Background to the study and statement of problem
Second language (L2) writing has gained significant attention from researchers, evolving into a well-established field since its inception in the late 1950s, primarily focusing on teaching writing to international ESL students in North American higher education Over the past five decades, research in L2 writing has expanded rapidly, yielding valuable insights; however, a comprehensive review of key issues and findings remains limited This paper aims to provide a systematic overview of L2 writing research development and highlight unresolved problems to inspire future studies While it is impractical to detail every individual study, this review will cover major topics across five key areas of L2 writing research, offering guidance for novice researchers and those interested in this field Additionally, based on the existing literature, we will identify several unsolved problems that warrant further exploration.
At Van Noi High School, writing is integrated into the English curriculum as a skill that complements other language skills within thematic units Observations indicate that students typically do not struggle with generating ideas for writing assignments, thanks to various pre-writing tasks that prepare them However, a significant issue arises from frequent lexical choice and mechanics errors, which adversely affect both the accuracy and overall quality of the students' written work.
To address the challenges in writing instruction, various strategies have been implemented; however, providing corrective feedback (CF) on students' language errors in their written work is considered the most effective approach by teachers at Van Noi High School.
This article explores the underutilization of indirect corrective feedback (ICF) in English teaching, contrasting it with the common use of direct corrective feedback (CF) for addressing errors in students' writing The author conducts action research titled “Using Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students’ Writing to Improve Writing Skills for Grade 10 Mixed Level Students at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Ha Noi,” aiming to assess the impact of ICF on students' writing accuracy, skill enhancement, and their perceptions of ICF's effectiveness The research will also provide recommendations for incorporating ICF in writing tasks to support student development.
Aim of the study
This study aims to investigate the impact of using the ICF (Integrated Curriculum Framework) on enhancing the writing skills of 10th-grade students with mixed proficiency levels at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Ha Noi.
Research question
This study aims to explore students' attitudes and behaviors regarding writing, while also examining the impact of using the ICF framework on their writing skills The primary focus is to determine how these factors contribute to enhancing students' overall writing abilities.
To what extent can the teacher’s ICF influence the writing skill of students at Van Noi high school?
Scope of the study
A study was conducted on 15 grade 10 students of varying proficiency levels at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi, focusing on the impact of the ICF (Integrated Correction Framework) on their writing skills This minor thesis specifically examines how the ICF influences students' use of verb tenses, articles, prepositions, and spelling, rather than covering all aspects of writing.
Significance of the study
This study examines the impact of using ICF on students' writing at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi, aiming to provide valuable insights for EFL teachers seeking more effective writing instruction The findings may serve as a reference for enhancing teaching practices not only at Van Noi High School but also for educators across Vietnam facing similar challenges in teaching English writing skills to high school students.
Organization of the study
The study is organized into the following parts as follows:
The introduction outlines the study's background and problem statement, detailing its objectives, research questions, scope, and significance.
Chapter 1 – LITERATURE REVIEW - provides a theoretical framework for the study, including process approach in ESL/EFL writing, writing accuracy, students‟ written errors and teacher‟s ICF in ESL/EFL writing
Chapter 2 – METHODOLOGY provides an overview of Van Noi High School, focusing on the English teaching and learning processes in place It outlines the research methodology, detailing the data collection instruments, the participants involved, and the procedures implemented to conduct the study effectively.
Chapter 3 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS – reports and discusses the findings of the study
CONCLUSION summarizes the main issues that have been addressed in the study, points out the limitations, draws pedagogical implications concerning the research topic and suggests several solutions
Following this chapter will be the REFERENCES and APPENDICES
LITERATURE REVIEW
Learning and teaching writing skill in English as a foreign language
Writing poses significant challenges for second-language (L2) learners, as it demands the development of diverse linguistic, cognitive, and sociocultural skills (Seyyed et al., 2015) Consequently, many educators recognize that teaching L2 writing is a complex and demanding endeavor.
Feedback on students' writings is essential in L2 instruction, as it helps teachers assess student performance on writing assignments, a key responsibility of their role Students also rely on feedback to understand their successes and areas for improvement in their writing In the writing classroom, feedback primarily comes from two sources: L2 writing instructors and fellow students (Zhang, 2008).
Types of CF in writing
Feedback, as a concept in research, has evolved significantly since its early roots in the 1950s and 1960s, when Behaviorist researchers prioritized error prevention over error correction They believed that allowing errors could lead to habit formation, thus interfering with the development of more desirable skills Consequently, incorrect responses were met with corrective feedback (CF), with the notion that learning occurs only when students practice correct responses (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012) However, many educators and researchers, including Ferris (1999), contested Truscott's (1996) assertion that grammar correction is ineffective and potentially harmful, arguing that such claims were premature and unfounded.
Extensive research is essential to validate the consensus among educators regarding the impact of feedback on improving students' writing skills, as it aims to determine the most effective methods for delivering such feedback.
Feedback is essential in education, providing specific information from teachers to students about their tasks and learning processes Its primary goal is to bridge the gap between a student's current understanding and the desired learning outcomes (Hattie & Timperley, 2007) A key distinction exists between indirect and direct corrective feedback: indirect feedback merely indicates an error, while direct feedback identifies both the error and the correct form (Van Beuningen, 2008) Indirect correction requires students to discover and amend their mistakes independently (Zaman & Azad, 2012), whereas direct correction provides the teacher's guidance on the correct form (Ellis, 2009A) Additionally, Ellis outlines various types of corrective feedback (CF) utilized in research, with Table 1.1 encompassing all feedback types examined in this study.
Some researchers report no significant difference between the direct and ICF
Robb et al explore four feedback types, including direct and indirect feedback, which indicates the number of errors per line of text Their findings, along with Ferris's research, highlight the impact of these feedback methods on students' accuracy improvement.
