Efl teachers’ perceptions and teaching practices of written corrective feedback in ielts writing courses in buon ma thuot city

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
---------------

NGUYEN NHU TIEN

EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND
TEACHING PRACTICES OF WRITTEN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN IELTS WRITING
COURSES IN BUON MA THUOT CITY

Major: English Language
Course code: 60220201

HO CHI MINH CITY, JUNE 2020


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
---------------

EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching Practices
of Written Corrective Feedback in IELTS Writing
Courses in Buon Ma Thuot City

Submitted to the
Faculty of English Language
In partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in English Language

Course code: 60220201
By

NGUYEN NHU TIEN
Supervised by
DUONG MY THAM, PH.D.

HO CHI MINH, JUNE 2020


CERTIFICATION OF THESIS DEFENSE
The thesis entitled EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching Practices of Written
Corrective Feedback in IELTS Writing Courses in Buon Ma Thuot City was
successfully defended and approved on May 27th, 2020 at Hochiminh City University
of Technology

Academic supervisor: ................................................................................................
Ms. Duong My Tham, Ph.D.

Examination Committee

1. Ms. Nguyen Thi Kieu Thu, Ph.D.

Chair

2. Mr. Pham Huy Cuong, Ph.D.

Reader 1

3. Mr. Le Van Tuyen, Ph.D.

Reader 2

4. Mr. Dinh Van Son, Ph.D.

Member

5. Mr. Lam Thanh Nam, Ph.D.

Secretary Member

On behalf of the Examination Committee
Chair

(full name, title, signature)


HCMC UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE

HCMC, June 20th 2020

MASTER’S THESIS REPORT
Student name: Nguyen Nhu Tien ……………………..Sex: Female………………………
Date of birth: ..............17/07/1994............Place of birth: Dak Lak province…………………
Major: English Language...................................Student code: 1741900083………………….
I. Thesis title:
EFL Teachers’ Perceptions and Teaching Practices of Written Corrective Feedback in
IELTS Writing Courses in Buon Ma Thuot City
II. Objectives and contents:
1. Objectives
To investigate the teachers’ beliefs about WCF and how they perceive the importance of
these practices in improving students’ writing results.

To discover how they correct essays for their learners. To this end, the researcher
attempted to explore strategies that they are using (i.e. whether they use direct CF,
indirect CF or metalinguistic (CF), criteria given in the IELTS band score that they more
concentrated on and whether they corrected every mistake or focus on areas that they
think important, and factors affecting their practices in providing WCF.
2. Contents
The study examined the perceptions and practices of providing WCF of the EFL
teachers, who were in charge of

IELTS courses in five English Centers in Buon Ma

Thuot City with the employment of a closed-ended questionnaire and semi-structured
interview. Furthermore, the teachers’ feedback on 100 essays of their students were
analyzed to investigate whether there were any differences between their perceptions
and current practices of giving WCF.
The results from document analysis showed that the teachers in the current research


preferred using direct WCF and correcting all errors appeared even though many of
them found indirect, metalinguistic, and selective WCF important for students’
improvement in their writing effectiveness. Additionally, it was revealed that most
corrective feedback focused on vocabulary, while teachers’ comments tended to relate a
learner’s response to the task. It can be concluded that teachers adopted individual
techniques and methods based on their learning experiences, students’ level, and IELTS
criteria.
III- Starting date: March 20th, 2019
IV- Completing date June 20th, 2020
V- Academic supervisor: Ms. Duong My Tham, Ph.D.
SUPERVISOR
(full name, signature)

DEAN OF FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE
((full name, signature)


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled:
“EFL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND TEACHING PRACTICES OF
WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN IELTS WRITING COURSES IN
BUON MA THUOT CITY”
In terms of the statement of requirements for Theses in Master’s programs issued by
the Higher Degree Committee of Faculty of English Language, Ho Chi Minh City
University of Technology.

