Chapter One

1.1. Background of the study

The teaching of writing is important since, not only does it provide students with academic
English capabilities, but it also prepares them for life in an interconnected world that requires
them to write for different purposes and to use different genres (i.e., expository, descriptive,
narrative, and persuasive). However, producing ‘a coherent, fluent, extended piece of writing’ in
one’s second language is enormously challenging (Nunan 1999).

Different writers and researchers of effective feedback and writing skill has been proposing that
throughout the history of teaching writing to second language (L2) learners, there has been a
constant dispute among scholars and teachers regarding the role of error feedback in helping
students learn how to write (Fathman and Whally, 1990; Ferris, 1999; Lalande, 1982; Semke,
1984; & Truscott, 1996). According to the writers,’ although providing feedback is commonly
practiced in education, there is no general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most
helpful and why it is helpful. As a result of this, many instructors teaching writing in English as a
second/foreign language (ESL/EFL/ELT) are often confused about how to help their students in
writing classes. Some teachers still have a tendency to provide explicit and elaborate
grammatical corrections on students’ compositions.

Researches showed that there is a serious question as to the usefulness of this kind of direct
feedback treatment. Error feedback may not help students improve their accuracy when
composing regardless of the teacher’s time and effort (Semke, 1984; & Zamel, 1985) as cited in.
For example, many students make the same errors over and over even though they receive
feedback from their teachers. For this reason, some researchers have questioned the effectiveness
of error feedback offered in classroom instruction (Semke, 1984; & Truscott, 1996).
Furthermore, this traditional way of correcting students’ compositions indicates going through
the papers with a red pen, circling, drawing arrows and scribbling comments.

On the other hand side to the above description, scholars argue that written feedback provides an
avenue by which students can learn from their work. Thus, it facilitate learning. Although
assignments are typically graded using a letter or percentage system, grading on its own is

1
largely evaluative. Written feedback is complementary to the evaluative process. Its main role is
to facilitate student learning.

In supporting the idea that feedback facilitate learning John H. & Hellen. T (2007) stated that the
main purpose of feedback is to reduce discrepancies between current understandings and
performance and a goal. Strategies students and teachers use to reduce this discrepancy may be
more or less effective in enhancing learning, so it is important to understand the circumstances
that result in the differential outcomes. They also added that there are many possible ways for
students to reduce the gap between current and desired understandings in response to feedback,
and they are not always effective in enhancing learning. Those likely to be effective include the
following. Students can increase their effort, particularly when the effort leads to tackling more
challenging tasks or appreciating higher quality experiences rather than just doing "more."

Students may also develop effective error detection skills, which lead to their own self-feedback
aimed at reaching a goal. Such error detection can be very powerful, provided students have
some modicum of knowledge and understanding about the task on which to strategize and
regulate. In addition, students can seek better strategies to complete the task or be taught them, or
they can obtain more information from which they can then solve problems or use their self-
regulatory proficiencies, ibid.

Knoblauch and Brannon (2006) had also suggested that “intervening in the composing process . .
. can measurably improve student writing, provided that a teacher adequately supports revising
efforts”, and concluded with a series of principles of response for both research and instructional
purposes.

Bridgette C. & Megan B., (2014) also said that the most effective way to learn and improve a
skill such as writing is to practice and receive timely and targeted feedback. As a teacher,
someone can provide the vital feedback students need to improve their writing skills (and often
their understanding of course concepts).

2
1.2. Statements of the Problem

It seems that above average of Ethiopian students are poor in writing skills. Students believed
that writing is the most difficult skill and that it can’t be improved. The teachers, obviously who
fraught of writing themselves, handicapped to comment, give oral and written feedback to their
students’ paragraph writing. Rarely, though teachers give feedback, their comment basically
would be about the content of the language and grammar rather than the punctuation,
capitalization and mechanics in the composition that students are trying to produce.

Even though there are improved areas like contents of students’ textbooks, teachers’ books and
other facilities throughout the history of learning English language in Ethiopia, still there is lack
improvement on professional development of English language teachers. Teacher aren’t well
trained in every aspects of the language. Thus, they fail to teach the language and they are unable
to give constructive feedback to students’ writing. As a result, students fail to achieve good grade
in writing skill test’ based on my personal observation.

