<span class="text_page_counter">Trang 1</span><div class="page_container" data-page="1">

THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

<b>FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES </b>

<b>NGUYEN THI THANH THUY </b>

<b>TEACHERS’ WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON STUDENTS’ WRITING PERFORMANCE TO IMPROVE </b>

<b>10</b>

<b><small>th</small></b>

<b> GRADE STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL </b>

<b>Major: ENGLISH TEACHING THEORIES AND METHODOLOGIES Code : 8140111 </b>

<b>MASTER THESIS </b>

<b>Supervisor: Nguyen Thi Hong Minh, PhD. </b>

<b>THAI NGUYEN, JUNE 2023 </b>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 2</span><div class="page_container" data-page="2">

<b>ABSTRACT </b>

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.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 3</span><div class="page_container" data-page="3">

<b>DECLARATION </b>

I certify that, unless otherwise noted in the text, the research paper titled

<i>"Teachers' written corrective feedback on students' writing performance to improve </i>

<i>10th grade students' writing skill" was authored by me. This work was completed </i>

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.

<i>Thai Nguyen, 2023 </i>

<b>Student </b>

<i><b>Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy </b></i>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 4</span><div class="page_container" data-page="4">

<b>ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS </b>

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. .

<i>Thai Nguyen, 2023 </i>

<b>Student </b>

<i><b>Nguyen Thi Thanh Thuy </b></i>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 5</span><div class="page_container" data-page="5">

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ... viii

<b>CHAPTER 1.INTRODUCTION ... 1 </b>

1.1. Rationales ... 1

1.2. Aims of the study and objectives ... 4

1.3. Research questions ... 5

1.4. Scope of the study ... 5

1.5. Significance of the study ... 5

1.6. Organization of the study ... 6

<b>CHAPTER 2.LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8 </b>

2.1. The definition of Writing Competence ... 8

2.1.1. Definition of writing skill ... 8

2.1.2. Writing process ... 9

2.1.3. Kinds of writing ... 12

2.1.4. Types of classroom writing performance... 13

2.2. Teaching writing ... 15

2.2.1. Principles of teaching writing ... 15

2.2.2. Teacher’s roles during the writing lesson ... 16

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 6</span><div class="page_container" data-page="6">

3.1. Research questions (Restated) ... 36

3.2. Design of the study ... 36

3.2.1. Rationale ... 37

3.2.2. Action Research Model ... 38

3.3. Subjects of the study ... 41

3.4. Data collection instrument ... 42

4.1.1. Results of the writing test ... 46

4.1.2. Results of the questionnaire ... 50

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 7</span><div class="page_container" data-page="7">

5.2. Implications and Recommendations for further research ... 63 5.3. Limitations of the study ... 65

<b>REFERENCES ... 66 APPENDIX ... I </b>

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

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 8</span><div class="page_container" data-page="8">

<b>LIST OF TABLES </b>

Table 1. Timeline of the action research ... 40

Table 2. Converted marks for assessing writing competence ... 42

Table 3. Schedule of applying writing topic ... 44

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the pre-test ... 46

Table 5. Frequency of the pre-test scores... 46

Table 6. Descriptive statistics of the post-test ... 47

Table 7. Frequency of the post-test scores ... 48

Table 8. Descriptive statistics of the pre-test and post-test scores ... 49

Table 9. Students’ preferences toward type of written corrective feedback ... 50

Table 10. Reasons for preferring the types of written corrective feedback ... 51

Table 11. Students’ preferences toward type of errors should be corrected ... 52

Table 12. Reasons for preferring the types of error that must be corrected ... 52

Table 13. Students’ preference toward how written corrective feedback should

Table 17. Students’ feeling after receiving written corrective feedback ... 58

Table 18. Reason for the feeling after receiving written corrective feedback .... 58

<b>LIST OF FIGURES </b>

Figure 1. An action research cycle (Burns, 2010) ... 38

Figure 2. Results of the pre-test scores ... 47

Figure 3. Results of the post-test scores ... 48

Figure 4. Comparison of the pre-test and post-test scores ... 49

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 9</span><div class="page_container" data-page="9">

<b>CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION </b>

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.

<b>1.1. Rationales </b>

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.

<b>Further study is being done to find the most efficient way to teach writing. </b>

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

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 10</span><div class="page_container" data-page="10">

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.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 11</span><div class="page_container" data-page="11">

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. 99). 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). According to Van Beuningen (2010), direct written corrective feedback occurs when teachers call attention to errors by supplying the proper linguistic form and when students respond by fixing the mistake. Written corrective feedback is indirect when teachers provide students with ideas rather than the goal form.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 12</span><div class="page_container" data-page="12">

The investigation at Pho Yen high school uncovered particular concerns with students' writing skills within the educational framework, which might be addressed to improve students' writing in the classroom. Many students never had to learn proper grammar or spelling. These poor students start to believe that grammar and spelling are all that "English" and "writing" are. They view writing as a surefire recipe for failure. Sometimes people think they will never be able to write well because they only associate it with using proper grammar and spelling. They need to be made aware of how crucial writing ability is to learning. When taking writing tests, they frequently receive a low mark, which impacts their learning outcome. In truth, students often make several simple spelling, grammar, punctuation, and organization errors in written work. In addition, there are other issues with teaching writing in high schools nowadays, including a shortage of qualified instructors and insufficient study time, which prevents students from developing their skills. Students also need to gain writing principles knowledge.

This study aimed to examine the impact of instructors' corrective feedback on students' writing performance to enhance the writing abilities of 10th graders. This study was done because the researcher wanted to increase writing abilities among 10th graders by studying the effects of teachers' written corrective feedback on student writing performance.

<b>1.2. Aims of the study and objectives </b>

The study aimed to improve students' writing proficiency and the efficacy of written corrective feedback. Therefore, the researcher examined students' views about utilizing written corrective feedback and how it affected their writing proficiency. This approach will enable students to write more effectively.

<b>1.3. Research questions </b>

The present study responds to the following research questions with the objectives as mentioned above:

<i>(i). How does teachers’ written corrective feedback improve students' writing competence? </i>

<i>(ii). What are students’ attitudes toward the use of teachers’ written corrective feedback? </i>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 13</span><div class="page_container" data-page="13">

<b>1.4. Scope of the study </b>

Given the breadth of the study's focus, the researcher may have struggled to cover all bases. Therefore, the researcher limited the scope of the investigation based on available resources (time and expertise). Using contextual and problem-solving information, the researcher investigated the effect of written corrective feedback on 10th-grade students' writing skills during the second terrm of the 2022-2023 school year. The researcher only chose class 10C1 with forty students, all 15 years old, as the

<b>study participants due to the research's time constraints. 1.5. Significance of the study </b>

It was anticipated that this research's findings would have some theoretical and practical benefits. Theoretically, this study could contribute positively and as a reference to a general understanding of enhancing students' writing competence. The researcher hoped to deliver several benefits in terms of practical advantages.

