FEEDBACK
WDзT!^íG
>. **i'· \ i J."*· ···■· i·' I - " ,**V 'jr ^ % '« V . i i* iiv · ·>·’''<:·**.·".. i *<‘>·, Vi- \ ’· ; l·^*· I ·} 'i' I»"'·* » a » » .. « w ‘ Wa W ·» ' « k 'irnm *' CE^;^ A K F I M A R iK l v“"‘ “r V '.■*· V i· i r:»- ;'··^í r, i'-«•■‘■‘« »rf* 'W .-!.■·· ED ^ ’· .. V V f.··>*. r-{' y .., ^ ‘ ¿i; ?'··’, •■^'i f' i A /[l·; ;k?CvV(T '^■;· i R E ' Aa.a tA COMPARISON BETWEEN NATIVE-SPEAKER TEACHERS
AND
NON-NATIVE SPEAKER TEACHERS IN THEIR ATTITUDES TO
FEEDBACK ON WRITING
A THESIS PRESENTED BY
CEM AKPINAR
TO
THE INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN TEACHING OF ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
AUGUST, 1996
__L r.em ....
ABSTRACT
Title: A comparison between native-speaker teachers and non-native speaker teachers in their attitudes to feedback on writing.
Author: C e m akpinar
Thesis Chairperson: Dr. Theodore Rodgers, Bilkent University, MA TEFL Program
Thesis Committee Members: Dr. Susan Bosher, Ms. Bena Gul Peker, MA TEFL Program
M a n y institutions employ both native English speaker
teachers (NSTs) and non-native English speaker teachers (NNSTs) on their staffs. A long standing question has focused on
instructional differences, if any, between NSTs and NNSTs. One area of research that is related with difference between NSTs and NNSTs is their attitudes towards feedback on writing. This study investigates whether there is a difference between NSTs and NNSTs in their attitudes to feedback writing, specifically, their p e r c e i v e d order of importance of the following aspects of writing: content, organization, grammatical language use,
v o c a b u l a r y usage, and mechanics, and if so, in what way? Also, if there is difference, to what extent are these differences in feedback on writing related to demographic variables,
specifically, different educational background, level of education, and years of teaching experience?
Twen t y NSTs and 21 NNSTs were given a questionnaire to determine background information, a sample composition to which subjects gave feedback, and five aspects of writing: content, organization, grammatical language use, vocabulary usage, and mechanics w h i c h subjects rated and then ranked according to
Rank Sum W Test for ranking.
Results indicate that there were not any statistically significant differences between NSTs and NNSTs in their rating of aspects of writing. The results of ranking of aspects of w r i t i n g indicate that on the issue of organization NSTs and NNSTs showed a statistically significant difference at p < .05. NNSTs ranked organization as the most important; on the other hand, NSTs ranked content as the most important. One possible i nterpretation might be that since several of the subjects had d i f f i c u l t y distinguishing between content and organization perhaps they use the term as a cover term that includes both org a n i z a t i o n and content.
results of the analyses to determine the effects of
demographic variables of different educational background, level of education, and years of teaching experience were as follows: subjects from the English Literature field seemed to place more importance on organization when compared to subjects from the English Language Teaching field. The higher the degree of the subjects, the greater importance given to organization, the more years of teaching experience, more importance subjects gave to organization. However, the patterns for the above were very slight; overall, there were no clear patterns.
V
BILKENT UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES M. A. THESIS EXAMINATION RESULT FORM
August 31, 1996
The examining committee appointed by the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences for the thesis
examination of the MA TEFL student
Cem Akpinar
has read the thesis of the student.
The committee has decided that the thesis of the student is satisfactory
Thesis Title :A comparision between native-speaker
teachers and non-native speaker teachers in their attitudes to feedback on writing
Thesis Advisor :Dr. Susan D. Bosher
Bilkent University, M.A. TEFL program
Committee Members :Ms. Bena Gul Peker
Bilkent University, M.A. TEFL program
Dr. Theodore S. Roggers
Bilkent University, M.A. TEFL Program
Theodore S .\^Rodgers (CoInfrıl·t'tee Member)
l e n Z o u l P o k ^ (Committee M e m b e r
A p proved for the
Institute of Economics anc^Social Sciences
Ali K a r a p s manoglu Director
V II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I w ould like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Susan Bosher; her guidance throughout the process of writing this thesis has been invaluable.
