Lợi ích từ việc giảng viên nhận xét tương tác vào bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên

Chia sẻ: ViKakashi2711 ViKakashi2711 | Ngày: | Loại File: PDF | Số trang:19

lượt xem

Lợi ích từ việc giảng viên nhận xét tương tác vào bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên

Mô tả tài liệu
  Download Vui lòng tải xuống để xem tài liệu đầy đủ

Bài viết phân tích tác động của phản hồi tương tác của giảng viên đối với chất lượng bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên Việt Nam học tiếng Anh như một ngôn ngữ thứ 2. Chúng tôi thu thập trên 30 bài viết về 15 chủ đề của 03 sinh viên đại học người Việt trong 24 tuần. Tác động của phản hồi tương tác được phân tích theo chuẩn của Ferris, chất lượng bài viết được phân tích định tính theo chuẩn Viết Phân tích của Hoa Kỳ, so sánh kết quả sử dụng phương pháp ANOVA (định lượng).

Chủ đề:

Nội dung Text: Lợi ích từ việc giảng viên nhận xét tương tác vào bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên

v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> LỢI ÍCH TỪ VIỆC GIẢNG VIÊN NHẬN XÉT<br /> TƯƠNG TÁC VÀO BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH<br /> CỦA SINH VIÊN<br /> TRƯƠNG ANH TUẤN*; LANNIN AMY**; NGÔ QUÝ CHUNG***<br /> *<br /> Trung tâm gìn giữ hòa bình Việt Nam - BQP, ✉<br /> **<br /> Đại học Tổng hợp Missouri, Hoa Kỳ<br /> ***<br /> Học viện Khoa học Quân sự, ✉<br /> <br /> <br /> TÓM TẮT<br /> Trong quá trình dạy và học viết tiếng Anh, giáo viên thường phản hồi trực tiếp vào bài viết của<br /> sinh viên, làm cơ sở để người học chỉnh sửa trước khi hoàn thiện bài viết. Việc này được coi là<br /> tốn thời gian, công sức của giáo viên, nhưng giới nghiên cứu vẫn đang tranh luận về hiệu quả của<br /> nó đối với chất lượng bài viết. Trong nghiên cứu này, chúng tôi phân tích tác động của phản hồi<br /> tương tác của giảng viên đối với chất lượng bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên Việt Nam học tiếng<br /> Anh như một ngôn ngữ thứ 2. Chúng tôi thu thập trên 30 bài viết về 15 chủ đề của 03 sinh viên<br /> đại học người Việt trong 24 tuần. Tác động của phản hồi tương tác được phân tích theo chuẩn<br /> của Ferris, chất lượng bài viết được phân tích định tính theo chuẩn Viết Phân tích của Hoa Kỳ, so<br /> sánh kết quả sử dụng phương pháp ANOVA (định lượng). Kết quả cho thấy, người học tiếp thu,<br /> sử dụng gần 70% góp ý nhận xét của giảng viên, và có cơ sở thống kê để nhận định chất lượng<br /> bài viết lần cuối cao hơn lần đầu, đặc biệt về nội dung, bố cục, văn phong (không cải thiện về sử<br /> dụng từ và ngữ pháp). Kết quả nghiên cứu giúp cải thiện quy trình dạy và học viết tiếng Anh trình<br /> độ đại học tại Việt Nam.<br /> Từ khóa: nhận xét của giáo viên, phản hồi, phản hồi tương tác, viết tiếng Anh.<br /> <br /> 1. INTRODUCTION Responding to students’ writing is arguably<br /> a most widely adopted method; yet it is time<br /> Teachers’ responses to student writing has been<br /> consuming and “the least understood” (Sommers,<br /> acknowledged as central to teaching composition<br /> 1982, p. 170). The questions of how to write helpful<br /> (Freedman, Greenleaf, & Sperling, 1987). In<br /> comments, to what extent teacher written response<br /> fact, since the early twentieth century, Carpenter<br /> is supportive to student revision, and whether<br /> et al (1913) considered the role of response or<br /> student successful revision is the result of teacher<br /> “criticism” to the teaching and learning of writing<br /> comments, are never simple to answer.<br /> as “one of the most important in the whole problem<br /> of teaching English, upon which the value of the A growing body of research has attempted to<br /> criticism success in teaching composition finally answer these tricky questions. Teacher written<br /> depends” (Carpenter, Baker, & Scott, 1913, p. 142). response has been examined in both first language<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 84 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (L1) and second language (L2) writing classes. the result of the teacher response, and if the changes<br /> Teacher response, as agreed upon by most teachers in drafts improved the overall writing quality as<br /> and researchers, has evolved into more than just evaluated using a version of the National Writing<br /> written marginal or end comments. Responses may Project’s analytical writing continuum (NWP,<br /> include all types of interaction with student drafts. 2009). Improvement in a student’s paper was<br /> They could be formal, informal, in written, or oral determined by two procedures: (a) holistic scoring<br /> forms to a series of drafts, or to one polished final of the first and final drafts on a six-point scale, and<br /> paper. Responses may be used in formal mainstream (b) analytical scoring centered on six traits: content,<br /> classrooms, or in an informal, casual interaction structure, stance, sentence fluency, word choice,<br /> between teacher and student (Freedman et al., 1987). and conventions.<br /> <br /> Teacher response might be explicit, implicit, or 2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE<br /> a combination of both. A teacher might comment 2.1. L1 response research and theory<br /> as explicitly as “I’m interested in your idea here,”<br /> “I like your voice in this paragraph,” or “I think Written teacher response has been a topic<br /> this sentence needs a verb.” Teachers might also drawing concern from a large number of researchers<br /> engage indirectly, such as “What do you think this and educators, resulting in a growing body of<br /> paragraph lacks?” or “I’m lost here!” Reflective research in the field. As early as 1913, Walter<br /> response might also be used, such as “I’m just Barnes wrote:<br /> curious to see what is happening here,” or “as a<br /> I believe that children in the grades live, so<br /> reader, I like to see more details in this scene.”<br /> far as the composition work is concerned, in an<br /> In this study, we attempted to explore the effects absolute monarchy, in which they are the subjects,<br /> of reflective response on student revision as defined the teacher the king (more often, the queen), and the<br /> by Anson (Anson, 1989). The study was a pilot red-ink pen the royal scepter...In our efforts to train<br /> study for a future research with greater sample. We our children, we turn martinets and discipline the<br /> examined 15 papers, including 30 drafts produced recruits into a company of stupid, stolid soldierkins-<br /> by three college students who studied English as prompt to obey orders, it may be, but utterly devoid<br /> a second language over a period of two academic of initiative (Barnes, 1913, pp. 158-159).<br /> semesters (24 weeks). These papers were written as Similarly, a teacher who emphasizes<br /> an additional writing exercise, out of the students’ mechanical errors, or “[a teacher] ferrets out the<br /> normal class time, and not for credit or grading. No buried grammatical blunder, who scents from afar<br /> pressure was placed on the students with regard to a colloquialism or a bit of slang” (Barnes, 1913)<br /> what they wrote, when they wrote, and where. By was not an effective composition teacher, to use the<br /> doing this, we intended to give more freedom to words by A. Lunsford & Connors (1993).