<i>To the researcher. First, the study might serve as training for the researcher in </i>

problem-solving. This skill may be beneficial because of many reasons. To begin, it encourages better management of one's time. More day-to-day tasks are assigned to a person in a senior capacity. In my new employment, in addition to being responsible for my own responsibilities, I may also be accountable for supervising and managing the work of others. Because of my problem-solving skills and my knack for coming up with original concepts, I am in a position to perhaps devise efficient techniques for making work go more smoothly. It's possible that I'll put my problem-solving skills to

<i>work by putting in place various automated tools and solutions. </i>

Second, it assists me in developing work strategies and setting work priorities. I may be able to choose the best course of action or organize my work more efficiently if I use problem-solving techniques. You are also able to strategize solutions, which enables you to assist others in recognizing and making use of the qualities and potential they bring to initiatives. Problem-solving skills are extremely beneficial to have in a team that is working through a particularly busy period, such as a retail team just before the Christmas shopping season.

Third, it inspires me to do well even when I'm under a lot of pressure. One of the most significant advantages of learning to solve problems is that it improves your chances of being successful even while working in high-stress environments. People

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 14</span><div class="page_container" data-page="14">

who are good at finding solutions to problems often have dispositions that allow them to flourish even in stressful situations, such as when a deadline is drawing near or when they are confronted with a difficult task at work. If you use analytical thinking to these scenarios, you may be able to discern whether an issue calls for a simple but temporary solution or a more involved but more permanent one. In times of stress, it not only helps you advise and calm your colleagues, but it also helps you.

Lastly, but certainly not least, it enables me to take calculated chances. Problem solvers are more willing to take calculated risks because they are aware that, regardless of the outcomes, there is likely to be another approach that will allow them to achieve their objectives. They go into their employment with an increased sense of self-assurance as a result. In addition, they make use of their problem-solving ability to anticipate difficulties and come up with viable suggestions for solutions before the problems ever arise.

<i>To teachers of English at Pho Yen high school. The study could be a source of </i>

knowledge for the English teachers at Pho Yen high school on enhancing the students' writing abilities. Knowing more and sharing more helps one to build on existing information and to be able to enhance knowledge; therefore, having a rich supply of data and knowledge about any topic is crucial for learning, comprehending,

<i>forecasting, producing, and inventing in a specific sector. </i>

<i>To 10th-grade students at Pho Yen high school. The study would increase the </i>

enthusiasm and motivation of Pho Yen High School 10th graders to learn and write English. Motivation is the effort to acquire a language due to a desire to do so and a feeling of pleasure gained from doing so. It is an essential component to the achievement of successful language acquisition. Students will be more excited about the teaching and learning process due to motivation, which will motivate them to study

<i>English effectively. </i>

<i>To other researchers. Last but not least, the study could serve as the basis for </i>

future research and provide general information to other researchers about how to

<i>enhance students' writing abilities. </i>

<b>1.6. Organization of the study </b>

The study is structured in 5 chapters as follows:

<b>Chapter 1: Introduction </b>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 15</span><div class="page_container" data-page="15">

The purpose, goals, importance, and scope of the thesis are discussed in this section.

<b>Chapter 2: Literature Review </b>

The researcher discusses some theoretical concerns in this part. The relevant concepts from earlier investigations are also covered in this chapter.

<b>Chapter 3: Methodology </b>

This chapter reviews related research methods in general before delving into the chosen approach in depth.

<b>Chapter 4: Results and Discussion </b>

The data analysis outcomes and the research's conclusions are reported in this section.

<b>Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations </b>

The researcher explains the thesis' findings in this section. The research's limitations and a recommendation for additional study are then included.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 16</span><div class="page_container" data-page="16">

<b>CHAPTER 2 </b>

<b>LITERATURE REVIEW </b>

This chapter discusses the theory and prior research into the topics upon which this study is based. Writing competence is defined in the first part. The researcher provides an overview of teaching writing in the second section, outlining writing technique design and teacher’s roles during the writing class. The third section discusses feedback theories, while the fourth part explains how to assess writing performance. A review of related studies makes up the final section.

<b>2.1. The definition of Writing Competence </b>

<i><b>2.1.1. Definition of writing skill </b></i>

Ghaith (2002) states, "Writing is a complex process that allows writers to explore thoughts and ideas and make them visible and concrete." Before you can put your thoughts into words, you need to know what they are. When you write, you can find out who you are writing for and what they may be interested in. The purpose of writing is not communication but rather the development and preparation of a message. When you put your thoughts down on paper, you may reach conclusions you would not have reached otherwise. When you put your ideas down on paper, you may reach conclusions you would not have reached otherwise. Writing is a linguistic expression that allows you to break out of your present mind.

One other definition of writing is a series of contrasts. As Nunan (2003:88) points out, writing involves both the mind and body. Writing physically puts one's ideas or words to paper or another surface. When you register, you engage in a mental process that involves coming up with ideas, thinking about how to present them, and organizing those thoughts into coherent words and paragraphs. It is an attempt at both communication and awe. Writers have two clients: the public, who needs information conveyed in specific ways, and the author, who wants to share their thoughts and feelings. It may be thought of as both a process and a result. The author's responsible for planning, drafting, revising, and rereading their work. The audience's impression of a product is what matters most. The author's accountable for planning, drafting, editing, and rereading their work. The audience's image of a product is what matters most.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 17</span><div class="page_container" data-page="17">

All three categories highlight the writer's physical and cognitive involvement in writing.

<i><b>2.1.2. Writing process </b></i>

Creating a piece of writing is never a one-and-done deal (Hogue, 2007, p. 15). Kane (2000) explains that writing is more than just putting words on paper; the process consists of three stages: planning, doing, and doing again (and again and again, as often as time allows and patience allows).

Harmer (2001, p. 4-5) identifies four main stages in the writing process. These include brainstorming, a rough draft, revisions, and the final output.

<b>a) Planning </b>

Skilled writers prepare their writing ahead of time. They attempt to formulate their thoughts before they begin to write or type. The writers must consider three key factors when planning. The first author needs to think about the following: (i). The writer's motivation impacts not just the writing style they choose but also the choice of words they use and the information they choose to include. (ii). The intended audience, which will affect the writing's structure (how it's laid out, how the paragraphs are created, etc.) and tone (whether it's formal or casual). (iii). The organization of the material presented in the text (including facts, ideas, and arguments)

Pre-writing might serve as a source of inspiration for the first draft. Instead of being forced to gaze at a blank page, it helps individuals generate tentative thoughts and gather information for writing. The following are some learning options for students of this age:

<i>Group brainstorming: The group members share their thoughts on the subject. </i>

Here, spontaneity is key. There is no correct or incorrect response. First, they might cross known land before venturing into more untamed or abstract territory.

