INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Teaching and learning English in Vietnam aims to help students develop both oral and written communication Along with speaking, writing skill is also an important aspect of communication because it enables people to express their thoughts, feelings, and opinions Even though writing is essential and valuable for students, as compared to other skills such as reading, listening, and speaking, many students believe that it is challenging to master writing skills due to the great number of language elements involved (Harmer, 2004) In line with this, Ly (1997) stated that as a matter of fact, many Vietnamese students are more motivated to develop speaking, reading, and listening abilities than writing, and writing appears to be seen as a hardship because there is always homework waiting for them after a writing lesson To illustrate this skill’s complicity, Hedge (1988) explained that writing typically calls for a variety of skills, including the capacity to generate ideas and information, a high level of correctness to prevent misunderstandings among readers, and the use of a wide range of grammatical structures, syntax, and vocabulary All of them contribute to developing a specific writing style that aligns with the writing theme and the intended audience It is writing that those who learn English as a foreign language find the most complex and challenging to learn because “writing is an extremely complex cognitive activity for which the writer is required to demonstrate control of several variables simultaneously” (Nunan, 1989)
Upon learning writing skills, for novice students, making mistakes is an unavoidable and natural aspect of development Teachers' Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) to students' mistakes in this situation is crucial in assisting them in enhancing their written correctness so they can effortlessly advance to a higher language level WCF sometimes known as grammar or error correction has long been standard practice for teachers to provide in L2 education In reality, second language learners continue to make a variety of mistakes despite the time and effort their teachers put into providing feedback Thus, critics of mistake correction, including Truscott (1996), voiced their concerns and even called for its removal from L2 writing courses This drew instant attention and sparked frank debates among L2 scholars As a crucial component of L2 writing instruction, over the last decades, a notable corpus of empirical studies has been carried out to look into the function of WCF in SLA and L2 writing The vast majority of recent better-designed research has produced favourable outcomes for WCF (Bitchener, 2008, 2009; Bitchener et al., 2005; Ellis et al., 2008; Le, 2014; Sheen et al., 2009) Besides, many studies focus on students' views of teachers’ WCF, or teachers’ perceptions of WCF (Saragih et al., 2021; Eriksson, 2022; Zohra & Fatiha, 2022; Mi, 2020; Nguyen et al., 2021) However, only a few studies have examined how instructors implement WCF, and the alignment of teachers' perceptions and practices (Lee, 2009; Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli, 2019; Purnomo et al., 2021) This, of course, calls attention to teachers’ perceptions and practices towards WCF in the EFL context
Borg (2003) indicated that teachers’ theories and perceptions have a great effect on their actual teaching practices By the same token, Squires & Bliss (2004), asserted that “decades of research on the connection between teachers’ theoretical beliefs and their practices yield a common theme: all teachers bring to the classroom some level of beliefs that influence their critical decision making.” Indeed, it can not be denied that teachers’ beliefs, practices and attitudes play a crucial part in understanding and improving teaching and learning processes They are definitely associated with teachers’ strategies for facing obstacles in their daily professional lives Subsequently, they influence student inspiration and achievement while modifying the learning environment for students Teachers also require new thinking skills, such as large picture, transdisciplinary, simulation, design, and computational forms of reasoning, in order to handle many aspects of issues in more complex educational environments Importantly, instructors must be conscious of their perceptions and beliefs, be motivated to achieve their plans and goals and be inspired to create creative pedagogies to advance their profession (Woon Chia & Goh, 2016) Teachers’ beliefs and practices are crucial in the classroom because they directly affect the process of teaching and learning (Griffiths, 2007) On the grounds that providing feedback is such a difficult yet crucial responsibility for teachers Discovering the perceptions that support instructors' practices can assist in discovering the elements that lead to beneficial feedback This explains why the current investigation was conducted
Academic achievement for EFL students depends on their ability to write Nonetheless, after serving as the writing course teacher at a high school in the central highland region for fifteen years, I found that students were failing to meet the course's planned writing assessment goals Additionally, I recognised that students struggled during the writing course It was normal to find a large number of students who had trouble writing well-organized paragraphs and compositions or even some meaningful, grammatically sound sentences One possible reason for this is that writing teachers prioritize the final product over the writing process and its social context (Chi, 2022) The teachers pay more attention to form than meaning In other words, they focus on the textual or linguistic elements of writing without considering the text's purpose and audience Another reason can be teachers' unsuitable feedback on students' writing They seem to provide little or ineffective feedback, which may be based on their prior teaching experience and personal perspectives when it comes to the appropriate way to evaluate students' writing, as opposed to according to a department-wide standard WCF policy Teachers rarely ponder the kinds of feedback that are appropriate for the students or whether the feedback will benefit the students' writing As a result, it was challenging for the pupils to reply to the teachers’ remarks (Mack, 2009) If teachers' WCF contains ambiguous remarks or marks mistakes inconsistently, it may have a poor impact on learners' writing skills, leading to frustration, passivity, and confusion (William, 2003)
However, little consideration has been given to the attitudes and perspectives of teachers or how they conceptualized teaching writing, which is crucial for comprehending the causes of teachers' improper WCF practices and developing pedagogical reforms If teachers can carry out instructions in line with their beliefs, it appears that the presence of contextual factors, such as institution requirements, curriculum mandates, examination influence, and student's needs and preferences, is crucial (Feryok, 2008) Exploring the hurdles that prevent teachers from putting their beliefs into practice and determining how teachers' beliefs about WCF are reflected in their practices serve as essential areas for further research
It has been extensively observed that teachers' attitudes about language learning and teaching influence the way they instruct their students Even though major efforts have been made to study many various aspects of L2 teaching from a teacher-belief perspective in foreign countries, there have only been a few studies looking at teachers' views in the context of EFL high schools in Vietnam What is more, in terms of the area of the study in the Vietnam context, only some studies are found in the tertiary context, focusing mainly on one type of participants-students (Ho et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2022; Nguyen et al., 2021)
In light of the need to understand teachers' perceptions and actual practices, the knowledge gap in the research area as well as the issue present in the context, the researcher is interested in investigating to learn what EFL teachers perceive and apply WCF in writing classes.
Aim and Objectives
The overarching aim of this study is to investigate teachers' perceptions and practices towards WCF in the context of central and central highland regions' high schools Its further objectives are elaborated upon as follows:
1 To find out the perceptions of teachers concerning WCF
2 To explore teachers’ actual classroom practices of WCF.
Research Questions
The study attempts to provide answers to the following research questions in order to achieve the aforementioned objectives:
1 What perceptions do EFL high school teachers hold regarding written corrective feedback?
2 What are EFL high school teachers’ practices of written corrective feedback?
Scope of the Study
The scope of the study focuses on exploring teachers’ perceptions of WCF and their current classroom practices The study specifically finds out teachers' general perceptions of the effects of WCF Besides, their practices of WCF in writing classrooms are extensively investigated The findings may demonstrate the (mis)alignments between WCF perceptions and practices Due to the limitations of time, ability, and data availability, the empirical study in this research is restricted to high schools located in central and central highland regions of Vietnam, where the opinions of 65 teachers in the survey and 10 teachers in interview sessions are studied The respondents in the study, therefore, may not be representative of all teachers in middle and central highland provinces in particular and all English teachers nationwide in general.
Significance of the Study
In contrast to the bulk of feedback research, which covers the ESL higher education context, this study concentrates on the upper-secondary EFL setting in Vietnam and thus contributes to the current feedback-based research In other words, its importance comes from shedding light on a phenomenon from the perspectives of its participants in a certain context The results will paint a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the correlation between teachers' WCF perceptions and practices Besides the theoretical ramifications that the findings of the study provide, pedagogical significance for practitioners such as English teachers, students, and researchers is involved Pedagogically, on the one hand, EFL instructors can broaden their understanding of the many types of feedback strategies and apply them in their instruction On the other hand, to improve the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process, teachers can modify the manner they provide feedback The study is meant to increase understanding of the significance of teachers' Corrective Feedback (CF) in boosting language proficiency in learners Students can utilize WCF to its fullest potential in their English learning by acknowledging its importance Finally, especially in the context of EFL Vietnamese education, this can assist in establishing the groundwork for more research on the same topic.
Organization of the Study
This study is organized as follows:
Chapter 1 functions as an introduction to the thesis, including the rationale, the aims and objectives, the research questions and the significance of the study
Chapter 2 presents the theoretical framework of the research, and reviews the definitions of several key terms and significant prior studies linked to the current research, followed by a description of the research gap that the current study seeks to fulfil
Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology and the procedure involved in the project It aims to describe the subjects, research instruments, employed methods, data collection procedures, and data analysis applied to conduct this study
Chapter 4 provides a thorough presentation and analysis of the collected data in order to address the research questions The results of the questionnaire's quantitative analysis and the descriptive transcripts' qualitative analysis yield support for the research questions about teachers' perceptions and practices Feedback analysis of students’ writing papers addresses the first question to explore teachers‘ actual practices of the use of WCF
Chapter 5 outlines the research findings and discusses their theoretical and practical implications It also discusses the limitations of the study and some recommendations for further research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices
This part of literature review looks at three areas related to the issues of teachers’ perceptions and practices The first area presents the different definitions of perceptions The second area focuses on the importance of studying teachers’ perceptions and practices The last area examines the nature of the relationship between teachers’ perceptions and practices in classrooms
Perception plays an integral part in the process of teaching and learning, and as such, it has been the subject of much research in the field of pedagogy It is described as the process of identifying and comprehending things through the use of senses such as sight, hearing, touch, etc… (Richards
& Schmidt, 2013) Likewise, according to Robert et al (1992), the five senses are used to initiate the perceiving process to receive a stimulus; it is then organized and interpreted to gain an understanding of what is perceived The way a person responds to an object that they perceive through their five senses is known as perception Therefore, in essence, perception is specific to humans because it is how we as beings define or provide for the world around us Furthermore, the way one person perceives something will be radically different from the way another person experiences it since perception is a subjective process influenced by individual variances
Feldman (1999) defined perception as the process of classifying, evaluating, interpreting, and integrating the stimuli that involve our senses, organs, and brain In Kotler's (2000) words, the process by which a person selects, arranges, and interprets the information inputs to create a substantive overall notion is known as perception Meanwhile, perception, according to Morgan (1987), is the way something looks, sounds, feels, tastes, or smells Perception is often defined as whatever a person experiences It can be concluded that each person's perception is shaped by their experiences and feelings Each person's perception does not only occur spontaneously but is a response brought about by the process of perceiving
2.1.2 Importance of Studying Perceptions and Practices
Teachers' perceptions are the thoughts or mental pictures they have about their work and pupils These ideas and pictures are influenced by their life experiences and prior knowledge, and they have an impact on how they behave in the workplace (Papadakis & Kalogiannakis, 2020)
Teachers play a critical role in helping students build a great number of competencies To do their jobs effectively, teachers must be conscious of their beliefs and perceptions, feel encouraged to attain their plans and goals and be driven to create novel pedagogies to advance their practice They must also be able to successfully incorporate these learning objectives into the courses they teach (Tan & Liu, 2015) In line with this, a variety of research which focuses on teachers' perceptions, experiences, and learning has demonstrated that teachers' perspectives on their jobs, the learning programs they use, and other aspects of their lives can have a significant impact on the systems in which they work, and emphasize the influence of teachers on students' learning, school life and their professional identity and development, despite differences in educational, geographic, and sociocultural contexts (Cheng, 2012; Pellegrino & Hilton, 2013; Randi Weingarten, 2013; Tan & Tee, 2021; Woon Chia & Goh, 2016)
Indeed, as cited in Seden & Svaricek (2018), the significance of instructors' perceptions cannot be understated The value of investigating beliefs and perceptions for both influencing behaviour and enhancing teachers' professional development and practices has been recognized As a result, teaching is no longer seen as the application of established concepts and norms, but quite as a thinking process in which instructors develop both their own practical and unique ideas of teaching (Borg, 2003a) This means that eliciting teachers' perceptions through their practices rather than describing what teachers believe and perceive in theoretical terms gives researchers a perspective on what perceptions actually are as opposed to what they might be ideal As a result, our understanding of teachers and instructions can be improved (Borg, 2015) The present study thus makes an effort to comprehend writing teachers' perceptions through their practices, which serves to disclose their various philosophical foundations and the different factors underlying their real practices
2.1.3 Relationship Between Teachers’ Perceptions and Their Practices in Classrooms
The relationship between perceptions and practices has received attention from numerous researchers (Borg, 2015; Johnson, 1992; Mengistu et al., 2023; Rahman, 2018; Wan, 2020) According to Phipps & Borg (2009), practices can affect beliefs, and beliefs can change practices Despite the fact that teachers' perceptions affect what they do in the classroom, their actual behaviours are not always consistent with their stated ideas (OECD, 2009) In other words, teaching practices may not necessarily reflect the teachers' professed ideas (Borg, 2012; Kennedy & Kennedy, 1996) To the researcher’s knowledge, consistency and inconsistency are two opposing conclusions found in the literature regarding the relationship between beliefs and practices While some research found a correlation between teachers' perceptions and practices (Lee, 2009; Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli, 2019a; Wei
& Cao, 2020), other studies found numerous instances of inconsistency between teachers' views and their practices (Al Kharusi & Al-Mekhlafi, 2019; Purnomo et al., 2021; Solmaz, 2023) However, it is crucial to keep in mind that these investigations were carried out in varied contexts with a variety of target populations, study methodology and study objectives, all of which could explain the variations in the results Since the issue of congruence and incongruence that exists between teachers' perceptions and practices is still not obvious when looking at the relationship between them, this present study thus sought to learn more about this aspect of the topic.
