looooo
THE EFFECTS OF FORM-FOCUSED
AND CONTENT-FOCUSED FEEDBACK
ON THE QUALITY OF ESL COMPOSITION
by
*u,i,10450
u; S
^matao Pcrab.c.
VIJAYA JANE EVANSON
1 FOTOSTAT TIDAK DIBENARKAN |
A Research Report submitted
to the Faculty of Education,
University of Malaya
in partial fulfilment
of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Education
1997
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Moses
Samuel, for his invaluable guidance, clear advice, insightful comments and
prompt responses throughout the course of my work.
1 would also like to acknowledge the great influence of my late father, Mr.
Joseph Albert Evanson, in my life. The memory of his kindness, humility and
love of learning continues to inspire me. And to my mother, who cheers me on
every step of the way, my love and thanks.
My heartfelt thanks to my dear colleagues, King Siong Bhaskaran, Angeiine
Francis, Celestina Evanson, Krishna Kumari and Saidatul Akmar, without whose
assistance I could not have completed this study.
I am grateful to my employers, Institut Teknologi MARA, for the opportunity to
pursue my Master's Degree.
1 especially wish to thank my dear husband, Devan, for his encouragement and
support throughout this course. Special thanks to my son, Mark Rohan, whose
i
arrival in the midst of this course certainly delayed my completion of it, but
mad© everything so much more worthwhile.
Most important of all, with all my heart I thank God, who makes all things
possible.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
ABSTRACT
Given that teachers spend such a lot of time providing feedback to
compositions, this study was undertaken to find out the effect of form-focused
an content-focused feedback on the quality of ESL composition. In addition,
this study sought to guid out the perceptions of students regarding these two
types of feedback. This study is a partial replication of a study conducted by
Fathman and Whalley (1990).
The students who participated in this study were from an Intermediate English
class in the School of Hotel Catering and Tourism Management, Institut
Teknologi MARA. The class lecturer also participated in this study. She taught
the students writing skills and provided feedback to their essays. Three other
lecturers also participated by rating the students' essays.
The students were required to write seven essays each. They were divided
into three groups and given different types of feedback.
Form feedback,
content feedback and both form and content feedback. Their grammar and
content scores for the first and final essays were compared to find out the
effect of form and content-focused feedback.
Six students were interviewed to find out their perceptions of form-focused and
content focused feedback.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
Among the findings of this study was that both form-focused and content-
focused feedback brought about improvement in student writing. An interesting
finding was that when students were given form feedback, their content scores
improved as well; similarly, when they were given content feedback, their
grammar scores improved as well. Overall, it was found that when students
were given both types of feedback, they did not show as much improvement
as those who received more focused feedback.
The interviews with the students revealed a lot about their perceptions of the
feedback received. Generally the students approved of both form feedback and
content feedback and perceived them as being useful in helping them improve
their writing. However, they felt they needed more help in understanding and
making use of the feedback on form.
They greatly approved of content
feedback which was positive.
Since teachers invest so much time in giving feedback, it is hoped that this
study will encourage teachers to consider the effect of the feedback being given
to students' writing, and to find out to what extent they are able to make use
of it.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
KESAN-KESAN MAKLUMBAIAS FDKUS NAHQ DAN TATABAHASA DAN
MAKLUMBALAS TOKUS ISI KARANGAN ATAS KUALITI KARANGAN ESL
ABSTRAK
t
Memandangkan guru mengambil masa yang lama untuk menyediakan
maklumbalas ke atas karangan pelajar-pefajar, kajian ini dijalankan untuk
mengenalpasti maklumbalas fokus nahu dan tatabahasa dan makiumbafas
fokus isi karangan atas kualiti karangan ESL. Tambahan pula, kajian ini
bertujuan untuk mendapatkan pandangan'pelajar-pelajar ke atas kedua-dua
jenis maklumbalas ini. Kajian ini merupakan replikasi sebahagian daripada
kajian yang dijalankan oleh Fathman dan Whalley (1990).
