INTRODUCTION Using feedback has been changed regarding its roles through the development of teaching methodologies for

effective second language acquisition (Leaph, 2011). The value of providing corrective feedback has been prominent recently since its purposes are to motivate learners, to help them understand what their problems are, and to show what ways they can improve. There are different types of feedback including individual feedback, group feedback, and peer feedback (Ravand, 2011). When feedback is given, it can come in the form of oral, or written. Regarding written feedback, it is controversial for many years whether teachers should give grammar correction in EFL/ESL classes or not (Xu, 2010). However, written feedback is widely used in classroom as it provides opportunities for students to revise their own writing and assist them in acquiring correct English (Ferris, 1997, as cited in Leaph 2011). It is helpful in guiding students to concentrate on their grammatical errors or increasing their linguistic sensitivity (Xu, 2010). Because written feedback is vital, it is important to use it effectively. Even if feedback itself is crucial, we have to understand what student think of feedback, how it can help them write their paper well, how they perceive feedback, and what they like about it after their writing revision. This paper aims to examine the role of the written corrective feedback in the writing accuracy and discover its affection and effectiveness on non-English major students in one dormitory. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY Since many research studies had been done on second language teaching and learning, it has been observed that no research had been interested in conducting research on non-English-major University students who were learning English as a second language, and no research had been Page | 1

conducted before to explore a single effectiveness of written feedback in improving student writing in the context where English is taught as a second language. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This present study sets out to look for answers to the following two research questions: 1. How do Cambodian dormitory non-English major students in Phnom Penh perceive written feedback? 2. How effective is feedback strategy in improving students writing as measured by writing performance? LITERATURE REVIEW Writing Feedback Many research studies have been conducted to examine what writing teachers should comment on L2 students writing for substantive revision. According to Freedman (1985), written Feedback (WF) can guide students through their three revision stages: (1) it aids students to detect and to handle problems they may face while writing, (2) it provides opportunities to practice the writing skill through multiple drafts, and (3) it encourages students to analyze the comment received, to choose which suggestions are useful for them and to aid them in the production of new writings. Ellis (1994) added that WF has positive effect on language acquisition and it helps improve the accuracy of producing existential structures (i.e. There is/ are). Cardelle and Corno (1981, as cited in Lee, 2005) also suggested that a balance use of criticism and praise might be the best means to improve students writing. However, based on his experience on error feedback, Cohen (1975, as cited in Lee, 2005) proposed that it can also help

Page | 2

students to focus on grammar accuracy in writing and gives them the message to home that written accuracy is crucial for good writing. Moving toward error correction, many studies have been carried out to observe how teachers should correct errors in order to improve students writing. To date, research on error correction has primarily focused on teachers, for instance, what strategies they use in providing error feedback and if grammar instruction in classroom helps improve students writing or not (Lee, 2005). Lightbown and Spada (1999) advised that corrective feedback should be explicit, for example, when a student writes, He go to school every day, the teacher would correct by writing, no, you should write goes, not go or yes, he goes to go school every day. Regarding writing revision, it is a type of change make to a written text which can be done at any point of the writing process (Freedman, 1985, as cited in Gonzalez, Vinci, Victoria, & Tamaulipas, 2010). Related to revision, Allal and Chanquoy (2004) put it into two essential categories: editingis considered to be any modification that does not change the meaning of the text, and rewritingentails the transformation of meaning. So when the feedback is provided, writers are able to reconsider their work, reflect on the meaning of their work, and modify their information, if they consider it necessary (Gonzalez, Vinci, Victoria, & Tamaulipas, 2010). Feedback is considered as a source of input that encourages writers to improve their written work and to develop their writing skills (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Li Wai Shing, 1992, as cited in Gonzalez, Vinci, Victoria, & Tamaulipas, 2010). Some commonly used sources of feedback or feedback techniques are oral feedback or writing conferences, peer feedback, written feedback (end notes, side notes, or correction codes) and computer-mediated feedback (e-feedback or

