The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and second year students of mainstream program in felte ulis vnu

ABSTRACT The current study investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback WCF on five different aspects of writing grammar, language use, mechanic use, content an

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

HIỆU QUẢ CỦA PHẢN HỒI VIẾT GIÁN TIẾP THÔNG QUA CẢM NHẬN CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN NĂM HAI KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH – TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI

NGỮ-ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI

Giáo viên hướng dẫn : Hoàng Thị Hồng Hải (Th.S)

HÀ NỘI - 2017

ACCEPTANCE PAGE

I hereby state that I: (Đàm Mỹ Linh, QH2013E2), being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (program) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor‟s Graduation Paper deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper

Signature

Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to

Ms Hoang Thi Hong Hai (M.A) for her huge support, invaluable advice and immense knowledge as well as experience I am so lucky to have such an enthusiatic and patient supervisor like her during the process of working on this thesis paper Without her guidance, I would not have been able to overcome all the difficulties and finish this dissertation paper

Additionally, I want to thank Ms Tran Thi Thanh Nhan (Ph.D) for her precious guidance during the data analysis process

My great thanks also go to all the second year students from six classes of mainstream programs and three teachers who are the participants in this study They had been always willing to cooperate when I was in need of support

Last but not least, I am thankful to all of my family members and close friends whose affection and support had given me the couragement to complete this paper

ABSTRACT

The current study investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on five different aspects of writing (grammar, language use, mechanic use, content and organization) through the perceptions

of teachers and second year students of mainstream program Specifically, it provides an insight into (1) teachers‟ practices in employing indirect WCF to correct students‟ writing, (2) teachers‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF and (3) second year students‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF

To fulfill the stated aims and objectives, this research utilizes two kinds

of data collection methods, namely questionnaire and in-depth interview The combination of both quanitative and qualitative methods enhances the meaningfulness and reliability of the findings

The results taken from the instruments show that both teachers and students agree that indirect WCF is suitable to students‟ understandability, but not to their ability of self-correction This affects their perceptions of effectiveness of indirect WCF Teachers and students‟ perceptions match on the effectiveness of indirect WCF for the treatment of grammatical errors and its ineffectiveness for the betterment of content Regarding its effectiveness for errors related language use and mechanic use, while all teachers seem confused, students are divided between “neutral” and “agree” sides Finally, organization is the aspect in which the mismatch in perceptions between two sides is the most noticeable Teachers and students also have several reasons in common to account for their perceptions

The findings of the study implicates that necessary changes should be made to feedback-giving practices of teachers and feedback-handling practices of students to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

WCF: Written Corrective feedback

FELTE: Faculty of English Language and Teacher Education

ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies

VNU: Vietnam National University

SLA: Second Language Acqusition

L2: Second Language

%: percent

Students‟s evaluation of the understadability

of indirect WCF given on different aspects of writing

41

Table 4

Students‟ difficulty in correcting different kinds of errors marked by indirect written corrective feedback

42

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Students‟ methods of dealing

with indirect WCF

45

Figure 2 Students‟ other difficulties in

dealing with indirect WCF

46

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACCEPTANCE PAGE i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of research problem and rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims and Objectives 3

1.3 Significance of the study 3

1.4 Scope of the study 4

1.5 Oranization of the study 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Overview of Writing skills in L2 learning 6

2.1.1 Writing skills in L2 learning 6

2.1.2 Process of writing 7

2.1.3 Aspects of writing 9

2.2 Written corrective feedback 10

2.2.1 Definitions of written corrective feedback 10

2.2.2 Types of written corrective feedback 12

2.2.3 Significance of teacher written corrective feedback in developing L2 learners‟ writing 15

2.2.4 Requirement of teacher written corrective feedback 17

2.3 Indirect written corrective feedback 18

2.3.1 Definition of indirect written corrective feedback 18

2.3.2 The effectiveness of Indirect WCF in debate 20

2.4 Students and teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU and writing assignments 21

2.4.1 FELTE, ULIS, VNU 21

2.4.2 Teachers and students of second year mainstream program 21

2.4.3 The writing assigments in English 3B course 22

2.5 Previous studies and research gap 23

2.5.1 Previous studies on indirect written corrective feedback 23

2.5.2 Research gap 24

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 26

3.1 Research instruments 26

3.1.1 Questionnaire 26

3.1.1.1 Objectives 26

3.1.1.2 Participants 26

3.1.1.3 Questionnaire 26

3.1.2 Interview 27

3.1.2.1 Objectives 27

3.1.2.2 Participants 28

3.1.2.3 Interview 28

3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS 29

3.2.1 Questionnaire 29

3.2.2 Interview with the teachers and students 30

3.3 Data analysis process 30

3.3.1 Analysis of data from questionnaire 30

3.3.2 Analysis of the data from interview 30

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 31

4.1 Research question 1: What are the teachers‟ practices in employing indirect WCF in correcting students‟ writing? 32

4.1.1 Patterns of indirect WCF that teachers use to correct students‟ writing 32

4.1.2 Use of indirect WCF on different aspects of writing 33

4.1.3 Teachers‟ actual practices in employing indirect WCF 34

4.1.4 Purposes of teachers in employing indirect written corrective feedback 35

4.2 Research question 2: What is the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback as perceived by teachers of second year mainstream program in