Pelajar-pelajar yang mengambil bahagian dalam kajian ini adalah terdiri
daripada kelas Inggeris 'Intermediate' dalam sekolah Pengurusan Hotel dan
Pelancongan, Institut Teknologi MARA. Pensyarah kelas juga mengambil
bahagian di dalam kajian ini. Beliau mengajar pelajar-pelajar skil penulisan dan
memberi maklumbalas ke atas karangan mereka. Tiga orang lagi pensyarah
juga mengambil bahagian dengan menyemak karangan-karangan murid-murid.
Pelajar-pelajar dikehendaki menulis tujuh karangan seorang.
Mereka
dibahagikan dalam tiga kumpulan dan diberi maklumbalas yang berlainan:
maklumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa, maklumbalas isi dan kedua-dua jenis
maklumbalas ini. Markah dari segi nahu dan tatabahasa dan isi kandungan
bagi karangan-karangan pertama dan akhir dibandingkan untuk mengetahui
kesan fokus maklumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa dan isi. Enam pelajar telah
ditemuduga untuk mendapatkan pandangan mereka ke atas kedua-dua jenis
maklumbalas yang diberi ini,
iv
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
Di antara penemuan-penemuan kajian ini adalah bahawa kedua-dua jenis
maklumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa dan isi telah menunjukkan peningkatan di
dalam penulisan pelajar-pelajar. Satu penemuan yang menarik adalah apabila
pelajar-pelajar diberi maklumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa, markah isi karangan
juga turut meningkat. Begitu juga apabila mereka diberi maklumbalas isi,
markah nahu dan tatabahasa mereka juga turut meningkat. Keseluruhannya,
adalah didapati bahawa apabila pelajar-pelajar diberi kedua-dua jenis
maktumbalas, mereka tidak menunjukkan peningkatan setinggi yang dicapai
oleh pelajar-pelajar yang menerima satu jenis maklumbalas.
Temuduga dengan pelajar-pelajar menunjukkan banyak mengenai pandangan
mereka terhadap maklumbalas yang diterirna. Pada umumnya, pelajar-pelajar
meluluskan kedua-dua maktumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa dan isi, dan
berpendapat bahawa kedua-dua maklumbalas ini adalah bermanfaat dalam
meningkatkan penulisan mereka. Walau bagaimanapun, mereka berpendapat
bahawa mereka memerlukan lebih banyak bantuan dalam memahami dan
mempraktikkan maklumbalas nahu dan tatabahasa. Mereka sesungguhnya
meluluskan tindakbalas isi yang didapati posrtif.
Oleh kerana guru-guru meluangkan masa yang banyak dalam memberi
maklumbalas, adalah diharapkan kajian ini akan mendorong guru-guru memberi
penekanan ke atas kesan maklumbalas yang diberi ke atas penulisan pelajarpelajar, dan mengenalpasti sejauhmana pelajar-pelajar boleh menggunakannya.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
j
ABSTRACT
jj
ABSTRACT IN BAHASA MALAYSIA
jv
LIST OF TABLES
'
x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1
I.
Background to the Study
1
II.
Statement of the Problem
7
III.
Purpose of the Study
9
IV.
Research Questions
10
V.
Definition of Terms
10
CHAPTER 2 : REVIEW OF LITERATURE
12
I.
The Product Approach to Writing
12
II.
The Process Approach to Writing
16
III.
Teachers Written Responses to Student Writing
23
IV.
Teacher Feedback on Form and Content
25
V:
The Fathman and Whalley Study
31
VI.
Issues Arising from the Fathman and Whalley Study
33
VII.
Students1 Perceptions of Teacher Feedback
36
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES
I.
II.
Participants
39
A.
The Lecturer
39
B.
The Students
40
C.
The Raters
4t
Data Collection and Analysis
42
A.
Procedure for Collection of Data
42
1.
The Writing Tasks
42
2.
The Interviews
47
B.
