Background to the study and statement of problem
Second language (L2) writing has gained significant attention among researchers, evolving into a well-established field since its inception in the late 1950s and early 1960s, primarily focusing on the needs of international ESL writers in North American higher education Over the past five decades, research inquiries into L2 writing have surged, yielding valuable insights; however, a comprehensive review of major issues and findings remains limited This paper aims to provide a systematic overview of L2 writing research development and identify unresolved problems to inspire future studies While it is unnecessary to detail every individual study due to the diverse interests of researchers, this review will highlight key topics across five areas of L2 writing research, assisting novice researchers and those interested in this field Additionally, based on existing literature, we will propose several unresolved issues that warrant further exploration.
At Van Noi High School, writing is integrated into the English curriculum as a skill that complements other language skills, focusing on specific themes in each unit Observations indicate that students typically do not struggle with generating ideas for their writing assignments, as they engage in various pre-writing tasks that support their compositions However, a significant issue arises from frequent errors in lexical choice and mechanics, which negatively impact the accuracy and overall quality of the students' written work.
In response to the challenges in writing instruction, various strategies have been implemented, with corrective feedback (CF) emerging as the most favored approach among teachers at Van Noi High School This method focuses on addressing students' language errors in their written work, highlighting its importance in enhancing writing skills.
This article explores the underutilization of indirect corrective feedback (ICF) by English teachers, contrasting it with the common use of direct feedback in addressing students' writing errors The author conducts action research titled “Using Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students’ Writing to Improve Writing Skills for Grade 10 Mixed Level Students at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Ha Noi.” The study aims to evaluate the impact of ICF on students' writing accuracy, skill enhancement, and their perceptions of ICF's effectiveness Additionally, the research will provide recommendations for incorporating ICF into writing tasks.
Aim of the study
This study aims to investigate how the use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) impacts the writing skills of mixed-level 10th-grade students at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Ha Noi.
Research question
This study aims to explore students' attitudes and behaviors while examining the impact of using the ICF on their writing skills The research seeks to enhance students' writing abilities by addressing the following question: how does the implementation of ICF influence their writing performance?
To what extent can the teacher’s ICF influence the writing skill of students at Van Noi high school?
Scope of the study
A study was conducted with 15 grade 10 students of varying proficiency levels at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi This minor thesis explores the impact of using the ICF on students' writing, focusing on key areas such as verb tenses, articles, prepositions, and spelling.
Significance of the study
This study examines the impact of using the ICF framework on students' writing at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi The findings aim to provide valuable insights for EFL teachers, enabling them to adopt more effective writing instruction methods Additionally, the results will assist both myself and my colleagues in enhancing our teaching practices at Van Noi High School, while also benefiting English writing instructors in similar contexts across Vietnam.
Organization of the study
The study is organized into the following parts as follows:
The introduction outlines the study's background and the problem statement, detailing the aims and research questions while defining the scope and significance of the research.
Chapter 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW - provides a theoretical framework for the study, including process approach in ESL/EFL writing, writing accuracy, students‟ written errors and teacher‟s ICF in ESL/EFL writing
Chapter 2 – METHODOLOGY provides an overview of Van Noi High School and examines the English teaching and learning processes within the institution It details the research methodology, including the data collection instruments, the participants involved, and the procedures implemented to conduct the study effectively.
Chapter 3 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS – reports and discusses the findings of the study
CONCLUSION summarizes the main issues that have been addressed in the study, points out the limitations, draws pedagogical implications concerning the research topic and suggests several solutions
Following this chapter will be the REFERENCES and APPENDICES
LITERATURE REVIEW
Learning and teaching writing skill in English as a foreign language
Writing poses significant challenges for second-language (L2) learners, as it demands proficiency in diverse linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural skills (Seyyed et al., 2015) Consequently, many educators find that teaching L2 writing is a complex and demanding endeavor.
Feedback on students' writings is essential in L2 instruction, as it informs writing teachers about student performance on assignments, a key responsibility in their role Students also rely on feedback to assess their success and identify areas for improvement in future writing tasks In the writing classroom, feedback primarily comes from two sources: L2 writing instructors and fellow students (Zhang, 2008).
Types of CF in writing
Feedback is a relatively new concept in research, with early studies from Behaviorist researchers in the 1950s and 1960s emphasizing error prevention over error correction They believed that errors should be avoided as they could lead to habit formation and disrupt the development of more desirable skills Corrective feedback (CF) was provided to students who responded incorrectly, with the understanding that learning occurs only when students practice correct responses (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012) Many educators and researchers, including Ferris (1999), argued against Truscott's assertion that "grammar correction is ineffective and potentially harmful" (Truscott, 1996, p 118), deeming it premature and inaccurate.
While there is a general agreement among educators about the importance of feedback, extensive research is required to validate this claim and determine the most effective methods for delivering feedback that significantly enhances students' writing skills.
Feedback is essential in education as it provides students with specific information about their learning and helps bridge the gap between their current understanding and desired outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) Two main types of corrective feedback are distinguished: indirect corrective feedback, which merely indicates errors without providing the correct form, and direct error correction, which identifies both the error and the correct form (Van Beuningen, 2008) Indirect feedback requires students to identify and correct their own mistakes (Zaman & Azad, 2012), while direct correction offers the correct answer from the teacher (Ellis, 2009A) Ellis also outlines various types of corrective feedback used in research, summarized in Table 1.1, which encompasses all feedback methods examined in this study.
Some researchers report no significant difference between the direct and ICF
Robb et al explore four types of feedback, including both direct feedback and indirect feedback that indicates the number of errors per line of text Their research highlights the impact of these feedback methods on students' accuracy improvements, aligning with findings from Ferris.