ULIS? 36

4.2.1 Effectiveness of indirect WCF on GRAMMARTICAL MISTAKES as perceived by teachers 36

4.2.2 Effectiveness of indirect WCF on LEXICAL MISTAKES as perceived by teachers 37

4.2.3 Effectiveness of indirect WCF on mistakes related to MECHANIC USE as perceived by teachers 37

4.2.4 Effectiveness of indirect WCF on the betterment of CONTENT as perceived by teachers 38

4.2.5 Effectiveness of indirect WCF on the revision organization 39

4.2.6 Summary of the second question 39

4.3 Research question 3: What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as perceived by students? 40

4.3.1 Effectiveness of indirect WCF during as perceived by students of second year mainstream program 40

4.3.2 Students‟ other difficulties in dealing with indirect WCF 46

4.3.3 Summary of the third question 48

4.4 Similarities and mismatches between teachers and students‟ perceptions 48 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 51

5.1 Conclusion and implications 51

5.2 Limitations of study 52

5.3 Suggestions for further study 53

REFERENCES 54

APPENDICES 58

APPENDIX 1 58

APPENDIX 2 62

APPENDIX 3 64

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of research problem and rationale for the study

Writing has been long known play the central role in second language acquisition process It has been widely approved that learning writing not only serves to shape L2 leaners language ability, but also enriches their knowledge through the process of searching and organizing information to write However, writing is also considered as the most difficult skill to master in L2 learning Learning how to write in L2 is a long process requiring continuous practice and huge investment of mental resources Given that, L2 writing instruction has received much attention in recent year In light of that, written corrective feedback (WCF) emerges as an pedagogical approach widely recognized by L2 teachers and SLA experts for its role in fostering students‟ writing ability

However, the debate against the usefulness of written corrective feedback(WCF) was sparked by Truscott (1996)‟s essay In his writing, Truscott (1996) argued that grammar correction proves unnecessary in writing classes and WCF from teachers shows no potential in improving students‟ accuracy in writing To support his view, he cited results of previous studies which indicate WCF is not only useless, but also imposes harmful impacts on writing accuracy The way languages work is much more complicated than it appears, making it difficult to give effective error correction Therefore, accuracy can only be achieved through exposure to extensive practices of the target language There were numerous studies conducted later in response to Trucscott‟s essay Typically, Ferris (1999) pointed out two key flaws in Truscott‟s arguments: (1)

He had exaggerated the claims made by past studies in support of his views; (2) Different approaches can be taken to provide effective error correction Chandler (2003) also conducted a study to investigate the effectiveness of various kinds of written error correction The results indicate significant improvement in accuracy among students who actually received feedback than those who did not Amid

the heated debate between L2 experts, necessity of WCF is still widely acknowledged by most L2 students and teachers

Realizing the necessity of WCF, L2 teachers has put great endeavor into finding how to employ feedback to enhance its efficiency The two most common approaches applied by many L2 teacher are direct written correction and indirect written correction In the former, teacher directly provides the correction for students‟ mistakes In the latter, an identification of the mistake is provided, but the correction is withheld to trigger self-correction from students While many researchers are in support of direct correction, others are in favor indirect correction They argue that using indirect WCF will be beneficial to students‟ long-term writing development Since students are engaged in self-correction, they will remember the mistake and avoid it in the new writing tasks Simultaneously, indirect WCF is criticized because it can present learners with challenges in figuring out the correction themselves

Along with the debate of direct WCF or indirect WCF is the concern whether perceptions of teachers and students of each type of WCF meet Because students are the users of feedback, it is also necessary for their perceptions of the feedback to be considered Research has also come out with evidence that learners are more likely to use a certain type of feedback if they feel it is effective for them and vice versa While teacher perceives a type of feedback as effective, students are likely to perceive the opposite Therefore, it is necessary for teachers and students to reach an agreement of what works best for both sides This implicates the need for studies investigating teachers and students‟ opinion of the effectiveness of certain types of WCF

In the context of ULIS, VNU, indirect WCF is a strategy found to be widely employed by many teachers for students with highly proficient levels like second year students However, the amount of research placing focus on this type

of feedback is very limited Plus, hardly has any research been conducted to

investigate teachers and students‟ perceptions of effectiveness of WCF All these

gaps provide a chance for this study – “The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback as perceived by teahers and second year students of mainstream program, ULIS, VNU” to take place

1.2 Aims and Objectives

As stated in the title, the primary aim of this research is to explore the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) in improving students‟ writing skills as perceived by teachers and second year students of mainstream program Specifically, it provides an insight into the teachers‟ practices of using this kind of feedback in marking students‟ writing Afterwards, teachers and students‟ perceptions of its effectiveness on five aspects, namely grammar, language use, mechanic use, content and organization are looked into, analyzed and compared with each other With aforementioned aims and

objectives, this study will focus on addressing three research questions:

1 What are the teachers‟ practices of employing indirect WCF in correcting students‟ writing?

2 What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as perceived by teachers of second year mainstream program ?

3 What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as perceived by students of second year mainstream program?

1.3 Significance of the study

Once completed, this study will contribute to the limited number of studies on effectiveness of written corrective feedback through the perceptions

of both students and teachers Hopefully, the findings of the research will inform teachers of how students perceive the effectiveness of indirect WCF and vice versa This enables teachers and students to come to an agreement of what should be done to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF On a larger scale,

the study is expected to come out with practical solutions and implications to improve feedback-giving practices of teachers and feedback-handling practices

of students, all contributing to the ultimate goal of fostering students‟ academic writing performance

