Luận văn effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students' writing performance an action research approach with 12th form english major students at luong van tuy gifted high school

VIETNAM NATIONAL,UNIVERSITY, HANOT UNLVERSLTY OF LANGUAGES AND LNTERRNATIONAL STUDIk& FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRAN THI THU THUY EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN

VIETNAM NATIONAL,UNIVERSITY, HANOT UNLVERSLTY OF LANGUAGES AND LNTERRNATIONAL STUDIk&

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN THI THU THUY

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH WITH 12™"

FORM ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT LUONG VAN TUY

GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL

Tác dộng của những hình thức phán hồi chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên dối

với việc học viết của học sinh Nghiên cứu hành động đối với học sinh lớp

12 chuyên Anh tại trường THPT chuyên Lương Văn Tụy, Ninh Bình

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodolugy Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAT STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN THI THU THUY

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN

CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH WITH 12™

FORM ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS AT LUONG VAN TUY

GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL

Tác động của những hình thức phán hồi chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên đối

với việc học viết của học sinh Nghiên cửu hành dộng đối với học sinh lớn

12 chuyên Anh tại trường TIIPT chuyên Lương Văn Tụy, Ninh Bình

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lé Van Canh

Tlunoi, 2016

DECLARATION

1, lrần Thj ‘Thu ‘Thuy, hereby certify that the thesis entitled “ltfects of

different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students’ writing

performance An action research approach with 12° farm English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted Iligh School.” is submitted for the partial

fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts at the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies,

University of Languages and International Studies, Victnam National University,

Hanai | also declare that this thesis is the result of my own research and efforts and

it has nol been submitted for any other purposes

Honoi, 2016

Trần Thị Thu Thuý

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, T would like lo express my heart-[el thank and my

sincere gratitude to my supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Le Van Canh for his

enlightening guidance precious suggestions and invahible encouragement during

my fulfilment of this minor thesis

My sincere thanks go to all the lecturers and the staff of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studios at University of Languages and International Studies for ther

valuable lectures on which my minor thesis was laid the foundation

1 truly wish to thank all the 12" form Unglish major students at Luong Van

Tuy Gifted High School who have actively participated in the research

1am deeply grateful to my family for their great support and to many of my

friends for their notable assistance.

ABSTRACT

This action research is conducted in an allempl to investigate the cffects of

three different types of written corrective feedback on students’ writing

performance at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High Schools in Ninh Binh Province The

study also proposes some recommendations of the use of teacher written corrective feedback in writing classes ‘I'o achieve the aims of the study, thirty five 12" form English major students were chosen to participate in an action research After a preliminary investigation was carried out, a writing instruction course was designed, and different types of teacher written corrective feedback were applied ‘I'he data were collected through the analysis of students’ writing and studems’ free narratives

to measure the students’ progress in their writing performance The results of this

research showed that teacher corrective feedback helped reduce students’ linguistic

errors over time While positive revision effects were found for all three types of

corrective feedback, only indirect [ecdback proved to have significant long-term

effect The study also found that the students had positive attitudes towards the

teacher’s application of corrective feedhack Although there was a mismatch

between sludents’ preferences and beliefs towards cach corrective ecdback type and its effectiveness, they appreciated the good effects of teacher's corrective

feedback on their learning accuracy and their altitudes lowards writing The study is

of great use to the writing teachers who have an intention to use teacher corrective

feedback in writing classes

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMEMTS

ABSTRACT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS LIST OE TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Ralionale 2 Aims of the stucly Method of the study

Significance of the study Structure of the study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

3 4, 5 6

1.1 Corrective [eedback 1.1.1 Definition of corrective fecdback 1.1.2 Forms of feedback TH ghê 1.3 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing

1.1.4 Teachers’ written corrective feedback strategies 1.2 Roles of teacher written corrective feedback 1.2.1 Arguments for the role of teacher writen corrective Lecdback

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback

1.3 Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

1.3.1 Nature of errors

1.3.2 Student factors

1.3 3 Teacher factors

1.3.4 Contextual variables

iv

Scope oF the SfUdy thọ HH 100101111 1e eere

2.2.2 Selection of participants and Data collection instruments 35

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND REFLECTION

3.1 Effects of three conmnon types of feedback on studeris’ writing performance.33 3.1.1 Effects of three commen Lypes of fecdhack on students’ revised essays 33

3.1.2 ‘The effects of three common types of feedback on students’ new pieces of

3.2.1 Students’ attitudes Lowards teacher corrective feedback in general 45

3.2.2 Students’ preference for cach type of leacher corrective feedback 46

3.2.3 Students’ expectations for beller usc of teacher's corrective [ecdback, 49

PART C: CONCLUSION:

REFERENCES .

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT : Communicative Language ‘Teaching

CF : Corrective Feedback

EST : English as a Second Language

12 : Second or Foreign Language

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: lis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98) sessuserssenseaseensenn i

Table 3.1: Effects of three common types of corrective feedback on students’

Table 3.2: Taxonomy of orrors and their frequency in Stage 1 36

Table 3.3: Tasonomy oŸ errors and their frequency in Stage 2

Tuble 3#: Taxonomy oÊ errors and their frequenoy in Siage 3 3Ð

vii

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been widely used in Vietnam This approach advocates the teaching of four main skills: reading, listening, speaking and

writing for communicative purposes Wriling skill is oflen considered the most difficult

and least preferable skill for the students; therefore, it is desirable for writing teachers

to find the most suitable strategies to help their students to write well In my own teaching experience, T have found oul thal most students al Lnong Van Tuy Gifled High Schools in Ninh Binh have similar problems with their writing ‘hese problems are (1) they make a lot of errors in their writing, and (2) they have negative attitudes towards learning wriling Thus, how Lo muprove students’ writing as well as to change their attitudes towards writing activities has greatly attracted my attention

