Rationale of the study
English plays a crucial role in globalization across various sectors worldwide, making it essential for students to learn it as a Second Language The demand for fluency and proficiency in the four fundamental skills of English has led to extensive research into effective teaching methodologies.
In Vietnam, secondary school students must develop four English skills: reading, speaking, listening, and writing, with writing often viewed as the most challenging Many Vietnamese students experience anxiety about writing, fearing errors in their paragraphs To foster a positive learning environment, it is essential to encourage students to view writing as a learning tool rather than a test of their knowledge Providing opportunities for constructive feedback on their writing can help them grow and improve their skills.
A comprehensive review of writing literature highlights two primary types of feedback: direct and indirect The significance of feedback is underscored by numerous studies that examine its various aspects, demonstrating that clear and concise feedback aligned with standards enhances student achievement Feedback is crucial in language teaching, as it helps writers identify areas of confusion, such as insufficient information, poor organization, and inappropriate word choice or tense This process allows writers to recognize and rectify their mistakes, ultimately improving their writing skills Additionally, the literature supports the use of teacher feedback in writing classrooms as a valuable resource, contributing to social, cognitive, and emotional development.
Teacher feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing the effectiveness of writing instruction, as highlighted by various researchers including Merlin (1986), Radecki and Swales (1988), Hedge (2000), and Ferris and Roberts (2001) Their studies underscore the significant impact that constructive feedback has on students' writing success, emphasizing its importance in the teaching and learning process.
As an English teacher at Do Luong 2 High School, the researcher is dedicated to enhancing student confidence and effectiveness in writing During lessons, students frequently make errors that contribute to their anxiety Aligning with Hedge (2000), she views errors as a natural and beneficial aspect of the language learning process Hedge emphasizes that learners improve more rapidly through meaningful practice in a supportive linguistic environment and effective error correction from teachers This highlights the importance of teacher feedback in the writing process, as it allows students to test their understanding and refine their language skills Consequently, the researcher prioritizes teacher corrective feedback, recognizing it as a complex yet crucial element in writing education.
A month-long observation of four English teachers' writing lessons revealed that all predominantly used teacher corrective feedback to address students' writings This raised questions about whether the feedback aligned with students' preferences and how students responded to the feedback they received.
The researcher conducted a survey to investigate the impact of teacher feedback on students' paragraph writing The study aims to provide English teachers with effective strategies to enhance their students' writing skills Utilizing direct feedback during writing instruction is crucial, as it offers teachers the opportunity to significantly improve students' writing abilities.
Implementing a learner-centered approach in teaching writing, particularly through the Direct Feedback strategy, fosters interaction and idea exchange between students and teachers Before applying this strategy, educators must outline the necessary steps to ensure effective implementation The Direct Feedback method should be integrated into the writing process, especially when teaching recount texts, to enhance student engagement and learning outcomes.
The purpose of the study
This study aims to enhance research on writing in English as a second or foreign language by examining students' self-reports regarding teachers' written corrective feedback on their paragraph writing It also investigates students' perceptions of how this feedback influences their writing performance.
Research questions
In order to achieve the mentioned aims above, the following research questions will be included in the study:
1 What are the common types of feedback do teachers provide on students’ writing according to the students’ self-report?
2 How useful do the students think of teachers’ feedback on their paragraph writing?
3 What are the students’ suggestions on the changes teachers need to make in the way they provide feedback on the students’ paragraph writing?
Scope of the study
This study focuses on students' attitudes toward direct written feedback in paragraph writing, recognizing that the topic of written feedback is multifaceted and cannot be fully explored in a single research effort.
6 well as teachers’ practices regarding direct written feedback and students’ preferences to those practices within the context of one high school in Do Luong, Nghe An
The research aims to uncover valuable insights into the actions of teachers in response to student needs and the subsequent reactions of students to this feedback The findings could offer recommendations for enhancing teacher feedback and assisting students in effectively incorporating it into their writing revisions.
Methods of the study
To realize the aims, the following methods for data collection were employed in the study
1.5.1 Data were collected by means of survey questionnaires for 80 students at Do Luong 2 high school The questionnaires included closed-ended questions, open-ended questions and Likert scales.
Significance of the research
Extensive research has explored the role of feedback in enhancing ESL/EFL students' writing skills, highlighting various aspects and perspectives Key areas of focus in these studies include the impact of feedback types, such as form-focused versus content-focused feedback, and the comparison of focused versus unfocused feedback on writing improvement Notable studies, including those by Ashwell (2000), Ferris & Robert (2001), and Hyland (2003), have examined the effectiveness of these feedback approaches Additionally, research has delved into different feedback strategies, notably comparing direct and indirect feedback methods, as seen in the work of Bitchener (2008).
Research has explored various aspects of corrective feedback in writing, comparing methods such as direct feedback with explanations versus without (Chandler, 2003; Bitchener, 2008) Despite this, there is a lack of understanding regarding students' self-evaluation of how teacher feedback influences their writing This study aims to fill that gap, contributing valuable insights to the ongoing debate initiated by Truscott (1996) and Ferris (1999) regarding the effectiveness and usefulness of corrective feedback in enhancing student writing.
Organization of the thesis
This thesis is structured in three parts:
Part one: presents the background and statement of the problem, purpose of the study, and significance of the study
Part two: Development and in this part there have been three chapters:
Chapter 1 reviews the literature on feedback within learning theory and instructional design, specifically focusing on its role in teaching ESL/EFL writing It examines the effectiveness of various feedback types, including corrective feedback and error correction, and discusses the teacher's role in providing constructive feedback on student writing The chapter also covers multiple-draft revisions and distinguishes between focused and unfocused feedback, as well as direct and indirect feedback methods, highlighting the importance of written feedback with explicit corrective comments.
Chapter 2 discusses the methodology of this study including study design and variables, participants, research instrument and materials, pilot study, procedures, and implementation and challenges of the study
Chapter 3 presents the results of data analysis in the order of each research question and a discussion of the results
In conclusion, this article summarizes key findings, discusses the implications of the study, and offers recommendations for enhancing teaching and learning in writing Additionally, it addresses the limitations encountered during the research, providing a comprehensive overview of the study's contributions to the field.
PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
Feedback plays a crucial role in the development of L2 writing, yet both students and teachers often feel dissatisfied with the feedback process Despite the significant time teachers invest in providing detailed feedback, there is a common belief that the quality of students' writing improves only in relation to the effort teachers put into their comments This highlights the complexities and challenges inherent in effectively delivering feedback in educational settings.
This chapter examines existing literature on feedback, highlighting its definition, significance in second and foreign language acquisition, and various types of feedback The study specifically concentrates on the effects of different forms of written feedback on student writing, thereby narrowing its focus to the realm of written feedback exclusively.
