The impact of corrective feedback on paragraphs in IETLS writing task 2 a case study of vung tau high school students

` MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY MASTER’S THESIS OF TESOL THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON PARAGRAPHS IN IETLS WRITING TASK 2 A CASE STUDY OF VUNG TAU HIGH SCHOOL ST[.]

`

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

MASTER’S THESIS OF TESOL

THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

ON PARAGRAPHS IN IETLS WRITING TASK 2: A CASE STUDY OF VUNG TAU

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Tran Thi Que Han Student’s code: 18114201 Supervisor: Dr Nguyen Hoang Tuan

BA RIA – VUNG TAU, 2022

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING BA RIA VUNG TAU

UNIVERSITY

MASTER’S THESIS OF TESOL

THE IMPACT OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

ON PARAGRAPHS IN IETLS WRITING TASK 2: A CASE STUDY OF VUNG TAU

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Tran Thi Que Han

Student’s code: 18114201

Supervisor: D r Nguyen Hoang Tuan

BA RIA – VUNG TAU, 2022

i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis “ The impact of corrective feedback on paragraphs in ietls

writing task 2: A case study of Vung Tau High School students” 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, August 2022

TRAN THI QUE HAN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I, Tran Thi Que Han, 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, August 2022

TRAN THI QUE HAN

Secondly, I am very grateful to the Postgraduate Institute of Ba Ria – Vung Tau University who have supported me much time to implement this thesis

My sincere thanks also go to my friends and colleagues for all her help and encouragement I would like to thank the research participants who have contributed to this study

Last but not least, I warmly thank my family for their countless support, greatest sympathy and unconditional love

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on giving corrective feedback (CF) for writing paragraphs in the context of IELTS writing task 2 preparation The ultimate goal of this research was to discover the effectiveness of CF types and its positive impact to IETLS learners writing performance Two approaches to teaching paragraph writing were implemented to disentangle the common confusion of learners’ writing idea and position development

By the aforementioned systematic methods, teacher could break down the structure and give learners feedback on each sentence Therefore, learners could be motivated in paragraph writing for IETLS writing task 2

Qualitative case study method was used to identify learner’s writing errors It examined 5 learners writing process from the very beginning of online studying IETLS writing Task 2 Learners were taught to develop 23 paragraphs through two methods

115 convenience samplings were collected for content analysis In addition, interviews were conducted to evaluate learners’ attitude towards corrective feedback

The findings indicated that learners appreciated corrective feedback and all of them achieved band 6.0+ for writing task 2 Thanks to feedback treatment, their writing performance was improved in terms of task response, coherence and cohesion, accuracy and lexical resources The study results may be useful for teachers who teach IELTS writing task 2

Keywords: Corrective feedback, IELTS Writing TASK 2, learners’ attitude, enumeration, REERR model

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF CHARTS vii

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS ix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the Study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 1

1.3 Objectives of The Study 2

1.4 Research questions 3

1.5 Scope of the Study 3

1.6 Significance of the Study 3

1.7 Structure of the Study 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Overview of IELTS Writing Task 2 5

2.2 Paragraph writing 6

2.3 Corrective Feedback 10

2.4 Language learning attitude 20

2.5 Related Studies 22

2.6 Conceptual framework 29

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 30

3.1 Research Design 30

3.2 Research site 30

3.3 Participants 31

3.4 Sampling 32

3.5 Research Instruments 32

3.6 Validity and Reliability 33

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 34

4.1 Feedback treatment 34

4.2 Corrective feedback to IELTS writing task 2 assessment criteria 40

4.3 Learners’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback 54

4.4 Summary 58

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 60

5.1 Summary of the main findings 60

5.2 Implications 61

5.3 Limitations 62

5.4 Recommendations for Further Studies 62

REFERENCES 63

APPENDICES 71

vii

LIST OF CHARTS

Figure 2.6 Conceptual framework………29

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Summary of IELTS Writing Task 2 assessment criteria 6

Table 3.3: Learners’ overview 31

Table 4 2.2: Common coherence and cohesion mistakes 48

Table 4 2.3: Common lexical resources mistakes 50

Table 4 2.4: Common Grammatical mistakes 52

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

EFL English as a Foreign Language

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the Study

The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has significantly developed and is now witnessing a rise in popularity, especially in Vietnam (Nguyen & Tran, 2018) It assesses candidates' English proficiency to verify whether they are qualified for higher academic study, with English being the language of instructions (Clapham, 1996) Therefore, IELTS is likely the key to a better future for all learners, as

it grants learners access to prestigious universities and colleges abroad – obviously only

if their band scores meet the prerequisites

In learners' foreign language learning, writing has always been perceived as an important skill (Ahmadi, et al, 2012) Zacharias (2005) pointed out that writing is considered the most challenging ability to acquire for many learners of English as second language because it demands that they need to have a certain amount of L2 background knowledge about rhetorical organization, appropriate language use or specific lexicon with which they want to convey their ideas As a result, many attempts have been made which targeted at helping learners improve their writing Providing feedback is one of such attempts where, studies have been conducted to investigate the nature of feedback and its roles in L2 teaching and learning despite the dissenting voices on the efficacy of written corrective feedback (e.g Truscott, 1999; Kepner, 1991; Sheppard, 1992) So far, there has been several studies constructed on WCF in Vietnam (Pham & Iwashita, 2017; Pham & Truong; 2021, Nguyen & Le, 2017; Dang; 2016,) Most studies in written corrective feedback concentrate on the specific written corrective feedback types and study experimental design However, there is insufficient data for teachers’ practices at providing written corrective feedback on writing paragraph organization in IETLS task 2

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The aim of giving learners corrective feedback on learners’ writing is to help them realize the errors that they did and be able to make progress by the next writing The fact is the writing is scored the lowest compared to other 3 skills

As four criteria are used to assess essays: Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy (see IELTS Scores Guide (2018) for the complete description of the rubrics) It is important to highlight that these four standards contributing equally to the overall score of the writing part, and each of

