Transcript g75_Student_Perceptions_of_Local_Written_Correctiv

Do they change over time?
Presenter:
John Haupt
Ohio University
The Feedback Debate
Truscott, 2007; Truscott, J. & Hsu, A.Y, 2008
Ferris, 2004; Ellis, 2008; Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007a
Interest in Student Centered Learning
Contradictory feedback exists
Students value feedback
Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2001, 2003, 2006
Brice, 1995; Hedgecock & Lewis, 1996
Students don’t value feedback
Radecki & 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-scale
a 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 points
Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback
changed in at least one type of feedback three or more points
Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback
changed two or more points in two or more types of feedback
Percentage of students whose perceptions of feedback
changed three or more points in two or more types of feedback
Percentage 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
Percentage of students whose perceptions
of feedback changed in at least one type of
feedback three or more points
Percentage of students whose perceptions
of feedback changed two or more points in
two or more types of feedback
Percentage of students whose perceptions
of feedback changed three or more points in
two or more types of feedback
Percentage of students whose perceptions
of feedback changed in feedback's
usefulness for learning grammar
85.71%
50%
64.28%
23.81%
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*
Participants
One class of 13 students
9 Chinese and 4 Saudi Arabian
1 Teacher
Student texts
3 Essays (39 Essays)
2 draft process
Global 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 indirect
Type 2: coded indirect
Type 3: coded indirect with metalinguistic feedback
Type 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 simplified
Successful revision = yes
Unsuccessful revision & not revised = no
Lost to side comment = not considered
Feedback
Rating: Type
2
Survey 1
Survey 2
3
5
Rating
Percentage
Essay
Number
Rate of
Accurate Use
25-40%
1
16/25
2
14/20
3
13/21
Total
43/66
Percentage
65%
55-75%
Errors marked by teacher
1,182 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 occured
 13 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 feedback
Study does not look at specific types of errors:
treatable Vs untreatable
No information about why students correctly or
incorrectly used feedback
No 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 changed
 Variation of students perceptions of feedback within the group
 Teachers 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 samples
 Provide students with in class writing workshops where they can ask
questions with peers or the teacher about their papers
 Provide students with opportunities for face-to-face conferencing
outside of class
 Is 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 Haupt
Department of Linguistics
383 Gordy Hall
Athens, OH 45701
Email: [email protected]