Background to the Study
According to The Economist, English is the most widely spoken language worldwide Among English speakers, a significant number of people use it as a second language
As Vietnam integrates into the global economy, fluency in English has become essential, making English language education a top priority Writing, in particular, poses significant challenges for many Vietnamese students According to Mustafa, Mulya, and Syamsul (2017), composing quality written work is difficult not just for language learners but also for native speakers.
Expecting non-native writers to produce error-free writing is unrealistic, as errors are a natural part of learning a foreign language (Valdés, 1992, cited in Ferris, 2011) Research has shown that errors serve as valuable indicators of a learner's understanding of the second language (Gass & Selinker, 2008) By analyzing these errors, teachers can assess student progress, researchers can gain insights into the language acquisition process, and learners can utilize mistakes to uncover the rules of the target language (Ellis, 2003).
Krashen (1982) emphasizes the importance of correcting errors for two main reasons Firstly, effective error correction can enhance learners' study competence by informing them that their understanding of specific rules is incorrect.
Nevertheless, Krashen (1982) notes that errors should be treated but not all times and not all rules
Correcting students' written and spoken errors poses a significant challenge for teachers in language acquisition (Amara, 2015) While various techniques for providing corrective feedback exist, one common method involves writing the correct forms alongside students' errors (Hendrickson, 1980) However, this approach can be time-consuming for teachers and may overwhelm students with numerous crossed-out words, added corrections, and extensive marginal comments (Hendrickson, 1980:216-217).
When learning a second language, students often become overly focused on grammar and vocabulary mistakes, which discourages them from using the new language and leads them to avoid making errors Teachers, in turn, emphasize error correction during instruction, resulting in lower learning achievement and efficiency (Wei Zuo, 2017) Furthermore, corrective feedback provided by teachers frequently lacks consideration for its effectiveness in enhancing second language acquisition and proficiency (Botha, 1987) While the intention of this feedback is to help students recognize and avoid repeating errors, it often proves ineffective; students tend to concentrate on red markings and grades on corrected essays, leading to a lack of retention and engagement with the material (Botha, 1987).
A persistent mismatch exists between students' preferences and teachers' beliefs and practices, which can hinder language learning According to Oladejo (1993), the disparity among teachers' attitudes, classroom realities, and students' expectations can lead to unsuccessful outcomes Feedback methods vary widely among educators; some provide comprehensive corrective feedback on all errors, while others merely indicate mistakes for students to self-correct, and some only give a total score without any detailed explanation or error correction.
Research indicates that effective corrective feedback can significantly enhance students' learning outcomes However, many studies overlook the importance of students' attitudes and the disparity between their preferences and actual practices If students are not receptive to these feedback methods, their effectiveness diminishes Therefore, teachers and educators must consider students' expectations, as they have valuable insights into their own learning experiences Students' attitudes serve as a crucial indicator for educators to assess the effectiveness of their feedback strategies and determine if adjustments are necessary.
Despite having more opportunities to learn and practice English, students majoring in English frequently make writing errors Many students continue to repeat these mistakes even after receiving corrective feedback from their instructors, and some express dissatisfaction with the methods used for corrections Therefore, it is essential to understand students' attitudes toward corrective feedback and the effectiveness of teachers' feedback practices in improving writing skills.
Statement of the Problem
The primary purpose of providing corrective feedback on students' writing is to prevent the recurrence of errors While many teachers strive to achieve this goal, challenges persist, particularly at Dalat University (DLU), where even English majors continue to make the same mistakes previously corrected by instructors This situation highlights a significant issue: students often fail to internalize the feedback given, rendering it ineffective and hindering their progress in writing skills and overall English learning.
Many students at Dalat University hesitate to engage in discussions or seek clarification from their teachers regarding feedback on their writing This reluctance often leads to misunderstandings, as students may struggle to interpret corrective codes or find teachers' comments too brief to provide clarity Consequently, they may accept their mistakes without understanding the underlying issues, resulting in dissatisfaction with the feedback received, yet feeling too intimidated to voice their concerns.
The absence of communication between teachers and students presents significant challenges in effectively assessing and providing corrective feedback on students' writing As a result, there is often no reflection or adjustment in teaching methods, leading educators to rely on familiar practices that may not significantly enhance students' writing skills or overall learning outcomes.
Understanding students' needs and preferences is essential for effective teaching and learning However, teachers at Dalat University often lack the time to inquire about students' views on their handling of writing errors By exploring students' attitudes toward corrective feedback, educators can gain valuable insights into written feedback practices This feedback allows teachers to reflect on their writing instruction and make necessary adjustments based on students' perspectives.
Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study
This study investigates how teachers at Dalat University address students' writing errors and explores students' attitudes toward corrective feedback in writing The research aims to understand the relationship between teacher responses and student perceptions, focusing on the effectiveness of feedback in enhancing writing skills.
- To find out the strategies that teachers at Dalat University use when giving corrective feedback in students’ writing
- To discover students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback.
Research Questions
The research questions of the study are as follows:
1 What strategies do teachers at Dalat University use when giving corrective feedback on students’ errors in their writing?
2 What are students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback?
Scope of the Study
Due to time constraints, not all recommendations could be fully implemented in the research conducted at Dalat University, focusing on second-year students majoring in English.
In the first part, the study aims at exploring the strategies that teachers at Dalat University apply when correcting students’ errors in their writing
The second part of the research focuses on data collected from second-year English majors to assess their attitudes toward the handling of writing errors However, the limited sample size restricts the findings, preventing a broader representation of English students at Dalat University.
Significance of the Study
This study investigates how teachers at Dalat University address students' writing errors and explores students' attitudes toward corrective feedback The findings are expected to enhance English writing instruction and learning.
This study provides valuable insights into students' perceptions of written corrective feedback and their preferred correction techniques By highlighting the differences in expectations between teachers and students, it aims to bridge the gap in understanding, ultimately benefiting both parties in the learning process.
Definition of key terms
With the aim of illustrating the issues proposed, there are terms that need to be specified for this report
Errors refer to deviation from a norm of adult native grammar that shows the learners’ ability to use a language (Brown 2000, cited in Fang & Xuemei, 2007)
Attitude refers to what a person thinks or feels about something; it is also an individual’s behavior towards someone or something
Corrective feedback (CF) is defined as “the feedback that learners receive on the linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)” (Ellis and Sheen, 2011:593)
Written corrective feedback refers to error correction on L2 students’ writing
Organization of The Thesis
The organization of the research includes five chapters:
Chapter 1 illustrates the introduction of the study which involves the background to the study, statement of the problem, research purposes and objectives of the study, research questions, and finally definitions of key terms
Chapter 2 presents the review of the literature including the definition of errors, the role of errors in language learning, the definition of attitude, the effect of attitude, the definitions and issues related to corrective feedback, the definitions of written corrective feedback, its roles, written corrective feedback types and review of previous studies
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology used in the study including research design, research instruments, data collection, data analysis procedure, validity and reliability
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study This chapter also involves further discussion
Chapter 5 presents the conclusion, implications, limitations and recommendations for further research.
Introduction
This chapter defines error in language learning, distinguishing it from mistakes, and explores the significance of corrective feedback It examines general issues related to corrective feedback before delving into written corrective feedback, including its various types Additionally, the chapter reviews prior studies on English teachers' approaches to providing corrective feedback and students' perceptions of it in writing The aim is to identify research gaps in existing studies to inform future research endeavors.
Errors
Errors in language learning are defined as deviations from the norms of adult native grammar, reflecting a learner's proficiency (Brown, 2000; Fang & Xuemei, 2007) Corder (1975) notes that students often produce uncorrected spoken and written compositions influenced by second language standards While errors are typically viewed as indicators of a learner's lack of proficiency, they are also seen as natural occurrences in the language acquisition process (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982; Keshavarz, 2012) The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis suggests that errors stem from the influence of a learner's first language; however, research indicates that many errors arise from a learner's evolving understanding of the target language rather than mere language transfer (Spada & Lightbrown, 2006) Furthermore, some errors made by second language learners resemble those of young native speakers, highlighting the complexities of language development.
Historically, errors have been viewed negatively, seen as indicators of non-learning rather than as opportunities for growth As a result, individuals often strive to prevent errors from occurring One effective method for anticipating potential errors is by analyzing the differences between a person's native language and the target language they are learning By identifying these differences, it becomes possible to predict specific areas where errors are likely to arise.
Since 1985, the perception of errors in language learning has evolved significantly Rather than viewing errors as harmful and needing to be eliminated, they are now recognized as vital components of the learning process Keshavarz (2012) outlines three key conclusions regarding errors that form the foundation of error analysis.
Firstly, in the language learning process, making an error is unavoidable
Secondly, errors are vital in a distinctive manner
Thirdly, the learner’s first language is not the source for all errors
Errors play a vital role in language learning for three main reasons Firstly, they provide valuable insights to teachers regarding a learner's progress and areas needing improvement Secondly, errors help researchers understand the language acquisition process and the strategies learners employ Most importantly, errors serve as essential learning tools for learners themselves, enabling them to assess their hypotheses about language rules (Corder, 1982:10-11).
