(LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) corrective feedback on writing of second year english majored students a case study at da lat university

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE Ba Ria Vung Tau, March 2021 MASTER’S THESIS REPORT Student’s name: NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN Sex: Female Date of birth: June 7th, 1995

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT

UNIVERSITY

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of TESOL

SUPERVISOR: ASSOC PROF NGUYỄN TẤT THẮNG

BA RIA – VUNG TAU, 2021

The thesis entitled CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY

was successfully defended and approved on ……….… at Ba Ria Vung Tau University

Academic supervisor: Assoc Prof Nguyen Tat Thang

Examination Committee

1 Prof Dr Phạm Hữu Đức Chair

4 Dr Phan Thế Hưng Member

5 Dr Nguyễn Hoàng Tuấn Secretary Member

On behalf of the Examination Committee

Chair

(full name, title, signature)

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE

Ba Ria Vung Tau, March 2021

MASTER’S THESIS REPORT

Student’s name: NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN Sex: Female

Date of birth: June 7th, 1995 Place of birth: Lam Dong Province

I- Thesis title:

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR

ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY

II-Objectives and contents:

The study aims at investigating the way that teachers at Dalat University treat students’ errors in their writing and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in writing The specific objectives are as follows:

- 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

This study was conducted at Da Lat university In order to find out strategies that teachers

at Dalat University used when giving corrective feedback in students’ writing, the researcher collected 60 students’ writing pieces for analysis With an aim of discovering

students’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback, the researcher asked 271 students to answer the questionnaire and 12 students to join in the interview

The researcher utilized the mixed-method approach to collect the data In terms of data analysis, the author used SPSS software and content analysis to analyze the data

III- Starting date: (as stated in the Decision issued by the University )

IV- Completing date: V- Academic supervisor: ASSOC PROF NGUYEN TAT THANG

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis “CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF

SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY” is my work

No other person’s work has been used without acknowledgment in the thesis This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Ba Ria – Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I, Nguyen Phan Nhat Nguyen, being a candidate for the degree of Master of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages accept the requirement of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan, and reproduction for theses

Ba Ria – Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN

Furthermore, my gratefulness is given to my parents for their encouragement and supports which allow me to complete this research

My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues at DLU who assisted me

to carry out this thesis and to the second-year English-majored students at DLU for giving me such attention and time This research could be completed thanks to their help

ABSTRACT

The study searched for the written corrective feedback (WCF) practices of DLU teachers and the attitudes of English-majored students towards WCF In order to find out which corrective feedback types were used by DLU teachers, 60 samples of students’ writing were collected for analysis 271 second-year English-majored students from the Faculty of Foreign Languages participated in the study In order to collect data from the students, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were applied The study illustrated that a combination of WCF types was applied by the teachers at DLU including direct WCF, indirect WCF and metalinguistic WCF Among the three types of WCF, indirect WCF was used most frequently Besides, the study found that teachers at DLU applied unfocused written corrective feedback when dealing with students’ errors

In terms of the attitudes of DLU students towards WCF, the study is based on Wenden's (1991) framework Three components of attitude involving cognitive, affective, behavior components were investigated To be more specific, the study looked for students’ thinking about the importance of WCF, students’ feeling about WCF and students’ reactions when receiving WCF With the aim of improving the effectiveness of WCF in teaching, some implications for teachers and stakeholders were also included in the study

Key words: error, writing, corrective feedback, written corrective feedback, students’

attitudes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP iv

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT vi

ABSTRACT vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS viii

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF CHARTS xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS xiv

