(LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) the effects of teacher direct and indirect corrective feedback on grammatical errors in the writings of 10th grade students at kim anh high school

INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of the problem and rationale of the study

Aims and objectives of the study

This study explores the impact of both direct and indirect corrective feedback provided by teachers on the grammatical errors found in the writings of 10th grade students at Kim Anh High School.

In order to achieve the aims, the study seeks to find the answer to the following research questions:

1 Do teacher written direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback help 10 th grade students at Kim Anh High School to reduce grammatical errors in writing from an initial task to a new task?

2 If so, which kind of feedback (direct corrective feedback or indirect corrective feedback) is more effective?

This study proposes the following hypotheses:

1 Teacher direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback have significant effect on helping 10th grade students at Kim Anh High School to reduce grammatical errors in writing from an initial task to a subsequent task

2 Teacher direct corrective feedback is more effective.

Significance of the study

Findings of this study will contribute to the discussion about whether or not corrective feedback is effective and helpful in helping students reduce grammatical errors in their subsequent writings

This study distinguishes itself from previous research by incorporating a control group, allowing for a more robust analysis It features a treatment group that will receive both teacher-written indirect and direct corrective feedback, while a control group will not receive any corrective feedback.

This study aims to examine three common grammatical errors made by EFL students, distinguishing itself from previous research that either covered too many error types or concentrated solely on a single error.

TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com

This study aims to enhance the teaching of writing in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts by providing valuable insights for foreign language writing teachers and researchers, particularly in secondary and high school settings The findings will deepen their understanding of the impact of both direct and indirect corrective feedback from teachers on students' writing, enabling them to adopt more effective feedback strategies to support student improvement.

Scope of the study

The study is restricted to explore the effects of two strategies of feedback, direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback on grammatical errors made by

A study focused on 10th-grade students identified three prevalent grammatical errors during their initial writing task These common mistakes included issues with verb tenses and forms, the use of attitudinal adjectives, and article usage.

Regarding the sample of the research, the participants were only selected from

10 th grade students at Kim Anh High School in the school year of 2014-2015.

Organization of the paper

The study includes five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1 (Introduction) presents the problem and the rationale, the aims and objectives, the scope and the significance of the study

Chapter 2 (Literature review) provides the theoretical background of the study and reviews related studies

Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the participants, the instruments and the procedures to be employed to conduct the study

Chapter 4 (Results and Discussion) answers the research questions with data presentation, data analysis and the comparison among the finding themselves and the assumptions discussed in the Literature Review

Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the main issues discussed in the study, the limitations of the research and some suggestions for further study

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Approaches to the teaching of L2 writing

Grammatical errors in L2 writing

Errors are a natural part of the learning process, deeply rooted in human behavior (Beuningen, 2010) Linguistic experts have offered various definitions of error, with Norrish (1983) describing it as a systematic deviation where learners consistently make the same mistakes due to a lack of understanding Ellis (1994) further defines error as a departure from the norms of the target language, emphasizing that the standard written dialect used in teaching non-native speakers serves as the benchmark In this context, errors are viewed as deviations from this established norm Additionally, Tsui (1995) identifies classroom errors as those that teachers reject as incorrect, do not desire, or fail to adhere to the rules set by the instructor.

Richard (1992) and Ellis (1994) highlight a key distinction between mistakes and errors in language learning They assert that errors arise from gaps in a learner's knowledge, indicating that the correct usage has not yet been acquired In contrast, mistakes occur when learners momentarily fail to apply what they already know Thus, an error signifies a fundamental lack of understanding in the target language, while a mistake reflects a temporary lapse in performance.

Norrish (1983) categorizes language learning inaccuracies into three distinct types: errors, mistakes, and lapses An error arises from a systematic deviation, indicating that the learner has not acquired the correct form of language Even after instruction, learners may still occasionally misuse the language, which is classified as a mistake In contrast, a lapse is a different kind of incorrect usage that occurs due to factors like lack of concentration, memory issues, or fatigue.

