INTRODUCTION
Statement of research problem and rationale for the study
Writing plays a crucial role in the second language (L2) acquisition process, significantly shaping learners' language abilities and enriching their knowledge through information organization and research Despite its importance, writing is often regarded as the most challenging skill to master in L2 learning, requiring continuous practice and substantial mental investment Consequently, L2 writing instruction has gained increased attention in recent years, with written corrective feedback (WCF) emerging as a widely recognized pedagogical approach among L2 teachers and second language acquisition (SLA) experts for its effectiveness in enhancing students' writing skills.
However, the debate against the usefulness of written corrective feedback(WCF) was sparked by Truscott (1996)‟s essay In his writing, Truscott
In 1996, Truscott argued that grammar correction in writing classes is unnecessary and that teacher feedback does not effectively enhance students' writing accuracy He referenced prior studies demonstrating that such feedback can be detrimental rather than beneficial The complexity of language acquisition makes effective error correction challenging, suggesting that achieving accuracy relies more on extensive practice with the target language In response to Truscott's claims, numerous studies emerged, with Ferris (1999) identifying two significant flaws in his arguments.
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
A study conducted in 2003 examined the effectiveness of different types of written error correction, revealing that students who received feedback showed a significant improvement in accuracy compared to those who did not.
2 the heated debate between L2 experts, necessity of WCF is still widely acknowledged by most L2 students and teachers
Recognizing the importance of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), L2 teachers are actively exploring effective methods to enhance its impact on student writing The two primary approaches to WCF are direct and indirect written correction Direct correction involves teachers explicitly providing the correct answers to students' mistakes, while indirect correction identifies errors without offering solutions, encouraging students to self-correct While some researchers advocate for direct correction, others support the use of indirect feedback, arguing that it fosters long-term writing development by helping students remember and avoid past mistakes However, indirect WCF is also critiqued for potentially overwhelming learners who may struggle to identify the necessary corrections on their own.
The debate surrounding direct versus indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) raises important questions about the alignment of perceptions between teachers and students Since students are the primary recipients of feedback, their views on its effectiveness are crucial Research indicates that learners are more inclined to utilize feedback they find beneficial, which may not always align with teachers' perceptions of effectiveness Consequently, it is essential for educators and students to reach a consensus on the most effective feedback strategies This highlights the need for further studies examining both teachers' and students' opinions regarding the effectiveness of different types of WCF.
At ULIS, VNU, indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is a commonly used strategy among teachers for second-year students who possess advanced proficiency levels Despite its widespread application, there is a notable lack of research specifically addressing this form of feedback, highlighting a gap in the academic literature.
This study explores the perceptions of teachers and second-year students at ULIS, VNU, regarding the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) By addressing existing gaps in the research, it aims to provide valuable insights into how WCF is viewed in the context of language learning.
Aims and Objectives
This research investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on enhancing writing skills, as perceived by teachers and second-year students in a mainstream program It examines teachers' practices in applying this feedback method to student writing and analyzes perceptions of its impact on five key aspects: grammar, language use, mechanics, content, and organization The study aims to address three specific research questions to provide a comprehensive understanding of the feedback's effectiveness.
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?
Significance of the study
This study aims to enhance the understanding of written corrective feedback (WCF) by exploring the perceptions of both students and teachers, addressing the current gap in research The findings are expected to provide valuable insights into how students view the effectiveness of indirect WCF, fostering a mutual understanding between teachers and students Ultimately, this collaboration can lead to improved strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of indirect WCF in educational settings.
The study aims to provide practical solutions to enhance teachers' feedback-giving practices and improve students' feedback-handling skills, ultimately fostering better academic writing performance among students.
Scope of the study
This study focuses on the use of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) by teachers in a second-year mainstream program to enhance students' writing skills, specifically in the context of a 3B assignment The research aims to evaluate how effective this feedback method is, as perceived by both teachers and students Due to time constraints, the study does not examine other writing projects, emphasizing the choice of the 3B assignment due to its alignment with the process-based writing approach, which encourages students to revise their drafts based on teacher feedback It is important to note that factors such as students' proficiency levels and in-class writing instructions are not addressed in this investigation.
This study involves three teachers and more than 90 students from six classes within a mainstream program The teachers were selected due to their predominant use of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) across five writing aspects, as identified through preliminary research and informal student interviews Each teacher managed the 3B course in two classes, leading to the selection of students from these six classes as participants in the study.
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
LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of Writing skills in L2 learning
Writing is crucial for second language acquisition, as it reinforces grammatical structures, vocabulary, and idioms taught by educators (Ismail, 2010) Research indicates that students experience enhanced learning progress when they actively engage in writing, as it encourages practical application of the language skills they have learned.
