MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

----o0o----
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – (HUFLIT)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY COURSE

HOW TO REDUCE GRAMMATICAL
ERRORS IN WRITING OF HUFLIT
FRESHMEN THROUGH WRITTEN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK
(LÀM THẾ NÀO ĐỂ GIẢM LỖI NGỮ PHÁP CỦA SINH VIÊN NĂM
NHẤT HUFLIT VỚI PHƯƠNG PHÁP NHẬN XÉT TRÊN BÀI LÀM)

Instructor: Ms. Bui Tram Anh (M.A.)

Student: Hồ Trọng Nghĩa Nhân
Student’s number: 12DH710382
Class: SA1201

HO CHI MINH CITY, December 14th, 2015

NAME: Hồ Trọng Nghĩa Nhân

STUDENT ID: 12DH710382

UNIT NAME: Research Methodology

Declaration
I certify that the attached material is my original work.  No other person’s work or ideas
have been used without acknowledgement.  Except where I have clearly stated that I have
used some of this material elsewhere, I have not presented this for assessment in another
course or unit at this or any other institution.
Name/signature Date: December
14th, 2015

EMAIL ADD: kanphanh@gmail.com

DATE SUBMITTED: December 14th, 2015

WORD COUNT: 3124

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 2

 INSTRUCTOR’S ASSESSMENT

Abstract
Introduction
Literature Review
Method
Result
Discussion
References
Appendix

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 3

 ABSTRACT
It has been noticed that there are quite a large number of grammatical errors in the
writings of English major students at Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign
Languages and Information Technology (HUFLIT) even although they have
completed certain intensive grammar courses in high schools. Therefore, various
ways have been employed to help reduce grammatical errors, and one of them is
written corrective feedback. This research was conducted to examine the
effectiveness of the two kinds of written corrective feedback in the improvement of
students’ grammatical accuracy in their writing. The participants of the research
were 5 English teachers and 20 freshmen of English major in HUFLIT. Data was
collected by means of online questionnaires. Participants answered the
questionnaires with their practical experience. The findings of the research
indicated that both kinds of feedback helped students improve grammatical
accuracy in writing significantly and prevented students from repeating the same
type of errors. However, all of participants considered indirect corrective feedback
as the best way to conduct the correction because of its significant benefits. In
short, it’s admitted that indirect feedback helped students write with more correct
grammar after a long-term period. Accordingly, indirect corrective feedback
should be widely used in education settings

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 4

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………….…4
1. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………….………..7-9
1.1 Background……………………………………………………………..7
1.2 Literature Review………………………………………………………8
1.3 Scopes…………………………………………………………………...8
1.4 Objectives……………………………………………………………….8
1.5 Organization……………………………………………………………9
2. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………....10-11
2.1 Distinguish between “mistake” and “error” in writing.....................10
2.2 Grammatical errors and some kinds of feedback..............................10
2.3 Common mistakes in writing...............................................................11

2.4 On-going debates on the good ways of conducting the correction

in writing...............................................................................................11

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……...….…......……..…………………12-13

3.1 Description of the Subjects...................................................................12

3.2 Procedures of Data Collection..............................................................12

3.3 Statistical Treatment.............................................................................13

4. FINDINGS....................................................................................................14-17

4.1 Teachers’ Survey...................................................................................14

4.2 Students’ Survey....................................................................................17

5. DISCUSSION...............................................................................................20-23

5.1 Purpose of the Study.............................................................................20

5.2 Findings and Explanation.....................................................................20

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 5

 5.3 Limitations.............................................................................................21

5.4 Implications............................................................................................21

5.5 Recommendations.................................................................................21

5.5.1 Recommendations for Teachers.............................................21

5.5.2 Recommendations for Students..............................................22

REFERENCES......................................................................................................24

APPENDIX A: OUTLINE....................................................................................26

APPENDIX B: TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE...........................................27

APPENDIX C: STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE............................................29

