The effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback as perceived by teachers and second year students of mainstream program in felte ulis vnu

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION PAPER THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED BY TEACHERS AND SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF MAINSTREAM PROGRAM IN FELTE - ULIS – VNU Supervisor : Hoàng Thị Hồng Hải (M.A) Student : Đàm Mỹ Linh Course : QH2013.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI - 2017 ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP HIỆU QUẢ CỦA PHẢN HỒI VIẾT GIÁN TIẾP THÔNG QUA CẢM NHẬN CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VÀ SINH VIÊN NĂM HAI KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH – TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ-ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI Giáo viên hướng dẫn : Hoàng Thị Hồng Hải (Th.S) Sinh viên : Đàm Mỹ Linh Khóa : QH2013.F1.E2 HÀ NỘI - 2017 ACCEPTANCE PAGE I hereby state that I: (Đàm Mỹ Linh, QH2013E2), being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (program) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor‟s Graduation Paper deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper Signature Date i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to Ms Hoang Thi Hong Hai (M.A) for her huge support, invaluable advice and immense knowledge as well as experience I am so lucky to have such an enthusiatic and patient supervisor like her during the process of working on this thesis paper Without her guidance, I would not have been able to overcome all the difficulties and finish this dissertation paper Additionally, I want to thank Ms Tran Thi Thanh Nhan (Ph.D) for her precious guidance during the data analysis process My great thanks also go to all the second year students from six classes of mainstream programs and three teachers who are the participants in this study They had been always willing to cooperate when I was in need of support Last but not least, I am thankful to all of my family members and close friends whose affection and support had given me the couragement to complete this paper ii ABSTRACT The current study investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on five different aspects of writing (grammar, language use, mechanic use, content and organization) through the perceptions of teachers and second year students of mainstream program Specifically, it provides an insight into (1) teachers‟ practices in employing indirect WCF to correct students‟ writing, (2) teachers‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF and (3) second year students‟ perceptions of the effectiveness of indirect WCF To fulfill the stated aims and objectives, this research utilizes two kinds of data collection methods, namely questionnaire and in-depth interview The combination of both quanitative and qualitative methods enhances the meaningfulness and reliability of the findings The results taken from the instruments show that both teachers and students agree that indirect WCF is suitable to students‟ understandability, but not to their ability of self-correction This affects their perceptions of effectiveness of indirect WCF Teachers and students‟ perceptions match on the effectiveness of indirect WCF for the treatment of grammatical errors and its ineffectiveness for the betterment of content Regarding its effectiveness for errors related language use and mechanic use, while all teachers seem confused, students are divided between “neutral” and “agree” sides Finally, organization is the aspect in which the mismatch in perceptions between two sides is the most noticeable Teachers and students also have several reasons in common to account for their perceptions The findings of the study implicates that necessary changes should be made to feedback-giving practices of teachers and feedback-handling practices of students to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS WCF: Written Corrective feedback FELTE: Faculty of English Language and Teacher Education ULIS: University of Languages and International Studies VNU: Vietnam National University SLA: Second Language Acqusition L2: Second Language %: percent iv LIST OF TABLES Table Name Page A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback 13 by Ellis (2009) Table The effectiveness of indirect WCF given on 40 different aspects as perceived by students Table Students‟s evaluation of the understadability 41 of indirect WCF given on different aspects of Table writing Students‟ difficulty in correcting different kinds of errors marked by indirect written Table corrective feedback v 42 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Name Page Figure Students‟ methods of dealing 45 with indirect WCF Figure Students‟ other difficulties in dealing with indirect WCF vi 46 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACCEPTANCE PAGE i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS iv LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES vi TABLE OF CONTENTS vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Statement of research problem and rationale for the study 1.2 Aims and Objectives 1.3 Significance of the study 1.4 Scope of the study 1.5 Oranization of the study CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Overview of Writing skills in L2 learning 2.1.1 Writing skills in L2 learning 2.1.2 Process of writing 2.1.3 Aspects of writing 2.2 Written corrective feedback 10 2.2.1 Definitions of written corrective feedback 10 2.2.2 Types of written corrective feedback 12 2.2.3 Significance of teacher written corrective feedback in developing L2 learners‟ writing 15 2.2.4 Requirement of teacher written corrective feedback 17 2.3 Indirect written corrective feedback 18 2.3.1 Definition of indirect written corrective feedback 18 2.3.2 The effectiveness of Indirect WCF in debate 20 2.4 Students and teachers of FELTE, ULIS, VNU and writing assignments 21 2.4.1 FELTE, ULIS, VNU 21 vii 2.4.2 Teachers and students of second year mainstream program 21 2.4.3 The writing assigments in English 3B course 22 2.5 Previous studies and research gap 23 2.5.1 Previous studies on indirect written corrective feedback 23 2.5.2 Research gap 24 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 26 3.1 Research instruments 26 3.1.1 Questionnaire 26 3.1.1.1 Objectives 26 3.1.1.2 Participants 26 3.1.1.3 Questionnaire 26 3.1.2 Interview 27 3.1.2.1 Objectives 27 3.1.2.2 Participants 28 3.1.2.3 Interview 28 3.