2

these categories learners more or less facing challenging

For Task Response, learners find this the most difficult They do not know how to process topic questions and erect the proper outlines from the start They are trapped in lacking ideas, confused to develop an adequate passage The main topic cannot be explained clearly, the opening viewpoint and conclusion can be unmatched Sometimes, they can just try to explain in the most naive way and sound very much non-academic This means that learners do not have the technique to process the relevant positions in the Ielts writing tasks

For Grammar, many Vung Tau learners tend to write run-on sentences, consisting more main clauses that are run together without proper punctuation Indeed, they are translated by their mother tongue to rewrite in English, and this impact their grammar point tremendously as they are not written correctly In other to achieve Grammar 6.0+, learners are taught to break down sentences into shorter units, they need to develop complex sentences which is a requirement to have band 6.0+

For Coherence and Cohesion which can be considered the easy hint for learners to follow , as long as they keep this requirement contemporaneously to be mentioned in the whole essays This means that sometimes when learners concentrate too much about vocabulary or grammatical structures, they may unconsciously forget these connectors

Or else, the connectors can be misused between explaining idea or giving new ideas Compared with other 3 categories, this band descriptor has the least problem

For Lexical resources which can be understood as the ability to use an efficient range of vocabulary For new learners who first studies IETLS writing, their vocabulary

is very basic which can be mentioned as “poor” The main challenge is for the learners

to realize there and better alternative words to use, and they need to upgrade their resources day by day

There are 2 parts of vocabulary that learners need to practice on a regular basic to gain their lexical resources marks: the general one and the specified one The general ones are repeated every lesson day to make sure all of the learners remember, teacher consistently looks at this at your writing to ensure they apply these new words The specified vocabularies are the one use for each topic, learners can learn from 5-8 words

1.3 Objectives of The Study

The study aims to give a tool for learners to be confident with their writing skill

in IETLS and perform competently in this test According, with good writing skill, they are able to perform their studies in universities and works in their later careers

efficiently

1.4 Research questions

The research questions of the study are as follows:

1) To what extent does corrective feedback improve learner’s IELTS writing task 2?

2) What are the learners’ attitude towards corrective feedback?

1.5 Scope of the Study

This present study was carried out in an online private class in Vung Tau The subjects were five high school learners in grade 10 and 11 who had never studied IETLS before

The focus of the study was on written corrective feedback to IETLS writing task

2 only for intermediate level of English proficiency

1.6 Significance of the Study

In the context of Vietnam, the results of this present study may give insights into under-explored area, online written corrective treatment to IETLS writing task 2

In particular, the findings related to online written corrective feedback to paragraph writing could be useful for teachers who teach IETLS writing IELTS learners could benefit from the teacher’s feedback treatment so as to avoid common written errors

1.7 Structure of the Study

The present study consists of five chapters: Introduction, Literature review, Methodology, Findings and Discussion and Conclusion

Introduction illustrates the background of IETLS learning situation in Vietnam and challenges in studying IETLS writing of learners Therefore, the objectives are to give

a tool for learners to be confident with their writing skill in IETLS and perform competently in this test Two significant research questions are identified in terms of learners’ improvement and their attitude toward corrective feedback in writing IETLS Scope of the Study focuses on specific Vung Tau high school learners with intermediate level of English proficiency Significance of the study is drawn to be benefit for teachers who teach IETLS

Literature review focuses on the definition of paragraph as well as introduction of two methods of developing a paragraph In addition, errors, mistakes and corrective feedback will be studied This chapter also reviews previous studies on the way English teachers gave corrective feedback and learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in

Findings and discussion chapter presents the results of investigating different types

of corrective feedback to IELTS writing task 2 assessment criteria on two methods of constructing paragraphs which helped learners improve their writing performance It also reveals learners’ attitudes towards written corrective feedback

Conclusion chapter depicts four main types of feedback used in correcting learner’s paragraph writing associated with particular types of IELTS band score requirement This chapter also summarizes attitude of learners toward the feedback treatment In addition, implications as well as limitations and recommendations for further studies are discussed

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter presents the definition of paragraph, two methods of developing a paragraph efficiently In addition, error, mistakes and corrective feedback will be studied This chapter also reviews previous studies on the way English teachers gave corrective feedback and learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback in writing online The goal of this part is to search for the research gap of previous studies in order

to carry out new research

2.1 Overview of IELTS Writing Task 2

The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) is a test of English proficiency that non-native speakers who plan to study or work in an English-speaking environment need to take (Coleman et al, 2003) The test consists of four skills; speaking, listening, reading, and writing Performance is measured in bands (and half

bands) from 1-9, with 9 representing the highest proficiency

Task 2 of both Academic and General Training modules are the same Candidates are asked to write a short essay of a minimum 250 words within 40 minutes The essay is usually a discussion of a subject of general interest Candidates have to present and justify an opinion about something, offer solutions to a problem, or speculate about future trends

In IELTS, writing is assessed through two tasks, the overall band score being more heavily weighted towards Writing Task 2 Writing Task 2 is likely a source of difficulty for many candidates undertaking IELTS It is commonly accepted that writing is a

“complex and difficult skill to learn” (Uysal, 2009, p 314) While perhaps less of a high-pressure situation than the one-on-one spoken encounter with the examiner (Issitt, 2008), undertaking the IELTS Writing test is more likely due to cause tension in candidates This is owing to the restricted time allowed to complete two distinct tasks, the prohibition of reference materials, the unpredictability of the task topics, and other potential idiosyncratic affective factors

Concurrently, when writing is formally assessed, the nuances of the task requirements and assessment criteria take on an elevated level of importance For Writing Task 2, this includes a set of distinct rubrics, established approaches to the task (available in course books for candidates-in-preparation), and the detailed assessment criteria Learner familiarity with these factors could influence how they interact with the task (O’Loughlin & Wigglesworth, 2003), and ultimately impact on their performance

