![occasions” (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010, p. 202).
Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target
occasion analysis … meant that the
students were not required to delete articles. … [O]ne effect
of the correction might have been to signal to learners that
they needed to use articles a lot and may have led to errors of
overuse. … It is possible that the correction led to overuse of
articles in contexts that were not the focus of this study and
that did not require the use of an article but this remains an
issue for further study” (Ellis et al., 2008, p. 369, footnote).
Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target
students were not required to delete articles. … [O]ne effect
of the correction might have been to signal to learners that
they needed to use articles a lot and may have led to errors of](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/iwouldliketodiscussmyexperiencedevelopingandimplementing-230107083210-30d8637f/85/I-would-like-to-discuss-my-experience-developing-and-implementing-docx-7-320.jpg)
![E-mail address: [email protected]
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
© 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the
Organizing Committee of TTLC2013.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014
.01.1437&domain=pdf
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014
.01.1437&domain=pdf
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
390 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397
writing comments in complete sentences; by avoiding abstract,
technical language and abbreviations; by relating
their comments back to specific words and paragraphs from the
students’ text, by viewing student writing seriously,
as part of a real exchange.
Feedback can be viewed as an important process for the
improvement of writing skills for students (Hyland,
1990; Hyland & Hyland, 2001). This is because written
feedback contains heavy informational load which offers
suggestions to facilitate improvement and provides](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/iwouldliketodiscussmyexperiencedevelopingandimplementing-230107083210-30d8637f/85/I-would-like-to-discuss-my-experience-developing-and-implementing-docx-71-320.jpg)
I would like to discuss my experience developing and implementing .docx
- 1. I would like to discuss my experience developing and implementing a SaaS based CRM application(pega) in my current organization. While business is planning to spin a new CRM application, they had some list of vendors and per the requirements they chose to go with Pega. The next question they had is whether to host the application on premise or cloud. For this, they had multiple discussions with CIO and IT staff evaluating the pros and cons of application hosting on cloud. In requirements gathering phase Business Owners are involved with application analysts, Application architects to captured requirements. Application architect will determine if a requirement can be met from the application. Requirements are then converted into use cases and Requirement documents. Requirements include both Functional and Non-functional. Requirements play a crucial role as they guide developers on what to code. It will be a huge burden for an organization if requirements change constantly. Hence, Business and IT should spend most of their times to gather requirements. Apart from Business owners and systems analysts, developers should be involved in development phase. Once the application is developed Quality assurance teams are used to see if the Application is functionally stable i.e. they make sure that all the Requirements gathered are covered by test case. For non- functional requirements security tests, Load test and performance tests are conducted. A Release Manager is also needed for accepting the application into production Environment. Proper requirements will come in handy for success of a project. Also, documentation like Requirements traceability matrix will ensure that each requirement is mapped to tasks and Test scripts. Reference · David Bourgeois(2019). Information System for Business and Beyond. Information systems, their use in business, and the larger impact they are having on our world
- 2. Focused Written Corrective Feedback: What a Replication Study Reveals About Linguistic Target Mastery Monika Ekiert, LaGuardia CC, City University of New York Kristen di Gennaro, Pace University The Debate L2 writing classes. mmar on writing assignments was not only ineffective but potentially harmful. writing classes: A response to Truscott. claims are more harmful to students than error correction.
- 3. The Debate L2 writing classes. on writing assignments was not only ineffective but potentially harmful. writing classes: A response to Truscott. claims are more harmful to students than error correction. The Debate issue in second language (L2) writing research. topic. Research Perspectives
- 4. l concerns should teachers dedicate so many hours providing WCF to their students? Which is the most effective type of WCF? Research Perspectives concerns should teachers dedicate so many hours providing WCF to their students? Ferris, 1999, 2004), what are its effects? Which is the most effective type of WCF? for its researchability (Ellis, 2010)
- 5. ved, measured, and controlled The “article” studies (Bitchner & Knoch, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007) -governed uses Findings from “Article” Studies
- 6. the control groups -- evidence in favor of WCF. learners’ accuracy in using articles to express first mention (a) and subsequent mention (the). - analysis finding that WCF has no effect, or a slightly negative effect on learners’ accuracy. Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target required for referring to something for the first time … or for referring to mass nouns, WCF was not provided on such occasions” (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010, p. 202). Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target required for referring to something for the first time … or for referring to mass nouns, WCF was not provided on such
- 7. occasions” (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010, p. 202). Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target occasion analysis … meant that the students were not required to delete articles. … [O]ne effect of the correction might have been to signal to learners that they needed to use articles a lot and may have led to errors of overuse. … It is possible that the correction led to overuse of articles in contexts that were not the focus of this study and that did not require the use of an article but this remains an issue for further study” (Ellis et al., 2008, p. 369, footnote). Unresolved Problems: Linguistic Target students were not required to delete articles. … [O]ne effect of the correction might have been to signal to learners that they needed to use articles a lot and may have led to errors of
- 8. overuse. … It is possible that the correction led to overuse of articles in contexts that were not the focus of this study and that did not require the use of an article but this remains an issue for further study” (Ellis et al., 2008, p. 369, footnote). The Current Study Aims to fill this gap identified, but underreported, by previous researchers earned to use an article with regard to where it is and it is not required. Research Questions 1. What is the impact of WCF selectively focused on two article functions on learners’ accuracy with articles in other contexts?
- 9. 2. Do these effects change depending on the type of WCF? Method -experimental design (intact classes) -test → immediate post-test→ delayed post-test Design Week 1 Weeks 3-5 Week 5 Week 11 Pre-test Treatment Immediate Delayed x 3 Post-test Post-test Participants
- 10. n a college-based, academic ESL program (level low intermediate to intermediate) Urdu, Hindi, Greek, Creole, Korean, Polish, Arabic, Turkish, Burmese, Pashtoo) explanation on articles (n=23) article errors (n=18) Focus of WCF Jane bought a ring and a necklace for her mother’s birthday. Her mother liked the ring, but hated the necklace.
- 11. Treatment for Group 1 DF - incorrect uses with “a” or “the” were corrected above each error - “a” or “the” were inserted where they were omitted but required Treatment for Group 2 DF + ME -linguistic explanation to their piece of writing: mentioned. t for dinner. The man ordered a bottle of wine and the woman drank the wine. Group 3 Control
- 12. Students received summary end notes on the overall quality of their writing (Ferris, 2004, 2006) -text corrections provided icle use made Instruments Designed to meet the following criteria: Two types of written tests: Instruments: Picture description The accompanying narrative story was handed to the students with instructions to
- 13. read it silently. Written stimulus (of approximately 300 - 400 words) was replaced with the pictorial stimulus and the students were asked to write the story themselves. Participants were given 30 minutes. 6 forms developed. Instruments: Missing word Each narrative (200-300 words long) was based on an adapted Aesop fable. Items were embedded in sentences forming a coherent text.
