INTRODUCTION
In EFL classrooms, writing instructors play a crucial role in enhancing students' writing proficiency, with error correction being a key aspect of their responsibilities Despite its importance, the effectiveness of error feedback and its impact on second language acquisition remains a contentious issue among researchers.
Research on feedback strategies in error correction has shown mixed results While Ferris (2006) and Lalande (1982) support indirect feedback, Chandler (2003) argues that direct feedback is more effective in identifying errors and enhancing students' writing accuracy These discrepancies in findings may stem from variations in participant demographics and research methodologies.
Research highlights the significance of understanding students' perceptions and preferences regarding corrective feedback in language learning Studies indicate that L2 students highly value and expect such feedback from their teachers; its absence can lead to increased anxiety and diminished confidence in their instructors Recognizing these preferences is crucial, as it can enhance students' understanding of correction practices and ultimately motivate them in their writing endeavors By considering students' views, educators can foster greater confidence and introduce fresh perspectives in the teaching of EFL writing.
Numerous studies highlight the importance of written corrective feedback; however, there is a lack of research focusing on students' perceptions and preferences regarding this feedback (Hamouda, 2011) Additionally, most existing studies examining students' views on error correction have primarily been conducted within ESL contexts.
The need for enhanced focus on EFL writing classes in developing countries is crucial due to the unique cultural and classroom dynamics that differ from those in English-speaking nations (Chen, Nassaji & Liu, 2016; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008) Notably, there has been limited research, with only one study by Nguyen and Ramnath examining Vietnamese students' perceptions of teachers' corrective feedback Consequently, this current study aims to enrich the research literature specifically within the Vietnamese context.
This study aims to explore the perceptions of Vietnamese university students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) regarding their teachers' Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and the types of error correction they find most beneficial for improving their writing accuracy The findings will be instrumental for Vietnamese writing instructors in tailoring their WCF strategies to better meet student needs and will contribute to the expanding research in the EFL writing domain The study specifically addresses key research questions related to these perceptions.
1 What are students’ perceptions of teachers’ WCF in their writing?
2 What are students’ preferences and expectations for how corrective feedback should be conducted?
This chapter has identified key unresolved issues in the literature surrounding WCF and emphasized the significance of the current study The forthcoming chapter will present a comprehensive review of pertinent literature and associated research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Definitions of “error” and “written corrective feedback”
The term “error” in student writing has been defined in Ferris (2011) as
“morphological, syntactic, and lexical forms that deviate from rules of the target language, violating the expectation of literature adult native speakers” (p.3)
Written corrective feedback (WCF), often known as grammar correction or written error correction in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, plays a crucial role in language learning This study adopts a broad definition of "corrective feedback," encompassing teachers' corrections related to grammatical, lexical, and content aspects of students' writing.
The error correction debate
The debate over the role of error correction in enhancing L2 writing accuracy has generated mixed opinions, with various theoretical and empirical studies exploring its effectiveness (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996) While some research indicates that error correction may be ineffective and potentially detrimental to student writers (Kepner, 1991; Truscott, 1996), other studies demonstrate that corrective feedback can significantly improve students' L2 writing accuracy (Bitchener et al., 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006) This section will examine both sides of the argument regarding the use of error correction in EFL writing classes.
2.1 Studies rejecting teachers’ error correction
Truscott (1996) argued against the practice of grammar correction in second language (L2) writing, citing extensive reviews of past studies that demonstrate its ineffectiveness He emphasized that existing research fails to provide conclusive evidence supporting the benefits of grammar correction in L2 writing.
Research by Semke (1984), Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986), Kepner (1991), and Sheppard (1992) indicates that different types of feedback do not significantly impact writing accuracy among students Truscott argues that improved performance in final drafts following corrective feedback does not guarantee future writing proficiency He advocates for the abandonment of grammar correction in L2 writing classes, suggesting that students enhance their accuracy through extensive reading and writing experiences with the target language.
Truscott highlights theoretical and practical challenges to error correction in language learning, emphasizing that the development of interlanguage is a complex learning process often overlooked by teachers Many educators mistakenly view learning as a straightforward transfer of information from teacher to student, which, if effective, would lead to improved grammar usage in future writing However, Truscott argues that acquiring grammatical structures is a gradual process rather than an immediate realization, suggesting that the intricacies of language development hinder the effectiveness of traditional corrective feedback methods.
The second issue highlighted pertains to the natural order of L2 grammatical learning, where inconsistencies in language instruction sequences can lead to problems When students receive corrections on points they are not ready to grasp, these corrections hold minimal value Consequently, it is essential for teachers to choose corrections based on the students' current developmental stage concerning specific grammar aspects (Truscott, 1996, p.344).
The third theoretical problem is concerned with what Truscott called
“pseudolearning”, some types of superficial learning/teaching that are inconsistent with regards to interlanguage development He claimed that the current system of
5 providing grammar correction produced nothing other than pseudolearning, stating that students may have good knowledge of the target language but have no ability to use it
Truscott (1996) highlighted the challenges of correcting students' written errors, ultimately suggesting that such correction may be ineffective He raised concerns about teachers' ability to accurately identify errors, particularly among non-native speakers, and noted that even when errors are recognized, explanations may lack clarity Furthermore, teachers' heavy workloads can lead to subpar corrective feedback, compounding the issue.
Truscott argued that grammar correction is not only ineffective but also counterproductive, as it causes stress and demotivation in students due to the discouraging sight of red ink on their papers He referenced studies by Knoblauch and Brannon (1981) and Hillocks (1986), which indicated that students who did not receive corrections had a more positive attitude toward writing and produced more work Similarly, Semke (1984) found that uncorrected students in L2 research also wrote more Furthermore, Truscott noted that students often simplify their writing to avoid correction, ultimately wasting valuable time and resources that could be better spent on providing feedback regarding organization and content.
