Sunteți pe pagina 1din 6

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 citys 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
Introduction
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
Truscotts 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.
The argument in favor of feedback
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.
The argument against feedback

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 learners 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).
An overview of feedback
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 solutionthis 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 Truscotts
objections lienot with feedback itself, but with its overemphasis on local errors.
Errors feedback should focus on
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 Truscotts 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 students 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.
Implications for students and teachers

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).
Conclusion
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 students
level and needs when providing feedback. Ideally, as the student progresses, the teachers
feedback will gradually shift focus from global errors to the smaller local errors. This appears
to be the most valuable asset of feedbackit progresses with the growth of the learner.
Therefore, when applied appropriately, feedback is an indispensable educational tool for
teachers and students alike.
References
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/cgibin/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/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Developmental%20issues%20in
%20interlanguage%20pragmatics.pdf
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 http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1146219119.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 learners ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.

Please check the Teachers as Leaders course at Pilgrims website.

S-ar putea să vă placă și