CHAPTER 1 1

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 4

1.3 Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study 5

1.4 Research Questions 5

1.5 Scope of the Study 5

1.6 Significance of the Study 6

1.7 Definition of key terms 6

1.8 Organization of The Thesis 7

CHAPTER 2 8

LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 Introduction 8

2.2 Errors 8

2.2.1 Definition 8

2.2.2 The Role of Errors 9

2.2.3 Types of Errors 10

2.3 Attitude 10

2.4 Corrective Feedback 12

2.4.1 Whether Errors Should be Corrected 13

2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback 13

2.4.1.2 Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback 14

2.4.2 The Best Time to Give Corrective Feedback 15

2.4.3 The Types of Errors that Should be Corrected 16

2.4.4 The Best Way to Give Corrective Feedback 17

2.4.5 The Person Who Should Give Corrective Feedback 19

2.5 Written Corrective Feedback 20

2.5.1 The Role of Written Corrective Feedback 20

2.5.2 Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 24

2.5.3 Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback 26

2.5.4 Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback 28

2.6 Related Studies 30

2.6.1 Studies on Written Corrective Feedback Practices 30

2.6.2 Studies on Students’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback 33

CHAPTER 3 39

METHODOLOGY 39

3.1 Research Design 39

3.2 Participants 40

3.2.1 Students 40

3.2.2 Teachers 41

3.3 Research Instruments 41

3.3.1 Students’ Writing Pieces 41

3.3.2 Questionnaire 42

3.3.3 Interview 42

3.4 Data Collection 43

3.5 Data Analysis Procedure 44

3.6 Validity and Reliability 45

CHAPTER 4 47

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 47

4.1 The Practices of Teachers’ Written Corrective Feedback 47

4.1.1 Indirect Written Corrective Feedback 47

4.1.2 Direct Written Corrective Feedback 49

4.1.3 Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback 51

4.1.4 Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback 52

4.2 Students’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback 54

4.2.1 Cognitive Beliefs of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback 54

4.2.2 Affective States of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback 58

4.2.2.1 The Person that Students Like to Give Them Corrective Feedback 60

4.2.2.2 The Amount of Feedback that Students Liked to Receive 63

4.2.2.3 The Written Corrective Feedback Techniques that Students Preferred 64

4.2.3 Behavioral Component of Students’ Attitudes towards WCF 67

4.3 Summary 74

CHAPTER 5 76

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 76

5.1 Recapitulation 76

5.2 Implications 77

5.2.1 Implications for Teachers 77

5.2.2 Implications for Stakeholders 79

5.3 Limitations 79

5.4 Recommendations for Further Research 80

References 81

APPENDICES 92

APPENDIX 1: THE SPECIFICATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE 92

APPENDIX 2: THE SPECIFICATION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 95

APPENDIX 3: AN EXAMPLE OF A STUDENT’S WRITING 96

APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version) 97

APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) 100

APPENDIX 6: VIETNAMESE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 103

APPENDIX 7: ENGLISH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 111

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3 1: Reliability of the questionnaire 455

Table 4 1: Students’ attitudes towards the necessity of WCF 54

Table 4 2: Students attitudes towards the effect of WCF on their writing skill 54

Table 4 3: The effect of WCF on students' self-learning 56

Table 4 4: Students’ attitudes towards the helpfulness of WCF 57

Table 4 5: Students’ liking to WCF 58

Table 4 6: Students’ preference level on the person giving WCF 61

Table 4 7: Students’ preference level on the amount of WCF 63

Table 4 8: Students’ preference level on different types of WCF 65

Table 4 9: The frequency of activities that students do when receiving WCF 67

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 4 1: Written corrective feedback used by the teachers 47

Chart 4 2: Whether students commit errors again after receiving WCF 55

Chart 4 3: Students’ agreement level about the statement “Written corrective feedback helps me notice my weaknesses” 55

Chart 4 4: The effect of WCF on students’ learning motivation 59

Chart 4 5: Students’ preference level on correcting errors by themselves 62

Chart 4 6: How often do students learn more about their errors 69

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

EFL English as a Foreign Language

ESL English as a Second Language

CF Corrective Feedback

WCF Written Corrective Feedback

DLU Da Lat University

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 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

With the integration of Vietnam into the global economy, the Vietnamese are required to be able to use English fluently Therefore, teaching and learning English have become the top priority Among major language skills, writing is considered a challenging one for various Vietnamese students Mustafa, Mulya, and Syamsul (2017) say that it is hard to compose good writing not only with language learners but also with native speakers

Expecting non-native writers to produce a piece of writing without any errors is unrealistic (Valdés, 1992, cited in Ferris, 2011) Errors are inevitable when an individual learns a foreign language Many researchers have carried out studies to find out the role

of errors and how to deal with errors “Errors can be taken as red flags; they provide windows onto a system that is, evidence of the state of a learner’s knowledge of the L2” (Gass & Selinker, 2008:102) By looking at errors, teachers can see “how much that learners have learnt”, researchers can see “how language is learned”, and learners can use error as “devices by which the learner discovered the rules of the target language” (Ellis, 2003:48)

According to Krashen (1982), errors should be corrected for two reasons Firstly,

if error correction works, it will have an impact on learners’ study competence because learners will be informed that their current understanding of a certain rule is wrong

Nevertheless, Krashen (1982) notes that errors should be treated but not all times and not all rules

Teachers have been putting efforts into finding out an effective way to deal with errors However, many teachers have to admit that correcting students’ written and spoken errors is one of the toughest challenges in language acquisition (Amara, 2015) There are many techniques that teachers can use when giving corrective feedback; however, one of the commonly used is to write down the correct forms in students’ incorrect production (Hendrickson, 1980) This technique will cost teachers lots of time; moreover, it disturbs students when receiving “many words crossed out, new words added, and an array of marginal comments” (Hendrickson, 1980:216-217)

