Improving grade 10 students’ writing ability by using written corrective feedback an action research project at tien phong high school, me linh, ha noi

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF PROJECT REPORT I certify my authority of the Study Project Report submitted entitled Improving grade 10 students’ writing ability by using written correctiv

HOÀNG THỊ DUYÊN

USING WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: AN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT AT TIEN PHONG HIGH SCHOOL,

HOÀNG THỊ DUYÊN

USING WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: AN ACTION RESEARCH PROJECT AT TIEN PHONG HIGH SCHOOL,

ME LINH, HA NOI

(CẢI THIỆN KHẢ NĂNG VIẾT CHO HỌC SINH LỚP 10 BẰNG VIỆC CHỮA LỖI DƯỚI HÌNH THỨC VIẾT: NGHIÊN CỨU HÀNH ĐỘNG TẠI TRƯỜNG

THPT TIỀN PHONG, MÊ LINH, HÀ NỘI)

M.A Minor Programme Thesis

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF PROJECT REPORT

I certify my authority of the Study Project Report submitted entitled

Improving grade 10 students’ writing ability by using written corrective feedback: An action research project at Tien Phong high school, Me Linh, Ha Noi

in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Hanoi, January 2017

Hoang Thi Duyen

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to register my profound gratitude to

Ms Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa, my respected supervisor, for her invaluable instruction, contribution and great care to my research

I wish to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt thanks to the teachers

of Department of Post - Graduate Studies who have supplied me with the good conditions to conduct this thesis and finish this M.A course

My thanks go to my managers at Tien Phong high school, my colleagues for their assistance, encouragement during the time I participated in M.A course

Also, I owe my debt to my students who are the subjects of my thesis for their willingness to answer my questionnaires, interviews

Lastly, I am also grateful to my families for their kindly encouragement during the research’s finalization

ABSTRACT

Many language educators and researchers (e.g., Nunan; 1987; Horwitz, 1988; Schulz, 2001) claim that matching the expectations of teachers and students is important for successful language learning Therefore, it is important for teachers to

be aware of the impact of their corrective feedback practices on students’ expectations and writing accuracy Accordingly, this study is an attempt to find ways to improve writing skill by investigating the effect of some types of written corrective feedback on writing performance and the students’ attitudes towards teachers’ corrective feedback at Tien Phong High school The participants included

35 students from grade 10 The data were collected from survey questionnaires for students, the direct interview with nine students and students’ written work The results show that teacher’s written corrective feedback helps improve students’ writing ability However, there is a slight mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and students’ preferences for teacher corrective feedback regarding feedback types and forms On this basis, the study recommends a number of directions for teachers to help them improve their feedback practices more effectively

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF PROJECT REPORT i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Identification of the problem 1

1.2 Aims of the study and research questions 2

1.3 Scope of the study 3

1.4 Significance of the study 3

1.5 Methods of the study 3

1.6 Organization of the paper 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Major approaches to teaching writing 5

2.1.1 The product approach 5

2.1.2 The process writing approach 5

2.2 Definition of writing ability 6

2.2.1 Writing ability implied in product/text-oriented approach 6

2.2.2 Writing ability implied in process/cognitive-oriented approach 7

2.2.3 Writing ability implied in reader/genre-oriented approach 7

2.3 Definition of corrective feedback 8

2.4 Forms of feedback 9

2.4.1 Oral feedback 9

2.4.2 Written feedback 10

2.5 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing 10

2.5.1 Peer feedback 11

2.5.2 Teacher’s feedback 12

2.6 Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies 13

2.6.1 Teacher direct corrective feedback 14

2.6.2 Teacher indirect corrective feedback 15

2.6.3 Teacher metalinguistic corrective feedback 15

2.6.4 Previous studies on teacher’s written corrective feedback 15

2.7 Different views about the roles of teacher written corrective feedback 18

2.7.1 Arguments for the role of teacher written corrective feedback 19

2.7.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback 20

2.8 Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback 21

28.1 Nature of errors 21

2.8.2 Student factors 22

2.8.3 Teacher factors 23

2.8.4 Contextual variables 24

CHAPTER 3: METHOD AND PROCEDURE 26

3.1 Overview of action research 26

Figure 3.1: Steps in the action research cycle 27

3.2 Research setting 27

3.2.1 The school 27

3.2.2 Participants 28

3.2.3 The research procedures 29

3.2.4 Data collection instruments 33

3.2.5 Data analysis 34

3.3 Summary 34

CHAPTER 4 RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 35

4.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ writing performance 35 4.1.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ revised writing papers 35

