Phuong Hong Thi Tu, Van De Phung


This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of using teacher interactive feedback (TIF) on students' paragraph writing performance. Furthermore, it examines students' attitudes towards this strategy. The study took place in a lower secondary school and used both qualitative and quantitative data. Participants were 86 students who were randomly assigned to the experimental group (EG) and the control group (CG). While students in the EG learned to write the paragraph utilizing the TIF, students in the CG learned to write the paragraph using the traditional technique. Before the intervention, students in both groups took a pre-test to gauge their level of writing proficiency. The results were then compared to relevant data. The experiment spanned eight weeks during which a post-test was then administered to students in both groups to evaluate their development, particularly that of the EG. To obtain insights into TIF, questionnaires and semi-structured interviews were conducted. The findings from the study demonstrated a considerable improvement in paragraph writing skills through interactive feedback (IF) and paragraph writing instruction. Additionally, the majority of students showed their enthusiasm towards learning to write using TIF and expected to continue practicing this strategy in the future.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


teacher interactive feedback, paragraph writing, proficiency

Full Text:



Akbarzadeh, R., Saeidi, M., & Chehreh, M. (2014). The effect of oral interactive feedback on the accuracy and complexity of EFL learners’ writing performance: Uptake and retention. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 105-126.

Al-Atabi, A. J. (2020). What is Writing.

Amri, S. (2016). Correlation inquiry between structure knowledge and paragraphs writing performance. J-SHMIC: Journal of English for Academic, 3(2), 58-69.

Anshu, A. H., & Yesuf, M. Y. (2022). Effects of collaborative writing on EFL students’ paragraph writing performance: Focus on content and coherence. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 10(1), 36-47.

Arter, J., & McTighe, J. (2001). Scoring rubrics in the classroom: Using performance criteria for assessing and improving student performance. Corwin Press.

Ayala, A., Henríquez, C., & Cruz, F. (2019, January). Reinforcement learning using continuous states and interactive feedback. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applications of Intelligent Systems (pp. 1–5).

Barana, A., Conte, A., Fioravera, M., Marchisio, M., & Rabellino, S. (2018). A model of formative automatic assessment and interactive feedback for STEM. 2018 IEEE 42nd Annual Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC), 1048–1048.

Barana, A., Marchisio, M., & Sacchet, M. (2021). Interactive feedback for learning Mathematics in a digital learning environment. Education Sciences, 11(6), 279.

Batalla-Busquets, J. M., Hintzmann, C., Martínez-Argüelles, M. J., Plana-Erta, D., & Badia-Miró, M. (2012). Interactive feedback in virtual learning environment-video-skills. Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on e-Learning: ECEL, 37.

Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international students. Routledge.

Becker, A. (2016). Student-generated scoring rubrics: Examining their formative value for improving ESL students’ writing performance. Assessing Writing, 29, 15–24.

Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91–97.

Birjandi, P., & Siyyari, M. (2010). Self-assessment and peer-assessment: A comparative study of their effect on writing performance and rating accuracy. IJAL, 13(1), 234-45

Broad, B. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. University Press of Colorado.

Brookhart, S. M. (2013). How to create and use rubrics for formative assessment and grading. ASCD.

Brown, G. T. L. (2009). The reliability of essay scores: The necessity of rubrics and moderation. Tertiary Assessment and Higher Education Student Outcomes: Policy, Practice and Research, 40-48.

Brown, E., & Glover, C. (2006). Evaluating written feedback. In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, 81-91.

Brown, G. T., Glasswell, K., & Harland, D. (2004). Accuracy in the scoring of writing: Studies of reliability and validity using a New Zealand writing assessment system. Assessing Writing, 9(2), 105–121.

Bulmer, M. G. (1979). Principles of statistics. Courier Corporation.

Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.

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, 12(3), 267-296.

Cheung, Y. L. (2016). Teaching writing. In W.A. Renandya, & H.P. Widodo (Eds.). English language teaching today: Building a closer between theory and practice (pp.1-20). New York: Springer.

Cohan, C. (1976). Writing effective paragraphs. College Composition and Communication, 27(4), 363-365.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1994). Research methods in education. Routledge.

Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental statistics for social research: step-by-step calculations and computer techniques using SPSS for Windows. Psychology Press.

Cramer, D., & Howitt, D. L. (2004). The Sage Dictionary of statistics: A Practical resource for students in the social sciences. SAGE.

Dalil, Z., & Harrizi, M. (2013). The importance of grammar in second language teaching. (Unpublished Manuscript). Universite Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco.

Das, K. R., & Imon, A. H. M. R. (2016). A brief review of tests for normality. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 5-12.

Demir, S. (2022). Comparison of normality tests in terms of sample sizes under different skewness and kurtosis coefficients. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 9(2), 397-409.

Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2011). Measuring skewness: A forgotten statistic? Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2), 1-19.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). New themes and approaches in second language motivation research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 43-59.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary educational psychology, 30(2), 207-241.

