Suggestions for ESL teachers to write feedback in ESL learners’ writing

SỞ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TỈNH VĨNH PHÚC
TRƯỜNG TRUNG HỌC PHỔ THÔNG CHUYÊN VĨNH PHÚC

BÁO CÁO CHUYÊN ĐỀ
Suggestions for ESL Teachers to Write Feedback
in ESL Learners’ Writing.
Môn
Tổ bộ môn
Người thực hiện
Điện thoại
Email

: Tiếng Anh
: Ngoại Ngữ
: Nguyễn Thị Thanh Nhân
: 0912.468.689
:

Vĩnh Yên, tháng 5, năm 2015


TABLE OF CONTENT
Content

Page

Chapter I. Introduction
1. Background
2. Rationale
3. Research questions
4. Scope of the study

Chapter II. Literature review
1. Definition of feedback and correctives
2. Corrective feedback in second language acquisition
3. Teachers’ written corrective feedback
4. Corrective feedback in writing: some related issues
4.1. Accuracy and fluency in writing
4.2. Teacher response to students’ writing
4.2.1. Form and content
4.2.2. Direct feedback and indirect feedback
4.2.3. Timing of feedback and correctives
4.3. Corrective feedback in writing: Teachers’ beliefs and practices
4.4. Corrective feedback: students’ preferences

6
6
7
7
7
8
8

Chapter III. Methodology.
1. The selection of subjects
2. Data collection instruments.
3. Data collection procedure

9
9
9

Chapter 4. Findings and Discussion
Chapter 5. Recommendation and Conclusion

10
12

Appendices
Reference

14
17

2
2
3
3
4
5
6

2


Chapter I. Introduction
1. Background
Vinh Phuc Gifted High School where I work as a full-time teacher is well-known
for its education quality with about 900 students who are selected into 30 classes
majoring in 10 subjects – Mathematics, Informatics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology,
History, Geography, Literature, English and French. All of the students who come from
different parts of the province have to take part in the high school entrance exam and a

special exam for selecting gifted students which are held in July every year. So Vinh
Phuc Gifted High School is home to develop the talented.
In Vietnam, English is a compulsory subject and nowadays all people are aware
of its importance in the modern life. At Vinh Phuc Gifted High School, English is taken
under much consideration. Beside the major subjects, all of our students are required to
study well in three main subjects- Maths, Literature and English , hence, it is undeniable
that our students’ attitude toward English as well as their English proficiency is rather
good and they are really interested in learning English. In conclusion, Vinh Phuc Gifted
High School is a good environment to learn and teach English.
I am in charge of teaching grade 10A8- a gifted class of English. There are 33
students in my class and their attitude toward English as well as their English
proficiency is rather good. Because of being a gifted class of English, my students have
to master four basic skills of English at advanced level. Among four skills, writing
seems to be the most difficult but important. Hence, helping students enhance their
writing skills is one of the teachers’ responsibilities. This can be done in numerous
ways, but feedback is considered crucial for stimulating and consolidating learning and
its significance has been recognized by those who work in the field of second language
learning especially in second language writing. For this importance, I am really
interested in investigating the effective ways of giving feedback in second language
learning (ESL) learners’ writing.
2. Rationale
Feedback plays a very crucial role in motivating further learning as it informs
learners about the degree of their learning or their needs for improvement. Brown
(1994) considers feedback as one of the key to successful learning process. Many
researchers such as Chiu (2008), Zhang (2008), Min (2006) or Paulus (1990) have
proved that feedback which is employed in both forms of verbal and written
commentary constitutes an important aspect of fostering the improvement of writing.
Obviously, feedback is an essential component of any English language writing course.
According to Saito (1994) students prefer teacher written feedback to alternative
forms such as oral and peer feedback. Mostly students from cultures that see a teacher

as the only source of authority value teacher revision more highly than other methods
because they have confidence in the teacher’s knowledge and skill in English. Teacher
written feedback or handwritten commentary is a primary method to respond to
3