A review of literature reveals that the effect of teacher written corrective feedback on

students’ writing remains to be inconclusive Despite this, numerous studies on the use

of corrective feedback in writing classes have shown that written corrective feedback

can be apphed in writing classes to improve students’ wriling accuracy (T.iu, 2008; Kaweera, 2008, Ferris, 2000; Ferris et al., 2001) Feedback is part and patcel of language pedagogy Teachers’ feedback is also a form of evaluation on the students’ knowledge and on thei own teaching (Lewis, 2002) Teachor’s good feedback strategies may give students stimulation for revision and motivation to maintain their interest in writing

For all the aforementioned reasons, 1 wish to conduct a study entitled “Hffects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students' writing performance

An action research approach with 12" form English major s

Gifted High School.”

2 Aims of the study

denis al Luong Van Tuy

This current study aims at (1) examining the effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on the writing performance of 12" form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, Ninh Binh, (2) investigating the

students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher written corrective feedback and

proposing some recommendations of the use of teacher written corrective feedback

in writing classes

In short, the research paper aims to address the following questions:

How do three common types of teacher written corrective feedback (namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic) influence students’ writings as reflected in their revised essays and new essays?

© How are students’ preferences 10 the feedback types related to their writing improvement?

3 Scope of the study

In fact, teacher correetive feedback can be given in both oral and written forms

Llowever, within the framework of a graduation paper, the study only focuses on the

teacher written corrective feedback

In addition, due to the limited scope of this study, the participants selected are not all gifted students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted [igh School, but only students from the class

that T directly Leach

4, Method of the study

Given that this study was implemented with the hope to improve the students’

Fnglish writing skills, T decided to adopl Ihe action research approach because this lype

of research is aimed at improving a situation After a preliminary investigation was

camed oul, a writing mstruction course was designed, and different types of teacher

written corrective feedback wore applicd The data were collected by the analysis of students’ writing and students’ free narratives Students’ writings were collected and

analyzed before, during and after treatment period (i.e the delivery of feedback) to

tờ

measure the students’ progress in their writing performance In addition, students’ free

narratives were collected and analyzed at the end of the research to find out their

attitudes towards cach feedback type and its effects

5 Significance of the study

The findings of this study can inform classroom teachers of how to provide

feedback on their students’ writings, thereby raising the quality of students’ writings

6 Structure of the Study

The study consisis of 3 main parts:

Part A: Introduction

This part deals with the rationale, aims, scope, research questions, research methods,

significance and structure of the study

Part B: Development ‘his part has three chapters:

Chapter I: dilerature Review presenis various concepls relevant to the research lopic

such as CF and its roles in language teaching and learning, previous studies on different types of written feedback strategies and their effects on students writing

performance

Chapter 2: Research Methodology describes the methods utilized in the study, presents the situation of teaching and leaming English at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School and goncral information about the study subjects TL also focuses on the data collection instramemts and procedures

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Discussion gives a detailed presentation and analysis of the data from the students’ writings and free narratives This chapter also consists of some discussions and interpretations of the findings of the study and provides some recommendations for elective written correction in writing lessons

Part C: Canclusien

This part summarizes the main issues mentioned in the research, points out same limitations of the study and provides some plans for the next cycle.

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Corrective feedback

LLL Definition of corrective feedback

Responding to the student writing, inchiding giving [ocdback is one of the most controversial topies in second language instruction and theory Different researchers

may have their own way to define feedback Keh (1989, P.24) suggests that feedback

is “input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information for

revision” ‘leacher feedback, is this sense, can be regarded as an effective means to

communicate Lo students about ther writing so thal the can enhance their composition

Feedback, as viewed by Furnborough and Truman (2009), involves the existence of gaps between what has been leamed and the target competence of the leamers and the

efforls underiaken lo bridge the gaps This feedback is provided lo ask for further

information, to give directions, suggestion for revision, and to give positive feedback

about what the students have done well (Ferris, 1997) Lightbown and Spada (1999,

p.172) stales thal feedback is “an mdication to the learner that, his or her use the target

languages is incorrect”

When reviewing their students’ writing, second language teachers give feedback on a wide range of issues They may address the text’s content, the way in which the ideas are organized, the choice of vocabulary that is used The type of feedback that has

sUraclcd tumerous researchers’ attention, however, is feedback on lmgunslie errors

Such responses have widely been referred to as “corrective feedback” or “error correction” According to Yeh and Lo (2009), corrective feedback often takes the form

of responses to the texts containing errors, They also claim that corective feedback supplies students with direct or indirect responses about what is unacceptable The respanses can be an indication where the errors are, what types of errors those belong

to, a provision of correct form of the target language; metalinguistic information about the errors or any combination of these This definition Yeh and Lo (2009) seems to be the most suitable and closely volves in the scope of this study because it mentions the teachers’ responses to the students’ errors in different ways ‘[herefore, this definition

is adapted in this study

1.1.2, Forms of feedback

Basing on forms, feedback is distinguished as two main types which are oral feedback

and wrillen feedback Comparing between these two lypes, wrillen form is more

common but it is a fairly traditional and time-consuming method to give feedback on

various drafts of a student paper Both of these two forms are recommended to be

considered

L121 Oral feedback

Oral feedback 1s correction, comment or guidance that is ullered out by teacher dunng

or after students’ performance It is the fastest type of feedback and students also can

improve their discourse immediately after feedback is given Ilowever, in enhancing

students’ writings, this type of feedback seems not very effective because of the time

shortage ‘Lhe teacher cannot give oral feedback to students individually but they use

written feedback instead However, oral feedback is still a good means of

supplementing writen fecdback The reason is thal verbal feedback takes only few minutes, but has the potential to influence to students’ future performance in positive

way This study limits itself to the exploration of written corrective feedback only

