(SKKN 2022) using written corrective feedback to improve writing ability of grade 10 students at tong duy tan high school

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION Rationale English is considered as an international language with more than 1,500 million speakers worldwide With the current wide usage of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach in Vietnam, students are taught four main skills including reading, listening, speaking and writing Out of them, writing is the most challenging and least preferable skill for English learners The difficulty lies not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas into readable text It means that writing requires English users to carefully brainstorm to produce words, sentences, and paragraph simultaneously in order to express their ideas in a comprehensive way From my teaching experience, I realized that most of my students at Tong Duy Tan high school have similar issues with their writing They often make a variety of mistakes in the procress of writing all kinds of English documents.Trying to overcome these challengesis time-consuming, particularly when students not have sufficient awareness of the significance of improving their writing skills Hence, they are often de-motivated or get discouraged during writing lessons, which affects their learning results to a certain extend Thus, how to improve students' writing as well as to change their attitudes towards writing activities has greatly attracted my attention Some researchers in writing (Leki, 1991; Raimes, 1983) believe that giving feedback is one of the important ways for teachers to help the writers improve their writing Until now, feedback used in pedagogicalcontext is considered as an essential part of the teaching and learning process to improve knowledge and skill acquisition It can not be denied that students want feedback and teachers feel obliged to provide it Feedbackcreates interactions between teacher and students in the second language writing class and it enhances students’ writing accuracy (Ferris, 1997) Raimes (1983, p.139) also emphasized the importance of corrective feedback by considering it as "very much a part of the process of teaching writing" That means corrective feedback is crucial for the success of writing tasks In Vietnam, there have been some researches on teacher’s corrective feedback but none of the studies investigates the effectiveness of teacher’s written corrective feedback on grade-ten students’ writing For all the reasons mentioned above, the researcher wishes to conduct a study entitled "Using written corrective feedback to improve writing ability of grade-10 students at Tong Duy Tan high school” Aims of the study This studyaims at investigating the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on improving students' writing ability Scope of the study This study focuses only on the types of written feedback provided by teachers in language classrooms Moreover, the participants of this study are 35 grade-10 students at Tong Duy Tan high school that the researcher directly teaches Methods of the study Two methods were utilized to obtain sufficient information for the study, which are document analysis and action research to improve a situation After carrying out an initial investigation, a writing instruction course was designed, and different types of teacher written corrective feedback were then applied The data were collected through analyzing students' writing and survey questionnaires Students' writings were collected and analyzed before, during and after treatment period to measure the students' progress in their writing 2 performance Additionly, students' survey questionnaires were collected and analyzed at the end of the research to find out their attitudes towards each type of feedback and its effectiveness 3 PART II: CONTENT Literature review 1.1 Definition of writing ability Writing ability as a critical theoretical construct that has too often been interpreted largely by the testing industry as whatever a particular writing test measures It means that writing ability has traditionally been defined by test of writing Yi(2009) said that the term‘writing ability’ can be defined depending on the teachers' own experience as a teacher or their ideology on writing Also, Yi(2009) said that approaches themselves are classified differently according to researchers However, they can be reduced into three major approaches as following: 1.1.1 Writing ability implied in product/text-oriented approach Those who think oftextsasautonomous objects define writing ability as the ability to respond to a given stimulus according to some authority's definition of the correct response (Nunan, 1999) In other word, it is the ability to adhere to style-guide prescriptions relating grammar, arrangement and punctuation without consideration for audience, purpose or context, working on the assumption that a text can mean the same thing to all people only if it is written explicitly going after the given prescriptions Meanwhile, "text-as-discourse" viewiers consider writing ability as the ability to create coherent and cohesive discourses following prescribed patterns for developing and organising discourse 1.1.2 Writing ability implied in process/cognitive-oriented approach This approach emphasizes what the composer does throughout writing Commonly known as the Process approach, it