted that identifying errors helped them avoid repeating mistakes, with one student stating, “I want feedback in order not to fossilize wrong information in my mind.” This positive attitude towards corrective feedback was reflected in the steady 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 to consistent writing practice rather than teacher input She emphasized that thorough instruction prior to writing was sufficient, and that most of her errors stemmed from carelessness or psychological factors Despite her doubts about feedback, her essays demonstrated significant progress, with some being error-free and others containing only minor linguistic mistakes While the saying "Practice makes perfect" holds some truth, it is important to recognize that "Good practice makes perfect," as highlighted by another student who noted that effective learning, especially in writing, requires both practice and careful guidance from teachers.

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 students) preferred to receive teachers’ direct correction Many of them admitted that

Direct correction is favored by students for its clarity and immediate identification of errors, as it provides the correct forms directly Many students believe this approach enhances their understanding during revision, with one stating, “It is clearer for me when revising my writing.” Concerns about error codes not leading to the correct amendments further support the preference for direct feedback One student noted, “If the teacher does not provide the correct answer, I may not be sure that what I write is correct,” highlighting the importance of avoiding misunderstandings Additionally, some students feel that correcting errors is primarily the teacher's responsibility However, a couple of students cautioned that while they appreciate direct feedback, they believe indirect feedback should be reserved for early writing stages, as prolonged use could be time-consuming for teachers and may hinder student motivation.

Research indicates that students who received direct feedback on their essays in stage 1 demonstrated more significant improvements in their revisions compared to those who received other feedback types While students expressed a preference for direct feedback from teachers in their narratives, the long-term effectiveness of this approach was found to be minimal when compared to indirect feedback methods.

A total of 15 students, accounting for 42.86%, preferred metalinguistic corrective feedback, indicating a desire for underlined errors accompanied by codes in their writing They believed this approach would help them identify the types of mistakes they made While they acknowledged that direct correction is a straightforward method for error correction, they recognized that it does not facilitate understanding of the underlying reasons for their mistakes, often leading to repeated errors in different contexts By utilizing underlining and descriptive feedback, students can gain insights into their errors, enabling them to independently discover the correct forms.

One student expressed a need for clarity regarding their mistakes, stating that merely underlining errors can lead to confusion and incorrect assumptions about their errors During the error-marking process, it became evident that this student sometimes misinterpreted a word choice error as a word form error, despite receiving coding guidance Conversely, other students who shared similar views on metalinguistic feedback managed to revise their work successfully even without codes This analysis revealed a notable contrast between the students' feedback preferences and the actual effectiveness of each feedback type, highlighting a discrepancy in their perceptions versus outcomes.

Indirect feedback, despite its demonstrated long-term effectiveness in enhancing student writing, was surprisingly less preferred by many students, with only 17.14% expressing a preference for it Those who favored this feedback type highlighted its role in promoting learner autonomy, as one student noted, “It will help me in learning from my mistakes and to be more independent in identifying my errors.” They argued that indirect feedback fosters independence in error identification and correction, with one student stating, “This kind of feedback forces me to decide on the kind of error and correct it myself.” Additionally, students reported that this feedback method enhanced their self-study and problem-solving skills, motivating them to take responsibility for their writing Indirect feedback also aided in memorization and understanding of grammar and vocabulary, as one student explained, “It helps me realize the mistakes I did not think were incorrect.” Ultimately, while indirect feedback proved most effective, it did not align with student preferences, reinforcing Ferris's (2003) assertion that effectiveness and preference do not always coincide.

The analysis of student papers revealed a notable discrepancy between their preferences for explicit corrective feedback and the effectiveness of implicit feedback demonstrated in their writing While most students favored clear, direct corrections, the long-term results indicated that implicit feedback was more beneficial for their writing development.

3.2.3 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher corrective feedback

Students offered valuable suggestions to enhance the effectiveness of teacher feedback, emphasizing that all ideas warrant consideration While opinions varied on the most effective type of written corrective feedback, there was a consensus that feedback should be tailored to the students' proficiency levels, the specific categories of errors, the timing of the feedback, and the integration of various feedback types.

Many learners believe that instructors should encourage them to write multiple drafts for a single topic, as this practice significantly enhances their writing skills in areas such as ideas, organization, language use, and grammar Students expressed that writing more drafts allows them to expand their vocabulary and improve their overall writing abilities, while also receiving valuable feedback from their teachers Additionally, they emphasized the importance of having revised drafts reviewed to ensure that students engage in self-correction and verify the accuracy of their revisions.

