Chapter One: Review of the literature

1.0 Introduction
Writing is an important skill and a valuable part of any language course. Feedback is
an important aspect of the teaching of writing. Among the kinds of feedback is
teacher feedback. Unfortunately, little has been written about this type of feedback. It
is noteworthy that responding to students writing is time-consuming and requires a
great effort from teachers. They hope that this time and effort which they spend
correcting and commenting on their students written work will result in some
progress in students compositional skills. It is useful here to know how the students
find their teachers feedback and what they do to make use of such feedback.

This study aims to investigate ESL students perception of the effectiveness of teacher
feedback. It also aims to investigate their preferences for types and methods of
providing feedback. Their strategies for handling such feedback is also among the
issues which the present study intends to explore.

The present study is similar to a study done be Asiri (1996). Both studies were based
on the work of Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990). It is worth noting
here that the recent studies which have dealt with the different areas of teacher
feedback are far from being adequate. This forced the researcher in this study to use
almost the same background sources as Asiri. Therefore, any overlap between the two
works is to be predicted.

1.1 Definition of feedback

1
Before discussing issues pertaining to feedback, it is necessary to present a clear
definition of the term feedback. Keh (1990) defines feedback as the;

input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing

information to the writer for revision. In other words, it is the
comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer to
produce reader-based prose (Flower, 1979) as opposed to writer-
based prose (p. 294).

Freedman (1987) offers a more exhaustive definition. She states that feedback;

includes all reaction to writing, formal or informal, written or oral,

from teacher or peer, to a draft or final version (p.5).

From the above two definitions we can see that feedback can come in different forms,
from different readers, and at different stages of the writing process with the intention
of improving students writing.

1.2 Importance of feedback

Different researchers (e.g., Sommers, 1982; Raimes, 1983; Ziv, 1984; Hedge, 1988)
argue that feedback is a crucial aspect in the writing process and that it plays a central
role in learning this skill. Through feedback, learners come to distinguish for
themselves whether they are performing well or not. When they are not performing
well, however, further feedback helps them to take corrective action about their
writing in order to improve it and reach an acceptable level of performance
(Freedman, 1987). Providing learners of writing with feedback, however, is not only
intended to help them monitor their progress, but also encourages them to take
anothers view and adapt a message to it (Flower, 1979; cited in Asiri, 1996). Another
valuable feature of feedback is that it serves as a good indication of how ESL students

2
are progressing in learning the written language and, therefore, assists the teachers in
diagnosing and assessing their students problematic areas (Hedge, 1988; cited in
Asiri, 1996).

Additionally, feedback is helpful in encouraging students not to consider what they

write as a final product and in helping them to write multiple drafts and to revise their
writing several times in order to produce a much improved piece of writing (Asiri,
1996). This can be adopted and benefited from in a teaching situation where rewriting
is encouraged. That is, in a situation where the process approach to writing is
employed. Sommers (1982) asserts that it is not only student writers who need
feedback to make revisions, but also professional writers seek feedback from
professional editors, and from their writer colleagues to help them know whether they
have communicated their ideas or not.

In the absence of feedback, students can become discouraged (Hedge, 1988), and lose
sense of how they are doing and which aspects of their writing they should pay more
attention to. Asiri (ibid) argues that their efforts may be misdirected and they may
gain an inaccurate impression of their performance in the writing skill. Moreover, a
lack of feedback may also create the assumption among students that they have
communicated their meaning and, therefore, they do not perceive a need to revise the
substance of their texts (Sommers, 1982).

1.3 Sources of feedback

Providing student writers with feedback on their written work can be achieved
through different techniques. These are teacher written feedback, conferencing, peer
feedback and self-assessment. In this part of the study, I shall briefly discuss the last
three mentioned procedures, and then consider in more detail the aims of the present
study, ESL teachers written feedback and students reaction to such feedback.

3
1.3.1 Conferencing
Conferencing is the term used to describe the one-to-one consultation between teacher
and student during the evaluation of a composition (Cohen, 1990). This definition
restricts the roles of the participants in the conferencing sessions to that of teacher and
student. White and Arndt (1991), however, offer a more extended definition which
expands the teacher role to that of any other reader. They describe the term
conferencing as a;

procedure in which the teacher/reader or another reader and the

writer work together on what the writer has written, motivated by a
concern with clarifying the writers intentions, purpose and
meaning" (p.131).

Several researchers (Raimes, 1983, Zamel, 1985, Keh, 1990) have indicated the
different advantages of conferencing between student and teacher. The most valuable
one is the interaction between the teacher and the student which enables the former to

ask for clarification, to check the comprehensibility of oral comments made, helps the
writer sort through problems, and assists the student in decision-making (Keh, 1990).

In doing so, the teacher can be viewed as a participant in the writing process rather
than as an evaluator or grade-giver. Another advantage of conferencing, compared to
written comments, is that it provides feedback which is more accurate and clear.
Zamel (1985) argues that teacher-student negotiation is a productive procedure that
can lead to important discoveries. In Goldstein and Conrads (1990) study of the
effects of teacher-student conferences on students revision, they found that such
conferences play an important role in students subsequent revisions.

Albeit effective, teacher-student conferencing is extremely time-consuming, and thus,

cannot be applied to large classes. In such cases, it would be wise to employ other
techniques such as peer feedback which is presented below.

4
1.3.2 Peer feedback
Peer feedback simply refers to the type of feedback that a learner receives from
another learner. Like teacher feedback, it may be verbal or written. Different terms
(e.g. peer response, peer editing, peer evaluation, peer critique, and peer review) have
been used by different researchers to refer to this type of feedback. Nelson and
Murphy (1993) argue that the rationale for employing peer response is;

students providing other students with feedback on their

preliminary drafts so that the student writers may acquire a wider
sense of audience and work toward improving their compositions
(p. 135).

Mittan (1989, cited in Mangelsdorf, 1992) claims that peer response is a valuable
means because it;

provide students with an authentic audience: increase students

motivation for writing; enable students to receive different views on

their writing; help students learn to read critically their own writing;
and assist students in gaining confidence in their writing (p. 227).

Another important feature of peer feedback is that it is immediate rather than delayed.
Keh (1990) claims that peer feedback is not only valuable to the learners, but also to
the teachers, who can employ it to save them time and, thus, allow them more time to
attend to other tasks in the learning process.

Zamel (1982) argues that peer feedback is beneficial because it;

. . . reinforces the fact that the teacher is truly not the only reader,
a claim which we repeatedly make out but fail to convince our

5
 students of, and that audience considerations therefore need to be
taken into account (p. 206).

Hendrickson (1980) advises teachers to instruct their students to work in pairs and to
correct each others compositions. He believes that this procedure is beneficial in that
it; . . . allows the students to work in a non-threatening educational setting that helps
build their confidence and fosters learning by discovery and sharing (p. 221).

However, Nelson and Murphy (1993) argue that the application of peer feedback in
an L2 setting is different from an L1 setting in two significant ways. Firstly, L2
students may mistrust their peers responses to their writing because they are still in
the process of learning the language and, consequently, may not incorporate their
suggestions into their subsequent drafts. Secondly, L2 students, due to cultural
differences in classroom techniques, believe the teacher to be the only authority in the
classroom and view their fellow students as lacking the adequate knowledge to
provide them with constructive comments about their written work. Hence, students

may ignore their peers comments and not take them into consideration when
revising. However, the findings of Nelson and Murphys study showed that students

who participated in peer response group did incorporate their peers feedback when
revising their drafts.

1.3.3 Self-assessment
Self-assessment or self-evaluation aims to develop the students ability in reading
his/her own writing and examining it critically, learning how to improve it, and
learning how to express his/her meaning fluently, logically, and accurately.

Mooko (1996) asserts that studies investigating self-evaluation are scarce in writing
research, in general, and in the L2 situation in particular. Further, these studies have

6
yielded somewhat contradictory results with regards to the effectiveness of employing
such a procedure.

Beach (1979), for example, has studied the effects of self-evaluation using forms,
teacher evaluation, and no evaluation on the revision of students rough drafts. The
results of his study showed no significant difference between the self-evaluation
group and the no evaluation group. The group which received teacher evaluation have
achieved greater change in their revisions than the two other groups. He attributed
these discouraging results to students unfamiliarity with revision forms. However, a
later study undertaken by Beach and Eaton (1984) has yielded positive signs of the
efficacy of self-evaluation.