Feedback is defined as the process of informing learners about the correctness of their instructional responses (Kepner, 1991) According to Hattie and Timperley (2007), feedback is the information provided by an agent concerning an individual's performance or understanding Its primary purpose is to bridge the gap between a learner's current knowledge and their learning goals.
In this thesis, feedback is characterized as written corrections that reflect a student's progress on a written assignment This traditional practice in educational settings involves teachers offering written feedback, which can be either anecdotal—highlighting strengths and weaknesses in sentences—or as markup, where errors are underlined, circled, or entirely noted.
LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction 1.1 Definition of terminology
Types of feedback
Teacher feedback can be delivered through various methods, including dialog journals, mini-conferences, written comments on drafts, and student-teacher conferences This article focuses specifically on teacher feedback and explores the different types of feedback and their impact on students' writing.
The type of feedback provided in educational settings is crucial, as there are various forms and an ongoing debate regarding their effectiveness Most studies tend to concentrate on individual feedback types and student reactions, while rarely addressing their practicality or the preferences of instructors.
Written feedback can be broken into two types: direct feedback and indirect feedback
Direct feedback is an effective strategy for helping students correct their errors by offering the correct linguistic form or structure of the target language (Bitchener, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Mohebbi, 2013; Van Beuningen, 2010) Typically provided by teachers, this form of feedback involves pointing out grammatical mistakes and supplying the correct answer or expected response in close proximity to the error (Ferris, 2006).
Direct feedback in writing instruction can be implemented by marking incorrect words, inserting missing elements, or providing corrections near errors, offering explicit guidance on correct forms (Ellis, 2008) This approach is particularly beneficial for beginner students or when errors are difficult to self-correct, such as issues with sentence structure and word choice (Lee, 2003) Research on the impact of direct feedback on writing accuracy has yielded mixed results Robb et al (1986) found that while different feedback types showed no significant differences in effectiveness, direct feedback was less time-consuming for addressing surface errors In contrast, Semke (1984) concluded that writing practice alone enhanced student progress more than error correction, with no notable differences among feedback strategies Conversely, Chandler (2003) reported that direct feedback led to more accurate revisions and was favored by students for its efficiency in facilitating corrections.
A study by Bitchener and Knoch (2010) involving 52 ESL students in New Zealand examined the effectiveness of three types of direct corrective feedback—direct corrective feedback with written and oral metalinguistic explanations, direct corrective feedback with written metalinguistic explanations, and direct corrective feedback alone—against a control group The results indicated that all treatment groups significantly outperformed the control group, with no notable differences in effectiveness among the feedback variations An example of direct feedback includes crossing out a misspelled word and providing the correct spelling above it, sometimes accompanied by metalinguistic explanations or grammar rules (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008) In contrast, indirect feedback highlights the location of errors without providing corrections, encouraging learners to identify and correct their mistakes independently (Bitchener, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Mohebbi, 2013; Van Beuningen, 2010) Examples of indirect feedback include underlining or circling errors, noting the number of errors in the margins, or coding the types of errors (Mohebbi, 2013; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010).
Indirect feedback is a teaching strategy that encourages students to identify and correct their own errors without providing the correct answers directly (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) This approach involves teachers signaling the presence of an error through methods such as underlining, circling, or using codes, prompting students to engage in self-correction (Lee, 2008; O’Sullivan & Chambers, 2006) By utilizing indirect feedback, educators foster critical thinking and cognitive reflection, helping students better understand the nature and location of their mistakes.
Teachers serve as reflective agents, guiding students in enhancing their cognitive structuring skills through prior experiences By providing indirect feedback, students can identify and correct errors, leading to increased engagement and problem-solving abilities, which are essential for long-term learning improvement Research indicates that indirect feedback is generally preferred over direct feedback, as it encourages students to actively participate in the correction process and fosters reflection, ultimately aiding their long-term language acquisition Experts agree that indirect feedback significantly enhances students' second language proficiency and metalinguistic knowledge, offering more advantages for advanced learners compared to direct feedback Moreover, students themselves acknowledge that they often learn more effectively from indirect feedback.
Lalande's (1982) research on 60 German foreign language learners examined two methods of error correction: direct correction, where students received the correct forms to integrate into their writing, and indirect correction, which utilized a systematic error correction code for guided learning Students interpreted these codes, corrected their errors, and rewrote their paragraphs accordingly.
Research indicates that indirect corrective feedback leads to greater improvements in student writing compared to direct feedback Chandler's (2003) study with 31 ESL undergraduate students found that indirect feedback, particularly through underlining errors, is more effective in a multiple draft context, as it encourages cognitive engagement in the correction process Notably, both direct feedback and indirect feedback resulted in significant gains in writing accuracy and fluency over time, provided students made revisions based on the feedback However, if students did not revise their work, marking errors was as ineffective as providing no feedback at all Similarly, Ferris (2006) found that among 92 ESL students, there was a strong correlation between indirect feedback from teachers and successful revisions in subsequent drafts, highlighting the importance of engaging students in the feedback process for improved writing outcomes.
There are two primary types of feedback: direct and indirect Direct feedback involves identifying errors, marking them, and providing corrections, while indirect feedback highlights errors and indicates their incorrectness without offering solutions Given the variety of feedback options, the question arises: which type is most beneficial and effective for students?
In summary, the typology of different types of feedback is illustrated in Table 1.2 below
1 Direct CF The teacher provides the student with the correct form e.g.Lalande(1982)andR obb et al.(1986)
2 Indirect CF a) Indicating and locating the error b) Indication only
Research indicates that while teachers may identify errors in student work, they often refrain from providing direct corrections This indirect correction approach has been utilized in several studies (e.g., Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003), although it has been less frequently examined in other research (e.g., Robb et al., 1986).
This takes the form of underlining and use of cursors to show omissions in the student’s text
This takes the form of an indication in the margin that an error or errors have taken place in a line of text
1 3 Metalinguistic CF a) Useoferrorcode b b) Brief grammatical descriptions
The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue as to the nature of the error
Various studies have examined the effects of using error codes (e.g.Lalande1982;Ferrs and Roberts 2001;Chandler2003) Sheen (2007) compared
Teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g.wwẳwrong word;artẳarticle)
Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text the effects of direct CF and direct CF+ metalinguistic CF
2 4 The focus of the feedback a) a) Unfocused CF b) Focused CF
The approach a teacher takes in addressing student errors can significantly impact learning outcomes Educators may choose to correct all or most errors, ensuring comprehensive feedback, or they may focus on one or two specific types of errors, allowing for targeted improvement This distinction is crucial in shaping effective teaching strategies and enhancing student understanding.
