Teachers beliefs, seft reported practices and students preferences on written conrrective feedback a study at the asean international school,van thanh campus a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY --- ∞0∞--- NGUYEN THI BAO TRINH TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, SELF-REPORTED PRACTICES AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES ON WRITTEN COR

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

- ∞0∞ -

NGUYEN THI BAO TRINH

TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, SELF-REPORTED PRACTICES AND STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES ON WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: A STUDY AT THE ASIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL- VAN THANH CAMPUS

Major: Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages

Major code: 8 14 01 11

MASTER THESIS MASTER OF ARTS IN TESOL

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr PHAM VU PHI HO

HO CHI MINH CITY, 2021

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỞ CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM

THÀNH PHỐ HỒ CHÍ MINH Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc

KHOA ĐÀO TẠO SAU ĐẠI HỌC

GIẤY XÁC NHẬN

Ngày sinh: 23/5/1991 Nơi sinh: Bình Thuận

Chuyên ngành: Lý luận và phương pháp dạy học bộ môn Tiếng Anh

Mã học viên: 1781401110035

Tôi đồng ý cung cấp toàn văn thông tin luận văn tốt nghiệp hợp lệ về bản quyền cho Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh Thư viện trường đại học Mở Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh sẽ kết nối toàn văn thông tin luận văn tốt nghiệp vào hệ thống thông tin khoa học của Sở Khoa học và Công nghệ Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh

CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM

Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc

Ý KIẾN CHO PHÉP BẢO VỆ LUẬN VĂN THẠC SĨ

CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN HƯỚNG DẪN

Giảng viên hướng dẫn: Phó Giáo Sư Tiến sĩ- Phạm Vũ Phi Hổ

Học viên thực hiện: Nguyễn Thị Bảo Trình Lớp: MTESOL017A

Tên đề tài: TEACHERS’ BELIEFS, SELF-REPORTED PRACTICES AND

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES ON WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: A

STUDY AT THE ASIAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL-VAN THANH CAMPUS

Ý kiến của giáo viên hướng dẫn về việc cho phép học viên Nguyễn Thị Bảo Trình

được bảo vệ luận văn lần hai trước Hội đồng:

Luận Văn của Nguyễn Thị Bảo Trình đã đủ điều kiện về chất lượng và nội dung để bảo vệ trước hội đồng

Đồng ý cho bảo vệ luận văn Thạc sỹ

Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, ngày…5 tháng 7 năm 2021

Người nhận xét

PGS.TS Phạm Vũ Phi Hổ

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that this thesis entitled “Teachers’ Beliefs, Self-Reported Practices and Students’ Preferences on Written Corrective Feedback: A Study at the Asian International School-Van Thanh Campus” is my own work

Except where reference is made in the text of the thesis, this thesis does not contain material published elsewhere or extracted from a thesis by which I have qualified for or been awarded another degree or diploma

No other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgment in the main text of the thesis This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree

or diploma in any other tertiary institution

Ho Chi Minh City, September 2021

NGUYEN THI BAO TRINH

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This Master of Arts in TESOL thesis is the result of a fruitful collaboration of all the people who have kindly contributed with an enormous commitment and enthusiasm in my research Without the help of those who supported me at all times and in all possible ways,

it would not have been feasible for me to complete my M.A thesis

First of all, I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Associate Professor, Dr Pham Vu Phi

Ho, whose compassion; encouragement and guidance throughout the research have supported me in the thesis completion I have truly learned from his excellent knowledge and wide experience in research

I am also sincerely grateful to all lecturers of the Open University in Ho Chi Minh City for providing me valuable sources of intellectual knowledge during my study

This knowledge was very useful when I conducted this research I owe a great debt of gratitude to the participating teachers and students at the Asian International School (Van Thanh Campus) who contributed data to this thesis Without them, the data collection for this study could not properly been carried out

ABSTRACT

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is significantly important for students as it can help them enhance their second language writing ability This study aimed at investigating if there are any mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and self-reported practices as well as teachers’ practices and students’ preferences on WCF including value, timing, sources, strategies, amount, and focus of WCF Relevant literature regarding teachers’ beliefs and practices and students’ preferences on WCF were reviewed Based upon this conceptual framework, the researcher conducted survey study with mixed-methods design, which were quantitatively and qualitatively, respectively Data were collected and analyzed through the tools of questionnaires and interviews with 12 teachers and 141 pre- intermediate students

at the Asian International School The findings of this study showed that there were incongruences between the teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices about how often, who, and which errors that the WCF was provided Besides, the teachers’ classroom practices mismatched their students’ preferences of WCF for certain aspects, i.e frequency rate, sources, strategies, and focus of WCF The study concluded with pedagogical implications and a recommendation for further study in the line of research on WCF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale to the study 1

1.2 Statements of the problems 2

1.3 Research aims 3

1.4 Research questions 3

1.5 Significance of the study 4

1.6 Structure of the thesis 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Approaches to teaching writing 5

2.1.1 Approaches to teaching writing: product approach versus process approach 5

2.1.2 Social constructivism learning theory 6

2.2 Feedback in teaching writing 7

2.3 Written corrective feedback 7

2.3.1 Definition of corrective feedback 7

2.3.2 Definition of written corrective feedback 7

2.3.3 Value of written corrective feedback 7

2.3.4 Strategies of written corrective feedback 8

2.3.5 Sources of written corrective feedback 8

2.3.6 Timing of written corrective feedback 9

2.3.7 Amount of written corrective feedback 9

2.3.8 Focus of written corrective feedback 10

2.4 Teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback 10

2.5 Students’ Preferences on written corrective feedback 12

2.6 Previous studies and research gaps 14

2.6.1 Teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback 14

2.6.2 Students’ preferences of written corrective feedback 16

2.7 Conceptual framework 18

2.8 Chapter summary 18

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 19

3.1 Research context 19

3.2 Research participants 19

3.3 Research design 22

3.4 Research instruments 22

3.4.1 Questionnaires for teachers and students 23

3.4.2 Interviews for teachers and students 26

3.5 Data analytical framework 27

3.5.1 Research question 1 27

3.5.2 Research question 2 28

3.6 Methodological issues 29

3.6.1 Reliability 29

3.6.2 Validity 30

3.6.3 Ethnics 33

3.6.4 Triangulation 31

3.7 Chapter summary 32

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 32

4.1 Research Question 1: To what extent are the teachers’ beliefs incongruent with self-reported practices of WCF in writing classes? 35

4.1.1 Data analysis 35

4.1.2 Discussion of research question 1: To what extent are the teachers’ beliefs incongruent with self- reported practices of written corrective feedback in writing classes? 49