Beach and Eaton (1984, cited in Mooko, 1996) investigated the effects of instruction
in the use of guided self-assessing forms on students assessment of rough drafts.
Subjects were divided into two treatment groups, experimental and control. Those in
the experimental group were given instructions on the use of the form, whilst the

control group was not given any training. The results of their study showed no
significant difference between the two groups, and that subjects in both groups were

able to identify and revise their work with respect to problems of support,
organisation and syntax. They concluded that self-assessing forms can help students
learn how to critically assess and revise their drafts.

Olson (1990) carried out an experiment that aimed to compare peer feedback and self-
assessment. The results of his study revealed that students who worked alone revised
more than those who worked with peer partners.

1.4 Teacher written feedback

7
Teachers written feedback is the most widely used form of feedback that students
receive on their written work. Different researchers (e.g., Knoblauch and Brannon,
1981; Sommers, 1982; Ziv, 1984; Zamel, 1985) have questioned the efficacy of this
type of feedback. Teachers written feedback, however, is a complex area, and several
studies have dealt with it from different angles. Some studies (Semke, 1984; Robb et.
al., 1986), for example, have investigated the methods (e.g., direct correction, the use
of codes, etc.) teachers utilise to respond to their students written work. Others (e.g.,
Fathman and Whalley, 1990; Kepner, 1991) have examined the types of feedback
(i.e., form vs. content) teachers perceive as being more effective. Another important
area which has been studied by some researchers (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Ferris, 1995)
and which the present study aims to explore is how students view their teachers
written feedback and how they respond to it.

In the following, I shall review the literature pertaining to the issue of teachers
written feedback, focusing attention on students perceptions and reactions to such
feedback.

1.4.1 Effectiveness of teacher feedback

The effectiveness of teacher feedback is still a matter of controversy among
researchers of writing. Some studies (Knoblauch and Brannon, 1981; Semke, 1984;
Hillocks, 1986) have revealed that teacher feedback is ineffective and not worth the
teachers efforts, and that students progress is enhanced by practice only (Robb et.
al., 1986), whereas other studies (Beach, 1979; Bridwell, 1980; Hillocks, 1982;
Fathman and Whalley, 1990) have found it helpful and beneficial for the student
writers.

A study undertaken by Fathman and Whalley (1990), for example, has shown several
positive effects of teacher feedback on compositions written by ESL college writers.
They examined the changes in compositions under four different teacher response
treatments. The first group of students received no feedback on their written work,

8
whilst the second group received grammar feedback only. Only content feedback was
given to the third group. The fourth group received a combination of grammar and
content feedback. The results of this study showed that students in all four groups
made significant improvements in their rewrites, irrespective of the kind of feedback
given by the teacher. Those who received grammar feedback rewrote their
compositions with no grammatical errors. Those who received comments and
suggestions made a great improvement with regards to the content of their work.
Fathman and Whalley offered the conclusion that teachers feedback, in both content
and grammar, has positive effects on students writing.

Another study is Hillocks (1982) which examined the effects of teachers comments
in four instructional conditions: 1) observation and writing activities with revision; 2)
observation and writing activities with no revision; 3) assignment and revision; and 4)
assignment without revision. The findings of this study revealed that focused
comments coupled with assignment and revision produced a significant quality gain.
Furthermore, the gain for students doing revision was nearly twice that for students
receiving comments but doing no revision. This finding is consistent with Beach
(1979), who found that students revisions in response to teachers comments were
associated with significantly higher quality ratings.

Different researchers, on the other hand, argue that teachers response to students
writing has no role in promoting students competence in writing. Knoblauch and
Brannon (1981), for example, reviewed studies contrasting different ways of
responding to students compositions, such as positive vs. negative comments, oral
vs. written response, marginal vs. terminal comments, form vs. content, copious vs.
brief response, etc. They concluded that none of these different ways of providing
feedback to students writing produced significant improvements in students
subsequent writing. Hillocks (1986) similarly reviewed a number of research findings.
He stated that; the results of all these studies strongly suggest that teacher comment
has little impact on students writing (p. 165). It is worth indicating that the

9
aforementioned studies were based on a single draft setting, in that students were not
required to rewrite their compositions incorporating teachers comments.

Additionally, this ineffectiveness may be caused by the nature of teacher feedback

itself. Zamel (1985), who examined the nature of feedback provided by ESL teachers,
found that ESL teachers;

misread student texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, make

arbitrary corrections, write contradictory comments, provide vague
prescriptions, impose abstract rules and standards, respond to the
text as fixed and final products, and rarely make content-specific
comments or offer specific strategies for revising the text (p. 86).

Another factor which may contribute to the ineffectiveness of teacher feedback is the
fact that teachers fill their students papers with comments concerning both form and
content which may frustrate the students and cause them to adopt some negative
attitudes toward the writing process. Moreover, students may become confused and
not know which of these comments deserve a higher priority (Zamel, 1985).
Accordingly, most researchers of writing recommend that teachers provide feedback
on the content of students first drafts and leave surface-level concerns to the final
draft (Chenwoeth, 1987). This means that teachers should no longer play the role of
language teachers, but should perceive themselves as writing teachers, who try to help
their students learn and improve their compositional skills. Put differently, teachers,
when responding to their students, should become facilitators, consultants, and
interested readers rather than grammarians and evaluators.

Furthermore, other research findings (Cohen, 1987) indicate that some students do not
read their teachers feedback when their papers are returned to them. As Raimes
(1983) notes; When written work is returned embellished by teacher corrections, the

10
students groan, put it away, and hope that somehow they will get fewer red marks
next time (p. 141-2).

We can conclude by saying that the clearness of the feedback and the opportunity for
revision are essential if teachers written comments are to improve students writing.

1.4.2 Teachers techniques for providing feedback

Teachers, in responding to their students, utilise different methods ranging from
correcting all errors to merely indicating the location of errors. The studies which
have dealt with these methods have yielded different, and sometimes contradictory,
results concerning their effectiveness in improving students writing. What follows is
a discussion of these techniques and their roles in helping students learn the skill of
writing.

One of the studies that dealt with this aspect of feedback is Semke (1984). She studied
the effects of four different methods of responding on L2 students writing. These
methods were: 1) writing comments and questions without corrections, 2) marking all
errors and correcting them, 3) combining positive comments with corrections, and 4)
indicating errors by coding them and asking students to rewrite their papers correcting
the errors. The results of the study showed that correction neither improved students
writing skills nor their general language proficiency. Instead, they may negatively
affect students attitudes, especially those who are forced to make the corrections
themselves.

A similar study to that of Semke was undertaken by Robb et. al. (1986) who
investigated the effect of four different ways of responding to students writing on
134 EFL Japanese students. They divided their subjects into four groups; 1) the
correction group whose errors were completely corrected by the instructor, 2) the
coded feedback group whose errors were marked in an abbreviated code system, 3)
the uncoded feedback group whose errors were located, but not specified, and 4) the

11
marginal feedback group where the number of errors per line was totalled and written
in the margins of the students paper. Their findings suggest that none of these types
of feedback is effective in improving students writing and share Zamels observation
that exclusive feedback on sentence-level errors addresses only one aspect of writing.
They argue that the time and effort of teachers should be spent on meaning rather than
form. They concluded that students progress in writing is enhanced only by practice.

Having presented some of the studies which compare the efficacy of different
procedures for providing feedback, let us now move to consider the most commonly
used ones by teachers of writing.

1.4.2.1 Direct correction

Direct correction simply means providing the students with the correct form of their
errors. It shows them what was wrong and how it should be written, but it leaves no
work for them to do. As noted above, different researchers (Semke, 1984; Robb et.
al., 1986) argue that direct correction is the least effective method of providing
feedback on student errors. Robb et. al. (1986) suggest that direct methods in
corrections do not tend to have results which are commensurate with the effort needed
from the teachers to draw the students attention to surface errors.

1.4.2.2 Using symbols and codes

In this method, teachers respond to their students errors by using symbols and codes
that indicate the location and type of error. This method is more effective than
directly correcting the errors (Byrne, 1988). As Corder (1981) maintains, making a
learner try to discover the right form could be often instructive to both learner and
teacher (p.66). This claim has been supported by Lalandes (1982) study which
found that the students who used an error code in revising their essays made
significantly greater gains than those whose compositions were directly corrected by
the instructor.

12
These symbols and codes, however, should be clear in order not to confuse the
students. In addition, writing teachers should use them only after they have provided
opportunities for the students to familiarise themselves with them, so as to be able to
recognise and use them (Raimes, 1983; cited in Asiri, 1996).

