Using Reader-Based Corrective Feedback for Improving Students' Writing

Introduction

Recently, the focus of language learning and teaching which is more learner centered has led to a more demanding role of teachers and learners. One of the most important changes is that teachers are viewed as the source of knowledge, instead as a facilitator or monitor (Richards, 2006:5). Littlewood (2002:91) asserted that teachers might face conflicts with their pedagogical role, which has traditionally required them to evaluate all learners’ performance according to clearly defined criteria. At the same time, this shift calls for greater learner’s participation and responsibility in learning process. From this perspective, the teacher seems to be less “prescriptive” in dominating the class and is less authoritarian as learning is now seen to be an individual activity as well as a socially-shared experience. The learner is no longer a passive recipient but an active participant in the classroom process. In order to fulfill this active role, learners also need to develop an awareness of themselves as learners.


The teaching of writing of writing nowadays has changed from product-oriented to process-oriented writing (Raimes, 1983:10). A product-oriented writing is an approach which considers a writing process as a linear process which can be determined by the writer before starting to write. Compositions which are made up of a series of parts—words, sentences, and paragraphs, are the focus of the product-oriented writing, not the whole discourse with meaning and ideas. Thus, the teaching of writing in the product approach is a matter of prescribing a set of predetermined tasks or exercises to the students. Language proficiency becomes the primary element that determines the skill of composing, while the importance of discovering ideas and creating meaning is overlooked.
With such a restricted view of composing, writing teachers are often distracted from responding to student writing, as their time is taken up primarily by identifying and correcting mechanical errors. However, feedback that is focused on errors does nothing to help students in generating and exploring ideas in writing (Gray, 2004). This kind of response also pays no attention to reader-based discourse, let alone to the fundamental characteristics of the composing process.
Fortunately, the shift of focus from the product to the process of writing has caused many teachers to reconsider their practices in teaching writing. From the new perspective, student writer is seen as an active thinker in the writing process. Both teachers and learners are now collaboratively involved in discovering what written language is and how a piece of writing is produced. Writing does not follow a neat order of planning, organizing and writing procedures. It is recursive, a “cyclical process during which writers move back and forth on a continuum, discovering, analyzing, and synthesizing ideas” (Hugh, et al., 1983). Editing for grammatical and mechanical accuracy should come in the final stage.
The process approach regards writing as a creative and purposeful activity of reflecting—both in the sense of mirroring and in the sense of deliberating on one’s own thoughts. The written product, opposite to the product approach, is not seen as an end itself. Rather, it is the manifestation of a more effective writer in the making. The student is seen both as a learner and as a writer, and the purpose of writing is clear: a written communication with the writer himself/ herself, with his/her fellow learners, with his/her teacher, and with his/her intended readers (Harmer, 2004).
The focus in the process approach is on how to give “reader-based” feedback, and the editing of grammatical accuracy is postponed to the final stage. By offering feedback on both content and form, the process approach is more embracing, in that it helps students from the beginning stage of generating ideas to the final stage of refining the whole written discourse.
Product-oriented feedback is mainly form-focused, emphasizing grammatical correctness while neglecting other aspects such as the discovery and construction of meaning in the writing process. Obviously, there is a need to address concerns of accuracy and language in the feedback stage of writing. Thus, the product approach can usefully be incorporated into the system of the process approach.
This paper first elaborates on what feedback is and how an effective feedback system works in relation to the writing process. Next, the paper explores the concept of feedback as a way of revising old ideas and generating new ones, forming an integral part of the writing process. The paper also discusses why learner-friendly feedback system is needed and how it improves students’ ability in writing for academic purposes. The paper is concluded by a discussion of the practice and problems of process writing, exploring the use of peer-corrective feedback into the process approach.

Feedback: What is it and How to Give it?

In order for the student to learn from the writing process, a more interactive and student-centred approach in giving feedback to students is required. One guiding principle proposed by Ellis (2009) suggests that researchers and teachers systematically identify the various options available for correcting students’ writing as a basis for both designing future studies and for pedagogical decision making. To put this orientation into practice, writing teachers need to help students to build a sense of awareness in themselves as writers, a sense of confidence and self-worth, to counteract the negative influence of the traditional approach.
In the process orientation, teachers are not authorities but facilitators; they are not judges or mere proofreaders but genuinely interested readers of original texts created by students (Zamel, 1985). It will also be necessary in the process approach for students to learn to be their own critic reader capable of revising their own prose without relying too much on extensive input from the outsider. The change of writing from ‘writer-based prose’ to ‘reader-based prose’ is not easy for learners. Writers need to pay attention to writing as communication of meaning and treat writing as goal-oriented activity. The teacher is perhaps the best audience of the students and should work as reader-and-editor. Students need to discuss, to expand and to “re-see” what has been written down with the teacher. The teacher’s role is active throughout the writing process. Teachers have to cater to a wide range of activities to explore learner’s strategies for better discourse and redrafting. This student-centered process-focused approach tries to accommodate individual differences among students while enabling every learner to become actively involved in the process of producing meaningful as well as ‘correctly’ written discourse.