Written Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing
This section starts by presenting different definitions of WCF and its purposes It then looks at a wide variety of WCF types and teachers’ preferences Finally, strategies for providing WCF are discussed at the end of this part
2.2.1 Definitions of Written Corrective Feedback
In the realm of SLA, Corrective Feedback is one of the hottest subjects (Brown, 2007) Likewise, both Ellis (2009) and Hyland & Hyland, (2019) state that CF has received careful consideration from SLA scholars as well as language educators CF concluding corrections and remarks usually focus on linguistic errors that learners of a second or foreign language make It appears as a reply to a learner's statement that contains a grammatical mistake The answer is an other-initiated fix and can take one of the following forms: (1) a notification that an error has been committed, (2) the provision of the appropriate target linguistic form, (3) metalinguistic information about the error's types, or any combination of these (cited in Ellis, 2009)
WCF is considered to be an essential component in the process of learning a language and is one of the key factors for curriculum development Various terms have been used to refer to WCF, including “teacher commentary” (Fazio, 2001), “teacher response” (Searle & Dillon, 1980),
“teacher editing” (Feng & Powers, 2005), “teacher corrections” (Fazio, 2001), and “teacher comments” (McAndrew & Reigstad, 2001) WCF in the most basic form can be defined as “the type of information, which is provided for the learners about his or her performance of a learning task, typically with the goal of enhancing this performance” (Ur, 1996, p 242) There are various ways to submit this information, including remarks, inquiries, and suggestions (Keh, 1990)
Writing feedback is defined as information that the author receives from readers in the form of knowledge that aids in editing and improving the written content In line with this, WCF, as explained by Bitchener & Storch (2016), is “a written response to a linguistic error that has been made in the writing of a text by an L2 learner.” It seeks to either clarify the improper usage or provide details regarding the origin and nature of the issue, and how it may be fixed.” In contrast to oral feedback, written feedback is typically supplied by teachers after reading student writings; it is not given straightaway like spoken feedback, according to Balachandran (2017)
In order to encapsulate the key ideas in their definition, the responses may be divided into three categories: pointing out the mistake, proposing the correct form, and giving a metalinguistic justification for it When addressing student writing, teachers may choose from a variety of repairs (Ellis et al., 2006) For the purposes of this study, WCF is described as " feedback which specifically indicates language errors, such as in grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics" (Hyland & Hyland, 2019)
2.2.2 Purposes of Written Corrective Feedback
Despite conflicting data on the WCF's efficiency, a substantial body of studies has demonstrated the value of WCF in raising students' writing accuracy (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008; Zheng & Yu, 2018) The study's findings that using WCF can help students become more conscious, knowledgeable, and competent in their writing strategies are of special importance to the current study since they indicate how it enables students to assess their writing, identify any potential weak points, and gauge their level of performance Bartram & Walton (1991) pointed out that there will be several problems if teachers don't give feedback on students' written work: pupils will be less dedicated and more nervous, and teachers will feel guilty and worry that they will be viewed as incompetent, inconsiderate and lax This is true even though the question of WCF's effectiveness is outside the purview of the current study However, due to a lack of clarity regarding the differences between formative (which offers advice) and summative (which offers evaluation), many teachers are perplexed about the purpose of feedback (Black & Wiliam, 2010; Burke & Pieterick, 2010) The goal of evaluative feedback, according to Wiggins (2010) (cited in Peroukidou & Kofou, 2019), who defined both categories, is to ensure that the student fully comprehends the grade assigned for a task or assignment In contrast, advisory feedback has three goals: to inform students about their performance on the task, to point out areas that need improvement or support, and to promote student growth by outlining the next steps they should take to advance and improve their writing in the future
The researchers (Bailey & Garner, 2010; Lee, 2003a) who looked into teachers' perceptions of the WCF's goal produced conflicting results The importance of the teacher's attention to the formative and developmental nature of feedback was noted by Bailey & Garner (2010), who discussed the purpose and usefulness of WCF with 48 professors at one university Teachers' beliefs, however, were in opposition to institutional norms that use teachers' feedback to explain to students how the evaluation and grade have been given to their work As opposed to Bailey and Garner's findings, Lee (2003), who conducted a survey and interviews with secondary English teachers in Hong Kong learned that instructors viewed WCF as a way to help students notice their errors and to help teachers when marking students' paperwork This discovery prompted Lee (2003a) to draw the conclusion that teachers tend to be more concerned with the short-term, immediate goals of helping students avoid the same errors than with the longer-term objectives of giving students the skills requisite to independently correct and revise their texts As university lecturers may have different intentions for feedback than teachers in school settings, the research's setting may be one explanation for these two contradictory outcomes The results of the current study, which was carried out in a classroom setting, may be comparable to those in Lee (2003), where teachers perceive feedback as a tool to assist themselves while marking students' papers and to aid pupils in recognizing their mistakes
2.2.3 Types of Written Corrective Feedback and Teachers’ Preferences
This part addresses different types of Written Corrective Feedback in terms of the amount and focus of feedback It concludes with a discussion of teachers’ preferences for WCF types
2.2.3.1 Types of Written Corrective Feedback
WCF can be viewed as an instructional technique that aims to help students strengthen their writing abilities and increase their language precision However, not all types of WCF are equally effective or appropriate for different learners, contexts, and purposes Therefore, it is important to understand the various options and factors that influence the design and implementation of WCF When it comes to research, according to Ellis (2009a), descriptive research may benefit from the typology Such studies address factors like how instructors use CF and how pupils react to corrections The extent to which typology's components truly reflect actual application in classrooms can be investigated to the benefit of descriptive studies, even if they are often data- driven They might also help to clarify the classifications There are different ways to classify WCF which reflect the various options and factors influencing the design and implementation of WCF in different contexts and purposes This section provides a brief summary of the numerous kinds of corrective feedback methods based on the amount of feedback, the focus of feedback and the strategies for providing feedback
With an increasing amount of proof demonstrating the value of WCF in L2 learning, researchers have worked to determine the best methods for delivering WCF and the breadth of instructor response to written errors (Ferris, 2011) Although both methods and scope are crucial factors to take into account in WCF, the scope - or the amount of WCF that teachers should provide students is of immediate importance This includes deciding whether to address all written errors or just a subset of them in a targeted or selective way In other words, one crucial choice a writing instructor must make is whether to identify only some particular error types in a concentrated approach (i.e., selective WCF) or to label errors of every kind in an unfocused manner (i.e., comprehensive WCF) (Ferris, 2016)
A case can be made for selective WCF while another case can be made against it for comprehensive WCF Selective correction proponents (Bitchener & Ferris, 2011; Ellis et al., 2008; Lee, 2019a, 2019b; Lee et al., 2021) caution against noting all errors made by students as they think that developing learners' process-writing skills, or process-editing tactics is more crucial than the format of the final work They further contend that the selected strategy requires less processing, analysis, and application on the part of teachers and is less overwhelming for students (Bitchener & Ferris, 2011) However, some recent studies such as Cheng & Zhang (2021), Evans et al., (2010), and Falhasiri (2021) have provided a key counterargument in favour of the comprehensive WCF, stating their justification that in the real world, correctness is highly appreciated and ultimate achievement is sought As a result, students must learn how to modify the complete texts, and teachers' extensive error feedback can serve to alert authors to the breadth of concerns and issues that their texts may provide, not just for two or three distinct error patterns Furthermore, Van Beuningen (2010) suggested that emphasizing one error type in teachers' feedback is ineffective because students should simultaneously recognize the several errors they made Many researchers (Ferris, 2010; Lee, 2013, 2020) advocated for a compromise where instructors correct particular but multiple error types rather than a small number of faults as a result of this dispute
Which error(s) to focus on is/are another major challenge facing writing teachers The difference between significant and minor errors should be emphasized (Hendrickson, 2018; Mamad, 2018; Mirosław Pawlak, 2014) Serious mistakes are ones that disrupt communication (such as communicating elusive or ambiguous information) On the other hand, tiny errors like morphological ones do not make the text difficult to understand (Ferris, 2003) One more typical classification is between “frequent mistakes” (i.e mistakes that specific pupils consistently make) and “infrequent errors” (Ferris et al., 2011) To put it in Bitchener & Knoch's (2009) words, the coherence and cohesion of a text may not always be hindered by occasional errors, but they may very easily be by frequent ones Additionally, research has looked at “stigmatizing errors”, which mean faults that could indicate the learner is “a less competent writer” (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012) According to Lee (2013), the majority of teachers tend to place a greater emphasis on frequent and stigmatizing errors
Along with these contrasts, there has been much discussion regarding how much emphasis L2 writing instructors should place on local errors vs global ones According to Ellis (2009b), errors with a broad impact on the structure of a sentence are called global errors Among these are syntactic overgeneralizations, incorrect word placement, and missing or misplaced sentence connectors Local errors, such as morphological or grammatical functor errors, are errors that only impact one element in a sentence Besides, local errors pertain to the use of language, whereas global errors relate to the organization and content In the majority of studies (Lee, 2004, 2009; Ferris et al., 1997), content, organization, and language form were defined by researchers as the details you offer, the way these concepts are organized, and the proper application of mechanics
Although these definitions are straightforward, some overlapping regions make them challenging to use in actual practice Bitchener et al (2010) tried to give a precise and thorough analysis of the definitions of these terms, which will be used for the duration of this study
