






































citation


AsiaCALL Online Journal Received: 15/12/2021 

ISSN 1936-9859; https://asiacall.info/acoj Revision: 28/03/2022 

Vol. 13, No. 2, 2022  Accepted: 04/04/2022 

pp. 21-41  Online: 06/04/2022 

 

CITATION | Nguyen, H. U. N., Duong, L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. (2022). Written Corrective Feedback 

Strategies Applied by Van Lang University’s EFL Lecturers in Teaching Online. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 

13(2), 21-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.221322 

Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Applied by Van Lang University’s EFL 

Lecturers in Teaching Online 

Nguyen Huyen Uyen Nhi1, Duong Ly Nhat Tam1, Pham Vu Phi Ho1* 

1 Faculty of Foreign Languages, Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 
* Correspondence: Pham Vu Phi Ho, Van Lang University, Vietnam. E-mail: ho.pvp@vlu.edu.vn 
*      https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7459-8509 

       https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.221322 

 

Abstract 

During the covid-19 pandemic, many changes occurred that disrupted our lives. Authors 

must adapt to survive, and learning through online platforms is a change that forces us to 

adapt to avoid disrupting the learning process. The primary goal of this research project is to 

investigate the WCF techniques used by 30 teachers while teaching writing English online. 

The research instrument sets comprised 16 questions, including open and closed ones. The 

study uses quantitative and qualitative methods. This research paper is a timely complement 

to the topic of WCF strategies. It will serve as a resource for many teachers who are unsure 

about using the WCF approach when teaching writing online. 

Keywords: Written corrective feedback, WCF strategies, writing, online platform, EFL 

lecturers 

 

1. Introduction 

Throughout the history of teaching and learning to write in L2, especially writing in English, 

written correction feedback (WCF) has always played an unalterable role. It is proven as an 

effective pedagogy even in our constantly changing world. A study by Bitchener & Knoch 

(2009) showed that the more occasions the direct corrective feedback was provided, the more 

accurate the students' writing was and the less time it took for students to reach a higher 

writing level. In order to make a counterargument against the idea that WCF was ineffective 

and negatively affected learning writing skills, Bitchener (2008) did research to prove the 

effectiveness of WCF. The research's findings showed that the feedback of the written 

corrections greatly influenced the accuracy improvement of the two functions of the English 

article system, and this accuracy level did not change even after two months without 

additional feedback or guidance.   

However, it remains the case that if something changes, something else must also be 

changed. The growth of e-learning and the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic have forced 

lecturers to change their written corrective feedback strategies. Over the past decade, several 

authors have researched WCF through online platforms. For instance, they conducted a study 

https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.221322
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7459-8509
https://doi.org/10.54855/acoj.221322


https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

22 
 

on conservation language teachers' online written correction feedback option and response 

time in computer-assisted L2 grammar teaching. In 2019, KılıcKaya found that learners 

recognized that direct feedback was the most effective method for improving their writing 

through online platforms. In an effort to discover whether synchronous corrective feedback 

or asynchronous written corrective was more effective when applying online, Shintani & 

Aubrey (2016) conducted a study of 68 intermediate-level English students. The results 

showed that synchronous correction feedback provided a greater advantage in learning 

grammar than asynchronous correction feedback.   

In Vietnam, e-learning is not a new definition, but it is only more popular as the Covid-19 

pandemic spreads throughout the country because authors are forced to use e-learning as an 

alternative method in order not to interrupt our learning process. Therefore, there seems to be 

a lack of research papers on WCF strategies adopted by Vietnamese lecturers when using 

online apps to teach writing. 

 

2. Literature review 

2.1. Previous related studies 

Nakamura Sachiko (2018) defined Written Corrective Feedback as an instruction that 

teachers give their second language students to help them improve their writing skills. WCF 

strategies can be designed in different ways. Teachers can focus on types of WCF such as 

giving direct feedback, commenting, or reformatting, or they may provide WCF primarily for 

the purpose of correcting student grammar, organization, or content. Or more simply, 

teachers can design WCF strategies in a negative or positive tone. Online Written Corrective 

Feedback strategies mean WCF strategies devised by teachers as they teach academic writing 

in a second language through online applications.  

Throughout the history of second language teaching, especially in English language 

pedagogy, WCF has been proven as having positive effects on teaching writing in English 

(Hosseiny, 2014; Wang & Jiang, 2015). Although there are a large number of organizational 

patterns in the literature reviews, this review mainly focuses on the methodologies that have 

been applied in the collected research papers. After analysis, the collected research articles 

were divided into two groups according to the way they were approached. The first group 

consisted of researchers whose data were collected in one trial. And the other group included 

research with data obtained through surveys, interviews, and/or existing data. The difference 

in their approach made a difference in research results.  

The following articles used an experiment to collect their data to explore how WCF strategies 

affected the effectiveness of teaching English writing. The first one is Bitchener's research 

(2008). He investigated the effect of WCF after some studies had proved conflicting results 

of WCF on learners (Truscott, 1996; Ferris, 2004, 2006). He conducted the findings of 2-

month research on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback to 75 low intermediate 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

23 

international ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand, who had East Asian origin by means 

of a pre-test/post-test design. After being assigned randomly to 4 groups of WCF options 

(direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective 

feedback and written metalinguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; the control 

group received no corrective feedback), the participants wrote three tests (pre-test, immediate 

post-test, and delayed post-test) to compare the efficacy between those groups when testing 

students to differentiate two functional uses of the English article system a/the. The research 

found that the students who received written corrective feedback in the immediate post-test 

were more accurate than those in the control group since the study focused on one small 

specific aspect of the English language (article a/the). 

