VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HA NOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

******************

LÊ THỊ THU HÀ

FEEDBACK ON ESL WRITING: TEACHERS’ PRACTICES AND

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

HOẠT ĐỘNG THỰC TẾ CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ MONG MUỐN CỦA

SINH VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN HỒI TRÊN BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111

HANOI - 2013
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY - HA NOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

******************

LÊ THỊ THU HÀ

FEEDBACK ON ESL WRITING: TEACHERS’ PRACTICES AND

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

HOẠT ĐỘNG THỰC TẾ CỦA GIẢNG VIÊN VÀ MONG MUỐN CỦA

SINH VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN HỒI TRÊN BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology

Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Dr. To Thi Thu Huong

HANOI - 2013
 DECLARATION

I confirm that this is my own research, and that it has not been published or
submitted for any other degrees.

Student's signature

Lê Thị Thu Hà

i
 ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks to my supervisor, Dr. To Thi Thu
Huong, for her invaluable support, useful guidance and comments. I am truly
grateful to her advice and suggestions right from the beginning when this study was
only in its formative stage.

I would also express my gratitude to all the teachers of English at College of

Technologies and Economics in Trade for their constant support as well as
suggestions for this paper.

Especially, I am grateful to the students in the three classes which I am in

charge for their actively taking part in completing the writing tasks and answering
the survey questionnaires. Without their help, this study could not have been
completed.

Finally, my special thanks go to my family and my friends who have been

beside me and have encouraged me a lot to fulfill my study.

ii
 ABSTRACT

This case study was conducted at College of Technologies and Economics in Trade
to investigate teachers’ practices and students’ strategies for handling the feedback
they received as well as students’ preferences for four different types of feedback.
Fifty seven students in three ESL classes were asked to fill out the questionnaires
and three writing teachers were asked to participate in the interviews. In addition,
students’ paragraphs with teacher feedback were analyzed to see how teacher gave
the feedback and how students responded to the feedback they received. The results
show that teachers used written feedback frequently, but in different ways; and
students’ strategies for handling feedback varied depending on the types of
feedback each teacher gave on their papers. Besides, the study revealed that
students preferred teacher feedback (teacher correction, teacher correction with
comments, error identification) to non-teacher feedback such as self-feedback, peer-
feedback or computer- directed feedback. The findings of the study suggests that
writing teachers should consider the fit between their practice and students’
preferences to choose the most suitable ways of feedback giving to help students
improve their writing.

iii
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The number of each type of teacher feedback on students’ first drafts .....23

Table 2: Student strategies for handling feedback....................................................28

Table 3: Student’s preferences for each types of feedback .......................................31

Table 4: Attitudes of students in class A to different types of feedback ....................32

Table 5: Attitudes of students in class B to different types of feedback ....................34

Table 6: Attitudes of students in class C to different types of feedback ....................36

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Paragraph sample of the student in class A with teacher feedback ...........24

Figure 2: Paragraph sample of the student in class B with teacher feedback ...........25

Figure 3: Paragraph sample of the student in class C with teacher feedback ...........27

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Student questionnaire .......................................................................... I

Appendix 2: Interview questions ............................................................................. IV

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS........................................................................................ i

DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES .................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF APPENDICES........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1

1. The rationale of the study ....................................................................................1

2. Purposes of the study and research questions ......................................................3

3. Scope of the study ................................................................................................3

4. Significance of the study .....................................................................................4

5. Research methods ...............................................................................................4

6. Organization of the study.....................................................................................5

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................6

1. Definitions of feedback........................................................................................6

2. Roles of feedback in teaching ESL/EFL writing .................................................7

3. Types of feedback ................................................................................................8

3.1. Teacher feedback ...........................................................................................9

3.1.1. Student-teacher conferencing ................................................................9

3.1.2. Teacher written feedback ....................................................................10

3.2. Peer feedback ..............................................................................................12

3.3. Self-feedback ...............................................................................................13

3.4. Computer- assisted feedback .......................................................................13

i
 4. Teachers’ beliefs and practices of giving feedback on ESL writing .................14

5. Students’ reactions and preferences for feedback .............................................15

Chapter 3: THE STUDY ...........................................................................................18

1. The current situation of teaching and learning English writing at CTET .........18

2. Methodology ......................................................................................................20

2.1. The participants ...........................................................................................20

2.2. Methods and Instrumentation ......................................................................20

2.2.1. Students’ compositions .......................................................................20

2.2.2. Questionnaire and interview ...............................................................21

2.3. Data collection procedure ............................................................................21

2.4. Data analysis procedure ..............................................................................22

Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................23

1. Teachers’ practices of giving feedback on ESL writing....................................23

2. Students’ reactions to the received teacher feedback ........................................28

3. Students’ preferences for different types of feedback on ESL writing .............31

4. Implications for teaching and learning ..............................................................38

Chapter 5: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................41

1. Summary ............................................................................................................41

2. Limitations of the study .....................................................................................41

3. Suggestions for further studies ..........................................................................42

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 43
APPENDICES............................................................................................................. I

ii
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1. The rationale of the study

Among the most important skills students of English as a second language

(ESL) or a foreign language (EFL) need to develop is writing. For many years, as
many historical accounts have shown, writing won little interest from the learners’
side compared to other skills, especially speaking. Learning to speak has been
deemed a primary concern; learning to write has always been a secondary matter, a
means of practicing, sustaining and reinforcing other skills. However, foreign
language proficiency demands a balance in mastery between different language
skills. Thus, ESL/EFL students have come to realize the importance of writing as an
independent medium of communication which they need for a wide range of
purposes in different contexts both inside and outside the classroom.

The ESL learners at College of Technologies and Economics in Trade, who

follow a three year course in English with Business English as major, by no means;
an exception. The course program offers the learners not only knowledge about
business in English but also chances to improve their four English skills. Among
the four macro skills, writing has recently been interested by both teachers and
students. Over the first semester of the first years, the students are introduced to
some basic concepts in Grammar (parts of speech and word function), Syntax
(phrases, clauses, and sentences), and Mechanics (capitalization and punctuation). It
is until the second semester that students are introduced to basic writing, ranging
from writing informal letters/email to business letter, then writing paragraphs and
essays for the third and the forth semester. They are taught different forms of
letters/email and techniques for paragraph and essay writing including writing topic
sentence, introduction, developmental paragraphs and conclusion. Besides, they are
provided with insights into different patterns of essay development such as
cause/effect, comparison/contrast or argumentation. The third year is by far an

1
opportunity for them to practice writing essays with different patterns of
development.

Teaching English writing is not an easy task for ESL teachers as it involves
various processes which require teachers to devote a lot of time to helping students
write better. Planning what to teach within a particular curriculum is only a part of
the task. Besides, they have to consider the different approaches that gleaned from
theories and researches on teaching writing in ESL contexts. Teachers also spend a
great deal of time in the post-writing process grading students’ compositions in
detail. Especially, it is the teachers’ jobs to select the approach that best fits the
learners’ needs and create a motivating environment, and facilitate the learning-to-
write activity. The teacher can do so by widening the area of interaction between
him and his students. The best means for teacher-student interaction may be
insightful feedback which helps both improving students’ writing production and
motivating them to be independent writers. Therefore, most teachers believe that
feedback is an important aspect of teaching of writing.

However, providing effective feedback is one of the many challenges that

any writing teacher faces. In ESL classroom, feedback practices can be even more
challenging. Teachers and students agree that teacher written feedback is a crucial
part of the writing process (Cohen& Cavalcanti, 1990). Teachers want to give
feedback that will encourage and challenge students to be better writers, but do not
always know how the feedback that they are giving is perceived by students, or how
effective it is. Since reading students work and giving feedback is very time-
consuming process, teachers may feel frustrated when the feedback they offer is not
followed by the students. Even when the teachers’ system for giving feedback is
clear and consistent, sometimes teachers do not know whether students understand
their practices. Therefore, the study examines teachers’ practices of feedback and
compared these with students’ preferences and reaction to feedback to see how the
teachers’ practice matches students’ needs and to find the best approach to improve
students’ writing skill. Besides, through the study, some implications will be

2
suggested for using feedback in teaching ESL writing. In setting up the study, an
attempt is made to replicate Saito’s (1994) study because Saito’s study used ESL
students of Engineering and included Vietnamese background student which is
quite similar to the context of the current study.

2. Purposes of the study and research questions

The research reported in this thesis aims to study teachers’ practices of

feedback giving, the students’ strategies for handling feedback they received and
their preferences toward different types of feedback in teaching – learning English
writing at College of Technologies and Economics in Trade (CTET) so that further
improvement of students’ writing can be achieved.

In order to achieve the aim, the research attempts to answer the following
questions which are a modified version of Saito’s (1994) research questions:

1. How do English teachers at CTET usually give feedback on their students’

written work?