4.2 Research question 2: What is the relationship between the students’ stated preferences and the teachers’ self-reported practices of written corrective feedback inwriting classes? 52

4.2.1 Data analysis 52

4.2.2 Discussion of research question 2: What is the relationship between the students’ stated preferences and the teachers’ self-reported practices of written corrective feedback inwriting classes? 63

4.3 Chapter summary 66

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS 67

5.1 Conclusions of key findings 67

5.2 Implications 69

5.3 Limitations 70

5.4 Recommendations 71

5.5 Chapter summary 71

REFERENCES 73

Appendix A 79

Questionnaire with teachers (English version) 79

Appendix B 81

Questionnaire with teachers (Vietnamese version) 81

Appendix C 83

Questionnaire with students (English version) 83

Appendix D 84

Questionnaire with students (Vietnamese Version) 84

Appendix E 85

Interview Prompts with teachers (English version) 85

Appendix F 86

Interview Prompts with teachers (Vietnamese version) 86

Appendix G 87

Interview Protocol with students (English version)80 Appendix H 87

Interview Protocol with students (Vietnamese version) 88

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Profile of the student participants 20

Table 3.2 Profile of the teacher participants 21

Table 3.3 The link between research questions and research instruments 23

Table 3.4 Description of questionnaires for teachers and students 24

Table 4.1 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Value of written corrective feedback .33

Table 4.2 Interview results: teachers’ beliefs and practices 34

Table 4.3 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Timing of written corrective feedback .36

Table 4.4 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Sources of written corrective feedback 38

Table 4.5 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Strategies of written corrective feedback 40

Table 4.6 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Amount of written corrective feedback 43

Table 4.7 Relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices: Focus of written corrective feedback .45

Table 4.8 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Value of written corrective feedback 52

Table 4.9 Interview results: Students’ preferences 53

Table 4.10 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Timing of written corrective feedback 54

Table 4.11 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Sources of written corrective feedback 56

Table 4.12 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Strategies of written corrective feedback 57

Table 4.13 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Amount of written corrective feedback 59

Table 4.14 Relationship between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences: Focus of written corrective feedback 61

Page

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2.1 Conceptual framework 18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale to the Study

Vastly admitted by an increasing number of researchers in the field of second language writing, the root of providing corrective feedback in an educational environment is viewed as to consolidate and stimulate learning Moreover, it is no exception that written corrective feedback is central to the development of writing performance (Alnasser, 2013; Grami, 2010)

Besides, Borg (2003) posited that “teachers are active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs” (p 81) Therefore, teacher beliefs are cognitive tools which powerfully formulate teachers’ material development, instructional choices, and behavioral decisions Similarly, the exploration of teachers’ beliefs and practices has “a huge impact on the work of curriculum reformers, policymakers, other educational supervisors and leaders” (Msendekwa, 2015, p 82)

Additionally, Evans, Hartshorn and Tuioti (2010b) reckon that “understanding teacher perspectives on corrective feedback is integral to our understanding the place of WCF in second language writing pedagogy” (p 47) Indeed, teachers using WCF play such a critical role in developing learners’ writing performance as what teachers believe

or not exert an imperceptible influence on their classroom behaviors, so their beliefs have become a key issue in education (Le, 2011) Nevertheless, up to now the translation from teachers’ beliefs to their practices, often impacted by multiple factors, has been open to debate Indeed, the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices of WCF have been published (e.g Ferris, 2014; Hamouda, 2011; Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lee, 2009)

Additionally, the agreement between teachers’ instructions and students’ learning styles would boost students’ learning and their attitudes towards the target language (Hyland, 2003) Similarly, researchers contend that discrepancies between teachers’ teaching practices and students’ preferences of learning styles may hinder successful teaching and learning (e.g Diab, 2005; Peacock, 2001) Indeed, many EFL

writing researchers support these notions and claim that a mismatch between students’ preferences and teachers’ practices of WCF might inhibit the effectiveness of feedback

on developing students’ writing competence (e.g Amerhein & Nassaji, 2010; Lee, 2005; Zhu, 2010)

Hence, this study intends to examine whether there are any discrepancies between the teachers’ beliefs and their actual classroom practices as well as compare between students’ preferences and the teachers’ practices of WCF in teaching writing considering aspects:

• feedback value,

• strategies of providing feedback,

• sources of feedback,

• amount of corrected errors,

• types of corrected errors,

• time of feedback

This study will be helpful to provide pedagogical implications for bridging this gap to maximise the effectiveness of WCF on developing the students’ writing ability

1.2 Statements of the problems

Written corrective feedback has played an important role Likewise, feedback makes students realise the level of their performance and shows them how to improve

it In the same way, if teachers let students after feedback uptake manage their writing steps actively such as revision and edition, they are able to become more effective writers of English Similarly, one of the prominent reasons may lead to these students’ low writing performance is the absence of receiving corrective feedback from the teacher and other students (Alnasser, 2013; Grami, 2010) Not giving students feedback may also cause confusion, leaving them unaware of the aspects of their writing performance and causing their efforts to be misdirected (Alnasser, 2013)

However, in learning a foreign language, writing is believed to be the most difficult skill to be learnt (Grami, 2010) Indeed, writing requires the students’ much effort to collect ideas, language elements, and then to organise them into a coherent text

In other words, the students have to concentrate on different aspects, i.e vocabulary,

grammar, ideas and organization to ensure their good writing ability (Hyland & Hyland, 2006)

Besides, in some parts of the Vietnamese context, most pre-intermediate students (e.g secondary school students, high school students) are inclined to be passive and heavily dependent upon their teachers for learning, receiving knowledge in lieu of constructing it (Nguyen, 2019) Similarly, they have not been able to produce their writing effectively For example, they often incur lexical and grammatical errors, lack topical ideas, and do not know how to organize their written paper cohesively and coherently (Truong & Pham, 2017)

Moreover, in the context of English teaching and learning at the Asian International School, a number of English classes focus on the four macro-skills, including writing ability Additionally, whenever students make written mistakes or errors, feedback is necessary for them to improve their knowledge and learn further That is to say, students are always responsible for accomplishing demands and the teacher is often the one guiding and giving feedback Therefore, there exists a question whether during the process of teaching and learning writing at the Asian International School, between teacher’s beliefs and their practices as well as between students’ preferences and teacher’s practices on written corrective feedback in teaching writing, there is a mismatch

• The second specific aim of the study is to probe whether the Asian International School students’ stated preferences are satisfied with the teachers’ practices in the realm of WCF in EFL writing classes

1.4 Research questions

To achieve these objectives, the two research questions are posed as follows:

Research Question 1 (RQ-1): To what extent are the teachers’ beliefs incongruent

with self-reported practices of WCF in writing classes?