Ho Chi Minh City, June 2020

NGUYEN NHU TIEN



RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, NGUYEN NHU TIEN, being a candidate for the degree of Master
of

Arts

(English

Language)

accept

the

requirements

of

the

University

relating to the retention and use of Master’s Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master’s Thesis
deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research,
in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care,
loan, and reproduction for thesis

Ho Chi Minh, June 2020

NGUYEN NHU TIEN


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Duong
My Tham, my supervisor, for her encouragement and support. Thank you, Dr. Tham,
for your patience, input, and helpful criticism and comments through the progress of
this study.

I would like to express my appreciation for my family who stood beside me and
provided continual love, encouragement, support, compassion, and patience
throughout my masters’ studies.
I also extend my gratitude to my colleagues who gave me useful feedback on the
questionnaire and assisted me in coding teachers’ feedback for some of the students’
essays.
Finally, I gratefully acknowledge Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology in
general, Postgraduate Institute and Faculty of English Language in particular for
offering me a chance to pursue my higher education and always supporting me
whenever problems arisen in the course of my study.


ABSTRACT
Teachers’ corrective feedback is widely recognized as an integral part of L2 writing
pedagogy. Researchers have investigated teachers’ perceptions and practices
concerning written corrective feedback (WCF). However, few studies investigate in
the context of preparatory courses for a specific high-stakes test like IELTS in
Vietnam. This study served to fill this gap by examining the perceptions and practices
of providing WCF of the EFL teachers, who were in charge of IELTS courses in five
English Centers in Buon Ma Thuot City with the employment of a closed-ended
questionnaire and semi-structured interview. Furthermore, the teachers’ feedback on
100 essays of their students were analyzed to investigate whether there were any
differences between their perceptions and current practices of giving WCF. The results
from document analysis showed that the teachers in the current research preferred
using direct WCF and correcting all errors appeared even though many of them found
indirect, metalinguistic, and selective WCF important for students’ improvement in
their writing effectiveness. Additionally, it was revealed that most corrective feedback
focused on vocabulary, while teachers’ comments tended to relate a learner’s response
to the task. It can be concluded that teachers adopted individual techniques and
methods based on their learning experiences, students’ level, and IELTS criteria.

(205 words)
Keywords: EFL teachers, IELTS, written corrective feedback, writing task 2


TABLE OF CONTENT
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ 2
LIST OF ABREVIATION .............................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 4
1.1.

Background to the Study..................................................................................... 4

1.2.

Statement of Problem.......................................................................................... 6

1.3.

Aim and Objectives of the Study ........................................................................ 6

1.4.

Research Questions ............................................................................................. 7

1.5.

Significance of the Study .................................................................................... 7

1.6.

Scope of the Study .............................................................................................. 8

1.7.

Definition of Key Terms ..................................................................................... 9

1.8.

Organization of the Thesis .................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................... 11
2.1.

Corrective Feedback ......................................................................................... 11

2.1.1. Definition of Feedback ................................................................................. 11
2.1.2. Error Correction and Corrective Feedback ................................................... 12
2.1.3. Role of Corrective Feedback ........................................................................ 13
2.2.

Written Corrective Feedback ............................................................................ 15

2.2.1. Definition of Written Corrective Feedback .................................................. 15
2.2.2. Types of Written Corrective Feedback ......................................................... 16
2.2.3. Extent of Written Corrective Feedback ........................................................ 19


2.2.4. The Use of WCF ........................................................................................... 19
2.3.

Written Corrective Feedback in IELTS Writing .............................................. 21

2.3.1. Academic IELTS Writing Test ..................................................................... 21
2.3.2. IELTS Writing Task 2 Evaluation ................................................................ 22
2.3.3. Feedback in Academic Writing .................................................................... 24
2.4.

Teacher’s Perceptions of WCF ......................................................................... 25

2.4.1. Teacher’s Perceptions ................................................................................... 25
2.4.2. Effects of WCF ............................................................................................. 26
2.4.3. Factors Affecting Teachers’ Practices of WCF ............................................ 28
2.5.

Previous Studies ................................................................................................ 29

2.5.1. WCF in the International Context ................................................................. 29
2.5.2. WCF in the Vietnamese EFL Context .......................................................... 31
2.6.

Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................... 33

2.7.

Summary ........................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................... 35
3.1.

Research Questions ........................................................................................... 35

3.2.