However, in correcting students errors, either directly or indirectly (i.e. using

symbols and codes), teachers should be selective and not correct every mistake
(Byrne, 1988). Correcting every mistake may result in students adoption of negative
attitudes toward writing (Raimes, 1983) and negative feelings about themselves as
writers (Chenoweth, 1987).

1.4.2.3 Questions and suggestions

Researchers view questions and suggestions as valuable means of responding to
students writing since they go beyond matters of errors to address students ideas and
ways of conveying their messages. For the suggestions to be effective, they must be
clear, specific and they should give the students easy directions about their writing
(Raimes, 1983; cited in Asiri, 1996). Asiri (ibid) believes that questions can be
beneficial in directing students attention to points they have never thought about
before. Also, questions that make the student think more about a particular point, or
that show the readers problems in understanding a section of the paper are helpful.
They require students to show the teachers a clear understanding of their writing
(Leki, 1990). Furthermore, they are implicit recommendations for revision (Raimes,
1983).

1.4.2.4 Positive vs. negative feedback

Almost all researchers agree that positive feedback (praise) has greater impact on
students progress than negative feedback (criticism). Further, Raimes (1983) argues
that praising whatever a student does well improves writing more than any kind or
amount of correction of what he/she does badly. Researchers of writing (Raimes,

13
1983; Semke, 1984; quoted in Asiri 1996) believe that students who receive positive
feedback on their writing, will develop a positive attitude toward writing and will
become receptive to suggestions and will even seek advice on how to improve their
writing. Therefore, teachers need to create a supportive classroom environment in
which their students can feel confident about expressing their ideas and feelings
freely (Hendrickson 1987:396).

One of the few researchers who has dealt with this aspect of feedback is Gee (1972).
He studied the effect of positive feedback, negative feedback, and no feedback on
three groups of L1 high school students. The findings did not show any significant
difference between the three groups in terms of proficiency, but the researcher noticed
that students who received positive feedback developed better attitudes towards
writing than those who received negative or no feedback.

Therefore, teachers, in responding to their students, are advised to provide them with
positive comments that motivate them and help them adopt positive attitudes toward
this burdensome process.

1.4.3 Focus on surface-level vs. meaning-level issues

The term surface-level is used by different researchers of writing to indicate
problems pertaining to grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, whereas meaning-
level indicates the content and organisation of the students writing. As indicated
earlier, most researchers (Zamel, 1985; Chenwoeth, 1987) suggest that, in students
first drafts, teachers should respond to meaning-level issues and delay surface-level
issues to final drafts. They believe that providing students with feedback on surface-
level concerns does not contribute to students improvement in writing. In contrast,
other researchers (Lalande, 1982; Eskey, 1983; Fathman and Whalley, 1990) maintain
that responding to surface-level problems, especially grammar, can be helpful and
beneficial to the student writer.

14
Kepner (1991) carried out an experiment to examine the relationship of types of
written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The types of
feedback were error correction and message-related comments. She studied the effect
of these types of feedback on the written journals of 60 L2 Spanish college students
who were assigned to four groups according to their verbal ability levels. The results
suggest that feedback on content promotes the development of writing proficiency of
L2 students, in terms of both ideational quality and surface-level accuracy. This
indicates that teachers feedback on content does not sacrifice accuracy for content
(p. 310). She concluded that error correction is not worthwhile because it does not
help L2 students to avoid errors. These findings are consistent with Robb et. al.
(1986) and Semke (1984).

Teachers who just correct surface-level mistakes and neglect other important aspects
of students writing, such as content and organisation, will raise the assumption
among the students that the form is more important than the content (Chenwoeth,
1987).

Some researchers, however, argue that error correction is helpful in improving

students writing. They believe that students errors, if not corrected, will fossilise and
will become ingrained in the functioning language patterns of the learners (Chastain,
1990). Moreover, some studies have shown that students need to have their errors
corrected and that giving students what they need is still what good teaching is all
about (Eskey, 1983:322).

Fathman and Whalley (1990), who studied the effects of different types of teacher
feedback on students rewrites, found that students can improve their writing in
situations where content and form feedback are given simultaneously. They also
found that providing students with feedback that focuses only on grammar does not
negatively affect the content of their writing.

15
Unlike Semke (1984) who claims that students, in spite of correction, will continue to
repeat the same mistakes, Lalande (1982) maintains that students, by attending to the
corrections, can reduce the number of linguistic errors in their written work.

In short, although responding to students surface-level errors may positively affect

their writing and help them discard some of their linguistic errors, it should not lead
teachers and students to ignore other important aspects of writing like content and
organisation, etc.

1.5 Students Response to Teacher Feedback

The reactions of students toward their teachers feedback is probably the most critical
factor that influences the usefulness of the given feedback, which should be taken
into teachers consideration when responding to the compositions (Piper, 1989;
quoted in Asiri 1996). Despite its usefulness, the number of studies dealing with this
aspect of writing is still far from being adequate.

It is obvious that teachers spend several hours responding to their students writing
hoping that this burdensome and tedious task will have some positive effects on the
writing of their students. Unfortunately, several studies have revealed that some
students do not bother with what their teachers say or write (Semke, 1984), and when
they attend to their teachers feedback, they attend to the easier and safer corrections
(i.e. grammar and mechanics), ignoring more difficult macrostructural changes (Leki,
1991; Dohrer, 1991). These negative attitudes may hinder students from improving
their writing.

Teachers, however, can play a major role in building students positive attitudes
toward writing, by encouraging them for the improvements they make, because

16
students confidence and pride in their efforts, and their interest in writing are
enhanced by teachers positive attitudes (Gee, 1972).

One of the few studies which attempted to investigate students attitudes toward
teacher feedback is Radecki and Swales (1988). They surveyed the attitudes of 59
students of various backgrounds and levels who were studying in four ESL-oriented
writing courses. A questionnaire was given to the students during the first week to
elicit their opinions on the usefulness of various types of teacher comments. It also
investigated their views on the scope of teacher feedback, the value and utility of
substantive comments, the responsibility in error marking and correction, and
rewriting. They divided their subjects, according to their attitudes, into three
categories: Receptors (46%), Semi-resistors (41%), and Resistors (13%). The findings
of their study showed a variety of student attitudes to teacher feedback, which can be
ascribed to students various levels of proficiency, and the fact that two of the courses
were writing courses and the others were content courses. The students reported that
they were concerned with the grade more than the comments. Another finding
revealed in this study is that 87% of the students (i.e. Receptors and Semi-resistors)
preferred content-specific comments and desired to have all their grammatical errors
marked. The study also showed that; as students progress from English language
learners to apprentices in their chosen disciplines, the more restricted is the role they
assign to the language teacher (p. 355).

Enginarlar (1993) is one of the few researchers who has studied L2 students
reactions to teacher feedback. He studied the attitudes of 47 EFL students toward the
effect of two methods of providing feedback; a) indication of linguistic errors with
codes and 2) the use of brief comments. The researcher employed a questionnaire of
20 items in the last session of the term to investigate students perceptions of the
usefulness of these two procedures of giving feedback. The results revealed that the
majority of students perceive both procedures as being very useful and didactic.

17
Cohen (1987) was the first to investigate L2 students responses to their teachers
written feedback as well as their strategies in handling such feedback. In his study,
217 students, following courses in different languages and levels, were requested to
fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes and strategies for processing feedback.
The study yielded somewhat discouraging results. One of these results was the limited
repertoire of strategies students utilised for dealing with their teachers feedback.
Most of the students reported making mental notes of their teachers comments.
Another discouraging result is that 20% of the students did not reread their papers
when returned to them, which indicates that they find their teachers feedback futile
and not worth reading.. The students also reported that their teachers, even in the
more advanced classes, gave more feedback on grammar and mechanics. Cohen
concluded that the activity of teacher feedback as currently constituted and realised
may have more limited impact on the learners than the teachers would desire (p. 66).

A similar study was undertaken by Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) in both L1 and L2
contexts. In this study, the researchers investigated three aspects of teacher feedback;
i) focus of teacher feedback, ii) students attitudes toward it, and iii) students
strategies in handling it. They compared the feedback teachers reported that they gave
their students with the actual feedback the students received. They found that the fit
between teachers reported feedback and actual feedback varied from teacher to
teacher. They also found that most of the students, when receiving their papers,
simply made a mental note of their teachers comments, a finding which is consistent
with Cohen (1987). They recommended that students, in all proficiency levels, need
to employ alternative strategies in handling teacher feedback in order to maximise its
benefit.

