universidad del turabo school of education the use of teacher

Transcription

UNIVERSIDAD DEL TURABO
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
THE USE OF TEACHER-WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED
FEEDBACK TO ENHANCE PUERTO RICAN ENG LISH AS A SECOND
LANGUAGE (ESL) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS‟ ESSAY WRITING
By
Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón
DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements to obtain the
Degree of Doctor in Education in Curriculum, Teaching,
and Learning Environment.
Gurabo, Puerto Rico
May, 2014
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OF DISSERTATION
The dissertation of Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón was reviewed and approved by the
members of the Dissertation Committee. The Doctoral Academic Requirements
Compliance form, signed by the committee members, has been deposited in the
Register‟s Office and at the Center of Graduate Studies & Research in the Universidad
del Turabo.
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS
María Antonia Irizarry Rivera, EdD
Universidad del Turabo
Dissertation Committee President
Ángel Rodríguez Collazo, EdD
Member
Sharon Grau Burgos, EdD
Member
Israel Rodríguez Rivera, MA
School of Education Dean
©Copyright, 2014
Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón. All Rights Reserved
THE USE OF TEACHER-WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND COMPUTER-MEDIATED
FEEDBACK TO ENHANCE PUERTO RICAN ENGLISH AS A SECOND
LANGUAGE (ESL) HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS‟ ESSAY WRITING
By
María Antonia Irizarry Rivera, EdD
Dissertation Committee President
ABSTRACT
Teachers‟ written feedback is no doubt a vital component in developing adequate
writing proficiency. However, feedback which the learners do not, or cannot process is
considered purposeless. Therefore, through the use of three different research
instruments, the ultimate goal of this study was to ensure the incorporation of teachers‟
written feedback and computer-mediated feedback into learners‟ essay written
productions. Through the use of two students‟ questionnaires, some insights into the
teachers‟ real practices and the patterns of teaching essay writing at a high school in the
central North-East Region of Puerto Rico were provided.
The results generated by a third research instrument, a writing task, represented
the effectiveness of the teacher-written comments suggested in this study: participants did
not only incorporate a considerable proportion of their teacher‟s comments in their
iv
writing but they also committed fewer errors. Moreover, an overall improvement in
subsequent drafts was also demonstrated.
Findings of the study revealed a number of issues. First, teachers stressed that
feedback was a good experience but exhausting with students repeating the same
mistakes. Second, computer-mediated feedback as a new pedagogic practice was
generally effective in terms of the following: providing a positive learning environment
different from the face-to-face classroom environment, encouraging students‟
responsibility for their own written work, facilitating peer and teacher collaboration,
increasing student participation, sharing learned outcomes between students, and giving
writing feedback to students electronically. These were well-received and helpful
pedagogic practices. Thus, the current study recommends the use of computer-mediated
feedback to help both teachers and students overcome the feedback related challenges
and improve students‟ proficiency in essay writing.
Finally, this research invites teachers of essay writing to integrate the multiple
draft technique into their teaching practices, and more importantly, to provide feedback
on preliminary drafts and on the final ones too.
v
RESUMÉ
papitocotty68sa@hotmail.com o arnaldollanosbultron@yahoo.com
HC 03 Box 14194 – Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico 00703-8330
Tel. 787-732-4428 – Cel. 787- 485-0456
EDUCACIÓN
2010 al 2014
Gurabo, Puerto Rico
Doctorado en Currículo, Enseñanza y Ambiente
de Aprendizaje en Inglés como Segundo Idioma (ESL)
2004 al 2006
Gurabo, Puerto Rico
Maestría en Inglés como Segundo Idioma (TESL)
1980 al 1984
Universidad de Puerto Rico
Recinto de Río Piedras
Maestría en Fisiología del Ejercicio
1971 al 1978
Colegio Universitario del Turabo
Gurabo, Puerto Rico
Bachillerato con concentración en inglés como Segundo Idioma (TESL) para estudiantes de K-12
Bachillerato en Educación Física para estudiantes de K-12
CERTIFICADOS




