Effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students writing performance an action research approach with 12th form english major students

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OFPOST-GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN THỊ THU THỦY EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN CORRE

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ THU THỦY

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING

PERFORMANCE AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH WITH

GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL Tác động của những hình thức phản hồi chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên đối với việc học viết của học sinh Nghiên cứu hành động đối với học sinh lớp

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

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Hanoi, 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ THU THỦY

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TEACHER WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING

PERFORMANCE AN ACTION RESEARCH APPROACH WITH

GIFTED HIGH SCHOOL Tác động của những hình thức phản hồi chữa lỗi viết của giáo viên đối với việc học viết của học sinh Nghiên cứu hành động đối với học sinh lớp

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

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lê Văn Canh

Hanoi, 2016

I, Trần Thị Thu Thuỷ, hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Effects of

different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students' writing performance An action research approach with 12 th form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School.” is submitted for the partial

fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Arts at the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies,University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University,Hanoi I also declare that this thesis is the result of my own research and efforts and

it has not been submitted for any other purposes

Hanoi, 2016

Trần Thị Thu Thuỷ

First and foremost, I would like to express my heart-felt thank and mysincere gratitude to my supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Le Van Canh for hisenlightening guidance, precious suggestions and invaluable encouragement during

my fulfilment of this minor thesis

My sincere thanks go to all the lecturers and the staff of the Faculty of PostGraduate Studies at University of Languages and International Studies for theirvaluable lectures on which my minor thesis was laid the foundation

I truly wish to thank all the 12th form English major students at Luong VanTuy Gifted High School who have actively participated in the research

I am deeply grateful to my family for their great support and to many of myfriends for their notable assistance

This action research is conducted in an attempt to investigate the effects ofthree different types of written corrective feedback on students’ writingperformance at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High Schools in Ninh Binh Province Thestudy also proposes some recommendations of the use of teacher written correctivefeedback in writing classes To achieve the aims of the study, thirty five 12th formEnglish major students were chosen to participate in an action research After apreliminary investigation was carried out, a writing instruction course was designed,and different types of teacher written corrective feedback were applied The datawere collected through the analysis of students’ writing and students’ free narratives

to measure the students’ progress in their writing performance The results of thisresearch showed that teacher corrective feedback helped reduce students’ linguisticerrors over time While positive revision effects were found for all three types ofcorrective feedback, only indirect feedback proved to have significant long-termeffect The study also found that the students had positive attitudes towards theteacher’s application of corrective feedback Although there was a mismatchbetween students’ preferences and beliefs towards each corrective feedback typeand its effectiveness, they appreciated the good effects of teacher’s correctivefeedback on their learning accuracy and their attitudes towards writing The study is

of great use to the writing teachers who have an intention to use teacher correctivefeedback in writing classes

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMEMTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 1

3 Scope of the study 2

4 Method of the study 2

5 Significance of the study 3

6 Structure of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Corrective feedback 4

1.1.1 Definition of corrective feedback……….4

1.1.2 Forms of feedback……….5

1.1.3 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing………6

1.1.4 Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies……… 8

1.2 Roles of teacher written corrective feedback………14

1.2.1 Arguments for the role of teacher written corrective feedback……… 14

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback…………16

1.3 Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback………17

1.3.1 Nature of errors……… 18

1.3.2 Student factors……….19

1.3 3 Teacher factors……… 20

1.3.4 Contextual variables………21

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research design……… 23

2.2 Research setting……… …….25

2.2.1 Overview……….25

2.2.2 Selection of participants and Data collection instruments……… 25

2.2.3 The research procedures ……….……26

2.2.4 Data collection instruments……….……31

2.2.5 Data analysis……… ……….… 31

2.3 Summary……… ……….32

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND REFLECTION 3.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ writing performance.33 3.1.1 Effects of three common types of feedback on students’ revised essays……33

3.1.2 The effects of three common types of feedback on students’ new pieces of writing……… ………36

3.1.3 Discussion of results……… ………40

3.2 Students’ attitudes towards different types of CF and their effectiveness…….45

3.2.1 Students’ attitudes towards teacher corrective feedback in general…………45

3.2.2 Students’ preference for each type of teacher corrective feedback………….46

3.2.3 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher’s corrective feedback… 49

3.3 Reflection……… 52

PART C: CONCLUSION 1. Summary of the findings……… … 57

2. Limitations of the study……… …….….… 58

3. Plans for the next cycle ……… ……… ….…….59

REFERENCES ……… 60 APPENDICES ……… I

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CLT : Communicative Language Teaching

CF : Corrective Feedback

ESL : English as a Second Language

L2 : Second or Foreign Language

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Ellis’ typology of feedback types (2009 p.98) 8

