MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING o0o HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – (HUFLIT) RESEARCH METHODOLOGY COURSE HOW TO REDUCE GRAMMATICAL ERRORS IN WRITING OF[.]
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………….……… 7-9
Background
Language is a means of communication with the function of transmitting the message from a person to a person, which emphasizes the importance of speaking and writing skills Indeed, the language we use would become useless if what we speak or write cannot convey what we mean to say Therefore, we learn a language not only to know about and understand it but also to use it properly in communication, normally referred as knowledge and performance (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) Among the four skills of using a foreign language in general as well as English in particular, writing is getting more and more essential today, but it is also believed the most difficult skill to master (Richards & Renandya, 2002). Actually, being able to convey messages effectively in writing is not easy. Otherwise, it requires the language learner to be equipped with good knowledge of the various aspects of the language, and an important one of them is grammar. However, a gap between the learners’ knowledge and their performance, especially in writing skill, is quite a popular phenomenon in classes of English as a foreign language (EFL), in which the learners can perform fairly well in conventional grammatical exercises, but then fail to employ such knowledge of the language successfully in the writing tasks There are a considerable number of grammatical errors found in the learners’ writings, which may affect the readers’ comprehension of the indented message.
As a matter of fact, grammatical errors are also unavoidable in the papers of first-year students in Huflit When having a look at my friends’ first paragraph as an assignment of the writing course, I found quite a lot of errors relating to grammar, the most common types of which were the errors of plural/singular nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and articles This was really a serious
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 7 matter due to the fact that most of the students had focused on grammar points As a result, it’s important that I as well as teachers-to-be at SA1201 find out an effective way to help students avoid repeating grammatical errors so as to use English more effectively in writing work This is also a big step to lead students to the mastering of writing skill, ensuring them certain success in studying as well as in social life.
Literature Review
Since the 1970s, a number of researches have been conducted to figure out the value of error correction For written corrective feedback in writing, some researchers found it to be ineffective (Hillocks, 1982; Semke, 1984), while some other researches found that different types of written error correction in writing can be useful (Dulay & Burt, 1977; Krashen & Selinger, 1975) Briefly, the effects of different types of written corrective feedback have been examined in various researches (Chandler, 2003; Young & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 1997).
Scopes
There are various ways suggested to solve this problem such as giving oral correction of common errors in typical papers to the whole class, providing useful groups of accurate sentences, using peer feedback or introducing some sample pieces of writing with no grammatical errors (Miftari, 2011) However, very little is known about written corrective feedback with both direct and indirect forms.Therefore, this research is conducted to investigate whether use of written corrective feedback is really effective to first-year Huflit students.
Objectives
There are two research questions to be examined in this study:
1) In terms of theory, do the indirect corrective feedback and direct corrective feedback help reduce grammatical errors in HUFFLIT freshmen’s writing?
2) Having been studying English for at least 6 years, which of the method between indi Tr ect corrective feedback and direct corrective feedback do the first-year
HuflitHồ ọ ngNghĩaNhâ nPage 8 students find more useful?
Organization
The first part of this research paper is an analysis of the importance of writing skills in English It is followed by the method the research was carried out. After mentioning about the research findings and discussion, there is a conclusion that using either kind of written corrective feedback helps reduce the number of grammatical errors in the writing work.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 9
LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………… 10-11
Distinguish between “mistake” and “error” in writing
It is assumed that among the three categories of mistakes including “slips”,
“errors” and “attempts”, the category of errors most concerns learners (Harmer,
2007) Errors are defined as the mistakes that learners cannot explain themselves and need explanation, and they “result from incomplete knowledge” (Harmer, 2007; Richards & Schmidt, 1992) However, there is sometimes a distinction between the two terms: “mistake” and “error” As mentioned in the Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards & Schmidt, 1992),
“mistakes are due to lack of attention, fatigue or carelessness”, or “mistakes are caused by hesitation, slips of the tongue” while “an error reflects the language competence of the learners” (Brown, 1980)” Although it is defined, it is error but not mistake that a language teacher should pay attention to when correcting students’ work.
Grammatical errors and some kinds of feedback
Grammatical errors are errors on forms and mechanics (Understanding mistakes in written language, n.d.) It is widely believed that grammatical errors are caused by the interference between the mother tongue and the target language, which is inevitable in the process of fully mastering the language Therefore, it’s the teachers’ duty to provide feedback when responding to such errors in order to facilitate that process (Harmer, 2007) As defined by Penny Ur (1996), feedback is a “type of information which is provided for the learners about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the aim of improving this performance” Written corrective feedback, which is nearly the most popular kind of feedback used in teaching writing, is believed to be provided by the teacher with assessment informing how the learner has performed and correction providing Hồ
Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 10 some specific information on what the learners perform There are two forms of corrective feedback Direct feedback refers to explicit correction of errors, and the instructor corrects all the error in the students’ written assignments On the contrary, indirect feedback just prompts students about the location or type of errors and leaves correction to the students themselves.
