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 serves as a vital tool for communication, highlighting the necessity of effective speaking and writing skills Mastery of a language is not just about understanding it, but also about using it effectively to convey messages Among the four essential skills in language learning, writing is increasingly recognized as crucial yet challenging to master Effective written communication demands a solid grasp of various language aspects, particularly grammar A common issue in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes is the gap between learners' grammatical knowledge and their writing performance, often resulting in numerous grammatical errors that hinder readers' understanding of the intended message.
Grammatical errors are common in the papers of first-year students at Huflit, particularly in areas such as plural/singular nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and articles Despite focusing on grammar, many students still struggle with these issues Therefore, it is crucial for both myself and future teachers in SA1201 to discover effective strategies to help students minimize these errors, ultimately enhancing their English writing skills This improvement is essential for their academic success and future social interactions.
Literature Review
Since the 1970s, numerous studies have explored the effectiveness of error correction in writing While some researchers, such as Hillocks (1982) and Semke (1984), found written corrective feedback to be ineffective, others, including Dulay & Burt (1977) and Krashen & Selinger (1975), identified that various types of written error correction can be beneficial Overall, the impact of different forms of written corrective feedback has been the subject of extensive research (Chandler, 2003; Young & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 1997).
Scopes
Various methods have been proposed to address common writing errors, including oral corrections for the entire class, providing accurate sentence groups, utilizing peer feedback, and presenting error-free writing samples (Miftari, 2011) However, there is limited knowledge regarding the effectiveness of both direct and indirect written corrective feedback This research aims to explore the impact of written corrective feedback on 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 indirect corrective feedback and direct corrective feedback do the first-year Huflit students find more useful?
Organization
This research paper emphasizes the significance of writing skills in English and outlines the methodology employed in the study The findings indicate that implementing written corrective feedback effectively decreases grammatical errors in writing.
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,
Errors are defined as mistakes that learners cannot self-explain and require clarification, stemming from incomplete knowledge (Harmer, 2007; Richards & Schmidt, 1992) It is important to distinguish between "mistake" and "error," as noted in the Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards & Schmidt, 1992).
Mistakes often arise from factors such as lack of attention, fatigue, or carelessness, while errors are indicative of a learner's language competence (Brown, 1980) It is essential for language teachers to focus on errors rather than mistakes when correcting students' work, as this distinction is crucial for effective language instruction.
Grammatical errors and some kinds of feedback
Grammatical errors arise from the interplay between a learner's mother tongue and the target language, making it essential for teachers to provide feedback to aid language mastery Feedback, as defined by Penny Ur, is information given to learners about their performance to enhance their skills Written corrective feedback, a prevalent method in writing instruction, includes assessment and specific corrections to guide learners There are two types of corrective feedback: direct feedback, which involves explicit error correction by the teacher, and indirect feedback, which encourages students to identify and correct their own errors.
Common mistakes in writing
Research indicates that students frequently encounter writing errors, including run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and issues with subject-verb agreement Additionally, mistakes related to plural and singular nouns are among the most common writing challenges.
On-going debates on the good ways of conducting the correction in writing
Various methods for error correction have been proposed, yet the most effective approach remains uncertain The debate over the implementation of corrective feedback has persisted for years, with notable educators like John Truscott arguing against grammar correction in L2 writing classes, claiming it is harmful and ineffective Truscott contends that error correction overlooks learners' developmental stages, negatively impacts motivation, and wastes time His views have faced significant criticism, including from Ferris in 1999 Truscott's stance on grammar correction shifted only after future research indicated that there may be specific instances where it is beneficial (Truscott, 2007).
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…… ….… …… …………………12-13
Description of the Subjects
A study was conducted involving 20 freshmen and 5 English teachers from the Department of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign Languages and Information Technology, all of whom had successfully completed their graduation examination in 2015.
Students have been studying English for a minimum of 6 years, ensuring they possess the necessary proficiency in reading and writing This level of proficiency is crucial for understanding the questionnaire items and delivering reliable responses.
The researcher conducted a survey involving five experienced English teachers from the Department of Foreign Languages, focusing on their expertise in teaching writing skills Their extensive experience ensures that the survey results are highly reliable.
Procedures of Data Collection
To investigate the preferences of students and teachers regarding "written corrective feedback," two questionnaires were developed, gathering both quantitative and qualitative data The quantitative aspect involved close-ended questions with evaluation scales, while qualitative insights were obtained through open-ended questions, allowing participants to express their reasons for their feedback preferences The teachers' questionnaire was distributed via email to five English teachers, whereas the students' version was shared in a Facebook group, with a one-week deadline for responses.
Statistical Treatment
An analysis of variance was conducted to assess the effectiveness of two types of written corrective feedback by comparing the preferences of students and teachers Additionally, the Google Form Application and Microsoft Excel were utilized to present the statistical results in percentage form and visualize them through charts.