Special thanks to Dr. Theodore S. Rodgers for his ideas and e n c o u r a g e m e n t .
Man y thanks to all those people who made the completion of this thesis possible.
I w ould like to express my appreciation to my classmates, for both friendship and support.
TABLE OF CONTENTS VIII LIST OF T A B L E S ... x CHAPTER 1 I N T R O D U C T I O N ... 1 Background of the S t u d y ... 2 Purpose of the S t u d y ... 4 Research Q u e s t i o n s ... 5 Significance of the S t u d y ... 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE R E V I E W ... 7 Feedback on L2 W r i t i n g ... 7
Studies Regarding Feedback on L2 W r i t i n g ... 8
Value of F e e d b a c k ... 14
Students' Reaction to Feedback on W r i t i n g ... 16 NSTs versus NNSTs on Feedback on W r i t i n g ... 18 CHAPTER 3 M E T H O D O L O G Y ... 22 S u b j e c t s ... 22 M a t e r i a l s ... 27 P r o c e d u r e ... 2 8 Data Analysis P r o c e d u r e ... 2 9 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE S T U D Y ... 32
Data A n a l y s i s ... 32
NSTs and NNSTs' Rating of Aspects of W r i t i n g ... 3 3 NSTs and NNSTs' Ranking of Aspects of W r i t i n g ... 3 6 NSTs' and NNSTs' Feedback on Sample C o m p o s i t i o n ... 3 9 Demographic Variables and N S T s ’ and NNSTs' Ranking of Aspects of W r i t i n g ... 48 CHAPTER 5 C O N C L U S I O N ... 5 6 Summary of the S t u d y ... 5 6 Summary of the R e s u l t s ... 57 Discussion of the R e s u l t s ... 58 Limitations of the S t u d y ... 61
Implications for Further R e s e a r c h ... 62
Pedagogical I m p l i c a t i o n s ... 62
R E F E R E N C E S ... 63
A P P E N D I C E S ... 67
A p pendix A: Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ... 67
A p pendix B: A Sample Student Composition 71
A p p andix C: Student Compositions with Sample Feedback Given on
Aspects of Writing: Organization, Content, and Grammatical
LIST OF TABLES X
TABLE
1 NSTs vs. N N S T s ... 2 G e n d e r ... . 3 Level of E d u c a t i o n ... . 4 Field of Highest Degree O b t a i n e d ... 5 Years of Teaching E x p e r i e n c e ... 6 NSTs' and NNSTs' Perceived Order of Importanceof Aspects of Writing (Rating)... 7 T-tests on Differences in NSTs'and NNSTs'
Perceived Order of Importance of Aspects
of Wri t i n g (Rating)... 8 NSTs' and NNSTs' Perceived Order
of Importance of Aspects of
Wri t i n g (Ranking)... . 9 M a n n - W h i t n e y U - Wilcoxon Rank Sum W Tests
on differences in NSTs' and NNSTs' Perceived Order of Importance of Aspects of
W r i t i n g (Ranking)... . 10 T-tests Within Groups on the Aspects of Writing
that were Ranked as First or S e c o n d ... 11 R a n king of Most Important Aspect of Writing
‘ Versus Feedback Given (NSTs)... . 12 R a n k i n g of Most Important Aspect of Writing
Versus Feedback Given (NNSTs)... . 13 A Comparison between Feedback Given on
Aspect of Writing Ranked as Most Important and Feedback Given on Other Aspects
of W r i t i n g (NSTs)... 14 A C omparison between Feedback Given on Aspect of
Wr i t i n g Ranked as Most Important and Feedback Given on Other Aspects Of W riting (NNSTs)...