Truscott and Hsu’s (2008) study involving forty-seven EFL students at a public university in Taiwan found that error reduction during the revision process does not necessarily indicate learning Students wrote narratives and revised their work in the next class, with one group receiving underlined feedback on their errors while the other group did not Although the feedback group performed better in the editing task, both groups exhibited similar error rates in a new narrative assignment one week later This suggests that error reduction may not correlate with actual learning outcomes.
6 writing is not evidence of language learning This stands in contrast with previous research (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006) which view error reduction as a sign of improving accuracy
2.2 Studies supporting teachers’ error correction
Proponents of written corrective feedback (WCF) have conducted several studies to support its effectiveness, countering critics such as Kepner (1991), Semke (1984), and Truscott (1996) Research by Bitchener (2005), Chandler (2003), Ellis et al (2008), Fathman and Walley (1990), and Ferris (1999, 2006) provides evidence that WCF can enhance writing skills.
For example, Ferris (1999) disagreed with Truscott’s arguments against the effectiveness of grammar correction and criticized Truscott’s conclusion that
Ferris critiques Truscott's assertion that grammar correction should be eliminated from writing courses, labeling his arguments as "premature" and "overly strong." She identifies two main weaknesses in Truscott's study: first, the existence of various approaches to error correction in second language (L2) writing, and second, Truscott's tendency to misrepresent the findings of original studies to support his generalizations.
Ferris (2006) provided new insights into the effects of written error feedback, revealing that participants could correct most errors marked by teachers, challenging Truscott's assertion that students might struggle to understand feedback While Truscott noted that understanding feedback does not guarantee mastery of underlying principles, Ferris's longitudinal analysis indicated significant improvements in students' accuracy, with a notable reduction in errors over a semester Additionally, the feedback from teachers in Ferris's study was accurate and comprehensive in nearly 90 percent of cases, contrasting with Truscott's earlier claims about the quality of teachers' written responses to L2 compositions.
Chandler’s (2003) research involving 31 intermediate ESL students over 10 weeks revealed that the experimental group, which received corrective feedback and revised their assignments, showed a significant improvement in writing accuracy compared to the control group that did not receive such feedback.
Research evidence on the effect of different types of WCF on improved accuracy7 1 Comprehensive (unfocused) versus selective feedback (focused)
A study by Bitchener et al (2005) examined the impact of various types of error feedback on three specific linguistic error categories and its effect on the writing accuracy of migrant students The findings revealed that students who received written corrective feedback (WCF) demonstrated significantly better performance compared to a control group that did not receive any feedback.
Considering the research evidence, the effectiveness of WCF remains a topic of debate; however, it is evident that error correction practices are widely embraced in EFL writing classes.
3 Research evidence on the effect of different types of WCF on improved accuracy
Apart from the issue over the effectiveness of error correction, research literature has shifted its focus on which type(s) of corrective feedback teachers should employ in
8 their writing instruction A number of studies have identified two general approaches and two specific methods of written error feedback, as shown in Figure 1 (adapted from Corpuz, 2011)
Figure 1: General approaches and specific methods of written error feedback
The effects of these WCF strategies are discussed in the following sections
3.1 Comprehensive (unfocused) versus selective feedback (focused)
Teachers often grapple with the decision of whether to mark every error in students' writing, known as comprehensive feedback, or to focus selectively on specific types of errors, referred to as focused feedback (Lee, 2003).
Numerous studies highlight the drawbacks of a comprehensive feedback strategy in writing instruction Zamel (1985) pointed out that an overemphasis on student errors can transform writing teachers into grammar instructors, diverting attention from other crucial elements of writing education Additionally, research indicates that many educators find themselves overwhelmed by the demands of correcting student writing, making error correction a laborious task (Ferris).
A study by Ellis et al (2008) is the only one to directly compare the effects of focused (selective) feedback versus unfocused (comprehensive) feedback on students' writing accuracy, particularly regarding the use of English articles In this research, 49 Japanese EFL university students were divided into three groups: a focused group receiving corrections solely on article errors, an unfocused group receiving corrections on various errors including article mistakes, and a control group with no feedback All participants completed a pre-test, intermediate post-test, and delayed post-test by writing narratives based on picture stories The findings revealed no significant difference in learning outcomes between the two experimental groups, although both outperformed the no-feedback group, indicating that both types of written corrective feedback (WCF) are equally effective.
Ferris (2011) argued in favor of selective feedback:
Students gain greater advantages from detailed feedback on their specific errors, including the frequency and their progress, rather than from a haphazard assortment of error markings across various linguistic issues.
Ferris argues that selective feedback is more beneficial for students, as it allows them to gain a deeper understanding of the specific types of errors they make, rather than only having a vague awareness of all their mistakes.
Many researchers suggest that a comprehensive approach to writing instruction is more effective for students' long-term goals than a selective approach, as it addresses a wider variety of potential errors, particularly in contexts where high accuracy is essential (Ferris, 2011).
Teachers should consider utilizing either selective or comprehensive feedback strategies based on the specific writing task goals and the unique needs of their students in various situations.
Research has identified two primary feedback strategies—direct (explicit) feedback and indirect (implicit) feedback—and examined their impact on enhancing writing accuracy.
Ferris (2001) defines direct feedback and indirect feedback as follows:
Direct feedback involves teachers supplying the correct form for student writers, allowing them to simply transcribe the correction into their final work In contrast, indirect feedback signals the presence of an error without providing the solution, encouraging students to identify and rectify the issue independently.