Roberts's analysis focuses solely on revised texts rather than new student writings, limiting the ability to assess the long-term impact of written corrective feedback (CF) on student accuracy.
Table 1.1: Types of Feedback (Ellis, 2009a, p.98)
1 Direct CF The teacher provides the student with the correct form
2 ICF The teacher indicates that an error
Exists but does not provide the correction
A: Indicating + Locating the error This takes the form of underlining and use of cursors to show omissions in the student´s text
B: Indication only This takes the form of an indication in the margin that an error or errors have taken place in a line of text
3 Metalinguistic CF The teacher provides some kind of metalinguistic clue to the nature of the error
A: Use of error code Teacher writes codes in the margin (e.g ww = wrong word; art = article)
B: Brief grammatical Description Teacher numbers errors in text and writes a grammatical description for each numbered error at the bottom of the text
4 The focus of the feedback This concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct all (or most) of the students´ errors or selects one or two specific types of errors to correct This distinction can be applied to each of the above options
A: Unfocused CF Unfocused CF is extensive
B: Focused CF Focused CF is intensive
5 Electronic feedback The teacher indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a concordance file that provides examples of correct usage
6 Reformulation This consists of a native speaker´s reworking of the students´ entire text to make the language seem as native-like as possible while keeping the content of the original intact.
Teacher‟s ICF feedback in writing
The perception and management of errors, or corrective feedback (CF), vary across different theories of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) These diverse perspectives have influenced research on corrective feedback in SLA and second language (L2) writing The next section explores various methods for providing corrective feedback in L2 writing.
The type of feedback provided by teachers significantly influences students' approach to writing, their perception of feedback, and their revision processes (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996; Lockhart & Ng, 1995) Research in L2 writing has identified various aspects of students' written texts that teachers typically address, including ideas, rhetorical organization, grammar, word choice, spelling, and punctuation (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997; Hedgcock).
Teacher's Individualized Correction Framework (ICF) is a comprehensive strategy that incorporates various approaches to address written errors effectively As outlined by Bitchener and Ferris, this method encompasses all essential characteristics needed for effective error correction in student writing.
In 2012, the teacher's action of drawing students' attention to their errors without providing corrections is referred to as implicit error correction feedback (ICF) Joe elaborates on this approach, highlighting how teachers indicate the presence of errors in students' written work While previous approaches to ICF shed light on its strategy, the specifics of teachers' operations remain unclear in existing definitions According to Ellis (2006), ICF involves signaling errors through methods such as encircling, underlining, highlighting, or using error codes adjacent to the text A brief review of error codes used in this context is illustrated in the following table.
Table 1 2: Error code (adapted from Tribble [65, p.154])
Ellis (2009) distinguishes between two types of corrective feedback (CF): indirect corrective feedback (ICF) and direct corrective feedback (DCF) While DCF involves teachers directly pointing out errors and providing the correct forms, ICF encourages students to identify and correct their own mistakes through methods such as underlining, circling, or coding errors without direct correction from the teacher This approach positions students at the center of the writing task, allowing them to engage actively in the learning process, while the teacher serves as a guide in identifying errors This framework is deemed the most suitable for the study's working definition.
Effects of ICF on students' ESL/EFL writing
Numerous studies have investigated the impact of corrective feedback (CF) on students' writing, leading to ongoing debate among researchers regarding its benefits for ESL/EFL learners Truscott argues that all forms of error correction are unnecessary and counterproductive, as they detract from more valuable aspects of writing instruction Conversely, other scholars support the effectiveness of both direct corrective feedback (DCF) and indirect corrective feedback (ICF) A comparison of DCF and ICF could provide valuable insights into the efficacy of ICF However, findings from various studies examining the effectiveness of DCF and ICF have yielded somewhat contradictory results.
Furthermore, although it is found in Chandler (2003) that students who receive direct CF often perform better than students who receive ICF, Lalande
Research by Lalande (1982) and Lee (2009) indicates that students benefit more in terms of accuracy from indirect correction of their texts compared to direct correction Furthermore, Lalande emphasizes that indirect corrective feedback (ICF) promotes guided learning and problem-solving skills, making it a more effective approach for fostering long-term learning outcomes.
The debate over the effectiveness of various types of CF continues among researchers, with substantial evidence backing both DCF and ICF While many studies highlight the superiority of DCF, they also acknowledge that ICF positively influences students' problem-solving skills and contributes to their long-term learning outcomes.
A brief review of previous studies on CF
Numerous studies have explored various aspects of corrective feedback (CF), including comparisons between different types of written feedback and the impact of feedback versus no feedback To align with the objectives of this study, which investigates the effects of indirect corrective feedback (ICF) on students' writing and specific error types, the researcher reviewed relevant studies and scientific literature.