1.4 Scope of the study

The study is confined to indirect WCF used by teachers of second year mainstream program to correct their students‟ writing 3B assignment The focus

is placed on investigating the effectiveness of this feedback type in improving writing skills as perceived by the teachers and their students Due to limitation of time, no other writing projects or assignments is explored The plain reason for the choice of 3B assignment is that it follows the process-based writing approach

in which students would receive the feedback from teachers and make revision in the next draft based on the feedback Other factors contributing to the effectivness of indirect WCF such as students‟ level of proficiency and in-class writing instructions are not concentrated on

The participants of this study consist of 3 teachers and over 90 students from 6 classes of mainstream program The plain reason for the selection of teachers is the dominant use of indirect WCF on all the five aspects of writing through pre-research investigation of writing essays and imformal interview with students Each teacher was in charge of 3B course in 2 classes Therefore, students from those 6 classes are chosen to be the participants of this study

1.5 Oranization of the study

The research consists 5 main chapters which are introduction, literature review, methodology, findings and discussions, and conclusion The content of each chapter is summarized as followed:

Chapter 1 presents the background of the problem, organization, scope of

the study, and its significance Most importantly, the goals and objectives of the study and the research questions will also be stated

Chapter 2 brings together the most fundamental and widely acknowledged

theories, and other issues related to writing, written corrective feedback, and especially indirect written corrective feedback This provide the theoretical basis for the study to be conducted

Chapter 3 demonstrates the methodology including the method of

selecting population, instruments, and the procedures entailed in data collection and analysis process

Chapter 4 shows the findings and discussions of the findings to answer

three thorny research questions of the study

Chapter 5 comes out with summary of the findings and the implications

made from those findings Limitations of the study will also be pointed out to make further suggestions for the next studies to take place

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview of writing skills in L2 learning

2.1.1 Writing skills in L2 learning

Writing has always been playing an important role in second language acquisition This role is actually derived from “the fact that it reinforces grammatical structures, vocabulary and idioms” or the language that teachers have been teaching their students (Ismail, 2010) Some studies emphasize that students‟ learning progress are boosted because of their having to make use of

“met cognitive and self-regulation activities” in order to convey their meaning through writing (Hurley & Wilkinson, 2004; as cited in Nguyen, 2016) Moreover, other research highlights the importance of writing in that it broadens students‟ knowledge and learning opportunities since they need to look for and organize information This allows students to “sharpen their understanding and flourish their knowledge” (Nguyen, 2016)

In second language acquisition, writing is seen as the most difficult skill

to master As Nakao (2016) cites from many studies, writing is “a complex task which requires specialized skills” and huge amounts of “cognitive and linguistic” resources The ability to write well is not naturally acquired, which has to be practiced and allowed adequate time for (Myles, 2002) Although writing has been “accepted as the common goals of learning English”, it is often the skill that

“falls through” (Zen, 2005) It is not rare to see L2 learners struggling when they have to communicate in the target language using written mode (Zen, 2005) In the light of this, teaching L2 writing has received much attention in recent years One of the “pedagogical techniques”, which has been widely recognized by both L2 teachers and SLA researchers, is written corrective feedback (WCF) (Nakao, 2016)

To conclude, writing is a pivotal skill to be learned in the process of L2 acquisition However, it is also the most demanding and difficult skill to master for L2 students Therefore, writing instruction by teachers has an irreplaceable role to play in shaping students‟ writing ability and corrective feedback is also considered an important part of writing instruction

2.1.2 Process of writing

Up to now, the two most common approaches to teaching writing to L2

students are product-oriented approach and process-oriented approach In the former, students normally are given a pattern as model on which they base to create a similar writing piece (Rusinovci, 2015) Writing is considered as focusing on “the knowledge about the structure of language” and development is mainly concerned with “the result of the imitation input, in the form of texts provided by the teacher” (Rusinovci, 2015) This approach was soon criticized for mainly focusing on the final product of writing rather on the process in which students approach writing Rusinovci (2015) supposes that product-oriented approach is rather “teacher- centered” and “devalues learners‟ potential, both linguistic and personal”

The later decades witness a shift to the approach of writing as a

“process” or process-based writing, which moves students towards improvement through multiple drafts of a writing piece Feedback or response from the readers will provide learners with basis for better revision after each draft In this approach, revision is seen as indispensible and “editing is an ongoing multi-level process” (Rusinovci, 2015) This approach is preferred over product approach as

it is learner-centered Rather than being a model, the teacher is seen as a facilitator of “exercise of writing”, who will “draw out learners‟ potentials” (Rusinovci, 2015) Teacher also has an irreplaceable role to play in providing feedback, “assistance and guidance a student needs to develop writing competence” (Rusinovci, 2015)

Regarding the process of writing, different researchers have proposed different models of writing process However, the one proposed by Tribble (1996) is widely adopted by many researchers into the field of L2 writing (as cited in Nguyen, 2016) According to Tribble (1996), the writing process mainly comprises of four main stages:

(1) Pre-writing: In this stage, a writer will have to do things including choosing a topic, brainstorming ideas and outlining the writing piece

(2) Drafting: Based on the outline, writer will compose the writing piece and revising their sentences and paragraphs

(3) Revising: In this stage, the writer have to work on the content of the writing by “adding, deleting, modifying, and rearranging ideas”, by revising the text structure, coherence and making other necessary edition (Tribble, 1996)

(4) Editing: Finally, the writer double-check other aspects such

as vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar and mechanics

Sharing the same idea with Tribble (1996), Reid (1993) also refers to writing as a multistage process, “with intervention” if necessary (as cited in Nguyen, 2016) According to him, a writer has to go through four major stages: planning, writing, revising and editing, which bears resemblance to that of Tribble (1996) However, what makes the model of Reid (1993) different from that of Tribble (1996) is the addition of three more stages: Responding, Evaluating, and Post-writing (as cited in Nguyen, 2016)

 Responding: Responding is one of the key stages in the writing process in which the readers will give feedback in written or oral mode to the writing piece The readers can be peers or teachers or any other reader of the written draft The feedback will be used by the writer

to make revision for improvement in the next drafts

 Evaluating: In this stage, the teacher would mark students‟ writing based on marking criteria which may be analytical (based on different aspects of writing) and holistic (according to a global predetermined scale)

 Post-writing: Post – writing involves anything that the teacher or students can do after the writing product has been completed These range from publishing, or using for studies to acting out…

In conclusion, based on Reid (1993)‟s model, there are in total seven stages involved in the process of writing, which are planning, drafting, revising, editing, responding, evaluating and post- writing It can be seen that the responding stage, whose main purpose is to provide students with any kind of feedback and comment for better revision, is emphasized This implicates the value and the important role of feedback in L2 learners‟ revision of writing for improvement

2.1.3 Aspects of writing

Depending on the genre of the writing, each researcher have different ideas about the elements constituting writing Wilbers (n.d) supposes that these elements consists of central ideas; organization; supporting materials; expression, word choice, and point of view; grammar, punctuation, spelling However, Jacob

et al (1981) asserts that there are five main aspects naming content of writing, organization, language use, mechanic use, and vocabulary (as cited in Akitah, 2013)

First, content aspect refers to the presentation of knowledge,

“substantive”, relevance of the ideas to the topic, and evidence in support of the ideas (Jacob et al, 1981; as cited in Akitah, 2013)

Second, organization refers to the presentation of ideas in a clear,

logical, and way (Jacob et al, 1981; as cited in Akitah, 2013)

Next, “subject-verb agreement, tenses, articles, preposition” and other

grammatical elements, “which construct sentences grammatically”, form the aspect of grammar (Jacob et al, 1981; as cited in Akitah, 2013)

Mechanic use lays emphasis on spelling and appropriate punctuation,

citation and referencing in the text (Jacob et al, 1981; as cited in Akitah, 2013)

Lastly, language use refers to the use of language, choice of vocabulary,

expressions and appropriateness of words to convey the wanted messages (Brown, 2007, as cited in Akitah 2013)

Actually, the models of Jacobs et al (1981) and that of Wilbers (n.d) are

no different from each other However, the model of Jacobs et al (1981) proves

to be more general and easier to follow with five elements Therefore, the study will base the model of Jacobs et al (1981) These aspects mentioned above will provide the researcher the basis to form the criteria for assessing the

effectiveness of indirect WCF and answer the research questions

2.2 Written corrective feedback

2.2.1 Definitions of written corrective feedback

It is widely believed that corrective feedback is one of the central aspects

of L2 writing development Kepner (1991) even addresses that WCF “is of perennial concerns to L2 teachers” (cited in Sun, 2013) Researchers have given various definitions of written corrective feedback According to Beuningen (2010), WCF refers to the instances of “responses to L2 learners‟ non-target like production”, or in other word “linguistic errors” Sharing the same view, Ellis at

al (2008) considers WCF to take “the form of any reinforcement of error correction” (as cited in Sun, 2013)

On a broader sense, WCF is defined by Lightbown and Spada (1999) as

a type of negative feedback or comment, which can be a reminder to the learners that “their use of target language is incorrect” (as cited in Sun, 2013)

Sun (2013) even extends WCF to the domain of written discourse, regarding it as the various way in which readers respond to an L2 learner that his

or her writing “does not conform to the norms of the target language” According

to Sun (2013), written corrective feedback can come from any source such as “a random reader of the composition”, the writer‟s peers or the teacher However, in L2 classrooms, it is the instructor or teacher that has key responsibilities in providing WCF for L2 learners (Sun, 2013) In an L2 classroom context, “teacher response and evaluation are typically the principal means” which provides L2 learners with basis to “measure their progress as writers” (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996, p 1)

However, the most profound definition of written corrective feedback is associated with that of Ellis (2009), which points out the components and modes

of WCF Ellis (2009) asserts that WCF “constitutes one type of negative feedback” and written “response to a learner utterance containing a linguistic error” To be more specific, the response includes “(1) an indication that an error has been made, (2) the provision of the correct form of the target language and (3) metalinguistic information about the nature of the error” (Ellis, 2009) Moreover, written corrective feedback conveys “trigger” and “uptake”, in which teacher “seeks clarification” of a student‟s error utterances, resulting in the student‟s “uptaking the correction.” (Ellis, 2009)