Table 1 and 2 provides examples of direct and indirect feedback
We buy a big bag of tomatoes yesterday
My freind asked me to lend him some money
Table 1 Examples of written direct feedback
We buy a big bag of tomatoes yesterday
My freind asked me to lend him some money
Table 2 Examples of written indirect feedback
Research differentiates between indirect feedback that includes codes and that which does not Coded feedback highlights specific types of errors, such as "spelling" or "punctuation," using clear labels like "SP" for spelling and "PU" for punctuation In contrast, uncoded feedback lacks these specific indicators, making it less precise.
11 refers to the situations in which the teacher circles or underlines an error but leave it to the student to find out and correct it (Ferris, 2011)
Research by Lalande (1982) and Ferris (2006) indicates that students receiving indirect feedback significantly outperform those receiving direct feedback Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined university ESL students' self-correction abilities under three conditions: errors marked with codes, underlined errors without labels, and no feedback Their findings revealed that both feedback groups performed better than the no feedback control group, with no significant differences between coded and non-coded feedback They concluded that less explicit feedback effectively aids student writers in self-editing Ferris's later study (2006) demonstrated that students could accurately edit up to 70 percent of instances in response to indirect feedback, regardless of whether codes were used.
Chandler (2003) discovered that ESL students improved their error correction in revisions more effectively when teachers employed direct correction and simple underlining of mistakes, compared to merely describing the types of errors This study concludes that direct correction is the most effective method for achieving accurate revisions.
John Bitchener (2005) discovered that combining direct oral feedback with direct written feedback significantly enhances students' accuracy over time compared to using written feedback alone This combined approach is particularly effective for addressing more "treatable" linguistic features, such as the past simple tense and definite articles, rather than less "treatable" aspects like prepositions Consequently, researchers recommend that L2 writing instructors frequently provide both oral and written feedback on the more easily correctable errors to improve student outcomes.
Students’ perceptions and preferences of teachers’ WCF
Research consistently shows that students highly value and depend on their teachers' corrective feedback for writing, despite ongoing debates about its effectiveness (Chen et al., 2016; Diab, 2005; Elwood & Bode, 2014; Hamouda, 2011; Leki, 1991) Ferris (2011) highlights the importance of acknowledging student preferences, as neglecting their feedback needs can damage the relationship between instructors and learners, ultimately undermining students' motivation and confidence.
Leki (1991) conducted a survey of 100 ESL students at a U.S university to assess their attitudes towards error correction practices and their expectations for written feedback The findings indicated that students generally held a positive view of error correction, associating good writing with the absence of errors and expecting teachers to correct all mistakes in their papers Most students preferred indirect feedback, where teachers would identify errors and provide hints for correction Additionally, a significant number of students paid equal attention to both form-related errors and comments on the content of their writing.
Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) conducted a study involving 33 adult ESL students from two private Canadian schools, revealing a strong preference for extensive written corrective feedback (WCF) from teachers on all error types, particularly form-focused errors like grammar, punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary This contrasts with Chen et al (2016), whose findings indicated that students favored feedback on content-related issues Additionally, the students expressed a desire for explicit feedback and felt that the responsibility of correcting errors primarily lay with their teachers.
In a study by Diab (2005) involving 156 EFL students at the American University of Beirut, the preferences for error correction and paper marking techniques were examined, alongside students' beliefs about effective feedback Utilizing a questionnaire based on Leki’s (1991) instrument, the study expanded its scope to include items related to both first and final drafts A notable finding was the consistent concern for accuracy among students, who expected teachers to correct all errors in both drafts The EFL students emphasized the significance of various writing elements, including grammar, spelling, vocabulary, organization, style, and content While students preferred teachers to indicate errors and provide hints for corrections in the first draft, they favored explicit corrections in the final draft.
A study by Chen et al (2016) explored EFL students' perceptions of teachers' corrective feedback in Mainland China, revealing that Chinese students generally held a positive view towards error correction Participants favored feedback that identified errors and categorized their types, while more advanced students preferred less explicit grammatical feedback Additionally, the students expressed a strong desire for feedback on both the content and grammar of their writing, aligning with earlier findings by Leki (1991), Diab (2005), and Mahfoodh and Pandian (2011).
Recent studies among EFL learners in various Asian countries, including those by James and Bode (2014), Hamouda (2011), and Jodaie and Zoghi (2011), echo the findings of Chen et al (2016) These studies reveal both similarities and differences in learners' preferences for written corrective feedback (WCF) Notably, students value writing accuracy and exhibit positive attitudes toward error correction, favoring direct feedback over indirect feedback, as well as comprehensive feedback instead of selective feedback strategies.
A study by James and Bode (2011) involving 410 Japanese university students revealed that these students favor detailed, handwritten feedback that addresses both content and mechanical errors, with little emphasis on the color of the feedback This contrasts with findings from Hamouda (2011), where students preferred red-ink marking Additionally, higher proficiency students reacted more positively to feedback, were more inclined to ask questions, and experienced lower anxiety levels compared to their less proficient peers Gender differences were also noted, with females showing a stronger preference for detailed, direct feedback than males However, students generally engaged minimally with the feedback received, often only reading it and making notes, without revising or asking questions This indicates a need for enhanced training and practice, as suggested by Chandler (2003), to encourage students to revise their work for improved writing accuracy.
Two studies conducted in Thailand (Tangkiengsirisin & Kalra, 2016; Black & Nanni, 2016) revealed that Thai students prefer direct Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) In the study by Tangkiengsirisin and Kalra, 63 Thai students were split into two groups—one receiving direct feedback and the other receiving indirect feedback Data collected through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and analysis of corrected essays indicated that the group receiving direct feedback, which was viewed positively, outperformed the group that received indirect feedback, which was perceived negatively.