6

Writing Tasks assess whether a candidate meets the requirements based on his or her ultimate goal of taking the test However, the Academic Module expects the more formal requirements of a higher education establishment as is generally demanded in a academic context

The IETLS writing tasks are scored based on how the candidate respond on the four making criteria Candidates’ compositions are appraised by one examiner using four equally-weighted criteria, which are categorized in Table 1

Table 2.1 Summary of IELTS Writing Task 2 assessment criteria

Task

Response

Coherence and

Cohesion

Lexical Resource Grammatical

Range and Accuracy

organisation

of ideas Paragraphing Referencing and

substitution Use of cohesive devices

Range of lexis Use of

uncommon lexical items Accuracy of lexis

Spelling and word

formation

Range of grammatical structures Accuracy of grammar

Use of complex structures Correct punctuation

Only the overall band score result for writing (incorporating Task 1) is sent to takers General constructive feedback is supplied, which would be of use particularly to individuals who need to re-take the test or improve their current skills

Zemach and Rumisek (2005) define a paragraph as “a group of sentences about a single topic” (p 11), and the sentences explain the main idea of the topic Savage and Shafiei (2007) describe three elements of paragraph organization, namely the topic sentence, supporting sentences, concluding sentence The number of supporting sentences in a paragraph can vary These elements should be unified and need to be organized coherently These may not be easy as learners could find it challenging to find ideas to include in their writing, and thus learners need clear guidance, effective feedback, and interesting ideas to write about (Zemach and Islam, 2007)

2.2.1 Process approach to writing

Zemach and Rumisek (2005) state that to create a good piece of writing a writer must go through several steps of the writing process This process, which is called the approach to writing, consists of the stages of pre-writing, drafting, reviewing, and revising (Badger & White, 2000) Unlike the product approach which emphasizes on form, this process approach focuses on the facilitation of leaners’ writing The teacher’s role is to instruct learners through the writing process to find of strategies for generating ideas, drafting, and refining ideas (Hyland, 2003) He adds that this could be conducted through providing pre-writing activities to produce ideas, brainstorming, and outlining

2.2.2 Developing a REERR paragraph

A technique to develop a paragraph with the structure of presenting REASON - EXPLAIN - EXAMPLE - RESULT - RESEARCH is short-called REERR by using the first letter of each clue This methods was uniquely introduced in 2021 by David Lang and Hien Nguyen in the book “ Maximize Your IELTS Writing Score” This method gives definite structures for learners to follow, navigate them to think without distraction, giving high score for task development and unity Besides this, teacher will provide learners with more lexical resources and make sure they use complex sentences

to write to achieve good band score

In order to developing a REERR paragraph, teacher at first will give the learners

a topic sentence Learners were initially taught that a topic sentence was the main sentence of a paragraph which described its contents and directions It had two important functions It detailed the controlling ideas of the paragraph It also sets the tone for the organization of the supporting sentences that further explain the concept established by the topic sentence

8

After analyzing the topic sentence to understand fully, there are 3 steps to develop a comprehensive paragraph which are drafting, editing and correcting

Step 1 Drafting

Reason: learners think of one reason to explain the controlling idea of the given

topic sentence For this technique, learners have to bear in mind that REERR model requires only single reason In order words, they do not have many ideas for the paragraph, so R E E RR model is a good choice However, some learners may misunderstand to give 2 reasons in this It results in breaking the whole paragraph and cause confusion When the learners have from 2 ideas, they can use the Enumeration method as mention below

Explanation: this can be considered the hardest part, as most of the learner can’t

find the way to explain, teacher needs to instruct them on initially several topics, later

on they get used to this notion and can be able to articulate the ideas Beside giving explanation, sometime they can use “If” or “ Unless” to clarify the reason instead

Example: learners must give an example with particular name of the subject that

related to the explanation It can be fact around the world or even domestically Notably,

a good example needs to be specific with proper nouns of either an individual, a place, a specific timeline, or an event

Result: By explanation and giving example, learners will need to draw the result

which relates to the season that they gave

Research: learners are taught to look for key words and do their own online

research The source, content, statistics of the subject must be addressed Teachers will need to observe their keywords when searching, then justify if their research is

applicable This way definitely contributes a part of self-study process later

Step 2 Editing

Once the outline is finished, learners start to write They are given linking words

as below, synonyms of the topic to diverse the lexical resource, they are born in mind to write complex sentences

R: it is undeniable that / the real reason is that

E: this means that, in other words

E: for example, for instance, namely

R:as a result, consequently, hence, thus, therefore

R: recent survey/ research has shown that

Example of REERR development:

Topic sentence: Smartphones decrease face- to-face interaction

Outline:

R: not many people today who meet and talk in person

E: various communicative platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, more people are using

it because it is fast, easy and more entertaining

E: most coffee shops, even with friends, people usually text or surfing internet

R: people are not good at talking to each other and they do not find joy in daily conversation

R: most people today spend more time using their phone than talking or meeting with friends

Edited writing product:

Smartphones decrease face- to-face interaction This means that they are not as many people today who meet and talk in person It is true that this device offers various communicative platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, more people are using it for interacting because it is fast, easy and more entertaining For example, most coffee shops are filled with friends and family using their phone and not talking to each other The result of this is that people are not very good at talking with one another and they

do not find joy in daily conversation Research has shown that most people today spend more time using their phone than talking or meeting friends

Step 3 Correcting

After learners complete their writing, teachers will correct their mistakes and errors Finally, learners will rewrite the topic into their own notebook and learn by heart

2.2.3 Developing an Enumeration paragraph

A method of teaching English composition almost necessary for the best results for learners of ordinary ability can be found in (Wang, 2019) Enumeration type is usually given when the tittle is about a phenomenon The learner’s task is to discuss some problems of and solutions to the identified phenomenon, or to point out the causes and effect of the phenomenon, or advantages and disadvantages of the phenomenon The way to develop this task consists of the below steps:

Paragraph 1: a a topic sentence which is the main point of the paragraph

B Supporting sentence 1 (logical inference)