Maestro de Inglés Secundario Vitalicio 1993
Maestro de Educación Física 1990
Maestro de Ingles Elemental 1990
Maestro de Escuela Elemental 1990
EXPERIENCIA
2012
LS Innovative Education Center, Inc. (LSIEC)
Tareas: Talleres y coaching a maestros en la enseñanza del inglés como segundo idioma ESL en las
Escuelas del Siglo XXI.
Talleres de capacitación profesional a maestros en: Técnicas Innovadoras De Base Científica En El Proceso
De Enseñanza-Aprendizaje.
1990 al 2010
Escuela Superior Josefa Pastrana
Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico
Ocupación - Maestro de Inglés
Tarea: Enseñanza de inglés secundario en los tres grados que componen el nivel superior.
1979 al 1989
Escuelas de las Regiones Educativas de San Juan (Carolina) y Humacao (Loíza y Canovanas)
Puerto Rico
vi
Ocupación - Maestro de Inglés y Educación Física
Tareas: Enseñanza de inglés secundario en nivel intermedio y superior, así como Educación Física a nivel
superior
2008 al 2009
Escuela Superior Josefa Pastrana Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico
EXPERIENCIAS RELACIONADAD
AMAR EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Escuela Josefa Pastrana
Aguas Buenas, Puerto Rico
Tutorías a estudiantes con rezago académico 2005 al 2010
Maestro Tutor de Inglés
SER de Puerto Rico
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico
Campamento de Verano 2000 al 2003
Adiestrar Líderes Recreativos en Primeros Auxilios y CPR
Asistente de líderes recreativos en actividades al aire libre
Merci-Coop de Puerto Rico
San Lorenzo, Puerto Rico
Campamento de Verano 1995 y 1996
Salvavidas y Líder Recreativo
Cooperativa de Seguros de Vida (COSVI)
Río Piedras, Puerto Rico
Campamento de Verano 1996, 1997 y 1998
Director de Deportes y Salvavidas
Interstate Properties
Hato Rey, Puerto Rico
Campamento de Verano 1986 al 1996
Líder Recreativo, Supervisor de Líderes Recreativos y
Director de Deportes
_______________________________________________________________________________
CURSOS ADICIONALES
EN LAS FUERZAS ARMADAS
 Código de Conducta
 Curso de Justicia Militar
 Convención de Ginebra
 USAF Technical Training School, Weapons Mechanic (TAC)
________________________________________________________________________
vii
DEDICATION
This research is dedicated to all those persons who patiently listened, helped, and
gave me the support I needed when things turned some kind of difficult. At the
beginning I was scared of starting something that I considered the greatest challenge I
had to overcome in my career. I had to prove to my fellow teachers, class-mates, and to
myself that there are no impossible goals, you just need to dare to.
In first place I would like to dedicate this work to my wife, Noris Rivera Cortes.
She was always there cheering me up and stood by me through the good and bad times.
For her love, motivation and patience during those nights I left her alone at home until I
got back almost midnight.
I also want to thank and dedicate this study to my son Omar Llanos Rivera and
my two daughters Norimar Llanos Rivera and Caridad Llanos Ortiz for their constructive
comments, warm encouragement, and understanding. A special dedication goes to my
first grandson, Noumy Malik Llanos Tirado, who was born on January 4, 2014 to bring
joy and happiness to our families. Thank you Jennifer for that lovely gift.
I also wish to dedicate this work to the twelfth grade students in a high school in
the central North-East Region of Puerto Rico, their English professor José Concepción
Quiñones, Sra. Yaniranet Cotto López, school director, and Dr. Juan Zayas Berríos,
Barranquitas District Superintendent. Thank you for your help and confidence. I
appreciate what you have done for me, you have become part of my life and history,
thanks again. Love you all.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Though only my name appears on the cover of this dissertation, a great amount of
people have contributed to its production. I owe my gratitude to all those people who
have made this dissertation possible and because of whom my graduate experience has
been one that I will cherish forever.
My deepest gratitude is to my advisor, Dr. María Antonia Irizarry Rivera. I have
been amazingly fortunate to have an advisor who gave me the freedom to explore on my
own and at the same time the guidance to recover when my steps faltered. Dr. Irizarry
taught me how to question thoughts and express ideas. Her patience and support helped
me overcome any situation I faced to finish this dissertation. I hope that one day God
helps me in become as good an advisor to any student as Dr. Irizarry has been to me.
My co-advisor, Dr. Ángel Rodríguez Collazo, who was always there to listen and
give me his recommendations. I am deeply grateful to him for the long discussions that
helped me sort out the technical details of my work. I am also thanking him for
encouraging the use of correct grammar and consistent notation in my writings and for
carefully reading and commenting on the revisions of this study.
I also thank Dr. Sharon Grau Burgos, my other co-advisor, for her insightful
comments and constructive criticisms of my research. I am grateful to her for holding me
to high research standards. I am grateful to Margie Martir and María Delgado for their
support and help correcting and validating my investigation instruments in order to be
approved by the IRB. I also want to give a big thanks to Carmina Rivera and her
daughter Karina Mojica for their unconditional help. A very special gratitude to
Professor Luis Martinez for his help working the statistics of my study. I also wish to
ix
thank Dr. Ángela Candelario, Ana Meléndez and Maritza Oyola for their unconditional
help, my professors Dr. Rafael Cartagena, Dr. Juana (Nana) Mendoza, Dr. Dulcinia
Nuñez (mi adorado tormento), Dr. David Méndez, Dr. Ángel Caraballo, Dr. Debbie
Quintana, and Dr. Ramón Rodriguez. I also want to acknowledge my classmates: Pedro,
Luz O, Sara, Sharon, Marisol, Debra, Zaira, Elizabeth, Maritere, Jacky, Victor, Jimmy,
Wanda, Angel and all those who gave me their support and help to overcome obstacles
and stay focused on my graduate study. I greatly value their friendship and I deeply
appreciate their belief in me.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................xvi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................xvii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ............................................................................................xviii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................1
Background of the Study...................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................4
Purpose of the Study .........................................................................................6
Significance of the Study ..................................................................................8
Research Questions ...........................................................................................9
Theoretical Rationale ........................................................................................9
Definition of Terms ...........................................................................................9
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................10
CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..........................................................11
Introduction .......................................................................................................11
The Teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) ....................................11
The Teaching of Writing to ESL Students ........................................................12
Essay Writing ....................................................................................................13
The Teaching of Essay Writing to ESL Students..............................................15
Feedback ...........................................................................................................17
Feedback on ESL Students‟ Writing .................................................................18
The Concept and Importance of Feedback........................................................19
Roles of Teacher in Providing Feedback on Student Writing ..........................22
xi
Different Types of Feedback .............................................................................23
Teacher Written Feedback ................................................................................23
Forms of Teacher Written Feedback .................................................................25
Written Feedback with Explicit Corrective Comments ....................................27
Computer-Assisted Learning ............................................................................28
Computer Mediated Feedback ..........................................................................29
Computer-Mediated Conferencing and Peers‟ Response .................................31
E-Mail for Online Corrective Feedback ............................................................34
Video Feedback and the Writing Process .........................................................35
Screen-casting and Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning ..................35
Students‟ Perceptions of Video Feedback ........................................................36
Feedback in Online Classes ..............................................................................37
Five Tips for Feedback in Online Classes.........................................................38
Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer-Mediated Communication ........39
Conference Formats ..........................................................................................41
Teacher-Student Conferencing..........................................................................41
The Teacher-Centered Conference ...................................................................43
The Student-Centered Conference ....................................................................44
Teacher-Student Conferencing and Oral Feedback ..........................................45
Conducting Conferences ...................................................................................48
The Collaborative Conference ..........................................................................50
The One-to-One Conference Formats ...............................................................52
Students who come to see you on their own .........................................52
xii
Students who you judge to need extra attention ...................................52
Students whose tardiness or behavior disrupts the class .......................53
The Group Conference ......................................................................................53
The Online Conference .....................................................................................53
Characteristics of the Teacher-Student Conferences ........................................54
Teacher Student Conference should be.................................................54
Teacher Student Conference should not ...............................................55
Advantages of Teacher-Student Conferences ...................................................56
Potential Disadvantages of Teacher-Student Conferences ...............................56
Limitations of Teacher Student Conference .....................................................57
Peers‟ Conferencing ..........................................................................................57
Peers‟ Feedback ................................................................................................58
Pros and Cons of Peers‟ Feedback ....................................................................60
Potential Pros and Cons of Peers‟ Feedback .....................................................61
Direct or Explicit Feedback ..............................................................................62
Indirect Feedback ..............................................................................................63
Focused and Unfocused Feedback ....................................................................64
Self-Monitoring .................................................................................................66
Corrective Feedback..........................................................................................67
Teacher Feedback, Corrective Feedback, and Error Correction .......................68
Students‟ and Teachers‟ Perceptions about Corrective Feedback ....................71
Opposing Views of Corrective Feedback .........................................................71
Teachers Have Their Preferences Too ..............................................................71
xiii
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .........................................................................74
Introduction .......................................................................................................74
Research Design ................................................................................................74
Mixed Method ...................................................................................................75
Population .........................................................................................................75
Sample ...............................................................................................................76
Description of the Instruments ..........................................................................77
Teacher Written Feedback ....................................................................78
Computer-Mediated Feedback ..............................................................78
Essay Writing ........................................................................................78
Validity and Reliability .....................................................................................79
Confidence Agreement......................................................................................79
Procedure...........................................................................................................80
Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................................81
Risks or Discomforts .........................................................................................81
Benefits .............................................................................................................81
Overview ...........................................................................................................82
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................83
Introduction .......................................................................................................83
Measures ...........................................................................................................83
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................84
Respondents‟ Reactions to the Teacher‟s Written Feedback ............................91
Respondents‟ Reactions to the Computer-Mediated Feedback ........................92
Respondents‟ Reactions to the Essay Written Task ..........................................93
xiv
Feedback in Content ..........................................................................................97
Feedback in Form ..............................................................................................98
The Findings .....................................................................................................108
Difference in the Number of Errors Between Essay 1 and Essay 2 ..................112
Conclusion ........................................................................................................114
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................116
Introduction .......................................................................................................116
Conclusions .......................................................................................................116
Pedagogical Implications ..................................................................................117
Limitations of the Study ....................................................................................118
Recommendations .............................................................................................119
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................123
xv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Use of Teachers-Written Feedback (Pre-Test) ...........................................84
Table 2.
Use of Computer-Mediated Feedback (Pre-Test) .......................................87
Table 3.
Results of the Essay Writing Correction (Pre-Test) ...................................89
Table 4.
Teachers-Written Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test) ..............................99
Table 5.
Computer-Mediated Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test)..........................102
Table 6.
Results from the Essay Writing Correction (Post-Test) .............................104
Table 7.
Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance .....................106
xvi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
The use of Teacher‟s Written Feedback ..................................................86
Figure 2.
The use of Computer-Mediated Feedback ...............................................89
Figure 3.
Results of the Essay Writing Correction (Pre-Test) ................................90
Figure 4.
Teachers-Written Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test) ...........................101
Figure 5.
Computer-Mediated Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test).......................104
Figure 6.
Results from the Essay Writing Correction (Post-Test) ..........................105
Figure 7.
Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance ..................108
xvii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix A. Carta al Superintendente de Escuela ....................................................147
Appendix B. Carta de Apoyo del Director Escolar ...................................................148
Appendix C. Carta de Apoyo al Maestro de Inglés ...................................................149
Appendix D. Consentimiento del Padre e Hijo ..........................................................150
Appendix E. Instrument About Essay Writing ..........................................................152
Appendix F.
Instrument About Teachers-Written Feedback .....................................153
Appendix G. Instrument About Computer-Mediated Feedback ................................154
Appendix H. Rubric one (1) for Essay Hand Writing Correction ..............................155
Appendix I.
Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance ...............156
Appendix J.
Rubric for Essay Writing Correction ....................................................157
Appendix K. Table to Empty for Results from the Computer-Mediated Feedback
Questionnaire.........................................................................................158
Appendix L. Table to Empty Results from Teachers-Written Feedback
Questionnaire ........................................................................................159
Appendix M. Table to Empty Results from the Essay Writing Correction ................160
Appendix N. Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance ...............161
Appendix O. Guidelines for Essay Writing ................................................................162
Appendix P. IRB Approval Certificate ......................................................................163
xviii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
According to Guisepi (1999) in his International History Project, The Invention of
Writing, this was one of the greatest advances in civilization. The earliest writing can be
traced to the Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia. This system did not use an alphabet,
instead it used pictographs which are symbols representing familiar objects. This type of
writing was called cuneiform or wedge-shaped writing.
The use of an alphabet probably originated among the Phoenicians sometime
between 1700 and 1500 B. C. This writing had only consonants; the ancient Greeks later
came up with the idea of vowels. The history and prehistory of writing are as ancient as
the history of civilization itself. Writing is a little more than 5,000 years old. The oldest
writings that have come down to the present day are inscriptions on clay tablets made by
the Sumerians in about 3100 B.C. They were developed by many people, in many
places, and over a long period of time. The identity of the individuals responsible for the
major steps in the development of writing is not known. Their names, like those of the
inventors of the wheel, are lost forever in the dimness of the past (Guisepi, 1999).
According to Hyland and Hyland (2006), writing can be very challenging for
learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) as they overcome the personal
challenges associated with academic writing and its mechanics in order to develop
writing skills. Writing has become one of the most useful communication tools not only
in Puerto Rico but worldwide in this fast technological developing twenty-first century.
English is learned as a second language in Puerto Rico‟s public and private
schools and writing is an important component. Although some students may be able to
1
write essays, the quality of these essays remains low according to The Puerto Rican Tests
of Academic Achievement 2008-2012 (PRTAA 2008-2012). This work describes a study
that examines the role of teacher-written feedback, and computer-mediated feedback in
Puerto Rican ESL high school students essay writing.
Hyland and Hyland (2006) in their book Feedback in Second Language Writing
Contexts and Issues addressed that “the issue of feedback has long been regarded as
essential for the development of ESL writing skills, for its potential, for learning and for
student motivation” (p. 8). In process-based, learner-centered classrooms, feedback is
seen as an important developmental tool moving learners through multiple drafts towards
the capability for effective self-expression (Ferris, 2003; Goldstein, 2005; Hyland &
Hyland, 2006). From an interactionism‟s perspective, it is regarded as an important
means of establishing the significance of reader responses in shaping meanings (Probst,
1989). In classrooms, feedback is a key element of the scaffolding provided by the
teacher to build learners‟ confidence and the literacy resources to participate in target
communities.
Hyland and Hyland (2006) state that over the past twenty years, changes in
writing pedagogy and insights acquired from research studies have transformed feedback
practices. These are accompanied with teacher‟s-written comments and often combined
with oral-conferences, peers‟ feedback, writing workshops, or computer-mediated
feedback focusing on the student‟s future writing and the development of his/her writing
processes. According to them, many questions relating to feedback remain unanswered
or only partially addressed.
2
Some of these questions are: Does feedback make a difference to students‟
writing? If so, in what areas? What is the best way of delivering feedback? Can error
correction and form focused feedback have long term benefits on students‟ writing? Can
technology play a greater part in delivering feedback? What role can peers‟ feedback
play in writing development? How far does culture play a part in student responses to
feedback? How can teacher feedback enhance students‟ ability to independently reflect
on their writing? What are the implications of feedback for teacher control and text
appropriation? In this study the researcher examined recent research related to feedback
on ESL students' essay writing. He also discussed current issues relating to teacherwritten feedback, and computer-mediated feedback.
Background of the Study
There are several ways to think about errors in writing in light of what is known
about ESL and about how texts, context, and the writing process interact with each other.
Hyland and Hyland (2006) agree that students‟ writing in ESL generally produces texts
that contain various degrees of grammatical and rhetorical errors. These kinds of errors
are especially common among ESL writers who have many ideas, but not enough
language to express what they want to say in a comprehensible way.
Myles (2001) states that there are several factors that frightens students from
performing excellently. Both social and cognitive factors affect language learning.
Social factors like learners‟ attitudes, motivations, and goals can explain why some
second language learners perform better than others. If students have negative attitudes
toward the target language itself, they will have problems understanding the language.
3
Many students learn a second language for career purposes or as a part of the education
system.
According to Hyland and Hyland (2006), some students‟ use of ESL in e-mails
are encouraged due to challenges of getting started and finding the correct words in
writing. However, students‟ interest will improve with the support of extrinsic
motivation. Students who view ESL writing as a part of career purposes will find it less
motivated. Since they are less attentive to their writing assignments, they could not fully
comprehend the needs to write well. However, highly motivated students would
welcome any written assignments in English. The ability to write well is not naturally
acquired skill (Omaggio Hadley, 1993). It is usually learned or culturally transmitted as a
set of practices in formal instructional settings or other environments. Writing skills must
be practiced and learned through experience.
Writing also involves composing, which implies the ability to tell the information.
The introduction of process approach in writing helps the students to understand better
the process of writing and this approach eventually helps the students to build their own
strategies in writing as stated by Flower (1981). By using process approach in writing,
students will have much time in their hands to discover their writing strategies and to
consider feedback from teachers (Zamel, 1983). By studying what students do in their
writing, teachers can learn from them what they still need to be taught. That is one of the
main reasons why feedback is crucial in helping students to improve their writing.
Statement of the Problem
This research explored how teacher- written feedback and computer-mediated
feedback can enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students essay writing. Abdellah
4
and Taher (2007) agree that the problem in ESL students‟ essay writing relies on their
difficulties with various aspects of the English language and their development in a
general English learning environment. Teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated
feedback are input that provide information to the writer to further develop his/her essay
writing. Hyland and Hyland (2006) agree that feedback in writing is widely seen as
crucial for encouraging and consolidating learning and those working in the field of ESL
writing have recognized this significance. Its importance is acknowledged in processbased classrooms, where it forms a key element of the students‟ growing control over the
essay writing skills, and by genre-oriented teachers employing scaffold learning
techniques.
A great deal of research, has questioned the effectiveness of teacher feedback as a
way of improving students‟ essay writing. Research on first language writing suggests
that much written feedback is of poor quality, and frequently misunderstood by students
(Sommers, 1982), because it is often “authoritarian,” “formalist,” and “insensitive”
(Connors & Lunsford, 1993). Comments tend to be directed to form rather than content
and responses can appropriate of, or take over students‟ texts by being too directive
(Sommers, 1982). Zamel (1985) suggests a similar picture in ESL contexts. ESL writing
teachers sometimes misread students texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, make
arbitrary corrections, write contradictory comments, provide unclear prescriptions,
impose abstract rules and standards, respond to texts as fixed and final products, and
rarely make content-specific comments or offer specific strategies for revising the texts.
The teachers overwhelmingly view themselves as language teachers rather than writing
teachers.
5
Teachers need to consider what students want from feedback and what they
attend to in their revisions. Research suggests that teacher written feedback is highly
valued by second language writers (Hyland, 1998) and that many learners particularly
favor feedback on their grammar (Leki, 1990). Error-free work is often the main concern
for ESL writers, possibly because of prior learning experiences, and the fact that many
are going to be evaluated in academic and workplace settings where accuracy may be
essential. This research was done to help any teacher who has tried or uses the process
approach in essay writing, and for those who know of the approach in theory only, not
from practice. The emphasis of the research is on feedback in ESL essay writing process
in Puerto Rican high school students, as feedback as the motivation that directs the writer
through the process of writing on to the product.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research was to demonstrate how teacher-written feedback
and computer-mediated feedback can enhance Puerto Rican high school ESL students‟
essay writing. The teacher-student interaction at the writing sessions is a communicative
event that is influenced by various sociocultural factors, such as politeness, the teacherstudent power relationship, and cultural norms. In order to assess the communication
style of the teacher-written and computer-mediated feedback teachers need to find out the
nature of the interaction. The individual conferences differ from the classroom
interaction in which the teacher addresses the students as a whole. Moreover, the
different status of the two interlocutors can have an effect on the writing process.
Conferencing are primarily an important way of providing feedback, which is one
of the main tasks for an ESL writing teacher. Teacher-written and computer-mediated
6
feedback can offer individual attention to students‟ writing, which can hardly be realized
in regular classroom activities. Moreover, second language writers appreciate teacher
feedback (Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995; Radecki & Swales, 1988) and they regard it as
more valuable than feedback from peers (Zhang, 1995). Research on feedback has
examined the written feedback. It is possible that some students could have trouble fully
comprehending written feedback.
Teacher written feedback should respond to all aspects of students‟ texts
structure, organization, style, content, and presentation, but it is not necessary to cover
every aspect on every draft at every stage of the teaching-writing cycle. It is important
to help students generate, focus, and organize their ideas by providing feedback that
addresses the development and clear expression of content material. Attention to
sentence-level errors generally can be delayed to a later draft as major parts of the paper
may be changed or revised. Nevertheless, teachers cannot ignore cases where students
have confused text stages, used an inappropriate text structure, or made tense and
vocabulary choices that grossly interfere with the successful expression of their ideas.
In conclusion, feedback is central to learning to write in a second language. Not
only can it provide writers with a sense of audience and sensitize them to the needs of
readers, but also it offers an additional layer of scaffolding to extend writing skills,
promote accuracy and clear ideas, and develop an understanding of written genres. The
key points are that: Teachers should ask students for their feedback preferences at the
beginning of the course and address these in their responses; the response practices the
teacher intends to use in the course should be explained at the outset.
This should include the focus of the feedback given on particular drafts, any
7
codes used, whether written or electronic forms employed, and so on. Expectations
concerning students‟ responses to feedback need to be clearly explained at the beginning
of the course so that students understand what is required from them in terms of follow
up to feedback. Criticism should be mitigated as far as possible while bearing in mind
the potential of indirectness for misunderstanding. Both teachers and students need to
prepare carefully to make the most of face-to-face conferences.
Peer response can be helpful in providing learners with an alternative audience
and a different source of commentary, but students may need to be trained to respond
effectively in these contexts. Students should be encouraged to reflect on the feedback
they have received from any source by keeping journals or writing summaries in which
they respond to the comments. Finally, the key to an effective teacher-written feedback
and a computer-mediated feedback in essay writing is to reinforce the patterns to be
taught when modeling the genre. So that it becomes part of the process of learning to
write a genre rather than a spontaneous response to error.
Significance of the Study
The use of teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback are
important in improving students‟ essay writing. It is significant because students need
the skill of writing in academic as well as professional contexts. Writing skills
development calls for adjustments to be made. The results of this study will shed light on
the methodology of teaching writing and the use of teacher-written feedback, and
computer-mediated feedback for the enhancement of Puerto Rican high school ESL
students‟ essay writing.
8
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are students‟ reactions towards teacher‟s written feedback?
2.
What are students‟ reactions towards computer-mediated feedback sessions?
3. How do teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback enhance
students‟ essay writing?
Theoretical Rationale
Teachers have turned their classrooms into communities of learners, as the focus
of writing pedagogy shifts from written products to writing as a process, and as ways of
making knowledge including writing are viewed from a collaborative or social
perspective (Bruffee, 1983; Faigley, 1985). Writing instructions in their classrooms are
going to reflect a growing appreciation for the value of talk. By implementing feedback
writing groups, teachers encourage students to give, seek, and react to oral feedback
among themselves as they write, in addition to reacting to the teacher's traditional
comments on finished papers. This trend raises the interesting questions of what effect
teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback have on students' revision
practices.
Definition of Terms
The following terms were defined as they relate to this study:
Computer-mediated feedback (CMF): automated feedback provided by a
computer through sophisticated software systems that can generate immediate evaluative
feedback on students writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).
9
Essay Writing: a short literary composition on a particular theme or subject,
usually in prose and generally analytic, speculative, or interpretative written from an
author's personal point of view. (Random House Kernerman Webster's College
Dictionary, 2010).
Teacher-written feedback: any input provided by the teacher to students for
revision which includes both content and form (Keh, 1990).
Limitations of the Study
This study was limited to students who faced difficulties in their essay writing
development in a public high school located in the central North-East Region of Puerto
Rico. So the results cannot be generalized Islandwide. Feedback stands out as an
essential element in the writing process, particularly in a class that adopts a multiple-draft
essay writing philosophy. The two types of feedback that most researchers tend to agree
upon, teacher written and computer-mediated feedback, take place in a variety of media:
teacher written comments and electronic review sessions (Hyland, 2003). In the next
chapter the researcher presents the revision of literature related to the research questions
which are focused on the use of teacher-written feedback, and computer-mediated
feedback to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students‟ essay writing.
10
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to investigate how the use of teacher-written
feedback and computer-mediated feedback can enhance Puerto Rican high school
students‟ essay writing in terms of grammatical accuracy and writing quality in ESL
environments. This chapter presents several areas in the literature about previous studies
related to feedback and student writing in ESL.
Following that are more subjects on research on feedback in the teaching of ESL
writing, controversies surrounding feedback provision in writing instruction, corrective
feedback, and roles of the teacher in providing feedback on student writing. In this
chapter the researcher reviewed the literature and provided a summary of the major
themes and developments that have arisen over the years in order to structure the central
issues of his study.
The Teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL)
Teaching English as a Second Language (TESL) refers to teaching English to
students whose first language is not English, usually offered in a region where English is
the dominant language and natural English language immersion situations are apt to be
plentiful. In contrast, teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) refers to teaching
English to students whose first language is not English, usually in a region where English
is not the dominant language and natural English language immersion situations are apt
to be few (Sievert, 2007). The teaching profession has historically used different names
for these two teaching situations (ESL) and (EFL); however, the more generic term
11
teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL) is increasingly used to describe
the profession. Both native speakers and non-native speakers successfully train to be
English language teachers.
The Teaching of Writing to ESL Students
According to Beare (2013), writing competence in a foreign language tends to be
one of the most difficult skills to acquire. This is true for English as well. The key to
successful writing classes is that they are reasonable in targeting the skills required or
desired by students. Students need to be personally involved in order to make the
learning experience of lasting value. Encouraging student participation in the exercise,
while at the same time refining and expanding writing skills, requires a certain practical
approach. The teacher should be clear on what skills he/she is trying to develop. Then,
he/she need to decide on which means (or type of exercise) can facilitate learning of the
target area.
Once the target skill areas and means of implementation are defined, the teacher
can then proceed to focus on what topic can be employed to ensure student participation.
By practically combing these objectives, the teacher can expect both enthusiasm and
effective learning. Remember, what students are able to do after the exercise? Keep
focus to one area of English writing skills. Having decided on the target area, the teacher
can focus on the means to achieve this type of learning. As in correction, the teacher
must choose the most appropriate manner for the specified writing area (Beare, 2013).
Finally, the question of which type of correction facilitate a useful writing
exercise is of highest importance. Here the teacher needs to once again think about the
overall target area of the exercise. If there is an immediate task at hand, such as taking a
12
test, perhaps teacher guided correction is the most effective solution. However, if the
task is more general (for example, developing an essay writing skills), maybe the best
approach would be to have the students work in groups thereby learning from each other.
Most importantly, by choosing the correct means of correction the teacher can encourage
rather than discourage students (Beare, 2013).
Essay Writing
Learning how to write an essay can be a frustrating process, but it does not have
to be. If you know the steps and understand what to do, writing can be easy and even
fun. According to Johnson (2004) how to write an essay can be viewed sequentially, as if
going through the following ten sequential steps in an essay writing process, or can be
explored by individual topics:
Research: Begin the essay writing process by researching your topic, making
yourself an expert. Utilize the Internet, the academic databases, and the library. Take
notes and immerse yourself in the words of great thinkers.
Analysis: Now that you have a good knowledge base, start analyzing the
arguments of the essays you are reading. Clearly define the claims, write out the reasons,
the evidence. Look for weaknesses of logic, and also strengths. Learning how to write
an essay begins by learning how to analyze essays written by others.
Brainstorming: Your essay will require insight of your own, genuine essaywriting brilliance. Ask yourself a dozen questions and answer them. Meditate with a pen
or pencil in your hand. Take walks and think and until you come up with original
insights to write about.
13
Introduction paragraph: It should grab the reader's attention, set up the issue, and
lead in to your thesis. Your introduction paragraph is merely a buildup of the issue, a
stage of bringing your reader into the essay's argument.
Outline: Sketch out your essay before immediately writing it out. Use one-line
sentences to describe paragraphs, and bullet points to describe what each paragraph will
contain. Play with the essay's order. Map out the structure of your argument, and make
sure each paragraph is unified.
Thesis statement: Pick your best idea and pin it down in a clear assertion that you
can write your entire essay around. Your thesis statement is your main point, summed up
in a concise sentence that lets the reader know where you are going, and why. It is
practically impossible to write a good essay without a clear thesis statement.
(Note: The title and first paragraph are probably the most important elements in
your essay. This is an essay-writing point that does not always sink in within the context
of the classroom. In the first paragraph you either catch the reader's interest or lose it.
Of course, your teacher will read the essay you have written regardless, but in the real
world, readers make up their minds about whether or not to read your essay by glancing
at the title alone.)
Conclusion: Gracefully exit your essay by making a quick wrap-up sentence, and
then end on some memorable thought, perhaps a quotation, or an interesting twist of
logic, or some call to action. Is there something you want the reader to walk away and
do? Let him or her know exactly what.
Language: You are not done writing your essay until you have refined your
language by correcting the grammar, making sentences flow, incorporating rhythm,
14
emphasis, adjusting the formality, giving it a level-headed tone, and making other
intuitive edits. Proofread until it reads just how you want it to sound. Writing an essay
can be tedious, but you do not want to make a mess of the hours of conceptual work you
have put into writing your essay by leaving a few messy, misspellings and poorly worded
phrases (p. 1).
Paragraphs: Each individual paragraph should be focused on a single idea that
supports your thesis. Begin paragraphs with topic sentences, support statements with
evidence, and develop your ideas in the clearest, most sensible way you can. Speak to
your reader as if he or she were sitting in front of you. In other words, instead of writing
the essay, try talking the essay.
The Modern Language Association (MLA) style: Format your essay according to
the correct guidelines for citation. All borrowed ideas and quotations should be correctly