The ideas presented in the writing are coherent (e.g., every sentence covers the same subject), coherent (i.e., there is a clear connection between sentences in the writing), and clear (the idea is not confusing)
Previous Studies on Teachers’ Perceptions and Practices Regarding
WCF implementation in writing classes is a regular practice, and most teachers see WCF favourably When deciding on the type of feedback, different elements are taken into account Of course, what the scientific research concludes matters, but the teacher in question's genuine ideas are also crucial What teachers think, know, and believe about a particular idea and how that connects to their work in the classroom can be characterized as teacher beliefs (Borg, 2003b) These views are frequently supported by the findings of science as well as by knowledge gained through real-world work experience Research, however, indicates that it is typical for belief to not always be put into practice, which can lead to a misalignment between teachers' perceptions and their actual practice (Lee, 2008)
Montgomery & Baker (2007) compared teachers' self-reported practices (i.e., teachers' evaluations of their own practices) and actual practices about their WCF In order to investigate teachers' self-reported practices and students' views of their teachers' WCF, a survey was conducted with 98 learners and 15 ESL writing instructors at an English language institution in the United States From the portfolios of six students, the researchers gathered 12 student texts with the teacher WCF to determine the teachers' actual practices They then calculated the frequency of the teacher’s feedback remarks made in each of the
12 texts' various categories Researchers discovered that teachers' self-reported and actual written feedback strategies were considerably different They discovered, for instance, that writing instructors overestimated the feedback they provided on global errors (e.g organization) and undervalued the feedback they provided on local errors (e.g language forms) When the teachers were informed of this mismatch, the researchers saw that they were extremely surprised This proves that teachers do not always understand how they actually give feedback
Two other researches looked into the connections between teachers’ perceptions of WCF and how these views affected actual teaching methods Lee (2009) questioned 26 EFL teachers in Hong Kong, surveyed 206 other teachers in Hong Kong, and conducted 7 interviews on their beliefs and the findings were contrasted with the teachers' actual feedback The inquiry led to the discovery of several inconsistencies between beliefs and practices The following are a few misalignments that are pertinent to the current study:
(1) Teachers focus on linguistic structure the most, but they think that effective writing is more than just accuracy
(2) Teachers fully mark mistakes even when selective marking is favoured
(3) In contrast to their belief that students should learn how to locate and fix errors themselves through teacher feedback, teachers frequently correct and point out students' mistakes
(4) Teachers employ mistake codes while believing that students' comprehension of the codes is restricted
(5) Despite believing that process writing is advantageous, teachers nonetheless require students to complete one-shot writing assignments
Similarly, a recent study by Mao & Crosthwaite (2019) discovered both congruence and misalignment between L2 instructors' behaviours and beliefs
A total of 100 student writings were submitted for review, and researchers solicited evaluation from five EFL English teachers working at a mid-tier college in mainland China After that, each teacher was invited to participate in a survey and interviews to learn more about their perceptions and practices
In general, teachers said they favoured explicit WCF while the vast majority of feedback forms were marked based on indirect WCF Besides, all participants concurred that when providing indirect WCF, codes should be utilized rather than just marking the issue
Teachers mostly preferred WCF on content and organization, in line with Lee's (2008) findings, however, the proportion of feedback on language concerns was significantly higher than that on the “global” issues Results comparing focused and unfocused WCF showed that teachers preferred focused WCF because it most closely matched their actual practice The consideration of the practical limitations faced by teachers in Mao & Crosthwaite's (2019) research is more intriguing They believed that the alignments were solely the product of practical issues, such as teachers' lack of time to provide thorough feedback and students' potential disregard for their WCF
There are some inconsistencies between teachers’ views and their practices, according to the studies described above These differences are related to the amount, focus, and types of feedback These inconsistencies were mostly caused by a lack of training, a lack of knowledge of actual practices, and the context of the feedback process
An essential way to gauge the degree to which teachers' perceptions are reflected in their real practices is through studies on teachers' actual WCF practices (Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010) While it has been shown that the teaching and learning context has an impact on instructors' perceptions of feedback, this study focuses on Vietnamese EFL environments, where there is a sizable but understudied population of EFL high school teachers Recognizing the need for further research as well as the convergence and divergence in the relationship between instructors' views and practices to gain more nuanced insights into teachers' perceptions concerning various aspects of WCF in a more varied range of contexts, the researcher conducted the current study to fill a gap in the literature The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers implemented WCF in their classrooms as well as how they perceived it to be implemented.
Chapter Summary
The literature review in this chapter has covered two key subjects The first subject addressed the conceptual framework of writing teachers’ perceptions and practices, by emphasizing the significance and value of examining the viewpoints of the teachers through their observable classroom practices The second subject, which captures the core of this study, addressed the key concerns in WCF research, namely, WCF purpose, WCF focus, its WCF and its strategies Numerous studies on teachers' perceptions and practices toward WCF have also been examined This chapter concludes by going through the current study's study objectives The research methodology, which explains how the study was conducted to gather and analyze the data, will be described in the following chapter.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The current study was based on a mixed-methods research design to ensure that it would produce enough data to answer the research questions Creswell (1999) stated that “mixed-method design is a single study in which the researcher uses both qualitative and quantitative methods of data gathering and analysis” (p 455) This kind of research gives policy analysts the ability to both qualitatively comprehend and quantitatively and graphically explain complicated processes According to Rossman and Wilson (cited in Creswell, 1999), in comparison to a single method or research approach, “a multi- method approach to policy has the potential to more fully comprehend the complex phenomena in our social world, view it through a variety of lenses, and use eclectic methodologies that better address the various stakeholders of policy issues” (p 455) When it comes to mixed-method research, quantitative and qualitative techniques are complementary Results from one method are utilized to provide further explanation for those from the other (Creswell, 2015) In other words, the paradigm widens the breadth or range of inquiry by using several techniques for various inquiry components and recasts qualitative method outcomes to question quantitative method results
The rationale for using a mixed-method investigation has been determined by many researchers (Abbato, 2009; Newman & Ridenour, 1998; Zou et al., 2014) First, different techniques might be employed in studies for various goals Before beginning a questionnaire, a researcher can, for instance, use interviews to gain a sense of the important concerns Second, the strategy also makes triangulation possible In order to make sure that the data are telling you what you think they are telling you, triangulation refers to the employment of many data collection techniques inside a single study In other words, it makes it easier to compare quantitative and qualitative data sets to arrive at well-supported findings Third, the methodology aids in the explanation of quantitative findings through the following qualitative information Finally, the multi-method design enriches a study with an additional data set, either quantitative or qualitative, by using qualitative data to construct a theory that is then tested
Beyond its advantages and growing popularity, I chose a mixed-method design for the reasons listed below: The research topics required both quantitative and qualitative analysis to complement one another in producing answers In addition, mixed methods offer the chance to maximize interpretations of the contextual phenomena under study by combining the various dataset types The qualitative and quantitative datasets were combined for data analysis with a view to capturing the multiple facets of the participants' perceptions and their influences on them (Creswel & Clark, 2007).
Research Setting and Participants
In this research, the author took the teachers who are currently working as EFL teachers in high schools in the middle region and middle highlands of Vietnam as the population A population, according to Creswell (2012), is a collection of people who share a particular trait According to Polit & Hungler
(1999), the population consists of the entire group of people in which the researcher is interested In line with this, Mujere (2016) argued that the population consists of the entire group of persons to whom the researcher pays attention “A sample is a segment of the target population that the researcher intends to examine in order to draw conclusions about the target population as a whole,” according to Creswell (2012)
When the questionnaire was distributed to the EFL high school teachers in the context, luckily, 65 teachers showed interest and responded to it Thus,
65 English teachers from high schools in Vietnam's middle and middle highlands made up the study's sample Information about the participants' demographics is presented in Table 3.1
Teaching experience from 1 to 3 years 2 3.1 from 4 to 7 years 1 1.5
Variable Frequency Per cent from 8 to 10 years 5 7.7 from 11 to 15 years 21 32.3 more than 15 years 36 55.4
Teaching periods per week for a class
BA in English/ Applied Linguistics/ Linguistics/
MA in English/ Applied Linguistics/ Linguistics/
As can be seen from Table 3.1, the total participants are 65 teachers whose ages range from 25 to 56 The majority of teachers are female, accounting for 92.3% (N = 60) and the others are male, taking a proportion of 7.7% (N = 5) They come from 8 provinces in the central region and central highland provinces of Vietnam such as Gia Lai, Quang Nam, Binh Dinh, Khanh Hoa, etc… Generally, Gia Lai and Khanh Hoa take up the highest percentage of teacher participants (32.3% and 20% respectively) The large majority of the respondents hold a BA or MA qualification, comprising 70.8% and 26.2% respectively It is appreciable that as up to 87.7 % of the participants have more than 10 years of experience, it can be said that they had sufficient expertise to offer commentary on their perspectives as well as actual practices in classrooms Additionally, the participants express that they are adopting a theme-based curriculum approved by MOET with three or four periods of 45 minutes per week for a class To sum up, the researcher can obtain trustworthy data for the study with the support of a significant number of teachers.