- 14. No blanks were provided. Participants were instructed to read the fable and insert missing words wherever they deemed it necessary–a task resembling error correction. Participants were given 20 minutes. 3 forms developed. Procedures -test: picture description + missing word Students received feedback on the picture description narratives on three occasions (separated by a week) -test: picture description + missing word -test: picture description + missing word
- 15. Analysis of WCF focus) c definites) BUT ALSO Analysis of WCF focus) BUT ALSO ites
- 16. lamp is really ugly. indefinites and definites ntime Data Analysis article type (to identify article usage beyond the treated articles) Data Analysis ion analysis (the total number of correctly supplied articles divided by the total
- 17. number of obligatory occasions and expressed as proportions of 1). number of overused articles divided by the total number of obligatory occasions and expressed as proportions of 1). with a series of mixed ANOVAs and post-hoc tests. Overall impact of WCF on all articles re was a significant change over time averaged across all groups. significantly. In other words, different groups developed differentially over time. -test, DF+ME and Control differed significantly from each other. Overall impact of WCF on all articles
- 18. * * Impact on ‘treated’ vs. ‘untreated’ articles ge over time averaged across all groups. the groups significantly. In other words, the three groups developed differentially over time. -test, DF+ME different significantly from Control and DF groups on ‘untreated’ articles. Impact on ‘treated’ vs. ‘untreated’ articles articles (time*) * Impact on ‘treated’ vs. ‘untreated’ articles
- 19. articles (time*) on “untreated” articles (group x time*) * Results on accuracy for each group Results on accuracy for each group Results on accuracy for each group overtime Results on article overuse
- 20. Summary of Results experimental groups for accuracy on all articles, both first- and subsequent-mention uses and other article uses. inadvertently impacted the remaining functions of the system. the “treated” features, the L2 learners experienced loss of accuracy on the “untreated” target features. to overuse of a given structure. Discussion deserves an open and honest discussion. are rarely considered.; “researchability” is not helpful here. targeted by WCF and FonF studies limiting the findings’
- 21. generalizability. Discussion On a positive note … grammatical structures arise naturally and frequently may be both necessary and sufficient to improve L2 learners’ performance with those structures. Discussion some areas, but greater inaccuracy in other areas? regarding students’ improvement in grammatical accuracy, including forms that have been corrected and taught; they may need to be alert to potential overgeneralizations.
- 22. Q & A Thank you! The Effects of Integrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in a Saudi Context Grami Mohammad Ali Grami Newcastle University School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences
- 23. June 2010 Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………………………………………..……… ………………………………………………… I List of Abbreviations ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………. II List of Tables ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………….. III List of Graphs ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………… IV CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………… …………………………………. 1
- 24. 1.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………….. 1 1.2 Rationale of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… …………………. 2 Contribution to Present Research……………………………………………………………… ………….. 2 Limitations of Previous Research……………………………………………………………… …………….. 3 1.3 Aims and Objectives ………………………………………………………………………… …………………….. 4 1.4 General Interest of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… …………. 5 1.5 Organisation of the Thesis ………………………………………………………………………… …………….. 5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
- 25. ………………………………………………………………………… …… 8 Overview of Chapter Two ………………………………………………………………………… …………………….. 8 2.1.1 The Nature of Writing ………………………………………………………………………… ………………… 8 2.1.2 ESL Writing ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………… 10 2.1.3 General Review of the Teaching Context in SA …………………………………………………….. 14 2.1.4 Learner’s Problems in the Saudi Context ……………………………………………………………… 17 Socio-cultural ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… 17 Linguistic/pedagogical ………………………………………………………………………… ………….. 18 Legislative and administrative policy problems…………………………………………………. 19
- 26. 2.2.1 Writing Approaches ………………………………………………………………………… ………………….. 20 The Product Approach ………………………………………………………………………… …………… 21 The Process Approach ………………………………………………………………………… ……………. 24 The Genre Approach ………………………………………………………………………… ………………. 27 2.2.2 Feedback in Writing Classes ………………………………………………………………………… ………. 30 An Overview of Feedback in Writing……………………………………………………………… …. 30 The Significance of Feedback……………………………………………………………… ………………. 30 Teacher-Written Feedback ………………………………………………………………………… .……… 32
- 27. Peer Feedback ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………. 35 Advantages and Disadvantages of Peer Feedback ……………………………………………… 36 Other Types of Feedback ………………………………………………………………………… …………. 40 2.2.3 Introducing Peer Feedback to ESL Students …………………………………………………………… 40 2.2.4 Students’ Beliefs in Writing ………………………………………………………………………… …………. 45 2.2.5 Writing Assessment ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………. 46 Assessment and Feedback ………………………………………………………………………… ………. 46 Electronic and online Means of Writing Assessment ………………………………………….. 47 2.3.1 Collaborative Learning …………………………………………………………………………
- 28. ………………… 50 2.3.2 Collaborative Writing ………………………………………………………………………… …………………… 53 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY………………………..………………………… ………………………………. 56 Overview of Chapter Three ………………………………………………..……………………… …………………… 56 3.1.1 Research Gap and Research Questions ………………..……………………………………………….. 56 Research Gap ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………. 56 Research Questions ………………………………………………………………………… ………………… 58 Research Sub-Questions ………………………………………………………………………… ………… 58 3.1.2 The Context of the Study …………………………………………………………………………
- 29. …………….. 60 General Educational Background: EFL in the Saudi Context ……………………………….. 60 ESL in the Department of Foreign Languages, KAAU ………………………………………….. 60 3.1.3 Participants of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… …………….. 61 3.2 Justification for Choosing Data Collection Tools ……………………………………………………… 64 3.2.1 Procedures of the Questionnaires ………………………………………………………………………… .. 64 The Design and Development Stage: Points to Consider …………………………………….. 66 The Development of the Non-Standardised Questionnaire …………………………………. 71 The Pre-Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………………… ………………….. 72 The Pilot Study ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… 74
- 30. 3.2.2 The Writing Entry and Exit Tests ………………………………………………………………………… ….. 80 3.2.3 Interviews ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………….… 81 Reflections on the Interviews ………………………………………………………………………… … 82 3.2.4 Fieldwork and Empirical Study ………………………………………………………………………… ……. 84 Quasi-Experiment: Control Group and Experiment Group …………………………………. 84 The Design of the Writing Task ………………………………………………………………………… .. 85 Peer Feedback Group Training ………………………………………………………………………… .. 85 3.2.5 Methodological Issues ………………………………………………………………………… ………………... 86
- 31. Research Ethics ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………….. 86 Formal Procedures to Conduct the Empirical Study ……………………………………………. 87 Validity and Reliability ………………………………………………………………………… ……………. 88 Content Validity ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………… 89 Population Validity ………………………………………………………………………… ………………….. 89 Rating Written Tests ………………………………………………………………………… ……………….. 90 Triangulation ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………….. 91 3.3.1 Data Collection Procedures ………………………………………………………………………… ………… 91 Writing Tasks: Entry and Exit Tests ……………………………………………………………………. 95
- 32. The Treatment of Peer Feedback Group …………………………………………………………….. 97 Pre and Post-Experiment Questionnaires …………………………………………………………… 98 Treatment Group Interview ………………………………………………………………………… …….. 100 3.3.2 Data Processing and Analysis ………………………………………………………………………… ………. 101 Writing Tasks Analysis ………………………………………………………………………… …………….. 101 Questionnaires ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………… 103 Interviews ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………….. 103 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS ………………………………………………………………………… ……………….……. 108 Overview of Chapter Four ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………. 108
- 33. 4.1 Writing Tests Results ………………………………………………………………………… …………………….. 108 4.1.1 Entry Test Results ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………….. 108 4.1.2 Exit Test …………………………………………………….………………… ………………………………………… 112 4.2 Questionnaire Results ……………..………………………………………………………… …………………….. 115 4.2.1 The Pre Experiment Questionnaire ……………….……………………………………………………….. 115 4.2.2 The Post-Experiment Questionnaire …………………………………………………………………….… 120 4.3 Results of the Interviews ………………………………………………………………………… ………………… 121
- 34. CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ………………………………………………………………………… ………………… 123 Overview of Chapter Five ………………………………………………………………………… …………………….. 123 5.1 Students’ Perception on Different Types of Feedback ………………………………………………. 124 5.2 How Peer Feedback Helps Students Improve Writing Skills ………………………………………. 130 5.3 Students Experience in the Peer Feedback Group …………………………………………………….. 141 5.4 Shift of Attitudes towards Teacher and Peer Feedback ………………………………………………143 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………… …………………. 150 Overview of Chapter Six