Engaging in cognitive and self-regulation activities is essential for students to effectively convey their thoughts through writing (Hurley & Wilkinson, 2004; as cited in Nguyen, 2016) Research emphasizes that writing not only enhances students' knowledge but also expands their learning opportunities by requiring them to seek out and organize information This process enables students to deepen their understanding and enrich their knowledge (Nguyen, 2016).
Writing is considered the most challenging skill in second language acquisition, as highlighted by Nakao (2016), who notes that it is a complex task requiring specialized skills and significant cognitive and linguistic resources Mastering the ability to write effectively does not come naturally; it necessitates practice and sufficient time for development (Myles, 2002) Despite being recognized as a common goal in learning English, writing often remains the skill that learners struggle with the most.
L2 learners often encounter challenges when attempting to communicate in writing in the target language (Zen, 2005) Consequently, there has been a growing focus on teaching L2 writing in recent years Among the various pedagogical techniques, written corrective feedback (WCF) has gained significant recognition from both L2 educators and second language acquisition researchers (Nakao, 2005).
In conclusion, writing is a crucial skill in second language (L2) acquisition, yet it remains one of the most challenging skills for L2 learners to master As a result, effective writing instruction from teachers is essential in developing students' writing abilities, and providing corrective feedback plays a vital role in this instructional process.
The two predominant methods for teaching writing to L2 students are the product-oriented and process-oriented approaches The product-oriented approach involves students using a provided model to create similar texts, emphasizing knowledge of language structure and focusing on the final writing outcome (Rusinovci, 2015) However, this method has faced criticism for prioritizing the end product over the writing process itself, leading to concerns that it is overly teacher-centered and undermines learners' linguistic and personal potential (Rusinovci, 2015).
The later decades witness a shift to the approach of writing as a
Process-based writing emphasizes improvement through multiple drafts, allowing students to refine their work based on reader feedback This method views revision as essential, with editing described as an ongoing, multi-level process (Rusinovci, 2015) Unlike the product approach, process-based writing is learner-centered, positioning the teacher as a facilitator who helps unlock students' potential (Rusinovci, 2015) The teacher's role is crucial in providing the necessary feedback, assistance, and guidance for students to enhance their 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
In the revising stage, writers enhance their work by adding, deleting, modifying, and rearranging ideas, focusing on improving the text's structure and coherence while making necessary edits (Tribble, 1996).
(4) Editing: Finally, the writer double-check other aspects such as vocabulary, sentence structure, grammar and mechanics
Reid (1993) aligns with Tribble (1996) in viewing writing as a multistage process that may require intervention, as noted by Nguyen (2016) He identifies four core stages: planning, writing, revising, and editing, similar to Tribble's model However, Reid's framework expands on this by incorporating three additional stages: Responding, Evaluating, and Post-writing, distinguishing his approach from that of Tribble.
Responding is a crucial stage in the writing process where readers, including peers and teachers, provide feedback on a written draft This feedback, whether given in written or oral form, is essential for writers as it guides them in making revisions and improvements in subsequent drafts.
In the evaluation stage, teachers assess students' writing using specific marking criteria, which can be either analytical, focusing on various aspects of the writing, or holistic, based on an overall predetermined scale.
Post-writing encompasses various activities that teachers and students can engage in after completing a writing task This includes publishing the work, utilizing it for study purposes, or even performing it These activities enhance the learning experience and provide opportunities for further exploration of the written content.
In conclusion, Reid's (1993) model outlines seven essential stages in the writing process: planning, drafting, revising, editing, responding, evaluating, and post-writing Notably, the responding stage is crucial as it focuses on providing students with valuable feedback to enhance their revisions This highlights the significant role of feedback in improving the writing skills of L2 learners.
Different researchers have varying perspectives on the essential elements of writing, influenced by the genre Wilbers (n.d.) identifies key components such as central ideas, organization, supporting materials, expression, word choice, point of view, and grammar, punctuation, and spelling In contrast, Jacob et al (1981) emphasize five main aspects of writing: content, organization, language use, mechanical use, and vocabulary (as cited in Akitah).
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)
The models proposed by Jacobs et al (1981) and Wilbers (n.d) are fundamentally similar, but Jacobs et al.'s model is more comprehensive and user-friendly due to its five key elements Consequently, this study will utilize Jacobs et al.'s model as a foundation The aforementioned aspects will enable the researcher to establish criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) and to address the research questions effectively.
Written corrective feedback
2.2.1 Definitions of written corrective feedback
Corrective feedback is considered a crucial element in the development of second language (L2) writing As noted by Kepner (1991), written corrective feedback (WCF) remains a significant focus for L2 educators Various researchers have provided different definitions of written corrective feedback, highlighting its importance in enhancing writing skills.
In 2010, WCF was defined as addressing instances of non-target-like production, commonly known as linguistic errors, in L2 learners Similarly, Ellis et al (2008) described WCF as any form of error correction reinforcement (as cited in Sun, 2013).
