Self-Monitoring Technique

as a Feedback Method
to Improve ESL Students Writing
Adelynn Tay Xiu Yin
Prof. Dr. Nooreiny Maarof
Faculty of Education
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

Conventional Feedback in Writing

(Cham, 2006)

Overview

Feedback methods
Self-Monitoring Technique
Benefits
Drawbacks
Conclusion
Q&A

Feedback Methods

Written corrective feedback

Individual conferencing
Indirect feedback
Peer response
Self-editing

Written Corrective
Feedback
most common - improve fluency and
accuracy (Gunette, 2007; Kroll, 2003; van
Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken, 2012)
3 types: statements, qs, & imperatives more effective (Sugita, 2006)
error feedback in the form of reformulations
can enhance accuracy in writing over time
(Ferris, 1996)
Not productive - wastes teachers time and
hardly helps the development of learners
writing skills (Truscott, 1999; Ravichandran,

Individual

Conferencing

one-to-one, face-to-face session

idealistic oral commentary approach
(Williams, 2003)
detailed explanation (Williams, 2003)
might not be applicable in large Malaysian
ESL classes (Ravichandran, 2002)

Indirect Feedback
in the form of editing symbols (Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2010)
equal capability as direct feedback in
improving the accuracy of writing,
especially in terms of non-grammatical
error types (van Beuningen, De Jong &
Kuiken, 2012)
not all students could successfully address
the feedback as the teacher originally
intends to (Kroll, 2003)

Peer Response
collaborative learning
encourages the writers to self-evaluate their
own writing and those of others (Sadeghi &
Baneh, 2012)
could be teachers solution to overcome the
time-consuming process of providing specific
feedback for every student (Kroll, 2003)
peers of the same level of proficiency or the
weaker ones, might not be able to provide
constructive feedback (Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012)

Self-Editing
would result in hesitant speech, as
well as tedious drafting and
redrafting process in writing
(Krashen, 1985)
Helpful responsibility (Kasule &
Lunga, 2010)
Learner autonomy and awareness
(Cresswell, 2000)

Self-monitoring technique (Charles,

1990)

2. Ss make
marginal
annotations
regarding
difficulties
faced.

1. Ss write 1st
draft.
4. Ss write the
following
draft.
3. T evaluates draft and
provides responses to ss
annotations.

Rationale
Conventional feedback has minimal impacts
(Charles,
1990;
Hyland,
2000;
Ravichandran, 2002; Sarabia, Nicolas & De
Larios, 2012)
Constructive feedback from teacher is more
useful between drafts (Keh, 1990; Harmer,
2007; Ravichandran, 2002; Trupe, 2001)
Lack of reflective writing practice (Abdel
Hamid, 2010; Cresswell, 2000; Kasule &
Lunga, 2010)
Limited studies on self-monitoring technique
(Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012; Wang, 2004)

Past Studies
Experimental
study
Favourable
conducted in eastern
China with two classes of
English majors attending
an English writing course
as sample (Wang, 2004)
7 adult Italians studying
for Cambridge Proficiency
at a language school
(Creswell, 2000)
Two classes of Spanish
students with different
levels of proficiency
(Sarabia, Nicolas & de
Larios, 2012)

Unfavourable
54 Iranian guidance and
high school female
students with beginner
level of proficiency compare SMT, peer
feedback & group feedback
(Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012)
35 students at a university
in southern Taiwan as
subjects compare SMT
and peer-editing (Tsai &
Lin, 2012)

Benefits
Reflective writing practice metacognitive skills
(Charles, 1990; Cresswell, 2000; Kasule & Lunga,
2010; Sarabia, Nicolas & de Larios, 2012)
Improved writing quality (Charles, 1990; Chen,
2009; Cresswell, 2000; Wang, 2004; Tsai & Lin,
2012)
Learner autonomy (Charles, 1990; Cresswell, 2000;
Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012; Sarabia, Nicolas & de
Larios, 2012; Tsai & Lin, 2012)
More focused, systematic and meaningful feedback
- reduces teachers burden(Charles, 1990; Chen,
2009; Cresswell, 2000)