Most studies have investigated unfocused
Sheen(2007), drawing on traditions in SLA studies of CF, investigated focused CF
In a mountainous area with students facing challenges in their learning levels, direct feedback proves to be more beneficial than indirect feedback This approach allows teachers to clearly identify and address mistakes, enabling students to understand their errors more easily and effectively Therefore, it is essential for educators to provide straightforward feedback to enhance student comprehension and learning outcomes.
The importance of feedback in L2 writing
Just as importantly, a great number of studies on this aspect have been done and a debate about the value of providing feedback on L2 writing has been prominent in recent years
Feedback can be a significant source of anxiety for students, as highlighted by Taylor (1997), emphasizing the importance of careful consideration regarding timing, location, participation, attitudes, and outcomes when providing it.
Research by Huntley (1992) and Truscott (1996) indicates that correcting surface-level errors in second language writing is largely ineffective and may not justify the instructor's time and effort Truscott argues that such corrections should be eliminated from language classes due to their potentially negative impact on students This perspective is supported by additional studies, including those by Keper (1991) and Sheppard (1992), which also highlight the ineffectiveness of explicit error correction in enhancing students' writing skills.
Numerous researchers emphasize the significance of feedback in teaching English as a second language, advocating for corrective feedback to enhance students' writing accuracy This approach, supported by Schulz, highlights the crucial role of constructive criticism in the language learning process.
In 1996, it was found that students' beliefs about effective writing feedback and their expectations of teacher grading methods can significantly impact the effectiveness of that feedback Hedge (2000) supported this notion, emphasizing the importance of aligning feedback with student expectations to enhance learning outcomes.
Receiving feedback from teachers and peers allows learners to test their hypotheses and enhance their understanding of the language system Effective feedback not only encourages students to revise their work but also keeps them engaged in writing Furthermore, personalized comments enable tailored writing instruction, addressing individual needs and challenges Thus, feedback plays a crucial role in promoting a learner-centered approach.
Historically, teachers viewed writing merely as 'talk written down' (Nunan 1999:274), but it is now recognized that while written and spoken language share similarities, they also exhibit key differences One significant distinction is that written language serves to communicate with individuals who are separated by time and space (Nunan 1999:275) Additionally, written language requires cultural transmission to convey meaning effectively.
Unlike oral language, which is acquired naturally, written language requires the development of specific skills According to Grabe and Kaplan (1996:6), writing is considered a technology that necessitates practice and learning through experience.
Research in L2 writing started to emerge in the 1960s and 1970s in the USA and the
In the UK, applied linguistics initially focused on second language (L2) writing, with significant research also emerging from education and composition studies in the 1990s (Grabe and Kaplan, 1996) According to Hyland (2003), the field of L2 writing scholarship began to take shape in the 1980s, marking it as a relatively new area of academic inquiry.
L2 writing is a complex skill that many find challenging to master, often regarded as the most difficult aspect of learning a second language Understanding the process of L2 writing can be enhanced through various approaches, as outlined by Hyland (2003) While writing instruction typically incorporates a mix of these methods, certain approaches tend to be more prevalent at different times.
One effective approach to writing instruction emphasizes language structures, viewing the text as a product (Hyland 2003:3) This perspective highlights the importance of understanding linguistics, vocabulary, syntax, and cohesion in written language This approach was particularly prevalent in the 1960s.
A second approach emphasizes the functions of text in writing, highlighting the importance of understanding writing patterns, such as paragraphs Learners must recognize that various language elements serve distinct communicative purposes, with academic texts possessing specific functions and forms that differentiate them from other genres.
A third approach emphasizes the writer's creative expression, viewing writing as a personal means of creating meaning In this perspective, educators provide students with the opportunity to explore and construct their own understanding As Hyland (2003:9) states, "Writing is an act of discovering."
18 meaning’ The important element in this approach is the ability to express oneself, compared to the two approaches mentioned earlier that focus on the form
The fourth approach highlights the importance of the writing process, which consists of planning, writing, and reviewing (Hyland 2003:11) This approach encompasses various stages of text production, beginning with pre-writing activities such as brainstorming ideas and outlining the content.
The writing process involves composing text and is significantly influenced by feedback from teachers and peers, which guides writers in revising and editing their work This iterative process may occur multiple times before reaching the post-writing stage, where tasks like publishing or addressing weaknesses take place Teachers play a vital role in helping students develop their skills in creating, drafting, and refining ideas Feedback is essential in guiding students through the various stages of writing and is a key component of the process writing approach.
The fifth approach focuses on content Themes and topics that interest the writers maybe possible tasks The topic is the starting point of writing teaching
The sixth and final approach to teaching writing emphasizes the importance of genre, highlighting how language is utilized to achieve specific purposes through various genres Each genre, whether it be a love letter, an article, or a theatre play, employs distinct conventions that guide the writer's approach This perspective aligns with Vygotsky's concept of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as discussed by Hyland (2003) Hyland also notes that while many educators incorporate a blend of different teaching methods, the process and genre approaches remain the most prevalent in writing instruction.
Approaches to teaching L1 writing are relevant to comment on Silva (1993:657)claims that some ESL writing teachers have been encouraged to adopt L1
19 writing practices.This encouragement shows an attitude that L1 and L2 writing practices are similar andcomparable Both writing processes involve composing, planning, writing and revising Twostudies (Jones 1982; Jacobs 1982), cited in Krapels
Previous studies on written feedback in second language writing
Feedback on form can be categorized into two main types: direct and indirect feedback Direct feedback involves teachers providing exact corrections, allowing students to simply rewrite their texts In contrast, indirect feedback highlights errors without offering corrections, requiring students to identify and correct their mistakes independently Research by Ferris and Roberts (2001) indicates that indirect feedback is more effective in promoting long-term accuracy improvements in students compared to direct feedback.
A study conducted in 2001 examined the effectiveness of explicit indirect error feedback in second language (L2) writing classes to enhance students' self-editing skills The researchers implemented three distinct feedback types, assigning one to each student group One approach involved code marking, where the teacher categorized errors into five specific types, using codes to highlight them; for instance, the code 'sp' indicated spelling errors.
In a study by Ferris and Roberts (2001), it was found that teachers can effectively guide students in self-editing their texts without explicitly correcting errors The research indicated that using underlining to highlight errors, rather than detailed code marking, yields similar results in improving student writing Significant differences were observed between groups receiving feedback and those who did not, but no notable distinctions were found between the two feedback types This suggests that underlining is a time-efficient method for teachers, allowing them to provide necessary feedback without the extensive effort required for code marking.