4.1.2 The effects of three common types of feedback on students’ new writing exercises 37

4.1.3 Discussion 41

4.2 Students’ opinions towards different types of corrective feedback and their preference each type of teacher corrective feedback 44

4.2.1 Students’ opinions towards teacher corrective feedback in general 44

4.2.2 Students’ preference for each type of teacher corrective feedback 45

4.2.3 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher corrective feedback 48

4.3 Reflection 49

For more effective use of teacher written corrective feedback, teachers and students should bear the following suggestions in mind 50

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 53

5.1 Summary of the main findings 53

5.2 Limitations of the study 54

5.3 Suggestions for further study 54

REFERENCES 55 APPENDIX A

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 2.1: Ellis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98) 13

Figure 3.1: Steps in the action research cycle 27

Table 3.1: Timetable of the action implementation 30

Figure 4.1: Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ revised writing exercises 35

Figure 4.2: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 1 38

Figure 4.3: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 2 39

Figure 4.4: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 3 40

Figure 4.5: Students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher written corrective feedback 45

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Identification of the problem

Nowadays, English is considered to be one of the key factors that help our country make faster progress on the way of industrialization and modernization As

a result, the English language has rapidly become the most popular first foreign language among Vietnamese people, especially at schools, colleges and universities For learners of English, the English language surely brings about a better career prospect, so the demand to use English fluently as well as to master the four basic skills is becoming essential among all students

Of the four main skills, listening, speaking, reading and writing, writing is the most difficult and least preferable skill to be learnt, because it needs hard thinking

in producing words, sentences, and paragraph at the same time According to Richards, J C., & Renandya, W A (2002), “writing is the most difficult skill for second language learners to master The difficulty lies not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas into readable text.” Writing, undeniably, is amongst the most prominent skills that language learners need to learn as an essential component of their academic practice and later on in their professional life Therefore, helping students enhance their writing skills is one of the teachers’ responsibilities and desirability This partially explains why teaching writing has prompted a great deal of research that covers various aspects of its broad instructional contexts The literature review reveals that the effects of teacher written corrective feedback on students’ writing remain to be inconclusive However, numerous studies on the use of corrective feedback in writing classes have shown that written corrective feedback can be applied in writing classes to improve students’ writing accuracy (Liu, 2008; Kaweera, 2008; Ferris, 2000; Ferris

et al., 2001)

It is obvious that one of the most meaningful and important methods of teaching writing is the use of written corrective feedback because it allows teacher-to-student

interaction in the second language writing class (Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997) Many L2 writing teachers feel that written corrective feedback is influential

in the improvement of their students' L2 writing accuracy (Brown, 2007; Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Raimes (1983, p.139) also notes, “Responding to students’ writing

is very much a part of the process of teaching writing” (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2004; Brown, 2007) That means corrective feedback is very necessary for the success of the writing tasks

In my own teaching experience, I have found out that most students find themselves uncomfortable during the writing lessons and they are unsatisfied with their writing ability As a result, they are reluctant to write and always find themselves unprepared for the task of writing

Aware of the importance of teaching writing skill, I, myself, always try my best

to make the writing lessons more interesting by applying various teaching approaches, adapting textbooks to make the lessons more suitable for the students to learn However, my efforts seem not effective at all, the student cannot improve their writing competence For all the aforementioned reasons, I think that it would

be necessary to have an investigation into teacher’s written corrective feedback and students’ perception of those corrective feedback so I wish to conduct a study

entitled “Improving grade 10 students’ writing ability by using written corrective

feedback: An action research project at Tien Phong high school, Me Linh, Ha Noi”

1.2 Aims of the study and research questions

This research is designed to investigate the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on improving students’ writing performance It also investigates the students’ opinions of the types of written corrective feedback they get from their teachers

In order to achieve those aims, the research attempts to answer the following questions:

1 To what extent do students improve their writing ability after receiving written corrective feedback?

1.3 Scope of the study

Corrective feedback in writing can be provided by any reader of a composition such as peers, friends or instructors and can be given in both oral and written forms However, within the framework of a minor thesis, this study focuses only on the types of written feedback provided by teachers in language classrooms

In addition, due to the limited scope of this study, the participants selected are only students from the class that I directly teach

1.4 Significance of the study

The study proves that written corrective feedback is crucial to the teaching and learning of writing Written corrective feedback offers a number

of advantages It gives both the readers and the writers more opportunities for collaboration, consideration and reflection than oral negotiation and debate It also gives the teacher a better chance of closely following the progress of individuals and groups, both in terms of the feedback offered and revisions made