Research Question 2 (RQ-2): What is the relationship between the students’

stated preferences and the teachers’ self-reported practices of WCF in writing classes?

1.5 Significance of the study

This research study will be significant in different ways

In the context of Vietnamese secondary schools, WCF in writing classrooms is

an unexplored area Therefore, this study will fill a gap in the field of teachers’ practices

of WCF in teaching writing It also identifies the factors that impacted the discrepancy between teachers’ beliefs and practices of WCF in the context of the Asian international school

Moreover, the results of this study will support EFL teachers in their pedagogical choices in teaching writing; it helps to understand whether the teachers’ practices of WCF are congruent with students’ preferences to maximise the effectiveness of WCF

on developing students’ writing ability

1.6 Structure of the thesis

The thesis will consist of five main chapters within different functions

Chapter 1, Introduction, includes the rationale and the significance of the study

Chapter 2, Literature review, is a review of the basic issues related to the topic

of the study: approaches to teaching writing, WCF, teachers’ beliefs on WCF, students’ preferences on WCF, previous studies, research gaps, and conceptual framework

Chapter 3, Methodology, provides information about the research context,

research participants, research design, research instruments, procedures of data collection and analysis, along with certain methodological issues

Chapter 4, Results and discussion, deals with the quantitative data obtained

from the questionnaires as well as the qualitative data obtained from the interviews, relates them to previous studies and then covers the findings of the study

Chapter 5, Conclusion, contains a summary of the research undertaken, its

implications for WCF, limitations to this study and suggestions for future research

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The current chapter will present basic theories and principles pillaring the whole paper, including the concept of writing, teachers’ beliefs, students’ preferences, aspects

of WCF, previous studies, research gaps, and the conceptual framework as well

2.1 Approaches to teaching writing

2.1.1 Approaches to teaching writing: Product approach versus process approach

Writing is considered to be the language skill obtained last, but it is as important

as the other language skills, i.e listening, reading and speaking (Grami, 2010) Similarly, writing skills is important in academic settings where most EFL teaching occurs and are described by various experts In general, there are two approaches to teaching writing, i.e product-oriented and process-oriented

The product approach encourages students to produce a final product similar to

a model text which is provided by teachers Similarly, in a typical product approach, students are given an example of writing, which they are then required to follow and adapt to recreate their own text (Al-Hammadi & Sidek, 2015) Also, Hyland (2003) identifies four stages of this writing approach:

• Firstly, students study a text to understand its language

• Secondly, they do controlled exercises, manipulating fixed patterns from substitution tables

• Thirdly, students do guided exercises, imitating model texts by filling in gaps, completing texts or writing parallel texts

• Finally, students are given an opportunity to do freewriting, using the patterns they have developed to write a letter or essay

It is indicated that in this approach the role of a teacher is a provider of model language and guided exercises as well as a corrector of errors when the final error-free product is created Furthermore, grammar, vocabulary and mechanics are highly emphasised instead of content, process, audience and purpose of writing (Bae, 2011) Similarly, Harmer (2004) believes that writing encourages students to concentrate on

accurate language use That is to say, vocabulary, grammar and linkers is the main concern of writing activities

Besides, Matsuda (2003) emphasises the view of writing as a process of developing organisation and meaning; and formative feedback becomes an important part of writing instruction Similarly, Grami (2010) describes that writing is a complicated cognitive activity Indeed, “it demands careful thought, discipline, concentration, and it is not just a simple direct production of what the brain knows or can do at a particular moment” (Grami, 2010, p 9) Moreover, as for the role of teachers, Badger and White (2000) concede that the teacher facilitates the learners’ writing in lieu of providing input; in addition, the process approach stresses the creativity of the individual writer and the development of good writing practices rather than the copying

of models (Tribble, 1996) That is to say, the process approach is learner-centred and students are given considerable freedom within the writing task

2.1.2 Social constructivism learning theory

Vygotsky (1978), who initiated social constructivism learning theory, supports that knowledge is best constructed when there is collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation In the field of second language writing, Hyland (2003) also stresses that writing is a social activity which “[expresses] a culturally recognised purpose, [reflects] particular kind of relationship and [acknowledges] an engagement in a given community” (p 27) Additionally, a number of researchers suggest that students should work collaboratively during the writing process in order to develop their writing skills (Grami, 2010; Truong & Pham, 2017) Indeed, during this process, learners share responsibility for making decisions on different aspects and the quality of the produced text In the same way, in the writing classes, students are

“encouraged to participate in the activities of meaning exchange and negotiation with more capable people such as peers and teachers” (Luu, 2011, p 123) He also posits that learning in this way “can remove the feeling of isolation which bothers many learners when writing and help them have positive reinforcements about the knowledge

of linguistics, content and ideas in the composing of texts” (p 123) In other words, the

practice of feedback in writing classes is of great importance to improve learners’ writing performance and engagement

2.2 Feedback in teaching writing

Learning is pillared by a set of processes, one of which is feedback uptake (Askew & Lodge, 2000) Feedback is described as “the information given to indicate the level of competence that has been achieved in the performance of a task” (Marriott

& Galbraith, 2005, p 63), which “helps learners notice their errors and create form- meaning connections, thus aiding acquisition” (Ellis, 2009, p 6) as well as enables them

to make improvements (Ashford & Tsui, 1991; Askew & Lodge, 2000) in the future use (Harmer, 2001) Indeed, learning in a collaborative context embracing the provision

of corrective feedback on learners’ performance is favored by most the language learners

2.3 Written corrective feedback

2.3.1 Definition of corrective feedback

In the field of second language acquisition, “the term corrective feedback [refers]

to any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, that contains evidence of learner error of language form” (Russell & Spada, 2006, p 134)

2.3.2 Definition of written corrective feedback

Besides oral corrective feedback, written correction feedback (WCF) has been regarded as a vital part of the writing curriculum and a typical way of enhancing students’ writing accuracy (Truscott, 1999) In this study, WCF is also defined as information provided by teachers to help students notice the errors or breakdowns of their performance (Nicol & Macfarlane, 2006)

2.3.3 Value of written corrective feedback

There have been controversial views on the effectiveness of WCF in improving students’ foreign language writing ability Some researchers claim that WCF should not

be utilised in foreign language writing education (e.g Kepner, 1991; Truscott, 2007)

In fact, others argue that WCF is effective in foreign language writing practice (e.g Bitchener, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Sheen, 2007) Specifically, giving WCF to students’

errors is of great importance in improving their writing performance (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Besides, according to Al-Bakri (2016), WCF helps increase the students’ positive attitudes to learn writing

2.3.4 Strategies of written corrective feedback

The matters of the teachers’ beliefs, practices and the students’ preferences regarding strategies of WCF in various contexts were open to debate When describing the way WCF may be provided, the literature has divided the discussion into two main strategies of delivery: direct and indirect (Jamoom, 2016)

