INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
The widespread use of the English language significantly influences global business and tourism, fostering development in various countries and providing individuals from underdeveloped nations access to quality education in developed regions According to Fishman (1988), over 80% of internet content is in English, meaning that those who do not learn English may miss out on more than 80% of new knowledge available online Proficiency in English has become essential for individuals aspiring to pursue quality education in developed countries and secure high-paying positions in multinational corporations.
Writing is a crucial skill for assessing English proficiency, particularly in academic contexts (White, 1987) The International English Language Testing System (IELTS) has experienced a significant rise in global test-takers, with approximately three million individuals annually (IELTS, 2017) This surge is attributed to the perception of IELTS as a high-stakes test that provides reliable evidence of English proficiency (Green, 2006) In Vietnam, IELTS has gained popularity as it is essential for employment in multinational companies and studying abroad However, research from the IELTS council in 2017 revealed that Vietnamese test-takers scored the lowest in writing among the four skills Sachs & Polio (2007) highlight that writing poses challenges for English as a second language (ESL) and English as a foreign language (EFL) learners, necessitating proficient teachers who are dedicated to improving students' writing skills Consequently, educators continuously seek effective methods to enhance writing abilities in second language learners.
Providing feedback is crucial for ESL/EFL teachers and students to enhance writing skills It serves as an essential tool in the learning process, helping students understand their strengths and areas for improvement By incorporating constructive feedback, educators can guide students toward better writing practices.
Corrective feedback (CF) is a crucial educational practice linked to language acquisition, as defined by Evans et al (2010) and Russell & Spada (2006), where it involves providing learners with insights into their language errors However, Truscott (1996) argues that CF can be detrimental and ineffective, sparking ongoing debates about its role in writing instruction Research has highlighted the negative consequences of CF, leading to conflicting opinions among scholars Recent studies on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) have identified various types, including Focused, Unfocused, Direct, and Indirect WCF, which can enhance students' writing through experimental approaches Despite substantial research on WCF/CF, there is a scarcity of studies examining teachers' perspectives on teaching writing to IELTS candidates, particularly within the Vietnamese context.
Teachers' perceptions of teaching and learning significantly influence their feedback practices, shaping their choice of instructional approaches (Griffiths, 2007) This research investigates how IELTS teachers in various English centers in Buon Ma Thuot city perceive and implement Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), as well as the factors that affect their practices The goal is to utilize the findings alongside existing literature on WCF to develop a workshop that enhances teachers' understanding of effective feedback strategies Additionally, this initiative aims to establish a robust assessment system for IELTS at the language center where the researcher is employed.
Statement of Problem
Debates on the value of feedback have persisted for decades, highlighting its potential drawbacks when not implemented effectively Truscott (1996) argues that incorrect approaches to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) can lead to negative outcomes for both students and teachers, resulting in time-consuming practices that frustrate both parties Similarly, Mullick and Sheesh (2008) found that EFL teachers often fail to employ appropriate instructional strategies, which hinders students' ability to enhance their writing skills.
Recent test results from the Educational Testing Service (ETS) indicate that writing poses significant challenges for Vietnamese test-takers, with inaccuracies in word usage and grammar impacting their performance on international language exams such as IELTS and TOEFL Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes the necessity for students to receive support from experts to review and correct their work during the language acquisition process Consequently, the implementation of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in writing instruction is crucial for enhancing students' writing skills.
Despite extensive literature on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in second language (L2) writing, there is a scarcity of studies focusing on teachers' perceptions and practices in teaching academic writing for international tests like IELTS Different criteria are established for IELTS compared to other writing types, and the specific goals of learners preparing for the IELTS may influence how teachers approach WCF Therefore, this study aims to explore teachers' perceptions of WCF and their instructional practices within IELTS courses.
Aim and Objectives of the Study
This study aims to explore teachers' perceptions and practices regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in IELTS writing courses in Buon Ma Thuot City, with anticipated significance for both theoretical understanding and practical application.
More specifically, based on the current situation of teaching at English centers in Buon Ma Thuot City, this study was conducted in an attempt:
- To investigate the teachers’ perceptions of WCF and how they perceive the importance of these practices in improving students’ writing results, and factors affecting their practices in providing WCF
The researcher aimed to investigate the essay correction methods employed by educators, specifically focusing on the strategies utilized, such as direct corrective feedback (CF), indirect CF, and metalinguistic CF Additionally, the study examined which IELTS band score criteria teachers prioritize and whether they address every error or concentrate on key areas deemed significant.
Research Questions
Teachers at English language centers in Buon Ma Thuot City perceive written corrective feedback as a crucial tool for enhancing students' writing skills in IELTS preparation They believe that effective feedback not only helps students identify and rectify their mistakes but also fosters a deeper understanding of writing conventions To provide this feedback, teachers employ various strategies, including detailed comments on written assignments, one-on-one consultations, and structured feedback sessions, ensuring that students receive constructive insights that promote their learning and improvement.
Significance of the Study
The effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has sparked debate, with some researchers, such as Truscott (1999), highlighting its negative impact on students' learning and attitudes toward study This study aims to inform IELTS teachers about their perceptions and current practices regarding WCF, thereby contributing to the understanding of WCF and enhancing the literature on foreign language teaching in non-native contexts like Vietnam.
This study enhances teachers' understanding of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), highlighting its various types along with their respective advantages and disadvantages As a result, educators will have a broader range of techniques to choose from for correcting students' work, ultimately fostering greater motivation in students' learning Additionally, the research provides valuable insights into effective feedback strategies.
This study outlines eight foundational principles that enable teachers to adapt their teaching methods, ultimately enhancing student outcomes It offers educational institutions, particularly English centers, a vital opportunity to expand their understanding of Continuous Feedback (CF) Additionally, it serves as a basis for organizing training sessions on relevant topics to elevate the quality of IELTS courses and make necessary adjustments to the curriculum.
Scope of the Study
This study focused on two English centers in Buon Ma Thuot, selected for an interview and document analysis based on specific research criteria It aimed to investigate teachers' perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and their tendencies in providing it The research explored teachers' general views on WCF and identified the types of feedback they utilized, as well as the language areas they emphasized.
The research focused on teachers with at least a B.A degree, as a solid background in English teaching is believed to enhance their understanding of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Participants were required to have experience in providing feedback on students' IELTS writing compositions The study analyzed one hundred Task 2 essays from ten teachers, reflecting their evolving perceptions and practices regarding WCF over time, as these essays were sourced from their most recent IELTS courses, which included two tasks in the writing test.