Even while writing should have been taken as a stronger role in the elementary schools, a gap
has developed at the primary and secondary levels in Ethiopia. There is no tendency to show
students how to jot down, how to develop writing skill, and no teachers who teach writing
practically to make students good writer. High school teachers are quick to point out that
students arrive without the skills to take an essay test or to write any text. Yet elementary school
teachers have been reluctant to abandon current practices.

While this disparity has existed for a long time, it did not escalate to a crisis proportion until
researchers began assessing the writing of elementary age students. Local researchers have
proven that our children lack fundamental writing skills. Many cannot produce a focused, well-
supported and organized composition.

According to some earlier studies of teacher feedback showed that teachers focused
predominantly on language errors in student writing (Cumming, 1985; Zamel, 1985). This is
because writing was primarily treated as a product, and teachers tended to see themselves as
language teachers rather than writing instructors (Ferris, 2003; Zamel, 1985). With the advent of
process approaches to writing instruction, there are more studies that report a shift in teachers’

3
focus from form to other issues such as content and organization (Caulk, 1994; Cohen &
Cavalcanti, 1990; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1995; & Saito, 1994). In Ferris’ (1997)
study, for example, it was found that 15% of teachers’ comments focused on grammar and
mechanics, while 85% addressed students’ ideas and rhetorical development (Ferris, 1997;
Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997). It is recommended that teachers provide balanced coverage
in their written feedback, focusing on issues relating to content, structure, organization,
language, and style (Ferris, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; & Zamel, 1985). Since a focus on the
written product instead of writing process could divert teachers’ and students’ attention to form,
teachers are advised to give feedback to multiple rather than single drafts (Ferris, 1997; Hyland
& Hyland, 2006).

To be fair, L2 writing scholars such as Raimes (1987), Taylor (1981), and Zamel (1982) argued
for a more effective balance between composing skills and language skills in L2 writing classes,
rather than the abandonment of language instruction: they suggested that it should not be
concluded . . . that engaging students in the process of composing eliminates teachers’ obligation
to upgrade students’ linguistic competencies. Raimes (1979) talks about the numerous language
skills that ELT composition teachers need to attend to. But what needs to be emphasized is that
this obligation should not form the basis of our writing instruction (Zamel, 1982).

Besides, writers has been printing out their ideas and readers can find at this point in time, the
clear discrepancy between what composition scholars believe about error and what composition
instructors actually do. Though scholars are aware of this divergence, there is little evidence that
their concerns about error have impacted teacher practice in any substantial way. In contrast,
though English language composition went through its own dormant period in the 1980s as to
research on error in student writing, the past 20 years or so have seen a flurry of research activity
on this topic (John B. & Dana R. F., 2012). Thus, the current study initiated to explore teachers
written feedback and students’ paragraph writing achievement.

Local studies conducted by Nuru M. (2000) examined teachers feedback practice in foreign
language classroom in relation to teachers’ differential expectation to students’ performance may
be expressed in different treatment towards students and revealed high expectation students

4
received better feedback and became successful as compared to the low expected students. This
also was sensitive to both teachers and students.

Many other local researches also conducted and showed different outcomes. As these of some
are indicated in the review of related literature almost all of the researches conducted on
teachers’ feedback and students’ performance and proficiency in writing skill. Thus, to fill the
gap shown, the current study tries investigate the effect of teachers’ written feedback on their
students’ paragraph writing achievement.

1.3. Hypothesis

For the study researcher has proposed two different hypothesis; Null and Alternative hypothesis
respectively as follows:

H0 Providing frequent written feedback on students’ paragraph writing has no significant

relationship with their achievement in writing.

H1 Providing frequent written feedback on students’ paragraph writing has a positive effect
on their achievement in writing.

1.4.Operational definition

Teachers’ written feedback: the often notes that ELT teachers comment on the errors of
students’ paragraph writing.