1.5 Methods of the study

This study was implemented with the hope to improve the students’ English writing skills, two methods were used in order to obtain adequate information for the study They were document analysis and action research which is aimed at improving a situation After carrying out a preliminary investigation, a writing instruction course was designed, and different types of teacher written corrective feedback were applied The data were collected by the analysis of students’ writing and students’ survey questionnaires, interviews Students’ writings were collected and analyzed before, during and after treatment period (i.e the delivery of feedback) to measure the students’ progress in their writing performance In addition, students’ survey questionnaires, interviews were collected and analyzed at the end of the research to find out their attitudes towards each feedback type and its effects

1.6 Organization of the paper

The paper consists of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 – Introduction – briefly states the rationale of the study, the aims, research questions, scope as well as the significance and organization of the study

Chapter 2 – Literature review - discusses the literature related to the written

corrective feedback to students’ writing, different views and types of written corrective feedback in writing

Chapter 3- Methodology and procudure - describes the current situation of

the teaching and learning writing at Tien Phong high school and the methodology which deals with the participants, instrumentation, data collection procedure and data analysis procedure

Chapter 4 – Research findings and Discussion-

The last chapter – Chapter 5 – Conclusion - summarizes the major findings of the study, acknowledges its limitations and provides suggestions for further study

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

To provide a theoretical background to the study, this part is devoted to the review of concepts that are the most relevant to the thesis’ topic It begins with the two major approaches to teaching writing then the definition of writing ability Next, it comes to some theoretical backgrounds to teacher’s written corrective feedback which consists of definitions of feedback, purposes of giving feedback, some different types of written corrective feedback as well as different views on written corrective feedback It ends with some factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

2.1 Major approaches to teaching writing

There have been two main class methodologies: the product approach and the process approach respectively Although some writing schemes and programs have tended to rely largely or exclusively on one or other of these approaches, in practice most teachers and text book writers have drawn on more than one and have combined and modified them to suit their purpose In recent years, class teaching method has been heavily influenced by the communicative approach, with its emphasis or task-oriented activities that involves the exchange of information and the free use of language without undue concern for mistakes

2.1.1 The product approach

There are different approaches to teaching writing One of the earliest approaches is product-based approach in which as stated by Tangpermpoon (2008), students will start from pre-writing to composing and to correcting In this approach what is emphasized is raising students’ awareness, especially in grammatical structures According to Nunan (1999), in this approach the focus is on the final product which should be a coherent, error-free text and students will initiate, copy and transform models provided by textbooks or by teachers

2.1.2 The process writing approach

Nunan (1991) clearly states that the process approach focuses on the steps

involved in creating a piece of work and the process writing allows for the fact that

no text can be perfect, but that a writer will get closer to perfection by producing, reflecting on, discussing and reworking successive drafts of a text Fowler (1989) acknowledges that process writing evolved as a reaction to the product approach, in that it met the need to match the writing processes inherent in writing in one’s mother tongue, and consequently allow learners to express themselves better as individuals Hyland (2003) defines process writing as the process which students write following a model specified by the instructor Emphasis shifts from the nature

of the final product, to the process used to create the final product

2.2 Definition of writing ability

According to Stephen P Witte, Neil Nakadate and Roger D Cherry (1992) writing ability as a critical theoretical construct has too often been defined largely

by the testing industry as whatever a particular writing test measures In other words, writing ability has traditionally been defined by test of writing

Yi, Jyi-yeon (2009) stated that the definition of writing ability can be formed depending on the teachers’ own experience as teachers It can be also defined according to their ideology on writing Ideology means here teacher’s philosophy

on the nature of writing Writing ability may also be formed according to pedagogical approaches to the teaching of writing As there are various pedagogical approaches to the teaching of writing, there is more than one definition of writing ability that could be generally accepted amongst teachers and researchers of writing Also, Yi, Jyi-yeon (2009) said that approaches themselves are classified differently according to researchers It seems, however, that they can be reduced into three main approaches: product/text-oriented, process/cognitive-oriented and reader/genreoriented

2.2.1 Writing ability implied in product/text-oriented approach

For teachers and researchers who subscribe to the view of autonomous objects", writing ability is defined as the ability to respond to a given stimulus according to some authority’s definition of the correct response (Nunan,

"Texts-as-1999) Put another way, it is "the ability to adhere to style-guide prescriptions concerning grammar, arrangement and punctuation" (Nunan, 1999, p.59), regardless

of audience, purpose or context, working on the assumption that a text can mean the same thing to all people only if it is written explicitly following the given prescriptions (Hyland, 2002)

According to the "Text-as-discourse" view, writing ability is the ability to create coherent and cohesive discourses following prescribed patterns for developing and organising discourse