Common mistakes in writing
According to some conducted researches, students are likely to make writing mistakes such as: run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and subject-verb agreement Besides, the errors of plural/singular nouns are also one of the common errors in writing.
On-going debates on the good ways of conducting the correction
Up to now, many different approaches have been introduced for error correction However, there is still not any certainty about the best way to provide corrective feedback Moreover, debate about whether or not corrective feedback should be put into practice has also continued for several years A popular educator who was against grammar correction in L2 writing classes asserted that “correction is harmful rather than simply ineffective” and “grammar correction has no place in writing classes and should be abandoned” (John Truscott, 1996: 97-98) He reasoned that giving error correction means ignoring the learners’ developmental sequence of acquisition, it may also cause bad effects on learners’ motivation and it is just a waste of time and energy There has been a great deal of criticism on Truscott’s claim One of them is from Ferris (1999) However, not until future research proves that there are particular cases in which grammar correction might not be a misguided activity had Truscott changed his perspective that grammar correction is a bad idea (Truscott, 2007: 255-272).
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Description of the Subjects
In the general survey, 20 freshmen and 5 English teachers from the Department of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology were chosen to take part in the investigation All of these students had passed the graduation examination in 2015.
In addition, they have been studying English for at least 6 years This was important because students were required to be proficient enough in reading and writing English so that they could understand the questionnaire items and provide reliable responses.
Moreover, the researcher selected 5 English teachers from the Department of Foreign Languages who are experienced in teaching writing skills to participate in the survey With their experience, the results of the survey would be considerably reliable.
To compare students’ and teachers’ preferences and their reasons for the types of “written corrective feedback”, two questionnaires were constructed Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected by means of two questionnaires in google forms that elicited participants’ opinions about the usefulness of different types of “written corrective feedback” and also the reasons for their responses. Quantitative data was collected through close-ended questionnaire items with evaluation scale formats To gain more in-depth information about why teachers and students preferred a particular type or amount of feedback, qualitative data was also collected through open-ended questions with the option “other” These open- ended questions allowed participants to describe, in their own words, the reasons they had for their preferred feedback choices While the teachers’ version of the
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
12 questionnaire was sent to five English teachers mentioned via emails, the students’ version was posted on a facebook group They all had a week to return the questionnaires to the researcher.
To evaluate the usefulness of two types of “written corrective feedback”, an analysis of variance was used to compare students’ and teachers’ preferences In addition, Google Form Application and Microsoft Excel were also used to show statistics of the result in percentage and to display them in charts.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Teachers correct all the errors in the students’ written assignments Teachers prompt students about the location or type of errors
Figure 1: Method of written corrective feedback
Figure 1 indicates teachers’ preference of written corrective feedback method The majority (80%) of teachers appreciated the prompts given to students so that they could identify their errors and correct themselves This result can be explained that in today’s university settings, students’ autonomy is one of the top priorities. Therefore, teachers are likely to give prompts about the location or types of errors. This method seems to be valuable in arousing students’ interest in writing On the contrary, there were 20% of teachers considering the method in which “teachers correct all the errors” better This might be due to the obstruction of students’ language competence In fact, some students want to see all the errors because they do not know whether they have errors in their writing work and how to correct them.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n
Very useful Useful Not useful
Figure 2: Clues or directions on how to fix an error
Figure 2 shows teachers’ evaluation on the value of clues or directions on how to fix an error when they give feedback on students’ writing work Of the 5 teachers who provided evaluation to the above item, the majority (80%) placed value on the importance of clues or directions when giving corrective feedback This overwhelming majority can be explained that teachers think this is a good learning tool to improve students’ writing In addition, it seems important that students have a chance to know how to self-correct so that they can remember their errors On the other hand, there were 20% of teachers who thought that this type of corrective feedback was useful partially Their choice may be due to some drawbacks such as some errors are too advanced for students to understand, or students are not excited about correcting their writing work themselves Especially, no teachers considered this type of feedback as a useless method This can be explained that teachers nowadays have applied a new approach in teaching writing in which they appreciate and simulate students’ autonomy.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
It is better to give students a chance for
Mark an example and students should do the rest
Mark all errors so that students can be re- minded and get an overview to see pat- terns
Figure 3: Solutions to students' repeated errors
