The effects of teachers' use of direct and indirect feedback on learners' writing english argumentative essays

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (905.13 KB, 19 trang )

(1)<div class='page_container' data-page=1>

iii

ABSTRACT

</div>
(2)<div class='page_container' data-page=2>

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

3.1 Research questions and research instruments………27

3.2 Questionnaire on participants’ attitude………..30

3.3 Writing sessions of the textbook...………...31

4.1 Descriptive statistics of the pretest and post-test ………....34

4.2 Participants’ writing performance before and after the study………….35

</div>
(3)<div class='page_container' data-page=3>

LIST OF FIGURES

2.1 Aristotle structure of argument ..……….…..………. 12

2.2 Toulmin model of argument ……..………..…….. 12

2.3 Case structure of argument ……….……….….. 13

2.4 Standard organization for an argumentative essay………...17

2.5

Theoretical framework of the study………24

</div>
(4)<div class='page_container' data-page=4>

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iii

LIST OF TABLES ... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ... v

TABLES OF CONTENT ... vi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1 Rationale ... 1

1.2 Aims of the research ... 3

1.3 Significance of the research ... 3

1.4 Organization of the research ... 3

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5

2.1 Attitude ... 5

2.2 Argumentation ... 7

2.2.1 The notion of argument ... 7

2.2.2 Types of argument ... 8

2.2.3 Characteristics of arguments ... 9

2.2.4 Structure of argument ... 11

2.2.5 Organizing the argumentative essay ... 14

2.2.6 Evaluating the argumentative essays ... 18

2.3 Direct feedback and indirect feedback ... 19

2.4 Related studies ... 20

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 26

3.1 Research questions and hypotheses ... 26

3.1.1 Research questions ... 26

</div>
(5)<div class='page_container' data-page=5>

vii

3.2 Research design ... 27

3.3 Participants... 27

3.4 Research instruments ... 27

3.4.1 Writing tests ... 28

3.4.2 Questionnaire ... 30

3.4.3 Interview ... 31

3.5 Materials ... 32

3.5.1 Description of teaching materials ... 32

3.6 Research procedure ... 33

3.7 Data analysis ... 33

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ... 35

4.1 Participants’ writing performance before and after the study ... 35

4.2 The participants’ attitudes on direct and indirect feedback ... 37

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ... 41

5.1 Discussions ... 41

5.1.1Summary of the results ... 41

5.1.2 Discussions of the results ... 41

5.2 Conclusions ... 45

5.3 Pedagogical implications ... 45

5.4 Limitation and directions for further research ... 46

5.4.1 Limitation ... 46

5.4.2 Directions for further research ... 46

</div>
(6)<div class='page_container' data-page=6>

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of four sections and provides an overall introduction to 
the study. The first section presents the rationale of the study. The purposes of the 
study are stated in the second section. The third section discusses the significance of 
the study. The chapter ends with an overview of each chapter of the study.

1.1 RATIONALE

English is an international language and its significance has been showed
through increasing number of English learners in Vietnam. There are many reasons for
people to learn English such as communication, higher education or job promotion.
Since English is one of the most popular international languages, it attracts much
attention from young people these days, especially in their career orientation.

Among the four language skills, writing has traditionally taken a big place in
most English language curriculum although it is sometimes felt that a command of the
spoken language and of reading is more important (White, 1987). White claims that
today writing remains the commonest way of examining student performance in
English, especially for academic purposes. White also notices writing is a skill which
can be acquired through formal instruction. Writing is the natural outlet for learners’
reflections on their speaking, listening and reading experiences in their second
language (Leki, 1991). Therefore, writing academic essays is considered as the most
significant skill that learners have to acquire in order to get required scores in
standardized tests. Due to the complexities of learning to write in second language, the
effective writing methods were raised among second language writing researchers.

</div>
(7)<div class='page_container' data-page=7>

expressions of grammatical and organizational patterns taught and word choice. Leki
(1991) argues that the focus on these types of writing exercises is primarily on
language structure and learners get good marks if they write texts with as few surface
errors as possible. Hence, with the emphasis on the sentence-based level of traditional
approach is a big limitation in light of teaching writing at a discourse level, McCarthy
(2001).

An innovative approach has been introduced into second language writing
pedagogy to help the learners overcome the above gaps. Hobelman and Wiriyachitra
(1990) states that the modern approach to the teaching of writing involves a
combination of the communicative approach and the process approach which take into
consideration the audience of text and purpose for writing.

