VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYEN NHAT HA EFL TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES Quan điềm va thực tiên của giáo viên ngoại ngữ M.A MINOR PROGRAM THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 Program: 1 Ha Noi — 2024 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYEN NHAT HA EFL TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: BELIEFS AND PRACTICES Quan điềm va thực tiên của giáo viên ngoại ngữ M.A MINOR PROGRAM THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01 Program: 1 Supervisor: Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa Ha Noi — 2024 DECLARATION I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “EFL teachers’ written corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices” submitted for the Master of Arts degree at the Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), Vietnam National University (VNU), Hanoi, is entirely my own work. It has not been previously submitted for any other degrees at any other universities or institutions. I have appropriately acknowledged all sources used in this thesis, including quotations, references, graphs, and data sets, and no other person's work has been used without proper attribution.
Hanoi, 2024 Nguyen Nhat Ha Approved by SUPERVISOR (Signature and full name) Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to express my gratitude to those who provided significant assistance throughout the study process. First and foremost, I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa, whose unwavering encouragement and support have been crucial from the start of this project.
Secondly, I also express my sincere thanks to the four teachers who took part in the study. I would not have gotten the crucial and important information without their participation. Thirdly, I extend my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of my close friends and classmates for their enduring companionship. It was essential to have their company and emotional support.
Last, I am indebted to Ken and my family for their unconditional support, love, and care. Additionally, I am extremely thankful to BTS and Seventeen whose music served as a continual source of motivation throughout this difficult process. ii ABSTRACT Written corrective feedback (WCF) is a commonly used method to support the writing processes of second language (L2) learners and enhance their written output. Despite the existing body of research on WCF, there is limited understanding of teachers’ beliefs regarding WCF and how these beliefs influence their teaching practices.
To address this gap, a study using a mixed-methods design was conducted to examine the beliefs and practices of four high school teachers in a Vietnamese public high school. Through semi-structured interviews and analysis of WCF from 40 student texts, it was discovered that the teachers used an unfocused approach to offering feedback, with a greater emphasis on local issues like vocabulary. The primary form of WCF employed by the teachers tended to be direct strategies. Furthermore, the study revealed the nuanced relationship between beliefs and practices, showing both matches and mismatches.
While the teachers' beliefs aligned with their feedback scope, there were discrepancies between their beliefs and practices concerning feedback focus and strategies. This research contributes to a deeper understanding of EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding WCF within the local context and offers valuable insights that can be utilized to enhance teachers’ feedback provision. 1H LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CEFR Common European Framework of Reference DCF Direct corrective feedback EFL English as a Foreign Language ICF Indirect corrective feedback L2 Second language MOET Ministry of education and training MCF Metalinguistic corrective feedback SLA Second language acquisition ULIS University of Languages and International Studies VNU Vietnam National University, Hanoi WCF Written corrective feedback iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION 2. 000405000600809008 ii ABSTTIRA CT,.
90050090 iii LIST OF ABBREVIA TIONS.-- c5 sọ HH 0 000000006098000090 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .csccsssssssssssssssscsscescsscsssssssssssssesscsscsssscescsscescesssssosssesees V LIST OF TABLES.00000000969650 Viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the S(UY.2 Aims and Objectives .3 Scope Of the SfUY.4 Design of the SfUyy.5 Significance Of the S{UỈY.6 Organization Of the S{U(ỈY.7 Summary of the CHADẨCT.0000400009 600 5 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE RE V LIỀN. Writing in second language aCQUI1SIẨIOTI. The definition and role of written corrective feedbaCK. Forms of corrective feedback and their effectiveness.4 Requirements of effective fe€€daCĂ.2 Timely and COnStant.