can be divided into three subcategories including Expressivist, Cognitivist and Social (Situated) strands.Learners are encouraged to look for their own authentic voices and freely express them Accordingly, the writing activities ultilized by those 4 subscribing to this view are likely to be individual essays and journal writing, which are suitable for self-discovery Hence, writing ability can be considered as the ability to freely express oneself Yi(2009) noted that writing ability in this approach isdefined as the ability to initiate and evolve ideas and then use certain revising and editing practices to develop them to maturity in a given context 1.1.3 Writing ability implied in reader/genre-oriented approach Yi(2009) said that this Genre-based approach emphasises awareness of the reader It regards successful writers as those who are able to make reasonable assumptions about what readers know and expect, balance between their writing purpose and readers’ expectations as well as satisfy the readers’ rhetorical needs In other words, writing ability is the ability to perform writing tasks for a given purpose, satisfy a given discourse community concerining the structure and content of the discourse, and communicate functionally 1.2 Corrective feedback 1.2.1 Definition of corrective feedback Definitions for the term "feedback" vary depending on researchers Lightbown and Spada (1999, p.172) says that feedback is "an indication to the learner that his or her use the target languages is incorrect" Teacher feedback can be considered as an effective means to communicate to students about their writing so that they can enhance their composition Corrective feedback refers to the response that second language students receive on the errors that they make in their oral or written production (Sheen, Y & Ellis, R 2011) When reviewing students' writing, second language teachers give feedback on various issues They may address content of the text, idea organization, and vocabulary choice Among them, the type of feedback that has attracted numerous researchers' attentionis feedback on linguistic errors, known as “corrective feedback” or “error correction” Yeh and Lo (2009) defines 5 corrective feedback as the responses to errors in the text They also claim that corrective feedback supplies students with direct or indirect responses about what is inappropriate The responses can indicate where the errors are, what types of errors those belong to; a provision of correct form of the target language; metalinguistic information about the errors or any combination of these Yeh and Lo (2009)'s definition seems to be the most suitable and closely involves in the scope of this study and is adapted in this study 1.2.2 Forms of feedback Basing on forms, feedback is distinguished as two main types which are oral feedback and written feedback 1.2.2.1 Oral feedback Sinclair and Coulthard (1992) claims that oral feedback is “a typical exchange” in class starting by a teacher, then “followed by a response from the pupil, followed by feedback, to the pupil's response from the teacher." Therefore, oral feedback meansa natural part of verbal interaction between teachers and students, or students and students Corrective feedback is used when the teacher gathers the most common mistakes and corrects them in class This could be considered to be more groupfocused oral feedback 1.2.2.2 Written feedback Written feedback involves feedback given to students' written work This type of feedback is usually not provided immediately as teachersneed time to consider how to give feedback and on what Therefore, there are different strategies used when providing students with written feedback According to Weigle (2002), the purpose of teachers' feedback lies in providing guidance in writing 6 a.Peer feedback Peer feedback is a practice in language education where feedback is given by one student to another According to Bartels (2004), peer feedback means feedback from the fellow students If students are working on the same assignment together, peer feedback means exchanging drafts and comments on each other's drafts Peer feedback is used in writing classes to provide students more opportunities to learn from each other b Teacher's feedback In the light of process writing approach, teachers play an important role in helping students to revise their writing drafts Teacher's corrective feedback, to some extent, is the teacher's correction and can be defined as teachers' indication to learners' errors, which takes the forms of implicit or explicit correction Written corrective feedback refers to teacher written feedback on a student's essay with an aim of improving grammatical accuracy (including spelling, capitalization, and punctuation) as well as idiomatic usage (such as word order and word choice) The primary of this thesis is meant to be an investigation into how the different teacher written corrective feedback strategies improve students' writing performance Some researchers indicate that students favor corrective feedback from teachers because they believe that they will benefit greatly from it (Leki, 1990) c Teachers' written corrective feedback strategies There are different classifications for corrective feedback strategies proposed by different researches Ellis (2009) presents a typology which consists of six main strategies to provide corrective feedback (see Table 1) Table 1: Ellis' typology offeedback types (2009, p.98) Types of corrective feedback (CF) Direct CF Description The teacher provides students with Indirect CF correct form The teacher indicates that an error 7 exists but does not provide the a Indicating and locating the error correction This takes the form of underlining and the uses of cursors to show b Indication only omissions in the students’ text This takes the forms of an indication in the margin that an error or errors Metalinguitic CF have taken place in a line of text The teacher provides some kinds of metalinguistic clue as to nature of a Use of error code error Teacher writes code in the margin (e.g.: ww = wrong word, pre = b Brief grammatical description prepositions) Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text Ellis, Loewen and Erlam (2006) categorize responses from teachers to students' error into three forms or strategies: (1) teacher feedback that indicates that an error has been made (2) teacher feedback that provides the correct form of the target language (3) teacher feedback that provides the metalinguistic information about the nature of the error This current research adapts this categorization together with Ellis' typology of written corrective feedback in that the focus of this research was how and whether students' writing performance could be improved through three main types of written corrective feedback strategies, namely direct, indirect, metalinguistic corrective feedback 8 As for direct corrective feedback, the teacher gives the corrected form of the mistake to the students Direct feedback may be done in various ways such as by striking out an incorrect or unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme, inserting a missing or expected word, phrase or morpheme; and by providing the correct linguistic form above, in the margin or near the erroneous form (Ellis, 2008) Meanwhile, indirect written corrective feedback refers to situations when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to diagnose and correct it This can be done by underlying or circling errors, recording in the margin the number of errors in a given line, confirmation checks, and request for clarification (Bitchener, 2008) The last strategy, metalinguistic feedback, could take one of two forms Use of error coding or a brief grammatical description In the former type, the teacher writes some codes in the margin to suggest what problem learners have Of course, the learners will have a list of codes to avoid confusion However, in the second type of metalinguistic feedback, the teacher numbers the errors and briefly provides a brief explanation for the error at the end of the text Research setting 2.1 Tong Duy Tan high school Founded in 1995, Tong Duy Tan high school is located in the mountainous area of Vinh Loc district, Thanh Hoa city with nearly 50 teachers including English teachers and over 18 classes English is among the most important subjects at school It is one of the three compulsory subjects of the required examinations the students have to pass in order to be qualified for the General Education Diploma The students have four periods learning English every week The material is the text book issued by Ministry of Education and Training The responsibility of teaching the 9 language is on the hand of the teachers of English at the school The grade 10 students at Tong Duy Tan high school are sixteen years old and have been learning English for about six years; their English knowledge is generally not very good, particularly writing skill 2.2 Participants This study includes 35 students with relatively equal quantity of boys and girls coming from class 10B at Tong Duy Tan high school All of them are sixteen years old and live around the school The students basically are beginners of English despite finishing the English program for the secondary system Apart from instructing knowledge in textbook, the teacher usually has to review the very basic knowledge that they have learnt at secondary school Moreover, there are numerous factors that make teaching and learning English challenging Firstly, most of them come from low-income households and they usually have to help their families to get some more earnings Beside that, students have no extra materials except for their textbooks Therefore, though most of them have already learnt English for at least four years at lower secondary school, their knowledge of English is still poor and limited The other problem is that they learn English just to pass regular tests or examinations, while they cannot use English in reality The textbooks which are required to teach English for grade-ten students in high schools are English Basic 10 They were developed based on the old national curriculum with 16 units, covering four skills The experiment 3.1 Procedure Adapting steps in Kemmis' and Mc Taggart's action research cycle (1988, cited in Burns, 2010 p.9), the action was developed in four steps as follows: Step 1: Problem identification 10 10 to another This is not surprising as earlier research has shown that second language learner, on the process of learning new linguistic forms, may perform them with accuracy on one occasion but fail to so on other similar occasions It is demonstrated in Figure 3.2.3 when direct corrective feedback was applied that rewriting following a teacher's direct corrections resulted in almost the same number of