<br /> the students, and avoid imposing the concepts of<br /> teacherly “ideal text” on the students (Sommers, Research in written teacher response was<br /> 1982). The students would revise their drafts only blooming during the 1970s when there was a shift<br /> because they wanted to do so, not because of from focusing on a final, polished paper submitted<br /> meeting any requirements by the teacher for the for grade to emphasizing the multiple draft process.<br /> purpose of grading. A number of studies have addressed the issue<br /> of whether teacher response is supportive to the<br /> The effects of reflective response were analyzed improvement of student writing (e.g. Anson, 1989;<br /> using a rating scale developed by Ferris (1997). We Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Freedman et al., 1987;<br /> assessed if the students’ subsequent revisions were Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981; A. A. Lunsford &<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 85<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> Lunsford, 2008; A. Lunsford & Connors, 1993; Teacher response was believed to be authoritative<br /> R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, 2006; Moxley, 1989; and imposing, which emphasized logical, rational<br /> Sperling & Freedman, 1987; Straub, 2000) among arguments, rather than being reflective and clear.<br /> many others. Though written comment was the most<br /> More importantly, written response was even<br /> widely used method, also the most time-consuming<br /> reported to be unsupportive and even harmful to both<br /> (Sommers, 1982), the influence of written teacher<br /> teachers and students (Hairston, 1986; Sperling &<br /> response on student writing improvement is still<br /> Freedman, 1987). Hairston believed that responding<br /> controversial. Earlier researchers showed their<br /> may leave negative effects on teachers (such as<br /> skeptical view on the effectiveness of teacher<br /> frustration, burn-out, and despair) and on students<br /> response while more recent researchers have<br /> (cognitive overload, defensive barriers that resist<br /> expressed milder, more balanced arguments over<br /> teacher comment). Sperling & Freeman (1987), in a<br /> the influence of written teacher response on student<br /> case study with a high school student, reported that<br /> writing revision and quality (Bitchener & Ferris,<br /> response was not supportive to student revision,<br /> 2012; Ferris, 2003, 2004).<br /> and that the student misinterpreted the teacher’s<br /> 2.2. Earlier skepticism message. The student seemed to ignore problems<br /> pointed out in the comments by the teacher. These<br /> Researchers (such as Hairston, 1986; observations are echoed by Wilson who reported<br /> Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981; Sommers, 1982; that students receptively accepted the comments,<br /> Sperling & Freedman, 1987) tended to draw and made changes to satisfy the teacher, to have<br /> a bleak picture of the effectiveness of written good marks, which damaged and demotivated<br /> response to the improvement of student drafts. For students’ view of what writing means (Wilson,<br /> example, in Knoblauch & Brannon’s (1981) review, 2009). Sperling & Freeman, therefore, called for<br /> teacher comments showed minimum influence on clearer, more careful, well-constructed, helpful,<br /> student writing, students failed to interpret and relevant feedback from teachers in responding to<br /> handle teacher responses, and even if the students student drafts.<br /> understood the feedback, their paper was not better.<br /> 2.3. More recent balanced perspective on<br /> Sommers (1982) reported that “teachers’ response<br /> comments can take students’ attention away from<br /> their own purposes in writing a particular text A milder, more balanced view in judging<br /> teacher’s written feedback and student revision was<br /> and focus that attention on the teachers’ purpose<br /> noticed in recent studies (i.e. Anson, 1989; Beason,<br /> in commenting” (p. 149). Students made changes<br /> 1993; Crone-Blevins, 2002; Freedman et al., 1987;<br /> in their paper in the way the teacher wanted, not<br /> A. Lunsford & Connors, 1993; R. Lunsford &<br /> what they thought was needed. Teacher responses<br /> Straub, 1995; Mathison-Fife & O’Neill, 1997;<br /> focused more on errors than on idea development,<br /> Smith, 1997; Sperling, 1994, 1996; Straub, 1997).<br /> and teachers did not prioritize errors to be fixed.<br /> These researchers attempt to construct an analytical<br /> Sommers also observed that “teachers’ comments<br /> framework in examining teacher comments and the<br /> are not text-specific and could be interchanged,<br /> influence on student writing.<br /> rubber-stamped, from text to text” (p. 152). Teacher<br /> response tended to be generic, which included Freedman, et al., (1987) conducted an extensive<br /> vague directives and abstract commands. Brannon ethnographic study (surveying 715 junior high<br /> & Knoblauch (1981) reported that students revise school students, 560 teachers from 116 National<br /> their drafts to meet their teacher’s expectation, Writing Project sites) and reported that response<br /> not because of their need for idea development. during writing processes is significantly more<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 86 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> helpful than response to final polished products. Figure 1: Categories for analyzing comments<br /> Teacher response is preferred over peer, parent, (R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, p. 159)<br /> or other adult response. But when grading was<br /> involved, teacher feedback was not helpful on the FOCUS MODE<br /> final piece submitted for grading. Global Corrections<br /> Ideas Evaluations<br /> In a series of studies, Sperling (1994, Development Qualified Negative<br /> 1996) proposed that in order to reach a deeper Global structure Evaluations<br /> understanding of student writing in the context Imperatives<br /> of school, teachers should have in mind five Local Advice<br /> orientations when responding to student writing: i) Local structure Praise<br /> interpretive (relating elements in students’ writing Wording Indirect Requests<br /> to teachers’ prior knowledge and experience or Correctness Problem-Posing Questions<br /> to students’ prior knowledge and experience); ii) Heuristic Questions<br /> social (playing different social roles in reading Extra-textual Reflective Statements<br /> students’ papers, such as peer and literacy scholar, Straub & Lunsford reported that most of the<br /> teacher, and aesthetic reader); iii) cognitive/ teachers’ comments were text-specific, focused on<br /> emotive (reflecting reasoning and emotions as global issues. The comments were framed in a non-<br /> teachers read students’ papers); iv) evaluative authoritative mode and supported writing as a process.