Students’ preferences for and responses to teacher written feedback on grammatical errors a case study at le quy don private primary school

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG CHI STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR AND RESPONSES TO TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON GRAMMATICAL ERRORS: A CASE STUDY AT LE QUY DON PRIVATE PRIMARY SCHOOL Sự yêu thích và phản

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG CHI

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR AND RESPONSES

TO TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS: A CASE STUDY AT LE

QUY DON PRIVATE PRIMARY SCHOOL

(Sự yêu thích và phản hồi của học sinh về phương pháp chữa lỗi ngữ pháp

của giáo viên: Một nghiên cứu điển hình tại trường Tiểu học Dân lập Lê Quý Đôn, Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 601410 M.A course: 19

HANOI, 2013

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯƠNG CHI

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES FOR AND RESPONSES

TO TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS: A CASE STUDY AT LE

QUY DON PRIVATE PRIMARY SCHOOL

(Sự yêu thích và phản hồi của học sinh về phương pháp chữa lỗi ngữ pháp

của giáo viên: Một nghiên cứu điển hình tại trường Tiểu học Dân lập Lê Quý Đôn, Hà Nội)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 601410 M.A course: 19

Supervisor: Pham Minh Tam, M.Ed

HANOI, 2013

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Students’ Preferences for and

Responses to Teacher Written Feedback on Grammatical Errors: A Case Study at Le Quy Don Private Primary School” is the result of my own research

for the Degree of Master of Arts at University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University - Hanoi and that this thesis has not been submitted for any degree at any other university or tertiary institution

Hanoi, May 2013 Signature

Trần Thị Phương Chi

This study aims to explore the fit between teachers’ written feedback on grammatical errors and the students’ preferences and strategies for handling the feedback on their written works in a primary school in Hanoi The study used a triangulation of participants and methods in which the practice of feedback was seen from the perspectives of students and teachers Data were collected from students’ worksheets, questionnaires and interviews Firstly, worksheets of 25 fourth-graders marked by two teachers were collected in order to work out the teacher’s feedback types on grammatical errors Participants were then asked to fill in the questionnaires concerning their feedback preferences Finally, semi-structured interviews were employed to seek for students’ responses to the feedback they received The results indicated that students’ preferences for teacher feedback vary from class to class and the students’ strategies for handling feedback varied depending on the type of feedback each teacher gave

on the students’ paper

Key words: teacher written feedback, grammatical errors, preferences, responses, English as a foreign language

My thanks also go to all teachers at the Faculty of Post-Graduate studies, University of Languages and International studies, VNU- Hanoi It is their precious lectures and instructions as well as valuable suggestions that help me understand issues related to my study and teaching

I would also like to thank the authors of the books and studies that I have consulted in order to understand and investigate my research problem

Last but not least, I must record my deep gratitude to all members in my family It is their enduring love, care, support and encouragement that help me

finish this study

1.1 Statement of the Problem and Rationale for the Study

1.2 Objectives of the Study

1.3 Research Questions

1.4 Scope of the Study

1.5 Methodology of the Study

1.6 Significance of the Study

1.7 Organization of the Study

2.1.1 Definitions of Language Errors

2.1.2 Classification of Language Errors

2.1.3 Grammatical Errors

2.1.4 Approaches to Error Correction

2.2 The Role of Written Feedback

2.2.1 Error Correction as Focus-on-Form Intervention

2.2.2 Error Correction to Facilitate Noticing

2.3 Teacher Written Feedback on Grammatical Errors

2.3.1 Definitions of Teacher Written Feedback

2.3.2 Classification of Written Feedback

2.3.3 Error Correction Codes

2.4 Students’ Preferences and Responses for Teacher Feedback

3.5.3 Semi - structured Interviews

3.6 Data Collections Procedure

3.7 Data Analysis Procedure

3.8 Validity and Reliability of Data

5.3 Limitations of the Study

5.4 Recommendations for Further Research

40

40

43

44

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Types of Written Feedback

Appendix B: Types of Grammatical Errors

Appendix C: Sample worksheet marked by Teacher A

Appendix D: Sample worksheet marked by Teacher B

Appendix E: Interview Question (English version)

Appendix F: Interview Question (Vietnamese version)

Appendix G: Questions for Interview (English version)

Appendix H: Questions for Interview (Vietnamese version)

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

This chapter begins with the presentation of the statement of the problem and rationale for the study Next, it presents the aims and scopes of the study as well as the research questions to which the study seeks to find answers This is followed by a brief description of methodology used in the present study Finally,

the chapter concludes with a description of the organization of the thesis

1.1 Statement of the Problem and Rationale for the Study

Teacher feedback has long been regarded as an essential part in language teaching and learning because it not only helps students to correct their own mistakes but also enhances more confidence about their language competences Feedback may focus on either forms or contents or both

