VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN BÍCH HIỀN 11th GRADERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THEIR TEACHERS’ WRITTEN FEEDBACK (Thái độ học sinh lớp 11 phản hồi dạng viết giáo viên) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 Hanoi, 2016 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN BÍCH HIỀN 11th GRADERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS THEIR TEACHERS’ WRITTEN FEEDBACK (Thái độ học sinh lớp 11 phản hồi dạng viết giáo viên) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 Supervisors: Assoc.Prof.Dr Le Van Canh Hanoi, 2016 DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP I, NGUYỄN BÍCH HIỀN, hereby certify that this thesis, which is entitled “11th graders’ attitudes towards their teachers’ written feedback” is entirely my own work in the fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Arts at Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi It has not been submitted for assessment at any other university Hanoi, 2016 Nguyễn Bić h Hiề n i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I am profoundly beholden to my supervisor, Assoc.Prof.Dr Lê Văn Canh, for his great expertise and unfailing support, without which the thesis would not be completed I owe a great debt of gratitude to all the lecturers of the Faculty of PostGraduate Studies, Hanoi University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, whose transfer of knowledge to me has made me grow more professionally I would like to express my sincere thanks to my course members for their sharing in times of uncertainty and for their giving my thesis a close reading My special thanks go to the English language teachers and students at Chu Van An Gifted High School of Lang Son Province for their cooperation during the data collection process I am deeply indebted to my family members for their wholehearted backing all along the way ii ABSTRACT The study explores 11th graders‟ attitudes towards written corrective feedback in an English class Data were collected by means of a Likert-scale questionnaire, which was administered to 314 students of 11 th grades, 38 of whom were English-specialising students and 276 of whom were non-Englishspecialising students The questionnaire elicited information on the students‟ attitudes towards teachers‟ utilisation of various corrective feedback types Results show that the students had a positive attitude towards corrective feedback, be they English-specialising or non-English-specialising The results of this study can be viewed as a valuable contribution to existing research findings in the realm of corrective feedback Previous studies have examined the efficacy of particular corrective feedback types in certain educational environments This study provides unique findings from a unique learning environment, namely a high school for gifted students The results presented in this paper support previous findings that in certain circumstances corrective feedback works Additionally, the results reinforce the need to continue scholarship on corrective feedback and student perceptions of its use The thesis concludes with some suggestions for teachers‟ implementation of written corrective feedback on their students‟ writings iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale of the Study Aims of the Study, Research Questions and Scope of the Study 2.1 Aims of the Study 2.2 Research Questions 2.3 Scope of the Study 3 Method of the Study Significance of the Study Structure of the Thesis PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter I: LITERATURE REVIEW Attitudes Definitions of Feedback Types of Feedback 3.1 Direct Corrective Feedback 3.2 Indirect Corrective Feedback 3.3 Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback 3.4 Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback 11 Effects of Corrective Feedback 11 Students‟ Attitudes towards Teachers‟ Corrective Feedback 14 CHAPTER II: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17 Research Method 17 Data Collection Instrument 17 Research Site 18 iv Participants 18 Data Analysis 18 Chapter III: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 20 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Written Corrective Feedback 20 1.1 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Direct Corrective Feedback 20 1.2 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Indirect Corrective Feedback 22 1.3 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback 23 1.4 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Unfocused Corrective Feedback 24 1.5 Teachers‟ Frequency of Use of Focused Corrective Feedback 25 Students‟ Preference for Teacher Corrective Feedback Types 25 2.1 Students‟ Preference for Direct Corrective Feedback 26 2.2 Students‟ Preference for Indirect Corrective Feedback 26 2.3 Students‟ Preference for Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback 28 2.4 Students‟ Preference for Unfocused Corrective Feedback 29 2.5 Students‟ Preference for Focused Corrective Feedback 29 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Various Forms of Corrective Feedback 30 3.1 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Direct Corrective Feedback 31 3.2 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Indirect Corrective Feedback 32 3.3 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback 33 3.4 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Unfocused Corrective Feedback 34 3.5 Students‟ Perception of Usefulness of Focused Corrective Feedback 35 Discussion 35 PART C: CONCLUSION 38 Concluding Remarks 38 Implications 39 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study 39 REFERENCES 41 APPENDIX I v LIST OF TABLES TABLES Table 1.1 A typology of written corrective feedback Page Table 3.1 Students‟ self-reports on teachers‟ use of direct corrective feedback 20 techniques Table 