Due to time constraints, the focus was placed exclusively on IELTS writing task 2 essays, as they are more challenging and require greater effort from students, while also necessitating detailed corrective feedback from teachers.
Definition of Key Terms
Corrective feedback refers to any indication provided to learners that their use of the target language is incorrect, as defined by Lightbown and Spada (1999) This practice is prevalent in education, particularly in language instruction, where students receive feedback from teachers in both formal and informal contexts.
Written corrective feedback in this study involves feedback given by EFL teachers on the use of language in a student’s IELTS writing essay
Perception in the study reflects how they think about WCF and its effects on students’ uptake and attitude
Practice is the actual application of WCF in teachers’ IELTS writing classes including strategies they use when giving WCF and how the IELTS writing band descriptor is applied
IELTS teachers are those from selected English centers in Buon Ma Thuot who are teaching the IELTS class
AWT2, or Academic Writing Task 2 in the IELTS writing tests, assesses candidates' skills in articulating their opinions, identifying problems, and proposing solutions Test-takers must support their views with well-reasoned arguments, relevant examples, and personal experiences, demonstrating their knowledge and analytical abilities.
The IELTS Writing Band Descriptor serves as a crucial reference for teachers in scoring students' essays It comprises four key criteria: Task Achievement/Task Response, Coherence and Cohesion, Lexical Resource, and Grammatical Range and Accuracy, each holding equal importance in the evaluation process.
Organization of the Thesis
This thesis includes 5 chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction- This chapter gives an initial overview of the thesis which sets the general context of the research Eight sections are of this chapter is presented in sequence, including “Background to the study”, “Statement of the problem”, “Aims and objectives of the study”, “Research Questions”, “Scope of the study”, “Significance of the study”,
“Definitions of the key terms”, and “Organization of the thesis”
Chapter 2: Literature review-This chapter presents the theoretical background of some previous studies and it is composed of 2 main sections: theoretical foundation of CF and WCF, and previous studies relating to teachers’ perception of WCF The main aim of this part is supporting the researcher to back up the researcher’s thesis by employing and delving into previous studies in the field
Chapter 3: Research Methodology-This chapter presents the research methods that were employed to conduct this study This chapter access into detailed and carefully designed methods of collecting, analyzing and illustrating the data to answer the research questions The major research instruments: interview, document analysis, and questionnaire are identified This chapter includes sections Research design, Instruments, Data collection, and analysis procedure
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions- the findings and discussion of the findings of the study are presented in this chapter following the order of the research questions The findings of research question 1 are demonstrated first, and it is followed by research question 2 After that, the discussion for the findings is provided
Chapter 5: Conclusion -the last chapter includes a summary of research findings, an explanation about the inevitable limitations of the thesis, and suggestions for further field- related studies Finally, recommendations for further studies are put forward along with some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study
LITERATURE REVIEW
Corrective Feedback
To grasp contemporary trends in feedback provision research, it is essential to explore how recent scholars have defined this process and assessed its effectiveness in learning This literature review section will present various definitions of feedback while emphasizing the similarities and differences among researchers' perspectives.
Feedback, as defined by Kulhavy (1977), encompasses the methods used to inform learners about the accuracy of their instructional responses He emphasizes that the quality and effectiveness of feedback are influenced by the availability of research, which provides essential information for students' learning Kulhavy argues that limited access to research compels learners to independently seek necessary information to find correct answers Additionally, he suggests that teacher-provided feedback should guide learners on how to improve their performance and make informed decisions.
Effective feedback from teachers enables students to identify their strengths and weaknesses, allowing them to take appropriate actions to enhance their performance and maximize their potential Inadequate feedback can result in confusion and inaccurate evaluations of a student's abilities Broader definitions of feedback, such as that by Hattie et al (1996), describe it as information provided to learners.
12 to the learners to serve the purpose of encouraging learners to correct responses or seek alternatives for the correct ones Later, feedback is described by Nicol (2005) as
Understanding the connection between a student's current learning and performance and their educational goals and standards is crucial Feedback plays a vital role in enabling students to track their engagement with learning activities and evaluate their progress toward achieving these goals.
Effective feedback is essential for learners, as it should provide them with the necessary information to self-assess their performance accurately Misleading feedback can lead to confusion and an inaccurate evaluation of a learner's abilities.
2.1.2 Error Correction and Corrective Feedback
Students often make errors or mistakes in language learning, but teachers may not always distinguish between the two, leading to uniform responses By understanding the differences between errors and mistakes, as well as the concepts of error correction and corrective feedback, teachers can enhance the effectiveness of their feedback.
Richards (1971) defines mistakes as errors stemming from poor performance and lack of systematic approach, which are correctable by the writer In contrast, errors of competence reflect a deeper understanding of the language Khansir (2010) supports this view, noting that learners can identify and rectify their mistakes when they have a solid grasp of the target language Even native speakers occasionally err in their communication Zublin (2011) highlights that such mistakes often arise from fatigue or emotional distress, emphasizing that they can be recognized and self-corrected.
Errors stemming from a lack of language knowledge provide valuable insights for teachers regarding the effectiveness of their teaching methodologies These mistakes highlight areas of the syllabus that require more focus and assist educators in determining how to allocate time across different sections of their curriculum (Khansir & Parkdel, 2018)
McArthur (1992) defines mistakes as misunderstandings or faults in execution, categorizing them into two types: competence mistakes, also known as errors, which stem from a lack of knowledge or skill.
13 lack of knowledge in a language area, and performance mistakes (technically, mistakes), which is made due to psychological matters such as stress, emotion, weariness and results in
This study explores teachers' feedback on students' errors and mistakes in IELTS writing, focusing on the concepts of "slip of the tongue" and mistyping, which will be used interchangeably throughout the research.
Error correction, as defined by the Longman dictionary, refers to the methods employed by teachers or advanced learners to address mistakes in a learner's speech This process can be either direct, where the teacher provides the correct form, or indirect, where the teacher highlights the issue and encourages the learner to self-correct Essentially, error correction involves identifying errors in communication and reconstructing the original, error-free messages.
Error correction is a vital form of feedback that helps students improve their language skills (Amara, 2015) However, feedback encompasses more than just correcting errors; it includes constructive information regarding students' performance aimed at enhancing their understanding of the target language (Zublin, 2011) Effective corrective feedback (CF) should not only focus on errors but also provide a positive interpretation of students' efforts Zublin emphasizes the importance of offering encouraging comments to motivate learners and alleviate the stress associated with error correction, thereby preventing discouragement from their limitations.