Roberts' analysis relies solely on revised texts rather than new writing samples from students, limiting the ability to assess the long-term impact of written corrective feedback (CF) on student accuracy.
Table 1.1: Types of Feedback (Ellis, 2009a, p.98)
1 Direct CF The teacher provides the student with the correct form
2 ICF 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 use of cursors to show omissions in the student´s text
B: Indication only This takes the form of an indication in the margin that an error or errors have taken place in a line of text
3 Metalinguistic CF The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue to the nature of the error
A: Use of error code Teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g ww = wrong word; art = article)
B: Brief grammatical Description Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text
4 The focus of the feedback This concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of the students´ errors or selects one or two specific types of errors to correct This distinction can be applied to each of the above options
A: Unfocused CF Unfocused CF is extensive
B: Focused CF Focused CF is intensive
5 Electronic feedback The teacher indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a concordance file that provides examples of correct usage
6 Reformulation This consists of a native speaker´s reworking of the students´ entire text to make the language seem as native-like as possible while keeping the content of the original intact.
Teacher‟s ICF feedback in writing
The treatment of errors, or corrective feedback (CF), in second language acquisition (SLA) varies across different theoretical perspectives These varying approaches have influenced research on corrective feedback in both SLA and second language (L2) writing This section explores the various methods of providing corrective feedback in L2 writing.
The type of feedback provided by teachers significantly influences students' approaches to the writing process, their perceptions of feedback, and their revision practices (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lockhart & Ng, 1995) Research in L2 writing has identified various aspects of students' written texts that teachers address, including ideas, rhetorical organization, grammar, word choice, spelling, and punctuation (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997; Hedgcock).
Teacher's Integrated Correction Framework (ICF) is a comprehensive strategy that incorporates various approaches to effectively address written errors As outlined by Bitchener and Ferris, this method combines essential characteristics from different correction types to enhance the learning experience.
In 2012, the concept of implicit corrective feedback (ICF) was highlighted as a teaching strategy where educators draw students' attention to errors in their written work without providing direct corrections Joe elaborates on this approach, emphasizing the importance of indicating the presence of errors that require attention While two earlier methods of ICF offer insights into this strategy, the specifics of how teachers implement it remain somewhat ambiguous According to Ellis (2006), ICF involves signaling errors through various methods such as encircling, underlining, highlighting, or using error codes next to the mistakes A brief overview of the error codes utilized in this process is presented in the following table.
Table 1 2: Error code (adapted from Tribble [65, p.154])
Ellis (2009) distinguishes between two types of corrective feedback (CF): indirect corrective feedback (ICF) and direct corrective feedback (DCF) DCF involves teachers identifying errors and providing the correct forms, thereby guiding students to recognize and rectify their mistakes In contrast, ICF focuses on marking errors—such as underlining or coding—without directly correcting them, allowing students to take a more active role in their writing tasks This approach positions the teacher as a facilitator, highlighting errors while encouraging student engagement in the correction process The author adopts this framework as the working definition for the study, emphasizing the importance of ICF in promoting student learning.
Effects of ICF on students' ESL/EFL writing
Research on the impact of corrective feedback (CF) on students' writing has produced mixed results, leading to ongoing debates among scholars While Truscott argues that error correction is largely unnecessary and potentially detrimental, suggesting it detracts from more valuable writing instruction, other researchers emphasize the benefits of both direct corrective feedback (DCF) and indirect corrective feedback (ICF) A comparative analysis of DCF and ICF could enhance our understanding of their respective effectiveness, although existing studies often yield contradictory findings regarding their impact on ESL/EFL learners' writing outcomes.
Furthermore, although it is found in Chandler (2003) that students who receive direct CF often perform better than students who receive ICF, Lalande
Research by Lalande (1982) and Lee (2009) indicates that students benefit more in terms of accuracy when their texts undergo indirect correction rather than direct correction Furthermore, Lalande (1982) highlights that Indirect Correction Feedback (ICF) promotes guided learning and problem-solving skills, making it a more effective approach for fostering long-term learning outcomes.
The debate over the effectiveness of various types of Conceptual Frameworks (CF) continues among researchers While many studies endorse the use of Dynamic Conceptual Frameworks (DCF), a significant number also highlight the benefits of Interactive Conceptual Frameworks (ICF) Research supporting DCF acknowledges that ICF can positively influence students' problem-solving skills and contribute to their long-term learning outcomes.
A brief review of previous studies on CF
Numerous studies have explored various aspects of corrective feedback (CF), including comparisons between different types of written feedback and the effects of feedback versus no feedback To align with the objectives of this research, which investigates the impact of implicit corrective feedback (ICF) on students' writing and specific error types, the researcher reviewed relevant studies and scientific articles.
Table 1.3: Review of some related previous studies on corrective feedback
Author Title Organization and description Findings
Study 1: An investigation into the efficacy of the correction of grammatical and lexical errors
Study 2: An investigation into how error correction should be done
Group 1: Correction of grammatical and lexical errors Group 2: Control
Group 2: Underlining and description of error type
Group 3: Description of error type Group 4: Underlining
Study 1: Correction is significantly effective Study 2: Direct correction and simple underlining of errors are significantly superior to describing the types of errors for reducing long-term error Direct correction is best for accurate revision Lalande(1982) An investigation into the effect of two types of written feedback on the writing of
Group 1: Direct error correction Group 2:
Learners reported advantage for indirect feedback over error correction No statistical difference was reported between the two treatments
An investigation into the effect of direct and indirect
Group 1: Direct corrective feedback Group 2: Indirect
Direct and indirect feedback improved writing accuracy feedback on writing accuracy feedback Control 1:
Self-editing but no feedback Control 2:
No self-editing and no feedback
Direct corrective feedback is effective for better grammatical accuracy and indirect feedback is better for non- grammatical accuracy
Truscott‟s (1996) argument on grammar correction
Grammar correction should be used
The effect of focused and unfocused corrective feedback compared with no feedback
Group 1: Focused feedback on articles Group 2: Unfocused feedback Group 3:
Focused and unfocused corrective feedback improved students‟ accuracy but no difference between the two types of feedback Teachers should provide corrective feedback to students
A review article of studies on corrective
Teachers should provide corrective feedback feedback Nguyen Thi
Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in English writing at the Faculty of English, Hanoi National
Group 1: indirect corrective feedback Group 2: direct corrective feedback
The research shows the remarkable improvement on writing accuracy in the indirect corrective group and their positive attitudes towards the use of teacher‟s ICF in writing Pham Lan
The impact of indirect feedback on learners‟ grammatical errors in EFL writing classes
Group 1: using DCF Group 2: using ICF
Students in the experimental group exhibit significantly fewer grammatical errors compared to those in the control group, particularly when errors are analyzed collectively The use of ICF contributes to a reduction in various error categories, with a notable decrease in errors associated with the simple past tense.