Research Instruments
Three research tools were used in this study to collect data: a questionnaire, an interview, and the students’ writing samples with WCF from the teacher participants These tools were thought to work well together to produce trustworthy and valid data A questionnaire was used to gather quantitative information; semi-structured interviews were used to gather qualitative information while student writing samples were used to gather both quantitative and qualitative information
To conduct the study, the author used questionnaires as one of her primary instruments because of their value According to Brown (2001), “a questionnaire is any written instrument that presents respondents with a series of statements and asks them to respond by either writing out their responses or selecting from a list of preexisting answers” (p 6) When the goal of the research is to identify the range of opinions on a certain topic or to capture a surface impression of how much a group of people agree or disagree on an issue, questionnaires can be especially helpful As a result, questionnaires are the perfect technique when we are certain that there will be a high return rate They frequently function especially well in conjunction with interviews, which enable the data from the questionnaire to be fleshed out in more depth and detail (Mike Lambert, 2019) In line with this, Kendall (2008) states that in contrast to data obtained from interviews and classroom observations, which often give researchers a clear, in-depth insight into informants' attitudes and practices, questionnaires can provide numerical data for a vast number of participants
In this research, the questionnaire (see Appendix A) was utilised to answer the first research question The items for the questionnaire were created by the researcher using a comparable questionnaire that other researchers had used in earlier studies (Ellis, 2009a; Lee, 2009) The questionnaire consisted of two main parts and several items were changed to focus on the concerns examined in this study
The first part concerned the participants’ demographic information including gender, age, province they are teaching, teaching experience, teaching periods per week as well as qualifications, each of which contributes to their knowledge and beliefs The second was designed into various types of questions including open-ended questions, multiple-choice questions, Likert format questions and frequency response format ones Specifically, multiple- choice format questions were employed to discover the main purpose of providing WCF, teachers’ self-evaluation of their existing error feedback practices and self-description of their current error feedback practices Another type of question format employed is the Likert format, which provides four responses to 9 statements (a strongly disagree, b disagree, c agree, d strongly agree) to discover teachers’ perceptions of WCF and their reported practices The other question format is the frequency response one, providing three frequency responses (a never or rarely, b sometimes, c always or often) to rate the frequency with which teachers use each of the following error feedback techniques
Frey & Oishi (1995) define interviews as "a planned conversation in which one person (interviewer) asks prepared questions and another responds (respondent) with the intention of obtaining information on a certain topic” (p 1) Interviews were used because they enable the researchers to look into non- observable phenomena like perceptions, feelings, behaviours, intentions, and situations that happened at some point in time, which are important to this study After all, they are focused on the subjective opinions of individuals (i.e., emic perspectives) The semi-structured interviews were chosen from the three available formats (structured, semi-structured, and unstructured) because they are adaptable, enabling the researcher to veer off topic and ask follow-up questions about matters that are not entirely clear, as well as giving the interviewee the chance to elaborate on topics and events that seem to be crucial (Bryman, 2004) Additionally, they are interactive since the researchers may elicit more data if the initial responses are vague, ambiguous, off-topic, or inadequate (Dửrnyei, 2007) In order to collect additional information as well as cross-validate data obtained from the questionnaires, the interview questions concerning a range of corrective feedback approaches (adopted from Ellis 2009a) were created to gather information about teachers' perceptions of WCF, their existing practices, and any difficulties they might face while giving feedback
There were four parts to the interview questions The purpose of the first section was to learn more about the participants' backgrounds The second section sought to learn more about instructors' opinions about WCF When feasible, the participants were asked to expound on their remarks and provide the rationale for their opinions The third section covered actual WCF practices among teachers Inquiries into their practices and the factors that led to their current practices were the goals of the questions The topic of the last part was the obstacles or hurdles they might face when giving feedback
With regard to the second research question, it was important to gather actual writing samples in order to investigate the teachers' genuine corrective feedback techniques in response to the variety of mistakes produced by the students in their writing assignments In other words, the purpose of collecting students' texts that contained their lecturers' WCF was to complement and enhance the findings of the teacher questionnaires and teacher interviews, examine the teachers' actual WCF practices and see whether they corresponded with their perceptions and declared WCF practices.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was used to collect the data for this study First, a questionnaire was created by the researcher A group of teachers were then asked to pilot the questionnaire to make sure it was a clear and reliable research tool According to Monette et al (2013, p.9), piloting is the small- scale testing of all the techniques that will be used in the primary research Pilot research is important to help prevent future issues The main idea behind piloting is to carefully examine the participants and the environment in order to gain as much knowledge as possible about both (Dửrnyei, 2007) Therefore, to maximize the validity of the sample, potential factors that may need to be taken into account throughout the data collection procedures must be carefully considered To make it easier and more appropriate for respondents, the questionnaire's format was modified as needed
To be specific, three EFL teachers who were part of the target population were used in the pilot survey All three had been teaching English in public high schools in the study context with working experience for at least 3 years They were assured that the survey’s results would be confidential Fortunately, the result of the pilot session indicated all the questionnaire items were explicit and comprehensible to the participants The author thus decided to employ this questionnaire for the main survey
In the formal survey, the research first asked the principals and the English group leaders of public high schools in the study context for permission to conduct surveys with their schools’ English teachers Then the link to the online survey in Google Forms was delivered to those teachers via emails and Zalo groups The participants were made to be aware that the poll was anonymous and that participation was completely voluntary They were supposed to spend between 10 and 15 minutes completing the questionnaire
Following this stage, to supplement the survey results, the semi- structured interview included participation from the teachers who had completed the questionnaire Likewise, before the main study was conducted, pilot testing was done to check that the semi-structured interview was understandable and appropriate for the target population and that the intended questions were well-defined, clearly understood, and presented consistently Mackey & Gass (2021) Before beginning the main inquiry, the interview was conducted with two volunteers who were representative of the target sample The participant in this pilot study was a co-worker of the author Zoom Cloud Meetings was used by the author to host and record the 45-minute interview
In the pilot interview, a set of 13 questions was put to the test and the author utilized probing questions to uncover the interviewees' opinions that needed more explanation Following the completion of the pilot session, the author had the chance to completely transcribe, handle, and code the data, thus gaining more experience in summarising the transcripts and coding the information As a result of the pilot research, two modifications were made to enhance the interview, namely (1) a few questions were rephrased, incrementally aligned, and relevant probes were created; (2) some questions were merged due to their addressing the same issues The main study would therefore comprise ten open-ended questions (see Appendix B)
In the formal interview session, depending on the respondents' availability, the interviews with 10 teachers were conducted over the phone, through Zoom, or zalo The participant's language was a crucial consideration that had to be made Even though the interview questions were described in English, the volunteer preferred and felt more at ease speaking and listening in Vietnamese As a result, utilizing the participants' native tongue would produce beneficial outcomes, minimizing incorrect L2 interpretation or misunderstanding and encouraging replies to provide better explanations A convenient time for conducting 45-minute one-on-one interviews using Zoom, phone or zalo was decided upon after consultation between the interviewer and interviewee While audiotaping and recording responses on handwritten notes, questions were posed The interview information was then digitally captured, and the recordings were literally translated into Word documents
In order to collect samples of WCF on the student’s writing texts, the author asked the writing teachers for permission to get their students’ writing assignments with their WCF Due to the limitations related to time and location, the author decided to use a link to Google Drive to collect the data The author had the writing teachers make copies of the students’ writing pieces with their WCF by scanning or taking photos of the originals The Google Drive link and the consent forms were sent to the English teachers via emails and zalo so that they could upload the copied files of the students’ writing pieces After two weeks of data collection, the researcher received a total number of 150 copied writing texts with WCF highlighted in red as well as the completed consent forms for analysis purposes As reported by the writing teachers, the students’ writing texts were written in class and were between 120-200 words long The students might be asked to write descriptive paragraphs, informal letters, short messages or compositions on different topics in the curriculum.
Data Analysis
To achieve the goals of the research, both quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out on the data for this study, including (1) the quantitative outcomes of the students' completed questionnaires, (2) the qualitative findings from the semi-structured interviews and (3) the qualitative along with quantitative results of writing text analysis
As regards the questionnaire analysis, with the aid of SPSS software 22 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), descriptive statistics were employed to examine the teachers' perceptions of various components of WCF In order to analyze the data statistically, frequency, Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and percentages were computed using such SPSS methods
In terms of analyzing the interview data, to provide the data for description, the interviewees were coded from T1 to T10 All of the teacher interviews were recorded, transcribed and sent for member-checking Those transcripts were read numerous times to enable the author to familiarise herself with the key content Next, the author categorised words and phrases into theme groups based on their comparable meanings The themes were presented and discussed including (1) WCF efficacy and necessity, (2) WCF main purpose, (3)WCF types, (4) WCF strategies and (5) factors affecting WCF provision
As for the qualitative analysis of the student’s writing pieces, a total of
937 WCF actions were detected in 150 students’ gathered assignments The analysis of these WCF actions involved first identification, categorization, and counting the frequency of them The data were analyzed based on the qualitative content analysis scheme of Creswell (2012) To be specific, the researchers first identified the feedback points in the writing pieces, each of which was then coded The codes were labelled, and finally, were categorized based on the emergent themes from the analysis of the teachers’ WCF given in the students’ writing texts After that, the frequency of the teacher WCF points was counted as well The theme framework for reviewing the students’ writing papers is summarized in Table 3.2
Description of Examining Students’ Writing Texts
T provides WCF on ALL types of students’ errors in writing
T provides WCF on the errors SELECTIVELY
Language (Grammar, vocabulary, mechanics (spelling, punctuation, capitalization))
T indicates (underlining/circling) errors and corrects them
T indicates (underlining/circling) errors, corrects them and categorises them (with the help of a marking code)
T indicates (underlining/circling) errors and categorises them (with the help of a marking code), but without correcting them
T indicates (underlining/circling) errors, but without correcting them
T hints at the location of errors and categorises them (with the help of a marking code), e.g by writing ‘Prep’ in the margin to indicate a preposition error on a specific line
Following the stage of qualitative analysis of the writing pieces is a quantitative analysis using SPSS software The quantitative data was analyzed by calculating Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD), Frequency, and percentages in detail.
Research Reliability and Validity
The questionnaire utilized in this study was largely derived from Lee (2009), which was frequently used as a research instrument by researchers to examine perceptions of WCF supply However, the questionnaire was reconsidered and modified by the researcher to suit the research context and study objectives The reliability of the questionnaire was then examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient According to Goforth (2015), a reliability test with Cronbach's alpha is a statistical tool to assess the internal concept consistency of scaled questions using a Likert scale, looking at the reliability of all the assertions In order to generate trustworthy results, reliability testing was incorporated into the data analysis The questionnaire's coefficient alpha, which was discovered to be 0.825, indicated that it had a high level of internal consistency, making it a very reliable instrument for the study The data result, which was the reliability of Likert scale questions, was displayed in Table 3.3
Reliability Statistics of 9 Likert Scale Questions
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized
Additionally, the descriptive test for item-total statistics was carried out to improve the data's reliability The results of the test are displayed in Table 3.4
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q3.1 It is necessary for teachers to provide feedback on student errors in writing
Q3.2.Teachers should provide feedback on student errors selectively
Q3.3 It is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students
Scale Mean if Item Deleted
Scale Variance if Item Deleted
Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Q3.4 Teachers should vary their error feedback techniques according to the type of error
Q3.5 Coding errors with the help of a marking code is a useful means of helping students correct errors for themselves
Q3.6 Marking codes should be easy for students to follow and understand
Q3.7 Students should learn to locate their own errors
Q3.8 Students should learn to locate and correct their own errors
Q3.9 Students should learn to analyse their own errors
With regard to the scale test's outcome, the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for the nine Likert scale questions was 825, which was higher than the necessary value of 0.60 (Cronbach, 1951) The Corrected Item-Total
Correlation of all 9 variables ranged from 349 to 690 (> 0.3), as well In conclusion, so far the research methodology, the data collection instruments, as well as the data collection and analysis processes, have been provided The findings of this study promise to be trustworthy and valid thanks to the thoughtful design of the questionnaires and interview questions with teachers, as well as the mix of quantitative and qualitative methods in data analysis.
Ethical Considerations
This research is guaranteed to be ethically and legally sound at every stage The researcher obtained approval and guidance from the administrators and English group leaders of high schools in the central and central highland provinces before beginning this investigation The English teachers voluntarily participated in this study At any time, they were free to opt in or out of the study Additionally, anonymity was assured The recording of the data collected during this investigation was done in a way that protected each participant's privacy Information from participants was not used by the researcher for anything except this experiment All of the data was anonymous Data was collected, coded, and reported without any alteration for the purposes of data collection and analysis.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the methodology used to address the research questions raised has been discussed There was justification for combining quantitative and qualitative data An explanation of the research setting and participants in depth was also noted The instruments for gathering data and details of the data analysis procedures were presented The steps taken to improve research reliability and validity were outlined The results of the study's analysis of the data will be presented in the next chapter.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
This section reports the findings on the teachers’ perceptions and practices of WCF in the writing classes The perceptions were investigated through the questionnaire comprising five clusters: the WCF's main purpose, the teachers’ self-evaluation of their existing feedback practices, the amount, focus and strategies of WCF The questionnaire data analysis results about the teachers' perceptions of WCF were summarized in Tables 4.1 to 4.3 Data from participant interviews were given and discussed whenever they were pertinent The practices were explored by analysing students’ corrected writing assignments and the outcomes of the data analysis were compiled in Table 4.4
4.1.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback
This section is devoted to present the findings on teachers’ perceptions of WCF investigated through the questionnaire comprising four clusters: WCF’s main purposes, WCF efficacy, WCF strategy practices and WCF techniques The questionnaire data analysis results about the teachers' perception of WCF were summarized from Tables 4.1 to 4.5 Whenever relevant, interview data of the participants' perception were also presented and discussed
4.1.1.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of the Main Purpose of WCF
The survey's first question was open-ended and disseminated some critical information regarding the initial research question This inquiry aimed to learn what instructors believed to be the primary goal of offering feedback on students' writing errors The questionnaire data analysis results about the teachers' perceptions of the main purposes of WCF are summarized in Table 4.1
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Main Purpose of WCF
Purposes a 1 To help students notice their errors 38 21.6% 58.5%
2 To help students reflect on their writing 28 15.9% 43.1%
3 To help students improve their overall writing performance 55 31.3% 84.6%
4 To prepare students for higher levels of academic writing 27 15.3% 41.5%
5 To help students meet the Ministry of
Regarding the first item in the questionnaire “In your opinion, what is the main purpose of providing feedback on students’ errors in writing?”, as its design of multiple-response questions (i.e., selecting all that apply), the participants can choose more than one option As can be noticed from Table 4.1, the teachers viewed WCF as having multiple purposes Most of them (84.6%) believe that WCF fits into the objective of teaching writing which is to improve their overall writing performance Most of the respondents who were invited to the interviews showed their total agreement with the main purpose of WCF For example, T3 emphasized that “It is obvious that WCF aids students in raising their general writing efficiency….English is a foreign language If we do not give feedback, they hardly learn what is right, so it is vital for their writing improvement.” T2 also stated “I have been teaching English for more than 15 years, and in almost all of my writing periods I give feedback at the end of the class I find out that my students’ writing competence has been considerably improved.”