In short, all the aforementioned definitions pertain to written corrective feedback as any indication to remind the writer of errors that he or she commits

in the use of the target language Plus, the pivotal role of teacher in giving written corrective feedback is also addressed in those definitions

2.2.2 Types of written corrective feedback

Before studies of written corrective feedback had become dominant in the field of teaching L2 writing, there was not any model or any approach to categorize written corrective feedback However, since WCF became a widely explored topic in the research world, different researchers have proposed various approaches to categorize different types of written corrective feedback based on:

unfocused feedback and (2) focused feedback While in the former,

“students‟ errors are corrected extensively” (on a wide range of errors), only “one or two specific kind of errors are chosen to be corrected” at a time in the latter (Najmaddin, 2010) For example, in multiple-draft approach, teachers may give students content-focused feedback in the first draft, and give form-focused feedback in the following drafts Depending on the focus of the feedback on different aspects of writing,

WCF can also be divided into: Focus-on-organization,

focus-on-content, focus-on-vocabulary, focus-on-grammar feedback

the type of feedback that shows learners that they have made an error without providing the correct form Meanwhile, by giving explicit feedback, teacher provides learners with the correct form and sometimes explanation so that students can “educe more accurate language” (Najmaddin, 2010)

One of the most famous models which is now largely based on by many L2 researchers is by Ellis (2009) The name of that model is named “a typology

of written corrective feedback”, which divides written corrective feedback into 6 types based on the two approaches: the explicitness of feedback and the focus of feedback

Table 1: Ellis (2009)’s typology of written corrective feedback

Based on Ellis‟s model, Sheen (2011) also divides written corrective feedback into different categories, but makes some changes in merging meta-linguistic feedback into direct and indirect feedback:

Students are provided with the correct form, by e.g crossing out the error and replacing it with the correct word or adding something that is missing

Students are provided with the correct form and giving a written explanation of some sort, for instance by numbering the errors and giving the answer with an accompanying explanation at the end of the page

Students are provided with an indication that an error has occurred but not locating or correcting it, these indicators appear only in the margin

This type is rather more obvious because the location of the mistakes is identified The teacher indicates where students commit the errors by underlining, circling the errors or putting a cross to show omission

This types of feedback includes the underlining or circling the errors, plus coded feedback to show the “nature” of the error (e.g “sp” for spelling or “w.c” for wrong word choice)

This type of feedback also is presented as numbering the errors and give a metalinguistic explanation of the error, but in the form of a question

to withhold the correct form

E.g: In what form should the verb be in a passive sentence?

 Reformulation

As for this type, teacher will provide students with a reformulation of the part containing the errors in students‟ writing This is actually a form direct feedback However, it involves students in a comparison process in which they have to compare their own writing with the reformulated one to figure out the errors they commit

In conclusion, there are many approaches to categorize written corrective feedback; however, the most common approach used by many researchers is through the implicitness and explicitness of feedback This divides corrective feedback into indirect WCF and direct WCF These two types of feedback are the most widely explored among all types of feedback in the research world

2.2.3 Significance of teacher written corrective feedback in developing L2 learners’ writing

Written corrective feedback has long been known to play an essential part in guiding L2 learners towards writing improvement and second language acquisition In classrooms using process-based and learner- centered approaches, WCF is viewed as an important tool helping learners develop “effective self- expression” through the completion of “multiple drafts” (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Plus, it constitutes “the key element” in forming L2 “students‟ growing control over composing skills” (Hyland &Hyland, 2006) Meanwhile, in genre classrooms, WCF provides certain levels of “scaffolding” to “build learner confidence and the literacy resources to participate in target communities” (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) From the perspectives of many teachers, WCF proves helpful in enhancing L2 learners‟ accuracy (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) Moreover, numerous research has shown that learners also “want, expect and value” WCF

and would like to receive it more than other kinds of written feedback such as oral feedback and peer feedback (Corpuz, 2011)

Up to now, most researchers agree on the role of feedback as a “useful

editing tool”, which enables students to revise and make improvements between

subsequent drafts of writing Chandler (2003) also conducts a study to investigate the effectiveness of various kinds of written error correction The results indicate significant improvement in accuracy among students who actually received feedback than those who did not This is followed by another study by Ferris (2006) in which 80% of learner participants managed to mark the errors correctly based on teacher‟s corrective feedback in the following daft, with only 10% getting correction wrong (as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006) The results from studies focusing on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in revision

process suggest its importance as a “useful editing tool”

However, it is still controversial whether written corrective feedback can result in long-term development of L2 writing and acquisition Very few studies

have gone beyond the role of feedback as a “facilitator of learning” by studying

new writing tasks One typical example of this is by Ferris (2006), which reports

a reduction in the numbers of both grammatical and lexical errors L2 learners made over a semester Ellis et al (2008) and Sheen (2007) also have also indicated the improvement in terms of accuracy of L2 learners in the new writing entries Although it is too early to come to conclusion that WCF leads to long-term writing development, Ferris (2004) claims that there is at least some