4.12.2 Written feedback

in written feedback, comments, correction or marks are given to students’ written

work The marks may be on words or symbols such as underlining, circles and other

signs

Written feedback is an integral aspect of any Lnglish language course This is especially true now with the predominance of the process approach to writing that

requires some kinds of instructors’ feedback on students’ drafts ‘is form of feedback

can be also divided into several different subtypes

11.3 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing

Written feedback in writing can be divided into three main types, namely self-

evaluation or self-assessment, peer feedback and teacher’s feedback

1.13.1 Seif-evaiuation (Self-directed feedhack)

Self-evaluation means the students correct and evaluate their own mistake It 1s stated

in Wei and Chen (2004) thal “Self-assessment encourages students to look critically

and analytically at their writmg and to take more responsibility for what they write

Being involved in the process of self-evaluation, the students are no longer simply

passive recipients of focdback, but become aclive participants in evaluation”

Self-evaluation may increase students’ independence as they are supposed to find their

own mistakes Next, by finding their own mistakes, ihe students are expected to

remember what mistakes they have done so they will net make the same mistakes later

on Moreover, self-evaluation saves time in a large class Ilowever, self-assessment is

unsuitable way for students with low English proficiency to revise their writing

113.2 Peer feedback

Peer feedback is a practice in language education where feedback is given by one

student to another Accordinys to Bartels (2004), peer feedback means feedback from

the fellow students Hf students are working on the same assignment together, peer

feedback means exchanging drafts and comments on each other's drafts

Peer focdback is used in writing classes to provide students more opportunities to learn from each other Peer feedback broadens leamers’ involvement by giving them the

additional roles of reader and advisor 1o go with thal of writer Further, structuring

face-to-face discussion into the feedback process provides students the opportunity to engage in constructive controversy, which may lead to insights and greater task engagement (Johnson & Johnson, 1987),

However, there are still some problems in the use of peer feedback One of the major problems is that the quality of the responses is questioned Students often feel that their pecrs offer unspecific, unhelpful and oven incorrect feedback because they lack the kmowledge of the target language or the knowledge in certain specific content areas Another problem with peer written feedback is the students’ characteristics Many students may not easily accept the idea that their peers are qualified enough to evaluate their writing (Rollinson, 2005)

L433 Teacher's feedback

In the light of process writing approach, teachers play an important role in helpmg, students to revise their writing drafts Teacher’s corrective feedback, to some extent, is

the teacher's correction and can be defined as teachers! indication Lo leamers! errors,

which takes the forms of implicit or explivit correction

Written corrective feedback velers (o teacher wrillen feedback on a student’s

say wilh

an am of improving grammatical accuracy (including spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) as well as idiomatic usage (such as word order and word choice) The

term written feedback, in contrast, refers to written commentary by the teacher as

feedback on form and content of a student’s essay ‘herefore, the term written

corrective feedback, the main emphasis of this thesis, has a very different meaning

from that of the torn written feedback While the two are intertwined and go band-in-

hand, and while both written corrective feedback and written feedback are addressed in

this thesis, the primary of this thes is Meant to be an investigation into the effect of

different teacher written corrective feedback strategies

Some researchers indicate that students favor corrective feedback from teachers

because they belicve that they wilk benolit greally from it (.eki, 1990) Studies by

Ashrwell (2000), and Ferris (2003) conchade that there is a positive correlation between

student writing accuracy and teacher corrective feedback Furthermore, Lillis (1998)

and Lightbown (1998) state that thanks to teacher corrective feedback adult leamers

can avoid fossilization and maintain their progress in their second language proficiency

LL4, Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies

Although the provision of written corrective feedback has long been deemed integral to second language/foreign instruction programs, it has not always been provided in the

same manner [here are different classifications for corrective feedback strategies

proposed by different researches

Fllis (2009) presents a typology which consists of six main stralegies lo provide

corrective feedback (see Table 1)

Table 1.1: Ellis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98)

1 Direct Cl’ ‘The teacher provides students with

the correct form

e.g, Lalande(1982) and Rob et

and the uses of cursors 10 show

omissions in the students’ text

Z Indirect CF | The teacher indicates that an error

exists but does not provide the correction

a Indicating + | This takes the form of underlining | Various studies have

employed indirect correction

of this kind (e.g Ferris and

This takes the form of an

indication in the margin that an error or errors have taken place in Fewer studies have employed

this method (e.g Robb et al 1986)

a line of text

2 Melalinguistic

cr

The teacher provides some land of

metalinguistic clue as to nature of

the error,

a Use of error Teacher writes code in the margin Various studies have

code (e.g ww = wrong word, art = examined the effects of using,

Forris and Roberis 2001, Chadler 2003)

bBrief Teacher numbers errors in text and | Sheen (2007) compared the

grammatical writes a grammatical description | effects of direct CF and dhrect descriptions for each numbered error at the C¥ ~ metalinguistic CF

bottom of the text

3 The focus of This concerns whether the teacher Most studies have

the feedback attempts to correct all (or most) of | investigated unfocused CF

the students’ errors or selects one | (e.g Chandler 2003; l'erris

or two specific types of errors to | 2006) Sheen (2007), drawing correct {his distinction can be —_| on traditions in SLA studies applied to each of above options | of CT, investigated focused

examples of correct usage

S§.Reformulation This consists of a nalive speaker's

reworking of the students’ entire text lo make the language seem as

Sachs and Polio (2007)

