Annual Review of Education,
Communication and Language Sciences, Volume 2, 2005
THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS’ WRITTEN FEEDBACK ON ESL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION: A STUDY IN A SAUDI ESL UNIVERSITY-LEVEL CONTEXT
GRAMI MOHAMMAD A. GRAMI
Abstract
The idea of this paper was prompted by Truscott’s (1996) extreme and controversial article in which he rejects every possible
positive effect of written feedback given by language teachers to their students in order to improve students’ writing and minimize
their errors but with no reference to students’ believes and preferences. This study will investigate a number of Saudi university-
level ESL students’ perception of written feedback they receive from their teachers using structured questionnaires. The focus
will mainly be on linguistic errors, i.e. form feedback, as they are L2 learners, in their ESL writing. The main purpose of the study
then is to investigate whether ESL students would prefer to have their written work corrected and commented on or not, and if
they do believe or not in teachers’ comments’ effectiveness, i.e. students’ beliefs, in the light of the relative literature.
Key Words
ESL writing, surface-level feedback, students’ beliefs
1. Introduction
In 1996, John Truscott wrote a very controversial article pertaining ‘form’ (surface) feedback in writing where he rejects
any possible advantages of it in improving accuracy and he even blames it for catastrophic results on learners’ progress in
writing. In his article, he builds on his strong opposition of form feedback and concludes by recommending all language teachers
to completely abandon giving comments concerning surface errors. Unsurprisingly, many researchers have targeted this proposal
and I am particularly interested in the research conducted by Ferris (1999), Lee (1997) and Kepner (1991) who defended the
use of error feedback and, apart from Kepner, reacted to Truscott’s stance calling it ‘premature’, ‘oversimplified’ and ‘radical’.
In her article (1999) responding to Truscott (1996), Ferris challenges the theoretical and empirical bases of Truscott’s extreme
proposition and cited various evidences to simultaneously support her position and rebut Truscott’s. In this study, however, I am
concerned more about the fundamental issue closely related to teachers’ form feedback, namely students’ own beliefs and
preferences regarding this practice, taking into consideration the previous argument and viewed in the light of the relative
research as students’ perspective apparently has not received the attention it deserves even if proven to have its enormous effect
on the whole process of teaching/learning as shall be seen later.
1.1 The Significance of the Study
Needles to say, writing is amongst the most prominent skills that language learners need to learn as an essential
component of their academic practice and later on in their professional life, which partially explains why teaching writing has
prompted a good deal of research that covers various aspects of its broad instructional contexts. However, writing does not only
reside in the classroom, the need for well-organised, successful writing can be seen almost everywhere, writing a formal letter to
your supervisor, a casual letter to a friend, a poem or a novella, even a short memorandum are all examples of writing, i.e., the
need for acceptable writing is found in about all everyday life practices; a fact that has contributed to the development of the
genre approach in writing. Another fact is that teaching/learning how to write successfully gets even more complicated and
challenging for both language teachers and students when it comes to ESL/EFL environments compared with teaching L1
writing. In the former case, learners have to focus on multiple interactive processes that go well beyond basic writing rules
usually meant for native student writers. In conjunction with this intricacy, little research concerning teachers’ feedback on L2
writing situations has been carried out. These combined factors then may well justify the choice of this research topic and also
gives a genuine reason why researching this issue could be interesting. The effect of feedback whether positive or negative is
therefore a subject of great importance. (Lee, 1997, Truscott, 1996)
1.2 Purpose of the Study
Generally speaking, the research in this field usually refers to two main issues a) teachers’ mechanisms and attitudes when
giving their comments, and the main focus of this paper b) students’ preferences and applications of given written feedback.
(Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998, Radecki and Swales, 1988, Hyland, 1998) According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), knowing
about students’ attitudes and preferences about error feedback and their own assessment of their weaknesses in writing is
important. They also note that students’ attitudes and preferences have been neglected in many previous error correction studies
and reviews.