In this paper, the term "errors" encompasses both the mistakes learners make when attempting to use unfamiliar language and the lapses that occur when students forget learned material or exhibit carelessness in their writing.

Feedback in L2 Writing

This section outlines various aspects of feedback in second language (L2) writing, starting with the definitions and significance of feedback It then introduces the different types of feedback available to learners Finally, it addresses critical issues in feedback, highlighting research studies that focus on the effectiveness of various corrective feedback methods in enhancing students' writing skills.

Feedback is the teacher's input on a student's writing, serving as essential information for revision (Keh, 1990) According to Nicol and Macfarlane (2004), feedback aids students in identifying and addressing issues in their performance Thus, feedback can be defined as the teacher's response aimed at guiding students in improving their work.

9 writing in the form of written comments that aim to help students improve their writing performance

Providing feedback is an essential function of teaching and learning (Beuningen,

Feedback plays a crucial role in education, as highlighted by Cole and Chan (1994), who emphasize its ability to inform learners about their performance while also enhancing motivation and fostering a positive classroom environment Delivering effective feedback can significantly impact student achievement.

This article focuses on two primary types of feedback: teacher direct corrective feedback and teacher indirect corrective feedback These forms of feedback play a crucial role in the educational process, influencing student learning and performance.

Direct corrective feedback is a teaching method that highlights students' errors while offering solutions to rectify them (Bitchener and Ferris, 2012) This approach enables teachers to identify mistakes and provide the correct forms, enhancing the learning process Various forms of direct corrective feedback include cross-outs, where teachers remove incorrect additions from students' texts; rewrites, in which teachers correct spelling, structure, or phrasing directly on the original work; and additions, where teachers insert missing elements such as prefixes, suffixes, articles, or prepositions to improve the text.

Direct corrective feedback is designed to assist students in refining their writing and enhancing their performance on future assignments (Bitchener and Ferris, 2012) According to Ferris (2002), this type of feedback is particularly effective for addressing errors related to prepositions and idiomatic language Additionally, she emphasizes its value during the final stages of the writing process, enabling students to concentrate on residual errors and apply these insights in subsequent tasks The level of students' linguistic proficiency plays a crucial role in determining the extent of direct corrective feedback they receive, with advanced learners being more likely to gain from it.

Indirect corrective feedback involves teachers identifying errors in students' work without providing the correct answers, encouraging learners to recognize and fix their own mistakes (Lee, 2005) This method includes techniques such as underlining, circling, or highlighting errors in the original texts, guiding students to examine and amend their errors independently (Ferris, 2002) Ultimately, indirect corrective feedback fosters student engagement in the learning process by promoting self-discovery and understanding of their mistakes rather than simply receiving corrections.

Indirect feedback involves highlighting students' writing errors to signal areas needing improvement Teachers can use various methods such as underlining, circling, or highlighting to pinpoint these mistakes The level of explicitness in the feedback should align with the teachers' objectives for student learning and development.

2.3.3 Review on studies about feedback issues

This section provides an overview of key studies on corrective feedback, categorizing them into two primary groups: the effectiveness of corrective feedback and the effects of direct versus indirect feedback.

2.3.3.1 The effectiveness of corrective feedback

The effectiveness of feedback has been a significant topic of discussion in recent years, with attitudes towards corrective feedback evolving over time Initially, from the pre-1960s era, there was a strong emphasis on avoiding errors through immediate correction This shifted in the late 1960s, when error correction was often seen as detrimental By the 1970s and 1980s, perspectives became more nuanced, recognizing the necessity and value of error correction Despite these developments, the debate surrounding corrective feedback remains unresolved into the 1990s (Lee, 1997, cited in Khatib & Bijani, 2012, p 103).

The effectiveness of corrective feedback in second language (L2) writing has been a contentious topic since Truscott's 1996 article, which argued against grammar correction in L2 writing Truscott emphasized that teachers should refrain from correcting grammatical errors, sparking ongoing discussions in the field.