Noticeably, 58.5% of the respondents find WCF useful for the short- term goal, that is, to help students recognize their errors so that they can avoid them when writing next time T1 and T9 in the interview session shared the idea that giving error feedback was essential in teaching writing skills because it would be simpler for their students to recall, fix the mistakes or errors and complete the writing task T9 further expressed her view “Students may see their mistakes or what they should improve in their writing in the written format.”
Purposes 2, 4 and 5 are related to the long-term effects of WCF The teachers believed that WCF aims to help students reflect on their writing, prepare students for higher levels of academic writing and help them meet the
Ministry of Education’s standards, accounting for 43.1%, 41.5%, and 43.1% respectively
From the quantitative and qualitative findings, it can be concluded that all teachers see the value in WCF and think it has several purposes Some of these reasons are connected to other long-term aims, even though the majority of these reasons support the immediate/short-term objectives of writing teaching
4.1.1.2 Teachers’ Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Their WCF Practices on Their Students’ Writing
The next item of the questionnaire related to how the teachers felt about their current error-feedback practices, as shown in Table 4.2
Teachers’ Self-evaluation of the Effectiveness of Their WCF Practices on
My students are making Frequency Per cent Valid
Valid good progress 26 40.0 40.0 40.0 some progress 34 52.3 52.3 92.3 little progress 5 7.7 7.7 100.0
It was crucial to draw attention to the fact from Table 4.4 that up to 40% and 52.3% of respondents respectively stated their students were making
"good progress" and "some progress" as a result of their current WCF practices, while just 7.7% of participants chose the option "little progress." These facts and figures were completely consistent with what was found in the interviews In response to the question “How would you assess the effectiveness of your feedback practices? Are you satisfied with your feedback practices?”, the following comments are representative of the instructors’ views “Through my students’ good performance in the writing period, I confidently say that my WCF procedure is quite reasonable and effective…, so I say yes, I am contented with it,” T7 said T6 described her teaching procedures in the writing class as three stages: pre-writing, while- writing and post-writing She emphasized that writing feedback was considered the last stage in her class This teaching procedure was also accepted by all the teachers in the interview session It can be recognised that WCF plays an important part in students' language learning process thanks to its efficiency in students’ writing
T8 when asked the above question affirmed that “without written feedback, what has been taught in terms of theory would not be clearly understood So, in each of my writing classes, I spend fifteen minutes giving error feedback I am completely satisfied with my feedback practices.”
However, only one out of ten interviewees, T6 expressed her dissatisfaction with her current feedback practices She said, “I myself find the way I give feedback workable, but in fact, in my class, eh… my students are often distracted from the learning activity, eh or it is such a large class that I can not manage or attract all their attention…, so just some students who actively concentrate on the feedback activity make progress.” That is to say, if the students are not committed to improving their writing skills, they will not improve, no matter what kind of feedback is provided However, teachers continue offering WCF because they hold a strong belief that at least some students would gain benefits from it
In a nutshell, almost all of the participants recognised WCF as an integral part of the process of teaching writing and its benefits to the student’s language learning They had positive evaluations of their currently used feedback procedures implemented in the writing classes Therefore, it is essential for the author to keep on exploring what the teachers’ techniques are involved in the WCF process
4.1.1.3 Teachers’ Perceptions of WCF Strategy Practices
The following section of the questionnaire has nine items that ask teachers about their opinions on the teachers’ need to provide feedback on students writing, the responsibility for error corrections and the use of error codes The quantitative data for this question is presented in Table 4.3
Teachers’ Perceptions of Their WCF Strategies
No Statements N Minimum Maximum Mean Std
It is necessary for teachers to provide feedback on student errors in writing
Teachers should provide feedback on student errors selectively
It is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students
Teachers should vary their error feedback techniques according to the type of error
Coding errors with the help of a marking code is a useful means of helping students correct errors for themselves
Marking codes should be easy for students to follow and understand
7 Students should learn to locate their own errors 65 1.00 4.00 3.05 623
Students should learn to locate and correct their own errors
9 Students should learn to analyse their own errors 65 1.00 4.00 3.09 491 Valid N (listwise) 65
In general, it can be seen from Table 4.3 that the mean values of this set of items range from 2.99 to 3.54 This suggests that the majority of participants agreed with the WCF's statements More specifically, regarding item No.1, the participants' response was quite obvious because every single participant agreed - or strongly agreed - that they should give feedback to students on their writing mistakes (No.1, M = 3.54, SD = 502) The mean score of the respondents’ perspective on the necessity of feedback provision was 3.54 with a standard deviation of 0.502 This finding is supported by the other findings from the interview sessions All of the teachers who joined the interview agree that providing WCF is “the most crucial task for writing teachers” Without it, students will “continue to make the same mistakes in their writing” and “fail to make any progress.” T3 stated that “when the teachers don’t take WCF stage in a writing class, their lesson plan is obviously considered incomplete.”
Besides, the results of the questionnaire addressing responsibility for error corrections (No.3, No.7, No.8 and No.9) expressed contradictions from the teachers’ perspectives When asked whether the teachers’s job is to locate errors and give corrections to students, a vast majority of them show their agreement (No.3, M = 3.29, SD = 723) However, in relation to the question if students should locate their errors, most of the respondents believed that students should do so (No.7, M = 3.05, SD = 623) Similarly, they also agreed that students should learn to locate and correct their own errors (No.8,
M = 3.09, SD = 478), and students should learn to analyse their own errors (No.9, M = 3.09, SD = 491) Therefore, it appears that teachers are in conflict with one another Although they understand how important it is to give students the duty of error location and correction, in practice teachers themselves perform the students' work
Discussion
In order to gain a better understanding of the findings, the data collected from 65 EFL high school teachers by questionnaire, ten interviews and 150 corrected writing assignments are presented together under the headings of two research questions
4.2.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback
The discussion about how EFL high school teachers perceived WCF provision is divided into five categories, namely the main purpose of WCF, the teachers’ need to provide feedback on students' writing and responsibility for error corrections, the use of error codes and WCF techniques
As regards the teachers’ perception of the main purpose of WCF, it was noticed that the teachers believed that WCF served a variety of purposes The majority of the respondents find WCF useful for the short- term goal, namely helping students recognize their errors and improve their overall writing performance This outcome conflicts with Truscott (1996), who argued against the benefits of WCF for L2 development However, many earlier researches support this finding, attesting to the significance of offering WCF on students' papers and the crucial part it plays in enhancing their writing performance (Zhang & Cheng, 2021; Pham & Iwashita, 2018; Brown et al., 2023; Rummel & Bitchener, 2015) This result is not unexpected given that WCF is primarily intended to improve students' ability for error identification and analysis, which will enable them to learn from their mistakes (Hyland, 2003)
In terms of the result of long-term effects (i.e., reflecting on the writing, preparing students for higher levels of academic writing and meeting the Ministry of Education’s standards), this contradicts Truscott (2007) who contended that “WCF could only be considered as effective for revision but not as effective for learning.” In particular, he argued that even though editing and rewriting are crucial for developing L2 writing, they cannot prove learning has taken place unless students show they can maintain the accuracy of linguistic components in new works of writing In contrast, the results of this study are consistent with those of prior research on how lecturers perceive feedback For example, according to Iqbal et al (2014), teachers believed WCF was intended to assist pupils in advance and needed to be phrased favourably (Brown et al., 2012)
To sum up, the study's findings support WCF proponents in the current discussion about how it affects learners' performance In the short term, WCF can help learners identify and correct errors in their writing, which can lead to improved accuracy and develop their writing skills In the long term, WCF can help learners develop higher levels of academic writing by increasing their awareness of the language system and by providing opportunities for practice and reflection Therefore, it is strongly advised that EFL teachers provide WCF to their students in order to showcase the benefits of WCF
The study was highlighted by the finding that a vast majority of the respondents believed they needed to give their students error corrections and agreed on their responsibility for providing students with WCF These perspectives of the teachers can be primarily attributed to WCF’s effects on the accuracy of students’ writing and the progress made in their writing classes This result is in line with those of related research that has been conducted (Al-bakri, 2015; Lee, 2003b; Ferris, 1999) In a similar vein, Evans, et al (2010) report that WCF is frequently used by experienced SLA teachers because they see its value, and the researchers claim that this perspective is valid for pedagogical reasons The majority of the teachers, however, held the belief that students should learn to locate, correct and analyze errors on their own This finding can be explained by Lee (2003b), who states that teachers may be motivated by the daily and pressing demands of students, parents, panel chairs, principals, etc to shoulder the responsibility of error location and correction, despite the fact that they are aware of the significance of asking students to take on this responsibility Lee notices that the thought of enabling pupils to identify and fix mistakes may only be at the back of teachers' minds
From the teachers’ agreement on both considering WCF as their job and suggesting students’ locating, correcting and analysing errors themselves, it can be inferred that teachers place significant emphasis on students' active participation in the WCF process in order to foster students’ autonomy Similar to this, earlier studies (Lee, 2009); Amrhein & Nassaji, 2010) claim that teachers respect student autonomy since these students are more likely to be adept at self-correction, which aids in the retention of mistakes
In relation to using error codes, the large majority of the teachers agreed that “coding errors with the help of a marking code is a useful means of helping students correct errors for themselves and concurred that marking codes should be easy for students to follow and understand.” The result shows congruence with the outcome obtained in other studies in the same field (Purnomo et al., 2021; Norouzian, 2015; Lee (2003b) Lee’s study suggested that most of the teachers used the codes in marking students’ assignments and revealed that employing codes to provide mistake feedback was thought to be helpful but might pose challenges for both teachers and students To be specific, it took up a lot of teachers' time and could frustrate students, especially when numerous codes have to be considered According to Hong (2021), teachers were worried about how well their students would be able to decipher the codes and amend their errors in light of them Besides, it was suggested that codes be taught in the classroom and the level of the pupils and the aim of the writing piece would be taken into account
Concerning the teachers’ self-descriptions of their existing error feedback practices, the current study shows a clear tendency for the teachers to highly appreciate selective WCF (i.e., marking students’ errors selectively)
In the same vein, Yang et al (2021) found a very strong preference for selective WCF among Chinese learners By the same token, Soleimani & Rahimi (2021) reported that most of the teachers opted for selective WCF because according to them, focusing on a small number of mistakes makes learning more efficient, reduces cognitive load, and improves learning The results are somehow congruent with those of Nguyen et al (2022), who indicated that "correct common mistakes" is the WCF technique that VLU lecturers employ most frequently When asked about factors impacting their feedback, most participants responded that they chose the best WCF technique based on the time allotted
When it comes to an explanation for such a preference, Lee (2019b) after examining comprehensive WCF and focused WCF (i.e., selective WCF) from a variety of perspectives, offered theoretical support for selective WCF and made the case that teachers can accomplish more with less time spent on writing feedback for students, such as “more balanced written feedback” that encourages students to develop their writing, more timely and thus important WCF for students, and more opportunities for teachers to engage in collaborative professional learning as they innovate WCF As for students, less teacher WCF means more space for students to take risks and improve their confidence, “more balanced feedback” to support their writing development, and more active participation (e.g., more use of self-/peer editing and/or online learning resources by students to supplement teacher WCF) Focused/ selective WCF is undoubtedly the way to go when less teacher WCF is more for both teachers and students
With respect to WCF strategies teachers used in writing classes, the findings showed that there was a high approval for direct WCF Such findings are observed in Jodaie & Farrokhi (2012), Gul et al (2016) and Fortunasari et al (2021), who found that direct feedback (i.e., indicating + correcting errors) was preferred as the best technique to give correction by a vast majority of the respondents in their study A key contributor to the teachers’ choice of WCF techniques was the teachers’ language proficiency level There was a widespread consensus among the teachers in the present study that direct WCF was deemed more suitable for low-level students than any other methods This finding also correlated with the finding of Zhang et al (2021), who supported that “less proficient learners need more explicit WCF guidance on less rule-governed, unique linguistic errors than more proficient learners.”