Another scholar, Chandler (2003), investigated how feedback should be given, morespecifically in terms of grammatical and lexical errors When comparing different
There are 22 effective methods for providing feedback on errors, including direct correction by the teacher, simply pointing out mistakes, or using coding systems Research by Chandler indicates that both direct teacher correction and underlining are more effective than coded marking for minimizing long-term errors.
Indirect feedback is an effective method for providing feedback and should not be considered inferior to direct feedback In fact, research by Ferris and Roberts (2001) and Chandler (2003) indicates that indirect feedback may actually be the superior option among the two types.
The effectiveness of feedback
Understanding the preferences of both students and teachers regarding feedback is crucial, but the true measure of success lies in the effectiveness of that feedback Numerous studies have explored the impact of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on student writing, each examining unique factors such as participant demographics, educational settings, student proficiency levels, and feedback types Notably, some research emphasizes the role of teacher commentary, investigating how the feedback provided influences student writing outcomes.
Ferris (1997) investigated how teacher commentary affects student revisions, focusing on two main questions: the characteristics of teacher feedback that influence student revisions and whether these revisions result in meaningful improvements in students' writing The study involved 80 high school students enrolled in an English as a Second Language composition course in Vietnam, where they were tasked with producing multiple drafts of their paragraphs, with a minimum of four drafts required for each piece.
Ferris collected the first and second drafts from the first three assignments; first drafts had handwritten feedback provided by the teachers, and the second drafts were
A study analyzed 110 pairs of first and second drafts following teacher feedback, utilizing an original research model to assess the impact of commentary The findings revealed that marginal requests for information and grammar summary comments prompted the most significant revisions, while informational questions and positive feedback had minimal influence on changes Overall, any revisions, whether minor or substantial, enhanced the quality of the students' papers Additionally, revisions based on questions yielded mixed results, with longer comments generally leading to more effective improvements than shorter ones.
Chandler (2003) explored effective methods for providing feedback on grammatical and lexical errors His research revealed that direct teacher correction and underlining errors were more effective than code marking in reducing long-term errors.
Indirect feedback is a highly effective method of providing feedback and is not inferior to direct feedback In fact, research by Ferris and Roberts (2001) and Chandler (2003) indicates that indirect feedback may be the superior option between the two.
Timing of feedback
The timing of feedback plays a crucial role in L2 writing, as highlighted by Frankenberg-Garcia’s (1999) study Typically, feedback is provided after the completion of drafts, often coinciding with the issuance of grades, a process referred to as post-product feedback This approach can lead many students to focus primarily on the feedback after their work is finalized.
Many students focus primarily on their grades and often overlook the feedback provided in their texts, particularly when they are unhappy with their scores (Leki 1990:62) According to Vik (2013:26), a crucial aspect of effective feedback is allowing students sufficient time during class to engage with and apply the feedback they receive.
Frankenberg-Garcia (1999) highlights the importance of providing real-time feedback to students while they are writing, allowing them to address questions and challenges as they arise (Frankenberg-Garcia 1990:101) He advocates for the use of pre-product feedback during writing workshops, emphasizing that this type of feedback is delivered before a text is finalized, such as after drafts are completed In contrast, post-product feedback occurs only after a text is finished and no longer subject to revision, making the timing of feedback crucial for effective writing development.
Hattie and Timperley (2007) highlight the significance of feedback timing, distinguishing between immediate and delayed feedback, each serving unique purposes Their research indicates that delayed feedback is particularly effective for challenging tasks, while immediate feedback is suitable for simpler ones A balanced approach that incorporates both types of feedback can enhance learning outcomes by addressing different feedback needs based on task complexity.
This chapter provides a comprehensive overview of theories, literature, and research related to writing and feedback in second language contexts It begins by exploring foundational theories, followed by an analysis of research on both first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing A key focus is on process writing feedback, which is essential to this study, examining the teacher's roles, the impact of teacher feedback, and the distinctions between indirect and direct feedback It emphasizes the critical importance of feedback in L2 writing and considers the timing of feedback delivery The chapter concludes with a review of various studies conducted in Vietnam on this topic.
METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research setting
Participants
Eighty Grade 10 high school students participated in a survey, with a convenient selection method used for recruitment Among the participants, two-thirds were female (N=60) Their English proficiency levels ranged from A2 to B1 on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), as determined by a placement and proficiency exam conducted by the testing center All students were in their first term of the academic year.
High schools utilize the English Basic 10, 11, and 12 textbooks, which are aligned with the new national curriculum These textbooks employ a learner-centered approach and a communicative methodology, with task-based teaching as the primary instructional method.
Each book features 16 teaching units along with six review units, designed to facilitate comprehensive learning Each teaching unit focuses on a specific topic and is divided into five sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing, and Language Focus The structured approach allows each section to be effectively taught within a 45-minute timeframe.
The Writing section includes a model and a series of activities designed to guide students through the writing process, encompassing model analysis, language exercises, and guided writing Students will create different text types, including personal and formal letters, narratives, and descriptions of charts, graphs, and tables, as well as expository paragraphs The objectives for both general and specific writing skills are clearly outlined in the educational materials.
The study aimed to determine whether teacher feedback effectively enhances students' writing accuracy over time Specifically, it sought to answer research questions regarding the impact of multiple feedback sessions and revisions on the overall quality of students' writing.
Data collection instruments
This study aimed to explore students' perceptions of their teachers' feedback methods and the impact of that feedback on their paragraph writing skills To gather relevant data, a student questionnaire was developed and administered as part of the survey.
To enhance the findings of SLWAI, interviews were conducted before and after the study These interviews included questions regarding students' perceptions of teacher feedback and its impact on their writing anxiety Participants shared their views on whether teacher feedback boosted their self-confidence in writing, their preferences regarding feedback, and their feelings about both giving and receiving feedback.
Methods of Data analysis
The analysis of students' responses to the questionnaire revealed common patterns in their opinions on the effectiveness of teachers' written corrective feedback in enhancing their paragraph writing skills The findings were systematically tabulated and illustrated through tables and diagrams for clarity.
The study will gather data through students' writings over an extended period, during which the teacher-researcher will implement various written feedback strategies, each utilized for one month Throughout this experimental phase, students will receive direct feedback on their writing four times, once each week The effectiveness of the teacher's feedback strategies will be assessed by measuring the students' progress in their writing skills.
CHAPTER: III FINDING AND ANALYSING
This section of the thesis focuses on analyzing the data gathered from various sources, including classroom observations, direct interviews with nine teachers, survey questionnaires completed by 80 students, and the evaluation of teacher feedback on students' draft samples.
Data analysis of student’s survey questionnaire
There are 80 students from grade 10 and grade 12 completing the survey questionnaire among them, there were 26 males and 54 female Their age ranged from
Teenagers aged 15 to 18 have been studying English for five to seven years, during which writing has been a key component of their curriculum in secondary school, integrated as one of the five essential sections in each unit.