C Supporting sentence 2 (example)

D Supporting sentence 3 ect

sugar-In this example, a topic sentence regarding “ Solutions to reduce sugary drinks consumption” Learners developed successfully three supporting details First supporting details was introducing government’s tax policy Second supporting detail was replacing these products from vending machines Third supporting details was propagating campaign to raise people’s cognition about the harms of consuming added sugar.Notably, for each supporting details, learner used statistics to illustrate for the specific idea

2.3 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: p593)

Krashen (1982: p117) 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, 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: p389) 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 learners

Truscott (1996) defines written corrective feedback (WCF) as the “correction

of grammatical errors for the purpose of improving a learner’s ability to write accurately” (p 329) In other words, it relates to teachers’ written feedback on learners’ essays to improve the accuracy in terms of grammar (e.g., spelling, punctuation, tenses, etc.) and lexical resource while Juvenale (2016) identified WCF as teachers’ written comments on the content and form of a learner’s essay Educators have made great efforts to discover different aspects regarding WCF for teachers’ professional development such as the effectiveness of WCF (Ferris, 2007), feedback provision depending on learners’ level (Bitchener & Knoch, 2009), feedback types (Lee, 2004), and the choice of comprehensive or selective corrective feedback (Sheen, 2007)

In respect of the categorization of WCF, Ellis (2008) introduced a variety of WCF including direct, indirect, meta-linguistic, focused, unfocused, electronic corrective feedback are addressed in research

2.3.1 The Role of Written Corrective Feedback

The aim of a writing course cannot be helping and asking learners 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 learners from high proficiency level to low proficiency level Error is acceptable in learning, but the main point here is that learners are able to identify their errors and avoid committing them again Obviously, learners 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 learners 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 learners’ writing, and it is considered to

be a crucial part of fostering learning Feedback to learners’ 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

12

learners to see the location of their errors and inform the learners why they make such errors and show them how to correct their errors Written corrective feedback is to “help learner 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 learners’ 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 learners’ 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 learners 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 learners’ writing

Ferris (1997) claims that comment on learners’ writing when making change is a mostly positive change in learners’ 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 learners receiving written corrective feedback The learners commit fewer errors in their writing while there is no improvement found in the writing of learners 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 learners 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 et al (2011) emphasize the effect of written corrective feedback on learners’ writing accuracy Written corrective feedback positively affects learners’ accuracy and has a negligible impact on fluency and complexity They indicate that instead of paying attention to whether the teacher should treat learners’ errors or not, it is better to spend time looking for strategies that will work in a specific context Beuningen et al (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 learners 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 learners’ errors, teachers will have information about the problem that learners are dealing with Before giving feedback, teachers are suggested to inform learners 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 learners assistance in eliminating surface-level errors; it also does not help learners 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 learners’ practice, not by corrective feedback Written corrective feedback does not improve writing accuracy, writing fluency, and language proficiency Besides, self- correction negatively affects learners’ attitudes

Though there are debates about the effect of written corrective feedback, the researcher believe that written corrective feedback plays a vital role in learners’ language learning Writing is not an easy skill to master, and writers easily make errors when composing a piece of writing When learners make errors, they have to realize that the rule they are applying is wrong After that, learners need to know how to correct their errors and avoid committing the same errors again It would be wonderful if learners can treat their errors by themselves, but it is quite challenging, especially for learners

14

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 learners’ proficiency level, the type of errors learners make, or learners’ preferences before giving their learners 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 learners’ errors

2.3.2 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 learners indirect written corrective feedback, teachers’ job is to inform learners that there are errors, and it is learners’ 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 learners’ errors directly is ineffective, and learners 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) that support the findings of Ghandi and Maghsoudi (2014) and Eslami (2014), Hosseiny (2014) failed to prove the difference in the effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback He states that there is no significant distinction in the development of grammar knowledge between the group receiving direct correction and the group receiving indirect correction Different results are also seen in many studies

Kisnanto (2016) presents evidence that supports direct corrective feedback The researcher believes that writing accuracy is improved when learners are provided corrective feedback, as well as, maintains that learners treated with direct corrective feedback had significant enhancement in writing accuracy The efficiency of direct corrective feedback over indirect corrective feedback is found in other related studies (Almasi & Tabrizi, 2016; Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013; Shirazi & Shekarabi, 2014)

When deciding the procedure that is going to use, teachers have to put into account other factors and the connection of each element to each other For instance, direct written corrective feedback would bring more benefits to learners with lower proficiency levels, while indirect written corrective feedback is more beneficial to learners with high proficiency levels Bitchener and Ferris (2012) indicate that although direct corrective feedback is thought to be the favorite of many learners, this fact does not always occur since some language learners are fascinated to correct errors by themselves before teachers give a solution for their problem Similarly, some learners with lower proficiency levels would like to receive indirect corrective feedback Bitchener and Ferris (2012:134) also give a list of factors that affect learners’ preferences such as “language learning experience”, “confidence”, “nature of the writing task” The researchers also suggest that teachers should consider learners’ expectations when deciding to give which written corrective feedback If learners believe in the approach that their teachers use after negotiation, they may be more willing to join in the feedback process, which results in “more effective users of the feedback they receive”

Both direct and indirect corrective feedback have their strengths and weaknesses

It seems that direct corrective feedback is more favored by Vietnamese learners, for many learners are used to depending enormously on teachers They usually listen to their teachers unconditionally and rarely have any questions Another reason that may lead to learners’ dependence is that they are lack confidence learners usually think that what their teachers do is always right, but they are unsure that what they do would lead to the same result, so they are not confident to try to do something in their own way When making errors in writing, learners usually wait for their teachers to give them the correct forms for their errors Sometimes, this issue leads to a detrimental effect that is laziness Therefore, teachers need to consider using these two techniques wisely so that corrective feedback can bring positive results to learners’ learning Nevertheless, whether teachers should use direct or indirect CF depends on specific subjects and context, which require