compared the effects of direct

correction and reformulation

native-like as possible while on students’ revisions of their

keeping the content of the original | text

infact

Hllis, Loewen and Hrlam (2006) categorize responses from teachers to studems’ exror

into three forms or stralogics: (1) teacher feedback that mdicates thal an error has been

made, (2) teacher feedback that provides the correct form of the target language, and (3) teacher feedback that provides the metalinguistic information about the nature of

the error This current research adapts this categorization together with Ellis’ typology

of written corrective feedback in that the focus of this research was how and whether

students’ writing performance could be impraved via the 3 main types of written

correclive feedback strategies, namely direcl, indircel, metalinguislic corrective

feedback

L141 Teacher direct carrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

In the case of direct corrective feedback, the teacher gives the corrected form of the

mistake to the students Direct feedback may be done in various ways such as by

sinking oul an incerrcel or unnecessary word, pbrase, or morpheme, mserling a

missing or expected word, phrase or morpheme, and by providing the correct linguistic form above, in the margin or near the erroneous form (Lillis, 2008: Ferris, 2006) A

number of previous studics have proved the revision cffeet of direct fecdback

Chandler’s (2003) suggests that direct correction works best for producing accurate

revisions This type of corrective feedback is desirable for students of low level of

proficiency who are unable to self-correct and do not know what the correet [orm

10

might be However, it requires minimal processing on the part o£ the learners and thus,

it may not contribute to long-term learning (Lllis, 2009) In addition, a recent study by Sheen (2007) suggests that direct corrective feedback can be cffoctive in promoting acquisition of only specific grammatical features ‘I'his finding is in line with the study

of Van Beuningen, Dejong and Kuiken (2012) which claims that “Direct correction is

better suited for grammatical errors and indirect correction is better suited for non-

grammatical errors”

Another advocale of direcl wrilten corrective feedback has also suggested thal it may

be more bencticial because it “reduces confusion” (Chandler, 2003), supplics students with information to “resolve more complex errors” and is “more immediate’

Therefore, direct wrilten corrective feedback may be more useful for learners who have

comparatively limited linguistic knowledge

Tee (2005) adds that direct feedback may be appropriale for beginmer sLudents, or ina

situation when errors are “untreatable” that are not susceptible to self-correction such

as sentence structure and word choice, and when teachers want to direct students’

attention to error patterns that require student correction

1142 Teacher indirect corrective feedback and previous studies on its

effectiveness

TndireoL wnilernt corrective feedback refers to situations when the lcacher indicates that

an error has been made but does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to

diagnose and correct it This can be done by underlying or circling errors, recording in

the margin the number of errors in a given line, confirmation checks, and request for

clarification (Bitchener, 2008)

Advovales of indirect written corrvelive feedback (¢.g., Ferris, 1999, 2006) claim that it

may foster deeper language processing by requiring the student to engage in “guided learning and problem solving”, leading to reflection about linguistic forms that may foster long-term acquisition Thus, although indirect correctwe foodback docs not have

at

immediate revision effect, it leads to long-term learning and has more benefits than direct feedback an students’ long-term development and acquisition especially for

more advanced students (Ferris and Roberts, 2001) Therefore it is suggested that

indirect corrective feedback, by requiring the students to determined the correct form

ofthe mistake on his own, may be more useful for leamers at higher proficiency levels

as they have relatively advanced linguistic knowledge

Terris (2002), Ferris and Roberts (2001) observe that while direct feedback led to

grealer accuracy in tex revisions, indirect feedback results in the production of fewer

initial errors over tume Bitchener ct al (2005), Bitchener and Knoel: (2010) point out

that complex errors might not be good targets for indirect feedback since learners are

oflen nol capable of self-correcting the identified errors Additionally, for [eatures about which students already have some explicit knowledge, indirect corrective

feedback can z

(Lyster, 2004),

Tlowever, the results of studies that have investigated the difference between direct and

st them im the transition from declaalive to procedural knowledge

indirect are very mixed Some studies (¢.g., Ferris & Helt, 2000) showed that indirect feedback is indeed more effective in enabling students to correct their errors Lalande

(1982, p.140) recommends that indirect feedback consistently calls errors ta students’

allention, triggering the “guided learning and problem-solving” process

os By contrast, Frantzen, (1995) found no difference between direct and indirect corrective feedback 11-43 Teacher metalinguistic corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness

Metalinguistic feedback could take one of two forms, Use of error coding or a brief grammatical description Tn the former type, Ihe teacher writes some codes in Ihe margin to suggest what problem leamers have, Of course, the leamers will have a list

of codes to avoid confusion [lowever, in the second type of metalinguistic feedback,

the teacher numbers the errors and briefly provides a brief explanation for the error at

the end of the text

A number of studies have compared using ciror vedes with other typos of written corrective feedback Robb et al (1986) suggests that the use of error codes is no more

effective than direct and indirect feedback Besides, Ferris (2006) argues that error

codes help students to improve their accuracy over time in only two of the four categories of error she investigates Ferris and Roberts (2001) point out that error codes

help students to self-edit their writmg but no more effective than indirect feedback

Additionally, Sheen (2007) studies the cffccts of direct and metalingustic corrective feedback He has found that both are effective in increasing accuracy in the students’

use of articles in subsequent writing completed immediately aller the corrective feedback treatment Interestingly, the metalinguistic corrective feedback also proves

more effective than direct corrective feedback m anew piece of writing completed two

week after the treatment Other studies reported advantage of metalinguistic written

corrective feedback over other forms of indirect written corrective feedback (circling or

underlining only) For example, a study conducted by Bitchener and Knoch (2010)

indicated that students whose errors were indicated by circling or underlining only were able to retain the gains observed in the delayed post-test but not in the immediate post-leat The aulhors conelude that the result demonstrates the superior longitudinal effect of metalinguistic explanation