- 35. ………………………………………………………………………… ………………………. 150 6.1 Summary of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… ……………………. 150 6.2 Implications for Teaching ………………………………………………………………………… ………………. 152 6.3 Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………………………… …………………. 153 Methods ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………. 153 Time Factor ………………………………………………………………………… …………………………….. 154 Access to Participants ………………………………………………………………………… ……………… 154 Scope of the Research … Teacher and student perceptions of second language writing feedback:
- 36. A survey of six college ESL classes and their teachers Ann Johnstun A Scholarly Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of The Master’s Degree in Second Language Studies Department of Second Language Studies University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa First Reader: Lourdes Ortega Second Reader: J.D. Brown May, 2009 Abstract Research on second language writing has focused on feedback practices and student revision processes. The purpose of this study is to examine students’ and teachers’ feelings and thoughts in regards to written feedback, and to compare these perceptions with teacher self-assessments. Both teachers and students in university level English as second language (ESL) writing courses
- 37. were surveyed about their perceptions of teacher written feedback. Results indicated that they showed no particular preference for any single type of feedback and that students were generally satisfied with the type and amount of feedback that they were given. Additionally, both teachers and students placed the burden of error correction on each other. These and other findings are discussed in light of the context and suggest that teachers should be aware of their students’ perceptions when employing their feedback approaches. 2 Background for the Present Study Providing effective feedback is one of the many challenges that any writing teacher faces. In a second language classroom, feedback practices can be even more challenging; in addition to organization and punctuation problems, grammar feedback is also a concern. Teachers and students agree that teacher written feedback is a crucial part of the writing process (Cohen &
- 38. Cavalcanti, 1990). Teachers want to give feedback that will encourage and challenge students to be better writers, but do not always know how the feedback that they are providing is perceived by the students, or how effective it is. Since reading student work and giving feedback is a very time-consuming process, teachers may feel frustrated when the feedback they offer is not followed by the students. Even when the teacher’s system for giving feedback is clear and consistent, oftentimes teachers do not know whether students understand their practices. This study examines teachers’ perceptions of feedback in the form of error correction and follow-up practices and compared these with students’ perceptions and beliefs about these practices. In a survey of 47 students and six teachers in a university English as a second language setting, I explored several questions about the feedback amount, type, beliefs, and the degree of satisfaction. The purpose of this paper is to examine and compare the relationship between students’ and teachers’ perceptions of written feedback in the second language classroom.
- 39. Does Feedback Matter? There has been much debate among researchers on second language writing about the effects of different kinds of feedback. One of the hottest issues in the past fifteen years has been whether grammar feedback is either necessary or helpful for L2 learning. As one main opponent of grammar feedback, Truscott (1996) concluded that all forms of error correction of L2 student 3 writing are ineffective and should be abandoned. Ferris (1999) countered Truscott’s argument by delineating the ways that learners use feedback to improve their writing. While this debate is interesting, most writing teachers give both grammar and content feedback to their students. Whether or not grammar feedback is effective, students expect it and believe that it will help their writing (Hyland, 1998; Casanave, 2003). Other research investigated other aspects of feedback, such as the effects of manipulating the type of feedback given by teachers (Bitchener, Young, &
- 40. Cameron, 2005; Leki, 1991). ESL writing teachers' actual response practices were examined and compared with research of L1 writing teachers practices (Zamel, 1985). More recently, researchers have called into question the methods for researching writing (Guénette, 2007; Truscott, 2007) and called for researchers to be more exact in their methods. Ferris (1997) introduced a new approach to research in this area. The approach made connections between teacher feedback and the revisions the students made as a result. Ferris did not manipulate the type of feedback given, but instead classified comments made by the teacher according to length, functional type, and use of hedges. Revisions made by students were rated according to whether they were substantive or minimal and also whether they had a positive or negative effect. Ferris found that marginal requests for information and summary comments on grammar appeared to lead to the most substantive revisions. Ashwell (2000) used Ferris’ model to test Zamel’s (1985) hypothesis that two or more drafts are an important part of the writing
- 41. process as a whole. In using this method, Ashwell examined whether content followed by form is the best way to provide feedback to students. He found that there is no significant overall difference in papers that are given form feedback followed by content feedback as opposed to content followed by form. All this research on the effectiveness of actual feedback practices begs 4 the equally important question of what the specific preferences might be of those receiving and giving feedback in the classroom, namely students and teachers. A New Perspective: Perceptions of Feedback The perspective of writing students has been investigated in several ways such as students’ preferences and reactions to feedback (Cohen, 1987; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1995). Studies on students’ perceptions of written feedback have shown that they have strong opinions and preferences about the amount and type of feedback given by their teachers. Zhang
- 42. (1995) found that ESL students greatly value teacher written feedback and consistently rate it more highly than alternative forms such as peer feedback and oral feedback in writing conferences. An important study by Cohen (1987) surveyed 217 students in a university setting on the amount and the effectiveness of teacher-written feedback. He found that students prefer feedback on local issues like sentence-level feedback such as grammar rather than global feedback such as end comments. In a similar study, Ferris (1995) surveyed 155 students and added to Cohen’s findings that students pay more attention to feedback given during the writing and revising process rather than feedback given on a final draft. These findings show students’ strong preference for local feedback and also demonstrate how much students use this feedback to improve their writing. In researching whether students understand feedback in the same way that the teacher intended it, Hyland (2003) found that students often misunderstood their teachers’ comments or
- 43. suggestions. Hyland and Hyland (2001) investigated the role of praise and found that it was often 5 http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2374/science?_ob=ArticleURL &_udi=B6W5F-4PHSRDP- 2&_user=989483&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=3&_f mt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc- info%5C(%23toc%236569%232007%23999839997%23666807% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%5C)&_cdi=6569&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&_ct=5&_acct=C000049917&_version=1&_urlVersion= 0&_userid=989483&md5=98c533dd2f5564c522384697c92ec363 #bib11%23bib11 http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2374/science?_ob=ArticleURL &_udi=B6W5F-4PHSRDP- 2&_user=989483&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=3&_f mt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc- info%5C(%23toc%236569%232007%23999839997%23666807% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%5C)&_cdi=6569&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&_ct=5&_acct=C000049917&_version=1&_urlVersion= 0&_userid=989483&md5=98c533dd2f5564c522384697c92ec363 #bib6%23bib6 perceived by students as a way to soften criticism rather than to encourage them to continue writing. The above research on student preferences and perceptions about feedback has been the main focus of research on L2 feedback perceptions. The teachers’ perceptions in the form of self-
- 44. assessment or self-report of feedback are rarely studied and only a few have been compared to the student’s perceptions. There are numerous variables and factors that affect feedback practices, and recently there have been calls for more research to investigate feedback in terms of comparing student perceptions with teacher self-assessments and actual teacher feedback (Goldstein, 2001, 2006). A seminal study that relates student and teacher feedback perceptions was conducted by Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990). In examining teachers’ self- assessments with student perceptions and actual written feedback in this study in a university EFL setting, they found a strong relationship between teacher self-assessments and actual performance in all of the categories that they examined (content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics). In an innovative, more recent study in an EFL context in Hong Kong, Lee (2003) compared teachers’ feedback beliefs with teachers’ feedback practices. She found that although many teachers believe in
