Luận văn corrective feedback on writing of second year english majored students a case study at da lat university

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

BARIA VƯNGTAƯ
UNIVERSITY
CAP SAINT JACQUES

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT
UNIVERSITY

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of TESOL

BA RIA - VUNG TAU, 2021


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY

BARIA VƯNGTAƯ
UNIVERSITY
CAP SAINT JACQUES

NGUYỄN PHAN NHẬT NGUYÊN
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT
UNIVERSITY
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of TESOL

SUPERVISOR: ASSOC. PROF. NGUYỄN TẤT THẮNG

BA RIA - VUNG TAU, 2021


1

The thesis entitled CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR
ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY was

successfully defended and approved on..........................at Ba Ria Vung Tau University

Academic supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Nguyen Tat Thang
Examination Committee
1. Prof. Dr. Phạm Hữu Đức
2. Dr.Dương Mỹ Thẩm
3. Dr.Lê Lan Phương
4. Dr. Phan Thế Hưng

Chair
Reader 1
Reader 2
Member
Secretary Member

5. Dr. Nguyễn Hoàng Tuấn

On behalf of the Examination Committee
Chair

(full name, title, signature)


BA RIA VUNG TAU UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE

Ba Ria Vung Tau, March 2021
MASTER'S THESIS REPORT
Student's name: NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN Sex: Female
Date of birth: June 7th, 1995

Place of birth: Lam Dong Province

Major: TESOL Student's code: 18110097

I- Thesis title:
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF SECOND-YEAR ENGLISHMAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA LAT UNIVERSITY

II-

Objectives and contents:
The study aims at investigating the way that teachers at Dalat University treat

students' errors in their writing and students' attitudes towards corrective feedback in
writing. The specific objectives are as follows:
- To find out the strategies that teachers at Dalat University use when giving
corrective feedback in students' writing.
- To discover students' attitudes towards written corrective feedback.
This study was conducted at Da Lat university. In order to find out strategies that
teachers at Dalat University used when giving corrective feedback in students' writing,

the researcher collected 60 students' writing pieces for analysis. With an aim of
discovering


students' attitudes towards written corrective feedback, the
researcher asked 271 students to answer the questionnaire and
12 students to join in the interview.

The researcher utilized the mixed-method approach to collect the data. In terms of data
analysis, the author used SPSS software and content analysis to analyze the data.
III- Starting date: (as stated in the Decision issued by the University )
IV- Completing date: ..................................................................................................
V- Academic supervisor: ASSOC. PROF. NGUYEN TAT THANG

ACADEMIC SUPERVISOR
FACULTY DEAN
((full name, signature)
((full name, signature)


STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
I certify that the thesis “CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING OF
SECOND-YEAR ENGLISH-MAJORED STUDENTS: A CASE STUDY AT DA
LAT UNIVERSITY” is my work.
No other person's work has been used without acknowledgment in the thesis.
This thesis has not been submitted for the award of any degree or diploma in any
other tertiary institution.
Ba Ria - Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I, Nguyen Phan Nhat Nguyen, being a candidate for the degree of Master of
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages accept the requirement of the
University relating to the retention and use of Master's Theses deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Master's Thesis
deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan,
and reproduction for theses.
Ba Ria - Vung Tau, March 2021

NGUYEN PHAN NHAT NGUYEN


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to all those who assisted me to
complete this research.
Firstly, I wish to express my sincerest gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Nguyễ n Tất
Thắng for his guidance and supervision as well as for providing invaluable information.
Without his help, this thesis would not have been possible.
Furthermore, my gratefulness is given to my parents for their encouragement and
supports which allow me to complete this research.
My thanks and appreciations also go to my colleagues at DLU who assisted me
to carry out this thesis and to the second-year English-majored students at DLU for
giving me such attention and time. This research could be completed thanks to their
help.