Table 2.1: Timetable of the action implementation……… …28

Table 3.1: Effects of three common types of corrective feedback on students’ revised essays……… 33

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

Table 3.3: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 2……… 38

Table 3.4: Taxonomy of errors and their frequency in Stage 3………39

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Steps in the action research cycle……… 24 Figure 3.1: Students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher written corrective

feedback 46

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been widely used in Vietnam Thisapproach advocates the teaching of four main skills: reading, listening, speaking andwriting for communicative purposes Writing skill is often considered the most difficultand least preferable skill for the students; therefore, it is desirable for writing teachers

to find the most suitable strategies to help their students to write well In my ownteaching experience, I have found out that most students at Luong Van Tuy GiftedHigh Schools in Ninh Binh have similar problems with their writing These problemsare (1) they make a lot of errors in their writing, and (2) they have negative attitudestowards learning writing Thus, how to improve students’ writing as well as to changetheir attitudes towards writing activities has greatly attracted my attention

A review of literature reveals that the effect of teacher written corrective feedback onstudents’ writing remains to be inconclusive Despite this, numerous studies on the use

of corrective feedback in writing classes have shown that written corrective feedbackcan be applied in writing classes to improve students’ writing accuracy (Liu, 2008;Kaweera, 2008; Ferris, 2000; Ferris et al., 2001) Feedback is part and parcel oflanguage pedagogy Teachers’ feedback is also a form of evaluation on the students’knowledge and on their own teaching (Lewis, 2002) Teacher’s good feedbackstrategies may give students stimulation for revision and motivation to maintain theirinterest in writing

For all the aforementioned reasons, I wish to conduct a study entitled “Effects of

different types of teacher written corrective feedback on students' writing performance.

An action research approach with 12 th form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School.”

2 Aims of the study

This current study aims at (1) examining the effects of different types of teacherwritten corrective feedback on the writing performance of 12th form English majorstudents at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, Ninh Binh; (2) investigating thestudents’ attitudes towards the use of teacher written corrective feedback andproposing some recommendations of the use of teacher written corrective feedback

in writing classes

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

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

 How are students’ preferences to the feedback types related to their writing

improvement?

3 Scope of the study

In fact, teacher corrective feedback can be given in both oral and written forms.However, within the framework of a graduation paper, the study only focuses on theteacher written corrective feedback

In addition, due to the limited scope of this study, the participants selected are not allgifted students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, but only students from the classthat I directly teach

4 Method of the study

Given that this study was implemented with the hope to improve the students’English writing skills, I decided to adopt the action research approach because this type

of research is aimed at improving a situation After a preliminary investigation wascarried out, a writing instruction course was designed, and different types of teacherwritten corrective feedback were applied The data were collected by the analysis ofstudents’ writing and students’ free narratives Students’ writings were collected andanalyzed before, during and after treatment period (i.e the delivery of feedback) to

measure the students’ progress in their writing performance In addition, students’ freenarratives were collected and analyzed at the end of the research to find out theirattitudes towards each feedback type and its effects.

5 Significance of the study

The findings of this study can inform classroom teachers of how to providefeedback on their students’ writings, thereby raising the quality of students’ writings

6 Structure of the Study

The study consists of 3 main parts:

Part A: Introduction.

This part deals with the rationale, aims, scope, research questions, research methods,significance and structure of the study

Part B: Development This part has three chapters:

Chapter 1: Literature Review presents various concepts relevant to the research topic

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

Chapter 2: Research Methodology describes the methods utilized in the study,

presents the situation of teaching and learning English at Luong Van Tuy Gifted HighSchool and general information about the study subjects It also focuses on the datacollection instruments and procedures

Chapter 3: Research Findings and Discussion gives a detailed presentation and

analysis of the data from the students’ writings and free narratives This chapter alsoconsists of some discussions and interpretations of the findings of the study andprovides some recommendations for effective written correction in writing lessons

Part C: Conclusion

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

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW1.1 Corrective feedback

1.1.1 Definition of corrective feedback

Responding to the student writing, including giving feedback is one of the mostcontroversial topics in second language instruction and theory Different researchersmay have their own way to define feedback Keh (1989, P.24) suggests that feedback is

“input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information for revision”.Teacher feedback, is this sense, can be regarded as an effective means to communicate

to students about their writing so that the can enhance their composition

Feedback, as viewed by Furnborough and Truman (2009), involves the existence ofgaps between what has been learned and the target competence of the learners and theefforts undertaken to bridge the gaps This feedback is provided to ask for furtherinformation, to give directions, suggestion for revision, and to give positive feedbackabout what the students have done well (Ferris, 1997) Lightbown and Spada (1999,p.172) states that feedback is “an indication to the learner that his or her use the targetlanguages is incorrect”