- 45. giving selective error correction feedback, most teachers surveyed still mark papers comprehensively. Lee (2004) also compared teachers and students’ beliefs in Hong Kong. She employed a similar approach to her first study in researching teacher beliefs, but added the extra element of comparing teacher beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions to student beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions. She found that both students and teachers in this context preferred comprehensive marking and that teachers use only limited strategies in their feedback practices. Even more recently, Montgomery and Baker (2007) used a similar approach to that of Cohen and Cavalcanti 6 http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2374/science?_ob=ArticleURL &_udi=B6W5F-4PHSRDP- 2&_user=989483&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=3&_f mt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc- info%5C(%23toc%236569%232007%23999839997%23666807% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%5C)&_cdi=6569&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&_ct=5&_acct=C000049917&_version=1&_urlVersion= 0&_userid=989483&md5=98c533dd2f5564c522384697c92ec363 #bib7%23bib7 (1990) but with a much larger sample size: while Cohen and Cavalcanti used only one teacher
- 46. and nine students, this study surveyed 98 students and ten teachers. They found that teachers’ perceptions of the amount of feedback that they give are generally lower than students’ perceptions. In investigating the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and actual feedback provided, they found, in agreement with Lee (2003) that teachers may not have provided feedback in the way that they believed they should. Purpose The studies above have investigated several important areas of feedback and have laid the foundation and opened the door for more research. Hyland (2006) encouraged research to “go beyond the individual act of feedback itself to consider the factors that influence feedback options and student responses” (p.10). While there has been research on practices, types, effectiveness, interpretation of feedback, and so on, few studies have been done about the affective factors that influence feedback, namely the feelings of satisfaction with amount and type. The present study seeks to build upon the previous
- 47. research by examining how students feel about the amount and type of feedback that they are getting and how teachers perceive their students’ feelings. More precisely, I seek to examine the relationship between teacher self- assessments and student perceptions of teacher written feedback by examining the following questions: 1. How similar or different are students’ and teachers’ perceptions in regards to feedback amount and type? 7 2. How content are students with the amount of feedback that they are receiving, and by comparison do teachers believe that their students are satisfied or dissatisfied with their feedback? 3. How favorably are various techniques for the delivery of feedback viewed by students? 4. Whose job is to correct errors, according to students and teachers?
- 48. The answers to these questions will help teachers to better understand the effects of their feedback on students. They may also help to inform teachers about which type of feedback is more effective in their context. Method Context of the Present Study This study takes place in an ESL context in a university English Language Institute (ELI). Students at the ELI consist of international and immigrant students for whom English is not their native language. The main purpose of the ELI is to provide English instruction to facilitate these students’ academic studies. ELI teachers are mainly graduate-assistant instructors chosen from MA and PhD candidates in this university’s Second Language Studies department. ELI classes are semester-long and consist of 2.5 hours of instruction per week. The teachers and students surveyed were currently teaching or enrolled in an ELI writing class. The survey took place about three weeks before the end of the semester, so feedback practices were most likely
- 49. well-implemented by this point. In the process of developing this research proposal, it was necessary to get approval from the Director of the ELI in order to conduct a research project at the ELI. The steps for approval included reading research that has already been completed at the ELI so as not to create an 8 overlap, and having the research proposal and the instruments (surveys) approved by both the advising professor and the ELI director. This study was also approved by the university’s Committee on Human Studies, which included submitting a summary of the proposed research, the instruments (surveys), and signed approval of the advising professor. There were seven writing classes being held at the ELI at the time the study was conducted. All seven teachers elected to participate in the study. I came to each face-to-face class during the last five minutes of instruction and explained the survey, then returned at the
- 50. beginning of the following class to collect the surveys. One of the participating classes was an online class, and the survey was explained in an email. In analyzing the results from the courses, I found that feedback practices in this online class were quite different from the others classes surveyed. Moreover, no response was received from the teacher of the online course and few responses were received from the students. Since an important aspect of this paper is to compare the students’ perceptions with the teacher’s, I only consider data from the six face-to-face ELI writing classes that was collected. The three writing classes (ELI 73, ELI 83 and ELI 100) surveyed contain students of varying levels of proficiency, within a range of levels advanced enough to take university classes (a score of 500 on the paper-based TOEFL is required to enter into the university). ELI 73 consists of a mix of undergraduate and graduate students. ELI 83 is an advanced course for graduate students only, while ELI 100 is an advanced course for undergraduates. The classes also have different course objectives. ELI 100 must be taken by non-
- 51. native speakers of English as an alternative to English 100, the required English course for undergraduate students at this university. 9 Table 1 Writing Courses in the ELI ELI Writing Courses1 Intermediate ELI 73 Advanced ELI 83 – Graduate Students Only ELI 100 – Undergraduate Students Only Participants The participants in the present study include students and teachers from two ELI 100 classes, two ELI 83 classes, and two ELI 73 classes. The predominant first language of the ELI students surveyed is Japanese, followed by Korean and Chinese. While students in ELI 100 are fairly similar in age, the age range in graduate-level ELI 83 is a bit more diverse. Because of the nature of ELI 73 including both graduates and undergraduates, a
- 52. wide range of ages is represented in this case as well. Table 2 Participants by Age and Language Course Number of Participating Students Age Range Median Age Native Language Background 73 13 18-37 24.8 5 Japanese, 3 Korean, 3 Chinese, 1 Tibetan, 1 Arabic 83 19 23-34 27.7 6 Japanese, 8 Chinese, 3 Thai, 1 Vietnamese, 1 Bahasa Indonesia 100 15 19-24 20.8 8 Japanese, 3 Korean, 1 Chinese, 1 Cantonese, 1 Portuguese, 1 Swedish All participating students and teachers provided informed consent (see Appendix A for consent form). An important measure in this research was ensuring the confidentiality of students and teachers and making sure that they knew their rights to participate or choose not to participate with no penalty. 1 Adapted from ELI website:
- 53. http://www.hawaii.edu/eli/students/newstudents.html 10 Survey Design The data were elicited by means of a questionnaire based on a hybrid of the surveys used in Cohen (1987), Ferris (1995), Montgomery and Baker (2007), and Lee (2004). The final instruments are shown in Appendices B and C. The surveys focused on three areas: feedback amount, feedback type, and feedback beliefs. In their questionnaire, teachers were asked to self-assess how much of each type of feedback (ideas/content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics) they gave on compositions throughout the past semester. They were also asked about their grammar correction practices and whether students knew how to understand their markings. The students were asked similar questions to their teacher in the survey. In addition, they were also asked how much they consider their teachers’ comments on their essays, if they are
- 54. satisfied with the amount of feedback they receive, if the teacher uses a correction code, to what degree they understand the teacher’s correction code, and whose job they feel it is to find and correct errors. One important element in these surveys is that often the same questions are asked separately about both 1st or 2nd drafts and final drafts. Zamel (1985) called these drafts ``cycles of revision'' (p. 95). She suggested having stages in the feedback process. Now common practice amongst writing teachers, there are often at least one or two drafts plus a final version in the writing process. Therefore, there are a few questions in two parts, for the students and teachers to differentiate between feedback during the beginning or end of the cycle. Some teachers may believe that feedback is more or less effective at certain points in the writing cycle, and may provide different amounts and types of feedback respectively. It should also be noted that the 11 http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2374/science?_ob=ArticleURL