Moreover, in comparison with indirect WCF, direct strategy is preferable because it is more straightforward and enables pupils to recognize mistakes immediately According to Tian & Zhou's (2020) research, this may satisfy the majority of EFL learners' expectations for getting teachers' WCF Likewise, the teachers’ support for direct WCF was found to be influenced by workload and time constraints Soleimani & Rahimi's (2021) study also claimed that while implicit WCF would increase learners' self-assurance and capacity for learning, and foster their independence and curiosity, it was time- consuming and a burden to the teachers
On the other hand, such results were inconsistent with Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli, (2019), Alshahrani & Storch (2014), Zohra & Fatiha (2022) and Hong (2021) These authors discovered that surveyed teachers were in favour of indirect WCF, commending indirect feedback's efficiency Most of them emphasized the significance of ownership from the viewpoint of the students, which may be diminished if teachers revised the erroneous sections for the students “Hinting at the location of errors and hinting at the location of errors+categorizing them” were the error correction techniques that teachers indicated they rarely or never employed Both include approaches for indirect error location and indirect feedback These two strategies are more difficult for students to master since teachers only indirectly suggest where errors are located and students must do so by themselves This finding correlates with the finding of Lee (2014), who indicated that techniques like "hinting at the location of errors" and "hinting at the location of errors and categorizing them" were rarely or never used by teachers since they were thought to be too demanding for the students
4.2.2 Teachers’ Practices of Written Corrective Feedback
Related to the second research question aiming to investigate the teachers’ actual written feedback in their classrooms, data collected from the analysis of 150 students' writing assignments with teacher WCF revealed the total frequency of 937 feedback actions
It is worth noticing that all of the teachers in the current study have recognized the value of WCF in improving the students’ writing skills and considered WCF as their responsibility in pedagogical practices The most striking feature in terms of the amount and focus of WCF provision was the vast majority of the teachers corrected the errors made in their students' writing in a comprehensive way In addition, the findings revealed that the teachers frequently concentrated on the language category which received much more feedback points than content and organization This was also demonstrated by the fact that 83.7% of all teachers' feedback activities overall focused on language form, which constituted more than two-thirds of all instructors' feedback in total This result was not surprising given that errors in language and mechanics might appear in every single sentence and they are more common than other types of errors What is more, the vast majority of writing assignments at their level were based on the writing tasks in the textbook; and students merely had to copy the examples therein rather than coming up with anything novel Since there were few issues with the content, style, or organization, teachers concentrated on language forms, particularly grammatical errors
This finding echoes the previous studies (Lee, 2003a, 2009; Alshahrani
& Storch, 2014; Sakrak-Ekin & Balgikanli, 2019), which confirmed the dominance of comprehensive rather selective WCF and the predominant focus on language form For example, Lee (2003a) conducted a study with
CONCLUSION
Summary of the Findings
This study shed light on how teachers perceive and administer WCF in their writing classrooms In order to address research issues, this study used a mixed-method approach, in which quantitative information was gathered through questionnaires and follow-up interviews, while qualitative information was gathered through the analysis of students' writing assignments with teachers' corrective feedback
In response to the first question concerning the teachers’ perception of WCF practice, the study confirmed that the teachers acknowledged WCF as a crucial component of the writing instruction process and its advantages for students' language learning serving several purposes Despite the fact that the bulk of these arguments support the immediate/short-term goals of writing instruction (i.e., to help students notice errors and improve their overall writing performance), some of them are related to other long-term goals (i.e., help students reflect on their writing, prepare them for higher levels of academic and meet the Ministry of Education’s standards)
As regards the responsibility for providing WCF, the majority of teachers, on the one hand, came into agreement that it is their job to locate and correct the students’ errors On the other hand, they also believed their students should contribute to the corrective feedback process by learning to locate, analyse and correct errors That is to say, teachers evidently place a high value on their active participation in the WCF process to promote students' autonomy Relating to the employment of error codes’ use, the results of the qualitative and quantitative analyses suggested that although employing codes to provide mistake feedback was thought to be helpful, there may be obstacles for both teachers and students
In terms of teachers’ preferences for WCF types, the research has yielded a variety of intriguing results Most of the teachers highly appreciated the effectiveness of selective WCF because it helps both teachers and students maintain attention on the most significant writing mistakes and boost students' autonomy in their writing When it comes to WCF strategies, the results demonstrated that direct WCF was highly approved because of its clarity and accessibility
Concerning the second research question concerning the teachers’ practices of providing WCF in writing classes, the analyses of the students’ corrected writing assignments have brought to the surface many surprising findings Within 150 students’ writing pieces, the teachers provided a total number of 937 WCF points classified into different types of WCF based on their amount, focus and strategies Of these WCF types, comprehensive feedback in comparison with selective feedback is predominantly used by the teachers Also, according to text analyses, the majority of teachers' feedback concentrated mostly on language form errors including grammatical, spelling, and punctuation issues The teachers paid less attention to content mistakes, whereas organization errors got the least attention The findings from text analyses revealed that they frequently utilized direct feedback (correcting errors directly) Direct coded feedback was the second dominant type of WCF in the writing assignments Of the four WCF strategies found in the student’s writing texts, indirect coded feedback and indirect feedback were the least frequently used, ranking third and fourth respectively
Collectively, direct WCF strategies make up more than three-fourths of the WCF points provided in the students’ writing, leaving only a small percentage for the opportunity for the distribution of indirect feedback strategies It is noticeable that indirect feedback types (indirect location of errors) including “hinting at the location of errors + categorising them and hinting at the location of errors to indicate an error on a specific line” were not employed by the teachers because it was too taxing for the students
In addition, congruences and inconsistencies between instructors' perceived practices and those they employ in the classroom were found in the study's triangulated data First of all, take teachers’ perceptions and practices in terms of WCF efficacy and responsibility into consideration, it is obvious that the teachers' declared pedagogical principles have an impact on how they implement WCF Second, relating to the focused language areas of WCF, there was a match between the teachers’ perceptions and their application in the writing classrooms Most of the teachers’ corrective feedback fell on language forms such as grammar, structures, spelling, punctuation and capitalization Next, when it comes to WCF strategies, it can be concluded that typically teachers used WCF techniques that complemented their beliefs The dominance of direct feedback was found in both teachers’ perceptions and practices
However, there was a misalignment between the teachers’ beliefs and their pedagogical application in the classrooms in terms of deciding the WCF amount to give feedback While the majority of the teachers in the survey perceived “marking codes as a useful means of helping students correct errors themselves”, not up to one-third of the feedback points detected in the students’ writing assignments were coded Another incongruence found in the study result was that selective WCF was reported to be preferred by most of the teachers, but in practice, the vast majority of them employed comprehensive WCF when marking the students’ writing pieces In addition, a mismatch between qualitative and quantitative data is also evident in this research The questionnaire finding indicated that the teachers preferred not only direct feedback but indirect feedback while their practices demonstrated a predominance of direct feedback only Finally, although the majority of the teachers stated in the questionnaire that error strategies should be varied according to the type of errors, they predominantly used direct feedback to address students’ writing errors The potential explanations for such incongruences are because of contextual factors such as time constraints, workload, students’ proficiency level, and their expectations.
Pedagogical Implications for the Teaching and Learning Process
Many concerns stem from the findings about instructors' perceptions and practices regarding WC The emphasis of the current study and other related studies is the value of WCF in foreign language instruction However, delivering efficient WCF would be a challenging and complex process with many hurdles and sophistication However, in order to deliver effective WCF, it would be a difficult and complex process involving many challenges and complexities The research's conclusions thus point to some implications that language teachers may comply with, modify, and adapt to with flexibility
According to the results of the current research, WCF practices of writing teachers were frequently not compatible with their beliefs because of the complexity of their belief systems and the different contextual factors that inhibited instructors from putting their beliefs into practice The examination of the discrepancies between teachers' beliefs and behaviours, however, is a
“driving force” in their professional development (Golombek & Johnson,
2004, p 323–324) Thus, this discrepancy might serve as a starting point for thoughtful conversation between teachers, which might, in turn, help them become more aware of their perspectives
In order to achieve successful WCF, it is first recommended that both teachers and students devote themselves to the corrective feedback process It is advisable for teachers to support their students' development of autonomy and responsibility for identifying and resolving their own mistakes Even though it is the teachers' job to provide WCF on students' writing in this setting, the study indicates that the lack of learner autonomy has a significant negative impact on teachers' attitudes and practices
This research also highlights the need to make teachers' beliefs apparent so that they may comprehend these beliefs and make use of them through critical introspection and collaborative reflection Raising teachers' awareness about their beliefs of WCF provision can further bolster self-reflection on how their tacit knowledge shapes the way they perform in the writing classrooms (Borg, 2003a) Along with providing insight into teachers' WCF perceptions and practices, the present study's contextual boundary and the discrepancy between teachers' views and practices point to the necessity for training instructors to try out a wider variety of feedback strategies Administrators are thus encouraged to take the initiative by inviting specialists to hold specific seminars, training sessions, and workshops about teaching writing in general and addressing WCF in particular either inside or outside educational institutions so that teachers might have opportunities to share their experiences and choose an effective strategy of WCF for their schools.
Limitations of the Study
Though significant efforts have been made to provide an analysis of teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF, there were certain limitations due to the novelty of the study areas, the space allotted, and the complexity and diversity of the research on language teacher perceptions
Firstly, given that this was a small-scale study and that context is crucial to the alignment of WCF beliefs and practice, the conclusions and findings may not be generalizable for all contexts of language teaching
Another limitation pertains to the subjects of the student's writing tasks that differed from one teacher to another, which would have influenced how teachers provided feedback The overall study findings then have been biased Because of this, it is challenging for the researcher to compare students' writing and completely comprehend teachers' feedback strategies In addition,
It may be beneficial to examine WCF practice over a longer period because only 150 students' corrected writing assignments were gathered for the study at one point in the academic year
Lastly, the limitation relating to the design of quantitative procedure seeking specific information underlying teachers' practices needs to be addressed After completing the writing assignments analysis, the author realized that some issues relevant to teachers’ practices of WCF need to be clarified However, due to the limitation of time, the author was not able to call for more follow-up interviews To strengthen the study results, a supplement might have been to have the teachers participate in one more interview following the analysis of the teachers’ writing texts in the research design.
