Chiến lược chữa lỗi bài viết trong giảng dạy kỹ năng viết cho người học ngoại ngữ

PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

CHIẾN LƯỢC CHỮA LỖI BÀI VIẾT
TRONG GIẢNG DẠY KỸ NĂNG VIẾT
CHO NGƯỜI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
LÊ THU HƯƠNG*
*
Đại học Kinh thế Quốc dân, ✉

Ngày nhận: 13/3/2017; Ngày hoàn thiện: 26/4/2017; Ngày duyệt đăng: 10/5/2017

TÓM TẮT
Trong những năm gần đây đã có rất nhiều những tranh luận xung quanh hiệu quả của việc chữa
lỗi bài viết cho người học ngoại ngữ trong giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết. Những nghiên cứu đầu tiên
về chữa lỗi viết được thực hiện bởi Truscott (1996). Ông cho rằng, không nên chữa lỗi ngữ pháp
trong bài viết của người học, bởi việc này không hiệu quả đối với việc nâng cao kỹ năng Viết cho
người học. Phản đối quan điểm của Truscott, Ferris (2008) cho rằng, việc xử lý lỗi viết, bao gồm
việc chữa lỗi của giáo viên, là rất quan trọng trong việc giảng dạy kỹ năng viết. Xung quanh vấn
đề này còn có rất nhiều nghiên cứu về cách tiếp cận lỗi của người học ra sao cho phù hợp cũng
như các chiến lược chữa lỗi hiệu quả cần được áp dụng như thế nào trong giờ dạy kỹ năng Viết
cho người học ngoại ngữ. Do có nhiều tranh luận về các biện pháp chữa lỗi khác nhau nên bài
viết sẽ nghiên cứu các chiến lược chữa lỗi với mục đích phân tích những điểm mạnh và điểm yếu
khác nhau của mỗi phương pháp, để từ đó giúp giáo viên có lựa chọn chiến lược phù hợp trong
giờ giảng dạy kỹ năng Viết cho người học ngoại ngữ.
Từ khóa: chữa lỗi, giảng dạy tiếng Anh, kỹ năng Viết.

INTRODUCTION
During the history of teaching writing to
EFL learners, there has been a constant dispute
among the scholars and the teachers on the role of
the teachers’ error feedback in learners’ second

language acquisition (SLA). Although the issue
of error feedback has produced a wealth of studies
over the years, these studies have mostly looked
at the effect of error feedback (Bitchener, 2008;
Truscott, 2007) or the appropriateness of error
feedback (Ferris, 2008). Even that many feedback
strategies have been mentioned and studied in

some researches, far too little attention has been
paid to analyze and compare error feedback
types themselves without referring to any other
related components such as self-correction,
writing practice or different linguistic error
categories in specific cases. Therefore, the aim
of this paper is to fill the gap by reviewing recent
researches into commonly applied feedback
strategies only on EFL learners’ writing skills
with deep analysis and then supports teachers in
selecting the most appropriate strategies in their
own writing classes.
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

53


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
ERROR
FEEDBACK

AND
LEARNERS’ WRITING SKILL

EFL

Recently, researchers have shown an
increased interest in the effect of error feedback
on EFL learners’ writing including Truscott
J., Ferris D.R., Roberts or Abedi. The issue of
whether error correction works or not continues
to be controversial and the strongest debate
is being made by two big names Truscott and
Ferris in the field of EFL error feedback.
Truscott (1999; 2007) strongly argues against
the effectiveness of grammatical feedback in
EFL writing by pointing out the numerous
problems in practice such as the teachers’ lack
of knowledge or the learners’ different behaviors
with the teachers’ feedback. Therefore, it is his
belief that error correction is of little benefit or
even counterproductive so it should be kept aside
in EFL writing classrooms. In an earlier study
of Zamel (1985), the quality of error feedback
is doubted as the teachers are neither consistent
nor systematic in providing feedback to learners.
Championing the case against Truscott’s
firmly held position, Ferris and Roberts (2001)
argue that Truscott’s arguments were premature
and also strongly give the rapidly growing
research evidence pointing out that error

correction is widely seen as an essential factor
in writing improvement by the teachers and
learners, providing it is selective, prioritized and
clear. Regarding this point, the study of Ferris
and Roberts (2001) emphasizes the importance
of accuracy in writing and therefore error
correction has contributed a lot in the learners’
written output accuracy. Fathman and Walley
(1990) conduct a study on the effect of error
feedback on learners’ improvement in writing.
Two groups including one group receiving error
feedback and one receiving little feedback were
observed. It has been demonstrated that the
former did much better in grammatical writing
than those received little feedback.