students’ essays to assist students’ writing development; teacher written comments on
the students’ drafts indicate problems and make suggestions for improvement of future
papers. Through feedback teachers can help students compare their own performance
with the ideal and to diagnose their own strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is high
time for me to do a research on “Suggestions for ESL Teachers to Write Feedback in
ESL Learners’ Writing.” with the hope that my students can improve their writing skill
via my feedback and the findings of the research might be used by other teachers in
giving feedback to students’ writing.
3. Research questions
Searching effective ways of giving feedback in ESL learners’ writing, I really want
to find the answers for the two questions below.
1. What are my students’ preferences when receiving feedback?
2. What are effective ways of giving feedback in ELS learners’ writing?
4. Scope of the study
It is the fact that, feedback in writing is such a huge topic that it attracts much
consideration from many ESL researchers. From a purely practical demand, this study
is conducted to investigate the needs of students in teacher written feedback and provide
some suggestions for ESL teachers to give feedback effectively.

4


Chapter II. Literature review
In this part, all the aspects concerning the hypotheses inspiring the research will

be discussed. The review is drawn from previous studies done by famous applied
linguists.
1. Definition of feedback and correctives
Feedback is information given back to individuals about the adequacy of their
actions. Feedback is a reaction to a stimulus by the others. Feedback also serves a
regulatory function in that it prompts individuals to keep on tracks towards a specified
goal and Cole & Chan (1994) indicated that the aim of feedback should be to make
individuals think about giving better responses.
Correctives are extended from feedback. According to Cole & Chan (1994),
correctives include augmented feedback given to students as well as instructional
procedures intended to rectify errors and inadequacies in learning. They also include
prompts, hints, suggestion regarding strategy use, reminders about methods, further
demonstrations and explanations to abandon inefficient strategies. Therefore,
correctives are often necessary in classes.
2. Corrective feedback in second language acquisition
There are various terms used in identifying errors and providing corrective
feedback in the SLA literature. Among them, Long’s points (1996) is the most
comprehensive. In Long’s view, the environmental input can be thought of in terms of
two categories that are provided to the learners about the target language (TL): positive
evidence and negative evidence. Long defines positive evidence as providing the
learners with models of what is grammatical and acceptable in the TL; and negative
evidence as providing the learners with direct and indirect information about what is
unacceptable. This information may be:
Explicit (e.g., grammatical explanation or overt correction) or implicit (e.g.,
failure to understand, incidental error correction in a response, such as a confirmation
check, which reformulates the learners’ utterance without interrupting the flow of the
conversation- in which case, the negative feedback simultaneously provides additional
positive evidence- and perhaps also the absence of the items in the input
(p.413)
3. Teachers’ written corrective feedback

There are many feedback modes in writing corrective feedback including peer
feedback, self-monitoring, computer-mediated feedback, teachers’ written corrective
feedback and teacher-student conferencing. Due to the limitation of the study, only
teachers’ written corrective feedback is concerned.
According to Li (2009), many teachers have a notion that it is necessary for them
to write substantial comments on writing papers to provide reader reaction to students’
effort, to help them improve as writers and to justify the grade given.
5


One important point of using written feedback is that it serves as the motivation
factor in the ESL writing process. Ellis (1994) reminds that students’ motivation is
closely linked to language acquisition. In order to motivate students, the writing
teachers can include comments of praise and encouragements in their written feedback
which can help students clarify meaning in their rewriting. Additionally, the teachers’
use of referential or open questions may result in more meaning negotiation and more
complex learner output.
However, Hyland (2006) also pointed out some challenges that teachers can
encounter while writing feedback in students’ writing. Early research on native English
speakers (L1) suggested that much written feedback was of poor quality and was
frequently misunderstood by students. Written response was considered vague,
inconsistent and authoritarian, overly concerned with error and often functioning to
appropriate, or take over, students’ texts by being too directive.
Li (2009) declared that in Chinese EFL writing context, there is usually no
variety in teacher feedback technique. Teachers find it time-consuming and laborintensive when marking and correcting students’ writings; therefore, they often ignore
reviewing students’ writing word by word and correcting every single problem of
students. That is the reason why students seldom reflect on the mistakes they have made
and the teachers’ great efforts are not fully valued. Literature on how to make this
conventional feedback mode benefit students better will be discussed further in
subsequent parts of this thesis.