- 55. &_udi=B6W5F-4PHSRDP- 2&_user=989483&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=3&_f mt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc- info%5C(%23toc%236569%232007%23999839997%23666807% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%5C)&_cdi=6569&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&_ct=5&_acct=C000049917&_version=1&_urlVersion= 0&_userid=989483&md5=98c533dd2f5564c522384697c92ec363 #bib11%23bib11 http://micro189.lib3.hawaii.edu:2374/science?_ob=ArticleURL &_udi=B6W5F-4PHSRDP- 2&_user=989483&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=3&_f mt=full&_orig=browse&_srch=doc- info%5C(%23toc%236569%232007%23999839997%23666807% 23FLA%23display%23Volume%5C)&_cdi=6569&_sort=d&_doc anchor=&_ct=5&_acct=C000049917&_version=1&_urlVersion= 0&_userid=989483&md5=98c533dd2f5564c522384697c92ec363 #bib6%23bib6 teachers’ survey had more questions about feedback beliefs, since the teachers decide what type and how much feedback is appropriate for each class or for each individual student. Data Collection and Analysis Out of the 73 surveys distributed to these six classes, I received 47 in return, a response rate of 64%. The high response rate might be attributed to the fact that in my role as the researcher I approached the class in person to explain and distribute the survey during class time
- 56. and came to collect them at the beginning of the next class. The data was collected and entered by two researchers, and cross-checked for accuracy. I will use descriptive statistics in presenting the results of the surveys. In anticipation that the data from these classes would represent different perspectives, the data will be compared both as a whole, grouped by course, and as single classes. The remainder of this paper is devoted to the presentation of my data analysis and to the discussion of the findings related to my four research questions. As I present and discuss results, I will highlight interesting findings and draw implications to pedagogy relative to feedback practices. The paper will conclude with an acknowledgement of the limitations of the study and some implications. Results and Discussion RQ 1: How similar or different are students’ and teachers’ perceptions in regards to feedback amount and type? Deciding feedback amount is an important part of the feedback
- 57. process. As mentioned above, Cohen (1987) found that students prefer more feedback in certain areas such as grammar 12 and less on global issues. In the present study, teachers were asked to self-assess how much feedback they gave on compositions throughout the past semester. As shown in Appendix C, the feedback was divided into types; ideas/content, organization, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics. They were asked to choose an amount for each type of feedback that was an average of the feedback they generally gave to their students. Basically, teachers were asked to estimate the total amount of feedback given on first and final drafts of their students’ compositions and rank the amount of feedback on a Likert scale with choices of ‘‘none,’’ ‘‘a little,’’ ‘‘some,’’ and ‘‘a lot.’’ The descriptions were supplemented with percentages that clarified the categories: 0%, 30%, 70%, and 100%. For instance, if teachers thought that they commented on every
- 58. grammatical error in a paper, they would mark 100%, if they purposefully marked only some of the errors, they would mark 70%. Students were also asked to evaluate their teacher’s written feedback using a similar response format (see Appendix B). The results are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Figure 1 Feedback Perceptions, 1st or 2nd Drafts 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
- 59. 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0
- 60. Organization Content/Ideas Grammar Vocabulary Mechanics Feedback Category P e rc e n t Students Teachers 13 Figure 2 Feedback Perceptions, Final Drafts 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1
- 61. 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0
- 62. 3 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 Organization Content/Ideas Grammar Vocabulary Mechanics Feedback Category P e rc e n t Students Teachers According to the results, in the 1st, 2nd, and final drafts, students report that they are getting more feedback than teachers report in giving in the areas of grammar, vocabulary, and
- 63. mechanics. For example, as shown in the ‘mechanics’ category of 1st and 2nd drafts, a majority of students reported that they received “a lot (100%)” or “some (70%)” feedback, whereas all teachers reported giving only “some (30%)” or “no (0%)” feedback. Since teachers report that they are giving feedback selectively, we can therefore see that there is a mismatch in the perceptions of students and teachers about the amount of feedback given and received. It is interesting to note that this discrepancy in students’ and teachers’ perceptions is not apparent in the categories of organization and content/ideas. It seems that when asked about these areas of feedback amount, teachers and students generally agree on the amount that they are giving and receiving. This finding is ambiguous in terms of an explanation. It could mean that students think that they are getting feedback on everything when they are not, and they will assume that all errors are marked, so that when they fix those errors, their papers will be error free. However,
- 64. this explanation is unlikely, judging from other findings in the literature. Specifically, 14 Montgomery & Baker (2007) found that in many cases when teachers’ perceptions were less than students’ perceptions of written feedback, the teachers were underestimating the amount that they give, rather than the students overestimating. Likewise, in Lee’s (2004) study, many teachers were reporting that they gave “selective” feedback, but when actual feedback practices were examined she found that they were marking comprehensively. Such findings may suggest that teachers should self-monitor their feedback practices, checking how much feedback they give. RQ 2: How content are students with the amount of feedback that they are receiving, and by comparison do teachers believe that their students are satisfied or dissatisfied with their feedback? The survey shows that an overwhelming number of students,
- 65. 74.5%, are satisfied with the amount of feedback that they are receiving, while a majority of teachers, 80%, reported that their students are only “somewhat” satisfied (Figure 3). Figure 3 Comparing Perceptions of Satisfaction 0 20 40 60 80 100 Yes No Somewhat Students Teachers 15 In analyzing the amount of student satisfaction by each individual class, all classes had a fairly high rate of satisfaction, ranging from 50% to 100%. Four of the six classes had high
- 66. response rates that were all within a small range between 71% and 81% students reporting satisfaction. By contrast, the class each with the highest and the lowest scores for satisfaction was also a group with the lowest response rates. The extreme and atypical responses are likely to be related to the small number size of respondents in these two groups. It is an encouraging statistic that students are mostly satisfied with the amount of feedback that they are receiving. By comparison, however, more teachers felt that students were only “somewhat” satisfied with the amount of feedback they gave. I attribute this high number to the anxiety that many teachers feel about the effectiveness of feedback practices and students’ perceptions of such. This finding reflects the researcher’s perception while conducting the study that the teachers who participated in the study seemed very concerned with the feelings and progress of their students. When asked what they prefer for the teacher to do, 75% of students elected that the
- 67. teacher give feedback on “all” errors, while only 21% preferred teachers to give “some” feedback. This reveals that students have a strong preference to receive global feedback. This finding is contrary to some recent research concerning global comments. Leki (2006) suggested that students reported feeling that they are not receiving enough comments on global issues from teachers. The present study suggests that these students feel that they are receiving enough comments on global issues such as ideas, content, and organization, as most students reported that they received “a lot” or “some” comments in these areas. One fundamental difference between the present study and Leki (2006) is that Leki was examining students’ perception of 16 regular discipline classes whereas I am examining practices in an ESL classroom. This may explain some discrepancies in the two study’s findings. When asked how much progress students were making with semester, majorities of both
- 68. the six teachers and their students reported that they were making “some” progress this semester. To be specific, 65% of students and 66% of teachers feel that students are making some progress. The perceptions of both students and teachers match, and are relatively positive. This, combined with the fact that most students are satisfied with the amount of feedback they get, indicates that students are generally positive about their ELI writing classes. RQ 3: How favorably are various techniques for the delivery of feedback viewed by students? One of the primary motivations of this study was to ask which techniques teachers were using and to draw correlates between practices and student satisfaction. I expected that this would allow me to show underlying preferences for certain types of feedback over others, essentially finding which methods were more preferable to both students and teachers. Specifically, I examined the (self-reported) type of error correction a teacher uses, correction codes, and a variety of other feedback follow up methods, such a conferences and error frequency charts and compared these …