54

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

Finally, Ferris and Roberts (2001) conclude
that controversy continues as regards whether
error feedback improves learners’ writing
accuracy and their writing ability. As Bitcherner
(2008) reminds us, it has been too early to draw
out the conclusive answer to the question of
whether error feedback is effective to improve
EFL learners’ accuracy. As a result, the teachers

cannot dismiss the learners’ strong desire for
error feedback. While there seems to be growing
evidence showing that some strategies for
error feedback may be more effective than the
others, the research to date has tended to focus
on investigating the different types of feedback
strategies for the discussion of efficiency and
prominence for the sake of the EFL learners’
writing skill improvement.
OVERVIEW OF WRITTEN ERROR
FEEDBACK STRATEGIES
In the analysis of Ferris (2008), error is
widely seen as crucial writing development by
the teachers. In the present study, the learners’
errors are also welcomed on their writing for the
progress of writing ability.
A number of different ways in which errors
can be corrected have been identified based
on a theoretical view on how feedback works
for acquisition by methodologists and SLA
researchers. Delgado (2007) takes the view that
the teachers decide to implement what types
of errors to focus on following the relevant
decisions of the students. Ferris (2008) argues
that the most significant dichotomy is between
direct and indirect feedback. At this point, it
seems that the research of Ellis (2008) on the
typology of written feedback types covered
nearly all the types of written error feedback
strategies, particularly six basic strategies for

providing feedback as follow:
The first is direct feedback (the teacher
provides the learners with the correct form)


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

The second is indirect feedback with two
main types (indicating and locating the error or
indication only).
The third is metalinguistic feedback in which
the teacher provides some kinds of metalinguistic
clue as to the nature of the error.
The fourth is the focus of the feedback which
concerns whether the teacher attempts to correct
most of the learners’ errors or only select one
or two types for correction. At this strategy,
the terms of unfocused feedback and focused
feedback needs to be analyzed.
The fifth is electronic feedback which teacher
indicates an error and provides a hyperlink to a
concordance file providing examples of correct usage.
The last is reformulation which relates to
a native speaker’s reworking of the learners’
entire text to make the language native – like
while keeping the original content.
While a variety of researches on error
feedback strategies has been suggested, debate
continues about the influence of the different
feedback strategies on EFL learners’ writing

ability in the past years. In the pages that follow,
the pros and cons of each strategy will be
discussed before reaching the conclusion which
will be more advantageous than the others.
DIRECT FEEDBACK
In the case of direct feedback, the teacher
provides the learners with the correct form
(Ellis, 2008). According to Ferris and Roberts
(2001), direct or explicit feedback occurs when
the teacher identifies the errors and provides
correct form. Moreover, direct error feedback
can be shown with a number of different forms
like crossing out an unnecessary words, phrases
or morphemes, inserting words or morphemes
or writing the correct form above or near the
wrong ones. Ellis (2008, p.99) also discusses
the advantages of direct error feedback on the

learners. Accordingly, “direct error feedback
provides learners with explicit guidance about
how to correct their errors. This is clearly desirable
if learners do not know what the correct form is
(i.e. are not capable of self-correcting the error)”.
INDIRECT FEEDBACK
On the contrary, indirect feedback is
applied when the teacher indicates learners’
errors by underlying or pointing out the errors’
location then let learners diagnose and solve
by themselves. Additionally, Bitchener (2008)
reports that the studies investigating effect of

indirect feedback strategies have tended to
make a further distinction between those that
do or do not use a code. Coded feedback points
to the exact location. Uncoded feedback refers
to the cases when the teachers underline, circle
or place an error in the margin and then leave
learners solve by themselves.
Indirect error feedback can be done by
various forms as listed by Ellis (2008) such as
underlining the errors, using cursors to show
omissions or placing a cross in the margin next
to the line containing the error.
According to Lalande (1982), indirect
error feedback serves for “guided learning and
problem solving” and encourages learners to
reflect about linguistic forms (as cited in Ellis,
2008). Therefore, indirect error feedback seems
to be considered as the contribution to longterm learning.
METALINGUISTIC FEEDBACK
According to Ellis (2008), metalinguistic
feedback provides some forms of explicit
comment about the nature of errors. At this
point, the explicit comment is divided into two
forms: the use of error codes and metalinguistic
explanations.
The most commonly used is the first one, error
codes which are abbreviated labels for different
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