Tn short, it is possible to say that while the overall efficacy of written corrective

feedback in the sccond language writmg, classroom is gaining wider acceptance there still exists considerable debate over the best practice for its implementation In other

words, the elTectiveness of different kinds of corrective feedback is still argued by

different researchers While there are studies that supports the use of indirect written corrective feedback and metalinguistic written oorective feedback, there is a great

body of research asserting the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback Some studies

which concluded that direct corrective feedback is more effective also agree that indirect corrective feedback can have effects on students’ problem solving skill and

their long-term leaming Scarcella and Oxford (1992) suggest that multiple forms of

feedback should be used in combination depending on the nature of error and the

student characteristics Truscott (1996) also argues that na single form of correction

could be expected to help learners acquire knowledge of all linguistic forms and

structures Thus, it is the teacher who should make up their mind on the use of different

wrillen corrective feedback strategies for exror and sLylistic chlference As Ferris (2003)

puts it, “what is preferable cannot be equated with what is effective, and what is

effective for one student in one setting might be less so in another context”

1.2 Roles of teacher written corrective feedback

Concerning the role of teacher written corrective feedback, there have existed an

endless discussion so Tar, both favorably and unfavorably Not only researchers: bul

also teachers and students do agree that written feedback from teachers play the crucial role in improve students’ writing and attitude toward writing (Leki, 1990, p58)

However there has been a debate on the role of teacher written feedback in which there

are people who believe in giving feedback to improve student’s writing and who do not Some may refer to feedback as highly beneficial and inevitable in teaching and

leammg writnig, while some consider teacher [ecdback to be limc-consiuming and

useless Therefore, it is normal to see different judgments of different individuals about

this matter

1.21 Arguments for the vole of teacher written corrective feedback

Corrective feedback plays an importance role in language learning and acquisition as it assisis learners uolice the difference between (heir own production and the target structure, raising their consciousness about the structures they are learning

Teacher feedback is considered to be an important aspect of every school day and play

a eritical role in the teaching and Icarning process (Konold, Miller and Konold, 2004).

It is crucial since it helps encourage and consolidate learning (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) and serves such significant purposes as to: reinforce appropriate leamer behaviour, let students know how they are doing and extend learning opportunities (Konold ot al,

2004, p.64)

Teacher feedback is also essential in second language writing by giving specific

purpose of providing teacher feedback on students’ writing performance Ieacher corrective feedback aims at supporting student's writing development, teaching or

remforcing a parlicular aspect of disciplinary content or specific academic wilting

convention, indicating strengths and weaknesses of a picce of writing, cxplainmg or

justifying a grade and suggesting how a student may improve in their next piece of

writing,

Additionally, written corrective feedback serves as a source of motivation since it

enables leamers to evaluale their progress, to understand the level of their competence,

and to maintain their effort in striving to reach realistic goals (Riviere, 2000)

Trom the output hypothesis perspective, Swain (1985, 1995) has noted repeatedly that

for grammatical accuracy to develop, leamers need to receive feedback ơn their output

because it enables learners to “notice the gap” between what they want to say and what they can actually say If learners’ attention is not drawn to their errors, they may not know that they made an error, and therefore they mss opporlumises to practice and correct themselves Thus, the proverb “Leaming from mistake” is less likely to take place (Swain 2000)

Another argument for corrective feedback is the belicf that corrective feedback is

essential to prevent fossilization “Mossilization” was defined by Brown (2007) as “the relatively permanent incorporation of meorrecl Hinguistic forms into a person’s second language competence” (P.382) It is supported by Dekeyser (2010) who claims that, timely corrective feedback creates additional opportunities for practice and may help

prevent automatization of uncorrected errors which may lead to fossilization.

Corrective feedback also helps to overcome the first language interference Van Patten (1990) gives the concept of parameter setting, defined as the variations in different language in terms of the abstract properties of a language which “inform us that a

sentence is possible or not” Corrective feedback informs the learners about what 1s not

allowed in a language Moreover, some second language structures are not likely to be

acquirable from positive evidence alone (Itahey & White, 1993), especially if they do not exist in the first language grammar Therefore, corrective feedback as a type of

pedagogical inlervention may trigger the parameter restructurmg process and help the

lcamers to overcome the interference from their first language

Finally, written corrective feedback can lead students toward autonomy Cine long-term

purpose of feedback is to lead students to the point where they can Gnd their own mistakes In many cases, teachers indicate the place and type of error without

correcting They leave the students the chance to find and correct the mistake

themselves It is obvious that teacher corrective feedback is an important step toward the leamer-centeredness as it motivates students to leam actively and critically

Therefore, it should be made use of in suitable and effective ways in teaching and

learing in general and in teaching and learning, writing skill in particular to sharpen students’ abilities in analyzing their writings critically

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback

Notwithstanding countless research and writing, inconsistencies in the research still

make it unclear what role written corrective feedback should play in the language

classroom Apart from the rescarchers that have strongly supported written correetive feedback, there are others have argued against it for various reasons (Robb, Ross &

Shortreed, 1986, Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007)

Trusteott (1996, 1999) holds a strong view against error correction He argues that all

forms of error correction of second language student writing are not only ineffective

but also harmful and should be abandoned He further emphasizes that although most

second language learners clearly desire grammar correction, teachers should not give it

to them because correction may have value for non-grammatical errors but not for crrors in grammar He claims that written corrective feedback is counter-productive because it promotes shortening simplification in student writing According to him,

teachers run the risk of making their students avoid more complex structures when they

emphasize learners’ errors by providing corrective feedback Moreover, Irustcott (2007) claims that written comective feedback is a waste of time and suggests that the

energy spent on dealing with corrections could be allocated productively to additional

writing practice to improve students’ writing ability His practical doubts concern

teachers’ capacities in providing adequate and consistent feedback and to learrers`

ability and willingness lo use the feedback cfTectively

Sharing with Van Beuningen et al (2012), ‘Trustcott maintains that written corrective

feedback encourages leamers to avoid situations in which they made errors This view

is also supported by Sheppard (1992) who reported a negative effect of written corrective feedback on the structural complexity of leamers’ writing