ABSTRACT

The study searched for the written corrective feedback (WCF) practices of DLU
teachers and the attitudes of English-majored students towards WCF. In order to find
out which corrective feedback types were used by DLU teachers, 60 samples of
students' writing were collected for analysis. 271 second-year English-majored students
from the Faculty of Foreign Languages participated in the study. In order to collect data
from the students, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were applied. The
study illustrated that a combination of WCF types was applied by the teachers at DLU
including direct WCF, indirect WCF and metalinguistic WCF. Among the three types of
WCF, indirect WCF was used most frequently. Besides, the study found that teachers at
DLU applied unfocused written corrective feedback when dealing with students' errors.
In terms of the attitudes of DLU students towards WCF, the study is based on Wenden's
(1991) framework. Three components of attitude involving cognitive, affective,
behavior components were investigated. To be more specific, the study looked for
students' thinking about the importance of WCF, students' feeling about WCF and
students' reactions when receiving WCF. With the aim of improving the effectiveness of
WCF in teaching, some implications for teachers and stakeholders were also included in
the study.

Key words: error, writing, corrective feedback, written corrective feedback, students'
attitudes


TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP ...............................................................................iv
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS...................................................................v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................................vi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................
viii
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................xii

LIST OF CHARTS .......................................................................................................
xiii
LIST
OF
ABBREVIATIONS
AND
SYMBOLS
......................................................................................................................................
xiv
CHAPTER 1................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1
1.1. Background to the Study......................................................................................1
1.2. Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................4
1.3. Research Purposes and Objectives of The Study..................................................5
1.4. Research Questions ............................................................................................5
1.5. Scope of the Study .............................................................................................5
1.6. Significance of the Study ...................................................................................6
1.7. Definition of key terms ......................................................................................6
1.8. Organization of The Thesis...................................................................................7
CHAPTER 2................................................................................................................... 8
LITERATURE REVIEW...............................................................................................8
2.1. Introduction .........................................................................................................8
2.2. Errors..................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.1. Definition ......................................................................................................8
2.2.2. The Role of Errors ........................................................................................9
2.2.3. Types of Errors .............................................................................................10
2.3. Attitude................................................................................................................ 10
2.4. Corrective Feedback............................................................................................12
2.4.1. Whether Errors Should be Corrected............................................................13
2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback ................................13

2.4.1.2. Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback ...............................14
2.4.2. The Best Time to Give Corrective Feedback ................................................15
2.4.3. The Types of Errors that Should be Corrected .............................................16
2.4.4. The Best Way to Give Corrective Feedback .................................................17
2.4.5. The Person Who Should Give Corrective Feedback ....................................19


2.5. Written Corrective Feedback ..............................................................................20
2.5.1. The Role of Written Corrective Feedback.....................................................20
2.5.2. Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback..........................................24
2.5.3. Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback .................................26
2.5.4. Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback.................................................28
2.6. Related Studies....................................................................................................30
2.6.1. Studies on Written Corrective Feedback Practices........................................30
2.6.2. Studies on Students' Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback ..........33
CHAPTER 3................................................................................................................. 39
METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................39
3.1. Research Design..................................................................................................39
3.2. Participants .........................................................................................................40
3.2.1. Students.........................................................................................................40
3.2.2. Teachers .......................................................................................................41
3.3. Research Instruments ............................................................................................41
3.3.1. Students' Writing Pieces................................................................................41
3.3.2. Questionnaire ...............................................................................................42
3.3.3. Interview ......................................................................................................42
3.4. Data Collection....................................................................................................43
3.5. Data Analysis Procedure .....................................................................................44
3.6. Validity and Reliability .......................................................................................45
CHAPTER 4................................................................................................................. 47
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS................................................................................47