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS 29 3.2.1 Questionnaire 29 3.2.2 Interview with the teachers and students 30 3.3 Data analysis process 30 3.3.1 Analysis of data from questionnaire 30 3.3.2 Analysis of the data from interview 30 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 31 4.1 Research question 1: What are the teachers‟ practices in employing indirect WCF in correcting students‟ writing? 32 4.1.1 Patterns of indirect WCF that teachers use to correct students‟ writing 32 4.1.2 Use of indirect WCF on different aspects of writing 33 4.1.3 Teachers‟ actual practices in employing indirect WCF 34 4.1.4 Purposes of teachers in employing indirect written corrective feedback 35 viii 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 Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996) Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11 Ferris, D 2006 „Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction‟ in K Hyland and F Hyland (eds.) Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hosseiny, M (2014) The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students' Writing Skill Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2006) Context and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej42/r7.pdf Hyland, F., & Hyland, K (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writings Ismail, S (2011) Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ESL Writing Johanne, M (2002) Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts Lalande, J F (1982) Reducing composition errors: an experiment Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149 Liu, Y (2008) The effects of error feedback in second lanuage writing Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79 55 Lindqvist, A (2011) The Use of Written Corrective Feedback: A Survey of Written Response from Teachers to ESL Students in English ACourse Upper Secondary School Lee, I (2008) Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144-164 Leki, I (1991) The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218 Leki, I (2000) Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers Portmouth, NH: BoyntonCook Le T P A (2012) An introduction to Research Methodology in Foreign Language Education Hanoi: Vietnam National University Myles, J (2002) Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts Retrieved from http://teslej.org/ej22/a1.html Najmaddin S (2010) An investigation into the impact of corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written production (Master thesis) Retrieved from: http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0003965.pdf Nguyen, T T H (2016) The effectiveness of written peer feedback in improving writing skills as perceived by second year students at FELTE, ULISVNU Rusinovci, X (2015) Teaching Writing Through Process-Genre Based Approach The United States: Davidpublishing Salteh, M K & Sadeghi K (2012) Teachers‟ Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing Revisited:Concerns Against and Suggestions for its Employment World Applied Sciences Journal 56 Sheen, Y 2007 „The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners‟ acquisition of articles‟ TESOL Quarterly 41: 255–83 Sheen, Y (2011) Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning.Berlin – New York: Springer Sun, S (2013) Written corrective feedback: effects of focused and unfocused grammar correction on the case acquisition in L2 German (Doctoral Thesis) Retrieved from: https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12284/Sun_%20ku_0099 D_12694_DATA_1.pdf?sequence=1 Stephen, W (n.d) Five elements of effective writing Retrieved from http://www.wilbers.com/elements-wilbers.pdf Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes: Review article: Language Learning, 46(3), 327-369 Wang, T & Jiang, L (2015) Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1075180.pdf Zen, D (2005) Teaching EFL/ESL beyond language skill Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED502622.pdf 57 APPENDICES APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AS PERCEIVED BY SECOND YEAR STUDENTS OF MAINSTREAM On the scale from to 5, please mark to show the understandability of indirect WCF on different aspect in your writing (1= Easy to understand; 5= Hard to understand) Indirect WCF on grammar Indirect WCF on language use Indirect WCF on mechanic use Indirect WCF on content Indirect WCF on organization 58 Please tick in the right box to show the difficulty you encounter while correcting your error using indirect written corrective feedback Statement Never Rarely I have trouble finding out how to correct GRAMMATICAL mistakes I have difficulty trouble out how to correct LEXICAL (language use) mistakes I have trouble finding out how to correct mistakes related to MECHANIC USE I have trouble finding out how to correct errors in their CONTENT of writing I have trouble finding out how to correct errors in my ORGANIZATION of writing 59 Sometimes Often Always Please assess the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback by ticking in the appropriate box Statements Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of GRAMMATICAL mistakes in the subsequent writing Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of LEXICAL(language use) mistakes in the subsequent writing Indirect WCF is effective for the correction of mistakes related to MECHANIC USE in the subsequent writing Indirect WCF is effective for errors the betterment of CONTENT in the subsequent writing Indirect WCF is effective for errors related to ORGANIZATION in the subsequent writing What you often to deal with indirect written corrective feedback (You can choose more than answer) A