Written Corrective Feedback Strategies Applied by Van Lang University’s EFL Lecturers in Teaching Online

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.


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  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 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.

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, 2004Ferris, , 2006. He conducted the findings of 2month research on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback to 75 low intermediate 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 lowintermediate 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 10month 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. (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.

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 mlearning would help look for information and improve accuracy and fluency. As a result, mlearning 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. 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.

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?

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. 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.

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.

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.  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. 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. 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. 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 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.

Fig. 3.7 The effectiveness of online WCF
https://asiacall.info/acoj Nguyen, H. U. N, Duong L. N. T., & Pham, V. P. H. Vol. 13;No. 2;2022 32  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. 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 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. 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.

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; 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 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?  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. 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. 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. 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.

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 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 assignmentsa 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 elearning 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.