In a study by Black & Nanni (2016), students placed a high importance on writing accuracy due to their desire for high grades on assignments Additionally, they perceived indirect feedback as a form of lazy correction, considering it a "waste of time."
Mahfoodh and Pandian (2011) investigated EFL students' emotional responses to their teachers' written feedback The study found that students preferred receiving praise on their drafts, as it boosted their confidence and motivated them to write more Conversely, they reacted negatively to papers marked extensively with red ink.
Teachers often struggle to comprehend their intentions in written feedback, which can lead to misunderstandings Students place a high value on their teachers' authority, viewing them as the primary and most reliable source of feedback It is crucial for educators to weigh the positive and negative aspects of their written corrective feedback (WCF), as overlooking these can result in students disregarding the feedback on errors Additionally, students benefit from a balance of praise and constructive criticism in their writing, and they seek motivation from teachers to enhance their writing skills.
A study by Nguyen and Ramnath (2016) investigated Vietnamese students' perceptions of teachers' written corrective feedback (WCF) at An Giang University, involving 50 participants from various disciplines The students wrote compositions that were graded and commented on by teachers, after which they completed a questionnaire and participated in follow-up interviews The findings revealed that students considered teachers' WCF to be "legible, understandable, and useful" (p.53) and expressed a preference for direct feedback, error correction codes, and responses to all errors in their work Additionally, they favored feedback focusing on language rather than content and desired future feedback to include grades, written comments, and error corrections.
Several studies have been conducted in various countries; however, only one study (Nguyen & Ramnath, 2016) has focused on the perceptions and preferences of EFL students in Vietnam This research aims to enhance current English-teaching methodologies and contribute to the existing literature in the context of Vietnam.
This chapter has summarized various studies on WCF in ESL and EFL contexts The following chapter will outline the methodology used in this research.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research methods
In this study, a mixed methods approach was employed According Creswell
In 2014, a mixed methods approach was utilized, combining both quantitative and qualitative data to gain a comprehensive understanding of the research problem, as this combination offers deeper insights than either method alone This approach mitigated the limitations inherent in solely quantitative or qualitative methods Quantitative data were gathered through closed-ended questionnaires featuring multiple-choice and Likert scale formats, aiming to identify general patterns in participants' perceptions of their teachers' written corrective feedback (WCF) practices in writing classes Meanwhile, qualitative data were collected through online semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions to explore the underlying reasons for these preferences Additionally, the online questionnaire facilitated the rapid collection of information from a large participant pool.
This research utilized a partially explanatory sequential mixed methods design, typically involving two phases: first collecting and analyzing survey data, followed by qualitative interviews to enhance understanding of the quantitative results (Creswell, 2014) However, due to time constraints, the researcher conducted the interviews immediately after gathering survey responses, prior to data analysis Consequently, it can be noted that this study did not adhere strictly to the explanatory sequential mixed methods design.
The study utilizes a questionnaire adapted from Leki (1991), Lee (2004), and Diab (2005), which is divided into three sections (see Appendix 1) Part I gathers participants’ background information through two questions Part II features three closed-ended questions formatted on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree) Part III contains 13 multiple-choice items The questionnaire was designed with key considerations, including a sufficient number of questions for quick completion, minimal technical jargon for clarity, and translation into Vietnamese to prevent misunderstandings The primary aim is to assess student-participants’ perceptions of their lecturers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) practices, detailed in Table 3 It is important to note that some aspects of teachers’ perceived practices, such as feedback extent, paper-marking techniques, and feedback delivery methods, were gathered through interviews rather than the questionnaire due to oversight.
To obtain information regarding students’ perceptions of teachers’ WCF practices
1 Importance of writing accuracy Adapted from
2 Marking criteria provision Self-designed
5 Frequency of teachers’ feedback Self-designed
6 Focus of WCF Adapted from
11, 12 Use of error correction codes Adapted from
To gain students’ perspective and preferences for how
4 Marking criteria provision Self-designed
8, 9 Extent of WCF Adapted from
10 Forms of paper-marking Adapted from
WCF should be conducted techniques Leki (1991)
7 Focus of WCF Adapted from
13 Use of error correction codes Adapted from
14 Forms of feedback delivery Self-designed
3, 15 Students’ responses to teachers’ feedback
16 Whose responsibility to correct students’ writing
Table 3: The questionnaire design 1.1.2 Questionnaire administration
The study utilized a Google Form questionnaire, enabling participants to complete the survey online, which proved to be time-efficient The researcher contacted 100 English-majored students from HUCFL's English department through Facebook, informing them about the study's purpose and the estimated completion time Upon their voluntary agreement, the survey link was shared and remained active for two weeks Participants took approximately 5 to 7 minutes to complete the questionnaire, resulting in 97 responses The demographics revealed that 49 (50.5%) were fourth-year students, 36 (36.1%) were second-year students, 11 (13.9%) were third-year students, and 2 (2.1%) were first-year students Additionally, the sample comprised 87 female (89.7%) and 10 male (10.3%) students, indicating a significant female majority in the English major at this university.
This study utilized a semi-structured interview format, enabling researchers to gather in-depth and meaningful insights from participants through a set of pre-written questions.
Semi-structured interviews offer flexibility by serving as a guide rather than fixed queries, enabling deeper insights This approach was utilized to gather participants' perceptions of their teachers' effective feedback and to capture their perspectives and justifications in detail, which would not have been achievable through questionnaires alone.