This paper therefore focuses not on writing itself but rather on ESL students’ own believes and preferences regarding
feedback in L2 writing taking into consideration such immense effect of students’ beliefs on their success in writing in accordance
with the second theme above. To be even more precise, I question ESL students’ beliefs regarding feedback they receive from
their language teachers as response to their writing errors, mostly surface-levelled, and how they operate them in their
subsequent writings. The various techniques of feedback in writing such as underlining, locating the error, explicit correction and
the use of symbols and marks have been well scrutinised in the teaching writing literature including in addition to teachers’ written
feedback: self-correction, peer feedback and oral conferences. Apparently, this practice has the ultimate purpose of improving
learners’ composition with regard to both short and long-term efficacy from the perspectives of fluency, accuracy and the overall
quality of their product. This concern has been aroused after the recent emergence of process approach teaching of writing in
comparison with the case when writing teachers were all affected by the more traditional product-oriented approaches.
(Radecki and Swales, 1988, Fathman and Whalley, 1990, Ferris, 2002)
Types of corrections include direct and indirect written feedback which will be both discussed and evaluated in relation to
their application in actual pedagogic contexts and the gains expected from them from students’ point of view. Moreover, the
implication of different types of feedback will be examined with focus on different techniques that are mostly considered as
indirect feedback with special regard to their level of explicitness and their effect on long-term accuracy of students’ writing as
they perceive them. In order to tackle this issue persuasively, a number of Saudi university-level ESL students have been
involved in a two-phase study where their perspectives, believes and preferences have been investigated through a structured
questionnaire.
1.3 Definition of Terms
Kepner (1991: 141)
defines feedback in general as “any procedures used to inform a learner whether
an instructional
response is right or wrong.” For the purpose of the assignment however ‘feedback’ will strictly refer to the written feedback
given by teachers as response to their students’ errors in writing. The terms ‘feedback’, ‘comments’ and ‘correction’ in this
article will be used interchangeably and they do not constitute any real difference. I am aware that the limitation of feedback to
teacher’s written feedback automatically excludes, but not in any way rejects, other known types of feedback such as peer
feedback and oral conferences even if their implications on ESL writing may similarly produce results of remarkably substantial
interest. The targeted proportion of students in this study is described as ESL, a crucial fact that affects consequent discussion
and therefore must be kept in mind throughout the progression of this study. ESL, an acronym for ‘English as a Second
Language’, originally referred to non-native speakers learners of English in an English environment e.g. immigrants in United
Kingdom, but now it has become a standard term to mean learning English by non-native speakers regardless of the
environment, which is exactly the case in this study as shall be seen later. ‘Form feedback’ which will be also known as
‘grammar feedback’ and ‘ surface-level feedback’ is the type of feedback that looks into issues like spelling, grammar,
punctuation … etc. On the other hand, ‘content feedback’ usually refers to matters like organisation, choice of vocabularies,
rhetoric use of the language, cohesion and coherence, and other more abstract and notional matters of writing. It is worthy to
note that the distinction between the two types is not always clear but this will be overlooked for now.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Is Form Feedback Unnecessary?
The discussion about giving grammar-errors feedback (form feedback) cannot overlook the oft-cited, rather controversial
article by Truscott (1996) which has been the target of almost all the following studies addressing the same topic. The findings of
his article, which clearly stands against grammar correction, were the aim of continuous debate either in favour or against. It
worth noting that some earlier researches have also concluded to stances similar to these of Truscott’s but the main difference is
that they do not overtly recommend teachers to completely stop giving grammar feedback anymore as Truscott do. Cohen and
Robbison (1976), for example, argue that the correction of student compositions is often ineffective in reducing errors.