errors on a subsequent assignment and the delayed test even though students made much fewer errors on revision of the same assignment It meant that students' short-term ability to edit certain types of errors did not always translate to long-term improvement As can be seen in Figure 3.2.3, although the students made fewer errors in exercise and exercise compared to exercise 1, the change was not significant In the delayed test at the end of stage 2, there were the same number of errors compared to exercise This is partly due to the fact that the time for direct feedback to be applied is not long enough for students to incorporate what they have learnt from that period into their language input Furthermore, in this stage, the teachers provided the students with the correct form in every error, thus it is not necessary for students to give much thought to revision and this direct intervention did not appear to have any lasting effect over time Therefore, after a week without any feedback, the students may forget what they learnt from teacher direct feedback This finding is in line with Ellis's finding (2009) that direct feedback requires minimal processing on the part of the learners and thus, it may not contribute to long-term learning Regarding different types of errors, in stage when direct feedback was used, the number of errors in verb tense and form and article are not on the decline after each exercise These kinds of errors even show a slight increase in the number in the delayed test in comparison with exercise and There are fewer numbers of errors of subject verb agreement and preposition In contrast, rewriting based on a teacher's underlining lead to fewer errors on a subsequent assignment and in the delayed test (see Figure 3.2.4) This 23 23 shows some advantages of underlining as a strategy for corrective feedback When students received underlining only in the last assignment, they had to work out correction themselves, and this process likely improved their selfediting ability Thus, they were more conscious of the linguistic errors when writing a new essay In other words, indirect feedback that students received may have helped them more over time because it consistently called these errors to their attention, triggering the "guided learning and problem-solving" processes as recommended by Lalande (1982, p.140) Considering different types of errors in this stage, students make fewer errors in exercise and exercise and the delayed test in almost all of categories of errors The students make a lot of improvement in the grammatical usage The reduction of errors in verb tense and form, preposition is significant This indicates that when receiving less explicit feedback, students pay some attention to language usage when they a different exercise Although this awareness cannot be completely attributed to the effect of indirect correction they received on the previous exercises, the process of finding out the correct form by students themselves in the revision of the first exercise seems to help students internalize the rules related to the grammatical errors The result of this comparison collaborates with Bitchener et al's (2005) finding that indirect corrective feedback resulted in greater accuracy in terms of the simple past tense and the definite article In brief, after three stages of correction, the total number of errors declines However, using different feedback strategies can change the number of individual error type flexibly It is found from Figure 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, that after each correction, the changing of the number of each error type is not the same for all The data collected in all three stages has shown that positive feedback strategy can help students to reduce errors in writing and among these three strategies, indirect corrective feedback with suitable procedures make great sense, though the effectiveness of teacher corrective used 24 24 in this stage may be influenced by the two preceding stages It is suggested that indirect feedback is more effective than direct and metalinguistic feedback in the long run and it is also argued that indirect feedback requires students to engage in guided learning and problem solving and, as a result, promotes the type of reflection, noticing and attention that is more likely to foster long-term acquisition (Ferris and Roberts, 2001) 3.2.2 Students' opinions towards teacher corrective feedback The results from the survey questionnaires indicate that 100% (35 students) agreed that corrective feedback is very important to the improvement of students' writing ability About 97.1% of the students (34 of out of 35 students) admitted that teacher corrective feedback had positive effect on their writing performance and about the same number of students wished to receive more feedback in the future The students' positive attitude towards teacher corrective feedback explained the steady reduction in the number of errors in the students' essay before and after the feedback was provided In contrast, only one student said that there was no improvement in their writing ability after corrective feedback strategies were applied Looking back at this student's writing papers, it was interesting to see that, his performance in the writing paper was not very good Moreover, he was the one who did not usually perform well in English lessons Significance of the study The