Students who previously participated in the questionnaire were invited to voluntarily take part in research interviews, with the option to withdraw at any time A total of twelve students agreed to be interviewed, which were conducted via Facebook voice calls and recorded with their permission for data analysis Notes were also taken as a backup in case of recording issues Each participant was interviewed individually at their convenience, with calls lasting approximately 25 to 30 minutes To ensure clarity and accuracy in responses, the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese (refer to Appendix 3 for the interview questions).
The interviews focused on 10 key topics, each accompanied by several sub-questions Interviewees were prompted to discuss their teachers' current practices, along with students' perceptions and preferences, placing particular emphasis on the latter two components.
The participants' identities were kept confidential by using codes such as S1, S2, etc After conducting the interviews, their responses were transcribed and translated into English for qualitative data analysis.
Data analysis
Upon completion of the survey, Google Forms automatically gathered and organized the data, providing statistics that included frequencies and percentages, along with visual representations such as charts illustrating the response percentages for each item.
The findings were displayed in tables and figures, accompanied by an interpretation that allowed the researcher to draw conclusions based on the results in relation to the initial research questions posed at the study's outset.
The interview data were analyzed following the questionnaire data analysis Initially, the responses were transcribed and categorized into emerging themes The researcher carefully reviewed these themes to enhance the understanding of the questionnaire results Additionally, quotes from the interviews were translated into English, with a graduate friend majoring in English invited to verify the accuracy of the translations.
Reliability and validity of the research
Reliability, as defined by Silverman (2005), is the consistency with which instances are categorized by different observers or the same observer across different times Creswell (2014) further elaborates that quantitative validity assesses the meaningfulness of inferences drawn from scores on specific instruments, questioning whether items effectively measure their intended content In contrast, qualitative validity pertains to the accuracy of research findings, which can be verified through specific procedures.
To ensure the reliability and validity of this research, several procedures were implemented Initially, the survey questions were piloted with two participants to assess their comprehensibility, leading to necessary wording adjustments for clarity Automated analyses of the questionnaire data using Google Forms further guaranteed the accuracy of the results, a process also applied to the interview questions Additionally, the 12 students who participated in the interviews contributed valuable insights to the study.
The questionnaire survey involved 97 participants, which enhanced the validity of the results as interviewees elaborated on the quantitative findings Additionally, the researcher meticulously reviewed the interview transcripts to ensure accuracy and eliminate any transcription errors.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Students’ perceptions of writing accuracy
The questionnaire revealed that over 70% of college students prioritize writing accuracy, with 56.7% strongly agreeing and 22.7% agreeing on the importance of minimizing errors This finding aligns with previous research (Diab, 2005; Leki, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988) One student emphasized, “If it is academic writing, then it should be highly accurate” (S8) Conversely, only 11.4% of students did not recognize the significance of error-free writing, while 9.3% remained uncertain about its value.
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strong agree
It is important for you to have as few errors as possible in your writing n % n % n % n % n %
Table 4: Students’ perceptions of writing accuracy
Students’ perceptions of frequency of teachers’ WCF provision
Item 5 of the questionnaire asked the students how often their teachers gave correct feedback to their writing and their responses are shown in Figure 2
Figure 2: Students’ perceptions of teachers’ frequency of giving WCF
According to the data presented, 56% of participants reported receiving Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) occasionally, with one-third stating that their teachers provided accurate feedback regularly Only 9% noted that their teachers consistently corrected their papers, while 2% felt they rarely received error feedback, and no participants reported receiving no feedback at all These findings indicate that error correction is a prevalent practice in the university's EFL writing classes, despite ongoing debates about its effectiveness Overall, students perceive that most teachers offer feedback either sometimes or frequently.
The feedback frequency provided by teachers varied based on several factors, including the individual teacher's approach, the level of the writing course, class size, and how often students submitted their work.
A student noted that teachers provided more frequent corrections on initial assignments, decreasing towards the course's end, suggesting that early feedback aims to foster student independence and self-correction Additionally, interviews indicated that "frequent" feedback typically occurs every two weeks.
“occasional” as two or three times a semester
Sometimes Frequently Always Rarely Never
Another interviewee gave details into how her teachers dealt with big-sized classes while still maintaining the high frequency of giving feedback as she responded,
During my education, teachers provided individual feedback approximately every two weeks, while group work feedback occurred more frequently In my first year, we engaged in group activities bi-weekly, allowing us to give each other feedback In larger classes, error correction was less common, with a greater emphasis on the ideas presented in our writing Occasionally, teachers would randomly select ten students' papers for correction at a time.
The frequency of teacher feedback is closely linked to the number of writing submissions from students, with priority given to those who submit their work early One student noted, “The more papers we submitted, the more bonus grades we would get.” Additionally, another student emphasized that without submitting their paper, they would not receive any feedback.
The frequency of providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) differs among teachers; as one interviewee noted, "One teacher gave WCF on a weekly basis, while others provided corrections every two weeks or even less frequently, with some offering feedback only three to four times a semester."
Two interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the feedback provided by their teachers One noted that some papers were returned uncorrected, while the other mentioned delays of two weeks or more before receiving marked assignments Additionally, some teachers only communicated grades without offering any corrections.
In a recent interview, the majority of students (11 out of 12) expressed a strong preference for frequent corrections on their writing from teachers Two students specifically requested feedback on a weekly basis, while another suggested a biweekly review.
24 reasonable, stating that once every week might take a toll on teachers The reasons they put forward are summarized as follows:
(i) To improve their writing more quickly
(ii) To see how their writing skills have changed over time
(iii) To be able to learn more from teachers as many of them have studied abroad so their writing styles are of a high standard
Furthermore, one student was concerned over the possibility of students being too reliant on their teachers as she said,
In the early stages of my writing journey, I sought frequent feedback to enhance my skills However, as I demonstrated progress, I felt that constant corrections were no longer necessary My improvements could be evaluated through my written work.