16

flexibility in the teachers

2.3.3 Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback

Written corrective feedback can be distinguished in another way related to the amount of feedback that should be given These two types are “focused” and

“unfocused” written corrective feedback Unfocused written corrective feedback is considered as a procedure in which teachers give a correction to all or most of the learners’ errors; it deals with a wide range of errors (Ellis, 2009)

On the other hand, focused written corrective feedback just deals with specific errors and neglects others Focused written corrective feedback will pay attention to particular types of error According to Ellis (2009), there is theoretical evidence that supports the fact that focused is more effective than unfocused learners are more likely

to join in the correction process, which aims at one type of error, and learners would gain a better understanding of the error and how to correct that error

Bitchener and Knoch (2010) state that when treating L2 advanced learners’ errors, treating one type of error would help them to enhance their writing accuracy If one type

is not enough, it can be two or three types, and teachers should have a negotiation with learners on several error types that should be focused on at one time Once achieving accuracy purpose, teachers can make another negotiation to decide additional feedback (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008) Moreover, focused written corrective feedback is believed

to positively affect lower proficiency level learners (Bitchener, 2012) Many studies are found to confirm the impact of focused written corrective feedback (Sheen et al, 2009; Farrokhi & Sattarpour, 2012) 80 learners were involved in the study of Sheen, Wright, and Moldawa (2009) to compare the effectiveness of focused written corrective feedback, unfocused written corrective feedback and practice alone on the accuracy use

of grammatical forms The attendants were ESL adult learners After taking the experiment, the researchers conclude that the group that received focused corrective feedback gained the highest score in articles, regular past tense, irregular past tense and preposition, and focused corrective feedback can bring contribution to grammar accuracy in second language writing

quasi-Farrokhi and Sattarpour (2012) have a similar result when experimenting with high-proficient Iranian learners They investigated that the focused group had better results in definite and indefinite English articles compared to the unfocused group

Although studies prove the remarkable effect of focused written corrective feedback over unfocused written corrective feedback, focused WCF does not mean to be the only technique that should be utilized in all cases The goal of correcting learners’ writing is to enhance their accuracy in general, so focusing on one type of error is not enough Besides, correcting some errors while ignoring others may confuse learners (Ferris & Storch, as cited in Van Beuningen, 2010) Salami and Moni (2013) investigate the effect of focused WCF and unfocused WCF The study discovered that the group receiving unfocused treatment had the highest mark in simple past tenses forms, articles, subject-verb agreement; however, its long-term impact is not significant as its short-term effect In addition, no difference in the effect between focused and unfocused CF was detected by various studies (Frear, 2010; Saeb, 2014; Kassim & Ng, 2014)

It is obvious that a majority of learners want to receive clear and regular corrective feedback; however, when learners receive a large amount of feedback at one time, it can be demotivating Therefore, the teacher needs to be careful when deciding the amount of feedback to give their learners One of the core reasons to choose focused WCF, dealing with one or a few types of error at one time is the processing capacity of learners Learners with low proficiency levels cannot handle too much information simultaneously, even when they just receive a small amount of corrective feedback In contrast, learners with high proficiency levels possess a larger attentional capacity so that they can deal with a greater amount of WCF Unfocused WCF can bring benefits to learners with high proficiency levels (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012)

Learners usually prefer unfocused WCF because they think the more, the better Language teachers normally try to correct as many errors as they can However, teachers are under too much pressure It takes teachers too much time to correct all errors made

by learners Teachers can handle a small number of learners, but with too many learners

in a class, correcting all errors would make teachers exhausted Personally, focused CF

is a time-saving technique and also quite impressive Focusing on specific types of errors would be easier for learners to remember and understand, but teachers need to inform learners of their attention before the learners receive their corrective feedback

2.3.4 Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback

Metalinguistic written corrective feedback is defined as a type of feedback in which teachers provide learners with a metalinguistic clue about the error nature that

18

they commit (Ellis, 2009) Metalinguistic CF is divided into two main types, which are error codes and grammatical descriptions A brief grammatical description is a type of feedback that is quite less common in a classroom context for too much time, and teachers' efforts are needed When learners make errors, teachers will number the error and produce grammatical descriptions for each error Despite taking considerable time,

it is still a technique that is worth considering

Ebadi (2014) asserts that metalinguistic CF is a method that can bring positive effects to learners because learners can acquire grammar rules from their errors Besides, learners are able to realize their common errors and reduce those errors thanks

to teachers’ feedback learners are further able to improve their writing skills through self-correction Rezazadeh, Tavakoli, and Rasekh (2015) add that metalinguistic explanation shows a longer-lasting effect on learners’ improvement Learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English articles is enhanced thanks to the description and the example related to the rules Abdollahzadeh (2016) and Sheen (2007) found similar results Shintani and Ellis (2013) maintain that metalinguistic explanation assists learners to foster their accuracy in writing produced right after the treatment

Unlike the first type of metalinguistic WCF, coded CF is regarded as a method that quite saves time Teachers will use codes (abbreviated labels) to indicate errors, and correction is left for learners Several studies prove that coded CF positively affects learner’s learning results (Ahmadi-Azad, 2014; Gholaminia, Gholaminiab, & Marzban, 2014; Arlan, 2015) Ahmadi-Azad (2014) points out that coded corrective feedback can bring good results in learner’s writing accuracy in terms of the use of some grammatical structures, and it has both long-term and short-term effects Gholaminia, Gholaminiab, Marzban (2014) emphasize that learners can learn more effectively and efficiently by using coded feedback in writing tasks Moreover, coded CF forces learners to look at their writing several times and try to improve their work quality, so they will be more sensitive, and they will focus more on their errors or mistakes Coded CF also can motivate learners to learn and take more responsibility for their learning Arlan (2015) highlights that coded CF not only can help learners to realize the difference between their works and the correct forms; it also makes learners have deep involvement in learning the target structures