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 6

 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Language is a means of communication with the function of transmitting the
message from a person to a person, which emphasizes the importance of speaking
and writing skills. Indeed, the language we use would become useless if what we
speak or write cannot convey what we mean to say. Therefore, we learn a language
not only to know about and understand it but also to use it properly in
communication, normally referred as knowledge and performance (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999). Among the four skills of using a foreign language in general as
well as English in particular, writing is getting more and more essential today, but
it is also believed the most difficult skill to master (Richards & Renandya, 2002).
Actually, being able to convey messages effectively in writing is not easy.
Otherwise, it requires the language learner to be equipped with good knowledge of
the various aspects of the language, and an important one of them is grammar.
However, a gap between the learners’ knowledge and their performance, especially
in writing skill, is quite a popular phenomenon in classes of English as a foreign
language (EFL), in which the learners can perform fairly well in conventional
grammatical exercises, but then fail to employ such knowledge of the language
successfully in the writing tasks. There are a considerable number of grammatical
errors found in the learners’ writings, which may affect the readers’
comprehension of the indented message.
As a matter of fact, grammatical errors are also unavoidable in the papers of
first-year students in Huflit. When having a look at my friends’ first paragraph as
an assignment of the writing course, I found quite a lot of errors relating to
grammar, the most common types of which were the errors of plural/singular
nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb agreement, and articles. This was really a serious

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 7

matter due to the fact that most of the students had focused on grammar points. As
a result, it’s important that I as well as teachers-to-be at SA1201 find out an
effective way to help students avoid repeating grammatical errors so as to use
English more effectively in writing work. This is also a big step to lead students to
the mastering of writing skill, ensuring them certain success in studying as well as
in social life.
1.2 Literature Review
Since the 1970s, a number of researches have been conducted to figure out
the value of error correction. For written corrective feedback in writing, some
researchers found it to be ineffective (Hillocks, 1982; Semke, 1984), while some
other researches found that different types of written error correction in writing can
be useful (Dulay & Burt, 1977; Krashen & Selinger, 1975). Briefly, the effects of
different types of written corrective feedback have been examined in various
researches (Chandler, 2003; Young & Cameron, 2005; Ferris, 1997).
1.3 Scopes
There are various ways suggested to solve this problem such as giving oral
correction of common errors in typical papers to the whole class, providing useful
groups of accurate sentences, using peer feedback or introducing some sample
pieces of writing with no grammatical errors (Miftari, 2011). However, very little
is known about written corrective feedback with both direct and indirect forms.
Therefore, this research is conducted to investigate whether use of written
corrective feedback is really effective to first-year Huflit students.
1.4 Objectives
There are two research questions to be examined in this study:
1) In terms of theory, do the indirect corrective feedback and direct corrective
feedback help reduce grammatical errors in HUFFLIT freshmen’s writing?
2) Having been studying English for at least 6 years, which of the method between
indirect corrective feedback and direct corrective feedback do the first-year Huflit
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 8
students find more useful?
1.5 Organization
The first part of this research paper is an analysis of the importance of
writing skills in English. It is followed by the method the research was carried out.
After mentioning about the research findings and discussion, there is a conclusion
that using either kind of written corrective feedback helps reduce the number of
grammatical errors in the writing work.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 9

 CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Distinguish between “mistake” and “error” in writing

It is assumed that among the three categories of mistakes including “slips”,
“errors” and “attempts”, the category of errors most concerns learners (Harmer,
2007). Errors are defined as the mistakes that learners cannot explain themselves
and need explanation, and they “result from incomplete knowledge” (Harmer,
2007; Richards & Schmidt, 1992). However, there is sometimes a distinction
between the two terms: “mistake” and “error”. As mentioned in the Dictionary of
Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Richards & Schmidt, 1992),
“mistakes are due to lack of attention, fatigue or carelessness”, or “mistakes are
caused by hesitation, slips of the tongue” while “an error reflects the language
competence of the learners” (Brown, 1980)”. Although it is defined, it is error but
not mistake that a language teacher should pay attention to when correcting
students’ work.
2.2 Grammatical errors and some kinds of feedback
Grammatical errors are errors on forms and mechanics (Understanding
mistakes in written language, n.d.). It is widely believed that grammatical errors
are caused by the interference between the mother tongue and the target language,
which is inevitable in the process of fully mastering the language. Therefore, it’s
the teachers’ duty to provide feedback when responding to such errors in order to
facilitate that process (Harmer, 2007). As defined by Penny Ur (1996), feedback is
a “type of information which is provided for the learners about his or her
performance of a learning task, usually with the aim of improving this
performance”. Written corrective feedback, which is nearly the most popular kind
of feedback used in teaching writing, is believed to be provided by the teacher with
assessment informing how the learner has performed and correction providing
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 10
some specific information on what the learners perform. There are two forms of
corrective feedback. Direct feedback refers to explicit correction of errors, and the
instructor corrects all the error in the students’ written assignments. On the
contrary, indirect feedback just prompts students about the location or type of
errors and leaves correction to the students themselves.