In 2009, Bitchener and Knoch conducted a study in ten months to prove the effective role of 

written corrective feedback (WCF) in using two articles: a/the. 52 ESL students at a low-

intermediate level from a New Zealand university were randomly assigned to one of four 

groups (direct corrective feedback, written, and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct 

corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; 

the control group) and were asked to write five pieces (pre-test, immediate post-test, and 

three delayed post-tests). The research looked at the impact of these specific feedback 

choices (variable combinations) to see whether each group has different accuracy. The data 

was collected by means of a pre-test–post-test design (a pre-test at the beginning of the 10-

month period and the remaining four post-tests after two weeks, two months, six months, and 

ten months). On all post-tests, each of the treatment groups outperformed the control group, 

and there was no difference in efficacy among the three treatment groups.  

Yu et al. (2020) studied topics related to WCF translation strategies. Research data were 

collected during the semester, and the study participants have experienced teacher and 151 

undergraduates. The results showed that the teacher mainly used WCF indirectly and 

unfocused WCF and the strategy used had a positive impact on student campus and improved 

the accuracy of the translated text.  

In 2020, two research papers that also found the effectiveness of WCF by using experiments 

were collected. The first article was the article of Lira-Gonzales, Maria-Lourdes, and 

Hossein. They conducted a survey to verify the usefulness of written corrective feedback in 

different origins and educational levels. There were six ESL teachers and 128 students with 

different backgrounds and educational levels. An experiment collected the data, teachers 

gave feedback on students’ writing assignments and then asked them to redo the assignments 

and correct mistakes based on the teacher’s WCF. The results revealed important differences 

between the three levels in terms of student mistakes, teacher comments, and student 

reviews. Their findings suggested that teachers should pay more attention to the students' 

education level in order to choose the appropriate feedback types.   

The second one is Wei and Wu (2020)'s research. They used Ellis's typology and Borg's 

theory to investigate the strategies used by second language teachers in correcting and giving 

feedback on student writing tests. There were 254 lecturers from Vietnam, China and 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

24 
 

Thailand who participated in the survey. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of survey data 

were carried out, and the results of the study showed that teachers would adopt various 

strategies such as high requirements, low requirements, and no feedback based on different 

reasons. Their findings show that the personal and contextual factors have a significant 

impact on teachers' corrective written feedback.  

As mentioned above, the methodology of the other research group is mainly made up of 

surveys, interviews, and/or existing data. Amrhein and Nassaji (2010) compared the similar 

and different perceptions between lecturers and students about different types and amounts of 

written corrective feedback (WCF). A total of 64 respondents, including 33 adult ESL 

students and 31 ESL teachers in five different classes from two language schools, took part in 

the study. Data were collected by using both quantitative and qualitative methods to find out 

participants' views and their reasons given about the different types and amounts of WCF. 

Quantitative data were gathered using a closed-ended questionnaire as a Likert scale. 

Qualitative data were also gathered through open-ended questions to elicit further 

information about why instructors and students preferred a specific kind or quantity of 

feedback. As a result, the learners thought WCF most useful when they received as many as 

possible mistakes corrections. In contrast, the instructors categorized the mistakes and 

focused on important ones to save time. The students liked the feedback with mistakes, and 

corrections with a comment, while the teachers wanted them to self-correction. Both the 

learners and instructors agreed that WCF played an important role in grammatical mistakes, 

punctuation mistakes, spelling mistakes, and vocabulary mistakes, though there was some 

disagreement about the effect of WCF on content and idea. Furthermore, the study included a 

small group of people, so additional research on a larger scale in various educational settings 

is needed.  

 Ferris et al. (2013) investigated the effect of written corrective feedback (WCF) in a U.S. 

university. Ten non-native students wrote four texts in the ESL writing class over a 16-week 

semester. After writing, they received WCF to revise each text. Three interviews were 

conducted after the first three writing texts respectively and revisions. The authors used a 

qualitative method with a multiple-case study design. Student surveys, four texts with 

mistake marks and revision sessions per student, the four essay prompts used to produce the 

texts, three retrospective interviews per participant, and a teacher interview were among the 

gathered data. In this research, the individual factors such as external limitations (busy 

schedules) and internal qualities (attitude, confidence) affected the benefits of feedback and 

teaching. Moreover, the students valued the personalized and interactive teaching and 

learning offered by the feedback and interview cycles.  

Based primarily on the topic related to the effectiveness of WCF in improving grammatical 

writing skills in second language learning. Kang and Han (2015) used a meta-analysis 

analytical for their research. They selected 18 published and four unpublished articles that 

matched their high requirements for quality to find their research results. Their results 

suggested that WCF had a significant effect on improving second language learning, but the 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

25 

effect was influenced by a number of specific factors such as learner skills, context, and the 

type of article.   

Chen, Nassaji and Liu (2016) conducted a study to discover EFL students' different 

perceptions and attitudes from different study backgrounds towards written corrective 

feedback (WCF). The data was collected from 64 EFL students at three levels (intermediate, 

advanced-intermediate, and advanced) in a university in Mainland China. A written 

questionnaire was used to gather quantitative and qualitative data on participants' views of 

WCF and the reasons behind such perceptions. Closed-ended questionnaire questions with 

multiple choices or Likert scale formats were used to gather quantitative data. Open-ended 

questions were used to gather the qualitative data. The quantitative data were gathered in 

order to analyze the participants' preferences for grammar education and WCF activities in 

general. The qualitative data were gathered to learn more about the reasons behind their 

choices. The findings showed that most students viewed WCF as a positive method to 

improve their writing, especially grammar.  