3.2.1.1 Analysis of students’ survey questionnaire
Chart 3.2.1.1: Students’ Opinions on Teachers’ Feedback Frequency
5% never almost never sometimes often very often
According to Chart 3.2.1.1, student responses regarding the frequency of teacher feedback varied significantly Only 5% of students reported receiving feedback very often, while nearly half (40%) indicated that they often received feedback on their written work A larger portion, accounting for 45%, claimed that feedback from teachers occurred sometimes Interestingly, another 5% of students stated that they never or almost never received feedback from their teachers.
Figure 3.2.1.2: Students’ Opinions on Forms of Teachers’ Feedback
Figure 3.2.1.2 showed students’ opinions on Forms of Teacher Feedback (Part
The chart illustrates that most students highly value feedback presented in various forms, including questions, statements, imperatives, and exclamations, with statements being regarded as the most beneficial.
100% a b c d e very helpful helpful not helpful at all
31 marking the errors, but not actually correcting them was assessed by 75% of the students as not helpful one at all
Chart 3.2.1.3: Students’ comprehension of teacher feedback
Chart 3.2.1.3 described about the students’ opinions on the comprehension of the feedback 0nly 40% of the students said that they found the teacher feedback quite easy to understand; meanwhile 60% of them responded negatively due to different reasons shown in table 3.2.1.4
Table 3.2.1.4: Factors Affecting the Comprehension of Feedback
4 Why don’t you find your teacher feedback easy? a feedback is too general to understand b teachers use new vocabulary and structures in feedback c teachers’ including hedges in feedback confuses me d teachers use new feedback strategies
5 What strategies do you use to solve your problem? a asking the teacher or peers for help b consulting a grammar book or dictionary c doing nothing
A recent study revealed key factors hindering students' understanding of teacher feedback Notably, 60% of students expressed that feedback was often too general, highlighting a preference for more specific guidance Additionally, the use of unfamiliar vocabulary and complex structures in feedback negatively impacted comprehension, making it challenging for students to grasp the teacher's intent While only 15% of students noted confusion caused by hedges such as "perhaps" or "maybe," this factor still significantly affects understanding and warrants teachers' consideration when providing responses to students' written work.
Chart 3.2.1.5: Students’ Beliefs on the Importance of Feedback
The chart illustrates that 70% of students believe feedback is crucial in developing writing skills, highlighting its significant role in both teaching and learning Many students view feedback as an essential tool for improvement.
70% not important important very important
33 the other hands, there were few students denying the roles of feedback when they stated that it was not important any more
Figure 3.2.1.6: Students’ Beliefs about the Relative Importance of Various
Chart 3.2.1.6 displays the response frequencies for eight Likert-type items regarding students' beliefs about the significance of different writing features The findings indicate that students generally perceive grammar, spelling, vocabulary choice, organization, and the ideas expressed in their papers as equally important Additionally, a greater number of students expressed the opinion that teachers should provide feedback on these aspects of their writing.
100% a b c d e f strongly disagree dis agree neither agree nor disagree
In a recent analysis, students demonstrated a higher concern for grammar and paper organization, with error rates between 85% and 90%, compared to other aspects, which ranged from 75% to 80% Interestingly, punctuation emerged as the least concerning feature, with 65% of students expressing a neutral stance on this aspect.
Table 3.2.1.6: Students’ Preferences for the mechanics of feedback
6 When responding to your written work, teacher should always: a use a set of correction of proof-reading symbols b use a red-colored pen
1=strongly agree; 2=agree; 3=neither agree nor disagree; 4=disagree; 5 = strongly disagree
According to Table 3.2.1.6, student preferences for teacher marking techniques vary significantly A notable 75% of students expressed a preference for teachers to use a red pen when providing feedback on their written assignments Conversely, 55% of students disagreed with the use of correction or proofreading symbols by teachers.
Table 3.2.1.7: Students’ preferences for Paper-making Techniques – Nominal items
8 How do you want your teacher to indicate an error in your written work? a By crossing what is incorrect and writing the correct word or structure b By showing where the error is and giving clue about how to correct it c By only showing where the error is d By ignoring the errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation…etc., and only paying attention to the ideas expressed
8 If there are many errors in a paper, what do you want your English teacher to do?
When addressing errors in student work, various approaches can be taken One option is to correct all errors, both major and minor Alternatively, one might focus solely on major errors, leaving minor ones unaddressed Another approach is to correct most major errors while ignoring some In certain cases, only a few major errors may be corrected regardless of their number It's also possible to address all repeated errors, regardless of their classification Lastly, one could choose not to correct any errors at all, instead responding solely to the ideas presented.
5 Concerning students’ preferences for teachers’ techniques in pointing out errors, students revealed nearly the same choice as their teachers As shown in Table 6, 50%
A significant 36% of students preferred the feedback technique of crossing out errors and writing the correct word or structure in their written work Additionally, 45% favored a method that involved indicating the location of the error while providing hints for correction Conversely, only a small number of students opted for the technique that merely pointed out the errors without further guidance.
A recent survey revealed that 65% of students prefer their teachers to correct all errors in their papers, especially when numerous mistakes are present In contrast, 10% of students favor having most major errors addressed Only a small fraction, about 5%, expressed interest in correcting just a few major errors or focusing solely on the ideas presented in their work.
Chart 3.2.1.8: Students’ Preferences for Kinds of Feedback
Chart 3.2.1.8 revealed students’ preferences for kinds of feedback as can be seen from the chart the majority of the students preferred direct feedback most Many of them (30%) would like to receive both indirect and direct feedback; meanwhile; only 5% wanted to get indirect feedback from their teacher
30% indirect feedback direct feedback both of them
Discussion
This section presents the answers to the research questions proposed at the beginning of the thesis
Research question 1: What are the common types of feedback do teachers provide on students’ writing according to the students’ self-report?
Teachers’ written feedback is the most common form of assessment for students' written work, but its effectiveness has been questioned by researchers such as Danny and Randolph & Karen (2010) and Altena & Pica (2010) The complexity of this feedback type has led to various studies exploring it from different perspectives For instance, Getchell et al (2011) and Clement et al (2010) focused on the methods teachers use, such as direct correction and coding, while others, like Peter (2006) and Blair (2006), investigated the perceived effectiveness of different feedback types, including form versus content This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific type of teacher's written feedback.