The search for effective methods in teaching academic writing has raised a
great deal of concern. However, few studies have been conducted on the effects of
written feedback, either direct or indirect on academic writing, especially on

argumentative essays. As a result, this study focused on the effects of teachers’ use of
feedback on argumentative essays. English teachers participated in the study which
was a one group pre-post-test experimental design. They got involved in taking the
pre- and post-test writing argumentative essays and in responding to a questionnaire.
Six of them were invited to answer the interviews. It was hypothesized that the use of
direct and indirect feedback would have positive impacts on the participants’
argumentative writing performance, i.e. on audience awareness and purpose, content,
ideas organization, and language features. The researcher also wishes to know how
participants’ attitudes are towards the teachers’ use of the types of feedback.

</div>
(8)<div class='page_container' data-page=8>

3
1.2 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH

Concerning the challenges mentioned regarding second language writing
pedagogy and the weight of relevant theories and studies on the positive relationship
between the teachers’ use of direct and indirect feedback and learners writing
performance on argumentative essay, the present study aims to investigate:

- The effects of teachers’ direct and indirect feedback on the learners'
argumentative essays in terms of content, spellings and grammar;

- The learners’ attitudes towards the teacher’s use of direct and indirect
feedback in teaching writing English argumentative essays.

1.3 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

By conducting this study, the current study hopes that the teachers’ use of direct
and indirect feedback could bring about positive effects on learners’ ability in writing
argumentative essays. Learners hold positive attitudes towards teachers’ use of direct
and indirect feedback.

The present study also hopes to contribute empirical evidence in a Vietnamese
context about using direct and indirect feedback in teaching argumentative essays.

1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE RESEARCH

This study is comprised of five chapters: Introduction, Literature Review,
Research Methodology, Results, and Discussions and Conclusions. The structure of
each chapter is described as follows.

</div>
(9)<div class='page_container' data-page=9>

Chapter 2 reviews the literature relevant to direct and indirect feedback that
teacher has used in teaching writing argumentative essays. The chapter is divided into
four main sections. The first section presents various definitions of attitude. Section
two reviews the concepts, types, characteristics, structure of an argumentative essay,
the rubrics for evaluating the argumentative essay. The third part defines the
differences between direct and indirect feedback. The fourth section reviews related
studies in the field under investigation. This chapter ends up with a summary of
literature and justification for the current study.

Chapter 3 presents contents related to the methods employed in conducting this
research. The chapter firstly addresses the research questions and hypotheses. The
chapter then describes in detail the research design, variables, participants, research
instruments, and intervention materials. The chapter concludes with the summary of
the procedures and the way data were analyzed in the research.

Chapter 4 is concerned with the research findings and their interpretation in
relation to the specific research questions raised in the study. The chapter firstly deals
with a detailed description and analysis on the quantitative results of the two tests in

the study: pretest and post-test. The chapter finally presents the participants’ attitudes
towards the teachers’ use of direct and indirect feedback in learning argumentative
writing in English.

Chapter 5 summarizes and discusses the significant findings of the study, and a
sequential outline of the study’s limitations, pedagogical implications and suggested
avenues for related future research.

</div>
(10)<div class='page_container' data-page=10>

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter reviews the literature relevant to direct and indirect feedback that 
teacher has used in teaching writing argumentative essays. The chapter is divided into 
four main sections. The first section presents various definitions of attitude. Section 
two reviews the concepts, types, characteristics, structure of an argumentative essay; 
the rubrics for evaluating the argumentative essay. The third part defines the 
differences between direct and indirect feedback. The fourth section reviews related 
studies in the field under investigation. This chapter ends up with a summary of 
literature and justification for the current study.

2.1 ATTITUDE

In this study, “attitude” is defined as one’s inclinations and feelings, prejudice
or bias, pre-conceived notions, ideas, fears, threats, and convictions about any
specified topic. Eagly and Chaiken (1971) state that the cognitive response is a
cognitive evaluation of the entity that constitutes an individual’s belief about the
object. An effective response expresses an individual’s degree of preference of an
entity. Joy, love and happiness are three main factors that can be affected directly to
one’s attitude. Cacioppo (1994) considers attitude as the way to evaluate the

perception of some person, object, or issue in general. It is endured in a particular
period of time or after any activity. Aiken(1997) treats attitude as a response whether
positively or negatively to a specific object, situation, institution, or person.