2. How do ESL students at CTET react to the teacher feedback they received?

3. What types of feedback do students prefer?

3. Scope of the study

1. The study was conducted with the participation of the second-year

students in three CTA classes and 3 teachers of English in the Faculty of Foreign
Languages, College of Technologies and Economics in Trade in the academic year
2013. These students study Business English as their major.

2. The study focuses on four different types of feedback on students’ English

writing. The types of feedback used in the study are (1) Teacher feedback with four
sub-types, (2) Peer feedback, (3) Self- feedback, and (4) Computer-assisted
feedback.

3
 3. The study investigated two issues. Firstly, the real situation of teachers’
practices and students’ reactions to feedback on ESL writing was studied. Secondly,
the study investigates students’ preferences to four different types of feedback.

4. Significance of the study

Theoretically, the study proves teacher’s feedback to students’ writing is

undeniably a key component and a crucial part of the process. Feedback offers a
number of advantages. Indeed, it “helps students to improve their writing by
communicating feedback detailed enough to allow students to act, to commit to
change in their writing” (Reid, 1993). It also gives the teachers a better chance of
closely following the progress of students, both in terms of the feedback offered and
revision made.

Practically, the study shows that using feedback not only helps students
recognize and correct the mistakes to become more professional writers, but also
give teachers chances to understand students’ needs and choose the most suitable
approaches of writing teaching. The study also offers teachers some implications to
improve teaching writing.

5. Research methods

To meet the research aforementioned aims, document analysis and

questionnaire survey together with interview were used in this study.

First, a sample of 57 paragraphs of English written by students with teacher’s

feedback on these samples were collected from 57 students who agreed to take part
in the research and analyzed to find out how teachers give feedback on students’
writing. Besides, the author also compared the first versions with the revised
versions to see whether the results from the student questionnaire match the reality
in which they handled the feedback or not.

4
Second, a questionnaire survey was done on the 57 students to find out the
strategies they used when handling received feedback and their preferences for the
four different types of feedback. A semi-structured interview was also carried out
with the participation of three ESL writing teachers to know more about their
practices of giving feedback on student’s ESL writing and their perceptions about
four different types of feedback.

6. Organization of the study

The paper consists of five chapters as follows:

Chapter 1- INTRODUCTION- briefly states the rationale of the study, the aims,
research question, scope as well as the significance and organization of the study.

Chapter 2- LITERATURE REVIEW- discuss the literature related to the feedback

in writing, different types and roles of feedback as well as teachers and students’
attitudes to feedback.

Chapter 3- THE STUDY – describe the current situation of teaching and learning
writing at CTET and the methodology which deals with the participants,
instrumentation, data collection procedure and data analysis procedure.

Chapter 4 - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION- analyzes and discusses the data and
then draws the implications for teaching and learning of writing using feedback.

Chapter 5 - CONCLUSION- summarizes the major findings of the study,

acknowledges its limitations and provides suggestions for further study.

5
 Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Definitions of feedback

Before discussing issues concerning to feedback, it is necessary to present a

clear definition of the term “feedback”. In the literature, various researchers define
the term “feedback” in different ways. Some researchers consider feedback as a
form of revision, for example, Keh (1990) defines that feedback is “input from a
reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for
revision”. Hence, feedback is supposed to show learners what is right or wrong in
order for them to produce better texts in future. Sharing the same opinion with Keh,
Phil (2007) says that “feedback is when you receive comments about your work, so
that you know how well your studies are going – and of course there’s the other
side to this – so you know how badly your studies are going”. So, through feedback,
the writers raise awareness of their strength and learn where they misled or
confused to identify action to be taken to improve the next performance. Besides,
“feedback is part of the overall dialogue or interaction between teacher and
learner, not a one-way communication” (Judy, 2007). It means feedback is a way of
interaction between teachers and learners, more broadly between readers and
writers. It can be an effective means to communicate to the students about their
writing. Through feedback, teachers can understand more about learners; and
learners learn from the comments of the teachers. Especially, feedback could be
“consider a motivator that increase a general behavior” (Kulhavy & Wager, 1993).
For example, positive feedback, such as praise, strengthens students’ motivation
and self-confidence.

Through the definitions reviewed, feedback is also an indispensable part of

writing development. Feedback in writing is the information that is given to the
learner about his or her performance of writing, usually with the objective of
improving this performance. Feedback on ESL writing means advice, criticism or
information about how good student’s writing is or what errors are in the student’s

6
writing. It can be provided by writers themselves, peers, and teachers or innovative
computer programs.

2. Roles of feedback in teaching ESL/EFL writing

The roles of feedback in English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as

a Foreign Language (EFL) teaching and learning have been key issues in several
studies in teaching writing. Many scholars and researchers believe that feedback
plays an important role in the writing process. According to Simpson (2006), the
feedback on the content and organization help the students to improve the quality of
their writing. Student writers who receive feedback will have information about
which parts of their texts need to be corrected and improved. Glover and Brown
(2006) in their study also indicated that feedback is effective if students act on it to
improve their future work and learning. Sharing the same opinion, Carless (2006)
confirms that students who receive feedback during the writing process have a
clearer sense of how well they are performing and what they need to do to improve.
In sum, feedback can provide assessment on how well the students perform their
work or their accomplishment of a given task as feedback is meant for helping
students narrow or close the gap between their actual ability and the desired
performance (Brookhart, 2003).

Another role of feedback in writing is said to raise students’ awareness of the

informational, rhetorical, linguistic expectations of the reader. Williams (2005)
suggests, feedback in writing can stimulate explicit knowledge of student writers.
He describes explicit knowledge as the knowledge of language rules that students
can articulate and provide reasons that certain rules should be applied. Students who
receive feedback will resort to their prior knowledge about language and writing
rules that they have learned. In writing, student writers will apply explicit
knowledge as stimulated by the feedback on their writing.

Additionally, feedback can increase students’ attention on the subject they

are writing. Students who receive feedback will pay more attention to what they

7
have written that, beyond their knowledge or awareness, their work does not meet
certain standards. The feedback that they receive draws students’ attention to those
aspects of their writing that need remediation, and by doing so, they learn how to
improve their performance. The increase of attention will lead to writing
improvement which can be defined as a gain in accuracy in both form and content
of writing as indicated by Ashwell (2000)

Moreover, feedback plays an important role in improving the students’

motivation in language learning, especially in writing. Ellis (2009) indicated that in
both structural and communicative approaches to language teaching, feedback is
considered as a way of inspiring learner motivation and increasing linguistic
accuracy. Nazifah & Shafiq (2012) also argues the roles of feedback that
“incorporating feedback in writing is an effective approach in writing lesson as it
can foster the students’ motivation, improve their language proficiency as well as
promote their great achievement in writing performance.”

3. Types of feedback

In recent years, studies of language education have given considerable

attention to the issue of how and who to provide feedback to students’ writing.
However, researchers still discuss the questions of what types of feedback would be
the most effective one to improve students’ writing skill and fit the needs of
particular students. Through the literature reviewed, feedback has been categorized
into various types of feedback based on feedback functions, media, focus, source,
and strategy. However, in the present study, the writer reviewed four main types of
feedback: teacher feedback, peer feedback, self- feedback and computer-assisted
feedback.

8
3.1. Teacher feedback

Teacher feedback is defined as “any input provided by the teacher to

students for revision” (Keh, 1990), and this includes both content and form. In ESL
writing teaching and learning, teachers provides feedback on student writing to
support students’ writing development and nurture their confidence as writers.
Teacher feedback is often divided into two forms: verbal feedback and written
feedback. Verbal feedback may be given as teacher circulates around the classroom
while students are writing. It may be also given in student-teacher conferences.
Written feedback may be given in many forms such as error identification, error
correction and comment. In the present study, the writer reviewed two main types
of teacher feedback: student-teacher conferencing as verbal feedback and teacher
written feedback.

3.1.1. Student-teacher conferencing

Student-teacher conferencing is defined as “the teacher and student discuss a

piece of student writing individually during the writing of a composition, and after
it is finished” (Saito, 1994). It has become increasingly popular tools in writing
instruction in L1 settings, and recently, this approach has started to become popular
in L2 situations as well (Carnicelli,1980; Zamel,1985; Bitchenere., 2005). In an L1
study, Carnicelli (1980) reviewed students' opinions towards writing conferences
and found that two-way communication in a writing conference appeared more
effective than written comments because it allowed students to explain their
opinions and needs, and to understand the teacher's comments. Besides, when
considering second language learners, Zamel (1985) emphasized the importance of
writing conferences: "We should set up collaborative sessions and conferences
during which important discoveries can be made by both reader and writer"(p. 97).
Discussing this type of feedback, recent researchers also suggested that student-
teacher conference as a means of giving feedback to L2 learner can be beneficial.
For example, Bitchenere et al. (2005) said that giving feedback through student-

9
teacher conferences may very well provide the opportunity for increasing the
interaction between the teacher and the student, which helps students to clarify the
confusion that they have, and maximize their achievements through the social
interaction. Supporting the effectiveness of student-teacher conferencing, Peterson
(2010) stated that “when there is a dialogue between student and teacher, the
student may ask for help in a particular area or ask what effect the writing has on
the teacher-as-reader; the teacher may ask about the students’ goals, their
impressions of the strongest parts of their writing and their thoughts on what they
have learned through writing a particular composition.”