The potential harmful impacts of corrective feedback on students' learning have sparked significant debate Critics present three main arguments against its use: first, the complexity of the learning process makes it unlikely that students can improve solely through corrective feedback Second, providing feedback when students are not ready to learn a particular language structure is ineffective Finally, any knowledge gained from such corrections tends to fade quickly These concerns have prompted increased research into the effectiveness of corrective feedback in enhancing students' writing skills.

Research by Cohen and Robbins (1976), Kepner (1991), Sheppard (1992), and Polio et al (1998) suggests that grammar corrections may not enhance L2 writing accuracy Furthermore, Truscott (2007) argues that corrective feedback is not only ineffective but could also be detrimental to language learning.

In contrast, a number of L2 researchers and practitioners (e.g Bitchener and Knoch, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2002; Sheen, 2007) claim that corrective feedback is of value in promoting greater grammatical accuracy For example, Ferris

Several studies (1995, 1999, 2003, 2004) have countered Truscott's claim regarding the ineffectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learners Ferris (1999) contends that Truscott's view on grammar correction and its lack of impact on improving L2 writing skills is premature, asserting that corrective feedback is essential in L2 writing instruction This feedback allows learners to identify gaps in their language knowledge, encouraging them to test inter-language hypotheses and engage in meta-linguistic reflection, ultimately enhancing their writing skills (Van Beuningen, 2010) Ferris emphasizes that corrective feedback is a critical aspect of writing pedagogy, urging L2 researchers and educators to focus on effective methods for its implementation.

Chandler (2003) also argued that students who received corrective feedback then revised their writing improved over time

Research by Ashwell (2000), Ferris (1997), Ferris & Roberts (2001), and Sachs & Polio (2007) indicates that participants who received corrective feedback on their errors demonstrated a greater ability to make accurate revisions compared to those who did not receive such feedback.

However, results from studies investigating the effect of corrective feedback on subsequent writing (e.g Chandler, 2003; Kepner 1991; Polio et al., 1998; Semke,

2.3.3.2 The impacts of direct and indirect corrective feedback

METHODOLOGY 3.1 Setting

Participants

This study involved 45 students from ten 10th grade classes, selected based on their English scores to ensure they represent the target population effectively.

A total of 63 10th-grade students, each with English scores ranging from 7.0 to 7.5, were selected from 10 different classes Due to variations in testing methods by different teachers, a placement test was essential to ensure that the participants had similar English proficiency levels At Kim Anh High School, students typically take placement tests in English, Math, Literature, Physics, and Chemistry after 10th grade to determine appropriate group placements Consequently, the researcher utilized the placement test results to narrow down the selection to 45 participants from the original 63 students.

A total of 63 students initially participated in the English test; however, 14 test takers with scores significantly higher or lower than their peers were excluded from the study Consequently, 45 students were ultimately selected for the analysis.

All participants have studied English as a mandatory subject for seven years At the time of the study, they were on summer vacation and not enrolled in any English classes.

Data collection

Three data collection instruments, including an initial writing test (pretest), a revision of the initial task and a subsequent writing task (post-test), were employed in the study

The experiment involved two writing tasks: a pretest and a post-test, both requiring students to write a narrative about an embarrassing situation based on provided prompts Students were instructed to keep their narratives between 100-120 words The tasks were designed to be accessible for all participants, focusing on assessing the impact of direct and indirect corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy The similarity in topics was intentional, as a learner's language proficiency is not the sole factor affecting performance on writing tasks, as highlighted by research on writing assessment.

Various factors, including the topic of a task, can influence a writer's score (Schoonen, 2005) To mitigate the impact of topic-related variables, participants were assigned two distinct writing tasks centered around the same theme.

Before having been used officially, the tests were piloted among 6 participants who were of similar backgrounds as those in the official study

The data collection procedure consists of 6 main steps presented as follow:

The researcher informed the teachers of the aims of the research, what the participants were expected to do to select students who had the English score at grade

Step 2: Administering placement test and setting up groups

To ensure a consistent starting level of writing proficiency among participants, an English test was administered to assess overall language skills Following the assessment, 45 out of 59 students were selected based on their comparable test scores, which showed no significant differences.

