You are on page 1of 19

1

Teacher feedback on advanced EFL student writing-in-progress: A Case study at a secondary school in Oman

By: Jamel Abdenacer Alimi e-mail: jamel_alimi@yahoo.com July, 2005.

Our comments need to offer students revision tasks of a different order of complexity and sophistication from the ones that they themselves identify, by forcing students back into the chaos, back to the point where they are shaping and restructuring their meaning. Sommers (1982:166)

1- INTRODUCTION
Quite recentlly, writing teaching and learning has seen an outstanding upsurge in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) settings, following, mainly, the inception of the process and genre approaches. This has sparked off, amongst others, a parallel concern for issues surrounding the role of the writing teacher in the design and implementation of feedback on student composition texts (Leki 1990; Grabe and Kaplan 1996; Tribble 1996; Raims 1983). More particularly, investigation has been geared towards analyzing the outer, observable aspects of teacher feedback during the pre-, while-, and post-writing stages that learners go through. Subsequently, much of the inner, often unspoken assumptions and beliefs which underlie those types of response remains, unfortunately, almost wholly unmapped and ill-defined

despite their reportedly powerful impact (Borg 1999; Graves 2000: 25-36; Lewis 2002; Hyland 1998, reviewed in Hyland 2002:195-99; Bernat 2005).

1.1 Purpose of the Study:

The present research project (RP) concerns itself with probing into, and accounting for, the inner beliefs which underpin teacher feedback on in-class EFL student draft texts. It aims to present and discuss the results of a small-scale investigation which attempts to explore the following guiding questions: a- What personal conceptions do writing teachers hold about responding to student second language (L2) texts? b- In what ways are such private theories actually expounded across their written feedback? c- How do writing teachers retrospectively account for the aspects of response they provide?

1.2 Importance of the Study

The study is particularly important for a- its emic, bottom-up stance it will adopt (Richards 1996:ix); b- its focus on insider participants own voices, priorities and teaching philosophy (Reid 1993:260; Woods 1996; Milton et al 2000); c- its immediate relevance for, and impact on, student writers at a pre-university level of instruction; and d- its choice of a non-Romanized Arab-native-speaking EFL context (Oman), which has received but scant attention in L2 process writing research.

Additionally, the RP is worth researching in, at least, two ways. Firstly, it targets practicing teachers from various national, linguistic, academic and teaching experience backgrounds. Secondly, it involves, though indirectly, advanced 12 th grade students exclusively thus, strongly implying their capability to attend, quite effectively, to different aspects of teacherand/or student-initiated feedback ( Reid 1993; Cresswell 2000).

1.3 Interest of the Study

It is hoped that, by shedding light on the private theories that lie behind EFL teachers provision of written feedback, the RP will a- help secure better understanding of the motifs and strategies of the writing teachers under study and, by extension, their colleagues in other EFL contexts, who are often blamed for ill-training and, even, lack of professionalism insofar as effective feedback provision is concerned (Grabe and Kaplan 1996), b- account for the reasoning underpinning teachers idiosyncratic written feedback patterns, and check it out against current insights from writing research, c- highlight the importance of the writing context and its impact on the quality of students composing skills and proficiency (Holmes 2000; Jenkins et al 1993, reviewed in Hyland 2002:164-68), and d- contribute, though modestly, in shaping up a genuine profile of writing practitioners in EFL contexts thus, moving a step closer to the standard of generalizability so much advocated for.

2- METHOD

Approach: For the purpose of the present RP, both a qualitative and quantitative approach will be adopted in view of ensuring maximum triangulation.

Participants: Eleven male teachers (one Moroccan, one Tunisian, one Sudanese, two Indians, three Omanis, and three Egyptians), 24 to 52 years of age, are to participate in the PR. Their EFL experience ranges from 2 to 30 years. Both Indian teachers hold an MA in English language studies. The Moroccan colleague is a Distance Learning student at Surrey University, England. One of the Omanis is a would-be student at Brisbane University, Australia. All the participants have taken part in English Language Teaching (ELT) professional development schemes at home and / or in the Sultanate.

Research Instruments:

a- A Teacher Questionnaire (Appendix One). b- A typed version of a composition draft written by a 12 th grade student (Appendix Two) c- A post-event Teacher Interview (Appendix Four).

Procedure: Data is to be collected from the participants by the RP investigator on three sessions over one to four days as follows:

Session One: The respondents fill in a self-report questionnaire about their personal attitudes towards, and perspectives on, key issues relating to the provision of written feedback on student writing.