Students expressed a desire for their teacher to analyze and explain common errors made in class, emphasizing the need for additional revision exercises when multiple students struggle with the same issues One student noted, “Common errors should be analyzed and explained in class, followed by extra exercises if many of us made the same mistake.” Additionally, they suggested a preference for receiving written corrective feedback alongside other forms of commentary, such as conferences and oral remarks, 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 tailor their feedback methods based on students' writing abilities, suggesting that indirect feedback is more appropriate for advanced learners, while direct feedback benefits those with limited skills This perspective aligns with the findings of Frantzen and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010), who argue that lower proficiency students may find simple error underlining insufficient for understanding their mistakes Additionally, Ferris (2002) advocates for indirect feedback in most cases but warns that students with lower second language proficiency might require direct feedback for effective learning.

Students expressed a desire for varied feedback types from their teachers when reviewing essays, emphasizing the importance of tailored responses for different error categories They specifically requested detailed guidance and direct corrections for issues related to word choice, collocation, and sentence structure, while preferring to self-check minor errors like verb tense and subject-verb agreement Some students suggested that teachers should assist them in identifying vocabulary and idiomatic errors, leaving less critical grammatical mistakes for self-correction As one student articulated, recognizing spelling and grammar mistakes is manageable, but difficulties arise with sentence structure and word choice, necessitating teacher intervention to highlight these errors.

Students suggest that a combination of direct and indirect corrective feedback is beneficial for their writing development Many expect to receive both types simultaneously, with one student noting the importance of using indirect feedback for grammar errors, prepositions, and word forms, while reserving direct feedback for issues like word repetition, collocation, idioms, and complex sentence structures Another student emphasized that gifted English learners should initially be allowed to identify and address their own mistakes through indirect feedback, with direct corrections provided only when they struggle to self-correct.

While some students preferred coded feedback, others found it unnecessary, arguing that they could identify and correct errors without it One student noted that underlining errors suffices, especially since some issues, like collocation and unidiomatic structures, remain uncorrectable regardless of coding Additionally, they pointed out that coding is more time-consuming than simple underlining, which could save teachers time This perspective is supported by findings indicating that indirect feedback led to 88 percent of accurate revisions in drafts, suggesting that this approach deserves serious consideration.

Reflection

A recent study demonstrated that teacher corrective feedback significantly enhanced students' writing performance over six months, transforming the interest levels of all 35 participants in writing lessons Initially, many students lacked enthusiasm and frequently made errors in their essays, but throughout the implementation of corrective feedback, they became more engaged and focused The research indicated that this feedback effectively reduced linguistic errors in revised essays and subsequent writings, a finding supported by students' free narratives Notably, 34 students reported gradual improvement in their writing skills due to the feedback, while one student credited her progress to practice, yet acknowledged a newfound interest in writing.

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

Correcting errors in students' writing can be one of the most frustrating tasks for language teachers, especially when the same mistakes reappear despite significant time spent on corrections It is essential for educators to recognize that errors are a natural part of L2 writing and to focus on helping learners develop effective self-correction strategies After students engage in self-correction, incorporating activities to review drafts and address common errors can further enhance their writing skills.

Students generally appreciate corrective feedback from teachers, but their preferences for specific feedback types can differ significantly While individual concerns and preferences exist, these do not always correlate with the effectiveness of the feedback provided Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to identify and address students' feedback preferences while ensuring that the feedback serves clear educational purposes rather than merely catering to student likes.

Encouraging self-correction among English major students is essential, though direct correction is sometimes needed Different students and errors necessitate varied feedback approaches, so teachers must remain flexible Initially, teachers can provide indirect feedback to allow students the opportunity to self-correct; if they struggle, direct feedback should then be employed In this context, metalinguistic feedback may not be necessary.

In conclusion, analysis of students' essays and narratives indicates that teacher corrective feedback positively influences both writing performance and attitudes towards writing and feedback While changes were modest, they suggest the potential benefits of this approach 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 writing process, particularly at intermediate stages, to enhance students' engagement with their drafts This feedback should foster positive learning experiences and guide students in understanding the revision process It is crucial for teachers to evaluate whether their comments encourage students to take appropriate actions during revisions Additionally, teachers should review revised drafts to ensure students are self-correcting errors using various sources Discussing common writing errors in class allows students to reflect on their self-correction strategies and motivates them to improve their writing skills Furthermore, identifying and explaining these common errors can inform teachers' future instructional strategies.