4. Corrective feedback in writing: some related issues
4.1. Accuracy/ fluency in writing
Accuracy/ fluency in writing is controversial issue in ESL/ EFL teaching field.
River (1968) recognized that sheer accuracy was unreasonable, but without it, academic
writing would suffer markedly. However, Zamel (1982), stressed on the need of writing
in second and foreign language classrooms as a process of discovery, emphasis on
errors and rhetorical forms can inhibit this process. For the ESL teachers, it is really
confusing and there is something of dilemma. Hence, it is suggested to adopt a balanced
approach, allowing students to produce their own ideas in written form with guidance
from the teacher in order to produce correct form (Brumfit, 1984, cited in Humphired,
1996). He also notes that it is possible to create conditions for group revision and
improvement of written work, so the accuracy is turned into something of a conscious
but relatively spontaneous exercise, for talking about accuracy may be fluency talk.

4.2. Teacher response to students’ writing
4.2.1. Form and content
6


The second language research on composition has focused much on both how
teachers correct form and content. In an experimental research study, Fathman and
Whalley (1990), students in various classes were randomly divided into four groups.
Each group received a different kind of teacher feedback on their compositions (no
feedback, grammar feedback only, content feedback only, both grammar and content
feedback). The results from this study reveal that grammar and content feedback,
whether given alone or simultaneously, affects rewriting positively. The identification
of the location of errors by the teachers seems to be an effective means of helping
students correct their grammar errors. Furthermore, grammar feedback by the teachers
in the study had more effect than content feedback. This might be due to the fact that
the content feedback was not text specific and was more general than the grammar

feedback that clearly shown specific grammar errors. The results of this study also
suggest that when grammar and content feedback are presented at the same time, the
content of rewrites improves approximately as much as when the content feedback is
only given. Focus on grammar does not negatively affects the content of writing. This
would further affirm that students can improve their writing where content and form
feedback is provided simultaneously.
4.2.2. Direct feedback and indirect feedback
Direct error feedback is provided when the correct form is written on students’
papers while indirect error feedback is provided if the teachers indicates the location of
the error indirectly by underlining, highlighting or circling or indirectly by indicating in
the margins that there is an error on that line but without providing correct form (Lee,
2005). Indirect feedback is regarded as coded error feedback if the indication is done by
a symbol representing a specific kind of error such as “Sp” for spelling, “T’ for verb
tense. If the indication of the errors is done by the kind of error (spelling, verb tense), it
is called uncoded error feedback. In indirect feedback, the students are required both to
identify the types of errors and to self correct the error meanwhile in direct feedback,
what students have to do is transcribe the teacher’s corrections into the paper (Ferris,
2003) and much research evidence indicates that indirect error feedback is more helpful
on long-term writing development than direct error feedback.
4.2.3. Timing of feedback and correctives
According to Cole and Chan (1994), teachers should give feedback and
correctives after students have made genuine attempts to complete assigned tasks. It is
vital for teachers to give frequent feedback and correctives during the early stages of
learning a new subject matter. Student will learn more quickly if regular feedback is
available during the initial stages of learning. If early errors in the process of acquiring
new knowledge are uncorrected, they may interfere with subsequent learning.
Moreover, when students are allowed to practice errors, inappropriate ways of writing
gradually consolidated and such persistent errors can be difficult to eradicate (Cole &
Chan, 1994)
7