To sum up, both of these frameworks view writing ability as the capacity to produce "acontextually" (Hyland, 2002, p.6) correct forms of language, following prescribed patterns at either sentence or discourse level

2.2.2 Writing ability implied in process/cognitive-oriented approach

This approach centres on what the writer does during writing Commonly known as the Process approach (Johns, 1990; Nunan, 1999; Raimes, 1983; Silva, 1990; Tribble, 1996), it can be roughly divided into three subcategories: Expressivist, Cognitivist and Social (Situated) strands (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Hyland, 2002; Johns, 1990)

From Expressivist view, as Grabe and Kaplan (1996) note, learners are encouraged to look for their own authentic voices and freely express them Accordingly, the writing activities employed by those subscribing to this view are likely to be personal essays and journal writing, which are suitable for self-discovery (Johns, 1990) From this position, writing ability can be defined as the ability to express oneself freely

Yi, Jyi-yeon (2009) noted that writing ability in this process/cognitive-oriented approach is, therefore, defined as the ability to initiate and evolve ideas and then use certain revising and editing practices to develop them to maturity in a given context

2.2.3 Writing ability implied in reader/genre-oriented approach

According to Yi, Jyi-yeon (2009), this Genre-based approach, which emphasises awareness of the reader, regards successful writers as those who are

able to make reasonable assumptions about what the reader knows and expects, seek

a balance between their writing purpose and the reader’s expectations, and satisfy the reader’s rhetorical demands Thus, according to this approach, writing ability is defined as the ability to perform writing tasks for a given purpose, satisfy a given discourse community with regard to the structure and content of the discourse, and communicate functionally

According to Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR) at B1 level students can write simple texts on topic which are familiar or of personal interest by linking a series of shorter discrete elements into a linear sequence They can write personal letters describing events, experiences and impressions

2.3 Definition of corrective feedback

Various researchers define the term “feedback” in different ways, among which the one put forward by Keh is one of the most comprehensive Keh (1989, p.24) considers feedback as “any input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision” Lightbown and Spada (1999, p.172) states that feedback is “an indication to the learner that his or her use the target languages is incorrect” Raimes (1983, p.139) notes, “Responding to students’ writing is very much a part of the process of teaching writing” That means feedback is very necessary for the success of the writing tasks

Teacher feedback, is this sense, can be regarded as an effective means to communicate to students about their writing so that they can enhance their composition

Corrective feedback refers to the response that second language students receive on the errors that they make in their oral or written production (Sheen, Y & Ellis, R 2011) Feedback, as viewed by Furnborough and Truman (2009), involves the existence of gaps between what has been learned and the target competence of the learners and the efforts undertaken to bridge the gaps This feedback is provided

to ask for further information, to give directions, suggestion for revision, and to give positive feedback about what the students have done well (Ferris, 1997)

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 attracted numerous researchers’ attention, however, is feedback on linguistic errors Such responses have widely been referred to as “corrective feedback” or “error correction” Yeh and Lo (2009) defines corrective feedback as the responses to the texts containing errors They also claim that corrective feedback supplies students with direct or indirect responses about what is unacceptable The responses 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 Yeh and Lo (2009)’s definition seems to be the most suitable and closely involves in the scope of this study Therefore, this definition is adapted in this study

2.4 Forms of feedback

Basing on forms, feedback is distinguished as two main types which are oral feedback and written feedback Comparing between these two types, written 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

2.4.1 Oral feedback

When discussing oral feedback in the classroom, any kind of dialogue that provides information that will help students improve their learning can be included Sinclair and Coulthard state that, “A typical exchange in the classroom consists of

an initiation by the teacher, followed by a response from the pupil, followed by feedback, to the pupil’s response from the teacher[…]” (1992:3) This is a typical interaction that takes place in a classroom Oral feedback is therefore a natural part

of verbal interaction between students and teachers, or students and students Oral feedback is mostly considered to happen between a teacher and a student, but some researchers (Yang, Badger and Yu, 2006) note that a great deal of verbal feedback

also comes from peers Hattie and Gan (2011:260-263) explain that oral feedback can be group-focused or more individual-focused feedback So-called corrective feedback happens when the teacher collects the most common mistakes and corrects them in class so as not to single out any individual student; this could be considered

to be more group-focused oral feedback For instance, Yuen Kwong (2001:1-4) states that even though feedback can be provided individually, it is more efficient if the whole class is involved so that students can learn from each other’s mistakes This study limits itself to the exploration of written corrective feedback only

Written feedback is an integral aspect of any English 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 This form of feedback can be also divided into several different subtypes

