Feedback: What is It Good For?
Jonathan Brown, Japan
Jonathan Brown has taught English in Japan for nearly 10 years and currently lectures at the University of Yamanashi. Prior to that, he was an elementary school English teacher in Kofu, Japan and helped in developing and implementing the city’s ESL/EFL curriculum. Jonathan's areas of interest in research are writing, rhetoric, intercultural communication, and team teaching. E-mail: yohane711@gmail.com
Menu
Introduction
The argument in favor of feedback
The argument against feedback
An overview of feedback
Errors feedback should focus on
Implications for students and teachers
Conclusion
References
For years it has been widely accepted that corrective feedback assists L2 learners in improving and correcting errors in their writing (Bitchener, 2008). Though researchers argue on the best types of feedback (i.e., direct or indirect) and what errors feedback should focus on (i.e., local or global), it was only until recently that the entire concept of feedback came into question (Bitchener, 2008). Truscott (2007) has argued that, contrary to popular belief, written feedback is ineffective and very well may be harmful to L2 learners. Despite Truscott’s findings, there are those who maintain the importance and necessity of feedback in the L2 composition classroom (Bitchener, 2008; Hyland, 2003; Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Nevertheless, this once widely accepted belief has now come under scrutiny. Because how a teacher chooses to utilize feedback, or whether or not he or she utilizes it at all, will greatly determine curriculum design and lesson implementation, it is necessary to consider the role feedback should play in teaching writing to L2 learners or if feedback should play a role at all.
Regardless of its current criticism, feedback continues to be supported and used by the majority of researchers, teachers, and students. According to Hyland (2003), feedback, though perhaps not solely responsible, certainly plays a significant role in improving students’ language accuracy, and many students, in fact, believe feedback to be an important factor in helping them most improve. In addition, studies by Bitchener (2008) have shown a significant improvement in accuracy among students who received feedback, and this level of improvement was maintained throughout the writing process. Bitchener (2008) also found that students who received direct corrective feedback outperformed those who received no feedback. Despite this strong research-based support for feedback, there are those who oppose it.
As mentioned previously, the effectiveness of feedback in language acquisition had never been questioned until a little over a decade ago when Truscott challenged this widely held belief (Bitchener, 2008). Truscott (2007) believes that feedback and correction essentially have no positive influence on learners’ abilities to write accurately, and has suggested that feedback may even impair students’ writing skills. In his paper, The effect of error correction on learner’s ability to write accurately, Truscott (2007), presents studies from Kepner, which found no significant difference in errors among students, from Semke, which found feedback to have little to no positive effect, from Polio et al., which did not suggest any noteworthy change in accuracy, as well as several others. In all, Truscott (2007) offers 11 different studies, all of which indicate feedback to be ineffective at improving students’ language skills and/or rate of acquisition. Others have also found that when feedback on mechanics (i.e., grammar, spellings, etc.) is provided there are not necessarily fewer errors in students’ subsequent drafts than when feedback on the same type of errors is not provided (Montgomery & Baker, 2007).
Both sides have valid points and offer plenty of research to back up their claims; however, before deciding on whether to utilize or dismiss feedback, it is important to first understand the types of feedback, the different approaches to feedback, and the purposes and/or goals of each.
Types: direct vs. indirect
There are essentially two types of feedback: direct and indirect. When a teacher provides direct feedback he or she tells the student what the error is, as well as provides a correction of the error, usually near where the error occurred (Bitchener, 2008). Indirect feedback, on the other hand, lets the student know that an error has occurred, but the teacher does not usually specify the problem or provide a solution—this is left up to the student (Bitchener, 2008).
Though there is evidence to suggest that indirect feedback is more likely to foster long-term growth and skills since it provides students with opportunities to engage in their own learning, generally teachers and students alike prefer direct feedback (Bitchener, 2008). Very likely this is because, according to the Noticing Hypothesis, students cannot learn something unless it is noticed or consciously registered (Kasper & Schmidt, 2010). This, however, cannot occur because, as Truscott explains, students generally lack the language skills to understand and use such feedback (Hyland, 2003). Therefore, it could be argued that direct feedback seems not only to be the preferred type of feedback but the more appropriate type for the L2 composition classroom.