<i>Clustering: The instructor provides a prompt, and the students devise words to </i>

describe it. Word clusters are shown by circling them and linking them with lines. Students who have something to say but struggle to put it into words benefit significantly from clustering because of the visual elements of the approach, which facilitates the flow of ideas.

<i>Rapid Free writing: One or two minutes are allotted for the students to jot down </i>

as many words and phrases as they like about a subject. The writer's mind works

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 18</span><div class="page_container" data-page="18">

quickly due to time constraints. Rapid free writing is utilized when group brainstorming is not an option or when the nature of a given problem necessitates a particular technique.

<i>WH question: Students come up with who, why, what, where, when, and how </i>

inquiries on a subject. The first string of WH-questions replies can be followed by more of the same questions, and so on. This may go on forever.

<b>b) Drafting </b>

A draft is a name for a piece of writing's initial iteration. Drafting is a crucial part of the writing process because it enables the researcher to write down ideas and arrange them in order of importance. During the drafting phase, the author focuses on maintaining a natural flow of writing rather than editing for grammar or organization. The first draft will need to be filtered and tightened, but it should have more concentration than the free-writing phase.

<i>Feedback: Pratiwi (2013) cites Keh, who defines feedback as any suggestions </i>

from a reader that the writer may utilize to make changes. After completing a first draft, students should seek feedback. It carefully examines their writing to determine if there are any remaining differences. Learning relies heavily on receiving and processing feedback. Research shows that it aids students in self-assessing, making constructive behavioral changes, and putting knowledge into practice. When students discover that their writing still has specific gaps, feedback evaluates their performance. As a result, the students require feedback to enhance their writing abilities. It was anticipated that they might alter their behavior by becoming critical, conscious of their errors, and continuing to write. Students are given the chance to recognize their strengths and faults by providing feedback.

<i>Responding: The teacher's (or peers') reaction to students' writing is crucial to </i>

the writing process's success. It is given by the instructor after the students have written their first draft but before they begin revising.

<b>c) Editing (reflecting and revising) </b>

The instructor will soon review the final drafts of students' works. Therefore they are now working to improve them. Editing as part of process writing is crucial because students may recognize the connection between such activity and their writing, given that correction is not done for its goal but rather as a step in making

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 19</span><div class="page_container" data-page="19">

communication as unambiguous as feasible - accuracy of citations, other supporting materials, and grammar and language use.

Writers often pore over their drafts after they are finished to assess their success or failure. Other readers' comments and ideas (or those of an editor) are frequently helpful when reflecting and rewriting. The author will be assisted in making the necessary revisions by another reader's response to a piece of work.

<b>d) Final revision </b>

The students then create their final version after revising their initial draft and making the necessary revisions. Because of how editing is done now, this can appear very different from the initial idea and the first draft. But now that they have finished their paper, the student may send it to the intended readers.

The instructor will soon review the final drafts of students' works. Therefore they are now working to improve them. Editing as part of process writing is crucial because students may recognize the connection between such activity and their writing, given that correction is not done for its goal but rather as a step in making communication as unambiguous as feasible. Students edit each other's work for grammatical, spelling, punctuation, vocabulary, sentence structure, and citation errors.

<i>Evaluating: The score used to assess students' writing may be analytical (based </i>

on particular writing skills) or holistic (based on an overall assessment of the writing's effectiveness). There are several aspects of communication to evaluate, including how the work is interpreted generally, how the audience sees it, how ideas are developed and organized, how the content is laid out, the syntax and sentence structure, the spelling and punctuation, the linguistic variety and appropriateness, and the clarity of the message. Depending on the objectives of the assessment, a numerical grade may be assigned.

<i>Post-writing: Post-writing refers to any classroom activity that may be </i>

completed utilizing the whole piece of writing by the instructor and student. This ranges from composing and distributing texts to public readings, theatrical adaptations, and noticeboard displays. At this podium, students may be recognized for their efforts and achievements.

This suggests that the process of writing is intricate. The use of language (grammar, vocabulary, and linkers), punctuation and layout, spelling, checking for

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 20</span><div class="page_container" data-page="20">

unnecessary repetition of words and information, determining the information on each paragraph and the order the sections should go in, making notes on various ideas, selecting the best idea to include, writing a clean copy of the corrected version, and writing a final draft are all important considerations when writing, as stated by Harmer (2001, p. 256). It shows how challenging writing can be, especially for beginners like students. Since the English instructor only has so much time to devote to the writing unit, they must refrain from following every one of the procedures mentioned above. Students are allotted around 15 minutes to do their assignments. As a result, students often make errors while writing, calling for instructor feedback to aid in error reduction, especially throughout the rewriting process.

<i><b>2.1.3. Kinds of writing </b></i>

According to Stanley (2006, p. 8), who Nurhalifah referenced, there are four different types of writing exercises:

<b>a) Guided writing/ parallel sentences </b>

Students compose a string of related sentences during guided writing. In writing, they have greater latitude. In the 18 activities, students are given sentence fragments and a pattern to fill them in.

<b>b) Guided to free composition </b>

Sentence construction and writing are good ways to practice this skill. The students mimic the teacher's formatting and fill in the blanks.

<b>c) Free writing </b>

Free writing gives students greater leeway in expressing themselves. He may express his thoughts through literary styles like narrative, description, or exposition, but the subjects are still constrained and predetermined. Students can write letters, papers, and studies to communicate their thoughts.

<b>d) Writing composition </b>

It is an assignment that requires students to use words in grammatically acceptable phrases and link those sentences into a writing piece that effectively conveys the researcher's thoughts and views on a particular issue. The writing exercises that will be used in this research are geared toward free composition and written composition.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 21</span><div class="page_container" data-page="21">

<i><b>2.1.4. Types of classroom writing performance </b></i>

<b> Below is a list of the five key categories of writing proficiency in the classroom (Brown, 2001: 343 - 344): </b>

<b>a) Imitative, or Writing down </b>

When learning to write, students 'write down' English letters, words, and sometimes phrases to understand the laws of the orthographic code. Dictation may be used to evaluate and teach higher-order thinking, although not all types do. Frequently seen in dictations are the following actions: (i). The teacher once or twice reads a brief piece at a comfortable pace; (ii). The teacher reads the paragraph in three-or-four-word phrase units, pausing after each unit; (iii). During recess, students take notes by recording verbatim what they overhear; (iv). The instructor then reads the whole paragraph aloud for the students to critique; (v). Various rubrics can be used to score students' written work and distribute points. Grammar mistakes are typically considered more severe than spelling and punctuation.

