The effects of indirect written corrective feedback on non english majored students improvements of grammatical accuracy in writing m a

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE THE EFFECTS OF INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON NON-ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS’ IMPROVEMENTS OF GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY IN WRITING A thesis proposal submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics & Literature in partial fulfillment of the Master’s program in TESOL by NGUYỄN NHẬT MINH CHÂU Supervised by CAO THỊ QUỲNH LOAN, Ph.D HO CHI MINH CITY, January 2020 ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my supervisor, Dr Cao Thi Quynh Loan for her valuable instruction on my thesis I believe that I was a lucky researcher who was granted a great autonomy in my own thesis, which allowed me to have freedom to pursue what I was really passionate about Her careful proofreading helped me realize even very small grammatical mistakes, and she did not mind reading my chapters again in order to improve them to a maximum level It is hard to say how much I treasure her great dedication and her being tender that lessened my pressure while doing this thesis I own her a great debt of gratitude I also appreciate the assistance of academic staff of Nguyen Tat Thanh International Institution of Education who made it a good condition for me to complete the thesis and the students who gave me invaluable support I was appointed to be in charge of teaching two Pre-Intermediate classes upon my request, which made it convenient for me to conduct this experimental study The students were also kind and supportive They fully cooperated and made their effort in the tests given and in fulfilling my requirements That helped data be collected sufficiently for the research My appreciation also goes to my teammates who gave me amazing support during my hard time with the thesis Being in the thesis group and struggled to complete the mission, we thoroughly understand each other’s difficulties and were willing to listen to each other’s problem They were always by my side, gave me considerable encouragement and assisted me to the best of their ability It would be hard for my thesis to be fulfilled without Ngoc An’ s detailed comments that made me realize my weaknesses in language use and his diligence in revising the thesis format or brother Vu Bao’ s valuable advice which helped me keep moving on when I was stuck somewhere with my own “thesis sorrow” It could be a mistake without mentioning Diem, Vi and Phuc who gave me tender loving care and always respond to my questions regarding research areas I was not clear about I also want to send many thanks to Ba Tong and Minh Giang who were with their hectic schedule but still spent time sharing me their experience in doing thesis and giving me advice on what to Finally, I am grateful for my mother and husband who gave me spiritual support for this academic pursuit They were those who always showed care to the progress of my thesis and shared me whatever burden I had so that I could wholeheartedly concentrate on doing my thesis i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY I certify that this thesis entitled “THE EFFECTS OF INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON NON-ENGLISH MAJORED STUDENTS IMPROVEMENTS OF GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY IN WRITING” is the intellectual product of my own work, to the best of my knowledge and ability I hereby declare that this thesis has not been submitted, either in full or in part to any institutions for any purposes Ho Chi Minh City, November 8th, 2019 Nguyen Nhat Minh Chau ii RETENTION AND USE OF MY THESIS I hereby state that I, Nguyen Nhat Minh Chau, being the candidate of the degree of Master in TESOL accept the requirements of the University of Social Sciences and Humanities regarding the retention and use of my thesis deposited in the library In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis can be made accessible to individuals for the purpose of research and study with the conditions established by the University’s library for the care, loan or reproduction of the thesis Ho Chi Minh City, November 8th, 2019 Nguyen Nhat Minh Chau iii TALBE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLDEGEMENTS i STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ii RETENTION AND USE OF MY THESIS iii TALBE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x ABSTRACT xi CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study 1.2 Research aims 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Research hypotheses 1.5 Significance of the study 1.6 Outline of the thesis CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Error making in second language learning 2.1.1 Errors and mistakes 2.1.2 Sources of errors 10 2.2 Providing