However, they have an explanation for their finding that is teacher’s correct errors inconsistently. Hillock (1986: 165) (as
mentioned in Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998) also believes that “teachers’ comments have little impact on student writing.” Again,
the given possible reason for ineffectiveness was due to teachers themselves. Sommers (1982: 142) supports the claim when
found that teachers comments were “arbitrary and idiosyncratic.” Furthermore, Connors and Lunsford (1993:215) comment on
teachers’ written feedback: “large number of short, careless, exhausted, or extensive comments.” But, with respect to his radical
ideas, Truscott’s (1996) article yet remains the most controversial for he does not attribute the ‘failure’ of grammar feedback to
any sort of inadequacy caused by teachers, students, or teaching contexts but because of form feedback itself.
2.2 Why Form Feedback is Necessary?
Truscott’s disputed views have been critically and empirically examined by many subsequent studies. That is to be
supported with early studies whose findings have been neglected in Truscott’s controversial paper. Some of these studies (to be
mentioned anon) give practical evidence that grammar correction in fact does help students improve their accuracy as opposed
to Truscott. The main weak point of Truscott’s paper is that most of the literature he used to support his claims is actually
researches that have been carried out in L1 contexts which cannot be transferred complete to ESL contexts as the students in
the latter environment struggle with their L2 and errors are definitely expected from them. Prior to Truscott (1996), Kepner
(1991:305) believes that error correction in second language teaching is “of perennial concern to L2 teachers.” Kepner notes
that many L2 teachers fear the fossilisation of errors (a persuasive argument later supported by Ferris, 1999) and that teachers
fell morally obliged to correct all mistakes in their L2 students’ work. This finding may shed some light on why teachers correct
‘form’ errors but it does not give empirical evidence to how successful students will be after receiving their writing corrected
from the teacher nor does it explain how teachers act in order to give their feedback effectively. Kepner (1991) however
mentions that surface-error corrections are a ‘traditional practice in L2 teaching’ as a justification to the surface-level feedback
given to the participating students in the study. Some other researchers have carefully examined Truscott’s viewpoint. Lee
(1997), for instance, describes Truscott’s stance as ‘radical’. Furthermore, Lee firmly assures that his stance will have little
impact on classroom teachers. Another researcher who extensively examined Truscott’s beliefs is Dana Ferris (1999). First of
all, she notes that L2 students themselves are very much concerned about accuracy and they will ask for their errors to be
corrected by their teachers. In response to Truscott claims, that giving grammar correction feedback must have no place in
writing courses and should be abandoned; Ferris describes his idea as “premature and overtly strong.” (ibid: 2) Ferris (1999)
also notes that Truscott overstates the negative evidence and disregard the research results that contradict his views. Two
significant studies that Truscott disregards their positive findings are Fathman and Whalley (1990) and the already mentioned
Lalande (1982) where both of them found positive effects for error correction.
2.3 ESL Learners and Form Feedback: Are they Different from their Native Counterparts?
Although ESL learners’ success in ESL composition is the ultimate goal of the whole literature of writing teaching/learning,
it seems that their point of view of the whole issue has been long ignored or, in best cases, did not receive the attention it
deserves.
It has been mentioned earlier in Ferris’ paper that L2 students in particular prefer and expect their teachers to provide
them with comments about accuracy in their writing. This idea is supported with the wide belief that responding to L2 students’
writing has been of great significance to teaching writing and is well considered by writing teachers and pedagogy theorists alike.
Ferris describes the practice of giving feedback as ‘indispensable’. Hyland and Hyland (2001) also note that providing written
feedback to students is one of the ESL writing teachers’ most important tasks. In the same manner, ESL students were also
reported to overwhelmingly desire their linguistic errors to be corrected and they strongly believe that it is teacher’s responsibility
to provide such feedback. In short, ESL teachers have to correct surface-level errors and students want their teachers to do so.
The bottom line is that as L1 writers usually have no limitation in their linguistic competence, they can focus on more theoretical,
notional, abstract ideas. This is, however, not the case with L2 learners where they are still struggling with their lower language
proficiency and linguistic errors, therefore, occupy the prominent status (Reid, 2000, Radecki and Swales, 1988, Ferris and
Hedgcock, 1998, Kepner, 1991, and Hyland and Hyland, 2001) As responding to the argumentation against giving grammar
feedback, Ferris and Hedgcock (1998: 139) note that “In fact, given the strong preferences that L2 writers have expressed for
receiving grammar feedback, its complete absence may actually be upsetting and motivating.”