Bitchener and Ferris (2012) define direct WCF as an “[explicit] correction that not only calls attention to the error but also provides a specific solution to the problem” (p 148) Also, Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggest direct WCF is better than indirect WCF with student writers of low levels of proficiency including junior secondary school students in the current study Specifically, direct WCF has the advantage that it provides learners with explicit guidance about how to correct their errors

Besides, indirect feedback is defined as “indicating an error through circling, underlining, highlighting or marking it at its location in a text and asking students to mark corrections themselves” (Ferris, 2002, p 63) Furthermore, Ellis (2008) claims that to student writers of higher levels of proficiency, indirect feedback might be more effective as the students would engage in deeper processing

Based on Şakrak-Ekin and Balçıkanlı (2019) the researcher tried to clarify the teachers’ beliefs, practices and the students’ preferences on the WCF strategies at the Asian International School including:

• underlining/circling errors within or without correction,

• using error codes within or without correction,

• putting a mark in the margin

2.3.5 Sources of written corrective feedback

In this study, the researcher examined the sources of WCF: teacher (teacher-feedback), classmates (peer-feedback) and students (self-correction) There are variations in the teachers’ beliefs, practices and the students’ preferences regarding

sources of WCF which may be different and inconclusive in various contexts Widely acknowledging that teacher feedback is the most common and useful way of responding

to the students’ writing performance (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) In fact, many researchers advocate the alternative use of peer feedback or self-correction Liu and Hansen (2002) defined peer feedback as using students “as sources of information and interactions for each other” (p 1) in a way that students adopt the role of a teacher while they comment on each other’s writing Besides, self-feedback draws the students’ conscious attention to their individual errors which pushes them not only to notice their errors but to correct them (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005)

2.3.6 Timing of written corrective feedback

The timing of providing WCF is a debatable issue among researchers (Jamoom, 2016) WCF will be more beneficial if students receive it after a short time of submitting their writing (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Mack, 2009) Hattie and Timperley (2007), similarly, warn that giving students their texts with WCF after one week is late In the same way, Ferris (2002) notes that “many theorists believe that premature attention to error may short-circuit students’ ability to think, compose, and revise their content” (p 61) In contrast, some researchers argue that providing WCF on the students’ final draft

is ineffective as students concern only about their grades, so WCF better occurs in the middle of the writing process (e.g Leki, 1991; Ferris, 1995b) In this study, the researcher attempts to investigate the teachers’ beliefs, practices along with the students’ preferences on the timing of WCF provision: outlining, first drafting, revising

or final drafting

2.3.7 Amount of written corrective feedback

One important decision a writing teacher must make is whether to mark a few specific error categories (i.e selective WCF) or to mark all errors (i.e comprehensive WCF) (Ferris, 2002; Ellis, 2008) There is an argument in favor of selective WCF and

a counterargument in favor of comprehensive WCF Advocates of selective WCF (e.g Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Lee, 2013) believe that improving the students’ self-editing strategies is more important than the form of the accurate final product, so they warn against marking all errors

In this study, the researcher probed the teachers’ beliefs, practices and the students’ preferences of the mount of WCF provision in writing classes:

• mark the major errors;

• mark most of the major errors;

• mark a few major ones;

• mark all errors

2.3.8 Focus of written corrective feedback

Another important question a writing teacher faces is the type(s) of errors to be focused on: local errors which relate to language form or global ones which relate to the content and organisation In most studies (e.g Bitchener & Knoch, 2009a; Bitchener

& Ferris, 2012; Lee, 2013; Sheen, 2007), errors can concerns content “the information you provide in your essay”, organisation “the way in which these ideas are organized” and language form “the correct use of mechanics, grammar, spelling” (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti., 1997, p 23) In the same vein, for the focus of WCF, Bitchener and Knoch (2010) provide detailed definitions of these terms, which were adopted throughout the present study

• Firstly, content refers to the ideas in writing, including the clarity of ideas (i.e all sentences are about one main topic) and development of ideas

• Secondly, organisation refers to the well-organised structure of writing, including topic sentence, supporting sentences and concluding sentence

• Thirdly, language form is the correct use of grammar, vocabulary and mechanics in writing

The researcher decided to conduct the study at the Asian International School exploring the teachers’ beliefs and self-reported practices along with the students’ preferenceson the focus of WCF in writing: content (e.g unity of ideas), organisation (e.g paragraph structure), vocabulary (e.g word choice, word meaning, word spelling), grammar (word order, tense) and mechanics (e.g capitalisation, punctuation)

2.4 Teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback

“Teachers’ beliefs are a complicated phenomenon involving various aspects” (Khanalizadeh & Allami, 2012, p 38) Likewise, around the past forty years, teachers’ beliefs as well as the relationship between their beliefs and classroom practices have been a triggering theme for researchers and theorists (Li, 2012; Shinde & Karekatti, 2012; Zheng, 2009) Teachers’ beliefs are personal reflections or propositions that involve all subjects that they do not possess adequate knowledge, but they hold sufficient confidence to manipulate these subjects (Khader, 2012) Similarly, White (1999) opines that teachers’ beliefs are systems of their attitudes, expectations and assumptions about teaching and learning, which are viewed as a strong foundation of teachers’ classroom practices In fact, in definition, Yang, Chao and Huang (2014) state that “teacher beliefs are referred to as a teachers’ knowledge system with respect to language teaching and learning and a network that teacher would tap into when it comes

to decision making instruction” (p 102) Teachers’ beliefs are also situation-specific, action-oriented perspectives and interpretation of what people say and intend to do relied on personal judgments (Pajares, 1992)

Additionally, in foreign or second language education, teachers’ beliefs share the same power as learners’ beliefs (Shinde & Karekatti, 2012) For instance, White (1999) explains that teachers’ beliefs help to define and adjust themselves to specific teaching situations; they also instrumentally assist the teachers’ choice of tasks, content and behaviors Besides, teachers’ beliefs play a critical role to help teachers develop their thought and principles (Gilakjani & Sabouri, 2017) Berry (2006), likewise, asserts a correlation between teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices in which teachers make decisions regarding classroom practice inferring from their beliefs In other words, teachers’ beliefs are cognitive tools which directly affect a teacher’s practical behaviors, instructional choices and material development as well

