Chapter One Introduction
1.1 Overview
Writing is an important form of language output, which might reflect Englishlearners’ comprehensive language application ability both comprehensively andobjectively from multiple perspectives, such as wording and phrasing, layout, logicalthinking, etc. However, nowadays, in most universities, college English curricula haveno special writing course, English writing teaching has been only mixed in listeningand reading instruction occasionally, and has not received due attention it merits. Agood many problems exist in current English writing teaching ─ ─the lack ofattention to writing training, the effects of feedback which needs to be improved，etc.Teacher-written feedback has become one of the most controversial topics inEFL teaching and learning. Many teachers complain about the frustration at thenever-ending marking they have to do in students’ writing, as well as the inefficiencyof their feedback, which always goes unattended by students, failing to achieve theiranticipated instructional effects. It is not an exaggeration to say that many teachersfind themselves burning the midnight oil to finish marking students’ writing,overwhelmed by enormous marking loads, playing the role of error hunters andlanguage editor. However, many teachers harbor doubts about the efficacy andcost-effectiveness of their feedback as well as feelings that their efforts might not payoff. (Icy Lee, 2011).
……….
1.2 Objective of the Study
Just as Goldstein (2005) and Ferris (2010) have pointed out, there is noone-size-fits-all approach to feedback. It is important, therefore, that teachers deliberate on the best possible approaches to guide their feedback practices afterexamining their teaching context and students’ needs. The present research aims toreveal some of the problems that exist in teachers’ feedback practices and to providesuggestions that might help them reflect critically on their feedback approaches andfind out more effective approaches in their teaching environment, and developprinciples accordingly to provide future references. This study aims to find out, whatare relatively more effective types of feedback on EFL student writings that canencourage them to make substantive and effective changes? The study is hoped toprovide both controlled and longitudinal research of feedback in the teaching of EFLwriting so as to make feedback in English writing teaching more efficient andsatisfying.
………
Chapter Two Literature review
2.1 Descriptions of Student Errors and Teacher Feedback
Kulhavy (1977) defined feedback as “any of the numerous procedures that areused to tell a learner if an instructional response is right or wrong”.Wiseman and Hunt (2001) defined the teacher’s feedback as informationprovided to students by teachers, generally in oral or written form, which lets themknow the status of their learning process; the more specific, regular and in depth thefeedback, the better.Wu Fei(2010) defined feedback as “In a writing classroom, teachers are likely torespond to students’ essays as a means to show the students whether they are right orwrong. The response provided by teachers addressing students’ writing problems istermed ‘teacher feedback”. Teachers’ treatment of errors can be broadly distinguished as either explicit orimplicit correction (Ayoun, 2001； Kim H, Mathes G, 2001；Ellis et al，2006). Theformer, explicit correction, also defined as detailed direct correction, means thatteachers provide exact forms or correct structures for learners’ mistaken expressions.On the other hand, the latter, implicit correction, also named as indirect correction,intends that teachers indicate the presence of errors or provide some sorts of clueswith the intention of peer-correction or self-correction (Ferris, 1995b).
………..
2.2 Researches on Written Corrective Feedback by English Teachers
Written corrective feedback, referred to hereafter as ‘WCF’ has been a robustand lively field of inquiry which has been a rather controversial topic for years andcontinues to arouse a great deal of interest from teachers and researchers.There have been a great many studies of and essays about WCF findings withdifferent conclusions. Here are some studies with positive results : A lot of researchevidence showed that WCF could enable teachers to individualize classroominstruction and help students make effective revisions to improve their writtenproducts. (Zamel 1984; Leki 1990; Carroll& Swain1993; Ferris 2003). Some claimedthat WCF can be helpful in the acquisition of simple, rule governed forms orstructures like aspects of the English article system and the past simple tense(Bitchener et al. 2005; Bitchener 2008). John Bitchener and Ute Knoch(2010)investigated the efficacy of WCF on targeted linguistic error categories. WangWeihong&Dong Yuanxing(2010)’s experimental study showed that Chinese collegeEnglish learners who received error feedback improved in ability of self-editing theiressays, writing accuracy and overall writing quality, which justified the positive rolethat WCF played. There are studies with negative results as well: Macheak’s(2002) study, whoseteaching experiment was done in French classes in an American university, failed toindicate any statistically significant findings in favor of the efficacy of feedback.Truscott (1996) held that any learning that resulted from the practice was likely to beonly ‘pseudo-learning’ — ‘a superficial and possibly transient form of knowledge’.There have also been some empirical studies focused on the contrasts of differentWCF approaches, including direct vs. indirect feedback(Yu Qingping, 2009); focusedvs. unfocused feedback; feedback with or without accompanying metalinguisticexplanations (Ferris, 2012). In studies that have compared direct and indirect types ofcorrective feedback, some researchers (Robb et al. 1986; Ferris and Roberts, 2001)have investigated the relative effectiveness of different types of indirect feedback, butnone has found any difference between the two options.