cited in the body of your text, followed up with a Works Cited (references) page listing
the details of your sources.
The Teaching of Essay Writing to ESL Students
Beare (2013) states that teaching essay writing skills in the ESL class are always a
challenge due to the fact that not all students really understand. Writing an essay can be
intimidating, especially for ESL students. Before assigning an essay, make sure your
ESL students know the basics of grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Graphic organizers
and outlines can help students keep track of their information for the essay. For ESL
students, you might want to focus on a specific writing skill such as subject, verb
agreement, or organization for each essay assignment. Most students also write essays
15
for other courses in their native language; they often feel hesitant when writing essays in
English.
He recommends, having ESL students create an outline before they begin to write,
starting with the introduction. They need attention grabbing an opening sentence, such as
a startling fact relating to the topic (thesis statement), and they can mention some of the
main points related to their essay structure. However, for ESL students who are
beginning as English learners, it may be easier to put the topic sentence first. After
students produce a first draft, have them work in groups to edit each other's work. For
ESL students, provide a checklist as a handout, so they know what to look for. Students
should check for organization with clear paragraphing, appropriate word usage, proper
sentence construction, and good procedure. Have students produce a second draft
incorporating edits, and repeat the process until they are satisfied with the resulting essay.
Motivating students is somewhat like being parents to a baby that has taken a first
step. Once motivation has taken the student step by step toward higher achievement and
self-confidence, fear and insecurity have been replaced with courage and students will
feel the need to show what they can do. Maintaining student courage at a specific level is
very important. If students have been pushed toward unattainable goals then they have
gained a false sense of courage and their initial attempt at the final goal will bring
disappointment to both the teacher and the student. If all steps in the motivation stage
were attainable given the student's ability, then by the time students have reached the
final goal they have the necessary courage to attempt writing that final essay (Beare,
2013).
16
Feedback
Feedback exists in any process, activity or information that enhances learning by
providing students with the opportunity to reflect on their current or recent level of
accomplishment. It can be provided individually or to groups. It can take many forms.
It is responsive to the developmental expectations of particular programs and disciplines.
Detailed opportunities for the receipt of feedback by students will therefore vary across
the school, and at different stages of students‟ programs.
Feedback is a two-way process, an on-going dialogue between students and
professors. In order for feedback to work for students, they need to engage with it and
departmental processes should support them in this. Feedback should help students to
improve their future performance as well as provide comment on work already done.
Feedback should affirm what is known and offer encouragement. Feedback methods
should include: written, face-to-face, from peers, and computer-mediated. A large
number of studies have examined the effectiveness of corrective feedback on student
writing although agreement on research findings to date is still inconclusive. Most of the
studies found that feedback are helpful and effective in improving student writing.
However, there have been controversies on the effectiveness of feedback on
student writing (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1999, 2004; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Truscott,
1996, 1999, 2004, 2007) and conflicting findings in different areas of feedback such as
feedback focus and strategy (Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, Young, &
Cameron, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, &
Huang, 1998; Lalande, 1982; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986).
17
Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing
While the research into feedback on ESL students‟ writing has increased
dramatically in the last decade, it is clear that the questions posed at the beginning of this
study have not yet been completely answered. There are, for example, still uncertainties
concerning the most effective ways of responding to different text features, the role of
context, personal preference to feedback, and the best ways to employ peers‟, electronic,
and oral feedback (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Feedback is widely seen as crucial for
encouraging and consolidating learning and it is also regarded as an essential factor in the
writing context. Teacher feedback, as a traditional feedback type, dominates the ESL
writing class for decades. However, concurrently with the development of writing
pedagogy and research, feedback practices have been transformed, with the teacher
written comments combined with direct or explicit feedback, peers‟ feedback, selfmonitoring, teacher-student conference, or computer-mediated feedback.
In this chapter, different feedback modes for present use were introduced, their
respective roles explored, and the strategies to make them to full advantage discussed.
Since the late 1980s, there has been a switch in teaching of writing from a focus on
product to a focus on process (Bitchener, 2005). The process of writing approach shifts
the core of writing instruction away from students‟ final products toward their writing
processes, which include pre-writing, drafting, revising, and editing stages. Feedback, as
an essential factor in the writing process, calls for wide concerns from the ESL teachers
(Li, 1998).
18
The Concept and Importance of Feedback
For a long time, product-approach dominates the writing pedagogy and teacher
feedback is used as an only way to respond to student writing. With the development of
writing pedagogy, new feedback modes are rapidly increasing and varied feedback
techniques are explored (Williams, 2001). There are several faults that lie with
traditional methods of correcting grammatical errors. The absolute correction of surface
errors has been found to be inconsistent, unclear and overemphasizes the negative points
of the essay (Williams, 2001). Moreover, when this type of feedback is given, students
for the most part simply copy the corrections into their subsequent drafts or final copies.
The vast majority of students do not record or study the mistakes noted in the feedback.
Having students merely copy teacher corrections into rewrites is a passive action that
does not teach students how to recognize or correct errors on their own. As teachers,
giving students the correct feedback helps them to improve in their writing task.
One of the important points of using feedback is that it serves as the motivation
factor in the ESL writing process. Ellis (1994, cited in Tribble, 1996) reminds us that
students' motivation is closely linked to language acquisition. As an example, to
motivate students, the writing teachers can include comments of praise and
encouragement in their written feedback. These written comments are to help students to
clarify meaning in their rewrites. Further, Ellis (1994, cited in Tribble, 2001) notes that
the teachers' use of referential or open (information seeking) questions "may result in
more meaning negotiation and more complex learner output” (p. 83). Feedback is central
in learning (Duomont, 2002). Practice makes perfect, but practice without feedback does
not lead to improvement. However, Alwright (1975), quoted in Richards (1996), stated
19
that many teachers do not know how to give a reflective feedback. They give feedback
by merely repeating the correct form, but they do not show where the error is and how to
correct it. Teachers also sometimes are not consistent in doing the correction.
Providing feedback is often seen, as one of the ESL writing teacher's most
important tasks, offering the kind of individualized attention that is otherwise rarely
possible under normal classroom conditions. Writers typically intend their texts to be
read, and in the classroom, feedback from readers provides opportunities for them to see
how others respond to their work and to learn from these responses. This kind of
formative feedback aims at encouraging the development of student essay writing.
Vygotsky (1978), for example, discusses a stage in cognitive growth he calls "the zone of
proximal development," where skills are extended through the guidance and response of
expert others. Feedback therefore emphasizes a process of writing and rewriting where
the text is not seen as self-contained but points forward to other texts the student will
write.
A great deal of research (Sommers, 1982), however, has questioned the
effectiveness of teacher feedback as a way of improving students' writing. Research on
first language writing suggests that many written feedback are of poor quality, and
frequently misunderstood by students, being too inexplicit and inconsistent and often
"authoritarian," "formalist," and "insensitive" (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). Comments
tend to be directed to form rather than content and responses can appropriate, or take
over, student texts by being too directive (Sommers, 1982). Zamel (1985) suggests a
similar picture in ESL contexts. Zamel points out that ESL writing teachers misread
student texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, make arbitrary corrections, write
20
contradictory comments, provide imprecise prescriptions, impose abstract rules and
standards, respond to texts as fixed and final products, and rarely make content-specific
comments or offer specific strategies for revising the texts. The teachers overwhelmingly
view themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers.
Knoblauch and Brannon (1981) who summarize their survey of first language
research on teacher feedback assert: Commenting on student essays might just be an
exercise in ineffectiveness. Either students do not read the comments or they read them
and do not attempt to implement. Do you agree that this is also true of ESL contexts?
What could you do as a teacher to make your written feedback effective in improving
students' writing? Despite these negative findings, feedback on early drafts of a paper
does seem to lead to improvements in subsequent drafts (Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981)
and this appears to be true in ESL writing (Hyland, 1998, 165).
The effect of written feedback on student revisions in subsequent drafts has not
been extensively studied; although it seems that students try to use most of the usable
feedback they are given (Hyland, 1998). Students claim that they value feedback which
is largely supported through their actions in response to it and, equally important, most
feedback-linked revisions seem to result in text improvements (Ferris, 1997). In Hyland's
study students either followed a comment closely in their revision (usually a grammar
correction), used the feedback as an initial stimulus which triggered a number of
revisions (such as a comment on tone or style), or avoided the issues raised by the
feedback by deleting the problematic text. While these changes largely improved the
text, Hyland found that students often revised their texts with no real understanding as to
why it was necessary and that in many cases deletions were not rephrased, so that the
21
original idea was lost rather than amplified. In other words, although revisions may make
an improvement to the current text, it is possible that they are contributing little to
students' future writing development.
Roles of Teacher in Providing Feedback on Student Writing
Keh (1990) and Hedgcock and Leftkowitz (1996) suggest at least four roles that
writing teachers play while providing written feedback to students: a reader or
respondent, a writing teacher or guide, a grammarian, and an evaluator or judge. First,
teacher as reader or as respondent interacting with a writer. In this role, teachers respond
to the content and they may show agreement about an idea or content of the text.
Teachers may provide positive feedback such as “You made a good point” or “I agree
with you” without giving any suggestion or correction. Second, as writing teacher or as
guide. That is, teachers may show their concern about certain points or confusing or
illogical ideas in students‟ text.
In this case, teachers still maintain their role as a reader by only asking for
clarification or expressing concerns and questions about certain points in the text without
giving any correction. They may, however, refer students to strategies for revision such
as choices of problem solving or providing a possible example. Third, as grammarian.
Teachers write comments or corrective feedback with reference to grammatical mistakes
and relevant grammatical rules. Teachers may provide a reason as to why a particular
grammatical form is not correct or not suitable for a certain context such as choice of
tense, use of article, or preposition. In this case, teachers may also give elaborate
explanation of grammatical rules to help students improve their text. Fourth, as an
evaluator or judge. It is very common that many writing teachers may act only as an
22
evaluator whose main role is to evaluate the quality of students‟ writing as an end product
of a writing process (Arndt, 1993), and grade students‟ writing based on their evaluation.
Different Types of Feedback
In education, feedback is viewed as crucial for both encouraging and
consolidating learning and this significance has also been recognized in the area of
second language writing. Indeed, feedback is a key component of second language
writing programs around the world, with product, process and genre approaches all
employing it as a central part of their instructional repertoires (Hyland & Hyland, 2006,
15). Teachers certainly see responding to their students‟ written work as an inherent and
important part of their job (Casanave, 2004; Ferris, 1999; Hyland. 2003; Truscott, 1996).
Casanave (2004, 69) suggests that writing teachers are genetically endowed with a papermarking reflex and that it is difficult for teachers to read their students‟ papers without a
pen in hand. While this may be a slight exaggeration, a great deal of time and energy is
devoted to providing feedback on students‟ written work by teachers, definitely the act of
responding may well represent the largest investment of time teachers make as writing
instructors (Ferris, 2003). Students also recognize the importance of written feedback
and value it highly (Hyland, 1998).
Teacher Written Feedback
Teacher written feedback, regarded as the most viable and commonest form of
response to student writing, is often employed in the ESL writing class. As a traditional
feedback, it bears many advantages that other feedback techniques cannot surpass. It
provides a critical instructional opportunity for students and offers a convenient avenue to
achieve one-on-one communication that is rarely possible in the day-to-day operations of
23
a class. In English ESL writing context, there is usually no variation in teacher feedback
technique. Teachers more often than not review students‟ writings word-by-word,
correct every single problem they find in their writings, which is time-consuming, and
labor intensive. Unluckily, their great efforts are not valued, for students seldom reflect
on the mistakes they have made or trouble how to avoid repeating them.
Even worse, teachers are drowning on students‟ writings with red ink pens that
may harm students‟ interest and motivation in writing. Then, how to make this
conventional feedback to better advantage? It is reported that teachers do not need
correct every mistake students make, but rather, combine direct and indirect strategies
(Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005). On the other hand, teacher‟s written response
continues to play a central role in most ESL writing classes. Many teachers do not feel
that they have done justice to students' efforts until they have written substantial
comments on their papers, justifying the grade they have given and providing a reader
reaction. Similarly, many students see their teacher's feedback as crucial to their
improvement as writers.
Hyland (2006) found that students often revised their texts with no real
understanding as to why it was necessary and that in many cases deletions were not
rephrased, so that the original idea was lost rather than amplified. In other words,
revisions may make an improvement to the current text; it is possible that they are
contributing little to students' future writing development. It is also important to note that
what individual students want from feedback and the use they make of it varies
considerably. Some students want praise, others see it as condescending; some want a
response to their ideas, others demand to have all their errors marked; some use teacher
24
commentary effectively, others ignore it altogether. It can be difficult for teachers to
satisfy to all these different perceptions and expectations, but a full dialogue with
individual students is often beneficial. This can take the form of a "revise and resubmit
letter" (Ferris, 1997) in which students detail the changes they have made in the
subsequent draft, journal reflections on the feedback they have received, or an out the
areas on which they want feedback to focus.
Forms of Teacher Written Feedback
Varieties of techniques have been proposed to provide teacher feedback to
students, the most common being commentary, cover sheets, minimal marking, taped
comments, and electronic feedback.
Comments: In the essay margins, on the other hand, are both immediate and
proximate, appearing at the exact point in the text where the issue occurs. This not only
ensures relevance and creates a strong sense that the reader is responding to the text, but
is also more effective than an end comment in making sure that the student understands
precisely what is referred to.
Handwritten commentary: Probably the most common type of teacher written
feedback consists of handwritten commentary on the student paper itself. This kind of
feedback is best seen as responding to students' work rather than evaluating what they
have done, stating how the text appears to us as readers, how successful we think it has
been, and how it could be improved. If time allows, responses may take the form of both
marginal and end comments. A comprehensive endnote allows more space and
opportunities for the teacher to summarize and prioritize key points and to make general
observations on the paper.
25
Minimal marking: This refers to a type of in-text, form-based feedback. It
follows research, which suggests that indicating the location and perhaps type of error,
rather than direct correction, is more effective in stimulating a student response (Bates
1993; Ferris 1997) and perhaps in developing self-editing strategies. This technique
makes correction neater and less threatening than masses of red ink and helps students to
find and identify their mistakes. A disadvantage, however, is that it is not always
possible to unambiguously categorize a problem, particularly when it extends beyond a
sentence borderline. Extending the code merely makes the procedure unwieldy and
confusing, so some teachers adopt a minimalist approach by increasing the categories to
focus on a limited number of general areas (Hyland, 1990).
Rubrics: A variation on commentary, and often accompanying it on final drafts,
is the use of cover sheets which set out the criteria that have been used to assess the
assignment and how the student has performed in relation to these criteria. Different
rubrics can be used for different genres and, while they restrict the range of issues that
can be addressed, they are useful in making grading decisions explicit and showing what
the teacher values in a particular piece of writing.
Taped commentary: An alternative to marginal comments is recording remarks
on a tape recorder and writing a number on the student paper to indicate what the
comment refers to (Hyland, 1990). This not only saves time and adds novelty; it provides
listening practice for learners and assists those with an auditory learning style preference.
It also shows the writer how where confusion arises, where logic or structure breaks
down.
26
Written Feedback with Explicit Corrective Comments
When providing written corrective feedback, teachers need to be clear and
concrete to assist students with revisions (Ferris, 2003a). Teachers must be clear about
what students need to do, which part of students‟ text needs correction or revision, and
how to do it. As feedback is meant to help students understand that there is a problem in
their text which requires their action to address the problem, teachers should provide
clear and meaningful information in regards to the location of the error, type of error, and
how to correct it or otherwise students may have trouble understanding teacher feedback
and will not be able to fix the error properly. In other words, it is hypothesized that the
more explicit the information given by teachers when providing feedback, the easier it
should be for students to follow teacher suggestion to perform error correction and make
revision of their works.
Explicit corrective feedback, however, needs time and be provided with repetition
until before it can help students to notice the correct forms of the target language (Hyland
and Hyland, 2006). Explicit corrective comment occurs when a teacher provides
feedback to students by not only indicating that an error exists but also providing explicit
grammatical explanation or negative evidence in the form of corrective feedback (Sanz &
Morgan-Short, 2004) or additional information that may raise their metalinguistic
consciousness (Nagata, 1997; Nagata & Swisher, 1995) such as providing an explanation
of a grammatical rule or linguistic feature and examples of correct usage (Bitchener &
Knoch, 2010). Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) suggest that explicit corrective
comments can take two forms: (a) explicit correction in which teacher response clearly
indicates what is incorrect and provides the correct form, or (b) metalinguistic feedback
27
which explains grammatical or linguistic rules. Lyster and Ranta (1997) define
metalinguistic feedback as “comments, information, or questions related to the wellformedness of the learner‟s utterance without explicitly providing the correct form” (p.
37).
In general, metalinguistic comments indicate that an error exists somewhere in
students‟ text and provides grammatical rules related to the nature of the error or provide
a definition of a word when it deals with lexical problems. Thus, for the purpose of this
discussion, feedback with explicit corrective comments may be defined as explicit
corrective feedback indicating the location and nature of an error accompanied with
teacher‟s comments explaining grammatical rules or linguistic features related to the
error with or without providing the correct form. There is evidence that the explicitness
of written feedback may play a role in the success of student revision (Goldstein, 2006).
She states that students may not attempt to make revision when teacher feedback lacks
clarity or, when they revise, they may revise it unsuccessfully.
In their study, Conrad and Goldstein (1999) found that students often had
difficulty to react to comments that did not explicitly state that a revision was needed. As
a result, students either did not attempt to revise their text or, if they did, they revised it
unsuccessfully. Similar findings are shown in the studies conducted by Ferris and
Roberts (2001), Nagata (1997), and Nagata and Hawisher (1995).
Computer-Assisted Learning
Language learning assisted by computers in today's society occurs with a wide
variety of environments and resources is due to this diversification that computer-assisted
learning has special reception, as it is within the reach of any person regardless of age
28
background, race or purchasing power. The history of computer-assisted learning was
born in the sixties in North America and inherited the methods used and proposed by
Skinner, and in which Crowder, Jean Piaget, Papert, and Davis eventually participated in
its development and that continued to evolve in combination with technology today.
The concept of computer-assisted learning has been done more fluid every time,
because advances in technology have allowed students and teachers to use variety of
tools in many different subjects. To support the computer-assisted learning Gagne (1985)
tells us that technology is also a good way to motivate students to write or respond.
Computers have proven to be an effective tool to help the reluctant writer. These give the
confidence and you can even assist in self-evaluation and correction.
Computer-Mediated Feedback
According to (Hyland, 2006), researchers examine how to best provide grammar
and stylistic feedback, how to help students become more autonomous in correcting their
own errors and in reflecting on their writing, and how to substitute the development of
students‟ writing strategies. Evidence strongly points to the advantages of combining
both oral and computer-mediated feedback when using peers‟ response groups in the
writing classroom. Regarding the quantity of output, the greater amount of writing and of
revisions produced in classrooms offering some form of computer-mediated feedback is a
positive outcome that has been replicated across several studies.
Computers have opened up new opportunities for responding to writing. Teachers
can provide comments on electronic submissions by e-mail or by using the comment
function, which allows feedback to be displayed in a separate window while reading a
word-processed text. Feedback on errors can also be linked to online explanations of
29
grammar or to concordance lines from authentic texts to show students examples of
features they may have problems using correctly. These new channels of written
feedback offer teachers greater flexibility in their responding practices, but ultimately
convenience is likely to be the deciding factor in which they are used.
As computer technology pervades, computer-mediated feedback has become a
new visible feedback mode in practice and research. One feedback source is computer
conferencing. There are two broad options (Hyland & Hyland, 2006), namely,
synchronous writing (students communicate with each other or the teacher in real time
via Internet chat sites) and asynchronous writing (students communicate in a delayed
way, such as via e-mail, or Bulletin Board System (BBS) (Warschauer, 1997). One
major advantage of computer-conference feedback is that comments are automatically
stored by later retrieval, allowing teachers to print out the transcripts for in-class
discussion.
Teachers can use this database of transcripts to increase students‟ autonomy in
correcting errors and in reflecting on their writing. However, this mode bears some
disadvantages. Students seemed to have difficulties in following the rush of multiple
discussions online. Due to the pressure to respond immediately, they are likely to make
superficial revisions. The other computer-delivered source is the software capable of
scanning student writing and generating immediate evaluative comments on them.
For instance, the E-rater, a computer grading program that scans essays, which
has been used by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) for automated essay scoring
since 1999, offers a holistic score with feedback on grammar, usage, style, organization,
and development. This feedback technique will provide more extensive feedback in a
30
short time and assist teachers with the problems imposed by large class size, allowing
them to focus on other aspects of their teaching. Nevertheless, this feedback mode is
relatively new and whether it constitutes a useful feedback on ESL writing is still an open
question. However, computer-generated feedback should only be used as a supplement
to, rather than a substitute for traditional feedback modes. It is likely to play a more
important role in the writing process if combined with traditional face-to-face activities.
Computer-Mediated Conferencing and Peers’ Response
In ESL writing instruction, the application of Computer-Mediated Conferencing
(CMC) has been focused on extending communication between the teacher and students
as well as between students to students to facilitate documents and opinions sharing.
English as a First Language (EFL) writing researchers (Cooper & Selfe, 1990; Kozma,
1991) have discussed its advantages in terms of social and pedagogical dynamics CMC
promotes in peers‟ response activities. For example, in a networked communication
environment, teachers‟ power is usually produced when delivering feedback through
electronic sites, which enhances students‟ empowerment, and ultimately their autonomy
of writing and sense of production (Spitzer, 1990). In addition, the social context created
in networked communication helps to eliminate some limitations of face-to-face
feedback. Researchers (Barker, 1990, & Spitzer, 1990) found out that student reviewers
are more concerned with the content delivered in the writing rather than surface
mechanics, which promotes a sense of authentic audiences for the writer and
consequently leads the writer to attend the needs of a real audience instead of surface
issues of writing.
31
Another advantage of computer-mediated peers‟ response activities discussed by
EFL researchers (Cooper & Selfe, 1990) is that student writers generalize the strategies
they acquire throughout the peers‟ response process. By participating in computermediated peers‟ response, students are exposed to multiple opinions and ideas and they
develop critical thinking skills as to what information they should accept and discard.
They learn how knowledge develops through reading, re-reading, comparing, and
contrasting diverse opinions they receive. In recent years, increasing attention has been
placed to the use of CMC in ESL peers‟ response activities. In their study of comparing
pre-college ESL students‟ peers‟ review activities using CMC technologies provided in
the university networked system with those in traditional classrooms, Di Giovanni and
Nagasvami (2001) indicate that online peers‟ response activities enable teachers to
monitor peers‟ feedback conversations and thus yield more on-task interactions. They
also discover that online communications allow students to respond simultaneously while
reflecting on their ideas, review their responses, and respond at their own pace, which is
requiring of oral feedback.
Liu and Sadler (2003) investigate the effect of peers‟ review activities undertaken
in electronic versus traditional interaction environment. The electronic peers‟ review
activities include students making comments on computers using Microsoft Word and
later discussing synchronously via a Multi-user domains Object-Oriented (MOO). The
traditional peers‟ review activities contain students making comments with pen on the
writer‟s paper and then holding a face-to-face discussion. While agreeing that computer
mediated peers‟ interaction is affectively more appealing, Liu and Sadler discover that
face-to-face peers‟ response is more effective in terms of its effect on subsequent
32
revisions undertaken by the writer because synchronous interactions in MOO tend to
generate more superficial rather than substantive comments. In addition, synchronous
peers‟ interaction environment lacks nonverbal clues for interlocutors, which constrains
reviewers from discussing about global issues of writing. Therefore, the authors suggest
no use of MOO interactions in peer review activities unless a communication protocol is
set up for each student to stand for.
Some ESL writing researchers (Liu & Sadler, 2003; & Tuzi, 2004) were
interested in the influence of electronic-mediated feedback on student writers‟ subsequent
revisions. Tuzi (2004) compares ESL students‟ revisions after receiving asynchronous
feedback obtained from a database driven web site specifically designed for writing and
responding, those after receiving oral feedback from peers and the teacher, and those with
feedback from face-to-face meeting with writing center tutors. In contrast to Liu and
Sadler‟s (2003 findings, Tuzi discovers that students prefer oral feedback, but feedback
from the website has a greater impact on students‟ revisions in terms of the amount and
types of changes. The research findings also show that online feedback expands the
audience for ESL writers, which brings benefits to both the instructor and student writers
regarding the access to and diversity of feedback.
Most of the CMC technologies examined in this study are traditional text based
communication tools. Recent years have seen a steadily increasing use of Multimediaenhanced communication technologies, particularly in synchronous technologies.
Among the uncountable of synchronous technologies, instant messenger, an Internetbased multimode communication tool, mostly free of charge, e.g. MSN Messenger,
Yahoo! messenger, and AOL messenger, is gaining more popularity in various
33
educational settings. Instant messenger allows both one-to-one conversation and group
conferencing through text, audio, even video exchange (Cziko & Park, 2003). ESL
researchers (e.g. Kramsch & Thorne, 2002; Jin, 2005) have discovered the value of
instant messenger in ESL learning and teaching.
Many ESL educators have realized the great potential of instant messenger in
learning and teaching tasks, which otherwise are impossible to undertake successfully,
such as building direct yet unobtrusive connection between the teacher and an individual
ESL student in mainstream classrooms (Ban, Jin, Summers, & Eisenhower, 2006) and
promoting intercultural communication and understanding between ESL learners and
native speakers of the target language, particularly less commonly taught languages (Jin,
2005). ESL students also express their enthusiasm for the use of instant messenger for
educational purposes (Jin & Erben, 2007, in press). Despite its great potential in ESL
teaching and learning and its popularity among students, very few studies have been
conducted to investigate the application of instant messenger in ESL peers‟ response
regarding the influences and how the use of synchronous technologies influence students‟
interaction in a learning task.
E-Mail for Online Corrective Feedback
The Internet has been a boon in the teaching and learning environment. However,
part of this study is the use of computer as a means to develop essay writing and the
efficiency of using online corrective feedback (via e-mail or chat) for academic writing
classrooms compared to conventional corrective feedback methods. In order to examine
if this innovative form of corrective feedback can be introduced into the ESL classroom
analysis of data using the Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) tool will
34
indicate that online corrective feedback save time and improved participants‟ writing
skills.
Video Feedback and the Writing Process
No matter which stage you find yourself at for quality writing outcomes, if you
adopt this method for improving yourself, in particular academic writing, you will see
huge differences from draft-to-draft in the quality of your output. The effect of writing,
putting it down, going back later and reflecting on what you have done, then rewriting
has a natural way to improve on your original thoughts. In addition, if you then add in
some feedback from a teacher or friend, the improvements are huge.
Screen-casting and Video Feedback to Improve Student Learning
Changing digital technology has allowed instructors to capitalize on digital tools
to provide audiovisual feedback. Classrooms are moving increasingly toward hybrid
classrooms and online learning, consequently making investments in classroom
management tools and communicative technologies, communication with students about
their work is also transforming. Instructors in all fields are experimenting with a variety
of tools to deliver information, present lectures, and conference with students, and
provide feedback on written and visual projects. Experimentation with screen-casting
technologies in traditional and online classes has yielded fresh approaches to engage
students, improve the revision process, and harness the power of multimedia tools to
enhance student learning (Davis & Mc Grail, 2009, Liou & Peng 2009).
Screencasts are digital recordings of the activity on one‟s computer screen,
accompanied by voiceover narration that can be used for any class where assignments are
submitted in some sort of electronic format. Researchers argue that screencast video
35
feedback (Veedback) serves as a better vehicle for in-depth explanatory feedback that
creates rapport and a sense of support for the writer than traditional written comments.
Screen-casting can be used by professors in any class to respond to any assignment that is
submitted in an electronic format, be it a Word document, text file, PowerPoint
presentation, Excel spreadsheet, Web site, or video.
While using Screen Capture Software (SCS), we found that screen-casting has
most commonly been used pedagogically to create tutorials that extend classroom
lectures. It also has been used as a teaching tool in a variety of fields, with mostly
positive results reported, specifically in relation to providing students with information
and creating additional avenues of access to teaching and materials. Researches on
screen-casting in the classroom are limited, but so far they point to this technology as a
powerful learning tool. While most of the research on screen-casting shows positive
results for learning, such studies focus on how this digital technology serves primarily as
a tool to supplement classroom instruction; no research has yet shown how it can be used
as a feedback tool that improves learning (and writing) through digitally mediated social
interaction.
Students’ Perceptions of Video Feedback
Students‟ perceptions of video feedback and students‟ perceptions of how they
used video feedback were also analyzed using template analysis (King, 2004). All
students perceived video feedback to be better than written feedback because the video
feedback provided more information and was clearer than written comments they had
received from instructors. However, several students reported that they would like both
36
video and written feedback simultaneously on the same draft so that they did not have to
take notes on the video feedback as they watched.
On the other hand, online courses continue to achieve popularity; instructors are
increasingly looking for new and more effective techniques to promote a sense of
presence among their students. One technique, audio feedback, promises to strengthen
the sense of presence and an instructor‟s ability to establish more personalized
communication with students (Ice, Curtis, Phillips, and Wells, 2007). Audio feedback
provided online is a technique by which instructors record their comments in digital
audible form and attach them to students‟ assignments. Students can listen to these
recorded comments as they read the written comments also added to their assignments
(Ice, 2008). Sense of presence is considered an important component of any online
environment in that it can remove the sense of perceived isolation or transactional
distance (Moore, 1991). This sense of isolation can leave learners in online courses
feeling disconnected because of a lack of interaction or verbal clues which are normally a
part of face-to-face classrooms.
Feedback in Online Classes
Feedback in online classes not only enhances the learning experience, but it
actually makes learning possible. Students attending online classes do so from the
privacy and relative loneliness or isolation of their homes. Students‟ need for
constructive feedbacks, which are met in a classroom in the form of direct question and
answer sessions or even body language of peers and instructors, remain largely unmet.
At least this holds true until the online education facilitator sets up a comprehensive
framework of feedback in online classes offered at the site.
37
Five Tips for Feedback in Online Classes
A successful online education setting relies on proactive feedback: Feedback in
online classes has the power to counteract the alarming trend of a skyrocketing dropout
rate in the online education system. In the Bright Hub series entitled Examining the
Distance Learning Drop-Out Rate; it was revealed that a failure to actively make online
education a personal calling of an instructor could lead to the alienation of students.
Proactive feedback in online classes prevents not only the alienation, but also catches
problems or concerns early on.
Constructive feedback comes via different media: Far too often online teachers
are tempted to see the asynchronous e-mail account or the message board as the only
means of providing feedback in online classes they teach, but the personal touch that
comes from a phone call or text chat must not be underestimated. Online instructors
should consider setting office hours on a weekly basis, during which time they will be
available by telephone or live chat to their students. This is also the time to schedule
telephone conversations with students who may require just a bit of personal
encouragement.
Constructive feedback in online classes is a two-way street: Online classrooms
frequently provide their students with a questionnaire at the end of a session to evaluate
the class they took, the instructor, and their overall online education experience.
Instructors should go further than this and actively solicit student feedback in online
classes they teach. This kind of feedback may be continuous and encourages the twoway process of open communication.
38
Constructive feedback in the online education classroom requires a framework as
well as a set schedule. It does not happen automatically, but at the same time cannot be
automated. Fortunately, there are steps for mastering online class feedback in a virtual
classroom setting, meet students‟ needs and concurrently enhance the learning experience
within the online classes.
Feedback in online classes involves peers and achieves socialization: It is a
common misconception that constructive feedback can only come from the instructor.
Instead, a carefully devised framework for peers‟ interactions can provide the
socialization that online education students frequently lack.
Feedback in online classes needs to be predictable: Constructive feedback by the
instructor should be an expectation of students at online courses. Online teachers may
incorporate feedback highlights in their programs. This may take the form of regularly
scheduled evaluations of submitted work and may occur in the outcome of exams and at
the midway point of the online classes. Consider the Rosetta Stone software for language
learners, which utilize an automated progress feedback that students receive in the
language course. This is shown as greatly enhancing not only student motivation, but
also the sense of empowerment.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Computer-Mediated Communication
Computers help develop more interaction between teacher and student. This
aspect of education is very important. In order for a student and teacher to have a good
relationship, communication must be present. E-mail allows students and teachers to stay
connected at times they cannot see each other. Although the telephone can also keep
them in touch, the computer allows assignments and papers to be sent to and from each
39
other‟s accounts. This connection provides the student a chance to receive the help
he/she needs before the next class. This type of benefit helps improve classroom
performance.
In comparison with face-to-face communication, a major disadvantage of textbased computer-mediated communication is the lack of visual and auditory cues. The
time pressure may also have a negative effect on the quality of peers‟ interaction in the
CMC mode (Vrasidas & Mc Isaac, 2000). Body language or gestures can often convey
important meanings. During class, an observant instructor can notice whether or not
students understand from their facial expressions. CMC lacks such contextual cues.