3.2 Students‟ self-reports on teachers‟ use of indirect corrective feedback 22 techniques Table 3.3 Students‟ self-reports on the teachers‟ use of metalinguistic corrective 23 feedback techniques Table 3.4 Students‟ self-reports on teachers‟ use of unfocused corrective feedback 24 techniques Table 3.5 Students‟ self-reports on teachers‟ use of focused corrective feedback 25 techniques Table 3.6 Students‟ preference for direct corrective feedback techniques 26 Table 3.7 Students‟ preference for indirect corrective feedback techniques 27 Table 3.8 Students‟ preference for metalinguistic corrective feedback techniques 28 Table 3.9 Students‟ preference for unfocused corrective feedback techniques 29 Table 3.10 Students‟ preference for focused corrective feedback techniques 29 Table 3.11 Students‟ perception of usefulness of direct corrective feedback techniques 31 Table 3.12 Students‟ perception of usefulness of indirect corrective feedback techniques 32 Table 3.13 Students‟ perception of usefulness of metalinguistic corrective feedback 33 techniques Table 3.14 Students‟ perception of usefulness of unfocused corrective feedback 34 techniques Table 3.15 Students‟ perception of usefulness of focused corrective feedback techniques vi 35 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS L2: Second language CF: Corrective Feedback WCF: Written Corrective Feedback EFL: English as a Foreign Language vii PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale of the Study Feedback has been acknowledged as an essential component in the learning cycle, providing stimuli for reflection and learner development Alerting students to their strengths and weaknesses can provide the means by which they can assess their performance and make improvement to future work Feedback is also described as an effective means of encouraging greater student autonomy (Kirkwood 2000) Teacher feedback helps learners move from otherregulation provided by the teacher to self-regulation and greater independent control over target language forms Despite the acknowledged benefits of teacher feedback, teachers not always know whether and how their feedback is perceived by their students Although a few studies have examined students‟ perspectives on written corrective feedback in general, very few have investigated students‟ perceptions about the specific feedback types they have received (Karim, 2015) As far as my knowledge is concerned, this issue has yet to be researched in the high school where I have been teaching This study, therefore, sought to address this matter Using a questionnaire survey strategy, this study investigated the students‟ attitudes towards teachers‟ different types of written corrective feedback, their perceptions of the usefulness of teacher feedback to their learning to write in English Also, the study is aimed at finding out whether the students‟ proficiency in English affects their attitudes and perceptions regarding teacher written feedback or not In order to achieve the second purpose of the study, two different groups of 11th grade students, i.e English-specialising students and non-English-specialising students were selected It was assumed that the former was more proficient in English than the latter useful, useful or had no idea suggests that this strategy directs their focus, having the skills and tools to immediately see the error for what it is and internalise it for future application 3.5 Students’ Perception of Usefulness of Focused Corrective Feedback Table 3.15: Students’ perception of usefulness of focused corrective feedback techniques Students’ Responses Corrective Feedback Techniques 4j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction Student Group Very useful Useful No idea Not very useful Not useful at all N 11 14 11 1 % 29.0 36.0 29.0 3.0 3.0 N 61 130 52 29 22.0 47.0 19.0 11.0 1.0 Englishspecialising NonEnglishspecialising % Regarding the usefulness of focused corrective feedback there was almost no difference between the two groups of students Approximately 70% of them agreed that it was useful to them when teachers corrected their errors selectively Discussion A comparative analysis of question responses given by Englishspecialising students and non-English-specialsing students shows a similar pattern of frequency of use of corrective feedback forms Variations of results are subtle and indicate that teachers‟ frequency of use of corrective feedback is not predisposed to whether the L2 learner majors in English or not The results of this study are in alignment with the previous studies (e.g Schulz (2001) that the students had a positive attitude towards corrective feedback, be they English-specialising or non-English-specialising The results show slight but not remarkable differences in preferences of both groups of learners and their perceptions of the effectiveness of different written corrective 35 feedback techniques on their writing skills On the one hand, the results of this study are also consistent with what was found in the studies by Leki (1991) and Amrhein & Nassaji (2010) that the students did not like self-correcting Instead, they preferred to transfer the responsibility of error correction to the teachers On the other hand, they enjoyed the sense of learning autonomy This is evident in their preference for indirect feedback where the teachers indicated and located errors (but did not correct them) and in focused corrective feedback where teachers selected one or two types of errors for correction They appeared to enjoy working hard on improving their writing performance by learning how to correct their teacheridentified errors Teachers appear somewhat aware of effective corrective feedback strategies at the researched school illustrated by a close correlation of teachers‟ minimal use of recording numbers of errors in a line within the margin and error codes with