Unlike the aforementioned studies which have dealt with L2 students reaction in a
single draft setting, Ferris (1995) has attempted to study such reactions in a multiple-
draft context. 155 ESL students were asked to fill out a questionnaire similar to that
used by Cohen (1987) and Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990). This study yielded much

18
more encouraging results than the previous studies. Students were found to reread
their papers and pay much more attention to their teachers comments on the
preliminary drafts than on the final draft. They also reported that they pay as much
attention to grammar comments as they pay to content. Most importantly, students
reported that they utilise a variety of resources to deal with teacher feedback. These
encouraging results may be attributed to the need of students to revise and rewrite
their papers to get higher marks. Another important result is that 50% of the students
did not have any problems in understanding their teachers feedback, and that 93.5%
of the students asserted that their teachers comments had helped them improve their
writing.

We can conclude by saying that the variety of students perceptions and attitudes
toward teacher feedback may be attributed to their previous instructional experiences
(Leki, 1991). We have also found, in this brief review of the literature, that students
attitudes and perceptions of teacher feedback tend to be more positive in multiple-
draft contexts than in single draft contexts. This suggests that the activity of rewriting
is a crucial activity which will lead students to view their teachers feedback
differently and try to make use of it.

19
 Chapter Two: Methodology of the study

2.1 Objectives and motivation

As suggested in the literature, ESL students, in general, prefer less useful types of
feedback (i.e. error correction). They also tend to use limited strategies for handling
the feedback provided by their teachers.

Why is this the case with the ESL students? Does the context affect their views and
attitudes toward teacher feedback? This study attempts to answer the latter question
by investigating students perceptions, preferences, and strategies for handling teacher
feedback in an EAP context. To the best of my knowledge, none of the previous
studies have dealt with the reactions of students of this nature.

2.2 Hypotheses
Based on the literature, this study will attempt to test the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: A significant majority of ESL students find their teachers feedback

helpful in improving their writing.
Hypothesis 2a: Most ESL students want their teachers to focus on surface-level
errors (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) when responding to their written
work.
Hypothesis 2b: ESL teachers feedback focuses on surface-level errors.

20
Hypothesis 3a: The majority of ESL students do not rewrite their compositions after
receiving feedback on them.
Hypothesis 3b: ESL teachers rarely require their students to rewrite their
compositions.
Hypothesis 4: As a result of H3a and H3b, ESL students, when their compositions
are returned to them, read only their teachers feedback instead of reading the whole
composition.
Hypothesis 5: Making mental notes is the ESL students most common strategy for
dealing with teacher feedback.
Hypothesis 6: ESL students face certain difficulties in understanding their teachers
feedback.

2.3 Participants
The subjects participating in this study were 12 adult ESL students. They have been
following an EAP writing course in the EFL unit at the University of Essex for more
than seven months. The students were assigned to two different groups. Each group
consisted of 6 students of different sexes and different nationalities. In the first group
(the less advanced group), there were 2 female students; one from Italy and one from
Taiwan, and 4 males; 2 from Japan, 1 from Korea, and 1 from Saudi Arabia. The
second group comprised 4 female subjects; 1 from Japan, 1 from Kuwait, and 2 from
Russia, and 2 males; one from Greece and the other from Japan. From the above
description, we can see that this sample, albeit small, represents a typical ESL class
that comprises students from different cultural backgrounds.

2.4 Data Collection Instrument

In this study, as in previous studies which have attempted to investigate students
reactions to teacher feedback, the instrument for collecting data from the sample was
a questionnaire. This data gathering instrument has its own advantages and
disadvantages. It is the most common method used for collecting research data. It can

21
provide a great deal of information in an economical form. It is also the simplest and
the most time-saving technique. More important is the fact that data obtained through
questionnaires can be analysed and interpreted more easily than any other data
gathering instrument. Despite all these advantages, questionnaires have their
limitations. For instance, students may misinterpret the questions. Further, the
response rate may be low. To overcome these limitations, in this study I administered
the questionnaires myself to ensure that the students understood and answered all of
the items on the questionnaire.

2.5 Content of the questionnaire

To maximise the reliability of this study, the questionnaire did not require the students
to write their names. It also did not necessitate any background information from the
subjects, such as their sex, nationality, age, etc. as the aim of the study was not to
investigate the relationship between these variables and students reactions to teacher
feedback.

The questionnaire used in this study is the same as the one used by Asiri (1996), with
some modification (see appendix A). It is based on the studies undertaken by Cohen
(1987) and Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990). In addition to the different aspects of
students reactions which the previously mentioned studies investigated, this study
aimed to explore students perceptions and preferences for the different methods used
by their writing teachers for responding to their written work.

The questionnaire comprised 15 items which aimed to investigate the following

issues:

1. Students perception of the usefulness and helpfulness of their teachers feedback

(Q1 + Q13).
2. Amount of feedback read by the students (Q2).
3. Students difficulties in understanding their teachers feedback (Q3 + Q4).

22
4. Rewriting (Q5 + Q6).
5a. Teachers methods of providing feedback (Q8).
5b. Students preferences for these methods (Q10).
6. Students attention to and incorporation of feedback (Q12).
7a. Types of feedback focused on by teachers (Q7).
7b. Types of feedback preferred by students (Q9).
8. Students strategies in handling teacher feedback (Q14).
9. Students reception of expected teacher feedback (Q11).
10. Students self-rating in the writing skills (Q15).

2.6 Procedure
As mentioned above, the questionnaire was administered by the researcher himself to
ensure that the response rate was high and to clarify any ambiguity that the
participating students may have encountered. The questionnaire was administered to
the two different groups who were studying EAP writing at the EFL unit at the
University of Essex. It took the students nearly 10 minutes to complete the
questionnaire. As noted, the students were asked not to write their names. They were
also told that they had the right to refuse to answer the questionnaire. To ensure that
all the questionnaire items were understood by the participating students, the
questionnaire was written in simple and clear English.

2.7 Analysis of the data

The questionnaire employed in this study used a scale of three points (always=2,
sometimes=1, and never=0). The results were summarised as mean rating scale (0-2).
A high mean indicates high frequency and vice versa.

SPSS for Windows was used to analyse the responses of the participating students
to the questionnaire items. The mean, standard deviation (SD), correlation, etc. are
examples of the different techniques that were employed by the researcher for
analysing the obtained data.

23
Students responses to most of the questions are represented in charts to help the
reader easily understand the data analysed. Moreover, the mean, standard deviation,
percentages, and frequencies of students responses are summarised in tables (see
appendix B). Tables of the raw data which show the responses of each person to the
different items are also given (see appendix C).
Chapter Three: Results and discussion

3.1 Usefulness of teacher written feedback

The first question of the questionnaire (Q1) as well as question thirteen (Q13) aimed
to obtain information from the student subjects about their perceptions of the
usefulness and helpfulness of their teachers feedback. The main purpose of asking
these two similar questions was to assess the students consistency in their responses
to the questionnaire items. The analysis shows a significant relationship between the
students responses to those two items (p= 0.01). The mean for the first question was
(1.67) and for question 13 was (1.5), which indicates that the respondents find their
teachers feedback useful and helpful in improving their compositional skills. The
results are consistent with Asiris results (1.48 and 1.63 respectively). They support
the first hypothesis (H1) which states that A significant number of ESL students find
their teachers feedback helpful in improving their writing. They corroborate
Enginarlar (1993) who found that 98% of EFL students perceive teacher feedback as
being effective and worthwhile. They are also consistent with Ferris (1995) who
found that the majority of students (93.5%) believe that their teachers feedback had
contributed to their improvement in writing.

3.2 Understanding teacher feedback

The third question of the questionnaire aimed to obtain information from the
participating students about the extent to which they understand their teachers
written feedback. The mean of the students response to this item was 1.3 which is, to

24
some extent, encouraging. This result is very close to Asiris (1.32). As Figure1
shows, the majority of the participating students (66.7%) reported that they
sometimes face problems in comprehending their teachers feedback, while the rest of
them (33.3 %) said they always understand such feedback. None of the students
reported not understanding any of the feedback on their compositions.

Always
33.3%

Sometimes
66.7%

Figure 1: Students understanding of teacher feedback.

This finding corroborates Ferris (1995) who found that more than half of her subjects
had encountered some difficulties in understanding their teachers comments. This
result, however, confirms our sixth hypothesis (H6) which states that ESL students
face certain difficulties in understanding their teachers feedback.

25
 2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
Mean

.1
0.0
Difficult language Complex sentences Unclear suggestions Difficult questions Unclear handwriting Much detail

Figure 2: Reasons for not understanding teacher feedback.