Overall, the CF studied in this research is the combination of error correction and comments on students’ writing essays provided by teachers in their IELTS writing classes
Numerous studies highlight the significance of corrective feedback (CF) in language acquisition Sachs and Polio (2007) identify two key roles of CF: it enhances learners' descriptive knowledge and helps them monitor errors, preventing these from becoming automatic responses Additionally, CF provides learners with valuable opportunities to practice their target language DeKeyser (2007) further supports this notion, emphasizing the critical role of feedback in effective language learning.
The skill-based theory posits that collaborative feedback (CF) serves as a vital facilitator for knowledge transformation, emphasizing the importance of its quantity and characteristics Additionally, Nicol & Macfarlane (2006) highlight that CF effectively illustrates what constitutes good performance.
Understanding academic goals is crucial for students' achievement and self-assessment, as highlighted by Black & William (1998) This alignment of goals set by both teachers and students fosters effective self-regulation in learning (Nicol, 2005) Additionally, feedback plays a vital role in providing students with valuable insights into their learning progress.
Written Corrective Feedback
2.2.1 Definition of Written Corrective Feedback
According to Truscott (1996), written corrective feedback (WCF) is essential for enhancing students' writing quality and is a fundamental component of the writing curriculum He defines WCF as the process of correcting grammatical errors to improve a student's writing accuracy This feedback focuses on various aspects of grammar, including spelling, punctuation, tenses, and word usage, aiming to enhance the overall effectiveness of students' essays.
16 to Sheen (2010), can include both positive and negative responses The comments such as
Positive feedback in student compositions is often represented by terms like "great" and "excellent." Conversely, negative feedback highlights instances of incorrect usage in expressions or utterances According to Ellis (2009), corrective feedback falls under the category of negative feedback.
Written corrective feedback (WCF) differs from general written feedback, which Juvenale (2016) describes as teachers' comments on a student's essay content and form According to Hyland and Hyland (2006), WCF serves as a tool for teachers to provide responses and guidance aimed at enhancing student learning For effective learning, feedback must be clear, idea-based, and tailored to various proficiency levels (Paulus, 1999) WCF is also referred to by several terms, including "teacher response," "teacher comments," "teacher commentary," "teacher corrections," and "teacher editing" (Hamtaei & Rahimy, 2015).
In conclusion, written corrective feedback (WCF) is viewed by some researchers as teacher comments aimed at enhancing students' grammatical accuracy and word usage in essays In contrast, written feedback encompasses teacher commentary on both the form and content of student work This research seeks to explore the relationship between written feedback and WCF, positioning written feedback as a component of the broader category of written corrective feedback.
2.2.2 Strategies of Written Corrective Feedback
Despite ongoing debates about the effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), numerous studies have investigated its impact on student performance and compared various WCF strategies Researchers have classified WCF in different ways, highlighting its diverse applications in educational settings.
Research on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) identifies several strategies, including direct, indirect, metalinguistic, focused, unfocused, and electronic feedback (Ellis, 2009) This study specifically highlights five commonly used WCF strategies: direct, indirect, metalinguistic, selective, and comprehensive feedback.
2.2.2.1 Types of Written Corrective Feedback
Sheen (2007) has mentioned three types of WCF, including direct, indirect, and metalinguistic feedback
Direct corrective feedback involves identifying errors and providing the correct form, as noted by Bichener and Knoch (2008) This process may include crossing out unnecessary words, supplying missing phrases, or replacing incorrect forms (Ferris, 2003) For example, a teacher might use a red pencil to cross out a word that is in the wrong tense and write the correct form above it.
- He go to school everyday goes
- I ˄ working very hard these days am
+ Indirect corrective feedback, similarly, involves the indication of the errors
Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) allows students to identify and correct their own errors without direct corrections provided This method includes techniques such as underlining mistakes, circling errors, or coding them to indicate the number of errors present (Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001) By engaging in this self-correction process, students develop a deeper understanding of their writing structure and improve their overall skills.
- They do the housework yesterday
- She arrived to the French class weekly (1)
Direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) are two primary types that researchers focus on According to a survey by Lee (1997), indirect WCF is more beneficial as it fosters long-term language acquisition Ferris and Roberts (2001) further explain that WCF enhances learners' problem-solving skills, contributing to their overall development.
Research indicates that direct written corrective feedback (WCF) is crucial for intermediate students, as it aids them in identifying and avoiding complex errors related to idioms and grammar (Bitchener et al., 2005) While direct feedback is often deemed more effective for untreatable errors lacking specific rules, indirect WCF can be beneficial for treatable errors that learners can self-correct (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) This highlights the importance of tailored feedback strategies in enhancing students' writing skills.
Metalinguistic corrective feedback shares similarities with indirect correction, as it encourages students to recognize their errors without providing the correct form directly However, it distinguishes itself by requiring teachers to offer metalinguistic comments or clues that explain the nature of the errors (Ellis, 2009) This approach may also involve the use of abbreviation codes to indicate the types of errors, commonly referred to as coded feedback (Sheen, 2007) Examples of these abbreviation codes for correction can be found in Appendix E.
- “That's not how we use it in English”, “Should we use the past tense here?”
- The number of people in the word is increasing
Sheen (2007) conducted an experiment comparing Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback (WCF) and direct correction among adult intermediate ESL learners The findings indicated that participants receiving metalinguistic WCF outperformed those in the direct-only correction group during delayed posttests Additionally, a significant positive correlation was observed between students' achievements and their inclination towards language analysis The study revealed that language analytic ability had a stronger connection to acquisition in the metalinguistic group compared to the direct-only group Overall, the results demonstrated that written corrective feedback focusing on a specific linguistic feature enhanced learners' accuracy, particularly when metalinguistic feedback was utilized alongside high language analytic ability.
In summary, each feedback method presents unique advantages and disadvantages, making it essential for educators to grasp the key characteristics and benefits of each type prior to implementation (Ferris, 2010; Storch, 2010).
2.2.2.2 Extent of Written Corrective Feedback
The extent of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) involves determining whether teachers address all errors in student essays or concentrate on specific types of mistakes This distinction can be categorized into two approaches: comprehensive feedback, which corrects every error, and selective feedback, which targets particular issues.
Selective feedback, also known as focused corrective feedback, targets the correction of only one or two specific types of errors, as noted by Bitchener & Knoch (2008) For instance, when a teacher concentrates solely on spelling, other language elements like punctuation and grammar remain unaddressed.