According to Lightbown and Spada (1999), WCF, or Written Corrective Feedback, is a form of negative feedback that serves as a reminder to learners about the inaccuracies in their use of the target language (as cited in Sun, 2013).
Sun (2013) extends the concept of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) to written discourse, emphasizing that it reflects how readers perceive an L2 learner's writing in relation to target language norms WCF can originate from various sources, including random readers, peers, or teachers, but in L2 classrooms, it is primarily the instructor's role to provide this feedback According to Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996), teacher responses and evaluations are essential for L2 learners, serving as the main method for assessing their writing progress.
Written corrective feedback (WCF), as defined by Ellis (2009), is a form of negative feedback that addresses linguistic errors in a learner's utterance It consists of two key components: first, it indicates that an error has occurred, and second, it provides the correct form of the target language.
Written corrective feedback provides metalinguistic information about errors, facilitating a process where teachers seek clarification on students' mistakes This interaction leads to students "uptaking" the corrections, enhancing their understanding and learning.
Written corrective feedback encompasses any indication that alerts writers to errors in their use of the target language These definitions highlight the crucial role teachers play in providing this feedback to enhance student learning.
2.2.2 Types of written corrective feedback
Before the emergence of written corrective feedback (WCF) studies in L2 writing, there was no established model to categorize this feedback However, as WCF gained prominence in research, various scholars proposed different approaches to classify the types of written corrective feedback.
The focus of feedback: this divides WCF into 2 types: (1) unfocused feedback and (2) focused feedback While in the former,
In the context of writing correction, students' errors can be addressed extensively or selectively, as highlighted by Najmaddin (2010) For instance, a multiple-draft approach allows teachers to provide content-focused feedback on the first draft, followed by form-focused feedback in subsequent drafts This method emphasizes various aspects of writing, categorizing written corrective feedback (WCF) into focus-on-organization, focus-on-content, focus-on-vocabulary, and focus-on-grammar feedback.
Feedback can be categorized into implicit and explicit types Implicit feedback indicates to learners that they have made an error without supplying the correct form, while explicit feedback offers the correct form along with explanations, enabling students to develop a more accurate understanding of the language (Najmaddin, 2010).
One of the most influential models in second language research is Ellis's (2009) "typology of written corrective feedback." This model categorizes written corrective feedback into six distinct types, determined by the explicitness and focus of the feedback provided.
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:
Direct non-metalinguistic written correction
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 receive the correct format along with a written explanation, which includes numbering the errors and providing answers with detailed explanations at the end of the page.
Indirect written correction (non-located error)
Students are provided with an indication that an error has occurred but not locating or correcting it, these indicators appear only in the margin
Indirect written correction (located error)
This method is quite clear as it highlights the specific locations of the mistakes Teachers can effectively point out student errors by underlining, circling, or marking omissions with a cross.
Indirect written correction using error codes
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?
Teachers offer students reformulated versions of their writing errors, providing direct feedback This process encourages students to compare their original work with the corrected text, helping them identify and understand their mistakes.
In summary, written corrective feedback (WCF) can be categorized in various ways, but the most prevalent method among researchers is based on the implicitness and explicitness of the feedback This classification distinguishes between indirect WCF and direct WCF, which are the two most extensively studied forms of feedback in academic research.
2.2.3 Significance of teacher written corrective feedback in developing L2 learners’ writing
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
Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) aims to encourage self-correction by withholding the correct form, as noted by Sun (2013) While this method shares a common goal, researchers have defined and categorized it in various ways Ellis (2009) describes indirect WCF as involving techniques such as underlining errors, using cursors to indicate omissions, or marking the margins of lines containing mistakes in students' texts.
According to Sheen's (2011) typology, indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is categorized into four types: indirect WCF for located errors, indirect WCF for non-located errors, indirect WCF utilizing error codes, and indirect metalinguistic written correction Each type is detailed in the model presented.
On the contrary, Bitchener (2008) adds that indirect WCF is also presented as “confirmation checks” or “request for clarification” (as cited in Sun,
From the researcher's perspective, the various definitions provided by previous researchers represent distinct forms of "indirect written corrective feedback" (WCF), as they all emphasize the common goal of encouraging students to engage in self-correction.
The research indicates that indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), which identifies the nature of errors without using error codes, is an effective method for promoting student self-correction This approach differs from traditional coding systems as it directly names the errors, aligning with the fundamental characteristic of indirect WCF, which encourages learners to engage with the target language and improve their writing skills through self-assessment.
For example: Parallelism => T implicitly tells students that writing has problems with parallelism at this place
Indirect written corrective feedback encompasses various methods, including underlining or circling errors, using cursors to indicate omissions, providing margin notes, employing error codes for written corrections, and offering metalinguistic feedback Additionally, it includes confirmation checks, requests for clarification, and comments that describe the nature of the errors This comprehensive definition serves as a theoretical foundation for the research conducted in the study.