<br /> (critically assessing students’ writing, explicitly and<br /> Anson (1989) attempted to examine responding<br /> implicitly, opening chances for extensive criticism<br /> styles and their relationship with thinking styles.<br /> on students’ writing); and v) pedagogical (treating<br /> The researcher categorized written teacher response<br /> students’ papers as teaching and learning tools)<br /> styles into three groups of dualistic, relativistic,<br /> (Sperling, 1996, pp. 23, 24). These orientations<br /> and reflective. Dualistic responders tend to focus<br /> form an analytical framework for investigating the their attention on surface errors and mechanics.<br /> perspective of teacher-as-reader in responding to Teacher responders clearly prescribed what is right<br /> student writing. Having questions, relating to prior from what is wrong, and that students should make<br /> knowledge and experience, playing multiple roles changes in their revision. “The tone of the responses<br /> in reading a paper, and sharing these hypotheses implied that there were standards for correct and<br /> with students helps students understand themselves incorrect ways to complete the assignment, and that<br /> better as writer and reader. The framework might a teacher’s job was to act as a judge by applying the<br /> serve as a holistic approach to investigating student standards to the student’s writing,” or “[the tone]<br /> writing in classroom context where teacher response was highly authoritative and teacherly” (Anson,<br /> is valued. 1989, pp. 344, 348). Grammatical issues seem to be<br /> In their landmark research, Straub & Lunsford the focus of dualistic comments. Dualistic response<br /> (1995; 2006) investigated 3,500 comments by 12 emphasized narrowly prescriptive comments<br /> experienced teachers and professors of English on (Straub & Lunsford, 1995). Dualistic response<br /> 156 sets of responses. The researchers examined tends to focus on spelling out issues, not to offer<br /> written teacher comments by analyzing the “focus” options for revision. The following example is a<br /> and “mode” both quantitatively and qualitatively. typical dualistic response:<br /> Focus is understood as the issue to which the There are some serious problems with this<br /> comment refers while the mode refers to how the paper. For one thing it is far too short, and the ideas<br /> comment is shaped. in it, if any, are at the moment barely articulated…<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 87<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> one obvious reason why you did not write more, short to be very good. Poetry is that way, certainly.<br /> is that you have very serious deficiencies in your On the other hand, the more you put in, the more<br /> knowledge of the mechanics of writing. I am chances are that your reader is going to be able to<br /> referring here to tense, spelling, punctuation, and get into your story. Stories generally- and this essay<br /> sentence structure (Anson, 1989, p. 344). is a story- are fairly well-detailed… if you just keep<br /> it short and don’t put in many details then we never<br /> The second type of responders, relativistic,<br /> really get into your story at all (Anson, 1989, p. 351).<br /> commented almost nothing. They wrote minimum<br /> comments on the margins of student papers as well as Reflective responses tend to “place more<br /> in the summary statements. Relativistic responders responsibility on the writer … not just in the style or<br /> seemed to avoid focusing on the student’s text, form of the response, but in its focus and content.”<br /> and to be “entirely unconcerned with giving the By challenging the students to rethink their essays,<br /> students anything more than a casual reaction… reflective response appeared to “challenge the<br /> the text seems ‘owned’ by the writer” and teachers students to rethink their ways of viewing the world”<br /> did not want to intrude into the text. Relativistic (Anson, 1989, p. 352).<br /> responder provides “no options for revision,” just 2.4. L2 written feedback research<br /> “idiosyncratic response of a single reader” (Anson,<br /> 1989, pp. 349-350). Research in L2 written feedback has been<br /> growing, with attention being paid to the<br /> The third approach examined was reflective effectiveness of teacher’s written comments to<br /> response. Reflective responders tend to make student writing and in the ways feedback is given<br /> suggestions and possibilities for future revision. (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener<br /> This type of comment expresses concerns for & Ferris, 2012; Bruton, 2009a, 2009b, 2010;<br /> student writers in “ideas, textual decisions, Chandler, 2003; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999;<br /> personal reactions.” Reflective responders acted Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995b, 1997,<br /> as “representative readers” of student text, not 2001, 2003, 2004; Ferris, 2010; Ferris, Brown, Liu,<br /> authoritative teachers. Final choices of whether or & Stine, 2011; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997;<br /> not making any changes to the drafts will be decided Guénette, 2007; Hartshorn et al., 2010; F. Hyland<br /> by the students themselves. Reflective response also & Hyland, 2001; K. Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Leki,<br /> implies that the student writing was “in-process 1990; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010; Truscott,<br /> drafts” which serves as “tools for further learning.” 1996, 1999, 2007; Van Beuningen, De Jong, &<br /> Reflective responders often phase “maybe you could Kuiken, 2012; Zamel, 1985). Earlier L2 written<br /> think about…”, “what if you…”, “and how about feedback research yielded similar findings to L1<br /> seeing if there’s a way to…” The tone of reflective research. Teacher comments were reported to be<br /> response tended to be collaborating, suggesting, vague and form-related. They focused on language<br /> guiding, and modeling. The reflective responder errors rather than on global issues such as ideas and<br /> seems to be “rhetorically sitting next to the writer” organization (Zamel, 1985).