Feedback on written language

In all the three written pedagogies discussed above, feedback emerges as a key aspect of their instructional repertoires. Feedback has long been regarded as essential for the development of L2 learners for both its potential for advancing learning and for contributing to learners’ motivation (Hyland & Hyland 2006). Up until the 1970s, feedback on written language was traditionally provided by teachers at the end of the writing process with the primary focus on linguistic accuracy and great deal of emphasis on error correction so that no ‘bad habits’ would be formed by learners (Ferris, 2006). However, as explained above, there has been a shift over time to a more process oriented approach to the teaching of writing (Ferris, 2002). This shift affected feedback practices significantly. Hyland and Hyland (2006) argue that accuracy is no longer the

26

main priority and that feedback and formative assessment are seen as important developmental tools moving learners through multiple drafts towards the capability of effective self-expression. These authors further assert that in the genre approach, feedback “is the key element of scaffolding provided by the teacher to build learners’ confidence and literacy resources to participate in target communities” (2006, p. 77). In other words, teachers provide feedback in such a way that learners don’t fear to make errors but rather learn from them.

Despite the pedagogical changes, linguistic accuracy and error correction remain key aspects of written feedback. Apart from exploring how the two teachers in this study teach writing to their Grade 5 EFAL learners, I am also interested in finding out how they provide feedback on their Grade 5 EFAL learners’ written work. Corrective feedback helps learners to see where and how they may be making errors or failing to communicate in some way (The role of feedback and assessment in language learning, 2012). Corrective feedback does not only help learners to set realistic goals but also allows them to see where and how they need to improve. There are several ways of providing corrective feedback to learners’ written work. After conducting an empirical study on written feedback, Ellis (2008) identified a ‘typology of options for correcting linguistic errors’; he suggests that teachers can provide direct, indirect or metalinguistic corrective feedback to their learners’ linguistic errors.

In terms of direct corrective feedback, the teacher provides learners with a correct form using techniques such as crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase, or morphemes, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form just above or nearby the error (Ellis, 2008). According to Ellis (2008) direct corrective feedback is desirable especially with learners who have a low level of target language proficiency and are not capable of correcting themselves. The disadvantage of direct CF is that, “it requires minimal processing on the part of the learner, thus although it might help them to produce correct form when they revise their writing, it may not contribute to long-term learning” (p. 99).

Indirect corrective feedback involves teachers indicating that learners have made errors without actually correcting them (Ellis, 2009). By using this type of corrective feedback, the teacher draws learners’ attention to such errors by using techniques such as underlining or circling the error and expects learners to do corrections by themselves. According to Ellis (2008), many researchers prefer indirect corrective feedback to direct corrective feedback because it requires

27

learners to engage in guided learning and problem solving, and as a result provides the type of reflection that is “more likely to lead to long-term learning” (p.100).

Metalinguistic corrective feedback entails teachers providing learners with some form of explicit written comments related to the nature of errors they have made (Ellis, 2008). This takes two forms: Teachers may decide to take note of the linguistic errors in the text and provide a brief grammatical description for each error at the end of the text or use error correction codes comprised of abbreviated labels or symbols which show the nature of the error and give a clue on the type of correction needed (Ellis, 2008). In the former, learners have to work out the correction needed from the clue provided while in the latter, learners need to first find the error in the text and then work out the correction. The comparison between using codes with other written corrective feedback has been documented. Ferris and Roberts (2001), for example, found that error codes do assist learners to self-edit their writing but this is not as effective as direct and indirect corrective feedback. These authors claim that there was a very limited evidence to show that error codes help writers to achieve greater accuracy over the time.

Hyland and Hyland (2006) assert that the language that teachers use in their feedback plays a significant role in facilitating learners’ writing development. They argue that negative feedback may have a detrimental effect on learners’ confidence. Hyland and Hyland believe that although L2 learners value their teachers’ written comments, some of them may ignore or misuse them when revising their written drafts or doing corrections. Hyland (1998 as cited in Hyland and Hyland, 2006, p. 81) claims that sometimes learners misunderstand, or they understand the errors pointed out by the teacher but are unable to come up with suitable revision or correct answer, which sometimes causes them to simply delete the offending text to avoid the issues raised. In addition to comments, some teachers also give grades as part of feedback on their learners’ written work. The negative effect of grades has been documented. Hattie and Timperley (2007), for example, argue that grades can be contentious and may negatively affect learner motivation and distract their attention from the more constructive corrective feedback provided by the teacher.

Changes in writing pedagogies have transformed feedback practices with teachers’ feedback now combined with peer feedback, writing workshops, oral conferences and even computer delivered

28

feedback (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Many researchers argue that it does not matter who provides feedback as long as it is effective (Keh, 1990; Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Ellis, 2008). Keh (1990) argues that success in writing is encouraged through quality feedback either from the teachers, learners or from the model as an input that encourages learners to revise and improve their writing. According to Hattie (1999, p.9) effective feedback means “providing information how and why the child understands and misunderstands and what directions a learner must take to improve”. Additionally, the type, content, timing, complexity and accuracy of the feedback contribute to its effectiveness (Hattie & Timperley). Furthermore, learners should be given opportunities to practice: “feedback without the opportunity to practice for improvement would seem to be a waste of time” (The role of feedback and assessment in language learning, 2012, p.4).

Even though the CAPS documents provide explicit guidelines on the approaches that teachers should use to teach writing to their EFAL learners, and there is a section on assessment, no guidance is provided on how feedback should be handled. In other words, the CAPS documents appear to be quite procedural on how writing should be taught, and there seems to be little guidance about how teachers should respond to their learners’ writing.