The studies highlighted above consistently demonstrate the effectiveness of the ICF in various educational settings, all of which were conducted with the backing of experimental or quasi-experimental methodologies.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of CF strategies on students' writing skills at Van Noi High School, using pretests and posttests to measure performance The research hypothesizes that ICF can positively impact writing skills, leading to an investigation of its influence Ultimately, the findings provide compelling evidence of ICF's beneficial effects on writing within the educational context.
Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of Immediate Corrective Feedback (ICF) in enhancing students' writing skills in English as a foreign language ICF is recognized as a valuable strategy that aids students in identifying and correcting their writing errors, ultimately improving their proficiency.
METHODOLOGY
Rationale for the use of Action research
Action research is described as “a small scale investigation by teachers on specific classroom problems for the purpose of curriculum renewal and/or professional development” (Field, 1997; LoCastro, 1994; Markee, 1996, Nunan,
Action research, as defined by Bassey (1998), is an inquiry aimed at understanding, evaluating, and improving educational practices, specifically designed by teachers to enhance their own teaching A key characteristic of action research is its context-specific nature, as highlighted by McDonough & McDonough (1997), meaning it is typically conducted within a specific classroom setting by an individual teacher to address particular teaching and learning challenges Recognizing the uniqueness of each teaching situation—considering factors like content, student levels, skills, and learning styles—teachers must identify strategies that work best in their specific context For this thesis, I found that action research is the most suitable methodology to effectively improve students' writing skills.
The number of stages in action research varies among researchers, with some identifying as many as eleven stages (Burn, 2005), while others propose only six or seven Most action research models draw from Kurt Lewin's 1940s framework, which outlines a four-stage action cycle: planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
Figure 1: Cycle of Action Research Adapted from Richards & Lockhart (1998, p.12)
The other model of action research suggested by Kemmis & McTaggart (2000, p
The cyclical processes of action research are better understood through the framework provided by Kemmis and McTaggart (2000) However, the limited timeframe of this study makes it challenging to implement their model effectively in real teaching and research contexts As a result, the researcher has opted to utilize Nunan's (1990) action research model instead.
The thesis design is grounded in Nunan's (1992) action research model, selected for its clarity and relevance to the study's context Nunan (2012:35) outlines a cyclical process in action research, which includes several key steps essential for effective implementation.
Action research, as outlined by Nunan (1992), begins with identifying a problem that requires resolution, followed by a preliminary investigation where teachers gather baseline data to understand the issue better Based on this initial data, a hypothesis is developed The next phase involves the intervention stage, where teachers create and apply various teaching strategies Evaluation is conducted to assess the effectiveness of these interventions Finally, the dissemination stage involves reporting the results, while the follow-up stage examines alternative solutions to the identified problem.
Context of the study
The study was conducted at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, a rural area where students have limited opportunities to practice English With over 2,000 students divided into three groups—10th, 11th, and 12th grades—there is a noticeable variance in English proficiency, primarily due to the fact that English is not a mandatory subject upon entering the school This low overall proficiency poses significant challenges for both teachers and students, particularly for 10th graders who are just beginning to adapt to a new academic environment.
The textbook is used to teach English to the students of group 10 is English
The nationally used textbook for Grade 10 in Vietnam is structured into units, each comprising five key components: reading, listening, speaking, writing, and language focus Writing is emphasized as a core skill in every unit, providing significant advantages for both teachers and students This structure allows educators to create detailed lesson plans specifically for writing, employing effective techniques to enhance student engagement and focus during writing activities.
Subjects
The study involved 15 randomly selected students from group 10, each with varying levels of English proficiency, identified as S1 to S15 These participants expressed enthusiasm for the innovative feedback correction method introduced by their teacher.
Research instruments
There were a number of data collecting instruments both qualitative and quantitative ones were used in this research
2.4.1 The researcher’s analysis of the students’ writings (See Appendices for more detail)
The researcher utilized a personal diary to analyze and evaluate students' progress across five writing assignments, aiming to document their development in writing skills effectively.
The researcher’s analysis of student writings was systematically organized using tables and checklists This analysis included students' names, identification codes, the total number of errors made, the number of errors corrected, and detailed notes on writing assignments during the implementation of the ICF A comprehensive overview of the analysis scheme will be provided in section 2.3.4.2.
- Participants: The participants were 15 grade 10 th students of mixed levels at Van Noi high school
- Procedure: The researcher started to record information since the first week using her ICF until the last week of the treatment procedure
A semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method that combines a predetermined set of questions with the flexibility to explore specific themes in depth This approach allows respondents to express their thoughts beyond fixed answers, fostering open discussions related to the research topic By employing semi-structured interviews, researchers gain valuable insights while maintaining the freedom to gather comprehensive information from participants, making it a suitable choice for this study.