Analysis of Data
50
1.
The Form and Content Scores
51
2.
Interviews with Students
52
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
I.
39
53
The Effectiveness of Form-focused and
Content-focused Feedback in Improving-Student
Writing: Analysis of Scores
A.
53
Analysis of Students' Mean Content and
Grammar Scores on First and Final Essays
55
1.
Form Feedback Group
57
2.
Content Feedback Group
57
3.
Form and Content Feedback Group
58
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
B.
Analysis of Percentage of Students Receiving
Higher, the Same or Lower Scores
C.
II,
Analysis of Findings
59
61
Students' Perceptions of the Feedback
65
A.
Form Feedback
65
1.
Student 1
65
2.
Student 2
65
B.
C.
D.
Content Feedback
68
1.
Student 3
71
2.
Student 4
73
Form and Content Feedback
76
1.
Student 5
76
2.
Student 6
79
An Analysis of the Perceptions of Form and
Content Feedback
1.
An Analysis of Perceptions of Form
Feedback
2.
81
81
An Analysis of Perceptions of
Content Feedback
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
83
CHAPTER 5: IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i
86
I.
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
87
II.
Implications
90
A.
Form Feedback
92
B.
Content Feedback
93
III.
Limitations of the Study
95
IV.
Conclusion
95
APPENDICES
97
A.
Content Feedback Scoring Guide
97
B.
Grammar Feedback Scoring Guide
99
C.
Interview Guide
100
D.
Issues to be Raised with the Class Lecturer
102
E.
The 7 Essay Topics Assigned in this Study
104
F.
Content and Grammar Scores Assigned by
the 3 Raters on the First and Final Essays for the
20 Students in this Study
106
BIBLIOGRAPHY
109
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
1.
PLAN FOR DATA COLLECTION
2.
MEAN GRAMMAR AND CONTENT SCORES ON
50
FIRST AND FINAL COMPOSITIONS FOR THE
3 GROUPS OF STUDENTS; FORM FEEDBACK
GROUP, CONTENT FEEDBACK GROUP AND
FORM AND CONTENT FEEDBACK GROUP
3.
55
PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WITH HIGHER,
THE SAME OR LOWER SCORES FOR THE 3
GROUPS: FORM FEEDBACK, CONTENT
FEEDBACK AND FORM AND CONTENT
FEEDBACK
59
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Background to the Study
Student performance in writing is an area of great concern for teachers. This
is partly because the proficiency of students in English is offen based on
student performance in a writing task. Some kind of writing is often required
of students not only in their English classes but in their content area subjects
as well, and much weightage is given to writing in examinations. At the MARA
Institute of Technology (FTM) soon after students register for their courses, they
are given a writing test and placed in English classes based on their
performance.
Throughout their English programme, writing features
prominently, both in class and during examinations. Even when students
graduate and apply for jobs, they may have to perform some kind of writing
task as part of the selection exercise. Of the four basic language skills, writing
is often cited by students as the most difficult one to acquire, yet this is the skill
students earnestly seek to develop, to enable them to perform well
academically. Teachers, too, recognizing that much of their students 'success1
in their studies depends on writing, are greatly concerned that students acquire
the necessary writing skills.
This concern with student writing has led teachers to question what part they
can play in bringing about improvement in student writing, and one area that
teachers focus much attention and energy on is that of responding to student
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 2 -
writing. Teachers ask themselves how beet they can provide effective response
to their students' essays, and this concern is hot surprising considering the
amount of time that teachers invest in giving feedback to the students' essays
Zamel (1985) reports that 'according to one estimate (Sommers 1982), teachers
take at least 20 to 40 minutes to comment on an individual paper' (Zamel,
1985, p.80). Thus it is natural that teachers be concerned that the time spent
providing feedback produces positive results.