Effective teacher corrective feedback should consider individual student needs and contextual variables, particularly for those with lower English proficiency, as their inability to self-correct can lead to negative attitudes towards writing Feedback should be tailored to students' language skills, writing abilities, and prior experiences, rather than solely based on their preferences Research indicates a disconnect between students' beliefs about feedback types and their actual effectiveness, emphasizing the need for teachers to prioritize the most suitable feedback methods It is crucial for educators to help students understand the purpose of feedback and to explore their beliefs about writing and error correction, bridging any gaps in expectations Classroom discussions on feedback can enhance teachers' awareness of student perceptions and promote effective learning Lastly, fostering a positive environment where students feel comfortable addressing their errors is vital, as teachers should view mistakes as opportunities for growth and provide additional practice to reinforce learning.

Effective teaching relies on students' willingness to engage and respond appropriately Corrective feedback is essential for learners to evaluate and monitor their progress Without personalized attention and adequate feedback on mistakes, improvement is unlikely Therefore, students must actively participate in the error correction process A positive 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 common mistakes Utilizing various resources for self-correction, they can document their errors and the corresponding corrections in a notebook or error record sheet Regularly reviewing these notes will help reinforce their learning and prevent future mistakes.

Student progress relies on both teachers' efforts and students' active participation Engaging in the error correction process is crucial for enhancing language acquisition, ultimately fostering autonomous learners who can self-correct their writing.

1 Summary of the main findings

The study explored the impact of three types of teacher corrective feedback on the writing performance of 12th-grade English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School A total of 35 students participated in a six-month action research project, with data gathered from their essays and narratives Following the implementation of the corrective feedback, the research addressed two key questions regarding its effectiveness.

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 feedback types showing positive revision effects Notably, indirect feedback demonstrated a significant long-term impact, while direct feedback proved most effective in revised essays, as students often copied the teacher's corrections Immediate revision effects were observed in stages 2 and 3 with metalinguistic and indirect feedback, respectively, suggesting that students' explicit knowledge of grammar aids in self-correction when errors are pointed out However, the effectiveness of the three feedback types varied across different error types; indirect feedback consistently addressed "treatable" or "rule-based" errors effectively over time, while direct feedback had limited immediate impact on language expression and sentence structure errors Metalinguistic feedback was particularly effective in reducing article errors.

This study highlights the effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback (CF) in specific contexts: it was applied to students with intermediate to advanced English proficiency, with a primary focus on essay writing The feedback targeted five specific linguistic errors, predominantly affecting rule-based or treatable structures Additionally, the process included rewriting essays based on the provided feedback, enhancing the learning experience.

A significant majority of students (34 out of 35) recognized the positive impact of teacher corrective feedback on their writing performance, with only one student attributing their improvement to practice rather than the feedback itself While students acknowledged the effectiveness of corrective feedback (CF), their preferences for the type of feedback varied, 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 (CF) significantly enhanced students' writing performance and had a positive impact on their attitudes toward both writing skills and teacher feedback.

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, potentially affecting the effectiveness of teacher feedback in stages 2 and 3 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 presented in their narratives Despite these limitations, the researcher aims for this study to contribute positively to the teaching and learning of writing skills at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School.

Plans for the next cycle

In the upcoming cycle, we will test the types of written corrective feedback preferred by students to assess their correlation with improvements in writing performance Additionally, incorporating an interview as a research instrument is recommended to enhance the reliability of the study's findings It is crucial to consider students' suggestions from their narratives to evaluate their practicality in the next cycle.

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) analyze student responses to expert feedback in second language (L2) writing, highlighting the importance of effective feedback in enhancing writing skills Similarly, Hyland and Hyland (2006) provide a comprehensive overview of feedback mechanisms for L2 students, emphasizing its critical role in language learning and writing development Both studies underscore the necessity of tailored feedback to foster improvement and confidence in L2 writing.

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 can be challenging, especially when I tend to translate Vietnamese sentences into English, which sometimes leads to meaningless phrases However, after writing essays on various topics and receiving valuable feedback, my writing skills have improved significantly The constructive criticism provided by my teacher last semester helped me identify and avoid errors in my future writing I prefer indirect corrective feedback, as it encourages me to recognize my mistakes and find ways to correct them independently This approach allows me to engage with my writing more deeply, rather than simply glossing over direct corrections Additionally, metallinguistic feedback helps me understand the types of mistakes I make, prompting me to seek alternative words or structures In conclusion, indirect corrective feedback offers more advantages and fosters greater skill development compared to direct feedback methods.