Instead of conducting surveys or experiments, Mao and Lee (2020) selected studies 

published in renowned academic journals on the topic of WCF in a second language. They 

then analyzed and synthesized the collected data to obtain results where the collection of data 

from the point of view of the scope of the response was an extraordinary means for future 

research. In addition, their study also provided a detailed assessment of the response 

coverage in the WCF study, adding valuable data to the previous review and synthesis that 

primarily focused on quantitative research.  

2.2. Writing Teaching Approaches 

In the research fields of writing, there has been a great deal of research on writing teaching 

methods and their effectiveness. In recent years, due to the expansion of the covid-19 

epidemic, learning through technology-based has been a major subject in scientific research 

circles. Tran and Nguyen (2021) explored the problems with students' writing ability due to 

limitations in cognition, emotion, and social interaction. Then, they used technology-based 

communication as a new writing teaching method and discovered that the new method 

improved students' writing performances and the students' attitudes toward writing. Their 

research also said that much of the feedback on students' writings focuses mainly on 

cognitive elements of writing.  

Due to the increase in using technology and demands for using mobile devices for online 

learning, Le (2021) conducted a study on English-majored students' attitudes toward using 

mobile-assisted in learning writing. The research findings showed that the students had 

positive attitudes towards using mobile devices in learning writing. They believed that m-

learning would help look for information and improve accuracy and fluency. As a result, m-

learning is a writing teaching method that is ideal for teachers to apply to their writing 

teaching approaches. Because of the development of technology and the negative effects of 

the Covid-19 pandemic, teaching and learning writing using technology devices are trends. 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

26 
 

Because this research focuses on the WCF strategies used by EFL lecturers at VLU, research 

on EFL learners learning writing strategies would be extremely beneficial to the research's 

literature evaluation. Tran (2021) investigated the self-regulated learning (SRL) techniques 

VLU EFL students use when learning writing. Mai conducted research on a cross-sectional 

explanatory design using questionnaires and interviews to gather data with the purpose of 

determining what SRL techniques students at Van Lang University commonly apply, as well 

as the challenges they confront when employing various SRL strategies. The study's findings 

revealed that using SRL methods assisted learners in improving their writing skills. She also 

stated that both instructors and students must participate. She also stressed the importance of 

both instructors and students working together to improve students' writing performances. 

She also stated that instructors should train or give more opportunities for their students to 

improve their time management and approach. 

In summary, all of the above articles are perfectly organized, and their results have 

contributed greatly to the improvement of writing corrective feedback strategies. Although 

they have different types of approaches and are taken at different times, their results do not 

appear to be significantly different. Most of the above research results show that written 

corrective feedback has a significant impact on improving second language learning, but this 

impact is affected by many specific factors, such as the academic level of teachers, skills of 

students, context, and type of language. They also note that the more feedback students 

receive, the more their writing skills will improve. These studies also show that it is 

important for teachers to choose appropriate written corrective feedback strategies for 

students of different levels and educational settings.  

2.3. Research Questions  

1. What are the most common strategies applied when providing WCF on the online 

platform?  

2. What is the most influential factor in choosing a WCF strategy on an online platform?  

 

3. Methods 

3.1 Pedagogical Setting & Participants 

The survey was conducted at the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Lang University, 

established in the early days of the university's establishment. The Faculty of Foreign 

Languages of Van Lang University currently offers two bachelor's programs: English 

Language and Chinese Language. There are five majors in the Bachelor of English Language 

Program: English for Teaching, English for Business, English for Tourism, English for 

Translation and Interpretation, and English - Chinese for Business. 

Due to the high demands on the quality of teaching, all of the Faculty of Foreign Languages 

participants have a master's degree and/or higher and have extensive experience in teaching 

English. Particularly, the authors sent our survey to 40 EFL lecturers and received 30 answers 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

27 

in two weeks. In fact, nearly all of the participants have been teaching English for more than 

five years, accounting for 90%, with 13 teachers (43.3%) reporting that they have been EFL 

teachers for more than ten years. All the respondents already gave the WCF on students when 

teaching online. The male and female respondents accounted for 40% and 60%, respectively. 

There are 25 VLU lecturers (83.3%) who give more than three writing assignments 

throughout the semester since nearly three-quarters (70%) give assignments every week. 

More than half of the lecturers give assignments for both group work and individual work 

made up 56.7%, followed by individual work (33.3%), and only 10% in total give writing 

assignments for group work only.  

3.2 Design of the Study 

The research instrument sets comprised 16 questions, including both closed and open-ended 

ones. The first two questions are designed as multiple-choice questions to collect personal 

information about respondents, including their gender and teaching time. From questions 3 to 

7, the authors also use the multiple-choice form. Authors ask if they have ever taught writing 

in English through online platforms if they provide feedback on their students’ writing tasks, 

if they give the assignments to students by group work or individual work, their frequency of 

giving writing assignments, and the number of assignments. In the next six questions, the 

authors also use multiple-choice questions. Authors ask our participants if they have ever 

taught writing in English through an online platform if they provide feedback on students' 

writing assignments if they assign assignments to students through group or individual 

assignments, and authors ask them about the frequency and number of writing assignments 

they give students at any given time. The last three questions in our survey are designed as 

multiple-choice questions of the checklist type. For collecting information on issues like 

common student mistakes, feedback strategies, and factors affected by WCF strategies, 

checklist types can help respondents make decisions among the many options listed. In the 

final part of the questionnaire, the authors use five open-ended questions to know the 

respondents' true attitude on the mentioned issues.  