Two designs of interviews which were used can be described as follows:
* Semi-structured interview design for writing teachers :( See Appendices for more detail)
The interview was conducted prior to the employment of the teacher's Instructional Coaching Framework (ICF) to explore the current state of writing instruction at Van Noi High School It aimed to assess students' English writing proficiency levels and evaluate the impact of existing corrective feedback (CF) strategies on their writing accuracy and overall writing skills.
The semi-structured interview consisted of five open-ended questions, accompanied by sub-questions to facilitate discussion Insights gathered from the interview suggested that employing the teacher's Individualized Curriculum Framework (ICF) could be advantageous for her students.
- Participants: The interviewees were three teachers of English at Van Noi High School with at least 2-year teaching experience
The researcher arranged interviews with selected English teachers following an analysis of student writing samples and prior to implementing the ICF To ensure the reliability of the information gathered, the teachers were not informed about the content or purpose of the interviews in advance.
* Semi-structured interview design for the students: (See Appendices for more detail)
- Purpose: The interview was conducted after the employment of teacher‟s ICF to gain in-depth information of the assigned intervention
- Structure of semi-structured interview: The interview included 8 open- ended questions plus sub-questions for discussion mainly framing on these three issues:
+ Questions 1, 2, 4 & 5 dealt with the impact of teacher‟s ICF on the students‟ writing
+ Questions 3, 6 & 7 referred to the students‟ reaction and attitudes towards teacher‟s ICF
+ Question 8 asked for the students‟ suggestions for better use of teacher‟s ICF in the future
The language used for this interview was Vietnamese
- Participants: The interviewees were 3 students chosen from the researcher‟s writing class One of them was the lowest, one was the medium and the other was
- Procedure: The interview was before the conduction of the survey questionnaire
2.4.3 A survey questionnaire (See Appendices for more detail)
A questionnaire serves as an effective tool for collecting information on the affective aspects of teaching and learning, including beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and preferences Its ability to reach a large number of respondents quickly makes it an ideal choice for this study.
- Purpose: The survey questionnaire was designed to measure the students‟ reactions and attitudes towards the teacher‟ ICF in writing
The survey questionnaire was adapted from Ryan and Deci's Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (2000) and consists of 20 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale Written in Vietnamese, the questionnaire aims to assess students' levels of agreement on four key aspects of intrinsic motivation.
+ Statements 1, 2 & 3 investigated the students‟ interests and enjoyment towards the researcher‟s use of ICF
+ Statements 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 investigated the value and usefulness of ICF on the students‟ writings
+ Statements 11, 12, 13, 14, &15 investigated the students‟ tension and anxiety when ICF was used in writing
+ Statements 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 referred to the students‟ expectations and suggestions for better use of teacher‟s ICF
- Participants: The survey was delivered to the 15 students in Group 10A
- Procedure: The survey was conducted after the student interview
This classroom action research was conducted in three key phases: Pre-action, Action, and Post-action, following the detailed steps outlined by Nunan throughout each phase.
The Initiation step engaged students in identifying errors within a specific paragraph while familiarizing them with various error codes Based on the students' performance in this initial task, the researcher assessed the necessity for classroom interventions aimed at enhancing their writing skills.
In a research study, the teacher identified a dilemma affecting Group 10, which consisted of students with varying levels of English proficiency, during a writing task This was achieved by analyzing two sample writing assignments from previous terms and conducting interviews with three English teachers at Van Noi High School.
* Analysis of the students’ sample writing assignments:
The researcher analyzed two recent writing assignments and identified common linguistic errors, including issues with tenses, verb forms, prepositions, articles, and spelling These errors were the most frequent, while additional flaws included run-on sentences, improper word order, and poor word choice.
In summary, the students at Van Noi High School made a variety of errors, most of which belong to grammatical and mechanics items
*Semi-structured interview with teachers:
A semi-structured interview with three English teachers explored the challenges students encounter in writing tasks and the correction strategies employed by the teachers The findings from these interviews highlighted a range of issues that align with the researcher's analysis of students' writing assignments.
- The students‟ major problems in doing writing tasks
Teachers assessed their students' English writing proficiency and identified common challenges faced during writing tasks All three educators agreed that students are capable of composing short paragraphs on familiar topics, including family, friends, homes, hobbies, and work However, they frequently encounter typical errors in the students' writing samples.
The analysis of student writing assignments and teacher interviews at Van Noi High School highlighted significant weaknesses in linguistic accuracy, particularly in verb tenses, articles, prepositions, and spelling This assessment underscored the need for a trial of the teacher's ICF approach to improve writing tasks, as the current DCF method showed limited effectiveness Due to time constraints, the researcher focused on these four common error types to implement targeted interventions in the action cycle.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
3.1.1 Findings from the researcher’ analysis of the students’ writings
The researcher’s diary includes students’ writings from in-class assignments and final versions, along with their error records collected during a 5-week intervention This data was systematically coded, categorized, and analyzed to assess the impact of the teacher's Instructional Coaching Framework (ICF) on students' writing While focusing on four specific error types among 15 mixed-level 10th-grade students, the researcher aimed to evaluate the overall linguistic accuracy of their writing before analyzing the distribution of these errors in their assignments.
3.1.1.1 Distribution of error types in the students’ five WSs
During the ICF intervention, the researcher identified and clarified four prevalent error types in student writings: verb tenses, articles, prepositions, and spelling The frequency of these errors was systematically coded and calculated, with results visually represented in a distributional chart to assess which error type benefited most from the teacher's ICF.
Table 3.1 Distribution of four typical error types in the students’ WSs
TYPES OF ERRORS WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04 WS05
The analysis of the data reveals that Tense/Verb Form errors were the most frequent, while preposition errors were the least common Notably, the overall occurrence of error types decreased significantly over the course of the five-week investigation.