Though Bitchenere (2005) provided an evidence for the effectiveness of

student-teacher conferencing as a way of providing feedback to students’ writing;
he also showed that there may be some disadvantages to it: “when the number of
students in a class is over forty, there may be difficulties in arranging a twenty-
minute student-teacher conference for each student.” This means that teacher-
student conferencing seems to be suitable only to small classes with about 10 -15
students. It also requires teachers much more time and energy to do this task.

3.1.2. Teacher written feedback

Teacher written feedback is a primary method to respond to students’

writings to assist students’ writing development. Surveys of students’ feedback
preferences generally indicate that ESL students prefer teacher feedback to other
forms such as peer feedback or self- feedback (Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995). Most
students see a teacher as the only source of authority value teacher revision highly
than other methods because they have confidence in the teacher’s knowledge and
skills in English. In fact, teacher written feedback on students’ draft helps indicate
students’ problems and make suggestions for improvement of future papers.
Besides, through feedback, teacher can help students compare their own
performance with the ideal and to realize their own strengths and weaknesses.

10
 Researchers have tried to find out what kinds of teacher feedback are the
most effective. Roberts (2001) examined the effectiveness of teacher written
feedback with three types: errors marked with codes; errors underlined with no
codes; and no error feedback at all. Before that, when discussing the types of
feedback, Saito (1994) categorized teacher written feedback into three main types as
error correction, error identification, and commentary. In this study, based on the
category of Saito (1994), I discussed teacher written feedback in three main forms:
error correction, error identification and teacher commentary.

Error correction by teacher or error marked with codes is defined that “the
teacher corrects all the surface errors by crossing out perceived errors and
providing correct answers” (Saito, 1994). It is direct feedback given by teachers
and considered the most common form of written feedback in ESL writing contexts.
Many researchers have indicated that L2 students benefit from teacher error
correction. Lee (1997) studied the performance of ESL college students in Hong
Kong and found that the students corrected more errors when their errors were
indicated with teachers’ codes. Similarly, Ferris and Roberts (2001), studying the
effects of teacher feedback among university ESL student writers, showed that error
feedback groups significantly performed better than the no feedback control group.
In the study of Saito (1994), he also found out that L2 students favored teacher error
correction because it is easy for them to edit and improve their papers. However,
Truscott (1996) did not think that error correction had many benefits as other
researchers said and argued that this kind of feedback is harmful to students’
fluency and their overall writing quality and should be abandoned.

Error identification is indirect feedback, which is marked by teachers by

means of an underline, circle, code, etc. without any correction. It may be the most
widely-used technique for responding to the writing of L2 learners (Cumming,
1985). A number of researchers think that error identification is generally more
appropriate and effective than error correction and brings more benefits to students’
long-term writing development (Frantzen, 1995; Ferris, 2002). It is because this

11
way of giving feedback requires students to solve problems themselves. It gives
students opportunities to understand and fix their errors themselves and express
their ideas more clearly in the next writing. However, error identification from
teacher is useful only when it incorporated with student self-revision. Lower
proficiency students may be unable to correct errors marked by teachers, so they
prefer teachers to give all the corrections for their mistakes.

Commentary, as defined by Saito (1994), is “when teacher provides feedback

by making written comments or questions on the margins or in between sentences
without any error corrections made”. As discussed in the literature on ESL
teaching, there are very few studies about teachers’ commentary as a means of
feedback in teaching writing; and teachers seem less likely to use commentary on
ESL students' writing. In the research of Zamel (1985), he revealed that ESL
teachers' comment tended to ignore the content or ideas in students' writing in favor
of attention to grammatical errors. Besides, other researchers such as Cardelle &
Como (1981).have suggested that positive written comments along with specific
comments on errors may be an effective way to motivate students to improve their
revisions of their writing.

3.2. Peer feedback

Peer feedback is a useful assessment-for-learning tool that has been shown to

support students’ writing development and contribute to students’ revisions to
improve their writing (Peterson, 2013). As defined by Saito (1994), peer feedback is
that “students evaluate each other’s work in pairs or with a whole class”. It benefits
not only the students who receive suggestions for improving the writing, but also
the feedback providers, as they gains a greater awareness of qualities of good
writing through assessing and commenting on peer’s writing. Peer feedback also
develops students’ self-assessment abilities, as they gain experience in using the
criteria to read their own writing (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Lundstrom & Baker,
2009). However, it is important for ESL teachers to teach students how to give

12
feedback to their peers and how to work with the feedback. Researchers recommend
that students should be guided by teacher modeling and assessment criteria.

3.3. Self-feedback

Self-feedback, or self-correction, or self-assessment, means that students

evaluate their own work by using a checklist, computers, etc. (Saito,1994).
Discussing this type of feedback, Charles (1990) defines it that “students makes
annotations about any doubts ad concerns during their writing”. He also claimed
that self-feedback makes students express their intentions and uncertainties much
easier and encourages them to develop the critical and analytical writing skills.
Furthermore, it is beneficial to let students place themselves in the position of
audience and receive feedback directly to their queries. Similarly, Oscarson (2009),
when studying self-assessment of writing in learning EFL, stated that students and
teachers were positive to the incorporation of self-assessment activities in the EFL
writing classroom. The method was seen to be a practical way of helping students
become more aware of their language skills and language levels. However, in the
study of students’ preferences towards various types of feedback, Saito (1994)
showed that the students less favored self-feedback than other types of feedback.

3.4. Computer- assisted feedback

The rapid development of computer technology together with the use of

computers by linguistics and researchers, and the increasing importance of
computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and computer-assisted language
instruction (CALI) has greatly influenced writing teaching in recent years.
Therefore, the terms of “computer-assisted feedback” or “computer-based
feedback” appeared to support the giving feedback activity in writing teaching and
learning. “Computer-assisted feedback” means using the innovative computer
programs to evaluate and score written feedback. Nowadays, there are a number of
computer applications which provide feedback to the writer, for example, Electronic
Feedback software, MY Access. The software has been developed to score

13
students’ writing in a variety of genres and provide writers with immediate
feedback on content and organization for revision (Lee, 2009). When comparing the
reactions of students to handwritten and electronic feedback using Electronic
Feedback, Denton (2008) stated that students rated the electronic feedback superior
for “mark scheme clarity, feedback legibility, information on deficient aspects, and
identification of those parts of the work where students did well”. Many teachers
also like using the software because it saves their time and energy. However,
Matsumara (2004), who investigated the influence of computer-anxiety on the
preferences of students for face-to-face teacher feedback, computer-based feedback,
and peer feedback in EFL writing classes, showed that student’s attitudes toward
computer-directed feedback varied depending on their level of computer anxiety.

4. Teachers’ beliefs and practices of giving feedback on ESL writing

Teacher beliefs, which have been a common focus of previous studies in

ESL education, are important aspects that influence teachers’ practice. Borg (2001)
defines teacher belief as “a set of consciously or unconsciously held propositions
that serves as a reflection and a guide to the teacher’s thought and behaviors”.
However, very few studies have investigated teacher beliefs and perceptions about
feedback, and even fewer that explore the correspondence or difference between
students’ preferences and teachers’ practices for feedback giving.

In a recent study in an EFL context in Hong Kong, Lee (2003) compared

teachers’ feedback beliefs with teachers’ feedback practices. She found that
although many teachers believe in giving selective error correction feedback, most
teachers surveyed still mark papers comprehensively. Lee (2004), also comparing
teachers and students’ beliefs in Hong Kong, added the extra element of comparing
teacher beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions to student beliefs, attitudes, and
perceptions. She found that both students and teachers in this context preferred
comprehensive marking and that teachers use only limited strategies in their
feedback practices. Another research of Montgomery and Baker (2007) who

14
surveyed 98 students and ten teachers showed that teachers’ perceptions of the
amount of feedback that they give are generally lower than students’ perceptions. In
investigating the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and actual feedback
provided, Lee (2003) indicated that teachers may not have provided feedback in the
way that they believed they should. Another example of such a study was conducted
by Farahman (2011) who explored teachers’ perceptions in relation to their actual
performance. The finding also indicated that teachers’ stated beliefs do not always
match what they actually do. Perhaps one of the most noteworthy studies in teacher
beliefs and practice was conducted by Lee (2009) outlining ten mismatches between
teachers’ beliefs and practice regarding error correction- a type of teacher feedback.