Approaches: local vs. global errors
In addition to how teachers choose to leave feedback, i.e., directly or indirectly, for their students, teachers must also decide what errors to focus on. Feedback on local errors essentially means to give feedback on the mechanics of writing, i.e., spelling, grammar, punctuation; feedback on global errors refers to feedback that focuses more on the ideas, content, and organization of the composition (Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Both have a valid place in the L2 writing classroom since, according to Montgomery and Baker (2007), teachers must teach the cultural aspects of writing, such as organization (e.g., linear versus non-linear), approaches (e.g., writer-centered versus reader-centered), and ideas and content (e.g., introduction, topic sentence, cohesiveness, conclusion), as well as grammatical forms and structures. Despite the importance of feedback that focuses on both local and global errors in L2 writing, the majority of feedback teachers give is for local errors, and, in fact, students seem to prefer this (Montgomery & Baker, 2007).
There are many reasons why teachers tend to focus more on local issues than global issues and why students would rather it to be this way. First, as with direct and indirect feedback, it is much easier for students to recognize and understand feedback that focuses on local errors rather than global. Likewise, it is certainly easier for teachers to focus on the linguistic elements when assessing assignments and providing students with feedback because these components have clear correct and incorrect answers (Matsuda, 1997; Canning, 2005).
Another major reason why both teachers and students favor feedback that focuses on local errors is because in many countries much of the language-learning courses are centered on preparing students for exams. Since these exams tend to focus more on linguistic and lexical elements, teachers choose to focus on these local errors as well. In Japan, for instance, high school English teachers emphasize grammar and vocabulary because it is their job to prepare students for university entrance exams (Iriyama, personal communication, October 6, 2010). Since most university entrance exams in Japan are only concerned with local issues rather than global, local errors take priority in the EFL classroom. This is perhaps where Truscott’s objections lie—not with feedback itself, but with its overemphasis on local errors.
Despite his objection to feedback, Truscott (2008), in fact, encourages teachers to comment on content and clarity, and even offers a study by Frantzen that concluded a “content course, without grammar, is sufficient for accuracy in writing” (p. 264) as evidence to support his claim. And there are those who, in spite of their support for feedback, do agree with this part of Truscott’s argument.
Hyland (2003), for example, believes that overly focusing on linguistic errors may hinder students from growing in their language abilities. Lightbown and Spada (2006) agree, explaining that errors are often an indication of a student’s progress since errors generally suggest the ability to apply a learned grammatical form into originally created sentence structures rather than memorized or copied ones. In the end, grammar should really be of little importance in the EFL/ESL writing classroom, and, as Malia (2006) suggests, should only be a factor when it interferes with meaning, confuses the meaning, or makes the writing unintelligible. In addition, Montgomery and Baker (2007) encourage teachers to only focus on one or two grammatical issues throughout the writing process, since the focus should be on writing not grammar.
These findings would then suggest that though, as discussed previously, both students and teachers tend to lean towards a focus of local errors, i.e., grammatical, it is not necessarily the most beneficial. Therefore, a shift needs to occur from local error focused feedback to global error focused feedback.
While grammar and vocabulary building is an essential part of the language-learning process, it is important to remember that writing is not entirely linguistic in nature (Spack, 1985). Unfortunately, the majority of teachers continue to focus on grammar; however, a curriculum based solely on this instruction inhibits students’ advancement. As Truscott (2008) argues, a writing task that is completed through the help of the teacher, i.e., feedback, more specifically feedback focused on local errors, is not as effective as a task that allows the student to complete it on his or her own. Currently, however, many ESL/EFL students are overly concerned with surface-level errors (i.e., local errors) in their writing and feel that it is necessary to perfect their grammar in order to be successful. This, however, is a fault of the language-teaching classroom, and it is the responsibility of teachers to amend this prevalent view. This being the case, it is clear that a shift to feedback on global errors needs to occur. As Montgomery and Baker (2007) suggest, feedback on form, i.e., global errors, teaches students that it is the product that is most important, not the process.