3.1.1.2 Comparison of decreasing rate of each error type among WAs
To better understand the impact of ICF on various committed error types, the following figures illustrate the reduction rates of each error type throughout the entire intervention.
Figure 2 Comparison of decreasing rate of each error type among WSs
In the initial in-class writing, students predominantly struggled with tenses and verb form errors, but these mistakes diminished significantly in the subsequent four writing samples, with nearly 60% of such errors eliminated by the fifth assignment Conversely, errors related to article usage and prepositions emerged as the most persistent challenges throughout the five writing samples While the overall frequency of these errors decreased, the rate of improvement was less pronounced compared to other error types Consequently, it can be concluded that the intervention program was effective in addressing tense, verb form, and spelling issues, but offered limited benefits for improving article and preposition usage in students' writings.
3.1.1.3 The students’ self-editing ability based on the result of five revisions
The assessment of students' self-editing skills was based on the percentage of errors corrected in their revised texts, following indirect feedback from the teacher The results are illustrated in the figure below.
Chart Title tense prep spelling art.
Percentage of errors corrected each week
Figure 3 Distribution of percentage of errors corrected each week
Over a five-week period, students demonstrated a significant improvement in their self-correcting abilities, with the percentage of errors corrected in their compositions increasing from 11.82% in the first week to 56.02% by the final week This upward trend suggests that students effectively addressed their mistakes during in-class writing To further evaluate the impact of the teacher's Instructional Corrective Feedback (ICF), an analysis of the post-action questionnaire and interviews is necessary.
In summary, the research analysis of students' writing assignments during the action phase reveals that ICF significantly improved students' writing skills by enhancing linguistic accuracy and reducing grammatical and mechanical errors in their compositions throughout the ICF treatment period.
3.1.2 Findings from interview with the students
The second interview aimed to assess changes in students' attitudes towards ICF treatment following its application to their writing It also sought to identify any new post-feedback practices they adopted Additionally, students' responses provided valuable insights that enhanced the findings derived from the writing sections.
WS 01 WS 02 WS 03 WS 04 WS 05
Percentage of errors corrected each week 11,82 35,36 46,4 50,42 56,02
The percentage of errors corrected each week was assessed among interviewees selected based on their performance during a 5-week ICF intervention, as detailed in Chapter 2 The participants, identified as S4, S10, and S11, represented three distinct levels within the group, showcasing varying correction abilities.
Figure 4 Distribution of percentage of errors corrected each week by the three students 3.1.2.1 Impacts of the teacher’s ICF on the students’ writing
- The students’ writing proficiency before the ICF intervention:
Before the researcher’s ICF intervention, students expressed their concerns about their writing proficiency, with many identifying writing as “the most challenging skill” compared to other language abilities Student S4 noted, “Exercises involving writing are very difficult,” highlighting struggles with both single sentences and paragraph composition Similarly, student S10 acknowledged difficulties in using various verb forms and tenses Overall, the students felt that their writing skills were inadequate, and they were not satisfied with the quality of their written work.
The occurrence of many types of errors in their writings was stated by all of the three students S11: “I committed many errors in tenses and verb forms because
I struggled to clearly identify the differences and formation of tenses in my writing Additionally, I was overwhelmed by choices of prepositions and spellings My work contained various errors, including run-on sentences and numerous word mistakes, which significantly affected the overall quality of my pieces.
200 w2 w3 w4 w5 choices and word order (S4) were also helpful to describe the reality of the students‟ writing skill at Van Noi High School
In conclusion, the post-action interview with three students highlighted their previously identified writing skill deficiencies and revealed common errors in their writing prior to the implementation of the ICF in their writing sessions.
- Impact of teacher’s ICF on the students’ writings:
Students expressed satisfaction with the benefits gained from the teacher's Interactional Corrective Feedback (ICF), noting improvements in their written accuracy and overall writing skills, despite the limited duration of the intervention and the focus on specific error types Many students reported enhanced grammatical understanding, particularly in verb forms and tenses This corrective feedback allowed them to revisit their language use, reducing the likelihood of repeating the same mistakes For instance, one student, S4, shared their positive experience with the feedback received.
The teacher's ICF significantly improved my writing skills, leading to fewer errors in my work After my initial two writings, I learned to correct sentences like "I going to school every morning" by remembering to include "am," which enhanced my overall grammar and clarity.
Discussion of the findings
The implementation of the ICF strategy in writing tasks for mixed-level 10th-grade students at Van Noi High School has provided valuable insights The research findings, derived from three different instruments, clarify the extent to which the teacher's ICF influences student writing outcomes.
The analysis of students' writing assignments revealed a significant improvement in overall written accuracy over a five-week period, with a notable decrease in four common error types: tenses/verb forms, prepositions, articles, and spelling These findings highlight the necessity for both teachers and students to not only review grammatical rules but also to increase awareness of the underlying causes of these errors.
The second set of data from student interviews and questionnaires indicated that students held positive attitudes towards the use of ICF, recognizing its effectiveness in helping them learn by identifying and correcting their errors This approach fostered a greater sense of responsibility for their writing and heightened their awareness of errors in their compositions.
The use of Integrated Correction Feedback (ICF) proved to be an effective error treatment strategy for the mixed group of grade 10 students at Van Noi High School By employing ICF to identify errors in students' texts, the teacher encouraged them to reflect on grammatical rules and engage in self-correction Successfully addressing their own mistakes not only enhanced their linguistic competence but also facilitated long-term retention of these skills, reducing future errors in writing This approach aligns well with the learner-centered methodology implemented at Van Noi High School, particularly in English instruction.