4.3. Corrective feedback in writing: Teachers’ beliefs and practices|
In a case study with a view to investigate ESL teachers’ feedback practices, Diab
(2005) explored that the teachers in his study seemed to focus on grammar issues
including punctuation, spelling and clarity. Beside grammar and sentence-level
feedback, the teachers in his study also paid attention to correct content-level issues
such as structure, organization, development, logic and consistency, attention to
audience, and focus on thesis statement. For such positive findings, he believed that
feedback to content is essential in responding to students’ writing.
In Saito’s 1994 survey, she provides more details on teachers’ practices of giving
feedback by observing the classes and collecting students’ compositions in three ESL
writing classes. In the first class, the teacher focused on facilitating rhetorical
development throughout particular stages of students’ writing: planning, writing and
revising. The feedback she gave to the students was thinking prompts. For grammatical
and other surface errors she just circled or underlined them, no correction was made. In
the second class, the teacher paid attention to content and organization of compositions.
She provided both oral and written feedback to individuals while they were writing and
the final drafts were usually done at home. In the third class, the teacher advised
students to do free writing basing on brainstorming ideas, then they were instructed to
edit the first draft. While students were doing this, the teacher went around the class and
gave feedback to individual student. After that students were asked to produce the final
draft. It is clear that teachers seemed to focus on content of students’ writing than the
form.
4.4. Corrective feedback: students’ preferences
According to Radecki & Swales (1988, cited in Hyland 2006), surveys of
students’ feedback preferences widely indicate that ESL students greatly value teacher
written feedback and consistently rate it more highly than alternative forms such as peer
and oral correction. Meanwhile, in Odalejo’s 2003 survey, the majority of learners in
his study agreed that errors of organization of ideas, vocabulary and grammar should be

best corrected by the teacher whereas spelling and punctuation mistakes should be taken
care of by students themselves.
In terms of what aspects in students’ writing should be treated with feedback
most surveys show that students want teacher feedback to highlight their grammatical
errors, some indicate that they also want teachers to give them feedback on the content
and ideas in their writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). However, in Odalejo’s
experiment (2003), errors related to organization of ideas should receive highest
attention for correction. Grammar treatment rank next in the order of preferences with
more than 96% of the learners indicating that this error type deserve high attention or
some attention.
In Leki’s (2006) research on students’ opinions about the value of written
feedback, most students reported that they found feedback very useful but many also
8


said that they would have liked even more, especially feedback helping them to identify
problems and giving them information about academic and disciplinary expectations.
They also wanted their feedback to have a dual content/ language focus. Hence, there
must be a need for more investigations to address question on how L2 instructors /
teachers can work to meet students’ need.
Chapter III. Methodology
3.1. The selection of subjects
To answer the questions of the research which aims at obtaining information on
what students’ preferences are when receiving written feedback from the teachers and
then find some suggestions for teachers to give feedback in teaching writing in second
language classes. 33 students, mostly females, 18 years old in grade 12A8, Vinh Phuc
Gifted High School are chosen. Their English proficiency is rated as intermediate with
some ranked at upper-intermediate.
The secondary structure approach was also chosen while doing this research
paper. 7 articles relating to the research questions of teacher written feedback on ESL

learners’ writing skill were selected for analysis. Three of them was retrieved from
Journal of Second Language Writing and two from Modern Language Journal, one was
taken from Journal of Higher Education and the other from TESL Canada Journal,
which are respectively published in ....by professional disciplinary associations. The
other internet- based full articles in PDF or WORD format were carefully chosen,
basing on website’s reliability as well as the high number of citations. The rest came
from books written by worldwide well- known authors in my research field such as
Brookhart, Ferris, D.R,Hyland,....I believe strongly that the selection of all the above
writings was significantly contributed toward examining the research paper.
3.2. Data collection instruments.
For the purpose of obtaining needed information, questionnaires are employed
(see Appendix). The questionnaires include 2 questions. The first questions aims at
finding students’ preferences in receiving writing feedback, the second question
investigates at which stage of writing students prefer getting corrective feedback..
3.3. Data collection procedure
The questionnaires was conducted on Friday morning, 6 th, September, 2013 on
class 12A8, Vinh Phuc Gifted High School with 33 students in total. As I am also in
charge of being the form teacher of the class, all of my students are eager to engage into
my research.
Chapter 4. Results and Discussion
9