Students paragraph writing achievement: the extent to which students score high mark in
relation to the frequency of feedback given to them during practicing.

5
Chapter Two

2. Review of related literature

2.1. Purpose and goals of written CF

To understand the purpose and goals of providing written CF in a language learning program, it
is necessary to start with a consideration of the wider purpose and goals of learning a second or
foreign language and to then consider where written CF fits into the language learning process.
Understanding its place in this process is a prerequisite to understanding its purpose and goals.
One of the general needs of all learners is knowledge of the forms and structures of the target
language. Specific goals of learners are likely to vary with some more focused on general
communicative competence (including a focus on pragmatic and idiosyncratic uses of the
language), so they can interact successfully with native speakers in a native-speaking
environment John B. & Dana R. F., (2012).

According to (John B. & Dana R. F., 2012)) Feedback is an important part of the learning
process and that written CF is provided as a response to errors that learners have made in their
written output. As a form of instruction, written CF is understood to be effective because it is
provided at a time when learners are most likely to notice it, understand it, and internalize
(uptake) it. Thus, its role is to help learners identify where their errors have been made and to
provide them with information about why their output was incorrect and on how they can correct
it. For example, the role of practice in converting declarative knowledge to procedural
knowledge, will be referred to at an appropriate time in subsequent sections of this chapter.
Understanding the role of written CF in the language learning process is a prerequisite to
understanding the pedagogical considerations

2.2. The timing and frequency of giving learners written CF

2.2.1. The Timing of giving learners written CF

In many respects, the question of when to give written CF may be easier to answer for learners in
language learning classes than for those in composition classes. Although composition class
teachers do provide written CF to their students at certain times during the writing process, they

6
emphasize that their responsibilities go well beyond the provision of feedback at the sentence
level. Attention in these classes must also be given to the construction of the wider discourse, the
development of critical thinking skills, rhetorical awareness, argumentation, and so on. However,
this does not mean that language class teachers are not also concerned with the development of
these skills. Rather, it is a matter of degree and this, in turn, is very much determined by the
proficiency level of the learners and the type of program or course they are taking John B. &
Dana R. F., (2012).

Feedback on any category of error could be given to learners of any proficiency level and at any
time. Nevertheless, there are several key factors that teachers will want to consider when
deciding if one particular occasion is more appropriate than another. Perhaps the first factor to
consider is the proficiency level of the learner. Typically in language classes, more corrective
feedback (both oral and written) is given to lower proficiency learners than higher proficiency
learners. Lower proficiency learners expect their teachers to provide regular feedback on the
accuracy of their writing but, in doing this, teachers need to be sensitive to the amount of
corrective feedback they provide at any one time. Failure to do so could be discouraging,
detrimental to self-esteem and de-motivating for those who experience difficulty in making
progress and it could also be counterproductive if their attentional capacity is overloaded. Higher
proficiency learners, on the other hand, may need less corrective feedback but more feedback on
other aspects of their writing ibid.

2.2.2. Frequency of Written CF

In recent work, other authors have further suggested that written CF and attention to linguistic
accuracy in writing should perhaps be separated completely from the now-standard multiple-
draft writing process John B. & Dana R. F., (2012). Hartshorn (2010) argued that traditional
process approaches to composition may be inadequate for helping students maximize their
linguistic accuracy. Perhaps this is because traditional approaches lack the volume and frequency
of practice and feedback needed for improvement. Thus, efforts to improve accuracy may be
more successful if separated from attempts to develop other aspects of ESL writing. As an
alternative, Hartshorn (2010) suggested what they called “dynamic corrective feedback,” which
is “meaningful, timely, constant, and manageable for both student and teacher” and in which

7
“students produce new pieces of writing and receive feedback nearly every class period of the
course”. The “manageable” criterion is met by having the students frequently produce short texts
to which the teacher can respond quickly.

2.3.Amount of Teacher-provided Written CF

As already noted, one of the earliest and most important decisions a writing instructor must make
(assuming that the instructor has moved from “if” to “how” in thinking about written CF) is how
much written CF to give. Should the writing instructor mark or otherwise respond to every error
observed in the entire student text (comprehensive correction), or should the teacher respond
selectively to some errors while leaving others uncorrected or unmarked?

