1
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BAN THI KIM THANH
STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING AT THE
BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL FOR ETHNIC MINORITY
STUDENTS IN TUYEN QUANG THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN HỒI
THÔNG TIN CHỮA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN
TRONG MÔN VIẾT Ở TRƯỜNG THPT DÂN TỘC
NỘI TRÚ TUYÊN QUANG

STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHERS’
CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING AT THE
BOARDING HIGH SCHOOL FOR ETHNIC
MINORITYSTUDENTS IN TUYEN QUANG THÁI ĐỘ CỦA HỌC SINH ĐỐI VỚI PHẢN HỒI
THÔNG TIN CHỮA LỖI CỦA GIÁO VIÊN
TRONG MÔN VIẾT Ở TRƯỜNG THPT DÂN TỘC
NỘI TRÚ TUYÊN QUANG
MA. MINOR THESIS
FIELD: METHODOLOGY
SUPERVISOR: HOANG THI HONG HAI, MA.
HA NOI - 2010


1.2.1.4. Feedback focus on form versus on content 21
1.2.2. Forms of teacher feedback 22
1.2.3. Major issues in giving teacher‟s feedback 23
2.1. Context of the study 25
2.1.1. The setting of the study 25
2.1.2. The writing program
2.1.2.1. Overview of the textbooks 26
2.1.2.2. The teaching of writing skill. 27
2.2. The study
2.2.1. Methodology 28
2.2.2. Data analysis 30
2.2.3. Findings and discussion 43
Summary
CHAPTER THREE: RECOMMENDATION AND SUGGESTIONS 43
Summary
PART THREE. CONCLUSIONS 50
3.1. Summary 50
3.2. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies. 51
References
Appendices

8
PART ONE - INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale of the study
Today English is considered one of the most important factors to the
trend of globalization in all fields of life over the world. Thus, English as
Second Language has been taught in many countries and the demand to use
English fluently as well as to acquire four basic skills is becoming essential
among all students. As a result, methodology has been studied for years to
find out the most effective ways of teaching and learning English.

As a teacher of English at the Boarding High School for Ethnic
Minority Students in Tuyen Quang, the researcher is constantly searching for
ways to help her students become more confident and effective writers.
During writing lessons, she finds that her students often make a lot of errors
that increase students‟ anxiety in writing lesson. With a view of language
learning as a creative construction process, she shares an agreement with
Hedge (2000) in the view that error is an inevitable and positive part of that
process (p.15). Hedge also claimed that “learners progress faster with
meaningful language practice in a rich linguistic environment and with an
informed policy of error correction on the part of the teacher” (p.15). This
means teacher-response is an essential step in the writing process as he stated
“getting feedback from the teacher and from other students in the class
enables learners to test hypotheses and refine their developing knowledge of
the language system” (p.13). That is why the researcher focuses on teacher
corrective feedback, which she considers a complex troublesome, but
important issue in writing classrooms. To have a quick view on this aspect, an
observation on the writing lessons of four teachers of English in the
researcher‟s school was conducted within a month. The result showed that all
the four teachers applied mostly teacher corrective feedback to respond to the
students‟ writings. She wondered if the teachers‟ present feedback matched
with students‟ preferences and how students reacted to the feedback they
received.
All above encouraged the researcher to conduct a survey to explore
students‟ attitudes towards teacher corrective feedback and recommend
Comment [P4]: teacher-respone
Comment [P5]: Reacted to??

10
teachers of English some suggested solutions to help their students gain more
achievement in writing skill.

thesis, this study focuses only on the teacher corrective feedback in
responding to the students‟ writing at the Boarding High School for Ethnic
Minority Students in Tuyen Quang.
Significance of the research
The research is carried out with the hope that the results of the study will
provide significant insights into both what teachers have actually done as they
respond and how the students react to these responses. This may lead to
suggestions for improving teacher feedback and helping the students to utilize
it more successfully in their writing revision.
Methods of the study
To realize the aims, the following methods for data collection were
employed in the study.
Data were collected by means of survey questionnaires for 100 students at
The Boarding High School for Ethnic Minority Students in Tuyen Quang. The
questionnaires included closed-ended questions, open-ended questions and
Likert scales.
Other sources for data collection came from classroom observation, an
interview between the researcher and four teachers, and collection of the
teachers‟ written comments on the students‟ written work.
Four sources to data collection will hopefully provide fresh insights into
teachers‟ feedback giving practice and the students‟ reactions towards the
feedback they received. On this basis, some measures will be applied to
improve the teacher corrective feedback so that the teacher responds to the
students‟ writing more properly.
Design of the study
This study has three main parts: introduction, development, and
conclusion.
Comment [P8]: a comma betwween development
& and