- 69. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 1877-0428 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1437 ScienceDirect TTLC 2013 An Analysis of Written Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing Kelly Tee Pei Leng* Taylor’s Business School, Taylor’s University,Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia Abstract This paper provides an analysis of written feedback on ESL students’ written assignment to shed light on how the feedback acts as a type of written speech between the lecturer and student. It first looks at two sources of data: in-text feedback and overall feedback written by the lecturer on the students’ written assignment. Looking at how language is used in its situational context, the feedback was coded and a model for analysis was developed based on two primary roles of speech: directive and expressive. Based on this analysis, the paper discusses the type(s) of feedback that benefit students the most. This study provides
- 70. insights as to how the student felt with each type of feedback. It also provides insights into the possibility of developing a taxonomy of good feedback practices by considering the views of the giver and receiver of written feedback. © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013. Keywords: Written feedback;ESL students;taxonomy of good feedback 1. Introduction and literature review Since the early 1980’s, researchers and reviewers have been investigating response to high school students’ writing undergraduate students’ writing (Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Faighley & Witte, 1981; Hillocks, 1986; Ziv, 1984). These studies reported that written feedback provides a potential value in motivating students to revise their draft (Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Zhang, 1995) and in improving their writing (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al, 1997). As a result, written feedback is the most popular method that teachers use to interact and communicate with students (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 2002; Hyland & Hyland, 2001). It has been suggested by Straub (2000) that teachers should create the feel of a conversation by * Corresponding author. Tel.: +6-035-629-5662
- 71. E-mail address: [email protected] Available online at www.sciencedirect.com © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of TTLC2013. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014 .01.1437&domain=pdf http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.sbspro.2014 .01.1437&domain=pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 390 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 writing comments in complete sentences; by avoiding abstract, technical language and abbreviations; by relating their comments back to specific words and paragraphs from the students’ text, by viewing student writing seriously, as part of a real exchange. Feedback can be viewed as an important process for the improvement of writing skills for students (Hyland, 1990; Hyland & Hyland, 2001). This is because written feedback contains heavy informational load which offers suggestions to facilitate improvement and provides
- 72. opportunities for interaction between teacher and student (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Feedback can be defined as writing extensive comments on students’ texts to provide a reader response to students’ efforts and at the same time helping them improve and learn as writers (Hyland, 2003). The teacher provides feedback to enable students to read and understand the problems and use it to improve future writing. Thus, written feedback is used to teach skills that are able to help students improve their writing. At the same time, it is hoped to assist students in producing written text which contains minimum errors and maximum clarity. In order for feedback to be effective, students’ must be provided with effective feedback. Effective feedback is feedback that is focused, clear, applicable, and encouraging (Lindemann, 2001). When students are provided with this type of feedback, they are able to think critically and self regulate their own learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Strake & Kumar, 2010). Thus, it is understood that feedback acts as a compass which provides a sense of direction to the students and tells that writing goals are achievable. Feedback is particularly important to students because it lies at the heart of the student’s learning process and is one of the most common and favourite methods used by teachers to maximise learning. But, little attention has been given to the specific types of responses teachers give their students in relation to speech acts and the extent to which students find these helpful. Therefore, this study investigates the types of feedback and its usefulness according to
- 73. speech acts. 1.1. Theoretical framework This study uses a combination of two frameworks of speech acts which are Speech Act Theory by Searle (1969) and Language Functions by Holmes (2001). Holmes (2001) categorised language into six language functions, which are: directive, expressive, referential, metalinguistic, poetic and phatic. Similarly, Searle (1969) also categorised speech by its illocutionary acts and categorised these into five illocutionary acts, which are representatives (assertive), directives, commissives, expressives and declarations (performatives). These two theories give a clear justification to classifying feedback as a form of communication between the provider and the receiver of the feedback. Using the lens of this stance, this study suggests that providing useful and effective feedback based on the speech functions may essentially enhance the communicative functions of feedback. In order to provide effective feedback to students, lecturers need to understand what types of feedback are useful in students’ writing and also students’ opinion of different types of feedback. 1.2. Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to explore the types of feedback which are beneficial to the students. Furthermore,
- 74. the study also investigated the students’ responses towards the types of feedback which are beneficial students in terms of speech function and how language is used in feedback. The questions that guided this study were as follows: What type of feedback did the students receive from their lecturer? What were the students’ responses to the various type of feedback? 391 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 1.3. Limitations of study The first limitation was that the study focused only on written feedback on ESL academic writing. Although some of the results may be applicable to oral feedback, the findings and interpretations of this study should be considered in the context of written feedback. The second limitation in this study is the overlapping of categories in the coding of feedback types which appears problematic in most studies that categorise types of feedback. This presents a challenge to any researcher conducting a detailed study on the types of written feedback. In
- 75. order to minimize this problem, the following steps were taken: the feedback types were carefully coded using the framework from Holmes (2001) and Searle (1969), consulted with members of my peer-debriefing group to validate each criterion, and the coding was randomly checked with two independent raters. The third limitation of this research was that it did not take into account the writers’ revised work because the research did not look at the gain score of the students and what changes had been done in their revised essays. Instead it looked at the usefulness of the written feedback in terms of speech acts and aspects of writing. Thus, the researcher could not compare between the first draft and the final draft in order to see the changes applied in the students’ final draft based on the feedback. 2. Methodology 2.1. Context The present study was conducted in a writing skills course at a private university in Selangor, Malaysia. The course was a compulsory subject offered to undergraduate students and the reason this class was chosen because students were asked to complete a written assignment (1000- 1200 words) which involved drafting and revising based on their lecturer’s feedback. The duration of the course was one semester which lasted for 15 weeks. Throughout the course, students were exposed to different theoretical models of writing and had to compare and
- 76. contrast different written discourse systems before applying the principles of effective writing to enhance readability in their written text by focusing on signaling, signposting, and topic strings. 2.2. Participants The participants of this study were 15 Malaysian students and they were Malay, Chinese and Indian. The students were a mixed-gender between the ages of 19 to 20 years old. In terms of language, for some of the participants, English is their first language while for the others English is their second language. The students were in their first year of their studies (first semester). 2.3. Data Collection The data for this study was obtained from two research sources: (1) written drafts and (2) interviews with the students. These two sources are important in this study as it provided detailed information on the usefulness of each type of feedback. 2.3.1. Written Drafts The drafts of the research paper were collected from both lecturers once they had finished commenting on them which was in week 10; copies of the research papers were made and were returned to the respective lecturers within a period of two-days. In the drafts, the lecturers provided students with written feedback on how to improve their research paper. Two types of feedback were provided: in-text feedback and overall feedback. The in-text feedback included all comments written by the lecturer in the text and it was mostly written in the margin of the text. The
