Lecture Notes

advertisement
PETROVIETNAM
PETROVIETNAM UNIVERSITY
Learners' Reactions & Responses toward
Teacher Written Feedback in Writing Skill:
A Case-study in EFL Classes in Vietnam
Phuong, B. M.
Presenter : Phuong Bui
Email
: phuong.bui@pvu.edu.vn
Objectives
1. Introduction & Rationale for the study
2. Scope & Aims
3. Methodologies
4. Results & Discussion
Foreign Language Center
2
Introduction

Writing: essential & difficult!
ESL learners’ difficulties in learning writing
English:

− Less
chance of using English
− Different
language functions and styles, etc.
 ESL learners want to know how well they are
performing & how they can improve their skills.
Foreign Language Center
3
Introduction
 To review what they have done
 To know their strengths and weaknesses
 To enhance their writing ability
 To avoid making same mistakes
…
 Providing Feedback is one of the most essential
tasks of writing teachers (Ferris, 2007).
Foreign Language Center
4
Introduction
Research shows that:
 Teacher feedback has a strong impact on learners’
determination about writing in a given composition (Taylor
& Hoedt, 1966)
 Teacher feedback is one of the strongest influences on
students’ outcomes (Alton & Lee, 2003).
 Teacher feedback is desirable & valuable for students;
they pay attention to teacher feedback & it helps to
enhance their writing (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris,
1995b; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996).
 Etc.
Foreign Language Center
5
Introduction
The definite conclusion of teacher feedback’s
effectiveness has not been given yet.

Within the field of L2 learning, teacher feedback
still remains one of the biggest concerns
amongst ESL educators and learners.
Foreign Language Center
6
Introduction
 For teachers to provide effective feedback & avoid
misunderstanding (Lee, 2008).
 For learners to utilize teacher feedback & improve
their writing skills
 Focus on: Teacher feedback methods, influences of
teachers’ comments, learners’ expectation &
references, etc.
There is a need to understand learners’
reactions and responses to teacher written
feedback.