Drawbacks
Prior training on annotating timeconsuming (Cresswell, 2000; Wang, 2004)
avoid focus on linguistic concerns
(Cresswell, 2000; Kasule & Lunga, 2010;
Sarabia, Nicolas & de Larios, 2012; Wang,
2004)
Quality of teachers feedback (Kasule &
Lunga, 2010; Sarabia, Nicolas & De Larios,
2012)
Students level of language proficiency
(Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012; Tsai & Lin, 2012)

CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK
Charless (1990) self-monitoring
technique
Cresswells (2000) annotation
evaluation model
Kitao & Kitaos (1996) six writing
components

Conclusion
Exposure to process writing and prior training
are prerequisites to successful
implementation of self-monitoring technique
(Creswell, 2000; Wang, 2004; Sadeghi &
Baneh, 2012)
Students attitude and motivation may
influence the effectiveness of SMT (Kasule &
Lunga, 2010; Tsai & Lin, 2012)
The improvement of writing quality may be
subjected to the quality of feedback given by
teacher (Kasule & Lunga, 2010; Sarabia,
Nicolas & De Larios, 2012)

 SMT can be used as a tool to give specific

feedback targeted at individual learning
needs when annotations specify ss concerns
(Creswell, 2000; Sarabia, Nicolas & de Larios,
2012)
SMT, when aptly used, can improve overall
writing quality, especially in terms of
organization (Chen, 2009; Creswell, 2000;
Wang, 2004)
SMT encourages reflective writing practice
(Creswell, 2000; Kasule & Lunga, 2010;
Sarabia, Nicolas & de Larios, 2012)
SMT is especially useful for proficient students
(Wang, 2004; Sadeghi & Baneh, 2012)
Students with low proficiency may not benefit

References
Charles, M. (1990). 'Responding to problems in
written English using a student self-monitoring
technique'. ELT Journal 44(4), pp. 286-293.
Cham, J. (2006). Red ink [Online image].
Retrieved on 3 March, 2016, from
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.ph
p?comicid=690
Cresswell, A. (2000). Self-Monitoring in Student
Writing: Developing Learner Responsibility.
ELT Journal 54(3), pp. 235-244.

Ferris, D.R. (1996). The case for grammar correction in L2

writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of
Second Language Writing (8), pp. 1-10.
Kasule, D. & Lunga, V. B. (2010). Attitudes of L2 students
towards self-editing their own written texts. Retrieved
on 20 February 2016, from
http://174.142.38.230/~renafric/site/wpcontent/uploads/2010/10/Attitudes-of-L2-Student1.pdf
Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in The Writing Process: A
Model And Methods For Implementation. ELT Journal
44(4), pp.294 304.
Kitao, S. K. & Kitao, K. (1996). Testing writing. Education
Resources Information Center. Retrieved 20 February
2016, from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED398259.pdf
Krashen, S.D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and
implications. London: Longman.

Ohlstain, E. (2001). Functional Tasks for mastering the

mechanics of writing and going just beyond. In Celce-Murcia,
N. (ed.).Teaching English as a second or foreign language,
pp.207-217. London: Heinle & Heinle.
Sadeghi, K. & Baneh, M.D. (2012). Relationship between
student self-monitoring, type of peer feedback and EFL
writing performance. Theory and Practice in Language
Studies 2(5), pp. 909-915.
Sarabia, R. M., Nicolas, F. & De Larios, J. R. (2012). SelfMonitoring in L2 writing by Spanish secondary school
students. Porta Linguarium 18, pp. 7-25.
Tsai, Y-R. & Lin, C-F. (2012). Investigating the effects of
applying monitoring strategy in EFL writing instruction.
International Journal of Business and Social Science 3(13),
pp. 205-216.
Wang, X.2004.Encouraging Self-Monitoring in Writing by
Chinese Students. ELT Journal 58(3),pp. 238-246.