2.4. Corrective Feedback in Writing

Many teachers are concerned about effective ways of assisting their students with improving
accuracy in their writing. This is because teachers encounter the same errors recurring in student
writing even after a number of careful checking, correcting, and feedback cycles. An increasing
number of studies have investigated the role of corrective feedback (CF) in teaching writing,
which is defined as the information provided by the teacher, both directly and indirectly, on
learners’ non-target-like usage in their writing and is made with the intention of correcting and
prompting revision of initial language use (Bitchener and Ferris 2012). Within discussions of the
use of CF in teaching writing, the distinction between direct feedback (DF) and indirect feedback
(IDF) has received much attention in both classroom practice and research.

2.5. Related studies in Ethiopia

There are a lot of researches conducted on feedback in Ethiopia in different views and come up
with different findings. Mekonnen A. (2009) explored on students’ perception and significance
of feedback in the writing class and came up with that students feel that the feedback is useful
and it helps them improve their writing, to be aware of their mistakes, identify their errors, and
correct their weak points. Regarding students’ strategies of handling teachers’ comments, it was
found that students reread their essays to refresh their memories enough to give the teacher’s

8
comments a meaningful context for interpretation and give considerable attention to it when they
get their paper back.

However, in contrast to this, study conducted by Zerihun E., (2009) on the relationship between
EFL students' perception of written feedback and their witling proficiency and he revealed that
students' perception about written feedback is found to have substantial correlation with their
actual writing skills. The data obtained from the questionnaire also revealed that students did not
show any interest to read teachers' feedback for their writing tasks.

Haileyesus B. (1995) also conducted a research on attitudes of EFL teachers toward English
language learners' errors. Finally the researcher revealed that teachers have negative attitude
towards students’ error. Another study also conducted by Animaw A., (2011) investigated on
oral corrective feedback between teachers’ beliefs, classroom practices, and rationales and he
found that teachers lack theoretical background of giving feedback and they treat students based
on they intuitively believed right. This has brought on their students a sever problem on mastery
of English language.

Thus, perceiving the gap shown above the current researcher initiated to conduct a study on the
impact of teachers’ written feedback on their students writing skill achievement.

9
Chapter three

3. Research design and methodology

In this chapter, the research design along with the paradigm and the research methods which
includes details of sampling technique, participants of the study, data gathering tools, data
analysis techniques, and research procedure which the researcher will follow for his study will be
discussed.

3.1.Research design

The present study will be conducted following positivist paradigm. The purpose of this study is
to investigate the relationship between teachers’ written feedback and students writing paragraph
achievement on Fiche Teacher Education College (FTEC) which is found in Salalle Fiche North
Shewa Oromia, Ethiopia. Thus, the researcher will employ quantitative Spearman’s rho
correlational study regarding the direction and effect size of relationship between teachers’
written feedback and students’ achievement in writing skill. This design help to predict score and
explain the relationship between variables: written feedback and students’ achievement in
writing paragraph John W. Creswell, (2013).

3.2.Sampling technique and sample size

3.2.1. Selection of the college

There is only the one FTEC in North Shewa Zone Oromia, Ethiopia. Therefore the researcher
selected the college for his study using the availability sampling technique since the researcher
thought his familiarity with the area before two years is an advantage and convenient to him to
conduct the study. Furthermore, since the study is aimed to investigate on students-teacher, (who
are following their diploma in English language department and who will become teacher of
English language at Ethiopian primary schools), fiche TEC is chiefly intended to be selected.
The college is located in Salalle Fiche in North Shewa, Ethiopia.