2.3.2 The effectiveness of Indirect WCF in debate
The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) remains a topic of debate among researchers Proponents, such as Lalande (1982), argue that indirect WCF is beneficial for fostering long-term writing development by involving learners in guided problem-solving and encouraging responsibility for their progress (Wang & Jiang, 2015) Additionally, indirect WCF is said to enhance language processing through self-reflection and attention, making it superior to direct WCF (Wang & Jiang, 2015) However, critics point out that indirect WCF demands significant effort from learners and may not effectively assist them in resolving complex errors, leaving them uncertain about the accuracy of their self-corrections (Hosseiny, 2014).
Another issue which should not be ignored is whether indirect should be used to correct different kinds of errors Ferris (1999) categorizes errors into two
“treatable” and “untreatable” errors She argues that indirect WCF is more
The treatment of "treatable" errors, such as verb usage, subject-verb agreement, run-ons, fragments, noun endings, articles, pronouns, and potentially spelling, is effective due to their patterned, rule-governed nature (Hyland & Hyland, 2006) However, this approach may not be suitable for correcting errors that lack clear rules, as students cannot rely on a specific set of guidelines to address these issues (Ferris, 1999; as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) remains a topic of debate, as it has been shown to support students' long-term development However, it can also pose challenges during the revision process, highlighting the need for further research on this issue.
Students and teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU and writing assignments
The University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), part of Vietnam National University, ranks among the leading institutions in Vietnam for language education The Faculty of English Language Teacher Education at ULIS plays a crucial role in delivering comprehensive courses focused on English teacher training and translator education.
2.4.2 Teachers and students of second year mainstream program
At FELTE, ULIS, second-year mainstream students typically possess a proficiency level of B2+/C1- according to the Common European Framework Reference Following their first year, where they completed essential courses such as English 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, students have just begun mastering paragraph writing In the first semester of their second year, they are required to take three additional core courses: 3A, 3B, and 3C The 3B writing course focuses on research essays, while the 3C course emphasizes exam essays.
The main goals of these subjects are to enhance students‟ proficiency and communicational skills including Listening, Speaking, Writing and Reading
All teachers for second-year mainstream students are from the Department of English 2 at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education They are responsible for delivering essential courses in the second-year program and possess significant experience in English teaching, with the majority holding MA or PhD degrees.
2.4.3 The writing assigments in English 3B course
The course syllabus outlines two key essay types, prompting students to research relevant reading materials once the topic is assigned These sources are thoroughly vetted and approved by the teacher prior to the writing process After completing their first draft, students engage in peer-editing using a checklist to gather feedback Following this, they submit the draft to their teacher for additional comments, which are directly annotated on the draft Students then use this feedback to revise and create a polished second draft.
The English 3B essay assignment prioritizes content and organization alongside language accuracy, as outlined in the marking criteria (see appendix 4) Emphasis is placed on the quality of ideas and supporting evidence from research, while the organization of ideas and their coherent connections are crucial Students must utilize internet sources, necessitating proper in-text citations and references Consequently, the primary focus on mechanical aspects will center around citation and referencing accuracy, with particular attention to avoiding mistakes in these areas.
23 punctuation and spelling are not focused on since they can be checked by computer.
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
A significant study by Lalande (1982) involved 60 ESL German students participating in a writing course, where they submitted multiple drafts for correction Their work underwent various forms of indirect written feedback, which facilitated the observation of their progress across drafts The results indicated that all learners demonstrated a decrease in errors, not only in subsequent drafts but also in later writing entries.
A study by Liu (2008) examined the effectiveness of two types of written corrective feedback (WCF) on 12 university ESL students, revealing that both types enabled students to self-correct their work While direct WCF was more effective in reducing errors between drafts, it was less successful in improving accuracy in new writing, as students tended to copy teacher corrections In contrast, implicit feedback led to fewer errors in subsequent writing tasks, aligning with findings from earlier research.
Diab (2005) examined the perceptions of an ESL teacher regarding the effectiveness of various feedback types provided on student writing, comparing her beliefs with those of her students The study revealed that students had differing views on the effectiveness of the feedback they received.
24 view on the effectiveness of teacher‟s feedback strategies conflicted with that of the teacher‟s” (as cited in Amrhein&Nassaji, n.d)
Najmaddin's (2010) study investigated the perceptions of university teachers and 30 Kurdish students regarding four types of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) through interviews and questionnaires The findings revealed that students generally prefer direct feedback, as they find indirect feedback unclear and difficult to understand for making corrections However, indirect feedback is viewed as an "ideal technique" because it encourages students to "self-correct their errors" and fosters greater "self-dependence," although it may not be suitable for students with lower proficiency levels.