…………
Chapter Three Theoretical Foundation.....11
3.1 Related Theories Underlying the Study ......... 11
3.1.1 Interaction Hypothesis ............. 11
3.1.2 The Output Hypothesis ............ 11
3.1.3 Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development .....12
3.2 Conclusion .............13
Chapter Four Research Design and Methodology ...... 15
4.1. The Research Setting ...........15
4.2 Participants.............15
4.3 Procedure ..........16
4.4 Research Methodology ..............17
4.5 Research Questions..........17
Chapter Five Experiments ..... 19
5.1 Concrete Approaches of Feedback Adopted in the Experiment .......19
5.2 Data Collection and Discussion ......23
5.3 Conclusion .............37
Chapter Five Experiments
5.1 Concrete Approaches of Feedback Adopted in the Experiment
Since the EFL students are accustomed to teacher-centered classes where theteacher is considered to be the authority，the only source of knowledge, some studentsmay not adapt to playing the positive role of evaluating and making comments onother’s essays. They may feel confused when confronting writing products of theirpeers. Hence students can provide effective peer feedback ‘only if they acquireenough expertise and skill in reviewing writing.’(Mohammad Rahimi, 2013) In orderto improve the efficacy of peer collaboration, there is every need to provide guidanceand training to the students practicing peer feedback. According to ZhangYanhong(2012), at peer-feedback stage, with the teacher’s intervention, the studentsmight be more capable of providing high-quality peer feedback, and improve theirown command of English writing at the same time. In light of this, applicable andplain evaluation standards were set up in this research according to students’ practicalcapacity and the features of different writing genres, making reference to the peerreview procedure suggested by Min (2006), in order to improve the ability of mutualcooperation among students. And students from the experimental group 2 received acomplete training on how to carry out the process of feedback based on the set ofevaluation standards. According to Min(2006)’s peer review procedure, any piece oftext should be reviewed in four steps, namely, ‘clarifying the writer’s intention’,‘identifying the problem’, ‘explaining the nature of the problem’, ‘make suggestions’.
……….
Conclusion
Automatic feedback allows students to get their feedback immediately withoutthe constraint of time and place whenever and wherever possible, if only there isaccess to the internet. And it is convenient to save their essays in a special portfolioand arrange their own learning plan. Under the guidance of autonomous arrangements,they may modify their essays or do other exercises, take charge of writing activities,and become independent knowledge masters. However, after all, online scoring toolscan not replace the wisdom of teachers, in the application process, the role of teachersis still indispensable, the great advantage of automatic feedback compared withartificial feedback in efficiency and effectiveness, coupled with more detailed andpersonalized guidance by teachers as an important sustentation, real-time assessmentand supplementary comment combined, will make the modern educational technologywork effectively for teachers and students, and reduce teachers’ workloadconsiderably.In the process of peer feedback activity in this research, the students did not asalways passively accept the feedback information as they did in the past, but becameparticipants of the evaluation process, the exchange of compositions created a lot ofconsultation and mutual cooperation opportunities for students, which might improvethe students' ability of critical thinking, in the meanwhile, creating a harmoniouslearning atmosphere. In addition, the students took more responsibility for theirquality of composition and feedback they would give to their peers. And they grewmore capable of autonomous learning, and were always ready to refer to books oronline learning resources, their dependence on teachers reduced in a certain degree.
…………
Reference (omitted)