3.2.2. Selection of the participants

The target population of the study will be the teachers and students of Salalle Fiche College of
Teacher Education English Language Teaching departments located in North Shewa Oromia,

10
Ethiopia. In the department there are three batch students: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd year students. The
participants of this study will be all advanced writing Skill courses teachers and all English
language departments’ of students of the batch who are taking Advanced Writing Skills courses.
This is because there is no writing skill course given to 3rd year students and the researcher
believed that 2nd year students are much better than 1st year students in their experience. Based
on the college registrar schedule, Basic writing skill course is given to 1st year 2nd semester
students whereas Advanced writing skill course is given to 2nd year 2nd semester students. There
are about 60 students in this batch. Of them 31 are males and 29 are females. Therefore, the
researcher will select the 60 participants from 2nd year English language trainee students using
availability sampling techniques for the study.

3.2.3. Data gathering tools

As described aforementioned the purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between
teachers’ written feedback and students’ achievement in writing paragraph. Thus, for collecting
genuine data from the participants the researcher will use structured questionnaire, structured
interview, structured observation and paragraph writing test will be given to students.

3.2.3.1.Structured Questionnaire

A structured questionnaire is used to gather quantitative data. The popularity of questionnaires is

due to the fact that they are relatively easy to construct, extremely versatile and uniquely capable
of gathering a large amount of information quickly in a form that is readily accessible Dornyei
(2007). Therefore, structured questionnaire will be essentially used in the course of the study.
The questionnaire which will be prepared in line with the written feedback frequency per a week
that teachers give to their students and also based on the students paragraph writing achievement.
At least, 30 close ended items with six heading based on Likert Scale formats. It will be
administered to both teachers and students in English language, considering that the students can
read and understand the language since they are trainee of the language.

In order to keep the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, the researcher will develop the
questionnaire based on the assumptions which had been given by literature like models of
Chaudron (1977).

11
3.2.3.2.Structured interview

In addition to the questionnaire the researcher will use structured interview to gather genuine
data. The researcher will use the structured interview as a value to triangulate with the data
gathered through questionnaire.

A structured interview is sometimes called a standardized interview. Corbetta (2003) states

structured interviews are “… interviews in which all respondents are asked the same questions
with the same wording and in the same sequence.” It would be ideal if questions can be read out
in the same tone of voice so that the respondents would not be influenced by the tone of the
interviewer (Gray, 2004).

The researcher himself will prepare structured interview based on assumptions given by
literature. For example 1. Do your basic and advanced writing skill course teachers give you
tasks to write paragraph? If your answer for q. no 1 is yes. How many times your teacher give
you feedback in a week periods you have? A. always B, sometimes C. rarely D. never etc ….

3.2.3.3.Structured observation

While elicitation and introspective methods provide reports of what people say they think and
do, they do not offer any actual evidence of it. Direct observation methods attempt to bridge this
gap by systematic documentation and reflection of participants engaged in writing and learning
to write Ken Hyland, (2003). Thus, the researcher added structured observation to collect data
directly observing the practical session of the classroom. Checklists will be used during the
classroom observation. The checklist also will be prepared by the research again based on the
suggestion literature proposed.

3.2.3.4.Standardized paragraph writing test for students

At the end of the courses, students will be given paragraph writing test to correlate with teachers
written feedback based on the in person observation by the researcher that will be held in the
classroom. The test will be prepared adapting the standard from City University of New York
students’ handbook.

12
The CUNY (City University of New York) Assessment Test in Writing (CATW) is a
standardized writing test that measures a students’ ability to do college level writing in English.
Entering first-year students take the test to determine their placement into English composition,
ESL, or developmental writing courses. In addition, the CATW is used to determine when
students are ready to exit from developmental writing courses and move on to college-level
courses CUNY, (2012).

3.3.Analyzing data

As discussed above in different part of the plan the main purpose of the research is to investigate
the relationship between teachers’ written feedback and students’ paragraph writing
achievement. The frequency of teachers’ written feedback which is the independent ordinal
variable will be prepared and the students’ writing achievement which is dependent and
continuous variable will be considered in analyzing the data. Thus, spearman’s rank ordered rho
of correlation will be used to analyze and interpret the data.

3.4.Procedures of the Study

The researcher will take official letter from Addis Ababa University to get permission to conduct
the research to the Dean of Fiche Teacher Education College. After getting permission, the
researcher will observe their schedule to check the convenient semester in which the intended
courses are being given. Then, the researcher will inform the objective of the study to writing
skills courses instructors and also students who will be selected, to stand save side during study.
Then, the researcher will begin to conduct the research. Finally, collecting the intended data from
the target participants, it will be analyzed and interpreted accordingly.