Direct teacher feedback involves providing students with the correct forms of their errors, whether through oral or written communication While this method clearly identifies mistakes and offers solutions, it does not encourage students to engage with their errors or think critically about them Research by Rymanowski et al (2011) and Ko and Hirvela (2010) indicates that this approach is the least effective for error correction Additionally, Clements et al (2010) note that the effort required from teachers to address surface errors does not yield proportional results, highlighting the limitations of direct feedback methods.
38 doesn’t give students an opportunity to think or to do anything The present study studies this type of feedback
Indirect feedback is a crucial method of teacher assessment that includes two subtypes: coded indirect feedback and encoded indirect feedback In coded indirect feedback, teachers underline errors and provide symbols to prompt students to identify and reflect on their mistakes Conversely, encoded indirect feedback involves simply highlighting errors without offering corrections or symbols, encouraging students to independently recognize and rectify their mistakes Research by Moser & Jasmine (2010) suggests that this approach is often more effective than direct correction, as it fosters critical thinking and self-discovery among students Their study indicated that students using error codes for revision showed significant improvement compared to those receiving direct corrections However, it's essential for teachers to use clear symbols and ensure students are familiar with them before implementation Additionally, Ko & Hirvela (2010) emphasize that teachers should be selective in their corrections to avoid fostering negative attitudes toward writing and self-perception among students Overall, effective indirect feedback plays a vital role in enhancing students' writing skills while promoting a positive learning environment.
Feedback plays a crucial role in the secondary presentation process, particularly during the practice and elaboration stages, as highlighted by Merrill (2002) It is widely recognized as a vital form of learner guidance, with Andrews and Goodson (1980) emphasizing its significance in systematic instructional design aimed at enhancing evaluation processes In this context, teacher-applied feedback is essential for improving student evaluations during practice and revision phases in the classroom Additionally, feedback is a key element of formative assessment, providing valuable insights for both teachers and students regarding how students' writing aligns with classroom learning objectives One effective strategy for delivering formative assessment is through direct feedback from the teacher.
Research question 2: How useful do the students think of teachers’ feedback on their paragraph writing?
A recent study revealed that most students value feedback as a crucial element in enhancing their writing skills, believing it provides essential insights for improving their future papers Many expressed a strong desire for more feedback from teachers to facilitate their writing progress However, over half reported not receiving feedback on every paper, with some even stating they never received any The students identified questions and statements as the most effective feedback methods that motivate them to revise and edit their work, while only a small number preferred other forms of feedback.
Many students perceive their teachers' feedback as exclamatory and imperative Additionally, most believe that simply marking errors without providing corrections is unhelpful and ineffective for their learning.
Many students expressed that their teachers' feedback was difficult to comprehend, primarily due to its general nature and the use of unfamiliar vocabulary and structures A few students noted that the inclusion of hedges in the feedback added to their confusion Overall, the findings indicate that students are dissatisfied with the feedback they receive and desire more specific information, particularly in writing comments, as they often seek assistance from teachers or peers to address their challenges.
Numerous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of direct correction in enhancing writing skills among ESL students Chandler (2003) found that direct feedback significantly improved revisions among 31 ESL students, as it was the quickest and easiest method preferred by learners Similarly, Bitchener and Knoch (2010) conducted a study with 52 ESL students in New Zealand, comparing various forms of direct corrective feedback Their findings revealed that all treatment groups, which included different types of direct feedback, outperformed the control group, with no significant differences in effectiveness among the feedback variations These results underscore the efficacy of direct feedback in teaching writing.
Providing direct feedback in large classroom settings poses challenges due to the time required for teachers to effectively address each student's needs According to Clements et al (2010), the effort involved in delivering direct feedback often does not yield proportional results, as it may divert attention to minor errors rather than fostering deeper student engagement To address this issue, teachers should focus on understanding the writing process, which can help streamline feedback and enhance student learning without consuming excessive time.
Effective writing instruction should be scheduled to help students produce acceptable English compositions According to Harmer (2001:257), teachers can choose to emphasize either the final product of writing or the writing process itself To enhance writing skills, educators can implement three preparatory steps before teaching writing, allowing for a more focused approach on either the writing outcome or the process involved.
Effective writing instruction involves three key stages: pre-writing, whilst-writing, and post-writing During the pre-writing phase, teachers guide students in selecting a topic, estimating the time needed for their writing task, brainstorming ideas, and organizing an outline In the whilst-writing stage, students create a draft and submit their completed work Finally, in the post-writing phase, teachers provide feedback and revisions on the students' writing By mastering these steps, educators can better manage classroom time and enhance the overall teaching and learning experience.
Teachers must develop effective feedback methods that address the limitations of traditional approaches while highlighting their strengths and aligning with student needs The objectives of a specific writing course play a crucial role in shaping feedback strategies Providing feedback that does not align with assignment or course goals can hinder student progress and understanding.
Students often struggle to respond effectively to feedback due to various factors, including the objectives of their courses and assignments, their current stage in the writing process, and the type of feedback they receive.
In addition to marking errors for self-correction, utilizing a consistent set of proofreading symbols can significantly enhance students' writing skills Teachers should establish a standard system of symbols to indicate the type and location of errors, providing training on the corresponding corrections These symbols can be sourced from writing textbooks or customized by educators To ensure students are prepared for any new symbols, teachers must familiarize them with the system, reducing confusion and promoting effective writing improvement.
To enhance feedback on content, teachers must utilize a consistent set of clear and direct comments that guide students on how to improve their work The effectiveness of written comments is often undermined by vague and inconsistent feedback, along with a lack of training for students on how to utilize this feedback effectively By focusing on the content and the writing process rather than merely highlighting interesting or deficient areas, teachers can foster a productive dialogue with students, as suggested by Leki (1990) This dialogue helps both parties gain a clearer understanding of the assignment's expectations and execution Additionally, just as with grammar, it is essential for teachers to familiarize students with the types of feedback they will receive and provide training on how to apply this feedback to enhance their writing skills.
43 students are likely to either ignore the comments, misunderstand them, or fail to use them constructively (Cohen, &Cavalcanti, 1990; Kroll, 2001)
Classroom implications
The comparative analysis of EFL instructors' beliefs about error correction and techniques, alongside those of students, is not universally applicable across different contexts Despite the limitations of self-report measures in this study, two key implications for EFL classrooms emerge Notably, significant discrepancies exist between instructors' and students' views on feedback related to writing, including which writing features to address, the number of errors to correct, and the methods of marking errors To bridge this gap, language instructors should engage in informal discussions about error correction and feedback with both students and fellow instructors, ideally at the beginning of the semester Implementing formal questionnaires, like the one used in this study, followed by group discussions, can enhance awareness of differing opinions among educators Furthermore, teacher education programs and training workshops should include sessions focused on instructors' beliefs about error correction and feedback, as these are crucial for informing future teachers of learner preferences and equipping them with strategies to adjust any unrealistic beliefs that may impede effective learning.