Keshavarz (2012) emphasizes that errors play a crucial role in language learning by providing learners with feedback from their environment, which they can use to assess their language hypotheses In the context of second-language acquisition, there has been a shift towards viewing errors more positively, recognizing them as an essential component of the learning process rather than obstacles to be eliminated.
Errors in language learning can be categorized into two primary types: interlingual errors and intralingual errors Interlingual errors arise from the influence of one language on another, while intralingual errors occur within the same language itself Understanding these distinctions is essential for effective language acquisition and teaching.
“incomplete learning of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them” (Troike, 2006:39)
Burt and Kiparsky (1974) categorize errors into two types: global errors and local errors Local errors, such as those involving nouns and verbs, do not significantly alter the overall meaning of utterances In contrast, global errors, which often involve incorrect word order, can change the entire meaning of a statement (Touchie, 1986).
Attitude
Attitude, as defined by the Oxford Dictionary (2020), refers to an individual's thoughts and feelings towards something, encompassing their behavior towards others or objects Gardner (1980) describes attitude as a "complex of beliefs" regarding a specific subject Additionally, Thurstone (1928, cited in Gardner, 1980: 267) defines it as the totality of a person's instincts, feelings, biases, preconceived notions, fears, and convictions related to any given topic.
Wenden (1991) identifies three key components of attitude: cognitive, affective, and behavioral The cognitive component pertains to an individual's beliefs and thoughts regarding an object, while the affective component reflects their emotional responses, influencing preferences and aversions Lastly, the behavioral component encompasses the actions a person takes in relation to the object This comprehensive model provides insight into how attitudes are formed and expressed.
(1991) was used as the framework for building a research instrument in this study
Attitude significantly influences language learning, with positive attitudes enhancing motivation and negative ones leading to demotivation (Brown, 2000) Faqeih (2015) emphasizes the importance of teachers being aware of learners' language attitudes, particularly in relation to corrective feedback, though he cautions that students' preferences may not always align with optimal language achievement Supporting this, Hamouda (2011) highlights the necessity of understanding students' attitudes, as diverse teaching techniques can motivate learners by catering to their preferences However, he notes a persistent gap between teachers' and students' attitudes, which research indicates can result in unsatisfactory learning outcomes.
Teachers must understand students' beliefs and preferences regarding corrective feedback to ensure its effectiveness Diab (2006) emphasizes the importance of bridging the gap between teachers' and students' attitudes towards feedback, noting that discrepancies can lead to ineffective outcomes When students feel demotivated in their second language writing, they are less likely to engage with corrective feedback Salteh and Sadeghi (2015) further assert that students will not utilize feedback if they are dissatisfied with its nature Thus, it is crucial for teachers and students to reach a consensus on effective corrective feedback methods.
Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback (CF) is the guidance provided to learners regarding linguistic errors in their oral or written second language (L2) production (Ellis and Sheen, 2011) This research uses terms such as "error correction," "corrective feedback," "error treatment," and "corrective move" interchangeably, all of which represent teachers' responses to incorrect language forms in students' speech or writing (Pawlak, 2014).
Five questions need to be put into consideration when talking about corrective feedback They are:
-Should learners’ errors be corrected?
-When should errors be corrected?
-Which errors should be corrected?
-How should people correct errors?
-Who should be the one to correct errors?
2.4.1 Whether errors should be corrected
The debate over the role of corrective feedback in language learning has persisted for years, with two opposing viewpoints One side advocates for the effectiveness of corrective feedback, asserting that it is essential for language acquisition, while the other contends that such feedback can be detrimental to learners and should be avoided.
2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback
Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) argue that English teachers often overemphasize written language rules in student work, suggesting that focusing on essential writing aspects is more beneficial than providing detailed corrective feedback Truscott (2007) supports this view, stating that corrective feedback can harm writing accuracy and has minimal positive effects Karima (2013) notes that while teachers aim to prevent error fossilization, their focus on accuracy over fluency can detract from students' overall writing quality Truscott (2010) further asserts that corrective feedback may not significantly aid language learning and can lead to student distraction, ultimately hindering fluency and the expression of ideas.
Research indicates that corrective feedback can have negative effects on language learning, leading to ongoing debates among educators Some argue that addressing students' errors is time-consuming and ineffective, while others advocate for the importance of corrective feedback in the learning process.
