I carried out a forty-five minute group interview with five teachers of writing at IYTE then analysed the transcript of the audio-recording of this interview for topics to pursue in follow-up individual interviews with selected teachers. Table 4a (below) illustrates four topics I decided to cover.
Table 4a: emerging topics from the group interview
Error correction Teacher written commentary
Whole-class feedback Teacher-student conferencing
Below, I have dealt with each of the emerging topics in table 4a and identified data from the transcript which indicated the potential for pursuing such matters with selected teachers during individual interviews. Details of feedback-related themes that did not arise in the group interview are summarised in 4.12.1 while those on individual interviews appear in 4.13.
4.11.1 Error correction
From the group interview transcript analysis it was clear that selective error correction using an established code (below also referred to as ‘symbols’) was clearly the most commonly used form of feedback provided by teachers in the writing department at IYTE. The reason for this was probably that local errors
are easier to locate and treat more quickly than the provision of comments on discourse and metadiscourse.
On the topic of what teachers did with completed students’ essays, Nihat explained how he only read draft one in detail and corrected using symbols. He also stated, however, (Appendix D, turn 24) “I underline it and it shows something wrong”, which suggests he both corrects using the code and hints at errors for learners to self-correct. When I probed him on the strengths and weaknesses of this method he explained how in the first part of the year his students had difficulty with understanding the correction code, how it took them time to get used to it and how in the second half he dispensed with the code and “I just underline without saying the mistake; they start getting used to my style.” Nihat appeared to reduce the amount of guidance in his correction as the year continued. He felt selective correction could be recommended as, “It really helps students; after they learn, they do the corrections much more quicker; they understand what the problem is.” He also pointed out how he read only draft one in detail and when dealing with a second draft and said “I just look at draft one, read my comments and just tick whether...” In turn 39 Nihat commented on how written feedback was useful for specific matters such as spelling mistakes, which supports the comments made at the beginning of this section on treatable errors. Questions I later put to Nihat in the individual interview concerned symbols he used for error correction and how he corrected writing using coded correction or comments or both.
Also on error correction, Ömer (turn 47) pointed out “I’m not correcting their mistakes; I just underline their mistakes and... some special symbols.” He felt “This technique makes them think about their mistakes and find out what is missing.” Ömer’s comments on the comparative values of error-correction and teacher-comments appear in 4.13.2.
Eylem, like Nihat, felt it was of little use to use symbols with beginners. “In the first term I just corrected their errors and now (referring to the middle of term two) I use symbols.” Ömer commented: “When they see so many symbols on their paper they look discouraged; they lose their confidence.” (turn 55). Medine stated in turn 56: “I try to do it (correction) in a different colour.”
Research topics until now suggested looking into why it should take so long for students at IYTE to get used to the teacher’s use of correction codes, along with how the current IYTE code was taught. Other possible points to pursue included how much long-term benefit Nihat and others felt error- correction had on student writing.
4.11.2 Teacher written commentary
Devrim used this method to provide encouragement: “I try to give confidence because some students only write because the teacher says.” (turn 27). In turn 29 she added, “Some students just look to see if it’s positive”. In the follow-up interview I asked her to explain how she gave confidence, and probed her comment that students only look for positives. I also asked her what counted as a positive comment and how such comments affect students.
Medine stated, “I really try to have something to say. I write what they are missing.” She felt some students were interested in this, and added, “I never say ‘bad” (turn 47). Questions I later put to Medine concerned the meaning of her initial comment: “I write what they are missing”, along with evidence that students are interested in her comments and why only some students are interested.
Eylem commented on how she realised students did not like short comments, like “very good”. She felt these did not satisfy them as they prefer “comments about specific things”. Questions for Eylem at the individual interview included how and when she had realised this, along with what kind of comments satisfied students and on which areas of their work. A document analysis stage which for reasons of space I later removed from this chapter identified how perhaps Eylem’s feedback conflicted with this account, and to an extent exemplifies the point made by Sikes (2000:1) that it is vital to look at evidence of practice as well as self-report.
4.11.3 Whole class feedback
Nihat explained how in previous years he had provided pages of written feedback; sometimes in Turkish, the students’ mutual L1. Commenting on comments made by co-participants (turns 21-23) Nihat said, “This is ok on paper”, prior to explaining his method of providing whole class feedback. Nihat stated: “I write on the board common mistakes. I define their common mistakes with the whole class and this helps.” In turn 67 he again referred to this feedback method: “Common mistakes. I write them on the board. It helps
students a lot.” Nihat explained how he used general as well as individual feedback (turn 75). Nihat explained later during the individual interview (4.13.5.3) how whole class feedback compared with individual feedback and how he carried out the former.
4.11.4 Teacher-student conferencing
Of the five group interviewees, only Eylem and Medine appeared to conference with students. Eylem commented: “..one-to-one, in my room; I like to chat with each student.” (turn 25) and later added, “I think they like it very much.” She explained how she organised conferencing: “... in groups of four for five minutes. They were volunteers”, and added: “They really like to see that I’m interested in their progress; so individual feedback is important for them. When they want to talk to me about progress, they know they can come.” Eylem felt it was not important to see all the students or just the weakest. She added how she only did this in her office and not in the classroom.
Medine conferenced in a different format to Eylem as she did hers in the classroom when time was available at the end of the lesson. In turn 26 she states: “When lessons sometimes finish earlier, then they come next to me and we together read and assess their work.” Medine felt one-to-one and written feedback were both effective. In turn 81 she hinted that it was important not to do it for just one student, and pointed to a benefit of conferencing when she reiterated how it could be done while other students were working. Responding to my question of how to make conferencing more
effective, Medine explained: “First of all I can ask them their mistakes and what’s missing. I can ask them to think about their own mistakes. If they can’t answer I can ask some more questions.” This move from eliciting to questioning is further discussed in Stage One and Two conferencing and in more detail in 12.16, which concerns a comparison of conferencing styles. Also of interest here is how she leads conferences. When I asked about the effectiveness of conferencing, Medine replied: “One-to-one is more effective in the classroom because you can gather a few students together and read together.”
4.11.5 Research possibilities
Three types of oral feedback had emerged by now: whole class, small groups and one-to-one. My intended observation of teachers conferencing failed to transpire and was replaced by data gathering via recording conferences. Chapters five and six of this thesis outline the setting up and analysis of data from Stage One conferences, while chapters nine to twelve concern the preparation for and analysis of Stage Two conferences.