The Effectiveness of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback as Perceived By Teachers and Students of a Public University in Vietnam

Đàm Mỹ Linh


The current study investigates the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on five different aspects of writing (grammar, language use, mechanic use, content and organization) as perceived by teachers and English-major sophomores in a Vietnamese public university. Specifically, it provides an insight into the effectiveness of this feedback pattern as perceived by the teachers and their students. To fulfill the stated aims, this research utilizes two main instruments, namely questionnaire and in-depth interview. The data from the questionnaire was analysed using statistical procedures. Meanwhile, the data from the interviews was processed using qualitative analysis. With regards to the findings, teachers and students agree that given feedback suits students’ understandability, but somewhat exceeds their self-correction ability. Teachers and students’ perceptions match on the efficacy of indirect WCF for the treatment of grammatical errors and its inefficacy for the betterment of content. Both parties also remain neutral about the correction efficiency of this feedback pattern regarding lexical and mechanical errors. Finally, organization is the aspect on which the perceptions between two sides mismatch the most. Teachers and students also share several reasons in accounting for their perceptions. The findings implicate that changes should be made to feedback-giving practices of teachers and feedback-handling practices of students to enhance the effectiveness of indirect WCF.


Written Corrective Feedback (Wcf), Effectiveness, Writing, Perceptions

Full Text:



Atikah, D. (2013). The effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback in teaching hortatory exposition writing. Journal of English department. Halu Oleo University, Kendari, Indonesia.

Amrhein, H.R & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: What Do Students and Teachers Prefer and Why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127. Retrieved from:

Beuningen, C. V. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27. Retrieved from:

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. Retrieved from:

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the 'language learning potential' of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363. Retrieved from:

Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Francisco State University: Pearson Longman

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing: Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.

Corpuz, V. (2011). Error Correction in Second Language Writing: Teachers’ Beliefs, Practices, and Students’ Preferences. (Master thesis). Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved from:

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. Journal of Second Language, 1(1), 3-18. Retrieved from:

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System: International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 353-371. Retrieved from

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.

Ferris, D. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.

Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. Retrieved from:

Hosseiny, M. (2014). The Role of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in Improving Iranian EFL Students' Writing Skill. Proceedings of the International Conference on Current Trends in ELT, 98(6), 668-674. Retrieved from:

Hurley, M. M., Wilkinson, B. (2004). The Effects of School-Based Writing-to-Learn Interventions on Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research Journal, 74(2). Retrieved from:

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. Retrieved from:

Hyland, F. & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writings. Journal of Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286. Retrieved from:

Ismail, S. A. A, (2011). Exploring Students’ Perceptions of ESL Writing. The Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 73-83. Retrived from:

Jacob, H.L (1981). Testing ESL Composition: A Practical approach. London: Newbury House Publisher.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149. Retrieved from:

Le. T. P. A. (2012). An introduction to Research Methodology in Foreign Language Education. Hanoi: Vietnam National University

Myles, J. (2002). Second Language Writing and Research: The Writing Process and Error Analysis in Student Texts. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. 6(2). Retrieved from

Nakaruma. S. (2016). Insights from studies on written corrective feedback. REFLctions Journal, 22(2), 89-102.

Nguyen, T. T. H (2016). The effectiveness of written peer feedback in improving writing skills as perceived by second year students at FELTE, ULIS- VNU (Unpublished master’s thesis). Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Salteh, M. K & Sadeghi. K. (2012). Teachers’ Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing Revisited: Concerns Against and Suggestions for its Employment. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17 (3), 375-383.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–83. Retrieved from:

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Berlin – New York: Springer.

Sun, S. (2013). Written corrective feedback: effects of focused and unfocused grammar correction on the case acquisition in L2 German (Doctoral Thesis). University of Kansas, Kansas, USA. Retrieved from:

Wang, T. & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. Journal of English Language Teaching, 8(1), 110-120. Retrieved from:

Zen, D. (2005). Teaching EFL/ESL beyond language skill. Paper presented at the 3rd International Annual LATEFL China Conference. Retrieved from:



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies  

You may require to add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.