2.5 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing

Written corrective feedback can be provided by any reader of a composition, such as peers or friends, but is generally provided by instructors in most language classrooms In a foreign language context, “teacher response and evaluation are typically the principal means by which the second language learners measure their progress as writers” (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996, p 1)

2.5.1 Peer feedback

Peer feedback is a practice in language education where feedback is given by one student to another According to Bartels (2004), peer feedback means feedback from the fellow students If students are working on the same assignment together, peer feedback means exchanging drafts and comments on each other’s drafts Peer feedback is used in writing classes to provide students more opportunities

to learn from each other Peer feedback broadens learners’ involvement by giving them the additional roles of reader and advisor to go with that 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)

Some of the research on peer feedback has found that it has social and cognitive advantages; for example, through using their peers' comments in re-drafting, students can improve their revision and produce better drafts (e.g Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Rollinson, 2005; Villamail and de Guerrero, 1996) Also, from a socio-cognitive point of view, peer feedback is a "formative developmental process" (Hyland and Hyland, 2006:6), which means that writers develop the ability to exchange views on how they interpret the writings of other students and how other students interpret their writing Other studies, however, have either raised more research questions on peer feedback (e.g Connor and Asenavage, 1994) or found it

of limited use (e.g Flower, 1994; Spear, 1988)

Ferris and Hedgcock (1998:170-171) also provide an outline of the advantages of peer feedback, for example that peer feedback gives students the ability to a) play

an active role in learning writing (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994), b) use their peers' ideas to redraft their writings (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994), c) receive reactions from an authentic audience (Mittan, 1989), d) receive more than one point of view about their writing from different peer groups (Chaudrun, 1983; Mittan, 1989), e) receive clear and direct feedback from their about what they have done well and what they still have to improve (Mittan, 1989; Moore, 1986; Witbeck, 1976), f)

improve their critical and analytical skills through responding to peers' writing (Leki, 1990a; Mittan, 1989) and g) develop self-confidence by comparing their own abilities to their peers' strengths and weaknesses (Leki, 1990a; Mittan, 1989) 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 peers offer unspecific, unhelpful and even incorrect feedback because they lack the knowledge of the target language or the knowledge in certain specific content areas Other concerns about peer feedback are raised by Amores (1997), who argues that students may find it difficult to accept criticism from their peers and may respond defensively to their feedback

2.5.2 Teacher’s feedback

In the light of process writing approach, teachers play an important role in helping 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 to learners' errors, which takes the forms of implicit or explicit correction

Written corrective feedback refers to teacher written feedback on a student’s essay

with an aim of improving grammatical accuracy (including spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) as well as idiomatic usage (such as word order and word choice) The primary of this thesis is meant to be an investigation into how the different teacher written corrective feedback strategies improve students’ writing performance

Some researchers indicate that students favor corrective feedback from teachers because they believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1990) Studies by Ashwell (2000), and Ferris (2003) conclude that there is a positive correlation between student writing accuracy and teacher corrective feedback Furthermore, Ellis (1998) and Lightbown (1998) state that thanks to teacher corrective feedback adult learners can avoid fossilization and maintain their progress in their second language proficiency

2.6 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 There are different classifications for corrective

feedback strategies proposed by different researches

Ellis (2009) presents a typology which consists of six main strategies to provide corrective feedback (see Table 2.1)

Table 2.1: Ellis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98)

A Strategies for

providing CF

the correct form

e.g Lalande(1982) and Robb

et al.(1986)

exists but does not provide the correction

employed indirect correction

of this kind (e.g Ferris and

a line of text

Fewer studies have employed this method (e.g Robb et al 1986)

3 Metalinguistic

CF

The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue as to nature of the error

a Use of error

code

Teacher writes code in the margin (e.g ww = wrong word; art = article)

examined the effects of using codes (e.g Lalande 1982; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Chadler 2003)

Sheen (2007) compared the effects of direct CF and direct

CF + metalinguistic CF

4 The focus of

the feedback

This concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of the students’ errors or selects one

or two specific types of errors to correct This distinction can be applied to each of above options

investigated unfocused CF (e.g Chandler 2003; Ferris 2006) Sheen (2007), drawing

on traditions in SLA studies

keeping the content of the origi nal intact

compared the effects of direct correction and reformulation

on students’ revisions of their text

Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) categorize responses from teachers to students’ error into three forms or strategies: (1) teacher feedback that indicates that 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 improved via the 3 main types of written corrective feedback strategies, namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic corrective feedback

2.6.1 Teacher direct corrective feedback

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 striking out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme, inserting a missing

or expected word, phrase or morpheme; and by providing the correct linguistic form above, in the margin or near the erroneous form (Ellis, 2008; Ferris, 2006)