Session Two: The participants are requested to provide a written feedback for revision on a typed version of a composition draft produced by an anonymous 12 th grader.

Session Three: The RP investigator invites the respondents for a one-to-one informal interview. The discussion will focus, primarily, on the reasoning behind the aspects of response given by the teacher in question in Session Two (see Appendix Four for sample guiding questions). The interviews will be tape-recorded and, then, transcribed for analysis and reference. (Two illustrative Interview transcripts will be available in Appendix Five).

Data Analysis: Data on the Teacher Questionnaire as well as Teachers written feedback on the sample student text will be charted and tallied numerically; that on the post-event Interview both qualitatively and quantitatively.

3- ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Here below is a highly selective annotated bibliography intended for the Discussion Section in the research report.

Cohen, A. and M. Cavalcanti, (1990), ' Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports', in B. Kroll (ed), Second Language Writing: Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Key points : The co-authors describe, and report on, three small-scale studies they jointly conducted at three tertiary institutions in Brazil. They give a detailed account of the results emerging from the data analysis under three main headings (160-71): a- Focus on teacher feedback, b- Students' attitudes towards teacher feedback, and c- Student strategies in handling feedback. (Four statistical summary tables are also provided) 5

They conclude their inquiry with reaffirming, most importantly, a- The misfit between what instructors choose to provide as written feedback on students' writing and what the latter perceive as interesting and relevant to their composition needs but with varying degrees from one study to another, and b- The limited recourse of learners to the wide array of strategies available for revising their texts.

Critical Evaluation: The article echoes much of the criticism so often leveled at writing teachers when reacting to their students' draft texts (e.g., Sommers 1982). It has the merit of being explanatory and operational in its approach. Yet, in contrast to Fathman and Whalley's (1990) study, it stops short of considering what the students will actually do with the comments in their subsequent drafts. The introductory background to the study (p.155-56) is of considerable usefulness when it comes to writing the Literature Review Section.

Fathman, A. and E. Whalley (1990), ' Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content', in B. Kroll (ed), Second Language Writing: Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Key points : The co-authors describe, and report on, a study jointly carried out (a) to assess the effectiveness of focus on form versus content in teacher response to student writing, and (b) to determine when teachers should provide feedback that focuses on form versus content. The student subjects, already divided into four groups, each received a different kind of teacher feedback on their original, first draft texts as follows: Group 1: No feedback whatsoever Group 2: Solely grammar feedback 6

Group 3: Solely content feedback Group 4: A combination of grammar and content feedback

The original and, then, revised essays were scored by two independent raters on grammatical accuracy and on content quality separately. Based on the data analysis, the co-investigators chiefly conclude that 'grammar and content feedback, whether given alone or simultaneously, positively affect rewriting' (p.185). They close up with succinct answers to the guiding questions mentioned above.

Critical Evaluation: The paper is very useful in relation to the proposed study in that it addresses, and offers solutions to, teachers' worries over the right type of written response which best yields improvement in student revision. Its tone of optimism and reconciliation is, in my view, quite understandable given the subjects' 'intermediate' level at English as well as their high motivation, which could easily be sensed. Its replication in EFL contexts, where the item 'intermediate' would perhaps equate 'advanced', could lead to seriously diverging outcomes (Cohen and Cavalcanti 1990; Zamel 1985, cited in Leki 1990). The improvement reported in the rewrites of Group One students would remain open to question if their Omani fellow counterparts were used as a control group.

Hendrickson, J.M. (1980), The treatment of errors in written work, Modern Language Journal 64, 2: 216-21, reprinted in S. Mc Kay (ed) (1984), Composition in a Second Language, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House, 145-59.

Key points : Briefly introduces the issue of error correction against the Acquisition-Learning background, associated with the Natural Approach. Points out the lack of yet conclusive standards on error treatment, both theoretically and empirically. Contends that prevailing teacher written feedback are instances of editing rather correcting. Proposes four factors 7

for consideration by teachers when dealing with student written errors. Argues that higher priority attention should be paid to those errors which do impair intelligibility in sentence message, stigmatize the student writer from the native speakers perspective, or occur frequently in student texts. Describes various indirect and indirect correction techniques and strategies, coupled with seven activities designed for teachers to ameliorate their students composition skills.