Techniques in Giving Feedback

If revision is central to the process of writing, and considering that pre-writing, writing and rewriting are likely to be going on simultaneously (Singh & Sarkar, 1994, Yan, 2005 & Teo, 2007), more attention needs to be paid to exploring effective techniques of teacher-responses. In what follows, five feedback methods are introduced. They are not meant to be definitive – further development and refinement are needed – but they have been tried out by practicing teachers or researchers. These techniques reflect the rationale of the feedback model described in this paper and have been proved to work profitably with process writing.

1. Student Self-Monitoring Technique

The basic assumption of the student self-monitoring technique is that teacher and student should meet on a one-to-one basis as editor and writer to discuss the draft text. This one-to-one conference is the best situation for providing feedback since both parties can work together to solve the problems that arise. Unfortunately, the teacher may find it difficult to afford or arrange the time for an individual conference. To alleviate the difficulty, Charles (1990) suggests that students can annotate their drafts with comments and questions for the teacher’s responses. The teacher responds, in return, by writing to these notes with direct and appropriate feedback. This technique not only facilitates the teacher’s understanding of the writer’s problems, but also allows students to play a more active role in gaining access to teacher feedback. Charles (1990) describes her techniques as a 4-phase activity:
Step 1:             Students draft and ‘monitor’ their texts
Students write the first draft, underline and annotate the problem areas for teacher response.
Step 2: A Teacher/editor responds in writing to the monitored comments.
Teacher responds to the first draft and replies the written queries. He also adds further comments and returns the paper.
Step 3: Students respond to editorial comments and rewrite their drafts.
Students produce a second draft and add further explanations or questions to the teacher’s comments. First and second drafts are then handed in.
Step 4: Teacher/editor responds to student comment and second drafts.
The teacher again notes down on the first draft any further explanations that are necessary. Teacher responds to the second draft checking whether the student is able to deal with the problems identified during the self-monitoring phase. Further revisions can go on depending on the students, the nature of paper and the time available. If not, the second draft may be the final revision.
The merit of the student-centered self-monitoring technique is that it encourages students to look critically and analytically at their writing. Moreover, the teacher can give tailor-made feedback to individual students.

2. Providing Interactive Feedback

Marking can be a tedious classroom chore. Teacher correction seldom brings improvement in subsequent writing since teacher correction is often regarded – by both teacher and student – as an ending of the writing process. By reducing the negative effects of marking errors without reducing the benefits of the teacher’s diligent efforts, Hyland (1990) Suggests ‘minimal marking’ and taped commentary to make feedback more productive and interactive. The means to ‘minimal marking’ is by using correction codes. This leaves a space for active correction by the student rather than reading the disheartening correction of the teacher written in red. By decoding the correction symbols, students have the opportunity to identify the mistakes and correct them for reassessment by the teacher.
If teacher needs to give more detail (which is always the case) and sophisticated comments in areas other than mechanical errors, the technique of recorded commentary is useful. Instead of writing tedious comments, the teacher can just read through the paper and talk about the weaknesses and merits, recording them on a tape recorder. Hyland (1990) claims that this method is more effective since the writer “can see how someone actually responds to [his/her] writing as it develops”. However, Hyland reminds us that it is not possible to include all the mistakes in terms of codes’, and too many codes could be confusing. Also, codes do not represent all kinds of feedback (other than on mistakes).

3. Peer Feedback

Peer feedback may be referred to by many terms such as peer evaluation, peer critiquing, peer editing or peer response (Keh, 1989). Bartels (2003) mentioned advantages of peer feedback, they are:

1. It creates an interested audience for students ‘writing
2. It provides instant feedback and negotiation of meaning
3. Every student gives and receives peer response
4. Monitoring peer response is easy with written feedback.
5. Assessing students’ writing is easier with written responses
6. It saves time, especially in large classes.
7. It provides material for review.
8. It is good practice for future teachers.

