Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in english writing at the faculty of english, hanoi national university of education

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ KHÁNH EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIRECT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ENGLISH WRITING AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH, HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION (HIỆU QUẢ CỦA CHỮA LỖI GIÁN TIẾP TRONG MÔN VIẾT TIẾNG ANH TẠI KHOA TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 60 14 10 HANOI – 2013 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ KHÁNH EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIRECT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN ENGLISH WRITING AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH, HANOI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION (HIỆU QUẢ CỦA CHỮA LỖI GIÁN TIẾP TRONG MÔN VIẾT TIẾNG ANH TẠI KHOA TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI) M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Language Teaching Methodology Code: 60 14 10 Supervisor: Nguyễn Thị Bách Thảo, M.A HANOI - 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMEMTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF CHARTS ix PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study Method of the study Significance of the study Organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Process writing .5 1.1.1 An overview of process approach 1.1.2 Stages in a writing process 1.2 Corrective feedback .8 1.2.1 Definitions of corrective feedback 1.2.2 Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing .9 1.2.2.1 Self-assessment 1.2.2.2 Peer feedback 1.2.2.3 Teacher’s feedback 10 1.3 Teachers' corrective feedback strategies 11 1.4 Effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 13 iv 1.5 Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teachers’ indirect corrective feedback 14 2.1 Participants 17 2.2 Data collection instruments 18 2.2.1 Students’ writing analysis 18 2.2.2 Questionnaire 19 2.3 The procedure of data collection and analysis 20 3.1 Findings 21 3.1.1 Effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on students’ writing accuracy from students’ writing analysis 21 3.1.2 Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teacher’s indirect corrective feedback from survey questionnaires 23 3.2 Discussion 33 3.2.1 Effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to students’ writing accuracy from students’ writing analysis 33 3.2.2 Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teacher’s indirect corrective feedback from survey questionnaires 34 3.2.2.1 Students’ feeling about the use of indirect corrective feedback 34 3.2.2.2 Students’ difficulties when the teacher uses indirect corrective feedback in class 34 3.2.2.3 Effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on students’ attitudes towards writing 34 3.2.2.4 Students’ attitudes towards the value of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 35 3.2.2.5 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 36 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS 37 4.1 Recommendations for the teachers 37 4.2 Recommendations for the students 38 PART C: CONCLUSION 40 Conclusion 40 v Limitations of the study 41 Suggestions for further study 41 REFERENCES 43 APPENDICES I Appendix I Survey Questionnaires for Students I vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CF : Corrective Feedback CLT : Communicative Language Teaching ESL : English as a Second Language FOE : Faculty of English HNUE : Hanoi National University of Education vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Ellis’ table of feedback types (2009 p.98) 12 Table 2: Frequency of grammatical errors of experimental group and control group 21 Table 3: Effectiveness of Teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to students' attitudes towards writing 26 Table 4: The students’ perception about the effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on their writing accuracy 28 Table 5: Students’ sources to self-correct their grammatical errors 29 Table 6: The students’ progress in writing accuracy after weeks of the study .31 Table 7: Students’ suggestions for better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 32 viii LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1: Students’ feeling about the use of indirect corrective feedback 23 Chart 2: Students’ difficulties when the teacher uses indirect corrective feedback in class 25 Chart 3: The suitability of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to the students and their leaning style 27 Chart 4: Percentage of errors corrected by students after receiving teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 30 ix PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale Nowadays, English is considered as an international language in the world with over 1,500 million speakers (Crystal, 2003) Recently, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been widely used in Vietnam In such approach, students are taught four main skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing However, not many students like writing and are able to write well Le (2008), when investigating the teaching and learning English among high schools in Can Tho, found that only 6.9% of the Vietnamese students want to learn writing In my own teaching experience, it was found that most students in Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education