4.1. The Practices of Teachers' Written Corrective Feedback ....................................47
4.1.1. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback ..........................................................47
4.1.2. Direct Written Corrective Feedback..............................................................49
4.1.3. Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback.................................................51
4.1.4. Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback .................................52
4.2. Students' Attitudes towards Written Corrective Feedback...................................54
4.2.1. Cognitive Beliefs of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback............54
4.2.2. Affective States of Students towards Written Corrective Feedback .............58
4.2.2.1. The Person that Students Like to Give Them Corrective Feedback .......60
4.2.2.2. The Amount of Feedback that Students Liked to Receive......................63
4.2.2.3. The Written Corrective Feedback Techniques that Students Preferred . .64
4.2.3. Behavioral Component of Students' Attitudes towards WCF .......................67
4.3. Summary ............................................................................................................74
CHAPTER 5.................................................................................................................76
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS....................................................................76
5.1. Recapitulation .....................................................................................................76
5.2. Implications.........................................................................................................77


5.2.1. Implications for Teachers ...............................................................................77
5.2.2. Implications for Stakeholders .......................................................................79
5.3. Limitations .......................................................................................................... 79
5.4. Recommendations for Further Research..............................................................80
References ...................................................................................................................81
APPENDICES..............................................................................................................92
APPENDIX 1: THE SPECIFICATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE .......................92
APPENDIX 2: THE SPECIFICATION OF INTERVIEW QUESTIONS...................95
APPENDIX 3: AN EXAMPLE OF A STUDENT'S WRITING .................................96
APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (Vietnamese version) .........................................97
APPENDIX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) ...............................................100

APPENDIX 6: VIETNAMESE INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ...................................103
APPENDIX 7: ENGLISH INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT ...........................................111


LIST OF TABLES

Table
3.
1:
Reliability
of
the
questionnaire
.....................................................................................................................................
455
Table 4. 1: Students' attitudes towards the necessity of WCF .....................................54
Table 4. 2: Students attitudes towards the effect of WCF on their writing skill...........54
Table 4. 3: The effect of WCF on students' self-learning .............................................56
Table 4. 4: Students' attitudes towards the helpfulness of WCF ...................................57
Table 4. 5: Students' liking to WCF ..............................................................................58
Table 4. 6: Students' preference level on the person giving WCF ...............................61
Table 4. 7: Students' preference level on the amount of WCF.......................................63
Table 4. 8: Students' preference level on different types of WCF ...............................65
Table 4. 9: The frequency of activities that students do when receiving WCF ............67


LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 4. 1: Written corrective feedback used by the teachers........................................47
Chart 4. 2: Whether students commit errors again after receiving WCF......................55
Chart 4. 3: Students' agreement level about the statement “Written corrective feedback

helps me notice my weaknesses” .................................................................................55
Chart 4. 4: The effect of WCF on students' learning motivation .................................59
Chart 4. 5: Students' preference level on correcting errors by themselves ..................62
Chart 4. 6: How often do students learn more about their errors..................................69


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ESL English as a Second Language
CF

Corrective Feedback

WCF Written Corrective Feedback
DLU Da Lat University
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences


1


2

1. What strategies do teachers at Dalat University use when giving corrective
feedback on students' errors in their writing?
2. What are students' attitudes towards written corrective feedback?
1.5. Scope of the Study
Due to time limitations, all recommendations cannot be fully used and
implemented in the research. The research was carried out at Dalat University. The
subjects were second-year English-majored students.

In the first part, the study aims at exploring the strategies that teachers at Dalat
University apply when correcting students' errors in their writing.
The research results in the second part are based on the data collected from
second-year English-majored students. The goal of the second part is to find out the
attitudes of students towards the treatment of writing errors. Due to the limited sample
size, the research result is not able to present a greater number of students majoring in
English at Dalat University.
1.6. Significance of the Study
The study aims at identifying how teachers at Dalat University deal with
students' writing errors. In addition, the study also looks for the attitudes of students
towards corrective feedback. Therefore, the result of the research would possibly
contribute to English writing teaching and learning.
Moreover, this study also informs teachers what students think about written
corrective feedback, what corrective techniques that the students wish their teacher to
apply. Hence, this study can help both teachers and students to overcome the mismatch
between teachers' and students' thinking.
1.7.