In this part, I present the interpretation of quantitative data and detailed
consideration of survey results from 7 chosen articles in relation to relevant published
work as well as my personal calculation and estimations. The aim of this part is to
provide closer look at individual points of view on different aspects related to corrective
feedback as a way of finding out some effective ways for teachers to write feedback in
students’ writing in order to improve students’ writing skill.
Question 1: In your opinion, should your writing be corrected?

N
o.

Strongly
disagreed

Disagreed Agreed

1

Teachers should correct and
comment your writing in written
feedback

2

Teachers should pay attention to the
organization of your writing when
giving written feedback

36%

3

Teachers should pay attention to the
content of your writing when giving
written feedback

33,4%

4

Teachers should pay attention to
vocabulary of your writing when
giving written feedback

51,5%

5

Teachers should pay attention to
grammar of your writing when
giving written feedback

100%

6

Teachers should pay attention to the
punctuation and spelling of your
writing when giving written
feedback

33,4%

7

Teachers should point out students’
errors directly

54,5%

45,5%

8

Teachers should point out students’
errors indirectly

45,5%

54,5%

9

When giving feedback, teacher
should provide advice and include
explanations, and employed openended questions.

Strongly
agreed
100%

64%

66,6%

48,5%

66,6%

100%

10


10 When giving feedback, teachers
.
should comment positively and
praise on students’ writing

3,3

9,9

42,4

44,4

Overall the analysis of all the answers showed that teacher written feedback plays
a great role in ESL writing (100%). The ESL learners seemed to believe that their
teachers are able to help them to improve their ESL writing. At the same time, they find
teacher written feedback helpful in general for their writing are able to give some input
in enhancing their writing. They believe that learning to write essays using this
combined method is beneficial because they can get different opinions from different
people. All the students perceived some form of improvement in their writing with the
combination approach. The students seemed convinced that they could improve their
writing with assistance from both their teachers.
In ESL/EFL writing classes, all of the students agreed that grammatical
correction feedback represents one of the most crucial aspects of improving learners’

writing (100%). The findings showed that marginal comments, requests for
clarification, and comments on grammatical issues led to the most effective revisions.
ESL students attach a great deal of importance to writing accuracy and are eager to
obtain the teacher’s comments on their errors. They expect teachers to comment on
their written errors and are frustrated if this does not happen and grammar feedback has
been viewed as helpful by ESL students.
Although most students require teacher feedback to highlight their grammatical
errors, some (66,6 %) reveal that they also want teachers to give them feedback on the
content and ideas in their writing. The students also indicated that they preferred
comments that provided advice, included explanations, and employed open-ended
questions. Therefore, when giving feedback on student errors, writing teachers should
also give students comments on their content and provide several tips on how to
improve their writing. As Chi (1999) points out, students appreciate comments that
reflect the teacher’s involvement and engage them in an exchange about their writing.
Direct feedback is a technique of correcting students’ error by giving an explicit
written correction. On the other hand, indirect feedback is when the teacher indicates
that an error has been made by means of an underline, circle, code, etc. Both methods
can improve student’s writing, and a number of students (54,5%) think that indirect
feedback is generally more appropriate and effective than direct feedback .
In addition, when students feel that indirect feedback is useful in encouraging
them to reflect on aspects of their writing and to develop improvements (Miceli, 2006).
Indirect feedback can be done by a code representing a specific kind of error. When
giving indirect feedback, teachers underline errors and use codes to indicate the type of
error such as SP (spelling error), P (fault in punctuation), and VT (wrong verb tense).
11


This method gives students the opportunity to fix errors themselves. However, teachers
should familiarize their students with the codes, so that they will not be surprised when
they see teacher written comments.