Students were then asked about the reasons that render their teachers feedback
difficult to understand. They were given six causes to rate. As Figure 2 above shows,
students responses revealed somewhat low means for the different causes that might
hinder them from understanding their teachers feedback. These means ranged from
0.83 to 0.25. This shows that the students usually understand their teachers feedback.
The average mean for students response to this question was 0.53 which is consistent
with the result of the previous question (1.3). This result is also consistent with what
Asiris subjects reported (average mean 0.68).

Students responses to this item revealed that the major difficulty they encounter in
understanding feedback is their teachers unclear handwriting (mean 0.83). This result
is consistent with Ferris (1995) who also found that the students inability to read
their teachers feedback was the major problem that they suffered from. With a mean
of 0.67, giving too much detail seems to be the students second major problem in
understanding the feedback provided by their teachers. The least problematic issue in
teachers feedback is their use of complex sentences (0.25) which indicates that ESL

26
teachers usually use simple sentences to help their non-native student writers
understand their comments. These results, however, are different from Asiris who
found that teachers unclear suggestions (0,78) and difficult question (0.77) were
reported by the students to be the major problems that hinder them from
understanding the feedback they receive on their written work. Asiri attributed this to
students unfamiliarity with such techniques.

3.3 Rewriting
With regards to the issue of rewriting, the participating students were asked about the
extent to which their teachers ask them to rewrite their compositions (Q5) and how
often they do such an activity (Q6). Their responses to these items revealed the same
low mean (0.75) which indicates that this activity is not often required by the teachers
or practised by the students. It is interesting to note that each student chose the same
answer for both items. That is, students who responded to item 5 with Never, for
example, did the same with item 6. This strongly suggests that ESL students will
rewrite their compositions only if their teachers ask them to do so. These results
confirm H3a and H3b. Asiris study, however, has revealed similar results. The mean
was 0.76 for the frequency of teachers request for rewriting and 0.73 for students
actual doing of rewriting.

27
 Always
8.3%

Never
33.3%

Sometimes
58.3%

Figure 3: Teachers request for rewriting

Always
8.3%

Never
33.3%

Sometimes
58.3%

Figure 4: Students doing of rewriting.

3.4 Amount of feedback read by the students

In their response to questionnaire item number two, 50% of the students reported that
they read all of the composition when it is returned to them, while the remainder

28
(50%) only read their teachers feedback. This result indicates that all of the students
read all of their teachers feedback. That is, none of the students reported not reading
any of their teachers feedback. This may be attributed to students belief in the
importance of teacher feedback in improving their writing skills, and therefore,
confirms the results of Q1 and Q13 (see 3.1). That students did not read all the
composition when it was returned to them, may be ascribed to the fact that they are
not often required to rewrite it after being corrected (see 3.3). These results, however,
are more encouraging than Cohen (1987) and Asiri (1996) who found that 19% and
7% respectively of the students did not reread their composition and the feedback on
it. These results do not strongly support H4.

3.5 Focus of teacher feedback

In this section, two questionnaire items were constructed to obtain information from
the student subjects about the types of feedback (i.e., grammar, vocabulary,
mechanics, content, organisation) their writing teachers focus on and the types of
feedback they like to have on their written work (see 3.6).

2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
Mean

.1
0.0
Grammar Content Organisation Mechanics Vocabulary

Figure 5: Types of feedback focused on by the teacher.

29
As the chart above shows, the students reported that their teachers, when responding
to their written work, focus mostly on meaning-level concerns (i.e., content and
organisation) and grammar as they all received the same high mean (1.58). The
categories of mechanics and vocabulary were the least types provided by the ESL
teachers on the students written work, both receiving the same mean (1.42). These
results disagree with H2b of this study about ESL teachers concern with surface-
level errors over meaning-level issues. However, such encouraging results suggest
that the teachers are aware of the useful areas of feedback which may help their
students become better writers. These results are inconsistent with Asiris whose
results revealed that EFL teachers most attention was paid to surface-level issues
(grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics with the means 1.53, 1.48, and 1.43
respectively). It is interesting here to note that grammar received the highest mean in
both studies. This may suggest that L2 teachers, in the different contexts of teaching,
are concerned with accuracy.

3.6 Students preferences for types of feedback

When asked about the types of feedback they would like to have on their

compositions, the subjects revealed that they prefer similar types to those already
provided by their teachers.

30
 2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
Mean

.1
0.0
Content Grammar Vocabulary Organisation Mechanics

Figure 6: Types of feedback preferred by the students.

The analysis of students responses showed that organisation was their most preferred
type of feedback with a mean of (1.64). This result is more encouraging than the

findings of Cohen (1987), Radecki and Swales (1988), and Leki (1991), where the
students were most concerned with feedback on their surface-level problems.
Students preferences for receiving feedback on the organisation of their work may be
attributed to the fact that, after the completion of the EAP course, they will take
different academic courses and will be required to submit course-work that is well-
organised. The categories of mechanics and grammar were found to be their second
most-favoured type of feedback (both with a mean of 1.58). Feedback on vocabulary
was less popular among the students (1.50). Receiving the lowest mean (1.45),
feedback on content seemed to be the least preferred type of feedback among the
students. It is interesting, here, to note that 4 students in the second group, which is
the more advanced group, said they always want feedback on content and two of them
said they sometimes want this type of feedback. By contrast, 4 students, in the first
(less advanced) group, responded to the questionnaire item with sometimes, one with

31
always, and one did not respond. This may suggest that students with higher levels of
proficiency become more concerned with teachers comments that focus on the ideas
they present and the meanings they convey. However, these results refute H2a which
states that Most ESL students want their teachers to focus on surface-level errors
(i.e. grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics) when responding to their written work.
Thus, this hypothesis is rejected.

These results show that the types of feedback the students prefer are, to some extent,
consistent with the types of feedback they reported their teachers provide on their
compositions. Unlike the students in this study, Asiris study showed that
organisation was the least preferred type of feedback (mean 1.28). It also showed that
vocabulary (1.73), grammar (1.65), and mechanics (1.46) were the students most
preferred types of feedback.

3.7 Methods of providing feedback

In this part, an attempt will be made to assess students preferences for teachers
methods of providing feedback (Q7) and compare them with the methods that they
claim their teachers utilise (Q12).

The analysis of students responses to the first issue (their preferences) revealed that
the most preferred method among them was suggestions, as it received the highest
mean, 1.75. This may be due to the fact that teachers usually use suggestions to
respond to students general problems, and therefore, the students view them as a
helpful means of improving their writing skills. Students second favoured method
was direct corrections (1.41). As it received the lowest mean (0.50), receiving marks
only without any kind of feedback was the least preferred method among the students.

32
These results again confirm their belief of the helpfulness and usefulness of their
teachers feedback. In Asiris study, the students reported that direct correction was
their most preferred method of feedback. The mean for this method of providing
feedback is the same in both studies (1.41). This suggests that direct correction,
irrespective of the teaching context, is greatly wanted by L2 writing students.

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4
Mean

.2
0.0
Di

Sy

Sin

Ph

Co

Su

Qu

Fe

Ma
re

ra

gg

ed
m

gle

mp

es

rk
ct

bo

se

es

ba
tio

on
let
co

wo
ls/

tio

ck
ns

ly
e
rre

Co

rd

n
se

wi
s

s
cti

de

th
nte
on

ma
nc
s

es

rk

Figure 7: Students preferences for methods of providing feedback.

33
 2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4
Mean

.2
0.0
Di

Sy

sin

Ph

Co

Su

Qu

Fe

Ma
rec

ra

gg

ed
m

gle

mp

es

rk
bo

se

es

ba
t

tio

on
let
wo
co

ls/

tio

ck
ns

ly
e
rre

rds
Co

n
se

wi
s
cti

de

th
nte
on

ma
nc
s

es

rk
Figure 8: Teachers methods of providing feedback.

However, there is a mismatch between the methods the students said they prefer and
the ones they reported their teachers actually give. The results of the students
response to the latter indicated that the most frequently used method by their writing
teachers was symbols and codes which indicate the type and location of errors
without attempting to correct them. This method received the highest mean (1.54).
Suggestions (mean 1.36), was reported by the students to be the second most
frequently used method. Responding with marks only received the lowest mean (0.4)
which suggests that ESL writing teachers rarely use this method when they respond to
their students writing. However, these results disagree with Asiris (1996) whose
subjects revealed that direct correction was the most utilised technique for providing
feedback.