“positive evidence” that “predict positive effects for L2 acquisition” (as cited in Choi, 2013)

Although the role of written corrective feedback as “useful editing tool”,

has been widely acknowledged by much research, there have been mixed views

and opinions regarding its role as a “facilitator of learning” Nonetheless,

teachers and students generally agree on the necessity of its employment

2.2.4 Requirement of teacher written corrective feedback

Globally, there has been almost no set of criteria/ requirements, which is proposed for teachers to base on to give written corrective feedback on students‟ writing

Zamel (1985) suggests that in process approach, it is mandatory for teachers to give content-focused feedback in earlier drafts and form-focused feedback in the later (as cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006) In response to this, Hyland (2008) claims the distinction between form and content may result in a

“false dichotomy”, as meaning is presented through the appropriateness of language use (as cite in Hyland & Hyland, 2006)

However, most research to date has all agreed that teacher should take students‟ preferences and attitude into consideration when giving written comment Just like Hyland & Hyland (2006) assert, it is necessary for teachers to

“weigh their choice of comments to accomplish informational, pedagogic, and interpersonal goals simultaneously while taking account of likely student reactions” Regarding the students‟ positive view of effectiveness of feedback, some studies have found that teacher‟s WCF has also played an important role in not only developing L2 writing, but also in helping students to “to identify problems and giving them information about academic and disciplinary expectations” (Leki, 2006; as cited in Hyland&Hyland, 2006) In some other studies, it is found that students are even “positive” about the use of indirect written corrective feedback in which they are provided with clues for corrections,

as it can turn them into “active” users of feedback (Hyland and Hyland, 2006)

On the other hand, evidence from research also suggests students‟ lack of understanding of the meaning of much feedback given on their writing papers and have no idea of “what they are expected to do with WCF” (Amrhein

&Nassaji, n.d) For example, Ferris (1995) and Hyland (1998) prove in their

studies that students had difficulty in understanding the feedback and their “use

of WCF did not completely match the teachers‟ intentions” (as cited in Amrhein

& Nassaji, n.d) This is actually originated from the conflict between teachers and students regarding perceptions of effectiveness of various kinds of feedback Amrhein and Nassaji (n.d) suggest this conflict is rather “pedagogically problematic” As pointed out by many studies, if students perceive a kind of feedback does not work for them, they are not likely to pay attention to it Therefore, it is necessary for teachers and students to come to an agreement of what works the best for both sides (Amrhein & Nassaji, n.d)

As revision is an integral stage in the writing process, Salteh and Sadeghi (2012) suppose that teacher‟s written corrective feedback should “inspire students to re-examine their texts with “inquisitiveness and involvement” Therefore teachers are presented with a challenging task of forming and organizing their comments in a way that “provide an inherent reason for students

to revise” (Salteh & Sadeghi, 2012) As the main source of feedback, teachers must guarantee the understandability of the feedback and students are

“susceptible of doing anything with it” It is also required that teacher must be

“congruous with the feedback” and “accommodate to students‟ proficiency and competency to self-repair” (Salteh & Sadeghi, 2012)

From the points mentioned above, it can be generally concluded that it is necessary for teachers to take students‟ preferences and reactions into consideration when giving corrective feedback Also, students generally perceive teacher‟s written corrective feedback as effective and useful

2.3 Indirect written corrective feedback

2.3.1 Definition of indirect written corrective feedback

Broadly, implicit/indirect written feedback can be seen as the type of feedback that point outs to learners that they have made a mistake, without

providing the correct form In other words, Sun (2013) points out that all types of indirect WCF share a common feature which is “withholding the correct form in the hope of eliciting the correct form” or self-correction from the students

However, it has been defined and categorized differently by different researchers

According to Ellis (2009), indirect WCF takes the form of “underlining the errors, using cursors to show omissions or “indication at the margin” of line containing the error in the students‟ text

Based on Sheen (2011)‟s typology, indirect written corrective feedback consists of 4 types: indirect WCF (located error), indirect written corrective feedback (non-located error), indirect WCF using error codes, indirect meta-linguistic written correction (the description of each type is presented in the model)

On the contrary, Bitchener (2008) adds that indirect WCF is also presented as “confirmation checks” or “request for clarification” (as cited in Sun, 2013)

From the researcher‟s viewpoint, all the definitions given by aforementioned researchers are considered as different patterns of “indirect WCF” as they all share one common feature of withholding the correction to trigger students‟ self-correction

However, from the study of some of students‟ writing, the researcher also finds that the indirect WCF which names the nature of the errors is also considered as indirect WCF This pattern is only different from the one using error code in that it names directly the nature of the errors because there is no

code or the teacher prefers to name directly the type of error It also corresponds

to the common feature of indirect WCF, which is withholding the correct use of

the target language to provide opportunities for students‟ self-correction

For example: Parallelism => T implicitly tells students that writing has

problems with parallelism at this place

Given all the definitions in consideration, it can be concluded that indirect written corrective feedback can take any form ranging from “underlining

or circling the error”, “using cursors to show omissions”, “indication at the margin”, “written correction using error codes” “metalinguistic written correction”, “confirmation checks”, “request for clarification”, comments showing the nature of the errors This definition also provides the theoretical basis for the research to base on when conducting the actual study