Page | 3

computer programs) (Gonzalez, Vinci, Victoria, & Tamaulipas, 2010). When teachers write comment on students writing, it enables them to reflect on whether what they wanted to write was what the teachers understood. Related to importance of feedback in the revision process, for instance, Huang (2000, as cited in Gonzalez, Vinci, Victoria, & Tamaulipas, 2010) compared the effectiveness of teacher audiotaped feedback (ATF) and teacher written feedback (TWF) on the drafts of 32 English major students at Taiwanese university. It was found that the teacher produced more words in her feedback comments with ATF (54,258) on the final draft than with TWF (4,757). Additionally, 83% of the students stated they preferred ATF, 13% preferred TWF, and the remaining 4% preferred both. Another type of WF, error identification, or locating students' errors by circling or underlining them, may be the most widely used technique for responding to the writing of second language learners (Cumming, 1985, as cited in Saito, 1994). Cardelle and Como (1981, as cited in Saito, 1994) support this stating, Specific feedback on errors draws attention to mate rial not adequately learned, allowing the students to focus there and not be distracted by too much reexamination of work done well. Other researchers have suggested that positive written comments along with specific comments on errors may be an effective way to motivate students to improve their revisions of their writing (Cardelle and Como, 1981, as cited in Saito, 1994). By Focusing on Content feedback, Inspired by Mins (2006) and Bergs (1999) studies, Lam (2010) illustrated how he planned and organized a training workshop for a group of 30 university freshmen non-English majors to help them analyze the effectiveness of peer feedback according to its area (i.e., local or global), nature (i.e., revision-oriented or non-revision-oriented), and type

Page | 4

(i.e., evaluation, clarification, suggestion, or alteration). The coding of peer feedback in relation to its area is divided into globalareas refer to feedback about the content, idea development, purpose, and organization of writing and localareas refer to feedback about mechanics, grammar, and punctuation (Lam, 2010). Moving toward the affect of WF, according to Hyland and Hyland (2001), there are three broad types of WF: praise, criticism, and suggestion. First, praising, which is the most important motivation, encourages the reoccurrence of appropriate language behaviors where writers are accredited for some characteristics, attributes or skills (Holmes, 1988). However, praise needs to be credible and informative as false praising is likely to discourage good writing and may confuse writers and discourage their self-revisions (Cardelle & Corno, 1981, as cited in Hyland & Hyland, 2001). Second, criticism is a negative comment used by reviewers in expressing their dissatisfaction with the text. And the last is suggestion which is related to criticism but has a positive orientation. Suggestion differs from criticism in containing commentary for improvement (Lee, 2010). The fruitful suggestion is also known as constructive criticism which includes clear and achievable actions for writers. Students, overall, remember and value encouraging comments, but also welcome constructive criticisms rather than fake positive appraisals (Ferris, 1995). DEFINITION Feedback, based on Rinvolucris view (1994, p. 287), originates in biology and it refers to the message that comes back to an organism that has acted on its environment. However, in L2 writing, Lalande (1982, as cited in Ravand, 2011) gave the term Feedback as a general heading for various techniques that were used in many L2 courses to respond to student writing and

Page | 5

inform them whether their writing was right or wrong. Specifically, Kulhavy and Wager, (1993 as cited in Ravand, 2011), Feedback has three broad meanings: (1) in a motivational meaning,some feedback, such as praise, could be considered a motivator that increases a general behaviour (e.g., writing or revision activities), (2) in a reinforcement meaning, feedback may specifically reward or punish very particular prior behaviors (e.g., a particular spelling error or particular approach to a concluding paragraph), and (3) in an informational meaning, feedback might consist of information used by a learner to change performance in a particular direction rather than just towards or away from a prior behavior. Turning to look at WFs criteria, the term used refers to the correction of errors and weaknesses in content, organization, and language through writing (Leaph, 2011). Leaph found that teachers make use of direct vs. indirect correction, coded vs. uncoded feedback, and marginal vs. end comments in order to form corrections, questions, imperatives, praises, and suggestions. Written feedback is one of the most fundamental components of ESL/EFL writing-centred classrooms and is clearly crucial to students growth as writers (Mahfoodh, 2011). Both teachers and students agree that despite the time-consuming nature of providing WF, teachers WF is both helpful and desirable because it is considered to be the best way for communication with each student on a one-to-one basis (Ferris, 2003; Goldstein, 2004; Lee & Schallert, 2008, as cited in Mahfoodh, 2011). Most importantly, when teachers write feedback on students writings, it raises their writers awareness of the readers expectations (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). METHODOLOGY Participants