In this part the results suggest that the students are not greatly satisfied with the
methods used by their teachers to respond to their written work, since the methods the
students prefer are slightly different from the ones their teachers usually employ.

34
3.8 Expectation of teacher feedback
The students were asked about the extent to which they receive the feedback they
expect from their teachers. The analysis of their responses (mean = 1.75) revealed that
they often receive what they expect from their teachers. This may indicate that the
students are usually satisfied with the feedback they receive on their papers.

3.9 Attention to and incorporation of teacher feedback

When they were asked about what they do and what types of feedback they
incorporate when they attend to their teachers feedback, the students reported that
teachers comments on issues pertaining to organisation are what they incorporate
most (mean = 1.75). Feedback on organisation was also reported by the students to be
their most preferred type of feedback (see 3.6). This may suggest that students
perceive this area of feedback to be the most beneficial and the one that they need

most. Feedback on grammar and vocabulary seemed to be less important for the
students as they received 1.54 and 1.50 respectively. With the same lower mean score
(1.45), feedback on mechanics and content were reported by the students to be the
least incorporated types of feedback. Incorporating all teacher feedback received the
lowest mean of all (1.18), which indicates that the students, when attending to their
teachers feedback, select and incorporate what they consider to be most important.

These results, however, are different from Asiris where the students reported
grammar (mean 1.66) to be the most incorporated type of feedback and organisation
the least incorporated one (mean 0.83).

35
 2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4
Mean

.2
0.0
A

Fe

Fe

Fe

Fe

Fe
ll

ed

ed

ed

ed

ed
fe
ed

ba

ba

ba

ba

ba
ba

ck

ck

ck

ck

ck
ck

on

on

on

on

on
m

Vo

gr

co

or
ec

am

ga
nt
ca
ha

en

ni
bu

sa
ni

t
ar
la
c

Figure 9: Students attention to and incorporation of teacher feedback.

3.10 Strategies in handling teacher feedback

As one of the aims of the study is to investigate students strategies in handling their
teachers feedback, an item regarding this issue (Q14) was included in the
questionnaire. Students response to this item revealed that identifying the difficult
points to be explained, with a mean of 1.50, is the most common strategy that the
participating students claimed they use in dealing with their teachers written
feedback. Making mental notes was the students second most common strategy
(mean 1.25). These results refute the fifth hypothesis (H5) which states that Making
mental notes is the ESL students most common strategy for dealing with teacher
feedback. Students reported that referring to previous compositions is also one of
their commonly used strategies (mean = 1.17). This may indicate that students usually
commit similar mistakes, and therefore, receive similar comments and corrections.
Seeking peer assistance seems to be the least popular strategy among the students
(0.58). This finding confirms Nelson and Murphys (1993) claim. They maintained

36
that ESL students may mistrust their classmates response because they are still in the
process of learning, and lack the necessary knowledge that might lead them to
improve their written work. Unlike Cohen (1987) who found that the majority of the
students make mental notes when responding to their teachers feedback, the students
in this study have reported much more encouraging results, which suggest that they
utilise more useful strategies to help them benefit more from the feedback they
receive on their written work. This may be ascribed to the fact that the students are
EAP students. It also may be due to the fact that they are sometimes required to
rewrite their compositions. Asiris study, however, revealed different results. It
indicated that seeking teachers help was the most common strategy (mean 1.20) used
by the students.

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6

.4
Mean

.2
0.0
M

Id

Te

Re

Re

Co

No
ee
en

en
ri t

ac

fe

fe

ns

td
te

tif

re
ta

rt

rt
he

ul

o
y
n
ln

xp

te
re

an
di
no

gr
ot

la
ffi

xp
re

yt
xp
te

am
es

na
cu

v.

hi
.p
s

la

tio

ng
lty

.b
co
na

er
n

oo
m
ti o

so
p.

k
n

Figure 11: Students strategies in dealing with teacher feedback.

3.11 Students self-rating in writing

37
Although the aim was not to study the relationship between their proficiency in
writing and their perception and response to teacher feedback, the students were
asked to rate their skills in writing. As shown in Figure 11 below, the majority of the
students (7 of them) responded with Good, three with Poor, and two with Fair.

12

11

10

T 2
n
u 1
o
C
0
p oor F a ir G ood

Figure 12: Students self-rating in writing.

38
3.12 Implications
Unlike the results of the previous studies (Cohen, 1987; Cohen and Cavalcanti, 1990)
which have dealt with ESL students perceptions and reactions to teacher feedback,
the student subjects in this study revealed much more encouraging results about
themselves and their teachers. The participating students said that they find the
feedback they receive on their papers very helpful and contributes to their
improvement in writing (see 3.1). They also reported that their teachers pay equal
attention to meaning-level and surface-level errors (see 3.5). In addition, they
revealed that their teachers utilise useful techniques (e.g., making suggestions, using
symbols and codes, etc.) when responding to their written work (see 3.7). With
regards to students preferences to the methods and types of feedback, they reported
that they want their teachers of writing to respond to their work with more
suggestions (see 3.7) and give considerable attention to the organisation of their
compositions (see 3.6). The students also revealed that they read all of the feedback
provided by their teachers (see 3.4) and that they utilise several beneficial strategies
when they go over their teachers feedback, to learn from it as much as they can (see
3.10). I attributed these results to the EAP context in which the students are studying
and their need to maximise the benefit from the feedback they receive on their papers
because of their awareness that the assessment of their academic performance in the
future, will be mainly based on the assignments they write.

However, this study has yielded several implications for ESL teachers of writing
when responding to their students compositions. First, the students reported that their
teachers feedback is sometimes difficult to understand (see 1.2). Among the major
causes for this difficulty were the lack of clarity of teachers handwriting and
suggestions. Therefore, teachers are responsible for making their handwriting as clear
as possible and expressing their comments and suggestions in a simple and
comprehensible manner. They can ask students to tell them whether or not they
understand their responses and to indicate those that they do not (Zamel, 1985). In the

39
case of small classes, teachers can hold conferences with their students to clarify any
ambiguity about the feedback they provide and to make the students feel free to ask
them if they have any query.

Secondly, the analysis of the data suggested that students do not often rewrite their
papers despite its importance in improving the quality of their written texts. Students
should know that, through the activity of rewriting, they will be able to discover new
ideas, reorganise their existing ideas, and improve the content of their work to express
their ideas in a more precise way. Moreover, students will be forced to reread all of
the composition when it is returned to them and will adopt more useful strategies to
deal with the comments and corrections they receive on their written work (Ferris,
1995). For all the above reasons, teachers should respond to their students work in a
way that forces them to write a further draft incorporating teacher feedback and
expanding and revising their existing texts.

Thirdly, teachers should make it clear to their students that the purpose of their
writing is to express their ideas in a clear manner. That is, students should be
informed that the priority should be given to the meaning and the ways of conveying
that meaning, and that surface-level issues can be dealt with in the final stage of the
writing process (Chenoweth, 1987).

Fourthly, teachers, when commenting on the students papers, should be selective and
not correct every mistake. They should focus on only the most important areas of the
students writing, so that the task does not become overwhelming for the students.

Finally, as suggested by Zamel (1985), teachers should make their responding

behaviours clear to students. For example, they should explain to their students all the
symbols they use for responding to their writing. In addition, they should indicate
whether they will be correcting every error or will be selective, and if they will only
be correcting certain errors, they should indicate the types of these errors.

40
3.13 Limitations of the study
This study has certain limitations with regards to the following points:

1. The study was conducted with a very small sample. Therefore, its findings cannot
be generalised and its external validity may be affected. So, a replication of this
research on a larger scale would be appropriate in order to gain results that can be
generalised beyond the sample of the study.

2. This study aimed to investigate the reactions of students to ESL teachers feedback
in general, with the intention of comparing students responses with the findings of
previous research. However, the study should have been more specific with
regards to the type of teachers that the students were asked to give their reactions
to. That is, instead of asking students about their reactions to ESL teachers
feedback in general, the study should have attempted to uncover their reactions to
their EAP teachers who were teaching them at the time of the study. However, it is
assumed, based on the objectives of the course, that ESL teachers feedback in an
EAP context will be different from their feedback in an EGP (English for general
purposes) context. Therefore, the study would have yielded different results with
regards to the students perceptions and responses to the feedback provided by
their teachers if it had investigated these issues in an EAP context.

3. The present study, as was the case with Cohen (1987) and Ferris (1990), did not
investigate the actual feedback the students received on their composition
assignments. That was due to two reasons. First, the study, as mentioned above,
did not attempt to find out about students reactions to EAP teachers feedback.
Secondly, teachers may have responded differently if they had known that their
feedback was to be analysed and studied by an outside researcher. This may have
affected the reliability of the study.