feedback to learners’ performance 12 2.2.1 Definition of feedback 12 2.2.2 Categorization of feedback 14 2.2.2.1 Positive and negative feedback 14 2.2.2.2 Oral and written Corrective Feedback 15 2.3 Written Corrective feedback 17 2.3.1 Researches into the effectiveness of WCF 17 2.3.2 Strategies of giving WCF 19 iv 2.3.2.1 Focused vs unfocused WCF 19 2.3.2.2 Direct vs indirect written corrective feedback 23 2.3.2.3 The effectiveness of WCF types 27 2.3.2.4 Values of WCF for treatable and untreatable errors 32 2.4 Grammatical knowledge in second language acquisition 34 2.4.1 The role of grammar in writing 34 2.4.2 Improving grammar in writing 37 2.5 Second language writing 39 2.5.1 The relationship between speaking and writing 39 2.5.2 The writing process 41 2.5.2.1 Model of the writing process by Hayes (1996) 41 2.5.2.2 Model of the writing process Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) 42 2.5.2.3 Evaluating the two models 43 2.6 Conceptual framework 45 2.7 Gaps persisting 46 2.8 Summary 46 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY 48 3.1 Research setting 48 3.2 Participants 48 3.3 Research design 51 3.4 Research instruments 53 3.4.1 Guided writing tasks 54 3.4.2 Interview 56 3.4.3 Pilot the research instruments 58 3.4.3.1 Piloting the tests 58 3.4.3.2 Piloting the interview 59 v 3.5 Treatment and data collection procedure 59 3.5.1 Targeted errors for treatment 59 3.5.2 Treatment 60 3.5.3 Procedure 62 3.5.3.1 Placement test 62 3.5.3.2 Pretest 63 3.5.3.3 Posttest 65 3.5.3.4 Delayed posttest 65 3.6 Data analysis 68 3.7 Chapter summary 69 CHAPTER 70 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 70 4.1 Tests 70 4.1.1 Preconditions of statistical analysis 70 4.1.2 Participants’ pre-existing knowledge to the treatment 71 4.1.3 The difference in the short-term effects of indirect WCF on the improvement of grammatical accuracy in the posttest compared to those of direct WCF 73 4.1.4 The difference in the long-term effects of indirect WCF on the improvement of grammatical accuracy in the delayed posttest compared to those of direct WCF 74 4.1.5 The effects of indirect WCF within groups 76 4.1.5.1 Between the pretest and posttest 76 4.1.5.2 Between the pretest and delayed posttest 77 4.1.5.3 Between the posttest and delayed posttest 79 4.1.6 Types of errors committed 81 4.1.7 The improvement of grammatical accuracy for different error types after being treated with indirect WCF 82 vi 4.1.8 Discussion 85 4.2 Interview 89 4.2.1 The needs for error correction in writing 89 4.2.1.1 Making grammatical errors is a perennial problem of students in English writing 89 4.2.1.2 Addressing students’ grammatical errors has still been inadequate 91 4.2.2 Students’ opinion regarding indirect WFC (vs direct WCF) 93 4.2.2.1 Students’ support for the method 93 4.2.2.2 The observed positive effects of indirect WCF on students’ writing 97 4.2.3 Students’ difficulties with indirect WFC 100 4.2.4 Students’ suggestions for the improvement of the indirect WFC 101 4.3 Chapter summary 103 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 104 5.1 Summary of the current study 104 5.2 Pedagogical implications 106 5.3 Limitation of the study 107 5.4 Recommendation for further studies 108 REFERENCES 109 APPENDICES 117 APPENDIX 118 APPENDIX 123 APPENDIX 136 APPENDIX 140 APPENDIX 142 APPENDIX 145 APPENDIX 152 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS adj adjective CF corrective feedback EFL English as a Foreign Language Gr grammar L1 first language L2 second language R respondent SLA second language acquisition SPSS statistical package for the social sciences Voc vocabulary WCF written corrective feedback W writing WF Wrong form WO Wrong order WT Wrong tense viii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 A taxonomy of oral CF strategies (Ellis, 2009) 16 Table 2.2 A Taxonomy of Written CF Strategies (Sheen and Ellis, 2011) 26 Table 3.1 Placement test results by the number of correct answers 50 Table 3.2 Placement test result by the percentage of correct answers 50 Table 3.3 T-test for the Placement test scores 51 Table 3.4 Error codes used in the study 61 Table 3.5 Procedure of the study 66 Table 4.1 Tests of normality for the scores of the experimental and comparison groups in the pretest, posttest and delayed posttest 71 Table 4.2 Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for the pretest scores 72 Table 4.3 Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for the posttest scores 73 Table 4.4 Results of Mann-Whitney U Test for the delayed posttest scores 75 Table 4.5 Results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for the Pretest and Posttest of the Comparison and Experimental groups 77 Table 4.6 Results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for the Pretest and delayed posttest of the Comparison and Experimental groups 78 Table 4.7 Results of Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for the Posttest and Delayed posttest of the Comparison and Experimental groups 79 ix  Posttest  Delayed posttest 150  Homework 151 APPENDIX SPSS OUTPUT 152 APPENDIX 7A SPSS OUTPUT OF THE TEST OF NORMALITY OF THE PLACEMENT TEST Case Processing Summary Cases Group Placementest "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent 21 100.0% 0.0% 21 100.0% 19 100.0% 0.0% 19 100.0% Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk Group Placementest "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Statistic df Sig Statistic df Sig .117 21 200* 973 21 792 141 19 200* 965 19 680 * This is a lower bound of the true significance a Lilliefors Significance Correction 153 APPENDIX 7B SPSS OUTPUT OF THE T-TEST OF THE PLACEMENT TEST Group Statistics Group Placemen test N Mean Std Deviation Std Error Mean "Comparison Group" 21 40.05 7.909 1.726 " Experimental Group" 19 42.05 6.620 1.519 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of t-test for Equality of Means Variances Std Mean Error Sig (2- Differen Differen F Sig t 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference df tailed) ce ce Lower Upper 38 393 -2.005 2.320 -6.701 2.691 389 -2.005 2.299 -6.660 2.650 Placeme Equal ntest variances 101 752 -.864 assumed Equal variances not -.872 37.790 assumed 154 APPENDIX 7C SPSS OUTPUT OF THE TESTS OF NORMALITY Case Processing Summary Cases Group Pretest Posttest Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent "Comparison Group" 21 100.0% 0.0% 21 100.0% "Experimental Group" 19 100.0% 0.0% 19 100.0% "Comparison Group" 21 100.0% 0.0% 21 100.0% "Experimental Group" 19 100.0% 0.0% 19 100.0% 21 100.0% 0.0% 21 100.0% 19 100.0% 0.0% 19 100.0% Delayed Posttest "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Tests of Normality Group Pretest df Sig Statistic df Sig .230 21 005 844 21 003 204 19 036 936 19 225 176 21 087 922 21 096 243 19 004 849 19 006 "Comparison Group" 238 21 003 811 21 001 "Experimental Group" 199 19 046 918 19 105 "Comparison Group" "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Delayed Posttest Shapiro-Wilk Statistic "Experimental Group" Posttest Kolmogorov-Smirnova a Lilliefors Significance Correction 155 APPENDIX 7D SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRETESTS BETWEEN GROUPS Descriptive Statistics Percentiles Std 50th N Mean Deviation Minimum Maximum Pretest 40 5.7500 1.72091 2.00 Group 40 1.48 506 25th (Median) 75th 10.00 5.0000 6.0000 7.0000 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ranks Group Pretest N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks "Comparison Group" 21 22.48 472.00 " Experimental Group" 19 18.32 348.00 Total 40 Test Statisticsa Pretest Mann-Whitney U 158.000 Wilcoxon W 348.000 Z -1.146 Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 252 Exact Sig.)] 270b Sig [2*(1-tailed a Grouping Variable: Group b Not corrected for ties 156 APPENDIX 7E SPSS OUTPUT OF THE POSTESTS BETWEEN GROUPS Descriptive Statistics Percentiles N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum Posttest 40 7.1500 1.40603 4.00 Group 40 1.48 506 25th 50th (Median) 75th 9.00 6.0000 7.0000 8.0000 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ranks Group N Posttest "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Total Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 21 15.45 324.50 19 26.08 495.50 40 Test Statisticsa Posttest Mann-Whitney U 93.500 Wilcoxon W 324.500 Z -2.934 Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 003 Exact Sig [2*(1-tailed 003b Sig.)] a Grouping Variable: Group b Not corrected for ties 157 APPENDIX 7F SPSS OUTPUT OF THE DELAYED POSTESTS BETWEEN GROUPS Descriptive Statistics Percentiles Std Minimu Maximu 50th N Mean Deviation m m 25th (Median) 75th Delayed Posttest 40 7.5500 1.56811 2.00 10.00 7.0000 8.0000 8.0000 Group 40 1.48 506 1.00 1.00 2.00 Ranks Group Delayed Posttest "Comparison Group" "Experimental Group" Total N 21 17.55 368.50 19 23.76 451.50 40 Test Statisticsa Delayed Posttest Mann-Whitney U 137.500 Wilcoxon W 368.500 Z -1.748 Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 080 Mean Rank Sum of Ranks Exact Sig [2*(1-tailed 093b Sig.)] a Grouping Variable: Group b Not corrected for ties 158 APPENDIX 7G SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRETESTS AND POSTETS OF THE COMPARISON GROUP Descriptive Statistics Percentiles N Mean Std Deviation Minimu Maximu m m 25th 50th (Median) 75th Pretest Comparison 21 6.0476 92066 4.00 7.00 5.0000 6.0000 7.0000 Posttest Comparison 21 6.5238 1.40068 4.00 9.00 5.5000 6.0000 7.0000 Ranks N Posttest Comparison – Negative Ranks Pretest Comparison Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 6a 7.50 45.00 Positive Ranks 12b 10.50 126.00 Ties 3c Total 21 a Post Comparison < Pre Comparison b Post Comparison > Pre Comparison c Post Comparison = Pre Comparison Test Statisticsa Posttest Comparison – Pretest Comparison -1.870b Z Asymp tailed) Sig (2- 062 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 159 APPENDIX 7H SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRETESTS AND POSTETS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Descriptive Statistics Percentiles N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum Pretest Experimental 19 5.4211 2.29288 2.00 Posttest Experimental 19 7.8421 1.06787 6.00 25th 50th (Median) 75th 10.00 4.0000 5.0000 8.0000 9.00 7.0000 8.0000 9.0000 Ranks N Posttest Negative Ranks Experimental Positive Ranks –Pretest Experimental Ties Total Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 2a 4.00 8.00 14b 9.14 128.00 3c 19 a Posttest Experimental < Pretest Experimental b Posttest Experimental > Pretest Experimental c Posttest Experimental = Pretest Experimental Test Statisticsa Posttest Experimental -Pretest Experimental -3.121b Z Asymp tailed) Sig (2- 002 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 160 APPENDIX 7I SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRETESTS AND DELAYED POSTETS OF THE COMPARISON GROUP Descriptive Statistics Pretest Comparison Delayed Posttest Comparison N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 21 6.0476 92066 4.00 7.00 21 7.0952 1.60950 2.00 9.00 Ranks Delayed Comparison N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 2a 11.50 23.00 Positive Ranks 14b 8.07 113.00 Ties 5c Total 21 Posttest Negative Ranks – Pretest Comparison a Delayed Posttest Comparison < Pretest Comparison b Delayed Posttest Comparison > Pretest Comparison c Delayed Posttest Comparison = Pretest Comparison Test Statisticsa Delayed Posttest Comparison – Pretest Comparison -2.359b Z Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 018 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 161 APPENDIX 7J SPSS OUTPUT OF THE PRETESTS AND DELAYED POSTETS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Descriptive Statistics Pretest Experimental Delayed Posttest Experimental N Mean Std Deviation Minimum Maximum 19 5.4211 2.29288 2.00 10.00 19 8.0526 1.39338 5.00 10.00 Ranks Delayed Experimental – N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 2a 5.25 10.50 Positive Ranks 15b 9.50 142.50 Ties 2c Total 19 Posttest Negative Ranks Pretest Experimental a Delayed Posttest Experimental < Pretest Experimental b Delayed Posttest Experimental > Pretest Experimental c Delayed Posttest Experimental = Pretest Experimental Test Statisticsa Delayed Posttest Experimental – Pretest Experimental Z -3.143b Asymp Sig (2-tailed) 002 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 162 APPENDIX 7K SPSS OUTPUT OF THE POSTEST AND DELAYED POSTETS OF THE COMPARISON GROUP Descriptive Statistics Percentiles Std Minimu Maximu Deviation m m 25th 50th (Median) 75th N Mean Posttest Comparison 21 6.5238 1.40068 4.00 9.00 5.5000 6.0000 7.0000 Delayed Posttest Comparison 21 7.0952 1.60950 2.00 9.00 6.5000 8.0000 8.0000 Ranks N Delayed Posttest Negative Ranks Comparison – Posttest Positive Ranks Comparison Ties Total Mean Rank Sum of Ranks 6a 6.17 37.00 9b 9.22 83.00 6c 21 a Delayed Posttest Comparison < Posttest Comparison b Delayed Posttest Comparison > Posttest Comparison c Delayed Posttest Comparison = Posttest Comparison Test Statisticsa Delayed Posttest Comparison – Posttest Comparison -1.332b Z Asymp tailed) Sig (2- 183 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 163 APPENDIX 7L SPSS OUTPUT OF THE POSTEST AND DELAYED POSTETS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Descriptive Statistics Percentiles Std Deviation Minimu Maximu m m 25th 50th (Median) 75th N Mean Posttest Experimental 19 7.842 1.06787 6.00 9.00 7.0000 8.0000 9.0000 Delayed Posttest Experimental 19 8.052 1.39338 5.00 10.00 7.0000 8.0000 9.0000 Ranks N Delayed Experimental – 7a 6.00 42.00 Positive Ranks 7b 9.00 63.00 Ties 5c Total 19 Posttest Negative Ranks Posttest Experimental Mean Rank Sum of Ranks a Delayed Posttest Experimental < Posttest Experimental b Delayed Posttest Experimental > Posttest Experimental c Delayed Posttest Experimental = Posttest Experimental Test Statisticsa Delayed Posttest Experimental – Posttest Experimental -.669b Z Asymp tailed) Sig (2- 504 a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test b Based on negative ranks 164 ... corrective feedback on the improvements of grammatical accuracy in writing To achieve the aim of the study, a mixed method design was employed on the sample including 40 students at Nguyen Tat Thanh International... forms’ can be heavily emphasized in teaching grammar for writing The distinction of the two types of focus above generates an idea about the role of grammatical accuracy in speaking and writing Indeed,... at: - examining the effects of teachers’ indirect WCF on the improvement of grammatical accuracy in writing compared to the conventional method, namely direct WCF In finding out the answer, it