The idea can be supported not only from ESL student’s position, as for ESL writing teachers (L2 teachers in general), the
research findings show that they are very much concerned about students’ surface-level errors (e.g. Ferris, 2002 in her preface
and Hyland and Hyland, 2001). This concern about accuracy is likely to be caused by already mentioned students’ concern
themselves. Research findings also show that students want, appreciate and apply the corrections they get from their teachers.
(Zamel, 1985, Hyland and Hyland, 2001, Hyland, 1998, Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998, Ferris and Roberts, 2001, Cohen, 1987,
and Leki, 1991). Zamel (1985), for instance, notices that most of ESL writing teachers comments were concerned about
surface-level errors. Zamel then suggests that ESL writing teachers see themselves more like ‘language teachers’. Hyland (2003)
shares the same belief of how ESL writing teachers perceive themselves when giving written feedback. The possible explanation
of such an attitude by ESL students can be obtained from Ferris (2002) who notes that L2 writers are aware of their linguistic
limitations and thus “more likely to focus on word- or sentence- level accuracy.” Similarly, Kepner (1991) refers to the
traditional view of achievement in L2 writing as “mastery of discrete surface skills required for production of an accurately
written document. In short, there is plenty of research evidence to show that ESL students want surface-level correction and
believe in its effectiveness. (Lee, 1997, Leki, 1991, and Hendrickson, 1978)
3. Methodology and Discussion
3.1 Teaching Context and Participants
Generally speaking, English does not occupy very prominent position in Saudi Arabia (the context of the study) neither in
terms of basic communication needs nor in official, commercial or academic settings. Even if a huge number of foreigners (over
six millions according to the latest statistics) work in the country, Arabic, which benefits from an enormous historical and
religious heritage, not English is the one and only language for communication not only between foreigners and the residents of
the country, but between foreigners themselves who come from a mosaic of linguistic backgrounds. Therefore, the need for
English as a communication tool, as indicated in the national curriculum for example, for an ordinary resident is merely artificial,
which has been widely reflected in students failing to see the point of studying English as a compulsory course in general
education regardless ESL teachers’ efforts to explain its significance, a situation that has been described by many expatriate
English teachers as really discouraging and intimidating. (Whitefield and Pollard, 1998) However, even in such a seemingly
unlikely promising context, the need to learn English cannot be underestimated, especially in order to specialise or work in high-
tech and medical majors, for international trade and businesses, information technology, aviation and to a lesser significance
tourism. In other words, the need to learn English is essential for a limited number of people, i.e. exclusively important.
The study however took place in the department of English language in a Saudi university where all core courses are
taught in English, a reason that explains why English is particularly important and also characterised this context as more ESL
than EFL. The students who were involved in the study were all English majors in their second year or over. They all have taken
at least one specialised course in English writing in the university besides their previous general writing classes all students have to
take in their formal education. It also worth noting that all the participants are male students as Saudi Arabian educational policy
obligatory separates male and female students from early primary levels. (Asiri, 1997, Whitefield and Pollard, 1998, Mubaraki,
2003 and Grami, 2004)
3.2 Research Hypotheses
Drawing on the literature review and the context of the study, this research tries to question the reliability of the following
hypotheses: 1) Saudi ESL University level students want to receive written feedback on their surface-level errors and 2) Saudi
ESL university level students do believe that surface-level feedback help them improve their writing.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
McDonough and McDonough (1997) believe that questionnaires are very popular among educational researchers in
general. There are some factors as to why a researcher chooses questionnaires to collect data from students. The questionnaires
have some advantages over other data collecting methods (e.g. interviews): a) questionnaires tend to be more reliable as they are
anonymous b) they encourage greater honesty from respondents, c) they save the researcher’s and participants’ time and effort
(more economical), and d) they can be used in small-scale issues and large scale issues.