Student S2 expressed that frequent corrections from teachers made him feel overwhelmed, leading him to prefer receiving feedback less often.
Most teachers are seen as correcting students' papers either frequently or occasionally, but students desire more frequent feedback to enhance their writing skills and learn from teacher evaluations This demand for regular corrections poses a challenge for teachers, who often manage multiple students across various classes simultaneously.
Students’ perceptions of teachers’ use of marking criteria
The questionnaire (item 2) also asked students if their teachers give them marking criteria before they do a writing test/assignment Most students (80%) said
“Yes” while the rest said “No”
A significant majority of students (85%) expressed a preference for receiving marking criteria prior to starting a writing task, indicating its perceived usefulness In contrast, only a small percentage disagreed (5%) or remained neutral (10%) regarding the value of such criteria.
Students highlighted the importance of clear marking criteria, stating that it serves as a guide to help them identify key areas for improvement and enhance their writing outcomes.
Understanding the marking criteria is essential for improving your writing and achieving high grades quickly By knowing what to focus on in your studies and writing, you can effectively enhance your skills and meet the expectations of your assessments.
“I think it’s very important as students are fond of high grades so they tend to focus on the criteria that help them get high grades” (S2)
Four interviewed students expressed that they do not find marking criteria essential, as achieving high grades is not their primary focus Instead, they believe that teachers should provide writing criteria or clear instructions to help improve their writing skills One student noted, “I don’t care much about grades but I only look at the criteria as they guide me how to write my paper” (S11).
Most teachers at this university provide marking criteria before assigning writing tasks, which students largely appreciate as a guide to achieving better academic results However, some students prioritize the clarity of teachers' instructions over the pursuit of high grades.
Students’ perceptions of focus of teachers’ feedback
The focus of teachers’ feedback was also documented in the questionnaire (item
6), and findings are summarized in Figure 3
Figure 3 Teachers’ focus of feedback
Teachers' feedback primarily emphasized grammatical errors (78%), coherence and cohesion (65%), and lexical choice (59%), while less focus was given to mechanical errors (38%) and task response (36%) Notably, participants could select multiple options, which is why the total responses do not sum to 100%.
Follow-up interviews revealed that teachers prioritize grammatical issues, aligning with questionnaire results Students maintain a positive attitude toward this focus on grammar, with one stating, “My teachers focus more on the grammatical side I think that’s reasonable because grammar is a part of a language” (S6) Another student remarked, “grammar and mechanics are the most basic aspects to assess a student’s writing ability” (S7) This observation is supported by Leki’s (1991) assertion that “errors in grammar, punctuation, and spelling are concrete, making them easier for both students and teachers to address than more abstract aspects like ideas or development” (p.209).
That the teachers in the present study focused on grammar could be due to a lack of a grammatical component in their instruction, as narrated by students:
Task response (e.g how you address the requirements of the task
Vocabulary choice Coherence and cohesion Grammatical errors
“I feel like in classes teachers only taught how to write the content but when they gave correction on our paper, they focused on both aspects” (S6)
“As for grammar, teachers didn’t teach grammar structures in class but they addressed grammar on our writing paper” (S7)
The questionnaire (item 7) also explored the students’ expectations on what writing areas they think should be focused on most The result is shown in Figure 4
Figure 4 Areas of writing students wanted teachers to focus on
According to the data presented in Figure 4, most students expressed a desire for feedback in four key areas: word choice (66%), ideas and content (63%), grammatical errors (59%), and paper organization (58%) In contrast, they showed less concern for spelling (24%) and punctuation (8%).
In a recent survey, eight out of twelve interviewees prioritized content and organization over grammar and mechanical issues in their writing Conversely, four participants believed that both aspects held equal significance Notably, none of the students considered grammar and mechanics to be more critical than content and organization in a paper.
Students emphasized the significance of content and organization in EFL writing, asserting that these elements are crucial for crafting a compelling essay, even if the grammar is not perfect They expressed that a well-structured essay enhances clarity and engagement, making it more effective in conveying ideas.
Marks indicating errors in punctuation
Marks indicating errors in spelling
Comments on the writing style
Comments on the organization of the paper
Marks indicating errors in grammar
Comments on the ideas/content
Marks indicating errors in vocabulary choice
Students consistently recognize the potential for improving their grammar skills over time One English major noted, “I can always improve my grammar by myself.” Additionally, some students expressed confidence in their grammar, indicating they primarily seek feedback on the content of their essays, with one stating, “I think my grammar is pretty good I just want to know if my ideas are logical or supportive of an essay’s theme.” This aligns with Chen et al (2016), who found that EFL participants favor feedback on content and organization However, it contrasts with Amrhein and Nassaji (2011), whose ESL students preferred a focus on grammatical errors This difference may stem from the distinct characteristics of EFL and ESL contexts, where EFL emphasizes form and ESL prioritizes meaning.
On the other hand, many students emphasized both content and language as they believed a successful academic paper needs to address both aspects One student commented:
Both content and organization are crucial in a paper, but maintaining decent grammar is equally important These elements are interconnected; a writer's grammar and vocabulary must be of a high standard to produce quality content.
Students believe that teachers offer adequate feedback on grammatical errors; however, they seek additional input on content, vocabulary selection, and the overall coherence and cohesion of their work.