Research indicates that many studies focus on comparing the effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) and the perceptions of both teachers and students regarding different feedback types Indirect written corrective feedback has been shown to significantly enhance the long-term writing development of L2 learners Furthermore, this feedback method appears to be particularly beneficial for learners with higher proficiency levels, such as intermediate, upper-intermediate, and advanced students.
Numerous studies indicate that students benefit from indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by teachers However, most research has primarily focused on comparing the effectiveness of direct versus indirect WCF, as well as examining the perceptions of teachers and students regarding different types of indirect WCF There is a notable lack of studies that explore the effectiveness of indirect WCF through the perceptions of both teachers and students Although Najmaddin (2010) included both groups in its research, such comprehensive studies remain limited.
This study explores two patterns of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), expanding beyond the traditional focus on grammar and vocabulary to include content and organization Unlike previous research, which has predominantly addressed these aspects, this investigation specifically targets the context of FELTE, ULIS, and the population of teachers and second-year mainstream students By identifying gaps in existing studies, this research aims to fill a significant void in the understanding of indirect WCF's effectiveness.
METHODOLOGY
Research instruments
Questionnaires are an effective tool for researchers to gather large amounts of data quickly and economically, especially when facing constraints such as time and financial resources In this study, questionnaires are distributed to students to assess their perceptions of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), its effectiveness, and the challenges they face in utilizing this feedback The data collected will address the second research question and facilitate a comparison with responses from teachers.
The survey involved over 90 second-year mainstream students from six classes at the Faculty of English and Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, with an expected proficiency level of B2+/C1- according to the CEFR During the first semester of their second-year program, these students completed a writing assignment in the 3B course, which was instructed by three selected teachers participating in the study.
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
27 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) outlines a set of questions designed to gauge students' perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) It includes both close-ended questions for efficiency and open-ended questions to allow for more comprehensive responses The collected data will be analyzed to facilitate generalizations and interpretations regarding student feedback.
Part (2) inquires students for their personal information so that the researcher can reach them later for in-depth interview
The researcher includes a sheet that defines indirect WCF and highlights various aspects of writing, enabling students to gain a clearer understanding of the topic and complete the questionnaire effectively.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore teachers' practices in providing indirect corrective feedback (WCF), their motivations for using this approach, and their perceptions of its effectiveness The data collected from these interviews addresses the first two research questions and allows for a comparison with students' views on the effectiveness of indirect WCF.
Interviews with students will be conducted to gain deeper insights into their responses to the questionnaire, with all interviews being scripted for further analysis The researcher will then compare the responses from both teachers and students to identify similarities and differences in their perspectives.
In the first semester of the school year, three teachers responsible for the 3B course participated in an interview A pre-research investigation, which included an analysis of students' writing samples and informal interviews, revealed that these teachers predominantly utilized indirect written corrective feedback when assessing their students' writing.
The selected students for the in-depth interviews are those whose questionnaire responses align with the research focus During the interviews, the researcher primarily explores their challenges in understanding indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) and the factors influencing their perceptions of its effectiveness.
Interviews are a valuable research tool for exploring phenomena that are not directly observable, such as perceptions and attitudes (Le, 2012) This study focuses on examining teachers' perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), making interviews an appropriate method for data collection.
In a semi-structured interview, the researcher prepares a list of questions while remaining open to spontaneous inquiries Prior to the interview, teachers are provided with a clear definition of indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), along with patterns and examples derived from their students' writing This approach ensures that teachers gain a comprehensive understanding of indirect WCF, enabling them to offer insightful perspectives Additionally, the researcher outlines the procedures and objectives of the interview, addressing any questions to facilitate a smooth discussion.
After collecting and analyzing the questionnaire data, the researcher will conduct interviews with selected students whose responses align with the research focus Prior to the interviews, students will review their questionnaires and the definition of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) The researcher will then pose questions to delve deeper into students' perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF and the challenges they face in utilizing this feedback The insights gained from these interviews will serve to explain and reinforce the findings obtained from the questionnaire.
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.
DATA COLLECTION PROCESS
Stage 1: Designing the questionnaire based on the available model
Stage 2: Getting comments from the supervisor
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
3.2.2 Interview with the teachers and students
Stage 1: Designing the interviews question for both teachers and students
Stage 2: Getting the comments from supervisor and revising the questions
Stage 3: Getting in touch with the teachers (students) and arrange suitable time and venue for the interview
Stage 4: Preparing the list of questions, the notebook and recorder to record the content of the interview
Stage 5: Explaining to the teachers (students) about the topic, the definition of indirect WCF, procedures of the interview and answering any confusing questions
Stage 6: Conducting the interview (using the recorder to record the content of the interview and using note-taking skills to note down the important points.