2.6.2 Teacher indirect corrective feedback

Indirect written corrective feedback refers to situations when the teacher 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)

2.6.3 Teacher metalinguistic corrective feedback

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

a list of codes to avoid confusion However, 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

2.6.4 Previous studies on teacher’s written corrective feedback

A number of previous studies have proved the revision effect of direct feedback 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 correct form might be However, it requires minimal processing on the part of the learners and thus, it may not contribute to long-term learning (Ellis, 2009) In addition, a recent study by Sheen (2007) suggests that direct corrective feedback can be effective in promoting acquisition of only specific grammatical features This 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 advocate of direct written corrective feedback has also suggested that it may be more beneficial because it “reduces confusion” (Chandler, 2003), supplies students with information to “resolve more complex errors” and is “more immediate” Therefore, direct written corrective feedback may be more useful for learners who have comparatively limited linguistic knowledge

Lee (2005) adds that direct feedback may be appropriate for beginner students, or in

a 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

Advocates of indirect written corrective feedback (e.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 corrective feedback does not have immediate revision effect, it leads to long-term learning and has more benefits than direct feedback on 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 of the mistake on his own, may be more useful for learners at higher proficiency levels as they have relatively advanced linguistic knowledge Ferris (2002), Ferris and Roberts (2001) observe that while direct feedback led to greater accuracy in text revisions, indirect feedback results in the production of fewer initial errors over time Bitchener et al (2005), Bitchener and Knoch (2010) point out that complex errors might not be good targets for indirect feedback since learners are often not capable of self-correcting the identified errors Additionally, for features about which students already have some explicit knowledge, indirect corrective feedback can assist them in the transition from declarative to procedural knowledge (Lyster, 2004)

However, the results of studies that have investigated the difference between direct and indirect are very mixed Some studies (e.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 to students’ attention, triggering the “guided learning and problem-solving” processes By contrast, Frantzen, (1995) found no difference between direct and indirect corrective feedback

A number of studies have compared using error codes with other types 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 writing but no more effective than indirect feedback Additionally, Sheen (2007) studies the effects of direct and metalinguistic corrective feedback He has found that both are effective in increasing accuracy in the students’ use of articles in subsequent writing completed immediately after the corrective feedback treatment Interestingly, the metalinguistic corrective feedback also proves more effective than direct corrective feedback in a new 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-test The authors conclude that the result demonstrates the superior longitudinal effect of metalinguistic explanation

In short, it is possible to say that while the overall efficacy of written corrective feedback in the second language writing classroom is gaining wider acceptance there still exists considerable debate over the best practice for its implementation In other words, the effectiveness 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 corrective 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 learning 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 no 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 written corrective feedback strategies for error and stylistic difference 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”

In short, it is possible to say that while the overall efficacy of written corrective feedback in the second language writing classroom is gaining wider acceptance there still exists considerable debate over the best practice for its implementation In other words, the effectiveness 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 corrective 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 learning 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 no 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 written corrective feedback strategies for error and stylistic difference 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”

2.7 Different views about the roles of teacher written corrective feedback

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

an endless discussion so far, both favorably and unfavorably Not only researchers

but 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, p.58) 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 learning writing, while some consider teacher feedback to be time-consuming and useless Therefore, it is normal to see different judgments of different individuals about this matter

2.7.1 Arguments for the role of teacher written corrective feedback

Most of other research up to now has illustrated the support for using corrective feedback in writing teaching because of its positive effects (Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2012; Farid & Samad, 2012; Ahmadi, Maftoon & Mehrdad, 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Tuzi, 2004; Yeh & Lo, 2009 and Ferris, 1999) Although these research were different in terms of participants’ language proficiency level, for example upper intermediate level in Bitchener, Young & Cameron (2005) and low proficiency in Bitchener and Knoch (2009); of the methodology and the targeted features of language, say the uses of verbs in Farid and Samad (2012) and the uses of preposition, simple past and definite article in Bitchener, Young & Cameron (2005);

of the focus on different types of CF such as direct and indirect CF in Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken (2012) and the comparison among indirect CF, written metalinguistic explanation and a combination of written metalinguistic and oral form-focused in Ahmadi, Maftoon & Mehrdad (2012), all found optimistic influence of CF on students’ writing performance at a certain level

Yet, as Ferris (1999) stated, any conclusion about the effectiveness of CF should

be withdrawn from a specific study in a specific context to avoid any premature assumption without supported evidence That is the reason why this study has been carried out in the form of an action research project of the author who often gives

written corrective feedback to students’ writing product to find out the effects of different types of corrective feedback on learners’ writing performance