3.3 Data collection & analysis 

To illustrate the collected data, the authors utilize pie charts, bar charts as figures, and 

statistical tables. The data is then analyzed using the average calculation and analysis of 

variance to answer two questions regarding the WCF technique the participating lecturers 

used when teaching online and the factors that impact their method choice. 

Authors utilize both open-ended and closed-ended questions in the mailed questionnaire to 

gather information, so the collected data would be evaluated in multiple ways. The data 

gathered are much trustworthy because all of the respondents are experienced and competent 

instructors. Specifically, the ratio of male to female respondents is 2/3, and 90% of them 

have been teaching English for more than five years. fig 3.2 illustrates that 46.7 percent (blue) 

have five to ten years of experience teaching English, while 44.3 (green) percent have more 

than ten years of experience as EFL lecturers.  



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

28 
 

 

Fig. 3.1. Gender of participants                    Fig. 3.2. Teaching experience of participants 

Our research focuses on the WCF techniques used by instructors at Van Lang University's 

Faculty of Foreign Languages. The authors design a question that requires respondents to 

choose from various response alternatives. There are eight available WCF strategies, and 

respondents are able to add any methods. According to fig. 3.3, the most used WCF method 

is "correct common errors," chosen by 73% of surveyors. The other two methods, "peer 

correction and direct feedback", account for 73.3%. "Students respond to feedback required," 

according to half of the study respondents, is one of the strategies they employ while 

teaching English writing online. The remaining strategies are "Indirect Feedback", 

"Electronic Feedback", "Metalinguistic Feedback Correction", and "Correct all the mistakes", 

which are picked by 33.6%, 26.6%, 20%, and 20% of the total poll respondents, respectively.    

 

Fig. 3.3. Some common online WCF strategies applied in VLU university  

    

Male 

40 % Female 

60 % 

Gender 

Male 

Female 

10 % 

47 % 
43 % 

Years of Teaching  
Experience 

2  to under 5 years 5  to 10 years 

more than 10 years 

  

22 

11 

6 
23 

22 

6 
8 

15 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Direct feedback 

Indirect feedback 

Correct all of the errors 

Correct common errors 

Peer Correction 

Metalinguistic Feeback Correction 
Electronic Feedback 

Students respond to FB required 

The number of participants choosing each WCF strategy perspective 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

29 

The authors inquire about the elements that influence the techniques VLU's Foreign 

Languages faculty lecturers use to provide feedback on their students' English writing online 

and receive responses shown in fig. 3.4. More than 50% of the lecturers choose “target of the 

course”, “time allowed”, “students’ levels”, “students' weaknesses”, "learning experiences", 

and “personal teaching experience” as the influenced factors. Specifically, “students’ levels” 

and “personal teaching experience” earn 70% of the lecturers' votes, whereas “students’ 

weaknesses” and “learning experiences” receive 66.6% of the votes.  

Fig. 3.4. Some common factors influence WCF strategies 

One factor that is frequently recognized as having a significant impact on the selection of 

WCF methods based on the common mistakes that students make. According to the statistics 

in Fig. 3.4, 2/3 of the questioned lecturers admit that they pick the suitable WCF technique 

based on students' weaknesses. According to the data collected, students' most common 

mistake when learning English writing through online platforms is "Grammatical 

correctness," with 93.3 percent of the teachers picking this option.  

Fig. 3.5. Common mistakes of VLU students  

  

13 

28 

20 

19 

25 

22 

13 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

TASK RESPONSE 

GRAMMATICAL ACCURACY 

QUALITY OF ARGUMENT STRUCTURES 

SYNTACTIC COMPLEXITY 

UNCONVINCING EVIDENCE 

VOCABULARY 

TEXT LENGTH 

The number of lecturers choosing each option prospectively 

  

21 
20 

13 

20 

21 

17 
7 

16 

12 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

Personal teaching experience 
Learning experiences 

Training experiences 

Students’ weaknesses 

Students' levels 

Time allowed 
School syllabus 

The target of the course 

Available resources 

the number of respondents choosing each factor's perspective 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

30 
 

In addition, Fig. 3.5 also shows that other options, including "unconvincing evidence", 

"vocabulary", "quality of argument structures", and "syntactic complexity," are likewise 

regarded as common student mistakes by the majority of the lecturers.  

Fig. 3.6 The frequency of giving online writing assignments 

The number of assignments that teachers give to students will have an effect on how teachers 

give feedback, so the authors examine the frequency of online writing tasks. Each writing 

course at Van Lang University's Faculty of Foreign Languages generally lasts around ten 

weeks. The number of writing assignments in each writing module may vary depending on 

various circumstances, but according to the data collected, the majority of teachers (72%; in 

green) provide pupils with writing tasks every week, and 21% (blue) give writing 

assignments to their students per two weeks. 

Fig. 3.7 The effectiveness of online WCF  

72 % 

21 % 

other 
7 % 

per week per two weeks other 

7 % 

63 % 

30 % 

  
  

excellent good average poor 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

31 

Learning writing online as opposed to face-to-face learning causes changes that both students 

and teachers must adapt to learn effectively. The authors decide to study the efficacy of 

studying writing using an online platform since the inability to physically engage and 

continue working with the computer may produce certain pressures. And the result is, 

according to fig. 3.7, 63% (orange) of teachers still believe the online writing program is 

successful, and 7% (blue) believe it is extremely effective. However, 30% of instructors 

believe that the effectiveness of teaching writing online is at an average level (green). 