When reviewing their students’ writing, second language teachers give feedback on awide range of issues They may address the text’s content, the way in which the ideasare organized, the choice of vocabulary that is used The type of feedback that hasattracted numerous researchers’ attention, however, is feedback on linguistic errors.Such responses have widely been referred to as “corrective feedback” or “errorcorrection” According to Yeh and Lo (2009), corrective feedback often takes the form

of responses to the texts containing errors They also claim that corrective feedbacksupplies students with direct or indirect responses about what is unacceptable Theresponses 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 aboutthe errors or any combination of these This definition Yeh and Lo (2009) seems to bethe most suitable and closely involves in the scope of this study because it mentions theteachers’ responses to the students’ errors in different ways Therefore, this definition

is adapted in this study

1.1.2 Forms of feedback

Basing on forms, feedback is distinguished as two main types which are oral feedbackand written feedback Comparing between these two types, written form is morecommon but it is a fairly traditional and time-consuming method to give feedback onvarious drafts of a student paper Both of these two forms are recommended to beconsidered

1.1.2.1 Oral feedback

Oral feedback is correction, comment or guidance that is uttered out by teacher during

or after students’ performance It is the fastest type of feedback and students also canimprove their discourse immediately after feedback is given However, in enhancingstudents’ writings, this type of feedback seems not very effective because of the timeshortage The teacher cannot give oral feedback to students individually but they usewritten feedback instead However, oral feedback is still a good means ofsupplementing written feedback The reason is that verbal feedback takes only fewminutes, but has the potential to influence to students’ future performance in positiveway This study limits itself to the exploration of written corrective feedback only

1.1.2.2 Written feedback

In written feedback, comments, correction or marks are given to students’ writtenwork The marks may be on words or symbols such as underlining, circles and othersigns

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

requires some kinds of instructors’ feedback on students’ drafts This form of feedbackcan be also divided into several different subtypes.

1.1.3 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing

Written feedback in writing can be divided into three main types, namely evaluation or self-assessment, peer feedback and teacher’s feedback

self-1.1.3.1 Self-evaluation (Self-directed feedback)

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

in Wei and Chen (2004) that “Self-assessment encourages students to look criticallyand analytically at their writing and to take more responsibility for what they write.Being involved in the process of self-evaluation, the students are no longer simplypassive recipients of feedback, but become active participants in evaluation”

Self-evaluation may increase students’ independence as they are supposed to find theirown mistakes Next, by finding their own mistakes, the students are expected toremember what mistakes they have done so they will not make the same mistakes later

on Moreover, self-evaluation saves time in a large class However, self-assessment isunsuitable way for students with low English proficiency to revise their writing

1.1.3.2 Peer feedback

Peer feedback is a practice in language education where feedback is given by onestudent to another According to Bartels (2004), peer feedback means feedback fromthe fellow students If students are working on the same assignment together, peerfeedback means exchanging drafts and comments on each other’s drafts

Peer feedback is used in writing classes to provide students more opportunities to learnfrom each other Peer feedback broadens learners’ involvement by giving them theadditional roles of reader and advisor to go with that of writer Further, structuringface-to-face discussion into the feedback process provides students the opportunity toengage in constructive controversy, which may lead to insights and greater taskengagement (Johnson & Johnson, 1987)

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

1.1.3.3 Teacher’s feedback

In the light of process writing approach, teachers play an important role in helpingstudents to revise their writing drafts Teacher’s corrective feedback, to some extent, isthe 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, andpunctuation) as well as idiomatic usage (such as word order and word choice) The

term written feedback, in contrast, refers to written commentary by the teacher as feedback on form and content of a student’s essay Therefore, the term written

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

from that of the term written feedback While the two are intertwined and go hand, and while both written corrective feedback and written feedback are addressed in

hand-in-this thesis, the primary of hand-in-this thesis is meant to be an investigation into the effect ofdifferent teacher written corrective feedback strategies

Some researchers indicate that students favor corrective feedback from teachersbecause they believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1990) Studies byAshwell (2000), and Ferris (2003) conclude that there is a positive correlation betweenstudent 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 languageproficiency.

1.1.4 Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies

Although the provision of written corrective feedback has long been deemed integral tosecond language/foreign instruction programs, it has not always been provided in thesame manner There are different classifications for corrective feedback strategiesproposed by different researches

Ellis (2009) presents a typology which consists of six main strategies to providecorrective feedback (see Table 1)

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

A Strategies for

providing CF

1 Direct CF The teacher provides students with e.g Lalande(1982) and Rob et

2 Indirect CF The teacher indicates that an error

exists but does not provide thecorrection

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

locating the and the uses of cursors to show employed indirect correctionerror omissions in the students’ text of this kind (e.g Ferris and

Roberts 2001; Chandler2003)

b Indication This takes the form of an Fewer studies have employedonly indication in the margin that an this method (e.g Robb et al

error or errors have taken place in 1986)

a line of text.