Try to correct the mistake based on the feedback myself B Just ignore the feedback C Ask teacher for clarification/ suggestion D Delete the sentences containing the mistakes E Make correction in another way 60 agree Others (please specify)…………………………………………………… What are other difficulties you have when handling indirect written corrective feedback? (you can choose more as many answers as you want)? A I not know if my correction is accurate or not B I not know if my correction meets the teacher‟s expectation C I have to spend more time/ effort dealing with indirect WCF more than any other kind of feedback D I have no difficulty at all E Others: (Please specify)………………………………………………………………… If possible, can you give suggestion to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF in the future? …………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………… Finally, I humbly ask you for some personal information which I promise to keep confidential Name: Class: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION 61 APPENDIX INTERVIEW QUESTIONS I Interview questions for teachers Among the patterns of indirect WCF in this list, can you please tell me what patterns you use, and what patterns you don‟t use? Can you please specify on all the types of errors that you use indirect WCF to mark in your studentss‟ writing? Do you consider students‟ levels of proficiency when giving indirect WCF? What is your main purpose in using indirect WCF? To what extent you think indirect WCF is effective for students‟ revision of different types of errors? Do you think that students ever found the indirect WCF that you gave them hard to understand? Do you think that students could understand, but did not know how to correct those errors marked by indirect WCF? What you think about the likelihood that students could correct these errors, but they were afraid that the correction is not up to your expectation? Do you think it is a difficulty that students would have to spend more time dealing with indirect WCF than other kinds of feedback? II INTERVIEW QUESTION FOR STUDENTS I see that in the questionnaire you choose “agree” (“strongly agree”) when evaluating the effectiveness of indirect WCF in grammar correction Can you please elaborate on that? Regarding the effectiveness of indirect WCF language use and mechanic use, you choose “neutral” (“agree”) option Can you please explain why? 62 Regarding content and organization aspect, you choose “neutral” (“disagree”), can you please explain? (tell me how it was difficult for you when you deal with indirect WCF given on these two aspects) 63 APPENDIX SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Interviewee: Teacher A Duration: 20 mins Recorder: Mobilephone Venue: A2 Building - Ulis I: Hello, my name is Dam My Linh, from class QH2013E2 Thank you for sitting down to the interview with me Before we start, can you please tell me a little bit about your use of indirect written corrective feedback in marking your students’ essay? T: Hello Talking about the use of indirect WCF, I use all the patterns of indirect WCF in the list that you have presented except for indication at margin and indirect metalinguistic explanation I think these are not common and no teacher would use this I use it mainly to mark students‟ errors related to grammar, vocabulary, mechanical use, which I think students can easily recognize and correct I: What about other complex errors related to content or organization? T: I also use indirect WCF for these two types of errors, but not as much as the other types For content, I often use indirect WCF as “you need more grounds” or “any evidence?; and for organization, I use indirect WCF for errors related to coherence like “How does this evidence support the claim above?” to show students that whether their evidence does not match the claim they make 64 I: So the indirect WCF you give is form-focused rather than contentfocused? T: Yes, you can say so I: Do you use indirect WCF based on students’ level? T: Actually almost no Sometimes, it is true that there are some students who are lower or less competent then the others, I make use of more explicit WCF for those students I give more suggestions in explicit forms or help them correct some errors related to word choice However, the second-year students in our university have almost the same level without much difference Therefore, I not have to take students‟ level into consideration when giving indirect WCF I: What is the main purpose when you employ indirect WCF? T: The main purpose is to turn students in to active learners If I correct each of their mistakes, they will simply copy and transfer my correction into their writing Therefore, they gain nothing and cannot learn from their own mistakes At the same time, this will make students passive in learning I: Do you think you use more indirect WCF compared to direct feedback? T: Actually, it is hard to say I think it depends on the nature of the writing For 3B, the essay is a research essay, so idea development and structure is really important If I use a lot of indirect WCF, students will not be able to correct those complex errors Therefore, I gave many comments with detailed explanation, which I think is rather explicit 65 I: Talking about the effectiveness of indirect WCF in helping students revise their writing draft, to what extent you think indirect WCF is effective for students’ revision? T: From my observation, students could revise all the mistakes related to grammar, which are mostly slips caused by their carelessness Therefore, I just need underlining and circling the errors However, it seems that the errors related to language use and mechanic use are not revised effectively For mechanic use, punctuation or spelling is not the problem because they type their assignment and these mistakes can be recognized by Word and they can correct it easily But the problem is citation and referencing, which they have not learned before in their first year Therefore, students have never made perfect revision For example, I underlined the mistake and wrote APA style, they