Metalinguistic written corrective feedback is not common in many schools in Vietnam The first type of metalinguistic WCF, which gives learners an explanation for

the grammatical rule, can benefit learners when they want to understand clearly about the grammar rules, but this technique also requires teachers to spend considerable time

on it In contrast, coded CF does not require too much time from teachers but can still provide learners enough information to correct their errors In order to use coded CF, teachers have to introduce their learners to a list of coded CF at the beginning of the course, and they have to make sure that the learners know how to use the list Practice

to use the coded CF would be needed This technique is quite promising, for learners will work by themselves to correct their errors with teachers’ guidance Besides, it also can help lessen teachers’ time pressure

2.3.5 Giving Corrective Feedback Online

Feedback from the instructor to the learner is considered to be one of the key elements of instruction because it is generally assumed to facilitate learning (Kowitz & Smith, 1987) In online courses, instructor-learner feedback takes a variety of forms, including both synchronous and asynchronous forms To better understand the types, timing, and frequency of instructor-learner feedback, this case study used document analysis to examine instructor-learner feedback in an online course over a full semester The notion of feedback as a response to a sender’s message originally comes from communication theorists (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Schramm, 1954), whose early work laid the foundation for the understanding of feedback as an element of instruction

In an instructional setting, feedback has been defined as any communication or procedure given to inform a learner of the accuracy of a response, usually to some type

of instructional question (Cohen, 1985; Sales, 1993) Because distance education (DE) differs from the traditional classroom setting, the learning environments have distinct characteristics, such as the physical separation of the instructor and learners and the use

of technical media for delivering course content and mediating instructor-learner interactions (Keegan, 1990) Thus, DE requires the implementation of new forms of two-way communications so that the learner may interact with the instructor across the location gap (Keegan, 1990) Prior research in DE focused on two main topics: technology factors and instructional factors (Threlkeld & Brzoska, 1994) Both sets of issues play a role in feedback, and neither one can be wholly ignored In a Web-based environment, the instructor may provide feedback regarding Web-based technology issues as well as instructional feedback throughout the course

The central instructional factor in distance education (DE) is generally the

instructor-20

learner interaction For example, instructor-learner interaction is essential to learner achievement, and instructors in distance education try to “achieve aims held in common with all other educators…[by seeking] to stimulate the learner’s interest…[and] to motivate the learner to learn” (Moore, 1993, pp 20-21) Due to the often individualized nature of feedback in DE, the instructor can engage in didactic interaction with each learner, giving motivational feedback to one learner and content-specific corrective feedback to another (Moore, 1993)

Though the instructor and learner are separated physically, the instructor’s feedback helps to personalize the learning and to assist the learner in learning While the literature shows that feedback interactions are certainly possible in a DE environment, the research does not provide a description of the types and frequencies of feedback used in DE Instead, the research tends to describe the instructor-learner interactions in the broader context of communications in general (Bates, 1994) Furthermore, when DE studies have described the role of the instructor, they often merely outline the ideal roles the instructor should fulfill Threlkeld and Brzoska (1994) suggest general guidelines for how the instructor should assist learners, such as regularly monitoring written work and keeping learners involved in the course Wolcott (1994) asserts that providing written feedback and using established communication channels will maximize the benefits of feedback in DE While these recommendations may be valuable for instructors in planning a DE course, they tell nothing about what types of feedback are employed in DE apart from the simple descriptors as “written” or “regular.”

2.4 Language learning attitude

In addition to the corrective purpose, a second important function of feedback identified in the literature is to provide motivation to the learner to perform a task or to learn Whereas corrective feedback focuses on the specific task content, motivational feedback is focused on the learner The individual differences found in learners affects their motivation, and these differences affect feedback needs (Smith & Ragan, 1993) Motivation impacts the ways in which learners perform on learning tasks (Hoska, 1993), and a lack of motivation can lead to an increase in learner errors (Smith & Ragan, 1993)

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 learners like is the best option for their language achievement Hamouda (2011) supports Faqeih (2015) that understanding learners’ attitudes is essential because teaching techniques are various, and teachers can motivate learners to learn by doing what they prefer He adds that the gap between teachers’ and learners’ attitudes always exists, and relevant literature proves that the differences between teachers’ and learners’ attitudes may lead to unsatisfactory learning outcomes

In particular, teachers are required to understand learners’ beliefs and learners’ preferences when giving them corrective feedback Diab (2006) highlights the need to fill the gap between teachers’ and learners’ attitudes towards corrective feedback In his study, Diab (2006) maintains that feedback for learners may become ineffective if teachers and learners hold a discrepancy in belief relating to corrective feedback techniques In the worst case, learners may feel demotivated when producing writing in their second language Salteh and Sadeghi (2015) state that learners 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 learners need to agree

on the terms of which corrective feedback is effective

22

2.5 Related Studies

2.5.1 Studies on Written Corrective Feedback Practices

Various studies have been conducted aiming at investigating strategies that English teachers apply when producing corrective feedback on learners’ writing A wide range of research methods was applied to achieve the goal For example, Norouzian and Farahari (2012) analyzed teachers’ feedback in learners’ texts and also used a questionnaire as a research tool The investigation of Norouzian and Farahari (2012) attempted to discover the discrepancy between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback practices The mismatch between perceptions of teachers and their actual feedback is also illustrated in the study 45 learners and 25 teachers were asked to answer a survey to show their perceptions The real feedback practices of teachers were discovered in learners’ real texts The study reveals that teachers and learners held different perceptions of teachers’ corrective feedback

Besides, there is a mismatch between teachers’ perceptions and their real practices

A large number of teachers thought that they usually marked all learners’ errors, while most learners did not think in the same way The finding shows that teachers avoided using error codes in correcting, and most teachers were not sure that marking code was helpful for learners In contrast, most learners argued that they could understand and follow the marking code moreover; marking code was beneficial to them, as they were given a chance to revise their writing When asked about the effectiveness of the existing feedback, most teachers believed that thanks to corrective feedback, learners made some progress in improving their grammatical accuracy In contrast, learners thought that they just made “little progress” When analyzing corrective feedback on learners’ texts, the researchers explored that 40% of teachers used comprehensive corrective feedback while in the survey, this number was 66.7% 66.6% of teachers stated that they used direct feedback while in the text, this number was just 53.3%