Moreover, discrepancies between their beliefs and classroom practices have been widely debated Khader (2012) advocates that “teachers have a set of complex belief systems that are sometimes not reflected in their classroom practices for various complicated reasons” (p 89) Indeed, the teachers often cost a lot of effort and time to remediate the disjunction between their pedagogical beliefs and the realities of classroom practices In the same way, Borg (2006) delineates four categories offactors

leading to such divergences, that is, schooling (e.g subject goals), professional coursework (e.g curricular, materials), contextual factors (e.g teachers’ time availability, students’ interest, exam demands) and classroom (e.g classroom size, duration) It is noteworthy for the researcher to look at the framework of Borg (2006)

in an endeavor to investigate which current factors can lead to divergence between the teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices

Also, about teachers’ beliefs and practices on WCF, the findings regarding strategies of WCF were not consistent Some studies (e.g., Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Jodaie & Farrokhi, 2012; Lee, 2009) documented the teachers’ strong beliefs in the explicit WCF, and other studies (e.g., Hamouda, 2011; Lee, 2013) found that teachers favorably believed in the indirect WCF, in fact, other studies (e.g., Ferris, Pezone, Tade,

& Tinti, 1997; Lee, 2004) revealed that the teachers implemented a combination of indirect and direct WCF Furthermore, even though Jodaie and Farrokhi (2012) admitted the importance of peer feedback, they inclined to the superiority of teachers’ WCF Indeed, Norouzian and Farahani (2012) reported that the teachers tend to avoid using other methods like peer feedback or self-correction and rely on themselves asthe source of WCF Moreover, correction and comments should be given during the different writing processes such as revision, edition and final draft for students to improve their writing performance (e.g., Tribble, 1996; Mack, 2009) In addition, teachers chose to mark all errors because they keep in mind the purpose of feedback: to communicate the correct form of the errors committed by students in their writing (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010) Also, some studies (e.g Lee, 2013; Zacharias, 2007) reported teachers’ beliefs according to which there is more to good writing than language form; besides, other studies (e.g Jodaie & Farrokhi, 2012) indicated that teachers placed more emphasis on language form and believed that there should be as few language errors as possible It can be expected that the difference of contexts and subjects will be reflected in different beliefs and practices as well

2.5 Students’ preferences on written corrective feedback

Perloff (2003) illustrates that learners’ preferences can predict that whether an individual likes or dislikes the evaluative object Besides, learners’ preferences consist

of affective reactions conveyed through verbal and non-verbal processes (Baker, 1992) Bohner and Wanke (2002), likewise, posits that preferences act as a predictor that determines an individual’s behaviors and the formation of behavioral routines In the same way, under a cognitive perspective, when preferences are stimulated, the behavioral responses of an individual will be affected (McKenzie, 2010) It is indicated that preferences and learners’ foreign language acquisition exist a reciprocal bond

Also, Kara (2009) and Saracaloglu & Varol (2007) assert that students’ preferences are highly influential over language learners More specifically, learning goals can be achieved through positive preferences and efforts (Burden, 2004) Similarly, preferences directly influence learners’ level of proficiency towards the target language (Dörnyei & Skehan, 2003) Inferentially, during the language learning process, high achievers tend to hold more positive preferences than lower achievers Besides, under a psychological stance, preferences can exert a huge influence on the psychological needs of individuals (McKenzie, 2010) Indeed, a positive preference can yield both enthusiasm and persistence for an individual’s foreign language learning (Oppenheim, 1999) That is to say, this individual will become keen on receiving the instruction (e.g WCF) and resistant to it It is obvious that understanding the students’ preferences on an instructional method is instrumental to the pedagogical decisions

Besides, students have different preferences for teaching instructions (Katayama, 2007) Some studies on students’ preferences on WCF (e.g., Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Diab, 2005; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) showed that the students disliked indirect feedback, especially the encoding type, as it obliged them to find, diagnose and solve problems Indeed, they preferred the direct correction which gives them the right answers Moreover, Nelson and Murphy (1993) found that students assessed their teachers as the only source of knowledge and they had no confidence in their classmates whom they considered unable to provide good quality feedback; in fact, students whoincorporated

a high percentage of peer correction believed in the usefulness of peer feedback Furthermore, Frakenberg-Garcia (1999) believes that students need WCF immediately

at the time they are trying to transform their ideas into written sentences because they face many problems regarding language and content as they write Additionally, an important counterargument in favor of the comprehensive WCF was recently done by

Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum and Wolfersberger (2010), stating that in the real world, accuracy should be valued and perfection must be expected Students thus need to learn

to edit their entire texts, not only for anywhere two or three selected error patterns, and comprehensive error feedback can help to focus the writers’ attention on the range of problems that their texts may incur Also, most students favored receiving more comments on language form (e.g Bitchener & Ferris, 2012; Ferris, 2002; Norton, 1990)

However, teachers often fail to interpret their students’ preferences regarding three situations (Long, 1997) First of all, many students keep negative attitudes on their learning process which may result in unsatisfactory outcomes in the future Second, teachers do not know the existing issues confronted by the students due to the fact that they do not obtain enough students’ feedback At last, teachers may not exactly respond

to the students’ needs In this study, the researcher decides to examine if the teachers’ practices address students’ preferences on WCF in EFL writing classes

In conclusion, regarding teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences on WCF, the goal of the provision of WCF is the improvement of students’ writing performanceand learning motivation However, facing controversial views, educational practitioners feel hesitant about the utilisation of WCF Therefore, researchers want to find the teachers’ beliefs and practices and students’ preferences on WCF in writing classes

2.6 Previous studies and research gaps

Until recently, most studies related to WCF in second language writing focused

on two types of inquiries The first tackles teachers’ beliefs and practices on WCF, and the second consists of research assessing students’ preferences on WCF These two types of studies are reviewed in the following two sections (2.6.1 and 2.6.2)

2.6.1 Teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback

Studies on teachers’ practices on written corrective feedback

Ferris et al (1997) explored both the linguistic forms and pragmatic aims of

teachers’ WCF and tackled their practices They analysed one teacher’s feedback on

111 essays by 47 ESL advanced learners at an American university The results showed that the teacher responded somewhat differently to students of varying ability levels:

mechanical, negative comments to poor students

Studies on teachers’ beliefs on written corrective feedback

In 2012, Jodaie and Farrokhi conducted their study to find out how teachers should correct errors, the types of errors that should be corrected and the amount of feedback In this study, 30 EFL teachers on intermediate- level classes in Iran were surveyed to find out their beliefs on WCF The findings of the study indicated that all

of the teachers believed that there should be as few errors as possible As for the strategies of providing WCF, three-quarters of the teachers preferred the direct WCF;

in fact, the other teachers believed in combining both direct and indirect WCF Moreover, Lee (2003) conducted the study to explore teachers’ beliefs on WCF She administered a questionnaire to 206 secondary English instructors in Hong Kong followed by interviews with 19 of them to understand their views about WCF Based

on the findings, the teachers’ purpose of WCF was to help students recognise their errors and fix them Moreover, the majority of teachers preferred the comprehensive WCF and the indirect WCF by providing error codes In addition, after commenting

on students’ texts, most of the teachers tended to discuss students’ common errors in class