Additionally, Krashen (1982) hypothesizes that, in making students aware of their

errors, vorrective feedback leads to learner stress and anxiety of committing the same errors in future writing In his view, this anxiety could make leamers avoid the

erroneous construction when wriling a new lexi, resulling in simplified writing

Corrective feedback might lead to a reduction of the linguistic complexity of learners’

output,

1.3 Factors affecting the effectiveness of wrillen corrective feedback

‘The counter-arguments by scholars as presented in 1.2 are not empirically supported

Tn fact, the sliveness of writlen corrective [vedback depends on a number of factors

such as: time to give corrective feedback, types of corrective feedback, quality of corrective feedback, nature of errors, students’ attitudes and expectations, the learning

environment of cach classroom, situational variables, teacher factors, learner variables

such as students’ first language, leaming style, beliefs, socioeconomic background,

motivation and future goals and other additional factors Some of these factors are

discussed in the following soctions

13.1, Nature of errors

The issue of which type of error should be corrected has also attracted much researchers’ attention Relating the nature of error to written corrective feedback, Ferris (1999) made a distinction between the “treatable” and “untreatable” errors “Treatable” errors are those thal are easy lo describe, i.e errors thal occur in a pallemed, nule-

governed way (c.g., vorb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural

and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments), so leamers can be pointed to a

grammar book or set of rules to resolve the cirors Tn contrast, errors can be considered

“untreatable” (such as word choice errors, and unidiomatic sentence structure, resulting,

from problems to do with word order and missing or unnecessary words) when there

are no clear and sucemet rules that students can consult to avoid or fix those types off errors (Ferris, 1999, 2010) As error types can impact the effectiveness of a particular

written corrective feedback method, students might be served best when the method of

feedback is decided by the error type (Verris, 2006) She suggests that multiple forms

of feedback should be used in combination depending on the nature of the error and

student characienslics

Terris (2002) also gives some criteria that can help teacher made decisions about which

error to correct Errors that occur frequently in individual students’ writing and errors

that have lughly stigmatizing cffocts on the reador should be corrected Thus, it can be conchided that categorizing the types of erors and choosing suitable corrective focdback stralogics for cack type of errer will direelly affect the ofTeetrenoss of giving corrective feedback It is vitally important for teachers to commit themselves to selective error feedback and to strategy for building students’ awareness and knowledge of their most serious and frequent problems,

1.3.2 Student factors

The degree of adoption of corrective feedback may be influenced by many individual leamer factors such as aptitude and learning styles, language proficiency, motivation

and attitude toward written corrective feedback, leamers’ preference for written

corrective feedback, first language learning style, beliefs, socioeconomic background,

motivation and future goals and other additional factors

Tirstly, students’ ability to make use of written corrective feedback depends on their

proficiency level Franiven and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010) have Cound that, for

students of lower level of proficioncy, simply underlining the error might not be

informative enough because students could nat determine exactly what the errar was

Fers (2002) recommends indirect feedback for most instances Tul cautions thal

students at lower of second language proficiency may need direct feedback

Another research (Hedcock and Lefkowitz, 1996) has also shown the impact of student background on the effectiveness of error correction The authors concluded that

“Leamers’ perception about what constitutes useful feedback varies considerably

aceording to the educational context and students’ level of literacy” Secondly, the

motivation level of the student becomes linked with the desire for corrective feedback

If a student wishes to improve their writing, to get better grades, they feel that enor

correction is one mothod of insuring enhanced performance, and viec versa for studerils

with low motivation level Gue’nette (2007) emphasizes the importance of leamer

motivation in relation to the effectiveness of corrective feedback and students” success

in improving their writing According to him, any type of corective feedback will fail

if the students are not committed, or are not motivated to improve their writing skills

For students of low levels of motivation, teachors often compli thal they did not

attend to the written corrective feedback provided Lherefore, m order to remedy this

problem, many teachers implement the requirement of revision for the writing tasks Converting conective feedback into long-term aequisition must be achieved internally

by the leamers themselves, in accordance with their particular leaming goals (Carroll, 2001)

Goldstein (2006) also claims that written corrective fecdback is effective only if it is

noticed and understood Leamers with higher degree of motivation have more interest

in engaging in a high level of analysis of corrective feedback This intensity of

engagement with corrective feedback may play crucial role for making the general

claim whether corrective feedback is effective or not Learner may need to be sensitive

to feedback cues to make progress (Ferris & Roberl, 2001; Rabb, Ross & Shortreed,

1986)

1.3.3 Tencher factors

Teacher faclors may melude teachers’ altitudes toward particular students or the

content of their texts, the number of classes teachers need to teach and the number of

institutions al which teachers need to teach iv order to make a living and the quality of

teacher written corrective feedback strategy

Quality of teacher written corrective feedback strategy undoubtedly affects the efficacy

of the feedback itself Goldstein,(2004) as cited by Hyland & Hyland (2006) “We

would all agree that the quality of feedback matters and that students will most benefit from feedback that is text-specific, relevant and clear” (P.203) & “Our comments can

transform sludents? altitudes lo wriling and lead Lo improvement, bul our words can

also confuse and dishearten them We need, then, to be sure that we monitor our

feedback so that it is consistent, clear, helpful and constrictive” As noted by Ferris &