managed to correct the author‟s name, but then forgot to give italic form for the title of the research in the same reference I: What about language use? Did they make much progress? T: Not really Most of the mistakes they made are about word choice I pointed in their writing that that they needed to change the word, but the new word they chose was wrong again I: What about the other aspects like content and organization? T: As I already mentioned, errors related to those two aspects are the complex ones, so they did not make any noticeable progress For content, I often give feedback by asking students for more explanation and evidence Some students manage to add new ideas and explanation, but those ideas are not up to my expectation Many of them give personal example or explanation, even if I had pointed out that “any evidence from research?” It seems they were used to the normal exam essay they learned in 3C It is the same for organization I did not notice any good revision on this aspect 66 I: Do you think that students ever find the indirect WCF that you give them hard to understand? T: When giving indirect WCF, I always expect that students would understand it and know what they need to with the feedback However, feedback on grammar and mechanic use is the most understandable to them For the other aspects, I suppose indirect WCF is not as understandable as those two aspects Maybe they can understand, but not know how to correct these errors I: That is about understandability of indirect WCF However, you think that students can understand, but not know how to correct those errors marked by indirect WCF? T: I think they had trouble dealing with the feedback on content, organization and vocabulary the most For these complex errors, there is a big gap between students‟ ability to understand and ability to correct Students of higher proficiency could give quite good correction, while those with lower proficiency couldn‟t I: But what if students correct these errors, but they are afraid that the correction is not up to your expectation? T: In that case, I think they should ask the teachers whether their correction is fine or not, but they did not so that is their fault I: Finally, you think it is a difficulty that students would have to spend more time dealing with indirect WCF than other kinds of feedback? T: I agree that I may take them more time since they have to figure out why they are wrong and how to correct the errors However, it will make them proactive learners and better their problem-solving skills To some extent, this is a good point The writing project of 3B is quite demanding and it counts a lot for their score, so it is necessary for them to invest more time into it 67 SAMPLE OF INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Interviewee: Phuong – a second year student Duration: mins Recorder: Mobilephone Venue: A2 Building - Ulis I: Thank you for sitting down to the interview with me Can you give some personal information about yourself? S: My name is Phuong, a second year student from FELTE, ULIS I: I see in your questionnaire that you choose “agree” when evaluating the effectiveness of indirect WCF in grammar correction Can you please elaborate on that? S: Actually, I am kind of careless and always make grammatical mistakes Luckily, the teacher pointed out every of the mistakes Therefore, I managed to correct them all in the next draft I: But you are confused about the effectiveness of indirect WCF for the correction errors related to mechanic use and language use Can you explain why? Well, for mechanic use, there are many requirements for referencing and citation However, I am kind of careless person, so I often forget something else like citation without reference list The teacher pointed this out and I managed to add it into the reference list That is the easy part The hardest thing is that I often get confused because there are many types of reference I remember taking 68 evidence from a source with no date of publication, so I don‟t write that part in reference list Later on, the teacher commented “which year?” Of course, I know I lacked that part, but I did not know how to correct because there was not any example of sources without date of publication in the textbook Later on, I know that I have to write (n.d) when my friends told me I: What about language use? S: Well, I mostly have problems with expression and word choice However, the teacher just commented “W.C” or “exp” Later, I read the comment and found that the word was wrong, but I found it hard to find another word Sometimes I could, but sometimes I couldn‟t I: I see that you chose “disagree” option in the state about the effectiveness of indirect WCF in bettering content and organzation of writing Can you please explain that? S: For content, I realize my problem is that I always lack explanation for the ideas I gave My teacher just wrote “more explanation” I read that part again and I realized that she was right, but I didn‟t know how to give more explanation I wanted her to suggestion on how to add more explanation I: And what is your problem with organization? S: I think it is coherence maybe the link between claim and evidence Because of teacher feedback, I realize the evidence I gave is not connected to the claim I made; however, finding a more suitable one is not easy task Those that support the claims I make is from unreliable source, which is not approved by the teacher I: Thank you very much for your kind cooperation 69 ... practices of employing indirect WCF in correcting students? ?? writing? What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as perceived by teachers of second year mainstream program ? What is the effectiveness of. .. 3: What is the effectiveness of indirect WCF as perceived by students? 40 4.3.1 Effectiveness of indirect WCF during as perceived by students of second year mainstream program ... effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) in improving students? ?? writing skills as perceived by teachers and second year students of mainstream program Specifically, it provides an insight