Students’ preferences for and Responses to Teacher Written Feedback on Grammatical Errors: A case study at Le Quy Don Private Primary School Trần Thị Phương Chi Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Teaching Methodology; Mã số: 60 14 10 Người hướng dẫn: Pham Minh Tam, M.Ed Năm bảo vệ: 2013 Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Phương pháp giảng dạy; Ngữ pháp Content Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with the presentation of the statement of the problem and rationale for the study. Next, it presents the aims and scopes of the study as well as the research questions to which the study seeks to find answers. This is followed by a brief description of methodology used in the present study. Finally, the chapter concludes with a description of the organization of the thesis. 1.1 Statement of the Problem and Rationale for the Study Teacher feedback has long been regarded as an essential part in language teaching and learning because it not only helps students to correct their own mistakes but also enhances more confidence about their language competences. Feedback may focus on either forms or contents or both. It was clearly seen that young learners of English as a foreign language often commit grammatical errors in their writing. Therefore, teachers’ giving feedback on their errors is considered to be necessary for students’ proficiency. However, the effectiveness of feedback does not lie in itself but by many other factors such as students’ preferences for and responses to the teacher feedback. That is the reason why teachers need to take into account some questions: “What feedback strategies does a teacher actually use when providing feedback on grammatical errors”, “Do students like their teachers’ feedback type?”, “How do they react when receiving feedback?” Up to now, studies of language education have given considerable attention to the issue of how to provide feedback on students’ writing (Diab, 2005, Wang, 2010; Katayama; 2007). Yet, the effectiveness of written feedback on grammatical errors has been under-explored (Russel, J.M 2003). Some attention has been given to investigate whether certain types of written feedback may be more effective than the others, but the findings are not inclusive. Additionally, which feedback strategies would fit the needs of particular students is still questioned. Addressing these issues will require time and commitment of a number of researchers. The research being reported in this study contributes to the agenda by investigating the fit between teachers’ practices, students’ preferences and strategies for handling feedback on their written work. Much as important written feedback on grammatical errors is, there have been few studies comprehensively dealing with the issue. There is also a lack of consensus over such matters as what feedback strategies is the most effective to correct grammatical errors in particular context, what feedback types are preferred by students and how students respond when they receive teacher feedback. Moreover, almost all of the feedback studies on students’ preferences and responses have been conducted in college/ university setting. Owing to the lack of consensus on the effectiveness of teacher feedback, this study aims to gain more insights into giving effective feedback by asking what students think, want and do after they receive teacher feedback. There is a paucity of research that addresses the elementary context. In Vietnam, a focus on primary school students is important since they are those who have chances to access English as a foreign language from the very young ages (7-11). This study is an attempt to examine the real situation of written feedback on grammatical errors conducted at the Le Quy Don Private Primary School and to propose some suggestions for the betterment of the current practice. As most of the past studies have pursued the inquiry of teacher feedback in two general ways, namely students’ preferences for teacher feedback (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Hiroko, 1994; Leiki, 1999) and students’ responses to teacher feedback (Cohen,1987; Ferris, 1995, Chiang, 2004), this study follow the similar traits and attempts to find out how students perceive teacher feedback, what they are concerned about, and what they do after receiving teacher feedback. 1.2 Objectives of the Study This research is conducted for the following purposes: 1. To explore the teachers’ written feedback types in respond to students’ grammatical errors. 2. To investigate the students’ preferences towards different types of feedback 3. To find out the students’ strategies for handling feedback after they have received their written work 1.3 Research Questions This study is conducted to answer the following research questions: 1. What are the types of teacher written feedback on the students’ grammatical errors? 2. What are the students’ preferences for different types of teacher feedback on grammatical errors? 3. How do students handle the feedback they receive? 1.4 Scope of the Study This study limits itself to the exploration of the types of written feedback on grammatical errors that were commonly used by the teachers in the study, the students’ preferences for and responses to each feedback type. Alternative types such as oral corrective feedback by teachers and peer-to-peer feedback from the students are beyond the scope of this study. The impact of teacher feedback on learners’ proficiency is also not the objective of the study. The present research was conducted at a private primary school in Hanoi, with two teachers and two classes of young learners enrolled in Let’s Go 4 course. Teachers and students in classes that are not in primary school system are outside the scope of this study. 1.5 Methodology of the Study This is a case study with the presence of two teachers and two groups of students. The teachers were teaching English to fourth-graders at Le Quy Don Private Primary School in Hanoi. Data were then analyzed by means of descriptive statistics to identify the patterns of feedback employed by the teachers. The students’ preferences were elicited through the questionnaires and students’ responses to teacher feedback on grammatical errors were collected from teacher’s interviews. 