CC BY
45
ФИЛОЛОГИЧЕСКИЕ НАУКИ
THE INFLUENCE OF ORAL AND WRITTEN TEACHER FEEDBACK ON THE STUDENTS' WRITING
12 3
Duong Thanh Hao , Nong Thi Thu Hue , Nguyen Huong Ngoc Email: Duong640@scientifictext.ru
1Duong Thanh Hao - Lecturer, ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
THAI NGUYEN, PhD Student,
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, HA NOI;
2Nong Thi Thu Hue - Lecturer;
3Nguyen Huong Ngoc - Lecturer, ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, THAI NGUYEN UNIVERSITY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
THAI NGUYEN,
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM
Abstract: teacher feedback is widely considered an essential part of effective learning due to the fact that it helps students evaluate their own understanding of the subjects taught. Teachers use both oral and written feedback to help students to improve their English skills. This study was conducted at the university of economics and business administration, Thai Nguyen university to determine the effect of oral and written teacher feedback on the second-year students' English writing in EFL classrooms. Specifically, the teacher-researcher investigated how her oral and written feedback on the language and content would affect the way students rewrote their first draft (D1) on a given writing topic. This study also investigated how teacher feedback affected students' opinions about the writing. Results show that both ways (oral and written feedback) contributed higher performance on the writing result. Oral feedback group made a significant influence in both micro-aspects such as grammar, vocabulary and spelling and the macro-aspects including content and organization. Keywords: influence, oral, written teacher feedback, students' writing.
ВЛИЯНИЕ УСТНЫХ И ПИСЬМЕННЫХ ОТЗЫВОВ ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛЕЙ НА ПИСЬМЕННУЮ РЕЧЬ СТУДЕНТОВ Зыонг Тхань Хао1, Нонг Тхи Тху Хуэ2, Нгуен Хыонг Нгок3
1Зыонг Тхань Хао - преподаватель, кафедра английского языка, Тхайнгуенский университет экономики и делового администрирования, г. Тхайнгуен,
аспирант, Институт иностранных языков Ханойский государственный университет, г. Ханой;
2Нонг Тхи Тху Хуэ - преподаватель;
3Нгуен Хыонг Нгок - преподаватель, кафедра английского языка, Тхайнгуенский университет экономики и делового администрирования,
г. Тхайнгуен, Социалистическая Республика Вьетнам
Аннотация: обратная связь с преподавателем широко рассматривается как неотъемлемая часть эффективного обучения в связи с тем, что она помогает студентам оценить собственное понимание преподаваемых предметов. Преподаватели используют как устные, так и письменные отзывы, чтобы помочь студентам улучшить свои навыки английского языка. Это исследование было проведено в институте экономики и делового администрирования при Тхайнгуенском университете с целью определения влияния устных и письменных отзывов преподавателя на английский язык студентов второго курса, обучающих в классах EFL. В частности, преподаватель-исследователь показал, как устные и письменные отзывы преподавателя повлияют на первый курсовой проект (D1). Это исследование также показало, как обратная связь преподавателя повлияла на мнения студентов. Результаты показывают, что оба метода (как устные, так и письменные отзывы) способствуют развитию навыков и умений письменной речи. Устные отзывы оказали значительное влияние как на микро-аспекты, такие как грамматика, лексика и правописание, так и на макро-аспекты, в том числе содержание и композиция курсовой работы.
Ключевые слова: устные и письменные отзывы преподавателей, устная и письменная обратная связь с преподавателями, подготовка студентов.
УДК 81. 132
Introduction
In a process-oriented approach for teaching writing, emphasis is placed on writing as a process rather than as a finished final product (Raimes, 1991) [7, P. 14]. Grabe and Kaplan (1996) [6] acknowledge the benefits of the process approach. Ferris (2003) [4, P. 7] concludes, "Teacher feedback can and often does help student writers to improve their writing from one draft to the next and over time. However, evidence on this is unfortunately quite limited, particularly as to longitudinal analyses". One of the first studies done in L2 on the effect of teacher feedback is that of Fathman and Whalley (1990) [3, P. 178]. As for feedback on grammar, a number of suggestions exist in the literature. Teachers can use checklists of grammar and editing, give verbal feedback on the location and type of the error, underline or circle the error or make checkmarks in the margin to show the location of the error, and give feedback in the margins or endnotes about the general pattern of errors (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998) [5]. According to Faigley and Witte's (1981) [3. P. 405] taxonomy of revisions by evaluating the first and final drafts of the students' essays and recording students' verbal reports during revision. Many writing teachers believe that one-on-one writing conferences with students are more influential than handwritten comments and corrections no matter what aspect of student writing the teacher and the student discuss, be it content, organization, or errors (Zamel, 1985) [10, P. 165]. From examining the research done by Carnicelli (1980) [1, P. 101], Sokmen (1988) [9, P. 5], [Zamel (1985) [10, P. 170] on teacher-evaluations, Grabe and Kaplan (1996) [6] concluded that compared to written feedback, students receive more detailed and comprehensible feedback in one-on-one conferences.
Research questions
1. Do written and oral teacher feedback have an impact on the students' writing?
2. What are students' opinions on the type and amount of teacher feedback they received between the first and final drafts?
Methodology
Research Context: This study was carried out at an English program of Economics Business and Administration of Thai Nguyen University. The school is responsible for giving English classes to all students who are the second- year students but have not shown the required proficiency in English in the University's English proficiency test to continue their studies. The teacher-researcher carrying out this particular study has been a teacher of English for four years at the University
Participants: There were 16 participants in this study from a elementary-level class of 20 students within the university. Drafts from only 16 students were included in this study due to one student dropping out of school and three students having low grade point averages.
