Phuong, B. M.

1. Learners' Reactions & Responses toward Teacher Written Feedback in Writing Skill: A Case-study in EFL Classes in Vietnam Phuong, B. M. Presenter : Phuong Bui Email : phuong.bui@pvu.edu.vn

2. Objectives Introduction & Rationale for the study Scope & Aims Methodologies Results & Discussion

3. Introduction • Writing: essential & difficult! • ESL learners’ difficulties in learning writing English: • Less chance of using English • Different language functions and styles, etc. • ESL learners want to know how well they are performing & how they can improve their skills.

4. Introduction • To review what they have done • To know their strengths and weaknesses • To enhance their writing ability • To avoid making same mistakes • … • Providing Feedback is one of the most essential tasks of writing teachers (Ferris, 2007).

5. Introduction Research shows that: • Teacher feedback has a strong impact on learners’ determination about writing in a given composition (Taylor & Hoedt, 1966) • Teacher feedback is one of the strongest influences on students’ outcomes (Alton & Lee, 2003). • Teacher feedback is desirable & valuable for students; they pay attention to teacher feedback & it helps to enhance their writing (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1995b; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996). • Etc.

6. Introduction • The definite conclusion of teacher feedback’s effectiveness has not been given yet. • Within the field of L2 learning, teacher feedback still remains one of the biggest concerns amongst ESL educators and learners.

7. Introduction • For teachers to provide effective feedback & avoid misunderstanding (Lee, 2008). • For learners to utilize teacher feedback & improve their writing skills • Focus on: Teacher feedback methods, influences of teachers’ comments, learners’ expectation & references, etc. • There is a need to understand learners’ reactions and responses to teacher written feedback.

8. Focus of the study • ESL learners’ responses, reactions & expectation toward different types of TWF. • Teachers’ methods in giving feedback (characteristics of teacher written feedback) • The language issues that concern writing learners.

9. Scope and aims • What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in giving written feedback? What are the similarities and differences? • To what extent do students evaluate the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback? • What are the students’ reactions and responses when receiving their TWF? • What are the students’ preferences and expectations in types of TWF, and teachers’ techniques of giving feedback in two classes?

10. Brief literature review Teacher written feedback in writing • Form-focused feedback: grammar-correction, or error correction. • Direct feedback: direct correction • Coded feedback: indirect correction (with codes, such as: s.p, v.t, etc) • Uncoded feedback: identify errors by highlighting, underlining, circling, etc. • Content-based feedback: meaning-based or meaning related feedback. (3) Integrated feedback: as a combination of the grammar correction and the content-based feedback. (Park, 2006)

11. Methodologies • Participants • 49 second year English major students from two classes (Class A and class B) at the Faculty of English Teacher Education, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University Hanoi. • Two writing teachers of Class A & Class B.

12. Methodologies • Data collection methods • Questionnaire: 11 Questions (both close-ended & open-ended); written in simple English. • Focus-group interview: 02 meeting with 2 classes, an open forum. • Document analysis: Students’ writing portfolios.

13. Results and discussion RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in giving written feedback? What are the similarities and differences?

14. Results and discussion RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in giving written feedback? What are the similarities and differences? • SIMILARITIES • Apply 5 methods in giving FB • Provide comments at marginal and at the end of students’ paper. • Provide both negative and positive comments

15. Results and discussion RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in giving written feedback? What are the similarities and differences? Teacher A: - Error/mistake identification (29 times): Mostly circling, underlining mistakes. • Coded error/mistake identification(18 times) • Integrated feedback (13 times)

16. Results and discussion RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in giving written feedback? What are the similarities and differences? Teacher B: - Integrated feedback (30 times): carefully stated out both students’ errors in terms of language use, content and ideas. • Error identification (19 times) • Coded error identification (18 times) • Applied both “Error correction” and “Error identification” in 1 paper sometimes.

17. Results and discussion RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback? Learners were asked to rank the effectiveness of five types of TWF according to their level of priority from 01 – very low to 05 – very high.

18. Results and discussion RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback? • Integrated-feedback is rated as highly effective by respondents from both class. - In class A, except for Integrated-feedback, there was no big difference between those 4 types (low-moderately helpful). - In class B, there was clear evidence that students preferred two specific types (“Integrated-feedback” and “Error/mistake correction”) than the other three.

19. Results and discussion RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback? • When being asked if they felt that TWF help to enhance their writing ability, 100% learners in two classes were overwhelmingly affirmative confirmed that TWF were helpful with different reasons.

20. Results and discussion RQ3: What are the students’ reactions and responses when receiving their TWF? - The majority of students often made the correction themselves after reading TWF, in which the mistakes were singled out by teacher, and then ask peers to check. • A smaller number of learners asked friends for help if they did not understand how to correct the mistakes, or how to follow TWF. • Just few students approached their teacher asking for help when they did not understand/ know how to correct their mistakes.

21. Results and discussion RQ3: What are the students’ reactions and responses when receiving their TWF? - When being asked about the reasons they rarely approached teachers for further explanations, some of students in class B claimed that the TWF were already detailed and understandable, therefore they preferred discussing with peers rather than talking with teacher; whereas some students in class A did not approach their teacher because they were “afraid” that they might bother her.

22. Results and discussion RQ4: What are the students’ preferences and expectations in types of TWF, and teachers’ techniques of giving feedback in two classes? • 50% students in class A and 68% in class B preferred to receive ”Integrated-feedback”, following was “Error/mistake correction” chosen by a smaller number of participants (16.7% in class A and 24% in class B). • “Error/mistake identification”and Coded error/mistake identification” are the least desirable feedback.

23. Discussion • ESL English major Vietnamese learners in the two classes valued TWF and found TWF valuable. This finding confirmed what many researches in various ESL contexts had claimed through years. • The characteristics of TWF have impacts on learners’ evaluations the usefulness of TWF. • The findings claimed that learners had a strong desire for receiving detailed TWF, especially TWF that focuses on both form and content, regardless of TWF they got. • They preferred self-correcting their mistakes, checking with peers, thinking about their writing alone to approaching their teachers asking for help/ advice.

24. References Alton –Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis. Wellington: Ministry of Edu. Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Knoll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ferris D.R. (1995b). Teaching ESL Composition Students to Become Independent Self-editors. TESOL Journal, 8, 41-62. Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 165-193. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learners receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing,3 (2), 141-163. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of students response to expert feedback on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal,80,287-308 Lee, I. (2008) ‘Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17:3, 144-164. Park, E. 2006. Review Article on “The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Written Feedback on L2 Writing”. SNU Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language 5, 61-73

25. Q&A section Thank you! Presenter:Phuong Bui Email : phuong.bui@pvu.edu.vn Website : www.pvu.edu.vn