VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ KHÁNH EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIRECT CORRECTIVE
FEEDBACK IN ENGLISH WRITING
AT THE FACULTY OF ENGLISH, HANOI NATIONAL
UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(HIỆU QUẢ CỦA CHỮA LỖI GIÁN TIẾP TRONG MÔN
VIẾT TIẾNG ANH TẠI KHOA TIẾNG ANH TRƯỜNG ĐẠI
HỌC SƯ PHẠM HÀ NỘI)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Language Teaching Methodology
Code: 60 14 10 HANOI – 2013 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES


LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF CHARTS ix
PART A: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 2
3. Scope of the study 2
4. Method of the study 3
5. Significance of the study 3
6. Organization of the study 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 5
1.1. Process writing 5
1.1.1. An overview of process approach 5
1.1.2. Stages in a writing process 6
1.2. Corrective feedback 8
1.2.1. Definitions of corrective feedback 8
1.2.2. Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing 9
1.2.2.1. Self-assessment 9
1.2.2.2. Peer feedback 9
1.2.2.3. Teacher’s feedback 10
1.3. Teachers' corrective feedback strategies 11
1.4. Effectiveness of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback 13
v

1.5. Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teachers’ indirect corrective
feedback 14
2.1. Participants 17
2.2. Data collection instruments 18
2.2.1. Students’ writing analysis 18
2.2.2. Questionnaire 19

APPENDICES I
Appendix I
Survey Questionnaires for Students I vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CF : Corrective Feedback
CLT : Communicative Language Teaching
ESL : English as a Second Language
FOE : Faculty of English
HNUE : Hanoi National University of Education
ix

LIST OF CHARTS

Chart 1: Students’ feeling about the use of indirect corrective feedback 23
Chart 2: Students’ difficulties when the teacher uses indirect corrective feedback in
class 25
Chart 3: The suitability of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback to the students and
their leaning style 27
Chart 4: Percentage of errors corrected by students after receiving teacher’s indirect
corrective feedback 30
1

For all the mentioned reasons, the researcher wishes to conduct a study entitled
“Effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback in English writing at Faculty of
English, Hanoi National University of Education”
2. Aims of the study
This current study aims at (1) examining the effectiveness of written indirect corrective
feedback on improving writing accuracy of the second-year students at Faculty of
English, Hanoi National University of Education (FOE, HNUE); (2) investigating the
students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher’s indirect corrective feedback and (3)
proposing some recommendations of the use of teacher’s written indirect corrective
feedback in writing classes.
In short, the research paper aims to address the following questions:
1. To what extent does indirect corrective feedback strategy have effects on second-
year students’ writing accuracy at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of
Education?
2. How do second-year students at Faculty of English, Hanoi National University of
Education react to teacher’s indirect corrective feedback on their writing?
3. What can be done to improve students’ writing by employing indirect corrective
feedback?
3. Scope of the study
In fact, teacher’s corrective feedback can be given in both oral and written forms,
directly and indirectly on students’ writing. However, within the framework of a
graduation paper, the researcher only focuses on the teacher’s written indirect
corrective feedback.
3

In addition, due to the limit of this study, the participants selected are not all second-
year students at FOE, HNUE but only students from the two classes that the researcher
directly teach.
4. Method of the study
Analysis of students’ writing and questionnaires were utilized to collect the data for the

students’ writing and questionnaires; provides the discussion based on the findings
Chapter 4 – Recomendations – makes some suggestions for better use of teacher’s
indirect corrective feedback to improve students’ writing accuracy and change their
attitudes towards writing at FOE, HNUE.
Part C – Conclusion – summarizes the main issues mentioned in the research, outlines
the limitations of the study and makes suggestions for further research.
5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Process writing
1.1.1. An overview of process approach
Since early 1970s, what is now called the writing process has been taken into
consideration as an approach of teaching writing. Nowadays there is a shift from the
focus on students' written products to attention to students' writing process.
Product writing is considered a traditional approach in which writing is defined as “an
act of transferring ideas to paper with attention neither to the context nor to the stages
writers go through when creating a text” (Aires, 2010, p.2). In their study on
approaches to teaching writing, Badger, R., & White, G. (2000) state that “product-
based approaches see writing as mainly concerned with knowledge about the structure
of language, and the writing development as mainly the result of imitation of input in
the form of texts provided by the teacher.” In a word, it can be understood that this
approach to writing mainly concentrates on the product of writing rather than on the
process of writing.

(3) Revising: In this stage, the writers deal with the content of the writing;
i.e. refining text organization, structure, idea connections or other addition and
connection.
(4) Editing: In this stage, the writers work on the mechanics of writing such
as spellings and punctuations.
7

Writing in the abovementioned viewpoint is a one-way process in which there is no
involvement of a reader. Reid (1993) provides a different view in dividing writing
stages into basic stages such as planning, drafting, revising, and editing, and four other
stages externally imposed by teachers, namely pre-writing, responding, evaluating and
post writing. This distinction is helpful for teachers to apply the most productive
intervention in students' writing process in classroom context. The following is a
summary of the stages in the view of Reid (1993).
(1) Pre-writing: In this stage students are motivated to generate ideas by
brainstorming and discussion.
(2) Planning: Students organize ideas into a mind map, spider gram, or linear
form which helps students easily know the main points as well as the
organization of those main points in the required form of writing.
(3) Drafting: Students write the first draft. At this stage, attention should be
paid to the fluency of the writing and the choice of language in reference to
the target audience.
(4) Responding: This stage is important to the success of students' writing. It
gives them a sense that their writing is purposeful. In the context of teaching
writing, this stage also brings in assistance for students to improve their
writing through feedback of the teacher or fellow students.
(5) Revising: When drafts are returned, students review their texts on the basis
of teacher or peer feedback.
(6) Editing: At this stage, students do some finishing work of their writing for
teacher's evaluation. Students make final "readjustments and check accuracy

often take the form of a response to learners’ linguistic errors.