41
3.14 Recommendations for further research
As the present study did not attempt to study the relationship between students level
of proficiency and their reactions to teacher feedback, it would be interesting, in
future research, to establish whether this variable has any effect on students
reactions. It would be also interesting to make a comparison between the reaction of
ESL students who are studying English for general purposes (EGP) and those who are
studying English for academic purposes (EAP).

3.15 Conclusion
This study was carried out for the purpose of surveying ESL students reactions to
teacher feedback and to discover whether the EAP context in which the students are
studying has any effect on their perceptions and attitudes toward teacher feedback.
The study revealed more encouraging results than the previous studies which have
dealt with this aspect of feedback. It was found that the students in this study are
aware of the importance of the feedback which their teachers provide on their
compositions. They indicated that they want their writing teachers to provide them
with feedback on the different areas of their writing, but with more attention being
paid to issues pertaining to organisation. Additionally, making suggestions was the
students most preferred method of providing feedback. Because of their belief of the
usefulness of teacher feedback, the participating students reported that they use
different strategies for handling their teachers feedback. It is believed that these
results are due to the EAP context in which the students are studying and their
awareness that the assessment of their academic ability will depend on the quality of
the written work they submit to their tutors and supervisors.

42
Bibliography

Asiri, I. (1996). University EFL Teachers Written Feedback on Compositions and

Students Reactions. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Essex.
Beach, R. (1979). The Effects of Between-Drafts Teacher Evaluation Versus Student-
Self Evaluation on High School Students Revising of Rough Drafts. Research
in the Teaching of English, Vol. 13, pp. 111-119.
Beach, R. and Eaton, S. (1984). Factors Influencing Self-Assessing and Revising by
College Freshmen. In Beach, R. and Bridwell, L. (Eds.), New Directions in
Composition Research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and Revision in Writing Across the Curriculum Classes.
Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 395-423.
Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising Strategies in Twelfth Graduate Students Transactional
Writing. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 14, pp.197-222.
Byrne, B. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills. Longman Handbook for Language
Teacher, New Edition, Longman.
Chastain, K. (1990). Characteristics of Graded and Ungraded Compositions. Modern
Language Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Chenoweth, N. (1987). The Need to Teach Rewriting. English Language Teaching
Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 25-29.
Cohen, A. (1987). Student Processing of Feedback on Their Composition. In Wenden,
A. and Rubin, J. (Eds.) (1987). Learner Strategies in Language Learning.
Prentice-Halll International.
Cohen, A. (1990). Language Learning: Insights for Learners, Teachers, and
Researchers. Heinle and Heinle Publishers
Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on Compositions: Teacher and Student
Verbal Reports. In Kroll, B. (ed.) (1990). Second language Writing.
Cambridge: CUP.
Corder, S. (1981). Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford: OUP.
Dohrer, G. ( 1991). Do Teachers Comments on Students Papers Help? College
Teaching, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 48-54.

43
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student Response to Teacher Feedback in EFL Writing.
System, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 193-204.
Eskey, D. (1983). Meanwhile, Back in the Real World.; Accuracy and fluency in
second language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 17, pp. 315-323.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on
form versus content. In Kroll, B. (ed.) (1990). Second Language Writing.
Cambridge: CUP.
Ferris, D. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft
Composition Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 33-53.
Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based Prose: A cognitive basis for problems in writing.
College English, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp. 19-37.
Freedman, S. (1987). Response to Student Writing. Urbana Ill.: National Council of
Teachers of English.
Goldstein, L. and Conrad, S. (1990). Students Input and Negotiation of Meaning in
ESL Writing Conferences. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 443-460.
Hamp-Lyons, L. and Heasley, B. (1988). Study Writing: A course in written English
for academic and professional purposes. Cambridge: CUP.
Hedge, T. (1988). Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hendrickson, J. (1987). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent
Theory, Research, and Practice. Modern Language Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 387-
398.
Hendrickson, J. (1980). The Treatment of Error in Written Work. Modern Language
Journal, Vol. 64, No. 1, pp. 216-221.
Hillocks, G. (1982). The Interaction of Instruction, Teacher Comment, and Revision
in Teaching the Composing Process. Research in the Teaching of English.
Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 261-278.
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching.
Urbana, Ill.: ERIR Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and
the National Conference on Research in English.
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the Writing Process: a Model and Methods for
Implementation. English Language Teaching Journal, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 294-
304.

44
Kepner, C. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback
to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills. The Modern
Language Journal, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Knoblauch, C. and Branon, L. (1981). Teacher Commentary on Student Writing: The
State of the Art. Freshman English News, Vol. 10, pp. 1-4.
Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, Theory, and Applications. Pergamon Institute
of English, Oxford.
Kroll, B. (1990). Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom.
Cambridge: CUP.
Lalande, J., II. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. Modern
Language Journal, Vol. 66, pp.140-149.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the Margins: Issues in Written Response. In kroll, B.
(ed.) (1990). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: CUP.
Leki, I. (1991). The Preference of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level
Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 203-218.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer Reviews in the ESL Composition Classroom: What Do
the Students Think? English Language Teaching Journal. Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.
274-284.
Mendonca, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities
in ESL Writing Instruction. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 745-769.
Mittan, R. (1989). The Peer Review Process: Harnessing Students Communicative
Power. In Johnson, M. and Roen, D. (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering
ESL Students. New York: Longman.
Mooko, T. An Investigation Into the Impact of Guided Peer Feedback and Guided
Self-Assessment on the Quality of Compositions Written by Secondary School
Students in Botswana. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Essex.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer Response Groups: Do L2 Writers Use Peer
Comments in Revising Their Drafts? TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.
135-141.
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge: CUP.
Olson, V. (1990). The Revising Processes of Sixth-Grade Writers with and without
Peer Feedback. Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 84, No. 1, pp. 22-9.

45
Piper, A. (1989). Writing Instruction and the Development of ESL Writing Skills: Is
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments
on Their Written Work. System. Vol. 16, pp. 355-365.
Radecki, P and Swales, J.(1988). ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on their
Written Work. System. Vol. 16, pp. 355-365.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in Teaching Writing. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Raimes, A. (1985). What Unskilled ESL Students Do as They Write: A Classroom
Study of Composing. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 229-253.
Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL Students Texts: The Myths of Appropriation.
TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 273-292.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortereed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and Its
Effect on EFL Writing Quality. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 83-93.
Searle, D., & Dillon, D. (1980). The Message of Marking: Teacher Written Responses
to Student Writing at Intermediate Grade Levels. Research in the Teaching of
English. Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 233-242.
Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals. Vol. 17, pp.
195-202.
Silva, T. (1993). Towards an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The
ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 657-
677.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult
Writers. College Composition and Communication. Vol. 31, pp. 320-41.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition and
Communication. Vol. 33, pp. 148-156.
Taylor, B. (1981). Content and Written Form: A Two-Way Street. TESOL Quarterly.
Vol. 15, pp. 5-13.
Vandergrift, L. (1986). Second Language Writing and Correction: Toward an
Improved Model for Composition Correction. Canadian Modern Language
Review. 42, pp. 658-67.
White, R. and Arndt (1991). Process Writing. Hong Kong: Longman.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1,
pp. 79-101.

46
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The Process of Discovering Meaning. TESOL Quarterly.
Vol. 16, No. 16, pp. 195-209.
Zellermayer, M. (1989). The Study of Teachers Written Feedback to Students
Writing: Changes in Theoretical Considerations and the Expansion of
Research Contexts. Instructional Science. 18, pp. 145-165.
Ziv, N. (1984). The Effect of Teacher Comments on the Writing of Four College
Freshmen. In Beach, R. and Bridwell, L. (Eds.) (1984). New Directions in
Composition Research. Guilford Press.

Appendix (A): The Questionnaire

DEAR STUDENT,

This questionnaire is intended to gain insight into the feedback you receive from your
teacher on your writing and the strategies you use in responding to this feedback. You
are kindly requested to answer the questionnaire, by choosing one answer for each of
the following questions, and return it to the researcher. The information you give will
be used for research purposes only.