2.3 Common mistakes in writing

According to some conducted researches, students are likely to make writing

mistakes such as: run-on sentences, sentence fragments, and subject-verb
agreement. Besides, the errors of plural/singular nouns are also one of the common
errors in writing.

2.4 On-going debates on the good ways of conducting the correction in writing

Up to now, many different approaches have been introduced for error

correction. However, there is still not any certainty about the best way to provide
corrective feedback. Moreover, debate about whether or not corrective feedback
should be put into practice has also continued for several years. A popular educator
who was against grammar correction in L2 writing classes asserted that “correction
is harmful rather than simply ineffective” and “grammar correction has no place in
writing classes and should be abandoned” (John Truscott, 1996: 97-98). He
reasoned that giving error correction means ignoring the learners’ developmental
sequence of acquisition, it may also cause bad effects on learners’ motivation and
it is just a waste of time and energy. There has been a great deal of criticism on
Truscott’s claim. One of them is from Ferris (1999). However, not until future
research proves that there are particular cases in which grammar correction might
not be a misguided activity had Truscott changed his perspective that grammar
correction is a bad idea (Truscott, 2007: 255-272).

CHAPTER 3

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 11

 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Description of the Subjects

In the general survey, 20 freshmen and 5 English teachers from the

Department of Foreign Languages at Ho Chi Minh City University of Foreign
Languages and Information Technology were chosen to take part in the
investigation. All of these students had passed the graduation examination in 2015.
In addition, they have been studying English for at least 6 years. This was
important because students were required to be proficient enough in reading and
writing English so that they could understand the questionnaire items and provide
reliable responses.

Moreover, the researcher selected 5 English teachers from the Department of

Foreign Languages who are experienced in teaching writing skills to participate in
the survey. With their experience, the results of the survey would be considerably
reliable.

3.2 Procedures of Data Collection

To compare students’ and teachers’ preferences and their reasons for the
types of “written corrective feedback”, two questionnaires were constructed. Both
quantitative and qualitative data was collected by means of two questionnaires in
google forms that elicited participants’ opinions about the usefulness of different
types of “written corrective feedback” and also the reasons for their responses.
Quantitative data was collected through close-ended questionnaire items with
evaluation scale formats. To gain more in-depth information about why teachers
and students preferred a particular type or amount of feedback, qualitative data was
also collected through open-ended questions with the option “other”. These open-
ended questions allowed participants to describe, in their own words, the reasons
they had for their preferred feedback choices. While the teachers’ version of the

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 12

questionnaire was sent to five English teachers mentioned via emails, the students’
version was posted on a facebook group. They all had a week to return the
questionnaires to the researcher.

3.3 Statistical Treatment

To evaluate the usefulness of two types of “written corrective feedback”, an

analysis of variance was used to compare students’ and teachers’ preferences. In
addition, Google Form Application and Microsoft Excel were also used to show
statistics of the result in percentage and to display them in charts.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 13

 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS

4.1 Teachers’ survey

4.1.1

20%
Teachers correct all
the errors in the
students’ written
assignments
Teachers prompt
students about the
location or type of
errors
80%

Figure 1: Method of written corrective feedback

Figure 1 indicates teachers’ preference of written corrective feedback method. The

majority (80%) of teachers appreciated the prompts given to students so that they
could identify their errors and correct themselves. This result can be explained that
in today’s university settings, students’ autonomy is one of the top priorities.
Therefore, teachers are likely to give prompts about the location or types of errors.
This method seems to be valuable in arousing students’ interest in writing. On the
contrary, there were 20% of teachers considering the method in which “teachers
correct all the errors” better. This might be due to the obstruction of students’
language competence. In fact, some students want to see all the errors because they
do not know whether they have errors in their writing work and how to correct
them.

4.1.2
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 14
 20%

Very useful
Useful
Not useful

80%

Figure 2: Clues or directions on how to fix an error

Figure 2 shows teachers’ evaluation on the value of clues or directions on how to

fix an error when they give feedback on students’ writing work. Of the 5 teachers
who provided evaluation to the above item, the majority (80%) placed value on the
importance of clues or directions when giving corrective feedback. This
overwhelming majority can be explained that teachers think this is a good learning
tool to improve students’ writing. In addition, it seems important that students have
a chance to know how to self-correct so that they can remember their errors. On
the other hand, there were 20% of teachers who thought that this type of corrective
feedback was useful partially. Their choice may be due to some drawbacks such as
some errors are too advanced for students to understand, or students are not excited
about correcting their writing work themselves. Especially, no teachers considered
this type of feedback as a useless method. This can be explained that teachers
nowadays have applied a new approach in teaching writing in which they
appreciate and simulate students’ autonomy.