2.7.2 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 researchers that have strongly supported written corrective feedback, there are others have argued against it for various reasons (Robb, Ross & Shortreed, 1986, Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007)

Trustcott (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 errors 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, Trustcott (2007) claims that written corrective 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 learners’ ability and willingness to use the feedback effectively

Sharing with Van Beuningen et al (2012), Trustcott maintains that written corrective feedback encourages learners 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 learners’ writing

Additionally, Krashen (1982) hypothesizes that, in making students aware of their errors, corrective feedback leads to learner stress and anxiety of committing the same errors in future writing In his view, this anxiety could make learners avoid

the erroneous construction when writing a new text, resulting in simplified writing Corrective feedback might lead to a reduction of the linguistic complexity of learners’ output

2.8 Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

The counter-arguments by scholars as presented in 2.7 are not empirically supported In fact, the effectiveness of written corrective feedback 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 each classroom, situational variables, teacher factors, learner variables such as students’ first language, learning style, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation and future goals and other additional factors Some of these factors are discussed in the following sections

28.1 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 that are easy to describe, i.e errors that occur in a patterned, rule-governed way (e.g., verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments), so learners can be pointed to a grammar book or set of rules to resolve the errors In 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 succinct rules that students can consult to avoid or fix those types of 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 (Ferris, 2006) She suggests that multiple forms of feedback should be used in combination depending on the nature of the error and student characteristics Ferris (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 highly stigmatizing effects on the reader should be corrected Thus, it can be concluded that categorizing the types of errors and choosing suitable corrective feedback strategies for each type of error will directly affect the effectiveness 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

2.8.2 Student factors

The degree of adoption of corrective feedback may be influenced by many individual learner factors such as attitude and learning styles, language proficiency, motivation and attitude toward written corrective feedback, learners’ preference for written corrective feedback, first language, beliefs, socioeconomic background, motivation and future goals and other additional factors

Firstly, students’ ability to make use of written corrective feedback depends on their proficiency level Frantzen and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010) have found that, for students of lower level of proficiency, simply underlining the error might not be informative enough because students could not determine exactly what the error was Ferris (2002) recommends indirect feedback for most instances but cautions that 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 “Learners’ perception about what constitutes useful feedback varies considerably according 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 error correction is one method of insuring enhanced performance, and vice versa for students with low motivation level Gue’nette (2007) emphasizes the importance of learner motivation in relation to the effectiveness of corrective feedback and students’ success in improving their writing According to him, any type of corrective 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, teachers often complain that they did not attend to the written corrective feedback provided Therefore, in order to remedy this problem, many teachers implement the requirement of revision for the writing tasks Converting corrective feedback into long-term acquisition must be achieved internally by the learners themselves, in accordance with their particular learning goals (Carroll, 2001)

Goldstein (2006) also claims that written corrective feedback is effective only if it is noticed and understood Learners 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 & Robert, 2001; Robb, Ross

“Our comments can transform students’ attitudes to writing and lead to improvement, but 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 constructive” As noted by Ferris & Hedgcock (1998, p.202), effort to find answers

to the question “Does error correction work?” must consider crucial factors: is corrective feedback and instruction carried out selectively, systematically and accurately? 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 Hence, 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

2.8.4 Contextual variables

There are several contextual variables that 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 influence teacher status, class size, program and curricular requirements, the entrance and exit requirements

Evans et al (2010) state that situational or contextual variables are everything that can form the context of learning outsides learner 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 what is taught and how it is taught” (p.450) 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 learning from the feedback provided during the instruction Therefore, teacher 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 It has discussed issues concerning the 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 findings under the light of the above-discussed theoretical background to written corrective feedback

CHAPTER 3: METHOD AND PROCEDURE

This chapter presents a detailed description of how the research was carried

out including research design and procedures, research setting, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures

3.1 Overview of action research

This study follows the action research approach This is because this type of research is aimed at improving teaching practice Action research has been defined

in a number of different ways Burns (1994) defines action research as “the application of fact finding to practical problem solving in a social situation with a view to improving the quality of action within it, involving the collaboration and co-operation of researcher, practitioners and laymen” In the first chapter of the book “Action research for Language Teachers, Wallace (1998) states that Action research is a process which collects data on your everyday practice and analyzes it

in order to make decision about what your future practice should be” This action research was carried out in an attempt to improve students’ writing skills It was carried out by the teacher-researcher with my own students in an intact class For these reasons, I believed an action research design would fit my purpose