2.4.1.2 Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback
According to Krashen (1982), error treatment in second language acquisition (SLA) is essential as it informs learners when a conscious rule is incorrect For adult learners, corrective feedback is particularly beneficial, as it aids in understanding the appropriate contexts for applying rules and the specific meanings of vocabulary (Krashen & Seliger, 1975) Implementing effective corrective strategies is crucial for language acquisition (Ebrahimi & Hajmalek, 2016) Teachers play a pivotal role in this process, making it important to analyze their perspectives on corrective feedback Research by Uysal and Aydin (2017) indicates that teachers believe error treatment fosters good habits, including self-correction and improved accuracy and fluency in students Similarly, Faqeih (2015) found that most students appreciate having their errors corrected and suggest incorporating diverse error correction methods during interactive activities Alamzi and Fawzi (2016) also report that students view corrective feedback positively, emphasizing the need for teachers to consider timing and students' language competence when addressing errors Katayama (2007) highlights that speaking practice and grammatical error correction can enhance students' accuracy and reduce error frequency.
The ongoing debate between proponents and opponents of corrective feedback highlights its significance in the learning process While numerous studies have explored this topic, limitations remain, emphasizing the need for further research Identifying the most effective methods of corrective feedback is crucial for enhancing student learning outcomes.
2.4.2 The Best Time to Give Corrective Feedback
Correcting students' errors is a challenging task for teachers, who must determine the optimal timing for feedback According to Hendrickson (1978), delaying correction during speaking activities can be beneficial Advanced students often feel that the nature of their errors influences the timing of corrections; immediate feedback is essential for pronunciation and grammatical mistakes, as delaying it can hinder retention Additionally, the classroom environment plays a significant role; correcting a student's error in front of peers who are already aware can create discomfort Ultimately, the timing of error correction is complex, making effective feedback from teachers essential.
In language instruction, the timing of corrective feedback is crucial, as highlighted by Ellis (2013), who notes that coursebooks often recommend delaying feedback until fluency-focused activities conclude Immediate correction is favored during accuracy-focused tasks to prevent anxiety and encourage student participation While delayed feedback is common in writing activities, it may be necessary to provide oral corrections when students read their work aloud However, teachers often face time constraints due to multiple drafts, and delaying feedback can hinder students' ability to revise their ideas and text organization, as noted by Ellis and Sheen (2011) Therefore, language educators should accept some errors in both oral and written communication to bolster students' confidence.
Language learners often take risks by making incorrect statements during communication, prompting teachers to evaluate their correction methods to ensure students feel successful (Hendrickson, 1978) There is limited evidence on the optimal timing for error correction, leading educators to carefully consider which mistakes to address and which to overlook (Hendrickson, 1978).
2.4.3 The Types of Errors that Should be Corrected
Horner (1988) questions whether all mistakes should be corrected, emphasizing that only those causing communication difficulties require attention Hendrickson (1978) identifies three types of errors warranting correction: significant errors that hinder communication, those impacting listeners and readers, and frequent errors made by students In contrast, James (2013) argues that teachers should differentiate between errors and mistakes, suggesting that minor slips should not be corrected, as students can self-correct Instead, teachers should simply inform students of their mistakes, as correcting them may not be beneficial Ellis and Sheen (2011) further assert that teachers should focus on correcting global errors, which affect sentence organization, while ignoring local errors that pertain to individual elements Understanding the distinction between mistakes and errors is crucial in effective teaching.
Addressing "global error" and "local error" can be challenging for teachers with limited time and no clear guidelines on which rules to apply According to Ellis and Sheen (2011), a more effective strategy is to concentrate on specific types of errors, such as focusing on past tense mistakes during one session and addressing other errors at a different time When teachers identify a linguistic issue, they can create targeted tasks that incorporate the problematic feature, allowing them to focus solely on correcting that specific error as it arises This method has been shown to significantly enhance students’ oral production skills.
2.4.4 The Best Way to Give Corrective Feedback
Corrective feedback in the classroom often lacks consistency, as teachers may focus on specific errors while neglecting others, leading to uncertainty about effective strategies (Ellis & Sheen, 2011) Effective correction should enhance accuracy with minimal effort for both teachers and students Sensitivity is crucial; non-threatening methods, such as self-correction and class-wide feedback, are preferred over individual corrections, which can discourage participation Peer correction can alleviate pressure, and using technology for private feedback is another viable approach Teachers must align corrective feedback with students’ preferences, though these preferences do not always indicate effectiveness The instructional context influences how errors are perceived, with recasts viewed differently depending on whether the focus is on fluency or accuracy (Ellis, 2013) Teachers should exercise care when providing feedback after identifying errors, as excessive correction can demotivate students Different exercises necessitate tailored feedback methods; immediate corrections can be applied during writing activities, but teachers should avoid overwhelming students with excessive markings Using code letters in the margins can reduce the amount of red ink and encourage independent thinking Collaborative work among students can facilitate peer feedback, while individual corrections should be reserved for specific situations to maintain engagement Freshness and variability in correction methods are essential, as teachers must be patient and understanding, recognizing that progress takes time.