- 77. feedback given was considered as spontaneous thoughts of the lecturers and it acted as a dialogue between the 392 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 students and their lecturers. The overall feedback was in the form of a letter like text. For the overall feedback, both lecturers summarized their main concerns and put forth a more general feedback on the written draft. The in-text and overall feedback was transcribed word for word in order to have a comprehensive list of the lecturers’ comments. 2.3.2. Interviews The interview took place in week 16 of the semester after their feedback was compiled from written drafts. Each interview lasted between 20 to 30 minutes. The interviews were audio-recorded and field notes were taken by hand. During the interviews, the students had their original research drafts with them while the researcher had photocopies of it. This made it easier to discuss their responses to specific comments and cross-reference their revisions, based on the suggestions made by their lecturers. The interviews were later transcribed verbatim for analytical purposes. 3. Development of a Model for Feedback Analysis The study was guided by the constant comparative method set out by Glaser and Strauss (1967) by considering open, axial, and selective coding strategies (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Analysis occurred at the same time as data collection. The data from the written text was arranged and
- 78. coded into categories. The feedback were categorised on how the feedback was given according to speech acts functions (Table 1). First, the coding categories for speech acts framework were identified through the reading of the written text. The main functions of the feedback types were derived from the speech acts /language functions and the sub- categories were adapted from earlier studies (see Ferris et. al., 1997; Kumar & Stracke, 2007). The in-text and overall feedback were read through individually to develop a system of categorization. In order to develop an appropriate categorization, it took several rounds of individual categorization followed by intensive discussions with two other post-graduate students and a senior lecturer until a consensus on an appropriate categorization model was reached. The data was analysed based on what the comments did to the students, hence it was appropriate to analyse the feedback based on the coding of the two functions of speech: directive and expressive (Holmes, 2001; Searle 1969). Table 1. Feedback Categories for Speech Act Functions Main Function Subcategory Examples Directive instruction Preview your points here. clarification How does this support your stand? Make it clear to your reader. Expressive approval Well supported with the literature.
- 79. disapproval I’ve stopped reading here as I don’t see a flow of argument! 4. Findings and discussions 4.1. Overview of the feedback The findings from the written drafts indicate that two forms of feedback which were commonly received by the students are directive and expressive feedback. A total of 366 instances of feedback were found from the students’ written drafts. The majority of the written feedback fell into the directive category (77%) (see Table 2). Directive is an act which commits the receiver of the message to do something (Holmes, 2001; Searle, 1969). The remaining feedback fell into the expressive category (23%) and expressive is an act of the speaker which expresses his/her feelings (Holmes, 2001; Searle, 1969). Table 2. Distribution of Feedback Based on Speech Act Functions Categories Number of feedback Percentage (%) Directive 280 77 Expressive 86 23 Total 366 100 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 or exceed 100 due to rounding. This is applicable to all the tables in this document that include frequencies. 393 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397
- 80. In this study, the students found directive feedback to be useful and they liked it most compared to the other categories of feedback. Directive feedback is specific and well- focused. The feedback the students received were mostly directive in nature, telling students exactly how to improve their writing: ‘Structure your argument - heading/sub-heading to improve readability’ and ‘Preview your main points here’ are examples. It can be concluded that the students themselves were unskilled students and they valued explicit feedback. This finding concurs with Ziv (1984) study which found that students learning to write need specific directions from their teachers on how to progress and meet their writing goals. However, the finding of this study differed from what previous response theorists suggest as best practice (Lunsford, 1997; Sommers, 1982; Straub, 1996, 2000). It has been suggested that teachers should write fewer directive comments and embrace facilitative comments instead because facilitative comments give students more control, ownership, and responsibility (Lunsford, 1997; Sommers, 1982; Straub, 1996, 2000). But this is not the case with these students as the feedback provided the students with developmental experiences as they were able to revise their essays based on the feedback given as the feedback made them aware of their weaknesses and strengths of their writing skills. 4.2. Breakdown of the sub-categories of feedback
- 81. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the sub-categories of directive and expressive feedback. Five sub-categories of feedback were evident from the data which are directive- instruction, directive-clarification, expressive-approval, and expressive-disapproval. Table 3: Frequency of Sub-Categories of Feedback Types of Feedback Number of feedback Percentage (%) Directive-instruction 191 52 Directive-clarification 89 24 Expressive-disapproval 69 19 Expressive-approval 17 5 Total 366 100 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 or exceed 100 due to rounding. This is applicable to all the tables in this document that include frequencies. 4.2.1. Directive: Instruction The most commonly received feedback was directive-instruction feedback (52%), see Table 3. Instruction feedback instructs students to make changes which are necessary for the text. They found directive-instruction to be useful in their revision as directive-instruction provided them a sense of direction because they knew exactly what was needed to be corrected. One of the student mentioned that “I feel very happy because my lecturer provides me a way on how I can improve my writing when she said like, ‘tell me what Big Five means, then explain how it concerns to the matter you described”. So he is like in a way trying to tell me how to revise what I have written
- 82. before and see whether the ideas are related to this particular paragraph.” Thus, this clearly shows that feedback offers a sense of direction to the student (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The students also mentioned that they knew what and where had they gone wrong in their writing and how they can improve it through instruction feedback as one of them said, “She highlighted the things which are not right and told me how to correct the work”. This supports Hattie & Timperley (2007) claim that a teacher who provides effective feedback is one who highlights information about how the writer can progress or proceed with the task. It also further supports Ogede’s (2002) view that directive, specific comments save students from a “gloomy future” (p. 108). He also argues that directive comments are effective because students need their teachers to share their knowledge about effective writing by telling in clear, certain terms that “rigorous commentary holds the key to the needed remedial action… the instructor cannot afford to leave the students with an impression that the suggestions offered to improve their writing are optional” (p. 108). 394 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 4.2.2. Directive: Clarification The second most common type of feedback was directive- clarification feedback (24%), see Table 3. Clarification feedback is comments that seek further information from the students in terms of asking for a clearer explanation of what ideas have already been mentioned in the
- 83. paper. Directive-clarification feedback provided specific directions to students on how to revise their essays. The writers understood what was being addressed in clarification feedback and were clear on what they were supposed to do upon reading the clarification feedback. This supports Straub’s (1997) study which found that students preferred comments which are “specific, offer direction for revision, and come across as help” (p.112). Most clarification feedback begins with a question followed by a short explanation on what was wrong with the sentence or paragraph. Examples of clarification feedback are ‘How does this support your stand- make clear to the reader’ and ‘Why do you think all these are effective - there are also researches who indicate the negative effects of group work’. It also supports Lindemann’s (2001) claim on effective feedback which should be focused, clear, applicable, and encouraging. Hyland & Hyland (2006) mentioned that in order for improvement to take place, feedback should be loaded with information. Thus, it can be concluded with Ryan‘s (1997) view on lecturer’s feedback that the feedback helped the writers to understand how well they were writing and how they might further develop their writing. 4.2.3. Expressive: Disapproval Expressive-disapproval feedback was the third commonly provided feedback (19%). The students in this study valued disapproval feedback, which highlights the negative points of their essay. They welcomed disapproval feedback because they found it constructive and it helped them improve their writing; additionally, it also increased their self confidence in their writing (Goldstein, 2004). One student mentioned that disapproval feedback “… doesn’t affect me as I’m more concerned about what he thought