Data analysis process
3.3.1 Analysis of data from questionnaire
Once the data is gathered from students, it will be coded and entered into SPSS, a software commonly utilized for survey data processing The software will then transform the data into statistical outputs, which the researcher will use to create tables and charts Subsequently, the researcher will analyze these statistics to describe, associate, and interpret the effectiveness of indirect methods as perceived by the students.
3.3.2 Analysis of the data from interview
In the initial phase, the researcher will transcribe the entire interview content Subsequently, the relevant data from the student interviews will be utilized to elucidate the findings from the questionnaire responses.
The interviews with teachers will be organized and analyzed to compare their perspectives Additionally, student responses will be utilized to clarify their selections in the questionnaire A comparison will be made between the views of students and teachers to assess the similarities and differences in their perceptions.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Research question 1: What are the teachers‟ practices in employing indirect
4.1.1 Patterns of indirect WCF that teachers use to correct students’ writing
Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is characterized by several methods, including underlining or circling errors, using cursors to indicate omissions, providing margin notes, employing written corrections with error codes, offering metalinguistic explanations, and conducting confirmation checks.
“request for clarification”, (7) comments naming directly the nature of the errors
Interviews with three teachers revealed that they utilize all the indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) patterns presented, except for "indication at the margin" and "indirect metalinguistic written correction." Teacher A noted, "I use all the patterns of indirect WCF in the list you provided, except for indication at the margin and indirect metalinguistic explanation," suggesting these methods are uncommon among educators Similarly, Teacher B expressed concerns about the clarity of margin indications, stating, "How can students know they made a mistake with this feedback?" Teacher C emphasized the importance of concise feedback, arguing that it is more effective to provide explanations directly at the location of the mistake rather than at the end of the page.
This is not a surprising finding since most studies points out that
The term "indication at margin" is rarely used by educators, as it lacks clarity for students during revision Additionally, many researchers argue that indirect metalinguistic error correction is overly time-consuming and does not prove to be more effective than other correction methods.
4.1.2 Use of indirect WCF on different aspects of writing
While most studies on indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) focus on writing accuracy and grammatical errors, this research explores students' perceptions of WCF across all writing aspects, including grammar, language use, mechanics, content, and organization Notably, the effectiveness of feedback on content and organization has been under-researched The study identifies that feedback in these areas often takes the form of confirmation checks, requests for clarification, or comments on error nature, which are also classified as indirect WCF.
Teacher A primarily employs indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) to address students' grammar, mechanics, and vocabulary mistakes, using shorthand notations like "W.C" for word choice, which students can easily identify and rectify While she applies indirect WCF for grammar and language use, she does so less frequently, focusing more on content by suggesting improvements like "you need more grounds" and on organization by prompting students to consider the coherence between their evidence and claims This indicates that Teacher A's approach is more form-focused rather than content-focused In contrast, Teacher C's practices reveal a significantly different methodology.
Teacher C emphasized that her indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) primarily targets content, organization, and mechanics She noted that her comments in these areas tend to be open-ended and implicit, as time constraints and the need for evidence make direct feedback impractical Consequently, her indirect WCF is more content-focused than form-focused Additionally, she incorporates indirect WCF symbols, such as "W.C," to indicate errors related to word choice.
In addressing vocabulary and expression, teacher C emphasized the importance of using indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) for grammar and language errors However, when mistakes are clear and easily correctable, teacher C stated that they would take the initiative to correct them directly.
Teacher B primarily utilizes indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) when marking students' essays, stating, "I use indirect WCF for almost all types of errors." She often marks errors in areas such as word choice (w.c), expression (exp), and illogical transitions, emphasizing that her role is to identify the "problems," while the responsibility for finding the "solutions" lies with the students.
4.1.3 Teachers’ actual practices in employing indirect WCF
To validate the actual practices of teachers, the researcher analyzed writing drafts from student participants, uncovering intriguing new findings (refer to Appendix).
Teacher A's assessment reveals a discrepancy between her beliefs and actual practices regarding indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) While she perceives her feedback as more focused on form than content, an analysis of students' essays indicates otherwise The majority of her feedback emphasizes content-related queries, such as "any evidence for this?" or "a ground is needed here," with minimal attention given to grammar and word choice This finding aligns with previous research highlighting the inconsistency between educators' beliefs and their real-world instructional approaches.
Teacher B's feedback highlights a clear preference for indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), primarily emphasizing grammar, language use, and mechanics over content and organization This focus is further supported by her repeated mentions of these aspects during the interview These findings align with numerous studies indicating that teachers often prioritize superficial elements, such as grammar, in their feedback.
In the context of 3B, where students are required to write essays and support their claims with research evidence, it is essential to focus on both content and organization, rather than solely on accuracy.