52 consequences and implications their own beliefs might have on the language learning and teaching situations
Writing is an essential component of the learning process, complementing listening, speaking, and reading According to Petty and Jensen (1980), writing involves creating ideas and opinions through established conventions, serving as a means to express thoughts and feelings in written form Nunan (2003) emphasizes that writing requires mental effort to invent ideas and articulate them clearly in statements and paragraphs It is a unique language skill that facilitates indirect communication, distinguishing it from speaking, as highlighted by Broughton et al (1980), who note that writing is both a private and public activity While the writer engages individually in crafting a composition, the outcome is intended for an audience Boughy (1997) further describes writing as a tool for idea creation and linguistic integration, enabling effective communication that motivates and enhances students' language skills through the exchange of information.
Harmer (2007: 325-327) said that there are four stages in the writing process: they are planning, drafting, editing, and final version In this study the researcher will use those concepts:
During the planning stage, teachers guide students to organize their thoughts and gather information related to their writing topic before drafting This process involves exploring ideas through reading, discussion, critical thinking, and brainstorming, as highlighted by Boas (2011), who emphasizes that this stage helps students connect their personal experiences to their writing Additionally, teachers encourage students to create an outline that features a thesis statement and supporting ideas, which will later be expanded into coherent paragraphs.
In the drafting stage, students expand their outlines into full paragraphs, focusing on freely expressing their thoughts During this process, teachers encourage students to write without worrying about the structure or coherence of their writing, allowing them to create a rough draft that captures their ideas.
The third stage of writing is editing, where students refine their rough drafts During this process, teachers guide students to assess the relevance of their thesis statement to the topic, ensuring that the topic sentence is placed at the beginning of each paragraph and that the content aligns with the thesis Additionally, students should review their work for grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics Creating cohesive and coherent paragraphs is essential, achieved by expanding on arguments and ideas to provide clear and connected explanations throughout the text.
In the final version of their writing, students are encouraged to carefully compose their drafts, ensuring they identify and correct any grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors before submission It is crucial for teachers to reassure students that their final works should be free from previous mistakes, as these can significantly impact the overall quality of their writing However, students still have the opportunity to revisit earlier stages of the writing process, including editing and even planning, if they feel the need to refine their ideas As Harmer (2012:129) notes, the writing process resembles a cycle, allowing for modifications at any stage if necessary If no further edits are required, students can confidently proceed to finalize their written work.
Teacher feedback can be categorized into two main types: direct and indirect feedback Direct feedback involves the teacher providing students with the correct forms of their errors, whether orally or in writing, which leaves little room for student reflection on their mistakes In contrast, indirect feedback encourages student engagement through two subtypes: coded and encoded indirect feedback Coded indirect feedback involves the teacher underlining errors and using symbols to prompt students to identify and correct their mistakes independently Encoded indirect feedback, on the other hand, simply highlights errors without providing any symbols or corrections, requiring students to think critically and make their own corrections.
Teachers play a crucial role in providing feedback on writing by fulfilling four key responsibilities: acting as readers or respondents, serving as writing instructors or guides, functioning as grammarians, and evaluating student work According to Keh (1990) and Hedgcock, these roles are essential for fostering effective communication and improving students' writing skills.
Leftkowitz (1996) identifies four key roles that writing teachers assume when providing written feedback: the reader or respondent, the writing teacher or guide, the grammarian, and the evaluator As a reader, teachers engage with the content, offering positive feedback such as agreement with ideas without suggesting corrections In the role of a guide, teachers express concerns about unclear or illogical points, asking for clarification and referring students to revision strategies without making direct corrections As grammarians, teachers address grammatical errors by providing corrective feedback and explanations of relevant rules, helping students understand the reasons behind their mistakes This role includes strategies like direct feedback, where teachers indicate errors and offer the correct forms along with explicit grammatical explanations Finally, as evaluators, teachers assess the overall quality of students' writing, balancing encouragement with constructive criticism to foster improvement.
Many writing instructors often serve primarily as evaluators, focusing on assessing the quality of students' writing as the final outcome of the writing process and assigning grades based on their evaluations.
The debate over the effectiveness of corrective feedback in education has persisted for the last 15 years, primarily sparked by Truscott's (1996) assertion that grammatical error correction is ineffective and potentially harmful to student learning In contrast, researchers like Chandler (2003) and Ferris (1999) advocate for the benefits of corrective feedback, highlighting its role in reducing errors in student writing Recent studies, including those by Bitchener (2008) and Ellis et al (2008), further support the argument that teacher feedback significantly enhances grammatical accuracy in students' writing Therefore, it can be concluded that direct feedback is an effective tool for improving writing skills in educational settings.
Teaching writing through direct feedback is crucial as it enhances students' writing skills in a learner-centered environment Research indicates that learner-centered approaches, such as peer or group work, foster interaction and idea sharing among students, making them preferable to traditional compositions Before employing this strategy, teachers must outline the necessary steps to effectively integrate direct feedback into their writing instruction The implementation of the Direct Feedback strategy in teaching recount texts should encompass the writing process stages: planning, drafting, editing, and finalizing the text, as noted by Harmer (2007: 325-327).
Based on those concepts, the implementation of Direct Feedback strategy in teaching writing recount text in the class has some activities to do They are:
The teacher introduces recount text by explaining its purpose, function, generic structure, and language features, utilizing brainstorming techniques to enhance understanding To facilitate learning, the teacher provides examples and guides students in creating mind maps as a planning stage for their writing After generating individual mind maps, students pair up to exchange their work, offering comments and suggestions on content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics This collaborative feedback helps them refine their drafts The class then engages in a sharing activity where selected students present their recount texts on the whiteboard, allowing peers to learn from each other through constructive critiques Finally, the teacher provides direct feedback with explicit corrections, symbols, or underlining to help students improve their writing skills.
According to research by Lyster and Ranta (1997), explicit corrective comments can be categorized into two types: explicit correction, where the teacher clearly identifies errors and provides the correct form, and metalinguistic feedback, which involves explanations of grammatical or linguistic rules Metalinguistic feedback encompasses comments, information, or questions that pertain to the correctness of a learner's utterance.
58 without explicitly providing the correct form” (p 47) Finally, the students submit their recount text result as the final version to the teacher on the next meeting.
Recommendations and Suggestions
Based on the interpretation of data and previous conclusions regarding written corrective feedback, the researcher offers several suggestions for teachers and fellow researchers These recommendations aim to enhance the effectiveness of feedback in educational settings.