Students’ perceptions of how teachers conducted WCF
5.1 Students’ perceptions of extent of teacher WCF
An oversight in data collection revealed insights into students' perceptions of teacher feedback Most writing teachers, as reported by 8 out of 12 interviewees, were seen to employ comprehensive marking strategies In contrast, a smaller number of teachers utilized a selective approach, focusing only on major or content-related errors This indicates a significant variation in feedback practices among educators.
29 preferences into account might lend teachers some ideas on choosing an appropriate approach that can benefit both teachers and students
The questionnaire asked the students on the extent of WCF that they preferred to get from their teachers (item 8) and the result is presented in Table 5
Item 5 If there are many errors in your writing, what do you think your English teacher should do?
Teacher should mark all errors 34 35.1%
Teacher should mark only the errors that interfere with communicating your ideas
Teacher should mark most of the major errors, but not necessarily all of them
Teachers should focus on marking all major errors while overlooking minor ones, as this approach accounts for 12.4% of effective feedback Alternatively, some educators prefer to highlight only a few major errors, representing 6.2% of the responses Another perspective suggests that teachers should refrain from marking any errors and instead concentrate on the ideas and content presented by students.
Table 5: Students’ preferences for the extent of teacher feedback
According to Table 5, a significant number of students, specifically 35%, expressed a desire for comprehensive feedback from their teachers, seeking corrections on all types of errors In contrast, nearly 25% preferred a more selective marking approach, focusing primarily on meaning-related errors, while 20% were concerned with what they considered major errors Conversely, only 11% of students wanted minimal feedback, requesting that teachers address only a few errors or concentrate solely on the ideas and content of their writing.
The students’ reasons behind such choices were deeply explored in the follow-up interviews Those who preferred comprehensive feedback on their written work explained:
“I want to improve quickly If teachers do not correct thoroughly, they might think it’s normal for them but for students, it’s not the same so it’s better to correct
For English pedagogical students, receiving detailed feedback from their teachers is essential, as it serves as a model for how they can provide constructive feedback to their own future students.
I seek thorough feedback on my writing, as I often make mistakes without realizing it When reviewing my papers marked by teachers, I tend to concentrate solely on their corrections Consequently, if they overlook certain errors, I remain unaware of them and do not revisit those sections.
“They should correct every mistake If it is academic writing, then it should be highly accurate so they should correct all” (S8)
Students appreciate comprehensive feedback strategies due to their strong emphasis on accuracy in academic writing, their difficulty in identifying errors without teacher assistance, and the potential to apply similar correction techniques in future writing endeavors.
Some students recognized the difficulties teachers encounter when providing detailed feedback One student noted, “Comprehensive error correction is a pretty tough task, almost impractical when correcting for a whole class” (S5) With class sizes ranging from 20 to 40 students, it is understandable that teachers may feel overwhelmed by the need to address every error in their students' work.
To alleviate the pressure on teachers, students S8 and S9 proposed that not every error needs to be corrected; instead, teachers should focus on major errors while merely indicating minor ones to encourage self-correction This approach suggests that while all errors should be acknowledged, not all require correction, ultimately saving teachers time and energy The challenge lies in determining which errors warrant primary attention Truscott (1996) recommended that teachers select corrections based on the students' current developmental stage concerning specific grammatical aspects.
Those who preferred selective feedback also gave their justifications The first reason, as explained by two students, was that they felt overwhelmed and demotivated
Students expressed sadness upon seeing extensive red ink on their papers, indicating the emotional impact of corrections despite recognizing their necessity for learning This aligns with Truscott’s (1996) assertion that students often find excessive marking discouraging Some students suggested that teachers should prioritize feedback on ideas and word usage, as they felt confident in their grammar skills This implies that students' proficiency levels may affect their feedback preferences, with higher proficiency students favoring selective correction Given that the participants were third or fourth-year students with advanced English skills, it is essential for teachers to be more discerning in their corrections, as overcorrection can lead to student demotivation.
(1991) once suggested that “excessive focus on error can be debilitating for students and pointlessly time-consuming for teacher” (p.210)
In a recent questionnaire, students were asked whether teachers should mark repeated errors in their writing every time they occur or only the first instance The results revealed that just over half of the respondents (52%) preferred corrections for only the initial error, while nearly half (48%) favored marking all occurrences This indicates a divided opinion among students regarding the most beneficial approach to error correction in their writing.
Follow-up interviews revealed the motivations behind students' preferences regarding error correction A significant majority, 11 out of 12 students, supported the idea of correcting only first-time errors One student articulated this perspective, stating, “If teachers corrected an error every time it appeared, students would become lazy and dependent.”
As a result, the students would not pay attention to or remember their mistakes” (S3)
A common perspective expressed was that teachers should only address errors upon their initial occurrence, as students feel capable of correcting similar mistakes independently thereafter.
Teachers should signal repeated errors through methods such as underlining, marking, or writing notes to alert students This suggests that the interviewed students, primarily third and fourth-year students, exhibit a degree of independence and responsibility in their writing However, it's important to interpret this finding cautiously, as their proficiency levels may influence their preferences.
On the other hand, only one student commented, “I still want my teachers to correct every single error even if it was repeated so as not to cause any misunderstanding” (S2)
The findings in this study contrast with those of Amrhein and Nassaji (2010), where most EFL students believed that repeated errors should be marked consistently They argued that this approach helps students recognize patterns and reinforces learning by providing ongoing reminders.
5.2 Students’ perceptions of teachers’ correction techniques
Interviews revealed that students had varied perceptions of their teachers' error correction methods in writing classes Both direct and indirect correction techniques were frequently used, with students providing mixed feedback Indirect feedback strategies included highlighting errors without corrections, adding constructive comments in the margins or at the end of papers, employing correction codes, using question marks, and offering additional suggestions.