Recommendations for Further Research
In light of its contributions and limitations, the current study is recommended to be viewed as a preliminary attempt for further investigation into the same subject, several suggestions on EFL high school teachers’ perceptions and practices of WCF for further work have been made
First and foremost, the study investigated teachers’ perceptions and practices but left out students’ perceptions Therefore, future studies may expand to explore students’ perceptions and preferences regarding WCF
Second, future studies should be longitudinal, to allow for a more comprehensive examination of the complex nature of instructors' stated beliefs, perceptions, and practices about written feedback techniques As Lee (2008) contends, it is unclear what influences teachers' real feedback practices It might require more time than was possible in this small-scale, short-term study to identify a particular element of the context's underlying components
Last but not least, it is envisaged that future studies will continue to illuminate this field of study using other institutional contexts, a larger sample, error materials of different varieties, and more efficient data instruments
Abbato, S (2009) Book Review: Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 9(2), 60–63 https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719x0900900213
Al-bakri, S (2015) Written corrective feedback: Teachers ’ beliefs , practices and challenges in an Omani context Arab Journal of Applied Linguistics,
Al Kharusi, F M., & Al-Mekhlafi, A M (2019) The practice of teachers’ written corrective feedback as perceived by EFL teachers and supervisors International Journal of Higher Education, 8(6), 120–137 https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v8n6p120
Al Shahrani, A A (2013) Investigation of written corrective feedback in an EFL context: beliefs of teachers, their real practices and students’ preferences Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Applied Linguistics at the University of Melbourne http://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/handle/11343/38637
Aljasir, N (2021) Matches or Mismatches? Exploring shifts in individuals’ beliefs about Written Corrective Feedback as students and teachers-to-be
Journal of Teaching and Teacher Education, 09(01), 1–10 https://doi.org/10.12785/jtte/090101
Alkhatib, N (2015) Written corrective feedback at a saudi university: English language teachers’ beliefs, students’ preferences, and teachers’ practices July, Ph.D Thesis https://search.proquest.com/docview/1779542725?accountid2908 Alqurashi, F (2022) ESP writing teachers’ beliefs and practices on WCF: Do they really meet? Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(1),
Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N (2014) Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a saudi efl context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(2), 101–122 https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.2.02als
Amrhein, H., & Nassaji, H (2010) Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127
Aridah, A., Atmowardoyo, H., & Salija, K (2017) Teacher practices and students’ preferences for Written Corrective Feedback and their implications on writing instruction International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(1), 112 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n1p112
Aseeri, F M M (2019) Written Corrective Feedback as practiced by instructors of writing in English at Najran university Journal of Education and Learning, 8(3), 112 https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v8n3p112
Bailey, R., & Garner, M (2010) Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices Teaching in Higher Education, 15(2), 187–198 https://doi.org/10.1080/13562511003620019
Balachandran, A (2017) Perspectives and practices regarding Written Corrective Feedback in Swedish context: A case study Language Teaching, 1–30
Bartram, M., & Walton, R (1991) Correction: A positive approach to language mistakes (1st ed.) Heinle ELT https://doi.org/10.1163/187633193x00018
Belcher, D., & Liu, J (2004) Conceptualizing discourse/responding to text
Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 3–6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.002
Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J (2009) Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to ‘Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)’ Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276–279 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.001
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., & East, M (2010) The focus of supervisor written feedback to thesis/dissertation students International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 79 https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119201
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing Routledge https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=QeKwcQAACAAJ
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D R (2011) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing (1st ed.) Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2009) The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback Journal of Second
Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development Multilingual Matters https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=vhdKjgEACAAJ
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Black, P., & Wiliam, D (2010) Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment Phi Delta Kappan, 92(1), 81–90 https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200119
Borg, S (2003a) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do
Language Teaching, 36(2), 382 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S (2003b) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do
Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109 https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S (2003c) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do
Language Teaching, 36(2), 81–109 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903
Borg, S (2012) Researching language teacher cognition and practice In R Barnard & A Burns (Eds.), International case studies (pp 11–29)
Multilingual Matters https://doi.org/doi:10.21832/9781847697912-003 Borg, S (2015) Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice (1st ed.) Bloomsbury Publishing
Bozorgian, H., & Yazdani, A (2021) Direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanation: Investigating language analytic ability
Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 65–85 https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120976
Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R (2023) Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta- analysis Language Teaching Research, 0(0) https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
Brown, G T L., Harris, L R., & Harnett, J (2012) Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student well-being Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7), 968–978 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.003
Brown, H D (2007) Principles of language learning and teaching Pearson Longman https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=jUF0QgAACAAJ Bryman, A (2004) Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 729–769 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.007
Burke, D., & Pieterick, J (2010) Giving students effective written feedback
Chandler, J (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Cheng, X., & Zhang, L J (2021) Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners’ writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(15)
Cheng, X., Zhang, L J., & Yan, Q (2021) Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction
Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 13621688211057664 https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665
Cheng, Y C (2012) Teachers for new learning: Reform and paradigm shift for the future In Teacher education frontiers: International perspectives on policy and practice for building new teacher competencies (pp 93–
Chi, N T K (2022) Teaching English writing at the secondary level in Vietnam: Policy intentions and classroom practice VNU Journal of Science: Education Research, 38(1), 71–81 https://doi.org/10.25073/2588-1159/vnuer.4560
Creswell J.W (1999) Mixed-Method Research: Introduction and Application In Handbook of Educational Policy (pp 455–472) Elsevier Inc
Creswell, J W (2012) Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed., Issue 1)
Creswell, J W (2015) A concise introduction to mixed methods research
Dửrnyei, Z (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies Oxford University Press
Ellis, R (2009a) A typology of written corrective feedback types ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R (2009b) Corrective feedback and teacher development L2 Journal, 1(1), 2–18 https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R (2006) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context System, 36(3), 353–371 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Eriksson, J (2022) Teachers’ perceptions of translanguaging in English teaching in Sweden Culture Language Media, 2nd, 1–46
Evans, N W., Hartshorn, K J., McCollum, R M., & Wolfersberger, M (2010) Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463 https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
Falhasiri, M (2021) Is less really more? The case for comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 24(3),
Fazio, L L (2001) The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
Feldman, R S (1999) Understanding Psychology (10th ed.) McGraw-Hill Feng, S., & Powers, K (2005) The short-and long-term effect of explicit grammar instruction on fifth graders’ writing Reading Improvement, 42(2), 67–71
Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2),
Ferris, D (2003a) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students In Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
Ferris, D (2003b) Treatment of error in second language student writing The
Catesol Journal, 183–190 https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Ferris, D., Liu, H., & Rabie, B (2011) The job of teaching writing: Teacher views of responding to student writing Writing and Pedagogy, 3(1), 39–
Ferris, D R (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D R (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies Language Teaching, 45(4), 446–459 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000250
Ferris, D R., & Hedgcock, J S (2004) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed.) Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611505
Ferris, D R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers Journal of Second Language Writing,
Ferris, D R., Pezone, S., Tade, C R., & Tinti, S (1997) Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3),
Feryok, A (2008) An Armenian English language teacher’s practical theory of communicative language teaching System, 36(2), 227–240 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2007.09.004
Written Corrective Feedback for students’ research proposal in English: What do students and lecturers prefer and why? Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 5(2), 404–416 https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v5i2.13064
Frantzen, D., & Hall, B (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course The Modern Language Journal, 3(0026–7902), 329–355
Frey, J H., & Oishi, S M (1995) How to Conduct Interviews by Telephone and in Person (1st ed.) SAGE Publications, Inc
Goforth, C (2015) Using and interpreting Cronbach’s Alpha University of Virginia Research Data Services + Sciences https://library.virginia.edu/data/articles/using-and-interpreting-cronbachs- alpha
Golombek, P R., & Johnson, K E (2004) Narrative inquiry as a mediational space: Examining emotional and cognitive dissonance in second- language teachers’ development Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 10(3), 307–327 https://doi.org/10.1080/1354060042000204388
Griffiths, C (2007) Language learning strategies: Students’ and teachers’ perceptions ELT Journal, 61(2), 91–99 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccm001
Guénette, D., & Lyster, R (2013) Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129–153 https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346
Gul, R B., Tharani, A., Lakhani, A., Rizvi, N F., & Ali, S K (2016) Teachers’ perceptions and practices of written feedback in higher education World Journal of Education, 6(3), 9–20 https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v6n3p10
Hanan, A., Firman, E., & Terasne, T (2022) Investigating English lecturers’ strategies of committing online Written Corrective Feedback during Covid-19 pandemic Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 10(1), 46 https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v10i1.4471
Hedge, T (1988) Writing In Resource books for teachers Oxford University Press https://worldcat.org/title/18326119
Hendrickson, J M (2018) The Treatment of Error in Written Work Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : The Treatment of Error in Written Work 64(2), 216–221
Ho, P V P., Thien, N M., Ly, H H., & Vy, N N H (2020) The practical perceptions of Vietnamese lecturers and students towards written peer feedback International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(6), 347 https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n6p347
Hong, W C H (2021) Macao secondary school EFL teachers’ perspectives on Written Corrective Feedback: Rationales and constraints Journal of Educational Technology and Innovation, 1(1), 1–21 https://jeti.thewsu.org/index.php/cieti/article/view/17/5
Hyland, F (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback System, 31, 217–230 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346- 251X(03)00021-6
Hyland, K (2001) Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles Written Communication, 18(4), 549–574 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2019) Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 1–
Iqbal, S., Gul, R., Lakhani, A., & Rizvi, N F (2014) Teachers’ accounts of their perceptions and practices of providing written feedback to nursing students on their assignments International Journal of Higher Education,
James Dean Brown (2001) Using Surveys in Language Programs (1st ed.)