<b>b) Intensive or Controlled </b>

Grammatical principles can sometimes be learned, reinforced, or tested through writing as a production mode. This style of intensive writing generally appears in regulated, written grammar exercises; it only allows for a little, if any, authorial creativity. Students are frequently given a paragraph to write in which they must completely change the structure. This is a famous example of controlled writing. If students are asked to convert all present-tense verbs to past tense, they may need to revise any allusions to time in the text.

Although the teacher's control is lessened, guided writing still provides a variety of stimuli. For instance, the instructor might ask the students questions to elicit a tale from a videotape: Where does the narrative occur? Identify the main character. What does he tell the lady? In a vehicle? Another kind of regulated writing is the dicto-comp. In this activity, students listen to a text read aloud two or three times before being asked to recreate it as faithfully as they can recall. In one form of the dicto-comp method, the instructor reads a passage aloud and then puts the paragraph's topic sentences and supporting details on the blackboard in the appropriate sequence to serve as signals for the students.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 22</span><div class="page_container" data-page="22">

<b>c) Self-writing </b>

Writing for oneself, or writing with the reader as the sole person in mind, may account for many writing assignments in the classroom. The most common form of this in schools is students writing down information from lectures to remember it later. Other note-taking can be done on random pieces of paper and in the margins of books.

Writing in a diary or journal also fits within this category. A conversation journal, which students use to write their ideas, feelings, and reactions and which instructors read and comment on, serves two audiences even though it is presumably designed for the student.

<b>d) Display Writing </b>

As discussed before, writing is an integral part of the academic experience. Language students will require to display components in the form of short answer questions, essays, and perhaps research papers. Mastery of various ways to write in display format is an essential academic ability for dedicated ESL students.

<b>e) Real Writing </b>

While almost all writing assignments in the classroom will include some display writing, some classroom writing aims to communicate ideas honestly to an audience that needs to hear them. The classifications are circa! And display report is two points on a continuum, with Bets sortie's combination of display and actual writing falling in the middle. How reality may be introduced into three subcategories is demonstrated.

<i>Academic: The language Proficiency Approach gives student groups a chance </i>

to share accurate information. The sharing of relevant information is encouraged through content-based training; some of this learning involves the written word. Group problem-solving exercises may include a writing component where knowledge is sought after and communicated, particularly concerning current events and other personally relevant themes. The teacher has an NI audience of one, so having students edit one other's work allows them to practice writing. Students may discuss recent materials and the instructor in specific ESP and EAP classes.

<i>Vocational/technical: A wide range of simple writing programs may exist when </i>

students study English for professional advancement. Accurate correspondence, precise installation instructions, and essential Corn paperwork are all within reach.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 23</span><div class="page_container" data-page="23">

Even more so, such possibilities abound because of the emergence of what is now often referred to as "English in the Workplace" when ESL is given within organizations and enterprises.

<i>Personal: Informal writing, such as diaries, letters, postcards, notes, personal </i>

greetings, and the like, is often utilized in ESL programs, particularly in an interactive classroom environment. Even though some duties seem a little fabricated, an accurate information exchange is nevertheless possible.

In the course book “Tieng Anh 10 (Global Success)” that the researcher put into teaching materials, “Intensive or Controlled” writing proficiency is almost throughout the writing requirement.

<b>2.2. Teaching writing </b>

<i><b>2.2.1. Principles of teaching writing </b></i>

Here are some suggestions for getting students writing that Nunan (2003:92-94) has put together: First, be aware of the context in which your students are writing; second, give them enough time to write; third, provide them feedback that is both constructive and instructive; and fourth, make it clear how their writing will be graded. Meanwhile, Nation (2009:93-94) offers four principles for teaching writing that may be used to evaluate classroom activities, a writing course, or the writing component of a language course to guarantee that students are exposed to a balanced range of instructional strategies. The four pillars of effective language learning are as follows: 1) Meaning-focused Input (students should incorporate prior knowledge and experiences into their writing)

As part of this guiding concept, learners are encouraged to incorporate their experiences and prior knowledge into their writing, as Nation (2009) stated. A report is more likely effective and meaningful for students if they have done sufficient preparation for the content of their writing. The selection of the subject, or the work done in the past, might constitute the preparation.

2) Meaning-focused Output (students should produce large quantities of writing of many types)

Nation 2009 advises students to write often and in many styles. Students must also practice writing's unique characteristics.

3) Language-focused Learning

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 24</span><div class="page_container" data-page="24">

Nation (2009) proposes that students should be aware of the components of the writing process and possess deliberate coping mechanisms for dealing with components. Furthermore, students should focus on clarity and fluency while generating written script in cases when the native language employs a different script. Due to this, both students and instructors should pay close attention to spelling in order to promote and enhance students' development of writing abilities.

4) Fluency Development

The article "Nation 2009" suggests that students should work on increasing their writing speed in order to be able to compose straightforward content at a pace that is acceptable. In this scenario, the students will likely participate in an activity that involves repetition while working with simple and well-known items. Brown (2000), pages 346-348, outlines a number of other ideas for building writing approach, which are included below for more explanation of this subject.

<i><b>2.2.2. Teacher’s roles during the writing lesson </b></i>

As noted by Harmer (2007: 108), many critics use the term "facilitator" to describe a teacher who encourages student independence via group and pair projects and acts more as a resource than a knowledge transmitter. The following are characteristics of instructing that promote positive learning, as identified by Harmer: (i). Create a learning environment where students can build their knowledge using the relevant materials and chances. The teacher is in tune with her students, knows how to pace lectures, and gives meaningful assignments that engage students in their learning; (ii). Make sure that all students feel comfortable in the classroom. The educator is responsible for making the classroom secure, conducive to learning, and accessible to students with diverse abilities. Teachers skilled in activity coordination create a classroom climate conducive to learning for all students. The school's policies and practices play a significant part in creating a positive atmosphere for education. The instructor consistently assesses and uses good classroom management strategies. She maximizes teaching time by employing routines and processes. The instructor knows how to handle interruptions so that there is no negative influence on the student's instructional time, and the students understand what is expected of them; (iii). Encourage student collaboration inside the classroom. The instructor encourages and models democratic principles and practices, which are crucial in the actual world; (iv).

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 25</span><div class="page_container" data-page="25">

Fostering students' natural curiosity and will to study; (v). Assist students in developing their ability to think critically, independently, and creatively by giving them situations that foster these traits; (vi). Provide students with enough time to complete tasks and clear expectations. Students take responsibility for their education in a setting that encourages high standards and treats its members with dignity and fairness; (vii). Boost your students' sense of worth. The teacher promotes collective effort above individual competition via group tasks and a shared sense of purpose; (viii). Communicate with students. Language is used by the teacher to encourage students to express themselves, develop their identities, and learn; (ix). Teaching about other cultures and appreciating individuality are two important educational goals. Pay close attention and react appropriately.