Attitudes are a complex combination of personality, beliefs, values, behaviors,
and motivation, Pickens (2005). Attitudes have three components:

- A cognitive component, consisting of thoughts and beliefs about the
attitudinal object;

</div>
(11)<div class='page_container' data-page=11>

- A behavioral component composed of predispositions concerning action
toward the object.

Bootzin,Bower and Zajonc (1987) state that a person’s attitude is affected byher
or his expectation, motivation, and previous experience. Aiken (1997)
mentions three characteristics of attitudes which consist of three components

- Cognitive (knowledge or intellective);

- Affective (emotional and motivational);

- Performance (behavioral and action).

Knowledge, emotion and behavior have represented as the three aspects of
attitude based on three characteristics above. These aspects will be used as the
indicators to measure the attitude. And according to Wood & Boyd (2007)attitudes are
relatively stable evaluations of persons, objects, situations, orissues, along a continuum
ranging from being positive to negative.

Fredrickson (2013) states that joy is emerges when one’s current circumstances
present unexpected good fortune. When people receive good news or a pleasant
surprise, they feel joy. Love is appears to be the positive emotion people feel most
frequently, arises when any other of the positive emotions is felt in the context of a
safe, interpersonal connection or relationship. Smaeeli (2013) states that happiness can
be defined in terms of the average level of satisfaction over a specific period, the
frequency and degree of positive affect manifestations. Mouly (1968) states that
attitudes arise as byproducts of one’s day-to-day experiences or performance.

</div>
(12)<div class='page_container' data-page=12>

REFERENCES

1. Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL
development.Language Teaching Research 7(3), pp. 347-376.

2. Ahn, H. (2011). Teaching writing skills based on a genre approach to L2
primary school learners: An action research. ISSN, 5(2), pp. 2-16.

3. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a
multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form
feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3), pp. 
227-258.

4. Ash Sena Goksoy (2016) The effect of direct and indirect written
corrective feedback on learners’ writing

5. Asiri, I. (1996). University EFL Teachers’ Written Feedback on

Compositions and Students’ Reactions. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Essex.

6. Atkinson, D., & Curtis, A. (1998). A handbook for postgraduate researchers. 
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

7. Attali, Y. (2007). Construct validity of e-rater in scoring TOEFL essays. 
Princeton, NJ: ETS.

8. Babatunde, S. T. (1997). Strategies for teaching writing skills in large ESL
classes. Ilorin Journal of Education, p. 17, pp. 65-75.

9. Ballard, B., & Clanchy, J. (1993). Assessment by misconception: Cultural
influences and intellectual traditions. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing 
second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 19-35). Norwood, NJ: 
Ablex.

10. Bates, L. (1998). Transitions: An interactive reading, writing, and grammar 
text (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Beaufort, A. (1999). Writing in the real world. New York: Teachers College 
Press.

12. Bell, J. (2006). Doing your research project (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13. Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary

</div>
(13)<div class='page_container' data-page=13>

14. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 14,pp. 191-205.

15. Boardman, C. A., & Frydenberg, J. (2002). Writing to communicate:

Paragraphs and essays (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.

16. Brannan, B. (2006). A writer’s workshop: Crafting paragraphs, building essays 
(2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

17. Brown, J. D. (2001). Using surveys in language programs. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.

18. Burton, L. W., & McDonald, D. (2005). The language of argument (11th ed.).
New York: Pearson Longman.

19. Byram, M. (2004). Routledge encyclopedia of language leaching and learning. 
London: Routledge.

20. Chaudoir, S. (2011). Scoring guides and rubrics: Suggestions from writing

studies research. Retrieved March 3, 2012 from

21.

Clements, S et al. (2010).Writing Conferences in Kindergarten:

Using Feedback to Enhance Student Writing. Unpublished, ED.D,

Dissertation, Walden University, 34040564.

22. Clouse, B. F. (2003). Patterns for a purpose: A rhetorical reader (3rd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.

23. Coffin, C. (2001). Theoretical approaches to written language. In A. Burns & C.
Coffin (Eds.), Analyzing English in a global context (pp. 93-122). London: 
Routledge.

24. Cohen, R. F., & Miller, J. L. (2003). Reason to write: Strategies for success in 
academic writing. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

25. Connor, U. (1996). Contrastive rhetoric: Cross-cultural aspects of second 
language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

</div>
(14)<div class='page_container' data-page=14>

28. Davydov, V.V. (1988). The concept of the theoretical generalization and
problems of educational psychology. Studies in Soviet Thought, 36, 169-202. 
29. Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Sydney: Primary English

Teachers Association.