However, direct feedback can be more beneficial to students in some contexts,
especially when revising syntax and vocabulary (Miceli, 2006). According to Ferris
(2002), direct feedback is appropriate, however, (1) for beginner students; (2) when
errors are ‘untreatable’, i.e., errors not amenable to self-correction such as sentence
structure and word choice and (3) when teachers want to draw students’ attention to
other error patterns which require student correction. However, when giving direct
feedback, teachers should also give them clear explanations about grammatical errors so
that they can deepen their English knowledge. Also, a combination of direct and
indirect feedback can be used for students in large mixed ability classes.
For the motivation and praise from teacher on students’ writing, the number of
students (86,8%) agreed about this surmounted the number of students who were
against. It is the fact that, many researchers also indicated that the role of teachers in
providing effective feedback for ESL learners is essential. Writing teachers should not
simply respond to grammar and content but should include comments of praise and
encouragement in their written feedback.
Question 2. If your teacher asks you to revise your writing, when do you prefer
your teacher to provide corrective feedback?
Among 33 responses to this question, 29 students (87,8%) wanted to receive
feedback from their teacher in every draft. It is clear that students see the surpassing
benefits of intermediate feedback over delayed feedback. However, according to Cole
and Chan (1989), one principle regarding the timing of feedback is that it is vital for
teachers to give frequent feedback and corrective during the early stages of learning a
new subject matter. Students will learn more quickly if regular feedback is available
during the initial stages of learning. If early errors in the process of acquiring new
knowledge are uncorrected, they may interfere with subsequent learning. Furthermore,
when students are allowed to practice errors, inappropriate ways of writing gradually
consolidated and such persistent errors can be difficult to eradicate.

Chapter 5. Recommendations and Conclusion
1. Recommendations

12


This study contributes to research in highlighting students’ positive thinking of the
important role of teacher written feedback in developing students’ writing skills. An
important implication for ESL writing is that although teacher feedback is considered
more effective by many students, feedback methods with appropriately applied to
students may well serve as an important supporting role in helping learners in their
writing. A combination of both types of feedback methods is thus crucial in the effort to
improve students’ writing in the ESL classroom.
On the other hand, teachers should be aware of the importance of providing
effective feedback for the development of ESL learners’ thinking and writing. Feedback
can encourage and advance student learning if it focuses on ‘growth rather than
grading’ (Sadler, 1983: 60). To make use of its full potential, students must be able to
self-manage learning and lecturers have a role in encouraging and motivating this
ability within students (Nicol and MacFarlane-Dick, 2006). Thus, teachers may present
themselves as helpful facilitators offering support and guidance.
Lastly, to give effective feedback to students to improve their written accuracy,
classroom realities and the preferences of students must be considered. In ESL writing
classes, students need teachers to check about the mistakes they made. When teachers
give feedback, they should show students examples of how they can apply to improve
their writing and give them the opportunity to talk in class to express their ideas and to
discuss any challenging analytical issues. In addition, written feedback must be done
politely. Remember mitigated commentary can be used as a tool to increase student
motivation, engagement, and interest.
The researchers suggested that teachers have to come up with an effective method
of feedback that takes into account the shortcomings of common methods of feedback,
the positive aspects of them and the desires of students. The goals of a particular writing
course are one of the main factors that need to be considered when determining how to
provide feedback. Feedback that is a mismatch with assignment or course goals may be