2 Metalinguistic The teacher provides some kind of

CF metalinguistic clue as to nature of

the error

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

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

Ferris and Roberts 2001;Chadler 2003)

b.Brief Teacher numbers errors in text and Sheen (2007) compared thegrammatical writes a grammatical description effects of direct CF and directdescriptions for each numbered error at the CF + metalinguistic CF

bottom of the text

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

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

the students’ errors or selects one (e.g Chandler 2003; Ferris

or two specific types of errors to 2006) Sheen (2007), drawingcorrect This distinction can be on traditions in SLA studiesapplied to each of above options of CF, investigated focused

CF

a Unfocused Unfocused CF in extensive

CF

b Focused CF Focused CF is intensive

1 Electronic The teacher indicates an error and Milton (2006)

feedback provides a hyperlink to a

concordance file that provides

examples of correct usage.

5.Reformulation This consists of a native speaker’s Sachs and Polio (2007)

reworking of the students’ entire compared the effects of directtext to make the language seem as correction and reformulationnative-like as possible while on students’ revisions of theirkeeping the content of the original text

intact

Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) categorize responses from teachers to students’ errorinto three forms or strategies: (1) teacher feedback that indicates that an error has beenmade, (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 theerror This current research adapts this categorization together with Ellis’ typology

of written corrective feedback in that the focus of this research was how and whetherstudents’ writing performance could be improved via the 3 main types of writtencorrective feedback strategies, namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic correctivefeedback

1.1.4.1 Teacher direct corrective feedback and previous studies on its effectiveness.

In the case of direct corrective feedback, the teacher gives the corrected form of themistake to the students Direct feedback may be done in various ways such as bystriking out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme, inserting amissing or expected word, phrase or morpheme; and by providing the correct linguisticform above, in the margin or near the erroneous form (Ellis, 2008; Ferris, 2006) Anumber of previous studies have proved the revision effect of direct feedback.Chandler’s (2003) suggests that direct correction works best for producing accuraterevisions This type of corrective feedback is desirable for students of low level ofproficiency 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 bySheen (2007) suggests that direct corrective feedback can be effective in promotingacquisition 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 isbetter 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 studentswith information to “resolve more complex errors” and is “more immediate”.Therefore, direct written corrective feedback may be more useful for learners who havecomparatively limited linguistic knowledge

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

1.1.4.2 Teacher indirect corrective feedback and previous studies on its

effectiveness.

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 todiagnose and correct it This can be done by underlying or circling errors, recording inthe margin the number of errors in a given line, confirmation checks, and request forclarification (Bitchener, 2008)

Advocates of indirect written corrective feedback (e.g., Ferris, 1999, 2006) claim that itmay foster deeper language processing by requiring the student to engage in “guidedlearning and problem solving”, leading to reflection about linguistic forms that mayfoster long-term acquisition Thus, although indirect corrective feedback does not have

immediate revision effect, it leads to long-term learning and has more benefits thandirect feedback on students’ long-term development and acquisition especially formore advanced students (Ferris and Roberts, 2001) Therefore it is suggested thatindirect 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 togreater accuracy in text revisions, indirect feedback results in the production of fewerinitial errors over time Bitchener et al (2005), Bitchener and Knoch (2010) point outthat complex errors might not be good targets for indirect feedback since learners areoften not capable of self-correcting the identified errors Additionally, for featuresabout which students already have some explicit knowledge, indirect correctivefeedback 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 andindirect are very mixed Some studies (e.g., Ferris & Helt, 2000) showed that indirectfeedback 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

1.1.4.3 Teacher metalinguistic corrective feedback and previous studies on its

effectiveness.

Metalinguistic feedback could take one of two forms Use of error coding or a briefgrammatical description In the former type, the teacher writes some codes in themargin 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 atthe end of the text.