Harmer, J. (2001). Book review: The practice of English language teaching. RELC Journal, 32(1), 135-136.

Harmer, J. (2004). Reviewed by Jesús García Laborda. Harlow, Essex, UK.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.

Hermanto, H. (2008). The influence of language competence, writing competence, and cultural competence on producing a successful writing. Jurnal Sosial Humaniora (JSH), 1(2), 185–195.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 1-22.

Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317.

Jang, E. E., & Wagner, M. (2013). Diagnostic feedback in the classroom. The Companion to Language Assessment, 2, 693-711.

Kusumaningrum, S. R., Cahyono, B. Y., & Prayogo, J. A. (2019). The effect of different types of peer feedback provision on EFL students’ writing performance. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 213–224.

Li, Z., Sharma, P., Lu, X. H., Cheung, J. C. K., & Reddy, S. (2022). Using Interactive Feedback to Improve the Accuracy and Explainability of Question Answering Systems Post-Deployment (arXiv:2204.03025). arXiv.

Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. E. (2021). The effects of online Feedback on ESL/EFL writing: A meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30(6), 643–653.

Marshall, G. (2005). The purpose, design and administration of a questionnaire for data collection. Radiography, 11(2), 131-136.

Morgan, G. A., & Harmon, R. J. (2001). Data collection techniques. Journal-American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(8), 973-976.

Moskal, B. M. (2000). Scoring rubrics: What, when and how? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 7(1), 3.

Muhtia, A., Suparno, S., & Sumardi, S. (2018). Blended learning in a paragraph writing course: A case study. International Journal of Language Teaching and Education, 2(3), 216–226.

Nguyen, T. H. (2015). Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at Thong Linh high school. Asian Journal of Educational Research, 3(2).

Nguyen, T. N. Q. (2018). A study on the validity of VSTEP writing tests for the sake of regional and international integration. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 34(4).

Nguyen, T. T. H., & Pham, T. T. M. (2016). Difficulties in teaching English for Specific Purposes: Empirical study at Vietnam Universities. Higher Education Studies, 6(2), 154-161.

Pallant, J. (2011). Survival manual. A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS, 4(4).

Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010). Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68–85.

Pham, H. T. P. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147.

Piovesana, A., & Senior, G. (2018). How small is big: Sample size and skewness. Assessment, 25(6), 793-800.

Ploeger, K. (2000). Simplified paragraph skills. McGraw-Hill Humanities.

Pratiwi, K. D. (2016). Students’ difficulties in writing English (A study at the third semester students of English education program at University of Bengkulu academic year 2011-2012). Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3(1), 1-13.

Ran, Q., & Danli, L. (2016). Teachers’ feedback on students’ performance in a secondary EFL classroom. Proceedings of ClaSIC, 242–254.

Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-wilk, Kolmogorov Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2(1), 21–33.

Rezgui, Z., & Zaidi, K. (2016). The effect of using code-switching on EFL learners’ paragraph writing performance.

Sadeghi, H., Biniaz, M., & Soleimani, H. (2016). The impact of project-based language learning on Iranian EFL learners comparison/ contrast paragraph writing skills. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 6(9), 510-524.

Sadler, D. R. (2013). Opening up feedback. Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education: Developing Dialogue with Students, 1, 54-63.

Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2022). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students’ writing through google docs: Factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 360–377.

Schwarz, N., & Bohner, G. (2001). The construction of attitudes. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Individual Processes, 1, 436–457.

Scott, F. N., & Denney, J. V. (1909). Paragraph-writing: A rhetoric for colleges. Allyn and Bacon.

Selvaraj, A. M., & Azman, H. (2020). Reframing the effectiveness of feedback in improving teaching and learning achievement. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(4), 1055–1062.

Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.

Silverman, S., & Subramaniam, P. R. (1999). Student attitude toward physical education and physical activity: A review of measurement issues and outcomes. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 19(1), 97-125.

Susanto, H. (2021). An analysys about students’ troubles in acquisition English vocabulary. Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 4(2), 46-50.

Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296.

Taras, M. (2013). Feedback on feedback. Reconceptualising Feedback in Higher Education: Developing Dialogue with Students. London: Routledge, 30–40.

Thode, H. C. (2002). Testing for normality. CRC press.

Ton, N. M. N., & Tôn, N. M. N. (2021). A proposed revised version of the scoring rubrics of VSTEP 3-5 level. DTU Journal of Science and Technology. 2(45) 117-125

Voerman, L., Meijer, P. C., Korthagen, F. A., & Simons, R. J. (2012). Types and frequencies of feedback interventions in classroom interaction in secondary education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(8), 1107–1115.

Wa, P. N. T. (2021). Difficulties in studying writing of English-majored sophomores at a university in Vietnam. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(10), 313-330.

Zanna, J. B. T., & Kumkale, G. T. (2005). Attitudes: Introduction and scope. The handbook of attitudes, (2), 3-20.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015 - 2023. European Journal of English Language Teaching (ISSN 2501-7136) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).