Table 3.1. Some considerations of VLU lecturers for effective online WCF  

Considerations  Count  %  

Learning platform  3 10 

Teachers’ responsibility  13 43.33 

Students’ responsibility 8 26.67 

Teacher-student collaboration  3 10 

Others  3 10 

Table 3.1 shows that some considerations are given by VLU lecturers when providing WCF 

to students on the online platform. Three teachers (10% of the respondents) commented that 

the system and the learning platform need upgrading. Also, it is critical to use various online 

tools to assess the students’ work. Teachers’ responsibility is the most important factor in the 

effectiveness of the online WCF, with 13 participants (43.33% of the total) agreement. 

Teachers have to deal with the burden of a high workload throughout the course to track 

students' progress. Firstly, teachers must provide a clear scoring rubric and explain the course 

objective to students before the course. Then they have to instruct students to add 

submissions and read the feedback on the platform. To adapt to teaching writing online, 

teachers are required to have a lot of experience, patience, dedication, skills, and knowledge. 

When providing WCF online, teachers follow some rules to correct students’ writing 

assignments and help them to clarify their problems. Firstly, they randomly pick some 

writing assignments, correct common mistakes, and let the students conduct self-correct 

mistakes by themselves or by peer correction. The feedback needs to be simultaneous and 

concise and focuses on the content and structures. Besides, lecturers should be responsive 

and prompt to students' work and give regular assignments for better assessment. Also, some 

teachers use some oral feedback by recording to make sure students fully understand their 

comments. Eight VLU teachers (26.67% of the respondents) claim that students are mostly 

responsible for effective online WCF. First of all, the students need to take the feedback into 

more serious consideration. The suggestion is that after receiving feedback, students correct 

responses and reassess their writings. After this process, they will improve their writing and 

broaden their knowledge. The readiness of both teachers and students to adapt to the online 

WCF is necessary. Three teachers (10% of the respondents) state that boundary setting, 

empathy, and cooperation between lecturers and learners are crucial for effective online 

WCF. Finally, three teachers (10% of the respondents) mentioned some other factors apart 

from teachers and students, such as class size and technical problems.  



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

32 
 

Table 3.2 The advantages of online WCF  

Advantages  Count  %  

Convenience  13 43.33 

Quick feedback  9 30 

Effectiveness  6 20 

Others  2 6.67 

Regarding the advantages of the online WCF, table 3.2 reveals that 13 respondents (43.33% 

of the participants) agree that providing corrective feedback through online platforms is 

flexible and convenient. Lecturers can correct students' work whenever they have time and 

wherever they are and organize students' work effectively. All online feedback can store as a 

reference for students, which is permanently available for them to revise. The students can 

review the lesson better and improve their level of academic performance. Also, 9 VLU 

teachers (30% of the total) admit that students can receive feedback faster when giving WCF 

online. Also, students’ mistakes can be noted and recognized clearly, which are easier to read 

compared to handwriting. Thanks to the quick feedback, learners will revise their writing 

work better. Besides, 6 participants (20% of the teachers) notice that students feel less 

nervous when receiving and responding to teachers' online WCF. They are more aware of 

their mistakes and easier to improve. These factors help improve students writing to meet the 

course objective. The last two respondents (6.67% of the answers) mention other benefits of 

online WCF, such as progress tracking and various online tools. These instruments help the 

teacher target students' mistakes and provide constructive feedback on their writing 

performance. It also saves time in giving feedback during the process of writing and in 

grading the final products.  

Table 3.3 The disadvantages of online WCF  

Disadvantages  Count  %  

Plagiarism  3 10 

Time consuming  8 26.67 

Face-to-face interaction  5 16.67 

Misunderstanding  4 13.33 

Class organization  3 10 

Unproductive  4 13.33 

Others  3 10 

As can be seen in table 3.3, there are a variety of drawbacks that VLU lectures deal with 

when providing WCF online. The most common problem is time-consuming, with eight 

respondents (26.67% of the participants) experiencing the fact that WCF on multi-modal 

texts from students can bring more challenges to teachers because of the heavy workload and 

time constraints. Teachers need a large amount of time and patience to give feedback on all 

students' assignments. Five teachers (16.67% of the respondents) claim that the practice of 

WCF online lacks human interaction. No face-to-face communication can cause some 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

33 

confusion and call for clarification. They have to give “impersonal" feedback, which creates 

a sense of isolation. Also, four respondents (13.33% of the total) admit that WCF online is 

unproductive. There are some limitations in giving WCF to some grammatical areas, and 

ineffective for low-tech or weak students. Besides, three lecturers (10% of the respondents) 

state that plagiarism is a challenging issue to address. Another three teachers (10% of the 

respondents) claim that class organization depends on students' engagement and cooperation, 

which means teachers have difficulty controlling the class and monitoring students. Also, 

four lecturers (13.33% of the total) admit that there are some misunderstandings between 

teachers and learners when giving WCF online, which leads their students to ignore their 

feedback. Finally, 3 participants (10% of the respondents) mentioned some external factors 

when providing online WCF, such as WiFi connection or eye disease.  

Table 3.4 VLU students’ responses to WCF online  

Students’ responses   Count  %  

Positive  13 43.33 

Average  7 23.33 

Negative  7 23.33 

Method  3 10 

The open-ended question about student responses when studying online receives a lot of 

positive feedback, as revealed in the table 3.4. 13 VLU teachers (43.33% of the respondents) 

report that their students are active and satisfied when replying to their WCF online. They 

often ask for more questions about the mistakes to correct and rewrite the essays. However, 

seven lecturers (23,33% of the participants) answered that just some of their learners read 

their WCF carefully and asked them to clarify the feedback to provide better answers. Others 

easily accept their feedback or ignore it. They just submit their work and commit the 

mistakes again after getting WCF. Regarding group work, some students cooperate well, and 

some do not work. Moreover, 7 participants (23.33% of the respondents) comment that they 

find their students uninterested and insufficient when learning online. They have no 

comments, rarely ask for further explanation, and work on WCF with reluctance. Finally, 

three lecturers (10% of the total) give information about some common ways that learners 

respond to their WCF by typing in on chatbox, voicing their opinions, or using the icons.  