Hence, a structured questionnaire has been designed and piloted, consisting of two main sections where students’ beliefs
regarding form feedback have been questioned in the first part and their same beliefs will be again questioned but with practical
examples of errors and written feedback this time. The questionnaire has to be somehow concise as the time allocated for
completing it was limited because students were doing their final examinations and the survey will took place after one of theses
exams in the department. (See appendix A) The researcher has also applied SPSS to analyse data gathered from the
questionnaire which will enable him to get precise percentages, standard deviations and means of subjects’ responses.
When students were asked about their opinion regarding the significance they assign to teachers’ feedback, the following
results were gained:
This finding
supports the previous research findings in ESL writing environments (Kepner,
1991 and Ferris, 2002). It
clearly gives ample evidence that most ESL writing students not only agree on the importance of feedback, actually they do so
passionately which can be drawn from the very high mean (4.36). The same attitude can be elicited from ESL student writers’
responses to other questions (will be discussed afterwards) which indirectly bring out their opinions regarding surface-level
errors’ comments on a composition example. Therefore, it can be fairly argued that ESL university level students in Saudi Arabia
do want, expect and appreciate teachers’ written feedback about their surface-level errors.
Once again, the very high mean (4.40) gives the strong impression that Saudi ESL students profoundly maintain the belief
that they can improve their writing with reference to the issues of accuracy and fluency. Only one student has no opinion
regarding this question. If previously discussed immense effect of students’ beliefs is taken into consideration, this finding also
challenges Truscott’s (1996) claims that written feedback concerning grammar has no positive effects on subsequent writings
and supports the research findings that written feedback does help students improve their accuracy without harming fluency
(Ferris, 1999 and Chandler, 2003). Truscott’s argument apparently neglects the significance grammar feedback deserves. The
former finding moreover supports the argument of Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) that students do appreciate their teachers’
responses to their writing and they pay a great deal of attention to it, and that of Hyland (1998: 262) that her students “not only
said they valued feedback, but demonstrated this through their actions in response to it.” It is obvious that hypothesis (1) is
strongly supported by these findings and it can be said, therefore, that Saudi ESL students are similar to their counterparts in
other related studies where both show profound interest, appreciation and enjoyment in teachers’ written feedback. The
following data further supports this argument where students have shown that in fact they do benefit from their teachers’
feedback opposing to Truscott:
The most outstanding finding obtained from the study is that Saudi ESL student writers at KAAU by all means desire and
expect feedback from their writing teachers. It also shows that students do believe that they benefit a lot from such feedback.
This can be easily noticed through their high responses means which certainly show solid evidence that they appreciate error-
feedback.
3.3 Recommendations and Limitations
This study highlights some interesting points to be considered for real ESL classroom practices regarding the application
of written feedback as response to ESL students’ writing. The first recommendation is that, according to the relative literature
and research findings, the application of written feedback in Saudi ESL contexts is crucial and of great significance. Saudi ESL
Students involved in the study have expressed their strong belief of its importance and applicability.
The researcher is fully aware that there are a number of possible shortcomings of this study that are mostly attributed to
the shortage of time and space. Shortcomings can be summarised as follows; first of all, the possible effect of various factors
including language proficiency of students, the nature of the writing task they are given, and the stage at which feedback is given
has not been investigated. The researcher has been informed that a possible factor that is apt to affect the findings is students’
gender which, because of lack of resources, proved to be very hard to examine. In an unpublished MA thesis by Alhaisony
(2004), it was found that the gender has such a strong effect on the findings. Similarly, the issue of cultural influences on students’
attitudes has not been included. The surrounding environment will definitely affect the local teaching context. (C.f. Holliday, 1994
and F, 2000)
It would certainly be more appreciated and useful to have a longitudinal research in which students might be given
different writing tasks and types of feedback (direct or indirect) to investigate each type’s effectiveness on their subsequent
writing. It should give empirical evidence which type of feedback works better in reducing errors in writing.