4.1.4 Purposes of teachers in employing indirect written corrective feedback
Indirect Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is seen by three teachers as a means to foster learner autonomy, transforming students into proactive learners Teacher A emphasized that directly correcting mistakes leads to passive learning, where students merely replicate corrections without understanding, resulting in a lack of meaningful engagement with their errors Supporting this perspective, Teacher B noted that educators should focus on highlighting problems, leaving it to students to identify and rectify their own mistakes.
“solutions” She even strongly opposed to the idea of giving direct correction all the time because that “destroys learner autonomy”, which is “very important for university students”
Teacher B argues that indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) promotes flexibility in error correction, emphasizing that rigid methods can create pressure on students Meanwhile, Teacher C prefers to use comments that prompt students to clarify their thoughts, such as asking, "What do you mean by this?" She believes that understanding may vary between teachers and students, and providing corrections based solely on her perspective could lead to misunderstandings.
All teachers acknowledged that they do not consider students' proficiency levels when providing feedback Teacher A and Teacher C justified this by noting the similar proficiency levels of students in the second-year mainstream program, while Teacher B expressed a belief that all teachers share this oversight.
36 quite “quite fixed in their own way of giving feedback and it is quite hard to adjust basing on students’ level”
In conclusion, the first research question gives answers regarding the practices of employing indirect WCF into correcting students‟ errors in writing
Research question 3: What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as
4.3.1 Effectiveness of indirect WCF during as perceived by students of second year mainstream program
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree
Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of GRAMMATICAL mistakes in the subsequent writing 0.0 % 2.5% 14.8% 59.3% 23.4%
Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of LEXICAL(language use) mistakes in the subsequent writing draft
Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of mistakes related to
MECHANIC USE in the subsequent writing draft
Indirect WCF is effective for the betterment of CONTENT in subsequent writing draft 1.2% 25.9% 56.8% 9.9% 6.2%
Indirect WCF is effective for the revision of ORGANIZATION in the subsequent writing 6.2% 19.7% 53.1% 16.1% 4.9%
Table 2: The effectiveness of indirect WCF given on different aspects as perceived by students
A look at the table reveals that indirect WCF enables students to make the greatest improvement in grammar with 59.3 % and 23.4% taking “agree” and
Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) demonstrates a comparable effectiveness in aiding students with error revision in both mechanical and language use Specifically, 45.7% of students acknowledged its effectiveness in language use, while 42% expressed a neutral stance Similarly, for mechanical use, 48.2% of participants remained neutral, while 42% agreed on the effectiveness of indirect WCF.
Students showed minimal benefits from indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) concerning content and organization A significant portion of students, 56.8% and 53.1%, expressed confusion regarding the effectiveness of indirect WCF on these aspects Notably, 25.9% disagreed with the effectiveness of indirect WCF for content, while 19.7% were skeptical about its impact on organization; only 16.1% agreed that it was effective in this area.
The researcher assessed students' perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) in various writing aspects by asking participants to evaluate how understandable the indirect WCF was for each aspect, as well as the challenges they faced in addressing the errors.
Indirect WCF Level of understandability
Indirect WCF on language use 2.5
Indirect WCF on mechanic use 2.6
Table 3: Students’s evaluation of the understadability of indirect WCF given on different aspects of writing
Students find indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on organization and content more challenging to comprehend compared to three other aspects They rated the understandability of indirect WCF on content at 3.3 and on organization at 3.1, while the ratings for the other aspects were just above 2 On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 signifies easy to understand and 5 indicates hard to understand, the average scores for content and organization were slightly over 3.
43 not considered high That means most students found the indirect WCF on all aspects understandable
Indirect written corrective feedback may leave students feeling that while they understand the feedback, they struggle to implement the necessary corrections Consequently, the researcher encouraged students to reflect on the challenges they faced when addressing indirect WCF.
Statement Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always
I have difficulty finding out how to correct GRAMMATICAL mistakes 32.4% 44.4%
I have difficulty finding out how to correct LEXICAL (language use) mistakes 1.2% 42% 43.3% 12.3% 1.2%
I have difficulty finding out how to correct mistakes related to
I have difficulty finding out how to better the CONTENT of writing 0.0% 3.7% 45.7% 39.5% 11.1%
I have difficulty finding out how to revise the ORGANIZATION of writing 3.7% 17.3 % 50.6% 25.9% 2.5%
Table 4: Students’ difficulty in correcting different kinds of errors marked by indirect written corrective feedback
The findings from the table align closely with students' evaluations of the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) This correlation suggests that students perceive indirect WCF as an effective method for enhancing their learning experience.
WCF are influenced by the extent to which they have difficulties in finding out how to correct the errors
For grammar aspect, it can be seen that most students (nearly 80%) take
Most students encountered minimal difficulties in correcting their mistakes, as indicated by the prevalence of "rarely" and "never" responses In terms of language and mechanics, nearly half of the students selected "sometimes," while the other half chose different options.