Further results from the studies indicate that teachers’ beliefs regarding
feedback differ from the actual feedback that they provided to the respond to the
students’ writing. The mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and practices may come
from several problems of teachers such as “time constraint, teachers' heavy
workload, large class size, learners' lack of motivation, and mixed level class.”
(Moniruz & Abul, 2012)

5. Students’ reactions and preferences for feedback

Recent empirical work has investigated students’ reactions to feedback. In

general, most of the studies show that students find feedback helpful for them to
improve their work. For instance, according to the study of Lizzio & Wilson (2008),
students value feedback that is fair, encouraging, and has a developmental focus.
Besides, Nazifah & Shafiq (2012), studying the reactions of students in Thailand,
also argues that students became more motivated and have great enthusiasm to
accomplish their goals in writing after getting feedback from their instructors on
their writing, especially positive feedback as praise.

Although most students value feedback on writing, the ways they handle the
feedback they received are different. According to Saito (1994), “students'
strategies for handling feedback may depend on the type of feedback they receive in

15
ESL classes”. Usually, when students receive corrected feedback to their writing,
they may simply read through their corrected compositions instead of putting a lot
of effort into revising or rewriting. However, if the feedback gives only clues for
students to make corrections themselves, students are prompted to correct errors and
revise their papers. In the study of Shamshad & Faizah (2009), it can be seen that
students respond differently to different types of feedback. “Some students might
respond positively to content-focused feedback because they might possess some
writing skills as well as the content knowledge of the topic. On the other hand, there
are students who respond positively to form-focused feedback due to factors such as
the instructional context itself and the perception of students themselves towards the
meaning of a good essay.” For instance, to teachers’ commentary, the study showed
that “students use various strategies to respond to teachers’ commentary such as
following closely the corrections made by the teacher or avoiding the corrections
altogether by not incorporating them in their revision process.”( Shamshad &
Faizah, 2009)

Recently, many studies have discussed students’ preferences to feedback on

writing such as Radecki & Swales (1988), Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990), Leki (1991),
Lee (2008), and April (2011). Generally, results from the studies show that both
undergraduate and graduate students noted the importance of feedback that was
clear, provided positive comments, and was constructive (April, 2011). Specifically,
participants appreciated feedback that provided them information on the overall
structure and approach of their essays and that focused on the key points of their
work. Positive comments were recognized as motivating, and students reported
being receptive to a balance of positive and critical comments if the focus was
improvement. Besides, most students from the studies prefer all their mistakes to be
corrected when they receive feedback from teachers or colleagues. For instance, in a
survey of 59 ESL students’ attitudes towards feedback on their written work,
Radecki & Swales (1988) emphasized that ESL teachers might lose their credibility
among their students if they do not correct all surface errors because findings

16
revealed that students seem to need and expect correction of all errors. Also,
according to Cohen & Cavalcanti (1990) who investigated nine EFL Brazilian
students’ responses to their teacher’s commentary, the students reported that the
comments they usually received were mainly form-based focusing on grammar and
mechanics, but they would prefer feedback on other aspects of writing such as
content and organization of ideas. In a similar survey of 100 ESL students’
preferences for error correction, Leki (1991) found that students equate good
writing in English with error-free writing and that they expect and want all errors in
their written work to be corrected.

However, some studies about the preferences of learners also showed that the
needs of students with different levels and learning contexts to feedback are not the
same towards the different types of feedback. For example, students in the study of
Saito (1994) found teacher feedback such as teacher correction, error identification,
teacher-student conferencing, more useful than peer correction or self correction.
Besides, Moniruz & Abul (2012) states that learners' preference for direct feedback
might have been influenced by the reality of EFL context that learners lack enough
proficiency and confidence in handling the target language forms. In fact, in
EFL/ESL context, those learners who have low proficiency in English may want to
have direct feedback on specific items. Otherwise, they may not understand the
nature of the feedback and may be frustrated. On the other hand, advanced level
learners may want indirect feedback and due to their proficiency level in the target
language, this type of feedback may be appropriate for them.

In sum, previous research on student views of feedback has consistently

shown that students treasure teacher feedback and are quite positive about receiving
feedback on their writing. However, learners of different ages, backgrounds,
motivations and proficiency levels in different classroom contexts have different
reactions and preferences to types of feedback.

17
 Chapter 3: THE STUDY

1. The current situation of teaching and learning English writing at CTET

The study is conducted at the Faculty of Foreign Languages, CTET which

has been recognized as one of the leading providers of skill-based diploma degree
in Vietnam. The college has 8 faculties which train many subjects in technology and
economy sectors. Faculty of Foreign Languages is assigned to teach Basic English
to all students. Besides, since 2008, Faculty of Foreign Languages has started a
Business English program.

The teachers of English at CTET

There are 30 teachers of English aged from 24 to 49 working at Faculty of

Foreign Languages. However, only 10 teachers have been teaching at the division
of Business English major. Almost teachers are experienced ones with at least 5
years teaching English. All of them have the degree of master in English teaching
methodology.

The English major students at CTET

Every year, about 60 to 80 students are admitted to be English major

freshmen at CTET. They mostly come from different provinces in the mountainous
and rural areas. Besides, most of the students got quite low English marks in the
entrance exam and entered this college as their second choice. For this reason, their
background knowledge is not very good; and their motivations, interests, and
objectives in studying English also differ.

At high school, students mostly focused on grammar and reading skill.

Although communicative approach has recently become dominant in English
teaching and learning in Vietnam, writing skills seems to be paid little attention at
high school. Students mainly study writing at sentence level such as making

18
sentences, sentence transformation. Therefore, writing is perceived as the most
challenging skill for students to master at college and university.

Description of the writing program

Writing, a productive skill, is always a primary concern in the training

program for English majors at CTET. Students are offered the training course
during the five semesters. The first- year program is designed to teach students
some basic concepts in grammar, syntax, and mechanics in the first semester; then
teach writing informal letters/ emails in the second semester. In the second-year,
students are taught preliminary steps to write a paragraph such as analyzing model
paragraphs, brainstorming, expressing and organizing ideas, reviewing and revising
in the final paragraphs. In the fourth and fifth semester, the program provides
students with lessons about essay writing.

The course objectives

The course objective is to help students recognize and produce the sorts of
paragraph writing that will be expected in academic situations. By the end of the
course, the students will be able to write unified paragraphs coherently.

The teaching materials

The course books used to teach writing skills to second-year students are
Academic Writing 1. In the third semester, students are taught Academic Writing 1,
which are designed to help students acquainted with aspects of paragraph writing.

Assignment and assessment

As a requirement of the course to promote students’ autonomy, the

assessment of portfolio in writing is used at the end of the semester. Every week,
students are assigned a new topic for the portfolio from third week onwards.
Students’ first drafts are checked by their teachers and revised for the second

19
versions. To have a complete writing portfolio for final assessment, students have
totally five writings, with 2 versions for each topic. The portfolio is assessed based
on student’s writing process and accounts for 30% of the total writing assessment.
Final writing test accounts for 50% and participation accounts for 10%.

2. Methodology

2.1. The participants

The subjects in this study were 57 second-year students major in English,

from three English classes, and 3 teachers of English from the division of English
major. These students are studying Business English. Besides, most of them have
learned English for more than 6 years at school and had two semesters practicing
writing skills at college. Therefore, they have quite good knowledge about English
grammar and vocabulary and are familiar with receiving feedback from their
teachers. Three teachers who participated in the study are also experienced writing
teachers.

2.2. Methods and Instrumentation

In this study which is motivated by Saito’s (1994) study, two main methods
were used. They were documental analysis of students’ compositions, and
questionnaire survey for students, together with interview with teachers.

2.2.1. Students’ compositions

Firstly, the author collected randomly 57 students’ paragraphs with feedback

and their revised versions in one writing task. The presentation and analysis of the
feedback on students’ writing were carried out to obtain the most truthful
information concerning teachers’ practice for feedback and see the reactions of
students after receiving the feedback.