Hedgcook (1998, P.202), effort to find answers to the question “Does error correction

ne

work?” must consider crucial factors: is corrective feedback and instruetion carried out selectively, sysiemalically and accuralcly? Ferris (2006) also suggests that teacher factor such as teacher differences in marking or coding an error may affect students`

performance

Students need to be provided with appropriate feedback which is given at the right time and in the right context Ilence, teachers should keep their own experiences and

intuitions in mind, listen to their students and consider their need in deciding if, when

and how to provide feedback and correction to second language student writer As

teachers, we can only hope that we will continue to find answers and discover ways to

respond more timely, thoughtfully and effectively to our student writers’ needs

1.3.4 Contextual variables

There are several contextual variables thal need to be considered when providing corrective feedback on students’ writing According to Goldstein (2004, cited in

Hyland and Hyland, 2006), contextual factors can include: sociopolitical issues that

influctice (cacher status, class sive, program and curricular requirements, the entrance

and exit requirements

Evans et al (2010) states thal situational or contextual vanables are everything thai can

form the context of learning outsides leamer variables or methodological variables

Situational variables may include several factors such as the learning atmosphere or the

physical environment

Methodological variables or instructional methodologies are also essential in facilitating learning, Evans et al (2010) states that “methodological variables consist of the features of the specific design of instruction and include whl is taught and how it

is taught” (p.150) These features may include appropriate sequencing of instructional

material, sufficient practice, effective pacing, and repetition Also, notwithstanding

how highly motivated the students are, If the amount of corrective feedback is so

overwhelming, students may have difficulties in processing the information or leaming from the feedback provided during the instruction Therefore, toacher must pay attention to the above principles and contexts when providing feedback for their

students.

There are several factors affecting the effectiveness of corrective feedback such as nature of errors, student factors, teacher factors and contextual variables Teacher should bear in mind the need to take into account how contextual factors, as well as individual teacher and student factors may influence corrective feedback and revision

and apply the most suitable corrective feedback strategies to enhance the efficacy of

corrective feedback

In summary, the chapter has so far touched upon issues relating to the topic of the

study Tt has discussed issues concerning Lhe concept of corrective feedback, the

controversial roles of corrective feedback, the types and forms of feedback as well as some factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

The following chapters will display the methodology and the (ndings under the light of”

the above-discussed theoretical background to written corrective feedback.

research is conducted to investigale a specific Leaching silualion or practice when the

teacher in charge wants to find a solution to that situation or practice In other words,

action research is carried out in the classroom by the teacher of the course, mainly wil

the purpose of solving a problem or improving the teaching and learnmg problem It involves a self-reflective, oritical, and systematic approach to exploring the

researcher's own teaching contexts (Rus, 2010) This action rescarch was carried oul

in an attempt to find out solutions to the improvement of students’ writing skills It was carried out by the teacher-researcher with my own students in an intact class For these reasons, | believed an action research design would fit my purpose

Although there exist models which include different steps to carry out the action

research, they all share the following basic elements: the process begins with the

researcher identifying a problem, then a plan of action is worked ou, afterwards the plan is implemented, and the process culminates when the researcher evaluates the efloctivencss of the plan and proposes next actions to further address the problem

In this study, | followed the model proposed by Kemmis and Me Taggart (1988,

cited in Burns, 2010 p.9) because the steps in this model make it easier and more

convenient for me to carry out the rescarch Besides, it reflects correctly what steps will be taken during the study According Kemmis and Me laggart, the action research process has four steps as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below:

tà Ds}

Figure 2.1: Steps in the action research cycle

steps

-Step 1: Problem identification

-Step 2: Planning the action

-Step 3: Implementing the action

Step 4: Reflecting the action

Because of the limited time, the researcher would not continue the action in the next cycle

2.2 Research setting

221 Overview

Tuong Van Tuy Gifled High School, where T am working as a teacher of English, is located in the centre of Ninh Binh City, Nmh Binh provines There are about 145 teachers and about 1300 students English is among the most important subjects al the school Tl is one of the three compulsory subjects of the required examinations the students have to pass in order to be qualified for the General

Education Diploma TLis also the subject a greal number of students choose as the main

one to take part in unuversity entrance examination In English major classes, the stadents have eleven periods learning English every week The materials are not only the text book issued by Ministry of Education and Training but also the ones adapted

by the teachers, ‘The responsibility of teaching the language is on the hand of the teachers of English at the school

The 12 form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School are

eighteen years old and have been learning English for six years; their Dnglish knowledge is, in general quite good especially English grammar and vocabulary,

2.2.2 Participants and data collection instruments

Thirty five students of 12" form Linglish major students at Luong Van Tuy

Gifled High School were chosen lor the research Ol the 35 students, there were 32

girls and 3 boys All these students were in the class where | was teaching

During the research, I conducted a cycle, in which I applied different types of written comective feedback to sce the cffcets of these types of feedback on students’

tạ ừ

writing performance At the same time, analysis of students’ writings and free narratives was utilized to collect the data for the whole paper After 6 months of the study, all the 35 students’ wniting papers and fice narratives wore collected, analyzed and discussed

2.2.3, The research procedures

‘The action research was conducted during the first semester of school year 2015-

2016 Adapting steps in Kemmis’ and Mc Taggart’s action research cycle (1988, cited

in Bums, 2010 p.9), the action was developed in four steps as follows:

Step 1: Problem identification

T have been a teacher at the school for more than 10 years During the teaching process, T discovered thal my students seemed lo be weak at wring skills although their English knowledge was, in general, quite good especially English grammar and

vouabulary More specifically, afler leaching this Frylish major class (or one semester,