Critical Evaluation: James M. Hendricksons article is of much usefulness and relevance when considering teachers feedback on student errors from conceptual, post-Audiolingual Method perspectives. Its suggestions for treating students written errors in more efficient and humane ways (p.150) betray the dissatisfaction with the seemingly stubborn resistance to innovations on the part of a large segment of the writing teacher community (Sommers 1982; Cohen and Cavalcanti 1990; Fathman and Whalley 1990; Khan 2005).

Johns, A.M. (1990), 'L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theories of L2 composition', in B. Kroll (ed), Second Language Writing: Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Key points : Drawing on Berlin's (1982, 1987, 1988) framework model for writing, Ann M. Johns classifies current L1 composition theories into three core approaches: the Process Approaches, the Interactive Views, and the Social Constructionist Views. Such a classification is based on the visions that each of the approaches holds vis--vis (a) the writer, (b) the audience, (c) reality and truth, and (d) the language component. In doing so, the writer argues that composition practitioners should be aware not only of the tenets and implications of each of the approaches mentioned earlier, but also their own 'theories and the assumptions that underlie them' (p.24). Equally, she calls on students to develop 'mature' theories of their

own (p.33).To close, she draws attention to the strong links between ideology, theory, and subsequent classroom practices.

Critical Evaluation: This article places teachers' private theories about writing within broader methodological and ideological frameworks. It owes much of its strength and relevance for the Discussion Section to its explanatory and informative exposition of current L1 composition theories. Its concern for developing theories of L2 composition is in line with the long-term objectives of the present RP. (For a different approach to reviewing L1 and L2 composition theories, see Miller 1998 below).

Khan, R. (2005), 'Understanding writing perceptions in high school English', in P. Davidson et al (Eds), Standards in English Language Teaching and Assessment, UAE: TESOL Arabia, 191-202.

Key points : This paper concerns the writing perceptions of both teachers and learners at a high school in Bengladesh. Starting off with a brief overview of the product and process approaches to writing pedagogy, Rubina Khan presents the results deriving from her study in two distinct sections: Section One concerns teacher perceptions on a- the writing process, b- methodology for teaching writing, c- the role of the writing teacher, d- materials used in class, and e- error correction and feedback. Section Two deals with student views about sub-sections a, b, and d above, coupled with c- strengths and weaknesses in writing, and ewriting in class. 9

She brings about the following inferences: a- The respondents' shared views on writing as being predominantly form-focused, teacher-centred and product-inspired, and b- The apparent lack of awareness in responding teachers with respect to up-to-date research on writing, which results in grave shortcomings about modes of error correction and of feedback.

The writer closes up with advocating a balanced approach with a 'judicious and selective blending of features from both [the product and process] writing approaches' (p.201). Critical Evaluation: The study reported in this article is quite reminiscent of Cohen and Cavalcanti's (1990) particularly, in terms of purpose and subjects being involved. It echoes much of the blame expressed in Sommers'(1982) article at writing teachers hence, its blunt urge for a compulsory training in the teaching of writing for both pre-service and in-service practitioners (p.200).

Leki, I. (1990), 'Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response', in B. Kroll (ed), Second Language Writing: Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Key points : Ilona Leki reviews teacher written feedback on student writing under four headings namely, (1) What constitutes improvement, (2) The persona of the writing teacher, (3) The effect of written commentary, and (4) Student reactions to written commentary. These central issues are followed with a lengthy section which deals with future possible directions for appropriate feedback.

Critical Evaluation: The paper is an excellent reference source for designing, and subsequently discussing the responses to, many of the items in the Teacher Questionnaire and the Interview. It is also a useful text for quotes from Knoblauch and Brannon's (1981; 1984) articles in particular, which tend to argue for results diametrically opposed to those reached by 10

Fathman and Whalley (1990), for instance. The article is largely Humanistic in its discussion of the above-mentioned issues a feature not quite attended to in Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990).

Miller, K.S. (1998), Teaching Writing, in K. Johnson and H. Johnson (Eds), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, London: Blackwell, 341-48.

Key points : Starts with a brief introduction to the status of writing instruction in current methodology. Reviews the said skill from the perspectives of writing (a) as product, (b) as process, and (c) as social activity. Discusses the linguistic, cognitive, and social bases, which, respectively, underpin the above-mentioned approaches, within (a) Text-based approaches, (b) Communicative-based approaches, (c) Writer-based approaches, and (d) Context-based approaches. Warns against the alarmingly accentuated divergences between these approaches. Dismisses the dichotomy between product and process as false (p.347). Calls for the endorsement of an integrative view, instead.