Definition of key terms

With the aim of illustrating the issues proposed, there are terms that need to be specified


3

for this report.
Errors refer to deviation from a norm of adult native grammar that shows the learners'
ability to use a language (Brown 2000, cited in Fang & Xuemei, 2007).
Attitude refers to what a person thinks or feels about something; it is also an
individual's behavior towards someone or something.

Corrective feedback (CF) is defined as “the feedback that learners receive on the
linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)”
(Ellis and Sheen, 2011:593).
Written corrective feedback refers to error correction on L2 students' writing
(Bitchener, 2008).
1.8.

Organization of The Thesis

The organization of the research includes five chapters:
Chapter 1 illustrates the introduction of the study which involves the background to the
study, statement of the problem, research purposes and objectives of the study, research
questions, and finally definitions of key terms.
Chapter 2 presents the review of the literature including the definition of errors, the role
of errors in language learning, the definition of attitude, the effect of attitude, the
definitions and issues related to corrective feedback, the definitions of written corrective
feedback, its roles, written corrective feedback types and review of previous studies.
Chapter 3 presents the research methodology used in the study including research
design, research instruments, data collection, data analysis procedure, validity and
reliability.
Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study. This chapter also involves further
discussion.
Chapter 5 presents the conclusion, implications, limitations and recommendations for
further research.


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents the definition of error, its role in language learning, and the

distinction between error and mistake. The following section will mention corrective
feedback, as well as illustrate perspectives towards the effect of corrective feedback.
After going through corrective feedback issues in general, this chapter will further
present issues relating to written corrective feedback, including types of written
corrective feedback. This chapter also reviews previous studies on the way English
teachers gave corrective feedback and students' attitudes towards corrective feedback in
writing. The goal of this part is to search for the research gap of previous studies in
order to carry out new research.
2.2. Errors
2.2.1. Definition
According to Brown (2000), an error is defined as a deviation from a norm of
adult native grammar that shows the learners' ability to use a language (cited in Fang &
Xuemei, 2007). Corder (1975) further states that students usually make uncorrected
spoken and written compositions when learning a second language. These compositions
are decided by standards of the second language. Typically, people consider errors as
proof that learners are not proficient at what they are taught. In addition, people usually
treat errors by explaining again and again until they vanished. Errors will not arise if
efficient learning takes place. This point of view contributes to the belief that errors are
signals of problems when learners encounter different language factors. This problem
can be a consequence of the first language's habitual performances and the exchange of
them to the new language. Errors making is generally considered as a part of language


learning like other human learning. Systematically, when learning a language, people
will make errors (Dulay, Burt & Krashen, 1982, as cited in Keshavarz, 2012).
Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis believes that errors are attributed to the impact of the
learner's first language. Nevertheless, native language transfer is not the reason for all
error commitment. Various studies reveal that errors result from “learner's developing
knowledge of the structure of the target language rather than an attempt to transfer
patterns of their first language” (Spada & Lightbrown, 2006:78). Moreover, some errors

made by second language learners are like errors made by young native learners (Spada
& Lightbrown, 2006:78).
2.2.2. The Role of Errors
People used to have negative beliefs about errors. They maintain that errors are
outcomes of non-learning, not wrong learning, and should be eliminated. Therefore,
people make effort to predict the occurrence of errors. One way to predict error
occurrence is to tell the difference between the native language and the target language.
The identified difference could be utilized to predict areas that errors would occur.
(Ellis, 1985, cited in Wang, 2008). Hence, the role of error has changed. Instead of
being considered as something which is detrimental and should be deleted. Errors now
play such an essential role in language learning. There are three crucial conclusions that
Keshavarz (2012) makes about the errors that are the basement of error analysis:
Firstly, in the language learning process, making an error is unavoidable.
Secondly, errors are vital in a distinctive manner.
Thirdly, the learner's first language is not the source for all errors.
Errors are important in three distinctive ways. Firstly, they are significant to the
teacher. Errors inform teachers of learner's progress towards their goal, and what he still
lacks. Secondly, by looking at the error, researchers understand how a person learns and
acquires a language and what strategies or methods are applied when learning the