When learning a second language, students usually pay too much attention to grammar and vocabulary errors, so they are not dared to use a new language, and they find ways to keep away from making any mistakes As for teachers, they focus on providing feedback on errors while they are teaching Because of these two reasons, it seems that learners’ learning achievement and efficiency are lower (Wei Zuo, 2017) Besides, teachers have given corrective feedback without considering the validity of a certain kind of feedback in terms of fostering “the process of L2 acquisition and L2 proficiency in general” (Botha, 1987:46) Teachers’ corrective feedback aims to facilitate students to recognize their errors and avoid repeating the same error However, this kind of feedback is not efficient When students are given back the corrected essay, they just focus mainly on red markings and the given mark, if any; after that, the writing will be put away and forgotten (Botha, 1987)

Besides, a mismatch between students’ preferences and teachers’ beliefs as well

as their practices has existed over the times As Oladejo (1993) mentions there is a difference between teachers’ attitudes, the reality in the classroom, and the expectations

and needs of students; this difference can result in a fail in language learning Teachers have their ways when giving feedback to their students, and there is no specific rule or requirement for giving feedback Some teachers will provide corrective feedback on all

of the students’ errors; some will only mark students’ errors and let students correct themselves; some teachers just give the total score without any explanation or error correction

Many researchers and teachers carried research to look for the best way to give corrective feedback Results from various research suggest techniques that are believed

to affect students’ learning outcomes positively Nevertheless, not much research includes students’ attitudes as well as the gap between students’ preferences and practices The methods and techniques that are believed to be useful would become useless if students do not want to follow Teachers and educators should not underestimate students’ expectations, for students are those who know best about their studies Students’ attitudes are a reliable source to count on when teachers want to test whether the ways that they give students corrective feedback is effective or not and whether they need to make any adjustment

Although students majoring in English have more time to learn and use English than students majoring in other subjects, they still make quite a few errors in their writing A problem here is that some students still make the same errors again after receiving corrective feedback from their teachers, and some are not satisfied with the ways their teachers give the correction Hence, the need for figuring out students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback and the practices of teachers’ corrective feedback

on students’ writing is apparent

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The aim of giving students corrective feedback on students’ writing is to help them avoid making the same errors again Most of the teachers acknowledge this fact, and they are trying their best to achieve the goal; however, it is not easy At Dalat University (DLU), even students majoring in English still repeat errors that have been corrected by their teachers This issue proves that students do not keep in mind the corrective feedback from their teachers Obviously, in this case, corrective feedback becomes useless as well as no progress can be made in students’ writing skills in specific and in students’ English learning in general

Another problem is that many students at Dalat University do not dare to make suggestions and discussions with their teachers When students receive their writing back from their teachers, sometimes they do not understand teachers’ feedback It may be because they can’t translate corrective codes that their teachers use, or the comment and explanation from teachers might be too short that makes students hard to understand There are so many reasons for this issue, but the main reason is that students reluctant to ask and to discuss with their teachers Therefore, students accept that their performance

is wrong without knowing why they do wrong In some cases, students even feel unsatisfied with teachers’ feedback, but they do not dare to say

Due to the lack of discussion between teachers and students, teachers will encounter various challenges in evaluating how they give corrective feedback on students’ writing Hence, no reflection and adjustment would be made Teachers will continue to do in the way they are used to; unfortunately, their effort has little value to students’ writing and learning

Knowing students' needs and preferences is vital, and it can contribute to successful teaching and learning; nevertheless, teachers at Dalat University are so

occupied They do not have time to ask how students think about the way they treat students’ writing errors Therefore, by identifying students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback, teachers will be provided useful information about written corrective feedback Basing on students’ perspectives, teachers can reflect on their writing teaching and adjust if necessary

1.3 Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study

The study aims at investigating the way that teachers at Dalat University treat students’ errors in their writing and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in writing The specific objectives are as follows:

- 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

1.4 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?

1.5 Scope of the Study

Due to time limitations, all recommendations cannot be fully used and implemented in the research The research was carried out at Dalat University The subjects were second-year English-majored students

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 research results in the second part are based on the data collected from second-year English-majored students The goal of the second part is to find out the attitudes of students towards the treatment of writing errors Due to the limited sample size, the research result is not able to present a greater number of students majoring in English at Dalat University

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study aims at identifying how teachers at Dalat University deal with students’ writing errors In addition, the study also looks for the attitudes of students towards corrective feedback Therefore, the result of the research would possibly contribute to English writing teaching and learning

Moreover, this study also informs teachers what students think about written corrective feedback, what corrective techniques that the students wish their teacher to apply Hence, this study can help both teachers and students to overcome the mismatch between teachers’ and students’ thinking

1.7 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

(Bitchener, 2008)

