Do they change over time?

Presenter:John Haupt

Ohio University

The Feedback DebateTruscott, 2007; Truscott, J. & Hsu, A.Y, 2008Ferris, 2004; Ellis, 2008; Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007a

Interest in Student Centered LearningContradictory feedback exists

Students value feedbackFerris, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2006Brice, 1995; Hedgecock & Lewis, 1996

Students don’t value feedbackRadecki & Swales, 1998

Receptors, Semi-receptors and Resisters

Hyland, 1998; Lee & Schallert, 2008 

Student perceptions of feedback’s usefulness over time

How students' perceptions of usefulness of local written corrective feedback compare to their accuracy of use of local written corrective feedback in text revision

1. Do students’ perceptions of local written corrective feedback change over time? Why or why not?

2. How do students' perceptions of usefulness compare their accurate use of feedback in text revision from the beginning of the term to the end of the term?

Participants 42 Advanced Level ESL students in the OPIE 450-499 on TOEFL Mix between graduates and undergraduates China (74%), Saudi Arabia (14%), Japan (5%), Iraq (5%) and Vietnam (2%)

Survey Development-A survey was developed using the 5 types of local written corrective feedback studied in literature (Bitchener & Knock, 2009; Sheen, 2007a; Ferris, 2006; Ferris, 2001)

  

Administer surveys during the 1st week of the term

Administer identical surveys during the 8th week of the term

Determine number and percentage of students whose perceptions changed

Interview students whose perceptions changed

Interview students whose perceptions did not change

Determine meaningful change Determine percentages for each scale number

(1)0-10%(2)10-25%(3)25-40%(4)40-55%(5)55-70%(6)70-85%(7)85-100%

  Meaningful change: movement of two or more points on the Likert-scalea change in feedback most useful for grammar learning

Categories 

Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in at least one type of feedback two or more pointsPercentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in at least one type of feedback three or more pointsPercentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed two or more points in two or more types of feedbackPercentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed three or more points in two or more types of feedbackPercentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in feedback's usefulness for learning grammar

Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in at least one type of feedback two or more points

85.71%Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in at least one type of feedback three or more points

50%Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed two or more points in two or more types of feedback

64.28%Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed three or more points in two or more types of feedback

23.81%Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback changed in feedback's usefulness for learning grammar

50%

14 of the 36 participants whose perceptions changed agreed to do the interview

All answers related to experience with feedback-Experience with teacher -Understanding of the writing process better-Learning grammar gave him skills to self-edit-Viewpoint of what feedback is used for changed

1 of the 6 participants whose perception did not change agreed to do the interview

- Simply stated his ideas did not change

*Two of the six changed their perceptions of which                 feedback is most useful in learning grammar*

ParticipantsOne class of 13 students9 Chinese and 4 Saudi Arabian1 Teacher

Student texts3 Essays (39 Essays)2 draft processGlobal and local feedback on first draft

Analyze errors and students’ accurate revisions of errors using the five types of feedback in the survey

Type 1: uncoded indirectType 2: coded indirectType 3: coded indirect with metalinguistic feedbackType 4: direct Type 5: direct with metalinguistic feedback

Compare revision accuracy percentages for each type of feedback to ratings on first and second survey

Compare all errors marked with feedback on first and second drafts

Conrad  & Goldstein's revision scale (1999) : successful revision, unsuccessful revision and not revised 

Additional category was added: lost to side comment

Scale further simplifiedSuccessful revision = yesUnsuccessful revision & not revised = noLost to side comment = not considered

Feedback Rating: Type 2

Rating Percentage

Essay Number

Rate of Accurate

Use

Survey 1 3 25-40% 1 16/25

2 14/20

Survey 2 5 55-75% 3 13/21

Total 43/66

Percentage 65%

Errors marked by teacher1,182 grammar errors marked

Feedback type 1: 127 Feedback type 2: 390 Feedback type 3: 0 Feedback type 4: 664 Feedback type 5: 1

80 ratings were used for comparison 15 out of 80 (18.75%) matched perceptions of

usefulness with accuracy of use in text revision 5 out of 40 (12.5%) on the first survey 10 out of 40 (25%) on the second survey

Students under-rated feedback 81.53% of the time

Students over-rated feedback 18.46% of the time Feedback Type 1: 51.97% / Average Rating: 2.54 Feedback Type 2: 55.64% / Average Rating: 4.34 Feedback Type 4: 80.42% / Average Rating: 3.96

17 instances of changes in perceptions occured13 out of 17 (76.47%) led to a more accurate

comparison between perception and accuracy of use of feedback

4 out of 17 (23.53%) led to a less accurate comparison between perception and accuracy of use of feedback

No information about students whose perceptions did not change

Teacher did not use all types of feedbackStudy does not look at specific types of

errors: treatable Vs untreatableNo information about why students correctly

or incorrectly used feedbackNo information on students using different

types of feedback more accurately over time

How should teachers approach giving local written corrective feedback?Should teacher's follow students’ desires for

certain types of feedback?Not Necessarily

Students in this study perceptions of feedback changedVariation of students perceptions of feedback within

the groupTeachers should use surveys

To gain a better understanding of their students’ writing experiences and opinions, especially with multi-draft writing and feedback

To open up dialogue between students and the teacher

How can teacher’s help students use their feedback better?Provide students the opportunity to practice using feedback on errors

that occur in authentic student writing samplesProvide students with in class writing workshops where they can ask

questions with peers or the teacher about their papersProvide students with opportunities for face-to-face conferencing

outside of classIs there a practice effect with written corrective

feedback?When change occurred, 76% of the time a more accurate

comparison between perception and accuracy of use resulted.Questions that need answers:

Do students get better at using feedback over time? If so, what does this tell us about standardizing feedback in writing

curriculums and programs?

Brice, C.  (1995). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the teachers of English to speakers of other languages. Long Beach, California.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Conrad, S. & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 352-371.

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., (Chapter 5). Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: context and issues (p. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2004). The grammar correction debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

Hedgcock, J., Leftowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.

Hyland, F. (1998) The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.

Lee, G. & Schallert, D. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 165-182.

Radecki, P.M., & Swales, J. (1988) TESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.

Truscott, J. and Hsu, A.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.

Sheen , Y. ( 2007 a). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255 – 283.

John HauptDepartment of Linguistics383 Gordy HallAthens, OH 45701Email: jh296910@ohio.edu