55


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
kinds of errors. The places of the labels can be
various: over the location of the error in the text
or in the margin. In the former case, learners
will work out the correction required from the
clues while in the latter, learners need to locate
the error first before working out the correction.
The second type of metalinguistic feedback
is providing learners with metalinguistic
explanations of their errors. Using this kind
of feedback means that the teachers need to
locate the error and then expound the nature
of errors to the learners. As stated by Ellis
(2008), metalinguistic explanations are far less
common as its time consumption. Moreover,
metalinguistic explaining is not really an easy task
for teachers. It involves sufficient metalinguistic
knowledge of the teachers with clear and
accurate explanation for a variety of errors.
FOCUSED
FEEDBACK

AND

UNFOCUSED

As for unfocused feedback, the teachers
select to correct all the learners’ errors in their
compositions. Alternatively they can select
specific error types such as article, verb tense
errors for correction which means focused
feedback.
It is likely more difficult to process corrections
in unfocused feedback as the learners must attend to
a variety of errors which leads to the insufficiency
in each error reflection. In this respect, focused
feedback can promote the learners’ attention as
well as their understanding of the errors’ nature.
However, unfocused feedback can be superior in
the long run or at the advanced level as it addresses
a wide range of errors at the same time.
ELECTRONIC FEEDBACK
Ellis (2008, p.103) supports the usefulness
of software programs in supporting the learners’
writing “electronic resources provide learners with
the means where they can appropriate the usage of
more experienced writers”. As cited in Ellis (2008),

56

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

Milton offers an approach based on a software
program named Mark My Words. The program

shows an electronic store of approximately 100
recurrent lexico-grammatical and style errors found
in Chinese learners’ writing. A brief comment
on each error is provided with the links to the
correct form. The electronic store can be useful
to the teacher by inserting brief metalinguistic
comments into the learners’ text. Then the text will
be given back to the learner for their consultation
of the electronic resources to compare his/her
errors with illustrated language samples. To some
extent, it can assist learners in self correction.
Following the report of Milton, by using Mark
My Words, the learners’ revisions were successful.
In her paper, Ellis points out some obvious
benefits of this option. Firstly, electronic
feedback can eliminate the domination of the
teachers in providing correct forms. Moreover,
a usage-based approach is more reliable as
it can avoid fallible teachers’ intuition about
grammatical correctness. The last point which
is undeniable is the role of this feedback type
in promoting the role or the independence of
learners in their writings.
REFORMULATION
The last option offered in Ellis’s paper (2008)
is reformulation. To some extent, reformulation
is similar to the use of concordances which aims
to provide learners with a resource for their
error correction. However, reformulation places
the responsibility on the learners for the final

decision whether and how to correct their errors.
In order to identify an error, the teacher will
construct a native-speaker version of the part
which contains an error. As cited by Ellis (2008,
p.103), the idea for reformulation is “to preserve
as many of the writer’s ideas as possible while
expressing them in their own words so as to
make the piece sound native-like”. Then the
writer revises by deciding which of the nativespeaker’s reconstructions to accept.


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

At this point, reformulation is completely
different from direct error correction. Sachs and
Polio (2007) reports that the main difference
between these two types was the matter of
presentation and task requirements and there
is no relation with the kinds of errors that were
corrected. As in an example conducted by
Sachs and Polio (2007), the learners are shown
their corrected stories, study the stories in 20
minutes and take notes if they want. The next
day, they were given a clean sheet of paper and
asked to revise their stories without looking
at the corrected texts or notes. The correction
group produces more accurate revisions than
the reformulation group. As pointed out,
reformulation is a technique is not only for
assisting learners with their surface level

linguistic errors but also for drawing attention to
higher order stylistic and organizational errors.
Accordingly, reformulation is by far a technique
for teaching writing composition in sense of
linguistic error revision but it is also far more
than the path to lead the writers to the native-like
style and their self-control in writing process.
APPLICATION
OF
DIFFERENT
ERROR FEEDBACK STRATEGIES IN
EFL WRITING CLASSES
Over the past years there has been a dramatic
increase in the studies which investigate whether
the certain kinds of feedback works more than
the others in helping EFL learners’ writing
improvement (Bitchener et al, 2005).
A good number of studies have distinguished
between direct and indirect strategies and
investigated the extent to which they facilitate
greater accuracy. A recent study by Abedi et al.
(2010) involves the effect of direct and indirect
feedback on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL
learners’ writing achievement. In the study,
30 pre-intermediate learners were randomly
divided into two groups: group one (DFG)
receiving direct feedback on their writing
through error correction and group two (IFG)