15 Results of Rating and Ranking of Aspects of W r i t i n g According to Demographic Variable:
Different Educational B a c k g r o u n d ... . PAGE 23 24 24 25 26 34 35 36 38 39 41 42 45 46 48
16 Results of Rating and Ranking of Aspects of Wri t i n g According to Demographic
Variable: Level of E d u c a t i o n ... . 50
17 Results of Rating and Ranking of Aspects of W r i t i n g According to Demographic
C H A P T E R 1: I N T R O D U C T I O N
T h ere is a c o n s i d e r a b l e b o d y of e d u c a t i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e e x a m i n i n g v a r i o u s issues r e l a t e d w i t h feedback. In m u c h of this r e s e a r c h one of the m o s t c o m m o n l y r e s e a r c h e d v a r i a b l e s is w h a t a s p e c t s of c o m p o s i t i o n t e a c h e r s focus on w h i l e g i v i n g feedback, specifically/ w h e t h e r they focus on surface e rrors that are r e l a t e d to g r a m m a t i c a l l a nguage use, m e c h a n i c s or those e r r o r s w h i c h are r e l a t e d to meaning, that is to say, c o n t e n t (Mings 1993). W h y is there this f a s c i n a t i o n w i t h fee d b a c k ? The a n swer m a y lie in the fact that f e e d b a c k is a l m o s t i n s e p a r a b l e f r o m the p r a c t i c e of teaching. T h e r e are not m a n y t e a c h e r s out there w h o c a n c l a i m that t h e y ha v e not g i v e n f e e d b a c k or as a student have not r e c e i v e d some. As a t e a c h e r I give feedback, so do m y colleagues; however, w h a t we give f e e d b a c k for or what we c o n c e n t r a t e on w h i l e g i v i n g
f e e d b a c k differs. This d i f f e r e n c e b e c o m e s m o r e a p p a r e n t if m y c o l l e a g u e h a p p e n s to be a n a t i v e s p e a k e r t e a c h e r r a t h e r t h a n a n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r teacher. M a n y studies that have b e e n
c o n d u c t e d in the p a s t two d e c ades support the d i f f e r e n c e
b e t w e e n n a t i v e s p e aker t e a chers (NSTs) and n o n - n a t i v e s p e a k e r t e a c h e r s (NNSTs) in the m a t t e r of g i v i n g f e e d b a c k on writing.
(Birdsong & Kassen, 1988; James, 1977; Kobayashi, 1992;
M c C r e t t o n & Rider, 1993; Newbrook, 1990; Sheorey, 1986). These s t u dies w i l l be r e v i e w e d in C h a p t e r 2.
i n d i v i d u a l p a p e r s and f u r t h e r m o r e that teachers b e l i e v e t h e i r f e e d b a c k p r o v i d e s crit i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n to students about t h eir w r i t i n g p e r f o r m a n c e . By g i v i n g f e e d b a c k te a c h e r s are not o n l y e v a l u a t i n g students' p e r f o r m a n c e but also g u i d i n g t h e m to w a r d s w h a t th e y s h o u l d p a y a t t e n t i o n to w h i l e writing. S t udents
focus on g e t t i n g those a s p ects c o r r e c t in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the f e e d b a c k t h e y ha v e r e c e i v e d (Dheram, 1995).
F e e d b a c k c a n sometimes focus on meaning, at o t h e r times on s t r u c t u r e d e p e n d i n g on teachers' u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n as to w h a t is i m p o r t a n t in writing. If a t e a c h e r c o n s i d e r s
s u r f a c e level e rrors as those w h i c h m o s t i m p a i r g o o d writing, t h e n teachers' f e e d b a c k wi l l c o n c e n t r a t e o n those asp e c t s of writing. Thus, i n c o n s i s t e n c y m a y o c c u r w h e n a student is t a u g h t b y two or m o r e teachers, e s p e c i a l l y if one t e a c h e r is N S T a n d o t h e r NNST, m a n y studies in the p a s t two decades
su p p o r t this d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NS T s a n d N N S T s e s p e c i a l l y the d i f f e r e n c e s in th e i r feed b a c k practice, a n d th e i r type of f e e d b a c k differs.
I n c o n s i s t e n c y in t e a c h e r f e e d b a c k c an r esult in s t u dent d o u b t s as to what to focus on in writing, and p r o d u c e s a n x i e t y w h e n students are e v a l u a t e d on their w r i t i n g .