A number of studies have compared using error codes with other types of writtencorrective feedback Robb et al (1986) suggests that the use of error codes is no moreeffective than direct and indirect feedback Besides, Ferris (2006) argues that errorcodes help students to improve their accuracy over time in only two of the fourcategories of error she investigates Ferris and Roberts (2001) point out that error codeshelp students to self-edit their writing but no more effective than indirect feedback.Additionally, Sheen (2007) studies the effects of direct and metalinguistic correctivefeedback He has found that both are effective in increasing accuracy in the students’use of articles in subsequent writing completed immediately after the correctivefeedback treatment Interestingly, the metalinguistic corrective feedback also provesmore effective than direct corrective feedback in a new piece of writing completed twoweek after the treatment Other studies reported advantage of metalinguistic writtencorrective feedback over other forms of indirect written corrective feedback (circling orunderlining only) For example, a study conducted by Bitchener and Knoch (2010)indicated that students whose errors were indicated by circling or underlining onlywere able to retain the gains observed in the delayed post-test but not in the immediatepost-test The authors conclude that the result demonstrates the superior longitudinaleffect of metalinguistic explanation

In short, it is possible to say that while the overall efficacy of written correctivefeedback in the second language writing classroom is gaining wider acceptance therestill exists considerable debate over the best practice for its implementation In otherwords, the effectiveness of different kinds of corrective feedback is still argued bydifferent researchers While there are studies that supports the use of indirect writtencorrective feedback and metalinguistic written corrective feedback, there is a greatbody of research asserting the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback Some studies

which concluded that direct corrective feedback is more effective also agree thatindirect corrective feedback can have effects on students’ problem solving skill andtheir long-term learning Scarcella and Oxford (1992) suggest that multiple forms offeedback should be used in combination depending on the nature of error and thestudent characteristics Truscott (1996) also argues that no single form of correctioncould be expected to help learners acquire knowledge of all linguistic forms andstructures Thus, it is the teacher who should make up their mind on the use of differentwritten 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 iseffective for one student in one setting might be less so in another context”.

1.2 Roles of teacher written corrective feedback.

Concerning the role of teacher written corrective feedback, there have existed anendless discussion so far, both favorably and unfavorably Not only researchers butalso teachers and students do agree that written feedback from teachers play the crucialrole 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 thereare people who believe in giving feedback to improve student’s writing and who donot Some may refer to feedback as highly beneficial and inevitable in teaching andlearning writing, while some consider teacher feedback to be time-consuming anduseless Therefore, it is normal to see different judgments of different individuals aboutthis matter

1.2.1 Arguments for the role of teacher written corrective feedback.

Corrective feedback plays an importance role in language learning and acquisition as itassists learners notice the difference between their own production and the targetstructure, raising their consciousness about the structures they are learning

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

a critical role in the teaching and learning process (Konold, Miller and Konold, 2004)

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

2004, p.64)

Teacher feedback is also essential in second language writing by giving specificpurpose of providing teacher feedback on students’ writing performance Teachercorrective feedback aims at supporting student’s writing development, teaching orreinforcing a particular aspect of disciplinary content or specific academic writingconvention, indicating strengths and weaknesses of a piece of writing, explaining orjustifying a grade and suggesting how a student may improve in their next piece ofwriting

Additionally, written corrective feedback serves as a source of motivation since itenables learners to evaluate their progress, to understand the level of their competence,and to maintain their effort in striving to reach realistic goals (Riviere, 2000)

From the output hypothesis perspective, Swain (1985, 1995) has noted repeatedly thatfor grammatical accuracy to develop, learners need to receive feedback on their outputbecause it enables learners to “notice the gap” between what they want to say and whatthey can actually say If learners’ attention is not drawn to their errors, they may notknow that they made an error, and therefore they miss opportunities to practice andcorrect themselves Thus, the proverb “Learning from mistake” is less likely to takeplace (Swain 2000)

Another argument for corrective feedback is the belief that corrective feedback isessential to prevent fossilization “Fossilization” was defined by Brown (2007) as “therelatively permanent incorporation of incorrect linguistic forms into a person’s secondlanguage competence” (P.382) It is supported by Dekeyser (2010) who claims that;timely corrective feedback creates additional opportunities for practice and may helpprevent automatization of uncorrected errors which may lead to fossilization

Corrective feedback also helps to overcome the first language interference Van Patten(1990) gives the concept of parameter setting, defined as the variations in differentlanguage in terms of the abstract properties of a language which “inform us that asentence is possible or not” Corrective feedback informs the learners about what is notallowed in a language Moreover, some second language structures are not likely to beacquirable from positive evidence alone (Trahey & White, 1993), especially if they donot exist in the first language grammar Therefore, corrective feedback as a type ofpedagogical intervention may trigger the parameter restructuring process and help thelearners to overcome the interference from their first language.