2.3.2 The effectiveness of Indirect WCF in debate

Up to now, there are still debates over the effectiveness of indirect WCF While many researchers are in support of its usefulness, others also lay crititicism over its correction-withholding nature For the proposing side, Lalande (1982) argues that indirect WCF is more beneficial in fostering learners‟ long-term development of writing The significance of indirect WCF is argued based on its ability to “involve learners in guided problem-solving” and encourage them to be more responsible for their progress (Wang & Jiang, 2015) Besides, indirect WCF proves superior to direct WCF when it engages learners “in a more profound form of language processing by promoting self-reflection, attention, and noticing” (Wang & Jiang, 2015) Simultaneously, there is much also criticism over the use of indirect WCF in that it requires much effort from learners Moreover, it may fail to help learners “resolve complex errors” and learners do not know “if their own hypothesized corrections are indeed

suitable for the treatment of “treatable” errors including “verbs, subject-verb agreement, run-ons, fragments, noun endings, articles, pronouns, and possibly spelling”, which “occur in a patterned, rule-governed way” (as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006) On the contrary, it may not be effective for the correction of errors related to “as there is no “set of rules that students can consult to avoid or fix these kinds of errors” (Ferris, 1999; as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006)

In a nutshell, there are still mixed views over the effectiveness of indirect WCF While indirect WCF is proved to be rather more effective for students‟ long-term development, it can present students with challenges and difficulties during the revision process This issue also provides the research problem for the current study to take place

2.4 Students and teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU and writing assignments 2.4.1 FELTE, ULIS, VNU

University of Languages and International Studies, which is a member university of Vietnam National University, are among the top Vietnamese universities in training human resources competent in languages Faculty of English Language Teacher Education is a faculty belonging to ULIS which takes the most responsibilities in teaching all courses related to areas of English teacher education and translator training

2.4.2 Teachers and students of second year mainstream program

In FELTE, ULIS, second-year mainstream students are generally those whose expected level of proficiency is around B2+/C1- (according to Common European Framework Reference) In their first year, they completed key courses including English 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B After the first year, they had just learned how to write paragraph In the first semester of the second year program, students have to take another 3 main courses named 3A, 3B and 3C In 3B writing course, students learn about research essay Meanwhile, exam essay is the focus of 3C

The main goals of these subjects are to enhance students‟ proficiency and communicational skills including Listening, Speaking, Writing and Reading

All the teachers of second-year mainstream students come from Department of English 2, Faculty of English Language Teacher Education They all shoulder the key responsibilities in teaching required courses in second-year program Plus, the teachers all have at least some years of experiences in the field

of English teaching, with most having MA or PhD degrees

2.4.3 The writing assigments in English 3B course

According to the syllabus of the course chosen, there are two entries focusing on the two main types of essays Once the topic is released, students have to look for the reading materials related to the topic The sources of the materials are strictly investigated and approved by the teacher before writing process After completing the first draft, students take the comments from their peers using the peer-editing checklist After taking comments from peers, students will have to submit the first draft to their teachers to get their comment The teachers will give comment directly into the draft and give it back to students Students will base on the feedback to make revision and write the second draft

Unlike normal exam essay which lays most emphasis on language use and accuracy, the essay assignment of English 3B also lays emphais on content and organization A look at the marking criteria of the assignment would confirm this (See appendix 4) For content, much emphasis is laid on the quality

of ideas and evidence from research to support for the ideas Meanwhile, organization of ideas and coherent link between the ideas is the central aspects of organization As students have to use sources from the internet as supporting materials, they have to include in-text citation and referencing Therefore, the focus of mechanic use will be on citation and referencing Mistakes like

punctuation and spelling are not focused on since they can be checked by computer

2.5 Previous studies and research gap

2.5.1 Previous studies on indirect written corrective feedback

As mentioned above, there has been much research conducted to investigate and compare the effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on the improvement in students‟ writing skills

The first study worth mentioning is by Lalande (1982) in which 60 ESL German students were chosen to take part in a writing course For each entry of writing, they have to submit multiple drafts for corrections All of their works are corrected using different types of indirect written and are kept for observation of progress through each draft The findings were that all learners had shown a reduction in the number of errors not only in later drafts, but also in later entries

In another study, Liu (2008) also investigated the effectiveness of those two types of written corrective feedback on 12 university ESL students She concluded that students can self-correct their papers based on both types of WCF Although, direct WCF was found to be more effective in helping students make fewer errors between drafts, it proves inferior in enhancing students‟ accuracy in new writing pieces This is partly because of students simply copying the correction of teachers into their writing On the contrary, implicit feedback allowed students to commit fewer errors in the latter writing works, just as found

by previous studies

Regarding studies focusing on perceptions of effectiveness of different types of feedback, Diab (2005) investigated the beliefs of an ESL teacher about the effectiveness of different types of feedback she gave in her students writing and compared it with those of her students The findings were that “students‟

view on the effectiveness of teacher‟s feedback strategies conflicted with that of the teacher‟s” (as cited in Amrhein&Nassaji, n.d)