Why is providing response to student writing so important? In commenting on
the issue of providing written feedback to essays, Leki (1990) has this to say:-
Writing teachers and students alike do intuit that written
responses can have a great effect on student writing and
attitude toward writing -- such a great effect, in fact, that
the response a writer gets may be the final arbiter of
whether a writer will continue to write at all. (p. 58)
It is believed that this applies not only to written feedback, but to other forms of
responding to student writing as well. It is daunting to note that the teacher may
hold the power to determine whether a student will be encouraged to continue
writing, or whether the student gives up writing, disheartened or discouraged by
the feedback received. Thus it is of utmost importance that teachers and
researchers study the effects and effectiveness of the different forms of
response that are given to student writing.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
Teachers believe that because so much time and effort is invested in
responding to student essays, the feedback must be useful to the students.
Sadly, much research proves otherwise. Leki (1990) quotes Knoblauch and
Brannon's (1981) review of research on teacher response to student writing.
They cite studies constrasting responses of praise with
responses of criticism; contrasting the effect of oral
responses with that of written responses; contrasting end
commentary with side comments, contrasting copious
response with brief response, contrasting response only to
error with response to content; contrasting outright
correction of errors with naming errors and with offering
rules; contrasting explicit suggestions for change with
implicit suggestions for change. In each case, the
researchers were forced to the conclusion that none of
these different ways of responding to student writing
produced significant improvements in students' subsequent
writing, (p. 61)
Leki also presents Hillocks' (1986) conclusion based on his reviews of dozens
of research findings that "the results of all these studies strongly suggest that
teacher comment has little impact on student writing", (p. 61)
Can it be that the countless hours spent by teachers over the ages correcting
their students' work could have been to no avail? It is believed that teachers
instinctively know that responding to student writing is of great importance, but
the question that arises is how best this feedback can be provided, and whether
or not it meets the needs of the students in each particular setting.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 4 -
Responding to students' writing can be broadly classified into two categories peer response and teacher response.
Teacher response can be further
subdivided into the categories of taped commentary, writing conference and
written response. The focus of this study is limited to the teacher's written
response to student writing.
Teachers' written response to student writing has focused on two major areas,
form and content. Teachers of writing today are faced with the dilemma of
deciding what to focus on when marking their students' essays. Over the years
changes in the focus of feedback have occurred. Fathman and Whalley (1990)
report that:-
'Early in the nineteenth century... little or no attention was
paid to grammatical correctness (Connors, 1985). Toward
the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth,
interest in grammatical correctness grew. In recent years,
there has been emphasis placed on the writing process...
Many process writing textbooks have been published which
focus on content...' (p. 178)
Although for many years teachers have placed heavy emphasis on form or
grammatical correctness, in recent years, with the interest in the process
approach to writing, there has been increased interest in the content of student
writing, specifically the ideas contained in writing and their logical presentation.
However, much research indicates that 'process research is not informing or
transforming pedagogy.1 (Zamel, 1987). Zamel's (1985) investigation of ESL
teachers' responding behaviour indicates that in spite of the great interest in
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
process writing, when it came to responding, teachers were concerned with form
more than content.
'It seems that ESL writing teachers view themselves
primarily as language teachers, that they attend to surfacelevel features of writing... they are so distracted by
language-related problems that they often correct these
without realizing that there is a much larger, meaningrelated problem that they have failed to address.1 (p. 700).
Teachers want to provide feedback that is useful to students, that actually helps
them to improve, but research has been inconclusive. Should teachers focus
on the form or the content of their students' writing?
Most teachers still
emphasize grammatical correctness, even when they claim to be using the
process approach to writing, an example of the 'gap between educational theory
and educational practice1 (Applebee, 1986). More research is needed to help
teachers determine where their focus should be when responding to students'
writing.
One study that specifically tackles this issue is the study conducted by Fathman
and Whalley (1990). This study attempted to shed more light on the issue of
whether a focus on form or a focus on content is more effective in bringing
about improvement in student writing. The results of Fathman and Whalley's
(1990) study showed that a focus on form or grammar brought about more
improvement in grammatical accuracy compared to the improvement in content
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 6 -
brought about by a focus on content Fathman and Whalley (1990) conclude
that grammar feedback is more effective in improving grammatical accuracy
than content feedback is in improving content.