2.4.5 The Person Who Should Give Corrective Feedback
According to Hendrickson (1978), the responsibility of error treatment primarily falls on teachers, who are tasked with providing data, examples, and necessary corrections regarding the target language (Corder 1973, cited in Hendrickson, 1978:395) However, students should also engage in corrective feedback by helping peers identify errors, which encourages attention to grammatical mistakes, spelling, and pronunciation Teachers can facilitate this process by training students to give feedback effectively, as suggested by Ellis and Sheen (2011) This training may include providing indirect corrective feedback, such as highlighting error areas without offering direct corrections Despite the benefits of self-correction, challenges exist; students often prefer direct teacher corrections and may struggle to correct errors without sufficient linguistic knowledge (Ellis and Sheen, 2011).
Corrective feedback is a complex issue that requires careful consideration from teachers, as highlighted by Hendrickson (1978) At Dalat University, many educators continue to address student errors, despite the ongoing debate surrounding effective methods To enhance student competence through corrective feedback, teachers must recognize that no single technique works for all learners, given their varying language proficiencies For instance, advanced students may benefit from self-correction, while lower-level students may struggle without guidance Therefore, corrective feedback must be tailored to meet individual student needs, and teachers should avoid making decisions based solely on personal feelings or preferences It is essential to consider students' attitudes when determining the approach to error correction, as effective corrective feedback requires sensitivity and flexibility from educators.
Written Corrective Feedback
Written corrective feedback refers to the process of correcting errors in the writing of second language (L2) students (Bitchener, 2008) This section will explore the significance of written corrective feedback based on existing literature, as well as outline the various types of feedback available.
2.5.1 The Role of Written Corrective Feedback
The primary objective of a writing course should not be to demand flawless texts from students, as this is an unrealistic expectation Instead, the focus should be on fostering long-term writing development, recognizing that errors are a natural part of the learning process for students of all proficiency levels (Ferris and Bitchener, 2012) While mistakes are acceptable, it is crucial for students to learn to identify and rectify them This process cannot occur in isolation; therefore, teacher feedback plays a vital role in guiding students towards improvement and helping them avoid repeating errors.
Feedback is a crucial component of ESL writing instruction, as it enables students to understand reader reactions to their work and enhances their writing skills According to Hyland (2003), effective feedback is essential for developing writing abilities, while Ferris and Bitchener (2012) emphasize that written corrective feedback addresses learners' errors, helping them identify mistakes and understand the reasons behind them This type of feedback not only guides students in making corrections but also fosters awareness and strategic competence, empowering them to monitor and improve their writing in the future.
The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in language learning has been a topic of ongoing debate, with some experts, like Truscott (2007, 2010), arguing against its value Truscott contends that while written corrective feedback may have a minimal positive impact, it can ultimately hinder students' learning rather than enhance it.
In response to Truscott’s findings (2007), various studies have been conducted to test the effectiveness of written corrective feedback
A study by Ashwell (2000) involving 50 Japanese students found that those receiving written corrective feedback significantly improved their formal accuracy compared to a no-feedback group, although there was no enhancement in content quality Ferris and Robert (2001) provided further evidence, indicating that the no-feedback group made more errors in noun endings and word choice, resulting in lower accuracy scores, despite being more successful in revising word choice errors Ferris (1997) highlighted that feedback comments generally lead to positive changes in student performance, with only 5% of changes deemed negative Chandler (2003) supported these findings, revealing that students who received written corrective feedback showed a reduction in writing errors, while those without feedback did not improve Bitchener (2008) concluded that written corrective feedback enhances accuracy in the use of English articles.
Bitchener and Knoch (2009:210) emphasize the importance of teachers providing corrective feedback on the use of articles "a/an" and "the" to enhance students' writing skills They argue that increased feedback opportunities can lead to higher accuracy rates and a quicker path to mastering article usage Evans, James Hartshorn, and Strong-Krause support this perspective, highlighting the crucial role of targeted feedback in language learning.