Although there exist models which include different steps to carry out the action research, there are normally five main phases: problem identification, plan of action, data collection, analysis of data and plan for future action Nunan (1992) also agrees with the five steps above but he divides the action research process into smaller steps: initiation, preliminary, investigation, hypothesis, intervention, evaluation and dissemination

In this study, I followed the model proposed by Kemmis and Mc 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 research Besides, it reflects correctly what steps will be taken during the study According Kemmis and Mc Taggart, the action research process has four steps as illustrated in Figure 3.1 below:

Figure 3.1: Steps in the action research cycle

According to the authors, each action research cycle should involve: planning an action, implementing the action, observing the process and consequences of the action, and reflecting the action In applying this model, this study underwent the

following 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

3.2 Research setting

3.2.1 The school

Tien Phong High Shool, where I am working as a teacher of English, is a year-old high school, located in Tien Phong commune – Me Linh district There are about more than 70 teachers and about more than 1000 students who come from different communes nearby The school was set up in 2004 with about 10 classes, and widened its number of classes up to nearly 30 up to now English is among the

12-most important subjects at the school It 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 The students have four 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

students at Tien Phong High School are sixteen years old and have been learning English for about six years; their English knowledge is, in general, not very good, especially writing skill

The textbooks which are required to teach English in high schools are English Basic 10, 11 and 12 They were developed based on the new national curriculum The methodologies that the books follow are “learner-centered approach and the communicative approach with task-based teaching being the central teaching method” (English 10, Teacher’s Manual: 12)

unit covers a topic and is sub-divided into five sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus Each part is supposed to be taught in a period of 45 minutes

The Writing section may begin with a model, followed by activities that guide students through the writing process such as model analysis, language work, and guided writing In this part, students are required to produce various text types

such as personal and formal letters, narratives, chart, graph and table description, and expository essays Students grade 10 are required to write mainly personal and formal letters, narratives

3.2.3 The research procedures

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

2016-2017 Adapting steps in Kemmis’ and Mc Taggart’s action research cycle (1988, cited in Burns, 2010 p.9), the action was developed in four steps as follows:

Step 1: Problem identification

During over 12-year teaching time, the teacher researcher found that the students seemed to be very weak at writing skills in comparison to English grammar and vocabulary More specifically, 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 as well as English grammar and vocabulary To identify the students’ writing problems the researcher had the students complete a survey questionnaire (Appendix A) to investigate their attitudes towards English writing lesson, problems with writing lesson and the possible reasons for these problems It was surprising to know that half of the students enjoy writing lesson faily well but another half does not like writing at all A large number

of students (28 of them) admitted that they found writing the most difficult skill Moreover, 25 out of 35 students said that they did not often get regular, detailed feedback from teachers, except for some good students, so they often did not really know exactly what their weak points in writing were Even if 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

A large number of students admitted not rewriting their writing so even when they were given feedback on specific error, they still made the same kind of error in the next writing After the results were obtained, the study was conducted to improve the situation

Step 2: Planning the action

In order to help the students improve their writing ability, the researcher decided to use different types of written corrective feedback during the pilot

teaching because it is 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 in writing

Due to the time constraints and the writing exercises mainly focus on specific grammatical features, 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 model, the students were asked to do a sentence-building exercise (about 10 sentences) related to the main topics of specific units in their English book The time allowance for doing the exercise was about 25 minutes at the class During their writing time, they were encouraged to do it on their own and not to consult any dictionaries, or books or their friends They received feedback on their work, mainly on the use of language, and then they were asked to rewrite the exercises based on the teacher feedback and resubmitted a revised draft The 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 error classification was adapted from five error categories used by Ferris & Roberts (2001) and based on errors which occurred most frequently in the participants’ writings The four targeted error types are: verb tense and form, subject- verb agreement, article and preposition

The following is the planned timetable (see Table 3.1) the researcher followed during 4 months of the action implementation (For writing exercises, see appendix B)

Table 3.1: Timetable of the action implementation

& Revised draft 1

Direct Feedback

& Revised draft 1

Step 3: Implementing the action

Stage 1: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied)

Because of the big size of the class and my students’ low level of English, 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 C) and all the codes were explained The list containing abbreviation and symbols and a gloss of what these mean was adapted from International English Language Testing System code list

- After collecting students’ written work for the first time, the teacher labeled for different kinds of errors placed over the location of the error in the text or in the margin, then counted errors

- Students then got the writings back

- Next, they rewrote the tasks with correction and resubmitted their writing exercises

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

- The teacher returned the papers to the students

- One week later students were asked to write new sentence building exercises following the same procedure

- Two weeks later, delayed test 1 was conducted to see the long-term effect of metalinguistic corrective feedback