This chapter analyzes the results of the ICF implementation at Van Noi High School, focusing on students' writing assignments, interviews, and survey responses The findings are compared with previous studies on ICF, leading to implications and suggestions for improving its application in future research.
This section highlights the key findings of the study, discusses their implications, and acknowledges the study's limitations Additionally, it offers recommendations for future research to build on these insights.
Recapitulation
This study examines the impact of using Interactive Corrective Feedback (ICF) on the writing skills of a mixed group of 10th-grade students at Van Noi High School Conducted over five weeks with 15 students, the research utilized data from writing analyses, teacher and student questionnaires, and interviews Findings indicate that ICF significantly enhances writing accuracy, particularly for pre-intermediate students, as evidenced by a reduction in errors related to verb tenses, prepositions, spelling, and articles Statistical analysis showed a consistent improvement in overall writing accuracy from the first to the final assignment Additionally, ICF positively influenced students' attitudes and perceptions towards writing, helping them identify and correct various errors, such as run-ons and word order, in their revisions This approach encouraged students to review lessons and explore additional resources, leading to the production of higher-quality compositions.
In conclusion, the ICF proved to be an effective tool in the researcher’s educational environment However, challenges such as students' low English proficiency, time constraints, and limited access to reference materials must be addressed to ensure that ICF benefits not only the participants in this study but also other subjects and language skills in the future.
Implication of the study
Research findings highlight several theoretical and practical challenges associated with the implementation of the teacher's ICF at Van Noi High School, which imposes extra demands on both teachers and students.
The study revealed that implementing ICF significantly improved students' writing skills Additionally, both students and teachers expressed positive attitudes towards this writing corrective feedback strategy.
Teachers at Van Noi High School must possess a deep understanding of their subject areas, particularly regarding the writing skills required for their students They need to be aware of the students' writing deficiencies, the characteristics of the Integrated Curriculum Framework (ICF) in writing, and enhance their instructional skills to effectively address these challenges.
The ICF values students' language proficiency, demonstrated through accurate language use, as well as their attitudes towards learning Active participation in the learning and writing processes is essential for students, particularly in engaging with error correction and learning from writing mistakes To maximize the benefits of ICF in L2 writing, students should possess an English proficiency level that is at least above average.
Implementing the ICF in writing is a time-intensive process, yet it offers significant benefits for both teachers and students For successful integration of the ICF in language learning and writing, active participation from both educators and learners is essential.
Limitations of the study
Despite successfully addressing all research questions and achieving the study's objectives, several significant limitations persist The relatively small scale of the study, involving only 150 writing papers and 15 questionnaires, may hinder comprehensive insights into student progress over the 5-week period Additionally, the absence of long-term assessment tests limits the evaluation of students' sustained development Conducting the research over an extended timeframe could yield more valuable, reliable, and valid data Furthermore, utilizing a broader range of research instruments would enhance the validity of the findings and the reliability of the implications drawn from the study.
Suggestions for further study
The application of the ICF in writing instruction presents a vast area for further exploration Additional research is needed to gain deeper insights into various teacher corrective strategies and their combinations, aimed at enhancing students' overall writing skills and accuracy It is also advisable to conduct studies involving a larger participant pool over an extended duration, incorporating an additional research tool to enrich the findings.
Ferris, D R (2006), Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction, In Hyland K & Hyland
F (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81-104),
Bitchener, John (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 102-118
Bitchener, John and Dana R Ferris (2012) Written Corrective Feedback in Second
Language Acquisition and Writing New York, Routledge
Bitchener and Knoch (2010) explored the impact of written corrective feedback on enhancing the linguistic accuracy of advanced second language (L2) writers Their study, published in the Journal of Second Language Writing, specifically examined the effectiveness of both direct and indirect coded feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts The findings suggest that targeted feedback can significantly improve writing skills and accuracy among advanced L2 learners.
Bitchner, John, Young, Stuart and Denise Cameron (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 191-205
Boston, Heinle & Heinle Chandler, Jean (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of student writing Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3, 267-296
Ellis, Rod, Sheen, Younghee, Murakami, Mihoko and Hide Takashima (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context System 36, 353-371
Ferris, Dana R (1999) The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1, 1-11 Ferris, Dana R (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press
Semke, Harriet D (1984) Effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals 17,
Sheen, Younghee (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles TESOL Quarterly
Truscott, John (1999) The case for „„the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes‟‟: A response to Ferris Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 111
122 Truscott, John (2004) Evidence and conjecture: A response to Chandler Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 337-343
Truscott, John (2007) The effect of error correction on learners‟ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 255-272
Ferris, D R (2006), Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction, In Hyland K & Hyland
F (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81-104),
Pham Lan Anh (2011), The Impact of Indirect Feedback on Learners’ Grammatical Errors in EFL Writing Classes, MA Thesis, Can Tho University
Ryan R.M & Deci E.L (2000), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67
Lee, I (2009), “Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice”, ELT Journal, 63(1), pp 13-22
Lalande, J F (1982), “Reducing composition errors: an experiment”, Modern
Guénette, D (2007), “Is feedback pedagogical correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 40-53
Ferris, D R., Liu, H., Senna, M., & Sinha, A (2010), Written corrective feedback and individual variation in L2 writing Paper Presented at the CATESOL
State Conference, Santa Clara, CA
Ferris, D R & Hedgcock, J (2005), Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Ellis, R (2008), “A typology of written corrective feedback types”, ELT Journal,
Chandler, J (2003), “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for
Nguyen Thi Khanh (2012), Effectiveness of Indirect Corrective Feedback in English
Writing at the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education,
Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi, Shabnam Norouzi (2015), “Differentiated Use of the
Cross-Lingual Strategy in Foreign Language Teaching: A Grounded Theory”, Sino-US English Teaching, December 2015, Vol 12, No 12, 916-
Zhang Jun (2008), “A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language
Writing”, HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol 12, 2008
Ryan & Deci (2000), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
FOR TEACHERS OF ENGLISH, AT VAN NOI HIGH SCHOOL
This interview aims to gather information for a Master's thesis titled "Using Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students' Writing to Enhance Writing Skills for 10th Grade Mixed-Level Students at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi - An Action Research."