1.8 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

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the definition of error, its role in language learning, and the distinction between error and mistake The following section will mention corrective feedback, as well as illustrate perspectives towards the effect of corrective feedback After going through corrective feedback issues in general, this chapter will further present issues relating to written corrective feedback, including types of written corrective feedback This chapter also reviews previous studies on the way English teachers gave corrective feedback and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in writing The goal of this part is to search for the research gap of previous studies in order

to carry out new research

2.2 Errors

2.2.1 Definition

According to Brown (2000), an error is defined as a deviation from a norm of adult native grammar that shows the learners’ ability to use a language (cited in Fang & Xuemei, 2007) Corder (1975) further states that students usually make uncorrected spoken and written compositions when learning a second language These compositions are decided by standards of the second language Typically, people consider errors as proof that learners are not proficient at what they are taught In addition, people usually treat errors by explaining again and again until they vanished Errors will not arise if efficient learning takes place This point of view contributes to the belief that errors are signals of problems when learners encounter different language factors This problem can be a consequence of the first language's habitual performances and the exchange of them to the new language Errors making is generally considered as a part of language

learning like other human learning Systematically, when learning a language, people will make errors (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982, as cited in Keshavarz, 2012) Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis believes that errors are attributed to the impact of the learner’s first language Nevertheless, native language transfer is not the reason for all error commitment Various studies reveal that errors result from “learner’s developing knowledge of the structure of the target language rather than an attempt to transfer patterns of their first language” (Spada & Lightbrown, 2006:78) Moreover, some errors made by second language learners are like errors made by young native learners (Spada

& Lightbrown, 2006:78)

2.2.2 The Role of Errors

People used to have negative beliefs about errors They maintain that errors are outcomes of non-learning, not wrong learning, and should be eliminated Therefore, people make effort to predict the occurrence of errors One way to predict error occurrence is to tell the difference between the native language and the target language The identified difference could be utilized to predict areas that errors would occur (Ellis,

1985, cited in Wang, 2008) Hence, the role of error has changed Instead of being considered as something which is detrimental and should be deleted Errors now play such an essential role in language learning There are three crucial conclusions that Keshavarz (2012) makes about the errors that are the basement 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 are important in three distinctive ways Firstly, they are significant to the teacher Errors inform teachers of learner’s progress towards their goal, and what he still lacks Secondly, by looking at the error, researchers understand how a person learns and

acquires a language and what strategies or methods are applied when learning the language Last but not least, as the most important impact, errors are crucial to learners since errors are regarded as a tool that learners apply for learning Errors can assist learners in evaluating their hypothesis about the language rule they are learning (Corder, 1982:10-11)

Keshavarz (2012) further adds that errors benefit learners by receiving a reaction from the environment and using that reaction to evaluate his/her learning language hypotheses In second-language learning, people now have more positive views on learners’ errors than before Errors are considered a vital part of language learning rather than detrimental things in teaching and learning that should be deleted (Keshavarz, 2012)

2.2.3 Types of Errors

Errors can be classified into two main types that are interlingual error and intralingual error Interlingual errors are errors caused by the influence between languages In contrast, intralingual errors occur within the language It reveals the

“incomplete learning of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them” (Troike, 2006:39)

Burt and Kiparsky (1974) divide error in another way They state that there are two kinds of errors that are global errors and local errors Local errors do not have an impact on the general meaning of utterances while global errors affect the whole meaning of the utterances Local errors are in the forms of nouns, verbs Global errors are in the form of wrong word order (cited in Touchie, 1986)

2.3 Attitude

According to the Oxford dictionary (2020), attitude is defined as what a person thinks or feels about something; it is also an individual’s behavior towards someone or

something Gardner (1980) regards attitude as “a complex of beliefs” about an object Attitude can be defined in another way as “the sum total of a man’s instincts and feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, fears, threats and convictions about any specified topic” (Thurstone, 1928, cited in Gardner, 1980: 267)

Wenden (1991) classifies attitude into three components, specifically cognitive, affective, and behavioral The cognitive component relates to one’s mind; it is considered

as beliefs or thoughts about an object The next component, the affective component shows how a person feels about an object, which relates to emotion This component has

an impact on a person’s likes or dislikes The last component, the behavioral component consists of a person’s behavior in a specific way toward an object The model of Wenden (1991) was used as the framework for building a research instrument in this study

It is evident that attitude has a great effect on learners’ language learning As Brown (2000) mentions in his work, a positive attitude can definitely bring benefits to language learners, while a negative may result in demotivation A person can adopt positive and negative attitudes toward an object Faqeih (2015) advises teachers to pay more attention to learners’ language attitudes, especially to corrective feedback; however, it does not mean that what students like is the best option for their language achievement Hamouda (2011) supports Faqeih (2015) that understanding students’ attitudes is essential because teaching techniques are various, and teachers can motivate students to learn by doing what they prefer He adds that the gap between teachers’ and students’ attitudes always exists, and relevant literature proves that the differences between teachers’ and students’ attitudes may lead to unsatisfactory learning outcomes

In particular, teachers are required to understand students’ beliefs and students’ preferences when giving them corrective feedback Diab (2006) highlights the need to fill the gap between teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards corrective feedback In his study, Diab (2006) maintains that feedback for students may become ineffective if

teachers and students hold a discrepancy in belief relating to corrective feedback techniques In the worst case, students may feel demotivated when producing writing in their second language Salteh and Sadeghi (2015) state that students are not going to use corrective feedback in their learning if they do not feel pleased with the types of corrective feedback that they are received Therefore, teachers and students need to agree

on the terms of which corrective feedback is effective

2.4 Corrective Feedback

“Corrective feedback (CF) refers to 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) In this research, terms like “error correction”, “corrective feedback”, “error treatment” or “corrective move” are interchangeably used, and they are regarded as “teachers’ responses to incorrect language forms in their learners’ speech

or writing” (Pawlak, 2014:6)

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?