Studies on teachers’ beliefs and practices on written corrective feedback

Junqueira and Payant (2015) conducted their study to explore a native pre- service ESL writing teacher’s beliefs and practice of feedback They collected data: a reflective journal, two semi-structured interviews and the teacher’s written comments Considering the results, there were disagreements between the teacher’s beliefs and practice Firstly, she thought that WCF should focus on content and organisation of writing However, her actual practice of feedback focused more on language Secondly, she believed in providing an explanation to her students’ errors; but in practice, she used indirect feedback without providing an explanation to the errors In addition, Lee (2009) carried out another study to explore teachers’ actual practices on WCF She analysed 26 teachers’ WCF practices on 174 texts followed by interviews with seven of them From the results of the study, the teachers gave disproportionate attention to WCF They responded to final papers primarily, and they utilised direct WCF rather than an indirect one

Clearly, the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practices on WCF was inconsistent and open to debate In specific, there may be a divergence between what the teachers thought and what they actually did regarding WCF (e.g., Lee, 2009; Junqueira & Payant, 2015) In addition, studying teachers’ beliefs in isolation like Jodaie and Farrokhi (2012) may give an incomplete picture of the real situation (Borg,

2006) Besides, such an analysis of one teacher’s practices in Ferris et al (1997) is

difficult for the results to be generalised to teachers in the context Therefore, the researcher decided to examine 12 teachers’ beliefs and self-reported practices on WCF

in teaching writing at the Asian International School Indeed, the first research question was devised to testify this interplay (see section 1.4)

Also, possible factors leading to the disparity between the teachers’ beliefs and practices on WCF are accordingly found These factors are proposed by Borg (2006), inclusive of schooling (certain knowledge, subject goals), coursework (teachers’ experience, curricular, materials), contextual factors (teachers’ time, students’ motivation, examination demands) and classroom (classroom size, duration, teacher- student ratio)

2.6.2 Students’ preferences of written corrective feedback

Similar to teachers’ beliefs and practices research, studies on students’ preferences can be classified into two groups The first group constitutes the majority

of the studies (e.g Diab, 2005; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Zhu, 2010) sought students’ preferences in isolation The second group of research (e.g Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010; Lee, 2004) investigated the relationship between the students’ preferences and their teachers’ practices related to WCF

In the study of Ferris and Roberts (2001), 63 university ESL students were surveyed The results indicated that the students’ preference to receive WCF on local issues, and students considered errors in language form negatively affected their writing Also, the students favored the indirect WCF with error codes Similalry, Diab (2005) surveyed 156 EFL students’ preferences at the American University of Beirut

Based on the results, most students wanted to have as few errors as possible in their text As for the focus of WCF, students believed that teachers’ WCF should cover language form, organisation and content Moreover, most students believed in the direct WCF, believing that teachers should locate the errors and give clue to correct Besides, using a questionnaire, Zhu examined 58 EFL students’ preferences toward error correction at Polytechnic University (China) in 2010 The study findings showed that 70% of the students appreciate their teacher correcting all the errors, and 30% of the students want their teacher to correct serious errors Also, those who like selective error correction said that they might lose confidence if they find their papers full of corrections

In addition, Lee (2004) conducted her study to compare students’ preferences and teachers’ practices on WCF She surveyed 320 secondary school students in Hong Kong and had follow- up interviews with 27 of them Moreover, she asked 58 teachers

to correct one written text developed by her The results demonstrated that students’ preferences aligned with their teachers’ WCF practices; most (83%) of the students preferred the comprehensive direct WCF Also, most of them faced difficulty in understanding the error codes Furthermore, in the study of Amrhein and Nassaji (2010), qualitative and quantitative data was collected from 31 ESL teachers and 33 students The results showed that students preferred all errors to be corrected Teachers marked errors selectively because they believed that correcting many errors might be discouraging for students Besides, the students favored direct feedback; they believed that correcting errors is the teachers’ responsibility However, the teachers preferred to use indirect feedback in order to engage students in error correction and develop their autonomy

Some of the previous studies reported the students’ preferences on a few aspects

of WCF Furthermore, most of the studies mentioned above were carried out at university levels when in fact depending on different contexts, the students’ preferences regarding WCF were various Alternatively saying, the students’ preferences, attitudes

on WCF in EFL writing classes are open to debate Besides, although alignment between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences may affect positively students’ achievement and motivation (Reid, 1987), the question of whether the teachers’

Written corrective feedback in teaching writing

practices address the students’ preferences regarding WCF provision is inconclusive

As listed above, there may exist either congruence (e.g., Lee, 2004) or discrepancy (e.g., Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010) between the teachers’ practices and students’ preferences in terms of WCF Henceforth, the researcher constructed the second research question to compare teachers’ practices and preferences of 141 junior high school students on certain aspects of WCF which are value, strategies, sources, timing, amount and focus

to get a full picture of what the students’ desire The findings of this study helped to provide some implications for developing teachers’ ways of WCF provision in the Asian International School and similar contexts

methodological information

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Methodology relates to the question of how a researcher can seek the answer to the given phenomenon (Le, 2011) Thus, as the name suggests, this chapter provides sufficient methodological information of the study such as research context and participants, research design, research instruments, data collection and analytical framework

3.1 Research context

The study attempts to seek the picture of the teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices as well as the students’ preferences about WCF in EFL writing classes at the Asian International School which consists of 7 campuses in total which are located in Districts 1, 2, 3, 10, Tan Binh and Binh Thanh Districts The researcher decided to conduct this study at Van Thanh campus at 151 Vo Oanh Street, Binh Thanh District,

Ho Chi Minh City

Students in this school contact with two compulsory programs, i.e Vietnamese and International programs The Vietnamese program from grade 1 to grade 12 is based on the national curriculum from the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training Students are taught Vietnamese in the morning and then they have the whole afternoon to study English which is divided into ten subjects Students also participate

in extra- curricular activities such as spring festivals, ethnic festivals and English singing performances

As mentioned before, the Asian International School is a bilingual school In fact, the curriculum of this school is different from that of other schools Indeed, the international program is constructed following American Education Reaches Out (AERO) Furthermore, the foreign teachers are responsible for teaching mathematics, science, drama, history, geography and speaking Also, reading, writing, listening, grammar, are taught by Vietnamese teachers Additionally, each class consists of about 20 students