Page | 6

Twenty-one students participated in the present study, 13 males and 8 females, with an average age of 24.19 (SD = .491). They were diverse-major students who were currently staying in Dormitory, and most of them have been studying English since Grade 7 of Cambodia Secondary Education under the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports (MoEYS). They agreed to participate in research study because the researcher had told them about the purposes of conducting this study and asked them to join the research. In addition, they wanted to improve their writing and learn some writing techniques all of which they were never taught before. Instruments The two instruments employed in this research were questionnaires and students paragraphs, all of which were used for data analysis. The Affective and Effective Responses feedback (AERF) questionnaire, formulated by the researcher, consists of three parts with a total of 22 items: Part A for Personal Information (A1-4), Part B for Effective Responses (B1-9), and Part C for Affective Responses (C1-8). A five-point Likert Scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree) was utilized for the 17 items in Part B and C, and several items (B1, B3, B5, B8, C2, C5, and C8) were reverse-ordered to reduce response set bias. The interpretation of Research question 1 was based on the highest percentage rated by the participants, and the findings of Research question 2 were reasonably reliable with a Cronbachs Alpha value of .853. The student paragraphs were collected before and after 3 days treatment and inter-rated by the researcher. The scoring was based on the researcher-formulated criteria divided into context, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics and spelling, each of which earns equal marks (1=Very Poor, 5=Excellent), with a total score of 25. Procedures Page | 7

Upon receipt of approval from Dormitory Manager, the researcher informed and asked for participation from Dormitory students. After receiving approval from Dormitory Manager, the researcher did the introduction about the study to all students before starting pre-treatment. It was make clear that this study would not affect their study at University at all, instead help them improve their paragraph writing. They respond to the questionnaires anonymously, and at the end of the treatment, they were treated to a dinner out to motivate them to write and incorporate the feedback they had received after correcting the first writing in order that they used it for their revision process. Data collection was conducted as follows. First, the students were taught how to write a paragraph academically. They were taught how to write a topic sentence, supporting sentences, a concluding sentence and they were also taught briefly about how to write some types of paragraph such as: Discussion, explanation, description, and compare and contrast. And then, students were asked to practice writing sentence-bysentence until they could produce a good paragraph with little prompt from the researcher. They practiced writing by using transitional words in order to make their ideas flow when starting the real ones. After that, the students wrote at least a 120-word paragraph from one of five given topics: (1) Watching TV too much leads to many negative effects on your health, (2) Rural life and city life, (3) The person I admire in my life, (4) Students require more recreational time in order to better focus on lessons in class, and (5) Discuss the three main qualities that you feel are needed to achieve success. Next, they wrote another paragraph, but they had to choose different one from the previous topic.

Page | 8

The treatment was conducted for five days with single-draft feedback provided on each of the five paragraph types taught during this study. The feedback on each topic was comprehensive and targeted all aspects of writing: content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics and spelling. Various feedback strategies of each commentary mode were employed to ensure that all students receive similar treatment condition and that all would provide more authentic responses to the research questions. Three days after delivering the first paragraph writing, the participants wrote another topic to at least a 120-word paragraph, and then they completed the questionnaires consisting of both closed-and-opened items. The data obtained from the questionnaires and student paragraphs were coded and input into SPSS 16.0 with one-sample t-test, an independent-samples t-test, and a pared-samples t-test for data analysis by using the test of value of 3.5 and the significant level of .05. Finally, the researcher interpreted all collected data as the research results. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Research question 1: How do Cambodian dormitory non-English major students in Phnom Penh perceive written feedback? The following tables show the affective and effective responses of WF. Table 1 Rate 1=Strongly disagree , 2=Disagree, Affective responses of the WF 3=Undicided,4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5

Page | 9

C1. Written feedback made me feel I had a more personal and human relationship with my teacher. C2. After receiving written feedback, I felt less confident about my writing. C3. Written feedback gave more detail about the errors in my paper. C4. Written feedback gave more detail about how I can improve my paper. C5. Written feedback discouraged me from working very hard on my revision. C6. In written feedback, praise was helpful for my revision. C7. Written feedback made me feel like I received special attention from my teacher. C8. Written feedback alone was not helpful enough for my revision. (P = percentage)