Figure 3 demonstrates teachers’ responses for correction of repeated errors There were 40% of teachers thought that even when students repeat their errors, it was better for them to have “a chance for self-correction”; or it was teachers’ responsibility to “mark an example and students should do the rest” Conversely, some teachers (20%) kept in mind that teachers must be consistent and “mark all errors” that often reoccurred This might be due to the belief in which if students cannot avoid common errors, it is no use in giving them a chance for self- correction.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Figure 4 presents how often students try to correct their writing errors when receiving teachers’ comments Contrary to teachers’ expectation, there were nearly a half of students asked (45%) who always tried to correct errors themselves. Above all, there were some students (15%) who did not pay attention or try to understand errors This appears to be due to the fact that comments only work if students are dedicated and motivated enough.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n
Teachers give correc-tion forms Teachers underline the incorrect sentences, and you have to correct them on your own
Figure 5: Students' preference of feedback types
Figure 5 illustrates which kind of written corrective feedback that students prefer. There were 70% of students found that it was better for them when they had to correct errors on their own This result can be explained that comments are useful for students to see why errors exist and how to fix them Nevertheless, the remaining students (30%) thought that giving correction forms was a good way for them to improve writing skill It seems that some students are used to the traditional way taught in high school in which teachers corrected all grammatical errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Figure 6 displays how often students repeat their errors after receiving feedback In general, students were less likely to repeat grammatical errors For example, there were 40% of students who rarely or never repeated their errors One of the reasons for this satisfactory result can be that students regard indirect written corrective feedback as a learning tool that allows them to better remember their errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 5.1 Purpose of the Study
As stated at the beginning of this research, the purpose of the study was to attempt to assess two questions:
1) Do the “indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback help reduce grammatical errors in writing?
2) Having been studying English for at least 6 years, which of the method between
“indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback do the first-year Huflit students find more useful?
According to the collected statistics, the findings, in general, have shown that using either kind of written corrective feedback helps reduce grammatical errors in writing This result might be explained that students were exposed to both kinds of corrective feedback when they started to study English, so somehow they adapted themselves to these kinds However, when putting the two kinds into comparison, “indirect corrective feedback” has been the better choice of both teachers and students One possible explanation is that it not only helps the students avoid repeating the same errors in the short period but also improve their grammatical accuracy in the long-term On the other hand, there are some students who prefer direct corrective feedback because it shows them immediately how to correct the errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Clearly, a survey of 5 teachers and 20 Huflit seniors does not meet the requirements of a perfect study, so the results cannot be easily generalized to a wide variety of contexts Therefore, further research with larger sample sizes from different instructional contexts are needed In addition, the survey was conducted within one week with the questionnaires included only between 9 and 10 questions, which was an obstruction for the researcher to get a more accurate result. Moreover, the researcher himself does not have much experience in conducting a survey Therefore, with the purpose of achieving a more reliable result, I recommend that further research should include a larger population with a better method in which it can cover students’ samples of piece of writing after attending a course of using “indirect corrective feedback” as the main teaching approach.
These findings lend support to the assumption that both direct and “indirect corrective feedback” is beneficial for students to improve their writing skills. However, students are in favor of “indirect corrective feedback” that requires them to consider sentences carefully and more deeply study the grammar points to be able to correct the errors themselves By doing this, students have a chance to promote their autonomy As a result, they can be less likely to repeat grammatical errors Furthermore, through this survey, teachers may consider which method of feedback is better for students; in this case, “indirect corrective feedback” is a preference.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…… ….… …… …………………12-13
Procedures of Data Collection
To compare students’ and teachers’ preferences and their reasons for the types of “written corrective feedback”, two questionnaires were constructed Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected by means of two questionnaires in google forms that elicited participants’ opinions about the usefulness of different types of “written corrective feedback” and also the reasons for their responses. Quantitative data was collected through close-ended questionnaire items with evaluation scale formats To gain more in-depth information about why teachers and students preferred a particular type or amount of feedback, qualitative data was also collected through open-ended questions with the option “other” These open- ended questions allowed participants to describe, in their own words, the reasons they had for their preferred feedback choices While the teachers’ version of the
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
12 questionnaire was sent to five English teachers mentioned via emails, the students’ version was posted on a facebook group They all had a week to return the questionnaires to the researcher.