<br /> (Anson, 1989, pp. 351, 353). Below is an example<br /> Research in the 1990s tended to focus on what<br /> of a reflective commentary to the student’s writing:<br /> to respond to (either on form, content, or both),<br /> Hi Bobby. The first thing that strikes me before and reported mixed findings. Focus on form was<br /> I even read your story is that it’s very short… I’m believed to be helpful for student writing (Ashwell,<br /> wondering if it’s short for a good reason, or it’s 2000; Chandler, 2003; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990;<br /> short because you just couldn’t think of things to Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997; Leki,<br /> say. It’s possible for a piece of writing that’s very 1990). In an empirical study with 72 college<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 88 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> students from mixed backgrounds, Fathman & provide positive feedback. A number of techniques<br /> Whalley (1990) reported that specific comments have been utilized to respond: questioning, making<br /> on grammatical errors have greater effect on the statements and imperatives, recommending, etc., ii)<br /> improvement of grammatical accuracy than general teachers adjust their responses to types of writing<br /> comments on content do. The researchers also task and student writing proficiency; and iii) some<br /> noted that both grammar and content response response styles tend to be more effective to revision<br /> might be provided either separately or at the same than the others. Comments about information,<br /> time “without overburdening the students” (p. 187). grammar, or mechanics are more likely to lead to<br /> This claim was further supported by later studies successful revision than comments about such issue<br /> (e.g. Ashwell, 2000; Ferris, 1997). Feedback on as thinking or argumentation (Bitchener & Ferris,<br /> some selective patterns of errors was helpful to 2012; Ferris, 2003).<br /> student writing (Ferris, 1995b). Chandler (2003)<br /> One of the main concerns in L2 response<br /> reported, for example, that error correction helped scholarship is how to determine if teacher response<br /> students gain greater accuracy than when they did affects student revision. Several taxonomies have<br /> not receive error feedback. Form-related comments been developed to trace revision changes. Faigley<br /> (on grammatical errors) led to better grammatical & Witte (1981) proposed a system that traces<br /> accuracy than content-related feedback did (Fathman revision by classifying changes into surface changes<br /> & Whalley, 1990; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Error (changes that do not result in new information)<br /> correction helped prevent error fossilization (i.e. a and text-based changes (changes that lead to new<br /> tendency to resist to change errors so that the errors content or deletion of old content) (Faigley & Witte,<br /> become fixed) in L2 learners (Higgs & Clifford, 1981). Storch (2010) and Ferris (2003) argues that<br /> 1982; Lalande, 1982). this revision scheme tends to be misleading because<br /> However, earlier studies in L2 written feedback i) students tend to make by far greater number of<br /> also revealed that error correction was ineffective, surface formal changes than text-based changes<br /> even harmful to students’ fluency, and led to no within a writing, and ii) the scheme does not deal<br /> improvement in long-term progress (Fazio, 2001; with how such a change affects the general quality<br /> Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Robb, of the draft.<br /> Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, Another procedure monitoring teacher response<br /> 1992; Truscott, 1996). Truscott (1996), for and student revision is proposed by Ferris (1997).<br /> example, claimed that error correction was harmful This rating scale traced the students’ drafts and<br /> to student fluency and led to no improvement in the teacher’s response to see how students utilized<br /> long-term progress and that students might not gain the comments in their revision. Students’ revision<br /> anything from error feedback. Zamel (1985) and was coded as not revised, successful revision, and<br /> Lunsford and Connors (1993) reported that teacher unsuccessful revision. These changes were also<br /> feedback was often vague, form-related, and determined if they improve quality of the paper,<br /> inaccurate. Truscott (1999) suggested that teachers<br /> have mixed effects, or have negative effect. This<br /> should adopt a correction-free approach in teaching<br /> method “more directly addresses the influence of<br /> writing, and teachers should focus on extra writing<br /> teacher feedback and its effects not only on the<br /> practice rather than spending time handling errors.<br /> types of revisions students make but on whether<br /> In recent reviews, Ferris summarizes a number those changes actually improve the quality of the<br /> of issues in response research: i) teachers often rely students’ texts” (Ferris, 2003, p. 36). A number of<br /> on marginal or end of paper notes whose purpose is studies have applied this analytic model in working<br /> to request, suggest, give information, encourage, and with teacher’s comments and the effect on student’s<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 89<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> revision (i.e. Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 3. THE STUDY<br /> 1997, 2001; F. Hyland, 1998). 3.1. The participants<br /> Many researchers, such as Bitchener and Ferris The study was conducted on three female<br /> (2012), Storch (2010), Guénette (2007); K. Hyland college students. They were Vietnamese first year<br /> and Hyland (2006), and Ferris (2003, 2004), students (mean age is 20). They were pursuing<br /> suggests that future studies in L2 response should different degrees in different majors, at different<br /> consider student background and motivation level universities. For the purpose of ethics, their names<br /> for L2 learning. These include the amount of time are coded as Queen, Pie and Tea. Queen was<br /> students commit to spend on writing (in-class and studying English and commerce in Singapore; Pie<br /> out-of-class). The relationship between students and was following a business program at a university<br /> teacher should also be noted. The types of writing in Wellington, New Zealand; and Tea was studying<br /> student compose, the ways teacher constructs finance in Russia.<br /> responses (linguistic, pragmatic, etc.) might also The length of the participants’ experience<br /> count in the relationship between response and with English varies. Queen has been learning<br /> revision. Whether or not teacher’s written feedback English since she was at her secondary school in<br /> is harmful to student’s writing as Truscott (1996, Vietnam (for about seven years) and she is now<br /> 1999) claims or whether teacher’s feedback is learning English in Singapore. Pie and Tea have<br /> helpful to students’ immediate revision are also acquired Russian as their second language. Pie<br /> issues that merit further explorations. learned Russian for six years before switching to<br /> English when she began her business program in<br /> There has been a debate about whether or Wellington in 2009. By the time data for the study<br /> not teacher’s written feedback is helpful to non- was collected, Pie has been learning English in New<br /> native students of English (e.g., Chandler, 2003; Zealand for roughly a year. Tea, interestingly, still<br /> Ferris, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2011; Ferris, 2006; A. used Russian as a means for her accounting program<br /> Lunsford & Connors, 1993; Truscott, 1996, 1999, since Russian was a language of instruction at her<br /> 2007; Zamel, 1985). Among many types of written university. Tea, however, wanted to learn English<br /> feedback, the current study only explores only one since she was considering a Master’s degree in an<br /> type, written reflective feedback, and to examine English speaking university. By the date of the data<br /> if written reflective response has any effect on collection process, Tea had been learning English<br /> ESL students’ revision. Given the fact that written for almost two years. To fully examine the effect<br /> feedback is still the most widely adopted method of teachers’ responses (if any), it is appropriate to<br /> by writing teachers and is time consuming and select the participants with diverse backgrounds of<br /> yet appropriately examined, it is necessary to English learning.