Table 1.3: Review of some related previous studies on corrective feedback
Author Title Organization and description Findings
Study 1: An investigation into the efficacy of the correction of grammatical and lexical errors
Study 2: An investigation into how error correction should be done
Group 1: Correction of grammatical and lexical errors Group 2: Control
Group 2: Underlining and description of error type
Group 3: Description of error type Group 4: Underlining
Study 1: Correction is significantly effective Study 2: Direct correction and simple underlining of errors are significantly superior to describing the types of errors for reducing long-term error Direct correction is best for accurate revision Lalande(1982) An investigation into the effect of two types of written feedback on the writing of
Group 1: Direct error correction Group 2:
Learners reported advantage for indirect feedback over error correction No statistical difference was reported between the two treatments
An investigation into the effect of direct and indirect
Group 1: Direct corrective feedback Group 2: Indirect
Direct and indirect feedback improved writing accuracy feedback on writing accuracy feedback Control 1:
Self-editing but no feedback Control 2:
No self-editing and no feedback
Direct corrective feedback is effective for better grammatical accuracy and indirect feedback is better for non- grammatical accuracy
Truscott‟s (1996) argument on grammar correction
Grammar correction should be used
The effect of focused and unfocused corrective feedback compared with no feedback
Group 1: Focused feedback on articles Group 2: Unfocused feedback Group 3:
Focused and unfocused corrective feedback improved students‟ accuracy but no difference between the two types of feedback Teachers should provide corrective feedback to students
A review article of studies on corrective
Teachers should provide corrective feedback feedback Nguyen Thi
Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in English writing at the Faculty of English, Hanoi National
Group 1: indirect corrective feedback Group 2: direct corrective feedback
The research shows the remarkable improvement on writing accuracy in the indirect corrective group and their positive attitudes towards the use of teacher‟s ICF in writing Pham Lan
The impact of indirect feedback on learners‟ grammatical errors in EFL writing classes
Group 1: using DCF Group 2: using ICF
Students in the experimental condition demonstrate significantly fewer grammatical errors compared to those in the control group, particularly when errors are aggregated The ICF method effectively decreases a wider range of error categories and reduces the number of errors within each category, with a notable impact on simple past tense errors.
Numerous studies highlight the effectiveness of the ICF framework across various educational settings, employing experimental or quasi-experimental methods These investigations typically involve two groups: an experimental group receiving the ICF intervention and a control group for comparison.
This study evaluates the effectiveness of CF strategies through pretests and posttests, aiming to determine the impact of ICF on students' writing skills at Van Noi High School Based on previous research, the hypothesis suggests that ICF positively influences writing abilities The findings from this action research provide compelling evidence of ICF's beneficial effects on writing within the educational context.
Numerous studies have investigated the effectiveness of Immediate Correction Feedback (ICF) in enhancing English writing skills among foreign language learners ICF has emerged as a valuable strategy, enabling students to identify and rectify errors in their writing, ultimately improving their proficiency in English.
METHODOLOGY
Rationale for the use of Action research
Action research is described as “a small scale investigation by teachers on specific classroom problems for the purpose of curriculum renewal and/or professional development” (Field, 1997; LoCastro, 1994; Markee, 1996, Nunan,
Action research is a context-specific inquiry designed to understand, evaluate, and improve educational practice, particularly in a specific classroom setting According to Bassey (1998), it involves an investigation carried out by teachers to enhance their teaching methods and address unique teaching and learning issues As every teaching situation is distinct in terms of content, student level, skills, and learning styles, action research enables teachers to discover the most effective approaches for their particular context By adopting this methodology, teachers can bring about positive changes in their teaching practices, ultimately leading to improved student learning outcomes, such as enhanced writing skills.
The number of stages in action research varies among researchers, with some identifying eleven stages (Burn, 2005) while others recognize only six or seven The majority of action research models are based on Kurt Lewin's four-stage action cycle from the 1940s, which includes planning, acting, observing, and reflecting.
Figure 1: Cycle of Action Research Adapted from Richards & Lockhart (1998, p.12)
The other model of action research suggested by Kemmis & McTaggart (2000, p
The cyclical processes of action research are better understood through Kemmis and McTaggart's model; however, time constraints hinder its application in real teaching and research contexts Consequently, the researcher opts for Nunan's (1990) model of action research as a more feasible alternative.
The thesis design is grounded in Nunan's (1992) action research model, selected for its clarity and relevance to the study's context Nunan (2012:35) outlines a cycle of action research that includes several key steps, making it a widely recognized procedure among researchers.
Action research, as outlined by Nunan (1992), begins with identifying a problem and collecting baseline data to better understand it Based on this initial information, a hypothesis is developed Following this, the intervention stage involves teachers creating and applying various teaching strategies An evaluation is conducted to assess the effectiveness of these interventions The results are then reported in the dissemination phase, while the follow-up stage focuses on exploring alternative solutions to the identified problem.
Context of the study
A study conducted at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, a rural area, reveals that students have limited opportunities to practice English With over 2,000 students divided into grades 10, 11, and 12, the lack of mandatory English classes upon entry leads to a wide range of proficiency levels, generally low This situation poses significant challenges for both teachers and students, particularly for grade 10 students who are just beginning to adapt to a new learning environment.
The textbook is used to teach English to the students of group 10 is English
The nationally used textbook for Grade 10 in Vietnam is structured into units, each comprising five parts: reading, listening, speaking, writing, and language focus Writing is emphasized as a key skill in every unit, providing significant advantages for both teachers and students This structure allows teachers to develop detailed lesson plans focused on writing, employing appropriate techniques to engage students and maintain their focus during writing activities.
Subjects
The study involved 15 randomly selected students from group 10, each with varying levels of English proficiency, coded as S1 to S15 The participants expressed enthusiasm for the innovative feedback correction methods implemented by their teacher.
Research instruments
There were a number of data collecting instruments both qualitative and quantitative ones were used in this research
2.4.1 The researcher’s analysis of the students’ writings (See Appendices for more detail)
The researcher conducted an analysis of students' writings by maintaining a personal diary, which served to document and evaluate their progress across five writing assignments.
The researcher conducted a detailed analysis of students' writings, systematically organized in tables and checklists This analysis included students' names, identification codes, the total number of errors made, the number of errors corrected, and specific notes on writing mistakes observed during the implementation of the ICF The analytical framework will be elaborated in section 2.3.4.2.
- Participants: The participants were 15 grade 10 th students of mixed levels at Van Noi high school
- Procedure: The researcher started to record information since the first week using her ICF until the last week of the treatment procedure
A semi-structured interview is a qualitative research method that features a mix of predetermined questions and the flexibility for interviewers to delve into specific themes based on respondents' answers This approach allows participants to express their thoughts freely, contributing to a deeper understanding of the research topic The flexibility of semi-structured interviews not only enhances the richness of the data collected but also justifies their use in this study for exploring complex themes.