Thank you for participating in this interview; your input is invaluable Rest assured, all information collected will solely be used for research purposes, and your identity will remain confidential in any discussions regarding the data.
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
1 How do you describe the level of your students‟ English writing proficiency and problems that they face in writing tasks?
2 Do you think teacher‟s corrective feedback is important in teaching writing? Why and why not?
3 How do you often give corrective feedback to your students?
4 What features of writing accuracy (i.e grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary choice) do you often focus your feedback on? Why?
5 How can you describe your students‟ writing accuracy and their response after using your existing corrective strategy?
Câu hỏi phỏng vấn dành cho học sinh(Bản tiếng Việt)
1 Em đánh giá thế nào về chất lượng các bài viết và kĩ năng viết của bản thân trước khi giáo viên áp dụng phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp?
2 Qua 5 tuần được giáo viên phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp trong bài viết, chất lượng các bài viết và kĩ năng viết của em có sự khác biệt gì không? Mô tả rõ sự khác biệt hoặc là không khác biệt này
3 Em cảm thấy thế nào khi được giáo viên yêu cầu tự sửa những lỗi mà giáo viên đã chỉ ra trong bài?
4 Khi sửa lỗi, em thường tham khảo nguồn tài liệu nào? Em thường sửa từng loại lỗi cụ thể bằng cách nào?
5 Những khó khăn của em khi tự sửa lỗi trong bài viết là gì?
6 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên đã tác động như thế nào đến bài viết và thái độ viết của em?
7 Theo em, phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp có phù hợp với trình độ học sinh và chương trình tiếng Anh tại nhà trường hiện nay không? Vì sao?
8 Em có đề nghị gì để phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên phát huy hiệu quả tốt hơn?
Interview questionnaire for students (English version)
1 How do you describe your level of English writing proficiency and the quality of your compositions before the implementation of the teacher‟s ICF?
2 How do you describe your English writing skill and the quality of your writings after the 5-week implementation of your teacher‟s ICF?
3 How did you feel when you were asked to self-correct indicated errors in your writings?
4 Which source of reference did you use during your error self-correction? How did you treat each specific type of indicated errors?
5 What impeded you with your error self-correction?
6 How did the teacher‟s ICF impact your compositions and your attitude towards writing activity?
7 Do you think that ICF is suitable to students‟ level of English proficiency and the current English curriculum at our school? Why?
8 What can you suggest for a more effective implementation of the teacher‟s ICF?
(Phiếu điều tra dành cho học sinh)
Phiếu điều tra này được thiết kế nhằm thu thập thông tin cho đề tài luận văn thạc sĩ về việc sử dụng phương pháp sửa lỗi viết gián tiếp để nâng cao kỹ năng viết cho học sinh lớp 10 có trình độ khác nhau tại trường THPT Vân Nội, Đông Anh, Hà Nội Nghiên cứu này thuộc loại nghiên cứu hành động.
Thông tin về quan điểm, thái độ, đề nghị và mong muốn của các em là nguồn tư liệu quý giá cho nghiên cứu này Vì vậy, hy vọng các anh/chị sẽ đọc kỹ các câu sau và lựa chọn phù hợp bằng cách đánh dấu tích (√) vào ô câu trả lời.
Cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các em!
1 Em rất thích hoạt động phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên
2 Em cảm thấy hứng thú khi được yêu cầu tự sửa lỗi mà giáo viên đã chỉ ra trong bài viết của mình
3 Em cảm thấy rất hài lòng với các bài viết của mình qua 5 tuần vừa qua
4 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên rất có ích vì hoạt động này giúp em nâng cao nhận thức về lỗi trong các bài viết
5 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em tránh mắc lại các lỗi này trong các bài viết về sau
6 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em sử dụng ngôn ngữ chính xác và hiệu quả hơn
7 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em có trách nhiệm hơn với bài viết của mình
8 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên từng bước giúp em nâng cao chất lượng bài viết và khả năng viết của bản thân
9 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em cải thiện kĩ năng tự học của mình
10 Phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên giúp em tiếp cận được nhiều nguồn tham khảo khác
11 Em không cảm thấy bị áp lực khi giáo viên không đưa ra phản hồi chữa lỗi trực tiếp trong bài viết của em
12 Em không thấy nản khi mắc quá nhiều lỗi trong bài
13 Em không thấy căng thẳng khi không thể sửa tất cả lỗi trong bài
14 Em không cảm thấy khó chịu khi được yêu cầu viết và nộp lại bài cho giáo viên sau khi đã tự chữa lỗi giáo viên chi ra
15 Việc chỉ ra lỗi mà không kèm các kí tự viết tắt cho dạng lỗi không làm giảm khả năng tự sửa lỗi của bản thân
16 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp nên tiếp tục được sử dụng để nâng cao thói quen tự học của học sinh
17 Các lỗi phổ biến nên được thảo luận và giải thích cho cả lớp
18 Các ký hiệu đánh dấu của giáo viên đối với lỗi của học sinh cần phải mang tính hệ thống và nhất quán
19 Đôi khi nên để cho các học sinh khác trong cùng lớp đưa ra phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp hoặc để cho tự học sinh tự tìm ra lỗi của mình
20 Giáo viên nên để cho học sinh có đủ thời gian để tự sửa lỗi của mình
Survey Questionnaire for students (English version)
This questionnaire is designed to collect data for my Master graduation paper
“ Using indirect corrective feedback on students ‘writing to improve writing skill for grade 10 th mixed level students at Van Noi high school in Dong Anh, Ha Noi-
Your feedback is invaluable for this thesis on action research Please read the statements attentively and select the option that best reflects your perspective by ticking (√).