I realized that almost all of the students were not interested in learning writing, and they often made mistakes in writing although they performed relatively well in reading and listening skills and also had a good knowledge of English grammar and vovabulary 1 began to gather data and then analyzed the data to identify the problems

of students’ writings In order to gather the needed data, 1 asked each of the students to write a (ree nasralive aboul their problems writing skill and the possible reasons Lor these problems It was surprising to know that 30 out of 35 students said that they didn’t often get regular, detailed feedback from teachers so they often didn’t really know exactly what thew weak points in writing were In a writing period of 45 minutes

they often got teacher’s writing instructions in content and organization as well as a

provision of some related words and phrases The moment they finished their writing

in elass often coincided with the end of the period so teacher only had the chance to give feedback to some students’ writing papers Iiven when feedback was delivered,

teachers had little time to check and process the students” revision so students often

made mistakes again Therefore, error fossilization was unavoidable la writing tests, what they often received for their writing were marks and some teacher's comments on

content and organization at the bottom of their writing papers Some students said that

they didn’t often rewrite their writing so even when they were given feedback on

specific error, they still made the same kind of error in the next writing They also said

that because of the large number of the students and because most of the tume in grade

10 and 11 was often spent on finishing the text books and only student qualified for the

national examination for gifled students would have more clance to wrile and receive

detailed feedback regularly In addition, a large number of students (28 of them) admitted that they found writing the most difficult skill After the results were

obtained, the study was conducted Lo improve the situation

Step 2: Planning the actian

With a view lo helping the students improve (her wriling performance, T

decided to use different types of written corrective feedback during the pilot teaching

because I believed that besides teacher’s writing instructions, in many cases, teacher’s

correction and comments could help to solve the problems of students’ writing

accuracy and their attitudes towards writing In other words, teacher’s good feedback strategies may give students stimulation for revision and motivation to maintain their

interest int writing

This study was limited to the investigation of the impact of 3 written error

correction strategies on students’ writing performance After giving a clear written

medel, 1 asked students to write a short essay (about 200 words) related to the main

topics of specific units in their Unglish book ‘he time allowance for doing all these three tasks was about 35 minutes al the class During the composing lime, they were encouraged to do it on their own and not to cousult any dictionaries, or books They received feedback on their essays, mainly on the use of language, and were then asked

to rewrite the essay based on the teacher fecdback and resubmitted a revised draft The

tà 3

research was divided into three stages with a different type of feedback applied for each stage All the students’ papers were collected and analyzed The data-callecting process helped in climmating slips duc to carclessness or performance mistakes induced by psychological factors ‘Ihe errors were counted according to five error categories adapted from Ferris & Roberts (2001) and those which ocowred most frequently in the participants’ writings he five targeted error types are: verb tense and form, subject- verb agreement, article, language expression (which includes lexical error such as wrong word choice and form, collocation and idiom), and sentence

1 Essay | & Revised draft | Direct Feedback

3 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Direct Feedback

3 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Direct Feedback

8 Delayed Test 1 Stage 2 [9 Tssay 1 & Revised drali 1 Metahinguistie Feedback

10 Fssay 2 & Revised drali 2 Metahinguistie Feedback

1 Essay 3 & Revised dralt 3 Mctalinguistie Feedback

16 Delayed Tost 2 Stage 3 | 17 Lssay 1 & Revised draft 1 Indirect l'eedback

18 Lssay 2 & Revised draft 2 Indirect l'eedback

19 Lssay 3 & Revised draft 3 Indirect l'eedback

Delayed ‘Test 3

Step 3: Implementing the action

Stage 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied)

With this strategy, the teacher provided the students with the correct form above or

near to the erroneous form

- After having corrected the students’ essay 1 for the first time, the teacher counted

errors

- Then, the teacher handed back written work, the students had chance to look at the

papers carefully and rewrole the tasks and resubmitted (he papers

- The teacher got the papers back, kept reading and correcting the second time, then

counted the errors committed and retumed the papers to the students

- One week later students wore required to write new essays following the same procedure

- One month laler, delayed test 1 was conducted fo see the long-term effect of direct

feedback

Stage 2: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied)

Because of the big size of the class, I only used the first form of metalinguistic

corrective feedback, which is the using of error codes Students were provided a list of

error codes (Appendix A) and all the codes were explained The list containing abbrevialion and symbols and a gloss of what these moan was adapted from International Inglish Language Testing System code list

- After collecting students’ written work for the first time, the teacher laheled for different kinds of errors placed over the location of the eer in the text or in the

margin, then counted errors

+ Students then got the wrilings back

- Next, they rewrote the tasks with correction and resubmitted the essays

- The teacher got the papers back, read and counted the errors still committed

- The teacher retuned the papers to the students

- One week later students were asked to write new essays following the same procedure

- One month later, delayed test 2 was conducted to sec the long-term effect of

metalinguistic corrective feedback

Stage 3: (Indirect corrective feedback applied)

- After the students’ written papers were collected for the first time, errors in students” writing were simply underlined or circle without any correction or explanation of the

errors The teacher then counted errors

- Then, students got them back and rewrote the tasks with the own correction, and

handed in the papers

- The teacher got the papers back, read the sevond lime, counted the errors committed

- ‘he teacher then returned the written work to the students

- One week later stuslents were required to wrile new essays following the same

use or teacher corrective feedback

Step 4: Reflecting the action

The data collected during the action implementing period and the students’ narratives were analyzed, ‘Ihe results of the analysis were consulted to find out the

effects of different types of written corrective feedback on students’ writmg performance ‘[he data analysis results were also used to answer the research questions The criteria of success of the action and the students” writing performance reflected the

arca of concem the teacher wanted to emphasize in the tcachmg and learning process.