THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN THI THANH THUY TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE TO IMPROVE 10th GRADE STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL Major: ENGLISH TEACHING THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES Code : 8140111 MASTER THESIS Supervisor: Nguyen Thi Hong Minh, PhD. THAI NGUYEN, JUNE 2023 ABSTRACT Writing is considered the most challenging assignment for students because it requires them to put their thoughts into text form creatively. Students of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) typically need help with grammar and syntax and a lack of vocabulary knowledge when writing. Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has been extensively used to demonstrate grammatical errors in EFL students' writing and assist EFL students in minimizing their errors.
The Written Corrective Feedback also indicates how well students have improved their writing accuracy. This research aimed to examine how written corrective feedback affected students' writing skills and explored how they felt about this method. At Pho Yen High School, forty grade 10 students were chosen as the study participants. The researcher used action research to carry out this study, and two research questions were answered via a writing test and a questionnaire.
The findings showed that students' skills in English writing increased after receiving written corrective feedback. A comparison of the students' pre-test and post-test scores reveals that the 10th graders' English writing skills improved after they were given corrective feedback in writing. Additionally, it was clear from the questionnaire that most students had a positive attitude toward implementing written corrective feedback, indicating that they were convinced of its benefits. The study results informed the researcher's recommendations on the effective ways which teachers of English should provide written corrective feedback to improve their students’ writing performance and how students develop their writing skills through their teachers’ written corrective feedback.
i DECLARATION I certify that, unless otherwise noted in the text, the research paper titled "Teachers' written corrective feedback on students' writing performance to improve 10th grade students' writing skill" was authored by me. This work was completed as a prerequisite for my Master's degree at Thai Nguyen University of Education, and I thus attest to that fact. This work has yet to be submitted for consideration for a different degree at another higher education institution, and it will not be. Thai Nguyen, 2023 Student Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I appreciate the help and encouragement I received from everyone throughout my research.
First, I would like to praise the administration of Thai Nguyen University of Education and Faculty of Foreign Languages for providing me with the optimal environment to study and complete my thesis. Second, I sincerely thank my supervisor, Mrs. Nguyen Thi Hong Minh, for her helpful advice, recommendations, incredibly perceptive and corrective feedback, unwavering support, encouragement, and patience. There are no words sufficient to convey my appreciation.
Additionally, I would like to express my gratitude to the Pho Yen High School 10C1 students who provided me with a wealth of useful information. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for their unfailing support and inspiration. Thai Nguyen, 2023 Student Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
iv LIST OF TABLES. viii LIST OF FIGURES. Aims of the study and objectives. Scope of the study.
Significance of the study. Organization of the study. The definition of Writing Competence. Definition of writing skill.
Kinds of writing. Types of classroom writing performance. Principles of teaching writing. Teacher’s roles during the writing lesson.
The definitions feedback. Purposes of Feedback. Forms of feedback. Source of Feedback.
Design of the study. Action Research Model. Subjects of the study. Data collection instrument.
Data collection procedure. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS. Results of the writing test. Results of the questionnaire.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION. Implications and Recommendations for further research. Limitations of the study .I APPENDIX 1: WRITING TEST FOR STUDENTS. I APPENDIX 2: WRITING ASSESSMENT SUBSCALES.
II APPENDIX 3: BLANK TEACHER ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE. III APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION). V APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS .VII (VIETNAMESE VERSION) APPENDIX 6: CORRECTIONS CODE SET BASED FOR DIRECT METHOD. IX CORRECTION vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1.
Timeline of the action research. Converted marks for assessing writing competence. Schedule of applying writing topic. Descriptive statistics of the pre-test.
Frequency of the pre-test scores. Descriptive statistics of the post-test. Frequency of the post-test scores. Descriptive statistics of the pre-test and post-test scores.
Students’ preferences toward type of written corrective feedback. Reasons for preferring the types of written corrective feedback. Students’ preferences toward type of errors should be corrected. Reasons for preferring the types of error that must be corrected.
Students’ preference toward how written corrective feedback should be given. Reasons for preferring how written corrective feedback should be given. Students’ preferences toward when written corrective feedback should be given. Students’ preferences toward when written corrective feedback should be given.
Students’ feeling after receiving written corrective feedback. Reason for the feeling after receiving written corrective feedback. 58 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. An action research cycle (Burns, 2010).
Results of the pre-test scores. Results of the post-test scores. Comparison of the pre-test and post-test scores. 49 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of the research reported in the thesis and introduces the thesis' research strategy.
The chapter commences with a discussion of the research's context and motivations. The chapter then discusses the significance and objectives of the study. Next, we will discuss the function of self-efficacy and user competence. The hypothesis and research questionnaires then follow.