Research Design................................................................................................ 35

3.3.

Research Site ..................................................................................................... 36

3.4.

Sample and Sampling Procedures..................................................................... 37

3.4.1. Sample........................................................................................................... 37
3.4.2. Sampling Procedures .................................................................................... 38
3.5.

Research Instruments ........................................................................................ 39

3.5.1. Closed-ended Questionnaire ......................................................................... 39
3.5.2. Semi-structured Interview............................................................................. 40
3.5.3. Document Analysis ....................................................................................... 41


3.5.4. Pilot Study..................................................................................................... 42
3.5.4.1.

PILOT STUDY FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................... 42

3.5.4.2.

PILOT STUDY FOR THE INTERVIEW .................................................... 43

3.5.4.3.

PILOT FOR THE DOCUMENT ANALYSIS ............................................. 44

3.6.

Data Collection and Analysis Procedures ......................................................... 45

3.6.1. Questionnaire ................................................................................................ 46
3.6.2. Interview ....................................................................................................... 47
3.6.3. Document Analysis ....................................................................................... 47
3.7. Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................... 49
3.7.1. Questionnaire .................................................................................................. 49
3.7.2. Interview ......................................................................................................... 50
3.7.3. Document Analysis ......................................................................................... 50
3.7.4. Ethical Issues .................................................................................................. 51
3.8.

Summary ........................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................ 52
4.1 Results ..................................................................................................................... 52
4.1.1. Teacher’s Perceptions of WCF ....................................................................... 52
4.1.1.1. Teachers’ General Perceptions of WCF ...................................................... 53
4.1.1.2. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Effects of WCF ............................................. 57
4.1.2.3. Factors Affecting Teachers’ Process of Giving WCF ................................. 63

4.1.2. Teachers’ Practices on Written Corrective Feedback ................................... 65
4.1.2.1. The Frequency of Giving WCF ................................................................... 65
4.1.2.2. WCF Strategies Applied in the Correction of Students’ IELTS Writing. ... 66
4.1.2.3. The Focus of Language Areas ..................................................................... 72
4.2.

Discussion ......................................................................................................... 76


4.2.1. Teachers’ Perceptions of WCF ..................................................................... 76
4.2.1.1.

Providing WCF: Teachers’ Responsibility. .............................................. 76

4.2.1.2.

WCF: A Challenging Task ....................................................................... 77

4.2.1.3.

The Effects of WCF in IELTS Writing Classes ....................................... 78

4.2.2.1.

Factors Influencing Teachers’ Practices ................................................... 79

4.2.3. Teachers’ Practices of WCF ......................................................................... 81
4.2.3.1.

Teachers’ Comments ................................................................................ 81

4.2.3.2.

The Extent of WCF ................................................................................... 82

4.2.3.3.

The Application of WCF Types................................................................ 84

4.2.3.4.

The Focus of Language Areas .................................................................. 85

4.3.

Summary ........................................................................................................... 87

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 88
5.1. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 88
5.2. Implications............................................................................................................ 89
5.2.1. Implications for Language Centers ................................................................. 89
5.2.2. Implications for Teachers ............................................................................... 90
5.2.3. Implications for Administrators ...................................................................... 91
5.3. Limitations of the Study ........................................................................................ 91
5.4. Recommendations for Further Research................................................................ 92
5.5 Summary ................................................................................................................. 92
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 93
APPENDIX A: Questionnaire (English Version) ....................................................... 107
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire (Vietnamese Version) ................................................ 112
APPENDIX C: Interview Questions (English Version) ............................................. 117

APPENDIX D: Interview Questions (Vietnamese Version) ...................................... 119
APPENDIX E: Writing Error Codes .......................................................................... 125


LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Demographic characteristics of teachers participating in the survey ................... 38
Table 3.2 Research questions in relation to instruments and data analysis .......................... 44
Table 3.3 Categorizations of feedback points according to the IELTS Writing Task 2 band
descriptor................................................................................................................................ 48
Table 3.4 Reliability Statistics on the Items Regarding Teacher’s perceptions of WCF ....... 49
Table 3.5 Reliability Statistics on the Items Regarding Teacher’s practices of WCF ........... 50
Table 4.1 Results of the general perceptions of WCF ............................................................ 53
Table 4.2 Results of teachers’ perceptions of the effects of WCF .......................................... 57
Table 4.3 Results of teachers’ perceptions of the effects of WCF on students’ knowledge ... 58
Table 4.4 Results of teachers’ perceptions of the effects of WCF on students’ writing skills ...
................................................................................................................................................ 59
Table 4.5 Results of teachers’ perceptions of the effects of WCF on students’ attitudes ...... 61
Table 4.6 The frequency in the use of each types of WCF ..................................................... 65
Table 4.7 Results of areas of language that teachers focus on .............................................. 70
Table 4.8 Proportion of feedback points by IELTS task 2 criteria. 72 .................................. 73
Table 4.9 Results of factors affecting teachers’ process of giving WCF .............................. 74

1


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Conceptual Framework of the Study ................................................................... 35
Figure 3.1 Data Collection and Analysis Procedure ............................................................. 46

Figure 4.1 Results of feedback types marked in 100 IELTS essays ........................................ 66
Figure 4.2 Example of direct feedback ................................................................................... 67
Figure 4.3 Example of direct feedback with marking codes .................................................. 67
Figure 4.4 Example of indirect feedback ................................................................................ 68
Figure 4.5 Example of metalinguistic feedback ..................................................................... 68
Figure 4.6 Results of rate of essays corrected by selective and comprehensive strategies ... 68

2


LIST OF ABREVIATION
AWT1

Academic Writing Task 1

AWT2

Academic Writing Task 2

CF

Corrective Feedback

EFL

English as a Foreign Language

ESL

English as a Second Language

IELTS

International English Language Testing System

SP

Spelling

SPSS

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

WCF

Written Corrective Feedback

3


Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the Study
The proliferation of the English language has been tremendously impacting
numerous countries all over the world since it encourages the development in businesses
and tourism through globalization and allows people from underdeveloped nations to get
access to the quality education in developed ones. Fishman (1988) proved that on the
internet, more than 80% of the sites use English as the medium language while 20% of the
rest use the other languages such as Indonesian, Chinese, and others. It indicates that if
people do not learn English as their second language, they will only acquire less than 20%
of the new knowledge, for nowadays new knowledge is mostly shared through the internet.

English is considered to be a prerequisite for people seeking quality education in developed
countries and a high paying job in multinational corporations.
Among the four skills in standardized tests, writing remains a popular way to
evaluate learners’ proficiency in English, especially for academic purposes (White, 1987).
International English Language Testing System (IELTS), has seen a considerable increase
in the number of test-takers all over the world for many years. Every year, there are about
three million people in the world who take the test (IELTS, 2017) because it is a widely held
view that IELTS is a high-stake test providing reliable evidence of the English level
(Green, 2006). In Vietnam, IELTS has gradually become popular because it is a key factor
for individuals to work in multi-national companies or study abroad. However, according to
the statistic from research by the IELTS council in 2017, Vietnamese test-takers receive the
lowest point in writing among four skills. Sachs & Polio (2007) asserts that writing,
especially to English as a second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL)
learners, requires teachers to have good language proficiency and make a considerable effort
to help students improve it. That is why teachers and educators are always in seek of
developing writing skills in the second language. One method which is commonly

4


employed to help students to learn how to improve their writing is the provision of
feedback. Giving feedback is seen as an essential part for ESL/EFL teachers and students in
writing.
According to Evans et al. (2010), corrective feedback is an educational practice that
associates nearly everything we acquire through study. In terms of language study, “the
term corrective feedback relates to any feedback provided to a learner, from any source, that
contains evidence of learner error of language form” (Russell & Spada, p. 134, 2006).
Negative evidence by Truscott (1996) has proved that Corrective Feedback (CF) is harmful
and ineffective for learners has promoted vigorous debates on whether or not CF should be
used in writing instruction. The research proving negative effects when applying CF has