Thank you for your cooperation!
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
2 I felt excited when being asked to self-correct indicated errors in my writing
3 I was much satisfied with my writings over six writing sessions
4 Teacher‟s ICF was beneficial to me because it enhanced my awareness of errors/mistakes in writing
5 Teacher‟s ICF benefited me to avoid committing similar errors again
6 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to use language items more accurately and effectively
7 Teacher‟s ICF necessitated my greater responsibility for my writings
8 Teacher‟s ICF helped the quality of my writings increase significantly and my writing ability improved gradually
9 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to improve my self- study skill
10 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to discover more sources for study and reference
11 I did not feel pressured when my teacher did not gave me DCF to my errors
12 I did not feel tense when I there were too many errors in my writing
13 I did not feel anxious when I was asked to correct all the indicated errors in my writing
14 I did not feel stressful when being asked to write revised versions of my writings
15 The teacher‟s indication of errors without code production did not decrease my self-correcting ability
16 ICF should continue to be used to improve students‟ self-study habit
17 Most common errors/ mistakes should be discussed and explained in class
18 Teacher‟s indications of errors should be systematic and consistent
19 Sometimes ICF should be also given by peers or by the students themselves
20 Teachers should be give students an adequate time to self-correct their errors
The Scales by Ryan & Deci (2000, p 227-268), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
THE POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTRINSIC MOTIVATION INVENTORY Interest/Enjoyment
I enjoyed doing this activity very much
This activity was fun to do
I thought this was a boring activity (R)
This activity did not hold my attention at all (R)
I would describe this activity as very interesting
I thought this activity was quite enjoyable
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it
I think I am pretty good at this activity
I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students
After working at this activity for awhile, I felt pretty competent
I am satisfied with my performance at this task
I was pretty skilled at this activity
This was an activity that I couldn‟t do very well (R)
I put a lot of effort into this
I didn‟t try very hard to do well at this activity (R)
I tried very hard on this activity
It was important to me to do well at this task
I didn‟t put much energy into this (R)
I did not feel nervous at all while doing this (R)
I felt very tense while doing this activity
I was very relaxed in doing these (R)
I was anxious while working on this task
I felt pressured while doing these
I believe I had some choice about doing this activity
I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task (R)
I didn‟t really have a choice about doing this task (R)
I felt like I had to do this (R)
I did this activity because I had no choice (R)
I did this activity because I wanted to
I did this activity because I had to (R)
I believe this activity could be of some value to me
I think that doing this activity is useful for
I think this is important to do because it can _
I would be willing to do this again because it has some value to me
I think doing this activity could help me to _
I believe doing this activity could be beneficial to me
I think this is an important activity
TABLE OF TOTAL ERRORS AND SELF CORRECTION BY THE STUDENTS
After utilizing ICF, the structure involves tense, verb, preposition, spelling, and article Each component plays a crucial role in forming coherent sentences The correct application of tense and verb usage, along with appropriate prepositions and spelling, ensures clarity and precision in communication Adhering to these elements enhances the overall effectiveness of the content.
Week 1: WRITING ABOUT DAILY ACTIVITIES
- Ss know about daily activities of some people or themselves
- Ss know how to write about daily routines of some people or themselves
1 Grammar: The present simple tense
2 Vocabulary: Words related to daily activities
III SKILLS: speaking and writing
IV TEACHING AIDS: pictures and hand- outs
Gives handout and asks Ss to match a number in A with a suitable in B
Match a number in A with a suitable in B work in pairs
7.15 a quarter to ten five to nine
-Ask students to look at the pictures and describe Quan's activities
-Asks students to look at the pictures (p.15) and ask and answer Quan's activities
8.05 8.55 9.45 10.40 17.00 18.30 a quarter past seven five past eight twenty to eleven half past six p.m five o'clock p.m six o'clock a.m
-Look at the pictures and describe Quan's activities:
C go to school CGo home
D have lunch E take a short nap
F go to the stadium G.come back home
H have dinner I study K go to bed
-Ask and answer about Quan, using the information from the timetable
(practise with pairwork) S1: What time does Quan get up ?
-Asks Students to close the book and tell their classmates about his/ her daily routines
-Let 1 or 2 students come to the board to speak
-Practice writing no more than 150 words about students‟ daily routines in 15 minutes
-Asks students to hand in all the writings
Work in groups of 4 Answer:
At 2:00 o'clock p.m Quan gets up after taking a short nap He studies his lesson at 2:15 p.m He watches TV at 4:30 p.m Then he goes to the stadium by bycicle at 5:00 p.m There he plays football with his friends at 5:15 p.m He comes back home at 6:30 p.m, takes/has a shower at 6:45 He has dinner with his family at 7:00 p.m At 8:00 p.m he reviews his lesson/ does his homework
-Practise individually in 15 minutes Suggested answer:
I wake up at 5:15 a.m and start my morning exercises at 5:30 Breakfast follows at 6:00, and I ride my bike to school by 6:30, with my first lesson beginning at 7:15 a.m After school, I return home at 11:30 for lunch with my family at noon, followed by a nap until 1:30 p.m I attend extra classes starting at 1:45 p.m and get home by 4:15 p.m My afternoon includes watching TV, listening to music, reading, or hanging out with friends around 4:50 p.m Dinner with my family is at 7:00 p.m., and I dedicate time from 8:00 to 10:15 p.m to homework I unwind by watching TV until 10:45 p.m and then go to bed at 11:00 p.m.