4. Conferencing

Carnicelli in Mahili (1994) defines the conference method as a combination of “conferences, a process approach, and a reasonable set of priorities.” He suggests that individual conferences should take up the entire class time and his rationale is very convincing. He addresses some important points like the promotion of self-learning, the superiority and effectiveness of oral responses over written comments as well as of individualized instruction over group instruction.
Conferencing is designed to help students find their own way in writing. There are six activities before and in doing a conference method with students (Carnicelli in Li (2007)). In order to be able to help students with their writing, a teacher must thoroughly understand what each student tries to mean. Therefore, he must read the paper carefully. In conferencing, students should not be made offended by the teacher’s remark. Instead, the teacher should offer encouragement to student to develop their intuition as well as their skill in writing. Questions play an important role in conferencing. Asking the right questions will lead the students to having clearer view of what needs to be improved in their writing. Students need to hear what the teacher thinks about their work. However, a teacher should not scrutinize when giving evaluation to the students. Otherwise, it will be so overwhelming to the students. After evaluating, a teacher should make necessary suggestions to students in order that they can make revision to their work. The teacher should bear in mind that the suggestions given are specific. In conferencing, a dialog between a teacher and a student should take place. Giving feedback should not make the teacher forget that he must listen also to the student. Finally, the ability to listen is crucial in this stage since sometimes a teacher tries whatever it takes to impose what he wants to the students. Students must also be given opportunity to express or clarify what they mean.
There are five major advantages of the conference method according to Carnicelli:

1. Individualized instruction in writing is more effective than group instruction.
2. The teacher can make a more effective response to the paper in an oral conference than in written comments.
3. The student can learn more from an oral response than from written comments.
4. Conferences can promote self-learning.
5. The conference method is the most efficient use of the teacher’s time (Carnicelli in Li (2007)).

5. Getting it Right

The teacher may often find that many students can communicate ideas and meaning, but they often write loose-jointed sentences without meeting the standards of grammatical accuracy and coherence. To help students learn to be responsible for their own mistakes, students need to be trained to solve the problem of sentence-level incoherence. First of all, students must be taught what a sentence is. Basically, the process of getting it right can be divided into 2 phases:
I.    Pre-writing Exercise
(i)   Recognition of ‘basic sentence’
The teacher gives some complex sentences to students and asks them to divide each sentence into meaningful word groups. Students are then asked to underline the basic sentence which can stand as a complete and meaningful statement.
(ii) Expansion exercise
The teacher asks students to expand a number of basic sentences by responding to specific guided WH-questions. The teacher may also highlight a particular word to be expanded.
(iii) Linking devices
This is an exercise to reinforce students’ skill in manipulating conjunctions. Students fill in the blanks in short texts, such as:
although . . . . . . . . .
Smoking is dangerous for your health so . . . . . . . . . .
because . . . . . . . . . .
II. Post-writing Analysis
First, the teacher presents a completed paragraph of ungrammatical English to see whether student can locate and correct errors. If necessary, the teacher can underline the mistakes for students. Then students are asked to examine each of the previously marked sentences and divide them into meaningful word groups. If students find any sentence with no basic sentence or with too many basic sentences, students have to rewrite paragraph, keeping the original ideas of the writer.
This exercise is not easy to conduct, and some of the grammatical points are not easy to explain to students. By doing getting-it-right process, the teacher can help students to become better editor-reader of their own writing and at the same time setting themselves free from concentrating on correcting mechanical errors. The insights could perhaps be extended to the development of techniques for working on high-level, i.e. discourse-level, inter-sentential coherence.

Implications for the Teaching of Writing in EFL Setting

Most instruction in teaching writing in EFL setting follows the traditional model, consisting of exercises and drills with little opportunity for students to explore the act of expressing their thoughts. The orientation towards grammatical correctness is not difficult to understand since many teachers believe that the most serious problem of EFL writers is their incorrect English usage. However, sentence-level mechanics and strategies for discourse-level unity like organization and ideas cannot be separated. Both of them are essential elements for composing and must be learnt and taught at the same time in the writing lessons. If the strategies for discourse-level coherence are not taught in school, the chance of students acquiring these skills in the future is rare and will probably be postponed indefinitely.
The problem is that many teachers still stick to the principles that teachers should prevent occurrence of written errors at all cost. Though the teaching is based on the communicative approach, it is likely that the teachers still react to a text as discrete items presented in linear sequence. They still approach students’ texts as final products to be evaluated upon some preconceive notions about good writing. They believe that the teaching of form should precede the content. One of the reasons is that they lack training in process writing. Some teachers do not think that the process approach is applicable for students due to some factors like students’ reluctance to write and their little knowledge about the advantage of writing as a process. This is particularly true since many EFL writing teachers are not familiar with the techniques involved in process writing.
To change the situation, teachers must start to reconsider their role in the language classroom. They need to consider the value of being no longer judges but facilitators in the language classroom. Thus, in responding to student writing, they should not be too obsessed about students’ grammatical accuracy, ignoring their responsibility of taking care of various aspects of the students’ writing process. Teachers also have to accept individual differences among students. In this respect, more time needs to be spent on giving reader-editor feedback to student writing rather than on correcting surface-level errors. Generally speaking, teachers have to pay more attention to the writing process—to how they can help students generate ideas, negotiate meaning and revise their drafts etc. Obviously, more communication and interaction between teacher and students during the writing process is essential.
Apart from the change in classroom procedures and practices, innovations have to be introduced in the training of EFL teachers. First, EFL writing teachers must be given the opportunity to learn what process writing is and to be trained or re-trained in process writing skills. That is to say there must some training on process writing for both in-service and pre-service teachers.