Finally, written corrective feedback can lead students toward autonomy One long-termpurpose of feedback is to lead students to the point where they can find their ownmistakes In many cases, teachers indicate the place and type of error withoutcorrecting They leave the students the chance to find and correct the mistakethemselves It is obvious that teacher corrective feedback is an important step towardthe learner-centeredness as it motivates students to learn actively and critically.Therefore, it should be made use of in suitable and effective ways in teaching andlearning in general and in teaching and learning writing skill in particular to sharpenstudents’ abilities in analyzing their writings critically

1.2.2 Arguments against the role of teacher written corrective feedback.

Notwithstanding countless research and writing, inconsistencies in the research stillmake it unclear what role written corrective feedback should play in the languageclassroom Apart from the researchers that have strongly supported written correctivefeedback, 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 allforms of error correction of second language student writing are not only ineffectivebut 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 forerrors in grammar He claims that written corrective feedback is counter-productivebecause it promotes shortening simplification in student writing According to him,teachers run the risk of making their students avoid more complex structures when theyemphasize learners’ errors by providing corrective feedback Moreover, Trustcott(2007) claims that written corrective feedback is a waste of time and suggests that theenergy spent on dealing with corrections could be allocated productively to additionalwriting practice to improve students’ writing ability His practical doubts concernteachers’ 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 correctivefeedback encourages learners to avoid situations in which they made errors This view

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

Additionally, Krashen (1982) hypothesizes that, in making students aware of theirerrors, corrective feedback leads to learner stress and anxiety of committing the sameerrors in future writing In his view, this anxiety could make learners avoid theerroneous construction when writing a new text, resulting in simplified writing.Corrective feedback might lead to a reduction of the linguistic complexity of learners’output

1.3 Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback.

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

In fact, the effectiveness of written corrective feedback depends on a number of factorssuch as: time to give corrective feedback, types of corrective feedback, quality ofcorrective feedback, nature of errors, students’ attitudes and expectations, the learningenvironment 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 arediscussed in the following sections.

1.3.1 Nature of errors

The issue of which type of error should be corrected has also attracted muchresearchers’ 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, pluraland possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments), so learners can be pointed to agrammar 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, resultingfrom problems to do with word order and missing or unnecessary words) when thereare no clear and succinct rules that students can consult to avoid or fix those types oferrors (Ferris, 1999, 2010) As error types can impact the effectiveness of a particularwritten corrective feedback method, students might be served best when the method offeedback 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 andstudent characteristics

Ferris (2002) also gives some criteria that can help teacher made decisions about whicherror to correct Errors that occur frequently in individual students’ writing and errorsthat have highly stigmatizing effects on the reader should be corrected Thus, it can beconcluded that categorizing the types of errors and choosing suitable correctivefeedback strategies for each type of error will directly affect the effectiveness of givingcorrective feedback It is vitally important for teachers to commit themselves toselective error feedback and to strategy for building students’ awareness andknowledge of their most serious and frequent problems

1.3.2 Student factors

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

Firstly, students’ ability to make use of written corrective feedback depends on theirproficiency level Frantzen and Rissel (1987) and Vyatkina (2010) have found that, forstudents of lower level of proficiency, simply underlining the error might not beinformative enough because students could not determine exactly what the error was.Ferris (2002) recommends indirect feedback for most instances but cautions thatstudents at lower of second language proficiency may need direct feedback

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

“Learners’ perception about what constitutes useful feedback varies considerablyaccording to the educational context and students’ level of literacy” Secondly, themotivation 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 errorcorrection is one method of insuring enhanced performance, and vice versa for studentswith low motivation level Gue’nette (2007) emphasizes the importance of learnermotivation 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 notattend to the written corrective feedback provided Therefore, in order to remedy thisproblem, 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 isnoticed and understood Learners with higher degree of motivation have more interest

in engaging in a high level of analysis of corrective feedback This intensity ofengagement with corrective feedback may play crucial role for making the generalclaim whether corrective feedback is effective or not Learner may need to be sensitive

to feedback cues to make progress (Ferris & Robert, 2001; Robb, Ross & Shortreed,1986)

1.3.3 Teacher factors

Teacher factors may include teachers’ attitudes toward particular students or thecontent of their texts, the number of classes teachers need to teach and the number ofinstitutions at which teachers need to teach in order to make a living and the quality ofteacher written corrective feedback strategy

Quality of teacher written corrective feedback strategy undoubtedly affects the efficacy

of the feedback itself Goldstein,(2004) as cited by Hyland & Hyland (2006) “Wewould all agree that the quality of feedback matters and that students will most benefitfrom feedback that is text-specific, relevant and clear” (P.203) & “Our comments cantransform students’ attitudes to writing and lead to improvement, but our words canalso confuse and dishearten them We need, then, to be sure that we monitor ourfeedback so that it is consistent, clear, helpful and constructive” As noted by Ferris &Hedgcook (1998, P.202), effort to find answers to the question “Does error correctionwork?” must consider crucial factors: is corrective feedback and instruction carried outselectively, systematically and accurately? Ferris (2006) also suggests that teacherfactor 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 timeand in the right context Hence, teachers should keep their own experiences andintuitions in mind, listen to their students and consider their need in deciding if, whenand how to provide feedback and correction to second language student writer Asteachers, we can only hope that we will continue to find answers and discover ways torespond more timely, thoughtfully and effectively to our student writers’ needs.