<br /> investigate whether or not teachers’ feedback make All of the participants were former students<br /> a difference to students’ writing progress. The study at the universities in Vietnam where two of the<br /> was designed to answer the two following research researchers used to teach but were not current<br /> questions: students at the time of this study. Following the<br /> university’s approval, an email was sent out to<br /> 1. To what extent does teacher’s written<br /> recruit the participants. These three students were<br /> reflective response influence ESL learners’ revision<br /> the ones who agreed to join the study. They were<br /> process?<br /> female students who appeared to have a clear<br /> 2. To what extent does ESL students’ revised commitment and plan to their studies, which might<br /> draft improve after receiving teacher’s written give credit to their motivation in learning English.<br /> reflective response? All of them were eager to participate in the study<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 90 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> since it offered them opportunities to be exposed they would revise it and send the revised paper to<br /> to English, to practice writing in English, and to the teacher until the students were satisfied with the<br /> receive feedback from the researchers. final draft.<br /> 3.2. Data collection process Most of the drafts were written over two weeks.<br /> The data for the current study (the students’ Some topics resulted in up to four drafts plus the<br /> series of drafts and final version) were collected over final version. Seven topics/themes per student were<br /> a period of two academic semesters (24 weeks). All collected during this period, yet only five of the<br /> of the writing was done outside of school, not for papers per student were selected for analysis. This<br /> credit or grading. It was made explicit before the was because the students chose not to revise the<br /> participants joined the project that there would be other two topics for some reason. In total, 15 papers<br /> no rules on how the writing had to be done, with with more than 30 drafts were collected for analysis<br /> no time constraints. It was also up to the students’ over a period of 24 weeks.<br /> interests and personal habits to decide when, where, 3.3. Analysis of the effect of written feedback<br /> and what to write. We provided the students with<br /> on revision<br /> some writing prompts if they did not wish to self-<br /> select topics/themes to write about. In fact, most of Since the study attempted to see how the<br /> the writings came from these students’ self-selected teacher’s reflective feedback affects the students’<br /> topics. Only two teacher-provided writing prompts revision, Ferris’s (1997) analytic model was used<br /> were used. to analyze the revision. A number of L2 feedback<br /> studies have adopted this procedure (i.e. Conrad<br /> The participants wrote multiple drafts. After<br /> finishing each draft, they sent the teacher researcher & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1997, 2001; F. Hyland,<br /> for comments. Since the focus of the study was 1998). The procedure cross-checked the student’s<br /> on reflective feedback, the researcher interacted drafts and teacher’s response to see to what extent<br /> reflectively with these students’ drafts by writing the revision was successful, following the comment.<br /> exploratory comments at the end of each draft. The According to this scheme, three main categories<br /> researcher then returned the students the drafts with were coded in analyzing student drafts: not revised,<br /> comments. The students studied the comments and successful revision, and unsuccessful revision.<br /> decided one their own what to do with the draft. These categories were further examined to see to<br /> They would continue to revise and edit their draft, if the changes were minimal or substantive, and if<br /> which again would be sent to the researcher; or the they generally have positive effect, mixed effect, or<br /> student may refuse to revise and stop writing about negative effect. A rating scale was adopted to aid<br /> that topic. If the students chose to revise their drafts, the coding process (Figure 2).<br /> Figure 2: Rating scale for revision (Ferris, 1997, p. 322)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 91<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> Figure 3 below described how the coding procedure worked in tracing the influence of the teacher’s<br /> feedback on the students’ writing across the drafts:<br /> Figure 3: Analysis of effects of teacher’s feedback on drafts<br /> How the<br /> Earlier Draft Teacher’s Feedback Later Draft feedback<br /> worked<br /> My first day at Queen, this is a clear essay The first day I went to school, I got (1) fail to revise<br /> the school, I had about a good topic. It seems up at seven o’clock and had breakfast.<br /> a placement test that you are right on track to After that, I went to school by bus at<br /> which took me descriptive writing. eight o’clock. When I was coming to<br /> about two hours As a general reader, I can see the school, I saw a beautiful campus (2) revise<br /> with other students. a few of your activities on appeared in front of my eyes (2). successfully<br /> I did my test not the first day at the university. My first day at the school, I had a with minimal<br /> well because my This is about your first day, placement test which took me about change<br /> basic English a difficult day, at a foreign two hours with other students. I did my<br /> knowledge was strange university. You test not well because my basic English (3) fail to revise<br /> very bad. After therefore should describe it knowledge was very bad. I thought “if<br /> that, a manager more specifically, add more I want study at university in Singapore (4) revise<br /> called Simon details to help readers see I must study very hard” (4). Then, a successfully<br /> introduced us about how difficult you felt on manager called Simon introduced us with minimal<br /> regulation’s school that day. For example, you about regulation’s school and campus change<br /> and campus tour. could write more on (1) your tour. Sometimes when the manager<br /> Sometimes when feelings on the way to the was taking I did not understand, but he<br /> the manager was university, (2) what you saw tried to explain for me what he said. He (5) revise<br /> taking I did not at the university (students, used easier words to explain his ideas successfully<br /> understand, but he buildings, anything you (5). When I felt nervous he helped me with minimal<br /> tried to explain for thought it’s strange!) (3) more confident. I thought he is not also change<br /> me what did he say. who took you there or you a good manager but only is a devoted<br /> When I felt nervous went there yourself? (4) teacher.