 

4. Findings and Discussion 

Due to the covid 19 expansion, e-learning is the only solution that will allow us to continue 

studying without interruption. This study aims to investigate the WCF techniques used by 

VLU lecturers to assist students in improving their writing.   

Research question 1: What are the most often used WCF strategies for an online writing class?  

According to the statistics given in fig. 3.3, the most common WCF technique used by VLU 

lecturers is "correct common mistakes."The lecturers detect the common mistakes that the 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

34 
 

majority of the students frequently make and give solutions to correct these mistakes. This 

technique is chosen by 23/30 participants, accounting for 76.6 percent of the total. In a 

different context, in response to the question about variables influencing feedback, 56.6 

percent of participants stated that they picked the suitable WCF technique based on the time 

allowed. Perhaps this is why the "correct common mistakes" is the most popular technique at 

Van Lang University's Faculty of Foreign Languages. 22/30 participants, or 73.3 percent, 

choose "Peer correction then teacher correction" and "Direct Feedback” as their WCF 

strategies to provide feedback online to their students in writing class. Direct feedback means 

teachers point out students’ faults in writing and offer strategies to assist them better. The 

advantage of this technique is that students become more aware of the faults they frequently 

make. In the "peer correction then teacher correction" technique, the instructors allow 

students to point out and correct each other's faults. Then teachers examine the tasks again, 

give comments, and recommend ways to improve. This technique encourages students to be 

more active while studying. Besides, addressing their peers’ writing mistakes is a good way 

to improve their writing skills proactively. Half of the surveyed lecturers chose the technique 

"students reply to requested feedback." After getting comments from the teacher, pupils must 

edit their work. Teachers determine if students have comprehended the directions and 

provide students more opportunities to practice writing. The remaining options, "indirect 

feedback," "electronic feedback," "metalinguistic feedback correction," and "correct all 

mistakes," are not as popular among surveyed participants, with just 20% to 36.6 percent of 

total votes.   

The authors use the 𝑋 formula below to get each respondent's average number of WCF 

methods. As a result, the authors find that each survey participant employs a mix of more 

than three WCF strategies on average, which means students receive writing feedback in 

various ways, making their learning process more pleasant and successful.   

Research question 2: What is the most influential factor in choosing WCF strategy on an 

online platform?  

The authors ask respondents what variables influence their decision to approach WCF, and 

authors receive answers like fig. 3.4. According to the data collected, "personal teaching 

experience" is one of the most common factors, with 70% of voters for it. For that reason, the 

authors tabulate table 4.1 to check if there are any variations in the use of WCF techniques 

among groups of teachers with varying years of teaching experience. Table 4.1 shows that 

there is a difference in the WCF technique utilized by groups 1 and 2 compared to group 3. If 

authors merge groups 1 and 2, authors will get a group of lecturers with fewer than ten years 

of teaching experience. The most commonly used WCF method in this mixed group is 

"Correct common mistakes". In the group of lecturers with more than ten years of teaching 

experience, the most common method is direct feedback.  

 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

35 

Table 4.1. The WCF strategies are applied by the three groups, separated by teachers’ years 

of experience  

  WCF Strategies      

    Direct  

Feedback  

Indirect 

feedback  

Correct 

all the 

mistakes  

Correct  

common  

mistakes  

Peer 

correction 

then 

teacher 

correction  

Metalingu

istic  

Feedback  

Correction  

Electronic 

Feedback  

Students 

respond to 

FB required  

   

   

   

 Years 

of  

Teachi

ng  

Experi

ence  

2<x<5 

(1)  

1        3  2     2     

Row  

Percen

t  

33.3%        100%  66.6%     66.6%     

5<=x<=

10  

(2)  

9  5  3  11  11  5  6  2  

Row  

Percen

t  

64.3%  35.7%  21.4%  78.6%  78.6%  35.7%  42.9%  14.3%  

>10 (3)  11  5  2  8  8  2  6  3  

Row  

Percen

t  

84.6%  38.5%  14.4%  61.5%  61.5%  14.4%  46.2%  23.1%  

* x: the years of teaching experience 

Table 4.1 indicates that while teaching writing online, the majority of instructors from 2 to 

less than five years of experience and the majority of teachers from 5 to 10 years of 

experience utilize the "correct common mistakes" strategy. However, among teachers with 

five to ten years of experience, the "peer correction then teacher correction" technique is also 

often applied. The majority of lecturers with more than ten years of experience favor "direct 

feedback," although the two techniques "correct common mistakes" and "peer correction 

then teacher correction" also obtain a significant proportion of votes. Next, the authors utilize 

one-way ANOVA, a statistical approach, to examine whether there are variations in the 

number of WCF methods employed by instructors in groups with varying years of teaching 

experience.    

 

 

 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

36 
 

Table 4.2. The summary of the calculation of subgroup statistics for variables within 

categories.             

Group Count Sum Average Variance 

>10 (Group 3)  13  45  3.461538  3.769231  

5<=x<=10 (Group 2)  14  52  3.714286  2.527473  

2<x<5 (Group 1)  3  9  3 1 

There are three different groups: lecturers from 2 to less than 5 years of experience (Group1), 

lecturers from 5 to 10 years of experience (Group 2), and lecturers with more than 10 years 

(Group 3) of teaching experience. Particularly, the total number of types of feedback used by 

group 1 is 9. On average, each participant use three different types of feedback. In group 2, 

the total number of types of feedback used is 52. On average, each person uses 3.7 different 

types of feedback. For group 3, the total number of types of feedback used is 45. On average, 

each person uses 3.5 different types of feedback.       