Jang, S S (2020) The efficacy of different types of metalinguistic information in L2 written corrective feedback English Teaching (South Korea), 75(4), 33–56 https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.75.4.202012.33
Jodaie, M., & Farrokhi, F (2012) An exploration of private language institute teachers’ perceptions of written grammar feedback in EFL classes
English Language Teaching, 5(2), 58–67 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n2p58
John W Creswel, & Vicki L Piano Clark (2007) Designing and conducting mixed methods research Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public
Johnson, K E (1992) The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English
Journal of Literacy Research, 24(1), 83–108 https://doi.org/10.1080/10862969209547763
Keh, C L (1990) Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–304 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294
Kendall, L (2008) The conduct of qualitative interviews In Handbook of Research on New Literacies Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410618894.ch5
Kennedy, C., & Kennedy, J (1996) Teacher attitudes and change implementation System, 24(3), 351–360 https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-
Khanlarzadeh, M., & Taheri, P (2017) L2 writing teachers’ perceptions and problems regarding Written Corrective Feedback: Does holding a TEFL degree matter? European Online Journal of Natural and Social Sciences,
6(1), 130–145 http://www.european-science.com
Koltovskaia, S., & Mahapatra, S (2022) Student engagement with computermediated teacher written corrective feedback: A case study
JALT CALL Journal, 18(2), 286–315 https://doi.org/10.29140/jaltcall.v18n2.519
Kotler, P (2000) Marketing management : Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (10th ed) Prentice Hall https://doi.org/LK - https://worldcat.org/title/1154996375
Le, H M (2014) The role of corrective feedback in Vietnamese high school students’ writing Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science,
3(3), 61–69 http://journalofscience.ou.edu.vn/index.php/soci-en/article/view/314
Lee, I (2003a) How do Hong Kong English teachers correct errors in writing? Education Journal, 31(1), 153–169
Lee, I (2003b) L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216–237 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2003.08.002
Lee, I (2004) Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
Lee, I (2008) Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Lee, I (2009) Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice ELT Journal, 63(1), 13–22 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010
Lee, I (2013) Research into practice: Written corrective feedback Language
Teaching, 46(1), 108–119 https://doi.org/DOI: 10.1017/S0261444812000390
Lee, I (2014) Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.153
Lee, I (2019a) Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback TESOL Journal, 10(3), 1–15 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.427
Lee, I (2019b) Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more Language
Lee, I (2020) Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms Journal of Second
Language Writing, 49(February), 100734 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P (2021) Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ Journal of Second Language Writing, 54(August 2020), 100809 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809
Ly, T T (1997) Using pair and group work in teaching writing Teacher’s Edition, 22–26
Mack, L (2009) Issues and dilemmas: What conditions are necessary for effective teacher written feedback for ESL learners ? Polyglossia, 16, 33–
Mackey, A., & Gass, S M (2021) Second Language Research Methodology and Design Routledge
Mamad, A (2018) The role of Written Corrective Feedback in EFL writing
Mao, S S., & Crosthwaite, P (2019) Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice Journal of
Second Language Writing, 45(May), 46–60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004
Mao, Z., & Lee, I (2020) Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts Assessing Writing, 45(February), 100469 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
McAndrew, D A., & Reigstad, T J (2001) Tutoring Writing: A Practical Guide for Conferences Boynton/Cook Publishers https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=qOolAQAAIAAJ
Mengistu, M A., Worku, M Y., & Melesse, T (2023) Perceptions and practice of primary school English teachers in lesson study to improve their classroom practices Cogent Education, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2196906
Mi, L T H (2020) A self-report study on preferences and reasons for written corrective feedback types of Vietnamese EFL university students
Mike Lambert (2019) Practical Research Methods in Education: An Early Researcher’s Critical Guide Routledge
Mirosław Pawlak (2014) Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues Springer https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38436-3
Monette, D R., Sullivan, T J., & DeJong, C R (2013) Applied Social Research: A Tool for the Human Services Cengage Learning
Montgomery, J L., & Baker, W (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Morgan, D W (1987) An initial inquiry into the altered state experiences associated with terpsichoretrancetherapy In International Journal of
Psychosomatics (Vol 34) International Psychosomatics Institute
Mujere, N (2016) Sampling in Research (Issue July) IGI Global https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0007-0.ch006
Newman, I., & Ridenour, C (1998) Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum qualitative- quantitative research: A false dichotomy Educational Leadership Faculty
Nguyen, H U N., Duong, L N T., & Pham, V P H (2022) Written Corrective Feedback strategies applied by Van Lang University’s EFL lecturers in teaching online AsiaCALL Online Journal, 13(2), 21–41 https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.221322
Nguyen, T N L., Nguyen, T B T., & Hoang, T G L (2021) Students’ perceptions of teachers’ written feedback on EFL writing in a Vietnamese tertiary context Language Related Research, 12(5), 405–431 https://doi.org/10.29252/LRR.12.5.15
Norouzian, R (2015) Does teaching experience affect type, amount, and precision of the Written Corrective Feedback? Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 3(5), 93–105 www.european- science.com/jaelt
Nunan, D (1989) Designing tasks for the communicative classroom
OECD (2009) Teaching Practices, Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes In
Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments (pp 87–135)
OECD Publishing https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264068780-6-en
Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M (2020) Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education IGI
Pellegrino, J W., & Hilton, M L (2013) Education for life and work:
Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century
Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century, 1–242 https://doi.org/10.17226/13398
Peroukidou, V., & Kofou, I (2019) The impact of feedback on Distance Education students’ learning process TT Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 154–169 https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/impact-feedback-on- distance-education-students/docview/2222886690/se-2
Pham, N L., & Iwashita, N (2018) Using corrective feedback on writing to enhance Vietnamese learners’ autonomy International Perspectives on Teaching the Four Skills in ELT, 205–218 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
Phipps, S., & Borg, S (2009) Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think, know, believe, and do System, 37(3), 380–390 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002 Purnomo, W W., Basthomi, Y., & Prayogo, J A (2021) EFL university teachers’ perspectives in written corrective feedback and their actual applications International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(3), 1089–1099 https://doi.org/10.11591/IJERE.V10I3.21641
Rahman, M (2018) Teachers’ perceptions and practices of classroom assessment in secondary school science classes in Bangladesh
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 7(6), 254–263 https://doi.org/10.21275/art20183034
Randi Weingarten (2013) A new path forward Quality Progress, 46(6), 36–
Richards, J C., & Schmidt, R W (2013) Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315833835
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I (1986) Teachers of English to speakers of other Languages, Inc (TESOL) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality Source: TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95 Robert, A J., Hazel, R M., & Romin, W T (1992) Gender and self esteem
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J (2015) The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact LAO learners’ beliefs have on uptake
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64–82 https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.38.1.04rum
Sakrak-Ekin, G., & Balgikanli, C (2019a) Written Corrective Feedback: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 114–128
Sakrak-Ekin, G., & Balgikanli, C (2019b) Written Corrective Feedback: EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 114–128
Saragih, N, A., Madya, S., Siregar, R.A., Saragih, W (2021) Written Corrective Feedback : Students ’ perception International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2), 676–690
Searle, D., & Dillon, D (1980) The message of marking: Teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grade levels Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 233–242 http://www.jstor.org/stable/40170858
Seden, K., & Svaricek, R (2018) English as a foreign language teachers’ perception of effective feedback Jiste, 22(2), 36
Sheen, Y (2012) The effect of focused Written Corrective Feedback of contrastive analysis on EFL learners’ acquisition of verb tenses Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(November), 48–
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A (2009) Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners System, 37(4), 556–569 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Soleimani, N., & Rahimi, M (2021) (Mis) Alignment of Iranian EFL teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback beliefs and practices from an activity theory perspective Cogent Education, 8(1) https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1901640
Solmaz, F (2023) A Study on Teacher Practices , Perceptions , and Attitudes
Squires, D., & Bliss, T (2004) Teacher visions: Navigating beliefs about literacy learning The Reading Teacher, 57(8), 756–763 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20205428
Storch, N (2010) Critical feedback on Written Corrective Feedback research
International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29 https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181
Tan, O S., & Liu, W C (2015) Teacher effectiveness: Capacity building in a complex learning era (Oon Seng Tan; Woon Chia Liu (ed.); 1st ed.)
Tan, S C., & Tee, M Y (2021) In-service educators co-constructing knowledge in a PBL setting: Phases of interaction Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 15(2) https://doi.org/10.14434/ijpbl.v15i2.28769
Tian, L., & Zhou, Y (2020) Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context
System, 91, 102247 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102247
Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A Y ping (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Ur, P (1996) A course in language teacher: Practice and theory In M Williams & T Wright (Eds.), Cambridge Teacher Training and Development (Cambridge) Cambridge University Press
Van Beuningen, C (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1 https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171
Wan, S W Y (2020) Unpacking the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities and differentiated instruction practice ECNU Review of Education, 3(4), 694–714 https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120969988
Wei, W., & Cao, Y (2020) Written Corrective Feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective SAGE Open, 10(3) https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886
William, J G (2003) Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments The Internet TESL Journal, 9(10) http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html
Woon Chia, L., & Goh, C C M (2016) Teachers’ perceptions, experience, and learning Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36, 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1141464
Yang, L., Zhang, L., Li, C., Wang, K., Fan, L., & Yu, R (2021) Investigating EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices about written corrective feedback: A large-scale study Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 25, 29–65 https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2021.25.03
Zacharias, N T (2007) Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback RELC Journal, 38(1), 38–52 https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157
Zhang, L J., & Cheng, X (2021) Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance:
A mixed-methods study Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 54,
Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P (2021) EFL students’ preferences for Written Corrective Feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12(April), 1–12 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S (2018) Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower- proficiency students Assessing Writing, 37(March), 13–24 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Zohra, R F., & Fatiha, H (2022) Exploring learners’ and teachers’ preferences regarding Written Corrective Feedback types in improving learners’ writing skill Arab World English Journal, 13(March), 117–128 https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no1.8
Zou, P X W., Sunindijo, R Y., & Dainty, A R J (2014) A mixed methods research design for bridging the gap between research and practice in construction safety Safety Science, 70, 316–326 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.07.005
I am surveying EFL teachers’ perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback for research and pedagogical purposes I would greatly appreciate your assistance in completing this survey Information from the survey will be used confidentially and only be utilized for the research Remember this is not a test and there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers Take your time and try to give SINCERE answers
3 Please indicate in which province you are teaching now
4 Please indicate how long you have been working as an EFL teacher
5 Please indicate your teaching periods per week for a class
6 Please indicate what kinds of qualifications you are currently holding
BA in English/ Applied Linguistics/ Linguistics/ TESOL/TEFL
MA in English/ Applied Linguistics/ Linguistics/ TESOL/TEFL
PhD in English/ Applied Linguistics/ Linguistics/ TESOL/TEFL
Part 2 Please indicate your choices for each of the following items
1 In your opinion, what is the main purpose of providing feedback on students’ errors in writing? (Select all that apply)
To help students notice their errors
To help students reflect on their writing
To help students improve their overall writing performance
To prepare students for higher levels of academic writing
To help students meet the Ministry of Education’s standards
2 How would you evaluate the overall effectiveness of your existing error feedback practice on student progress in grammatical accuracy in writing at the end of one academic year? Please tick the most appropriate box
3 To what extent do you agree with the following statements?
1 There is no need for teachers to provide feedback on student errors in writing
2 Teachers should provide feedback on student errors selectively
3 It is the teacher’s job to locate errors and provide corrections for students
4 Teachers should vary their error feedback techniques according to the type of error
5 Coding errors with the help of a marking code is a useful means of helping students correct errors for themselves
6 Marking codes should be easy for students to follow and understand
7 Students should learn to locate their errors
8 Students should learn to locate and correct their errors
9 Students should learn to analyse their own errors
4 Which of the statements below best describes your existing error feedback practice? Please tick the most appropriate box
My existing error feedback practice:
A I DON’T MARK students’ errors in writing
5 Rate the frequency with which you use each of the following error feedback techniques according to the scale below Please circle the appropriate number How often do you use the following error feedback techniques?
1 I indicate (underline/circle) errors and correct them, e.g., has went → gone
2 I indicate (underline/circle) errors, correct them and categorize them (with the help of a marking code), e.g., has went → gone (verb form)
3 I indicate (underline/circle) errors, but
I don’t correct them, e.g., has went
4 I indicate (underline/circle) errors and categorize them (with the help of a marking code), but I don’t correct them, e.g., has went (verb form)
5 I hint at the location of errors, e.g., by putting a mark in the margin to indicate an error on a specific line
6 I hint at the location of errors and categorize them (with the help of a marking code),e.g., by writing ‘Prep’ in the margin to indicate a preposition error on a specific line
Thank you very much for taking your valuable time to complete this survey Your opinions are greatly appreciated
Tôi đang thực hiện một nghiên cứu về phản hồi chữa lỗi trong viết Tiếng Anh với mục đích nghiên cứu sư phạm Tôi sẽ rất trân quý sự giúp đỡ của quý thầy cô vì hoàn thành khảo sát này Thông tin cá nhân trong khảo sát sẽ được bảo mật tuyệt đối và chỉ được dùng với mục đích nghien cứu Đây không phải là một bài kiểm tra nên rất mong quý thầy cô dành chút thời gian và cho câu trả lời chân thực
Xin chân thành cảm ơn quý thầy cô!
Phần 1: Thông tin cá nhân
2 Tuổi (vui lòng ghi rõ):
3 Vui lòng cho biết quý thầy/ cô đang dạy ở tỉnh nào?
4 Vui lòng cho biết quý thầy/ cô công tác được bao nhiêu năm rồi?
5 Vui lòng cho biết quý thầy/ cô dạy bao nhiêu tiết trên một tuần cho một lớp học?
khác (vui lòng ghi rõ):
6 Vui lòng cho biết quý thầy/ cô đang giữ văn bằng, chứng chỉ nào?
Cử nhân chuyên ngành Tiếng Anh/ Ngôn ngữ học Ứng dụng/ Ngôn ngữ học / TESOL/TEFL
Thạc sĩ chuyên ngành Tiếng Anh/ Ngôn ngữ học Ứng dụng/ Ngôn ngữ học / TESOL/TEFL
Tiến sĩ chuyên ngành Tiếng Anh/ Ngôn ngữ học Ứng dụng/ Ngôn ngữ học / TESOL/TEFL
Chứng chỉ giảng dạy Tiếng Anh: CELTA/ DELTA
Khác (vui lòng ghi rõ):
Phần 2 Vui lòng cho biết lựa chọn của quý thầy/ cô cho mỗi câu hỏi bên dưới
1 Theo thầy/cô, mục đích chính của việc phản hồi sửa lỗi cho bài viết của học sinh là gì? (Có thể chọn nhiều )
Để giúp học sinh chú ý tới lỗi sai
Để giúp học sinh suy tưởng, phản tư về bài viết của mình
Để giúp học sinh cải thiện hiệu suất viết tổng thể
Để chuẩn bị cho học sinh cấp độ viết cao hơn
Để giúp học sinh đáp ứng tiêu chuẩn đặt ra của Bộ Giáo dục