<b>2.3. Assessing writing </b>

According to Nurhalifah, writing evaluation studies will continue to compare and contrast the benefits and drawbacks of direct and indirect measures since validity and reliability are at issue in pay geometry. Since candidates must exhibit the behavior allegedly being measured, immediate evaluation seems more reliable. As a result, it enables examiners to select from a broader range of abilities found in the "writing ability" domain. However, there may be more potential sources of incorrect score variation in direct evaluation than indirect assessment. Unimportant variables like handwriting, the assignment, and the researcher may influence the essay score of a candidate. While the indirect evaluation has a narrower focus, it allows for more manipulation of item sampling error and the talents being evaluated. Additionally, results on several standardized objective examinations can be calculated and compared with high accuracy, whereas scores on various standardized essay assessments cannot. Furthermore, direct evaluation outcomes are often far less reliable than indirect assessment results. The more writing assignments each student receives and the more readings there are in each assignment, the more reliable the essay ratings become, to the point where there are declining gains and rising costs.

Multiple-choice test scores and essay test scores can have strong correlations when highly reliable evaluations are acquired, particularly if associated errors are corrected in the direct measure. The natural step's lower dependability sometimes limits direct-indirect correlation. However, research supports common sense by

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 26</span><div class="page_container" data-page="26">

demonstrating that the two assessment approaches focus on slightly different capabilities. Indirect assessment often emphasizes word and sentence-level characteristics like mechanics, diction, usage, syntax, and modification. In contrast, direct examination often emphasizes higher-order or discourse-level features like a thesis statement, clarity, organization, development, and rhetorical strategy.

A perfect writing test would include both a multiple-choice and an essay component. Including an essay component in a writing ability section acknowledges the importance of essay writing in the curriculum and dramatically improves the predictive validity of the indirect measure, or its capacity to predict the quality of future writing performance. Twenty or thirty minutes of writing on a randomly assigned subject, with each paper receiving two independent holistic readings from raters trained to focus on higher-order abilities, would be a great addition to the GRE. This is what one other essay-using software has found to be the case. Less costly options exist, such as using writing samples that have not been examined or have only been locally rated; moreover, these methods need more psychometric validity.

<b>2.4. Feedback </b>

<i><b>2.4.1. The definitions feedback </b></i>

The terms "teacher" and "feedback" make into the phrase "teacher feedback." A teacher may also be thought of as a facilitator of learning. They're responsible for steering students toward higher levels of mastery. To put it another way, educators are obligated to respond to student concerns by offering corrective feedback. Cited by Carvalho (2014) et al., feedback is information that a teacher offers about any elements of a student's knowledge. Keh (1990) highlighted several ways to provide this information, including feedbacks, questions, and suggestions. Finally, teacher feedback refers to a teachers' feedback on a student's performance. It might be interpreted as advice as a statement, a question, or a proposal to help students perform better.

Teacher-provided verbal and written feedback have traditionally been the norm in many classrooms (Marylin, 2002, p. 15). In most cases, the instructor is the one who provides comments on student progress. The teacher does help students who are having trouble with their writing. The teacher assists them by providing tips on writing effectively and proofreading their work for errors and inaccuracies.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 27</span><div class="page_container" data-page="27">

Pratiwi (2013) claims that the teacher can provide feedback by asking a question to seek clarity or make an expanding suggestion. Additionally, the teacher may comment on students' compositions that show understanding, point out a sentence's technical issues, or encourage students when producing quality writing. These things can be done to make sure that the students' written work is consistent with the point they intend to make. After receiving feedback, students could promptly modify their work based on the instructor's comments. Usually, the instructor makes specific corrections to each student's paper before conferring with them. The term for this is "feedback" from a conference.

Research on the effects of teachers' comments on their students' written work in a second or foreign language has focused on the role that corrective feedback plays in improving the accuracy of their students' writing. The mistakes below are grammatical ones ESL/EFL students made in their written compositions. A feedback called corrective feedback is intended to address any errors that students may have caused. Error correction is aided by corrective feedback that directs students to the proper response. When a teacher responds to a student's material that contains errors, they may do so in various ways (Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam 2006).

Therefore, teacher feedback refers to comments made by the teacher to help students write better and produce quality work. The readers will receive information and amusement if student writing is done well.

Gibbs and Simpson (2004) list ten prerequisites, seven related to feedback, for an evaluation to facilitate student learning.

1) For feedback to be genuinely formative, it must be provided frequently and in sufficient detail.

2) Rather than focusing on the students' personalities, feedback should be directed toward their work.

3) Students need to be able to apply the feedback they get quickly enough to make learning gains.

4) The feedback must be pertinent to the goals the evaluation aims to achieve. 5) Student grasp of what they are expected to perform should be the focus of feedback

6) The learner must receive feedback.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 28</span><div class="page_container" data-page="28">

7) The student needs to act on the feedback.

Discourse errors, sentence coherence errors, grammatical errors, word choice faults, sentence pattern flaws, punctuation, capitalization, and spelling problems are the six types of writing mistakes. Whenever a teacher provides students with suggestions for growth, this is known as feedback. To properly and reliably label the different mistake kinds, the operational definitions for these six categories are described below:

a) Discourse organization refers to how a book makes sense to readers regarding how the material is structured and the relevance and clarity of its concepts and ideas.

b) Sentence coherence refers to how sentences relate to one another grammatically, lexically, and logically.

c) Grammatical mistakes include verb tense, pronoun errors, incorrect noun endings, incorrect articles, incorrect prepositions, incorrect word order, and incorrect subject-verb agreement.

d) Unidiomatic language, redundant language, repetitions, erroneous language, and overly generic language.

e) Sentence structure: run-ons, fragments, and improper sentence construction (misplaced sentence/clause boundaries).

Comma splices, capitalizing titles, capitalizing beginning letters, using the wrong word form, and dividing words are all instances of punctuation, capitalization, and spelling errors.

<i><b>2.4.2. Purposes of Feedback </b></i>

Lewis (2002, p. 3-4) claims that giving feedback in language classes serves a variety of reasons.

<i>Feedback gives teachers and students information. The teacher can learn about </i>

students' individual and class wide progress through feedback, which also indirectly evaluates the teacher's instruction. At the same time, feedback is a continuous assessment for learners more targeted than grades or marks. In contrast to marks or steps, which often compare students, comments offer information about personal progress by identifying strengths and weaknesses. The words may also provide language guidance by outlining a rule or example.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 29</span><div class="page_container" data-page="29">

<i>Students receive learning-related recommendations from feedback. The teacher </i>

can give students more information about their language use than simply explaining. Another option is to comment.

<i>Feedback gives students exposure to the language. The instructor provides </i>

examples of how language is employed in one-on-one interactions. They use vocabulary slightly more advanced than the rent language while writing comments. This provides a natural setting for the learner to learn new words and grammatical standards.