Irwin (2017) also had a similar method to the above study when analyzing assignments of learners to look for teachers’ feedback practices According to Irwin (2017), grammatical feedback gained the highest percentage of feedbacks provided; the following were structural and content feedback A teacher in the study mainly used indirect corrective feedback with 64.3%, double the percentage of direct strategy Indirect corrective feedback was classified into two types: indirect CF and coded indirect

CF Coded indirect CF was used more often in samples analyzed with 40.7 % while the indirect CF percentage was 23.6% Irwin (2017) discovered that learners preferred the teacher’s feedback Although the teacher tried to use various kinds of feedback, theteacher still played the main role, which made learners passive Moreover, teachers needed to put learners’ preferences under consideration

Unlike Norouzian and Farahari (2012) and Irwin (2017), Nguyen & Nguyen(2017) did their research differently By observing, surveying, and interviewing, the researchers concluded their study about teachers' viewpoints and practices in written corrective feedback The attendants were two teachers with more than 20-year experience in teaching Both of the teachers pointed out that error correction was vital for learners Corrective feedback could benefit learners and helped learners to improve their writing competence as well as writing accuracy Both teachers in the study made use of direct and indirect written corrective feedback One teacher also used peer- feedback in their teaching However, both teachers faced some obstacles Firstly, the methods that they used took a tremendous amount of time, and learners did not care much about the teacher’s correction Secondly, teachers doubted the effectiveness of corrective feedback because they do not have enough time to cover all learners' errors They had some confusion about whether they should let learners correct their errors or not

Interview and questionnaire were also used in Lee’s study (2003) to search for L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices, and error feedback problems The subjects were

206 secondary English teachers in Hong Kong Questionnaires and telephone interviews were used as data instruments in the study As being illustrated in the study, teachers’ main purpose of error feedback was to help the learners be aware of their errors Lee (2003) asserted that assisting learners to avoid committing the same errors again was just the immediate goal In terms of corrective technique, most teachers performed comprehensive marking (marking all errors) Teachers indicated error correction to be their responsibility, and they explained that using selective marking was quite difficult since they did not know the way to do it Teachers who used selective techniques usually focused on grammar rather than the learners’ needs Teachers in the study said that they used marking codes Nevertheless, most of them used this technique just because of the requirement of the school Lee (2003) found direct feedback (indicating and correcting errors…) was the most always used technique He suggested that teachers should examine a variety of corrective strategies to help learners locate their errors Despite

24

agreeing that teachers should provide selective feedback on learners’ writing, teachers

in Hong Kong (R.O.C) had to cope with the pressure of correcting errors comprehensively, and they did not know how to apply selective feedback Maybe because most teachers chose to correct errors comprehensively, it leads to a problem relating to time According to attendants, time-consuming was one of the serious issues learners’ proficiency and learners’ attitudes were also problems that teachers had to face

Similar to Lee's (2003) study, Kharusi and Al-Mekhlafi (2019) applied questionnaires in the study to find practices of teachers’ written corrective feedback 156 EFL teachers and 62 EFL supervisors in a public school in Oman joined in the research From the result of the questionnaire, the researchers concluded that the attendants hold a positive view of the role of written corrective feedback They agreed that providing WCF was essential, and WCF could make learners’ writing performance enhanced Most teachers in the study frequently applied unfocused WCF techniques in their feedback practices Indirect coded corrective feedback was the second most commonly practiced by teachers Besides, when correcting learners’ writing and responding to learners’ language errors, the teacher usually focused on language and grammar; organization and vocabulary were the least focused

2.5.2 Studies on learners’ Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback

A study by Chen et al, (2016) searched for learners' perceptions of WCF The study had the involvement of 64 learners (including first-year, second-year,

and third-year learners) in the English department of a provincial university in China By using close-ended and open-ended questions, the researchers got both quantitative and qualitative data The result illustrated that most of the participants possessed a positive attitude towards WCF The learners thought that WCF was vital for the following reasons Firstly, WCF could help to indicate errors that occur several times Secondly, WCF could assist in writing quality improvement Finally, the attention in English writing was accuracy and form In terms of error types that learners preferred to be corrected, organizational errors gained the greatest attention, grammatical errors came in second place, and vocabulary errors came in third place The study also mentioned that most learners wanted their teacher to prioritize errors affecting communication As for the correcting technique, learners would like their instructors to locate and indicate errors Simply locating errors without further indication and

explanation was least favored by learners Besides, learners would like to receive extended comments from their instructors, especially comments about their writing's overall quality Self- correction was also an issue presenting in the study Though learners wanted instructors to give them detailed correction, they still regarded self-correction as essential

Other research has similar objectives to the study of Chen et al (2016); a study by Hajian et al (2014) is an example They researched by asking 80 learners and 12 teachers to answer a questionnaire in order to find out learners’ and teachers’ attitudes towards corrective feedback The data collected showed that both teachers and learners had the same positive views towards corrective feedback in writing However, there were some differences between the attitudes of learners and teachers For example, learners would like their teachers to correct all of their errors, while most of the teachers would prefer to select and correct some errors According to learners’ preferences, error correction should be made by teachers, not by peers or other learners In contrast, from the teachers’ views, all teachers, peers, and learners could deal with error correction Another difference between learners and teachers was that when giving feedback, grammar errors were highly focused on by the teachers; whereas, less than two-thirds of learners wanted to receive feedback on grammar errors Besides, among various corrective techniques, writing comments, crossing out the errors, and writing the correct form were the most favored perceived by learners The result is quite similar

to Leki’s work in 1991 In Leki’s research, he stated that the learners who joined in the study wanted all of their written errors to be corrected by their teachers This shows “a great dependence on their teachers”; most learners said that the best source of assistance was their teachers