one of the factors contributing to students not knowing how to properly respond to it.
Among these are consideration of course and assignment goals, the stage of the writing
process and the form of the feedback.
Aside from the aforementioned effectiveness of marking errors for student selfcorrection, other methods of feedback on grammar can be productive in improving
students' writing skills. To lessen student confusion, teachers should consistently use a
standard set of symbols or markings to indicate place and type of error and train the
students in what kinds of corrections to make based on each symbol. Lists of
proofreading symbols can easily be found in most writing textbooks, or teachers can
create their own. Furthermore, teachers should familarize students with the system so
they will not be surprised when new symbols occur.
Many of the same kinds of improvements that can be made for feedback on form
can also be made for feedback on content. The failure of written comments dealing with
13


content comes from a combination of using inconsistent, unclear comments along with
not training students in how to properly use the feedback to improve. Teachers should
consistently use a standard set of clear and direct comments and questions to indicate
place and type of content feedback. These types of comments and questions should
focus students' attention on the content of the composition and the process they
followed instead of merely pointing out areas that the teacher found interesting or
lacking. As Leki (1990) points out, these kinds of questions and comments can be used
to create a dialog between the student and the teacher in order to give both a clearer
understanding of how the assignment was and should be conceived and executed.
Furthermore, teachers should, as with grammar, familiarize students with the types of
comments that will be used and train students in how to make use of the comments.
Without training in how to use the comments to better their writing, students are likely
to either ignore the comments, misunderstand them, or fail to use them constructively
(Cohen, & Cavalcanti, 1990; Kroll, 2001).
The comments that the teachers use and training that they give students can be

further developed in individual conferences. Aside from using conferences to determine
if students understand and are making use of feedback, teachers can also use them to
explain their comments to the students. Conferences are an excellent time for teachers
and students to ask direct questions to each other and uncover any misunderstandings
by either party. One way to do this would be to present students with pre-conference
sheets that allow them to prepare questions for the teacher beforehand. Likewise, the
teacher should also prepare a list of comments and questions before the conference.
For the motivation and praise from teacher on students’ writing, many
researchers also indicated that the role of teachers in providing effective feedback for
ESL learners is essential . According to Barkaoui (2007), teachers need to: a) motivate
students, b) model effective revision strategies, c) raise students’ awareness about the
importance of (re)seeing their texts from the reader’s perspective, d) encourage students
to reflect on and self-assess their own writing, and e) use appropriate writing tasks and
activities for teaching and assessment. Feedback can serve as guidance for eventual
writing development as far as students are concerned (Hyland, 2003). So, teachers
should offer self–correction opportunity for their students by providing indirect
feedback on student’s grammatical errors.
Writing teachers should not simply respond to grammar and content but should
include comments of praise and encouragement in their written feedback. Mitigation
has been found to improve the confidence of students and lead them to be responsible
for their writing (Weaver, 2006). To support effective written feedback, teachers should
keep in mind that positive feedback is considered ‘positive reinforcement’ whereas
negative feedback is considered ‘punishment’ (Brookhart, 2010: 11). Thus, teachers
should be polite and mitigate their written feedback.
14


As students see the surpassing benefits of intermediate feedback over delayed
feedback, teachers should give feedback and correctives after students have made
genuine attempts to complete assigned tasks. It is vital for teachers to give frequent

feedback and correctives during the early stages of learning a new subject matter.
Student will learn more quickly if regular feedback is available during the initial stages
of learning.
2. Conclusion and suggestions for further study
One general conclusion can be drawn from the findings of the study is that
teacher written feedback actually affects the success of teaching writing still. The matter
is that if teachers are to intervene positively in language learning, they must take into
consideration how best they can meet their learners’ needs.
Within the limitation scope of the study, this paper is never expected to cover all
the needed information. I do hope that I can contribute to the study of corrective
feedback in writing especially in Vietnam context and readers of this study can find it
useful in their future work and study or at least see it as a reference worth looking at.
Due to the limitation of this study, it is a suggestion someone trial the different
ways of giving feedback and investigate the improvement in students’ writing skill.

Appendix
Students’ Preferences for Corrective Feedback in Writing
15


Question 1: In your opinion, should your writing be corrected? Read the following
statements, then put a tick on your appropriate choice.
No.