4.1.3

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 15

 20%
It is better to give
students a chance for
self-correction
40%
Mark an example and
students should do the
rest
Mark all errors so that
students can be re-
minded and get an
overview to see pat-
terns
40%

Figure 3: Solutions to students' repeated errors

Figure 3 demonstrates teachers’ responses for correction of repeated errors. There

were 40% of teachers thought that even when students repeat their errors, it was
better for them to have “a chance for self-correction”; or it was teachers’
responsibility to “mark an example and students should do the rest”. Conversely,
some teachers (20%) kept in mind that teachers must be consistent and “mark all
errors” that often reoccurred. This might be due to the belief in which if students
cannot avoid common errors, it is no use in giving them a chance for self-
correction.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 16

4.2 Students’ survey

4.2.1

50%
45%
40%
35%
Always
30%
Often
25%
Sometimes
20% Rarely
15%
10%
5%
0%

Figure 4: Self-Correction Frequency

Figure 4 presents how often students try to correct their writing errors when
receiving teachers’ comments. Contrary to teachers’ expectation, there were nearly
a half of students asked (45%) who always tried to correct errors themselves.
Above all, there were some students (15%) who did not pay attention or try to
understand errors. This appears to be due to the fact that comments only work if
students are dedicated and motivated enough.

4.2.2
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 17
 30%

Teachers give correc-

tion forms
Teachers underline the
incorrect sentences, and
you have to correct
them on your own
70%

Figure 5: Students' preference of feedback types

Figure 5 illustrates which kind of written corrective feedback that students prefer.
There were 70% of students found that it was better for them when they had to
correct errors on their own. This result can be explained that comments are useful
for students to see why errors exist and how to fix them. Nevertheless, the
remaining students (30%) thought that giving correction forms was a good way for
them to improve writing skill. It seems that some students are used to the
traditional way taught in high school in which teachers corrected all grammatical
errors.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 18

4.2.3

45%

40%

35%

30%
Often
25%
Sometimes
20% Rarely
15%
Never

10%

5%

0%

Figure 6: Repeated Error Frequency

Figure 6 displays how often students repeat their errors after receiving feedback. In
general, students were less likely to repeat grammatical errors. For example, there
were 40% of students who rarely or never repeated their errors. One of the reasons
for this satisfactory result can be that students regard indirect written corrective
feedback as a learning tool that allows them to better remember their errors.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 19

 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Purpose of the Study

As stated at the beginning of this research, the purpose of the study was to
attempt to assess two questions:

1) Do the “indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback help reduce
grammatical errors in writing?

2) Having been studying English for at least 6 years, which of the method between
“indirect corrective feedback” and direct corrective feedback do the first-year
Huflit students find more useful?

5.2 Findings and Explanation

According to the collected statistics, the findings, in general, have shown
that using either kind of written corrective feedback helps reduce grammatical
errors in writing. This result might be explained that students were exposed to both
kinds of corrective feedback when they started to study English, so somehow they
adapted themselves to these kinds. However, when putting the two kinds into
comparison, “indirect corrective feedback” has been the better choice of both
teachers and students. One possible explanation is that it not only helps the
students avoid repeating the same errors in the short period but also improve their
grammatical accuracy in the long-term. On the other hand, there are some students
who prefer direct corrective feedback because it shows them immediately how to
correct the errors.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 20

5.3 Limitations
Clearly, a survey of 5 teachers and 20 Huflit seniors does not meet the
requirements of a perfect study, so the results cannot be easily generalized to a
wide variety of contexts. Therefore, further research with larger sample sizes from
different instructional contexts are needed. In addition, the survey was conducted
within one week with the questionnaires included only between 9 and 10 questions,
which was an obstruction for the researcher to get a more accurate result.
Moreover, the researcher himself does not have much experience in conducting a
survey. Therefore, with the purpose of achieving a more reliable result, I
recommend that further research should include a larger population with a better
method in which it can cover students’ samples of piece of writing after attending a
course of using “indirect corrective feedback” as the main teaching approach.