Factors affecting the effectiveness of written corrective feedback.1 Definition of teachers’ DÏIGÍS.2 The origin of teachers’ D@ÌICFS. se ss< se s9 99.7 Previous studies on the topic and research Gaps .ese<ssee<sssss s3 35565E996 895 14 2.8 Summary Of the CH4DẨ€T.2 Setting Of the S{UY.3 Sampling and DAT(ICIDATIẨS.4 Data collection 1TISETUTTITIES.1 Interview co cọ cọ họ TT.2 Students’ Writing ẨXẮS.5 Data collection procedure .1 Data from ITCTVIWS ‹.2 Data from feedback on students’ WFTIẨITE.6 Data analysis DFOC€CLITCS.1 Data from ITẨCTVICWS.2 Data from feedback on students’ WTIẨITE.8 Summary Of the CHADCT. 000080001 00900 29 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.1 Teachers’ written corrective feedback DTACIC€S.2 Teachers’ beliefs regarding WCE .1 Discussion on teachers’ actual written feedback practices .2 Teachers’ written corrective feedback: Beliefs and praCtIC€S.3 Summary of the CHa[DẨCT. co G55 SH ng 0004605604006 44 VI 5.1 Summary Of ẨÏTIITIĐS.3 Limitations and suggestions for further T€S€ATCHh.s< << 55s se 5£ e+96ee9 46 REEERENCES.
0 000040 000098090896 I APPENDIX A: SAMPLES OF STUDENTS’ COMMENTED TEXT. I APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDELINE .cccsssssssssscsscsscsscsscesssssesssesees II APPENDIX C: INFORMATION SHEET AND CONSENT FORM FOR PA RTTICIPAATNTTYS. HH HH HC HH 00000000 0090 Il VI LIST OF TABLES Table 1 The profiles of four investigated Cases. o5 s5 599055 89558956896 896 20 Table 2 The coding scheme for feedback fOCUS.ssccccssecssccscccssccsssessccsesccsosecees 26 Table 3 Realizations of direct and indirect written feedback.cscscsssssessesseeseeees 27 Table 4 Descriptive statistics of teachers’ feedback Points.«s«<<s«ses sssess 30 Table 5 Teachers’ number of local and global written feedback points .«« 31 Table 6 Examples of teachers’ WCF on local 1SSUCS.- 5-5555 5s s59 55955555845 5e32 Table 7 Examples of teachers’ WCF on global issues.ssscccsssssssscssssscssssssecoseseees 33 Table 8 Teachers’ number of direct and indirect feedback Points.scccssssseecseseee 35 Table 9 Examples of direct and indirect feedbaCK.«eseessessessessssseeseeseeseeseeseesse 36 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The first chapter, which is the research overview, starts with an exploration of the research background.
This involves emphasizing the significance of written corrective feedback in teaching and learning writing and underlining the potential impact of teachers’ beliefs on their instructional practices. Next, the chapter presents a discussion of previous research that is closely related to how the study questions have been formulated. Following this, the chapter meticulously outlines research design and scope, highlighting its meaningful contribution. The concluding part of the chapter is the organization of the study.1 Statement of the problem and rationale for the study In today's global context, English serves as a universal language connecting individuals and organizations from diverse cultural backgrounds and societies (Dewi, 2015).
It is extensively taught in numerous countries, including Vietnam. Among the four fundamental English skills, writing is deemed one of the most important skills for students to master. Ismail (2011) highlights that the ability to proficiently produce written texts not only facilitates language development but also enriches learners' knowledge and emotional experiences through the process of brainstorming and organizing ideas for writing. Writing is often viewed as the most challenging skill for students as it is a lengthy and demanding process that necessitates continuous practice (Myles, 2002).
It involves a range of cognitive and metacognitive tasks, including organizing, planning, organizing, drafting, and revising (Negari, 2011). Given these considerations, teaching writing has remained a focal point in the field of second language acquisition (SLA) and has attracted significant attention from both L2 researchers and practitioners. The existing body of literature has documented an array of techniques and strategies employed in writing instruction. One common pedagogical practice involves providing written corrective feedback (WCF), which potentially enhances students’ writing abilities (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami & Takashima, 2008; Nakaruma, 2016).