Statistical Treatment
To evaluate the usefulness of two types of “written corrective feedback”, an analysis of variance was used to compare students’ and teachers’ preferences In addition, Google Form Application and Microsoft Excel were also used to show statistics of the result in percentage and to display them in charts.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
FINDINGS 14-17
Teachers’ Survey
Teachers correct all the errors in the students’ written assignments Teachers prompt students about the location or type of errors
Figure 1: Method of written corrective feedback
Figure 1 indicates teachers’ preference of written corrective feedback method The majority (80%) of teachers appreciated the prompts given to students so that they could identify their errors and correct themselves This result can be explained that in today’s university settings, students’ autonomy is one of the top priorities. Therefore, teachers are likely to give prompts about the location or types of errors. This method seems to be valuable in arousing students’ interest in writing On the contrary, there were 20% of teachers considering the method in which “teachers correct all the errors” better This might be due to the obstruction of students’ language competence In fact, some students want to see all the errors because they do not know whether they have errors in their writing work and how to correct them.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n
Very useful Useful Not useful
Figure 2: Clues or directions on how to fix an error
Figure 2 shows teachers’ evaluation on the value of clues or directions on how to fix an error when they give feedback on students’ writing work Of the 5 teachers who provided evaluation to the above item, the majority (80%) placed value on the importance of clues or directions when giving corrective feedback This overwhelming majority can be explained that teachers think this is a good learning tool to improve students’ writing In addition, it seems important that students have a chance to know how to self-correct so that they can remember their errors On the other hand, there were 20% of teachers who thought that this type of corrective feedback was useful partially Their choice may be due to some drawbacks such as some errors are too advanced for students to understand, or students are not excited about correcting their writing work themselves Especially, no teachers considered this type of feedback as a useless method This can be explained that teachers nowadays have applied a new approach in teaching writing in which they appreciate and simulate students’ autonomy.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
It is better to give students a chance for
Mark an example and students should do the rest
Mark all errors so that students can be re- minded and get an overview to see pat- terns
Figure 3: Solutions to students' repeated errors
Figure 3 demonstrates teachers’ responses for correction of repeated errors There were 40% of teachers thought that even when students repeat their errors, it was better for them to have “a chance for self-correction”; or it was teachers’ responsibility to “mark an example and students should do the rest” Conversely, some teachers (20%) kept in mind that teachers must be consistent and “mark all errors” that often reoccurred This might be due to the belief in which if students cannot avoid common errors, it is no use in giving them a chance for self- correction.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Students’ Survey
Figure 4 presents how often students try to correct their writing errors when receiving teachers’ comments Contrary to teachers’ expectation, there were nearly a half of students asked (45%) who always tried to correct errors themselves. Above all, there were some students (15%) who did not pay attention or try to understand errors This appears to be due to the fact that comments only work if students are dedicated and motivated enough.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n
Teachers give correc-tion forms Teachers underline the incorrect sentences, and you have to correct them on your own
Figure 5: Students' preference of feedback types
Figure 5 illustrates which kind of written corrective feedback that students prefer. There were 70% of students found that it was better for them when they had to correct errors on their own This result can be explained that comments are useful for students to see why errors exist and how to fix them Nevertheless, the remaining students (30%) thought that giving correction forms was a good way for them to improve writing skill It seems that some students are used to the traditional way taught in high school in which teachers corrected all grammatical errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Figure 6 displays how often students repeat their errors after receiving feedback In general, students were less likely to repeat grammatical errors For example, there were 40% of students who rarely or never repeated their errors One of the reasons for this satisfactory result can be that students regard indirect written corrective feedback as a learning tool that allows them to better remember their errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
DISCUSSION 20-23
Purpose of the Study
As stated at the beginning of this research, the purpose of the study was to attempt to assess two questions:
1) Do the “indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback help reduce grammatical errors in writing?
2) Having been studying English for at least 6 years, which of the method between
“indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback do the first-yearHuflit students find more useful?
Findings and Explanation
According to the collected statistics, the findings, in general, have shown that using either kind of written corrective feedback helps reduce grammatical errors in writing This result might be explained that students were exposed to both kinds of corrective feedback when they started to study English, so somehow they adapted themselves to these kinds However, when putting the two kinds into comparison, “indirect corrective feedback” has been the better choice of both teachers and students One possible explanation is that it not only helps the students avoid repeating the same errors in the short period but also improve their grammatical accuracy in the long-term On the other hand, there are some students who prefer direct corrective feedback because it shows them immediately how to correct the errors.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Limitations
Clearly, a survey of 5 teachers and 20 Huflit seniors does not meet the requirements of a perfect study, so the results cannot be easily generalized to a wide variety of contexts Therefore, further research with larger sample sizes from different instructional contexts are needed In addition, the survey was conducted within one week with the questionnaires included only between 9 and 10 questions,which was an obstruction for the researcher to get a more accurate result.Moreover, the researcher himself does not have much experience in conducting a survey Therefore, with the purpose of achieving a more reliable result, I recommend that further research should include a larger population with a better method in which it can cover students’ samples of piece of writing after attending a course of using “indirect corrective feedback” as the main teaching approach.