caused contradictories among most of the researchers. Even until recently, the studies on
Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) have indicated specific types of WCF such as Focused,
Unfocused, Direct and Indirect WCF which enable students’ writing improvement by
conducting the experimental study. Although extensive research has been conducted on
WCF/CF, most research investigates the efficiency of one or some types of WCF. Limited
available studies have a profound look at teachers’ perspectives on teaching writing to
IELTS candidates, especially in the Vietnamese context.
In addition to teaching capacity, teachers’ perceptions of teaching and learning also
make a significant impact on their feedback practices. In fact, how they think and what they
do in the classroom decides their choice of teaching approaches (Griffiths, 2007). Therefore,
the research sought to learn more about how IELTS teachers in several English centers in
Buon Ma Thuot city perceive and provide Written corrective feedback and what factors
influence their practice. Our ultimate aim is to use the data from the present study and the
literature review on WFB, to launch a workshop helping teachers to develop a clearer
understanding of effective WFB and improve their practice accordingly. Besides, it will be a
foundation for the establishment of an assessment system for IELTS in the language center
at which the researcher is working.

5


1.2. Statement of Problem
There have been ongoing debates on the value of feedback in the literature for several
decades. According to Truscott (1996), teachers’ approach to WCF in their class may bring
negative results to not only students but also themselves if it is not used correctly. The
inefficient practice of providing feedback is time-consuming and causes both teachers and
students frustration (Truscott, 1996). Mullick and Sheesh (2008) also mentioned in their
study that EFL teachers did not use proper instructional strategies in the classroom while
they are teaching their students. For this reason, students face many difficulties and
problems in improving their writing skills.

According to recent test results from the Educational Testing Service (ETS), writing
has been the most problematic to Vietnamese test-takers. It has been reported that the
inaccuracy in the use of word and grammar affects their results in language international
exams like IELTS or TOEFL. According to Vygotsky (1978), students need support from
those who are considered to be experts to check and correct their work during the language
acquisition process. Therefore, the introduction of WCF in teaching writing is considered to
be important to improve students’ writing skills.
Despite the wide-ranging literature on how WCF in L2 writing, there are limited
studies on the perceptions and practices of teachers teaching academic writing, especially
when it comes to international academic tests like IELTS. While it remains some features
and disciplines of other types of writing, different criteria are specifically established for
IELTS and the purpose of learners going to take the IELTS test might affect the way
teachers provide WCF. That is why this study aims to investigate the perceptions of teachers
about WCF and their teaching practices in IELTS courses.
1.3. Aim and Objectives of the Study
The main aim of this study is to investigate teachers’ perceptions and practices of
WCF in IELTS writing courses in Buon Ma Thuot City, and it is expected to be significant
at both theoretical and practical levels.

6


More specifically, based on the current situation of teaching at English centers in
Buon Ma Thuot City, this study was conducted in an attempt:
-

To investigate the teachers’ perceptions of WCF and how they perceive the
importance of these practices in improving students’ writing results, and factors
affecting their practices in providing WCF.

-

To discover how they correct essays for their learners. To this end, the researcher
attempted to explore strategies that they are using (i.e. whether they use direct CF,
indirect CF or metalinguistic CF), criteria given in the IELTS band score that they
more concentrated on and whether they corrected every mistake or focus on areas
that they think important.

1.4. Research Questions
a) How do the teachers teaching IELTS writing in English language centers in Buon Ma
Thuot City perceive written corrective feedback?
b) How do the teachers provide written corrective feedback to their students?
1.5. Significance of the Study
The effectiveness of WCF has been a debating topic when some researchers proved
its counter effects on students on students' learning process as well as their attitude to
study (e.g. Truscott,1999). Therefore, at the theoretical levels, the findings of this study
would provide teachers with information about how IELTS teachers perceive and their
current practices of giving WCF, which may contribute to the existing knowledge of WCF
and enrich the literature of the field of foreign language teaching in a non-native speaking
context like Vietnam.
At a practical level, this study facilitates a better understanding of teachers about the
nature of WCF as well as the advantages and disadvantages when using each type of WCF.
Because of this, they will have a wider choice to consider the techniques to correct
students’ work which helps to motivate students’ learning. Besides, the research lays a