1.6 Significance of the Study Providing feedback involves in teachers’ regular practice. Feedback, as a means of communication from the teachers, needs the responses from the learners in order to enhance its efficacy. Consequently, the link between teachers’ practice of giving feedback, students’ preferences and students’ responses in primary school context are taken into account in this study. Feedback provides students with the information on their performance and learning progress. Therefore, it is important to know the feedback types preferred by the young learners in the primary language classroom. Additionally, it offers teachers of English a number of pedagogical implications in terms of written grammar correction to the learners in this context. Specifically, teachers can be informed about the effects of different feedback patterns, based on which they can choose the ones that suit their students’ preferences and work for the types of feedback that students react positively. 1.7 Organization of the Study The thesis is composed of 5 chapters. Chapter 1 presents the research focus and provides the rationale for it as well as its aims, scopes, method, research questions and the significance of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature, setting the theoretical foundation for the data collection and analysis Chapter 3 presents the methodology employed to carry out the present study. This includes a discussion of the participants, the data collection instruments and the procedures for data collection and analysis. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study with reference to the teacher written feedback strategies and students’ preferences and response to feedback and also their relationship. Chapter 5 gives a brief summary of the main findings, from which pedagogical implications are derived. This chapter also acknowledges the limitations of the present study and provides suggestions for further studies. REFERENCES 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, 191-205. Bitchener, J., &Knoch, U. (2009).The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. 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. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 157-166. Brown, H. Douglas (2004) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (fifth edition), 216 - 219 Burt, M. K., & Kiparsky, C. (1972). The gooficon: A repair manual for English. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 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. Chaney, S. J. (1999). The effect of error types on error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, March 11-14, 2000, Vancouver, B. C. Cohen, A D. & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Condelli, L. & Wrigley, H.S. (2004). Real world research: Combining qualitative and quantitative Creswell, J. (1998). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. research for adult ESL. [Word document] Retrieved from www.leslla.org/files/resources/RealWorldResearch.doc Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28–42. Fathman, A K. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339. Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC. Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. (2009). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll, Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing. (p. 122). New York City, NY: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155-182. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2009). Teaching ESL composition. New York City, NY: Routledge. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design & evaluate research in education. (4th ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163. Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398. Hong, P. C. (2003). Investigating teachers’ and secondary students’ preferences towards direct or indirect feedback on students’ writing: Which way is more helpful. [Online] Available: www.2.ied.edu.hk/mentoring/wals08/download.asp?code=057&ptype Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on Form: Student Engagement with Teacher Feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. Lalande, J.F. 1982. “Reducing composition errors: An experiment”. Modern Language Journal 66 (2): 140-149. Larsen-Freeman, D., M. Long, (1991) An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research, Longman Lee, N., (1990) Notions of “Error” and Appropriate Corrective Treatment, Hong Kong Papers in Linguistics and Language Teaching 13 Lee, I. (1997). ELS learners’ performance in error correction in writing. System, 25, 465-477. Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216–237. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second language Writing, 13, 285-312. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218. Long, M. (1991) Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39– 52). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lyster, R. 1998. “Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20(1): 51-81. Matveev, A. (2002). The advantages of employing quantitative and qualitative methods in intercultural research: Practical implications from the study of the perceptions of intercultural communication competence by American and Russian managers. Retrieved on March 9, 2009 from http://www.russcomm.ru/eng/rca_biblio/m/matveev01_eng.shtml Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers. Radecki, P. M. & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355-365. Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407-430. Saiko, H. (1994). Teachers Practices and Students’ Preferences for Feedback on Second Language Writing: A case study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal.11(2), 46-70 Sheen, Y. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult esl learners . System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 37(4). Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Van Lier (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–97. . Students’ preferences for and Responses to Teacher Written Feedback on Grammatical Errors: A case study at Le Quy Don Private Primary School Trần Thị Phương Chi. 1.1 Statement of the Problem and Rationale for the Study Teacher feedback has long been regarded as an essential part in language teaching and learning because it not only helps students to correct. exploration of the types of written feedback on grammatical errors that were commonly used by the teachers in the study, the students’ preferences for and responses to each feedback type. Alternative