It was clearly seen that young learners of English as a foreign language often commit grammatical errors in their writing Therefore, teachers’ giving feedback on their errors is considered to be necessary for students’ proficiency However, the effectiveness of feedback does not lie in itself but by many other factors such as students’ preferences for and responses to the teacher feedback That is the reason why teachers need to take into account some questions: ―What feedback strategies does a teacher actually use when providing feedback on grammatical errors‖, ―Do students like their teachers’ feedback type?‖, ―How do they react when receiving feedback?‖

Up to now, studies of language education have given considerable attention to the issue of how to provide feedback on students’ writing (Diab,

2005, Wang, 2010; Katayama; 2007) Yet, the effectiveness of written feedback

on grammatical errors has been under-explored (Russel, J.M 2003) Some attention has been given to investigate whether certain types of written feedback

may be more effective than the others, but the findings are not inclusive Additionally, which feedback strategies would fit the needs of particular students

is still questioned Addressing these issues will require time and commitment of

a number of researchers The research being reported in this study contributes to the agenda by investigating the fit between teachers’ practices, students’ preferences and strategies for handling feedback on their written work

Much as important written feedback on grammatical errors is, there have been few studies comprehensively dealing with the issue There is also a lack of consensus over such matters as what feedback strategies is the most effective to correct grammatical errors in particular context, what feedback types are preferred by students and how students respond when they receive teacher feedback Moreover, almost all of the feedback studies on students’ preferences and responses have been conducted in college/ university setting

Owing to the lack of consensus on the effectiveness of teacher feedback, this study aims to gain more insights into giving effective feedback by asking what students think, want and do after they receive teacher feedback

There is a paucity of research that addresses the elementary context In Vietnam, a focus on primary school students is important since they are those who have chances to access English as a foreign language from the very young ages (7-11) This study is an attempt to examine the real situation of written feedback on grammatical errors conducted at the Le Quy Don Private Primary School and to propose some suggestions for the betterment of the current practice

As most of the past studies have pursued the inquiry of teacher feedback

in two general ways, namely students’ preferences for teacher feedback (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Hiroko, 1994; Leiki, 1999) and students’ responses to teacher feedback (Cohen,1987; Ferris, 1995, Chiang, 2004), this study follow the similar traits and attempts to find out how students perceive

teacher feedback, what they are concerned about, and what they do after receiving teacher feedback

1.2 Objectives of the Study

This research is conducted for the following purposes:

1 To explore the teachers’ written feedback types in respond to students’ grammatical errors

2 To investigate the students’ preferences towards different types of feedback

3 To find out the students’ strategies for handling feedback after they have

received their written work

1.3 Research Questions

This study is conducted to answer the following research questions:

1 What are the types of teacher written feedback on the students’ grammatical errors?

2 What are the students’ preferences for different types of teacher feedback

on grammatical errors?

3 How do students handle the feedback they receive?

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study limits itself to the exploration of the types of written feedback

on grammatical errors that were commonly used by the teachers in the study, the students’ preferences for and responses to each feedback type Alternative types such as oral corrective feedback by teachers and peer-to-peer feedback from the students are beyond the scope of this study The impact of teacher feedback on learners’ proficiency is also not the objective of the study

The present research was conducted at a private primary school in Hanoi, with two teachers and two classes of young learners enrolled in Let’s Go 4 course Teachers and students in classes that are not in primary school system are outside the scope of this study

1.5 Methodology of the Study

This is a case study with the presence of two teachers and two groups of students The teachers were teaching English to fourth-graders at Le Quy Don Private Primary School in Hanoi Data were then analyzed by means of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of feedback employed by the teachers The students’ preferences were elicited through the questionnaires and students’ responses to teacher feedback on grammatical errors were collected from teacher’s interviews

1.6 Significance of the Study

Providing feedback involves in teachers’ regular practice Feedback, as a means of communication from the teachers, needs the responses from the learners in order to enhance its efficacy Consequently, the link between teachers’ practice of giving feedback, students’ preferences and students’ responses in primary school context are taken into account in this study

Feedback provides students with the information on their performance and learning progress Therefore, it is important to know the feedback types preferred by the young learners in the primary language classroom Additionally,

it offers teachers of English a number of pedagogical implications in terms of written grammar correction to the learners in this context Specifically, teachers can be informed about the effects of different feedback patterns, based on which they can choose the ones that suit their students’ preferences and work for the types of feedback that students react positively

1.7 Organization of the Study

The thesis is composed of 5 chapters

Chapter 1 presents the research focus and provides the rationale for it as well as

its aims, scopes, method, research questions and the significance of the study

Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature, setting the theoretical foundation for

the data collection and analysis

Chapter 3 presents the methodology employed to carry out the present study

This includes a discussion of the participants, the data collection instruments and the procedures for data collection and analysis

Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study with reference to the teacher written

feedback strategies and students’ preferences and response to feedback and also their relationship

Chapter 5 gives a brief summary of the main findings, from which pedagogical

implications are derived This chapter also acknowledges the limitations of the present study and provides suggestions for further studies

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature on the relationship between teacher's written feedback and students‟ preferences and responses to feedback on grammatical errors This chapter starts with an overview of language errors, and approaches to error correction Literature on teachers‟ corrective feedback and students‟ preferences and reactions is also reviewed

2.1 Language Errors

2.1.1 Definitions of Language Errors

The definition of language errors is rather complex as different authors have different ways of defining it Regarding learners’ errors, error analysis enthusiasts made a distinction between mistakes and errors, which are

―technically two very different phenomena‖ (Brown, 2004, p 216)

In one study, Corder (1967, p.114) distinguished ―errors‖ and ―mistakes‖

He stated that ―An error takes place as a result of lack of knowledge (i.e., it represents a gap in competence)‖ and ―A mistake is a performance phenomenon, reflecting processing failures that arise as a result of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity.‖

Brown (2004) also maintained that a mistake can be self-corrected, but an error cannot Therefore, native speakers can identify and correct them immediately because they are fully aware of their mother tongue structures and rules Non-native speakers or second language learners not only make mistakes, but also they commit errors since their knowledge of L2 structures and rules is not sufficient Brown (2004, p 216) also stated that ―a mistake refers to a performance error in that it is a failure to utilize a known system correctly; while

an error is a noticeable deviation from the adult grammar of a native speaker, reflecting the interlanguage competence of the learner.‖

There may exist other ways of defining language errors, nevertheless, in the scope of this study, the author concur that ―errors‖ are made when learner’s knowledge of second language structures and rules are not sufficient and

―errors‖ cannot be corrected Whereas, ―mistakes‖ are the results of competing plans, memory limitations, and lack of automaticity and they can be self-corrected

2.1.2 Classification of Language Errors

Errors can be classified in different ways depending on the nature of classification and the purpose of the author In this thesis, the researcher provides some typical ways of error classification

Corder (1967) makes a distinction between expressive and receptive

errors which are manifestations of expressive and receptive behaviour and

depend upon knowledge of the ―formation rules‖ of a language: ―Inadequate knowledge of these rules will therefore show itself in both sorts of behaviour Yet, it is much easier to detect imperfect knowledge in the case of expressive behaviour Expression leaves traces transient, but recordable, in the case of speech, permanent in the case of writing.‖

Types of errors - Corder (1967)

Expressive errors  Are manifestations of expressive behaviour

Receptive errors  Are manifestations of receptive behaviour

In 1974, Burt and Kiparsky classify errors into two categories: local and

global errors in terms of communicative perspective

Local errors do not hinder communication and understanding the meaning

of an utterance Global errors, on the other hand, are more serious than local errors because global errors interfere with communication and disrupt the meaning of utterances Local errors involve noun and verb inflections, and the

use of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries Global errors, for example, involve wrong word order in a sentence

Types of errors - Burt and Kiparsky, 1974

Local

errors

 Do not hinder communication and understanding the meaning of an utterance

 Involve noun and verb inflections, and the use of articles, prepositions, and auxiliaries

Global

errors

 Interfere with communication and disrupt the meaning of utterances

 Involve wrong word order in a sentence

It is also possible to categorize learner errors on the basis of the linguistic levels testifying to their manifestation Lee (1990, p.50), for instance, elaborates

on the following classification of learner errors:

Grammatical

errors

Stress the need for grammatical accuracy in both speech and writing, may hinder communication but errors at the sentence level ―often reflect performance ―mistakes‖ for which immediate teacher correction is not necessarily appropriate‖

Discourse errors Depend on the observance of the rules of speaking and writing and reflect

learners’ cultural and pragmatic knowledge of language use

Phonologically

-induced errors

Be manifested in wrong pronunciation and/or intonation; in the case of English studied as a foreign language such errors necessitate timely correction on the part of the teacher because vowel length, voiced and voiceless last consonants,

word stress, etc may have a meaning-differentiating function, as in live/leave, leave/leaf, exit (n.)/exit (v.), and so on

Lexical errors Belong to the other linguistic levels, may also hamper communication and

intelligibility

As can be seen, each researcher provided his/ her own way of classifying the language errors In their classifications, grammatical errors are proved to be one kind of language errors that are in need of correcting to improve the

learners’ proficiency Moreover, this thesis aims to investigate the teacher written feedback on grammatical errors so grammatical errors are discussed further in the next part