In their 2011 study, Van Beuningen, De Jong, and Kui Ken highlight the significant role of written corrective feedback in enhancing students' writing accuracy While this feedback proves beneficial for accuracy, its influence on fluency and complexity remains minimal The authors suggest that rather than debating the necessity of addressing students' errors, educators should focus on identifying effective strategies tailored to their specific teaching contexts.
Research by Truscott (2007) was challenged by findings from 2011, which indicated that students receiving written corrective feedback produced more accurate texts compared to those who did not This conclusion is supported by subsequent studies (Marzban & Arabahmadi, 2013; Kang & Han, 2015; Farjadnasab & Khodashenas, 2017) that highlight the effectiveness of such feedback Teachers, when correcting errors, gain insights into students' challenges and are encouraged to clarify the purpose and focus of the feedback before providing it (Marzban & Arabahmadi, 2013) However, the success of written corrective feedback is influenced by various factors, including learners' proficiency levels, the educational setting, and the specific genre of writing tasks (Kang & Han, 2015).
Despite the fact that the findings from considerable studies contradict Truscott
Research has shown mixed results regarding the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in improving student writing Studies by Truscott (2007, 2010) and Kepner (1991) suggest that such feedback fails to help students eliminate surface-level errors or enhance higher-level writing skills Fazio (2001) found no significant improvement in grammatical accuracy in French writing following corrective feedback, while Semke (1984) emphasized that student progress is attributed more to practice than to feedback Overall, written corrective feedback does not enhance writing accuracy, fluency, or language proficiency, and self-correction may negatively impact students' attitudes towards learning.
Written corrective feedback is essential in students' language learning, as writing is a complex skill that often leads to errors When students make mistakes, they must recognize the incorrect application of rules and learn how to correct them to prevent future occurrences While it would be ideal for students to self-correct, this is particularly challenging for those with lower proficiency levels Therefore, it is crucial for teachers to implement written corrective feedback thoughtfully, taking into account factors such as students' proficiency levels, the nature of their errors, and individual preferences Careful consideration can lead to more effective outcomes, and while not every corrective effort will succeed, dismissing the value of written corrective feedback is unjustified Ultimately, the effectiveness of feedback often hinges on how well teachers address their students' specific errors.
2.5.2 Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback
Direct written corrective feedback involves teachers providing learners with the correct forms for their errors, while indirect written corrective feedback indicates the presence of errors without supplying the correct forms Examples of indirect feedback include underlining errors or marking them in the margins Teachers using indirect feedback guide students to identify and correct their own mistakes, but the effectiveness of both feedback types remains debated Some researchers argue that direct correction may not benefit students, as highlighted by Hendrickson (1978) Eslami (2014) conducted an experiment revealing that indirect feedback significantly improves writing accuracy, with better performance observed in delayed post-tests Similarly, Ghandi and Maghsoudi (2014) found that indirect feedback yielded superior results in addressing spelling errors Numerous studies, including those by Abedi, Latifi, and Moinzadeh (2010) and Rahmawati (2017), support the findings of Eslami and Ghandi and Maghsoudi, reinforcing the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback.
Research has shown varying results regarding the effectiveness of direct versus indirect written corrective feedback While a study in 2014 indicated no significant difference in grammar knowledge development between students receiving direct and indirect correction, subsequent studies have highlighted the advantages of direct corrective feedback For instance, Kisnanto (2016) found that students who received direct feedback demonstrated notable improvements in writing accuracy This trend is further supported by additional research, including studies by Almasi & Tabrizi (2016), Mirzaii & Aliabadi (2013), and Shirazi & Shekarabi (2014), which collectively suggest that direct corrective feedback is more effective than its indirect counterpart in enhancing writing skills.
When selecting a feedback procedure, teachers must consider various factors and their interconnections Direct written corrective feedback tends to benefit lower proficiency students, while indirect feedback is more advantageous for those with higher proficiency Bitchener and Ferris (2012) note that despite the popularity of direct feedback among many students, some learners prefer to self-correct before receiving guidance Interestingly, even students with lower proficiency may favor indirect feedback The researchers highlight that factors such as language learning experience, confidence, and the nature of the writing task influence student preferences Consequently, teachers should align their feedback methods with students' expectations, as this alignment fosters greater engagement in the feedback process and leads to more effective utilization of the feedback received.
Direct and indirect corrective feedback each have their advantages and disadvantages, with Vietnamese students showing a preference for direct feedback due to their reliance on teachers This dependence stems from a lack of confidence, as students often believe their teachers are always right and hesitate to explore their own solutions Consequently, when they make writing errors, they tend to wait for teachers to provide corrections, which can foster a sense of laziness To enhance learning outcomes, educators should judiciously employ both feedback techniques, adapting their approach based on the subject matter and context to achieve the best results.