Two designs of interviews which were used can be described as follows:
* Semi-structured interview design for writing teachers :( See Appendices for more detail)
The interview aimed to assess the current state of writing instruction at Van Noi High School, focusing on students' English writing proficiency levels and evaluating the impact of existing corrective feedback strategies on their writing accuracy and skills.
The semi-structured interview consisted of five open-ended questions accompanied by sub-questions to facilitate discussion The insights gathered from the interview suggested that utilizing the teacher's Individualized Curriculum Framework (ICF) could be advantageous for her students.
- Participants: The interviewees were three teachers of English at Van Noi High School with at least 2-year teaching experience
The researcher arranged interviews with selected English teachers following an analysis of student writing samples and prior to implementing ICF To ensure the reliability of the information gathered, the content and purpose of the interviews were kept confidential until the meeting.
* Semi-structured interview design for the students: (See Appendices for more detail)
- Purpose: The interview was conducted after the employment of teacher‟s ICF to gain in-depth information of the assigned intervention
- Structure of semi-structured interview: The interview included 8 open- ended questions plus sub-questions for discussion mainly framing on these three issues:
+ Questions 1, 2, 4 & 5 dealt with the impact of teacher‟s ICF on the students‟ writing
+ Questions 3, 6 & 7 referred to the students‟ reaction and attitudes towards teacher‟s ICF
+ Question 8 asked for the students‟ suggestions for better use of teacher‟s ICF in the future
The language used for this interview was Vietnamese
The study involved three students selected from the researcher’s writing class, representing varying levels of proficiency: one with the lowest skills, one at a medium level, and one with the highest proficiency in writing, as determined by the researcher’s records.
- Procedure: The interview was before the conduction of the survey questionnaire
2.4.3 A survey questionnaire (See Appendices for more detail)
A questionnaire is an effective instrument for collecting data on the emotional aspects of teaching and learning, including beliefs, attitudes, motivation, and preferences Its ability to reach a large number of respondents quickly makes it an ideal choice for this study.
- Purpose: The survey questionnaire was designed to measure the students‟ reactions and attitudes towards the teacher‟ ICF in writing
The survey questionnaire was adapted from Ryan & Deci's Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (2000) and consists of 20 statements rated on a five-point Likert scale Written in Vietnamese, it aims to assess students' levels of agreement across four key dimensions of intrinsic motivation.
+ Statements 1, 2 & 3 investigated the students‟ interests and enjoyment towards the researcher‟s use of ICF
+ Statements 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 investigated the value and usefulness of ICF on the students‟ writings
+ Statements 11, 12, 13, 14, &15 investigated the students‟ tension and anxiety when ICF was used in writing
+ Statements 16, 17, 18, 19, & 20 referred to the students‟ expectations and suggestions for better use of teacher‟s ICF
- Participants: The survey was delivered to the 15 students in Group 10A
- Procedure: The survey was conducted after the student interview
This classroom action research was conducted in three key phases: Pre-action, Action, and Post-action, following the detailed steps outlined by Nunan throughout the process.
The Initiation step engaged students in identifying errors within a specified paragraph while familiarizing them with various error codes Based on the students' performance in this initial task, the researcher assessed the necessity for classroom interventions aimed at enhancing their writing skills.
In a research study conducted at Van Noi High School, a teacher identified challenges faced by Group 10, which consisted of students with varying levels of English proficiency, in completing writing tasks This was achieved by analyzing two sample writing assignments from previous terms and conducting interviews with three English teachers.
* Analysis of the students’ sample writing assignments:
The researcher analyzed two recent writing assignments and identified that the most common linguistic errors included issues with tenses and verb forms, prepositions, articles, and spelling Additionally, other frequent mistakes involved run-on sentences, word order, and word choice.
In summary, the students at Van Noi High School made a variety of errors, most of which belong to grammatical and mechanics items
*Semi-structured interview with teachers:
A semi-structured interview conducted with three English teachers explored the challenges students encounter in writing tasks and the correction strategies employed by educators The insights gathered from these teachers highlighted a range of issues that align with the researcher's concerns, further enriching the analysis of students' writing assignments.
Teachers identified that students can write short paragraphs on familiar topics like family, friends, and hobbies, but they frequently make common errors in their writing tasks.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
3.1.1 Findings from the researcher’ analysis of the students’ writings
The researcher’s diary includes students' writings from in-class assignments and final versions, along with error records collected during a 5-week intervention This data was coded, categorized, and analyzed to assess the impact of the teacher's Instructional Corrective Feedback (ICF) on student writing While focusing on four specific error types among 15 mixed-level 10th-grade students, the researcher aimed to evaluate the overall linguistic accuracy in their writing before analyzing the distribution of these error types.
3.1.1.1 Distribution of error types in the students’ five WSs
The researcher focused on four prevalent error types in students' writings during the ICF intervention: verb tenses, articles, prepositions, and spelling The occurrence of these errors was systematically coded and calculated, with detailed results presented in the appendices This data was then visualized in a distributional chart to identify which error type benefited the most from the teacher's ICF.
Table 3.1 Distribution of four typical error types in the students’ WSs
TYPES OF ERRORS WS01 WS02 WS03 WS04 WS05
The analysis reveals that Tense/Verb Form errors were the most common, while preposition errors were the least frequent Additionally, there was a noticeable decrease in the overall number of error types throughout the five-week study.
3.1.1.2 Comparison of decreasing rate of each error type among WAs
To better understand the impact of ICF on various committed error types, the following figures illustrate the reduction rates of each error type throughout the entire intervention.