Written Corrective Feedback in IELTS Writing
The IELTS guide for teachers (2013) highlights that IELTS is the most popular high-stakes English test, with over two million registrations annually It serves as a crucial tool for assessing English proficiency, predicting a test taker's readiness to study or live in English-speaking countries (Coleman et al., 2003) The IELTS test comprises four modules—speaking, listening, reading, and writing—each designed to evaluate specific language skills Test scores range from 1 to 9, with 9 indicating the highest level of English proficiency.
The amount of time for an Academic IELTS writing test is 60 minutes The test is composed of two tasks (i.e task 1 and task 2) The test is appropriate and comprehensible to
The IELTS writing test assesses the ability to use English, rather than knowledge or memory, for 22 examinees preparing for undergraduate or postgraduate education It is important to note that Task 1 (AWT1) requires a minimum of 150 words.
The AWT2 task has a recommended completion time of 20 minutes, followed by an additional 40 minutes allocated for task 2 This time distribution reflects the scoring system, as task 2 carries double the weight of task 1.
The IELTS writing test evaluates candidates' written language skills through task 1 and task 2, with AWT2 significantly impacting the overall band score AWT2 aims to assess the ability to craft an essay in response to specific prompts while demonstrating appropriate style, organization, and content (Moore & Morton, 2005) Test-takers must articulate their stance on an issue, suggest solutions, draw comparisons, or construct arguments effectively.
Writing is a complex skill that poses challenges for many learners (Uysal, 2009) While the IELTS writing test may be less stressful than the speaking test, candidates often find Task 2 (AWT2) particularly difficult due to the requirement of completing two tasks within a limited timeframe (Issitt, 2008) Test-takers face diverse and unpredictable topics without the aid of reference materials, and each task has specific rubrics and assessment criteria Understanding these elements can significantly influence learners' responses and enhance their overall performance (O’Loughlin & Wigglesworth, 2003).
The IELTS examination evaluates four distinct skills through its carefully structured sections, making it more reliable and manageable than integrated-skill tests (Pearson, 2018) Results are measured on a 9-band scale, without a pass or fail designation Essays are assessed by qualified examiners using confidential IELTS writing band descriptors, which weigh four criteria to evaluate the writing competence of test-takers.
The public version of IELTS band descriptors is accessible online, providing essential information for candidates The overall score is communicated without detailed feedback, which can be crucial for those planning to retake the exam IELTS Writing Task 2 is evaluated based on four criteria: task response, coherence and cohesion, lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy Task response assesses how well candidates address the prompt, illustrate their viewpoint, and support their ideas with evidence Creativity and critical thinking are vital for high-quality writing, as emphasized by Chandrasegaran (2000), who notes that originality significantly impacts scoring The coherence and cohesion criterion evaluates the organization of ideas, effective paragraphing, and the use of cohesive devices, ensuring clarity in communication.
Cohesion is viewed as a bottom-up processing approach, while coherence is associated with top-down processing (2007) Examiners often focus on discourse markers, or cohesive devices, as they are more noticeable, whereas coherence, despite being crucial, receives less attention Assessing coherence and cohesion is considered one of the most challenging tasks, as it can be subtle and difficult to identify (Canagarajah, 2002) A study by Majdeddin (2010) explored the relationship between training in coherence and cohesion criteria and test scores The researcher provided instructions on cohesive devices, including synonyms, substitutions, and referencing The findings indicated that improvements in the use of cohesive devices, particularly reference and super-ordinate terms, can enhance test-takers' scores Additionally, the Lexical Resource criterion evaluates not only the range and usage of vocabulary but also the accuracy and spelling of lexical items (ESOL, 2008).
To achieve a higher score in the IELTS writing section, test-takers should enhance their vocabulary by engaging with authentic reading materials, as suggested by Bagheri (2016) Understanding the appropriate use of vocabulary in real-life contexts is crucial, yet many candidates struggle to showcase their extensive vocabulary when faced with unfamiliar topics Additionally, Grammatical Range and Accuracy is vital, encompassing not only grammatical correctness but also the variety and complexity of sentence structures and punctuation Rimmer (2006) emphasizes that demonstrating proficiency through the use of complex grammatical structures can significantly boost candidates' band scores He also advocates for improved grammar instruction and assessment methods to better evaluate grammatical competence in writing.
Biber et al (1999) emphasize the importance of a comprehensive description of English grammar, supported by real corpus examples that reflect how both speakers and writers utilize linguistic resources However, Galloway (2005) argues that despite advancements in technology and corpora, there remains a limitation in achieving a significant improvement in understanding and assessing grammatical complexity.
Feedback plays a crucial role in enhancing academic writing, significantly influenced by the shift from a product to a process approach in writing instruction during the 1980s This transition has transformed feedback practices, as highlighted by Gibbs and Simpson (2004) Various corrective feedback strategies, such as direct, indirect, and metalinguistic feedback, along with error coding and peer correction, have proven effective in improving writing skills (Vahdani & Nemati, 2014) However, providing feedback on academic essays is often more complex than for other types of writing, as noted by Pearson (2018), requiring teachers to invest additional effort and consider the intricate context involved in academic writing.
To enhance students' writing performance, it is essential for teachers to encourage multiple drafts and implement effective feedback strategies as outlined by Williamson (2009) This process involves three key stages: First, prior to assessment, a comprehensive plan should focus on critical aspects such as organization, supporting ideas, and textual cohesion Second, during the marking phase, feedback must address language areas like morphology and syntax, with particular emphasis on grammar for students struggling in this area Teachers should provide general feedback alongside personalized comments and a list of common writing issues Finally, after the assessment, teachers can create a comment bank tailored to students' needs, allowing for the diagnosis of writing problems by comparing them to the initial assignment.
In their investigation of feedback types from five tutors and four teachers on students' academic writing, Ivanic et al (2000) identified six key response categories: 1) scoring accompanied by positive and negative comments to clarify evaluations, 2) utilizing model answers for comparison and assessment, 3) providing corrections or edits to student compositions, 4) engaging in communication about students' work, 5) offering recommendations for improvement in future essays, and 6) suggesting enhancements for revised compositions.
Teacher’s Perceptions of WCF
Teacher perception, as defined by Mozzafari & Wray (2015), encompasses the thoughts and images that educators hold regarding teaching activities and their students This perception is shaped by various life experiences, including family history, culture, and community influences, and significantly affects their teaching behavior.
26 the inner capacity of a person, including their attitudes, feelings, and points of view can be determined (Baron-Cohen, 1995)
Perception is defined as a specific way of understanding or thinking about something, encompassing the ability to notice and interpret sensory information (Rundell, 2007) Research highlights that positive attitudes and perceptions among teachers are crucial for effective teaching, as their beliefs and attitudes significantly impact their practices and, consequently, student performance (Eggen & Kauchak, 2001).