<br /> he helped me more what you felt when you After finished introduction, we went to<br /> confident. I thought saw the placement tests and student service centre to made student<br /> he is not also a good how you did it, any special cards which we helped us can use<br /> manager but only is strategies? If you could computer rooms and borrow books<br /> a devoted teacher. remember, give one example from library. I began take photos for it. (6) revise<br /> in the test that you think it’s After the staff gave me an ID number successfully<br /> After finished tricky (5) how the manager and I waited she gave me my student with substantive<br /> introduction, we helped you to understand card. I had to pay ten dollars for it. change<br /> went to student all the instructions and rules Before I went home other students and<br /> service centre to and regulations? How you I came to computer room and library.<br /> made student cards thought of him/her before In the library did not have lots of<br /> which we helped us and after his/her orientation? books because this was a new school.<br /> can use computer (6) after the orientation, you It established in 2008, so it had little<br /> rooms and borrow went to make the student ID. students. After that, we went to canteen<br /> books from library. Tell me more about it and to drink some things (6). Then we got<br /> Then we got home the process of ID issuing in home and to prepared for the first day<br /> and to prepared for a Singapore university. at class. I hoped the first day at class<br /> the first day at class. would be a good day for us.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 92 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The coding procedure framework was based an obvious discrepancy in the scores (equal or<br /> on Ferris (1997). All recommendations from the greater than two points) after the two readings, a<br /> teacher’s comments were first identified. We then third independent reading was required. The final<br /> located these recommendations in the final drafts score for that paper was the average of the three<br /> before we determined whether or not the students independent readings.<br /> used these suggestions to make changes to their 3.4.2. Analytical scoring<br /> final drafts. We further assessed if the changes were After the holistic scoring, the raters analyzed<br /> minimal or substantive. Finally, we determined if each draft in detail. The analysis centered on the<br /> the changes led to successful revision. following traits (NWP, 2009): (i) Content (including<br /> Two independent raters were recruited to do the quality and clarity of ideas and meaning); (ii)<br /> coding. These raters have been teaching English for Structure (organization of the paper); (iii) Stance<br /> ten years and hold their Ph.D. in English education (including tone, voice, and style); (iv) Sentence<br /> and M.A. in TESOL. They were carefully trained fluency (sentence structure, sentence flow and<br /> with clear demonstrations before their actual coding. rhythm, clarity of sentences); (v) Diction (word<br /> The inter-rater reliability correlation between the use, range of vocabulary, expressions); and (vi)<br /> two raters was .85. Conventions (spelling, punctuation, capitalization,<br /> 3.4. Assessing the improvement of the student paragraph breaks).<br /> writing 4. FINDINGS<br /> In an attempt to qualitatively measure possible 4.1. Teacher’s written reflective feedback did<br /> improvement in student writing, eight experienced influence student revision<br /> English instructors were recruited to analyze the Analysis of the student drafts showed that<br /> first drafts and final drafts. Two out of eight raters teacher’s written reflective comments did help<br /> hold an M.A. degree in TESOL; four hold M.A. improve the student revision. The students in the<br /> in English Education, and two Ph.Ds. Before the study mostly utilized the teacher’s written comments<br /> actual scoring, a demonstration scoring session and most of the comments led to successful revision.<br /> was designed to familiarize the scorers with the The students only ignored a small percentage of the<br /> process and address possible issues arising from teacher’s comments.<br /> the scoring process. These raters examined the first Graph 1 shows the percentages of the six<br /> and final drafts and scored the papers based on a categories of the rating scale for revision among<br /> version of the NWP’s analytic writing continuum the drafts. Based on the Ferris’s (1997) procedure,<br /> (NWP, 2009). Improvement in a student’s paper most of the teacher’s comments led to successful<br /> was determined following two main procedures: revision. The students utilized about 67 percent<br /> i) holistic scoring of the first and final draft on a of the suggestions and recommendations by the<br /> six- point scale; and ii) analytical scoring based on teacher. Among this, 33% of the comments resulted<br /> a six-trait scoring guide. in minor revision with positive effects on final drafts,<br /> 3.4.1. Holistic scoring and nearly 34% of the comments led to substantial<br /> Before each scoring session, all identifying revision with positive effects on the final drafts.<br /> information was removed so that the raters did not Only about a third of the suggestions in<br /> know which draft was the first draft and which draft teacher responses led to no revision or revision<br /> was the final draft. Each pair of the papers (the with negative effects in final drafts. Among these<br /> first and final draft) went through two independent categories, the students ignored about 16% of<br /> readings by two different raters, which resulted the teacher’s comments, and about 15% yielded<br /> in two independent sets of scores. If there was negative or mixed effects.<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 93<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Graph 1: Influence of response on revision via revision rating scale<br /> <br /> 4.2. Improvement and progress recorded for the final drafts<br /> Statistical tests based on the holistic scoring and analytical scoring showed that the final drafts scored<br /> significantly higher than the first drafts. Analytical six-trait scoring showed that final drafts tended to<br /> improve in content, structure, stance, and sentence fluency. No clear improvement in final drafts was found<br /> with word choice and conventions.<br /> 4.2.1. Holistic scoring<br /> To statistically compare the two sets of scores (first draft scores and final draft score) of the same<br /> students’ papers, analysis of variance is recommended to be the appropriate method. used. The two sets of<br /> scores were analyzed by running a one-way ANOVA. The result of the ANOVA was presented in Table 1<br /> and Table 2 below. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for first draft and final draft scores provided by<br /> eight raters. Table 2 shows the statistical result comparing the mean scores of the two sets of drafts. As the<br /> tables show, the mean score of the final draft is statistically significantly higher than the mean score of the<br /> first drafts (p = .0048), at both α levels of .05 and .01.<br /> Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the two sets of scores<br /> Descriptive Statistics for First Draft Scores and Final Draft Scores<br /> Measure Mean St. Dev. Variance Minimum Maximum<br /> First draft 2.4533 0.7738 0.5987 1.0 4.00<br /> Final draft 3.4053 0.9229 0.8518 1.75 5.00<br /> Total 2.9293 0.9668 0.9346<br /> Table 2: Analysis of variance for improvement across first drafts and final drafts<br /> Analysis of Variance Comparing the Score Means for Paper Improvement<br /> Source SS DF MS F P<br /> Between 6.7973 1 6.7973 9.37** 0.004827<br /> Within 20.3071 28 0.7253<br /> Total 27.1044 29 0.9346<br /> *p < .05 **p < .01<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 94 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Six one-way ANOVA tests were run to compare the sub-scores of the six traits (content, structure,<br /> stance, sentence fluency, diction, and conventions) given on first and final drafts. The combined results<br /> were presented in Table 3. As the table shows, the mean sub-scores of the final draft’s content, structure,<br /> stance, and sentence fluency were statically significantly higher than those of the first drafts at α level of .05<br /> (Content at both α levels of .01 and .05). With regard to diction and conventions, the mean sub-scores of the<br /> final drafts showed no progress.<br /> <br /> Table 3: ANOVA comparing means of sub-scores of the six trait<br /> <br /> Analysis of Variance comparing the means of sub-scores of the six traits<br /> F P<br /> Content 9.15** 0.005218<br /> Structure 5.72* 0.023731<br /> Stance 5.65* 0.024527<br /> Sentence fluency 6.46* 0.016853<br /> Diction 3.02 0.093232<br /> Conventions 1.88 0.181224<br /> *p < .05 **p < .01<br /> 4.2.2. Analytical scoring<br /> <br /> The quality of the drafts over time was also evaluated by the eight raters using analytical scoring. The<br /> evaluation was based on the six-trait scoring guide. Summary of these raters’ comments are presented in<br /> Table 4 below. These comments are a compilation to reflect the overall comments given, not comments on a<br /> particular paper or by a particular rater. The raters wrote mostly for themselves as fellow teachers and were<br /> not drafting comments that would go to the students.<br /> <br /> Table 4: Summary of scorers’ comments based on the NWP’s (2009) analytic scoring continuum<br /> <br /> Traits First draft Final draft<br /> Content (including Ideas are related but not Use of details<br /> quality and clarity of developed Considerably longer<br /> ideas and meaning) Expand your examples Good content with more details<br /> Subject is not clear, no clear The lead is good<br /> focus Begin with a good example<br /> Add some explanations, details<br /> Interesting lead + end; ideas more developed<br /> Good additional information helped this piece flow<br /> more naturally<br /> There is potential but much should be cut<br /> The writer adds more global, abstract background<br /> information in paper 2<br /> The imagery and language use in this piece is stronger<br /> Simplicity in conveying ideas<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 95<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> Structure List- like in delivery Structure is easy to follow<br /> (organization of the Break up the middle Paragraph 1-2 start more focused;<br /> paper) paragraph The second one seems more professional as the<br /> Very hard to follow- writer’s fluency and organization are better<br /> organization not clear There is a greater attempt to organize with paragraphs,<br /> The first draft lacks fluency which are chronological.<br /> and organization<br /> Stance (including Poor voice Add figurative language for interest<br /> tone, voice, and The first one felt a little more Inaccurate subject-verb match but more detail and<br /> style) focused better voice<br /> It has voice and descriptive Writer’s voice more clearly<br /> information<br /> Sentence fluency Has a focus + connected Better sentence structure<br /> (sentence structure, ideas but weak fluency+ The use of transition words<br /> sentence flow and diction Improved sentence fluency<br /> rhythm, clarity of Sentences are unclear due to Much better organized with fluent word choice and<br /> sentences) inappropriate structure; even good sentence structure.<br /> if the flow of the story seems<br /> good, some sentences are<br /> confusing because of broken<br /> word order<br /> Vary sentence length<br /> Diction (word use, Word choice Good command of adverbs and adjectives<br /> range of vocabulary, Missing verbs, article and The thoughts here are profound, but often they are<br /> expressions) preposition, adjective issues, expressed in language that is difficult to penetrate,<br /> Plurality, phrasing is unclear due to a lack of familiarity with nuances of American<br /> Tense, subject-verb expression<br /> agreement problems Verb tense, article, preposition still persists<br /> Conventions Capitalization Unclear convention change<br /> (spelling, Poor spelling<br /> punctuation,<br /> capitalization,<br /> paragraph breaks).<br /> Analytical, qualitative scoring revealed that final drafts generally improve in content, structure, stance,<br /> and sentence fluency. Most raters agreed that final drafts were considerably longer, richer in details,<br /> explanation and examples, and showed a stronger voice. Ideas were also more developed and flowed more<br /> naturally. Final drafts showed a better lead and ending, and better sentence structures, though confusing<br /> structures still persisted, which influenced the overall clarity of the papers. The raters also reported that there<br /> was no clear improvement in diction and conventions across the drafts. Final drafts still showed a number of<br /> grammatical issues. Among them were the use of verb tenses, articles and prepositions, broken word order,<br /> and weak word use.<br /> 5. DISCUSSION<br /> The results from this study indicatively suggest that teacher’s written reflective feedback was helpful to<br /> the student revision. The analysis showed that up to 70 percent of the teacher’s feedback led to successful<br /> revision. Following the teacher’s comments, the students had revised their first drafts, either minimally<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> 96 Số 08 - 7/2017<br /> NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> or substantively, and improved the final draft. Only Commenting reflectively during the early stage<br /> a small number of the teacher’s comments were of writing, teachers might focus on a broad picture<br /> ignored by the students or led to negative and/or (i.e. ideas and content) rather than focusing on<br /> mixed effects. The results provided some support to hunting for errors and asking the students to fix<br /> previous studies that reported that students highly them. Weaver believes that teacher should interact<br /> appreciated teacher’s written comments and used with the student and only focus on errors during the<br /> teacher’s feedback to guide their revision (i.e. later stage of writing: “When fixing error becomes<br /> Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1995a; Radecki the focal point, we miss all the incredible things<br /> & Swales, 1988,) a larger amount of teacher our students are doing and all the incredible growth<br /> responses led to successful revision (i.e.Conrad they are experiencing… To respond to the writers<br /> & Goldstein, 1999; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; first, then to the content of the writing, and only<br /> Ferris, 1997, 2001; Ferris et al., 1997; Kepner, later to what might need to be revised or edited”<br /> 1991) and the overall quality of the writing was (Weaver, 2008, p. 263).