Thank You

1. How do you perceive your teachers feedback on your composition?

a-Useful b-Sometimes useful c-Useless

2. How much of each composition do you read when your teacher returns it to you?
a-All of it b-Feedback only c-None of it

47
3. How often do you understand your teachers feedback?
a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

4. If you do not understand your teachers feedback, is that because:

A- Using difficult language a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B- Using complex sentences a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C- Making unclear suggestions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D- Asking difficult questions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E- Teachers handwriting is difficult to read
a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
F- Giving too much detail a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
5. How often does your teacher require you to re-write your compositions?
a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

6. How often do you re-write your compositions?

a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

7. How often does the teachers feedback deal with the following:
A-Mechanics (e.g., punctuation, spelling) a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B-Grammar a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C-Vocabulary a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D-Organisation a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E-Content a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

8. How often does your teacher use each of the following methods when responding
to your writing?
A- Direct corrections a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B- Symbols and codes a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C- Single words a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D- Phrases a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E- Complete sentences a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

48
F- Suggestions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
G- Questions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
H- Any type of feedback with a mark a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
I- Mark only a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

9. How often do you prefer to have more feedback on the following areas of your
composition?
A- Content a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B- Grammar a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C- Vocabulary a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D- Organisation a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E- Mechanics (e.g., punctuation, spelling) a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

10. How do you like your teachers feedback to be on your paper?

A- Direct corrections a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B- Symbols and codes a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C- Single words a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D- Phrases a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E- Complete sentences a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
F- Suggestions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
G- Questions a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
H- Any feedback with a mark a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
I- Mark only a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

11. How often do you receive the feedback that you expect from your teachers on
your composition?
a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

12. When attending to your teachers feedback, which of the following do you
incorporate more:

49
A-All teachers feedback a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B-Feedback on mechanics (e.g., punctuation, spelling)
a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C-Feedback on vocabulary a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D-Feedback on grammar a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E-Feedback on content a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
F-Feedback on organisation a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

13. How often do you feel that your teachers feedback help you to improve your
composition? a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

14. Please describe what you do when you go over your teachers feedback?
A- make mental notes a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
B- Write down points by their type a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
C- Identify the points to be explained a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
D- Ask for teachers explanation a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
E- Seek explanation from classmate a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
F- Refer back to previous composition a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
G- Consult a grammar book a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
H- Consult an experienced person a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never
I- Not do anything a-Always b-Sometimes c-Never

15. How would you rate your skills in writing compositions?

a- Excellent b- Good c- Fair d- Poor

50
 Appendix (b)

The tables below are summaries of students responses to the questionnaire items (see
appendix A). They follow the same order. That is, table 1 represents students
answers to questionnaire item number one, table 2 = question 2, etc.

Table 1. Usefulness of teacher feedback.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Useful 8 66.7%
Sometimes useful 4 33.3% 1.67 0.49
Useless 0 0%
Total 12 100%

Table 2. Amount of feedback read by the students.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
All composition 6 50%
Feedback only 6 50% 1.50 0.52
Nothing at all 0 0%
Total 12 100%

Table 3. Understanding teacher feedback.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Always 4 33.3%
Sometimes 8 66.7% 1.33 0.49
Never 0 0%
Total 12 100%

Table 4. Reasons for not understanding teacher feedback.

Reason Always Sometimes Never No Mean S.D.
Response
Using Difficult Language 8.3% 33.3% 58.3% 0.50 0.67
Using Complex Sentences 0% 25% 75% 0.25 0.45
Making Unclear Suggestions 0% 58.3% 41.7% 0.58 0.51
Asking Difficult Questions 0% 33.3% 66.7% 0.33 0.49
Using Difficult Handwriting 8.3% 66.7% 25% 0.83 0.58
Giving Too Much Detail 0% 66.7% 33.3% 0.67 0.49

51
Table 5. Teachers request for rewriting.
Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Always 1 8.3%
Sometimes 7 58.3% 0.75 0.62
Never 4 33.3%
Total 12 100%

Table 6. Students doing of rewriting.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Always 1 8.3%
Sometimes 7 58.3% 0.75 0.62
Never 4 33.3%
Total 12 100%

Table 7. Types of feedback focused on by the teacher.

Always Sometimes Never No Response Mean S.D.
Grammar 58.3% 41.7% 0% 1.58 0.51
Content 58.3% 41.7% 0% 1.58 0.51
Organisation 58.3% 41.7% 0% 1.58 0.51
Mechanics 41.7% 58.3% 0% 1.42 0.51
Vocabulary 41.7% 58.3% 0% 1.42 0.51

Table 8. Teachers methods of providing feedback.

Method of Feedback Always Sometimes Never No Mean S.D.
Respons
e
Direct Corrections 25% 66.7% 0% 1 1.27 0.47
Symbols and Codes 50% 41.7% 0% 1 1.55 0.52
Single Words 33.3% 66.7% 0% 1.33 0.49
Phrases 16.7% 58.3% 8.3% 2 1.10 0.57
Complete Sentences 8.3% 50% 33.3% 0.73 0.65
Suggestions 33.3% 58.3% 0% 1 1.36 0.50
Questions 16.7% 58.3% 16.7% 1 1.00 0.83
Feedback with Mark 25% 58.3% 16.7% 1.08 0.67
Mark only 0% 33.3% 50% 2 0.40 0.52

52
Table 9. Students preference for types of feedback.
Always Sometimes Never No Mean S.D.
Response
Content 41.7% 50% 0% 1 1.45 0.52
Grammar 66.7% 25% 8.3% 1.45 0.67
Vocabulary 58.3% 33.3% 0% 1.50 0.67
Organisation 58.3% 33.3% 8.3% 1 1.64 0.50
Mechanics 66.7% 25% 8.3% 1.58 0.67

Table 10. Students preference for methods of feedback.

Method of Feedback Always Sometimes Never No Mean S.D.
Response
Direct Corrections 41.7% 58.3% 0% 1.42 0.51
Symbols and Codes 33.3% 41.7% 16.7% 1 1.18 0.75
Single Words 16.7% 50% 25% 1 0.90 0.70
Phrases 25% 66.7% 0% 1 1.27 0.47
Complete Sentences 25% 33.3% 33.3% 1 0.90 0.83
Suggestions 75% 25% 0% 1.75 0.45
Questions 25% 66.7% 8.3% 1.17 0.58
Feedback with Mark 16.7% 66.7% 16.7% 1.00 0.60
Mark only 0% 50% 50% 0.50 0.52

Table 11. Students reception of expected feedback.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Always 9 75%
Sometimes 3 25% 1.50 0.52
Never 0 0%
Total 12 100%

Table 12. Students attention to and incorporation of teacher feedback.

Always Sometimes Never No Mea S.D.
Response n
All Feedback 16.7% 75% 0% 1 1.18 0.40
Feedback on Mechanics 50% 33.3% 8.3% 1 1.45 0.69
Feedback on Vocabulary 58.3% 33.3% 8.3% 1.50 0.67
Feedback on Grammar 50% 41.7% 0% 1 1.54 0.52
Feedback on Content 41.7% 50% 0% 1 1.45 0.52

53
Feedback on Organisation 83.3% 8.3% 8.3% 1.75 0.62
Table 13. Helpfulness of teacher feedback.
Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Always 6 50%
Sometimes 6 50% 1.50 0.52
Never 0 0%
Total 12 100%

Table 14. Students strategies in handling teacher feedback.

Always Sometimes Never No Mean S.D.
Response
Making Mental Notes 33.3% 58.3% 8.3% 1.25 0.62
Writing Down Points by Type 16.7% 50% 25% 1 0.90 0.70
Seeking Teachers Explanation 50% 50% 0% 1.50 0.52
Seeking Help from Classmate 0% 100% 0% 1.00 0.00
Referring to Previous Composition 0% 58.3% 41.7% 0.58 0.51
Consulting Grammar Book 25% 66.7% 8.3% 1.17 0.58
Consulting Experienced Person 8.3% 66.7% 25% 0.83 0.58
Identifying Points to be Explained 8.3% 66.7% 25% 0.83 0.58
Not do anything 0% 16.7% 60.7% 2 0.20 0.42

Table 15. Students self-rating in writing.

Frequency Percent % Mean S.D.
Excellent 0 0%
Good 7 58.3%
Fair 2 16.7% 1.33 0.89
Poor 3 25%
Total 12 100%

54
 Appendix (C)
Clarification of abbreviations used in the obtained data sheet

1. The first column in the data sheet represents the number of participants (12
students).

2. The remaining columns represent the responses of the participants to each question
of the questionnaire. These columns are labelled in a way that shows the question
number, as well as the item if the question has more than one item. For example,
ques4b indicates item b of question 4.

3. Numbers in the remaining columns express the mean frequency ratings used in the
analysis:
Always =2
Sometimes =1
Never =0

3. A missing value is represented by using a dot.

55