(Hendrickson, 1978)

2.4.1 Whether errors should be corrected

There have been debates for years about this question Two opposite sites exist: one believes in the efficacy of corrective feedback and supports that corrective feedback should be carried out in language learning, while the other argues that corrective feedback is harmful to language learners and should not be carried out

2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback

Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) claim that English teachers tend to spend too much time on the written language rules in students’ works Robb et al (1986) do not show support for giving feedback to surface errors directly Methods that cost less time

on students’ surface error are enough They believe that it would be better if teachers focus more on vital aspects of writing rather than giving corrective feedback elaborately Providing elaborate feedback on writing mechanics is unworthy Truscott (2007), supports the finding of Robb et al (1986); he maintains that corrective feedback has a detrimental impact on students’ writing accuracy, and if it has a positive effect, the effect

is very slight Karima (2013) adds that language teachers usually correct students’ errors

in order to get rid of their fossilization; however, this action does not always bring positive results When correcting students’ errors, teachers tend to pay more attention to accuracy in steads of fluency and grammar in steads of content Corrective feedback causes students’ distraction and negatively affects their fluency, and makes students lose their ideas Truscott (2010) strongly believes that corrective feedback does not have any contribution to language learning, though it helps students to revise their production He maintains that even supporters of corrective feedback cannot declare that corrective feedback is helpful because there are proofs for its’ harmful effects

In short, there is evidence of the negative effects of corrective feedback on language learning Researchers still debate whether teachers should treat students’ errors

or not Some are of the side that corrective feedback is time-consuming and not worthy, while others support corrective feedback

2.4.1.2 Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback

Krashen (1982:117) says that according to SLA theory when error treatment works, it will tell the learners that “a conscious rule is wrong.” According to SLA theory, error treatment should be implemented To second language learners who are adults, error correction is very supportive, “it helps them learn the exact environment in which

to apply rules and discover the precise semantic range of lexical items” (Krashen and Seliger 1975, cited in Hendrickson, 1978:389) Corrective feedback plays such a vital role in language acquisition, so utilizing a practical corrective approach is crucial (Ebrahimi & Hajmalek, 2016) In teaching and learning, it is undeniable that teachers’ roles are significant because they are the ones who teach directly and observe the learning process of students Therefore, analyzing teachers’ perspectives is essential Some English teachers also have optimistic views about corrective feedback Uysal and Aydin (2017) find out that the teachers think that error treatment could help to form students’ good habits such as “self-correction among students, pragmatic and appropriate use of the target language, learners’ accuracy and fluency” Students seem to have similar views about corrective feedback, Faqeih (2015) looks for students’ opinions towards error treatment, and the result illustrates that a majority of students taking part

in the research want their errors to be corrected The study also suggests that there should

be more types of error correction in interactive activities to meet learners' needs Alamzi and Fawzi (2016) state that students hold a good view of corrective feedback According

to Alamzi and Fawzi (2016), teachers need to think about the time and the way to correct students’ errors Besides, it is essential for teachers to consider students’ language competence when correcting errors Each group of students should be given different types of treatment Katayama (2007) emphasizes that practice in speaking and correction

of grammatical errors may assist in raising students’ accuracy and lower errors commitment

Debates between the two sides, against corrective feedback and supporting corrective feedback, continue until now Various researches have been conducted to find the answer, but still, there are limitations Obviously, corrective feedback is an important part of the learning process, so it is essential to find a way in which corrective feedback becomes helpful for students’ learning It is necessary to carry out more studies on corrective feedback regarding determining which corrective way is the most suitable

2.4.2 The Best Time to Give Corrective Feedback

It is a frustrating job for all teachers to find the best way to correct students’ errors First of all, teachers need to decide when to correct students’ errors One of the questions for teachers is to delay or correct errors immediately Hendrickson (1978) states that in speaking, it would be better if teachers delay their correction Moreover, according to advanced students’ perceptions, the type of errors that they commit will decide which is the right time to correct errors For example, when students make pronunciation or grammatical errors, corrective feedback should immediately be made because if it occurs later, students cannot remember The situation in class is also a factor that needs to be considered A student would feel awkward if his or her error is chosen to be corrected when a whole class knows clearly about that word In short, deciding when is the right time to correct error is sophisticated which makes teachers’ feedbacks crucial (Amara, 2015) Correcting immediately or delaying is also an issue mentioned in different works Ellis (2013) indicates that coursebooks usually include notes for teachers which is to ask them to delay corrective feedback until the end of activities that aim at fluency This is because corrective feedback would have a debilitation effect on students’ communication; it makes students feel anxious and do not dare to try Hence with activities that require accuracy, then immediate correction is preferred In writing