receiving indirect feedback. In DFG, the teacher

underlined the learners’ writing errors and gave
learners the correct form so that they can aware
of their errors and the corrected ones for their
writing improvement. In IFG, the metalinguistic
strategy was also applied at the same time with the
error codes without metalinguistic explanation.
The errors were detected by underlining or using
error codes; for example, “S.P” means spelling
error or “W.O” means word order error and
then delivered to learners so that learners had to
correct the errors by themselves and handed in
the corrected writings in the following lessons.
In fact, using the indirect feedback was
shown to exert a positive effect on writing ability
development compared to the direct ones. As a
result, the learners performed better on writing
test through exposure to the indirect feedback,
not the direct counterpart. As stated in their
research, Abedi and his colleagues’ statistics also
supports Truscott’s belief that provision of direct
feedback on EFL writing is ineffective since
the learners of DFG have shown no significant
improvement compared to their peers in IDG.
Besides the greater improvement of IFG in
producing new writing pieces, one more reason
for better progress in indirect feedback could be
considered as the learners’ effort in locating and
providing codes which can lead to consciousness
raising task or more encouragement and
independency. Therefore, in their research,

Abedi and his colleagues confirmed the idea of
indirect error feedback over the direct ones.
Sharing the same view, Bitchener’s finding
also adds to the growing body of research that
indirect feedback is more effective than direct
feedback in helping learners improve accuracy
of their writing. Ferris (2002) states that indirect
error feedback is more beneficial than direct
one because it pushes learners to engage in
hypothesis testing which helps the learners to
induce deeper internal processing and internalize
the correct forms.
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

57


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
However, empirical evidence to date
suggests that there is no advantage for indirect
error feedback over direct error feedback. In
fact, Chandler finds that direct correction was
more prominent than any other types of indirect
correction in producing more accurate writing.
Chandler hypothesizes that a teacher’s direct
correction helps EFL learners internalize the
correct form more productively because indirect
feedback, though it demands greater cognitive

processing, delays confirmation of learners’
hypotheses. She also reports that her EFL
learners favoured direct correction.

benefited from coded feedback over uncoded
feedback which encourages EFL the teachers
to continue providing learners with coded
feedback. According to Deng (2010, p. 601), the
teachers reported making the most frequent use
of indirect coded feedback followed by direct
feedback. Indirect coded feedback is preferred
due to its efficiency in saving marking time.
Direct feedback is preferred as some the teachers
think it is not sufficient to just give learners the
codes. One teacher noted “Codes alone are not
enough. I correct the errors so they can work on
these and avoid the same errors next time”.

As stated by Ferris (2002), direct feedback
may be appropriate for beginner learners and
when the errors are “untreatable” which learners
are not able to self-correct like vocabulary or
pragmatics errors. However, Ferris (2002) also
points out the danger of direct error feedback
is that the teacher may misinterpret learners’
meaning and put words into their mouth.

Besides the ebullient debate on direct versus
indirect feedback, Ferris and Roberts (2001) also
support the benefit of error feedback on learners’

writing as long as error feedback is selective or
focused. From the view of learners in the paper
of Deng (2010, p.602), they seem to prefer
comprehensive or unfocused feedback because
it helps to eradicate all errors. Only 7% of the
learners prefer selective or focused feedback
with the argument that unfocused feedback is
de-motivating “I don’t like my teacher mark
so many on my paper… it looks so much and I
don’t know how to start”.

Furthermore, the hypotheses could not yet be
confirmed since results from studies exploring
the efficacy of direct and indirect feedback are
inclusive. It is worth noticing the arguments
that direct and indirect feedbacks were equally
efficient. At this point, Ferris (2008) expose
that indirect correction was proved to be most
effective in enhancing learners’ accuracy in
subsequent writing whereas learners receiving
direct feedback made the most accurate
revisions. The last point given by Chandler
(2003) as the opponent of Bitchener (2008) that
direct feedback contributes most in accuracy
achievement, not only in revisions but also
in subsequent writing. In brief, these findings
suggest that contrary to pedagogical suggestions
in the EFL writing literature, indirect written
error feedback may not be superior to direct
error feedback.