20
2.2.2. Questionnaire and interview

The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) were designed with two parts based on
the frame of Saito (1994)’s questionnaire to elicit the information concerning
students’ reactions to received feedback and their preferences towards different
types of feedback. However, some items in the questionnaire were modified to be
suitable for the scope and the purposes of the study. The first section was
constructed to inquire about students’ attitudes toward the usefulness of four
different kinds of feedback: teacher feedback, self-feedback, peer feedback and
computer-directed feedback. With teacher feedback, the author asked students to
share opinions about five sub-types as teacher-student conferencing, teacher
correction, and teacher commentary, teacher correction with comment, and teacher
error identification. Students were to rate each types of feedback on a 5 point-scale
from very useless (1) to very useful (5) and to provide some brief comments. The
second section asked about the students’ strategies for handling feedback. Some
strategies used in the question were modified to make it easy for students to
understand and more suitable for the performances of the students in real world as
the author observed in her teaching career. The questionnaire with two sections was
given to all the students in three classes at the end of the course

Then, semi-structured interview with 6 questions was used with the

participation of three teachers of writing to see their practices and opinions toward
giving feedback on ESL writing.

2.3. Data collection procedure

The study was carried out throughout the first term of second-year students.
In the first stage, the samples of students’ compositions with feedback were taken in
week 6 to analyze teachers’ practices and students’ reactions to feedback received.
At the end of the course, the survey questionnaires were given to 57 students, and
returned in full. To make sure that all students understand the questions properly,
the researcher was also present to administer and give further explanation if there

21
was anything unclear or confusing. Besides, three interviews with three teachers
were carried out to get their answers for the interview questions.

2.4. Data analysis procedure

Firstly, samples of students’ compositions were analyzed in order to

investigate the current practices of teachers toward giving feedback on ESL writing.
Then, the author compared the results from the analysis with the answers of
teachers in the interview to see the fit between their thoughts and their real practice.

Secondly, the answers of students in three classes for the second item in the
questionnaire were analyzed to find out the strategies students in each class used to
deal with the feedback they received. Besides, it is necessary to look at the changes
in students’ revised version to see whether students’ answers matched the reality in
which they handled the feedback.

Thirdly, to know about students’ preferences to different types of feedback,

the author analyzed the results of questionnaire item 1. The means and standard
deviations were calculated. After that, the author compared the attitudes of students
toward types of feedback with the perceptions of teachers from the interview.

22
 Chapter 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Teachers’ practices of giving feedback on ESL writing

To know how the teachers at CTET actually gave feedback on ESL students’
writings, at first, 57 students’ first drafts with teacher feedback were analyzed. After
considering student texts with teacher feedback, it can be seen that all three teachers
usually gave feedback on student texts, but in different ways. Table 1 shows the
number of each type of feedback each teacher wrote on students’ papers.

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C

Total feedback 348 267 307
1. Error correction 246 53 266
2. Error identification 82 201 22
3. Comments 20 13 19
Table 1: The number of each type of teacher feedback on students’ first drafts

As seen in table 1, a total of 384 feedback points were collected from 20

student texts marked by teacher A. There was an average of 19 feedback points per
essay, so her feedback was rather detailed. About 64 % was error correction,
focusing on language form. Teacher A spent much time correcting students’
grammatical mistakes such as verb forms, articles, structures. Only 21% of the
feedback given was error identification, in which teacher underlined or sometimes
circled students’ mistakes and sometimes showed what kind of errors they made by
putting the symbols such as sp (for spelling), wc (for word choice) below the
words/phrases underlined. Not only identifying and correcting students’ mistakes,
teacher A also gave students some common comments like “Good writing!” or
“Correct the mistakes and try for the next one!” at the end of their writings. In
general, teacher A’s feedback focused more on language form than language use
and content of the writing. There was no comment about the logic in the content of
students’ writing. (see Figure 1)

23
Figure 1: Paragraph sample of the student in class A with teacher feedback

24
 As for teacher B, she gave students less feedback (only 267 feedback for 18
student texts) than teacher A; and most of her feedback was error identification
(about 75%). Looking at her feedback on students’ writings, it was shown that
teacher B normally underlined students’ errors and gave students hints about the
errors by categorizing them in the margin. Sometimes, teacher B also provided
students error corrections, however, the number of mistakes corrected only
accounted for about 20% and most of which related to verb tenses. Besides, teacher
B didn’t give comments on all students’ writing. In some writings, she gave some
common comments such as “Good!” or “Write it again”; but no comments about
students’ idea or the organization of the writing were given. (see Figure 2)

Figure 2: Paragraph sample of the student in class B with teacher feedback

25
 Teacher C seemed to spend a lot of time correcting students’ mistakes in
their writings. She corrected almost every errors made by students (87% of
students’ errors were corrected), both grammatical errors and errors in language
use. However, to spelling mistakes, she only underlined the mistakes and gave
students hints below the words/phrases. Different from teacher A and teacher B,
Teacher C gave students more detailed comments at the end of students’ writings.
Her comments were normally about the content of the writing, the use of language
and the organization of the paragraph. Along with those clear comments are some
praises for good points. (see Figure 3)

The interview data also showed that all of the teachers usually gave feedback
on students’ writings. However, when being asked whether they told students the
importance of feedback in writing and guided them to use feedback effectively, all
teachers answered “Never”. They explained that they had very little time to do that.
They also said that they delivered feedback according to the department policy,
which required teachers to mark student writings in details and helped students to
revise their writings as a part of the objectives of the course. The answers of teacher
A and teacher C in the interview are suitable to the results analyzed from their
feedback on students’ writings. Both teacher A and teacher C usually use teacher
correction with comments, and sometimes identify students’ errors by circling or
underlining when giving feedback on students’ writing. However, teacher B said
that she usually use teacher correction with comments in students writings, which
conflicts with the reality she did in her students’ texts. The data from the interview
also show that conferencing with students did not occur in three teachers’ classes.
Explaining for that, teacher A said that conference with each student to discuss their
errors would take her a lot of time. Teacher B and teacher C shared the same idea
with teacher A and they thought that way was not as effective as giving students
written feedback.

26
Figure 3: Paragraph sample of the student in class C with teacher feedback

27
2. Students’ reactions to the received teacher feedback

The students’ answers for the second question in the student questionnaire
were counted to find out the frequency of each strategy which was used by the
students in three classes. It is shown in the table 2 as follow:

Strategies Class A Class B Class C

F S R F S R F S R
1. Read the mark/grade 20 0 0 18 0 0 19 0 0
2. Read the comments 20 0 0 18 0 0 19 0 0
3. Correct all the errors 18 2 0 12 5 1 15 4 0
4. Ask the teacher for clarification, 0 4 14 4 12 2 1 5 13
explanation or help
5. Consult dictionaries, grammar 1 4 15 11 5 2 4 4 11
books, or writing textbooks
6. Work with a partner to help each 0 5 15 3 5 10 0 3 16
other improve the composition
7. Rewriting 16 3 1 13 2 3 7 4 8

a. Only incorporating feedback

received
b. Revising and expanding 1 3 16 3 2 13 8 5 6
8. Do nothing 0 0 20 0 0 18 0 0 19
Table 2: Student strategies for handling feedback

(F=frequently; S=sometimes; R=Rarely)

As shown in table 2, when receiving feedback from the teachers, all students
from class A, B, and C said that they always read marks and comments
immediately. Besides, because students are more or less forced to correct their
errors and rewrite their papers, most of the students (90% students in class A, 60%
students in class B, and 75% students in class C) corrected all the errors indicated

28
by the teachers. 100% of them also chose the answer “rarely” for “do nothing”
because of the requirements of the course. However, students’ strategies for
handling feedback may differ depending on the way their teachers provided
feedback.

Because Teacher A and Teacher C gave almost error correction in students’

writing, students from class A and C are able to get information about their
mistakes by reading through their marked papers. As a result, most of them (about
75-80%) frequently corrected all their errors without the help from their friends or
explanation from their teachers. The figure also showed that only 1 student from
class A frequently consulted dictionaries or books while editing the paper; 4
students sometimes did; and 15 students rarely asked for help from dictionaries or
books. On the other hand, although teacher C also corrected most of students’
errors, the number of students from class C (8 students) frequently or sometimes
consulted dictionaries and books is larger than that from class A. It may be because
teacher C gave students more detailed comments along with error correction, so
students from class C tend to make a mental note of their errors and used the help of
dictionaries and books to edit their writings.

Although teacher A and teacher C gave almost error corrections in students’

papers, the way they gave comments is different. As a result, students in two classes
employed different strategies of rewriting their papers. 80% students in class A
answered that they only corrected the mistakes as feedback given by their teacher
and wrote the paragraph again. Only one student shared that she/he usually revised
and expanded the paragraph after correcting the errors. Three students said that they
sometimes rewrote their papers with more details.

Because students in class C received not only error correction or

identification from teacher but the detailed comments about the use of language, the
content of the paragraph, most of them (65%) frequently or sometimes expanded
their writing based on their teacher’s suggestions in comments when they wrote the

29
second versions. The analysis from the papers of students in class C also showed
that their second versions usually were longer and had better content and
expression. This result suits the fact that more students from class C asked for
teachers’ help or consulted dictionaries or books to edit their writings.