Critical Evaluation: This entry is a starting, key reading material which builds on several works in the field of writing research and pedagogy (see the bibliography supplied on pages 347-48). It will assist the RP investigator in better delineating and contrasting the private beliefs of the teachers to be surveyed. The section on Context-based Approaches is of particular interest for its inclusion of criticism of the process approach to writing. This would, most likely, astound an overwhelming proportion of EFL teachers who little consider their students texts from a genre- or audience- oriented angle.

Reid, J.M. (1993), Teaching ESL Writing, Chapter 8: Responding to student writing, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regents, 205-28.

11

Key points : Clarifies the ambiguity in the terms responding and evaluating. Delineates the ongoing, social process of feedback on student writing by a variety of audiences including teachers, students, and peers. Outlines, each in turn, the benefits and caveats associated with student response. Discusses possibilities of feedback from alternative, multiple audiences (e.g., the college or university writing centre; writing tutorials; native-speaker editors). Allocates a 9-page section on teacher response, where such issues as the anomalies of audience and purpose in school writing as well as the unusual social interaction faced by ESL teachers are spelled out (p.217). Inserts a detailed sub-section on conferencing with a special emphasis on its purposes, procedures, benefits and caveats. Chiefly concludes with reiterating Lekis (1990:66) call for further inquiry into teachers written feedback in combination with other impacting variables (e.g., classroom settings, course objectives, and grading procedures).

Critical Evaluation: The article broadens the debate on the kind of feedback that writing students can possibly receive. Its provision of a set of sample workshop sheets makes it both practical and theoretical in stance and scope. Notwithstanding, it is felt its suggestions for alternative audiences or conferencing, for instance, are not that obvious and realistic from an EFL perspective. Its advocacy for awareness of classroom exigencies is taken up in detail by Holms (2000).

Sommers, N. (1982), Responding to students writing, College Composition and Communication 33: 44-56, reprinted in S. Mc Kay (ed) (1984), Composition in a Second Language, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Key points : Principally argues that that teachers commenting styles fail to direct genuine revision of [student] text as a whole (p.162). Denounces their tendency to 1- appropriate composition drafts from the student writers (p161-63), 12

2- provide written comments that are contradictory, confusing, abstract, not text-specific, and prone to be rubber-stamped interchangeably from one text to another. 3- react to student drafts as if they were finished [ones] and were not going to be revised (p.165), and to 4- overwhelmingly act as editors, and not as readers.

Critical Evaluation: Due to its rather negative depiction of the writing teachers persona, stances and comment styles, this seminal article may best serve as an extreme reflection of what reportedly prevails in most product-oriented writing classrooms around the world. Otherwise, it does incorporate various insightful suggestions, such as the ones stated in the Introductory Quotation, in an obvious attempt to remedy the situations in Points 1 to 4 above.

4- NON-ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berlin, J.A. (1982), Contemporary composition: The major pedagogical theories, College English 44: 765-77. _____ (1987), Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. _____ (1988), Rhetoric and ideology in the writing class, College English 50: 477-94. Bernat, E. (2005), Beliefs about Language Learning: Current Knowledge, Pedagogical Implications, and New Research Directions [2 July 2005] <http://www.kyotosu.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej33/a1.html > Borg,S. (1999), Teachers theories in grammar teaching, ELT Journal 53, 3: 157-67. Cresswell, A. (2000), Self-monitoring in student writing: Developing learner responsibility, ELT Journal 54, 3: 235-44. Grabe, W. and R.B. Kaplan (1996), Theory and Practice of Writing: An Applied Linguistic 13

Perspective, London and New York: Longman. Graves, K. (2000), Designing Language Course: A Guide for Teachers, Boston, M.A.: Heinle and Heinle. Holms, J.L. (2000), Whats my methodology?, So Paulo: The ESPecialist 21, 2: 127-46. Hyland, F. (1998), The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 3: 255-86. Hyland, K. (2002), Teaching and Researching Writing, Harlow: Longman. Jenkins, S., M.K. Jordan and P. Weiland (1993), The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices, English for Specific Purposes 12: 5167. Knoblauch, C.H. and L. Brannon (1981), Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art, Freshmen English News 10: 1-4. _____ (1984), Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing, Upper Montclair, N.J.: Boynton / Cook. Kroll, B. (ed) (1990), Second Language Writing: Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, M. (2002), Giving Feedback in Language Classes, SEAMEO Regional Centre. Mc Kay, S. (ed) (1984), Composition in a Second Language, Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House. Milton, M., R. Oliver, M. Breen, B. Herd and A. Thwaite (2000), I do it my way. Where do teachers principles come from?, Modern English Teacher 9, 2: 7-13. Raims, A. (1983), Techniques in Teaching Writing, New York: Oxford University Press. Raims, A. (1987), Language proficiency, writing ability, and composing strategies: A study of ESL college student writers, Language Learning 37, 3: 439-68. Reid, J. (1993), Teaching ESL Writing, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall Regents. Richards, J.C (1996), Series editors preface, in J.C. Richards and C. Lockhart, Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 14