Figure 2 Comparison of decreasing rate of each error type among WSs
In the initial in-class writing, students predominantly struggled with tenses and verb form errors, but these mistakes significantly decreased in subsequent writing samples, with nearly 60% reduction noted by the fifth writing sample (WS05) Despite this improvement, errors related to the correct use of articles and prepositions emerged as persistent challenges for students across all five writing samples While the overall frequency of these errors declined, the rate of reduction was not as pronounced as that for tenses and verb forms Consequently, the ICF intervention proved beneficial for addressing tense, verb form, and spelling errors, but had limited impact on enhancing students' usage of articles and prepositions in their writing.
3.1.1.3 The students’ self-editing ability based on the result of five revisions
The assessment of students' self-editing skills was based on the percentage of errors corrected in their revised texts, following indirect feedback from the teacher The results are illustrated in the figure below.
Chart Title tense prep spelling art.
Percentage of errors corrected each week
Figure 3 Distribution of percentage of errors corrected each week
Over a five-week period, students demonstrated a significant improvement in their self-correcting abilities, with error correction rates increasing from 11.82% in the first week to a peak of 56.02% by the final week This trend indicates that students effectively addressed the mistakes made in their in-class compositions To further evaluate the impact of the teacher's Instructional Corrective Feedback (ICF), it is essential to analyze the results from post-action questionnaires and interviews.
In summary, the research analysis of students' writing assignments during the action phase indicates that the implementation of ICF significantly improved students' writing skills This approach not only enhanced their linguistic accuracy but also effectively reduced grammatical and mechanical errors in their written work throughout the duration of the ICF treatment.
3.1.2 Findings from interview with the students
The second interview aimed to assess changes in students' attitudes towards ICF treatment following its application to their writing It also sought to identify any new post-feedback practices they adopted Additionally, students' responses contributed to a deeper understanding of the results derived from the writing sections.
WS 01 WS 02 WS 03 WS 04 WS 05
Percentage of errors corrected each week 11,82 35,36 46,4 50,42 56,02
During the 5-week ICF intervention detailed in Chapter 2, interviewees were selected based on their performance, consisting of three students coded S4, S10, and S11, each representing different proficiency levels Their respective error correction abilities are illustrated in the accompanying figure.
Figure 4 Distribution of percentage of errors corrected each week by the three students 3.1.2.1 Impacts of the teacher’s ICF on the students’ writing
- The students’ writing proficiency before the ICF intervention:
Before the researcher’s ICF intervention, students were asked to assess their writing proficiency, and many identified writing as the most challenging language skill Student S4 expressed, “Exercises involving writing are very difficult,” highlighting struggles with both single sentences and paragraph composition Similarly, student S10 acknowledged difficulties in using various verb forms and tenses Overall, students felt they lacked proficiency in writing, and they were dissatisfied with the quality of their written work.
The occurrence of many types of errors in their writings was stated by all of the three students S11: “I committed many errors in tenses and verb forms because
I struggled to clearly identify the differences and formations of the tenses used in my writing Additionally, I found myself overwhelmed by the choices of prepositions and spellings My work also contained various errors, including run-on sentences and multiple instances of incorrect word usage, which further complicated my writing process.
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 w2 w3 w4 w5 choices and word order (S4) were also helpful to describe the reality of the students‟ writing skill at Van Noi High School
The post-action interview with three students confirmed their previously identified writing skill deficiencies and highlighted common errors in their writing prior to the official implementation of the ICF in their sessions.
- Impact of teacher’s ICF on the students’ writings:
Students expressed satisfaction with the teacher's implementation of Immediate Corrective Feedback (ICF), noting improvements in their written accuracy and overall writing skills despite the brief intervention period and the focus on specific error types Many reported enhanced grammatical understanding, particularly in verb forms and tenses The corrective feedback allowed them to revise their work effectively, helping them avoid repeating previous mistakes For instance, one student highlighted their progress in language use as a direct result of the feedback received.
The teacher's ICF significantly improved my writing skills, leading to fewer errors in my work After my initial writings, I learned to correct sentences such as "I going to school every morning" by remembering to include "am," enhancing my overall grammar and sentence structure.
Discussion of the findings
The implementation of the ICF strategy in writing tasks for mixed-level 10th-grade students at Van Noi High School has clarified the extent to which a teacher's ICF influences student writing outcomes, based on findings from three research instruments.
The analysis of students' writing assignments revealed an improvement in overall written accuracy and a reduction in four common error types—tenses/verb forms, prepositions, articles, and spelling—over a five-week period These findings highlight the necessity for both teachers and students to review grammatical rules and increase awareness of the underlying causes of these errors.
The second set of data from student interviews and questionnaires indicated that students had a positive attitude towards using the ICF, as it helped them learn by identifying and correcting their errors This approach made them feel more accountable for their writing and heightened their awareness of mistakes in their compositions.
ICF has proven to be an effective error treatment strategy for the mixed group of grade 10 students at Van Noi High School By utilizing ICF to identify errors in students' texts, teachers encouraged students to reevaluate grammatical rules and correct their mistakes independently This cognitive process not only enhances their linguistic competence but also helps solidify this knowledge in long-term memory, reducing the likelihood of repeating these errors in future writing tasks Furthermore, this approach aligns well with the learner-centered methodology adopted in both general teaching and English instruction at Van Noi High School.
This chapter presents the findings from the implementation of the ICF at Van Noi High School, analyzing student writing assignments, interviews, and survey responses The results are compared with previous studies on ICF, allowing the researcher to formulate implications and recommendations for improving the application of ICF in future research.
This section highlights the key findings of the study, discusses their implications, and acknowledges the study's limitations Additionally, it offers recommendations for future research endeavors.