Foreign Language Center
7
Focus of the study
 ESL learners’ responses, reactions
expectation toward different types of TWF.
&
 Teachers’ methods in giving feedback
(characteristics of teacher written feedback)
 The language issues that concern writing
learners.
Foreign Language Center
8
Scope and aims
1. What are the characteristics of the two writing
teachers in giving written feedback? What are
the similarities and differences?
2. To what extent do students evaluate the
usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback?
3. What are the students’ reactions
responses when receiving their TWF?
and
4. What are the students’ preferences and
expectations in types of TWF, and teachers’
techniques of giving feedback in two classes?
Foreign Language Center
9
Brief literature review
Teacher written feedback in writing
(1) Form-focused feedback: grammar-correction, or error
correction.
a. Direct feedback: direct correction
b. Coded feedback: indirect correction (with codes, such
as: s.p, v.t, etc)
c. Uncoded feedback: identify errors by highlighting,
underlining, circling, etc.
(2) Content-based feedback: meaning-based or meaning
related feedback.
(3) Integrated feedback: as a combination of the grammar
correction and the content-based feedback.
(Park, 2006)
Foreign Language Center
10
Methodologies
 Participants
−
49 second year English major students
from two classes (Class A and class B) at
the Faculty of English Teacher Education,
University of Languages and International
Studies, Vietnam National University
Hanoi.
−
Two writing teachers of Class A & Class
B.
Foreign Language Center
11
Methodologies
 Data collection methods
−
Questionnaire: 11 Questions (both closeended & open-ended); written in simple English.
−
Focus-group interview: 02 meeting with 2
classes, an open forum.
−
Document
portfolios.
Foreign Language Center
analysis:
Students’
writing
12
Results and discussion
RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in
giving written feedback? What are the similarities and
differences?
Methods in giving written
feedback
Error/mistake correction
Error/mistake identification
Teacher A
Teacher B
5
29
12
19
Coded error/mistake
identification
Content-based feedback
18
18
4
2
Integrated-feedback
Total of times
13
69
30
81
Foreign Language Center
13
Results and discussion
RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in
giving written feedback? What are the similarities and
differences?
SIMILARITIES
Apply 5 methods in giving FB
Provide comments at marginal and
at the end of students’ paper.
Provide both negative and positive
comments
Foreign Language Center
14
Results and discussion
RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in
giving written feedback? What are the similarities and
differences?
Teacher A:
- Error/mistake identification (29 times): Mostly circling,
underlining mistakes.
-Coded error/mistake identification (18 times)
- Integrated feedback (13 times)
Foreign Language Center
15
Results and discussion
RQ1: What are the characteristics of the two writing teachers in
giving written feedback? What are the similarities and
differences?
Teacher B:
- Integrated feedback (30 times): carefully stated out both
students’ errors in terms of language use, content and ideas.
-Error identification (19 times)
- Coded error identification (18 times)
- Applied both “Error correction” and “Error identification”
in 1 paper sometimes.
Foreign Language Center
16
Results and discussion
RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate
the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback?
Learners were asked to rank the effectiveness of five types of TWF
according to their level of priority from 01 – very low to 05 – very
high.
Types of teacher written
feedback I find helpful
1.Error/mistake correction
2.Error/mistake
identification
3.Coded
error/mistake
identification
4.Content-based feedback
5.Integrated-feedback
Foreign Language Center
Mean
Class A
Class B
S.D
Class A Class B
2.7
2.8
3.4
1.9
1.5
1.2
1.2
1.0
3.0
2.3
1.4
1.1
2.6
3.6
2.7
4.5
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.1
17
Results and discussion
RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate
the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback?
-Integrated-feedback
is rated
respondents from both class.
as
highly
effective
by
- In class A, except for Integrated-feedback, there was no big
difference between those 4 types (low-moderately helpful).
- In class B, there was clear evidence that students preferred
two specific types (“Integrated-feedback” and “Error/mistake
correction”) than the other three.
Foreign Language Center
18
Results and discussion
RQ2: To what extent and in what way do students evaluate
the usefulness of their teachers’ written feedback?
-When being asked if they felt that TWF help to enhance their
writing ability, 100% learners in two classes were
overwhelmingly affirmative confirmed that TWF were helpful
with different reasons.
Foreign Language Center
19
Results and discussion
RQ3: What are the students’ reactions and responses
when receiving their TWF?
- The majority of students often made the correction
themselves after reading TWF, in which the mistakes were
singled out by teacher, and then ask peers to check.
-A smaller number of learners asked friends for help if they did
not understand how to correct the mistakes, or how to follow
TWF.
- Just few students approached their teacher asking for help
when they did not understand/ know how to correct their
mistakes.
Foreign Language Center
20
Results and discussion
RQ3: What are the students’ reactions and responses
when receiving their TWF?
- When being asked about the reasons they rarely approached
teachers for further explanations, some of students in class B
claimed that the TWF were already detailed and
understandable, therefore they preferred discussing with peers
rather than talking with teacher; whereas some students in
class A did not approach their teacher because they were
“afraid” that they might bother her.
Foreign Language Center
21
Results and discussion
RQ4: What are the students’ preferences and expectations
in types of TWF, and teachers’ techniques of giving
feedback in two classes?
-50% students in class A and 68% in class B preferred to
receive ”Integrated-feedback”, following was “Error/mistake
correction” chosen by a smaller number of participants
(16.7% in class A and 24% in class B).
- “Error/mistake identification” and Coded error/mistake
identification” are the least desirable feedback.
Foreign Language Center
22
Discussion

ESL English major Vietnamese learners in the two classes
valued TWF and found TWF valuable. This finding confirmed
what many researches in various ESL contexts had claimed
through years.
 The characteristics of TWF have impacts on learners’
evaluations the usefulness of TWF.
 The findings claimed that learners had a strong desire for
receiving detailed TWF, especially TWF that focuses on both
form and content, regardless of TWF they got.
 They preferred self-correcting their mistakes, checking with
peers, thinking about their writing alone to approaching their
teachers asking for help/ advice.
Foreign Language Center
23
References
Alton –Lee, A. (2003). Quality teaching for diverse students in schooling: Best evidence synthesis.
Wellington: Ministry of Edu.
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.),
Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In
B. Knoll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ferris D.R. (1995b). Teaching ESL Composition Students to Become Independent Self-editors. TESOL
Journal, 8, 41-62.
Ferris, D. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16,
165-193.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learners receptivity to teacher
response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing,3 (2), 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of students response to expert
feedback on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal,80, 287-308
Lee, I. (2008) ‘Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms’, Journal
of Second Language Writing, 17:3, 144-164.
Park, E. 2006. Review Article on “The Effectiveness of Teacher’s Written Feedback on L2 Writing”. SNU
Working Papers in English Linguistics and Language 5, 61-73
Foreign Language Center
24
PETROVIETNAM
PETROVIETNAM UNIVERSITY
Q&A section
Thank you!
Presenter: Phuong Bui
Email
: phuong.bui@pvu.edu.vn
Website : www.pvu.edu.vn
Download