Practice is essential for mastering writing skills, as repeated essay writing has helped me adapt to English conventions rather than relying on my first language Additionally, identifying and correcting my own mistakes enhances my understanding and retention of the material As we approach the end of the school year, we recognize the importance of becoming independent writers who can self-correct in our future endeavors.

In the University entrance examination, essay writing may carry less weight than other sections, yet it plays a crucial role in achieving a high score in English At the beginning of the school year, many students excelled in multiple-choice questions but neglected writing However, after six months of dedicated practice, my writing skills have improved significantly This progress is largely due to increased practice, but the most vital factor has been the corrective feedback we received Without having our mistakes identified and corrected, our advancement would not have been as substantial.

Initially, I preferred direct feedback for its clarity in identifying mistakes and guiding corrections However, I now find indirect feedback to be more effective By underlining errors and prompting me to think critically about my responses, I retain the information longer and pay closer attention to my mistakes in future essays This method not only highlights errors I previously overlooked but also aids in avoiding misconceptions Additionally, it enhances my retention of vocabulary, phrases, and grammatical structures, proving beneficial for my language exercises.

I believe that using codes and symbols for marking essays is inefficient, as it requires significant time to reference error code sheets I hope for a more effective approach to grading in the next semester that considers each student's abilities and the specific types of errors they make Thank you.

From grade 10 to the end of grade 11, I neglected to practice my writing skills It was only through your weekly writing assignments and the requirement to submit two drafts for each essay that I began to enhance my writing abilities I learned how to create outlines and write a short essay in approximately 35 minutes After consistently writing for over a semester, I noticed significant improvements in my writing skills, particularly due to your effective feedback methods.

Coded corrective feedback (CF) is the most effective method for addressing mistakes, as simply underlining errors can lead to confusion and further misunderstandings While direct feedback can be time-consuming for teachers and may encourage laziness among students, coded feedback offers clarity, especially for minor mistakes like word form, verb tense, and subject-verb agreement However, it is less effective for sentence structure errors, where more detailed corrections are necessary to facilitate understanding Encouraging multiple drafts enhances vocabulary, grammar, and writing skills, while frequent feedback from teachers is beneficial Sharing exemplary work from peers can also aid in improving writing Analyzing common errors in class and providing additional exercises can reinforce learning, and combining written corrective feedback with oral comments and conferences can further support student development.

After one semester of writing instruction, I have significantly improved my skills, largely due to the valuable feedback on my errors Without this feedback, I risked internalizing incorrect information The process of submitting our essays for correction and then rewriting them helped me understand my mistakes and learn the correct forms This structured approach allowed me to identify my weaknesses and gain clarity on how to improve my writing.

I appreciate the feedback that allows me to avoid previous mistakes, particularly the direct corrections, as they provide clear guidance for revising my writing In later stages, the approach shifted to underlining errors and using symbols for self-correction, which helps me recognize my mistakes and promotes better retention of the correct forms However, this method can be challenging at times, as I struggle to remember some symbols and often need to refer to the error code sheet for clarification Recently, the focus has been solely on underlining errors, requiring me to identify the types of mistakes and seek out solutions independently.

Corrective feedback (CF) is highly effective, especially for addressing errors in spelling, verb tenses, and forms As students become more proficient in writing, incorporating indirect feedback can be beneficial In the upcoming semester, it is advisable to utilize a variety of CF methods simultaneously and tailor the feedback types to individual students based on their writing skills and English proficiency levels.

After one semester of writing practice, I have noticed significant improvement in my writing skills I particularly favor indirect feedback among the three types of correction, as it proves to be the most effective for me By identifying and correcting my own mistakes, I enhance my ability to self-correct and retain knowledge more effectively This process not only deepens my understanding of errors but also aids in long-term retention of the material.

In the upcoming semester, it's essential to tailor feedback to the specific types of mistakes students make Direct feedback should be reserved for early stages of writing, as prolonged use can be time-consuming for teachers and may lead to student complacency This type of feedback is particularly effective for language expression errors, such as word choice and collocation, especially since many students, including myself, often translate directly from Vietnamese to English, resulting in incorrect phrases In these cases, coded corrective feedback may not be beneficial, as students may struggle to apply the given instructions to correct their errors.

I realize I've chosen the wrong word but struggle to find a suitable replacement When it comes to grammatical errors, I prefer indirect feedback; I usually correct these mistakes myself, whether or not there are codes involved For these types of errors, simply underlining them allows me to self-correct I believe that merely providing correct feedback is insufficient.

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