The definition of Ellis (2009) seems to be the most suitable and closely involves in the
scope of this study because it mentions the teacher’s response to the students’ errors in
a direct or indirect way. Hence, this definition is adapted in this study.
1.2.2. Types of corrective feedback to students’ writing
Written feedback in writing can be divided into three main types, namely self-
assessment, peer feedback and teacher’s feedback
1.2.2.1. Self-assessment
Self-assessment is the process of finding and correcting students’ own mistakes. It is
stated in Wei and Chen (2004) that “Self-assessment encourages students to look
critically and analytically at their writing and to take more responsibility for what they
write. Being involved in the process of self-evaluation, the students are no longer
simply passive recipients of feedback, but become active participants in evaluation”.
However, self-assessment is more time-consuming than the other types of feedback.
Also, it is unsuitable way for students with low English proficiency to revise their
writing.
1.2.2.2. Peer feedback
Peer feedback is a practice in language education where feedback is given by one
student to another. According to Bartels (2004), peer feedback means feedback from
the fellow students. If students are working on the same assignment together, peer
feedback means exchanging drafts and comments on each other’s drafts.
10

Peer feedback is used in writing classes to provide students more opportunities to learn
from each other. Peer feedback broadens learners’ involvement by giving them the
additional roles of reader and advisor to go with that of writer. Further, structuring
face-to-face discussion into the feedback process provides students the opportunity to
engage in constructive controversy, which may lead to insights and greater task
engagement (Johnson & Johnson, 1987).


1. Direct CF
The teacher provides students with
the correct form.
e.g. Lalande(1982) and Rob et
al.(1986)
2. Indirect CF
The teacher indicates that an error
exists but does not provide the
correction.

a. Indicating +
locating the error
This takes the form of underlining
and the uses of cursors to show
omissions in the students’ text.
Various studies have
employed indirect correction
of this kind (e.g. Ferris and
Roberts 2001; Chandler
2003).
b. Indication only
This takes the form of an
indication in the margin that an
error or errors have taken place in
a line of text.
Fewer studies have employed
this method (e.g. Robb et al.
1986).
2. Metalinguistic

attempts to correct all (or most) of
the students’ errors or selects one
or two specific types of errors to
correct. This distinction can be
applied to each of above options.
Most studies have investigated
unfocused CF (e.g. Chandler
2003; Ferris 2006). Sheen
(2007), drawing on traditions
in SLA studies of CF,
investigated focused CF
a. Unfocused
CF
Unfocused CF in extensive

b. Focused CF
Focused CF is intensive

4. Electronic
feedback
The teacher indicates an error and
provides a hyperlink to a
concordance file that provides
examples of correct usage.
Milton (2006)
5.Reformulation
This consists of a native speaker’s
reworking of the students’ entire
text to make the language seem as
nativelike as possible while

The comparison between the effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback
may be informative for better understanding about the effectiveness of indirect
corrective feedback. Of all the studies that consider the effectiveness of direct and
indirect corrective feedback, the reported results are somewhat contradictory.
14

Some researchers report no significant difference between the direct and indirect
corrective feedback (Robb et al., 1986; Ferris and Roberts, 2001). In their research,
Robb et al. (1986) investigate four types of feedback including direct feedback and
indirect feedback where the number of errors was given in each line of text. However,
the students’ improvement in accuracy in Robb et al. (1986) and Ferris and Roberts
(2001) is considered only by the revised texts instead of by students’ new pieces of
writing, which can not provide adequate evidence of the long-term effect of written
corrective feedback on students’ accuracy.
Although it is found in Chandler (2003) that students who receive direct corrective
feedback often perform better than students who receive indirect corrective feedback,
Lalande (1982) and Lee (2005) report more progress in accuracy for students whose
texts are indirectly corrected over those whose texts are directly corrected. Also, it is
noted in Lalande (1982) that indirect corrective feedback caters “guided learning and
problem solving”. Therefore, indirect corrective feedback is considered more likely to
lead to long-term learning (Ferris and Roberts, 2001).
All in all, the effectiveness of different kinds of corrective feedback is still argued by
different researchers. Beside the research that supports the use of direct corrective
feedback, there are a great number of studies asserting the effectiveness of indirect
corrective feedback. Some studies which conclude that direct corrective feedback is
more effective also agree that indirect corrective feedback can have effects on students’
problem solving skill and their long-term learning.
1.5. Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teachers’ indirect corrective
feedback
Students’ reactions and attitudes towards teachers’ indirect corrective feedback can be


Lee, 2005). Chandler (2003) finds that a reason for students’ preferences for direct
corrective feedback is that it is the fastest and easiest way to correct their errors.
However, the students in Chandler’s (2003) research also agree that they can remember
the mistakes and learn more thanks to indirect corrective feedback. Therefore, a
measure of the students’ attitudes towards the use of teacher’s indirect corrective
feedback could be of great value.

17

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This research followed a two-group pre-test and post-test design. To measure the
effectiveness of indirect corrective feedback on students’ writing with the focus on the
grammatical accuracy both quantitative method (analysis of students’ writing) and
qualitative method (questionnaires) were employed. In this study the students’