1) The teacher has to minimize the time consuming when she check the attendance the students It means that the teacher should not call the student’s name one by one
2) In the process of teaching, the teacher should know and understand the students’ characteristics It means that the teacher does not give the students too much explaining or reminding them
3) The researcher would like to invite next researchers who conduct the similar study to make improvement on this study, such as using the same field but different subjects It means they can use the other subjects
4) For the teacher and other researcher, the writer suggest to gives feedback for correct the content and organization
This study focuses on students' perceptions of the types of written corrective feedback provided by their teachers and evaluates the effectiveness of this feedback on their paragraph writing skills The findings are based solely on the students' responses, highlighting their views on the impact of teacher feedback in their learning process.
The questionnaire results indicate students' preferences and expectations for written corrective feedback; however, the effectiveness of this feedback in enhancing paragraph writing remains uncertain Additionally, it is unclear which types of written corrective feedback most significantly improve students' writing performance Future research is essential to explore these aspects further.
Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 17, 102-118
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U (2009).The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback System, 37, 322-329
Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U (2010) The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback toLanguage Development: A Ten Month Investigation Applied Linguistics, 31(2),193-
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D (2005).The effect of different types of correctivefeedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205
Chandler, J (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in theaccuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing,12, 267-269
Cramer, S., et al (2008).Online or Face-to-Face?Which Class to Take.Voices from the Middle, (2), 25
Elashri, I I (2013) The Impact of the Direct Teacher Feedback Strategy on the EFL Secondary Stage Students' Writing performance.Mesir: Mansoura University
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H (2008) The effects of focused andunfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context.System, 36, 353-371
Ferris, D (2003b) Responding to writing In B Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing, (pp 119-140) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Ferris, D R (2004) The “Grammar Correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?) Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 13, 49-62
Ferris, D (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction In K Hyland and
F Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp 81-
104) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
Ferris, D R., &Hedgcock, J S (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Harmer, J (2007).The Practice of English Language Teaching Fourth Edition, UK: Cambridge
Jacobs, G M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S Y (1998) Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V F., &Hughey, J (1981).Testing ESLComposition: A practical approach Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Lee, I (2003) L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding errorfeedback Assessment Writing, 8, 216-237
Keh, C L (1990) Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation.ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304
Lee, I (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondaryclassrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85
Lyster, R., &Ranta, L (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form incommunicative classrooms Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-
Merrill, D M (1994).Instructional design theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EducationalTechnology Publications
Merrill, D M (2002) Instructional strategies and learning styles: Which takes precedence?In R A Reiser& J V Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design andtechnology (99-106) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc
Nunan, D (.(2003) Practice English Language Teaching New York: Mc Graw Hill Education
Othman, N.B (2005) Feedback Lesson on Writing Assessment with Four Different Scoring Strategies Malaysia: Pendidikan Sultan Idris University
Purnawarman, P 2011 Impacts of Different Types of Teacher Corrective Feedback in Reducing Grammatical Errors on ESL/EFL Students’ Writing Virginia: Polytechnic Institute and State University
Randolph, T & Lea, K (2010).A study of Teacher Feedback in Small Groups with Weekly Writing Assignments Unpublished, Ed.D.Dissertation, Trevecca Nazarene University, 3413061
This survey aims to gather insights on teachers' corrective feedback in high school students' writing Your participation is greatly valued, and all responses will be kept confidential for research purposes, ensuring that your identity remains anonymous in any analysis of the data.
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
A teacher of English at Do Luong 2 high school, Do Luong, ngheAn
*How long have been learning English? _year(s)
*How long have you been learning writing? _year(s)
II Your opinions on the feedback you received
Many students hold specific beliefs about the feedback they receive from teachers on their written assignments Participants are encouraged to indicate their agreement by ticking the appropriate boxes or providing brief responses in the designated spaces.
1 How many times does your teacher respond to each of your written works? a never b almost never c sometimes d often e very often f other (please specify):
2 How helpful is the teacher feedback in the following forms to your revision?
Forms of feedback Not helpful at all
Helpful Very helpful a Questions b Statement c Imperative d Exclamation e Making the errors, but not actually correcting them
3 Do you find it is easy to understand your teacher feedback?
If NO, can you give the reason(s) why? a feedback is too general to understand b teachers use new vocabulary and structures in feedback c teachers’ including hedges in feedback confuses me
(e.g., perhaps, may be…) d teachers use new feedback strategies
4 What strategies do you use to solve your problem? a asking the teacher or peers for help b consulting a grammar book or dictionary c doing nothing d others (please specify):………
5 How important is teacher feedback to your writing? a not important b important c very important a…… b…… c…… d…… e…… a……… b……… c……… d……… e……… a…….b…… c…….d…….e…….
III Your preferences for teacher feedback on writing
Read each statement and then decide if you: (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) neither agree nor disagree, (4) disagree, (5) strongly disagree Please write the number of your response in the space provided
6 When responding to your written work, teacher should always:
Items 1 2 3 4 5 a Point out errors in grammar (verb tenses, subject/verb agreement, article use…etc.) b Point out errors in spelling c Point out errors in punctuation d Point out errors in vocabulary choice e Make comments on the organization of the paper f Make comments on the ideas expressed in the paper g Use a set of correction of proof-reading symbols h Use a red – colored pen
Answer the following questions by circling the number of the appropriate response from question 5 to question 7
7 What kind of feedback would you prefer to receive? a Direct feedback b Indirect feedback c Both of them
8 How do you want your teacher to indicate an error in your written work? a By crossing what is incorrect and writing the correct word or structure b By showing where the error is and giving clue about how to correct it
66 c By only showing where the error is d By ignoring the errors in grammar, spelling, punctuation…etc., and only paying attention to the ideas expressed e Other (please specify): ………
9 If there are many errors in a paper, what do you want your English teacher to do? a Correct all errors, major and minor b Correct all errors the teacher considers major, but not the minor ones c Correct most but not necessary all of the major errors if there are many of them d Correct only a few of the major errors no matter how many there are e Correct all repeated errors whether major or minor f Correct no errors and respond only to the idea expressed
Specific objectives to achieve in the writing section in Grade 10-Grade 12
1 Writing a narrative Writing about a friend Writing about family rules
Writing a personal letter to describe a past experience
Describing typical features of a Vietnamese conical leaf hat
Writing an informal letter of invitation
Building sentences based on given words Re- ordering given sentences to make a complete paragraph
Writing a formal letter expressing gratitude
Describing school education system in Vietnam
6 Writing a confirmation letter Writing a letter of reply Writing a formal letter of job application
Writing about advantages and disadvantages of the mass media
Interpreting statistics on population from a chart
Writing a report based on given information
Writing an informal letter: giving directions
Describing the world you would like to live in in the future
9 Describing Writing a formal letter to Describing main features of