The lack of richness of communication also seems to affect the time taken to
complete communications or tasks in CMC. From a meta-analysis of eighteen CMC
versus face-to-face studies, Bordia (1992) found that CMC groups took longer than faceto-face groups to complete the same tasks. Walther (1996) also noted that the main
difference between face-to-face communication and CMC is communication speed.
Moreover, text-based asynchronous CMC can be overwhelming to students who are
expected to read and or respond to large numbers of messages (Woolley, 1998). CMC
can also be difficult to instructors for the same reasons.
On the other hand, CMC has a number of advantages over face-to-face
instructional settings. First, CMC is place and time independent (Harasim, 1990). In
CMC, students can work in convenient places with highly flexible schedules. Second,
when compared with face-to-face instruction, CMC provides students with more time to
analyze and reflect on content and to compose thoughtful responses (Althaus, 1996).
Third, CMC appears to enhance interaction between instructors and students (Kearsley,
40
2000). Sutton (2001) further claims that CMC in online learning has caused the shift
from correspondence learning to social learning, increasing interaction with other
students as well as with the instructor. Students who are silent in face-to-face
communication contribute in CMC discussion. It is the students who contribute the least
in face-to-face discussion who increase their participation the most in CMC discussion.
Conference Formats
There are a number of conference formats that can help accommodate the various
needs of your students and your schedule. As an instructor, you will develop your own
approach to conferencing. The following categories can help you determine how other
instructors conduct their conferences. They are necessarily reductive and should be
viewed in continuum, not as discrete ways of conferencing. In reality, conferences will
not fall into such neat divisions. Nevertheless, these divisions give us the vocabulary to
talk about conferencing in a productive way.
Teacher-Student Conferencing
Teachers can give feedback on student writing through face-to-face conferencing.
Conferencing has important advantages as it can supplement the limitations of one-way
written feedback with opportunities for "the teacher and the student to negotiate the
meaning of a text through dialogue" (Mc Carthey, 1992). The interactive nature of the
conference gives teachers a chance to respond to the diverse cultural, educational, and
writing needs of their students, clarifying meaning and resolving ambiguities, while
saving them the time spent in detailed marking of papers. For students, writing
conferences not only assist learners with auditory learning styles, but also give them a
clearer idea of their strengths and weaknesses, develop their autonomy skills, allow them
41
to raise questions on their written feedback, and help them construct a revision plan
(Hyland, 2000; Riley, 1997).
As helpful as they are for decreasing writers‟ anxieties and improving their
writing, peers‟ critiques can only offer students non-expert opinion. If a school has a
writing center, students can receive additional, non-threatening insight into work-inprogress. But, what can inexperienced writers do when such tutorial services are not
available? At some point student writing needs expert intervention. Seeking out
additional critiques from roommates or friends, sharing a draft with one‟s former English
teacher, or reading it to one‟s own family can serve as intermediate steps between an
initial peers‟ critique and the teacher-student conference. It is the teacher-student
conference, however, that can offer pupils expert response to work-in-progress. Such
conferences need not be twenty or thirty minute sessions in an instructor‟s office.
This information should be of comfort to teachers whose classes have large
enrollments. As Duke (1975) points out, consultations with students about their writing
can take place in a variety of unlikely settings such as hallways, cafeterias, libraries, and
student lounges. Furthermore, when such consultations focus on specific aspects of a
particular piece of writing, they need last only a few minutes. For instance, an instructor
might offer to spend one office hour in the school library in order to direct students to
specialized sources of data and to offer immediate feedback to student drafts. Thus, a
library consultation of one or two minutes per student can let the instructor know if the
class, as a whole, is on the right track on a research paper. Such a “mini-conference” can
be of particular help to students whose topics are too broad, who are having difficulty
finding sources, or who are experiencing problems organizing data.
42
Just as important as realizing that conferences can be short and take place at
various locations is the understanding that not every student needs a conference. If a
teacher uses consultation time efficiently, students who need it can be identified for
intensive conference attention. In planning effective, efficient conferences, teachers have
found a number of approaches particularly helpful (Mc Carthey, 1992). What these
conference methods have in common is that they use consultation time to make students
do the work that will improve their writing on a particular paper. As a result, teachers
can approach the conference with a clear conscience. The student, in every instance,
writes the paper. The teacher does what business and professional consultants ideally do
clarify problems, suggest solutions, and evaluate results. Each of the following
conference approaches offers ways in which subject area teachers can become “writing
consultants” to their students.
The Teacher-Centered Conference
A central idea driving much of the scholarship on teacher-student conferences is
authority. Who has it? Who does not? Who needs it? In teacher-centered conferences,
the instructor is the seat of authority. Teacher-centered conferences tend to be
proscriptive and directive. The instructor sets the agenda for what should be covered and
the instructor does most or all of the talking. An instructor in a teacher-centered
conference may make changes or corrections directly on a student's writing. The teachercentered model of conferencing came under fire in the 1970s and 1980s in the National
Council of Teachers of English NCTE journals, College English and College
Composition and Communication (CECCC).
43
The two most common arguments against teacher-centered conferences concerned
appropriation and intimidation. Appropriation is dangerous because it hinders learning
when an instructor drastically changes a student's words; that student is no longer
invested in the composition. In her article “Avoiding Appropriation,” Severino (2004)
describes a teacher-centered conference where she felt the instructor had appropriated her
language. The issue of appropriating student language is closely tied to the issue of
intimidation. Conferencing with an instructor can be intimidating for students, especially
when the instructor dominates the conference. Hiatt (1975) argues that struggling
students especially may feel uncomfortable in teacher-centered conferences and attempt
to hide their discomfort by “tuning out” or falsely indicating comprehension. Despite
their drawbacks, teacher-centered conferences do have advantages. They are usually
quicker and more efficient, allowing instructors to see more students more often. In
addition, students will often expect a teacher-centered conference.
The Student-Centered Conference
The student-centered conference is an alternative conference style derived from
writing center pedagogy. Latterell (2000) defines “student-centered” as students being
“actively engaged and invested in their own learning”. In writing center scholarship, the
dominant strand of thought is that students should direct their own conferences, choosing
what they want to talk about and asking questions that concern them. In other words,
writing center tutors are often encouraged to renounce all authority in the conference.
Adapted to office hours, a student-centered conference might look like this: the instructor
asks students to bring specific questions concerns to be addressed in the conference.
Students might read their work aloud, and would be required to make all changes to the
44
draft themselves. Mc Andrew, Donald, Reigstad, and Strickland, (2001) present
examples of student-centered conferencing in Tutoring Writing: A Practical Guide for
Conferences.
Complaints about student-centered conferences often come from students. As is
stated earlier, they often expect the instructor to act as an authority. Students might feel
frustrated by having to direct the conference and develop their own concerns. If they
knew what was wrong, they would not need the conference to begin with. Studentcentered conferences can also be inefficient, as students struggle to articulate their own
concerns. Latterell (2000) even argues that, in some scenarios, student-centered
conferences could actually help reinscribe traditional conceptions of authority.
However, the argument that students learn best when they feel authority over their
language is persuasive, and student-centered conferences, in theory, provide for this. If
teachers apply North‟s (2008) conception of student-centered learning to their own
conferences, then they become a participant-observer, someone who fits into the
student‟s ordinarily solo ritual of writing. This is a radical departure from the traditional
“expert teacher” model, a departure which North (2008) argues results in a processoriented pedagogy of “direct intervention” where students' writing benefits more
holistically at every stage of their process.
Teacher-Student Conferencing and Oral Feedback
Teachers can also give feedback on student writing through face-to-face
conferencing. Conferencing has important advantages as it can supplement the
limitations of one-way written feedback with opportunities for "the teacher and the
student to negotiate the meaning of a text through dialogue" (Mc Groarty, 1992, p. 58).
45
The dynamics of oral interaction allow for more free-flowing discussion and thereby
result in changes that are more global to writing, such as a general refocus of direction,
purpose, or organization. Research, often framed by sociocultural and sociocognitive
perspectives, examines differentiation within electronic modes, expanding from a specific
focus on academic modes of second language writing to a notion of feedback that
includes other communicative modalities, such as online chatting, e-mail
telecollaboration, and multimedia authoring.
Face-to-face conferencing has important advantages as it can supplement the
limitations of one-way written feedback with opportunities for "the teacher and the
student to negotiate the meaning of a text through dialogue" (Mc Carthey, 1992). The
interactive nature of the conference gives teachers a chance to respond to the diverse
cultural, educational, and writing needs of their students, clarifying meaning and
resolving ambiguities, while saving them the time spent in detailed marking of papers.
For students, writing conferences not only assist learners with auditory learning styles,
but also give them a clearer idea of their strengths and weaknesses, develop their
autonomy skills, allow them to raise questions on their written feedback, and help them
construct a revision plan (Hyland, 2000; Riley, 1997).
Blau and Hall (2002) suggest that it may sometimes be necessary to reverse the
usual practice for writing discussions and start by focusing on accuracy and formal
issues, then work towards the development and organization of content. Some issues
remain only partially answered, especially the effectiveness of oral feedback for
improving students‟ writing. It has been pointed out that some ESL learners have
cultural or social inhibitions about engaging informally with authority figures such as
46
teachers, let alone questioning them, and this can result in students passively and
unreflectively incorporating the teacher‟s suggestions into their work (Goldstein &
Conrad 1990). Goldstein and Conrad found that only those students who negotiated
meaning successfully in conferences were able to carry out extensive and better revisions
to their writing. Williams (2004) found greater uptake of tutor advice in terms of
revisions when tutor suggestions were explicit, when students actively participated and
negotiated in the conferences supported this finding, and when they wrote down their
plans during their sessions with tutors.
Williams (2004) noted that negotiation was important especially for higher level
text-based revisions, although her study suggested that the majority of revisions linked to
conferences were, in fact, surface level ones. Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) suggest
that with less able students there is more danger that conferences will involve
appropriation rather than intervention. It may be worth noting that the findings of all
these studies are based on small numbers of students and teachers, raising the question
about the influence of other contextual factors and the impact of individual teachers‟
conferencing approaches. However, the feedback that is going to be given directly or
indirectly can improve students‟ writing Master (1995).
Nevertheless, several faults lie with traditional methods of correcting grammatical
errors. The complete corrections of superficial errors have been found to be inconsistent,
unclear and overemphasize the negative (Fregeau, 1999, Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990).
Moreover, when peers‟ feedback, teacher written feedback and computer-mediated
feedback is given, students for the most part simply copy the corrections into their
subsequent drafts or final copies. The immense majority of students do not record nor
47
study the mistakes noted in the feedback. Having students merely copy teacher
corrections into rewrites is a passive action that does not teach students how to recognize
or correct errors on their own.
Fregeau (1999) discovered that the method of teachers‟ indicating the presence or
types of errors without correction is also ineffective. Many times the students do not
understand why the errors were indicated and simply guess the corrections as they
rewrite. Other ineffective aspects of the marking of student errors are that it causes
students to focus more on surface errors that on the clarity of their ideas, and it only
stresses the negative. Just as with feedback on form, many faults have been found with
standard practices of providing feedback on content (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Fathman
& Walley, 1990; Fregeau; 1999; Leki, 1990).
In conclusion, conferences vary considerably in the extent to which they
improve student writing, and the literature stresses the need for careful planning
(Hyland, 1998, Richards and Lockhart, 2002). The most successful conferences are
those in which students are active participants, asking questions, clarifying meaning,
and, discussing their papers rather than passively accepting advice. Where they are
successful, however, oral conferences can not only lead to revisions in subsequent drafts
but also have more lasting effects on improving writing in later assignments (PattheyChavez, Hyland & Ferris, 1997).
Conducting Conferences
Clearly, conferences need to be prepared. In addition, to basic logistical issues
such as finding time and rooms, planning involves the decisions set. It is also the
teacher's responsibility to ensure that students are well prepared to get the most from the
48
conference (Newkirk, 1995). Most generally, this means making sure that the purpose of
the activity is understood by briefing learners about the role of one-to-one feedback in the
first class of the course. This could help overcome any divergent expectations that
teachers and students may have about how the sessions will operate and the desired
outcome of the activity. For many ESL students it might also be necessary to provide
some training, via both explicit instruction and role-play, in the basic interaction patterns
required to make the sessions work, such as requesting and giving information, seeking
clarification, and so on.
In the conference itself, teachers need to ensure that the discussion both involves
the learner and addresses salient issues effectively. Research cautions against being
excessively directive as there is a danger that the teacher's authority will be played out in
"find and fix" correction routines, and Newkirk (1995) argues that the conversational and
evaluative responsibility should be given to the student. This means teachers have to
adjust to the student's individual discourse style and act to support writing rather than edit
it. Questions about the work and encouragement to participate are perhaps more
effective here than instructions, although teachers should be alert for misunderstandings
that can result from indirectness.
Participation implies collaboration and involves creating a relaxed and supportive
atmosphere. The tone should be positive to allow the student to talk about the issues that
concern him/her and opportunities to think about text improvements. Students should be
encouraged to initiate issues rather than just respond to the teacher's comments and to
close the sessions with an explicit plan for action. White and Arndt (1991) suggest the
following procedures for conducting a conference: Help the student to relax. Make the
49
situation nonthreatening by finding something to praise.
1.
Interact with the student. Establish a collaborative relationship.
2.
Engage the student in the analysis process. Give every opportunity for the
student to do the talking and make the revision decisions.
3.
Attend to global problems before working on sentence and word level
problems.
4.
Respond to the writing as work in progress or under construction.
5.
Ask the student to sum up the changes they need to make for revision.
6.
End the session with praise and encouragement.
Finally, as with other kinds of feedback, students need to be accountable for
following up the discussion with a task to show that the feedback has been taken
seriously. This need not involve incorporating every suggestion into a revised draft but
can simply be a journal entry or brief letter summarizing what was discussed, how the
feedback was used, or what the student found useful. This can help focus the student,
encourage reflection, and ensure that the teacher's feedback is considered carefully.
The Collaborative Conference
Conferences are complex. You will find that different conferences require
different approaches depending on the student, the instructor, the space or the weather
outside. In their article “A Critique of Pure Tutoring,” Shamoon and Burns (2008) argue
that, while student-centered learning is effective in certain situations, it is not dogma. In
other words, sometimes you may need to be directive, and sometimes it can be best to let
students struggle through a concept on their own. These are ultimately issues of how
50
authority operates in writing conferences. As instructors teachers are constantly
negotiating authority, and that is the basis for collaborative learning.
In his 1973 article “Collaborative Learning: Some Practical Models,” Bruffee
(1984) gives a compelling argument for why writing instructors should adopt
collaborative pedagogies in their classrooms. He claims that academics “do not
ordinarily recognize collaboration as a valid kind of learning,” viewing it instead as
irresponsible. He furthers these arguments in his article “Collaborative Learning and the
Conversation of Mankind,” where he provides a history of collaborative learning.
However, Bruffee's principles are not limited only to classroom pedagogies, but
can be applied to conferencing as well. To Bruffee, the collaborative conference would
move beyond the traditional teacher-student power binary, and possibly beyond the oneto-one conference model altogether, adopting group or online conferencing as a larger
part of instruction. In a collaborative conference, the instructor and student negotiate
shared authority based on individual needs and contexts. Approaching a conference as
collaboration can often have unintended effects. If not cautious, instructors can
reinscribe traditional power relations when negotiating shared authority in a conference.
Finally, as Lunsford (2008) puts it: “creating a collaborative environment and
truly collaborative tasks is terribly difficult” (p. 92). She argues that successful
collaboration which she calls (Burkean Parlor Centers) is attuned to diversity and “goes
deeply against the grain of education in America” (p. 92), citing examples both inside and
outside the classroom. In other words, collaborative learning or (collaborative
conferencing) can be difficult, both practically and institutionally. Nevertheless,
Lunsford cites a number of benefits to collaboration:
51
1. Aids in problem finding and solving.
2. Aids in learning abstractions.
3. Aids in transfer and assimilation and fosters interdisciplinary thinking.
4. Leads to sharper critical thinking and a deeper understanding of others.
5. Promotes excellence and leads to higher achievement in general.
6. Engages the whole student and promotes active learning.
Thus, while Lunsford urges a critical approach to collaborative conferences, she
ultimately praises their potential for student learning.
The One-to-One Conference Formats
The most common conference format, the one-to-one conference can be a
productive teaching moment as well as a serious time demand. Nevertheless, the one-toone conference allows you to address specific concerns in-depth with your students.
One-to-one conferences can benefit a variety of students.
Students who come to see you on their own.
These students may have questions about class or may be seeking additional
feedback. In some cases, students may not know how to pinpoint their question or
problem or may have multiple difficulties. As much as possible, let the students define
the purpose of the conference by listening and asking questions.
Students who you judge to need extra attention.
You may ask a student to come to your office when you notice a particular
difficulty. Some instructors require all students who earn a D or an F on a paper to come
in for a conference to discuss the paper and ways to work for improvement. This is a
good idea, since many students who write poorly are reluctant to be noticed by their
52
instructor, or they may simply not understand the meaning of the comments you write on
their papers. You may also call in any student in whose writing you notice a recurring
problem that could be handled better individually than in class, and you may wish to
encourage particularly talented or hard-working students in a meeting. Some students
may even find it helpful to meet with you regularly throughout the term.
Students whose tardiness or behavior disrupts the class.
It is a good idea to deal with disruptive students in your office where an audience
is lacking and conversation is easier. Telling students you would like to see them in your
office can eliminate the problem.
The Group Conference
Even if you try to keep one-to-one conferences short and focused, they can still
require vast amounts of time, especially if you are teaching multiple sections. Not only
that, but not all of your students will always want or need to meet one-on-one. The group
conference is a productive alternative, allowing students to feel more comfortable in a
group setting and allowing you to easily discern who might need more individual
attention. Memering (1973) argues that group conferencing changes the purpose of the
conference from “post mortems on finished work” to sessions on works-in-progress. He
suggests working for thirty minutes with groups of six or seven students. The informality
of the small group, he claims, makes students less defensive and “less likely to produce
tortured English out of fear of an audience he does not understand” (p. 306).
The Online Conference
Another alternative to the traditional one-to-one conference is the online
conference. Cooper and Selfe (1990) argue that computer conferences are:
53
Powerful, non-traditional learning forums for students not simply
because they allow another opportunity for collaboration and
dialogue, but because they encourage students to resist, disagree
and explore the role that controversy and intellectual divergence
play in learning and thinking (p. 847).
Through certain systems, you have access to asynchronous communication tools
such as discussion forums, list-serves, surveys, and drop-boxes. There are also
synchronous communication tools such as class chat-rooms that can be used to facilitate
online conferencing in individual or group formats. Finally, the use of blogs and wikis is
another way to engage in online conference practices.
Characteristics of the Teacher-Student Conferences
Teacher-student conferences should be:
Focused: It is better to show students how to revise, edit, or proofread their papers
than to do it for them. Instead of going over a whole paper, sentence by sentence, you
can teach more by going over one paragraph and then asking the student to continue
independently the revision process you have illustrated.
Realistic: Students sometimes assume that because you have spent fruitful time
together in conference, a paper will receive a good grade. They should realize that
conferences are useful in discussing one aspect or problem of a paper, but they are not
guarantees of overall success.
Safe: The conference should be a safe space for instructor and student. Lerner
(2005) attributes “the persistence of teacher-student conferencing to the way it fills our
need to forge connections with our students” (p. 186). However, conferences can be
54
unpredictable. If you are concerned about a conference with a particularly emotional
student, try to make sure a colleague is within the hearing range of the conference.
Short: Set a tangible goal with your student at the start of the conference and
work toward it. Peirce (1984) argues that shorter conferences have not only saved him
time, but they have allowed him to listen more closely to his students' concerns. Simmons
(1984) also suggests limiting conferences to one or two concerns. On the whole, students
learn more from many short conferences, each of which makes one point clearly, than
from one long session.
Teacher-student conference should not:
Dominate: Ask students to bring in a list of their concerns. This allows students
to retain control of their writing process while providing you with specific issues to look
at. Keep in mind, however, that students can often become preoccupied with lower-order
concerns (like grammar) to the detriment of larger issues (like organization).
Edit: Do not feel obligated to “mark-up” a student's draft. It is time-consuming
for you and unhelpful for them. Sometimes it can be good to point out recurring issues
and even model solutions for a student. Just remember that the goal is for them to catch
that problem the next time.
Intimidate: Writing can be scary, and many students enter a conference expecting
the worst. It seems obvious, but be welcoming and accommodating. Setting clear goals
with students can help ease their fears of the red-pen using, modifier marking, and
punitive English instructor.
55
Support: Students depend on your critical feedback to learn, and while it is
important to be encouraging, there is no such thing as perfect writing. Make it a point to
discuss the things a student did well in a piece, as well as areas they could improve.
Advantages of Teacher-Student Conferences
Save teachers time and energy which would be spent in marking student papers at
home. Conferences can be done in class time. Although, if you prefer to give written
feedback first, followed by a conference outside of class, this will not save you any time
at all! Conference provides students with authentic opportunities for negotiation and
interaction which normal classroom activities do not provide (contrast the artificiality of,
say, role-plays, with the students‟ genuine need to communicate in the conference).
Research on learning styles (Oxford 1990, 2001; Reid 1998) has shown that
people learn in different ways. Some students are predominantly auditory rather than
visual learners. In other words, these learners learn best by listening rather than by
reading. So these learners might learn best if the teacher gives spoken feedback via a
conference, instead of via written comments on the bottom or sides of the student‟s
writing.
Potential Disadvantages of Teacher-Student Conferences
Students may not feel comfortable with the role teachers expect them to play in
conferences (e.g. questioning the teacher‟s feedback, asking the teacher to clarify what
they mean by their comments) (Silva, 1997). They may not understand the teacher‟s
comments (and may be reluctant to ask the teacher to clarify what they mean). One of
the studies which looked at teacher-student conferences (Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997)
noted that the conferences with weaker students were shorter and more heavily teacher-
56
dominated than conferences with stronger students. So teachers will have to be sensitive
to the needs of students, and adjust their style accordingly. If teachers fail to do this,
perhaps there is a danger that students will not benefit from the conferences as much as
they should.
Limitations of Teacher Student Conference
Students may not understand the teacher‟s comments (and may be reluctant to ask
the teacher to clarify what they mean). Researchers have argued that giving written
feedback has limitations, and that oral conferencing can get round these limitations.
Conrad and Goldstein (1999) agree that some of the problems that students have with
writing (e.g. weak argumentation) are sometimes too complicated to be put right by
written feedback. Conferencing is needed.
Peers’ Conferencing
Peer conferencing can be very helpful for both students. The writer of the text
will get helpful feedback on different levels and the feedback giver will learn to read a
text critically. Depending on the specific genre and aims of the writing task, both
learners will focus on different aspects of a text such as formal aspects, accuracy, content
and organization. Peer conferencing is not easy for learners and must be introduced and
practiced as a specific skill. The first peer-comments may be very satisfactory,
unspecific, or even aggressive. Students, who have received helpful feedback from their
teacher, will easily learn this skill by imitating their teacher's feedback behavior. It also
helps to give students clear feedback rules and to teach an introductory skills-lesson on
giving feedback using one text and inviting the class to suggest improvements.
57
The following peer-conference forms may be helpful in the beginning stages or
after introducing a new genre. Each of these forms focuses on a particular text-type and
guides the learners through the important features of this genre. After a few rounds of
guided feedback, most students will be able to give helpful, constructive feedback
without the help of such forms.
Peers’ Feedback
Peers‟ feedback is a common method used by teachers to help engage their
students in reviewing and editing each other's work. It started as a more interactive
method of teaching to try and interest students and get them involved in their own work.
It can be very effective in the student's own personal growth when it comes to writing
and editing. Peers‟ feedback also referred to as peers‟ response, peers‟ editing and peers‟
review, is another type of feedback recommended frequently by process supporters. It
remains a popular source of feedback in the ESL classroom. Peers‟ feedback means
working with someone of one‟s own age. Usually, someone in the same class to help
improve, revise and edit his or her writing. The beneficial effects of peers‟ review have
been outlined in substantial research.
Cognitively, peers‟ feedback can force students to exercise their thinking and help
them enhance audience awareness. Linguistically, students‟ experience through peers‟
review present valuable opportunities to improve their reading and writing ability as they
discuss such issues as writing contents, organizational patterns, grammatical structures,
and appropriate word choices. Affectively, through peers‟ feedback, students gain
confidence, reduce apprehension by seeing peers‟ strengths and weaknesses in writing,
and therefore generate more positive attitudes toward writing.
58
However, some literature reports that peers‟ response cannot achieve fruitful
results because students are not knowledgeable enough to detect and correct errors or
students tend to withhold critical comments to maintain group harmony. To establish this
feedback type to full use, teachers should establish a positive context for effective peers‟
group response. It is advised that teachers properly set up the group, create a comfortable
environment for students to establish peer trust and distribute a purposeful and
appropriate peers‟ feedback sheets for students to follow (Hansen, 2005).
Meanwhile, teachers can select different modes of peers‟ feedback according to
the specific situations: oral (students read the paper and orally give the suggestions),
written (read the papers and write comments to give back to the writer), written plus oral
(write comments and orally discuss with the writer). All these techniques will help
increase students‟ participation level and lead to effective peers‟ response.
Moreover, formal peers‟ feedback training is of great importance. Training is not
restricted to the introduction of such procedural knowledge as operating steps and
subentry for evaluation. Training can be extended to writing strategies. Students can be
trained to use various useful writing strategies (namely rhetorical strategy, meta-cognitive
strategy, cognitive strategy and social-affective strategy) during the peers‟ review
process. For instance, peers read over the passage and search for the overall structure and
the topic sentences (planning). During sentence by sentence review, peers make use of
rereading strategy to ensure cohesion and coherence.
When encountering redundancy or monotonousness, they adopt new learned
words and varied sentence patterns (rehearsing). Confronted with problems, peers refer
to dictionaries and consult the teacher if necessary (resourcing). After reviewing, peers
59
look over the revised paper and comment on the original version as well as the revised
version (evaluating). Having accomplished the task, peers relax and give themselves
encouragements or rewards. Peers‟ review and peers‟ tutoring would become a popular
way of reaching out to students in alternative methods. Their successes in helping
students help each other make it a widely-used practice today.
Pros and Cons of Peers’ Feedback
The theoretical advantages of peers‟ response are based largely on the fact that
writing and learning are social processes. Collaborative peers‟ review helps learners
engage in a community of equals who respond to each other‟s work and together create
an authentic social context for interaction and learning (e.g., Mittan, 1989). Practically,
students are able to participate actively in learning while getting responses from real,
perhaps multiple, readers in a nonthreatening situation (Medonca & Johnson, 1994).
Moreover, students not only benefit from seeing how readers understand their ideas and
what they need to improve, but also gain the skills necessary to critically analyze and
revise their own writing (Leki, 1990; Zhang, 1995).
On the negative side, the fact that learners are rhetorically inexperienced means
that they may focus heavily on sentence level problem rather than ideas and organization.
Moreover, peers are not trained teachers and their comments may be unclear and
unhelpful, or even overly critical and sarcastic (Leki, 1990). There is also some concern
that students from collectivist cultures may be more concerned about the need to
emphasize a positive group climate than critically appraise peers' writing, making
feedback less beneficial (Carson and Nelson, 1996). This is clear in the disappointment
expressed by one of Hyland's (2000) respondents.
60
Potential Pros and Cons of Peers’ Feedback
Advantages
Disadvantages
Active learner participation.
Tendency to focus on surface forms.
Authentic communicative context.
Potential for overly critical comments.
Nonjudgmental environment.
Cultural reluctance to criticize and judge.
Alternative and authentic audience.
Students unconvinced of comments value.
Writers gain understanding of reader needs.
Weakness of reader's knowledge.
Reduced apprehension about writing.
Students may not use feedback in revisions.
Development of critical reading skills.
Students may prefer teacher feedback.
Reduces teacher's workload.
Research on the effectiveness of peers‟ response in ESL contexts has found that
writers do make some use of peers' comments in their revisions, although ESL
proficiency, prior experience, and group dynamics are likely to influence the extent of
this (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). Active collaboration and openness to suggestions are
important factors in adopting comments for revision but, like ESL students' revision
practices from any source of feedback; most revisions tend to be surface changes
(Connor & Asenavage, 1994). In discussions, students vary in their ability to maintain a
task focus. Most talk is reported to be about peers' drafts (Villamil & de Guerrero,
1996), but authoritative reviewers, operating in an evaluative and prescriptive mode, may
tend to dominate the interactions (Lockhart & Ng, 1995). Students themselves are rather
ambivalent about the quality of their peers' suggestions and many both mistrust them and
fear ridicule due to their poor proficiency, generally preferring feedback from teachers
(Zhang, 1995).
61
Direct or Explicit Feedback
Direct or explicit feedback occurs when the teacher identifies an error and
provides the correct form, while indirect feedback refers to situations when the teacher
indicates that an error has been made but does not provide a correction. As to indirect
strategy, Hyland (1990) suggests “minimal marking” by using correction codes, that is,
the teacher points to the exact location of an error, and the type of error involved. This
leaves a space for active correction by the student rather than reading the discouraging
correction of the teacher written in red. The other indirect strategy is encoded feedback,
which means the teacher underlines an error, circles an error, or places an error tally in
the margin, which also leaves the student to diagnose and correct the error.
According to Ferris (1999), during commenting on students‟ writings, teachers
may directly correct the major word order or word-choice problems that students cannot
find (“untreatable errors”) and underline the grammar, spelling, or mechanical mistakes
(“treatable errors”) which encourages students‟ self-correction. Apart from error
feedback strategies, teacher commentary is also worth noting. It is encouraged that
teachers vary their feedback with marginal and end commentary.
In writing commentary, teachers need to employ varied techniques such as paired
act patterns (to combine the critical remarks with praise and suggestions), hedges, and
question forms or interrogative syntax (two mitigation strategies to tone down criticisms
and reflect a positive, sympathetic relationship with student-writers) (Hyland, 2001).
They should also have in mind a stock of tried and tested phrases to choose from and
alter the phrases to fit specific students and their needs and personalities. Interesting face
62
signs may also be employed by teachers to make their comments more vivid and easy of
approach.
Indirect Feedback
Indirect feedback is a strategy of providing feedback commonly used by teachers
to help students correct their errors by indicating an error without providing the correct
form (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Indirect feedback takes place when teachers only provide
indications which in some way make students aware that an error exists but they do not
provide the students with the correction. In doing so, teachers can provide general clues
regarding the location and nature or type of an error by providing an underline, a circle, a
code, a mark, or a highlight on the error, and ask the students to correct the error
themselves (Lee, 2008; O‟Sullivan & Chambers, 2006).
Through indirect feedback, students are cognitively challenged to reflect upon the
clues given by the teacher, who acts as a „reflective agent‟ (Pollard, 1990) providing
meaningful and appropriate guidance to students‟ cognitive structuring skills arising from
students‟ prior experience. Students can then relate these clues to the context where an
error exists, determine the area of the error, and correct the error based on their informed
knowledge. Definitely, facilitating students with indirect feedback to discover the correct
form can be very instructive to students (Lalande, 1982). It increases students‟
engagement and attention to forms and allow them to problem-solve which many
researchers agree to be beneficial for long term learning improvement (Ferris, 2003a;
Lalande, 1982).
Research on second language acquisition shows that indirect feedback is viewed
as more preferable to direct feedback (Chandler, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Sheen et
63
al., 2009) because it engages students in the correction activity and helps them reflect to
upon it (Ferris & Roberts, 2001) which may help students foster their long-term
acquisition of the target language (O‟Sullivan & Chambers, 2006) and make them
engaged in “guided learning and problem-solving” (Lalande, 1982) in correcting their
errors. In addition, many experts agree that indirect feedback has the most potential for
helping students in developing their second language proficiency and metalinguistic
knowledge (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005) and has more benefits than direct feedback on
students‟ long-term development (Ferris, 2003b), especially for more advanced students
(O‟Sullivan & Chambers, 2006). When asked about their preference for corrective
feedback, students also admitted that they realize that they may learn more from indirect
feedback (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Leki, 1991).
Focused and Unfocused Feedback
Ideally, teacher feedback should address all aspects of student texts such as
content, ideas, organization, rhetorical structure, grammar, and mechanics. Ferris
(2003c) notes that teachers‟ priorities for student writing as well as feedback provision
have changed over time from focusing mostly on sentence-level correction as reported in
the 1980s (Cumming, 1985; Kassen, 1988; Sommers, 1982; Zamel, 1985) to more
aspects of student writing including ideas, organization, grammar, and mechanics in the
1990s (Ferris, 1995, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz,
1994; Kepner, 1991). As teachers provide feedback on many aspects of student writing,
there is a tendency for student writers to value feedback and pay attention to teacher
feedback on all aspects of their writing (Ferris, 2003b; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994).
64
It is also suggested that teachers should provide feedback for students on a variety
of writing problems and focus on specific issues depending on the need of individual
students (Ferris, 2003b). However, providing comprehensive or unfocused feedback on
all errors on students‟ writing can be time-consuming and exhaustive for both teachers
and students because it corrects all of the errors in students‟ work and can be considered
extensive (Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008).
Bitchener and Knoch (2009) point out that unfocused corrective feedback may
have been one of the causes that earlier studies on corrective feedback failed to produce a
conclusive answer to the effectiveness of feedback which may have triggered the debate
on corrective feedback between Truscott and Ferris, Chandler, and Guénette (2007).
Further, Bitchener and Knoch (2009) explain that unfocused feedback in previous studies
covered up to fifteen different linguistic categories and “it was likely to produce too
much of cognitive overload for learners to attend to” (p. 322). Therefore, it needs to be
more text-specific and focused (Ferris, 1997). Focused corrective feedback usually