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
A recent survey revealed that 80% of teachers prefer using prompts to help students identify and correct their own errors, reflecting a growing emphasis on student autonomy in university settings This approach not only fosters self-correction but also enhances students' interest in writing Conversely, 20% of teachers favor the method where all errors are corrected by the teacher, as some students struggle with recognizing their mistakes and seek comprehensive feedback to improve their language skills.
Very useful Useful Not useful
Figure 2: Clues or directions on how to fix an error
A recent evaluation of teachers' perspectives on providing clues or directions for correcting errors in students' writing revealed that 80% of the five teachers surveyed value this approach as an effective learning tool They believe it enhances students' writing skills and fosters self-correction, allowing students to remember their mistakes However, 20% of the teachers viewed this method as only partially useful, citing challenges such as the complexity of certain errors and a lack of student enthusiasm for self-correction Notably, none of the teachers deemed this feedback method ineffective, indicating a shift towards promoting student autonomy in writing instruction.
20% It is better to give students a chance for self-correction
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 illustrates teachers' perspectives on addressing repeated errors in student work Forty percent of educators believe that allowing students the opportunity for self-correction is beneficial, suggesting that teachers should provide examples while students take responsibility for their learning In contrast, 20% of teachers argue for consistency in marking, insisting that all recurring errors should be noted, as they feel that if students cannot avoid common mistakes, self-correction may be ineffective.
Students’ Survey
Figure 4 illustrates the frequency with which students attempt to correct their writing errors in response to teachers' feedback Surprisingly, nearly 45% of students consistently make an effort to rectify their mistakes However, 15% of students show a lack of attention or understanding towards their errors, indicating that the effectiveness of comments relies heavily on students' dedication and motivation.
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 highlights student preferences for written corrective feedback, revealing that 70% of students prefer to correct their own errors This preference suggests that comments help students understand the reasons behind their mistakes and how to address them Conversely, 30% of students favor correction forms as a beneficial method for enhancing their writing skills, indicating that some may be accustomed to the traditional high school approach where teachers correct all grammatical errors.
Figure 6 illustrates the frequency of error repetition among students after receiving feedback, showing that they are generally less prone to repeating grammatical mistakes Notably, 40% of students reported rarely or never repeating their errors This positive outcome may be attributed to students viewing indirect written corrective feedback as an effective learning tool that enhances their ability to remember and address their mistakes.
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
Research indicates that both types of written corrective feedback effectively reduce grammatical errors in writing Students have adapted to these feedback methods since they began learning English However, when comparing the two, "indirect corrective feedback" is favored by both teachers and students, as it not only helps prevent the recurrence of errors in the short term but also enhances long-term grammatical accuracy Conversely, some students prefer direct corrective feedback for its immediate clarity in error correction.
Limitations
The limited survey of 5 teachers and 20 Huflit seniors restricts the generalizability of the findings, highlighting the need for further research with larger and more diverse sample sizes Conducted over just one week, the survey's 9 to 10 questions hindered the accuracy of the results Additionally, the researcher's lack of experience in survey administration calls for a more robust methodology To enhance reliability, future studies should involve a larger population and focus on students' writing samples after utilizing "indirect corrective feedback" as the primary teaching approach.
Implications
Research indicates that both direct and indirect corrective feedback effectively enhances students' writing skills However, students show a preference for indirect corrective feedback, as it encourages them to analyze sentences and engage more deeply with grammar, fostering their autonomy and reducing the likelihood of repeating grammatical mistakes This survey suggests that teachers should consider the benefits of indirect corrective feedback, as it aligns with students' preferences for learning.
Recommendations
To enhance the effectiveness of writing instruction, teachers must evaluate the impact of indirect corrective feedback in their courses It is essential for educators to create assessments that measure students' progress following the receipt of this feedback This evaluation process is crucial in teaching writing, as it allows teachers to track improvements in grammatical accuracy by analyzing the frequency of errors in students' writing tasks Key areas of focus should include plural/singular nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and articles, with all grammatical errors documented for further analysis.
Teachers should remember that corrective feedback alone is not the most effective way to enhance students' writing quality It is essential for educators to explore various effective strategies to support their students in mastering the language.
Incorporating peer correction alongside teacher feedback is essential for effective error correction in education This method not only motivates students to engage in reading and writing but also allows them to learn from their peers' mistakes By identifying and correcting errors together, students enhance their understanding and improve their own writing skills.
Peer correction alleviates the burden of grading writing errors for teachers, allowing them to dedicate more time to lesson planning and developing teaching aids, ultimately enhancing the quality of education Consequently, students reap significant benefits from the peer correction process.
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.
This study's findings rely on self-reported data from students and teachers regarding the perceived usefulness and preferences for written corrective feedback However, these perceptions may not truly represent the actual practices of teachers in the classroom Therefore, research that contrasts teachers' opinions with their real-world practices is essential for a more accurate understanding.
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. TESOL Quarterly, 315-339.
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 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.
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
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.