activities, delayed corrective feedback usually occurs except in the case that students are asked to read out the work, and teachers will correct it orally Nevertheless, teachers will face a problem relating to time pressure in writing instruction where multiple drafts are produced There is an opinion that it is essential to delay corrective feedback as it becomes a dorm of assessment that prevents students from modifying their ideas and the text organization (Ellis and Sheen, 2011) Language teachers should tolerate some oral and written errors because it reinforces students’ confidence in communication

“Language learners take many risks in producing incorrect utterances when communicating; teachers need to consider whether or not their corrective techniques instill a feeling of success in students” (Hendrickson, 1978:390) Little evidence has been found that illustrates when is the suitable time to correct errors For now, teachers are advised to think about which errors should be corrected and which should be left (Hendrickson, 1978)

2.4.3 The Types of Errors that Should be Corrected

Horner (1988) raises a question about whether all mistakes in all areas should be corrected It is required to correct errors that cause communication difficulties Hendrickson (1978) suggests the types of errors that should be corrected According to Hendrickson (1978), there are three types of errors that need to be corrected: The first types are errors that significantly affect the communication; The second type is the error that has an impact on listeners and readers; The last type is the error that students frequently make in their speech and writing James (2013) has a different view of the type of error which should be corrected When giving correction, teachers should consider whether it is an error or a mistake The error that is regarded as students’ “slip” should not be corrected because students can correct it Correcting students’ mistakes will not benefit students The only thing that teachers should do is to inform the students that they are wrong Ellis and Sheen (2011) mention that teachers should ignore mistakes

and correct errors In addition, teachers should correct global errors and ignore local errors Global errors are errors that affect the organization of a sentence, while local errors impact single elements However, telling apart between “mistake” and “error”,

“global error” and “local error” is quite challenging for teachers who do not have much time, and there is no theory that assists teachers to decide on which rule they should apply Another approach that is indicated in Ellis and Sheen (2011) is focusing on a type

of error For instance, teachers can choose past tense errors to correct at one time and other errors to correct at another time When teachers discover a linguistic problem, they can build up a task in which the feature that students have a problem with is used, and when an error occurs, teachers will focus on correcting that error only This approach is proved to have good results on students’ oral production

2.4.4 The Best Way to Give Corrective Feedback

The reality of corrective feedback in class is inconsistent This inconsistency happens when the teacher keeps correcting the same error of distinctive students in the same class, choosing some errors to correct and do not care about the others Teacher educators are not sure which strategy is effective because corrective feedback is a complex process affected by various factors (Ellis & Sheen, 2011) James (2013:249) indicates some principles that need to be followed when correcting students’ errors Firstly, the correction should be effective Effective means that the result of the corrective feedback is the accuracy improvement Besides, the techniques require “the least effort to carry out by teachers and to register by students” Secondly, when correcting students’ errors, teachers need to be sensitive Non-threatening is one of the important principles that teachers should consider Self-correction is one of the correct forms which is least threatening to students or any other types of correction that initiated Another way to make the corrective feedback less threatening is aiming at the whole class rather than an individual Correcting an individual’s error as an example will not

bring a positive effect on that individual Peer-correction is also an option that is better than teacher correction since it can reduce the threat to face Applying computer technology is also a practical option because it does not bother students when the correction is delivered privately The third principle is to link corrective feedback with students’ preferences Student’s preferences should not be ignored, although it does not mean that the type of corrective feedback that students like would be the effective one The instructional context decides the way that teachers correct errors Students will not consider teachers’ recast as correction in a context that aims at fluency because they focus mainly on fluency In contrast, in a context that focuses on accuracy, students consider teachers’ recast as corrective feedback (Ellis, 2013) Broughton, Brumfit, Flavell, Hill, and Pincas (2003) add that teachers will come to the last step that is giving feedback after establishing the area of error This job requires carefulness from teachers Students often complain about teachers’ correction when they receive back their written works with too much red ink Students confess that being corrected too often by teachers

in speaking activities makes them not dare to open their mouths Choosing the best way

to correct students’ errors is not an easy job for teachers It is better if teachers put these two factors under consideration, which are the nature of the task and students’ sensitivity Moreover, different exercises require different ways of corrective feedback In both written and spoken activities, teachers can apply immediate correction techniques Error treatment can be conducted when the teacher moves around the class, observes what students are doing at the writing stages of a lesson Teachers could collect students’ books like the treatment but should avoid producing “a sea of red ink” in students’ works Writing directly correct answers in students’ works is a procedure that is applied quite often; however, teachers can choose to use code letters in the margin This procedure's advantage is to limit the red ink, and this procedure could promote students’ thinking to find the right answer by themselves Besides, feedback from classmates is also useful Teachers can have students work in pairs or groups so that students can give each other

better versions and corrections Another point that teachers should think about is that individual correction should only be made on some occasions when the rest are busy with other works, for the fact that students usually feel bored when they have to listen to another’s errors When dealing with pupils’ errors, freshness, and variability are also very important Teachers can create freshness by changing totally the approach that they have done More importantly, when failing to do something, pupils are susceptible, so teachers are required to understand and be patient with their pupils, for making progress always takes lots of time