4.8 %

0%

14.3% 81.0% 0 % 0% 0%

23.8% 47.6% 28.6%

0%

0%

14.3% 61.9% 23.8% 57.1% 42.9% 0%

0%

0%

0%

23.8% 52.4% 23.8%

0%

0%

0%

14.3% 52.4% 33.3% 19.0% 61.9% 19.0% 9.5%

0%

0%

0%

19.0% 38.3% 33.1%

As we can see Table 1 above, the majority of students preferred Written feedback because it made them felt they had a more personal and human relationship with their teacher (C1, P=81.8%), and after receiving WF from the teacher, they felt very confident (C2, P=47.6%). Most of them said that WF gave more detail about the errors in their paper (C3, P=61.9%). When the teacher wrote comment on what they had made errors, they could see them clearly and would help them to modify these mistakes later. They could improve them since the detail of errors had been shown on their paper (C4, P=57.1%). After seeing WF, the majority of students didnt agree that WF discouraged them from working very hard on their revision (C6, 52.4%). In addition, in written feedback, 52.4 % (C7) of them preferred praise as it was helpful for their

Page | 10

revision. However, when the researcher asked whether WF alone was helpful enough for their revision or not, 38.3% (C8) of total participants didnt decide. Table 2 Rate 1=Strongly disagree , 2=Disagree, 3=Undicided,4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree 1 B1.After receiving written Feedback, I still could not express my ideas more clearly. B2. After receiving written feedback, I could write with fewer grammatical errors. B3. After receiving written feedback, I still could not use vocabulary more appropriately. B4. After receiving written feedback, I could organize my writing in a better way. B5. After receiving written feedback, I still could not write with better content. B6. After receiving written feedback, I made fewer errors with punctuation. B7. After receiving written feedback, I made fewer errors with spelling. B8. After receiving written feedback, I still could not use vocabulary and grammar appropriately for each type of paragraphs. B9. I liked written feedback because it helped improve the quality of my writing. (P = percentage) 2 3 4.8% 9.5% 4 0% 66.7% 5 0% 14.3%

Effective responses of the WF

38.1% 57.1% 0% 9.5%

0%

0%

14.3% 47.6%

38.1%

0%

0%

9.5%

81.0%

9.5%

28.6% 38.1% 28.6%

4.8%

0%

14.3%

0%

33.3% 52.4%

0%

0%

0%

61.9% 38.1%

0%

0% 9.5% 61.9% 28.6% 0%

0%

0%

14.3% 66.7%

19.0%

Page | 11

From table 2, WF was perceived as very effective as it resulted in gains in writing competence (B9. I liked written feedback because it helped improve the quality of my writing.) [P=66.7%], which covered such areas as clarity (B1. I could express my ideas more clearly.) [P=57.1%], improvement with less grammar errors (B2. I could write with fewer grammatical errors.) [P=66.7%], lexical choice (B3. I could use vocabulary more appropriately.) [P=47.6%], organization (B4. I could organize my writing in a better way.) [P=81%], content (B5. I could write with better content.) [P=38.1%], improvement in punctuation (B6. I made fewer errors with punctuation.) [P=52.4%], and improvement in vocabulary and grammar (B8. I could use vocabulary and grammar appropriately for each type of paragraphs.) [P=61.9%]. Whereas improvement in spelling, the majority of students still could not better through WF (B7) [P=61.9%]. Research question 2: How effective is feedback strategy in improving students writing as measured by writing performance? Table 3 displays the result of pre-treatment mean scores in overall writing competence and the five specific areas. The results in the pre-treatment in which it show in the table below allowed the researcher to assume that at the beginning of the treatment process, all students started from certain levels, meaning that they were equivalent in terms of writing competence, so the classroom experiment could be undertaken.

Table 3. Pre-treatment mean scores of WF by area N Content Organization Grammar 21 21 21 Mean 2.05 2.57 2.52 Std. Std. Error Deviation Mean .590 .598 .750 .129 .130 .164 Page | 12

Vocabulary Mechanics and Spelling Total

21 21 21

2.57 2.33 12.00

.598 .658 1.817

.130 .144 .396

As we can see in table 4 below, the results were also utilised to analyze performance differences through the treatment period. We can see the differences in scores comparing table 3 and table 4. This indicates that all students made improvement in their writing. It suggests that the learners develop their writing, regardless of feedback techniques, and that internal quality of feedback mode determines the success of student revision.