Despite all possible negative points, the research tends to be reliable and of value. The researcher would have some
suggestions for further research that will take the shortcomings into account. First of all, the researcher wishes to apply the study
in more than one educational context in Saudi Arabia. This will surely include more subjects/participants which will minimise the
fraction of error and, at the same time, inspects the topic from different angles which is still considered as another mean of
triangulation. The researcher also stresses on the significance of having teachers’ perspective about the issue. The researcher
proposes a study that well investigates teachers’ point of view as well as their actual pedagogical practices regarding the subject.
This will include techniques such as think-aloud correction, teachers’ focussed group interviews, and other more qualitative
techniques. The researcher really hopes that the findings of this proposed research would lead to better understanding of the
educational contexts in the educational environments in Saudi Arabia.
Conclusion
Truscott (1996) obviously does not account for one particularly important aspect in teaching/learning writing when he
rejects grammar feedback that is ESL students’ perspective. The study seems to support researchers (Kepner, 1991, Lee,
1997, and Ferris, 1999) who have challenged Truscott’s ideas by proving that ESL students involved do want and appreciate
this type of feedback. Truscott’s recommendation for language teachers to completely abandon giving grammar feedback ends
to be irrelevant, even without real influence in ESL writing classes as Lee (1997) remarks.
Notes
I. The distinction between ‘form’ and ‘content’ errors in writing (as suggested by Kepner, 1991, and Ferris and Hedgcock, 1998) is essential for the sake of this study. There has been however an argument against such a distinction sometimes calling it ‘artificial’ (see Ashwell, 2000) but I am going to overlook this for the mean time hoping to refer to it later.
II. In comparison with the more recent process approach in writing.
III. < http://bogglesworld.com/glossary/esl.htm> viewed on Wednesday 18 – May – 2005.
IV. Until recently, English has been a compulsory course in public schools. The year 2005 has experienced the change of English status to an optional, not necessarily passed course.
V. According to a special contact with Mr. Alhaisony on Wednesday, 25 August 2004.
References:
ASIRI, I. M. 1997. University’s EFL Teachers’ Feedback on Compositions and Students’ Reactions, University of Essex: unpublished PhD Thesis.
CHANDLER, J. 2003. ‘The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, pp 267-296.
COHEN, A. D., 1987. ‘Students Processing of Feedback on Their Compositions’, In: WENDEN, A. AND RUBIN, J 1987 Learning Strategies in Language Learning, Prentice Hall International, pp 57-69.
COHEN, A. D. AND ROBBINS, M 1976. ‘Toward Assessing Interlanguage Performance: The Relationship between Selected Errors, Learners’ Characteristics, and Learners’ Expectations’, Language Learning, 26, pp 45-66.
FATHMAN, A. K. AND WHALLEY, E. 1990. ‘Teacher Response to Student Writing: Focus on Form Versus Content’, In Kroll, B (ed.) 1990 Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge University Press, pp 178-190.
FERRIS, D. 1999. ‘The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996)’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8/1, pp 1-11.
FERRIS, D. 2002. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, The University of Michigan Press.
FERRIS, D. AND HEDGCOCK, J S 1998. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
FERRIS, D. AND ROBERTS, B 2001. ‘Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How Explicit Does It Need to Be?’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, pp 161-184.
GRAMI, M. A 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Written Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing: A Study on a Saudi ESL University-Level Context, University of Essex: Unpublished MA Dissertation.
GRAY, J. 2000. ‘The ELT course book as cultural artifact: How teachers censor and adapt’, In ELT Journal, 54/3.
HYLAND, F. 1998. ‘The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers’, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7/3, pp 255-286.
HYLAND, K. 2003. Second Language Writing, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 7: Responding to student writing, pp 177-211.
KEPNER, C. G., 1991. ‘An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills’, The Modern Language Journal, 75, pp 305-315.
KROLL, B. 2003. Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing, Cambridge University Press.
KROLL, B. (ed.) 1990. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, Cambridge University Press.