Based on placement test performance, students were categorized into low to moderate and moderate to high proficiency groups They were then randomly assigned to three groups: Direct Corrective Feedback (Group 1), Indirect Corrective Feedback (Group 2), and a Control Group with no feedback (Group 3), using a stratified random sampling technique Each treatment group consisted of 15 students from both proficiency levels, ensuring balanced representation This approach aimed to maintain similar compositions across groups, as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Process of setting up groups

GROUP A Low to moderate score

GROUP B Moderate to high score

Classifying participants according to their test score

Step 3: Delivering the initial test

Prior to the initial writing task, the researcher familiarized participants with the topic to ensure a uniform understanding Each participant was then tasked with composing a narrative of 100-120 words about an embarrassing experience, guided by provided prompts They were allotted 35 minutes to complete this writing assignment.

Step 4: Giving written corrective feedback

An English teacher trained in feedback strategies evaluated student-written paragraphs, dividing them into three groups: one received direct corrective feedback, another received indirect feedback, and the control group received no corrective feedback For ethical reasons, the control group was offered general comments on their writing, such as encouragement to "please keep up the good work."

Direct corrective feedback identifies both the error and the correct form, while indirect corrective feedback simply indicates the error and its category.

Table 3.1.: Example of direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback Example 1: Direct corrective feedback He play football yesterday played Example 2: Indirect corrective feedback (Art) I read a interesting book last week

Step 5: Asking participants to revise their writings

During the second session, participants were divided into groups that received direct, indirect, or no feedback Initially, each group was instructed on their specific expectations Students in the direct feedback and indirect feedback groups were required to revise their texts based on the errors highlighted by the teacher Additionally, those in the indirect feedback group were educated on the meaning and usage of the error codes provided in their texts.

To ensure comprehension of the codes, it is essential that all students grasp the material thoroughly The control group was directed to meticulously review their writing, identify areas requiring revision, and make the necessary changes Both the treatment and control groups were allotted an equal time frame of 35 minutes to complete their assignments.

Step 6: Administering the subsequent test (post-test)

During the third session, students from all groups were instructed to compose a paragraph on the same topic as the initial task, but focusing on a different event They were allotted 35 minutes for this task, mirroring the time given for the initial test and revision.

Summary of data collection procedure:

The design of the experiment and division of feedback treatment are outlined below Table 3.2: Summary of data collection procedure

Group Experimental group Control group Direct feedback

Indirect feedback Pre-treatment stage

Administering of pretest to both control and experimental groups x x x

Providing direct feedback, indirect feedback and no feedback for experimental and control group respectively

Asking students of experimental and control group to revise their writing basing on the feedback they received x x x

Asking students of experimental and control group to write a new task x x x

Data analysis

After completing data collection, quantitative analysis was performed by counting errors and recording them in comparison tables created by the researcher These tables documented targeted grammatical errors in student writings across three stages and groups Grammatical accuracy was measured through the error rate, calculated as the percentage of incorrect usages of specific grammatical elements—such as verb tenses, attitudinal adjectives, and article usage—relative to the total obligatory instances For instance, if there were five incorrect uses of verb tenses from ten obligatory instances, the error rate would be 50% Changes in the error rate indicate corresponding increases or decreases in grammatical accuracy.

The second step in data analysis was to conduct statistical tests with SPSS statistical software

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Pretest results

Verb errors in the pretest

Table 4.2 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances (Test 1 – Verb)

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

The table 4.3 showed that there was no statistically significant difference between groups in the pretest because the Sig value was greater than 0.05, ANOVA [F

Errors of attitudinal adjectives in the pretest

Table 4.5 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances (Test 1 – Adj)

The analysis of attitudinal adjective errors revealed that the significance value exceeded 0.05, indicating no significant differences in error rates among the groups The ANOVA results showed F(2,42)=1.567 with a p-value of 0.221.