<i>Motivation can take the form of feedback. More motivating than grades or </i>

marks can be input. Considering what the teacher says might motivate students to learn and speak the language as best, they can. Learn more about your students as a teacher so that you can provide encouragement that considers your students' unique situations.

<i>Student autonomy can be fostered through feedback. Feedback can assist </i>

students in learning to identify their errors. Students are encouraged to be autonomous learners by teaching themselves to recognize their mistakes.

<i><b>2.4.3. Forms of feedback </b></i>

The purpose of giving students comments on their work is to help them improve. It may describe presentations made in class orally or in writing.

<b>a) Oral feedback </b>

Oral feedback, or oral conference, is a formative assessment in which a teacher and student have a one-on-one conversation about a student's writing. The biggest challenge is finding sufficient time for the teacher to give feedback.

<b>b) Written Feedback </b>

Students' drafts of written assignments receive written feedback, which includes feedback, edits, and grades. The markings may appear on words or shorthand symbols like circles, underlings, and other indications. High school and middle school students may use this format. Written feedback on students' efforts are most valuable when they are either specific to each student or general in nature and when they point out specific areas in which the students may improve. They respond to negative comments by offering corrective feedback and praising the work's positive aspects. While older students may benefit from written input, younger students may benefit more from oral feedback since it can help them correct their misunderstandings more quickly. Since

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 30</span><div class="page_container" data-page="30">

the research population includes junior high school students, the researcher concentrates on written feedbacks, as indicated in the delimitation of the problem.

There are different kinds of comments in teacher feedback, per Chen & Lyon, as cited in Binglan & Jia (2010):

1) Give compliments; I mean, make supportive remarks on managing. Ex: Excellent writing! Significantly improved or very beautifully organized.

2) Feedback is a negative, authoritative opinion or evaluation. For instance, phrases that contradict one another can be perplexing.

3) Imperative comments direct the student researcher to take action or make a change, and they typically begin with an imperative verb form. For instance, stay consistent in your tone and manner and be specific.

4) Advice refers to comments that are frequently conditional and suggestive. For instance, lengthen the main lines or add a few more details.

5) A closed question can only be answered with the words "yes" or "no" or with a single word. Have you been fair in your assessment? And does this term have a figurative or literal meaning?

6) Often prefaced with "what," "where," "why," "who," "when," and "how," open inquiries seek more nuanced responses than a simple "yes" or "no." Example: Who teaches, and who is trained? Precisely what does this imply?

7) A remark's mechanics include correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, and word choice.

8) A "?" means the only acceptable response is "don't understand."

<i><b>2.4.4. Source of Feedback </b></i>

Lewis (2002, pp. 15–23) identified three types of feedback: instructor comments, peers' comments, and self-evaluation (also known as self-directed feedback).

<b>a) Teacher feedback </b>

Many classrooms have relied on the instructor as their primary source of spoken and written language (Lewis, 2002, p. 15). This also happens in the writing classroom when instructors critique student work for grammatical and stylistic flaws. Teacher comments are often the only form of assessment in many classes. Having an instructor to help them through challenging writing assignments is invaluable. Teachers aid

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 31</span><div class="page_container" data-page="31">

students by providing writing prompts, critiquing drafts, and offering feedback. Additionally, the teacher may make comments showing understanding of the student's composition, point out a sentence's technical issues, and offer praise when the student produces quality writing. By following these steps, instructors may guarantee that their students' final papers convey precisely the intended meaning. Students received quick feedback based on instructor correction, allowing them to amend their errors immediately. Before conducting a class discussion, the instructor would often correct each student's essay personally. The term for this is "feedback" from a conference.

<b>b) Peer feedback </b>

Peer feedback is a method for disseminating advice, making comments, and correcting errors that result from one-on-one discussions among students. Since peer feedback necessitates interaction between students, it might reflect written corrective feedback. The term "peer feedback" refers to having students provide comments and feedbacks on each other's writing during the drafting stage of the writing process rather than relying solely on teachers or trained tutors.

<b>c) Self-evaluation (feedback provided to oneself) </b>

During self-evaluation, students can revise and grade their work. Students' potential for autonomy is bolstered by the need that they recognize their own mistakes. Students may learn to rely on themselves as learners by being allowed to reflect on their work and receive construct corrective ive feedback. In a large group setting, students might save time by evaluating themselves.

<i><b>2.4.5. Corrective feedback </b></i>

<b>a) Definition </b>

In English classes, teachers frequently give students feedbacks on their mistakes. Corrective feedback is the name given to this type of feedback. This method is known by various names, including corrective feedback, mistake correction, and negative evidence. Whichever phrase is chosen, it does not matter because both have the same purpose: to let students know there are mistakes in their written work.

Negative feedback might take the form of remedial feedback. Corrective feedback help students improve their language skills and academic achievement and

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 32</span><div class="page_container" data-page="32">

should not be interpreted as feedback. This response or data, as interpreted by Ellis, includes:

1) A signal that a mistake has been made. 2) The proper form in the target language.

3) Metalinguistic information on the nature of the fault.

Corrective feedback (CF) is a strategy for supporting students in improving their language skills and academic achievement.

<b>b) Types of Corrective Feedback </b>

Sheen and Ellis (2008) suggest splitting corrective feedback in half. Both verbal and written forms of feedback are available.

<i>Oral corrective feedback: Both online (i.e., the feedback is given shortly after </i>

the incorrect utterance) and offline (i.e., the input is withheld until the communicative event the learner is participating in has concluded) attempts to alert the learner that they have created an incorrect utterance is considered forms of oral corrective feedback. Corrective feedback in speech may take the form of input or output prompting (i.e., an effort to elicit a correction from the learner) if the learner is given the proper structure. Sermsook et al. (2017) note that students' use of incorrect grammar is reduced when they get corrections verbally. One such input example is the word "recast." The instructor will correct a student's speech if they make a mistake.

<b>The following is a recast based on verbal comments. </b>

<i>Written corrective feedback: When students get written corrective feedback, the </i>

errors they committed in their writing are mostly corrected after the fact (i.e., offline). This may involve both input-providing feedback (also called "direct correction") and output-prompting feedback (sometimes called "indirect correction"). This is a verbal equivalent of feedback. While indirect correction entails pointing out errors in the text's margins or within the text itself where they appear, direct repair involves giving students the suitable form or reformulating the entire text. Corrective feedback in the form of text may be either direct or indirect, and it may or may not contain meta-linguistic information. However, there is no distinction between explicit and implicit corrective feedback regarding written corrections; all written modifications are

<i>intrinsically evident (i.e., the learner is aware of the correction). </i>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 33</span><div class="page_container" data-page="33">

<b>c) Types of Corrective Feedback in Writing </b>

This feedback is often given in a written format in a composition class. Written feedback is another name for this kind of feedback. Experts agree on a few interpretations of written feedback. Bitchener and Knoch (2008) argue that corrective feedback in writing is valuable for helping students acquire and demonstrate competence with target language patterns and structures. The repair of grammatical faults to enhance a student's capacity for accurate writing is the next point made by Truscott (1996). Evans (2010) adds that any information provided to a student that gives evidence of learner error meets the criteria for corrective feedback. It is clear from the many definitions that written corrective feedback is a deliberate method of reprimanding students' errors. The teacher employs a few ways when giving the students' papers written, corrected feedbacks. It also has specific benefits and drawbacks for each kind.