Table 4. Post-treatment mean scores of WF by area N Content Organization Grammar Vocabulary Mechanic and Spelling Total 21 21 21 21 21 21 Mean 2.14 3.43 3.48 3.33 2.57 15.00 Std. Deviation .478 .598 .512 .658 .676 1.949 Std. Error Mean .104 .130 .112 .144 .148 .425

Table 5 presents the mean scores and standard deviations of the WF before and after 5 days treatment. A paired-samples test indicated that written feedback was of great value in encouraging overall substantive revision, yet such improvement was made only in organization [t(20) = -8.216, p = .000, d = -.640], grammar [t(20) = -5.423, p = .000, d = -.586], and vocabulary [t(20) = -4.544, p = .000, d = -.412]. However, the differences in the scores were not statistically significant in content [t(20) = -.698, p = .493, d = .189] or Mechanics and Spelling [t(20) = -1.227, p = .234 , d = .167]. Why there is lack of improvement in content can be explained by the briefness and vagueness of the feedback method (WF) which encourages the

Page | 13

learners to see the teacher as a critical judge rather than an informed reader. With regard to content, the learners needs to be able to come up with new ideas and /or rethink critically about their writing which is more difficult than correcting a verb tenses or rearranging sentences in a paragraph. Whereas, Errors in mechanics and spelling remain possibly due to the learners are not attentive enough in writing and proofreading in which it is resulting in typographical errors. So this seems to suggest a process-based approach for teaching writing which includes the proofreading in revision stages to reduce such local errors.

Table 5. Pre and post- treatment mean scores of WF by area Std. Deviation Mean(M) (SD) Pair 1 Pair 2 Pair 3 Pair 4 Pair 5 Pair 6 Content Content Organization Organization Grammar Grammar Vocabulary Vocabulary Mechanics and Spelling Mechanics and Spelling Total Total * P > .05 (not significant) 2.05 2.71 2.57 3.19 2.52 2.86 2.57 3.24 2.33 3.10 12.00 15.10 .590 .463 .598 .402 .750 .727 .598 .625 .658 .539 1.817 1.729 -10.869 20 .000 -1.227 20 .234* -4.544 20 .000 -5.423 20 .000 -8.216 20 .000

t -.698

Df 20

P .493*

CONCLUSIONS The reasons for this research paper were to examine (1) how Cambodian dormitory non-English major students in Phnom Penh perceived written feedback, and (2) how effective feedback

Page | 14

strategy in improving students writing was as measured by writing performance. The findings of the present study are summarized as follows: Research question 1: the students performed better in organizing ideas clearly, using words more appropriately, producing an understandable writing, and using language features more suitably to specific genres. Research question 2: the students performed better on holistic assessment of writing in which they did well mainly on language and organization. This suggests that only one type of feedback mode was not enough and its roles were not satisfied. WF alone was less well distributed across evaluation criteria which another feedback (i.e. Oral feedback) is needed for improving all five areas of students writing. Overall, this research study has shown that students made an improvement in writing according to the feedback type, and there may not be an association between preference in feedback type and revision quality. To some extent, another feedback is needed in combination for greater development in students writing. In addition, the choice of feedback type should be made with purposes rather than students preferences. Finally, this study has suggested that both revision and feedback intake may be unified, which depend on students focus and feedback quality. Providing feedback must be made, comprehensible, inoffensive, and meaningful to students writing. To better in their writing, students should always be alert and actively engaged when interacting with the teacher-reader and with the feedback provided. It is also suggested that feedback strategies incorporated into feedback itself can determine the success of final revision of students writing. They need to be mixed, and depend on the internal quality of the feedback mode. This means that giving Page | 15

feedback must be caution and adequate scaffolding, and be autonomous learning within consulting learning resources (i.e. teachers, peers, grammar books, etc.) that needs to be inculcated as an addictive process of the feedback mode. SUMMARY Having considered on effective feedbacks, many studies on the advantages of written feedback over students writing discuss what the teacher should comment on (i.e. implicit vs. explicit, coded vs. uncoded, marginal vs. End, form vs. Content, comprehensive vs. selective), and examine what feedback for is superior (i.e. praise vs. Criticism, imperative, statement, question, mitigation vs. unmitigation). Although the studies suggested that written feedback was of great value in substantial revision, other findings were unclear and controversial due to various designs, methods, and contexts. Many experimental studies indicated that explicit feedback is more helpful than implicit feedback. LIMITATIONS Although the above findings are useful and insightful, the research acknowledges the limitations of the study, such as the small sample sizes (N=21), only one genre of feedback (written feedback) which was not helpful enough for students revision, only two tools (questionnaire and students paragraph writing), and the relatively short duration of treatment (5 days). This study also has lack of specialized co-researchers, who could help coordinate or rate the students scores, instructional methods, writing practices, and teaching-learning materials. With regard to these limitations, caution must be taken in interpreting the results of the research, and further studies are needed to cross-check these findings.

Page | 16