2.5.3 Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback
Written corrective feedback can be distinguished in another way related to the amount of feedback that should be given These two types are “focused” and
Unfocused written corrective feedback involves teachers addressing a broad spectrum of errors in students' work, providing corrections for all or most mistakes This approach is recognized for its comprehensive nature in enhancing student learning and writing skills (Ellis, 2009).
Related Studies
2.6.1 Studies on Written Corrective Feedback Practices
Research on English teachers' corrective feedback strategies reveals significant discrepancies between teachers' and students' perceptions Norouzian and Farahari (2012) utilized both text analysis and surveys with 45 students and 25 teachers to uncover these differences The study found that while many teachers believed they marked all errors, most students disagreed, indicating a gap in understanding Additionally, teachers often avoided using error codes, despite students expressing that such codes helped them revise their writing While teachers felt that corrective feedback led to improvements in grammatical accuracy, students reported only minimal progress The analysis showed that 40% of teachers provided comprehensive feedback, contrasting with the 66.7% reported in surveys, and 66.6% claimed to use direct feedback, compared to just 53.3% observed in actual texts.
Irwin (2017) also had a similar method to the above study when analyzing assignments of students to look for teachers’ feedback practices According to Irwin
In 2017, grammatical feedback accounted for the majority of responses, followed by structural and content feedback The teacher predominantly utilized indirect corrective feedback, comprising 64.3% of the total, which was twice as much as direct feedback Indirect corrective feedback was further categorized into two types: indirect corrective feedback and coded indirect feedback.
Coded indirect corrective feedback (CF) was utilized more frequently in analyzed samples, accounting for 40.7%, compared to 23.6% for indirect CF Irwin (2017) found that students favored feedback from their teachers, indicating that despite the use of diverse feedback methods, the teacher's dominant role often resulted in passive student engagement It is essential for teachers to consider students' preferences when providing feedback.
Unlike Norouzian and Farahari (2012) and Irwin (2017), Nguyen and Nguyen
In their 2017 study, researchers explored teachers' perspectives and practices regarding written corrective feedback through observations, surveys, and interviews The study involved two experienced teachers, each with over 20 years in education, who emphasized the importance of error correction for enhancing students' writing competence and accuracy Both educators employed direct and indirect written corrective feedback, with one also incorporating peer feedback into their teaching However, they encountered challenges, including the time-consuming nature of their methods and a lack of student engagement with the corrections Additionally, the teachers expressed concerns about the effectiveness of corrective feedback, feeling overwhelmed by the volume of errors to address and uncertain about whether to allow students to correct their own mistakes.
Interview and questionnaire were also used in Lee’s study (2003) to search for L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices, and error feedback problems The subjects were
A study involving 206 secondary English teachers in Hong Kong utilized questionnaires and telephone interviews to gather data The findings indicated that the primary goal of error feedback provided by teachers is to enhance students' awareness of their mistakes.
In 2003, it was highlighted that the immediate goal of assisting students was to prevent them from repeating errors, with most teachers employing comprehensive marking techniques that addressed all mistakes While teachers acknowledged their responsibility for error correction, they found selective marking challenging due to a lack of knowledge on its implementation, often focusing on grammar over student needs Many teachers utilized marking codes primarily due to school requirements Lee (2003) noted that direct feedback, which involves indicating and correcting errors, was the most commonly used method, urging educators to explore various corrective strategies to help students identify their mistakes Despite recognizing the importance of selective feedback, teachers in Hong Kong faced pressure to correct errors comprehensively, leading to time constraints, which were identified as a significant issue Additionally, teachers had to contend with challenges related to students' proficiency levels and attitudes.
In a study by Kharusi and Al-Mekhlafi (2019), which mirrored Lee's (2003) research, questionnaires were utilized to investigate EFL teachers' written corrective feedback practices in Oman, involving 156 EFL teachers and 62 supervisors The findings indicated a positive perception among participants regarding the importance of written corrective feedback (WCF), with a consensus that it is crucial for enhancing students' writing performance The majority of teachers predominantly employed unfocused WCF techniques, while indirect coded corrective feedback ranked as the second most utilized method Additionally, when addressing students' writing errors, teachers primarily concentrated on language and grammar, with less emphasis on organization and vocabulary.
2.6.2 Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback
A study conducted by Chen, Nassaji, and Liu (2016) explored the perceptions of learners regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) The research involved 64 students from the English department at a provincial university in China, encompassing first-year, second-year, and third-year students.