size
Comment [P10]: Should be in italics

13
1.1. Theoretical backgrounds of feedback.
1.1.1. Definitions of feedback
As far from now, responding to student writing, including giving
feedback, is one of the most controversial topics in second language
instruction and theory. As the importance of feedback, it is considered a
fundamental element of a process approach to writing. Therefore, there have
been attempts to define the term “feedback”.
According to Ur (1996) “feedback is information that is given to the
learner about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the
objective of improving this performance” (p.242). He also distinctly pointed
out two main distinguishable components of feedback: assessment and
correction. This significant definition mentions feedback as an essential step
in teaching with an obvious aim at helping students to have better
achievement in learning.
Similarly, Keh (1989) defined feedback as “any output from reader to
writer that provides information for revision” (p.18). In other words, it is the
comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer to produce
reader-based prose as opposed to writer prose. As the writers receive all these,
they will discover that good writing involves “an interaction between their
ideas, the expressions of the ideas, and their reader‟s perceptions and
reactions to the expression” (Chaudron, 1984. p.2). This definition can be
seen as one of the most comprehensive as feedback is considered as an
effective means of teacher‟s communication to the students about their
writing in the final one. Some researchers (Ferris, 2003; Leki, 1990) also
shared an agreement when noting that feedback is most effective when it is
delivered at intermediate stages of the writing process.

relation to issues as as timing, location, participation, attitudes, outcomes and
so on. Also, both Huntley (1992) and Truscott (1996), based on their

15
respective reviews of the literature, stated that substantial research evidence
suggests that correction of surface level errors is futile and may not be worth
the instructor‟s time and effort. Truscott even concluded that this type of
correction should be abandoned in second language writing classes because it
can have harmful effect. This point of view is shared by other studies in
various second language contexts investigating the effect of different types of
feedback on student writing skill in the case that explicit error correction
seems to be generally ineffective (Keper, 1991; Sheppard, 1992).
However, there have been number of the researchers who support to the
importance of feedback in teaching English as a second language. They
believed in giving corrective feedback to students to improve their written
accuracy. In Schulz (1996) students‟ beliefs about what constitutes effective
feedback on writing and their expectations regarding teacher paper-making
techniques may influence the effectiveness of such feedback. Hedge (2000)
shared an agreement in the case that “getting feedback from the teacher and
from other students in the class enables learners to test hypothesis and refine
their developing knowledge of the language system.” (p.13). In this case,
good feedback not only stimulates students for revision but also motivates
them to maintain their interest in writing. In addition, provision of comments
helps individualize writing instructions in which students will be able to get
individual attention to have their own needs or problems rightfully addressed
(Reid, 1993). In this way, feedback is an important step towards the learner
centeredness.
In conclusion, giving and receiving feedback helps students to develop
their sensitivity and their own writing style. In other words, feedback is a
fundamental element of a writing approach when it pushes the students

In other words, self-editing 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.
1.1.2.2. Peer feedback
Comment [P12]: A comma between „feedback‟
and „and‟
Comment [P13]: Check grammar
Comment [P14]: Punctuation

17
Peer feedback is a part of larger category of educational activities in
which students work together in groups. According to Bartels (2004), peer
feedback means feedback from your fellow students. If students are working
on the same assignment together, peer feedback means exchanging drafts and
comments on each other‟s drafts. Peer feedback broadens learners‟
involvement by giving them the additional roles of reader and advisor to go
with that of writer. This addition of roles, hopefully, increases learner‟s
insight into the writing process. A related benefit proposed for peer work is
that it helps learners become more autonomous, thus preparing them to write
without teacher there to correct their errors. 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).
Peer feedback on student writing has been advocated for second
language learners. Jacobs (1987) discussed the benefits for learners of
interaction with others when pointing out that such interaction can be the
source of cognitive conflict which can lead learners to reexamine and adjust
the frameworks through which they view the word. In addition, Rollinson
(2005) found that peer feedback gives both readers and writers more time for
collaboration, consideration, and reflection.