30. Dietsch, B. M. (2006). Reasoning and writing well. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
31. Ede, L. (1992). Work in progress: A guide to writing and revising (2nd ed.).

New York: St. Martin’s Press.

32. Elashri, I. I. E. A. F. (2013). The impact of the direct teacher feedback stratergy 
on the EFL secondary stage students’ writing performance. Ph.D Thesis. 
Mansoura University.

33. Emig, J. (1978). Hand, eye, brain: Some “basics” in the writing process. In C.
Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Research on composing (pp. 59-71). Urbana, IL: 
National Council of Teachers of English.

34. Fairbanks, A. H. (1994). Fact, value, policy: Reading and writing argument. 
New York: McGraw-Hill.

35. Feez, S. (1998). Text-based syllabus design. Sydney: NCELTR-Macquarie 
University.

36. Ferrara, C. F. (1989). The art of writing: A modern rhetoric. New York: 
Random House.

37. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, 
process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: A cognitive basis for problems in
writing. College English, 41, pp. 19-37.

39. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Language and the order of nature. In M. A. K.
Halliday and J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive 
power (pp. 106-123). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

40. Hammond, J., Burns, A., Joyce, H., Brosnan, D., & Gerot, L. (1992). English 
for specific purposes: A handbook for teachers of adult literacy. Sydney: 
NCELTR.

</div>
(15)<div class='page_container' data-page=15>

42. Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow: Longman.

43. Hazenberg, S. (1994). Een keur van woorden. De wenselijke en feitelijke 
receptieve woordenschat van anderstalige studenten. [A choice of words. 
The desired and factual receptive vocabulary of non-native learners.] PhD
dissertation, Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit.

44.
Hazenberg,S.&Hulstijn,J.H.(1996).Definingaminimalreceptivesecond-languagevocabulary for non-native university learners: an empirical
investigation. Applied Linguistics 17(2), pp. 145-163.

45. Hedge, T. (1988). Writing: Resource books for teachers series. Oxford: Oxford 
University Press.

46.

Hino, J. (2006). Linguistic information supplied by negative

feedback: A study of its contribution to the process of second

language

acquisition

(Doctoral

dissertation,

University

of

Pennsylvania, 2006). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 67/03,

872.

47. Hobelman, P., & Wiriyachitra, A. (1990). A balanced approach to the teaching
of intermediate-level writing skills to EFL learners. English Teaching Forum, 
28(4), pp. 37-39.

48. Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing
learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second 
Language Writing 3(2), pp. 141-163.

49. Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

50. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University 
Press.

51. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language learners’
writing. Language Teaching 39(2), pp.83-101.

52. Jacobs, H., Zingraf, S., Wormuth, D. Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. (1981).
Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House 
Publishers.

</div>
(16)<div class='page_container' data-page=16>

54. Klassen, J. (1991). Using student errors for teaching. English Teaching Forum, 
29(1), pp. 134-141.

55.

Ko, K & Hirvela, A. (2010).Perceptions of KFL/ESL Teachers in

North America Regarding Feedback on College Student Writing.

Unpublished,

PhD,

Dissertation,

The

Ohio

State

University,

3425442.

56. Lannon, J. M. (2003). The writing process: A concise rhetoric, reader, and

handbook (8th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.

57. Leki, I. (1991). Teaching second language writing: Where we seem to be.
English Teaching Forum, 29(2), pp. 8-11.

58. Leandro Xhama (2018) The Effects of Corrective Feedback in Writing Essays 
in the L2 classrooms: Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies; Vol 7, 
No1; 2018

59. Li Zhan (2016) Written Teacher Feedback: Student Perceptions, Teacher 
Perceptions, and Actual Teacher Performance:English Language Teaching; 
Vol. 9, No. 8; 2016

60.

Littleton, Ch et al. (2011).The Role of feedback in Two Fan fiction

writing Groups. Unpublished, PhD, Dissertation, Indiana University

of Pennsylvania, 346537.

61. Long, M. H., & Richards, J. C. (1987). Methodology in TESOL: A book of 
readings. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

62. Malakul, K., & Bowering, M. (2006). Proceedings from EDU-COM 2006 
international conference:The application of genre theory to improve academic 
English writing courses. Perth: Edith Cowan University.

63. Marius, R., & Wiener, H. S. (1994). Writing logical arguments. In R. Marius &
H. S. Wiener (Eds.), The McGraw-Hill college handbook (4th ed., pp. 528-552).