2.4.5 The Person Who Should Give Corrective Feedback

According to Hendrickson (1978), there is a belief that error treatment is the teachers’ job Teachers’ role is "to provide data and examples, and where necessary to offer explanations and descriptions and, more importantly, verification of the learner's hypothesis (i.e., correction)" about the target language (Corder 1973, cited in Hendrickson, 1978:395) Teachers should not be the only ones who control corrective feedback By asking students to correct their friends’ errors, they can also give corrective feedback When integrating this procedure, students tend to mostly pay attention to grammatical errors, spelling, and pronunciation Allowing students to discover a right answer is also an option for teachers Nevertheless, students need to be trained carefully before practicing giving feedback to their peers (Ellis and Sheen, 2011) Teachers can

do this by providing students with indirect corrective feedback, such as informing students with error areas without writing the correct version or using a corrective code system However, self-correction also has disadvantages One of them is that students would like their teachers to correct their errors rather than do it independently Another problem is that students can only do the correction when they have needed linguistic knowledge (Ellis and Sheen, 2011)

The ideas mentioned above, are core issues when talking about corrective feedback As being illustrated, debates surround five issues that Hendrickson (1978) mentioned Most of the teachers at Dalat University still give students treatment for their errors though this is still a controversial issue To make corrective feedback helpful and result in developing the competence of students, teachers have to take into account the effect of the corrective technique that they have been using There is no corrective technique that is effective for every student, for each student has different language competence For example, advanced students would prefer their teachers to let them correct errors by themselves; however, this way of corrective feedback does not work with students at low levels since they may not have enough knowledge to handle the errors Therefore, corrective feedback needs to be fit students’ needs Teachers are required to think carefully before deciding the way to correct students’ errors Corrective feedback cannot be made based on feelings or subjective views of the teacher Teachers can not correct students’ errors anytime, anywhere they like Students’ attitudes need to

be included before teachers make any decision relating to corrective feedback Corrective feedback is genuinely an art that asks teachers to be sensitive and flexible

2.5 Written Corrective Feedback

Written corrective feedback is defined as error correction on L2 students’ writing (Bitchener, 2008) In this part, the research will discuss the role of written corrective feedback according to previous literature Types of written corrective feedback are also included in this part

2.5.1 The Role of Written Corrective Feedback

The aim of a writing course cannot be helping and asking students to compose a perfect text with no error This goal is not practical A writing product in a writing course

is just scaffolding for long-term writing development (Ferris and Bitchener, 2012) In

the writing learning process, making errors is inevitable for all students from high proficiency level to low proficiency level Error is acceptable in learning, but the main point here is that students are able to identify their errors and avoid committing them again Obviously, students cannot do this alone without their teachers' assistance, which

is when feedback from the teacher is needed

One of the essential parts of ESL writing teachers is to give students feedback Writers would prefer their works to be read, and the role of readers’ feedback is to give writers a chance to know how readers react to their works and gain knowledge from their reactions The goal of feedback is to facilitate students’ writing, and it is considered to

be a crucial part of fostering learning Feedback to students’ writing is vital for writing skill development (Hyland, 2003) As Ferris and Bitchener (2012) mention, feedback plays a vital role in the learning process, where written corrective feedback is a reaction

to errors that learners have committed Written corrective feedback aims to allow learners to see the location of their errors and inform the students why they make such errors and show them how to correct their errors Written corrective feedback is to “help student writers build awareness, knowledge, and strategic competence so that they can develop skills to monitor their writing in the future” (Ferris and Bitchener, 2012:140)

Although written corrective feedback is important and has a contribution to students’ language learning, a debate on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback has still lasted for years Truscott (2007, 2010) is one that has a strong belief against written corrective feedback Truscott (2007) argues that written corrective feedback badly affects students’ learning if it can bring a positive effect; that effect is very small

In response to Truscott’s findings (2007), various studies have been conducted to test the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