have similar problems with their writing These problems are (1) they have a lot of grammatical errors in their writing, and (2) they have negative attitudes towards learning writing Thus, how to improve students’ writing as well as to change their attitudes towards writing activities has greatly attracted my attention Through a review of literature, although the effect of written corrective feedback is still controversial, numerous studies on the use of corrective feedback in writing classes have shown that corrective feedback including indirect feedback can be applied in writing classes to improve students’ writing accuracy (Liu, 2008; Kaweera, 2008; Ferris, 2000; Ferris et al., 2001) Beside teacher’s writing instructions, in many cases, teacher’s correction and comments can help to solve the problems of students’ writing accuracy and their attitudes towards writing In other words, teacher’s good feedback strategies may give students stimulation for revision and motivation to maintain their interest in writing In Vietnam, there has been some research on teacher’s written corrective feedback such as Le (2011) or Tran (2011) which focuses on the high school setting but none of the studies has investigated the effect of indirect corrective feedback on students’ writing in university setting For all the mentioned reasons, the researcher wishes to conduct a study entitled “Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in English writing at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education” Aims of the study This current study aims at (1) examining the effectiveness of written indirect corrective feedback on improving writing accuracy of the second-year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education (FOE, HNUE); (2) investigating the students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback and (3) proposing some recommendations of the use of teacher’s written indirect corrective feedback in writing classes In short, the research paper aims to address the following questions: To what extent does indirect corrective feedback strategy have effects on second-year students’ writing accuracy at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education? of How second-year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University Education react to teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on their writing? What can be done to improve students’ writing by employing indirect corrective feedback? Scope of the study In fact, teacher’s corrective feedback can be given in both oral and written forms, directly and indirectly on students’ writing However, within the framework of a graduation paper, the researcher only focuses on the teacher’s written indirect corrective feedback Moreover, after receiving indirect corrective feedback from the teacher, most of the students surveyed are able to self-correct from 70% to 90% of the indicated errors, which is a quite positive result Lastly, after weeks of the study, on an overall, most of the students make progress in writing accuracy Only a very small number of students comment that they not have any progress in their writing accuracy because they often self-correct the indicated errors in an incorrect way 3.2.2.5 Students’ expectations for better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback For better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback, the students’ suggestions are of great use These suggestions focus on the teacher’s strategies and attitudes when employing indirect corrective feedback in class All of them agree that some revised drafts should be checked to make sure that the students something to self-correct their errors and to check the accuracy of their correction In addition, the students would also like their teacher to give analysis and explanation of the most common errors in class About the teacher’s indications of errors, many students suggest that teacher’s error indications should be listed and explained before indirect corrective feedback is used and they should be systematically and consistently given Another importance suggestion of the student is the teacher’s willingness to help when necessary The teachers’ attitudes and their help may become an important factor to stimulate the students’ motivation in learning writing 36 CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 Recommendations for the teachers In order to make teacher’s indirect corrective feedback effective, teachers should take into consideration the following recommendations Firstly, before applying indirect corrective feedback strategy to the writing class, the instructions should be carefully discussed and explained in class These instructions include the teachers’ listing and explaining the way they indicate students’ errors in their writing texts By doing this, students will be more familiar with the strategies used by the teacher and have their own preparation Moreover, teachers’ indications of errors should be consistent and systematic, which helps students to follow and revise indicated errors easily Secondly, teachers should make efforts in stimulating students’ motivation and encouraging their confidence in writing Due to the students’ limited linguistic competence, teacher should give praise to students in any achievement they make and assure them that they can self-correct the indicated errors as long as they try their best Teachers’ help with necessary language and useful advice is a way to motivate the students