2.1.3 Grammatical Errors

Grammar can be defined as a set of shared assumption about how language works – (Yulianti, 2007, p 11) Knowing about how grammar works is

to understand more about how grammar is used and misused – (Yulianti, 2007,

p 12) It means that there is a possibility of error occurrence in students learning

In this research, the term of error in grammar will be called grammatical errors

Many definitions of grammatical errors can be found in various studies and there are also many ways of classifying errors in terms of grammatical aspect

According to Dulay, et al in 1982, p.138-139 grammatical errors are

categorized into 6 groups

Types of errors Description and examples

Double marking  a semantic feature (e.g past tense) when only one marker is required, as

in She didn‟t went back

Regularizing rules  womans for women

Using archiforms  One form in place of several – such as the use of her for both she and

her, as in I see her yesterday Her dance with my brother

Using two or more

forms in random

 Alternation even though the language requires the use of each only

under certain conditions, as in the random use of he and she regardless

of the gender of the person of interest

Misordering items in

constructions

 It requires a reversal of word-order rules that had been previously

acquired, as in What you are doing?, or misplacing items that may be correctly placed in more than one place in the sentence, as in They are all the time late

Another ways of classifying grammatical errors is found in Chaney’s analysis of learner errors in 1999 cited in Ferris and Roberts’s (2001)

Description of Error Categories

Verb errors:  All errors in verb tense or form, including relevant subject-verb agreement

Article errors  Article or other determiner incorrect, omitted, or unnecessary

Wrong word  All specific lexical errors in word choice or word form, including preposition

and pronoun errors Spelling errors only included if the (apparent) misspelling resulted in an actual English word

Sentence

structure

 Errors in sentence/clause boundaries (run-on, fragments, comma splices), word order, omitted words, or phrases, unnecessary words or phrases, other unidiomatic sentence construction

In order to classify grammatical errors among different types of errors in writing, I adopted the description of grammatical errors of Channey (1990) cited

in Ferris and Roberts’s (2001) as one of the key factors to collect research data Therefore, a description of the grammatical errors that have been used in this study comes below:

Grammatical

errors

Verb errors Errors in verb tense or form I meet her last week

We have not complete the project yet

Noun ending

errors

Noun ending (plural or possessive) missing or wrong

These book are mine

My father car is new

Article

errors

Article (a,an, the) or other determiner (some, any, a lot of, much, many…) missing or wrong

There are much books on the table

I live in the Tabiz

Wrong word All types of lexical errors in word

choice or form, including preposition and pronoun errors

My mother learned me how to ride a

Wrong word order What you are doing?

Omitting words or phrases from a sentence

I know he is He is at the park

Insertion of unnecessary words or phrases

The woman whom I saw her was my

teacher

2.1.4 Approaches to Error Correction

There are a large number of differences in attitudes towards errors and error correction between traditional and modern methods of language teaching

The brief overview of teacher roles, learner roles, error handling in Grammar – Translation Method and Communicative Language Teaching are listed in the table below:

Grammar-Translation Method Communicative Language Teaching Learner

Roles  Try to learn grammatical rules

 Read and write

 Translate

 Memorise rules

 Learners as negotiator, interactor, giving messages as well as taking them

Teacher

Roles

 Authority in the classroom

 The medium of instruction is Native

Language

 Grammar taught deductively

 Facilitator of the communication process, participant tasks and texts, need analyst, counsellor, process manager

Error

Handling

 Mistakes are corrected immediately

 Self-correction facilitates language

learning, so the teacher encourages the students to correct their mistakes

 Mistakes are tolerated, the emphasis being on the message and not on the form

In traditional language classes, errors were not allowed Errors were seen

as evidence of ineffective learning or even laziness Also, teachers paid little attention to how to correct errors effectively If they corrected an error, it would

be giving the student the correct model and getting him/ her to repeat it However, Van Lier (1988) noted that in the late sixties and early seventies, teachers began to comprehend that errors might be more an indication of learner efforts to form a new linguistic system rather than linguistic failure Specifically,

in the light of communicative language teaching, errors are seen as positive steps towards learning The teacher’s attitude towards correction is positive and correction techniques are used to encourage students, not to put them down or make them feel stupid For these teachers, a perfect lesson is full of students' errors, in which teachers' correction is an integral part

Error correction is now seen as a technique to get students correct their own errors and improve their linguistic competence It means that in language classes, when error correction is carried out, the negotiation of meaning and

negotiation of form, at the same time are of equal value Thus, error treatment in

second language acquisition classroom has been investigated in a larger scale

and in a larger sense These studies have all borrowed the framing questions of

the issue of error correction in the classroom used by Hendrickson (1978) Those questions mentioned what, when, how and who should do the error correction

Should learners' errors be corrected?