“My teachers used red pens They indicated errors and wrote the correct forms of the errors They rarely gave clues” (S2)
Students’ response to WCF upon reception
A significant 91% of students recognized the importance of revising their papers after receiving feedback from teachers One student noted, “I think it’s necessary to revise our paper, otherwise we’ll forget later and repeat the same errors” (S6), highlighting the value of addressing mistakes This aligns with Chandler's (2003) assertion that failing to revise can hinder students' writing improvement, similar to the absence of feedback Only a small fraction of students (5%) expressed neutrality or disagreement regarding the necessity of revision.
The questionnaire further investigated students’ opinion on what helped them learn the most from teachers’ feedback The result is demonstrated in Table 9
Item 15: What helps you most to learn from the errors marked on your paper and helps you avoid making that errors again?
Rewriting only the sentence(s) in which an error/ error(s) appeared 28 28.9%
Just reading through the paper carefully without rewriting 27 27.9%
Asking teachers questions about the corrective feedback that you receive 14 14.4%
Doing nothing because you know you’ll probably just forget and make the same errors again no matter what you do 1 1%
Table 9: Students’ responses to teachers’ feedback
The analysis of student reactions to feedback reveals a diverse range of responses Over half of the students (56%) adopted productive strategies, such as rewriting parts of their work or the entire paper based on teachers' feedback In contrast, nearly one third (28%) only read through their papers without engaging in further activities, with some attributing this behavior to "laziness." As one student noted, they preferred to learn from feedback for future assignments rather than making corrections Additionally, 14% of students sought clarification from their teachers regarding aspects they found confusing, while very few ignored the feedback provided.
Recent follow-up interviews revealed that students frequently engaged in various activities after receiving feedback In addition to revising their work and seeking assistance from teachers, many students also turned to the Internet for help One student noted,
“I found more reference on the Internet; for example, finding good vocabulary or reading sample essays” (S2) Some asked from their friends who had high level of
English proficiency or took notes of important errors on their phones or notebooks
In summary, although most learners recognized the significance of revising their papers after receiving feedback from teachers, only slightly more than half actually implemented revisions, such as rewriting sections or the entire paper Other common actions included researching references online, seeking assistance from friends or teachers, and taking notes Nonetheless, a third of the students believed that merely reading through their papers and making "mental notes" sufficed for improvement.
Students’ perceptions of whose responsibility to correct their writing
The results of the questionnaire regarding error correction in students' writing are summarized in Table 9 An overwhelming 85% of respondents believe that both teachers and students share the responsibility for identifying and correcting errors In contrast, only 13% think that this task primarily falls on students, while a mere 2% assert that it is mainly the teachers' responsibility.
Item 16 Which of the following do you agree with? Responses
It is mainly teachers’ job to locate and correct errors for students 2 2.1%
It is mainly students’ job to locate and correct their own errors 13 13.4%
It is both teachers’ and students’ job to locate and correct students’ errors 82 84.5%
Table 10: Students’ perceptions of whose responsibility to correct their writing
Interviewees indicated that teachers, possessing high levels of English competence, played a crucial role in guiding students and providing feedback This reflects the students' strong respect for their teachers, whom they viewed as the most reliable source of assistance Additionally, students recognized their own responsibility in identifying and rectifying their errors.
Students’ suggestions for the improvement of teachers’ feedback-giving practices
The interview further asked the 12 participants if they had any suggestions in order to better WCF practices in writing classes Only 10 of them raised their voice on this matter
Students recommended that teachers prioritize content-oriented errors over minor grammatical mistakes in their written feedback They also emphasized the importance of providing feedback more frequently and in a timely manner.
“I hope teachers correct my paper to a medium extent They should focus on noticeable errors Minor errors should be skipped They should pay attention to the
43 content instead of too much attention to grammar rules because I feel like sometimes I have good ideas but receive low grades because of my grammar” (S2)
“I hope to get feedback more frequently For example, once every week” (S4)
“I hope teachers can return feedback quicker” (S5)
The article emphasizes the importance of enhancing feedback delivery and paper-marking techniques in education It advocates for the increased use of e-feedback alongside technology in writing instruction, which aligns with students' expectations for more interactive class discussions Such discussions not only save time for teachers but also foster a collaborative learning environment where students benefit from peer interactions Additionally, the article suggests that error indication methods should be more considerate, recommending techniques like underlining errors instead of crossing them out, as this can positively impact students' emotions.
Teachers should recommend websites or software that enable students to independently check their work for errors This shared responsibility between students and teachers is crucial for ensuring the accuracy of students' papers.
“I hope teachers will use a friendlier way of correcting students’ written work; for example, using green pens to make it less serious They should underline errors instead of crossing out” (S8)
“If students have many errors in their writing, teachers should bring them up in class discussion so that we can learn from each other” (S9)
Students prioritize the clarity of teachers' instructions during the writing process over the final grades of their papers It is essential for teachers to foster a critical mindset in students and guide them on how to logically support their ideas in their writing.
“It’s important to teach students about the purpose of writing, how to express their thoughts, develop ideas and ways to deliver ideas, not just about getting good grades” (S12)
“Teachers should teach us critical thinking, how to look at a problem instead of just teaching essay structure and encourage us to support our opinions” (S9)
A student proposed that educators utilize diverse strategies to inspire and motivate students to enhance their writing skills, including organizing writing competitions and offering rewards for the successful completion of writing assignments.
This chapter highlights students' perceptions and preferences regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) practices The following chapter will summarize the key findings, discuss the limitations of the current research, outline significant pedagogical implications, and offer recommendations for future studies.