chooses for certain specific errors to be corrected while ignoring other errors (Ellis,
Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008).
Highly focused corrective feedback (Ellis et al., 2008) usually focuses on a single
error type or category (Bitchener & Knoch, 2009) or a single linguistic feature (Sheen,
Wright, & Moldawa, 2009) such as errors in the use of prepositions; while less focused
corrective feedback may concentrate on more than one type of error but correction is still
restricted to a limited number of error categories (Ellis et al., 2008).
Ellis et al. (2008) also state that the theoretical ground for the efficacy of focused
corrective feedback to be higher than unfocused corrective feedback is more likely to
65
direct students‟ attention to a single error or a limited number of error types. They also
emphasized that the students are “more likely to develop a clearer understanding of the
nature of the error and the correction needed” (Ellis et al., 2008, p. 97).
Only several studies on focused and unfocused corrective feedback have been
conducted in recent years (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Ellis et al., 2008;
Sheen, 2007; Sheen et al., 2009). All of these studies show positive evidence of the
effectiveness of focused corrective feedback over unfocused corrective feedback or no
feedback.
Self-Monitoring
Apart from teacher feedback and peers‟ response, self-monitoring technique is
also a potentially rewarding option in the ESL writing class. According to Cresswell
(2000), self-monitoring means that the students write marginal annotations about
problems in their evolving compositions, to which the teacher responds. Students are
asked to annotate their text with any doubts they have during writing process. Selfmonitoring encourages students to look critically and analytically at their writings and
helps enhance their learning autonomy. It meanwhile enables the teacher to give tailormade feedback to individual students and offers a match between the feedback that
students want or expect and the feedback that is actually given.
What remains a problem, however, is that this feedback seems inapplicable to all
the students. Some self-monitoring learners cannot adequately describe their concerns or
cannot locate the problems in their writing. The questions they ask are general, not
specific and some are written down too casually. Many students still prefer to rely on the
teacher rather than exercise their individual judgments.
66
Therefore, self-monitoring training is significant to make this technique to better
use. According to Wang (2004), via group discussion and annotating trial, students are
instructed to use self-monitoring in their writings. After the introduction of selfmonitoring knowledge, they are trained to attend both local and global features and make
comprehensive annotations, ranging from content, organization, to grammar, vocabulary
and spelling. It is found that self-monitoring is an effective way for students to improve
the structure of their composition and is especially helpful to higher-proficiency learners.
In addition, the effectiveness of self-monitoring technique partly depends on the feedback
that the teacher provides.
Corrective Feedback
The issue of whether corrective feedback is effective for improving writing skills
has been controversial and inconclusive up till date. Ferris (2004), as cited in Guenette,
(2007), concluded that it is not easy to determine that error correction works. ESL
instructors, for the past twenty years, according to Guenette (2007), are faced with the
dilemma of whether to correct, or not to correct the grammar of their students‟ essays due
to the contradictions that have been brought up about the effect of error correction.
Feedback is surely important but the focus now is on which type of corrective feedback
would be effective to enhance students‟ written performance. As educators, ESL teachers
only want the best for their students and therefore, constantly investigate their
pedagogical procedures, whether conventional or contemporary, to identify the most
suitable strategy or strategies that can be adopted with the hope of improving their
students‟ written performance.
67
Teacher Feedback, Corrective Feedback, and Error Correction
An area of concern in the research on teacher feedback in second or foreign
language is error correction or corrective feedback and its effects on student writing
accuracy. In this context, the errors are grammatical errors committed by ESL students
on their written texts. Corrective feedback is a type of feedback with the purpose to
correct any errors committed by students. Corrective feedback which informs students of
the correct response assists error correction (Dempsey, Driscoll, & Swindell, 1993).
Corrective feedback may take different forms of teacher response to students‟ texts that
contain errors. Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) categorize responses from teachers to
students‟ error into three forms or strategies: (a) teacher feedback that indicates that an
error has been committed, (b) teacher feedback that provides the correct form of the
target language, and (c) teacher feedback that provides a type of metalinguistic
information about the nature of the error.
Feedback can be divided into different treatment groups such as content
comments only, error correction or combination of contents and error correction, and
error identification but no correction. Truscott (1996) reported that studies conducted by
Kepner (1991), Semke (1984), and Sheppard (1992) found significant differences across
any of these treatment groups but when the evidence from studies that have considered
other feedback distinctions is examined, there is no doubt that giving any kind of
conclusion at this point should be given careful treatment.
However, teachers need to pay attention to several principles of corrective
feedback that are largely acknowledged in recent literature as pointed out by Lee (2008).
First, in terms of long-term writing development, indirect feedback is regarded as more
68
beneficial to student writers than direct feedback (Ferris, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001;
Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982). Second, when codes are used in indirect feedback,
teachers are recommended to use consistent coded feedback that is supported by
systematic grammar instruction as codes in feedback provision can be confusing for both
teachers and students (Ferris, 2002; Robb, Ross, & Short, 1986). Third, corrective
feedback should be specific on limited significant structures (Montello, 1997) and
focusing on selective errors is generally more productive than correcting all errors
because comprehensive error correction can be exhausting and overwhelming for both
teachers and students (Lee, 2008).
Ferris (1999) believes that error correction can help students to improve their
writing but the method used must be selective, prioritized and clear. This is supported by
studies conducted by Ashwell (2000), Fathman and Whalley (1990), and Ferris and
Roberts (2001) that showed how corrective feedback had positive results. The positive
results upon examination of three different feedback treatments which include errors
marked with codes, errors underlined but not marked and no error feedback, proved a
significant difference between both error feedback groups as they outperformed the no
feedback group (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). This proves that feedback indeed is beneficial
for students to improve in their written performance.
Prior to that, Nassaji and Swain (2000) had found that corrective feedback given
within the zone of proximal development (the distance between the actual developmental
level as determined by the independent problem solving and the level of potential
development as determined through problem solving under adult supervision or in
collaboration with more capable peers) was more effective when they conducted a study
69
to two Korean ESL writers. Another study done by Bitchner, Young, and Cameron
(2005) on the effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing
revealed a significant effect for the combination of written and conference feedback on
accuracy level in the use of the past simple tense and the definite article but no overall
effect on accuracy improvement for feedback types.
Students have to attend to the provided feedback and apply it to correct their
errors. However, any type of corrective feedback will fail if the students are not
committed, or are not motivated, to improve their writing skills (Guenette, 2007). In
addition to the principles regarding corrective feedback presented above, there are several
contextual variables that need to be considered when providing corrective feedback on
student writing. Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, and Wolfersberger (2010) lay out three
contextual variables such as learner variables, situational variables, and methodological
variables. Learner variables are everything brought by the students to the learning
experience and may affect student learning. These variables may include students‟ first
language, culture and nationality, learning style, values and beliefs, socioeconomic
background, motivation and future goals, and other additional factors. Learner variables
are usually very influential on the learning context (Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, &
Wolfersberger 2010). In this context, Guenette (2007) emphasizes the importance of
learner variables, such as motivation, in relation to the effectiveness of corrective
feedback and students‟ success in improving their writing. The researcher asserts that
students need to be provided with appropriate feedback which is given at the right time
and at the right context.
70
Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions about Corrective Feedback
Even though, there are many views about corrective feedback, there is a need to
investigate the perceptions of students and teachers regarding this matter. ESL learners
who learn a foreign language look forward to different types of feedback. Most of these
students prefer to focus on accurate forms and thus, expect their grammar to be corrected
at sentence level. Students‟ preference is also related to motivation, initiative and
whether they consider the type of error correction as a chance to improve. According to
Liang (2008), students preferred the use of underlining and description of errors (coded
feedback) because they wanted to know what kind of errors they had made. In this way,
they could reduce their errors in the future.
Opposing Views of Corrective Feedback
There have been some researchers who have found the use of online feedback
fruitful; there are others who beg to differ. Truscott (2007) opposed the idea of the value
of correction in writing classrooms, arguing that it is ineffective and in fact produces
negative results. Students feel pressured when they are notified of the errors and this, in
some way hinders them from writing or finding writing an interesting learning activity.
Rami (2012) supported this view stating that students do not think highly of feedback and
that the feedback they desire is significantly different from what they received. This is
linked with cultural factors and perceptions towards corrective feedback.
Teachers Have Their Preferences Too
Some teachers prefer to be heavy correctors, correcting each and every error
which they can identify. This is referred to unfocused feedback where a teacher corrects
all (at least a range of the errors in learners‟ written work) (Ellis et al., 2008). ESL
71
instructors may feel contented that they have thoroughly marked their students‟ essays
but the question here is whether being overly corrective is effective in enhancing
students‟ written performance towards accuracy. Focused corrective feedback, on the
other hand, which targets one linguistic feature at a time is favored by some ESL teachers
who believe in the cognitive theories of ESL acquisition which explain that, when
students are able to pay attention to single or limited number of errors, they understand
better and therefore, are more likely to reduce making the same errors in the future.
However, it is important for ESL teachers to find out students‟ preferences as well before
conducting writing lessons so that their students write effectively. The reviews thus
indicate that while there are controversial views on the effectiveness of corrective
feedback, online corrective feedback seem to have positive impact. Thus, it would be
interesting to see if tertiary ESL learners are able to improve their writing skills through
online corrective feedback via e-mail.
In conclusion, feedback is an essential integral in process writing. In the ESL
writing class, teachers should adopt various feedback strategies according to the type of
writing assignment, the concrete teaching environment, and students‟ writing proficiency.
Teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback are both possible rewarding
options for teachers to adopt in their classes. With their characteristic properties, they are
not mutually exclusive but rather complementary.
The proper employing of varied feedback modes will contribute to the productive
use of feedback in the writing class and facilitate students‟ writing improvement in a
foreign language. In the next chapter the researcher presents the methodology he used to
gather the information needed to develop his research on the use of teacher-written
72
feedback, and computer-mediated feedback to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school
students essay writing.
73
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter summarizes the methodology used in this research. It explored the
use of feedback as a methodology in teaching essay writing to Puerto Rican high school
ESL students. The data collected in this research are mixed. In a mixed methods design
format, the research brings together approaches that include both the quantitative and
qualitative formats (Creswell, 1999). In such a way the information complements each
other. The advantage of a mixed methods approach is that it balances efficient data
collection and analysis with data that provide contextual information and facilitate
understanding and interpretation of them.
This chapter covers the research design, population, instruments description,
validity and reliability, procedures, data collection and analysis of data. In chapter one, it
was stated that the purposes of the study uncovers the use of teacher-written feedback and
computer-mediated feedback, to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students‟ essay
writing.
Research Design
This study dealt with assessment of how feedback can be beneficial to ESL
students in writing. The respondents‟ attitudes, opinions, and behaviors on the use of
feedback were taken into consideration in analyzing the data. A type of qualitative
research, a case study was used in this work as it provided an insight of the phenomenon
where it included quantitative evidence (Yin, 2002).
74
According to Yin (2002), a case study should be defined as a research strategy, an
empirical inquiry that investigates a phenomenon within its real-life context. Yin (2002)
also points-out that case studies can be based on any mix of quantitative and qualitative
evidence. This research hopefully provides a better view of how feedback can be
beneficial in ESL students‟ essay writing. In this study, the researcher explored the
difficulties students face in essay writing and how teacher-written feedback and computer
mediated feedback enhanced this process.
Mixed Method
This was a multistring design in which both qualitative and quantitative data were
collected and analyzed to answer the research questions (either qualitative or
quantitative). The final implications were based on both data collected and data analysis
results. This format showed that the researcher poses both a purpose statement and
research questions for quantitative and qualitative components. It is important to specify
a rational for the mixed method approach in the study. The researcher also identified key
elements of this design, such as the type of mixed methods study, and the procedures of
both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.
Population
The participants of this study were chosen from a public high school in the central
North-East Region of Puerto Rico. This school was selected due to ease of access and to
individuals who demonstrated the phenomenon in question intensively, which enabled
them to contribute with rich data to the study (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 71). The
reason for selecting twelfth grade students is that the English Program Curriculum
Framework of the Department of Education (DE) of Puerto Rico 2003 introduced essay
75
writing in the tenth grade groups, and the Puerto Rican Tests of Academic Achievement
(2008-2012) still showing that the quality of these essays are less than expected by the
DE. Since, tenth and eleventh grade students have been exposed to essay writing for at
least two years, twelfth grade students are more experienced than either of them.
On the other hand, twelfth grade students provided richer data permitting an
exhaustive analysis pertinent to the writing process of ESL high school students. The
researcher chose six students from the twelfth grade population. This was possible
because according to Yin (2002), a case study does not need a large sample. The focus of
this research was the problems faced by Puerto Rican high school students in ESL essay
writing.
Sample
The sample chosen for this ESL investigation consisted of 6 participants from a
public high school in the central North-East Region of Puerto Rico. They were informed
about the conditions of the study and what their participation would consist of. Only six
students, males and females selected in a draw were appraised as part of this study;
nevertheless, both the students who participated in the study and those that did not, were
treated in the same way during the classes and carried out all of the class activities and
tasks.
To keep the confidentiality and the desire of the participants to collaborate in the
study, no one, except the support teacher and the researcher, knew the names of the six
participants that were evaluated. This group represents 4% of the twelfth grade
population and the six participants a 25% of their group.
76
Description of the Instruments
The researcher designed three instruments (see appendixes E, F, G). The first one
was a questionnaire on teacher-written feedback. The second instrument was another
questionnaire on computer-mediated feedback, and the third was an essay writing task
(hand and computer). The first and second instruments are based on strategies or
methodologies to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students essay writing. The
instruments were carefully constructed in order to gather data to answer the three
research questions. Rubrics to evaluate the essay writing task were based on grammar
errors correction and essay writing correction. A copy of this rubric can be found in
appendices H, I, J. The two questionnaires were formulated with the Likert Scale (see
appendixes F, G).
The questionnaires and the written task provided anonymity and ensured that no
items were considered offensive or insensitive to individuals. Respondents were required
to respond to the given questions or statements utilizing a five-point Likert scale of the
teacher-written feedback with the options: (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Unsure, (4)
Disagree and (5) Strongly Disagree.
This type of scale provides a common basis for responses to items concerned with
different aspects of the feedback variety. Respondents were asked to check-mark the box
with the number that represented their opinion on each item. In addition, a second
questionnaire about the use computer-mediated feedback with the options: (1) Never, (2)
Rarely, (3) Sometimes and (4) Always which provide data about the participants
preferences about the use of feedback in ESL essay writing.
77
The first written task which was a hand written essay was corrected by using
teacher‟s written comments for the students to re-write and turn back in with the
corrections given. A third written task was developed using the computer which was
corrected using Microsoft Word‟s comments and changes delivered electronically via email. The proofreading marks and a valuation scale which had four descriptor groups
and six traits were also used (see appendixes H and J).
Teacher-Written Feedback.
This instrument is a questionnaire about the use of teacher written feedback in
essay writing (see appendix F). Alternatives provided information regarding the
students‟ essay writing skills using feedback. Each statement of the instrument was
formulated using the Likert Scale that was composed of the following five options: 1Strongly agree, 2-agree, 3-Unsure, 4-Disagree, and 5-Strongly disagree.
Computer-Mediated Feedback.
This instrument is also a questionnaire about computer-mediated feedback on
students‟ writing task (see appendix G). Each statement was also formulated with the
Likert Scale. The respondents completed their questionnaire using the following
alternatives: 1-Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Sometimes, and 4-Always.
Essay Writing.
In this task, the respondents chose one of the topics of a list of fifteen, (five
descriptive, five on cause and effect, and five on argument and persuasion). Then they
were required to write a three paragraph essay (introduction, development, conclusion) of
about (350-400 words) on the topics selected (see appendix E). The reasons for a 350400 words essay were that it is simply not wise to try to cover too much information in a
78
short essay; it also minimized stress on the students writing process. Students can avoid
the discomfort often associated with essay writing by understanding some common
genres within essay writing Scott (2011). Essays were evaluated through their: unity,
support, coherence, and sentence skills (grammar, word order, punctuation and spelling)
(see appendixes H, I, and J).
Validity and Reliability
To guarantee validity and reliability of the instruments, the researcher prepared
three instruments (two questionnaires and a 350-400 words hand written essay) (see
appendixes F, G, H,). The fourth instrument, (appendix I) was used to evaluate computer
written essay and conducted a pilot study with twelfth grade students in a public high
school in the central North-East Region of Puerto Rico. Before administering these
instruments, they were evaluated and certified by two experts on ESL essay writing.
These instruments were based on the use of feedback to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high
school students on essay writing. The group of participants (six) were composed of
males and females selected by a draw. After the process the researcher collected both,
the teacher and the students‟ reactions in order to revise the content of the instruments.
Confidence Agreement
In agreement with the norms established by the board for the protection of human
beings in research (IRB) and responsible conduct in research (RCR) of the Ana G.
Méndez University system (SUAGM) in order to comply with the federal regulations set,
this researcher took a training about confidentiality and sensitive information regarding
research study. A copy of the certificate was included (see appendix P). He also
included all the documents requesting authorization for the development of this study
79
(see appendixes A, B, C, D). The procedure established by the Department of Education
(DE) of Puerto Rico concerning the involvement of students in a research requires
permission of the: Region Superintendent (see appendix A), school director (see appendix
B), English teacher (see appendix C), parents, and students (see appendix D) in order to
develop it.
The researcher received authorization from the IRB and he began his study, he
contacted the teacher who acted as connection between students, parents, tutors, and this
researcher. He delivered letters (see appendix D) informing the purpose and nature of the
study to the prospective participants and their parents. Parents of students interested in
participating could contact the researcher in person, by phone, or e-mail. For further
information concerning the nature of the study the researcher held a meeting with the
director, social worker, English teacher and the students who accepted to participate
voluntarily in the study, he also sent the consent and agreement forms for them and their
parents to sign and turn back in. A copy of each agreement forms of participants who
accepted to be part of the study was delivered to their parents (see appendix D).
Procedure
This subdivision presents detailed information according to the methodology
implemented by the researcher to administer each instrument. The six twelfth grade
participants were informed about the purpose of the instruments and the importance for
them to know how the use of feedback can improve their essay writing skills. Before
they began to answer the instruments, they had five minutes to overlook them and asked
questions about the statements they did not understand. The researcher clarified the
doubts regarding the instruments and the questions asked.
80
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were analyzed through the Software Package for Statistical Sciences (SPSS)
also known as (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) and interpreted using the central
tendency statistics which included the mean, mode, and median. The analysis presented
and the results collected from the instruments, were based on features previously
presented in the review of the literature, such as the different types of feedback.
Students‟ essays served as a basis to better understand students‟ perspectives in writing.
The mixed items in the questionnaires and the essay writing exercise were tallied
summed, and the results placed in frequency tables, so that information could be
described in better detail (see appendixes K, L, M, N).
The questionnaires, which provided important, background information about the
students‟ use of teacher-student written feedback and computer-mediated feedback, were
analyzed for converging information (see appendixes F, G). The analyzed data shed light
on teachers‟ feedback practices and students‟ view of feedback on essay writing.
Risks or Discomforts
The study does not have any detail that could invade the privacy of the
participants or their relatives. There were no videos, interviews, health conditions,
medical records, or economic expenses as a result of the research. That is the reason why
the researcher does not know about any risk or discomfort caused to the students that
participated in this research.
Benefits
Implementing teacher-written and computer-mediated feedback in essay writing
can be interpreted in light of the changing goals of language education and the changing
81
conditions in a globalized society. ESL educators now seek not only to teach students the
rules of grammar, but rather to help them gain apprenticeship into new discourse
communities. This was accomplished through creating opportunities for authentic and
meaningful interaction both within and outside the classroom, and providing students the
tools for their own social, cultural, and linguistic exploration. Feedback in essay writing
stimulates conversation. It also promotes deeper level of interaction between teacher and
students, as the topics discussed are less restricted compared to the ones in a classroom.
Overview
In the next chapter, the researcher will present an analysis of the data collected
from the instruments answered by the participants. He will use tables to illustrate
detailed information about students‟ preference and experiences, using teacher-written
feedback and computer-mediated feedback in their essay writing.
82
CHAPTER IV
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings and the statistical analysis used to interpret the
data gathered from the two questionnaires and the written task. The data were very
useful to gain information on the respondents' responses towards the use of teacherwritten feedback and computer- mediated feedback. The data were also used to know
what types of feedback given to the respondents they preferred. On the other hand, this
chapter presents the result of the study according to the following research questions:
1. What are students‟ reactions towards teacher‟s written feedback?
2. What are students‟ reactions towards computer-mediated feedback sessions?
3. How do teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback enhance
students‟ essay writing?
Measures
The tables and the Figures that are going to be presented from the two
questionnaires and essay writing task, will measure the importance of how students
progress in essay writing using teacher-written feedback, and computer-mediated
feedback. The first questionnaire will measure how students feel with the teacher-written
feedback when learning how to write essays in an ESL classroom environment.
The second questionnaire presented will measure how computer-mediated
feedback develops different essay writing leaning styles. These questionnaires also serve
as a guide for teachers in the classroom. Teachers may then change the way the lessons
are given in a classroom, developing a more active, creative, and a more productive
83
environment. Thus, students become more self-confident, creative, and communicative;
developing their self-esteem.
The written task will measure how students progress while they develop their
writing accuracy and writing quality. The first and second drafts will be performed hand
written in the classroom and will be corrected using written comments and proofreading
marks if needed. The computer-mediated written task will be provided using Microsoft
Word‟s comments and changes features and will be delivered electronically via e-mail
and corrected using proofreading marks and the valuation scale.
There will be two different feedback strategies employed in this study, known as
direct feedback (classroom written task) and indirect feedback (computer-mediated via email) followed by direct feedback with explicit corrective comments. These different
feedback strategies will be provided by the English teacher to the participants in two
episodes (pre-test and post-test) the students will revise their essays through a multipledraft writing technique (see appendixes H and J).
Data Analysis
The following analysis reflects the gathering and interpretation of the findings
revealed by means of the administration of the research instruments.
Table 1: Use of Teachers-Written Feedback (Pre-Test)
(1) Strongly agree, (2) Agree, (3) Unsure, (4) Disagree, (5) Strongly disagree.
1
SCALE
1.
2.
3.
I find my teacher‟s essay feedback system very
helpful and motivating that is the reason why I have
no fear of my writing being evaluated.
I think it is important for teachers to correct
students' written errors.
Different teachers have given me feedback in
different ways by using different methods.
84
5
2
3
4
2
1
5
1
4
5
4.
I read the feedback from my previous writing and
use this feedback in my next writing.
5. Teacher's correction helps me learn and improve
my English.
6. All the marking codes and symbols used to identify
errors have been explained before the teacher gives
feedback.
7. I believe that application of symbols such as: (VT:
Verb Tense, Sp: Spelling, Pro: Pronoun) and so on
is quite useful.
8. It is more helpful to give clear, direct instructions
about my writing errors than suggesting a
correction.
9. I always pay close attention to my teacher's written
feedback on my writing.
10. I think it is better to write the feedback in the
margins than at the end.
11. I prefer my classmates to give me feedback on my
essays and not the teacher.
12. I prefer my teacher to give me oral rather than
written feedback on my essays.
13. I like it when the teacher corrects only the most
serious errors I make in my essays.
14. I prefer my teacher not to correct my errors but just
to indicate them and ask me to correct them myself.
15. I like it when the teacher uses codes or symbols to
help me with the nature of my errors.
16. It would be better if the teacher made some verbal
comments instead of using codes or symbols to
identify my errors.
17. It would be better if the teacher did not correct or
indicate any of my errors and just made some
general comments.
18. The score I get is more important than my teacher‟s
corrections and comments on my composition.
19. I don‟t like it when my teacher comments only on
what I did wrong and does not mention what I did
well.
20. I always understand my teacher‟s feedback on my
writing.
Total
4
4
1
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
6
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
4
1
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
2
1
4
1
1
20
57
26
12
5
Percent
16.7
47.5
21.6
10.0
4.2
Mean
1.82
3.00
2.00
1.33
1.25
Mode
1
3
2
1
1
Median
1
3
2
1
1
85
Table 1 demonstrates that students prefer the use of teachers‟-written feedback in
order to create a learning experience in essay writing. This is evidenced by the
participants responses which were 16.1% strongly agree; 47.5% answered agree; 21.6%
answered unsure; 10.0% answered disagree; and 4.1% answered strongly disagree. This
table also reflects the results of the mean, the mode, and the median. Strongly agree had
a mean of 1.82; the mode was 1; and the median 1. For agree the mean was 3; the mode
3; and the median 3. For unsure had a mean of 2; the mode 2; and the median was 2. For
disagree the mean was 1.33; the mode 1; and the median was1. Finally, strongly disagree
showed a mean of 1.25; the mode was 1; and the median 1. This result demonstrated that
twelfth grade students need more experience in the use of teacher written feedback to
develop their essay writing skills. This table presents the answers of the first
questionnaire about the use of teacher-written feedback to enhance ESL high school
students essay writing.
Figure 1: The use of Teacher’s Written Feedback
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
16.70%
47.50%
21.60%
10.00%
4.20%
1-Strongly Agree
2-Agree
3-Unsure
4-Disagree
5-Strongly
Disagree
Figure 1 regarding the use of teacher written feedback demonstrates the answers
in percent from the tallied section of the first instrument (pre-test questionnaire). The
figure presents the total of each alternative: (1) Strongly Agree, (2) Agree, (3) Unsure, (4)
86
Disagree, and (5) Strongly Disagree measured in percent according to each student
answer. Students were asked to answer this section according to their individual
preference using teacher-written feedback.
Each bar represents students‟ preference receiving teacher-written feedback in
their essay writing. According to the figure, 16.6% of the participants answered strongly
agree 47.5% answered agree, 21.6% answered unsure, 10.0% answered disagree and
4.1% answered strongly disagree. This figure represents the answer in a bars scale of the
first questionnaire.
This meant that almost 50% of the students received feedback from their teachers.
Table 2: Use of Computer-Mediated Feedback (Pre-Test)
1-Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Sometimes, 4-Always
1
SCORE
1.
The computer-mediated feedback helps me to write my
papers better.
2. I spend more time working on my papers when I get
computer-mediated feedback than when I write with a pen
or pencil.
3. I can think of more ideas for my writing when I use the
computer.
4. When I use word processing on the computer, I pay more
attention to what I am writing about.
5. Getting feedback with the computer has helped me to
become better at writing in English.
6. I feel I have learned more about writing in English from
this class than I have from other English classes I have
taken in which the computer-mediated feedback was not
used.
7. I pay more attention to choosing the right word when I use
the computer as mediated feedback.
8. I would recommend that other students learn to use the
computer for writing their papers in English.
9. I would like to take another writing course if I could get
computer mediated feedback.
10. I get better scores on papers I have written receiving
computer-mediated feedback from my teacher.
11. I can change my papers more easily and more often when I
use word processing on the computer than when I handwriting.
12. I plan to continue getting computer-mediated feedback to
write my papers after this class is finished.
87
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
2
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
5
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
4
1
4
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
1
13. I feel that I learn to write better when I get computermediated feedback from the English teacher.
14. I feel relaxed and comfortable when I giving feedback on
the computer.
15. I feel I get more individual attention from the teacher in the
computer writing class than I do in other, non-computermediated writing classes.
16. I do not like to give computer-mediated feedback in my
writing class because I cannot talk to my partner in person
while I am giving feedback.
17. When I write using the computer, I pay more attention to
grammar and errors correction.
18. I think using the computer-mediated feedback in writing
classes is very useful and interesting.
19. I can write better essays when I use the computer.
2
2
1
5
2
2
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
1
4
1
9
28
47
36
Percent
7.5
23.3
39.1
30.0
Mean
0.6
1.85
0.43
2.25
Mode
1
1
2
2
Median
1
2
2
2
1
20. I have positive attitudes toward using the computer for
writing and communication in the language classroom.
Total
2
1
Table 2 shows that more than 50% of the participants were getting updated in the
use of computers to develop their essay writing. This is evidenced by the participants‟
responses which were 30.0% always; 30.1% answered sometimes; 23.3% answered
rarely; and 7.5% answered never. The results of the mean, the mode, and the median
reflect that Always had a mean of 2.25; the mode was 6; and the median 2. Sometimes
had a mean of 0.43; the mode was 2; and the median was 2. Rarely had a mean of 1.85; a
mode of 1. Never had a mean of 0.6; the mode was 1; and the median was also 1. These
results indicated that essay writing skill using the computer had more acceptance by the
high school students in the Puerto Rican ESL classrooms researched.
88
Figure 2: The use of Computer-Mediated Feedback
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
1-Never
2-Rarely
3-Sometimes
4-Always
Figure 2 on computer-mediated feedback presents students‟ answers of the second
questionnaire given as pre-test. According to each alternative: (1) Never, (2) Rarely, (3)
Sometimes, and (4) Always in percent agreeing to each student‟s answer. Similar to the
first questionnaire, participants were asked to check-mark each statement according to
their individual preference in the use of computer-mediated feedback to improve their
essay writing skills. Each scale represents students‟ answer about their experience using
technology in different environments while learning how to write correctly. The figure
shows that 30.0% of the participants answered always, 39.1% sometimes, 23.3% rarely,
and 7.5% answered never. These results show that more than 50% of the twelfth grade
students prefer the use of computers to develop their essay writing.
Table 3: Results of the Essay Writing Correction (Pre-Test)
Highest
Traits
4
Lowest
3
Organization
2
1
4
2
Goal or Thesis
2
3
1
Reasons and Support
2
3
1
Attention to Audience
6
Word Choice
3
Visuals/Delivery
6
89
3
Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling
2
4
Total
0
6
29
7
Percent
0%
14.20%
69.00%
16.60%
Table 3 presents the first written task. It measured students‟ performance and
development in their writing accuracy and quality. The researcher found that most
students presented problems with the organization, the thesis statement, and the reasons
and support of the essay. They also presented errors in grammar, punctuation, and
spelling. Teacher needs to work with the students‟ basic skills in essay writing such as
transition words, how to state a thesis statement, and the way in which an essay structure
is developed. The highest scale to evaluate this written task was 4 in which the
participants‟ development was 0%. Scale 3 was 14.20%, scale 2 was 69.00 %, and scale
1 which is the lowest was 16.60%. This means that students needed a lot of teacherwritten feedback in order to gain an acceptable improvement in their essay writing.
Figure 3: Results of the Essay Writing Correction (Pre-Test)
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
Traits
4
3
2
1
See (Appendix H)
Figure 3 presents the results of the first written task (pre-test) after being
corrected by the English teacher and tabulated by the researcher for his study report. A
90
scale from 4 through 1 was used to measure students‟ writer performance in their essay
writing. Four is the highest point of execution one is the lowest (see appendix H). This
figure shows that participants‟ development was very poor because in the 4th scale, which
is the highest, the performance was 0%. Scale 3 was 4.20%, scale 2 was 69.00 %, and
scale 1 which is the lowest was 16.60% this means that students needed a substantive
teacher-written feedback in order to gain an acceptable improvement in their essay
writing.
Respondents’ Reactions to the Teacher’s Written Feedback
This study contributes to existing feedback research by relating students‟ reactions
to actual teacher-written feedback in a high school ESL classroom in the central NorthEast Region of Puerto Rico, focusing particularly on how the contextual factors might
have influenced students‟ perspectives and responses to teacher-written feedback.
Previous research on student views of feedback has consistently shown that students
treasure teacher feedback and attach much greater importance to it than other forms of
feedback (Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006; Zhang, 1995). Most
surveys of student preferences show that students are particularly positive about receiving
feedback on language issues, although they also want teachers to comment on content
and ideas of their writing. The classroom context can also have a direct impact on the
way students perceive teacher feedback.
Thus, student reactions to teacher-written feedback are influenced by the
instructional context in which feedback is delivered. How students respond to feedback
may also be influenced by the teacher who delivers the feedback. Findings such as,
students welcome approval (Gee, 1972), but like to receive both approval and
91
constructive criticism (Ferris, 1995; Hyland, 1998) are generalizations that need to be
examined more closely with regard to who the teacher is and how the comments are
given. Hyland and Hyland‟s (2006) study suggests that students are more likely to find
teacher feedback useful when it engages the student writer and when it is contextualized
taking in consideration the individual student‟s needs. When feedback is used to build
relationships with students and targeted to their personality and needs, students are more
likely to perceive it as effective. Therefore, student reactions may be influenced by who
the teacher is and how he or she interacts with them during the feedback process.
Respondents’ Reactions to the Computer-Mediated Feedback
Investigating students‟ attitudes towards computer mediated feedback.
As the second research question points out, this study examined students‟ attitudes
towards receiving feedback via computer mediated tasks. In addition, the study analyzed
ways in which students utilized feedback to improve their subsequent tasks, and gauged
their satisfaction levels with the quality of feedback received. The study also attempted
to understand students‟ perceptions on the impact of feedback on their overall learning.
With regard to students‟ attitudes towards computer-mediated feedback, the
researcher concluded the following: students value feedback and consider feedback as a
tool for learning and for further development of their skills and knowledge in ESL essay
writing. Students particularly like receiving computer-mediated feedback in addition to
teacher- written feedback. They also believe that computer-mediated feedback clarifies
how teachers grade assignments. According to the students, computer- mediated