and make them confident with their corrections In writing class, the students’ common errors in their writing should be discussed and explained by teachers and students By doing that the students will have a chance to look back into their own selfcorrection and find a suitable way to correct their most common errors in writing This is also an interesting learning activity that motivates the students in writing In addition, teachers’ identification and explanation of common errors made by learners also helps teachers to have some thoughts of what to next with their teaching methodology (Leech, 1994) 37 Moreover, some revised versions of students’ writing should be checked by teachers to make sure that the students use different sources to self-correct the indicated errors and to check the accuracy in students’ corrections It is also suggested that the students with lower competence in English should be paid more attention to because if they not know how to self-correct the indicated errors, they will easily have negative attitudes towards writing and as a result, their writing accuracy can not be improved Teachers’ positive attitudes and their willing to help the students with their selfcorrection are of great importance Some of the students may get frustrated and demotivated because they might not know what to with the indicated errors That is why teachers have to inspire and convince learners that teachers welcome their questions and worries In summary, well-explained instructions of the way errors are indicated; teachers’ strategies to boost students’ confidence and motivation in writing and their positive attitudes are the most important factors for better use of teachers’ indirect corrective feedback in writing class 4.2 Recommendations for the students Teachers’ effort will be less effective unless learners want to give right responses Thus, students have to involve themselves in the error correction process Having good interaction between teachers and students is crucial to establish conductive learning atmosphere It is not an easy task for teachers to identify and acknowledge the students’ problems with their writing and their self-correction Thus students’ cooperation is needed to improve their writing accuracy Students are encouraged to monitor their progress by paying more attention to their 38 common errors They should use different sources to self-correct the indicated errors and take notes of their errors and correction, for instance, on their notebook or error awareness sheet Then, they can always review what they have read and remember their errors so that they will not make them in the future Students’ progress depends not only on the teachers’ effort, but also on their own So, students need to be engaged in the error correction process because it will enhance their language acquisition This will lead them to be autonomous learners that are able to self correct their written work 39 PART C: CONCLUSION Conclusion The study has contributed a thorough view on the effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to the writing accuracy of the second-year students at FOE, HNUE It also reveals the students’ attitudes towards the teacher’s use of indirect corrective feedback Based on the findings of the study, pedagogical recommendations have been produced for the better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback in class Firstly, it is found that the second-year students at FOE, HNUE who get indirect corrective feedback from their teacher have significant improvement in their accuracy when writing English whereas the difference between the pre-test and post-test of the direct corrective group is not statistically considerable Secondly, the students have positive attitudes towards the teacher’s application of indirect corrective feedback Although the students still encounter some difficulties in self-correcting the indicated errors, they appreciate the good effects of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to their learning accuracy and their attitudes towards writing Thirdly, the students also expect for more teachers’ support and explanation when indirect corrective feedback strategies are used in class To utilize teacher’s indirect corrective feedback more effectively in class, teachers should well instruct the indirect corrective feedback strategies before using them in class Moreover, teachers need to have some strategies to enhance the students’ confidence and their motivation When the students attempt to self-correct the indicated errors, teachers should pay attention to their reference sources and willingly help when necessary Furthermore, after students self-correct their errors, there should 40 be some activities to revise some students’ drafts and explain some common errors made by the students The students themselves also play an important part in the teacher’s use of indirect corrective feedback They should be actively involved in the error correction process by using different sources of reference and have positive attitudes towards writing Limitations of the study Although all the research questions are addressed and the aims of the study are achieved, the study still has the following major limitations Firstly, the scale of the study is relatively small with the involvement of 100 writing papers and only 26 questionnaires This may be a drawback which prevents the researcher from getting more thorough findings Secondly, this study only investigates the students’ improvement for weeks