In the study of Delgado (2002), indirect
strategy was applied between coded and uncoded
groups. The research shows that learners

58

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

Accordingly, Delgado (2007) concludes
that there appears to be mismatch between the
strategies expected by the teachers and learners.
By using the narrative writing test and error
correction test, it is stated that there are no
statistically significant differences between
focused and unfocused strategies. Both types
of feedback are equally effective. However,
there is some evidence to suggest that focused
feedback may be more effective in the long run.
It is noted that according to Ellis (2008), it might
be better to characterize the differences between
the two types of feedback as “focused” versus
“less focused” rather than “focused” versus
“unfocused”.
As in a research of Ellis (2008), the results
suggest that it is essential that error feedback


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

should help learners with metalinguistic
understanding or metalinguistic strategy should
be applied which allows for and surely benefits
from the conscious monitoring in writing. When
taking direct and metalinguistic feedback into
account, it is suggested that whether the teachers
should combine direct and metalinguistic into
direct metalinguistic feedback. Sheen (2007)
takes the view that direct metalinguistic group
in the study shows a consistent increase over
time whereas the direct – only group shows a
slight decrease in their writing process. At this
point, Sheen (2007) cites the view of Schmidt
on second language acquisition. Schmidt
distinguishes awareness at the level of noticing
and at the level of understanding which is a
higher level of awareness. Noticing involves
simply attending to exemplars of specific forms
which direct feedback provides. Understanding
entails knowing a rule or principle that governs
an aspect of language which metalinguistic
feedback contributes to.
In terms of reformulation, a study conducted
by Sachs and Polio (2007) gives an insight into
reformulation on linguistic writing accuracy. It
is noted that different types of feedback which
were written in a familiar way on the learners’
papers in purple ink, indicating the locations
more clearly than the case in the reformulation

conditions and the learners do not have to find
the errors as well. Yet reformulation lets learners
search for differences by themselves and then
they might be better able to devote cognitive
resources to understanding and remembering the
corrections longer.
To sum up, the debate about the different
effect of feedback strategies is still inconclusive.
Ferris (2008) states that teacher may decide to
combine different types of feedback strategies,
depending on whether he/she expects the
learners to focus on some certain patterns of
error. As a result, some pedagogical implications
which hope to contribute to the quality in writing
instruction will be given in the following part.

PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATION
In the study, Deng (2010) offers some
implications on how to apply error feedback
strategies effectively in writing instruction.
Firstly, the researcher confirms the value
and benefit of error feedback on the learners’
written output. In order to take advantage
of error feedback strategies, teacher should
apply focused feedback in helping learners to
discover the rules of language by responding
to errors selectively. Secondly, so as to avoid
mismatches between the teachers and learners
in feedback strategies’ preferences, it is
recommended that the teachers should establish

better communication with learners with
regards to the feedback strategies used such as
listening to learners’ views on feedback strategy
application or discussion on the effectiveness
of the teachers’ actual feedback methods.
Furthermore, according to Deng (2010),
when error codes used, the teachers should pay
attention to systematic application of error codes
as learners can be easily confused about the
meanings denoted by different codes.
Moreover, Ferris (2008) suggests that learners
have demonstrated an overwhelming desire
for feedback and each type of error feedback
certainly has its own benefit. In the study of
Ferris, it was observed that direct feedback led
to greater accuracy in text revision while indirect
feedback resulted in the production of fewer
initial errors. Thus, it is suggested that learners
may be served best when the method of feedback
is dictated by the error type and context.
For example, when examining the actual
error feedback strategies provided by the
teachers, Ferris saw that direct and indirect
feedback are used most of the time. The treatable
errors received indirect feedback in about 59%
of the time while untreatable errors received
direct feedback in 65% respectively. To sum up,
Ferris hypothesizes that perhaps teacher should
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