Students in class B received very little error correction from their teacher
feedback, but almost error identification; so they have different strategies of editing
their papers. Unlike students from class A and C, students in class B needed more
time to handle their errors in their paragraphs. Instead of correcting all errors as
teachers suggested on their own, students from class B needed more help from their
teacher, friends or dictionaries and books to correct the mistakes identified. About
90% of the students in class B said that they frequently or sometimes asked their
teacher to explain their errors or help them to correct their mistakes as well as
looked up the dictionaries or textbooks to revise their writings. However, less than
half of them sometimes asked for the help of their friends to correct the errors and
improve their writings. Besides, because the students in class B may spend most of
their time correcting errors identified, they rarely developed the content of their
paper while writing the second versions. More than 80% of them said that they
normally rewrote the paragraphs only incorporating with the feedback received.
Only three students (about 20%) said that they frequently revised and expanded
their papers after correcting the mistakes. Another reason why few students in class
B expanded their writings is that their teacher also did not give them detailed
comments about content or organization. Therefore, they may not know how to
develop their ideas in the writing.

In sum, all students in three CTA classes did something to handle the
feedback given by their teachers. However, the strategies they use to correct the
errors, to rewrite the second versions generally depend on the types of feedback
their teacher gave in their papers.

30
3. Students’ preferences for different types of feedback on ESL writing

Responses to the first item in the questionnaire were analyzed to find out
students’ preferences to four main different types of feedback. The means and
standard deviation were calculated from the 5-point scale provided for each kind of
feedback in each class (Table 3). Besides, the attitudes of students in three classes to
each kind of feedback as positive, neutral or negative were counted and shown in
Table 4, 5 and 6.

Types of Class A Class B Class C

feedback Mean S.D. Number Mean S.D. Number Mean S.D. Number
1. Teacher 4.7 0.5 20 4.6 0.5 18 4.5 0.5 19
feedback
a. Teacher- 4.4 0.7 20 4.1 0.7 18 4.1 0.7 19
student
conferencing
b. Teacher 4.6 0.5 20 4.6 0.5 18 4.1 0.6 19
correction
c. Teacher 4.0 0.6 20 3.8 0.9 18 4.2 0.6 19
commentary
d. Teacher 4.8 0.4 20 4.6 0.5 18 4.8 0.4 19
correction
with
comments
e. Teacher 4.4 0.8 20 4.0 0.7 18 4.1 0.7 19
error
identification
2. Peer 4.0 0.9 20 4.0 0.8 18 3.7 0.7 19
feedback
3. Self- 3.3 0.7 20 3.2 0.8 18 3.3 0.7 19
feedback
4. Computer- 4.0 0.8 20 3.8 0.7 18 4.1 0.6 19
directed
feedback

Table 3: Student’s preferences for each types of feedback

Class A

Analysis of the responses to the questionnaire from students in class A

revealed that the means for each kind of feedback tended to be high and to differ

31
very little. Table 3 shows that most responses were 4 or higher, except for self-
feedback (3.3). In addition, table 4 shows that the percentage of positive answers
was mostly above 80 %, except for self-feedback and peer feedback, which scored
only 40% and 60% respectively. The highest mean is 4.7 for teacher feedback.
Thus, it seems that these students preferred the teacher to correct their papers rather
than editing themselves or leaving this task to their partners or computer. Among 4
types of teacher feedback suggested in the questionnaire, the means for error
correction with comments is the highest (4.8). The means for error identification
(4.4) were almost as high as for error correction (4.6), which suggest that these
students did not feel 100% dependent on their teacher but were also willing to make
corrections by themselves as long as their teacher indicated their errors and gave
them hints. Although teacher A said that teacher –student conferencing is not
effective and take lots of time, students in class A shared an opposite attitude that it
was a positive way to give feedback to students. 90% of them believed that teacher-
student conferencing is useful for them to understand the feedback given by their
teacher. This result is also suitable to the reality that some students in class A still
ask for help and explanation from their teacher or dictionaries and books while
editing their papers.

Type of feedback Negative (1-2) Neutral (3) Positive (4-5)

% % %
1. Teacher feedback 0 0 100
a. Teacher-student conferencing 0 10 90
b. Teacher correction 0 0 100
c. Teacher commentary 0 20 80
d. Teacher correction with comments 0 0 100
e. Teacher error identification 0 20 80
2. Peer feedback 0 40 60
3. Self-feedback 10 50 40
4. Computer-directed feedback 0 30 70
Table 4: Attitudes of students in class A to different types of feedback

Class B

32
 The reactions of students in class B toward each type of feedback were
quite similar to the reactions of students in class A. They found teacher feedback
such as teacher correction, error identification, teacher commentary and teacher-
student conferencing, more useful than peer feedback, self-feedback or computer-
directed feedback. As seen on the table 3, the highest mean (4.6) is for teacher
feedback, but the means for peer feedback, self-feedback and computer-directed
feedback is 4.0, 3.2 and 3.8 respectively. Table 5 also shows that 100% students in
class B showed positive attitudes toward teacher feedback, especially teacher
correction and teacher correction with comments. However, teacher commentary
did not get high support from students. Only 50% of the students answered that it is
useful to improve their writings. Some shared that general comments from teacher
such as “Good” or “Correct your mistakes” are not effective because they did not
know how to develop their papers with those comments. In addition, although
teacher B mostly gave feedback on students’ papers in form of error identification,
only 83.3% of the students thought that it is useful. Some students commented that
they sometimes misunderstood the hints from their teacher and could not correct the
errors. For that reason, about 80% of the students expressed positive attitudes
toward teacher-student conferencing. Students said that teacher-student
conferencing was effective: “I can ask my teacher about the unclear points in my
writing.”

As seen in table 3, the mean of peer feedback (4.0) ranked the second after
teacher feedback. It shows that students in class B prefer to get feedback from
friends more than correcting their errors themselves or asking the help of
computers. Besides, the table 5 shows that there were more people (72.2%) in this
class who had positive feeling toward peer feedback than those had neutral or
negative feelings. The reactions of the students in class B matches the fact that
about half of the students in class B shared that they frequently or sometimes
worked with their partners to improve their composition while handling the
feedback received. However, some of them (27.8%) did not seem to appreciate it.

33
One student mentioned: “I can’t trust other students.” or “Some of my friends are
not as good as me”. This suggests that this student sees “correction” as only a
teacher’s function.

These students’ attitudes toward self-feedback were quite negative. As

seen in table 5, 63% of the students shared a negative or neutral feeling toward this
type of feedback. Table 3 also shows that they rated the usefulness of self-feedback
very low (3.2) compared to teacher feedback or peer-feedback. Some shared that it
was difficult to see the errors they made.

When being asked about their opinion toward the effectiveness of

computer-directed feedback, more students had positive attitudes (66.7%) than
those who had negative or neutral attitudes (seen in table 5). This shows that most
of the students saw the usefulness of computer’s applications in learning.

Type of feedback Negative (1-2) Neutral (3) Positive (4-5)

% % %
1. Teacher feedback 0 0 100
a. Teacher-student conferencing 0 16.7 83.3
b. Teacher correction 0 0 100
c. Teacher commentary 0 50 50
d. Teacher correction with comments 0 0 100
e. Teacher error identification 0 22.2 77.8
2. Peer feedback 0 27.8 72.2
3. Self-feedback 16.7 55.6 27.7
4. Computer-directed feedback 0 33.3 66.7

Table 5: Attitudes of students in class B to different types of feedback

34
Class C

Results of the questionnaire in class C indicates that students in class C

also liked to get teacher feedback most. As shown in table 6, 100% students in class
C expressed positive attitudes to this type of feedback. Table 3 also shows that
teacher feedback got the highest mean (4.5). Among some kinds of teacher
feedback, students in class C shared the same opinions with students in two other
classes that they preferred to receive teacher correction with comments rather than
other kinds. However, unlike students in class A and B, students in class C showed
different attitudes to teacher commentary. While students in class A and B rated
teacher commentary with low point, students in class C seemed to appreciate the
comments from their teacher. About 90% found their teacher’s comments useful
(see table 6), perhaps because of the fact that teacher C gave more detailed
comments on their papers. This suggests that these students see feedback is not only
correcting the errors in grammar or language in use but giving comments on content
or organization of the writing.

Like students in class A and B, students in class C saw peer feedback, self-
feedback and computer-directed feedback are not as effective as teacher feedback.
Self-feedback also got the lowest mean with only 3.2 (see table 3). Besides, table 6
showed that most of students in class C (62%) shared a negative or neutral feeling
toward self-feedback.