1.3.4 Contextual variables

There are several contextual variables that need to be considered when providingcorrective feedback on students’ writing According to Goldstein (2004, cited inHyland and Hyland, 2006), contextual factors can include: sociopolitical issues thatinfluence teacher status, class size, program and curricular requirements, the entranceand exit requirements

Evans et al (2010) states that situational or contextual variables are everything that canform the context of learning outsides learner variables or methodological variables.Situational variables may include several factors such as the learning atmosphere or thephysical environment

Methodological variables or instructional methodologies are also essential infacilitating learning Evans et al (2010) states that “methodological variables consist ofthe 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 instructionalmaterial, sufficient practice, effective pacing, and repetition Also, notwithstandinghow highly motivated the students are, If the amount of corrective feedback is sooverwhelming, students may have difficulties in processing the information or learningfrom the feedback provided during the instruction Therefore, teacher must payattention to the above principles and contexts when providing feedback for theirstudents

There are several factors affecting the effectiveness of corrective feedback such asnature of errors, student factors, teacher factors and contextual variables Teachershould bear in mind the need to take into account how contextual factors, as well asindividual teacher and student factors may influence corrective feedback and revisionand apply the most suitable corrective feedback strategies to enhance the efficacy ofcorrective feedback.

In summary, the chapter has so far touched upon issues relating to the topic of thestudy It has discussed issues concerning the concept of corrective feedback, thecontroversial roles of corrective feedback, the types and forms of feedback as well assome factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback

The following chapters will display the methodology and the findings under the light ofthe above-discussed theoretical background to written corrective feedback

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents a detailed description of how the research was carried outincluding research design and procedures, research setting, data collection instruments,data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures

2.1 Research design.

This study follows the action research approach This is because this type ofresearch is aimed at improving teaching practice As Nunan (1992) asserts, actionresearch is conducted to investigate a specific teaching situation or practice when theteacher in charge wants to find a solution to that situation or practice In other words,action research is carried out in the classroom by the teacher of the course, mainly withthe purpose of solving a problem or improving the teaching and learning problem Itinvolves a self-reflective, critical, and systematic approach to exploring theresearcher’s own teaching contexts (Burns, 2010) This action research was carried out

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

Although there exist models which include different steps to carry out the actionresearch, they all share the following basic elements: the process begins with theresearcher identifying a problem, then a plan of action is worked out, afterwards theplan is implemented, and the process culminates when the researcher evaluates theeffectiveness of the plan and proposes next actions to further address the problem

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 moreconvenient for me to carry out the research Besides, it reflects correctly what stepswill be taken during the study According Kemmis and Mc Taggart, the action researchprocess has four steps as illustrated in Figure 2.1 below:

Figure 2.1: Steps in the action research cycle

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

-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 nextcycle

2.2 Research setting

2.2.1 Overview

Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School, where I am working as a teacher ofEnglish, is located in the centre of Ninh Binh City, Ninh Binh province There areabout 145 teachers and about 1300 students English is among the most importantsubjects at the school It is one of the three compulsory subjects of the requiredexaminations the students have to pass in order to be qualified for the GeneralEducation Diploma It is also the subject a great number of students choose as the mainone to take part in university entrance examination In English major classes, thestudents have eleven periods learning English every week The materials are not onlythe text book issued by Ministry of Education and Training but also the ones adapted

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

The 12th form English major students at Luong Van Tuy Gifted High School areeighteen years old and have been learning English for six years; their Englishknowledge is, in general, quite good especially English grammar and vocabulary

2.2.2 Participants and data collection instruments

Thirty five students of 12th form English major students at Luong Van TuyGifted High School were chosen for the research Of the 35 students, there were 32girls and 3 boys All these students were in the class where I was teaching

During the research, I conducted a cycle, in which I applied different types ofwritten corrective feedback to see the effects of these types of feedback on students’

writing performance At the same time, analysis of students’ writings and freenarratives was utilized to collect the data for the whole paper After 6 months of thestudy, all the 35 students’ writing papers and free narratives were collected, analyzedand discussed.