59


v PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY
consider the type of error and their own belief
of each situation to come to the final conclusion
which would be most helpful to learners.
Lastly, learners’ autonomy should be
encouraged along with error identification and
correction. Various activities can be utilized like
peer editing or self-check lists to promote more
learners’ responsibility, which leads to the success
in the learners’ written output in a long term.
CONCLUSION
As Chandler (2003, p. 348) notes in her
rebuttal of Truscott’s (1999, 2007) criticism
of written error correction, the controversy
surrounding the effectiveness of error feedback
on written output can only be resolved through
carefully designed studies:
I accept [his] argument that the efficacy of
error correction for accuracy of subsequent
writing can only be demonstrated by studies
containing a control group which receives no
correction and experimental groups which
correct their errors after either receiving direct
correction or having the location of their errors
pointed out. So I hope someone will do such a

well-designed study.
So far the discussion in this paper has
provided the overview of error feedback
strategies on EFL learners’ written output with
pedagogical implication in writing instruction. It
is obvious that the effectiveness of error feedback
addresses various aspects which lead to ceaseless
controversy among researchers. At this point, the
role of error feedback strategies is undeniable in
learners’ writing ability improvement. The paper
set out to determine the main issues about the
effect of different error feedback strategies on
EFL learners’ writing skill. After discussing the
pros and cons of each strategy, the results of this
paper suggest that it seems to be a bias if some
certain types are concluded to be more preferred
over the others as they can be applied at the same

60

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

time for the best results. The findings from this
paper hope to make several contributions to the
current literature which highly recommended
that the teachers need to be aware that the
destination of any error feedback strategies is the
learners’ writing ability improvement. Thus, the

teachers could make the most of error feedback
strategies’ advantages by combining or using
them separately in accordance with particular
situation’s consideration to find how these
strategies would be most helpful to learners.
References:
1. Abedi, R., Latifi, M. & Moinzadeh, A.
(2010), “The Effect of Error Correction vs,
Error Detection on Iranian Pre-intermediate EFL
Learners’ Writing Achievement” [Electronic
version], English Language Teaching, 3, 168-174.
2. Bitchener, J. (2008), “Evidence in Support
of Written Corrective Feedback”, Journal of
Second Language Writing, doi: 10.1016/j.
jslw.2007.11.004.
3. Chandler, J. (2003), “The Efficiency
of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for
Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2
Student Writing”, Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 267-296.
4. Delgado, R. (2002), “Effects of Different
Error Feedback: Approaches in Students’ Ability
to Self-edit Their Writing”, Revista de Studios
Linguisticos y Literarios, 4(2), 3-16.
5. Deng, K. (2010), “Rethinking Error
Feedback on L2 Writing”, In A.M. Stoke (Ed.),
JALT2009 Conference Proceedings,Tokyo: JALT.
6. Ellis, R. (2008), “A Typology of Written
Corrective Feedback Types”, ELT Journal,
63(2), 97-107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023.

7. Fathman, A. & Walley, E. (1990), “Teacher
Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form
versus Content”, In: B. Kroll (Ed.), Second


PHƯƠNG PHÁP GIẢNG DẠY v

Language Writing: Research Insights for the
Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 178-190.
8. Ferris, D.R. (2008), Treatment of Error in
Second Language Student Writing, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
9. Ferris, D.R., & Roberts, B. (2001), “Error
Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit
Does It Need to Be?”, Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
10. Sachs, R., & Polio, C.G. (2007), “Learners’
Use of Two Types of Written Feedback on a
L2 Writing Revision Task”, Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
11. Truscott, J. (1999), “The Case for
Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes:
A Response to Ferris”, Journal of Second
Language Writing, 10, 111-122.
12. Truscott, J. (2007), “The Effect of
Error Correction on Learners’ Ability to Write
Accurately”, Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16, 255-272.

13. Zamel, V. (1985), “Responding to Student
Writing”, TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.

FEEDBACK STRATEGIES IN EFL LEARNERS’ WRITING CLASSES
LE THU HUONG
Abstract: Debate about the effect of providing error feedback on English as Foreign Language
(EFL) writing has been the outstanding issue in recent years. The preliminary work on error
correction was undertaken by Truscott (1996) which claims that grammar error feedback should
be abandoned because of its ineffectiveness and harmfulness. In response to Truscott, Ferris
(2008) states in her summary that error treatment, including error feedback by the teachers,
is a necessary component of second language (EFL) writing instruction. In order to settle the
debate, the investigation into how error feedback should be given to learners or the error feedback
strategies applied in writing instruction needs addressing. As the error feedback strategies have
received numerous controversies with different views, the paper intends to give an insight into
error feedback strategies with different strengths and weaknesses of each strategy, which aims to
support EFL teachers in selecting the most appropriate ones in their writing classes.
Keywords: error feedback, English language teaching, writing skill.

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 07 - 5/2017

61