Recapitulation
This study examines the impact of using Immediate Corrective Feedback (ICF) on the writing skills of a mixed group of 10th-grade students at Van Noi High School Conducted over five weeks with 15 students, the research utilized data from student writings, teacher and student questionnaires, and interviews Findings indicate that ICF significantly enhances writing accuracy, particularly for pre-intermediate students, leading to a reduction in errors related to verb tenses, prepositions, spelling, and articles Statistical analysis shows a consistent improvement in overall writing accuracy from the first to the final assignment Additionally, ICF positively influenced students' attitudes and perceptions towards writing, as they became more aware of various errors, such as run-ons and word order, and actively sought additional resources to improve their compositions.
In conclusion, the ICF proved to be effective in the researcher’s educational environment However, addressing challenges such as students' low English proficiency, time constraints, and a lack of reference materials is essential By doing so, ICF can benefit not only the participants of this study but also enhance learning across various subjects and language skills.
Implication of the study
Research findings highlight various theoretical and practical challenges associated with the implementation of the teacher's ICF at Van Noi High School, which imposes extra demands on both teachers and students.
This study demonstrated that the implementation of ICF significantly enhanced students' writing skills Additionally, both students and teachers expressed positive attitudes towards this writing corrective feedback strategy.
Teachers at Van Noi High School must possess a deep understanding of their subject areas, the specific writing skills required, and the common writing deficiencies among students Additionally, they should be familiar with the characteristics of the ICF in writing and enhance their instructional skills to effectively address these challenges.
The ICF values both language proficiency, demonstrated by accurate language use, and positive attitudes among students To maximize the benefits of ICF, students must actively participate in their learning and writing processes, particularly by engaging in error correction and learning from their writing mistakes Additionally, students should possess at least an above-average level of English to fully leverage the ICF in second language writing.
Utilizing the ICF in writing is time-intensive and demanding, yet it offers significant benefits for both teachers and students Consequently, active participation from both educators and learners is essential for the successful implementation of the ICF in language learning, especially in writing.
Limitations of the study
Despite addressing all research questions and achieving the study's aims, several significant limitations exist The study's small scale, involving only 150 writing papers and 15 questionnaires, may hinder the depth of findings Additionally, the investigation of student improvement over just 5 weeks lacks tests to assess long-term progress, suggesting that a longer study duration could yield more valuable and reliable data Finally, the validity of the findings and the reliability of the implications could be enhanced by employing a broader range of research instruments.
Suggestions for further study
The use of ICF (Integrated Correction Framework) in writing instruction continues to be a vast field for exploration Future studies should delve deeper into various corrective strategies employed by teachers and their combinations to enhance overall student writing and accuracy Additionally, it is advisable to conduct research with a larger participant pool over an extended timeframe, incorporating an additional research tool for more comprehensive results.
Ferris, D R (2006), Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction, In Hyland K & Hyland
F (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81-104),
Bitchener, John (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing 17, 102-118
Bitchener, John and Dana R Ferris (2012) Written Corrective Feedback in Second
Language Acquisition and Writing New York, Routledge
Bitchener and Knoch (2010) explore the impact of written corrective feedback on enhancing linguistic accuracy among advanced second language (L2) writers Their study, published in the Journal of Second Language Writing, examines the effectiveness of both direct and indirect coded feedback in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts The findings indicate that targeted feedback significantly improves writers' accuracy, highlighting the importance of structured corrective strategies in language education.
Bitchner, John, Young, Stuart and Denise Cameron (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing 14, 191-205
Boston, Heinle & Heinle Chandler, Jean (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of student writing Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3, 267-296
Ellis, Rod, Sheen, Younghee, Murakami, Mihoko and Hide Takashima (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context System 36, 353-371
Ferris, Dana R (1999) The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1, 1-11 Ferris, Dana R (2002) Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing
Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press
Semke, Harriet D (1984) Effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals 17,
Sheen, Younghee (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles TESOL Quarterly
Truscott, John (1999) The case for „„the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes‟‟: A response to Ferris Journal of Second Language Writing 8, 111
122 Truscott, John (2004) Evidence and conjecture: A response to Chandler Journal of Second Language Writing 13, 337-343
Truscott, John (2007) The effect of error correction on learners‟ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing 16, 255-272
Ferris, D R (2006), Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction, In Hyland K & Hyland
F (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp 81-104),
Pham Lan Anh (2011), The Impact of Indirect Feedback on Learners’ Grammatical Errors in EFL Writing Classes, MA Thesis, Can Tho University
Ryan R.M & Deci E.L (2000), “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67
Lee, I (2009), “Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice”, ELT Journal, 63(1), pp 13-22
Lalande, J F (1982), “Reducing composition errors: an experiment”, Modern
Guénette, D (2007), “Is feedback pedagogical correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 40-53
Ferris, D R., Liu, H., Senna, M., & Sinha, A (2010), Written corrective feedback and individual variation in L2 writing Paper Presented at the CATESOL
State Conference, Santa Clara, CA
Ferris, D R & Hedgcock, J (2005), Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers
Ellis, R (2008), “A typology of written corrective feedback types”, ELT Journal,
Chandler, J (2003), “The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for
Nguyen Thi Khanh (2012), Effectiveness of Indirect Corrective Feedback in English
Writing at the Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education,
Seyyed Ali Ostovar-Namaghi, Shabnam Norouzi (2015), “Differentiated Use of the
Cross-Lingual Strategy in Foreign Language Teaching: A Grounded Theory”, Sino-US English Teaching, December 2015, Vol 12, No 12, 916-
Zhang Jun (2008), “A Comprehensive Review of Studies on Second Language
Writing”, HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies Vol 12, 2008 Ryan & Deci (2000), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
FOR TEACHERS OF ENGLISH, AT VAN NOI HIGH SCHOOL
This interview aims to gather information for a Master's thesis titled "Using Indirect Corrective Feedback on Students' Writing to Enhance Writing Skills for 10th Grade Mixed-Level Students at Van Noi High School in Dong Anh, Hanoi - An Action Research."