When should learners' errors be corrected?

Which errors should be corrected?

How should errors be corrected?

Who should do the correcting?

In conclusion, error correction has been investigated from the early time

of Communicative Language Teaching In the scope of this study, the researcher

only examined teacher written feedback on grammatical errors in one primary school to confirm conclusions drawn from earlier research

2.2 The Roles of Written Feedback

It can be argued that providing written feedback is indispensable because

it plays an important role in guiding, motivating and encouraging students to improve their accuracy in L2 writing (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982) Despite the process of providing written feedback being frustrating, difficult and time consuming, teachers still prefer to provide written feedback as it allows for individualized teacher-to-student communication that is rarely possible in the day-to-day operations of an L2 writing class (Ferris, Pezone, Tade & Tinti, 1997) It is stated that written feedback serves two roles: Focus-on-Form Intervention and Facilitate Noticing

2.2.1 Written Feedback as Focus-on-Form Intervention

Feedback is one of the pedagogical tools identified as focus-on-form instrument (Ellis, 2005) According to Long (1991, p 46), the focus-on-form approach ―overtly draws students’ attention to linguistic elements as they arise incidentally in lesson whose overriding focus is on meaning and communication.‖ In other words, the L2 students’ attention will be drawn explicitly to linguistic features as necessitated by communicative demand

In addition, Long (1991) argues that language instruction based on on-form can be achieved in two principal ways First, language activities can be developed by requiring students to communicate while also focus their attention

focus-on specific language structures Secfocus-ond, language teacher can decide to provide corrective feedback on students’ errors during the course of communicative activities

Considering this perspective, it can be inferred that feedback is provided

to focus students’ attention on grammatical accurate forms within the context of performing a communicative task

2.2.2 Written Feedback to Facilitate Noticing

As aforementioned, the Noticing hypothesis states that in order for students to learn any aspect of L2, they need to ―notice‖ the relevant material in the linguistic data provided within the environment Thus, implications regarding written feedback in L2 instrucition emerge First thanks to teacher feedback, students are able to pay attention to the existence of new features of L2 In addition, students become aware and are able to locate the gaps between their L2 usage and that of L1 speakers Secondly, written feedback might help students to discover the limitations of their L2 communication abilities with their given L2 resources Therefore, it can be argued that written feedback could function as a

―noticing facilitator‖ that directs the attentions of the L2 students not only towards errors, but also towards new features of the target language

2.3 Teacher Written Feedback on Grammatical Errors

2.3.1 Definitions of Teacher Written Feedback

Kepner (1991, p 141) defines feedback in general as any procedures used

to inform a learner whether an instructional response is right or wrong

Lightbown and Spada (1999, p 172) define corrective feedback as: ―an indication to the learners that his or her use of the target language is incorrect‖ The learners may get this indication in various ways

For the purpose of this research, feedback will strictly refer to the written feedback given by teachers as responses to their students’ grammatical errors in writing The terms ―feedback‖, ―teacher feedback‖, ―teacher feedback on grammatical errors‖ and ―teacher written feedback‖ in this research will be used interchangeably and they do not constitute any real difference

2.3.2 Classification of Written Feedback

An area of concern in the research on teacher feedback in foreign language learners is error correction and its effects on student writing accuracy

In this context, the errors are grammatical errors committed by ESL/EFL

students on their written texts Thus, ―teacher written feedback‖ refers to the feedback teachers give on students’ written errors.

In addressing grammatical errors on students’ writing, teacher can use different feedback strategies such as direct and indirect feedback (Lee, 2003)

Types of Written Feedback (WF)

Direct feedback  Locate and correct errors  Has went gone

Indirect feedback

(Direct location

of errors)

 Locate errors  Has went

 Locate errors and identify error types  Has went verb form

Indirect feedback

(Indirect location

of errors)

 Indirectly locate errors  Putting a mark in the margin to

indicate an error on a specific line

 Indirectly locate errors and identify error type

 Writing ―verb form‖ (or V‖) in the margin to indicate a verb form error on a specific line

(adapted from Lee, 2003a)

Direct feedback refers to overt correction of student errors, that is, teachers locating and correcting errors for students Indirect feedback refers to teachers indicating errors without correcting them for students Some teachers, when giving indirect feedback, locate errors directly by underlining or circling the errors, while others may locate errors indirectly, for instance, by putting a mark in the margin to indicate an error on a certain line Whether teachers locate errors directly or indirectly, they can further decide if they want to identify the error types — by using symbols, codes, or verbal comments For direct location

of errors, teachers normally put the symbols, codes or comments right above or next to the errors underlined or circled For indirect location of errors, teachers may put a code or symbol in the margin to identify the error type on a certain line Table above summarizes the major error feedback techniques, with examples to illustrate each type of feedback