Conclusion

There are the two major paradigms of writing pedagogy: the product-focused approach and the process-oriented approach. The two paradigms cannot be divorced from each other since composing is a language problem as well as a rhetorical problem. Only by combining the two approaches can the aim of teaching writing be achieved to “free” students from the pressure of having to produce accurate, standard English at the same time as they are generating and exploring ideas in writing. There is always a need to integrate the two views into one unified theory in which student writers and teacher-readers can explore meaningful discourse together.
Thus, the two approaches can acquire new meanings and have new roles to play. The process approach can be seen as formative feedback for refining writing. In this respect, the teacher’s focus is on monitoring student progress during instruction. The purpose of formative feedback is to provide continuous feedback to both the students and teacher on learning successes and failures of an on-going activity. Such feedback provides a chance for the teacher to interact with the students and to modify his/her instruction methods or materials to facilitate better learning. This kind of feedback also requires the teacher to gather fairly detailed information on the progress of the student in a period of time and to intervene at any possible moment of the learning process to help the learner. In this process, the teacher is not a distant judge but a mentor to facilitate learning. A better teacher-student relationship can thus be established.

Suggestions

In contrast, the product approach needs no longer be regarded as primarily a marking orientation in the classroom. Rather, it can be interpreted as a way of providing summative feedback to students. By providing summative feedback to students, the teacher tries to determine the student’s status of achievement at the end of an instructional segment with the primary goal of certifying student mastery of the intended learning outcomes, and to determine the extent to which the instructional objectives have been achieved. In this way, the information gathered for summative purpose may be useful in a formative sense since the teacher knows how effective his/her instruction is and how far further reinforcement is needed for his/her students. With such information, the teacher can revise his/her teacher strategies in the subsequent lessons. In this way, summative and formative feedback become necessary and inseparable components of EFL writing instruction and is complementary to one another. Finally, the two kinds of feedback, if adopted into the writing classroom, can be genuinely incorporated as a unified pedagogical EFL writing feedback system, embracing the advantages of the two kinds of writing approaches.

References:

Charles, M. (1990) Responding to problems in written English using a student self-monitoring technique, ELT Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, 286-293.
Ellis, R. (2009) A Typology of written Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal Vol. 63 No 2, 97-107.
Gray, R. (2004) Grammar Correction in ESL/EFL Writing Classes May Not Be Effective, The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 11, November 2004. http://iteslj.org/Technique/Gray-WritingCorrection.html. Retrieved on November 9, 2010
Harmer, J. (2004) How to Teach Writing. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Hugh, J.B., Worth D.R., Hartfiel V.F., & Jacobs H.L. (1983). Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House Pub., Inc.
Hyland, K. (1990). Mistakes correction, ELT Journal, Vol. 42 No. 2, 89-96.
Keh, C (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation, ELT Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, 294-304.
Li, W.S. & Joe (2007) A Process Approach to Feedback in Writing. ELT Journal Vol. 53 No 3, 47-60.
Littlewood, W. (2002) Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mahili, I. (1994) Responding to Student’s Writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 4, 24-27.
Raimes, A. (1983) Techniques in Teaching Writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Singh, R.K. & Sarkar, M.D. (1994) Interactional Process Approach to Teaching Writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 32. No. 4, 18-23
Teo, A. (2007) SWELL: A Writing Method to Help English Language Learners. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 45 No. 4, 18-23
Yan, G. (2005) A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing. TESOL Quarterly Vol. 43 No. 3, 18-22
Zamel, V. (1985) Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 1, 79-101.