“rarely” option This explains why they were also divided between remaining
“neutral” or agreeing with the effectiveness of indirect WCF on these two aspects
Quynh, the ninth interviewee, highlighted the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on language use, stating that most of her mistakes were related to word choice She expressed gratitude for her teacher's guidance, which enabled her to select more appropriate vocabulary In contrast, Bich, the fourth interviewee, expressed confusion regarding the feedback process.
After receiving feedback from the teacher, I revisited my work and realized there were issues with word choice, but finding suitable alternatives proved challenging Even when I did identify new words, they often didn't fit the context This concern aligns with Ferris (1999), who noted that errors in word choice may remain uncorrected when addressed through indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), as students lack a definitive set of rules to reference for resolving such errors.
Errors in grammar and mechanics have specific rules for determining accuracy, yet many students report occasional difficulties In-depth interviews revealed that confusion often arises from the various types and elements required for citation and referencing One student, Huong, noted that the textbook provided only a few examples, which were insufficient to cover all the citation types needed for their essays Additionally, she mentioned that the teacher's corrections were minimal, often limited to simply underlining errors.
45 mistake or wrote “APA style” Of course, I knew my referencing was wrong, but did not know how to correct since I didn’t have the example of that type to follow”
Finally, errors related to content and organization prove the most complex ones, with the majority (over 80%) of students taking “sometimes” and
Many students expressed confusion regarding the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on their writing Interviews revealed that while students recognized their errors, they struggled with the process of correcting them.
The main challenge faced by the interviewees was the absence of supporting evidence for their claims Dat, the sixth interviewee, noted that while he acknowledged the need for evidence due to teacher feedback, he struggled to find relevant research to back his assertions In contrast, Giang, the fifth interviewee, expressed his awareness of the necessity for evidence but felt frustrated that instead of receiving guidance on what types of evidence to seek, the teacher merely requested more evidence.
Many students struggle with coherence in their writing, particularly in connecting their claims to supporting evidence Phuong, the first interviewee, emphasized this challenge, highlighting the importance of establishing clear links between ideas to enhance organizational clarity.
Teacher feedback helped me understand that my evidence was not aligned with my claims, and finding appropriate support proved challenging The sources I initially used were unreliable and not endorsed by my teacher.
After receiving an implicit comment from my teacher labeling me as a "weak link," I took some time to reflect on my mistake Although I eventually recognized the error, I was unsure about how to address it As a result, I am seeking suggestions for improvement.
4.3.2 Students’ other difficulties in dealing with indirect WCF
Figure 1: Students’ ways of dealing with indirect WCF
Similarities and mismatches between teachers and students‟ perceptions 48
Through the answers of two research questions, the researcher can generalize the similarities and mismatches between perceptions of students and those of teachers regarding the effectiveness of indirect WCF
It seems that grammar is the aspect in which perceptions and teachers and those of students match the most Nearly 80% of students “agree” and even
Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is widely regarded as effective for addressing grammatical mistakes, with three teachers supporting this view However, teachers B and C noted that the effectiveness may not be as pronounced as anticipated This perception is understandable, as grammatical errors are often viewed as "treatable," allowing students to easily identify and rectify inaccuracies.
Students were split between "neutral" and "agree" regarding the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) for mechanics and language use, while three teachers expressed confusion and even skepticism Specifically, teachers C highlighted that the lack of clear guidance on referencing and citation diminished the effectiveness of indirect WCF They often provided vague feedback, such as simply noting “APA style” or underlining errors, which students recognized but struggled to correct due to the absence of clear examples Both students and teachers identified common errors in language use, particularly related to word choice.
A and teacher C also shared the same concern with students that they could find a new word to replace the old word, but the new word may be wrong again
Teacher B and Teacher C observed significant student improvement in organization due to indirect written corrective feedback (WCF), while Teacher A and the students themselves found indirect WCF ineffective for revising organizational issues This discrepancy stems from differing perceptions of the primary errors involved; Teachers B and C focused on the arrangement of ideas, thesis statements, and topic sentences, whereas students identified coherence errors—specifically, the connections between ideas and the alignment of claims with evidence—as their main challenge.
Both teachers and students view content as the area where indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) is least effective, primarily due to students' insufficient research evidence to support their claims Teachers often prompt students with implicit questions like "any evidence?" to encourage better content Teacher C expressed understanding that the lack of accessible evidence hinders students' improvement in content As direct corrections in content and organization are challenging since evidence must come from research, there is a clear need for solutions to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF in these areas.
This study reinforces previous research indicating mismatches in perceptions between teachers and students regarding the use of various types of feedback Unlike Najmaddin's (2010) findings, where teachers viewed indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) as ideal while students disagreed, this study reveals that teachers are more skeptical about the effectiveness of indirect WCF Interestingly, students acknowledged that indirect WCF is effective to some degree, highlighting a nuanced understanding of feedback dynamics in the classroom.