student attitudes towards these feedback types These two forms of corrective feedback ranked on the scale of not being liked very much by L2 students and not deemed effective or useful in fostering L2 development However, survey results indicate that most forms of corrective feedback: Indirect, Direct, Metalinguistic, Focused and Unfocused were frequently used by teachers across the board regardless of student‟s preference for the type of feedback used for error correction, or of the students‟ perception of its effectiveness in assisting them to learn This fact has a pedagogical implication that suggests that continued use of some forms of feedback should be defunct This synopsis is evident in this result; Indirect CF: Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them Teachers were frequently employing the strategy of underlining or circling student errors without correcting them to provide feedback for students, with 12% of L2 learners noting teachers always used this corrective feedback, 36 24% of learners noted teachers usually provided this corrective feedback and 28% stating that it was sometimes utilised by their teachers A comparison of this high percentage of teachers‟ use of this feedback form with 56% of the respondents who stated that they did not like this feedback at all and 42% of the students that felt this feedback was not useful at all clearly depicts a mismatch between teacher aim and student expectation of L2 acquisition 37 PART C: CONCLUSION Concluding Remarks Relying on a questionnaire developed by the researcher and distributed to all 11th grade students, this study has highlighted a distinct correlation between what students prefer in teachers‟ implementation of corrective feedback and how useful they see a specific corrective feedback strategy in its effectiveness This thesis also highlights that in terms of principles of best practice methodology, teachers are missing the mark some of the time but for the most part get it right This factor could be that teachers‟ scattergun approach to corrective feedback strategies is adopted in the hope that one or more may resonate with students, or teachers believe that all forms of written corrective feedback are beneficial The questionnaire was used to determine whether the frequency of corrective feedback strategy correlated with preferential style of the students and therefore perception of its usefulness The study, consequently, specifically focused on the above factors on English-specialising students and non-Englishspecialising students comparatively From the results of the study, teachers seem to be somewhat aware of effective corrective feedback strategies at the researched school indicated by their minimal use of recording numbers of errors in a line within the margin and error codes as these two forms of corrective feedback ranked on the scale of not being liked very much by L2 students and not deemed effective or useful in fostering L2 development On the other hand, the results of the survey indicate that most forms of corrective feedback were frequently used by teachers across the board regardless of students‟ preference for the types of feedback used for error correction, or of the students‟ perception of its effectiveness in assisting them to learn This fact has a pedagogical implication that continued use of some forms of corrective feedback should be defunct More notably is the evidence that 11th grade students within this study displayed cognition of corrective feedback and its effectiveness Additionally, students appear to be advanced in learner autonomy and aware of best application for self In terms of exploring intrinsic motivation 38 in pedagogy in teaching and learning, this is a step in the right direction Implications The implications of this study are the frequency of use by teachers in written corrective feedback in the hope to promote learner autonomy Motivations and awareness of strategies need to be communicated more effectively for this to occur The dialogue on preference, effectiveness and autonomy should be held between L2 learner and the teacher on an individual basis, so as to maximise output This strategy of communicating preference in style rises to the core awareness in the students of how they best learn, and enables modifications by the teacher on an individual basis Moderating expectations on both sides may also take into considerations the „whole‟ of the student, both in orientation to subject matter, background of the student, barriers to completion and learning style preference The results of this study help to expand the existing research findings in the realm of corrective feedback Previous studies have examined the efficacy of particular corrective feedback types in certain educational environments This study provides unique findings from a unique learning environment, namely a high school for gifted students The results presented in this paper support previous findings that in certain circumstances corrective feedback works Additionally, the results reinforced the need to continue scholarship on corrective feedback and student perceptions of its use Teachers of the English language to EFL students will be able to apply the findings from this study to their classroom For example, teachers can be more directive in their use of corrective feedback and make sure that their students fully understand the conventions and purposes of teachers‟ particular use of corrective feedback Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study The study is just a survey conducted on one particular group of students in one particular gifted high school, where the students are believed to be more motivated and more academically inclined than their peers in ordinary high schools The information provided by the study is largely descriptive, and 39 therefore it fails to tell the reasons underlying