The study of Fathman and Whalley (1990) is a significant one because it brings
teachers a step closer to answering the question of where their focus should be
when providing feedback. This present study is a replication of the Fathman
and Whalley study, but with modifications. This study will also investigate the
effects of form-focused and content-focused feedback, and seeks to find out if
results similar to those of Fathman and Whalleys' study will be obtained in the
local context. The modifications to this presentstudy and the need for them will
be discussed in Chapter II, Section VI 'Issues Arising from the Fathman and
Whalley Study1.
This study also investigates the area of students' reactions to teacher feedback.
Although there has been a certain amount of research into the area of teacher
response to student writing, far too little research has been conducted into
students' perceptions of the feedback received. Zamel (1985) makes the point
that-
We must recognize that students may not be able to use
our comments and markings, for our responses may
represent very complex reactions which they are incapable
of applying to their texts, (pp. 94, 95).
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
_
7 —
How often do teachers of writing stop and ask themselves whether or not their
written responses to their students' writing are understood at all? Students may
be thoroughly confused by the markings on their paper, given that research has
shown that teachers' responses are often confusing, arbitrary, inaccessible,
vague and abstract (Zamel, 1985). Thus this study attempts to investigate what
students think about the feedback they received.
Zamel suggested that
teach ers:-
... ask students to tell us whether or not they understand
our responses and to indicate those that they do not. In
this way we can better understand what we are asking
students to do, what students are learning... and the extent
to which this enterprise helps students'develop as writers,
(p. 94).
There is much to be learned about the effectiveness of teacher response by
asking students for their opinions, and this study attempts to explore the
perceptions of students regarding teacher response to help teachers understand
how they can respond to writing in a way that is useful to students.
II.
Statement of the Problem
For years, many teachers believed that every error in students' essays had to
be underlined and corrected in red ink, so much so that when the unfortunate
student received his work back, it would be quite unrecognizable as the essay
he had handed in, and would look as if the teacher had rewritten the essay.
The student would have to, in a very literal sense, read between the lines. This
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 8 -
is assuming that the student had enough courage to scrutinize the paper, with
all that red ink splashed all over. Research has shown that feedback of this
kind is demoralising for students and may be counter-productive.
A recent approach to responding to student writing has been to focus more on
the content of the students' work, rather than on the grammatical aspect. But
is this the answer for teachers wanting to know what to focus on when marking
students' essays? Research by Fathman and Whalley (1990) has shown that
a focus on content does not really bring about as much improvement in content
as a focus on grammar does in improving grammatical correctness. Zamel
(1985) reports the dilemma faced by one teacher, who had this to say,
I usually start out with good intentions of focusing primarily
on the students' message and attending to only the "most
important" errors; but all too often, I end up plowing through
each paper, systematically circling, crossing out, putting
brackets around, and/or revising every usage error I find.
(P- 94).
Many teachers face this dilemma, of what they need to focus on, and how
intentions and actual practice are often at odds, because of the kind of writing
produced by many ESL students. Yet teachers still want to know, and research
still needs to be carried out on, what kind of feedback is beneficial to students.
Is a focus on content more effective in helping students to write better essays?
Or is a focus on grammar more beneficial? This study addresses the form
versus content feedback controversy.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
-
III.
9 -
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of two popular types
of written feedback to student essays: form feedback and content feedback.
This study aims to find out if the conscientious underlining of all grammar errors
in a student's essays, with some diagnosis of the errors-using symbols to
indicate different types of errors-helps the student to improve in his essay
writing skills. This study will also investigate whether the writing of comments
on content will help the student to produce a better essay. A comparison will
be made of the effectiveness of both these forms of providing feedback.
Another aim of this study is to find out what students think about the type of
feedback given.