underling errors could help East Asian college students improve their writing
accuracy and whether the effects would last over one semester. The results of
this study demonstrated that formal accuracy of student writing improved
significantly if the participants were required to correct their errors than if
they were not. Results also exhibited a gain in accuracy which was not
accompanied by a decline in fluency over the semester. Findings of the study
signified the importance of student correction or revision, and it might be

19
possible that “if students did not revise their writing based on feedback about
errors, having teachers mark errors was equivalent to giving no error
feedback”
A number of researchers have also attempted to directly investigated
L2 students‟ preferences and reactions to teacher making techniques and their
beliefs about what constitutes effective feedback to writing. Radecki and
Swales (1988), based on a survey of 59 ESL students‟ attitude towards
feedback on their written work, conclude that ESL teachers might lose their
credibility among their students if they do not correct all surface errors since
findings revealed that students seem to need and expect correction of all
errors. Nugrahenny, (2007) carried out a study to explore Indonesian students'
attitudes toward teacher

feedback. The findings show that

generally teachers
and students have a marked preference for

teacher feedback. The high
preference for teacher feedback was


on student drafts and student-teacher conferences. In the scope of the thesis,
the author mentioned teacher corrective feedback only. In this section, types
of teacher corrective feedback and how these types influence the student
revision will be examined.
1.2.1.1. Marginal versus end feedback
Marginal feedback is a kind of feedback that is written in the margin or
between sentence lines of the student‟s paper. It refers to the teacher‟s
immediate intervention in discrete parts of the student‟s draft. By contrast,
summary at the end of the paper called end feedback is normally an overview
of more consideration in an essay.
In Ferris and Hedgcock‟s view (1998), there is no conclusive evidence
that either marginal or end comments are preferable or more effective.
However, in case teachers can only give one form of commentary given
overwhelming number of papers and severe time constraints, a comprehensive
and clear endnote is strongly recommended. When time permits, writing
teachers should try to make a combination of both to give students more
chance to revise their writing.
1.2.1.2. Positive versus negative feedback
As far as teacher feedback is concerned, a lot of studies have been done
into the effects of positive and negative comments on the student revision
(Gee, 1972; Ferris, 1995). All the studies come to an agreement that the
students remember and appreciate encouraging remarks made by their
teachers. Gee has gone far to assert that the students would have better
attitudes towards writing if they receive positive feedback.
However, Ferris noted that a significant majority of her participants
described critical comments as being positive since they all helped them
Comment [P15]: Sour ce?

21
improve their papers. This result suggested that students expect to receive


22
teacher feedback should focus on form (e , grammar, mechanics) or on
content (e.g., organization, amount of detail). Griffin (1982) has noted, “the
major question confronting any theory of responding to student writing is
where we should focus our attention” (p.299).
A small number of studies have focused on content alone. Hillocks
(1986) concluded that “focused feedback can have an effect on certain aspects
of writing” (p.166). Additionally, Huntley (1992) maintained that feedback on
content should be provided to students while feedback on form should be
avoided, and she recommended that L2 teachers incorporate peer reviews and
student-teacher conferences in their teaching as two valuable alternative
feedback methods to traditional error correction. These views led to the
suggestion that teachers should focus on content more than form and provide
content feedback between initial and final drafts of papers.
However, some research findings have proved the teacher feedback focus
on form. Enginarlar (1993), based on a survey of 47 EFL students‟ attitudes
towards the feedback procedure employed in their class, concluded that these
students perceive attention to linguistic errors as effective teacher feedback.
Similarly, Ferris (1995) reached the same conclusion based on his respective
surveys of students‟ attitudes toward feedback in an EFL context. Schulz
(1996) investigated Fl teacher and student beliefs about explicit grammar
instruction and error correction and also found that students preferred a focus
on form.
1.2.2. Forms of teacher feedback
Ferris (1997) claimed that teacher feedback generally includes four basic
syntactic forms: question, statement, imperative, and exclamation. They have
different pragmatic aims such as giving or asking for further information,
making requests for revision, giving positive feedback about what the
students has done well.