<br /> improved (i.e.Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener & Ferris, Holistic and analytical scoring qualitatively<br /> 2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener, Young, showed that the students’ word choice and<br /> & Cameron, 2005; Bruton, 2009b; Chandler, 2003; conventions did not seem to improve. The raters<br /> Ferris, 2004; Ferris, 2010; Ferris, Chaney, Komura, assessed that inappropriate use of words, and<br /> Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000; difficulties with punctuation and capitalization were<br /> Lalande, 1982; Van Beuningen et al., 2012). rampant in both first and final drafts. Regarding<br /> Teacher’s written reflective feedback clearly errors in word choice, it was likely that because<br /> contributed to the students’ improvement on the basic ESL student writers in this study experiment,<br /> overall quality of the writing products. Statistical take risks in detailed topics, and develop more<br /> tests showed that the final drafts scored significantly sophisticated syntax, the occurrence of errors may<br /> higher than the first drafts. The areas of improvement increase (i.e. Shaughnessy, 1977; Weaver, 2008;<br /> included the overall structure, content, stance, and Zinsser, 2006).<br /> sentence fluency. This might be due to positive The results showed no clear progress in the<br /> interpretation by the students when they received the use of conventions in final drafts. Neither were<br /> teacher’s feedback. As Anson (1989) suggests, the there many spelling errors in both first and final<br /> tone of reflective response tends to be collaborating, drafts. Reasons could vary. However, this might<br /> suggesting, and modeling. Students are challenged to be because the students typed their essays on their<br /> rethink their essays following the teacher comment. computers instead of writing by hands on papers.<br /> Indirect response might be able to lead students to Some software such as Microsoft Word supports<br /> “cognitive problem-solving,” since students are auto-spelling check that aids the students to spell<br /> able to “self-edit” after receiving teacher comments and punctuate their drafts.<br /> (Ferris, 2004, p. 60). In this context, the responder<br /> seemed to be “rhetorically sitting next to the writer,” 6. CONCLUSIONS<br /> but “place more responsibility on the writer… not Since the aim of the study was to explore the<br /> just in the style or form of the response, but in its impact of teacher’s written reflective feedback on<br /> focus and content” (Anson, 1989, pp. 252, 253). student revision, teacher’s reflective feedback was<br /> Reflective feedback perhaps was more helpful to the helpful to the students’ revision. Evidence from the<br /> ESL students’ revision than ineffective or harmful study showed that up to two thirds of the teacher’s<br /> as some researchers claim (e.g., A. Lunsford & comments led to successful revision. These were<br /> Connors, 1993; Polio et al., 1998; Sheppard, 1992; either minimal or substantive changes with positive<br /> Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007; Zamel, 1985). effects. Only about 15 percent of the teacher’s<br /> <br /> <br /> KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ<br /> Số 08 - 7/2017 97<br /> v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI<br /> <br /> <br /> comments did not receive attention from the students. the text (Elbow, 1998; R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995).<br /> Likewise, only a small percentage of the teacher’s Instead of using authoritative voice, a teacher should<br /> feedback resulted in negative or mixed effect (13%). perform a role “that allows her to ‘discuss’ a paper<br /> In terms of quality of the drafts over time with the writer” (R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, p.<br /> following the teacher’s reflective feedback, holistic 373). Indirect feedback, as Ferris concludes, leads<br /> and analytical scorings revealed evidence to support students to “cognitive problem-solving,” because<br /> that final drafts were statistically stronger than first students may be able to “self-edit” after receiving<br /> drafts. Analysis of variance showed that final drafts teacher comments (Ferris, 2004, p. 60).<br /> scored statistically significantly higher than that The fact that the students in this study used<br /> the first drafts. In the final drafts, the mean scores only two writing prompts to write their papers,<br /> of content, structure, stance, and sentence fluency and most of their other writings came from their<br /> were statistically significant and higher than those self-selected topics may help writing teachers<br /> in the first drafts. In contrast, no clear progress was have better teaching strategies. Instead of forcing<br /> found with regard to word choice and conventions. students to follow the prompts, rules and the like,<br /> The study showed several implications for teachers may want to encourage ESL students to<br /> responding to student writing. First, though written write more descriptively, even to engage more in<br /> feedback was time consuming, it was helpful and out-of-class writing (e.g., free-writing and journal<br /> influential in helping students revise their drafts. writing) to develop nuances and fluency (Fulwiler,<br /> Students seemed to use most of the teacher’s 1987). Responding should help L2 student writers<br /> comments in their revision as they might appreciate improve ability to scrutinize their writing, and more<br /> teacher’s written feedback (Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris, important, increase their confidence in using their<br /> 1995a; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Saito, written language (Ferris, 2004; Lindemann, 1987;<br /> 1994). The fact that most of the teacher’s written Shaughnessy, 1977; Weaver, 2008).<br /> comments in this study led to successful revision<br /> Though the study helped to confirm that<br /> perhaps suggests that teacher’s written feedback<br /> teacher’s written feedback was helpful to L2 student<br /> is not harmful to L2 student revision as several<br /> revision, due to its scale, it inherently compounds<br /> researchers previously



Đồng bộ tài khoản