It is important that the views of students be taken into
consideration by teachers when providing feedback, for what a teacher thinks
is effective may not be useful to the student. Students will be interviewed to
find out their perceptions of the feedback given, for such interviews can shed
•#
a lot of light on whether or not students understand the responses to their
writing that they receive from teachers, and if there is one kind of response that
they find more useful than another.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
_
1n _
1U
f
£rpu-• •
r
"""iaan
Jjlstifuj
IV.
Jei
4 50
Research Questions
soi°r , ' - - ^ / a ^
One objective of this study is to bring teachers closer to finding out whether it
is more useful to focus on form or on content when responding to their students'
writing. The other objective of this study is to investigate the perceptions of
students regarding the feedback that they receive to their writing. Thus the
research questions addressed by this study are:" O t f *-''^::GM
1.
How effective is teacher feedback that focuses on form and teacher
feedback that focuses on content in improving student writing?
2.
What are students' perceptions of feedback on form and feedback on
content?
V.
Definition of Terms
Feedback; input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information
to the writer for revision.... It is the comments, questions and suggestions a
reader gives a writer to produce 'reader based prose' (Flower, 1979) as opposed
to 'writer-based prose'. (Ken, 1990, p. 294)
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 11 t
Feedback on form: written feedback that is provided by the teacher that focuses
on the grammar, vocabulary and mechanics of the writing.
Feedback on content: written feedback from the teacher that focuses on the
content or ideas in the writing, and the logical development and presentation oi
these ideas.
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
-
12 -
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter looks at two main approaches to the teaching of writing - the
product approach and the process approach to writing. The two approaches are
discussed as they are related to the two different forms of providing feedback
to writing - the former focuses on form or grammar feedback while the latter
focuses more on content feedback. The chapter then looks at teachers' written
responses to student writing with a focus on research related to form and
content feedback to student writing. A detailed study of the Fathman and
Whalley (1990) study is presented, as this present study is a partial replication
of it, and issues arising from the study are discussed. The chapter ends with
a brief look at some literature related to students' perceptions of teacher
feedback.
1.
The Product Approach to Writing
Traditionally the focus of composition teaching has been on the form or
grammatical correctness of the essay, with teachers stressing the need for
writing that was free from linguistic errors, and this is termed the product
approach to writing. The emphasis was on an error-free final essay - the
product. According to Applebee (1986),
The traditional approach to writing instruction in American
schools has been prescriptive and product-centred. At the
sentence level, instruction has emphasized the traditional
modes of discourse ... instruction usually consists of
COPYRIGHT © UiTM
- 13 -
analyzing classic examples of good form, learning the rules
... and practicing following the rules ... success in writing
has been measured by the ability to incorporate those rules
into one's own writing, (p. 95).
Thus writing was very 'much seen as an exercise in producing grammatically
correct sentences and paragraphs. Students were subjected to a lot of anxiety
as they believed that they were expected to produce error-free essays. Zamel
(1987) quotes a former ESL student of hers, to show how much anxiety a
product approach to writing could produce in students.
My teacher emphasizes on the rules and limitations how to
write a reseach paper, for example, avoiding a topic too
broad, too subjective, too controversial, too familiar, too
technical.
She is my reader, my grader.
Since she
emphasizes on rules and limitations, she must grade
according to these things. So, I have to follow such rules.
Then in such circumstances, I feet I did not dare to strike
even a step; all around me were abysses - each step was
full of danger, t felt I was restricted and I could not write
any more. I felt upset and frustrated. I lost my desireness
and confidence to write, (p. 699)
The teacher's approach to the writing task and her role as perceived by the
student combined to create fear and apprehension in the student.
What is the teacher's role in the product approach to writing? The teacher is
basically an editor or proofreader, whose job it is to help the student eliminate
all errors from the product handed in. Zamel (1987) writes,
It seems that ESL writing teachers view themselves
primarily as language teachers, that they attend to surfacelevel features of writing, and that they seem to read and
COPYRIGHT © UiTM