<i><b>Direct corrective feedback: Teachers provide students with the right kind of </b></i>

immediate, corrective feedback. The teacher often crosses out any extraneous words, phrases, or morphemes, adds any that is missing, and then writes the proper form

<b>above and close to the incorrect format. </b>

For students with limited language skills, such as those at the introductory level, direct corrective feedback is beneficial since it teaches them how to fix their errors. These students cannot self-correct. Students might occasionally struggle to write a statement and select the right word.

Students with low levels of language competency also struggle with learning certain grammatical aspects. Sheen found that students improved their writing skills when receiving direct written corrective feedback that included the proper form and a metalinguistic explanation, especially when explaining certain grammatical aspects. Therefore, it is advantageous to give students at the novice level immediate written corrective feedback.

However, there are drawbacks to providing corrective feedback in writing. Students who received quick written remedial complaints were more likely to retain the information when it was provided. Learners may only benefit temporarily from direct corrective feedback because they understand their errors intuitively without gaining insight into the underlying causes.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 34</span><div class="page_container" data-page="34">

<i>Indirect corrective feedback: In contrast, to direct corrective feedback, indirect </i>

corrective feedback only recognizes the problem without providing a remedy. The errors may be circled, omissions in students' work can be rotated, or a cross can be put in the margin adjacent to the line carrying the problem. As part of this process, you'll have to decide whether to show the precise coordinates of the typos, i.e., the line of text they occur on. Like the most common kinds of written corrective feedback, indirect corrective feedback favors students. This, at least, is what the research shows. According to Lalande (1982), students may be helped along in the learning and problem-solving process using indirect corrective feedback. Indirect corrective feedback from the instructor allows students to refine their work independently. In addition, as Ferris & Roberts (2001) show, focusing students' attention on language structures improves retention. Since of these benefits, it is evident that students benefit from receiving indirect textual feedback for repairs since it increases the likelihood that they will learn and remember more about the restoration in terms of linguistic forms. Indirect corrective feedback has beneficial effects on students but also has certain downsides. Students who have trouble with grammar will need clarification

<i>since they will need to learn how to correct their mistakes. </i>

<i>Meta-linguistic corrective feedback: The teacher gives the students </i>

metalinguistic clues as corrective feedback to help them identify their mistakes. Occasionally, the instructor will utilize error messages as a tip to demonstrate the students' blunders. The symbols might be shorthand descriptions of many problems. For example, the instructor may write "art" for the article, "prep" for preposition, "sp" for spelling, "ww" for the wrong word, "t" for tenses, etc. The use of error codes has both advantages and disadvantages. According to Ferris, the students' improved writing quality is mainly due to the error codes. This suggests that students could attribute certain strategic decisions to their mistakes. According to Robb's study, using mistakes is not any more successful. Students who got metalinguistic feedback were compared to students who received various written assessment forms in the research. Students find it challenging to expound on the teacher's justification for using metalinguistic corrective feedback. The students prefer the teachers' forthright feedback. A brief grammatical description or a metalinguistic explanation is another approach to point out a student's faults. Above each word that is deemed incorrect, the

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 35</span><div class="page_container" data-page="35">

teacher adds a number. After the text, the instructor discusses the error and gives a description or explanation, depending on how often it occurs. A complete understanding of meta-linguistics is required for the teacher to correct or comment on various difficulties, which, according to Rod Ellis, makes delivering a metalinguistic explanation more time-consuming than giving error codes. To explain grammar to the students, the instructor must completely grasp the subject. However, research by Sheen demonstrates that metalinguistic explanation helps boost students' writing correctness and long-term learning. It's possible that the students are already familiar with this

<i>particular grammatical point and will never forget it. </i>

<i>The focus of feedback: Focused and unfocused feedbacks are the two categories </i>

under which feedback is separated. The difference between unfocused and focused feedback is that the latter implies the instructor prefers to fix just one mistake. The feedback that is targeted and unfocused has various strengths and weaknesses. Focused feedback only fixes one kind of mistake. The students' ability to comprehend the nature of the mistakes is likely to be aided by this feedback. It differs from feedback that is not concentrated. Untargeted feedback typically covers a wide variety of mistakes. The instructor corrects a variety of mistakes. Even if it does not work, it

<i>could benefit students' retention. </i>

<i>Electronic feedback: Teachers are expected to utilize devices to help students </i>

improve their work. The instructor may inject short metalinguistic feedback into the students' writing using the electronic store. A brief comment is provided for each

<i>mistake, and there are links to sites that demonstrate the proper form. </i>

<i>Reformulation: This involves a native speaker revising the students' complete writing to seem more natural in the target language without changing the meaning. </i>

<b>d) Procedure of Teacher Feedback Technique </b>

Feedback is a crucial part of any process-based approach to the writing process. Definition: Feedback from readers in the form of questions, suggestions, and other remarks used to improve a piece of writing (Wen, 2013, p. 427).

From Lee's (2008) study, we may glean the following stages for providing effective instructor feedback:

1) The teacher gave the students a topic-specific assignment and usually had them discuss ideas.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 36</span><div class="page_container" data-page="36">

2) The instructor gave the students assignments that drew their attention to terminology and linguistic patterns pertinent to the subject.

3) Each student authored their rough copy.

4) The instructor repeated the procedure, this time having students read out some of the "beautiful sentences" they had written.

5) The class was given a proofreading project consisting of a student error collection.

6) During the proofreading activity, the instructor maintained authority by providing the correct answers to the students without allowing them to dispute the issues or reflect on their errors.

7) The instructor gave the students their work back.

8) The teacher instructed the students to amend the erroneous sentences.