and there is a lack of a delayed post-test to measure the students’ long-term progress If the study had been conducted over a longer period of time, it would give more valuable, reliable and valid data Thirdly, the validity of the findings and the reliability of the implications would be maximized if the researcher could have employed more research instruments such as interview and classroom reservation Suggestions for further study Using corrective feedback in teaching writing still remains a broad area to study Further research may have a more thorough insight into the use other teacher’s corrective strategies and the combination of them to help students to improve their writing in general and their writing accuracy in particular 41 Moreover, it is highly recommended that further research should be conducted with a larger number of participants in a longer period of time and the addition of one more research instruments 42 REFERENCES Aires, B (2010), Process approach to the teaching of writing Thames Valley University, MA in ELT, Retrieved September 2012 from http://www.lexiconcamella.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=160%3Aproces s-approach-to-the-teaching-ofwriting&catid=63%3Apublicaciones&Itemid=171&lang=es Ashwell,T (2000), “Patterns of Teacher Response to Student Writing in a MultipleDraft Composition Classrooms: Is Content Feedback Followed by Form Feedback the Best Method?”, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), pp 227-257 Badger, R., & White, G (2000) Product, process and genre: Approaches to writing in EAP ELT Journal, 54(2), pp 153-160 Bartels, N (2004) Written peer response in L2 writing, Retrieved on October 22, 2012 from http:/exchange.state.gov/forum/vols/vol41/No1/p34.html Cardelle, M., & Corno, L 1981 Effects on Second Language Learning of Variations in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments TESOL Quarterly, 15, pp 251261 Carroll, J & Wilson, E (1993) Acts of Teaching: How to Teach Writing: A Text, a Reader, A Narrative Teacher Ideas Press: Englewood, Colorado Chaudron, C (1984) “The effect of feedback on students’ composition revisions”, RELC Journal, 15(2), pp 1-14 Ellis, R 2009 "A typology of written corrective feedback types", English Language Teaching Journal, 63, pp 97-107 Ferris D (2000), The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996), “Journal of Second Language Writing”, pp 1-11 Ferris D & Roberts B (2001), Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?, “Journal of Second Language Writing”, pp 161-184 Gardner, A., & Johnson, D (1997) Teaching personal experience narrative in the elementary and beyond Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona Writing Project Press Hairston, M (1982) The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the teaching of writing College Composition and Communication, 33,pp 76-88 43 Harmer, J (2001) The Practice of English language teaching, 3rd ed., Harlow: Longman Hyland Fiona; Hyland Ken (2006) Interpersonal Aspects of Response: Constructing and Interpreting Teacher Written Feedback In Hyland, K., & Hyland, F (2006) Feedback in L2 Writing: Contexts and Issues, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Jacobs, G (1987) First experiences with peer feedback on compositions: students and teacher reaction System, 15, pp 325-333 James, C (1998) Errors in Language Learning and Use London & New York: Longman Joe, L (2006) A process approach to feedback in Writing Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000038.pdf Johnson, D.W & Johnson, R.T (1987) Learning together & alone: Cooperative, competitive, & individualistic learning (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Kaweera C (2008), The impact of different types of teacher written feedback in EFL University Students’ writing, “KKU Res J (GS)”, pp 83-94 Keh, C.L (1990) “Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation”, ELT Journal, 44(4), pp 294-303 Lalande, John, F (1982) Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment Foreign Language Annuals 17:2, pp 109 – 118 Le T.D.T (2008), An investigation of teaching and learning in English among high schools in Cantho, Unpublished MA thesis Le V.M (2011), Students’ attitudes towards teachers’ corrective feedback in writing at Yen Thuan secondary school in Tuyen Quang, Unpublished MA thesis Leki, I (1991) Teaching second language writing: where we seem to be English Teaching Forum, 29,pp 8-11 Lightbrown, P 1998 The Importance of Timing in Focus on Form In C Doughty & J Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom SLA (pp 177-196) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Liu, J and J Hansen (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press 44 Liu Y (2008), The effects on error feedback in second language writing, “Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching”, 15, 65-79 Retrieved December 13, 2012, from http://slat.arizona.edu/sites/slat/files/page/awp15liu.pdf Nunan, D (1999) Second language teaching and learning Hongkong: Heinle& Henle Publisher Radecki, P M., $ Swales, J M (198) ESL students for error-correction in college-level writing classes Foreign Language Annals, 24, pp 203-218 Raimes, A (1983) Techniques in teaching writing Oxford University Press, pp 139153 Reid, J.M (1993) Teaching ESL writing New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents: Englewood Cliffs Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality TESOL Quarterly, 20, pp 83–93 Rollinson, P (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class, ELT Journal, 59 (1), pp 23-29 Sheen, Younghee (2011) Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning Dordrecht: Springer Stanley, G.