language. Last but not least, as the most important impact, errors are crucial to learners
since errors are regarded as a tool that learners apply for learning. Errors can assist
learners in evaluating their hypothesis about the language rule they are learning (Corder,
1982:10-11).
Keshavarz (2012) further adds that errors benefit learners by receiving a reaction
from the environment and using that reaction to evaluate his/her learning language
hypotheses. In second-language learning, people now have more positive views on
learners' errors than before. Errors are considered a vital part of language learning rather
than detrimental things in teaching and learning that should be deleted (Keshavarz,

2012).
2.2.3. Types of Errors
Errors can be classified into two main types that are interlingual error and
intralingual error. Interlingual errors are errors caused by the influence between
languages. In contrast, intralingual errors occur within the language. It reveals the
“incomplete learning of L2 rules or overgeneralization of them” (Troike, 2006:39).
Burt and Kiparsky (1974) divide error in another way. They state that there are
two kinds of errors that are global errors and local errors. Local errors do not have an
impact on the general meaning of utterances while global errors affect the whole
meaning of the utterances. Local errors are in the forms of nouns, verbs. Global errors
are in the form of wrong word order (cited in Touchie, 1986).
2.3. Attitude
According to the Oxford dictionary (2020), attitude is defined as what a person
thinks or feels about something; it is also an individual's behavior towards someone or
something. Gardner (1980) regards attitude as “a complex of beliefs” about an object.


Attitude can be defined in another way as “the sum total of a man's instincts and
feelings, prejudice or bias, preconceived notions, fears, threats and convictions about
any specified topic” (Thurstone, 1928, cited in Gardner, 1980: 267).
Wenden (1991) classifies attitude into three components, specifically cognitive,
affective, and behavioral. The cognitive component relates to one's mind; it is
considered as beliefs or thoughts about an object. The next component, the affective
component shows how a person feels about an object, which relates to emotion. This
component has an impact on a person's likes or dislikes. The last component, the
behavioral component consists of a person's behavior in a specific way toward an
object. The model of Wenden (1991) was used as the framework for building a research
instrument in this study.
It is evident that attitude has a great effect on learners' language learning. As
Brown (2000) mentions in his work, a positive attitude can definitely bring benefits to

language learners, while a negative may result in demotivation. A person can adopt
positive and negative attitudes toward an object. Faqeih (2015) advises teachers to pay
more attention to learners' language attitudes, especially to corrective feedback;
however, it does not mean that what students like is the best option for their language
achievement. Hamouda (2011) supports Faqeih (2015) that understanding students'
attitudes is essential because teaching techniques are various, and teachers can motivate
students to learn by doing what they prefer. He adds that the gap between teachers' and
students' attitudes always exists, and relevant literature proves that the differences
between teachers' and students' attitudes may lead to unsatisfactory learning outcomes.
In particular, teachers are required to understand students' beliefs and students'
preferences when giving them corrective feedback. Diab (2006) highlights the need to
fill the gap between teachers' and students' attitudes towards corrective feedback. In his
study, Diab (2006) maintains that feedback for students may become ineffective if
teachers and students hold a discrepancy in belief relating to corrective feedback


techniques. In the worst case, students may feel demotivated when producing writing in
their second language. Salteh and Sadeghi (2015) state that students are not going to use
corrective feedback in their learning if they do not feel pleased with the types of
corrective feedback that they are received. Therefore, teachers and students need to
agree on the terms of which corrective feedback is effective.
2.4. Corrective Feedback
“Corrective feedback (CF) refers to the feedback that learners receive on the
linguistic errors they make in their oral or written production in a second language (L2)”
(Ellis and Sheen, 2011:593). In this research, terms like “error correction”, “corrective
feedback”, “error treatment” or “corrective move” are interchangeably used, and they
are regarded as “teachers' responses to incorrect language forms in their learners' speech
or writing” (Pawlak, 2014:6).
Five questions need to be put into consideration when talking about corrective
feedback. They are:

-Should learners' errors be corrected?
-When should errors be corrected?
-Which errors should be corrected?
-How should people correct errors?
-Who should be the one to correct errors?
(Hendrickson, 1978)
2.4.1. Whether errors should be corrected
There have been debates for years about this question. Two opposite sites exist:
one believes in the efficacy of corrective feedback and supports that corrective feedback
should be carried out in language learning, while the other argues that corrective
feedback is harmful to language learners and should not be carried out.