feedback assisted in identifying errors and deficiencies in assignments. The positive
effect of computer-mediated feedback on student learning could be determined from the
92
questionnaires and the written tasks although a minority commented that sometimes the
criticisms were hard to accept.
Most respondents agreed that the compute-mediated feedback helped them realize
the weaknesses in assignments and motivated them to eliminate specific errors pointed
out to them by teachers‟ written feedback. This is in agreement with findings from other
studies which postulate that teachers communicate via feedback to students about what is
right or wrong in their assignments, and about strengths and weaknesses which are used
by students to further improve their work (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). With
concerns to the time frame in which feedback was received following submission of
assignments, most students preferred to receive feedback promptly stating this would
help them focus on improving the quality of the work submitted subsequently.
The opportunity to receive computer-mediated feedback via e-mails had clearly
impacted students‟ learning processes in multiple ways. Much of the results outlined
above concur with findings from Hattie and Timperley (2007) who contend that the most
important goal of feedback is to minimize the gap between current understandings and
performance. Nevertheless, students often express dissatisfaction on the timeliness and
quality of feedback received on their academic assignments. The time pressure, the lack
of visual and auditory cues, body language or gestures may also have a negative effect on
the quality of teachers and peers‟ interaction in the computer-mediated communication
mode (Vrasidas & Mc Isaac, 2000).
Respondents’ Reactions to the Essay Written Task
The written task measured how students progressed while they developed their
writing accuracy and writing quality. The data collection was carried out in two stages.
93
Each stage lasted two to three days with two weeks between each other. The end of the
essay writing unit was chosen by the teacher to give the participants the opportunity to be
acquainted with the feedbacks and revision techniques (teacher-written and computermediated feedback). The researcher was an observer during both stages and took notes to
record the teacher‟s procedures in class. He did not take an active role in any of the
stages.
Two writing tasks were used for this study. First, a pre-test essay in which
students had no information of what an essay was or either how essay writing was
developed. In Stage 1 the teacher focused on using written feedback techniques and in
Stage 2 the attention was given through the computer-mediated feedback techniques.
The second writing task (post-test) was another written task in which the
participants worked on their own following the essay writing rules already established
during class discussions and practices. As the researcher pointed out before; whether a
participant had consented to be part of the study or not, all of them were working in the
same tasks at all times.
Stage 1: On the first week, the teacher conducted a group discussion concerning a
specific essay writing task generating information. The students also answered
the questionnaires (see Appendixes F, G), which consisted of twenty items each to
choose among their beliefs and preferences regarding teachers' written feedback
and computer-mediated feedback. Questionnaires were collected in order to be
tabulated and used as part of the pre-test on essay writing. Having clarified
doubts presented by the participants the teacher introduced the parts of the essay.
He asked the students if any of them knew: What was a thesis statement? What
94
was an introductory paragraph? What was a supporting paragraph? What was a
conclusion paragraph? And what were the functions of the transition words in the
essays? As the teacher and students carried out the discussion, he displayed in his
“Smart Board interactive whiteboard” the following terms: prewriting stage,
writing stage, editing stage, and publishing stage, important information that the
students could refer to while doing their writing tasks and assignments.
An essay topic was presented. Then, the participants were given 10 to 15 minutes
to plan and organize their writing task. Finally, the participant had 30 minutes to write an
80-120 word essay. Once the session was over, the teacher collected all of the drafts for
analysis. Comments were used to support writers work and to give organization and
content suggestions while a proofreading marks or a correction code were used for
grammar suggestions.
The day after, the teacher gave each student a copy of the correction code that
were used for the grammar suggestions and led a group discussion to clarify any doubt.
In the next class, the students were asked to write a 90-130 words essay for the teacher to
correct them. The participants were subsequently given their first draft back with
teacher- written feedback and had 30 to 45 minutes to revise their essays and write their
final drafts. Although, most of the participants finished their final drafts during class
time, others were allowed to finish them as homework.
Stage 2: On the first day of Stage 2 two weeks after Stage 1, the teacher followed
the same teaching procedure as in Stage 1. Discussions, observation,
brainstorming, and planning were activities done prior to the thirty minutes of
class time given to writing an 80-120 word essay. The teacher then collected the
95
finished drafts. However, this time on the second day the teacher called each
participant to his desk to lead personal teacher-student feedback sessions and give
them his feedback orally. They also had the opportunity to interact directly with
the teacher to clarify any doubt.
The amount of time dedicated to each student was approximately five minutes.
During this time the rest of the class was given a revision activity to work from a
previous writing assignment. Once the feedback session was over, each student reviewed
their first draft. In the first draft almost all of the respondents had the same problem.
They had major problems in using appropriate structures. Essays were full of errors in
tense, grammar, word order, and spelling. A reason of this was that the respondents got
confused about the correct forms to be used. They also reasoned out that they actually
focused more on developing the content rather than form.
After the respondents had reviewed their first draft they wrote their final draft and
turned it in. As in Stage 1, the teacher received the final drafts, gave written feedback
and assessed the writing by giving each essay a score. The respondents were given the
opportunity to clarify any doubt concerning the scores.
Once the class was over, the researcher carried out a semi-structured interview
with the teacher in the teachers‟ classroom in order to gather information concerning the
teacher‟s opinions. Questions such as: Is the thesis statement clearly stated in the first
paragraph? Is the thesis statement followed and supported with evidence? Do all the
paragraphs support the thesis, and do they go together? Is there a strong or smooth
introduction, and a conclusion that closes the essay without being abrupt, misleading, or
irrelevant? Is the structure of the paper logical?
96
Can you easily follow the thoughts and conclusions of the writer? Do the
paragraphs follow each other logically? Are they connected topically? Is there an
adequate transition word between paragraphs? Are the paragraphs correctly developed?
Does each paragraph deal with one major thought or set of statements? Is there a
conclusion that is not a simple summary but a final dramatic thought or suggestion? Do
you limit you students to the Internet when they search for information or they have to
use books, journals, newspapers, and interviews too? How well do you feel when your
students are able to assess their own writing skills? Do you use student feedback in your
classes? How often do you use feedback to correct learners‟ errors and development in
writing? It is a flexible guide for the interview depending on the teacher‟s responses. In
addition, at the end of Stage 2 the students answered again the two twenty item
questionnaires (post-test) to obtain their perceptions and preferences regarding the two
feedback techniques.
Feedback in Content
Feedback on content consists mainly of comments written by the teacher on drafts
that usually point out problems and offer suggestions for improvements on future rewrites (Ferris, 2002). The respondents were expected to incorporate information from the
comments into other versions of their written work. The feedback on the content focused
on the respondents‟ attention on the content of the drafts and the process they followed in
writing the drafts. In responding to the respondents‟ drafts in terms of content, the
teacher focused on the aspect of task fulfillment, organization, and vocabulary.
97
Feedback in Form
The feedback given by the teacher in responding to the respondents' drafts on
form was the teacher's markings that indicate the place and type of error but without
correction and also overall feedback on form at the bottom of the drafts. The feedback on
form that each the respondent received was discussed in detail according to the two
aspects: language and procedure. The comments on the respondents‟ errors were only
highlighted by the teacher. Form and content are standardized according to the valuation
scale.
Nevertheless, the feedback given by the teacher in the first drafts stressed that,
there were occasional errors in essay structure, word order, tenses, spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, grammar, and outline. It also included a copy of the proofreading marks
and the essay writing correction code (appendixes H and J) for better understanding. In
the first drafts, the respondents found that many codes were highlighted. During the
written session, the teacher and the respondent discussed the feedback and the correction
codes. The teacher had also used the essay writing correction guidelines (see appendix
M) provided to help the respondents clarify their problems in doing the writing task.
In the second draft, all the respondents had more merits than errors in the term of
form compared to the first draft. Also, there was slight improvement in terms of form as
a result of the written feedback in the first draft. The respondents showed improvement
in the second draft, as they demonstrated better understanding of spelling, punctuation,
capitalization, word order, verb tenses, and outline. Besides, in the second draft, all the
respondents used acceptable grammar usage, especially the appropriate essay structure.
98
The teacher also noticed that there were fewer errors on agreement, articles, and
prepositions. In giving feedback on form and content, it was observed that the teacher
identified the strengths first and then the weaknesses in the respondents‟ drafts. This was
observed to be important as to motivate the respondents to improve their ESL essay
writing as agreed by Ellis (1994), cited in Williams (2001). When the respondents saw
that the teacher identified the merits in their drafts, they regarded it as an encouragement
and this promoted a positive attitude of the respondents towards the ESL essay writing.
The following tables present the data collected to compare the (pre-test) two
questionnaires and the written task administered at the beginning of the study to gather
participants understanding before they began to work with essay writing using feedback.
Table number 4 presents the results of the first questionnaire re-administered after the
students had received written feedback (post-test) from their teacher.
Table 4: Teachers-Written Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test)
SCALE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1
I find my teacher‟s essay feedback system very
helpful and motivating that is the reason why I have
no fear of my writing being evaluated.
I think it is important for teachers to correct students'
written errors.
Different teachers have given me feedback in
different ways by using different methods.
I read the feedback from my previous writing and
use this feedback in my next writing.
Teacher's correction helps me learn and improve my
English.
All the marking codes and symbols used to identify
errors have been explained before the teacher gives
feedback.
I believe that application of symbols such as: (VT:
Verb Tense, Sp: Spelling, Pro: Pronoun) and so on is
quite useful.
99
2
3
2
4
5
4
5
1
2
4
3
2
4
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
It is more helpful to give clear, direct instructions
about my writing errors than suggesting a correction.
I always pay close attention to my teacher's written
feedback on my writing.
I think it is better to write the feedback in the
margins than at the end.
I prefer my classmates to give me feedback on my
essays and not the teacher.
I prefer my teacher to give me oral rather than
written feedback on my essays.
I like it when the teacher corrects only the most
serious errors I make in my essays.
I prefer my teacher not to correct my errors but just
to indicate them and ask me to correct them myself.
I like it when the teacher uses codes or symbols to
help me with the nature of my errors.
It would be better if the teacher made some verbal
comments instead of using codes or symbols to
identify my errors.
It would be better if the teacher did not correct or
indicate any of my errors and just made some general
comments.
The score I get is more important than my teacher‟s
corrections and comments on my composition.
I don‟t like it when my teacher comments only on
what I did wrong and does not mention what I did
well.
I always understand my teacher‟s feedback on my
writing.
Total
1
3
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
1
3
1
1
4
1
33
32
29
16
10
Percent
27.5
26.7
24.2
13.3
8.3
Mean
1.94
1.89
1.93
1.6
1.11
Mode
1
2
2
1
1
Median
1
1
1
1
1
According to the results, table 4 demonstrates that Teachers’-Written Feedback
need to be improved in order to create a students learning experience in essay writing.
This is evidenced by the participants responses which were 27.5% strongly agree; 26.6%
answered agree; 24.1% answered unsure; 13.3% answered disagree; and 8.3% answered
strongly disagree. As in tables 1 and 2 the researcher included the results of the mean,
the mode, and the median to compare pre and post-test development. Strongly Agree had
100
a mean of 1.94; the mode was 1; and the median 1. Agree the mean was 1.89; the mode
was 2; and the median 1. Unsure had a mean of 1.93; the mode was 2; and the median
was 1. Disagree had a mean of 1.6; the mode was1; and the median was 1. Strongly
Disagree showed a mean of 1.11; a mode of 1; and a median of 1. These results also
reflect students‟ preference of teacher written feedback as inquired in Research Question
number 1: What are students‟ reactions towards teacher‟s written feedback?
Figure 4: Teachers-Written Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test)
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1-Strongly
Agree
2-Agree
3-Unsure
4-Disagree
5-Strongly
Disagree
(Post-test)
Figure 4 shows students‟ performance in essay hand written essay after five weeks
exposed to the essay structure. Participants were reevaluated with The Use of Teacher
Written Feedback questionnaire used as a post-test and there was a change in their
answers. The figure shows the following: 27.5% of the participants answered strongly
agree, that showed a 10.9% of preference over 16.6% of the pre-test score; 26.6%
answered agree that showed – 21.5% in the participants‟ preference, that was 47.5% in
the pre-test; 24.1% answered unsure which is 2.5% over the pre-test preference which
was 21.6%; 13.3% answered disagree which was 3.3% over the pre-test answer which
was 10.0%. Finally, 8.3% of the participants answered strongly disagree that showed an
increase of 4.2% over the pre-test preference which was 4.1%. This figure shows that
101
there was a positive increment in participants‟ performance after receiving teacher‟s
written feedback in their essay writing.
Table 5: Computer-Mediated Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test)
1
SCORE
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
The computer-mediated feedback helps me to write my papers
better.
I spend more time working on my papers when I get computermediated feedback than when I write with a pen or pencil.
I can think of more ideas for my writing when I use the
computer.
When I use word processing on the computer, I pay more
attention to what I am writing about.
Getting feedback with the computer has helped me to become
better at writing in English.
I feel I have learned more about writing in English from this
class than I have from other English classes I have taken in
which the computer-mediated feedback was not used.
I pay more attention to choosing the right word when I use the
computer as mediated feedback.
I would recommend that other students learn to use the
computer for writing their papers in English.
I would like to take another writing course if I could get
computer mediated feedback.
I get better scores on papers I have written receiving computermediated feedback from my teacher.
I can change my papers more easily and more often when I use
word processing on the computer than when I hand-writing.
I plan to continue getting computer-mediated feedback to write
my papers after this class is finished.
I feel that I learn to write better when I get computer-mediated
feedback from the English teacher.
I feel relaxed and comfortable when I giving feedback on the
computer.
I feel I get more individual attention from the teacher in the
computer writing class than I do in other, non-computermediated writing classes.
I do not like to do computer-mediated feedback in my writing
class because I cannot talk to my partner in person while I
giving feedback
When I write using the computer, I pay more attention to
grammar and errors correction.
I think using the computer-mediated feedback in writing
classes is very useful and interesting.
I can write better essays when I use the computer.
20. I have positive attitudes toward using the computer for writing
and communication in the language classroom.
102
1
2
3
4
2
1
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
2
4
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
1
4
2
4
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
2
4
3
2
1
Total
3
26
43
48
2.5
21.6
35.8
40.0
Mean
1
1.86
2.15
2.67
Mode
1
2
2
2.5
Median
1
2
2
2
Percent
Table 5 demonstrates that participants prefer the use of Computer-Mediated
Feedback in order to develop different essay writing leaning styles. This is evidenced by
the participants responses‟ which were 40.0% always; 35.8% answered sometimes;
21.6% answered rarely; and 6.2.5% answered never. The table also reflects the results of
the mean, the mode, and the median. The mean for always was 2.67; the mode was 2.5;
and the median 2. The mean for Sometimes was 2.15; the mode 2; and the median 2.
The mean for Rarely was 1.86; the mode 2; and the median 2. Never showed a mean of
1; the mode was 1; and the median was also 1. In comparison to table 2, this table
showed that essay writing skills using computer have increased students interest in the
use of computer-mediated feedback to improve their skill in the ESL classroom. As
inquired in Research Question number 2: What are students‟ reactions towards computermediated feedback sessions?
103
Figure 5: Computer-Mediated Feedback Questionnaire (Post-Test)
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
1-Never
2-Rarely
3-Sometimes
4-Always
Figure 5 presents students‟ responses to the questionnaire (post-test) on computermediated feedback after five weeks of essay writing practice. The figure shows the total
of each alternative: (1) never, (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, and (4) always in percent to
compare participants‟ performance and preference between teacher-written and
computer-mediated feedback. According to the figure, 40.0% of the participants
answered always which was a 10.0% over the answer on the pre-test which was 30.0%;
35.8% answered sometimes that was – 3.3% under the pre-test answer that was 39.1%;
21.6% answered rarely which was – 1.7% below the pre-test answers which were 23.3%.
Finally, 2.5% answered never that was – 5.0% under the answer of the pre-test that was
7.5%. According to the analysis, most students who participated in the study prefer
computer-mediated feedback in their essay writing rather than teacher written feedback.
Table 6: Results from the Essay Writing Correction (Post-Test)
Highest
Lowest
Traits
4
3
2
Organization
1
3
2
Goal or Thesis
2
2
2
Reasons and Support
3
2
1
4
1
1
104
1
Word Choice
3
3
Visuals/Delivery
3
2
Grammar, Punctuation, and Spelling
1
5
Total
17
18
7
0
Percent
40.4%
42.8%
16.6%
0%
1
Table 6 (post-test) presents the written task after the participants have been
summited to the basic components of essay writing which were: introductory,
development, and conclusion paragraphs, thesis statement, transition words, and the
different stages (prewriting, writing, editing, and publishing) of an essay. In comparison
to table number 3 (pre-test) the participants show progress in developing their writing
accuracy and writing quality. This time most of the essays have an introduction which
includes a thesis statement and provides an overview of the issue. The Information was
presented in a logical order and the conclusion states a personal opinion and a creative
word choice. There were just a few errors in grammar, spelling, and word order, but they
do not interfere with understanding.
Figure 6: Results from the Essay Writing Correction (Post-Test)
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Traits
4
3
2
1
Figure 6 shows participants‟ performance in the last hand written task. The
researcher found that after the participants have received enough practice in essay
105
writing, teacher written feedback had an impact on student production of a new essay.
This task was corrected using the valuation scale which had four descriptor groups and
six traits and the proofreading marks with the correction symbols (see appendixes (H and
J). The results of data analysis revealed that the number of errors on grammatical items
focused in this study decreased considerably.
Essay 1 and Essay 2 of the six participants were compared. Analysis of
participants‟ on Essay 1 and Essay 2 showed that the fewest number of errors in the new
essay (Essay 2) the number of errors were reduced by 83.2% compared to the number of
errors they committed in Essay 1 before experiencing any corrective feedback treatment
which was 85.6%. Essay 2 was written approximately six weeks after the two segments
of teacher-written feedback.
Table 7: Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance
Ranking scale: (1) Does not meet expectations, (2) Meets expectations, and
(3) Exceeds expectations.
Writing
Performance
Does Not Meet
Expectations
1
Structure,
Organization,
Coherence
Meets
Expectations
2
Exceeds
Expectations
3
Score
6
Focus, Clarity
4
2
Forming
6
Procedure
3
Sources,
References
Total
Percent
3
6
3
25
2
10.0%
83.3%
6.6%
106
30
Table 7 presents the second written task and evaluation of students‟ capability in
essay writing and correcting using the computer on a given topic. These results also
present students‟ performance in writing an essay which was corrected and delivered
electronically via e-mail using Microsoft Word‟s comments and changes features.
Following the comments on the Technical Essay Evaluation Rubric, participants met the
expectation in a range of 83.3% and a 6.6% exceeded them. This meant that 89.9 of the
participants‟ had a clear idea of essay writing using the computer. In comparison to table
6 in which hand written task was evaluated, participants‟ showed 40.4% of mastery in
traits number 4 and 42.8% in trait number 3 (see appendix H). By adding both percents
the researcher found that 83.2% of the participants prefer teacher-written feedback. In
conclusion, comparing results of teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated
feedback, 6.7% of the participants preferred computer-mediated feedback over teacher
written comments. As reflected on tables 4 and 5 participants‟ preference for the
computer mediated feedback was evident. On the other hand, tables 6 and 7 show the
improvement in organization, thesis statement, reasons and support, word choice,
grammar, punctuation and spelling, but according to the to the hand-written task and the
computer-mediated feedback using the Internet, the participants preferred the use of the
computer. These facts answer to the Research Question number 3: How do teacherwritten feedback and computer-mediated feedback enhance students‟ essay writing?
Figure 7: Essay Evaluation Rubric in Computer Writing Performance
Ranking scale: (1) Do not met expectations, (2) Mets expectations and
(3) Exceeded expectations.
107
100.00%
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
1-Do Not
Met
Expectations
2-Met
Expectations
3-Exceeded
Expectations
Figure 7 presents the results of the computer written task which was evaluated
with a rubric in computer writing performance (see appendix I). This scale was used to
evaluate students‟ ability to write an essay in their computer which was corrected and
delivered electronically via e-mail using Microsoft Word‟s comments and changes
features. This scale measured if the participants: (1) did not meet expectations, (2) met
expectations, and (3) exceeded expectations in the computer written task. Results were
added to get the student percent in performance; 10.0% of the participants did not meet
expectations, 83.3% met expectations, and 6.6% exceeded expectations of the writing
criteria. These results also pointed-out participants‟ preference for the computermediated feedback implemented for their written tasks.
The Findings
According to the answers given by the participants in their first questionnaire The
Use of Teacher Written Feedback answered as a pre-test detailed on table 1, the
researcher found the following: 16.6% of the participants answered strongly agree 47.5%
answered agree, 21.6% answered unsure, 10.0% answered disagree and 4.1% answer was
strongly disagree. This meant that almost 50% of the students received feedback from
their teachers. These results show that the students are getting help from their teacher on
how to write essays using teachers‟-written feedback.
108
The second instrument The Use of Computer Mediated feedback also
administered as a pre-test (table 2), 30.0% of the participants answered always, 39.1%
sometimes, 23.3% rarely, and 7.5% answered never. These results show that more than
50% of the twelfth grade students are updated in the use of computers to develop their
essay writing.
The third instrument, a hand written task (table 3), reflected that almost all of the
respondents‟ first drafts had the same problems. Essays were full of errors. They
showed an insufficient range of structures, frequent errors on agreement, tenses, articles,
word order, and prepositions. According to respondents‟ comments, they were confused
regarding the correct forms to be used in the writing task. They also reasoned out that
they actually focused more on developing the content rather than form. The feedback
given by the teacher in the first drafts pointed-out that participants needed to work in
correcting spelling, capitalization, punctuation, word order and layout.
In the second draft of the hand written task the participants showed that good
varied simple sentence structures and punctuations were generally accurate.
Nevertheless, they made some errors on tenses, and word order, and occasional errors in
capitalization. On the other hand, they showed a good use of sentence agreement, and
accurate spelling in their writing. In this task the teacher used the valuation scale which
had four descriptor groups and six traits and the proofreading marks with the correction
symbols (see appendixes (H and J). The descriptions in each descriptor group were used
by the teacher to give feedback to the respondents. The detailed description in each
group also helped the teacher to highlight the merits and errors on the respondents'
109
written work. This information was gained by looking at the teacher‟s comments to the
respondents' written work.
After five weeks of classes participants were revaluated on their essay writing
preference (see table 4). The questionnaire about The Use of Teacher Written Feedback
was used as post-test to compare participants‟ preference after they had been exposed to
the essay structure, development and practice. The results showed the following: 27.5%
of the participants answered strongly agree that showed a 10.9% of preference over
16.6% of the pre-test score; 26.6% answered agree that showed – 21.5% in the
participants‟ preference that was 47.5% in the pre-test; 24.1% answered unsure which
was 2.5% over the pre-test preference which was 21.6%; 13.3% answered disagree which
was 3.3% over the pre-test answer which was 10.0%. Finally, 8.3% of the participants
answered strongly disagree that showed an increase of 4.2% over the pre-test preference
which was 4.1%.
In table 5 the researcher presented the finding (P.116) of the second questionnaire
Use of Computer-Mediated Feedback. The following was found: 40.0% answered
always which was a 10.0% over the answer on the pre-test which was 30.0%; 35.8%
answered sometimes that was – 3.3% under the pre-test answer that was 39.1%; 21.6%
answered rarely which was – 1.7% below the pre-test answers which were 23.3%.
Finally, 2.5% answered never that was – 5.0% under the answer of the pre-test that was
7.5%. According to the statistics provided from the questionnaires, most students who
participated in the study preferred computer-mediated feedback in their essay writing
rather than teacher written feedback.
110
In conclusion, when adding the results of: sometimes and always in the computermediated feedback questionnaire (pre-test), they summed 69.1% and the (post-test)
75.8%. On the other hand, teacher-written feedbacks results revealed that the sum of
strongly agree, and agree (pre-test) was 63.6% and 54.1 (post-test). These results showed
that computer-mediated feedback was favored among the ESL high school students in
their essay writing.
The majority of results showed that respondents agreed that they liked receiving
electronic feedback. This view matches findings from Underwood and Tregidgo‟s study
(2006) which analyzed the effectiveness of feedback using software providing automated
personalized feedback in essay writing including giving grades, levels and functions of
feedback and practices in effective feedback. The computer-mediated feedback was seen
as complementing essay written feedback by some students. Students also used the
feedback as a corrective process to rectify errors and make improvements in their current
and subsequent assignments. In conclusion, teacher-written feedback in ESL essay
writing task results showed the need for improvement.
Table 6 showed students‟ performance on essay writing. This table provided
information from the last hand written task. The researcher found that after the
participants had received enough practice in essay writing, teacher written feedback had
an impact on student production of a new essay as measured by the fewer errors
committed by participants written task approximately six weeks after the achievement of
the feedback course. To determine the long term effects of teacher written feedback on
new essay writing, Essay 1 and Essay 2 of the six participants were compared.
111
Analysis of participants‟ performance on Essay 1 and Essay 2 showed that there
were fewer numbers of errors in the new essay (Essay 2). The number of errors were
reduced to 83.2%, compared to the number of errors they committed in Essay 1 before
experiencing any corrective feedback treatment which was 85.6%. Essay 2 was written
approximately six weeks after the two segments of teacher-written feedback.
Finally, table 7 presented the results of the computer written task in which the
teacher used the essay evaluation rubric in computer writing performance. The purpose
of this scale was to evaluate students‟ ability to write an essay in their computer which
was corrected and delivered electronically via e-mail using Microsoft Word‟s comments
and changes features. This scale measured if the participants did not meet the
expectations, met the expectations, or exceeded the expectations in a scale from (1-3)
(see appendix I). Results were added to get the student percent in performance as
follows: 10.0% of the participants did not meet expectations, 83.3% met expectations,
and 6.6% exceeded expectations of the writing criteria. These results also pointed-out
participants preference for the computer-mediated feedback implemented for their written
tasks.
Difference in the Number of Errors Between Essay 1 and Essay 2
After tabulating both questionnaires (pre and post- test) and correcting the written
task done by the participants, the researcher found that: essay writing was a complex
exercise for ESL high school students. To write a good essay one must not only
demonstrate a good critical comprehension on the issues and research, but also deliver a
well-structured piece of writing that communicates clearly. A good essay has a definite
112
beginning, middle, and an end and it should stick to the point and avoid
misunderstandings.
In the first essay some participants showed poor understanding of what essay
writing was. Some handed in their work without editing it thoroughly; others submitted
their work after the deadline had passed; in the many cases poor grammar, punctuation,
word order, and spelling were shown; few of them used irrelevant material or
information, unclear terms or information which were not supported by evidence, and
many ignored teachers‟ comments or feedback intended to help them to improve their
written work.
The second essay showed a better knowledge on the issues, writers set up a clear
outline for the essay; participants understood the guided questions before they started
writing; they demonstrated understanding by answering the questions asked; they planned
their essay outline and structure before writing the first draft and subsequent drafts; they
wrote up references correcting their final draft submitting a good presentation and
structure of a written essay. They also gathered sufficient factual information and
evidence rather than relying too deeply on one source; acknowledged any sources of
information they used such as: books, articles, dictionaries, and the Internet, among
others; they communicated their ideas clearly and coherently so the teacher and the
researcher followed their set of argument and saw that they had a command and
understanding of the main issues.
At the end of this study the students wrote a new essay using the computer which
was not part of the hand written essay previously assigned by their teacher. There were
significant differences between the pre-test and post-test scores of the students in the
113
control group. As evident from the out-come of the research, the process approach which
presents writing in multiple drafts before the final writing had significant effect on
students‟ overall performance in essay writing.
In order to contribute to the need for further research on the use of teacher-written
and the computer-mediated feedback to ESL essay writers on different error types
(Bitchener, 2005, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001); the present study
investigated the extent in which two types of feedback helped ESL essay writers improve
the accuracy in new pieces of writing. The data obtained from the teacher-written
feedback and, the computer-mediated feedback revealed that participants‟ performance
revealed that they were more influenced by computer-mediated feedback than by teacherwritten feedback.
The students made more surface-level revisions (change of tense, spelling,
punctuation, or grammar) than text-based modifications (reorganized information, deleted
information, and added information). The data gathered from the students‟
questionnaires revealed that students preferred computer-mediated sessions over written
comments while the teacher preferred giving oral comments in conferencing sessions
using the technology (computer and smart board) he has in the classroom. Nevertheless,
the number of participants was small and the time period short, and more research needs
to be carried out on teacher‟s written feedback and computer-mediated feedback in order
to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students‟ essay writing.
Conclusion
The results obtained in this study suggest that feedback techniques can influence
students‟ revision outcomes. Furthermore, it gives an insight into the different techniques
114
that ESL teachers can use to motivate their students to improve their texts and how the
teacher‟s feedback can influence the revisions of students. For instance, teacher‟s written
input motivate students to analyze their writing and to make any modification they
consider appropriate even if the teacher does not necessarily suggest an analysis or
modification (Ferris & Roberts, 2003).
That is, feedback can encourage students to initiate their own corrections. One of
the main purposes of training students to revise their writing is to lead them to selfanalysis and self-improvement in their writing. On the other hand, rather than focusing
on the surface level problems such as punctuation, tense or modality, teacher feedback
may focus on the overall intention of the writing and any text based aspects that may
improve the meaning of the text. This refers to making sure that students‟ intentions
when writing match what they actually wrote. If the meaning of the written text is
uncertain or does not match what the writer intends to communicate, and then the teacher
needs to focus her or his feedback on text-based aspects.
In conclusion, this study gives a perspective on how a teacher and six students
perceive writing feedback techniques. However, the results obtained in this study cannot
be generalized to all ESL contexts due to the small number of participants and the short
amount of time. Therefore, it is of major importance to carry out more research in other
ESL contexts that can lead teachers provide adequate feedback which can best serve our
students‟ needs.
115
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The purpose of this research was to demonstrate how teacher-written feedback
and computer-mediated feedback can enhance Puerto Rican high school ESL students‟
essay writing. Feedback should help students to improve their future performance as well
as provide comment on work already done. Feedback should affirm what is known and
offer encouragement. Its methods should include: teachers‟ written, face-to-face from
peers, conferencing, peers‟ response and computer-mediated feedback. A large number
of studies have examined the effectiveness of corrective feedback on student essay
writing although agreement on research findings to date is still inconclusive (Hyland &
Hyland‟s, 2006). Most of the studies found that feedback are helpful and effective in
improving writing.
Conclusions
Based on the analysis of findings, the researcher concluded that feedback:
1. Influenced students‟ outcomes in essay writing.
2. Teachers‟ feedback motivated students to analyze their writing.
3. The use of teacher- written feedback works best if it is followed by a computermediated feedback session; according to the students‟ preference in their
questionnaires selections, and performance in their written tasks.
4. ESL teachers played an important role in giving appropriate feedback to ensure
that the feedback helps to build a supportive learning environment.
116
5. Participants‟ performance was more influenced by computer-mediated feedback
than teacher-written feedback.
Pedagogical Implications
This research seems to support previous researchers (Ferris, 2002, Goldstein,
1990, Harris, 1986, and Zamel, 1985) by proving that the participants involved want and
appreciate the use of teacher-written feedback and computer-mediated feedback session
from the teacher in ESL essay writing classroom. The teacher-written feedback and the
computer-mediated feedback session will also increase motivation and build an
understanding classroom environment which is important in learning how to write an
assay in a foreign language.
The language scenery in Puerto Rico has been changing constantly over the last
decades, with English gaining in popularity as the native language of school-going
children. The classroom is now divided between students who grew up in Englishspeaking environment, and those from non-English speaking backgrounds. Within the
class, students have different levels of English mastery and different learning needs.
What implication does it bring for ESL writing teaching? Students come to class both to
improve their language proficiency and become more confident in their writing abilities.
Writing practice can also present diagnostic feedback that helps learners improve their
language accuracy at every level of proficiency.
Instructions should provide students with plenty amounts of language input and
advice, as well as writing experiences and feedback to fulfill their goals (Ferris, 2002).
Providing classroom instructions through modeling is only one part of the teaching
process; providing students with the right feedback on their writing is the other.
117
Essentially, ESL teachers need to consider factors related to language proficiency, second
language acquisition, and writing skill development when giving feedback (Myers,
2001). Specifically, the effectiveness of feedback and essay writing session may depend
on the level of the students‟ motivation, their current language level, their cognitive style,
the clarity of the feedback given, the way the feedback is used, and the attitudes of the
students toward the teacher and the class. Classroom settings, course goals, grading
procedures, and standards are also important (Harris, 1986). Systematically encouraging
learners to reflect on what they want to write and then helping them to make an
appropriate choice of forms and content that have pedagogical values helps students
become successful essay writers.
Limitations of the Study
The researcher was aware that there were a number of possible inadequacies of
this research that were mostly attributed to the shortage of time and space. Inadequacies
can be summarized as follows; first of all, the possible effect of various factors including
the small number of participants involved, the nature of the writing task they were given,
the nature of the teachers‟ written feedback and the computer-mediated feedback session
themselves have not being investigated thoroughly. Also, the issues of cultural
influences on the respondents‟ attitude have not been included. The surrounding
environment will definitely affect the local teaching context.
It would be certainly more appreciated and useful to have an observational
research method in which students might be given different writing tasks and types of
feedback (direct or indirect) to investigate each type‟s effectiveness on their subsequent
118
writing. It should give realistic evidences of which type of feedback works better in
reducing errors in ESL essay writing.
Recommendations
In light of the findings and conclusions of this study, it is recommended that
teachers keep in mind the needs of the students when choosing a feedback technique or a
combination of feedback techniques. Taking into consideration the writers‟ feedback
preference helps the teacher to make an appropriate selection. Feedback form and
content be given separately as this helps ESL students to identify their strengths and
weaknesses in ESL essay writing.
The researcher also recommends that educators apply his study in more than one
educational framework in Puerto Rico‟s public and private high schools. This will surely
include more participants which will minimize the fraction of error and at the same time
examine the topic from different angles, which is still considered as another mean of
investigation. It is also stressed that future research look into the significance of having
the ESL teachers‟ perspectives about the issue.
He recommends that a study that well investigates the teachers‟ points of view as
well as their actual pedagogical practices regarding the subject be done. This should