(2003), Approaches to process writing, Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/articles/approaches-process-writing Tran T.H (2011), Teachers’ corrective feedback on the 11 th form students’ writing at Ngo Gia Tu high school, Bac Ninh, Unpublished MA thesis Tribble, C.(1996) Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46, pp 327-369 Wei,Y & Chen, Y., Supporting Chinese learners of English to implement selfassessment in L2 writing, 2004, Retrieved February 26, 2013, from http://www.independentlearning.org/uploads/100836/ila03_wei_and_chen.pdf 45 APPENDICES Appendix Survey Questionnaires for Students This survey questionnaire is designed for my research into the effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on students’ writing at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education Your time and work in completing the survey is highly appreciated All the information provided is reserved for the study purpose, and you can be confident that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data Thank you very much for your cooperation! How you feel when you are asked to self-correct the indicated errors?    A I am willing to it because I know how to self-correct my errors  B I find it challenging but useful C I feel anxious because I not know how to it well D I am not willing to it because I want my teacher to correct my errors  E I feel discouraged because there are too many errors in my writing What are your difficulties when you self-correct your errors? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)    A I not have time to correct all my errors B I not know how to correct my errors C I not agree with my teacher’s feedback  D I am not confident with my self-correction because I am not sure about the correct form  E Other: (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………… In what way may teacher’s indirect corrective feedback affect your attitudes to writing? (You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer) I  A It makes me more responsible for my writing       B It helps me improve my self-study skill C It helps develop my problem-solving skill D It helps me discover more sources for study E It helps to develop my motivation in learning writing F It does not help at all G Other: (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………… Do you think indirect corrective feedback is suitable for you and your learning style?  A It is always suitable because we are always encouraged to self-study at the university  B Sometimes it is not suitable because it is a time-consuming activity and sometimes I not have time to self-correct all my errors   C It is not suitable at all because I not know how to self-correct my errors D Other: (Please specify) ………………………………………………………………………… In what way does teacher’s indirect corrective feedback affect your writing?    A It only makes me aware of my errors B It makes me aware of my errors and self-correct them C It helps me correct my errors and avoid making them in the future When correcting your errors, which sources you often use?(You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)   A Checking a reference book (dictionary, grammar book, etc) B Using the Internet  C Asking teacher or peers for help II  D Using my own knowledge  E Others: (Please specify): ……………………………… …………………………………………… After you get indirect corrective feedback from you teacher, how many percents of errors can you self-correct?     A More than 90% B From 70% to 90% C From 50% to 70% D Less than 50% After receiving indirect corrective feedback on grammatical errors for six weeks, how is your writing now? My writing is better now because: I not have any progress in (You can tick MORE THAN writing accuracy because: (You ONE answer) can tick MORE THAN ONE  A I make fewer errors answer)  B I know and correctly use  A During weeks, I did not more sentence structures in my writing due to self-study habit  self-correct any indicated errors B I revised my errors in an incorrect way  C Other reasons (please specify)……………………  C Other reasons (please specify)…………………… What are your suggestions for better use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback in class?(You can tick MORE THAN ONE answer)   A Most common errors should be discussed and explained in class B Teachers should give students enough time to self-correct errors III  C Teachers should be willing to help students if they have any problems in selfcorrecting their errors     E Teachers’ indications of errors should be systematic and consistent F Teachers’ indications of errors should be listed and explained in advance G Some revised versions should be checked H Other: (Please specify): ……………………………………………………………………………………… IV ... entitled ? ?Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in English writing at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education? ?? Aims of the study This current study aims at (1) examining the. .. accuracy at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education? of How second-year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University Education react to teacher’s indirect corrective feedback. .. examining the effectiveness of written indirect corrective feedback on improving writing accuracy of the second-year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of Education (FOE,