Zacharias (2007) also investigated teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of teachers’ feedback 100 learners and 20 teachers took part in the study The researcher used both questionnaires and interview to get the data After analyzing the result, the researcher stated that the teacher’s feedback was favorable to both teachers and learners Additionally, learners preferred to receive feedback on language and specific feedback from their teachers Learners were dissatisfied with too general feedback and feedback that contradicts their ideas In the study of Zacharias (2007), there was a contradiction between data got from the questionnaire and interview Although most attendants said that they were “excited” when receiving teachers’ feedback in the questionnaire, in the

26

interview, more than 93% of attendants said that too much feedback demotivated them

It was more motivating to get little feedback because it showed that fewer errors were committed The researcher believed that teacher’s feedback affected learners’ motivation and attitudes A study by Lee (2005) showed learners’ perception about different kinds of corrective feedback and the amount of corrective feedback The researchers used a questionnaire to get the data 320 learners from 8 secondary schools

in Hong Kong (R.O.C) joined in the study The result indicated that there was no gap between teachers’ practices and learners’ preferences in the research A majority of teachers corrected learners’ errors comprehensively, and learners’ selection was also comprehensive correction 76.3% of learners would like to receive error codes This technique was also the priority in teachers’ practices Lee (2005) advised teachers to think about obstacles that learners have to face when dealing with error codes and the way to use them effectively Despite no gap found between teachers’ practices and learners’ preferences, learners still showed that they were not improved much by teachers’ WCF The researcher added that teachers should pay more attention to skills such

as editing training, self or peer-editing when dealing with errors Moreover, most learners regarded giving corrective feedback as teachers’ job only However, the long-term goal of corrective feedback was to lessen learners’ dependence on teachers and instruct learners on editing strategies to improve their writing skills

Research on 58 learners of Dong Thap University proposed by Nguyen & Le (2017) found that corrective feedback in writing was highly rated by learners Thanks to corrective feedback, learners would understand more about their errors and improve their writing Learners would like their teachers to give corrective feedback as much as possible, which helped them to avoid committing the same errors in the next writing Nevertheless, receiving too much feedback would cause learners’ demotivation Hence, teachers believed that teachers should only give corrective feedback on learners’ major errors, especially errors relating to ideas Among corrective techniques, learners assumed that correction with comments was the most useful technique Moreover, both teachers and learners agreed that personal feedback was not a helpful corrective technique These techniques would lead to learners’ confusion since not knowing what was right or wrong

If this situation lasted, it would demotivate learners

Nguyen and Ramnath (2016) examined learners' reactions at An Giang University to teachers’ written corrective feedback Fifty sophomores joined in the study According to

data collected from the questionnaire and the discussion, the researchers found that the majority of learners viewed teachers’ feedback as “legible, understandable and useful” Besides receiving grades from teachers, most learners would prefer to receive feedback and comments learners paid more attention to teachers’ comments rather than language form learners also wanted their teachers to pay attention to language and organization errors first and content errors later There was a contradiction between learners’ preferences and teachers’ practices relating to the amount of error treatment learners stated that most teachers gave feedback on just some of their errors; however, correcting some errors was not their preference Most learners wanted their teachers to correct all errors In addition, the finding illustrated that correction codes should be used more often in class

Ha & Phuong (2018) investigated the types of errors learners who were not majored usually made and the types of feedback that learners would like their teachers

English-to give The research was organized and performed with sixty first-year learners at a college in Can Tho city By analyzing learners’ writing productions, the researchers concluded that the top four types of errors that learners committed frequently were morphological errors, lexical errors, syntactic errors, and mechanical errors In order to answer the second research question, the researcher conducted an interview with nine participants Most learners believed that feedback was valuable, and all of the participants wanted their teachers to correct all of their errors so that they would not make the same errors for the next time, and corrective feedback facilitated their writing

In terms of feedback types, more than half of the learners wanted to receive indirect corrective feedback, and most learners wanted errors caused by carelessness to be corrected by themselves

Dam (2018) proved in her study that when asking for learners’ perceptions towards indirect corrective feedback provided by teachers, most learners agreed that the feedback is understandable To be more specific, indirect corrective feedback helped to raise their responsibility and independence in learning Indirect corrective feedback greatly contributed to learners’ revision in grammar and language use; however, it did not affect content and organization errors The research further pointed out that learners’ passiveness was an obstacle keeping learners away from asking their teachers for further explanation for their errors

Duong (2021) discovered the practices of providing WCF in five English language

28

centers in Buon Ma Thuot City, Vietnam Thirty teachers teaching IELTS courses in these English language centers answered the questionnaire, ten teachers took part in the interviews, and 100 essays were collected to conduct textual analysis The results showed that more comprehensive feedback than selective feedback was used by the teachers even though most of them believed that the use of the focus-based feedback is compatible with learners’ level and the course’s goals In terms of the feedback clarity, the teachers tended to provide direct feedback rather than indirect and meta-linguistic feedback to facilitate learners’ error correction

Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used in most studies, which means that the findings are quite reliable However, there is still a mismatch in results found between studies The effectiveness of written corrective feedback is still a controversial issue While some learners think that corrective feedback would help them make progress in their writing, others do not have the same thinking Besides, various studies show the discrepancy between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions However, few studies look for the gap between the practice and learners’ preferences Besides, not many studies looked for learners’ reactions to written corrective feedback By looking

at learners’ attitudes from three components in Wenden’s (1991) framework, teachers would have an overview of learners’ thinking so that suggestions and implications will

be made

2.6 Conceptual framework

Figure 2.7 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework illustrates the impact of corrected feedback of its types to IELTS writing task 2 band requirements when learners practicing wring REERR and Enumeration paragraphs

INDIRECT

LINGUISTI

META-CS DIRECT

COHERENCE

LEXICAL RESOURCE

ENUMERATIVE PARAGRAPHS

PARAGRAPH WRITING PERFORMANCE