7


foundation for teachers to adjust their teaching approaches, which eventually benefits
students. Furthermore, this study provides educational institutions, especially English

centers, an essential opportunity to advance the horizon of CF. This is a background
foundation for their consideration to organize training sessions about related topics to
improve the teaching quality of the IELTS courses as well as adjust the course
accordingly.
1.6. Scope of the Study
Among various English centers in Buon Ma Thuot, only two were collected for the
interview and document analysis according to the criteria of the research. The study
concentrated on the investigation in teachers’ perception of WCF and their tendency to give
WCF. In terms of teachers’ perception, the researcher would like to explore their general
perceptions of WCF. The teachers’ tendency to give WCF was found out by the
identification of the types of WCF that were used by the teachers and areas of language that
were focused on.
Teachers chosen for this research were restricted to those who already obtained at
least a B.A degree because it is a widely-held view that good background knowledge in
English teaching might allow teachers to understand more clearly about WCF. The
teachers were required to have experience in giving feedback on the IELTS writing
composition of students. One hundred IELTS writing task 2 essays provided by ten
teachers in the survey were written by students from their latest IELTS course as teachers’
perceptions and practices of WCF change from time to time. There were two tasks given
in an IELTS writing test.
However, within the limited allowed time, only IELTS writing task 2 essays were
chosen because it was the longer and more difficult task which requires more effort for
students to write and for teachers to give proper corrective feedback.

8


1.7. Definition of Key Terms
Corrective feedback is “any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is
incorrect” (Lightbown & Spada, 1999, p.171). This is a common practice that is applied

widely in the education field, especially in language teaching. It involves students’ reception
of feedback in both formal and informal ways from their teachers.
Written corrective feedback in this study involves feedback given by EFL teachers on the
use of language in a student’s IELTS writing essay.
Perception in the study reflects how they think about WCF and its effects on students’
uptake and attitude.
Practice is the actual application of WCF in teachers’ IELTS writing classes including
strategies they use when giving WCF and how the IELTS writing band descriptor is applied
IELTS teachers are those from selected English centers in Buon Ma Thuot who are teaching
the IELTS class.
AWT2, or Academic writing task 2 in IELTS writing tests, helps to identify test-takers’
ability to respond by expressing their opinion, outlining problems, determine solutions
which are supported by arguments, reasons, and examples, based on their knowledge and
experience.
IELTS Writing Band Descriptor, known as marking criteria, is used by teachers as a
reference when giving IELTS scores to students. The descriptors contain four criteria: Task
Achievement/Task

Response;

Coherence

and

Cohesion;

Lexical

Resource;

and

Grammatical Range and Accuracy with equal weighting.
1.8.

Organization of the Thesis

This thesis includes 5 chapters as follows:
Chapter 1: Introduction- This chapter gives an initial overview of the thesis which sets the
general context of the research. Eight sections are of this chapter is presented in sequence,
including “Background to the study”, “Statement of the problem”, “Aims and objectives of
the study”, “Research Questions”, “Scope of the study”, “Significance of the study”,
“Definitions of the key terms”, and “Organization of the thesis”.

9


Chapter 2: Literature review-This chapter presents the theoretical background of some
previous studies and it is composed of 2 main sections: theoretical foundation of CF and
WCF, and previous studies relating to teachers’ perception of WCF. The main aim of this
part is supporting the researcher to back up the researcher’s thesis by employing and delving
into previous studies in the field.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology-This chapter presents the research methods that were
employed to conduct this study. This chapter access into detailed and carefully designed
methods of collecting, analyzing and illustrating the data to answer the research questions.
The major research instruments: interview, document analysis, and questionnaire are
identified. This chapter includes sections Research design, Instruments, Data collection, and
analysis procedure.
Chapter 4: Results and Discussions- the findings and discussion of the findings of the
study are presented in this chapter following the order of the research questions. The

findings of research question 1 are demonstrated first, and it is followed by research
question 2. After that, the discussion for the findings is provided.
Chapter 5: Conclusion -the last chapter includes a summary of research findings, an
explanation about the inevitable limitations of the thesis, and suggestions for further fieldrelated studies. Finally, recommendations for further studies are put forward along with
some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the study.

10