2.3.3 Error Correction Codes

Is the use of error codes (e.g ―T‖ for ―Tense‖, N for ―Noun‖) in giving error feedback coded feedback? Is it more beneficial than uncoded feedback? Coded feedback rests on the premise that students are better able to correct errors when alerted to the error types One advantage of coded feedback is that the error codes provide a common ground for teachers and students to discuss errors (Raimes, 1991) Error identification, however, can be ―cumbersome for the teacher and confusing for the students‖ (Ferrris, 2002, p 67) Also, the use of error codes is based on the assumption that students have a good understanding

of grammar and that when they see the codes they are able to correct errors right away Lee (1997) has, however, cautioned that teachers may be overestimating students’ ability in using marking codes, and that teachers may be ―using a wider range of metalinguistic terms than students could understand‖ (p 47) The usefulness of marking symbols/ codes has been further questioned by Ferris and Helt (2000) and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found that students did not correct more errors when they were provided with error codes Research has yet

to find out how useful and meaningful it is for teachers to mark students writing all over the place with codes, especially with codes that are unfamiliar to or not yet mastered by students

Error Codes Used by Teachers

adapted from Lee (2003)

2.4 Students’ Preferences on Teacher Feedback

Students’ attitudes and preferences have also been explored in recent literature on written feedback Previous studies have consistently shown that L2 writing students want, expect, and value teacher feedback for the improvement

of their writing accuracy (Ferrris, 1995; Hedgecock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991) Research also indicates that students rely on teachers for feedback in improving their L2 writing (Lee, 2004) Further research could explore in greater depth how these error correction preferences affect the ability of students to develop their writing

Results from two separate studies by Ferris (1997, 2001) indicated that all students who participated in the study preferred their teachers to provide corrective feedback to improve their L2 writing accuracy; the most preferred types was implicit written feedback through the use of codes that label errors in their writing This suggests that students pay a great deal of attention to teacher feedback and they appreciate having their errors implicitly corrected as a means

of improving their writing accuracy Ferris’ findings also indicate that students perceive implicit written feedback to be more effective in improving their writing accuracy than explicit written feedback

The findings from a study by Perpignan (2003) to explore the preferences

of Israeli post-graduate students taking up a course in EFL Accademic Writing indicate that students’ preferences regarding corrective feedback vary between explicit and implicit written feedback Findings from the study indicate that was rarely any agreement in the preferences of the students; which may have stemmed from their varying beliefs in written feedback This suggests that even though the importance of students’ preferences in written feedback cannot be ignored, diversity of preferences is also a possibility

Considering the literature, it is noticeable that teachers view the provision

of written feedback as a positive pedagogic strategy However, the findings from

previous studies suggest that teachers performed the task of providing written feedback in a number of ways, which may be influenced by their different experiences and judgement about what is acceptable in L2 writing In addition, findings from previous studies suggest that teacher’s beliefs differ from the actual written feedback that they utilize in the classroom Furthermore, findings from recent studies have shown that students value having their errors corrected

by their teachers By reviewing the literature, it can be inferred that there is a need for further research to investigate and explore teacher’s beliefs, practices, and students’ preferences regarding written feedback

A recent proponent of the value of grammatical feedback, John Bitchener, has performed several studies investigating grammatical feedback (e.g Bitchener, et al., 2005; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010) In his 2005 study, Bitchener placed ESL students into three groups: the first group

received direct correction of their grammatical errors followed by a conference with the teacher discussing the errors, the second group received direct correction only, and the third group, the control group, received no feedback on grammar, only feedback on content Feedback was provided on three grammatical aspects: articles, prepositions, and simple past tense verbs The results indicated that while the group that received direct correction and conferencing improved their grammatical accuracy significantly with regard to simple past verb tense and articles, there was no improvement in the use of prepositions Bitchener concludes that this method of error correction is effective for addressing rule-based grammar (i.e articles and verb tense), but is not effective when it comes to item-based grammar (i.e prepositions)

In addition to the conclusions from the previous research, some general advice can be discerned from the literature For example, both Ferris and Hedgcock (2009) and Sheen (2009) advise against responding to every error on every draft of a paper Too much grammatical feedback can be overwhelming and more than the student can process That type of feedback can also be stressful or discouraging for students Walvoord & Anderson (2010) suggest that, in response to students’ grammatical errors (including both ESL and native English speaking students), teachers should mark only ―egregious errors‖ (p 100) An explanation of what constitutes an ―egregious error‖ is not provided, but in most cases this would refer to errors that interfere with communication or lead to misunderstanding