A study on 50 students at a Japanese school conducted by Ashwell (2000) investigates the effect of written corrective feedback The result shows that the groups that are given feedback improved formal accuracy more than the group not receiving any

feedback Hence, there is no improved finding in terms of content quality when giving feedback Ferris and Robert (2001) offer positive evidence of the efficacy of written corrective feedback The study concludes that the “no-feedback” group made more errors

in noun-ending and word choice This group’s accuracy score is lower than the other groups However, the group with no feedback was more successful in revising word choice errors Giving comments is also one way of corrective feedback, and it is proved

to affect students’ writing Ferris (1997) claims that comment on students’ writing when making change is a mostly positive change in students’ performance; only 5% of changes are considered negative The investigation of Chandler (2003) corroborates the finding

of Ferris and Robert (2001) After the experiment, the researcher finds that there is an improvement in the production of students receiving written corrective feedback The students commit fewer errors in their writing while there is no improvement found in the writing of students not receiving any feedback Bitchener (2008) propounds that written corrective feedback results in accuracy improvement in the uses of English articles,

“a/an” and “the” Bitchener and Knoch (2009:210) suggest that English teachers should not be hesitant when giving students corrective feedback on article issues They assert that “if teachers are able to provide additional feedback on more occasions, it is possible that the accuracy rate may increase and that the amount of time required to achieve a high level of mastery may be reduced” Evans, James Hartshorn and Strong-Krause (2011) emphasize the effect of written corrective feedback on students’ writing accuracy Written corrective feedback positively affects students’ accuracy and has a negligible impact on fluency and complexity They indicate that instead of paying attention to whether the teacher should treat students’ errors or not, it is better to spend time looking for strategies that will work in a specific context Van Beuningen, De Jong, and Kui Ken (2011) have a similar conclusion when testing the effect of written corrective feedback They add that what they found is the opposite of the hypothesis of Truscott (2007) The group of students receiving corrective feedback produces more accurate text than the

group not receiving corrective feedback Other studies gain the same results about the efficacy of written corrective feedback (Marzban & Arabahmadi, 2013; Kang & Han, 2015; Farjadnasab & Khodashenas, 2017) When correcting students’ errors, teachers will have information about the problem that students are dealing with Before giving feedback, teachers are suggested to inform students about the aim of corrective feedback and the type of error that they will focus on (Marzban & Arabahmadi, 2013) Although the efficacy of written corrective feedback is proved, it still depends on other factors such as learners’ proficiency, the setting, and the genre of the writing task (Kang & Han, 2015)

Despite the fact that the findings from considerable studies contradict Truscott (2007, 2010), some studies support the findings of Truscott (2007, 2010) Kepner (1991) argues that written corrective feedback cannot give students assistance in eliminating surface-level errors; it also does not help students in producing higher-level writing Fazio (2001) shows a negative result concerning the effect of corrective feedback in French writing No improvement in grammatical spelling accuracy was found as a result

of receiving corrective feedback and comments Semke (1984) argues that progress was made by students’ practice, not by corrective feedback Written corrective feedback does not improve writing accuracy, writing fluency, and language proficiency Besides, self-correction negatively affects students’ attitudes

Though there are debates about the effect of written corrective feedback, I believe that written corrective feedback plays a vital role in students’ language learning Writing

is not an easy skill to master, and writers easily make errors when composing a piece of writing When students make errors, they have to realize that the rule they are applying

is wrong After that, students need to know how to correct their errors and avoid committing the same errors again It would be wonderful if students can treat their errors

by themselves, but it is quite challenging, especially for students who are at low

proficiency levels In my opinion, written corrective feedback needs to be carried out; however, teachers need to carefully consider various factors such as students’ proficiency level, the type of errors students make, or students’ preferences before giving their students corrective feedback The more careful they are, the better results that they may gain The corrective effort may not work in some cases, but it would be unreasonable to conclude that written corrective feedback is not helpful The point here

is that the teachers did not properly treat their students’ errors

2.5.2 Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback

Direct written corrective feedback is a type of feedback in which teachers give learners the correct forms for their errors In contrast, indirect written corrective feedback provides learners with information that errors exist but does not give learners the correct forms Underlining, using a cursor to inform learners’ errors, or indicating in the margin that there is an error are examples of indirect written corrective feedback (Ellis, 2009) When giving students indirect written corrective feedback, teachers’ job is to inform students that there are errors, and it is students’ jobs to find the correct forms for their errors The efficacy of direct and indirect written corrective feedback is still a question Some researchers find that correcting students’ errors directly is ineffective, and students have no gain when resolving their mistakes (Hendrickson, 1978) Eslami (2014) makes

an experiment to see whether there is any difference between direct and indirect written corrective feedback efficiency Eslami (2014) illustrates that indirect corrective technique affects writing accuracy The group receiving indirect corrective feedback had better performance in delayed post-test, which shows that indirect corrective feedback is more effective than direct corrective feedback Ghandi and Maghsoudi (2014) did a similar study, but the target is spelling errors Ghandi and Maghsoudi (2014) conclude that the performance of the group given indirect written corrective feedback is better Though there are various studies (Abedi, Latifi & Moinzadeh, 2010; Rahmawati, 2017)