The importance of grammatical structures should not be disregarded; nevertheless, as has been discussed feedback that focuses only on local errors will not suffice. Students need to learn how linguistic elements work within their ideas and the content of the writing. It is also necessary for teachers to recognize that as students progress through their writing, they may continue to make errors, and, in fact, the same errors as in previous assignments (Lightbown & Spada, 2006). This, as Lightbown and Spada (2006) point out, is a natural part of the language-learning process. Moreover, teachers must also remember to keep the individual student in mind when leaving feedback (Hyland, 2003). Feedback, the type and focus, is conditional and largely contingent on the student and his or her level. If the student is fairly advanced, he or she should have few errors, thus, marking them could prove beneficial. On the other hand, if a student is at a lower level it is very likely there will be a great number of errors and marking each one could discourage rather than assist the student (Green, 1998).
With these findings now in mind, perhaps it is not feedback as a whole that should be dismissed, but a tendency to lean towards one type or another and focus only on local issues. Though there should be some attention given to grammar, even in a writing class, the overall focus really should be on developing writing skills (Montgomery & Baker, 2007). Therefore, it appears there needs to be a gradual shift from global to local issues. As Mayher, Lester, and Pradl (1983) explain:
[Students] need to feel that they have ideas and a language system in their heads and that they can combine these to fill up blank sheets of paper. Only when words fill the page can we emphasize clarity: does the writing make sense? The final concern is whether or not the text conforms to the conventions of standard English and is, therefore, correct. These three dimensions, of course, continually overlap . . . (p. 4)
Though initially intended for young writers, this model has been applied to L2 writers as well, and seems to be in line with Hyland (2003), who suggests that there must be a balance between accuracy (i.e., local issues), and complexity and fluency (i.e. global issues), so that, as Hyland (2003) explains, “progress is made in all these areas” (p. 229).
Though feedback may have its opponents, this study has shown that much of the opposition is in fact directed towards the types and approaches of feedback rather than feedback in general. Consequently, rather than entirely dismissing feedback and its role in teaching writing to L2 learners, the best way to utilize feedback must be considered. Research suggests that though teachers and students should give some attention to local errors, such feedback, in the long run, is of little benefit. Feedback that focuses on global errors, however, clearly improves students’ writing skills. This being the case, the positive effects of feedback in teaching writing should not be overlooked. Rather, teachers must consider the individual student’s level and needs when providing feedback. Ideally, as the student progresses, the teacher’s feedback will gradually shift focus from global errors to the smaller local errors. This appears to be the most valuable asset of feedback—it progresses with the growth of the learner. Therefore, when applied appropriately, feedback is an indispensable educational tool for teachers and students alike.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1-17.
Canning, C. (2005, August 25) How to avoid strife when writing essays. The Japan
Times. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ek20050825a1.html
Green, J. (1998). Helping ESL writers grow. Crosscurrents 3. Retrieved July 8, 2007, from
http://w3.salemstate.edu/~jgreen/helpingeslwriters.html
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31,
217-230.
Kasper, G., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Developmental issues in interlanguage pragmatics.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, 149-169. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from
http://nflrc.hawaii.edu
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Malia, J. (2006). ESL college writing in the mainstream classroom. Academic Exchange
Quarterly. Retrieved June 22, 2007 from www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146219119.html
Matsuda, P. (1997). Contrastive rhetoric in context: A dynamic model of L2 writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing. 6(1), 45-60.
Mayher, J., Lester, N., & Pradl, G. (1983). Learning to write, writing to learn. Upper
Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16, 82-99.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learner’s ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Please check the Teachers as Leaders course at Pilgrims website.
|