2.4.1.1 Negative Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback
Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986) claim that English teachers tend to spend too
much time on the written language rules in students' works. Robb et al. (1986) do not
show support for giving feedback to surface errors directly. Methods that cost less time
on students' surface error are enough. They believe that it would be better if teachers
focus more on vital aspects of writing rather than giving corrective feedback elaborately.
Providing elaborate feedback on writing mechanics is unworthy. Truscott (2007),
supports the finding of Robb et al. (1986); he maintains that corrective feedback has a
detrimental impact on students' writing accuracy, and if it has a positive effect, the effect
is very slight. Karima (2013) adds that language teachers usually correct students' errors
in order to get rid of their fossilization; however, this action does not always bring
positive results. When correcting students' errors, teachers tend to pay more attention to
accuracy in steads of fluency and grammar in steads of content. Corrective feedback
causes students' distraction and negatively affects their fluency, and makes students lose
their ideas. Truscott (2010) strongly believes that corrective feedback does not have any
contribution to language learning, though it helps students to revise their production. He
maintains that even supporters of corrective feedback cannot declare that corrective

feedback is helpful because there are proofs for its' harmful effects.
In short, there is evidence of the negative effects of corrective feedback on
language learning. Researchers still debate whether teachers should treat students' errors
or not. Some are of the side that corrective feedback is time-consuming and not worthy,
while others support corrective feedback.
2.4.1.2. Positive Perspectives towards Corrective Feedback
Krashen (1982:117) says that according to SLA theory when error treatment
works, it will tell the learners that “a conscious rule is wrong.”. According to SLA
theory, error treatment should be implemented. To second language learners who are


adults, error correction is very supportive, “it helps them learn the exact environment in
which to apply rules and discover the precise semantic range of lexical items” (Krashen
and Seliger 1975, cited in Hendrickson, 1978:389). Corrective feedback plays such a
vital role in language acquisition, so utilizing a practical corrective approach is crucial
(Ebrahimi & Hajmalek, 2016). In teaching and learning, it is undeniable that teachers'
roles are significant because they are the ones who teach directly and observe the
learning process of students. Therefore, analyzing teachers' perspectives is essential.
Some English teachers also have optimistic views about corrective feedback. Uysal and
Aydin (2017) find out that the teachers think that error treatment could help to form
students' good habits such as “self-correction among students, pragmatic and
appropriate use of the target language, learners' accuracy and fluency”. Students seem to
have similar views about corrective feedback, Faqeih (2015) looks for students' opinions
towards error treatment, and the result illustrates that a majority of students taking part
in the research want their errors to be corrected. The study also suggests that there
should be more types of error correction in interactive activities to meet learners' needs.
Alamzi and Fawzi (2016) state that students hold a good view of corrective feedback.
According to Alamzi and Fawzi (2016), teachers need to think about the time and the
way to correct students' errors. Besides, it is essential for teachers to consider students'
language competence when correcting errors. Each group of students should be given

different types of treatment. Katayama (2007) emphasizes that practice in speaking and
correction of grammatical errors may assist in raising students' accuracy and lower
errors commitment.
Debates between the two sides, against corrective feedback and supporting
corrective feedback, continue until now. Various researches have been conducted to find
the answer, but still, there are limitations. Obviously, corrective feedback is an
important part of the learning process, so it is essential to find a way in which corrective
feedback becomes helpful for students' learning. It is necessary to carry out more studies