2.2.3 The research procedures

The action research was conducted during the first semester of school year2015-2016 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

I have been a teacher at the school for more than 10 years During the teachingprocess, I discovered that my students seemed to be weak at writing skills althoughtheir English knowledge was, in general, quite good especially English grammar andvocabulary More specifically, after teaching this English major class for one semester,

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

of students’ writings In order to gather the needed data, I asked each of the students towrite a free narrative about their problems writing skill and the possible reasons forthese problems It was surprising to know that 30 out of 35 students said that theydidn’t often get regular, detailed feedback from teachers so they often didn’t reallyknow exactly what their weak points in writing were In a writing period of 45 minutesthey often got teacher’s writing instructions in content and organization as well as aprovision of some related words and phrases The moment they finished their writing

in class often coincided with the end of the period so teacher only had the chance togive feedback to some students’ writing papers Even when feedback was delivered,teachers had little time to check and process the students’ revision so students often

made mistakes again Therefore, error fossilization was unavoidable In writing tests,what they often received for their writing were marks and some teacher’s comments oncontent and organization at the bottom of their writing papers Some students said thatthey didn’t often rewrite their writing so even when they were given feedback onspecific error, they still made the same kind of error in the next writing They also saidthat because of the large number of the students and because most of the time in grade

10 and 11 was often spent on finishing the text books and only student qualified for thenational examination for gifted students would have more chance to write and receivedetailed feedback regularly In addition, a large number of students (28 of them)admitted that they found writing the most difficult skill After the results wereobtained, the study was conducted to improve the situation

Step 2: Planning the action

With a view to helping the students improve their writing performance, Idecided to use different types of written corrective feedback during the pilot teachingbecause I believed that besides teacher’s writing instructions, in many cases, teacher’scorrection and comments could help to solve the problems of students’ writingaccuracy and their attitudes towards writing In other words, teacher’s good feedbackstrategies may give students stimulation for revision and motivation to maintain theirinterest in writing

This study was limited to the investigation of the impact of 3 written errorcorrection strategies on students’ writing performance After giving a clear writtenmodel, I asked students to write a short essay (about 200 words) related to the maintopics of specific units in their English book The time allowance for doing all thesethree tasks was about 35 minutes at the class During the composing time, they wereencouraged to do it on their own and not to consult any dictionaries, or books Theyreceived feedback on their essays, mainly on the use of language, and were then asked

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

research was divided into three stages with a different type of feedback applied foreach stage All the students’ papers were collected and analyzed The data-collectingprocess helped in eliminating slips due to carelessness or performance mistakesinduced by psychological factors The errors were counted according to five errorcategories adapted from Ferris & Roberts (2001) and those which occurred mostfrequently in the participants’ writings The five targeted error types are: verb tense andform, subject- verb agreement, article, language expression (which includes lexicalerror such as wrong word choice and form, collocation and idiom), and sentencestructures.

The following is the planned timetable (see Table 2.1) the researcher followed

during six months of the action implementation (For essay topics, see appendix B)

Table 2.1: Timetable of the action implementation.

1 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Direct Feedback

2 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Direct Feedback

3 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Direct Feedback

Stage 2 9 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Metalinguistic Feedback

10 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Metalinguistic Feedback

11 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Metalinguistic Feedback

Stage 3 17 Essay 1 & Revised draft 1 Indirect Feedback

18 Essay 2 & Revised draft 2 Indirect Feedback

19 Essay 3 & Revised draft 3 Indirect Feedback

Step 3: Implementing the action

Stage 1: (Direct corrective feedback applied)

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

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

- Then, the teacher handed back written work, the students had chance to look at the papers carefully and rewrote the tasks and resubmitted the papers

- The teacher got the papers back, kept reading and correcting the second time, then counted the errors committed and returned the papers to the students

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

procedure

- One month later, delayed test 1 was conducted to see the long-term effect of direct feedback

Stage 2: (Metalinguistic corrective feedback applied)

Because of the big size of the class, I only used the first form of metalinguisticcorrective feedback, which is the using of error codes Students were provided a list oferror codes (Appendix A) and all the codes were explained The list containingabbreviation and symbols and a gloss of what these mean was adapted fromInternational English Language Testing System code list

- After collecting students’ written work for the first time, the teacher labeled fordifferent 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 the essays

- 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 essays following the same

procedure

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

metalinguistic corrective feedback

Stage 3: (Indirect corrective feedback applied)

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

- Then, students got them back and rewrote the tasks with their own correction, and handed in the papers

- The teacher got the papers back, read the second time, counted the errors committed

- The teacher then returned the written work to the students

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

Step 4: Reflecting the action

The data collected during the action implementing period and the students’narratives were analyzed The results of the analysis were consulted to find out theeffects of different types of written corrective feedback on students’ writingperformance The data analysis results were also used to answer the research questions.The criteria of success of the action and the students’ writing performance reflected thearea of concern the teacher wanted to emphasize in the teaching and learning process