The study employed both close-ended and open-ended questions to gather quantitative and qualitative data, revealing that most participants held a positive attitude towards Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Students recognized WCF as essential for several reasons: it helps identify recurring errors, aids in improving writing quality, and emphasizes accuracy and form in English writing Among the types of errors, organizational errors were prioritized, followed by grammatical and vocabulary errors Most students expressed a preference for their teachers to focus on errors that impact communication Additionally, they favored correction techniques where instructors locate and indicate errors, rather than merely pointing them out without further explanation Extended comments on overall writing quality were also desired, while self-correction was acknowledged as an important aspect of the learning process, despite the students' preference for detailed corrections from their instructors.
Other research has similar objectives to the study of Chen et al (2016); a study by Hajian, Farahani, and Shirazi (2014) is an example Hajian, Farahani, and Shirazi
A 2014 study involving 80 students and 12 teachers explored attitudes towards corrective feedback in writing, revealing a shared positive perspective among both groups However, notable differences emerged: students preferred comprehensive error correction by teachers, while teachers favored selective correction Students expressed a desire for teachers, rather than peers, to handle error correction, contrasting with teachers' views that all parties could contribute Additionally, teachers focused heavily on grammar errors, whereas fewer than two-thirds of students sought feedback on grammar Students favored techniques such as writing comments, crossing out errors, and providing correct forms These findings align with Leki's 1991 research, which indicated that students desired complete error correction from teachers, highlighting their reliance on teachers as a primary source of support.
Zacharias (2007) explored the perceptions of teachers and students regarding feedback in a study involving 100 students and 20 teachers, utilizing both questionnaires and interviews for data collection The findings indicated that feedback from teachers was generally viewed positively by both groups; however, students expressed a preference for specific language feedback and were dissatisfied with overly general comments or feedback that contradicted their views Notably, a contradiction emerged between the questionnaire and interview responses: while many participants reported feeling "excited" about receiving feedback in the questionnaire, over 93% indicated in interviews that excessive feedback led to demotivation.
It was more motivating to get little feedback because it showed that fewer errors were committed The researcher believed that teacher’s feedback affected students’ motivation and attitudes
A study by Lee (2005) examined students' perceptions of various types and amounts of corrective feedback, involving 320 students from eight secondary schools in Hong Kong The findings revealed alignment between teachers' practices and students' preferences, with a majority favoring comprehensive error correction Notably, 76.3% of students preferred receiving error codes, which was also prioritized by teachers However, despite this alignment, students reported limited improvement from teachers' written corrective feedback (WCF) Lee suggested that educators should consider the challenges students face with error codes and enhance their approach by focusing on skills like editing training and self or peer editing Additionally, while most students viewed corrective feedback as solely the responsibility of teachers, the ultimate aim should be to reduce their reliance on instructors and equip them with effective editing strategies to enhance their writing skills.
Research on 58 students of Dong Thap University proposed by Nguyen & Le
A study conducted in 2017 revealed that students highly value corrective feedback in writing, as it helps them understand their errors and improve their skills Students expressed a preference for receiving ample feedback from teachers to avoid repeating mistakes in future assignments However, excessive feedback can lead to demotivation, prompting educators to focus on major errors, particularly those related to ideas Among various corrective techniques, students found comment-based corrections to be the most beneficial, while both students and teachers agreed that personal feedback often caused confusion and was not effective Prolonged confusion over feedback could ultimately hinder student motivation.
Nguyen & Ramnath (2016) conducted a study at An Giang University involving fifty sophomores to explore students' responses to teachers' written corrective feedback The findings revealed that most students found the feedback to be "legible, understandable, and useful," expressing a preference for receiving comments in addition to grades Students prioritized teachers' comments over language form and desired that teachers first address language and organizational errors, followed by content errors However, a notable discrepancy existed between students' preferences and teachers' practices, as students reported that feedback often focused on only a subset of their errors, while they preferred comprehensive corrections Furthermore, the results indicated a need for more frequent use of correction codes in the classroom.
In a study conducted by Ha & Phuong (2018), the types of errors commonly made by non-English major students were examined, along with their preferences for teacher feedback The research involved sixty first-year students from a college in Can Tho city, revealing that the most frequent errors included morphological, lexical, syntactic, and mechanical mistakes To explore students' feedback preferences, the researchers interviewed nine participants, who expressed that they found feedback to be valuable The majority of students indicated a desire for teachers to correct all their errors, believing that such corrective feedback would help them avoid repeating mistakes in future writing assignments.