Errors of articles in the pretest

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum

The table 4.9 demonstrated no significant difference between groups in terms of the rate of article errors in the pretest, [F(2,42)=0.000, p=1.000]

The study's results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference in error rates between the groups during the pretest Additionally, the topic of the task did not significantly impact students' writing performance Therefore, any differences in error rates observed later in the study cannot be attributed to initial disparities between the treatment groups or the task topic.

Table 4.8 - Test of Homogeneity of Variances (Test 1 – Article)

Post-test results

4.2.1 Do teacher direct corrective feedback and indirect corrective feedback help students to reduce grammatical errors in writing from an initial task to a new task?

The researcher investigated the impact of various feedback types on specific grammatical error categories, including verb tenses, attitudinal adjectives, and articles To address the first research question, nine paired-samples t-tests were conducted to compare the error percentages across three groups in both the pretest (Test 1) and post-test (Test 2) The differences in mean error rates between the two tests revealed changes in grammatical accuracy performance, which are elaborated upon in the subsequent results and data analysis.

Table 4.10 - Paired Samples Statistics (Pair 1 – DF - Verb)

Mean N Std Deviation Std Error Mean

In the table 4.11, it can be seen that the probability value Sig.(2-tailed) was 0.000 (less than 0.05) Because this value was substantially smaller than the specified

Table 4.11 - Paired Samples Test (Pair 1 – DF –Verb)

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper

26 alpha value of 0.05, there was a significant difference in the first and second percentage of verb errors

Table 4.10 indicates that the average score for the first test was 36.000, while the second test's average score dropped to 18.667 This data suggests a significant reduction in the percentage of verb errors between the pretest and post-test.

Despite a notable reduction in the percentage of verb errors, the extent of the intervention's impact remained unclear To address this, the researcher calculated the effect size, revealing an eta squared value of 0.6 According to Cohen (1988), this indicates a moderate effect, highlighting a significant decrease in verb errors before and after the intervention.

Table 4.12 - Paired Samples Statistics (Pair 2 - IF - Verb)

Table 4.13 - Paired Samples Test (Pair 2 – IF - Verb)

Paired Differences t df Sig (2- tailed)

A paired-samples t-test was performed to assess the effectiveness of teacher indirect feedback on reducing verb errors among students The results indicated a statistically significant reduction in the percentage of verb errors, with Test 1 showing a mean of 36.400 and a standard deviation of 0.29.

2 [(M&.6667, SD= 12.063), t(14) = 2.648, p 0.05) Consequently, students who did not receive corrective feedback were unable to significantly reduce their verb errors in the post-test.

The results indicate that all groups, whether receiving direct feedback, indirect feedback, or no feedback at all, experienced a significant reduction in error rates during the post-test.

Table 4.16 - Paired Samples Statistics (Pair 4 – DF – Adj)

Table 4.17 - Paired Samples Test (Pair 4 – DF – Adj)

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Pair 4

Group with direct feedback had a statistically dramatic decrease from Test 1

The eta squared statistic (0.6) indicated a moderate effect size

Table 4.18 - Paired Samples Statistics (Pair 5 – IF – Adj)

Table 4.19 - Paired Samples Test (Pair 5 – IF – Adj)

IF_Test1_Adj IF_Test2_Adj 29.000 11.784 3.043 22.474 35.526 9.531 14 000

The group that received indirect feedback witnessed a considerable reduction of error rate from Test 1(M= 46.667, SD!.346) to Test 2 [M.667, SD= 21.283, t(14) = 9.531, p

Tiêu đề	The Effects of Teacher Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Errors in the Writings of 10th Grade Students at Kim Anh High School
Tác giả	Phùng Thị Bích Nguyện
Người hướng dẫn	Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa, PhD.
Trường học	Vietnam National University, Hanoi University of Foreign Languages and International Studies
Chuyên ngành	English Teaching Methodology
Thể loại	master's thesis
Năm xuất bản	2015
Thành phố	Hanoi

Định dạng
Số trang	71
Dung lượng	1,2 MB