Next, the unit of analysis will be addressed. The study's context, cultural impact, and research design are then introduced. The remainder of the chapter presents the preliminary research model. Each of the five chapters of this thesis is described briefly in the outline.
Rationales Learning to read, write, listen, and speak are the four cornerstones of acquiring a command of the English language. It takes work for students to get a handle on all four skills. Writing is one of the most challenging yet most important practical skills for ESL students to develop. According to Richard and Renandya (2002:303), authors create and describe ideas in their thoughts before transforming them into writing that readers can understand.
Based on what they've said, many overseas students also learning English have unique writing challenges. One of the difficulties students experience while writing is a need for knowledge on choosing the appropriate term. They have trouble putting their thoughts on paper. It may come as a surprise, but grammar and syntax are also areas where some students struggle.
Mistakes in subject-verb agreement, pronouns, prepositions, tenses, and articles are still widespread since many people need a firm grasp of grammar and syntax. The question then becomes how to remedy the students’ situation. Further study is being done to find the most efficient way to teach writing. According to Miftah (2015:17), a Writing Process Approach (WPA) can help L2 students write better essays, especially descriptive ones.
He goes on to explain that the WPA has five phases. The first one is prewriting, designed to help students gather thoughts and opinions on the covered subject. Second, drafting aims to lay out the learners' beliefs. Third, it is intended for revision by students, with an emphasis on 1 structure and substance.
Fourth, it teaches students how to edit and proofread for spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammatical accuracy and correctness. The last activity is the publication, which allows students to share their completed writing. So, it's essential to work on helping students improve their writing abilities. There have been several efforts undertaken to enhance students' writing abilities.
Both educators and students have sought out methods for achieving this. One teaching strategy is followed by another as they research and put it into practice. Saban (2011) put classroom action research into practice. Students' writing competence was improved via using written corrective feedback, and the outcome was positive.
He also stressed the need for teachers to edit students' written work by identifying grammar mistakes, providing feedback, and assigning grades. Written corrective feedback is the most common method used in L2 or foreign language WCF courses. Teachers employ corrective feedback in writing to help students with grammar and composition. Teaching using written corrective feedback may take several forms.
There are six tactics that instructors may use in the school; therefore, the strategies are helpful, according to Ellis (2009:98–99). One is called Direct written corrective feedback which consists of the instructor highlighting the error and providing the proper format. In the second kind of textual feedback, which is indirect, the teacher's method informs that a mistake occurred but does not give a fix. Students must use highlighting, marking, circling, crossing, and cursors to show where they left off in their reading.
The third approach uses the mistake code to guide the composition of meta- linguistically corrected textual feedback. The instructor writes symbols in the margin (ww for a misspelled word, art for an article mistake, and v for a verb error, for example). The instructor marks the material for mistakes and provides a grammatical explanation for each error marked. The fourth strategy, The Focus of the Feedback, addresses whether the teacher addresses all of the student's errors or focuses on a subset.
Electronic written corrective feedback is the fifth sort of feedback, and it involves pointing out a problem and providing a link to an adjustment file with examples of proper use. Method number six, known as reformulation, consists in having a native speaker completely revise the student's writing to make it seem more natural and logical. 2 Given the abundance of options shown by the research on written corrective feedback, it may be challenging for L2 educators to choose the most appropriate one for their classrooms. Because according to the metalinguistic feedback, students and teachers need to have a solid understanding of metalinguistic.
Since using a computer is required for electronic feedback, not all students will be able to buy one, and not all schools will be able to supply computers for every student. Additionally, the analyst for a reformulation must be a native. Direct and indirect written corrective feedback work since those who have provided corrected feedback have specific implementation students. When a teacher delivers written immediate corrections to a student, they must identify particular faults and give detailed examples of how to repair them.
This spontaneous literary reaction may take various forms (Ellis, 2008, p. They remove superfluous words and phrases, add fresh ones, and put the proper term above or next to the incorrect one. Giving students written feedback, however, could impede their ability to learn independently and may not enhance their memory of the material. On the other hand, teachers who provide indirect corrective feedback in writing highlight mistakes but need to guide how to fix them.
You may indicate errors by underlining, circling, or crossing them out. According to Lalande (1982:141), receiving corrections in writing helps students focus their studies and find solutions to their problems. It challenges those learning English as a second language to consider how their words will be used in speech. It also aids in the memorization of new facts.
Indirect, written corrections may be pretty successful, as shown by Ferris (2011:94). Students of a second language benefit from getting sentences in writing because it forces them to slow down and think about what they've done wrong. The technique helps with long-term retention if the L2 students learn anything new. The most effective method of assisting writers in learning English as a second language is to provide them with corrective feedback in writing.
According to Ferris (2010:190), indirect corrective feedback via text is preferred by students learning a second language (L2).