On the other hand, the mean of peer feedback (3.7) was lower than those
of the other two classes. The attitudes of students in class C is appropriate for the
reality that 85% of them rarely asked for the help of their friends to improve their
writing. Besides, students in class C had more positive attitudes toward computer-
directed feedback than those in class A and B. Table 3 also shows that the mean of
computer-directed feedback of class C was 4.1 while class A and B only got 4.0 and
3.8 respectively. It may be explained that students in class C needed more help from
dictionaries, computer software or books to revise and expand their papers.

35
Type of feedback Negative (1-2) Neutral Positive (4-5)
% (3) %
%
1. Teacher feedback 0 0 100
a. Teacher-student conferencing 0 21 79
b. Teacher correction 0 15.8 84.2
c. Teacher commentary 0 10.5 89.5
d. Teacher correction with comments 0 0 100
e. Teacher error identification 0 21.1 78.9
2. Peer feedback 0 36.8 63.2
3. Self-feedback 10.5 52.6 36.9
4. Computer-directed feedback 0 15.8 84.2

Table 6: Attitudes of students in class C to different types of feedback

Overall, the results of the questionnaire in three classes showed that these
students tended to favor teacher feedback over peer feedback, self-feedback or
computer-directed feedback. Table 3 revealed that most of the students in those
classes showed positive attitudes toward five types of “teacher feedback”. However,
the attitudes toward each kinds of teacher feedback apparently varied with each
student. Besides, peer feedback and self-feedback seem to be the type of feedback
these students favored least. Most students did not believe in the usefulness of self-
feedback. Peer feedback got more support from students than self-feedback, but still
received some negative attitudes of some students. On the other hand, computer-
directed feedback, a new type of feedback applied in recent years, seemed to get
lots of attention from students in three classes. Students tended to prefer their
teacher or computer applications to give them feedback rather than work out with
their peers or do the correction themselves.

To some extent, the results about students’ preferences toward four

different types of feedback from students’ questionnaire match the perception of
their teachers. In the interview, the teachers were also asked what types of feedback
they thought their students prefer. All of three teachers believed that their students
would prefer to receive error correction with comments from them, thus, they

36
usually did this job when giving feedback on students’ papers. The perception of the
teachers is suitable to the attitudes of their students that they favored teacher
feedback most. Besides, the teacher shared that students rarely used the checklist to
evaluate their writings and found difficult to see their own errors. It is the reason
why they found self-feedback was not an effective way for their students to improve
their writing. The thought of three teachers was also similar to the belief of the
students, in which they shared that they favored self-feedback least. However, while
students rated teacher-student conferencing highly, and were quite positive to non-
teacher feedback such as peer feedback, and computer-directed feedback; the
teachers did not highly appreciate teacher-student conferencing and these types of
non-teacher feedback. Therefore, they did not guide students to give feedback on
their partners’ writing or give no lecture about using computer software to help
students know how to edit their paper with the application of computer.

In sum, the results of the study show that teachers’ practices for feedback,
students’ reactions to feedback, and their preferences may vary from class to class.
In general, all three teachers participating in the study gave feedback to their
students’ writing in forms of error correction, error identification and comments
frequently. However, they did not often guide their students to make use of peer
feedback, self-feedback or to apply computer software in editing their papers.
Students in each class reacted to the feedback they received in different ways,
which depends on the types of feedback their teacher gave. Besides, the results from
students’ questionnaire stated that the majority of students in three writing classes
found teacher feedback most useful, especially teacher error correction with
comments .This corresponds with the results of previous research reviewed (Saito,
1994; Lee, 2008, Shamshad & Faizah, 2009, April, 2011). However, students’
attitudes toward non-teacher feedback as peer-feedback, self-feedback and
computer-directed feedback varied between students in each class and tended
generally to be critical of this practice.

37
4. Implications for teaching and learning

Based on the findings of the study, the following suggestions are provided
with a hope to improve teaching and learning writing with the use of feedback.

Firstly, teachers should be aware of the importance of providing feedback for

the development of L2 learners’ thinking and writing. As teachers’ answers in the
interview, all teachers considered giving feedback on students’ writing as a part of
their duty to achieve the course objectives. Therefore, they mostly did those jobs
with their own belief and perception. However, to give effective feedback to
students to improve their writing, classroom realities and the preferences of students
must be considered. Teachers are advised to pay careful attention to students’
attitudes toward feedback and find out whether there are any differences in opinion
between the teachers and the students. They also need to ensure that students see
clearly the purposes of their feedback, the strategies that students should use for
handling this feedback, and the benefits that students would potentially derive; so
that the students can manage and make use of the feedback they received.

Secondly, what the teachers should do is to develop wide range of ways of

giving feedback. As discussed above, all three teachers spent most of their time
giving written feedback on students’ writing, and non-teacher feedback was rarely
used in three classes. However, marking mechanical errors is not enough since it
can be frustrating. Thus, when teachers give feedback, they should show students
examples of how they can apply to improve their writing and give them opportunity
to express their ideas and to discuss any challenging issues. Teachers also should
creatively develop various ways incorporating student-teacher interaction as well as
peer interaction in the process of giving feedback. Besides, teacher should offer
students self-correction opportunity for their students by providing indirect
feedback on students’ errors or instruct them to use computer applications to edit
their writings. Formal accuracy of student writing will be improved significantly if
they are required to correct their errors than if they are not. However, it is important

38
to teach students how to make best use of each type of feedback and how to work
with the feedback they received.

Thirdly, as seen teachers’ practice and students’ preferences, teachers

seemed to give students detailed error correction and identification but common
comments, so most students did not highly appreciate receiving comments from
their teacher feedback because the comments were not specific enough to help them
improve their writing. Therefore, teacher should avoid giving vague comments such
as “Good” or “Try more” if they want students to make use of their comments to
improve their writing. It is suggested that the vague comments should be replaced
with text-specific comments involving not only grammar or language in use but
content and organization.

Next, the role of feedback is not only let students know how well they have
performed but also to increase motivation. Teacher feedback can also be considered
as a powerful tool to motivate students in the writing process if done well.
Therefore, writing teachers should not simply respond to grammar and language in
use but should include comments of praises and encouragement in students’
feedback. Mitigation has been found to improve the confidence of students and lead
them to be responsible for their writing. Positive feedback is considered “positive
reinforcement” whereas negative feedback is considered “punishment” (Brookhart,
2010). Thus, teachers should be polite and mitigate their comments while giving
feedback.

Last but not least, it is recommended that students should be taught strategies
to deal with feedback they received. It is found that the students participating in the
study seldom made use of dictionaries and grammar books to deal with the
feedback they did not understand and rarely asked for the explanation of teachers or
the help of their partners to handle the mistakes they made. Teaching strategies will
let students know that there are other ways to learn from feedback and that they are

39
responsible for their own learning to a certain extent. It can also promote student
autonomous learning.

40
 Chapter 5: CONCLUSION

1. Summary

This study aimed to investigate the real activities of the teachers and students
in dealing with feedback, and the preferences of students to four different types of
feedback. It was conducted with the participation of teachers and students at
College of Technologies and Economics in Trade. The first part of the study
showed that in general, all writing teachers frequently gave students written
feedback on their papers but few instructions to apply other types of feedback such
as self-feedback, peer feedback or computer-directed feedback. Besides, each
teacher gave feedback in different ways. It is also the reason why the second part
showed that students in each class handled the feedback they received in various
ways, mostly depending on the types of feedback their teachers gave them. The
third part of the study revealed the types of feedback which students favored. The
majority of students in the present study said that they found teacher feedback most
useful. This corresponds with the results in previous studies reviewed (Saito, 1994;
Lee, 2008). However, few students may realize the importance of peer or self
correction of their writing. Computer-directed feedback seemed to be a new terms
to students, but when being asked about it, many students had positive attitudes
toward this type of feedback. These findings of the study suggests teachers some
pedagogical implications which they can employ to improve their teaching.

2. Limitations of the study

Although great effort has been made by the researcher while carrying out the
study, due to the time constraints, the author of the study only examined the
teachers’ practices through analyzing students’ paragraphs and the interview with
the teachers, but did not spend time observing writing classes to see the real
teaching and learning context. This might lead the fact that the results drawn from
the study are not yet totally satisfying.

41
3. Suggestions for further studies

As implied from the findings of the study, various types of feedback should
be applied in teaching and learning writing. Thus, further action research or
experimental research could be done to see the effectiveness of each type in real
context.