WCE serves as a prevalent method that supports learners’ writing processes and products (Lee, 2013; Lee, Mak, & Burns, 2015; Zhang et al., 2021, as cited in Cheng et al. When it comes to investigating teachers' WCF practices, it is important to examine their beliefs because of a possible alignment between beliefs and practices (Lee, 2009; Min, 2013; Montgomery & Baker, 2007; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Teacher beliefs are said to exert a substantial impact on L2 writers’ learning processes and results (Wenden, 1999; Borg, 2001). Moreover, as highlighted by Borg (2006), the significance of examining beliefs lies not only in their influence on behaviors but also in enhancing teachers’ professional growth and methodologies.
While numerous studies have explored the effectiveness of corrective feedback (Li, 2010; Nassaji & Kartchava, 2017), the frequency of feedback occurrences (Sheen, 2004), the distribution of feedback types (Brown, 2016; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), and preferences of both teachers and learners for feedback (Akiyama, 2017; Lee, 2013; Li, 2017), there have been a few studies on what teachers believe about WCF (Ferris, 2014, Mao & Crosthwaite, 2019, as cited in Cheng et al. Relatively little is known about what teachers believe about WCE and the degree to which such beliefs influence their practice (Kim & Mostafa, 2021). Moreover, as teachers’ beliefs on unplanned aspects of teaching, such as the provision of written corrective feedback, often differ from teaching practices more frequently than planned components like task design and instructional methodologies (Basturkmen, 2012), there is a clear need for additional research on teachers’ beliefs regarding WCF (Junqueira & Payant, 2015). Another reason for conducting this research stemmed directly from the researcher’s personal experiences and concerns as an English teacher.
Notably, a majority of high school students tend to exhibit a lack of enthusiasm for learning writing and frequently encounter challenges in completing writing tasks. Additionally, a number of high school EFL teachers appear to either pay inadequate attention to WCF or ineffectively employ it in practice. Motivated by the aforementioned factors, the present study, titled "EFL teachers' written corrective feedback: Beliefs and practices," was carried out.2 Aims and objectives This investigation aimed to shed light on the beliefs and practices surrounding written corrective feedback among EFL teachers with a specific focus on the context of a Vietnamese high school. In other words, it sought to investigate certain beliefs held by EFL teachers about WCF and see whether teachers’ beliefs were aligned with their actual correction practices.
The analysis of the data would be followed by informed discussions and actionable recommendations which aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of WCF practices for more impactful language instruction. The objectives can be summarized in the following research questions: (1) What are EFL teachers’ beliefs about written corrective feedback? (2) To what extent are EFL teachers’ beliefs aligned with their actual written corrective feedback practices? 1.3 Scope of the study The study was conducted at a public high school in Vietnam during the academic year 2023-2024. Four EFL teachers were selected as participants of the study. The teachers were in charge of teaching grade 10 students.
The study investigated the practices and beliefs about WCF held by the four teachers. Data, therefore, was collected via semi-structured interviews with each teacher and students’ writing texts with teachers’ WCF. The school uses MOET-authorized (Ministry of education and training) textbooks emphasizing language components and skills, supplemented by foreign publishers’ materials. In writing classes, students analyze model texts, engage in language exercises, and produce approximately 150-word texts on various topics.
Teachers evaluate and provide feedback on students' initial drafts, which are then revised accordingly.4 Design of the study The study used a mixed-methods design with two main instruments: semi- structured interviews and student writing texts with teachers’ WCF. While information from analyzing written feedback of students’ texts allowed the researcher to better understand the teachers’ actual practices, information from the interviews helped to provide data regarding teachers' beliefs about WCF.5 Significance of the study This study aims to make a substantial contribution to the field of written corrective feedback (WCF), both in the Vietnamese context and on a global scale.