On investigating the issue of teacher feedback types, students’ preferences and responses, Hiroko (1994) targeted at Adult ESL learners and made conclusions that students preferred teacher feedback to non-teacher feedback and the students’ strategies for handling feedback varied depending on the type of feedback teacher gave on the students’ paper

Chiang (2004) examined the factors that affect the effectiveness of teacher feedback by analyzing students’ preferences and responses to teacher feedback

on their writing in a secondary school context It is suggested that the ineffectiveness of teacher feedback may not lie in the feedback itself, but in the way how feedback is delivered to students

There has been a scarcity in the research on teacher written feedback, students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback on grammatical errors in the context of a primary school in Vietnam Meanwhile, the teachers and the students are likely to be in need of those projects to find the match between teachers’ practice and students’ preferences and responses to teacher feedback

Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methodology implemented in the study The first sections describe the research context, and the research questions and the research approach, and the characteristics of the participants Then, the next part is the illustration of the procedure of data collection and it is followed by

the method of data analysis The last one is Validity and Reliability of data

3.1 Research Context

3.1.1 Curriculum Policy

In Vietnam, in the 2003 – 2004 school year, in response to the need of a more systematic introduction of English at the primary level, the MOET introduced an English curriculum for primary schools emphasizing the development of the four macro-skill, with speaking and listening being initially stressed According to Decision No 50/2003 QD – BGD & DT, dated 30 October 2003, from 2003, pupils in primary schools were required to study a foreign language as an elective subject from Grade 3 to 5 for two forty-minute periods per week

Furthermore, during the three years from Grade 3 to 5, students’ intelligence, personality, and learning methods will have been gradually developed (Ministry of Education and Training) [MOET], 2003); however, achieving these aims seems ambitious in a three - year period (Moon, 2009)

In 2008, Decision 1400 on the improvement of foreign language teaching and learning in the national education system for the 2008-2020 period was issued with the aim to enable the wide-spread introduction of English at Grade 3 all over the country The latest MOET directive, issued in August 2010, brought about guidance for the implementation of pilot English language programmes at the primary level

3.1.2 The Case

Le Quy Don Private Primary School is located in My Dinh District, a new urban zone in Hanoi It is a large school with 2,100 students in five grades (Grades 1 to 5) The average class size in this school is around 30 and the classrooms are well-equipped with furniture, light, drinking water, computers, LCD projectors, CD players, screens and blackboards

There are 20 English–language teachers whose teaching experience varies from 1 to 20 years All of them are female With regard to students, there are about 30 students of mixed levels in each class In overall, there are 17 classes in grade 4 One class specializes in English, one class specializes in Mathematics and Vietnamese, the other 15 classes study in accordance with the school curriculum with no specialization Therefore, students participating in this study are not chosen from the two specializing classes

The course book chosen is Let’s Go 4 Third Edition which emphasizes communication within a carefully controlled grammatical syllabus The themes and situations throughout the books are universal to children everywhere Students are regularly presented with new vocabulary and structures so that they have adequate language to communicate

What is more, although English is not a compulsory subject in the national curriculum, the students are willing to join in the classes as they have opportunities to learn and speak English with native teachers from Australia, America, and England Another reason may come from the belief that students here do not have to worry about getting low marks or being punished for not completing their homework Each week, every student is given a two - A4 pages worksheet with the exercises to practice the grammar points they have learnt The worksheets are then handed in to the teachers for marking and comments at the beginning of the following week

Most teachers believe that providing students with effective feedback on their grammatical errors can help them learn from the mistakes and they may improve their proficiency However, students do not always like their teacher’s ways of giving feedback or maybe they have some difficulties in understanding the feedback so that they are likely to ignore it Thus, factors like students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback on grammatical errors are in need of being examined

3.2 Research Questions

This study is conducted to answer the following research questions:

1 What are the types of teacher written feedback on the students’ grammatical errors?

2 What are the students’ preferences for different types of teacher feedback

The study’s quantitative traits allowed the researcher to determine the teacher feedback strategies as well as how students prefer each feedback type The numerical representation was obtained by coding each feedback according

to a specific taxonomy, thereby producing a more controlled result (Matveev, 2002) On the other hand, qualitative data gave the researcher an opportunity to explore students’ strategies for handling feedback they received and the

underlying reasons for those This represents the affective side that quantitative data may not be able to show easily

This study uses a triangulation of data sources such as documentation, questionnaire and interviews to construct validity It is important to mention that the results of this study cannot be generalized due to the small number of participants

3.4 Participants

The students

The population for the study consisted of students from group A and group B of fourth-graders at Le Quy Don Private Primary School in Hanoi The students were informed of the conditions of the study and what their participation would consist of For group A, only 15 students volunteered to take part in the study and 13 for group B What’s more, the research was conducted over four weeks so students with four worksheets would be counted as the participants in research Although there were some students not participating in the study, all the students were treated equally during the classes and carried out all of the class activities The work of those who did not want to participate in this research was not used It is important to note that the names of all participants in the current study are pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy

The teachers

Along with the students, the present study involved two English teachers

at Le Quy Don Private Primary School who were invited to take part in the research Their ages were between 23 and 30 years old and their experience in teaching English to young learners at primary level ranged from 1 to 7 years None of the instructors is English native speaker Teacher A and B are teachers

of group A and B respectively They were teaching the students who participated

in this study The remarkable thing was their permission for the author to use the students’ worksheets as the material in the Study

Participant Profile

Teachers Class Age Year of university

graduation

Teaching experience (No of years)

3.5 Data Collection Instruments

To collect the data, the researcher employed three techniques: document analysis, questionnaire, and interview According to Fraenkel and Wallen (1993), the use of multiple sources of evidence in case study allows a researcher

to gain valid data Below is the explanation of the techniques used in collecting the data

3.5.1 Document Analysis

In order to find out the way teachers gave feedback on learners’ grammatical errors, a focus on written production was chosen The target language used for this research was ―the changes of irregular verbs in the past simple‖ as they were immediately relevant to the learners and they were presented in their course book, Let’s Go 4 – Third Edition The irregular verbs in the past simple change without any predicted rules These forms are likely to cause problems for Vietnamese students, thus they should not be left unattended The students have not encountered this kind of grammar in their mother tongue

It is noted that after each worksheet was designed by one teacher, it was photocopied and delivered to students in grade 4 at the end of the week Hence, the students in two groups had the same worksheets The samples of students’ worksheets were collected in each class Teacher feedback on these samples was given without intervention from the researcher Each teacher provided different ways of providing feedback

Firstly, after collecting marked papers, the researcher adopted the description of grammatical errors of Channey (1990) – Appendix A to classify grammatical errors among various types of written errors The teacher feedback

on these errors are then listed and analysed to find out which feedback type they employed according to types of written feedback in the study of Lee (2003a) – Appendix B

3.5.2 Questionnaire

In order to reveal students’ preference for feedback quantitatively, the open-ended questionnaire is an appropriate way to gather the data It provides a means of communication between respondents and researcher and allows the respondents to give a totally free answer as they were expected to choose the answer category which came closet to or best presented their feeling, beliefs, attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or knowledge of a situation (Labaw, 1980, p.131) Besides, students can express their real thoughts when answering the questionnaire, which is like a paper-pencil test, on which they answered to expressing what is in their mind

The questionnaire was composed of two main parts: the respondents’ information and the contents of the survey The former contained three questions regarding learners’ background The later, the main part of questionnaire, was adapted from the one used in Leki’s (1991) research on the preferences of ESL students for error corrections However, since the objective of this study aimed at investigating students’ preferences for teacher feedback in a primary school context, some questions were modified and added to make the questionnaire relevant and appropriate for the participants The items dealt with students’ preferences for different types of written feedback with Likert scale format The questionnaire was written in English and Vietnamese (see Appendix C and D)

In order to help students answer the questions easily, the Vietnamese versions were delivered to them

3.5.3 Semi - structured Interviews

While the questionnaire would provide with quantitative information of the study, semi-structured interview were conducted to obtain qualitative data The interviews were conducted in Vietnamese and aimed to find out what they actually did after having received their teacher feedback

McMillan and Schumacher (1993, p.426) claimed that qualitative research involves interviews that have open-ended questions to obtain data from participant meanings - how individuals perceive their world and how they explain or make sense of the important events in their lives In this research, semi-structured interview is considered to be a research data technique carried out with the definite purpose of gathering data by means of the spoken word through the use of a planned series of questions

The open-ended questions adapted from Chiang (2004) are modified to serve the aim of the research Interviews were conducted in Vietnamese in January 2012 The first five students finishing the questionnaires in each group were chosen to take part in the interview Hence, there were ten students to be interviewed All interviews were tape recorded, and verbatim responses to each question were translated and transcribed by the researcher, using a standardized transcription protocol (McLellan, MacQueen, and Niedig 2003) The reason for such small size was confirmed in Huberman & Miles (2002) They did state that

―qualitative research focuses on the quality of information obtained rather than the quantity and size of the sample There is little guidance regarding exact sample sizes for qualitative research in the literature, as sample size is influenced

by the available resources and the feasibility of acquiring the sample (Procter & Allan 2006) According to Burns & Grove (2011, p 318) a small sample size can

be adequate for a qualitative study, ―when the quality of the data is high, with a rich content‖ and for this reason the author requires a sample of between 15 and

25 staff members for interviewing