Your involvement in this interview is greatly valued Rest assured, all information collected will be utilized solely for research purposes, ensuring your anonymity in any discussions regarding the data.
Thank you very much for your cooperation!
1 How do you describe the level of your students‟ English writing proficiency and problems that they face in writing tasks?
2 Do you think teacher‟s corrective feedback is important in teaching writing? Why and why not?
3 How do you often give corrective feedback to your students?
4 What features of writing accuracy (i.e grammar, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary choice) do you often focus your feedback on? Why?
5 How can you describe your students‟ writing accuracy and their response after using your existing corrective strategy?
Câu hỏi phỏng vấn dành cho học sinh(Bản tiếng Việt)
1 Em đánh giá thế nào về chất lượng các bài viết và kĩ năng viết của bản thân trước khi giáo viên áp dụng phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp?
2 Qua 5 tuần được giáo viên phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp trong bài viết, chất lượng các bài viết và kĩ năng viết của em có sự khác biệt gì không? Mô tả rõ sự khác biệt hoặc là không khác biệt này
3 Em cảm thấy thế nào khi được giáo viên yêu cầu tự sửa những lỗi mà giáo viên đã chỉ ra trong bài?
4 Khi sửa lỗi, em thường tham khảo nguồn tài liệu nào? Em thường sửa từng loại lỗi cụ thể bằng cách nào?
5 Những khó khăn của em khi tự sửa lỗi trong bài viết là gì?
6 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên đã tác động như thế nào đến bài viết và thái độ viết của em?
7 Theo em, phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp có phù hợp với trình độ học sinh và chương trình tiếng Anh tại nhà trường hiện nay không? Vì sao?
8 Em có đề nghị gì để phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên phát huy hiệu quả tốt hơn?
Interview questionnaire for students (English version)
1 How do you describe your level of English writing proficiency and the quality of your compositions before the implementation of the teacher‟s ICF?
2 How do you describe your English writing skill and the quality of your writings after the 5-week implementation of your teacher‟s ICF?
3 How did you feel when you were asked to self-correct indicated errors in your writings?
4 Which source of reference did you use during your error self-correction? How did you treat each specific type of indicated errors?
5 What impeded you with your error self-correction?
6 How did the teacher‟s ICF impact your compositions and your attitude towards writing activity?
7 Do you think that ICF is suitable to students‟ level of English proficiency and the current English curriculum at our school? Why?
8 What can you suggest for a more effective implementation of the teacher‟s ICF?
(Phiếu điều tra dành cho học sinh)
Phiếu điều tra này nhằm mục đích thu thập thông tin cho luận văn thạc sĩ về việc sử dụng phương pháp sửa lỗi viết gián tiếp để nâng cao kỹ năng viết cho học sinh lớp 10 với trình độ khác nhau tại trường THPT Vân Nội, Đông Anh, Hà Nội Đây là một nghiên cứu hành động nhằm cải thiện chất lượng giảng dạy và học tập trong lĩnh vực viết.
Thông tin về quan điểm, thái độ, đề nghị và mong muốn của các em là nguồn tư liệu quý giá cho nghiên cứu này Do đó, mong các anh/chị đọc kỹ các câu sau và lựa chọn phù hợp bằng cách đánh dấu tích (√) vào ô câu trả lời.
Cảm ơn sự hợp tác của các em!
1 Em rất thích hoạt động phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên
2 Em cảm thấy hứng thú khi được yêu cầu tự sửa lỗi mà giáo viên đã chỉ ra trong bài viết của mình
3 Em cảm thấy rất hài lòng với các bài viết của mình qua 5 tuần vừa qua
4 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên rất có ích vì hoạt động này giúp em nâng cao nhận thức về lỗi trong các bài viết
5 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em tránh mắc lại các lỗi này trong các bài viết về sau
6 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em sử dụng ngôn ngữ chính xác và hiệu quả hơn
7 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em có trách nhiệm hơn với bài viết của mình
8 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên từng bước giúp em nâng cao chất lượng bài viết và khả năng viết của bản thân
9 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp của giáo viên giúp em cải thiện kĩ năng tự học của mình
10 Phản hồi chữa lỗi của giáo viên giúp em tiếp cận được nhiều nguồn tham khảo khác
11 Em không cảm thấy bị áp lực khi giáo viên không đưa ra phản hồi chữa lỗi trực tiếp trong bài viết của em
12 Em không thấy nản khi mắc quá nhiều lỗi trong bài
13 Em không thấy căng thẳng khi không thể sửa tất cả lỗi trong bài
14 Em không cảm thấy khó chịu khi được yêu cầu viết và nộp lại bài cho giáo viên sau khi đã tự chữa lỗi giáo viên chi ra
15 Việc chỉ ra lỗi mà không kèm các kí tự viết tắt cho dạng lỗi không làm giảm khả năng tự sửa lỗi của bản thân
16 Phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp nên tiếp tục được sử dụng để nâng cao thói quen tự học của học sinh
17 Các lỗi phổ biến nên được thảo luận và giải thích cho cả lớp
18 Các ký hiệu đánh dấu của giáo viên đối với lỗi của học sinh cần phải mang tính hệ thống và nhất quán
19 Đôi khi nên để cho các học sinh khác trong cùng lớp đưa ra phản hồi chữa lỗi gián tiếp hoặc để cho tự học sinh tự tìm ra lỗi của mình
20 Giáo viên nên để cho học sinh có đủ thời gian để tự sửa lỗi của mình
Survey Questionnaire for students (English version)
This questionnaire is designed to collect data for my Master graduation paper
“ Using indirect corrective feedback on students ‘writing to improve writing skill for grade 10 th mixed level students at Van Noi high school in Dong Anh, Ha Noi-
Your feedback is invaluable for this thesis on action research Please read the provided statements carefully and select the option that best reflects your perspective by marking (√).