include techniques such as think-aloud correction, teachers‟ focused group interviews,
and other more qualitative techniques. It is hoped that the findings of this proposed
research would lead to better understanding of the educational contexts in the educational
environments.
He also recommends some convenient outlines for future investigation in any ESL
high school Islandwide. One evident direction for such research is towards more
119
systematic and comprehensive descriptions of the contextual environments in which
feedback in essay writing will be given and used. These features also need to be
considered together with more research designed to understand the long-term effects of
teacher-written comments on student writing, focusing on questions such as: What types
of feedback lead to essay writing development and revisions to drafts show improvement
in later writing situations?
Furthermore, current research focuses mainly on written feedback. Oral
conference feedback can be incorporated with written feedback to achieve better effects,
as examined by Bitchener (2008). Future research can investigate different feedback
strategies targeting more specific types of errors which are common in ESL essay
writings, such as subject-verb agreement errors, sentence fragments and run-on
sentences. Along with previous studies mentioned, this study suggests that some errors
are more difficult to treat than others; therefore, providing corrective feedback on
students‟ writing is not a sufficient way by itself to improve students‟ essay writing
accuracy. Some mini-lessons or workshops focusing on different types of errors or
aspects of grammar can improve students‟ ability to self-edit.
However, the most important role of response to help students to develop into
independent writers who are able to critique and improve their own essay writing, a
fundamental area of research is the need for studies into the role of feedback in
promoting autonomous writing skills. In particular, researchers such as Hyland and
Hyland (2006) believe that research into peer feedback and self-evaluation is likely to
produce useful results on how response might lead to greater independence, while further
work is also needed into what aspects students can revise without help from their
120
teachers. As the researchers point-out, research in essay writing is still quite limited and
the effects on revision and longer-term writing improvement have not been fully
investigated. They state that both teachers and students tend to be positive about the
opportunities for detailed discussion that conferences offer, but conferences vary
considerably in the extent to which they improve student writing, and the literature does
not yet provide the kind of guidance that teachers need to be confident in their planning
and interactions.
According to them more studies are required on students‟ perceptions of oral
conferences, how they might best be prepared to make the most of them, and the effects
of oral responses not just on immediate revisions, but on the longer term development of
students as writers. Related to these issues, teachers also need research which tracks
how, why, and when writers respond favorably to oral and peer feedback over prolonged
periods, particularly as writers. A final significant area for research must be the potential
of automated essay evaluation and computer-mediated feedback for improving student
writing and developing their independent writing skills.
Researchers have little information on students‟ views of the effects of computergenerated response, so studies examining students‟ perceptions, and use, of computermediated feedback systems in realistic settings are needed. Since there are likely to be
many developments in such software in coming years, this will be the focal area related
to feedback. Research continues in a range of areas related to computer-mediated
feedback as technology changes the conceptions of both instruction and ESL literacy, and
feedback on ESL students writing to integrate technology into their writing classrooms.
However, future research into computer-mediated response, like all the forms of feedback
121
the researcher has presented in the second chapter (Review of Literature, p.13) of this
study may help to enhance Puerto Rican ESL high school students‟ essay writing.
122
REFERENCES
Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of language teacher‟s treatment of error. In
M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ‘75: New directions in second-language
learning, teaching and bilingual education (p.1). Washington, D.C.: TESOL.
Abdellah, G., & Taher, S. (2007). A novel prospective of competitive mechanisms for
enhancing higher education in Egypt. Higher education Enhancement Project
(HEEP), http://www.heep.edu.eg
Althaus, S. (1996). Computer-mediated communication in the university classroom: An
experiment with on-line discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA.
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: using feedback to inform the writing process. In
M.N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim:
Politics and pedagogy (pp. 90-116). UK: Multilingual Matters.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is Content feedback followed by form feedback the best
method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227– 257.
Ban, R., Jin, L., Summers, R., & Eisenhower, K. (2006). Integrating technology: Bestuse practices for English language learners in mainstream classrooms. In J. Govoni,
(Ed.), Perspectives on Teaching K-12 English Language Learners. Boston, MA:
Pearson Custom Publishing. PDF Document.
Barker, T. T. (1990). Computers and instructional context. In D. Holdstein & C. Selfe
(Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory, research, practices (pp. 43-61). New York,
NY: MLA.
123
Bates, L., 1993; Ferris, D. (1997). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL composition.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Beare K., (2011). Strategies for teaching writing
http://esl.about.com/cs/teachingtechnique/a/a_twrite.htm
Beare K., (2013). How to teach essay writing
http://www.ehow.com/how_6522253_teach-essay-writing-eslstudents.html#ixzz2iCtHt8aq
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct
written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322-329.
Bitchener, J. S., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193214
Bitchener, J., S. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., S. Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,
14, 191-205.
Blau, S., & J. Hall (2002). Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native
English speaking students. Writing Center Journal, 23.1, 23–44.
Bordia, P. (1992). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of
the experimental literature. The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (1), 99-120.
Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind. College
English, 46.7, 635-652.
124
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students‟ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1-19.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in
the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 12, 267-269.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and
student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 155-177).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Connors, R., & Lunsford, A. (1993). Teacher‟s rhetorical comments on student papers.
College Composition and communication, 44, 200-223.
Connors, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peers response groups in ESL writing classes:
How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (3), 257-275.
Conrad S.M., & Goldstein, L.M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written
comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8,
147-180.
Cooper, M., & Selfe, C. (1990). Computer conferences and Learning: Authority,
Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse. College English, 52.8, 847-869.
Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In G.
Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Creswell J.W. (2000). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach (4th ed.)
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
125
Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 5878.
Cziko, G., & Park, S. (2003). Internet audio communication for second language
learning: A comparative review of six programs. Language Learning & Technology,
7(1), 15–27. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/review1/default.html
Davis, A., & McGrail E. (2009). Proof-revising‟ with Podcasting: Keeping readers in
mind as students listen to and rethink their writing. Reading Teacher, 62 (6), 522529.
Dempsey, J. V., Driscoll, M. P., & Swindell, L. K. (1993). Text-based feedback. In J.
V., Dempsey & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (21-54).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Di Giovanni, E., & Nagasvami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-toface? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272.
Duke, C. (1975). The student-centered writing conference and the writing process,
English Journal, 64: 44-47. National Council of Teachers of English.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/816029.
Duomont, J. L. (2002). A teaching tip. Retrieved on April 24, 2009 from
http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Duomont-Feedback.html.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 28(2),
97-107.
126
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and
the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339368.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context.
System, 36, 353-371.
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher written feedback in EFL writing.
System, 21, 193-204. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(93)90041-E,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(93)90041-E.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010).
Contextualizing corrective feedback in L2 writing pedagogy. Language Teaching
Research ,14, 445–463.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on
form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights
for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,29, 33-53. doi:10.2307/3587804,
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587804
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31(2), 315-39.
127
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response
to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003a). Response to student writing: Implications for second language
students. Mahwah; NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, D. (2003b). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of
second language writing (pp. 119-140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘grammar correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and
where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of
Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.),
Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process,
and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D.R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of
error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at Proceedings of the
American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, B.C., March
11–14, 2000.
128
Ferris, D., Pezone, S., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student
writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155182.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an
intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329-355.
Fregeau, L. A. (1999). Preparing ESL students for college writing: Two case studies. The
Internet TESL Journal [On-line], 5 (10). Available: http://iteslj.org/Articles/FregeauCollegeWriting.html
Gagne R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New
York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gee, T. C. (1972). Students‟ responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching
of English, 6, 212–221.
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing
classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual,
teacher, and student variable. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second
language writing: Context and issues (pp. 185-205). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
129
Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL
writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443- 460.
Graves, D. H. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, N H: Heinemann,
1983.
Graves, D. H. (1984). A researcher learns to write: Selected articles and monographs.
Exeter, N H: Heinemann.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in
studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Guisepi, R. A. (1999). Writing International World History Project.
history-world.org/writing.htm.
Hansen, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59, 3138.
Harasim, L. (1990). Online education: An environment for collaboration and intellectual
amplification. In L. Harasim (Ed.), Online Education: Perspectives on a New
Environment (pp. 39-64). New York: Praeger.
Hattie, J., & Timperley.H. (2007). The Power of feedback. Review of Educational
Research, 77, 81-112.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner
receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 3, (2), 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner
receptivity in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141163.
130
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student
response to expert feedback on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Herrmann, A. W. (1989). Teaching writing with peer response groups. Encouraging
revision. Retrieved from ERIC Digest: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre9211/peer.htm
Hiatt, M. P. (1995). Students at bay: The myth of the conference. College Composition
and Communication, 26.1 (1975): 38-41.
Hoag, K. (1959). Teaching college English: Five dialogues: IV. Student Grades and
Conferences. College English, 20.4, 166-171.
http://composition.la.psu.edu/resources/pedagogy-handouts/StudentTeacher%20Conferences.pdf
Hyland, F. (1990). Providing productive feedback. ELT Journal, 44(4), 279-85.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher-written feedback on individual writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (30), 225-86.
Hyland, F. (2000: 41). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to learners.
Language Teaching Research, 4 (1), 33-54.
Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance
language learners. Open Learning 16 (3), 233-47.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Michigan: University of
Michigan Press.
131
Hyland, K. (2006). Institute of Education, University of London, and Fiona Hyland
University of Hong Kong. Feedback on second language students’ writing
k.hyland@ioe.ac.uk fhyland@hkucc.hku.hk.
Hyland, K., & Hyland F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Language Teaching 39, (2) 83-101.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). State of the art article: Feedback on second language
students‟ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Ice, P. (2008). The impact of asynchronous audio feedback on teaching, social and
cognitive presence. Paper presented at the First International Conference of the
Canadian Network for Innovation in Education, Banff, Alberta.
Ice, P., Curtis, R., Phillips, P., & Wells, J., (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback
to enhance teaching presence and student sense of community. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3-25.
Jacobs, G., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S.Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing:
Taking the middle path. Journal of second language writing, 7, 307-317.
Jarvis, D. J. (2002). The process of writing methods. The Internet TESL Journal, 8
(7).http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Jarvis-Writing.html.
Jin, L. (2005). Computer-mediated peer response from a cultural historical activity
theoretical perspective. Paper presented at the Sociocultural Group Meeting,
Monterey, CA.
Jin, L., & Erben, T. (2007). Intercultural learning via instant messenger interaction. The
CALICO Journal, 24 (2).
Johnson, T. (2004). How to write an essay. tjohnson@aucegypt.edu. (p. 1)
132
Kassen, M. A. (1988). Native and non-native speaker teacher response to foreign
language learner writing: A study of intermediate-level French. Texas Papers in
Foreign Language.
Kearsley, G. (2000). Learning and teaching in cyberspace. Retrieved December 16,
2005, from http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/chapts.htm
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model for methods of
implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4), 294-304
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to
the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal,
75(3), 305–313.
King, N. (2004). Template analysis: What is template analysis? Retrieved from
http://www.hud.ac/uk/hhs/research/template analysis/whatis.htm.
Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1981:165). Teacher commentary on student writing: The
state of art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4.
Kozma, R. (1991). Computer-based tools and the cognitive needs of novice writers.
Computers and Composition, 8 (2), 31-45.
Kramsch, C., & Thorne, S. L. (2002). Jin, (2005). Foreign language learning as global
communicative practice. In D. Block, & Cameron, D (Ed.), Globalization and
language teaching (pp. 83-100). London, England: Routledge.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language
Journal, 66(2), 142-149.
133
Latterell, C. (2000). Decentering student – centerdness: Rethinking tutor authority in
writing centers. In Lynn Craigue Briggs & Meg Wool Bright (Eds.). Stories from the
center: Connecting narrative and theory in the writing center. Urbana, IL. NCTE.
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think?
TESOL Canada Journal, 22 (2), 1-16.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers‟ written feedback practices in secondary
classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 69-85.
Leki, C. B. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. London and
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B, Kroll
(Ed.), Second language writing: Insights from the language classroom (pp. 57-68).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/Cook, Heineman.
Lerner, N. (2005). The teacher-student writing conference and the desire for intimacy.
College English, 68.2, 186-208.
Liang, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Second
Language Acquisition and Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Li, M. (1998). Students' perceptions of teacher communication style in the use of
pedagogies: In J. Tapper & P. Gruba (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Australian
Communication Skills Conference, Melbourne, pp. 94-105.
134
Liou, H.-C., & Peng Z. -Y. 2009. Training effects on computer-mediated peer review.
System 37, (3): 514-525. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.
Liu, J., & Sadle, R. W. (2003). The effect and effect of peer review in electronic versus
traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3),
193-227.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analysis talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions
and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-55.
Lunsford, A. (2008). Collaboration, control, and the idea of a writing center. Christina
Murphy & Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors (Eds.).
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 92-99.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 3766.
Macrorie, Ken (1984). Writing to be read. Upper Monclair, N J: Boynton/Cook.
Marshall C., & Rossman G. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research (3rd Ed.).
London. Sage Publication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Milinki, AK cases in
qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.
home.adelphi.edu/~rberger/syllabus.htm
Marzano R. J., Pickering D., & Pollock J. E. (2001). Providing feedback to students.
http://www.intel.com/my/ProjectDesign/InstructionalStrategies/Feedback/
Master, P. (1995). Consciousness rising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher & G.
Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in second language. 9 (pp. 183-20). Norwood, NJ;
Ablex.
135
Mc Andrew, Donald A., Reigstad, Thomas J., & Strickland J. (Sep. 10 2001). Tutoring
writing: A practical guide for conferences Portsmouth, NH: BoyntonCook/Heinemann.
Mc Carthey, M. (1992). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Mc Groarty, M. (1992). Cooperative learning: The benefits for content area teaching. In
P.A. Richard & M.A. Snow (Eds.), The multicultural classroom: Readings for
content-area teachers (pp. 58-69). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Mc Groarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivation, and standards. In S. McKay &
N. Hornberger (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language teaching (pp. 3-46). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Medonca, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations; revision activities in ESL
writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745-68.
Memering, W. D. (1973). Talking to students: Group conferences. College Composition
and Communication, 24.3, 306-307.
Mittan, 1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students‟ communicative power. In
D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp.
207-19). New York: Longman.
Moffett, J. (1983). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Montello, M. (1997). A touch of class! Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(1), 127131.
Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6.
136
Murray, D. (1982). Learning by teaching: Selected articles on writing and teaching.
Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. [ED 230 962; not available from EDRS].
Myles J. (200I). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error a
analysis in student texts. Queen‟s University, Volume 6, Number 2
jbm2@post.queensu.ca
Nagata, N. (1993). Computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern
Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.
Nagata, N. (1997). The effectiveness of Computer-Assisted metalinguistic instruction: A
case study in Japanese. Foreign Language Annals, 30(2), 187-200.
Nagata, N., & Swisher, M. V. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer:
The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 28 (3), 337-347.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback: The
effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language
Awareness, 9, 34-51.
National Council of Teachers of English National Writing Project (2011). Council of
Writing Program Administrators Published by CWPA, NCTE & NWP.
Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance. Research in the teaching of
English, 29, 193-215.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-D. D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated
learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher
Education 3(2), p.199–218.
137
North, S. (2008). The idea of a writing center. In Christina Murphy & Steve Sherwood
(Eds.). The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's.
Omaggio H, A. (1993). Teaching language in context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
O'Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners' writing skills in French Corpus
consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49-68.
Oxford R. L. (1990) Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know.
Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris. D. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of
multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31/1:
51-90.
Peirce, J. C. (1984). The virtues of shorter conferences. College Composition and
Communication, 35.2, 240-241.
Pollard, A. (1990). Towards a sociology of learning in primary schools. British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 11(3), 241-256.
Powers, J., & Nelson, J. (1995). L2 writers and the writing center: A national survey of
writing centre conferencing at graduate institutions. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 4.2, 113–138.
Probst, R. E. (1989). Transactional theory and response to student writing. In C. Anson
(Ed.), Writing and response (pp. 68–79. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Puerto Rico Department of Education (2012). San Juan, PR: Author, Office of
Educational Planning and Development.
138
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on
their written work. System, 16, 355-365, doi: 10.1016/0346-251X(88)90078-4,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(88)90078-4
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing.
Teaching Quarterly, 25 (4), 407-430.
Rami, F. M. (2012). Feedback on the feedback: Sociocultural interpretation of Saudi
ESL learners‟ opinions about writing feedback. English Language Teaching, 5 (3).
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Reid J. M. (1998). Understanding learning styles in the second language classroom.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Richards, J.C. (1996). Teacher‟s maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 19(2),
229-258.
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (2002). Reflective teaching in second language
classrooms (9th ed). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom
(pp. 57-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Riley, S. M. (1997). Peer response in an ESL writing class: Student interactional and
subsequent draft revision (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Short Reed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect
on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
Ron C. L. (2005). How to improve ESL students‟ writing? Email: leerc8 rongchang.com
139
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers‟ practices and students‟ preferences for feedback on second
language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 46–
70.
Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit rule presentation
and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning,
54(1), 35-78.
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice (2nd
ed). New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language to later reading (dis)abilities. In S.
Neumann & D. Dickenson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 97–110).
New York: Guilford Press.
Scott, E. (2011). Reduce student stress and excel in school (p.1). Stress Management.
About.com. http://stress.about.com/od/studentstress/ht/schoolstress.htm
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language
aptitude on ELS learners‟ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and
unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL
learners. System, 37, 556-569.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Severino, C. (2004). Avoiding appropriation. In Shanti B. & Ben R. (Eds.). ESL
writers: A guide for writing center tutors. Porsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
140
Shamoon, L, & Burns, D. (2008). A critique of pure tutoring. In Christina Murphy &
Steve Sherwood (Eds.), The St. Martin's sourcebook for writing tutors. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin's.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal,
23, 103–110.
Sievert, J. (2007). Evaluation of structured English immersion and bilingual education
on reading skills of limited English proficient students in California and Texas.
Applied Research Project. Texas State University-San Marcos, Dept. of Political
Science, Public Administration. Retrieved on 2008-07-04.
Silva, T. (1997). Differences in ESL and native-English-speaker writing: The research
and its implication. In C. Severino, J. Guena, & J. Butler (Eds.), Writing in
multicultural setting (pp. 209-19). New York: Modern Language Association of
America.
Simmons, L., & McGuire J. A. (1894). The One-to-One Method of teaching
composition. College Composition and Communication, 35.2, 222-229.
Skinner, B. F. (1960). Teaching machines. In A. Lumsdaine & R. Glaser (Eds.),
Teaching machines and programmed learning: A sourcebook. Washington, DC:
Department of Audiovisual Education, National Education Association.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and
Communication, 33, 148-156.
Spitzer, M. (1990). Local and global networking: Implications for the future. In D. H.
Holdstein & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory, research, practice
(pp. 58-70). New York: Modern Language Association.
141
Sutton, L. A. (2001). The principle of vicarious interaction in computer-mediated
communications. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7(3),
223–242.
The University of Edinburgh. (2010). Involving students in feedback. Retrieved from
httpwww.tla.ed.ac.uk/feedback/staff/resources/involvingstudents.htmitem1
Tribble, C. (1996). Writing scheme for teacher education. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tribble, C. (2001). Small corpora and teaching writing: Towards a corpus-informed
pedagogy of writing. In M. Ghadessy, A. Henry, & R. L. Roseberry (Eds.), Small
Corpus Studies and ELT: Theory and Practice (pp. 381-408). Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes.
Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for „„the case for grammar correction in L2 writing
classes‟‟: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of error correction: A
response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., Ferris, D., Chandler, J., & Guénette, D. (2007). The effect of error
correction on learners‟ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16, 255-272.
142
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic
writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217-235.
Underwood, J.S., & Tregidgo, A.P. (2006). Improving student writing through effective
feedback: Best practices and recommendations, Journal of Teaching Writing, Vol.22,
No.2, p.74-97.
Villamil, O., & de Guerrero, M. 1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
Vrasidas, C., & Mc Isaac, M. S. (2000). Principles of pedagogy and evaluation for webbased learning. Educational Media International, 37 (2), 105-111.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). The Zone of Proximal Development and peer collaboration:
Implications for classroom practice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html
Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational
perspective. Communication Research 19 (1), 52–90.
Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal,
and hyper-personal interaction. Communication Research, 23 (1), 3-43.
Wang, X. (2004). Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students. ELT
Journal, 58(3), 238–246.
Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing.
In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback and second language writing (pp. 105122). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
143
Warschauer, M. (1997). E-mail for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and
computer learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other languages.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. Harlow, UK: Longman
Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center.
Journal of Basic Writing, 21.2 (2002): 73-91.
Williams, J., & Severino, C. (2004). The writing center and second language writers.
Journal or Second Language Writing, 13.3, 165-72.
Woolley, D. R. (1998). The future of web conferencing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Webbased computer conferencing. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from
http://thinkofit.com/webconf/wcfuture.htm
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher
feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15,
179–200.
Yin, R. K., (2002). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly,
16(2), 195-209.
Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies.
TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-188.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19 (1), 79-101.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 697715.
144
Zemelman, S., & Harvey D. (1988). Peer writing groups. A community of writers:
Teaching writing in the junior and senior high school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann
Publishing.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL
writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-22.
145
APPENDIXES
146
APPENDIX A
ARNALDO LLANOS BULTRÓN
HC-03 BOX 14194
AGUAS BUENAS, PUERTO RICO
(787) 732-4428 or (787 485-0456
papitocotty68sa@hotmail.com or arnaldollanosbultron@yahoo.com
CARTA AL SUPERINTENDENTE DE ESCUELA
December, 19 2013
Dr. Juan Zayas Berríos
Superintendente a Cargo del Distrito
Departamento de Educación
Oficina Superintendente de Escuelas
Distrito Barranquitas, Puerto Rico
A quien pueda interesar:
Actualmente curso estudios Doctorales en Inglés como Segundo Idioma (ESL) en la
Universidad del Turabo en Gurabo, Puerto Rico. Por tal razón, solicito su autorización para
llevar a cabo una investigación sobre: El uso de comentarios escritos (feedback) por los
profesores y la tecnología para mejorar la escritura de ensayos en inglés como segundo idioma
(ESL) en estudiantes puertorriqueños.
Ésta investigación es requerida como parte de mi programa de estudios. La misma se
realizará en la Escuela: Juana Colon para la cual seis estudiantes del duodécimo grado que serán
escogidos mediante sorteo formarán parte de ésta. Se solicitará el consentimiento de los
estudiantes, al igual que a sus padres en el desarrollo y progreso de la misma. Al efectuar la
investigación, los estudiantes serán evaluados con reglas pre-establecidas en el uso de la
retroalimentación (feedback) en la escritura de ensayos. El propósito de esta investigación tiene
como fin, mejorar sus destrezas básicas de escritura de ensayos, asimismo la intercomunicación
con otros compañeros y maestros con técnicas modernas utilizando el idioma inglés como parte
del programa de enseñanza aprendizaje en nuestras escuelas.
En esta investigación se releva al Departamento de Educación de toda responsabilidad,
por cualquier reclamación que pueda surgir como consecuencia de la misma. Si usted tiene
alguna pregunta relacionada con este estudio o si surge alguna situación durante el desarrollo de
mismo, por favor comuníquese con el profesor Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón (investigador principal),
a los (e-mails) papitocotty68sa@hotmail.com o arnaldollanosbultron@yahoo.com. Mis números
de teléfonos son: (787) 485-0456 o (787) 732-4428. Si usted tiene preguntas adicionales sobre el
estudio por favor comuníquese con la Oficina de Cumplimiento SUAGM al 787-751-3120 o
compliance@suagm.edu en la Universidad del Turabo en Gurabo PR.Agradeceré la atención
brindada a este asunto.
Cordialmente
Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón, Maestro de Inglés
147
APPENDIX B
ARNALDO LLANOS BULTRÓN
HC-03 BOX 14194
AGUAS BUENAS, PUERTO RICO
(787) 732-4428 or (787 485-0456
papitocotty68sa@hotmail.com or arnaldollanosbultron@yahoo.com
CARTA DE APOYO DEL DIRECTOR ESCOLAR
December 19, 2013
Mrs. Yaniranet Cotto López
School Director
Juana Colon High School
Comerio, Puerto Rico.
RE: DOCTORAL DISSERTATION COLLABORATION REQUEST
Dear Mrs. Cotto
My name is Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón; I am a student in the School of Education, Doctoral
Program of Turabo Universidad, Gurabo, PR. At this moment I am at the stage of my Doctoral
Dissertation in Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Environments in English as a Second
Language (ESI).
As part of my graduation requirements to receive a Doctoral Degree in ESL, I will be
conducting an investigation about The Use of Teachers-Written Feedback and ElectronicMediated Feedback to Enhance Puerto Rican English as a Second Language (ESL) High
School Students Essay Writing.
I am requesting for your authorization to conduct this investigation in your school if you
allow me. This research will contribute in the improvement of essay writing in our public high
school students in English as a second language. The results will benefit your school and other
public high school students Islandwide. This investigation will be done by me as a student of
Turabo University in Gurabo, Puerto Rico.
Cordially
Graduate Student Candidate
Turabo University Gurabo, P.R.
148
APPENDIX C
SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MÉNDEZ
ESCUELA DE EDUCACIÓN
PROGRAMA DE ESTUDIOS DOCTORALES
GURABO, PUERTO RICO
CARTA DE APOYO AL MAESTRO DE INGLES
December 19, 2013
Mr. José Concepción Quiñones
English Teacher at:
Juana Colon High School
Comerio, Puerto Rico.
RE: DOCTORAL DISSERTATION COLLABORATION REQUEST
Dear Professor, Concepción Quiñones
As a requirement for my Doctoral Dissertation. I am requesting your collaboration to participate
in the study title: The Use Of Teacher-Written Feedback And Computer-Mediated Feedback To
Enhance Puerto Rican English As A Second Language (ESL) High School Students’ Essay
Writing. Your participation is very important in order to carry out specific research-oriented
academic tasks. Your collaboration with this dissertation project encompasses how teacherwritten feedback and computer-mediated feedback can enhance Puerto Rican high school ESL
students‟ essay writing.
Your unconditional academic support to collaborate in this study will be totally appreciated by
this researcher. You can accept/confirm your consent of participation by signing and dating the
Research Collaborator's acceptance below.
_____________________________
Professor's Signature,
Research Collaborator
_________________________
Date
Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón,
Researcher and Doctoral Candidate
149
APPENDIX D
SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO ANA G. MÉNDEZ
Consentimiento del padre e hijo
The Use of Teacher-Written Feedback and Computer-Mediated Feedback to Enhance Puerto
Rican English as a Second Language (ESL) High School Students’ Essay Writing
Yo Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón, Investigador Principal y María A. Irizarry Rivera
Mentora y profesora asociada del Sistema Universitario Ana G. Méndez (SUAGM) invitan a su
hijo (a) a participar en un estudio de investigación. Por lo que solicitó su autorización para que
su hijo (a) participe voluntariamente en ésta que se llevará a cabo en la escuela superior Juana
Colón en Comerio, el segundo semestre del año escolar 2013-2014. Esta investigación surge, con
el propósito de desarrollar mi Disertación en: El uso de comentarios escritos por el maestro (a)
y la computadora como medio de retroalimentación para mejorar la escritura de ensayos en
inglés como segundo idioma en estudiantes puertorriqueños.
La participación de su hijo en esta investigación consistirá del siguiente procedimiento:
Se seleccionará un grupo de estudiantes de duodécimo grado que participará en la investigación.
Se les orientará sobre la finalidad de los instrumentos (ensayo escrito y dos cuestionarios) que
van a contestar y la importancia para ellos saber cómo el uso de retroalimentación (feedback)
mejorará sus habilidades en escritura de ensayos en inglés como segundo idioma. Se les
informará que el propósito de este estudio es explorar alternativas para mejorar el rendimiento
académico en términos de exactitud gramatical y calidad de la escritura en entornos de inglés
como segundo idioma.
A su hijo le tomará aproximadamente seis semanas para participar en esta
investigación. No existen riesgos o incomodidades que pueda sufrir su hijo (a) durante el
proceso. Los resultados de este estudio redundarán en beneficio para la implantación de la
enseñanza del ensayo escrito en inglés. Además es importante porque los estudiantes
desarrollarán las destrezas de escritura tanto en contexto académicos como profesionales.
En este estudio la identidad y confidencialidad de su hijo (a) será protegida en todo
momento y bajo ninguna circunstancia se compartirá información del menor. Los datos
recopilados se guardarán en un lugar privado, seguro y bajo llave. Cualquier documento
recopilado será almacenado en la casa del investigador bajo llave y en su archivo personal por
un periodo de cinco (5) años. Después de que haya completado el término de los cinco (5)
años, cada documento de este estudio será triturado. Esta autorización servirá hasta el final
del estudio, a menos que su hijo (a) o usted la cancele antes. Usted puede cancelar esta
autorización en cualquier momento.
150
La participación de su hijo (a) en este estudio es totalmente voluntaria. Usted como
padre, madre o tutor legal puede decidir si su hijo (a) participa o no de este estudio. Por el
contrario, si decide que su hijo (a) participe de este estudio éste puede retirarse en cualquier
momento sin penalidad alguna. Para nosotros también es importante conocer la opinión de su hijo
(a) con respecto a su participación en el estudio. Por esta razón, su hijo (a) también firmará un
documento donde indica su decisión de participar en el estudio. Si su hijo (a), luego de comenzar
el estudio, decide retirarse está en toda libertad de hacerlo sin penalidad alguna. El participante
voluntario del estudio de investigación tendrá conocimiento que no se verá afectado o premiado
por notas y procesos académicas independientemente la decisión tomada en participar o no en el
estudio.
Si usted tiene alguna duda o inquietud o si surge alguna situación durante el periodo de
estudio, por favor contacte a Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón al correo electrónico:
papitocotty68sa@hotmail.com o vía telefónica al (787) 485-0456 o (787) 732-4428. Si usted
tiene preguntas sobre los derechos de su hijo (a) al participar en esta investigación por favor
comuníquese con la Oficina de Cumplimiento del SUAGM al 787-751-3120 o
compliance@suagm.edu.
Consentimiento
He leído este documento y se me ha dado la oportunidad de aclarar todas las dudas respecto
al contenido del mismo. Autorizo a mi hijo (a) a participar en esta investigación.
______________________
________________________ ________________
Nombre del Padre
Firma
mes/día/año
________________________ _________________________ ________________
Nombre del Representante legal Firma
mes/día/año
________________________ _________________________ ________________
Nombre del Niño
Firma
mes/día/año
________________________ _________________________ ________________
Nombre del Investigador
Firma
mes/día/año
Principal
NOTA:
Es nuestra responsabilidad proveerle con una copia de este documento.
Favor de seleccionar la opción de su preferencia.
Certifico que se me entregó copia de este documento.
Certifico que se me ofreció copia de este documento y no deseo tener copia
del mismo.
151
APPENDIX E
INSTRUMENT ABOUT ESSAY WRITING
My name is Arnaldo Llanos Bultrón and I am enrolled in a doctoral program at Turabo University
and I am conducting a research on The Use of Teacher-Written Feedback and ElectronicMediated Feedback to Enhance (ESL) High School Students Essay Writing. It is very important
to let you know that the topic you choose and the information given is strictly confidential. If you
have any questions about this study in general, please feel free to ask me.
Thank you for your contribution.
On a separate sheet of paper or in your computer, please write a three-paragraph essay reacting to
one of the following requests:
Descriptive Essay
a) Your memory of a place that you visited as a child.
b) An ideal apartment.
c) Your most memorable school experience.
d) Your cell phone
Cause and Effect Essay
a) The effects of group pressure on high school students to get involved in negative
activities.
b) The effects of growing up surrounded by technological devices.
c) The effect of a parent, teacher, or friend on your life.
d) Why more and more high school students are taking online classes
Argument and Persuasion Essay
a) Getting a tattoo can be a big mistake.
b) Contemporary body piercing prohibitions and taboos.
c) Professional baseball players convicted of using performance-enhancing drugs should not
be considered for induction into the Hall of Fame.
e) Any citizen who does not have a criminal record should be permitted to carry a hidden
weapon.
Keep in mind the following:




Your essay should be one full page.
Write the essay on your own, I want to receive your ideas in your own writing style.
Check for spelling and punctuation errors.
Write your essay neatly by hand or computer.
152
APPENDIX F
INSTRUMENT ABOUT TEACHERS-WRITTEN FEEDBACK
The following questions are general questions about your own beliefs and
preferences regarding teachers' written feedback. Please indicate whether you:
1. I find my teacher‟s essay feedback system very helpful and
motivating that is the reason why I have no fear of my writing being
evaluated.
2. I think it is important for teachers to correct students' written errors.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3. Different teachers have given me feedback in different ways by using
different methods.
4. I read the feedback from my previous writing and use this feedback
in my next writing.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
5. Teacher's correction helps me learn and improve my English.
1
2
3
4
5
6. All the marking codes and symbols used to identify errors have been
explained before the teacher gives feedback.
7. I believe that application of symbols such as: (VT: Verb Tense, Sp:
Spelling, Pro: Pronoun) and so on is quite useful.
8. It is more helpful to give clear, direct instructions about my writing
errors than suggesting a correction.
9. I always pay close attention to my teacher's written feedback on my
writing.
10. I think it is better to write the feedback in the margins than at the end.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
11. I prefer my classmates to give me feedback on my essays and not
the teacher.
12. I prefer my teacher to give me oral rather than written feedback on
my essays.
13. I like it when the teacher corrects only the most serious errors I make
in my essays.
14. I prefer my teacher not only correct my errors but also indicate them
and ask me to correct them myself.
15. I like it when the teacher uses codes or symbols to help me with the
nature of my errors.
16. It would be better if the teacher made some verbal comments instead
of using codes or symbols to identify my errors.
17. It would be better if the teacher did not correct or indicate any of my
errors and just made some general comments.
18. The score I get is more important than my teacher‟s corrections and
comments on my composition.
19. I don‟t like it when my teacher comments only on what I did wrong
and does not mention what I did well.
20. I always understand my teacher‟s feedback on my writing.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
153
APPENDIX G
INSTRUMENT ABOUT COMPUTER-MEDIATED FEEDBACK
Complete the questionnaire using the following alternatives:
1. The computer-mediated feedback helps me to write my papers better.
1
2
3
4
2. I spend more time working on my papers when I get computer-
1
2
3
4
mediated feedback than when I write with a pen or pencil.
I can think of more ideas for my writing when I use the computer.
1
2
3
4
4. When I use word processing on the computer, I pay more attention to
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
3.
what I am writing about.
5. Getting feedback with the computer has helped me to become better
at writing in English.
6. I feel I have learned more about writing in English from this class
than I have from other English classes I have taken in which the
computer-mediated feedback was not used.
7. I pay more attention to choosing the right word when I use the
computer as mediated feedback.
8. I would recommend that other students learn to use the computer for
writing their papers in English.
9. I would like to take another writing course if I could get computer
mediated feedback.
10. I get better scores on papers I have written receiving computermediated feedback from my teacher.
11. I can change my papers more easily and more often when I use word
processing on the computer than when I hand-writing.
12. I plan to continue getting computer-mediated feedback to write my
papers after this class is finished.
13. I feel that I learn to write better when I get computer-mediated
feedback from the English teacher.
14. I feel relaxed and comfortable when I giving feedback on the
computer.
15. I feel I get more individual attention from the teacher in the computer
writing class than I do in other, non-computer-mediated writing
classes.
16. I do not like to do computer-mediated feedback in my writing class
because I cannot talk to my partner in person while I giving feedback
17. When I write using the computer, I pay more attention to grammar
and errors correction.
18. I think using the computer-mediated feedback in writing classes is
very useful and interesting.
20. I have positive attitudes toward using the computer for writing and
communication in the language classroom.
154
APPENDIX H
RUBRIIC ONE (1) FOR ESSAY HAND WRITTEIN CORRECTION
Traits
Organization
Goal or Thesis
Reasons and
Support
Attention to
Audience
Word Choice
Visuals/
Delivery
Grammar,
Punctuation
and Spelling
4
3
The introduction is
inviting, states the
thesis, and provides an
overview of the issue.
Information is
presented in a logical
order and maintains
the interest of the
audience. The
conclusion strongly
states a personal
opinion.
The introduction
includes the thesis
and provides an
overview of the issue.
Information is
presented in a logical
order but does not
always maintain the
interest of the
audience. A
conclusion states a
personal opinion.
There is one goal or
thesis that strongly and
clearly states a
personal opinion and
identifies the issue.
Three or more
excellent reasons are
stated with good
support. It is evident
that a lot of thought
and research was put
into this assignment.
2
1
The introduction
includes the thesis.
Most information
is presented in a
logical order. A
conclusion is
included, but it
does not clearly
state a personal
opinion.
There is no clear
introduction, structure,
or conclusion.
There is one goal or
thesis that states a
personal opinion and
identifies the issue.
A personal
opinion is not
clearly stated.
There is little
reference to the
issue.
The personal
opinion is not
easily understood.
There is little or no
reference to the
issue.
Three or more
reasons are stated,
but the arguments
are somewhat weak
in places.
Two reasons
are made but
with weak
arguments.
Arguments are
weak or missing.
Less than two
reasons are made.
Argument
demonstrates
some
understanding
of the
potential
audience.
There is
evidence of
attention to
word choice.
Argument
demonstrates a clear
understanding of the
potential audience and
anticipates
counterarguments.
Argument
demonstrates a clear
understanding of the
potential audience.
Word choice is
creative and enhances
the argument.
Word choice
enhances the
argument.
Visuals are appealing,
highly relevant, and
add support to the
argument. Delivery is
fluent, with an
engaging flow of
speech.
Visuals are appealing
and add support to
the argument.
Delivery is fluent.
Visuals are
related to the
topic.
Delivery lacks
some fluency
Visuals are not
directly related to the
topic. Delivery is not
fluent.
There are no errors in
grammar, punctuation,
or spelling.
There are few errors
in grammar,
punctuation, and
spelling, but they do
not interfere with
understanding.
There are
several
errors in
grammar,
punctuation
, and
spelling.
There are
numerous errors
in grammar,
punctuation, and
spelling.
155
Argument does
not seem to target
any particular
audience.
Word
choice is
limited.
APPENDIX I
ESSAY EVALUATION RUBRIC IN COMPUTER WRITING PERFORMANCE
Writing
Performance
Do Not Met
Expectations
Met Expectations
Exceeded Expectations
Structure,
Organization,
Coherence
Paragraphs are poorly
organized; some
paragraphs may be
missing. Sequence of
paragraphs is illogical
and hinders document
navigation.
Focus, Clarity
Ideas are not
formulated
and described clearly;
long-winded and
confusing sentences;
does not focus on task
and topic.
Has introduction, body
and conclusion
paragraphs.
Sequence of
paragraphs is for the
most part logical and
helps to make
document navigation
easy.
Ideas are described
adequately but some
refinement is missing.
Sentences are
occasionally hard to
read but are mostly
focused on task and
topic.
Has well-organized
introduction, body, and
conclusion paragraphs.
Sequence of paragraphs
is logical and transitional
expressions are used to
allow for easy
navigation through the
document.
Engaging, clear, elegant,
and concise description
of ideas. Sentences are
well
formulated and use
wording appropriate for
task and topic.
Formatting
Document is formatted
poorly, lacks title,
author, date and/or
page numbering.
Figures and equations
are of poor quality.
Document is formatted
uniformly and
professionally, and
includes title, author,
date and page
numbering. Figures and
equations are of high
quality.
Procedure
Sentences are poorly
written; there are
numerous incorrect
word choices and
errors in grammar,
punctuation and
spelling.
Sources,
References
Fails to correctly
document sources
and/or to utilize
appropriate forms of
citation.
Formatting of the
document is mostly
consistent and
adequate
and includes title,
author, date and page
numbering. Figures
and equations are of
acceptable quality.
Sentences are
generally
well-written; there are
a
few incorrect word
choices
and errors in grammar,
punctuation and
spelling.
Most sources are
correctly documented;
appropriate forms of
citation are generally
utilized.
Total
156
Sentences are wellwritten; there are no
incorrect word choices
and the text is free
of errors in grammar,
punctuation and spelling.
All Sources are correctly
and carefully
documented; appropriate
citation forms are
utilized throughout.
Score
APPENDIX J
RUBRIC FOR ESSAY WRITING CORRECTION
157
APPENDIX K
TABLE TO EMPTY RESULTS FROM THE COMPUTER-MEDIATED FEEDBACK
QUESTIONNAIRE
SCORE
1.
The computer-mediated feedback helps me to write my papers better.
2.
I spend more time working on my papers when I get computer-mediated
feedback than when I write with a pen or pencil.
I can think of more ideas for my writing when I use the computer.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
When I use word processing on the computer, I pay more attention to what
I am writing about.
Getting feedback with the computer has helped me to become better at
writing in English.
I feel I have learned more about writing in English from this class than I
have from other English classes I have taken in which the computermediated feedback was not used.
I pay more attention to choosing the right word when I use the computer
as mediated feedback.
I would recommend that other students learn to use the computer for
writing their papers in English.
I would like to take another writing course if I could get computer
mediated feedback.
I get better scores on papers I have written receiving computer-mediated
feedback from my teacher.
I can change my papers more easily and more often when I use word
processing on the computer than when I hand-writing.
I plan to continue getting computer-mediated feedback to write my papers
after this class is finished.
I feel that I learn to write better when I get computer-mediated feedback
from the English teacher.
I feel relaxed and comfortable when I giving feedback on the computer.
15. I feel I get more individual attention from the teacher in the computer
writing class than I do in other, non-computer-mediated writing classes.
16. I do not like to do computer-mediated feedback in my writing class
because I cannot talk to my partner in person while I giving feedback
17. When I write using the computer, I pay more attention to grammar and
errors correction.
18. I think using the computer-mediated feedback in writing classes is very
useful and interesting.
20. I have positive attitudes toward using the computer for writing and
communication in the language classroom.
158
1
2
3
4
APPENDIX L
TABLE TO EMPTY RESULTS FROM TEACHERS-WRITTEN FEEDBACK
QUESTIONNAIRE
SCALE
1.
2.
3.
4.
1
I find my teacher‟s essay feedback system very helpful and
motivating that is the reason why I have no fear of my writing being
evaluated.
I think it is important for teachers to correct students' written errors.
Different teachers have given me feedback in different ways by
using different methods.
I read the feedback from my previous writing and use this feedback
in my next writing.
5.
Teacher's correction helps me learn and improve my English.
6.
All the marking codes and symbols used to identify errors have been
explained before the teacher gives feedback.
I believe that application of symbols such as: (VT: Verb Tense, Sp:
Spelling, Pro: Pronoun) and so on is quite useful.
It is more helpful to give clear, direct instructions about my writing
errors than suggesting a correction.
I always pay close attention to my teacher's written feedback on my
writing.
I think it is better to write the feedback in the margins than at the
end.
I prefer my classmates to give me feedback on my essays and not
the teacher.
I prefer my teacher to give me oral rather than written feedback on
my essays.
I like it when the teacher corrects only the most serious errors I
make in my essays.
I prefer my teacher not to correct my errors but just to indicate them
and ask me to correct them myself.
I like it when the teacher uses codes or symbols to help me with the
nature of my errors.
It would be better if the teacher made some verbal comments
instead of using codes or symbols to identify my errors.
It would be better if the teacher did not correct or indicate any of my
errors and just made some general comments.
The score I get is more important than my teacher‟s corrections and
comments on my composition.
I don‟t like it when my teacher comments only on what I did wrong
and does not mention what I did well.
I always understand my teacher‟s feedback on my writing.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
159
2
3
4
5
APPENDIX M
TABLE TO EMPTY RESULTS FROM THE ESSAY WRITING CORRECTION
Traits
4
3
Organization
Goal or Thesis
Reasons and Support
Word Choice
Visuals/Delivery
Grammar, Punctuation
and Spelling
160
2
1
APPENDIX N
ESSAY EVALUATION RUBRIC IN COMPUTER WRITING PERFORMANCE
Table to e valuate a student‟s ability to write a technical essay on a given topic.
Ranking scale: (1) Does not meet expectations, (2) Meets expectations and
(3) Exceeds expectations.
Writing
Performance
Does Not Meet
Expectations
1
Meets
Expectations
2
Structure,
Organization,
Coherence
Focus, Clarity
Formatting
Procedure
Sources,
References
Total
Percent
161
Exceeds
Expectations
3
Score
APPENDIX O
GUIDELINES FOR ESSAY WRITING
Read the essay question carefully: Highlight key words. Use the dictionary to check the
meaning of any unfamiliar words. Identify the task words that indicate what needs to be done,
discuss, explain, compare. Identify the topic words that indicate the particular subject of the
essay and identify any limiting words that restrict the discussion to a particular area.
Finish any necessary reading or research as background to the essay: Be selective: use
sources which are relevant and accessible. Write notes in your own words. Write down
quotations that may be particularly useful, but ensure the source of these quotes is
acknowledged if they are used and take note of sources so they can be provided in footnotes
and the bibliography.
Brainstorm ideas in response to the essay questions: Bring down any relevant points. Make
note of any relevant evidence or quotes that come to mind. Use a mind map to help stimulate
additional thinking.
Develop a thesis that encapsulates the response to the essay questions: The thesis should be
a statement that strongly expresses the overall response to the question. Avoid a thesis that is
too simplistic, show thought has been put into some of the complexities behind the questions.
The thesis is the backbone of the essay; it will be stated in the introduction paragraph. It also
needs to be referred to several times in the essay before restating it and demonstrating how it
has been proven in the conclusion.
Write a plan for the response: Order ideas in a logical sequence. Make sure every point in
the plan is relevant to the question. After the plan has been written it should be clear where
the essay is going.
Write the introduction: Open up the discussion. Introduce the thesis. Indicate how the
questions will be answered. Name any texts to be discussed, if appropriate. Engage the
reader.
Write the main body of the essay: Ensure each point is given a new paragraph. Use words or
phrases at the begin of each paragraph that will indicate to the reader how it relates to the
previous paragraph, for example: however, in addition, nevertheless, moreover and so on.
Start each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly links the paragraph to the rest of the
essay. , Provide supporting evidence for each point that you make. Return to the thesis, and
express it in different ways if possible, to emphasize how the question is being addressed.
Write the essay conclusion: Summarize the main ideas. Demonstrate how you have proven
your thesis. Finish with an interesting or thought-provoking, but relevant, comment.
Edit the draft: Check for spelling, punctuation and grammar. Delete any sections that are not
particularly relevant. Change vocabulary to improve expression. Seek feedback from peers or
a teacher before writing the final copy.
Write the final copy: Add any footnotes or bibliography if required. Present a clean, neat
copy. Submit on time.
162
APPENDIX P
IRB APPROVAL CERTIFICATE
163

universidad del turabo school of education the use of teacher

Transcription

Similar documents

are factory farms hog-tying people`s

America the Beautiful Essay Contest

MFCU Scholarship Application - Marine Federal Credit Union

MoneySmart - Indiana Council for Economic Education

Available at the Collierville Burch Library…

Writing a Scholarship Essay Writing the Scholarship Essay

Creating HDR with Photomatix and Photoshop - Wide-format

Career Cruising - Milwaukee Public Schools

OneUnited Bank President Teri Williams to Appear on WCVB

The following is a selection of client work, school projects