The researcher defines perceptions as a blend of beliefs, attitudes, and opinions that shape how teachers comprehend and evaluate the impact of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and the factors influencing their WCF practices.
Research on teacher perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) indicates that many educators believe it to be an effective instructional tool Various studies, including those by Kepner (1991) and Bitchener, have explored teachers' understanding and opinions regarding the impact of WCF in language learning contexts.
2008) but its effectiveness is doubtful to some others like teachers in the research by Hyland
In response to Ferris's claim that written corrective feedback (WCF) is ineffective and harmful, Truscott (1996), a respected educator, asserts that nearly all second language (L2) writing instructors utilize WCF in some capacity, and it is widely endorsed by experts in the field (1998, p 327).
A study by Evans et al (2010) reveals that teachers, particularly those with extensive experience, have a strong interest in Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and consider it effective for improving learners' accuracy without overwhelming them However, some teachers who do not provide WCF believe that learners should address their own errors, prioritizing content, organization, and expression instead Factors such as time constraints, the complexity of errors, and students' attitudes hinder the implementation of WCF for some educators Notably, 80% of the surveyed teachers acknowledged the significance of WCF in the learning process.
27 that WCF helped them to “notice and be aware of language”, “build self-editing skills”,
Understanding errors is crucial in the learning process, as it allows students to recognize their weaknesses and identify corrective measures The roles of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) can be categorized into three main areas: enhancing student awareness of their mistakes, providing informative reporting on their performance, and motivating them to improve However, it has been suggested that in certain situations, feedback may not significantly contribute to student learning.
Research indicates that both teachers and students commonly believe that teachers are primarily responsible for providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) (Lee, 2004; Lee, 2008; Hairston, 1986) The extent of WCF a teacher offers is often viewed as a reflection of their teaching quality, as it demonstrates their grammatical knowledge and error detection abilities (Hairston, 1986; Lee, 2008) Furthermore, educators who neglect to provide WCF may be perceived as lacking competence and dedication (Lee, 2008) Some teachers justify comprehensive error marking by stating that it meets student preferences, while others feel it is their duty to highlight all mistakes to enhance student awareness (Lee, 2004).
Many educators perceive the practice of providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) as both challenging and time-consuming (Hyland & Hyland, 2001) A case study involving Kim, an MA TESOL student, highlighted her insights and experiences regarding the perception and implementation of WCF.
Responding to students' writing is often a challenging and time-consuming task for educators (Junqueira & Payant, 2015) Mahmud (2016) concurs, noting that offering feedback on student writing is one of the most demanding aspects of teaching Nonetheless, he emphasizes that this feedback serves as valuable guidance that facilitates student improvement.
While there are debates about the effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), it can enhance student learning in various ways Research indicates that teachers believe WCF positively influences students' writing abilities, understanding of their language proficiency, and overall attitudes However, educators also acknowledge the challenges associated with providing WCF to their students.
2.4.3 Factors Affecting Teachers’ Practices of WCF
Teachers often find themselves unable to implement their preferred teaching methods due to various constraints These limitations arise not only from personal factors but also from external influences beyond their control.
Evans (2010) identifies two main categories influencing the practices of providing written corrective feedback (WCF): personal and external factors Personal factors include academic training, language learning experiences, and teaching experience, while external factors encompass research, conferences, colleagues, and institutional as well as student expectations The study highlights that personal teaching experience, academic training, and participation in research and conferences are the most significant influences on WCF practices Similarly, Raisa et al (2016) conducted a survey with 150 teachers, revealing that factors such as the working environment, cultural aspects, university requirements, and personal elements like time management, student relationships, and individual capacity also impact teaching practices The findings underscore the critical role of training in enhancing WCF practices.
Zublin (2011) notes that when giving correction, the teacher should be aware of
The proficiency level in a foreign language, the types of errors made, and learners' attitudes toward error correction play a crucial role in language learning A supportive environment that encourages learners to overcome their fears and boosts their self-confidence is essential Asep (2013) discovered that both direct and uncoded written corrective feedback significantly benefits learners, particularly those with high language proficiency, leading to substantial improvements for advanced learners.
Students' interest and motivation in learning significantly impact teachers' motivation to provide written feedback A study by Winter and Dye (2004) revealed that students at a UK university prioritized grades over feedback, demonstrating low enthusiasm for learning through feedback This lack of engagement led teachers to feel their feedback was underutilized, resulting in diminished interest in offering it Additionally, contextual factors such as teachers' workload, institutional feedback policies, and the dynamics of teacher-student relationships also play a crucial role in this feedback process.
(Duncan, 2007; Goldstein, 2004) may also influence the practices of teachers’ written feedback
Previous Studies
2.5.1 WCF in the International Context
Research on the alignment between teachers' perceptions and practices is essential for understanding the nature of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Despite its importance, there is a limited number of studies in this area Notably, Ferris's research has significantly influenced and inspired further investigations by other educators.
A 2006 study by Ferris examined the alignment between teachers' practices and perceptions regarding error correction in first-year students at an American university Through a survey and interviews with three lecturers, the research revealed that while teachers recognized various error-correction methods, such as indirect feedback, the majority favored direct corrective feedback (CF), with only ten percent utilizing uncoded indirect feedback The interviews indicated that teachers relied heavily on their intuition and experience rather than adhering strictly to training guidelines, suggesting that their feedback practices were primarily influenced by the specific needs of their students.
In Lee (2008), factors influencing teachers' practices were examined through a study involving 26 Hong Kong teachers' responses to student essay writing and their approaches to providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) The researcher conducted interviews with six teachers and analyzed 174 student compositions, revealing insights into the relationship between teacher feedback and student writing outcomes.
The study identified four main factors influencing teachers' feedback practices Firstly, the requirements set by schools, parents, and students often compel teachers to provide comprehensive corrections, even when selective feedback might be more beneficial Secondly, teachers prioritize grammar over organization in their feedback, reflecting a common trend in student compositions Thirdly, the nature of national language exams drives teachers to focus their feedback on preparing students for these assessments Lastly, a lack of training significantly impacts teachers' practices and perceptions, aligning with findings from previous research.