Thank you for your cooperation!
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
1 I enjoyed the teacher‟s ICF very much
2 I felt excited when being asked to self-correct indicated errors in my writing
3 I was much satisfied with my writings over six writing sessions
4 Teacher‟s ICF was beneficial to me because it enhanced my awareness of errors/mistakes in writing
5 Teacher‟s ICF benefited me to avoid committing similar errors again
6 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to use language items more accurately and effectively
7 Teacher‟s ICF necessitated my greater responsibility for my writings
8 Teacher‟s ICF helped the quality of my writings increase significantly and my writing ability improved gradually
9 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to improve my self- study skill
10 Teacher‟s ICF helped me to discover more sources for study and reference
11 I did not feel pressured when my teacher did not gave me DCF to my errors
12 I did not feel tense when I there were too many errors in my writing
13 I did not feel anxious when I was asked to correct all the indicated errors in my writing
14 I did not feel stressful when being asked to write revised versions of my writings
15 The teacher‟s indication of errors without code production did not decrease my self-correcting ability
16 ICF should continue to be used to improve students‟ self-study habit
17 Most common errors/ mistakes should be discussed and explained in class
18 Teacher‟s indications of errors should be systematic and consistent
19 Sometimes ICF should be also given by peers or by the students themselves
20 Teachers should be give students an adequate time to self-correct their errors
The Scales by Ryan & Deci (2000, p 227-268), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)
THE POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTRINSIC MOTIVATION INVENTORY Interest/Enjoyment
I enjoyed doing this activity very much This activity was fun to do
I thought this was a boring activity (R) This activity did not hold my attention at all (R)
I would describe this activity as very interesting
I thought this activity was quite enjoyable
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it
I think I am pretty good at this activity
I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students
After working at this activity for awhile, I felt pretty competent
I am satisfied with my performance at this task
I was pretty skilled at this activity
This was an activity that I couldn‟t do very well (R)
I put a lot of effort into this
I didn‟t try very hard to do well at this activity (R)
I tried very hard on this activity
It was important to me to do well at this task
I didn‟t put much energy into this (R)
I did not feel nervous at all while doing this (R)
I felt very tense while doing this activity
I was very relaxed in doing these (R)
I was anxious while working on this task
I felt pressured while doing these
I believe I had some choice about doing this activity
I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task (R)
I didn‟t really have a choice about doing this task (R)
I felt like I had to do this (R)
I did this activity because I had no choice (R)
I did this activity because I wanted to
I did this activity because I had to (R)
I believe this activity could be of some value to me
I think that doing this activity is useful for
I think this is important to do because it can _
I would be willing to do this again because it has some value to me
I think doing this activity could help me to _
I believe doing this activity could be beneficial to me
I think this is an important activity
TABLE OF TOTAL ERRORS AND SELF CORRECTION BY THE STUDENTS
The article discusses the importance of using ICF (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health) in various contexts, emphasizing its relevance in tense, verb usage, prepositions, spelling, and articles Proper implementation of ICF enhances clarity and coherence in communication, ensuring that the intended meaning is effectively conveyed Utilizing ICF principles can significantly improve the quality of written content, making it more accessible and understandable for diverse audiences.
Week 1: WRITING ABOUT DAILY ACTIVITIES
- Ss know about daily activities of some people or themselves
- Ss know how to write about daily routines of some people or themselves
1 Grammar: The present simple tense
2 Vocabulary: Words related to daily activities
III SKILLS: speaking and writing
IV TEACHING AIDS: pictures and hand- outs
Gives handout and asks Ss to match a number in A with a suitable in B
Match a number in A with a suitable in B work in pairs
7.15 a quarter to ten five to nine
-Ask students to look at the pictures and describe Quan's activities
-Asks students to look at the pictures (p.15) and ask and answer Quan's activities
8.05 8.55 9.45 10.40 17.00 18.30 a quarter past seven five past eight twenty to eleven half past six p.m five o'clock p.m six o'clock a.m
-Look at the pictures and describe Quan's activities:
C go to school CGo home
D have lunch E take a short nap
F go to the stadium G.come back home
H have dinner I study K go to bed
-Ask and answer about Quan, using the information from the timetable
(practise with pairwork) S1: What time does Quan get up ?
-Asks Students to close the book and tell their classmates about his/ her daily routines
-Let 1 or 2 students come to the board to speak
-Practice writing no more than 150 words about students‟ daily routines in 15 minutes
-Asks students to hand in all the writings
Work in groups of 4 Answer:
At 2:00 o'clock p.m Quan gets up after taking a short nap He studies his lesson at 2:15 p.m He watches TV at 4:30 p.m Then he goes to the stadium by bycicle at 5:00 p.m There he plays football with his friends at 5:15 p.m He comes back home at 6:30 p.m, takes/has a shower at 6:45 He has dinner with his family at 7:00 p.m At 8:00 p.m he reviews his lesson/ does his homework
-Practise individually in 15 minutes Suggested answer:
I typically wake up at 5:15 a.m and start my morning exercises at 5:30 By 6:00 a.m., I have breakfast and then ride my bike to school at 6:30, arriving for my first lesson at 7:15 a.m After classes, I cycle home at 11:30 and enjoy lunch with my family at noon I take a nap until 1:30 p.m before attending extra classes starting at 1:45 p.m I return home at 4:15 p.m., and from 4:50 p.m., I spend time watching TV, listening to music, reading, or hanging out with friends Dinner with my family is at 7:00 p.m., followed by homework from 8:00 to 10:15 p.m I unwind by watching TV until 10:45 p.m and then go to bed by 11:00 p.m.