LALANDE, J. F. 1982. ‘Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment’, Modern Language Journal, 66, pp 140-149.
LEE, I. 1997. ‘ESL Learners’ Performance in Error Correction in Writing’, System, 25/4, pp 465-477.
MCDONOUGH, J. AND MCDONOUGH, S. 1997. Research Methods for English Language Teachers, London: Arnold.
MUBARAKI, S. 2003. The Factors that Affect Teachers’ Perception of Their Role Within ESL Classrooms at Industerial Collegues in Saudi Arabia, University of Essex: Unpublished MA.
RADECKI, P. M. AND SWALES, J. M. 1988. ‘ESL Student Reaction to Written Comments on Their Written Work’, System, 16/3, pp 355-365.
REID, J. 2000. ‘Responding to ESL Students’ Texts: The Myths of Appropriation’, In: Silva, T and Matsuda, P K (eds.) 2000, Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, Hermagoras Press, pp 209-224.
REID, J. 2002. ‘Ask!’, In Blanton, L L and Kroll, B 2002, ESL Composition Tales: Reflection on Teaching, The University of Michigan Press.
SELIGER, H. W. AND SHOHAMY, E. 1989. Second Language Research Methods, Oxford University Press.
SILVA, T. AND MATSUDA, P. K. (eds.) 2000, Landmark Essays on ESL Writing, Hermagoras Press.
SILVA, T. AND MATSUDA, P. K. (eds.) 2001. On Second Language Writing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
SOMMERS, N. 1982. ‘Responding to Student Writing’, College Composition and Communication, 33/2, pp 148-156.
TRUSCOTT, J. 1996. ‘The Case against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes’, Language Learning, 46/2, pp 327 – 369.
ZAMEL, V. 1985. ‘Responding to Student Writing’, TESOL Quarterly, 19/1, pp 79 – 100.
Appendices: Appendix A
Students’ Questionnaire (The English Version)
The Effect of Written Feedback on Students Writing Tasks
The purpose of this questionnaire is to investigate students’ beliefs about how teachers should correct errors and give them feedback on their writing. It aims to offer better understanding for your perception about written comments you get from your teacher. Ultimately, this will help improve teachers’ written remarks on a hand and students’ writing ability on the other.
Important Notes:
(1) The information that you will supply in here will never be revealed to
a third party unless getting your written consent. However, your personal
information (name and age) will never be revealed to any other person.
(2) If you have any queries please feel free to ask me at any time.
Name (optional):
Year of study:
How many years have you been studying English in formal education? ( ) years.
Have you taken any special courses outside of school or university which
involved writing? Yes No
In total, how many of these writing courses have you taken? ( ) course(s)
Section One: General Questions: This section asks you to answer some general questions regarding your educational and linguistic background. (Just tick the correct answer or the most suitable one) The purpose of this section is to know more about the participants. Remember: you have the right not to answer any of these questions if you feel they are irritating or intrusive.
1.1 Your mother tongue is Arabic:
Yes No
1.2 Your age is:
Below 18. Between 18 and 22. Over 22.
1.3 Have you taken any special training in symbol/code use (e.g. 'it have
been raining all night.' VA: Verb Agreement, 'the aerplane took off two hours
ago' Sp: Spelling) in writing correction:
Yes No
Section Two: The following comments are possible teacher’s
written feedback for the previous short passage. Please decide whether you
appreciate the type of feedback you receive or not in terms of its
usefulness/helpfulness for each correction, and to which extent. You may
consider its effectiveness in terms of helping self-correction, short-term and
long-term improvement in following writing tasks. The errors concerned here are
surface-level errors (spelling, word choice, tenses, punctuation, verb
agreement, capitalization … etc)
Please look through the following passage which contains different
techniques of corrections and giving written feedback. Circle the number to
indicate to which extent do you understand and appreciate the written comment
(not).
(1) strongly like it, (2) like it, (3) do not know, (4) dislike it, (5) strongly
dislike it.
How to reduce stress level?