<b>e) Importance of Feedback </b>

The research by Bijami, Kashef, and Nejad (2013) referred to the seven recommendations for feedback practice proposed by Nicole and Macfarlane-Dick. They argued that effective feedback mechanisms should:

1) Helps establish criteria for successful performance (standards and goals). 2) Encourages the growth of self-evaluation (reflection) in learning

3) Provides students with accurate information about their education. 4) Promotes teacher and student discussion on learning

5) Promotes self-esteem and optimistic, motivating beliefs

6) Chances to narrow the gap between actual and expected performance are provided

7) It equips students with information that may be utilized to shape their education

<b>2.5. Written feedback </b>

<b>a) Definition of Written Feedback </b>

Burnett and Mandel (2010, p. 8) state that the most common kind of instructor response to students' writings is written feedback or handwritten remarks designed to assist students in improving their writing. Teachers may help students learn from their mistakes and grow as writers by providing feedback on their drafts. Hayland (2006) argues that a teacher's only motivation in giving written feedback to students is

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 37</span><div class="page_container" data-page="37">

educational. The feedback's sole function is to relay the teacher's remarks and ideas for improvement to the students. Teacher-written feedback is also essential since it gives students a reader reaction to their writing, helps them improve as researchers, and may be used to defend a student's grade.

<b>b) Kinds of Written Feedback </b>

Various forms of written feedback, including comments, corrections, and grades, are provided to students in response to drafts of their written work, as described by Cohen (as cited in Hartatie, 2016). Words or fast symbols like circles, underlines, and other signals may have marks. The teacher should make explicit remarks on the mistakes made by the students, offering advice on how to improve as well as compliments on the good parts of their work.

1) Correction codes

Your instructor could mark your paper with a series of symbols or acronyms to indicate where you might improve it.

2) Errors correction

With this kind of feedback, you can see precisely where you went wrong and how to fix your sentence, phrase, or word.

Negatives include not realizing you're making the same errors again and the possibility that there is more than one correct method to say what you mean. Furthermore, the instructor could accidentally warp your message by adjusting it to fit their needs. 3) Criteria correction

Using a correction code may help you recognize your weaknesses and the areas of the exam where they show through. As a result, you can better understand why these mistakes should be avoided.

Once again, this form of feedback's potential drawbacks stems from the necessity of a high metacognitive awareness of your strengths and limitations and prior criterion training.

4) Comments

Receiving such feedback makes you feel as though your teacher is conversing with you directly. This individualized approach to teaching may make lessons seem less like a chore and more like an opportunity to grow as a person and a learner.

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 38</span><div class="page_container" data-page="38">

The downside is that you may still want an explanation of precisely what was incorrect, how it may be changed, and how it pertains to the test requirements you are studying, despite these remarks seeking to elicit the solution. This is in part because there needs to be more meta-language.

5) Assessment

The possibility of passing the test and the specific factors you should study until the big day becomes crystal evident after receiving such feedback. The problem with getting an overall grade like this is that you need to get feedback on the individual mistakes made in the text you submitted, which is a huge missed learning opportunity. In addition, Miftah (2015) distinguishes between three distinct forms of written feedback: suggestions, observations, and replies. Grammar, idea development, spelling, paragraph coherence, etc., are the principal foci of written feedback forms. The researcher also examines the English teacher's pattern of written feedback based on the sorts of written feedback outlined earlier. The researcher looks over the student's writing to determine the methods.

<b>c) Models of Written Feedback </b>

<b>(Source: Nurhalifah, 2017)</b>

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 39</span><div class="page_container" data-page="39">

<b>2.6. Previous Studies </b>

Numerous studies on corrective writing have been studied at length over the last few decades.

According to Shirotha's (2016) study, providing students with written corrective feedback is an effective strategy for raising the quality of their writing. A large number of previous investigations have shown this. The instructor has complete discretion over the kind of written reprimand used. A wide range of approaches may be used while providing corrective feedback in writing in the classroom. Three types of textual feedback exist: indirect, meta-linguistic, and direct. The research discusses the effect on students' writing accuracy of receiving indirect written corrective feedback. The essay aims to identify the most effective form of classroom written corrective feedback. Thirty-five ESL students with low competency are the subjects of the study. Students' writing accuracy is evaluated with a pretest and posttest on writing. A T-test is used to analyze the data collected. The outcome meets my expectations. Thirty-five students have shown a statistically significant increase in writing accuracy. The final score on the exam has been higher than the first one. It has also shown that providing students with corrective feedback in writing encourages them to take responsibility for their education.

Sina's (2014) study attempted to evaluate two types of grammatical correction feedback and see which one was more effective in enhancing the writing skills of EFL students. Thirty-five upper-level students were split into three groups for the study. Throughout the fourteen sessions, teachers in each class taught students how to write on various topics using different text structures. Class A students brought in their homework to their instructor, who reviewed and returned the work to them after making any necessary corrections. Students in section B were assigned an electronic task, which they were to complete and submit via email to their instructor, who would then provide feedback in the form of corrections. Class C was a control group in which students were not given corrective feedback on their written tasks. Students in Group C also had the option of handing in their assignments in person or electronically. Both approaches were practical since the experimental group's average score was much higher than the control group's. The results showed that the students in group B (Electronic Feedback) performed far better than those in class C (Traditional

</div><span class="text_page_counter">Trang 40</span><div class="page_container" data-page="40">

Feedback), indicating that the electronic feedback form was more effective and lucrative.

Maryam and Kian (2016) looked at how L2 writers might improve their article use in English via written corrective feedback. Accuracy in using the definite article "the" and the indefinite articles "a" and "an" in English were assessed throughout eight weeks in the present research, which was designed as a quantitative, experimental survey. Sixty students (20 in each group) participated in the study to determine which style of teacher-written corrective feedback is most effective in improving writing accuracy. Direct WCF was administered to the first experimental group, whereas indirect WCF was issued to the second group. Grammatical errors were not addressed in the WCF for the control group. The research results demonstrated that direct WCF had a more significant effect on academic achievement.

Manijeh (2014) researched "The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Writing Skill among Iranian EFL Students." Since Truscott (1996) said that written corrective feedback (WCF) is ineffective, detrimental, and should be abandoned, there has been a constant need for a longitudinal study on the efficacy of WCF for ESL and EFL writers. While there is some debate as to whether or not error feedback helps L2 student writers improve accuracy and overall quality of writing (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996; Truscott, 1996), the majority of studies on error correction in L2 writing classes have shown evidence that students who receive error feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time. Researchers in this research sought to determine the effects of both direct and indirect forms of corrective writing feedback on EFL students' final drafts. Students from the "Iranians" school in Ardabil, numbering sixty at the pre-intermediate level, participated. Twenty students were split into three groups: those who would get direct feedback, those who would receive indirect input, and those who would receive no feedback. There was little to no difference in the distribution of errors committed by the three groups in the first session (pretest, appendix 1). Throughout five classes, students took TOEFL examinations that included questions on both indefinite and specific nouns. Each session included twenty-two exams and forty blanks. The exams were based on three books: TOEFL Grammar Flash, Rahnama TOEFL, and Longman Preparation Course for the TOEFL Test. The therapy for the experimental group consisted of providing

</div>