New York: McGraw-Hill.

64. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John 
Benjamins.

65. Mayberry, K. J. (2005). Everyday arguments: A guide to writing and reading

</div>
(17)<div class='page_container' data-page=17>

66.

Mi, l. (2009).Adopting Varied Feedback Modes in the EFL Writing

Class. US-China foreign language, 7, 1.

67. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An

expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

68. Miller, T. (2005). Functional approaches to written text: Classroom 
applications. Washington, D.C, USA: English Language Programs-United 
States Information Agency.

69. McCarthy, M. (2001). Language as discourse: Speech and writing in applied
linguistics. In M. McCarthy (Ed.), Issues in applied linguistics (pp. 92-117). 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

70. McCrimmon, J. M. (1967). Writing with a purpose (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company.

71. McMillan, J. H. (1996). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer 
(2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

72. Muncie, J. (2002). Finding a place for grammar in EFL composition classes.
ELT Journal, 56(2), pp. 180-186.

73. Murray, D. M. (1980). Writing as process: How writing finds its own meaning.
In T. R. Donovan & B. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching 
composition (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. 
74. Nematzadeh, F. and Siahpoosh, H. (2017). The Effect of Teacher Direct and

Indirect Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Written Performance. 
Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Learning 2017, 3(5): pp. 110-116 
75. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English (4th ed.). White

Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.

76. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading
comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, pp. 317-344.

77. Promwinai, P. (2010). The demands of argumentative essay writing: 
Experiences of Thai tertiary learners. PhD thesis, University of Wollongong, 
New South Wales.

78. Provost, G. (1980). Make every word count. Ohio: Writer’s Digest Books. 
79. Ramage, J. D., & Bean, J. C. (1997). Guide to writing. New York: Simon &

</div>
(18)<div class='page_container' data-page=18>

80. Reid, J. (1995). Teaching ESL writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Heinle & 
Heinle.

81. Richards-Amato, P. (1996). Making it happen: Interaction in the second 
language classroom. New York: Addison-Wesley.

82. Rothery, J. (1996). Making changes: Developing an educational linguistics. In
R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 86-123). London: 
Pearson Longman.

83. Seyler, D. U. (2008). Read, reason, write: An argument text and reader. New 
York: McGraw-Hill.

84. Saeid Farid & Adlina Abdul Samad (2012) Effects Different Kind of Direct 
Feedback on Learners’ Writing:Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 66 ( 
2012 ) pp. 232 – 239

85. Shaughnessy, M. P. (1977). Errors and expectations: A guide for the teacher of 
basic writing. New York: Oxford University Press.

86. Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Kozyrev, J. R. (2001). Refining composition 
skills: Rhetoric and grammar (5th ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

87. Stockburger, D. W. (1996). Introductory statistics: Concepts, models, and 
applications. OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.

88. Taylor, B. P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL 
Quarterly, 15, pp. 5-13.

89. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar (2nd ed.). London:
Hodder Education.

90. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

91. Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

92. Turk, C., & Kirkman, J. (1989). Effective writing: Improving scientific, 
technical and business communication (2nd ed.). London: E & FN Spon.

93. Ur, P. (1994). A course in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press.

</div>
(19)<div class='page_container' data-page=19>

95. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher 
psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press.

96. Wallace, M. J. (2004). Study skills in English (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

97. Walsh, M. (2004). The application of process writing to the needs of L2 
student-writers. Retrieved March 3, 2012 from www.walshsensei.org

98. Weir, C. J. (1988). Construct validity. In A. Hughes, D. Porter, & C. J. Weir
(Eds.), ELTS validation project report (ELTS research reports 1 (ii)) (pp. 
113-127). London: The British Council/UCLES.

99. Wesmacott, A. (2016) Direct vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback: Student
Perceptions, Medellín, Colombia, Vol. 22, Issue 1 (January-April, 2017), pp. 
17-32

100. White, R. V. (1987). Approaches to writing. In M. H. Long & Richards

(Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 259-266). Boston: 
Heinle & Heinle.

101. Wiener, H. S., & Eisenberg, N. (1987). Great writing: A reader for 
writers. New York: McGraw-Hill.

102. Xin Wang (2017) The Effects of Corrective Feedback on Chinese 
Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Sciedu Press Vol 7, No 2 (2017)

</div>


Music cover, the effects of it and The attitudes of NEU’s students to Music cover in Vietnam