3.2 Research participants

The researcher used a convenience sampling technique to call for a response community This type of sampling is the most common in second language research,

where “members of the target population are selected for the purpose of the study if they meet certain practical criteria, such as geographical proximity, availability at a certain time, easy accessibility, or the willingness to volunteer” (Dörnyei, 2007, pp 98- 99) Regarding easy accessibility, the researcher was an English full-time teacher at the research site (the Asian International School) Therefore, she could select the participants of the study to garner data with ease Besides, in terms of the willingness

to participate, the one-week duration of completing copies of the questionnaire made participants willing to answer without any time pressure Based upon the objectives of this study, data were gathered from 141 students (71 Grade 8 students and 70 Grade 9 students) who were at pre-intermediate level of language proficiency (N student = 141) and 12 English teachers (N teacher = 12) who were in charge of EFL writingclasses

Their demographic information was collected through the first section of the questionnaire In particular, the demographic profile of the students involved age, gender, English learning styles, general knowledge of WCF (see Table 3.1) and that of the teachers consisted of age, gender, educational qualifications, English teaching styles

as well as general knowledge of WCF (see Table 3.2)

Table 3.1

Profile of the student participants

Pre-Intermediate Level Grade 8

(n=71)

Grade 9 (n=70)

As Table 3.1 illustrates, 95.8% of the Grade 8 students were 13 years old, 4.2%

of this group were 14 years old The age of 14 years old of the Grade 9 students was found 92.9% As for the whole student sample, nearly half of them (48.2%) were 13 years old, and so (48.2%) were 14 years old The remaining 3.6% were in the age of 15 years old Moreover, the student sample was constituted by two-thirds of the female students (66.7%), and one-third of the male students (33.3%) The Grade 8 students consisted of 70.4% females and 29.6% males Similarly, Grade 9 included 62.9% females and 37.1% males

Additionally, up to three-quarters of this sample showed their preference for the writing lessons under the process approach (74.5%) For the Grade 8 students, two- thirds favored working with various sources during writing lessons (64.8%); one-third

of the members preferred imitating a sample text (35.2%) For the Grade 9 students, the minority of the members preferred imitating a sample text (15.7%) and the majority

of this response community favored working with different materials during writing lessons (84.3%)

Moreover, 75.9% knew a little bit, and 24.1% knew much about WCF in writing

In the Grade 8 students, nearly three-quarters of the group community agreed that they knew a little bit about WCF in writing (73.2%), and the rest stated that he/she knew much (26.8%) In the Grade 9 students, the tendency was found similar to the former

In specific, more than three-quarters had little knowledge of WCF in writing (78.6%), and 21.4% confidently assessed that they knew much about the interactive technique

Preferred teaching style

As can be seen from Table 3.2, two-thirds of the teacher participants were in the age range from 22 to 30 years old (66.7%); one teacher was in the age from 41 to 50 years old (8.3%) Furthermore, the proportion of female teachers outnumbered that of male teachers, 66.7% and 33.3% Also, regarding educational background, all teacher respondents held their Bachelor’s degree; one- quarter of them earned a Master’s degree (25.0%)

Similar to the students’ preferences on learning English writing in general, 75.0% of the teacher participants focused on the process of writing Besides, when asking the teachers to evaluate their general knowledge of WCF in English writing, their

stated extent to this knowledge varied For example, “I know a little bit about it” accounted for 58.3%, and “I know much about it” reached 41.7%

3.3 Research design

This study was to investigate the mismatch between the EFL teachers’ stated beliefs and self-reported practices as well as the mismatch between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences regarding WCF in writing at the Asian International School

To make the study successful, researchers need to know which methodological approach should be used (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004) Considering the means, the researcher applied a mixed-methods research design, in which quantitative and qualitative methods are used on the same issue (Mackey & Gass, 2005) The researcher conducted a survey, through which she could obtain data from a large group of participants about their attitudes, opinions, behaviors (Creswell, 2012) Overall, the questionnaires were sent to 141 student participants and 12 teacher participants to collect quantitative data, then the semi-structured interviews were conducted on 12 student participants and 6 English teacher participants at the Asian International School to garner qualitative data for the posed research questions

3.4 Research instruments

When deciding to choose and develop any data collection tool, researchers need

to take deep considerations (Creswell, 2012; Mackey & Gass, 2005) regarding its necessity and functionality (Mertens, 1998) Mertens’ benchmarks (1998) consisted of defining the functions of the instruments, assessing the number and traits of intended respondents, as well as reviewing existing measures Based on these guidelines, the researcher opted for this study two instruments, that is, questionnaires and interviews This section, therefore, is appended to clarify the rationale and present descriptions of these two instruments

Table 3.3

The link between research questions and research instruments

1

To what extent are the teachers’ beliefs incongruent with self-reported practices of written corrective feedback in writing classes?

Questionnaire (Main) Interview (Subordinate)

2

What is the relationship between the students’

stated preferences and the teachers’ self-reported practices of written corrective feedback in writing classes?

Questionnaire (Main) Interview (Subordinate)

3.4.1 Questionnaires for teachers and students

In definition, a questionnaire is a written instrument by which the respondents may choose the most relevant option from among existing answers (Mackey & Gass, 2005) The researcher decided to employ this quantitative tool to collect data for the present study because of three advantageous reasons:

• For the first reason, questionnaires are easy to manage with large numbers

The items of the questionnaires were grounded by the relevant literature body presented in Chapter 2 Structurally, the questionnaire for teachers consisted of three parts, and the questionnaire for students comprised two parts (see Appendices A-D, respectively)

To the teacher questionnaire, the first part was designed to gather the teacher participants’ background information: age, gender, educational qualifications, English teaching styles and general knowledge of WCF These collected profiles have just been presented in Table 3.2 above The second part with 24 items numbered from 1-24 dealt with the teachers’ beliefs on WCF in writing classes under factors, i.e., value (3 items), timing (4 items), sources (3 items), strategies (5 items), amount (4 items) and focus (5 items) of WCF All these items of the second part were designed on a five-point Likert

scale: 1=totally disagree; 2=disagree; 3=uncertain; 4=agree; 5=totally agree

According to Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2011), the Likert scale allowed the researcher to quantitatively measure opinions, beliefs and perceptions The last part involving 22 items numbered from 25-46 was related to the teachers’ self-reported practices of WCF regarding frequency rate (1 item), timing (4 items), sources (3 items), strategies (5 items), amount (4 items) and focus (5 items) of WCF These items were

rated on a five-point Likert scale: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=sometimes, 4=usually, and

5=always

To the student questionnaire, the first section was designed to gather the student participants’ background information: age, gender, English learning styles and general knowledge of WCF Their profiles have just been demonstrated in Table 3.1 The second section with 24 items numbered from 1-24 focused on the students’ preferences

on WCF in writing classes under factors, i.e., value (3 items), timing (4 items), sources (3 items), strategies (5 items), amount (4 items) and focus (5 items) of WCF All these

items of this main section are rated on a five-point Likert scale: 1=totally disagree;