Implications
These findings lend support to the assumption that both direct and “indirect corrective feedback” is beneficial for students to improve their writing skills. However, students are in favor of “indirect corrective feedback” that requires them to consider sentences carefully and more deeply study the grammar points to be able to correct the errors themselves By doing this, students have a chance to promote their autonomy As a result, they can be less likely to repeat grammatical errors Furthermore, through this survey, teachers may consider which method of feedback is better for students; in this case, “indirect corrective feedback” is a preference.
Recommendations
With the purpose of getting a more effective approach in teaching writing, teachers should have an evaluation after applying indirect corrective feedback in a writing course It is teachers’ responsibility to design a test that can evaluate
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
21 students’ improvement when they receive indirect written corrective feedback. This can be considered as the most essential stage in teaching writing Basing on the number of grammatical errors in each individual writing task after some units or each writing course, teachers can see how the students improve their grammatical accuracy in writing All grammar errors appearing in students’ work will be recorded for analysis There are the errors that teachers should pay concentration on such as: plural/singular nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and articles.
One more thing that teachers should always remind themselves is that providing corrective feedback is not the only or the best way to improve the students’ writing quality Therefore, teachers must think up different effective methods to best facilitate the process of mastering the language of their own students.
Along with teacher’s feedback, peer correction should be used as part of error correction Actually, peer correction is beneficial for many reasons This approach can encourage students to read and write When they try to find out the errors themselves, they can learn from their friends’ error Next, when they try to correct those errors, one more time they can learn from their friends, which can improve their writing skills themselves.
On the other hand, peer correction helps teachers partially free from heavy workload of correcting students’ writing errors Therefore, teachers have more time to prepare lesson plans as well as teaching aids, which can improve teaching quality In other words, students are the ones who get many benefits from peer correction.
These findings lead us to believe that “indirect corrective feedback” should be used more often in order to give students a chance to correct errors themselves.
In addition, the findings of this study are based on self-report data from students
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 22 and teachers in which they reported their opinions about the usefulness of written corrective feedback and preferences for written corrective feedback These findings, however, may not accurately reflect teachers’ practices in the classroom. Thus, studies that compare teachers’ opinions with their actual practices are helpful.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing.
Chandler, J (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of l2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267-272.
Dulay, H C., & Burt, M K (1977) Remarks on the creativity in language acquisition, 95-126 New York: Regents Publishing Company.
Ferris, D (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision.
Harmer, J (2007) The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education.
Haryanto, T (2007) Grammatical Error Analysis in Students’ Recount Texts. Tegal.
Hillocks, G Jr (1982) The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composition process Research in the Teaching of English, 261-278.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H (Eds.), 1999 Encyclopedic dictionary of applied linguistics Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Krashen S D., & Selinger, H W (1975) The essential contributions of formal instructions in adult second language learning TESOL Quarterly, 173-183. Miftari, M (2011, November 03) How to Improve the Accuracy of Student
Writing Retrieved September 27 2015, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How- to-Improve-the-Accuracy-of-Student-Writing&idf69022
Richards, J C., & Schmidt, R (1992) Longman dictionary of language teaching
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 24 and applied linguistics London: Longman.
Semke, H D (1984) Effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals, 195-202. Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Truscott, J (1999) The Case for “The case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Ferris” Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122
Truscott, J (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing.
Ur, P (1996) A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Observation: Although some first-year students have been studying English for at least 6 years, they even cannot write a simple paragraph or a complete sentence.
Problems: English writing is getting more and more essential today, but it is also believed the most difficult skill to master.
Why: examine the effectiveness of the 2 kinds of written corrective feedback in the improvement of students’ grammatical accuracy in their writing
Whom: 5 teachers and 20 freshmen in Huflit
How: teachers’ questionnaire (9 questions); students’ questionnaire (7 questions) When: online
Findings: both kinds of feedback helps students improve grammatical accuracy in writing and prevent students from repeating the same type of errors.
Suggestions: Teachers-to-be should consider what kind of feedback is better or more appropriate for students so that students’ writing competence can be improved.
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 28
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page