Strongly
disagreed

1

Teachers should correct and

comment your writing in written
feedback

2

Teachers should pay attention to
the organization of your writing
when giving written feedback

3

Teachers should pay attention to
the content of your writing when
giving written feedback

4

Teachers should pay attention to
vocabulary of your writing when
giving written feedback

5

Teachers should pay attention to
grammar of your writing when
giving written feedback

6

Teachers should pay attention to

the punctuation and spelling of
your writing when giving written
feedback

7

Teachers should point out
students’ errors directly

8

Teachers should point out
students’ errors indirectly

9

When giving feedback, teacher
should provide advice and include
explanations, and employed openended questions.

Disagreed Agreed

Strongly
agreed

Note:
16


Direct error feedback is provided when the correct form is written on students’

papers
Indirect error feedback is provided if the teachers indicate the location of the
error indirectly by underlining, highlighting or circling or indirectly by indicating in the
margins that there is an error on that line but without providing correct form
(Lee, 2005)
Question 2. If your teacher asks you to revise your writing, when do you prefer
your teacher to provide corrective feedback? Circle the one you find it most
appropriate.
A. On the first draft
B. On the second draft
C. On the final draft
D. On every draft

17


References
Barkaoui, K. (2007) Revision in Second Language Writing: What Teachers Need to
Know. TESL Canada Journal, 25(1): 81-92.
Brookhart, S. M. (2010) How to Give Effective Feeback to Your Students.
Instructional Supervision & Evaluation: The Teaching Process, pp. 10-18.
Chandler, J. (2003) The Efficacy of Various Error Feedback for Improvement in the
Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing.Journal of Second Language Writing. 12:
267-296.
Chi, F. (1999) The Writer, the Teacher, and the Text: Examples from Taiwanese EFL
College Students. Paper Presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics.
Retrieved March 10, 2011, ERIC database.
Cohen, A. D. and Cavalcanti, M. (1990) Feedback on Compositions: Teacher and
Student Verbal Reports. In B. Krou (Ed.), Second Language Writing, pp. 155-177. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2006) Does Error Feedback Help Student Writers? New Evidence on the
Short- and Long-term Effects of Written Error Correction. In Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
(Eds.), 81-104.
Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How
explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10: 161-184.
Frantzen, D. (1995) The Effects of Grammar Supplementation on Written Accuracy in
an Intermediate Spanish Content Course.Modern Language Journal, 79: 244-329.
Frodesen, J. (2001) Grammar in Writing. In Celce-Murcia, M. (Ed.), Teaching English
as a Second or Foreign Language (3rd ed.), pp. 233-248. Boston, MA: Heinle and
Heinle.
Hyland, F. (2003) Focusing on form: Student Engagement with Teacher Feedback.
System, 31: 217-230.
Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. (2006) Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing.
Lang. Tech., 39: 83-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lalande, J. F. (1982) Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment.Modern Language
Journal, 66(1): 140-149.
Lee. I. (1997) ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing. System,
25(4): 465-477.
Leki, I. (1991) The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College Level
Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3): 203-218.
Miceli, T. (2006) Foreign Language Students’ Perceptions of a Reflective. Approach to
Text Correction. Flinders University Languages Group Online Review, 3(1): 25-36.

18


Nicol, D. and Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-regulated
Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher
Education, 31(2): 199-218.
Rae, A. M. and Cochrane, D. K. (2008) Listening to Students: How to Make Written

Assessment Feedback Useful. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9(3): 217-230.
Richards, J. C. and Lockhart, C. (1996) Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms.
Sadler, D. (1983) Evaluation and Improvement of Academic Learning.Journal of
Higher Education, 54(1): 60-79.
Saito, H. (1994) Teachers’ Practices and Students’ Preferences for Feedback on Second
Language Writing: A Case Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11:
246-270.
Sträub, R. (1997) Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study.
Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1): 91-119.
Tribble, C. (1996) Writing. Oxford.

19