Implementation of the Process Writing Approach: The study was carried out during the last two weeks of a 14-week first semester. During the first 12 weeks of the spring semester, the students produced six essays. The last two weeks of the semester constituted the data collection period for this study.
Data: After students used the written feedback on the D1 to write a D2, the teacher-researcher gave oral feedback to each student through one-on-one conferences. In conducting teacher-student conferences, the stages suggested by Reid (1993) [8, P. 3] were followed: openings, student-initiated comments, teacher-initiated comments, reading of the paper, and closings. The feedback procedures on students' drafts can be summed up in the following way: (a) First Draft - The writing topic was set as take-home assignment. After students produced a D1, the teacher provided written feedback on it.
(b) Second Draft - In order to produce the D2, students made 'revisions outside class based on written teacher feedback given to the D1. The teacher then provided written feedback on the D2 and oral feedback during one-on-one writing conferences.
(c) Final draft - Students used the oral and written feedback from the D2 to produce a final draft of the essay.
Data Analysis
To determine the effects of written teacher feedback on student writing, D1s and D2s were first assessed for grammatical accuracy and then for content quality. In order to analyze the teacher's oral feedback in response to the oral feedback part of the first research question, the teacher-researcher analysed the revisions between the D2s and final copies by identifying to what extent the revisions in the final draft were based on the feedback received during the one-on-one conference.
Results and Discussion
Effect of Written Teacher Feedback
In her written feedback across students' D1s and final essays, the teacher-researcher simultaneously focused on form (i.e., grammatical accuracy of student writing), content, and organization. The mean score of the grammatical accuracy for all students in D1 was.0923 and the mean for the final essay was .0193. The students made a significantly fewer number of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical mistakes in their final essays than they did in their D1s as they revised their texts on the basis of the grammar error codes.
Table 1. Type of Revisions Resulting from Written Teacher Feedback
Type of revisions Frequency Percentages
Surface changes 75 41.8%
Stylistic changes 47 26.2%
Organizational changes 06 03.3%
Content changes 51 28.4%
The Effect of Oral Teacher Feedback
All students in the present study produced the final draft of a paper after having received oral feedback in one-on-one writing conferences they held with their teacher. The mean for the 16 students in D2 was .0193 and the mean for them in D3 was .0037. In total, during the one-on-one conferences with her students, the teacher-researcher orally made twenty-one comments which asked for explanation, description, or addition on the part of the students so that they could improve their content in their final drafts.
Table 2 shows the types of revisions made by the students as a result of oral teacher feedback. Of all these changes, content changes accounted for the highest at 37.7%. The
one-on-one writing conferences held right after the writing-up of the D2 seemed to be more effective on students' content and lexical revisions than it did on their grammar and organizational revisions.
Table 2. Type of Revisions Resulting from Oral Teacher Feedback
Type of revisions Frequency Percentages
Surface changes 11 24.4%
Stylistic changes 14 31.1%
Organizational changes 03 06.6%
Content changes 17 37.7%
Students' Opinions on the Writing Process Approach
The first two questions in the questionnaire asked whether the students felt that their teacher's comments and corrections help them to improve their composition skills and asked them to write the reasons. The third question in the questionnaire asked the students' opinions about the effects of the process approach on their writing skills. For the majority of the students, the process approach was effective for improving their writing ability although they found the drafting process to be time-consuming.
Implications for Language Teachers
The checklist for error codes could reflect what has been covered in grammar in the program. It has been suggested by some researchers that focused grammar instruction on problematic writing errors should accompany writing feedback so that learners can accelerate their development.
As for the teacher's oral feedback, the pedagogical generalization that emerged from this study regarding one-on-one teacher-student conferences is that both the student and the teacher should come to the conference well-prepared.
Conclusion
The results of this study suggest that written teacher feedback positively affects students' grammatical revisions but has a limited effect on content revisions. In terms of grammatical accuracy, all students succeeded in acting on teacher error feedback and thereby accurately revising the grammar of their first drafts to a great extent. The teacher's written feedback on language errors had a more positive effect on the correction of grammatical errors than her written comments about ideas and organization did on the improvement of the content of the rewrites.
Список литературы /References
1. Carnicelli T. The writing conference: A one-on-one conversation. In T. Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition/Urbana. / T. Carnicelli // IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1980. P. 101-131.
2. Faigley L. & Witte S. Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication. / L. faigley, S. Witte, 1981. Vol. 32. P. 401-414.
3. Fathman A. & Whalley E. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing / Research insights for the classroom. / A. Fathman, E. Whalley // New York: Cambridge University Press., 1990. P. 178-190.
4. Ferris D. Response to student writing: Implications for second language -students. / D. Ferris, 2003. P. 7.
5. Ferris D. & Hedgcock J. Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice/Mahwah. / D. Ferris, J. Hedgcock // NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998.
6. Grabe W. & Kaplan R. Theory and practice of writing: An applied linguistic perspective. / W. Grabe, R. Kaplan // New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited, 1996.
7. Raimes A. Out of the woods/Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. / A. Raimes, 1991. P. 14.
8. Reid J. Teaching ESL writing / J. Reid // Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Regents/Prentice-Hall., 1991. P. 3.
9. Sokmen A. Taking advantage of conference-centered writing / A. Sokmen // TESOL Newsletter, 1988. Vol. 22. P. 1-5.
10. Zamel V. Responding to student writing. / V. Zamel // TESOL Quarterly, 1985. Vol. 17. P. 165-187.