Table 4.3. ANOVA              

Source of Variation  SS df MS F P-value F crit 

Between Groups  1.378754579  2  0.689377  0.232409  0.794191  3.354131  

Within Groups  80.08791209  27  2.966219        

    

Total  

  

81.46666667  

  

29    

  

   

  

   

   

   

As can be seen in Table 4.3, F value is less than F crit in this case (0.232409 < 3.354131), 

thus, the null hypothesis is accepted. It indicates that the numbers of WCF methods used by 

the lecturers in different groups are quite similar. The ultimate result is that the number of 

WCF techniques used by the lecturers is not different based on teachers’ years of teaching 

experience.  

Next, the authors tabulate table 4.4 to examine if there is any difference in WCF techniques 

used by instructors when students work independently (group 1), in groups (group 2), and 

both (group 3). The results show that the teachers in group 1 use various methods, but there 

is little overlap in the methods employed. Only two methods were not used, and half of the 

participants in this group chose the most used methods. Group 2 also has various WCF 

methods, but there is an overlap in methods applied. According to table 4.4, 6/8 methods are 

used by two-thirds of the lecturers in this group. People in group 3 utilize a range of WCF 

methods as well because the data reveal that just one method is not used. The three 

approaches utilized by the teachers in this group are “peer correction then teacher correction”, 

“correct common mistakes”, and “direct feedback”. In conclusion, there is little variation in 

the number and kind of WCF methods used by trainers from these groups.  

 



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

37 

Table 4.4. The WCF strategies are applied by the three groups, separated by types of 

assignments 

     WCF Strategies      

    Indirect 

feedback  

Correct 

all the 

mistakes  

Correct  

common  

mistakes  

Peer 

correction 

then teacher 

correction  

Metalinguisti

c  

Feedback  

Correction  

Electronic 

Feedback  

Students respond to 

FB required  

Types of  

assignmen

ts 

Individual 

(1) 0 3 5 4 2 3 0 

Row 

Percent 0.00% 30.00% 50.00% 40.00% 20.00% 30.00% 0.00% 

Group (2) 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 

Row 

Percent 66.67% 66.67% 66.67% 66.67% 0.00% 33.33% 66.67% 

Both (3) 6 0 15 16 5 10 3 

Row 

Percent 34.49% 0.00% 88.24% 94.12% 29.41% 58.82% 17.65% 

This research aims to find out the most common WCF methods used by teachers when 

teaching writing online and the factors that affect their choices. The results will serve as a 

reference for those who wish to apply the WCF method to teach writing online. In addition, 

based on the above results, readers will better understand the WCF methods used and the 

factors that influence the choice of these methods. The findings of the study accord with 

earlier relevant studies on the recognition of the effectiveness of WCF, indicating that EFL 

teachers utilize a combination of three different WCF tactics on average to assist their 

students in developing their writing skills, and the strategies are successful. The findings are 

in line with previous research papers’ findings that the factors that affected how teachers used 

particular WCF strategies are personal factors and factors related to students’ writing levels.  

The research findings also increase the diversity of WCF strategy research, especially the 

WCF strategy in online teaching, during the spread of the Covid19 epidemic.   

 

5. Conclusion 

In conclusion, based on fig. 3.3 and the preceding data, the most common online WCF 

strategy applied by Van Lang University's Faculty of Foreign Languages lecturers while 

teaching writing online is "Correct Common Mistakes." According to the lecturers in fig. 3.4 

and the study above, some elements that have the largest effect on the choice of WCF 

method are "personal teaching experience" and "students' level". Based on the analysis, it can 

be concluded that when most lecturers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Lang 

University conduct online teaching, they mainly rely on their personal teaching experience to 



https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

38 
 

the method of "correct common mistakes" to give feedback to EFL students. This technique 

can utilize the limited time in each writing class to provide feedback to all students, so all 

students' writing can be corrected. In addition, the teacher's survey also uses a combination 

of other methods to support students more effectively. Due to the global outbreak of the 

Covid-19 pandemic, this research paper becomes a timely complement to the topic of WCF 

strategies. It serves as a resource for many teachers who are willing to teach writing online. 

In comparison to previous research, the findings of this paper have further supported the 

topic of WCF, which provides readers with more practical facts about the situation of the 

spreading epidemic and makes e-learning necessary. 

In comparison to previous relevant studies, this research supports the notion that WCF has a 

good impact on writing instruction and learning.  

All in all, there are some limitations in our study that should be addressed. There are 30 VLU 

lecturers who conduct our survey, which is quite a small research scale. Our scale is in the 

Faculty of Foreign Language, where teachers use English mostly to give WCF to students. 

Besides, the authors focus on the WCF strategies applied in writing assignments – a small 

aspect requires WCF. Due to the covid-19 pandemic, VLU teachers have just been switching 

to the online platform for a short amount of time, so the long-term effects of different WCF 

strategies need to be taken into consideration. 

The results of the study will contribute to the existing literature on WCF strategies and 

provide additional information on how WCF should be applied through online platforms. 

