Nguyen Thi Thanh Thao, Le Hai Duy


This investigates the participants’ attitudes towards corrective feedback as well as the types of corrective feedback on learners’ performance by questionnaires for both students and teachers. Fifty–eight 2nd-year students and 5 teachers of English at a university in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam participated in the study. The results indicated that students had a positive attitude towards teachers’ corrective feedback. Besides, with the analyzed data, correction with comments and teacher correction was considered as the most useful strategy when giving feedback in the learners’ performance. The outcomes of the study suggest a widespread employment of corrective feedback in teaching writing at universities and colleges in the region. 


Article visualizations:

Hit counter



Amrhein, H., Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics (CJAL), 13(2), 95-127.

Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., and Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and Why? Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1-23.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ghaith, G. M. (2002). Using cooperative learning to facilitate alternative assessment. English Teaching Forum, 40(3), 26-31.

Hashemnezhad, H. and Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for direct and indirect feedback: The other side of coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 230-239.

Ibarrola, A. (2013). Reformulation and self-correction: Insights into correction strategies for EFL writing in a school context. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics,10, 29-49.

Jarvis, D. (2002). The process writing method. The Internet TESL Journal, VIII (7), available from http://iteslj.org/

Kadkhodaei, N., Gorjian, B., Pazhakh, A. (2013). The role of reformulation tasks in EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World, 4(4), 51-57.

Kao, C. (2013). Effects of focused feedback on the acquisition of two English articles. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 17(1), 1-15.

Klein, M. (1985). The writings of Melanie Klein. London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psychoanalysis.

Maleki, A., Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257.

McGrath, A., Leadbeater, K. (2016). Instructor comments on student writing: Learner response to electronic written feedback. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 8(3), 1-16.

Purnawarman, P. (2011). Impacts of teacher feedback on ESL/EFL students’ writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.

Storch, N., Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.

Zareil, A., Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: from perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1(3), 1-14.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.607


  • 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).