Comment [P18]: Check this

24
political context” (p.125). With regard to teacher‟s roles in Ls writing classes,
Raimes (1984) discussed the difficulty of composing in a second language
and of how teacher response can shape and potentially get in the way of that
process. The main purpose of the researcher is to suggest that ESL writing
teachers need to pay more attention to the act of writing and less to ESL. She
claimed that “one remedy for the aguish of composing is to concentrate on the
making of meaning, to concentrate on the act of composing instead of
peripherals” (p.92). She offered three areas in which teacher can do this:
generating assignments for the class, giving feedback, and providing readings.
In terms of providing feedback, Raimes suggested that corrections are not the
only kind of feedback teacher can give and that working on developing
grammatical forms should be a parallel activity to composing.
In regard to strategies of teacher feedback, Reid (1993) stated “in
teachers‟ attempt to evade the evils of appropriation taking over their
students‟ work, many ESL writing teachers have stopped working with their
students‟ texts altogether” (p.275). Though this withdrawal may stem from
the best of intentions, Reid argued that teachers need to “accept their
responsibilities as cultural informants and as facilitators for creating social
discourse community in the ESL classroom” (p.275).
Summary
In summary, this chapter has so far touched upon issues relating to the
topic of the study. It has mentioned the definition and the importance of
feedback, types of feedback and the focuses on teacher feedback as well as
major issues in giving teacher’s feedback in ESL writing classroom. The
following chapter will focus on the study - its methodology and findings –
under the light of the above discussed theories.


enthusiastic teachers of all in the province. There are five teachers of the
English Group at the school. Most of them are not very high-educated, but
Comment [P20]: thirty-eight
Comment [P21]: high-educated

26
experienced teachers. They spend a lot of their concerns about teaching and
improving students‟ English level. However, they lack appropriate teaching
methods and techniques, especially giving feedback. They do not have an
adequate knowledge about many fields of language teaching; in other words,
they need to be retrained.
All the students are ethnic minorities groups. They mostly come from
remote or mountainous areas of the province. They are hard-working and
well-behaved students. However, most of them have low ability in learning.
Many of them have low English proficiency and their utterances are in words
or short prefabricated phrases. Their grammar is mostly inaccurate and their
pronunciation requires concentrated listening. As a result, they often have a
great anxiety in English classrooms. Among four skills of English, they find
writing much more difficult than the others and often participate in writing
lessons unsuccessfully. Despite their low ability, many of them are
continuously paying much more concerns about English as a core subject and
hope that their English level will be improved by their great efforts. Thus,
they ask for help in writing skill.
2.1.2. The writing program
2.1.2.1. Overview of the textbooks
The textbooks which are required to teach English in high schools are
English Basic 10, 11 and 12. They were developed based on the new national
curriculum. The methodologies that the books follow are “learner-centered
approach and the communicative approach with task-based teaching being the
central teaching method” (English 10, Teacher‟s Manual: 12).

1
9
2
16
0
48
Controlled writing
7
13
1
8
2
12
43
Guided writing
7
2
7
3
3
4
26
Free writing
13
4
15
9
18
7
66

Then, it may proceed with one or two controlled or / and guided writing
activities and end with a freer writing activities” (p. 43). This fact leads
students to engage in imitating copying and transforming models of correct
language texts to the new writing task. There seems to be no explicit emphasis
on the process of planning, drafting, revision, and editing.

Moreover, the textbooks do not offer much chance for free writing
practice. As can be seen from the table 3, among the 183 writing activities, 66
are for free writing practice, account for 36%. In other words, there is an
average of only 0.5 free writing activity per unit. This is quite far from the
given goal of teaching writing in CLT that is to enable learners to become
more independent and effective writers. Also, Thuy Minh, based on a text
book evaluation, claimed that “writing involves more than putting ideas into
sentences and without adequate prior preparation (e.g. instruction about
paragraph writing, working on models, controlled and guided practice…” (p.
45). She concluded that writing task in the three textbooks would probably be
too challenging and perhaps even beyond students‟ ability. As a result, the
teachers have to adapt writing tasks to match them with students‟ ability.
Also, the teachers should know students‟ preferences for the feedback they
receive to give good responses to their students‟ written work.
2.2. The study
2.2.1. Methodology
2.2.1.1. The subjects.
The subjects involved in the study include 100 students and 4 teachers
from the Boarding High School for Ethnic Minority Students in Tuyen
Quang. It may be very difficult to select a random sample of individuals due
to a large number of the students in the department (more than 500 students).
Comment [P25]: Check the format of this!!!