Lee (2009) examined teachers' use of Direct, Indirect, and Coded Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) as a form of metalinguistic feedback Despite some teachers' skepticism about the effectiveness of coded feedback, particularly for low-level students who struggled to understand the error codes, others believed it encouraged students to engage more deeply with their mistakes and self-correct While concerns remained regarding students' ability to accurately interpret the codes, many teachers continued to implement this strategy in their WCF practices.
Junqueira & Payant (2015) conducted a case study involving a sophomore in an MA TESOL course, analyzing her reflective journal, interviews, and feedback on student compositions The findings revealed a discrepancy between her belief that she provided more global feedback and the actual data, which showed only about 16% of her essays received global feedback This study highlighted a consistent mismatch between teacher perceptions and practices regarding feedback Despite her intention to align her beliefs with her practices, she struggled to do so, recognizing that while feedback could enhance writing, it was time-consuming and required more practice The authors recommend implementing training programs for new teachers to effectively manage feedback demands.
A study by Pearson (2018) revealed that most teachers at a private language institution, who teach IELTS writing, lacked training in feedback techniques Utilizing a mixed-methods design, including interviews and an analysis of 104 IELTS task 2 essays, the research found significant variation in feedback approaches, with direct corrections and prescriptive comments being the most prevalent The study highlighted a disconnect between theoretical understanding and practical application, as teachers prioritized Cohesion and Coherence in their feedback, yet the actual corrections related to these criteria were minimal.
Previous studies indicate that most teachers recognize the significance of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in writing instruction, valuing all types of feedback However, in practice, direct corrective feedback is predominantly utilized, with comprehensive correction prioritized over local correction, which contradicts their beliefs and recommendations This discrepancy between teachers' perceptions and actual practices is attributed to various internal and external factors, including school policies and insufficient training Consequently, this study, conducted in a different context—language centers—aims to yield distinct results.
2.5.2 WCF in the Vietnamese EFL Context
EFL teachers in Vietnam, as noted by Nguyen Ho Hoang Thuy (2008), often perceive writing as a complex skill to teach, which impacts students' learning outcomes Key challenges in teaching EFL writing include raising students' awareness of the importance of writing in English, effectively instructing them in writing techniques, providing constructive feedback on their work, and assessing their writing skills accurately.
Despite the significance of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in enhancing students' writing skills, it receives limited attention in Vietnam A notable study by Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao and Le Hai Duy (2017) explored the perceptions of both teachers and students regarding WCF through questionnaires, involving fifty-eight sophomore students and five teachers from a southern university The findings indicated that students responded positively to the feedback provided by teachers, with corrections deemed most beneficial when accompanied by comments on their performance Implementing these strategies not only aids students in improving their writing accuracy but also deepens their understanding of grammatical concepts.
In 2017, a study conducted by Pham Nhu Luan and Iwashita examined the impact of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on learners' autonomy through questionnaires and interviews The findings revealed that WCF not only enhanced learners' grammatical accuracy in writing but also fostered their independent decision-making and sense of responsibility.
In 2018, Dam My Linh conducted a study on the effectiveness of indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) focusing on five language aspects: grammar, language use, mechanical use, content, and organization, with a sample of second-year English-major students at a public university The research, utilizing questionnaires and interviews, revealed a consensus among both teachers and students regarding the positive impact of WCF on grammar errors Additionally, both groups acknowledged that indirect WCF promotes learner autonomy and offers greater freedom in corrections However, opinions were mixed concerning its effectiveness in revising organizational aspects of writing.
Research conducted in Vietnam indicates that the use of WCF (Written Corrective Feedback) has a positive impact on students' learning autonomy However, the absence of document analysis in these studies may account for the lack of clarity regarding the discrepancies between teachers' perceptions and their actual practices.
Conceptual Framework
This study investigates teachers’ perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and the factors influencing their WCF practices It reveals that teachers are affected by both personal factors, such as their teaching experience and training, and external factors, including students’ language proficiency and expectations The research highlights the significant role of WCF in enhancing students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes Various WCF strategies, including Direct, Indirect, Metalinguistic, Comprehensive, and Selective feedback, are examined, particularly in the context of preparing students for academic tests like IELTS Ultimately, the study provides insights into teachers' perceptions and practices of WCF across different educational contexts, grounded in existing theoretical frameworks and literature.
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework of the Study
Summary
Chapter 2 has reviewed the literature about written feedback by elaborating definition relating to Written Corrective Feedback and information about IELTS Writing Task Two Three main types of written corrective feedback and effects of WCF was also discussed in the chapter Finally, previous studies that investigated teachers' perceptions and practices, including those in the context of Vietnam, were synthesized and illustrated in the last section
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Questions
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, two research questions were formulated as follows:
(1) How do the teachers teaching IELTS writing in English language centers in Buon Ma Thuot City perceive written corrective feedback?
(2) How do the teachers provide written corrective feedback to their students?
Research Design
This research employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis to explore the relationship between teachers' perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and their classroom practices According to Cresswell (2008), utilizing multiple methods can mitigate the biases associated with individual approaches, enhancing the overall understanding of WCF provision practices in educational settings.
This concurrent mixed methods study aims to enhance understanding of a research problem by integrating both quantitative data, which reveals numeric trends, and qualitative data, which offers detailed perspectives Atkison (1995) suggests that while some subjects are best explored through a quantitative lens, others benefit more from qualitative approaches; in certain instances, a combination of both methods is advantageous Utilizing a mixed-method approach in this research not only provided complementary insights but also increased the reliability and validity of the results.
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data from questionnaires and document analysis with qualitative interviews to examine teachers' feedback practices on students' compositions The research investigated teachers' perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) through interviews and a tailored questionnaire, adapted from previous studies to align with current objectives Thirty teachers completed the questionnaire within a reasonable timeframe, while ten were interviewed at their convenience Additionally, the researcher and a rater analyzed 100 essays, categorizing the WCF strategies employed by the teachers.
Research Site
The research examined IELTS writing instruction by teachers at five English centers in Buon Ma Thuot, a small city in Vietnam's Central Highlands, highlighting the challenges they face in accessing the latest teaching methodologies.
The growing significance of English language learning has led to a notable surge in English centers in Buon Ma Thuot, providing tailored courses for various purposes, ages, and proficiency levels However, not all centers offer IELTS preparation, making the selected five centers ideal for learners seeking IELTS courses.
The two English centers, Petit English Center and Hi-way English Center, were selected for interviews based on convenient sampling, and they are fully equipped with teaching facilities that enhance classroom activities conducted by teachers.
At Petit English Center in Buon Ma Thuot, students can attend 10 IELTS classes each month, guided by a team of 6 qualified English teachers, both permanent and temporary A recent survey revealed that the primary motivation for most students enrolling in IELTS courses is their desire to further their education.