the students‟ responses In addition, while the study shows the students‟ perceptions of various written corrective feedback types, those perceptions are not cross-checked with their writing performance For this limitation, the pedagogical value of the study is limited Future studies should focus on this respect of written corrective feedback 40 REFERENCES Amrhein, H R., & Nassaji, H (2010) Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Students and Teachers Prefer and Why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics / Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquee, v13 n2 p95-127 2010 Beuningen, C V (2010) Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions International Journal of English Studies, 29th Nov 2010 Bitchener, J (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-124 Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214 Brown, J D (2001) Using surveys in language programs New York: Cambridge University Press 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, 12 267-296 Choy, S C., & Troudi, S (2006) An investigation into the changes in the perceptions of and attitudes towards learning English in a Malaysian college International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 18(2), 120-130 Dörnyei, Z (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics Oxford: Oxford University Press Ellis, R (1994) The study of second language acquisition Oxford: Oxford University Press 41 Ellis, R (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types ELT Journal, 63/2 Fahim, Mansoor (2011) Corrective Feedback Provision: Mixed Pattern Vs Separate Pattern Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol 1, No 8, pp 1019-1024, August 2011 © 2011 ACADEMY PUBLISHER Manufactured in Finland Fazio, 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, 235–49 Feng, R., & Chen, H (2009) An analysis on the importance of motivation and strategy in postgraduates‟ English acquisition English Language Teaching, 2, 9397 Ferris, D R (1995) Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53 Ferris, D., & 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 R (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press Gardner, R C (1995) Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation London: Edward Arnold Gass, S M., & Selinker, L (2001) Second language acquisition: An introductory course London: Lawrence Earlbaum Hendrickson, J M (1977) Error analysis and selective correction in the adult ESL classroom: An experiment ERIC Document Reproduction Services, ED 135260 42 Hendrickson, J M (1980) The treatment of error in written work Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221 Hounsell & S.Thompson (Eds) Tutoring and demonstrating: a handbook (Sheffield, Higher Education Staff Development Agency) Hyland, F 2001 Does teacher feedback make a difference? Paper presented at BALEAP 2001 Conference, Glasgow, April, 2001 Hyland, K & Hyland, F (2006) „Feedback on second language students‟ writing‟ Language Teaching 39, 83-101 Kara, A (2009) The effect of a „Learning Theories‟ Unit on Students‟ Attitudes towards Learning Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 100-113 Kepner, (1991) Kepner, C G (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313 Lalande, J.F (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment Modern Language Journal 66: 140-9 Leki, I (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in collegelevel writing classes Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203-218 Liu, Yingliang (2008) The Effects of Error Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Second Language Acquisition and Teaching The University of Arizona Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, Vol 15, 65-79 (2008) Petchprasert, Anongnad (2012) Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning Your US-China Foreign Language, University of Phayao, Phayao, Thailand ISSN 1539-8080 April 2012, Vol 10, No 4, 1112-1120 Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N (1998) „„If only I had more time‟‟: ESL learners‟ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions Journal of Second 43 Language Writing, 7, 43–68 Richard-Amato, Patricia Making It Happen: From Interactive to Participator Language Teaching (4th ed.) Epstein Educational Enterprises Epstein Educational Resources Retrieved March 2015 Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortseed, I (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95 Rust, C (2002) The impact of assessment on student learning, Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158 Sachs, R and C Polio (2007) „Learners‟ use of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing task‟ Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29: 67–100 Sampson, Andrew (2001) Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Columbian EFL learner‟s writings www.sciencedirect.com System 40 (2012) 494e504 Retrieved 30th March 2015 Semke, H D (1984) Effects of the red pen Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202 Sheen, Y (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 255-283 Sheppard, (1992) Sheppard, K (1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110 Schulz, R A (2001) Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback USAColombia The Modern Language Journal, 85 2, 244-258 Storch, N (2010).Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46 44 Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G (2010) Learners‟ processing, uptake and rentention of corrective feedback on writing Case studies Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1-32 Truscott, J (1996) „The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes‟ Language Learning 46: 327–69 Ushida, E (2005) The role of students‟ attitudes and motivation in second language learning in online language courses CALICO Journal , 23(1), 49-78 Van Lier, L (1996) Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity London: Longman Vyatkina, Nina (2010) The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Teaching Beginning German, University of Kansas Foreign Language Annals vol 43, No.4 Weaver, Melanie A, (2007) Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors‟ written responses Nottingham Trent University, UK Published online: 18 Jan 2007 45 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE PHIẾU KHẢO SÁT Title of the study: 11th graders’ attitudes towards their teachers’ written feedback Tên đề tài: Thái độ học sinh lớp 11 phản hồi dạng viết giáo viên This questionnaire is intended for an investigation into 11th graders‟ attitudes towards English language teachers‟ written corrective feedback The collected data will be used for research purposes only Những câu hỏi khảo sát phục vụ cho nghiên cứu thái độ học sinh lớp 11 phản hồi chữa lỗi dạng viết giáo viên tiếng Anh Tất thông tin mà em cung cấp dùng cho mục đích nghiên cứu Personal information Thông tin cá nhân - Your class (Lớp): ……… Indicate how often your English language teacher gives you the following types of corrective feedback by putting a tick (√) in the appropriate cell Em cho biết tần suất loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà giáo viên dạy tiếng Anh em sử dụng chữa viết cho em Đánh dấu √ vào thích hợp Types of corrective feedback Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Always Luôn a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases Gạch bỏ chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases Bổ sung chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones Viết chữ từ bên cạnh bên chữ từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them Gạch chân khoanh trịn lỗi sai khơng sửa lỗi sai e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin Báo hiệu có lỗi sai dòng chữ cách đánh dấu bên lề f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin Ghi bên lề số lượng lỗi sai dòng chữ I Usually Thường xuyên Sometimes Thỉnh thoảng Rarely Hiếm Never Không g Using error codes (e.g., WW for “wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors Chỉ loại lỗi sai kí hiệu (ví dụ kí hiệu “WW” báo hiệu lỗi sử dụng từ sai) h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors Cung cấp quy tắc ngữ pháp và/ ví dụ liên quan đến lỗi sai em i Correcting all your errors Sửa tất lỗi sai viết em j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction Lựa chọn số loại lỗi sai viết em để sửa (ví dụ lỗi sai sử dụng mạo từ, lỗi sai chia động từ) How you feel about each type of your teacher’s corrective feedback? Indicate the ones which you like most, like, have no idea, like least, and not like at all by putting a tick (√) in the appropriate cell Đánh dấu √ vào loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà em thích nhất, thích, khơng biết thích hay khơng, thích nhất, khơng thích giáo viên sử dụng chữa viết cho em Types of corrective feedback Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Like most Thích Like Thích a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases Gạch bỏ chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases Bổ sung chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones Viết chữ từ bên cạnh bên chữ từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them Gạch chân khoanh tròn lỗi sai khơng sửa lỗi sai e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin Báo hiệu có lỗi sai dịng chữ cách đánh dấu bên lề f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin Ghi bên lề số lượng lỗi sai II No idea Khơng biết thích hay khơng Like Least Thích Not like at all Khơng thích dịng chữ g Using error codes (e.g., WW for “wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors Chỉ loại lỗi sai kí hiệu (ví dụ kí hiệu “WW” báo hiệu lỗi sử dụng từ sai) h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors Cung cấp quy tắc ngữ pháp và/ ví dụ liên quan đến lỗi sai em i Correcting all your errors Sửa tất lỗi sai viết em j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction Lựa chọn số loại lỗi sai viết em để sửa (ví dụ lỗi sai sử dụng mạo từ, lỗi sai chia động từ) In your opinion, how useful is each type of corrective feedback that your teacher gives you? Put a tick (√) in the appropriate cell Theo em, loại phản hồi chữa lỗi mà giáo viên tiếng Anh sử dụng hữu ích nào? Đánh dấu √ vào thích hợp Types of corrective feedback Các loại phản hồi chữa lỗi Very useful Rất hữu ích a Crossing out unnecessary letters/ words/ phrases Gạch bỏ chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ không cần thiết b Inserting missing letters/ words/ phrases Bổ sung chữ cái/ từ/ cụm từ thiếu c Writing the correct letters or words near or above the incorrect ones Viết chữ từ bên cạnh bên chữ từ mà em viết sai d Underlining or circling your errors without correcting them Gạch chân khoanh trịn lỗi sai khơng sửa lỗi sai e Indicating errors in a given line by putting a check/ cross in the margin Báo hiệu có lỗi sai dòng chữ cách đánh dấu bên lề III Useful Hữu ích No idea Khơng biết hữu ích hay khơng Not very useful Khơng hữu ích Not useful at all Không hữu ích f Recording the number of errors in a given line in the margin Ghi bên lề số lượng lỗi sai dòng chữ g Using error codes (e.g., WW for “wrong word choice”) to indicate different types of errors Chỉ loại lỗi sai kí hiệu (ví dụ kí hiệu “WW” báo hiệu lỗi sử dụng từ sai) h Providing grammar rules and/or examples related to your errors Cung cấp quy tắc ngữ pháp và/ ví dụ liên quan đến lỗi sai em i Correcting all your errors Sửa tất lỗi sai viết em j Selecting specific types of errors (e.g., article errors, and verb tense errors) for correction Lựa chọn số loại lỗi sai viết em để sửa (ví dụ lỗi sai sử dụng mạo từ, lỗi sai chia động từ) This is the end of the survey Thank you very much for your participation! Cảm ơn giúp đỡ em! IV