study proves that written corrective feedback is crucial to the teaching and learning of writing Written corrective feedback offers a number of advantages Apart from rasing student’s writing quality, it gives both the readers and the writers more opportunities for collaboration, consideration and reflection than oral negotiation and debate It also gives the teacher a better chance of closely following the progress of individuals and groups, both in terms of the feedback offered and revisions made 25 25 As mentioned above, only few researchers have investigated the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on students' writing in high school setting Hence, this paper can help to fill the gap in literature Moreover, in practice, the suggestions presented in this study may partly contribute to the enhancement of the effectiveness of written corrective feedback to students at Tong Duy Tan high school in particular and to high school students in general 26 26 PART III: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion In this study, three types of teacher corrective feedback were applied to investigate their effects on writing ability of grade 10 students at Tong Duy Tan Tong high school Thirty-five grade-10 students were chosen to take part in the four-month action research Besides students' writing papers, survey questionnaires were used as instruments of data collection The findings reveal that teacher corrective feedback helped reduce students' linguistic errors over time While positive revision effects were found for all three types of corrective feedback, only indirect feedback proved to have significant long-term effect Direct feedback proved its superior effectiveness in revised writing papers This is because, for the most part students simply copied the correction provided by the teacher Immediate revision effect was also clearly seen in stages and when metalinguistic feedback and indirect feedback were applied respectively This suggests that students may be capable of correcting their own errors in the editing or revision as long as they are guided as to where their errors are However, when it came to the effects of the types of written corrective feedback in new writing papers, it could be noted that the three types of corrective feedback had slightly different effects on different types of errors Indirect feedback consistently proved its consistent effectiveness in most linguistics errors in the long run, especially "treatable" or "rule-based" errors "Treatable" errors are those that occur in a patterned, rule-governed way (e.g., verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments) Ferris (1999) Metalinguistic or coded corrective feedback proved its effectiveness in reducing article errors Almost all of the students (34 out of 35) greatly appreciated the positive effects of teacher corrective feedback on improving their writing ability Only 27 27 one student said that the improvement did not happen may have linked to his or her language knowledge In summary, the result evaluation indicated that teacher corrective feedback was quite effective in improving students' writing ability Suggestions for further study For further studies, other researchers can investigate the types of written corrective feedback that the students prefer and their improvement in writing performance Moreover, besides survey questionnaire, other research instruments such as interview, narrative or journal is suggested to maximize the reliability of the study result XÁC NHẬN CỦA Thanh Hóa, ngày 20 tháng năm 2022 THỦ TRƯỞNG ĐƠN VỊ Tôi xin cam đoan SKKN viết, khơng chép nội dung người khác Phạm Thị Nhung 28 28 REFERENCES Bartels, N (2004) Written peer response in L2 writing Retrieved on October 22, 2012 from httplexchange.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/Nol/p34.html Bitchener, J & Knoch, U (2010) The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten-Month Investigation Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214 Burns, A (2010) Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching Newyork: Routledge Ellis,R (2008) A typology of written corrective feedback types ELT Journal, 28(2), 97-107 Ellis, R 2009 "A typology of written corrective feedback types", English Language Teaching Journal, 63, pp 97-107 Ferris, D R (1997) The Influence of teacher commentary on student revision TESOL Quarterly, 31 (2), 315 - 339 Ferris, D R., & Roberts, B (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184 Lalande, J.F., 1982 Reducing composition errors An experiment Modern Language Journal 66, 140-149 Leki, I (1991) Teaching second language writing: where we seem to be English Teaching Forum, 29,pp 8-11 Lightbown, P M & Spada, N (1999) How languages are learned Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press Nunan, D (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning Cambridge; New York: CUP Raimes, A (1983) Techniques in teaching writing Oxford University Press, pp 139-153 29 29 Sheen, Y (2007) The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283 Sinclair, J.M and Coulthard, M (1974) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils London: Oxford University Press Weigle, S.C (2002) Assessing writing 4th ed Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Yeh, S., & Lo, J (2009) Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback Computer & Education, 52(4), 882-889 doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.014 Yi, Jyi-yeon (2009) Defining writing ability for classroom writing assessment in high schools Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 53-69 30 30 APPENDICES APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) This questionnaire is designed to collect data to our study into the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in improving students' writing ability Your responses to the questions will be an invaluable help in our research You can be sure that you will not be identified in any discussion of data Thank you for your cooperation For all the questions, please answer by ticking or writing in the given spaces Full name: ……………………………………………………………………… How long have you been learning English? ❑ years ❑ years ❑ years ❑ years Do you enjoy writing lesson? ❑ Yes ❑ Faily well ❑ No Do you feel confident in your ability to writing exercises? ❑ Yes ❑ Faily well ❑ No How often did you get corrective feedback from your teachers on your writing errors? ❑ Very often ❑ Sometimes ❑ Rarely ❑ Never What is / are your problem(s) when doing writing exercises? ❑ Lack of vocabulary ❑ Lack of grammatical ❑ Lack of teacher's regular corrective feedback ❑ Other problems Reasons for these problems …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 31 31 APPENDIX A BẢNG CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA (Bản tiếng Việt) Bảng câu hỏi điều tra thiết kế nhằm thu thập số liệu cho đề tài nghiên cứu hiệu việc chữa lỗi việc cải thiện khả viết cho người học tiếng Anh Các câu trả lời em đóng góp lớn với nghiên cứu Các số liệu thông tin em đưa sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu, ngồi khơng mục đích khác Xin chân thành cảm ơn hợp tác em Xin đánh dấu vào ô trống khung viết câu trả lời ngắn Họ tên: ………………………………………………………………………… Em học tiếng Anh rồi? ❑ năm ❑ năm ❑ năm ❑ năm Em có thích học viết tiếng Anh khơng? ❑ Có ❑ Khơng thích lắm❑ Khơng Em có thấy tự tin với khả làm tập kỹ viết tiếng Anh khơng? ❑ Tự tin❑ Khơng tự tin lắm❑ Khơng Em có thường xuyên giáo viên chữa lỗi tập kỹ viết khơng? ❑ Thường xun❑ Thỉnh thoảng❑ Hiếm khi❑ Không Những vấn đề em gặp phải làm tập viết: ❑ Thiếu vốn từ vựng❑ Thiếu cấu trúc ngữ pháp ❑ Không giáo viên chữa lỗi thường xuyên ❑ Những vấn đề khác Lí cho vấn đề gì? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 32 32 APPENDIX B ERROR CODES Code VT VF SV Art WO WW Pre 33 33 Explanation Wrong verb tense Wrong verb form Subject-verb agreement problem Incorrect/wrong/missing article Wrong word order Wrong word choice Prepositions APPENDIX C SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) This questionnaire is designed to collect data to our study into the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in improving students' writing ability Your responses to the questions will be an invaluable help in our research You can be sure that you will not be identified in any discussion of data Thank you for your cooperation For all the questions, please answer by ticking or writing in the given spaces Full name: …………………………………………………………………… It is important to give feedback on students' writing errors ❑ Agree ❑ Somewhat agree ❑ Disagree The type of written corrective feedback you think can be more beneficial for improving students' writing is ❑Indirect ❑Direct ❑ Metalinguistic Can you explain the reason(s) for your choice? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… How much you think your writing ability has been improved? ❑A lot ❑A little bit ❑Not at all In your opinion, for more effective use of teacher corrective feedback what should the teacher do? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 34 34 APPENDIX C BẢNG CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA (Bản tiếng Việt) Bảng câu hỏi điều tra thiết kế nhằm thu thập số liệu cho đề tài nghiên cứu hiệu việc chữa lỗi việc cải thiện khả viết cho người học tiếng Anh Các câu trả lời em đóng góp lớn với nghiên cứu Các số liệu thông tin em đưa sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu, ngồi khơng mục đích khác Xin chân thành cảm ơn hợp tác em Xin đánh dấu vào ô trống khung viết câu trả lời ngắn Họ tên: ………………………………………………………………………… Việc chữa lỗi viết học sinh quan trọng ❑ Đồng ý ❑ Đồng ý mức độ ❑ Khơng đồng ý Loại chữa lỗi mà em thấy hiệu việc cải thiện khả viết cho học sinh là… ❑ Chữa lỗi trực tiếp (Direct) ❑ Chữa lỗi gián tiếp (Indirect) ❑ Chữa lỗi sử dụng ký hiệu (Metalinguistic) Em giải thích cách chữa lỗi hiệu quả: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… Khả làm tập viết tiếng Anh em có cải thiện so với trước đây? ❑ Khá nhiều ❑ Một chút ❑ Không chút Theo em, để giúp học sinh làm tập viết tốt hơn, giáo viên cần có thay đổi cách chữa lỗi áp dụng? …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… 35 35 ... wishes to conduct a study entitled "Using written corrective feedback to improve writing ability of grade- 10 students at Tong Duy Tan high school? ?? Aims of the study This studyaims at investigating... corrective feedback were applied to investigate their effects on writing ability of grade 10 students at Tong Duy Tan Tong high school Thirty-five grade- 10 students were chosen to take part in the four-month... questionnaires indicate that 100 % (35 students) agreed that corrective feedback is very important to the improvement of students' writing ability About 97.1% of the students (34 of out of 35 students)