37 abroad and only a minor percentage of students studying IELTS for work requirements or university graduation.
Sample and Sampling Procedures
This research involved thirty IELTS teachers from five English centers in Buon Ma Thuot, with two centers chosen for the study using a convenient sampling method, each contributing ten teachers.
Demographic characteristics of teachers participating in the survey
The survey revealed that the average age of teachers was around 29 years, with an average of 5 years of English teaching experience All participants held at least a Bachelor’s Degree, with 66.7% possessing a Bachelor's and 33.3% holding a Master's Degree Most teachers taught intermediate IELTS classes, followed by advanced and elementary levels, while beginner classes were less common Notably, only half of the teachers received training in Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), with an average training duration of 3.5 weeks Detailed information about the surveyed teachers is available in Table 3.1.
The study utilized convenience sampling, which involves selecting the nearest individuals as respondents until the desired sample size is achieved (Cohen, Manion, & Corrison, 2005) This method is appropriate for areas with a limited number of IELTS teachers, as it targets a readily available group (Fink, 1995) A total of thirty teachers, all qualified with at least a B.A in English Teaching and actively teaching IELTS writing classes in Buon Ma Thuot city, were surveyed From this group, ten teachers with available time were chosen for a more in-depth study involving interviews and document analysis.
The essays analyzed in this study were gathered from students enrolled in IELTS courses taught by ten different instructors, utilizing convenience sampling The researcher reached out to the English center to request assistance with this survey.
Research Instruments
This study utilized a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection through a closed-ended questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and an analysis of students' essays Detailed descriptions of each instrument's design are provided below.
According to Bryman and Bell (2003), a questionnaire is a structured method for gathering primary data through a series of questions directed at respondents Ackroyd and Hughes (1981) highlight the practicality of using questionnaires, as they allow for the collection of large volumes of information from numerous individuals in a short timeframe.
The author developed a questionnaire to gather insights into teachers' perceptions and practices regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) This tool was created by modifying existing questionnaires from Lee (2004) and Evans et al (2010), which focused on similar themes, and was informed by a comprehensive review of Pearson (2018), which explored perceptions and practices within the IELTS teaching context.
In 2016, the researcher chose to utilize a questionnaire for collecting quantitative data on teachers' perceptions of written corrective feedback (WCF), as it aligned closely with existing literature The closed-ended questionnaire consisted of three sections: the first gathered demographic information about the participants, including gender, age range, and teaching experience The second section focused on teachers' perceptions of WCF in IELTS writing, featuring 13 items divided into two categories This section included five items derived from the insights of teachers in previous studies by Pearson (2018) and Mahmud (2014), which also echoed findings from earlier research by Lee (2004) and Lee (2008).
The study by Evans et al (2010) and Iqbal et al (2014) aims to investigate teachers' perspectives on their role in providing Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), particularly in the context of IELTS writing and school environments It seeks to identify challenges faced in IELTS writing and whether teachers' perceptions of WCF evolve over time, potentially impacting their teaching practices Additionally, the research explores teachers’ views on the effects of WCF on students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes, utilizing adapted items from Evans et al (2010) to suit the IELTS teaching context Lastly, the study examines factors influencing teachers' current practices through a series of tailored questions based on Evans et al.'s research.
In 2010, a study was conducted to investigate teachers' feedback practices, revealing that ESL/EFL teachers utilize a variety of strategies influenced by numerous factors The first six items of the study, adapted from Lee (2004), aimed to identify which feedback strategies garnered the most agreement among teachers Additionally, items seven through eleven were sourced from Evans et al to further explore the topic.
(2014) to explore the main language areas that teachers focus on, which facilitates better understanding about the focus of the four criteria in the IELTS writing band descriptor
The pilot study involved four IELTS teachers, who provided feedback leading to slight reforms in the questionnaire It featured a mix of question types, including a five-point Likert scale (ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree) and another scale (from Never to Always) Each questionnaire took about twenty minutes to complete To prevent misunderstandings, particularly regarding terminology, the questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese before distribution to the participating teachers.
Interviews are a prevalent method for gathering qualitative data, as highlighted by Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (2002) They are best interpreted through a motivational theory that accounts for various non-rational influences on human behavior, including emotions and unconscious needs (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2005) Oppenheim (1992) and Berg (2007) further emphasize the significance of interviews in qualitative research.
A semi-structured interview enables researchers to delve deeply into specific aspects of a topic, allowing respondents to express their views similarly to an open interview format This approach encourages interviewees to share their unique perspectives, aiming to gather “adequate” and “relevant” data that traditional questionnaires may not uncover (Ackroyd & Hughes, 1992) In this study, the semi-structured interview involves the investigator posing open-ended questions to elicit significant and in-depth information (Creswell, 2005; McKay).
In 2006, a study was conducted involving ten IELTS teachers from two English centers, who participated in individual interviews to provide insights into their feedback practices and perceptions The interview questions, adapted from Pearson (2018), were tailored to align with the research objectives and were pre-reviewed by fellow educators to refine any ambiguous queries and avoid overlapping responses.
The researcher investigated teachers' perceptions and types of corrective feedback by integrating data from document analysis and questionnaires Interviews were conducted to further elucidate teachers' views and practices regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) Each individual interview, lasting approximately twenty-five minutes, was divided into two sections: the first focused on teachers' perceptions, while the second explored the rationale behind their current WCF practices To facilitate clear communication, all questions were translated, and the interviews were conducted in Vietnamese, allowing teachers to express their thoughts and opinions fully.
Document analysis, as defined by Bauer (2003), is a qualitative research method where researchers review documents to derive meaning related to a specific assessment topic This examination and interpretation of data facilitate a deeper understanding and contribute to the development of empirical knowledge (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) The process of analyzing documents involves coding the content for systematic interpretation.
The analysis of focused transcripts reveals 42 themes, as highlighted by Bowen (2009) Document analysis is frequently employed alongside other qualitative research methods to achieve triangulation, offering a convergence of evidence that enhances credibility, as noted by Eisner.
In 1991, it was noted that many teachers are unfamiliar with the terminology associated with Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), which may lead them to unknowingly employ certain types of WCF Consequently, incorporating document analysis alongside interviews and questionnaires will enhance the understanding of WCF usage among educators.
In a recent study, 100 anonymous essays from students in an IELTS writing class were collected, following the students' consent These essays, all related to Task 2 of the writing exam, were evaluated by 10 different teachers The researcher and a second rater conducted a thorough analysis of the written corrective feedback (WCF) provided on these compositions.