- 84. about my paper” because she believed her lecturer had the best interest of her writing in mind; hence, she viewed the comments as constructive to her rewriting. This finding contradicted with the students in Weaver’s (2006) study who reported that receiving too many negative comments was demoralizing, while the students in Straub’s (1997) study believed the effect of a critical comment depended on its tone. The students did not mind having problems in their writing pointed out but they were simply against having them pointed out in highly judgmental, harsh, or authoritative ways. One of the students pointed out that “His feedback is constructive, so to me this is not damaging” and he mentioned that “this is not something to be sensitive about because for me I take criticism positively. If it is good for me then I should be able to accept it”. On the contrary, this finding supports Button’s (2002) study which argued that students appreciate and benefit from constructive criticism. In Button’s study, she found that her students benefitted from constructive criticism as they students consistently identified their best learning experiences as those that challenged them beyond their current abilities. As a result of this, the students realised that feedback itself is a process of discovery as they were able to discover new meaning from disapproval feedback. 4.2.4. Expressive: Approval Expressive-approval feedback was the least received type of feedback by the students (5%). Approval feedback refers to feedback which highlights the strength of the essay drafts. The students in this study valued approval feedback because it provided them a dose of motivation in their rewriting. One of the students mentioned that “I didn’t know that I could write, since this is my first semester. And I will remember the good things which I’ve done
- 85. in this paper and apply them for my future writing”. Approval feedback motivated the students in their revision and showed them what was working and what was not working in their paper. A student highlighted that “Ok, this is like a plus point …. and I’m quite glad that he actually pointed out not only the weaknesses on this paper but he also pointed out the strength” when she received approval feedback from her lecturer. This substantiated Bardine’s (1999) view that students use positive feedback to help them select effective aspects of their text which they can model after for future writing. In Bardine’s (1999) study, he exposed how the students who received positive feedback on their papers gave them the opportunity to see what they were doing well and enabled them “to reproduce successful parts of papers in future drafts and essays” (p. 7). When the students were able to produce successful drafts, it boosted their confidence and increased their enjoyment of writing. This clearly shows that the feedback provided “information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter which is used to 395 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 alter gap in some way” (Ramaprasad, 1983, p.4). It also further supports Beedles and Samuels (2002) study, which found that a few of their surveyed students considered praise helpful in their writing. Similarly, Gee (2006) discovered that students who received praise increased their confidence, pride, and enjoyment in their work. Praise feedback does inspire and motivate writers to write better as teachers often have the potential to motivate students to revise their drafts (Leki, 1991) and improve their writing skills (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995).
- 86. 5. Conclusion The findings from this study clearly indicated that the written feedback provided to the students was helpful and useful in their essay revision. The reason was that the feedback was clear, direct, and information loaded. Hence, the feedback offered a sense of direction to the students (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). The feedback was also effective to the students because they were able to attend to the revision of their second draft well which further supports Hattie and Timperley (2007) claim that effective feedback provided with the correct load of information can impact a student in the revision process. The feedback provided not only was clear and effective, but it also alerted the students about their current writing skills and how the feedback can further develop their writing (Ryan, 1997). The students were able to advance with their essay revision because they were provided with constructive feedback which inspired them to revise better and at the same time, build their self confidence in writing (Goldstein, 2004). Secondly, the element of motivation was also present in this study. Motivation is an important feature of feedback in the concept of active learning (Butler, 1988). The lecturer’s feedback inspired and motivated the students to write better because a lecturer often has the potential to motivate students to revise their drafts (Leki, 1991) and improve their writing skills (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995). This indicates that feedback and motivation works hand in hand. In this study, the lecturer’s feedback played an important role in motivating and encouraging the students to revise through constructive
- 87. feedback. The constructive feedback inspired them to write better revised drafts; hence, increasing their self confidence in their writing (Goldstein, 2004). Lastly, the feedback also enhances self-regulated learning (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Self-regulated learning seems to take place when the student receives feedback on a draft from the lecturer, and he/she is expected to revise and make the relevant amendments based on the written feedback that was provided. The written feedback gave them new ideas and made them understand what the lecturer wanted in an essay that reflects their ideas clearly. It should be noted that feedback offers a sense of direction to the writer (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Therefore, it can be argued that without well directed feedback, the students may not have been able to comprehend the feedback and achieve their writing goal which is to produce an improved version of their essay. It can be concluded that the written feedback provided has a great impact on the students’ writing and also on their attitude towards writing (Leki, 1990). 6. Implications Three implications emerged from this study and they are based on what the students in this study found both useful and lacking in the written feedback. The implications are to write enough information in the feedback, to provide instruction feedback and to provide specific praise feedback.
- 88. Firstly, lecturers could write enough information in their comments. When lecturers give feedback, they should “say enough for students to understand what you mean” (Lunsford, 1997, p.103). This clearly shows that in order for the feedback to be effective, the lecturers must provide feedback which is information loaded in order for the students to respond and act on it (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a). Secondly, lecturers could provide instruction feedback when providing feedback to students. It is found in this study that the writers liked directive-instruction feedback as they benefitted much from it and gave them a sense of direction (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). As students would like to know exactly what is working and what is not working in their paper (Ogede, 2002). 396 Kelly Tee Pei Leng / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 123 ( 2014 ) 389 – 397 Thirdly, lecturers could provide approval feedback which is specific. As discovered in this study, some of the students did not know the reason why their lecturer praised their writing. Therefore, lecturers should provide specific praise to encourage students to know what they did well in the paper and use it for future writing and boost their confidence in writing (Straub, 1997). In addition to the above implications, a need for training in the
- 89. area of providing effective feedback should be provided in order for lecturers to provide effective feedback to their students. Universities could provide lecturers with workshops and talks on providing effective … Every organizations need to focus on requirements to grow their business. Basically, company produce products based on customer requiremenst. In simple words, requirement is someone's ability to provide product or services to customers. · Management of requirements is very essential factor for any new project or new business. It’s helps with reducing cost for project. For example, if you starting project for developing website for customer you need to make sure what exactly consumer need. Work to fulfil customer demands and you do not have to install extra tools or hire extra employees. · Planning with help of requirements ensure quality of product, time efficiency as well as consumer satisfaction. For example, some employees try to do more or less against customer requirement that lead to extra time to fix it and redo it as well as you loose confidence of customer with company. Go with exact plan with all requirements help you to build a batter product. In a project management communication with all the key people related to project is as important as a managing requirement. Project Manager and supervisor are usually the most important people in any project. Sometime, higher management does not involve important employees while making decision regarding project that lead to failure of project sometime. I think communicating and sharing information with all employees relate to project is very important. If manager include and take suggestion from other employees can improve quality of their work as well as the project’s. References: - Shemuseva, O. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://steelkiwi.com/blog/requirements-why-it-important/