2=disagree; 3=uncertain; 4=agree; 5=totally agree

Table 3.4

Description of questionnaires for teachers and students

Part Questionnaire for Teachers Questionnaire for Students

(see Appendices A.1-2) (see Appendices B.1-2)

1

This part aimed to gather teachers’

background of age, gender, educational qualifications, English teaching styles, general knowledge of WCF

This part aimed to gather students’

background of age, gender, English learning styles, general knowledge of WCF

For the teacher participants, the researcher contactedthe researcher’s colleagues

to arrange the time and place for distributing questionnaires 12 teachers were sent with the consent form and questionnaire copies in the teacher room on the chosen dates from the 03rd to 09th May 2021 The researcher helped the respondents understand the intended research topic, key ethnics (e.g., anonymity and confidentiality), the content

of the questionnaire and the way to fill it out They were allowed to complete questionnaires at home and required to return them within one week One week later, the researcher collected the consent forms and the questionnaire copies As a preliminary result, all of the teacher questionnaires were completed adequately After that, the researcher carried out analyzing the data

Similarly, the researcher asked for permission from the teachers in chargeof the chosen writing classes (four Grade 8 classes and four Grade 9 classes) The teachers were asked to deliver the consent form and the questionnaire copies to their students on

the chosen dates from the 03rd to 09th May 2021 And the teachers let their students finish these copies at home within one week The teachers were trained and emphasized about the introduction of the intended research topic, key ethnics (e.g., anonymity and confidentiality), the content of the questionnaire and the way to fill it out One week later, the researcher collected the consent forms and the student questionnaire copies from the teacher distributors After the researcher had preliminarily checked the student questionnaires, the researcher realized 141 questionnaire copies were valid and acceptable with all completed answers and their signatures

3.4.2 Interviews with teachers and students

In definition, an interview is referred to as a conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee to delineate a certain topic as clear as possible (Rubin

& Rubin, 2005), and to seek answers to the question “why”, which questionnaires cannot provide (Opie, 2004) That is to say, the interviews were used as a subordinate tool, which can make it possible to investigate the target phenomenon in greater depth and breadth (O’Hanlon, 2003)

Functionally, the interviews were utilized because of two missions, that is:

• clarifying the similarities,

• explaining the differences between the teachers’ beliefs and their practices, and between the teachers’ practices and the students’ preferences emerged from the questionnaire data

Below is a description of this qualitative tool:

The researcher utilised 12 questions for the teacher interview, and 6 questions for the student interview, which were designed by a semi-structured prototype Apropos

of content, the interviews focused on the teachers’ beliefs and practices as well as the students’ preferences on WCF from angles, i.e., value, timing, sources, strategies, amount and focus (see Appendices E-H, respectively)

The interviewing procedures for the teachers and the students consisted of consecutive steps:

Firstly, the researcher made a thorough preparation for the time and place of 18 interview sessions, including 6 teacher verbal protocols and 12 student verbal protocols All these one-to-one interview sessions took place in room B from the 24th to 30th May

2021 Each teacher interview lasted about 15 minutes, and each student interview took around 8 minutes

Secondly, during the interview sessions, in order to record the responses to the interviewees, the researcher used audiotape and notes Moreover, the interviewees’ provision of information needed facilitating; for this reason, the main means of communication was the Vietnamese language Besides, the researcher kept neutral attitudes

Lastly, in order to avoid researcher biases and protect the interviewed participants’ identities, the researcher labeled the teachers as from T1 to T6 and coded the students as from S1 to S12

3.5 Data analytical framework

In this section, the techniques and procedures of analyzing the data obtained are clearly described These techniques and procedures are presented based on the research questions

Mean values were interpreted based on the five intervals as described by Pallant (2007), including:

• “Very low agreement/ frequency” (1.00-1.80),

• “Low agreement/ frequency” (1.81-2.60),

• “Medium agreement/ frequency” (2.61-3.40),

• “High agreement/ frequency” (3.41-4.20),

• “Very high agreement/ frequency” (4.21-5.00)

From the teacher questionnaires, the inferential statistics (e.g., sig values), run through the Independent Samples T-test, the most commonly used to test the relationship between two categorical variables (Creswell, 2012), were used to testify the alignment between the teachers’ beliefs and their self-reported practices on WCF

If the sig value was greater than 0.05, there was not a significant difference between the two groups’ variances (Pallant, 2007) In other words, the teachers’ beliefs and practices were congruent

The explanations for the differences between the two compared sets were elicited from the 12 teacher interview protocols (see Appendix E and Appendix F) In relation

to the teacher interviews analysis, the procedure consisted of three mainsteps:

• The researcher began by listening one time in order to capture the whole message; the other times were to grasp the details This procedure continued with “the process of converting audiotape recordings or field notes into text data” (Creswell, 2012, p 329), meaning that the researcher transcribed the teacher interviews from oral forms to written forms

• Afterwards, the researcher translated the Vietnamese transcripts into English

• Then, the researcher read the English text data and marked segments of the texts into the pre-determined themes for analysis; for example, the teachers’ beliefs, the classroom practices, impacting factors on the mismatch

Mean values were interpreted according to the five intervals as depicted by Pallant (2007), including:

• “Very low agreement” (1.00-1.80),

• “Low agreement” (1.81-2.60),

• “Medium agreement” (2.61-3.40),

• “High agreement” (3.41-4.20),

• “Very high agreement” (4.21-5.00)

The relationship between the teachers’ practices and the students’ preferences of WCF was testified through the inferential statistics (e.g., sig values) of the Independent Samples T-test If the sig value was less than 0.05, there was a significant difference between the two groups’ variances (Pallant, 2007) That is to say, between the teachers’ practices and the students’ preferences for WCF existed a considerable divergence

The explanations for the differences between the two compared sets were elicited from the six student interview protocols (see Appendix G and Appendix H)

The similar analysis procedure of the student interviews was presented in term of these steps based on Creswell (2012):

• The first step was for transcription from oral forms to written forms

• The second step was for translation from Vietnamese to English version

• The last step was for data organisation

3.6 Methodological issues

In any research, researchers have to conduct measures to increase the qualities

of the findings (Bryman, 2012), among which are reliability, validity, ethics and triangulation (Creswell, 2012) In this section, the researcher makes how these concepts were applied to the study transparent

3.6.1 Reliability

Reliability is linked to the consistency of the measures used in a study, especially for quantitative measures (Bryman, 2012) In that case, to make the teachers’ and students’ responses to the questionnaire reliably, the researcher introduced clearly the research purposes, stressed the participants’ valuable contribution and the way to