Richards, J.C. and C. Lockhart (1996), Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tribble, C. (1996), Writing, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woods, D. (1996), Teacher Cognition in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zamel, V. (1985), Responding to student writing, TESOL Quarterly 19, 1: 79-101.

5- APPENDICES

APPENDIX ONE:

TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE

1- Please complete the following items with relevant details about yourself: Name (OPTIONAL): .. Nationality: . Teaching experience in Oman:

years;

Home country:

years
Grade 11:

Grades taught (Please tick as appropriate): Grade 10:

Grade 12:

Total number of students you teach this year:

2- Which one of the two options would you strongly favour to complete the statement below? Please tick the box next to the option you choose:

Writing is best viewed as 15

the development of some well-formed idea. the record of an idea developing.


3- The following are features of a clear, fluent and effective piece of writing. Please rank them in your own order of importance first to least (i.e., 1 to 9)

FEATURES a- sentence structure, sentence boundaries, stylistic choices, etc b- relevance; clarity; originality; logic, etc c- reader awareness d- vocabulary; idioms; tone, etc e- handwriting; spelling; punctuation, etc f- reason for writing g- grammar h- organization i- the writers process (getting ideas; getting started; drafting; etc)

RANK

(adapted from Raims 1983:6)

4- Continuing with Question 3 above, which Features do you think your students need least / most written feedback on their first draft compositions? Please fill in the boxes with the letters corresponding to the Features in the order of least to most (or 1 to 9):

5- The items below show different types of teacher written comments on errors in student first drafts. Please select only three of the items which you think are most effective in getting the student writer to revise his submitted draft. Please indicate your choice by inserting the corresponding letters ( a i ) in the boxes below:

a- Exclusive attention to surface conventions, including punctuation, spelling, 16

paragraphing, etc b- Noting absolutely every error committed c- Praising what is genuinely good d- Asking the student for clarification wherever ambiguity arises e- Suggesting options for correcting mistakes f- Naming errors g- Offering rules h- Responding to errors in content solely. i- Declining to offer any comments whatsoever

6- Please tick () the box next to the item that best represents your own profile as a writing teacher ( only ONE box):

a reader a coach

a judge a colleague

an editor an expert to novice

7- Below is a list of feedback techniques and strategies to enhance learners composing skills. Bearing in mind the educational context in the Sultanate, please rate each item in the list according to: 1: Not at all useful; 2: Not very useful; 3: Quite useful; 4: Useful; 5: Very useful

FEEDBACK TECHNIQUES AND STRATEGIES a- out-of-class conferencing b- in-class mini-conferences c- peer response d- pre-text feedback e- student self-monitoring f- written teacher feedback g- taped teacher commentaries h- computer-based response

RANK

17

Thank you very much for your cooperation and time for filling in this questionnaire. You have been extremely helpful to me!

APPENDIX TWO:

TYPED VERSION OF A 12 TH GRADERS TEXT DRAFT ( to be supplied )

APPENDIX THREE: SAMPLES OF TEACHER FEEDBACK ON THE ILLUSTRATIVE STUDENT TEXT ( to be supplied )

APPENDIX FOUR: TEACHER INTERVIEW ( GUIDING QUESTIONS )

Here below are five questions that are intended to help guide the post-event Teacher Interview. (Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5 can be put at random order). 1- Could you please comment on the aspects of feedback youve provided on the student composition draft? What reasoning lies behind such a feedback? 2- How sure are you that the student writer is well aware of the comments youve supplied? 3- How appropriate do you think your feedback comments are as to improving the student writing draft? 4- Do you think the student writer in question will be able to act upon the comments youve given? Do you think he will produce a better rewrite next time? 5- Do you expect the student writer to come and seek further feedback on his draft before proceeding to revision? 18

APPENDIX FIVE: TRANSCRIPTS OF TWO TEACHER INTERVIEWS ( to be supplied )

19

You might also like