Finally, Najmaddin (2010)‟s study also explored the perceptions of university teachers and 30 Kurdish students‟ of 4 different types of indirect and direct WCF by utilizing interviews and questionnaire From the analysis of the result of questionnaires, it is found that students generally dislike indirect corrective feedback as it is not clear and understandable enough for them to make correction In contrast, this type of feedback practice is considered an “ideal technique” since it enables students to “self-correct their errors” and “increases students‟ self-dependence”, even though this type of feedback may not be suitable to students with low proficiency levels (Najmaddin, 2010)

From the studies mentioned above, it can be seen that most of them focus on comparing the effectiveness of indirect and direct WCF or perceptions

of teachers and students of various feedback types Also, it can be seen that indirect written corrective feedback proves helpful in fostering L2 learners‟ long-term development of writing Finally, this type of feedback seems to work best for learners with higher levels of proficiency like intermediate, upper-intermediate and advanced learners

2.5.2 Research gap

As mentioned above, various studies have pointed out that students do actually benefit from the use of indirect WCF by their teachers Up to now, most research has placed their focus on investigation of comparing the effectiveness of direct and indirect WCF or teachers and students‟ perceptions of different types

of indirect WCF, without actually placing the focus on effectivess of indirect WCF through perceptions of teachers and students Moreover, the number of studies which incorporate both teachers and learners as participants is very limited Even if the study by Najmaddin (2010) had those two features, it just

investigates only two patterns of indirect WCF without exploiting its full definition Most previous studies only study the effectiveness of indirect WCF on aspects like grammar and vocabulary, while this one also places the focus on aspects like content and organization Furthermore, rarely do we have the same kind of study conducted in FELTE, ULIS and to the population of teachers and second year mainstream students The gap in previous researches presents the gap for the current study to take place

to them and what kind of difficulties they encounter in handling this kind of feedback The data collected by using this instrument give answers for the second research question and is used to compare with the response from teachers

3.1.1.3 Questionnaire

The questionnaire used in the study is adapted from that of Nguyen (2016) whose study investigates students‟ perceptions of effectiveness of peer feedback on five aspects of writing including grammar, language use, mechanic

use, content and organization However, necessary changes are made to match the topic of study which focuses on indirect written corrective feedback The questionnaire consists of 2 parts:

 Part (1) presents questions to ask for students‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF There will be both close-ended questions to save students‟ time and open-ended questions so that students‟ response will not be limited The data will be collected for analysis to make generalizations and

interpretations

 Part (2) inquires students for their personal information so that

the researcher can reach them later for in-depth interview

Besides, the researcher also attaches a sheet containing the defition of indirect WCF and the focus of different aspects of writing, so that students can

have better understanding of the subject and finish the questionnaire

3.1.2 Interview

3.1.2.1 Objectives

The semi-structured interviews are conducted to inquire teachers‟ practices of giving indirect corrective feedback, their reasons of using indirect WCF, their general perceptions and their perceptions of its effectiveness Data collected by this instrument serves to answer the first and the second question of the research Also, it is used for comparing to the view of students regarding the effectiveness of indirect WCF

There are also interviews with students in order to gain deeper insights into their response of the questionnaire All the interviews will be scripted for further study The researcher then will compare the response from teachers and students to explore similarities and differences in each party‟s view

3.1.2.2 Participants

There are three teachers who were in charge of teaching 3B course in the

first semester of the school year taking part in the interview In the pre-research investigation of students‟ writing pieces and imformal interview with the students, those teachers are found to make dominant use of indirect written corrective feedback in marking their students‟ writing

The students chosen for the in-depth interviews are those whose response

in the questionnaire matches the concerns of the research Through the interview, the researcher focuses mainly on their difficulties in dealing with indirect WCF and what affects their perceptions of effectiveness of indirect WCF

3.1.2.3 Interview

According to Le (2012), interview enables the researcher to “investigate phenomena that are not directly observable such as perceptions and attitudes” The current research aim at investigating teacher‟s perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF so the chosen instrument proves a suitable one

As this is a semi-structured interview, the researcher prepares a list of questions to ask in advance However, there may also be spontaneous questions asked to fit in with the situation Before the interview, the researcher presents the teachers with the definition of indirect WCF with its patterns and examples to demonstrate these patterns The examples are actually taken from the indirect WCF they gave in their students‟ writing This allows the teachers to have deep understanding of the definition of indirect WCF and give the most judicious perceptions Next, the researcher explains to the participants about the procedures, the purposes and answers any confusing questions from them so that the interview will run smoothly

The interviews with students will be conducted after the researcher has collected the questionnaire and analyze the data The researcher selects the interviewees whose responses match the concern of the research Before the interview with the students, the research presents them with their questionnaire and the definition of indirect WCF for them to have a look back at it Afterwards, the researcher asks students some questions to gain in-depth insight into students‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback and the difficulties they encounter while handling this type of feedback The data from the interview will be used to explain and reinforce the findings from questionnaire instrument

To collect the information from the interviews, the research will make use of note-taking skills and use a recorder to record all the content of the interview

3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS

3.2.1 Questionnaire

 Stage 1: Designing the questionnaire based on the available

model

 Stage 2: Getting comments from the supervisor

 Stage 3: Revising the questionnaire

 Stage 4: Printing and bringing it to the room where students

study

 Stage 5: Explaining to students about the topic of the study, the

procedure of completing the questionnaire and answering any confusing questions if necessary

 Stage 6: Distributing the questionnaire to students and gathering

back after students have finished