5.4 Implications
These findings lend support to the assumption that both direct and “indirect
corrective feedback” is beneficial for students to improve their writing skills.
However, students are in favor of “indirect corrective feedback” that requires them
to consider sentences carefully and more deeply study the grammar points to be
able to correct the errors themselves. By doing this, students have a chance to
promote their autonomy. As a result, they can be less likely to repeat grammatical
errors. Furthermore, through this survey, teachers may consider which method of
feedback is better for students; in this case, “indirect corrective feedback” is a
preference.
5.5 Recommendations
5.5.1 Recommendations for Teachers
With the purpose of getting a more effective approach in teaching writing,
teachers should have an evaluation after applying indirect corrective feedback in a
writing course. It is teachers’ responsibility to design a test that can evaluate

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 21

students’ improvement when they receive indirect written corrective feedback.
This can be considered as the most essential stage in teaching writing. Basing on
the number of grammatical errors in each individual writing task after some units
or each writing course, teachers can see how the students improve their
grammatical accuracy in writing. All grammar errors appearing in students’ work
will be recorded for analysis. There are the errors that teachers should pay
concentration on such as: plural/singular nouns, verb tenses, subject-verb
agreement, and articles.
One more thing that teachers should always remind themselves is that
providing corrective feedback is not the only or the best way to improve the
students’ writing quality. Therefore, teachers must think up different effective
methods to best facilitate the process of mastering the language of their own
students.
5.5.2 Recommendations for Students
Along with teacher’s feedback, peer correction should be used as part of
error correction. Actually, peer correction is beneficial for many reasons. This
approach can encourage students to read and write. When they try to find out the
errors themselves, they can learn from their friends’ error. Next, when they try to
correct those errors, one more time they can learn from their friends, which can
improve their writing skills themselves.
On the other hand, peer correction helps teachers partially free from heavy
workload of correcting students’ writing errors. Therefore, teachers have more
time to prepare lesson plans as well as teaching aids, which can improve teaching
quality. In other words, students are the ones who get many benefits from peer
correction.
These findings lead us to believe that “indirect corrective feedback” should
be used more often in order to give students a chance to correct errors themselves.
In addition, the findings of this study are based on self-report data from students
Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 22
and teachers in which they reported their opinions about the usefulness of written
corrective feedback and preferences for written corrective feedback. These
findings, however, may not accurately reflect teachers’ practices in the classroom.
Thus, studies that compare teachers’ opinions with their actual practices are
helpful.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 23

 REFERENCES
(A.P.A style)

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for
improvement in the accuracy and fluency of l2 student writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 12, 267-272.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1977). Remarks on the creativity in language
acquisition, 95-126. New York: Regents Publishing Company.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision.
TESOL Quarterly, 315-339.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Harlow:
Pearson Education.

Haryanto, T. (2007). Grammatical Error Analysis in Students’ Recount Texts.

Tegal.

Hillocks, G. Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and

revision in teaching the composition process. Research in the Teaching of
English, 261-278.
Johnson, K., & Johnson, H. (Eds.), 1999. Encyclopedic dictionary of applied
linguistics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Krashen S. D., & Selinger, H. W. (1975). The essential contributions of formal

instructions in adult second language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 173-183.
Miftari, M. (2011, November 03). How to Improve the Accuracy of Student
Writing. Retrieved September 27 2015, from http://ezinearticles.com/?How-
to-Improve-the-Accuracy-of-Student-Writing&id=6669022

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 24

 and applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 195-202.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.

Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for “The case Against Grammar Correction in L2
Writing Classes: A Response to Ferris”. Journal of Second Language Writing,
8(2), 111-122

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write

accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing.

Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 25

 APPENDIX A
OUTLINE
 Observation: Although some first-year students have been studying English
for at least 6 years, they even cannot write a simple paragraph or a complete
sentence.

 Problems: English writing is getting more and more essential today, but it is
also believed the most difficult skill to master.
 Why: examine the effectiveness of the 2 kinds of written corrective
feedback in the improvement of students’ grammatical accuracy in
their writing
 Whom: 5 teachers and 20 freshmen in Huflit
 How: teachers’ questionnaire (9 questions); students’ questionnaire
(7 questions)
 When: online
 Findings: both kinds of feedback helps students improve grammatical
accuracy in writing and prevent students from repeating the same type of
errors.
 Suggestions: Teachers-to-be should consider what kind of feedback is better
or more appropriate for students so that students’ writing competence can be
improved.

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 26

 APPENDIX B
TEACHERS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 27

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 28
 APPENDIX C
STUDENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 29

Hồ Trọ ng Nghĩa Nhâ n Page 30