Based on the analysis of data provided by experienced teachers, the research's findings are 

reference resources for young teachers who are inexperienced in applying WCF strategies 

when teaching via online platforms. Besides, because of the spread of the Covid-19 pandemic, 

e-learning is the most popular used learning method in Vietnam. The information from the 

research will be the latest and the most appropriate for reference to apply in places where e-

learning is used for the first time as a form of formal teaching. Furthermore, based on the 

results, the other researchers will know the most popular strategies are used, and then they can 

research the effectiveness of these WCF strategies when applying to teaching L2 to 

Vietnamese students. Future research which studies the effectiveness of different WCF 

strategies on the online platform should employ a longitudinal design to examine the 

improvement of their students' writings. From their performance, authors can find out the 

most effective WCF strategy when learning online. Besides, students should be provided with 

different types of WCF strategies to decide which one is the most suitable for them. Different 

levels of students may adapt to different WCF strategies, so future research can develop more 

about the factors that influence the WCF methods used by teachers.  

 

Acknowledgement  

The authors of this article acknowledged the support of Van Lang University at 69/68 Dang 

Thuy Tram St., Ward 13, Binh Thanh Dist., Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.  



ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

39 

References  

Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written Corrective Feedback: What do Students and 

Teachers Think is Right and Why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 

95–127. Retrieved from 

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886  

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second 

Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004   

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective 

feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn043  

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to 

Language Development: A Ten-Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-

214. doi:10.1093/applin/amp016   

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written 

corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-

Pacific journal of second and foreign language education, 1(1), 1-17. 

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The ‘‘Grammar Correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and 

where do authors go from here? (and what do authors do in the meantime...?). Journal 

of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.  

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does mistakes feedback help student writers? New evidence on the 

short- and long-term effects of written mistakes correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland 

(Eds.), Perspectives on response. 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. 

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009   

Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving 

Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 

668-674. 

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 

Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. 

doi:10.1111/modl.12189  

Kılıçkaya, F. (2019). Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback 

preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar 

instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-26. 

Le, M. T. (2021). Students’ Attitude Towards Using Smartphones and Portable Devices for 

Studying Writing. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 54–64. 

Retrieved from http://i-jte.org/index.php/journal/article/view/13 

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19886


https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022 

40 
 

Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The Amount and Usefulness of Written 

Corrective Feedback Across Different Educational Contexts and Levels. TESL 

Canada Journal, 37(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333  

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of 

empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. 

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469   

Nakamura, S. (2018). Insights from Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Implications for 

Language Pedagogy. REFLections, 22, 89-102. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-

thaijo.org/index.php/reflections/article/view/112330  

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The Effectiveness of Synchronous and Asynchronous 

Written Corrective Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy in a Computer-Mediated 

Environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296– 319. 

doi:10.1111/modl.12317  

Tran, T. M. L., & Nguyen, T. T. H. (2021). The Impacts of Technology-based 

Communication on EFL Students’ Writing. AsiaCALL Online Journal, 12(5), 54-76. 

Retrieved from https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/80 

Tran, T. T. M. (2021). Use of Self-regulated Learning Strategies in Paragraph Writing at Van 

Lang University. International Journal of TESOL & Education, 1(3), 1–13. Retrieved 

from http://i-jte.org/index.php/journal/article/view/80 

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language  

Learning, 46, 327–369  

Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Theoretical 

Perspectives, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. English Language 

Teaching, 8(1), 110-120. 

Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (. (2020, July-September). Written Corrective Feedback Strategies 

Employed by University English Lecturers: A Teacher Cognition Perspective. SAGE 

Journals, 10(3), 1-12. Retrieved from 

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/2158244020934886  

Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., & Lin, Z. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies in 

English-Chinese translation classrooms. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(2), 

101-111. 

 

 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333
https://asiacall.info/acoj/index.php/journal/article/view/80


ACOJ- ISSN 1936-9859 AsiaCALL Online Journal  Vol. 13; No. 2; 2022  

41 

Biodata 

Nhi Nguyen Huyen Uyen is a final-year student majoring in the English Language at Van 

Lang University. Due to the high demands of coursework and her interest in research, she has 

been doing some scientific research. She also had a research paper published in the 

AssiaCALL Online Journal. Because she had little experience in conducting research, each of 

her research papers was supervised by her professors, who had substantial research 

experience. Contact mail: uyennhi09012000@gmail.com 

Tam Duong Ly Nhat is a junior student majoring in the English Language at Van Lang 

University. Because of the requests for her degree,  she has been doing scientific research. 

Moreover, she had a research paper published in the AssiaCALL Online Journal. Because she 

had little experience in doing research, she was guided by professors with extensive research 

experience in her conducting research process. Contact mail: duonglynhattam@gmail.com 

Associate Professor Dr. Pham Vu Phi Ho is an Assoc. Dean of the Faculty of Foreign 

Languages, Van Lang University, Vietnam. He used to be a Vice-President of Ba Ria – Vung 

Tau University, and Vice-President and Dean of Faculty of Foreign Languages of Van Hien 

University, Vietnam. Pham has been published 56 research articles in both local and 

International Journals (ISI/Scopus-indexed), and 8 books and course-books, 2 course-books 

were used for undergrad students at HCMC Open University, VN, and one course-book was 

used for both the undergraduate and graduate level at Lourdes College, Higher Education 

Department, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines. He is the Vice President for Administrative 

Affairs of the AsiaCALL and the managing editor of its Online Journal. He is now the Editor-

in-chief of the International Journal of TESOL & Education. He is also an editor for the Asian 

Journal of Applied Linguistics (Scopus), an editor for the World Journal of English Language 

(scopus), and a peer reviewer for some international Journals indexed in ISI/Scopus such as 

Computer Assisted Language Learning, Open Sage, International Journal of Instruction. His 

main interests include Academic Writing, peer responses, translation, Teaching 

methodologies, and Technology-enhanced learning.  

mailto:uyennhi09012000@gmail.com