3.5.4.1 Pilot Study for the Questionnaire
Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
This study utilized descriptive and content analysis methods, employing qualitative content analysis for semi-structured interviews Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze questionnaire data through frequency and central tendency measures, as well as document analysis using frequency counts and percentages This comprehensive approach allowed the researcher to gain insights into teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding Written Corrective Feedback (WCF).
The procedures of collecting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data of this study are presented in Figure 3.1 as follows:
Figure 3.1 Data Collection and Analysis Procedures
A questionnaire was distributed to thirty voluntary teachers of IELTS courses, who were instructed to read the survey's front-page guidelines before participating With the researcher's assistance for any needed clarifications, the participants completed the questionnaire in under twenty minutes.
The questionnaire items that dwelled of 5-point Likert scale items on WCF was analyzed with the use of SPSS software version 22 The scale with five responses (Always,
Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never) and (Totally Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Totally
Agree) were analyzed and demonstrated with the support of the Microsoft Excel document
Firstly, SPSS was used to find out the score of Cronbach’s Alpha which was to identify
The reliability of participant responses was assessed, followed by the use of SPSS to calculate the mean scores for various questionnaire items Additionally, percentage calculations were performed to analyze the findings These mean scores and percentage figures were then compared to address the research questions effectively.
Following the questionnaire, an interview was conducted with ten teachers, labeled T1 to T10 To validate the interview process, a pilot study was performed to gather feedback and recommendations from additional teachers regarding the question items The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.
The researcher utilized content analysis to examine data from semi-structured interviews through a three-step process Initially, the data was organized and the transcripts were thoroughly reviewed to ensure familiarity, leading to the identification of various information types In the subsequent step, the researcher coded and documented the collected data, grouping similar codes into broader categories for further analysis.
The researcher identified themes by examining the relationships among various categories In the final step, she interpreted these categories and themes to uncover their connections and relationships.
Finally, the researcher indicated the meaning of collected data and gave an explanation of findings in details
In a document analysis involving 100 IELTS Task 2 essays, teachers collected, scanned, and documented student writings before returning them Each comment, error code, and correction on these essays was assigned a feedback point, categorized according to Pearson (2018) as shown in Table 3.3 The feedback was classified into two main types: corrections and comments, with three subcategories focusing on the extent of written corrective feedback, which included comprehensive and selective feedback, along with various types of written corrective feedback.
In the context of IELTS Writing Task 2, feedback can be categorized into direct, indirect, and metalinguistic forms, with a focus on the band descriptors that influence the evaluation Pearson (2018) notes that written feedback on task response is primarily delivered through written commentary, which may not necessarily include corrective elements Consequently, any feedback pertaining to task response is classified as commentary feedback.
Categorizations of feedback points according to the IELTS Writing Task 2 band descriptor
Remember to organize your text into paragraphs
Good use of preposition It depends on (wrong word)
Pay attention to the use of “a”, “the” Has went gone
The analysis of students' essays involved coding, counting, and recording data in Microsoft Excel Descriptive statistics, including frequency measures presented as numbers and percentages, were utilized to analyze IELTS texts, aiming to identify the most frequently used feedback categories and IELTS criteria among teachers The results were visually represented through graphs and tables.
Validity and Reliability
The questionnaire was translated into Vietnamese to eliminate any ambiguity, particularly regarding terminology, enhancing its reliability and validity An English lecturer reviewed the original version for content validity, while the translated version underwent double-checking by two English teachers and an educator with translation experience.
To enhance the quality of the questionnaire, a pilot study was conducted to validate its reliability and practicality, as suggested by Seliger & Shohamy (1997) Initially, the questionnaire was reviewed by two experienced English teachers to assess clarity, leading to modifications based on their feedback A subsequent pilot study with four additional English teachers confirmed that the revised questionnaire was fully understood, requiring no further adjustments The reliability of the questionnaire was quantitatively assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, with George and Mallery (2003) providing a framework for evaluation: α < 0.500 is unacceptable; 0.500 < α < 0.600 is poor; 0.600 < α < 0.700 is questionable; 0.700 < α < 0.800 is acceptable; 0.800 < α < 0.900 is good; and 0.900 < α is excellent The questionnaire comprised two sections, with 20 items focused on teachers' perceptions and 11 questions addressing their practices, the reliability results of which are detailed in the accompanying table.
Reliability Statistics on the Items Regarding Teacher perceptions of WCF
Reliability Statistics on the Items Regarding Teacher’s practices of WCF
The reliability statistics for the questionnaire indicated a score of 0.72 for items related to teachers' perceptions and 0.71 for those concerning teachers' practices Since a reliability score of 0.70 is deemed acceptable, these results demonstrate that the questionnaire is sufficiently reliable for data collection.
To ensure the content validity of the interview questions, the researcher consulted with the supervisor and translated the questions into Vietnamese to enhance understanding and communication Prior to the official interviews, a pilot interview was conducted with three English teachers to assess the appropriateness of the questions After data collection, the information was transcribed into English, and a translator with an English teaching background was engaged to verify the translation's accuracy.
To enhance the reliability of this research, a teacher with a Master’s Degree from Tay Nguyen University was invited to participate The researcher explained the process of identifying Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) points, detailing the various types of WCF, including direct, indirect, metalinguistic, and combinations of direct and metalinguistic feedback, as well as the criteria outlined in the IELTS Writing Task 2 band descriptor Both the researcher and the second rater analyzed five randomly selected essays to count feedback points and subsequently compared their findings The results revealed a significant similarity, with an 85% agreement between the researcher and the second rater.
51 corrective feedback points, 90% for commentary feedback points, 80% for IELTS criteria, 100% for strategies of WCF
After receiving approval from the Examination Council at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, the researcher secured consent from individual teachers and two English centers for conducting interviews Representatives from these centers endorsed the research implementation During data collection, participants were informed about their privacy rights, the study's objectives, and their voluntary involvement They were assured that all information would remain anonymous and confidential The researcher clearly outlined the study's goals to encourage honest responses, and participants were reminded that they could withdraw from the study at any time.
Summary
This chapter outlines the research methodology employed in the study, structured into eight key sections: (1) research questions, (2) research design utilizing a mixed-methods approach, (3) research site, (4) sample and sampling techniques, (5) research instruments including a closed-ended questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, and document analysis, (6) data collection procedures and analysis, (7) validity and reliability, and (8) ethical considerations The findings derived from these instruments will be presented, analyzed, and discussed in the subsequent chapter.