13
3.5.Time Schedule

To conduct this study, the researcher proposes the following timeframe:

No Types of Activities 1st yr (2011) 2nd year (2012) 3rd year (2013)
Months Fe – JU Oc- Ja- Ap- J Oc- Ja- Ap- J

De Ma Ma u De Ma Ma u
1 Proposal writing √

2 Chapter one writing √

the Introduction
Review of Literature √
3 Review and feedback √
on chapter 1 & 2
4 chapter 3 Writing √   
methodology
5 Review and feedback √   
on chapter 3
6 Conducting pilot √   
study
7 Presenting and √ 
reviewing feedback

14
8 chapter 4 data analysis √ 

9 review and feedback √

of chapter 4
10 discussion of findings  √   

11 overall review of the  √  

dissertation
12 pre defense schedule     √

13 Schedule for defense     √

3.6. References

Animaw, A., (2011). Oral corrective feedback: an exploratory case study of the interplay
between teachers’ beliefs, classroom practices, and rationales: Addis Ababa University.
http://etd.aau.edu.et/bitstream/handle/123456789/3521/Animaw%20Anteneh.pdf?sequen
ce=1&isAllowed=y retrieved from February 3, 2019.
Bridgette Clarkston, bridgette. Guidelines for Giving Effective Feedback on Students’ Writing:
clarkston@gmail.com SFU TA/TM Day Megan Barker, barker@zoology.ubc.ca
retrieved from January 30, 2019
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly,
28, 181–188.
Chaudron (1986).The Role of Error Correction in Second Language Teaching.
file:///C:/Users/pc/Downloads/Chaudron%20(1986)_WP5(2). Retrieved from Feb. 2 2019
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and
student verbal reports. In B.
Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts,
contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180
Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 58–78.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics Quantitative, qualitative and mixed
methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315–339. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 69–85 83
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor:

15
 University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press..
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student
writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155–182.
Hileyesus B. (1995). Teachers' attitudes towards English language learners' errors (with
particular reference to grade eleven): Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Addis Ababa University
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). State-of-the-art review on ‘‘Feedback in second language
students’ writing’’. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101
J. Tollefson & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Medium of instruction policies: Which agenda? Whose
agenda? (pp. 97–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jhon w. creswell, (2013). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed approches
John B. & Dana R. F., 2012 written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and
writing. Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
John H. & Helen T., (2007)The Power of Feedback University of Auckland Review of
Educational Research March,2007 Vol. 77, No. 1, pp. 81-112 DOI:
10.3102/003465430298487
Knoblauch, C.H. & Brannon, L. (2006a). Introduction: The emperor (still) has no clothes—
revisiting the myth of improvement. In R. Straub (Ed.), Key Works on Teacher
Response (pp. 1–16). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann.
Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mekonnen A. (2009). Students’ perception of the usefulness of feedback in the writing class:
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University.
Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
Publishers. Nye, N. S. (1994). Sitti’s secret. New York, NY: Four Winds Press.
CUNY Assessment Test in Writing (CATW) Students' Handbook. (February, 8 2019) retrieved
from www.cuny.edu/academics/testing/cuny+assessment+tests.html
Nuru M., (2000). Feedback in the EFL classroom: An exploration of its role in the
communication of teachers’ expectation. Addis Ababa University.
http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/8413?show=full Retrieved from February 6, 2019
Raimes, A. (1987). Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of
ESL college student writers. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 229–258.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language
writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46–70.
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.

16
Taylor, B.P. (1981). Content and written form: A two-way street. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 5–13.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2004). Medium of instruction in Hong Kong: One country, two systems whose
language?
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16,
195–209.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.
Zerihun, E., (2009). the relationship between EFL students' perception of written feedback and
their witling proficiency. file:///C:/Users/pc/Downloads/Zerihun%20Endale.pdf retrieved
from February 2, 2019.

17