42
 REFERENCES

Ann. R (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford University Press

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-
draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the
best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257
Barbara. K (1990). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press
Bitchenere. J (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL
student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Borg. M (2001). Key concepts in ELT Teachers’ beliefs. ELT Journal 55(2), 186-
188.
Brookhart, S. M (2010) How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students.
Instructional Supervision & Evaluation: The Teaching Process, 10-18.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom
assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
22(4), pp. 5-12.
Cardelle & Como (1981). Effects of second language learning of variations in
written feedback on homework assignments. TESOL Quarterly, 15(3), 251-261.
Carless. D (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher
Education, 31, 2, 219-233
Carnicelli (1980). The writing conference: A one to one conversation .In T. R.
Donovan& B.W. McClelland (Eds.). Eight approaches to teaching composition l01-
131
Charles. M (1990). Responding to problems in written English using a student self-
monitoring technique. ELTJournal44/4: 286–93
Cho, K. & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert
reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338.
Cohen. A.D & Cavalcanti. M. C (1990) Feedback on compositions: Teacher and
student verbal reports. Second Language Writing (pp 155-177). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

43
Cumming. A (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8,
58-78.
Denton. P (2008) Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative
feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology,
39(3), 486-500
Ellis. R (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 1, 3-
18.
Farahman. F (2011) Teacher’s stated beliefs about corrective feedback in relation
to their practices in EFL classes. Research on Foreign Languagea. Journal of
Faculty of Letters and Humanities. Year 49 No 200
Ferris. D. R & Roberts. B (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184
Ferris. D. R ( 2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann
Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Frantzen. D (1995) The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in
an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-
355.
Glover. C & Brown. E (2006). Written feedback for students: too much, too
detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective. Retrieved from
http:// www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol7/beej-7-3.pdf on Nov 21, 2013
Judy. M. K (2007). Faculty Development- How to give feedback. Retrieved from:
www.welshschool.co.uk/sites/welshschool.../feedback.pdf on September 15, 2013
Hyland. K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. Retrieved from
http://books.google.com.vn/books?id=mzg86Pkp5NkC&printsec=frontcover&hl=vi
#v=onepage&q&f=false on Nov, 21, 2013
Hyland, k. & F. Hyland.(2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts
and Issues.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from :
//books.google.com.vn/books?id=mawaswihz7QC&printsec=frontcover&hl=vi#v=
onepage&q&f=false on August 13, 2013

44
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the Writing Process: a Model and Methods for
Implementation. English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 294-304.
Kulhavy, R. W. & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction:
Historical context and implications for practice. Interactive instruction and
feedback Educational Technology Publications. 3-20.
Retrieved from books.google.com.vn/books?isbn=0877782601 on November 21,
2013
Lee. I (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some
implications for college-level teaching. System, 25, 465–477
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers perspectives, practices and problems regarding
error feedback. Assessing Writing: An International Journal, 8(3), 216-237.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of
Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 144–164
Lee. I ( 2009). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong
secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-
level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24,203-218.
Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of
quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 263-
275
Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: the benefits
of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
18, 30-43.
Matsumara. S (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods
in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88(3), 403-415.
Moniruz. Z & Abul. K. A, (2012) Feedback in EFL Writing at Tertiary Level:
Teachers' and Learners' Perceptions, ASA University Review, Vol. 6 No. 1,
January–June, 2012

45
Montgomery, J. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student
perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of
Second Language Writing,16 (2), 82-99.
Nazifah. H & Shafiq. H ( 2012). Enhancing Students’ Motivation by Providing
Feedback on Writing: The Case of International Students from Thailand.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, Vol. 2, No. 6
Oscarson. A. D (2009). Self-Assessment of Writing in Learning English as a
Foreign Language. A study at the Upper Secondary School Level. Acta
Universitatis Gothoburgensis
Peterson. S. S (2010). Improving Student Writing: Using Feedback as a Teaching
Tool. Research into Practice. The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat.
Peterson. S. S (2013). Peer feedback on writing: an assessment- for- learning—
tool. Research for Teachers. University of Toronto.
Phil. R (2007). How to Get a Good Degree. Open University Press
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on
their written work. System,16(3), 355-365 retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0346251X88900784
Reid, T. (1993) Teaching ESL Writing. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Saito. H (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on
Second Language Writing: A case study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada
journal, vol 11, No 2.
Shamshad. B. O & Faizah. M (2009) Student response to teacher feedback on
multiple-draft compositions in ESL classroom. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Conference of Teaching and Learning INTI University College, Malaysia
Truscott. J (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46,327-369.
Victor. C (2011). Error correction in Second Language Writing: Teachers’ beliefs,
practices and students’ preferences. Queensland University of Technology. Faculty
of Education.

46
Williams, J. (2005). Teaching writing in a second and foreign language
classrooms. Boston, MA:McGraw-Hill.
Zamel (1985). Responding student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
Zhang. S (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL
writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.

47
 APPENDIX 1

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

FEEDBACK ON ESL WRITING: TEACHERS’ PRACTICE AND

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

I am Le Thi Thu Ha, an MA student at Post-graduate department, ULIS, VNU. I am

conducting my graduation thesis on second-year students’ reactions and
preferences for feedback on ESL writing. This survey questionnaire aimed to
investigate your views concerning this issue. Please give your answer sincerely;
otherwise the investigation would not be successful. All information you provide
will be confidential and used solely for research purposes.

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Student’s name (optional): ______________________________

Group: ______________________________________

I. Feedback
There are different ways to provide feedback on student writing. Please circle one
choice that best describes the usefulness of each type of feedback and please write
down reasons.

No. Totally Useless Neither Quite Very

Types of feedback useless useless useful useful
nor
useful
1. Teacher feedback (Teacher evaluate student’s 1 2 3 4 5
writing)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________

I
a. Teacher-student conference (Teacher discuss the 1 2 3 4 5
writing of students)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
b. Teacher correction (Teacher corrects all the 1 2 3 4 5
grammatical errors)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
c. Teacher commentary (Teacher gives feedback by 1 2 3 4 5
making comments, no error correction)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
d. Teacher correction with comments 1 2 3 4 5
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
e. Error identification (Teacher indicates the place 1 2 3 4 5
where the error occurs by underlying or circling
it, not correcting)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
2. Peer feedback (Students evaluate each other’s 1 2 3 4 5
work in pairs)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
3. Self- feedback (Students evaluate their own work 1 2 3 4 5
by the checklist)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________
4. Computer-directed feedback (Computer software 1 2 3 4 5
evaluate students’ writing)
Comment: ________________________
_________________________________

II
II. Student’s strategies for handling feedback

What do you usually do when you get back your paper with teacher’s feedback on
your writing? Circle the choice for each strategy and write down your other
opinions.

No. Strategies for handling feedback Frequently Sometimes Rarely

1. Read the mark/grade 1 2 3
2. Read the comments 1 2 3
3. Correct all the errors 1 2 3
4. Ask the teacher for clarification, explanation 1 2 3
or help
5. Consult dictionaries, grammar books, or 1 2 3
writing textbooks
6 Work with a partner to help each other 1 2 3
improve the composition
7. Rewriting

a. Only incorporating feedback received 1 2 3

b. Revising and expanding 1 2 3
8. Do nothing 1 2 3

Other opinions (please specify):

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………

 THANK YOU VERY MUCH 

III
 APPENDIX 2

TEACHER INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

FEEDBACK ON ESL WRITING: TEACHERS’ PRACTICE AND

STUDENTS’ PREFERENCES

I am Le Thi Thu Ha, an MA student at Post-graduate department, ULIS, VNU. I am

conducting my graduation thesis on teachers’ practices for feedback on ESL
writing. This survey questionnaire aimed to investigate your views concerning this
issue. Please give your answer sincerely; otherwise the investigation would not be
successful. All information you provide will be confidential and used solely for
research purposes.

Thank you very much for your cooperation!

Teacher’s name: ………………………………………..

Teaching class: …………………………………………

Teaching experience: …………………years

Question 1:

Do you give students guidance to use feedback on ESL writing?

A. Usually B. Sometimes C. Never

Question 2:

Do you give feedback on students’ ESL writing?

A. Usually B. Sometimes C. Never

Question 3:

Do you help students revise their writing after receiving feedback?

A. Usually B. Sometimes C. Never

IV
Question 4:

What kinds of feedback do you often use in your writing classes? Please give
reasons for your choice

No. Types of teacher feedback Usually Sometimes Never

1. Teacher-student conference 1 2 3
Comment: ______________________________
_______________________________________
2. Teacher correction 1 2 3
Comment: ______________________________
_______________________________________
3. Commentary 1 2 3
Comment: ______________________________
_______________________________________
4. Teacher correction with comments 1 2 3
Comment: ______________________________
_______________________________________
5. Error identification 1 2 3
Comment: ______________________________
_______________________________________

Question 5:

Do you have any difficulties when giving feedback?

………………………………………………………………………………….

Question 6:

What types of feedback do you think students prefer?

………………………………………………………………………………….

 THANK YOU VERY MUCH 