Modren life has not only its benefits but its drawbacks as well. One very obvious and common example of the drawbacks is stress. Stress is the pressare caused by fast rhythm of modern life. For some people it is very difficult to cope with the situation therefore stress will happen.
Stress not only caused headache, it was much more critical enough to consider it as fatal sometimes. For example one who usually live with stress will suffer from many other symptoms such as high blood pressure, ulcer and insomnia. These symptoms in their turn can cause other serious problems like heart attacks and clot.
So, is there a way out? Definitely there is. The key point here is life
pressure. So if we can overcome this successfully we will certainly be
successful in reducing stress level. There are, however, many possible
solutions. One good example is Yoga, a combination of both spiritual and bodily
exercises, which many experts have noted its effectiveness. Nevertheless, Yoga
require a sort of strict training that not so many people are capable of,
neither in terms of time nor money. There are nevertheless other easier
solutions which do not require much from people. One can go out with his family
to the beach or the mountains and have a good time there which will be as good
and effective. May be he or she can find a hobby that keeps him/her busy and in
the same time. One important thing is that do not let stress defeats you, you
should take life easy and overcome your stress.
3.1- Teacher’s feedback: You should capitalize every initial letters in the
title’s main words (i.e. all words except articles and prepositions)
1 2 3 4 5
3.2- Teacher's feedback: locating the error by underlining it and (Sp).
1 2 3 4 5
3.3- Teacher’s feedback: (Sp).
1 2 3 4 5
3.4-Teacher’s feedback: locating the errors by underlining them. 1 2 3 4 5
3.5- Teacher comment: (there is a resistant error you should really notice
and take care of which is to add an ‘s’ in third person singular in the present
simple tense.)
1 2 3 4 5
3.6- Teacher’s feedback: (This is not the idiom. Change the preposition.) 1 2 3 4 5
3.7- Teacher’s feedback: Why don’t you use ‘on the other hand’ instead of
‘nevertheless’?
1 2 3 4 5
3.8- Teacher’s feedback: (Your description of that trip is enjoyable. I really liked its organisation and order. Nevertheless, I’d really prefer if you’d use transitional words such as first of all, then, after that and finally so your paragraph becomes coherent.) 1 2 3 4 5
3.9- Teacher’s feedback: (Your passage sounds really interesting. I really like your ideas and organization.) 1 2 3 4 5
Section Three: The following questions are general questions about your own beliefs and preferences regarding teachers' written feedback. Please indicate whether you (1) strongly agree, (2) agree, (3) do not know, (4) disagree, or (5) strongly disagree with the following statements by writing the appropriate number in the space provided in front of each example.
3.1 It is important for teachers must correct students' written errors.
1 2 3 4 5
3.2 Different teachers I have had have given e feedback in different ways/ by
sing different methods.
1 2 3 4 5
3.3 Some teachers are very good at giving feedback.
1 2 3 4 5
3.4 Teachers' corrections help me learn and improve my English.
1 2 3 4 5
3.5 It’s important for teachers to correct every error.
1 2 3 4 5
3.6 I believe that the application of symbols (e.g. VT: Verb Tense, Sp:
Spelling, Pro: The selection of pronoun) is quite useful.
1 2 3 4 5
3.7 It is more helpful to give clear, direct instructions about my writing
errors than suggesting a correction.
1 2 3 4 5
3.8 I always pay close attention to my teacher’s written feedback on my
writing.
1 2 3 4 5
3.9 I do not make the same error once the teacher corrects it.
1 2 3 4 5
3.10 It is better to write the feedback in the margins than at the end.
1 2 3 4 5
Appendix B
Students’ Questionnaire (Arabic Version)
About the author
Grami Mohammad Grami (G.M.Grami@newcastle.ac.uk) is a current first year PhD student in education and applied linguistics
in University of Newcastle Upon Tyne. He has got his MA in English Language Teaching from University of Essex in 2004 and
his first degree was in English Language from King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi Arabia. His academics interests are roughly
speaking anything related to education, the use of IT in education and basic theoretical linguistics.