B a c k g r o u n d of the S t udy
T w e n t y - f i v e teachers, 20 NSTs a nd 5 NNSTs, w o r k in the p r e p a r a t o r y d e p a r t m e n t of m y hom e i n s t i t u t i o n (Lefke
U n i v e r s i t y in the T u r k i s h R e p u b l i c of N o r t h e r n Cyprus). One of the d i f f i c u l t i e s we face is b e i n g c o n s i s t e n t in the e v a l u a t i o n of students' writing. We a r gue b a c k a n d f o r t h as to wha t can be c o n s i d e r e d a "good p i e c e of writing", w h i c h p a p e r de s e r v e s a pass, an A or B, and more i m p o r t a n t l y t r y i n g to j u s t i f y w h y we b e h a v e as we do. A l t h o u g h there is also some d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n NSTs in their a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on writing, there
is, m o r e o f t e n tha n not, a t e n d e n c y for NSTs to h o l d the v i e w that c o n t e n t a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n are more i m p o r t a n t than
vo c a b u l a r y , langu a g e use a n d mechanics, o b s e r v e d b y the r esearcher, NN S T s on the o t h e r h a n d o f t e n t h i n k vice v e r s a that voca b u l a r y , g r a m m a t i c a l l a nguage use, a n d m e c h a n i c s are m o r e important. Teachers' d i f f e r i n g b e l i e f s are r e f l e c t e d in p r a c t i c e s , b o t h w h i l e t e a c h i n g w r i t i n g a n d e s p e c i a l l y w h i l e g i v i n g feedback. Stud e n t s suffer f r o m this, e s p e c i a l l y just b e f o r e the w r i t i n g exam, tryi n g to u n d e r s t a n d what to a v o i d a n d w h a t to c o n c e n t r a t e on w h i l e writing, w h e t h e r to
c o n c e n t r a t e on m e a n i n g and c o n t e n t or la n g u a g e use a nd m e c h a n i c s .
In o r d e r to a v o i d u n j u s t t r e a t m e n t of students, steps m u s t be t a k e n to d e t e r m i n e the v a r i a b l e s w h i c h lead to this d i f f e r e n c e in a t t i t u d e b e t w e e n NSTs a n d NN S T s r e l a t e d to
what to give f e e d b a c k on. Since this w o u l d result in
c o n s i s t e n t f e e d b a c k to students, a n y u n j u s t tre a t m e n t due to i n c o n s i s t e n t f e e d b a c k c o uld be dealt w i t h p r oactively.
Purpose of the S t u d y
The p u r p o s e of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e if and h o w NSTs a n d NNSTs d iffer in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to
f e e d b a c k on w r i t i n g and if so, why? A t t i t u d e s to
f e e d b a c k on w r i t i n g were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as p e r c e i v e d o r d e r of i m p o r t a n c e of the f o l l o w i n g a s p e c t s of
w r iting: o r g a nization, content, g r a m m a t i c a l l a n g u a g e usage, v o c a b u l a r y usage, and mechanics. The t e r m 'aspects of writing' a n d the c o m p o n e n t s were ta k e n f r o m the b o o k T e s t i n g ESL
■Composition:_A p r a c t i c a l a p p r o a c h (Hartfiel, Hughey, Jacobs, Wormuth, Sc Z i n k g r a f , 1981) :
The P R O F I L O c o n tains five c o m p o n e n t scales, eac h f o c u s i n g on an important a s p e c t of c o m p o s i t i o n and w e i g h t e d a c c o r d i n g to its e s t i m a t e d s i g n i f i c a n c e for e f f e c t i v e w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n : c o n t e n t
(30 points), o r g a n i z a t i o n (20 points), v o c a b u l a r y (20 points), language use (25 points), a nd
m e c h a n i c s (5 points), (p. 91)
If a n y d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d b e t w e e n these two groups, NSTs a n d NNSTs, in t heir p e r c e i v e d o r d e r of i m p o r t a n c e of
a s p e c t s of writing, this study al s o i n t e n d e d to d e t e r m i n e if those d i f f e r e n c e s wer e due to d e m o g r a p h i c variables,
s p e c i f i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l background, level of education, a n d y e a r s of t e a c h i n g experience.
R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s
The f o l l o w i n g que s t i o n s w e r e p o s e d in this study: 1. Is there a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NSTs a n d NNSTs
in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on w r i t i n g ? If so, in w h a t way? 2. If there is a difference, to what e x t e n t are these d i f f e r e n c e s in f e e d b a c k on w r i t i n g r e l a t e d to d e m o g r a p h i c v ariables, s p e c i f i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l background, level of education, and y e a r s of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e ?
S i g n i f i c a n c e of the S t u d y
A l t h o u g h Leki in her st u d y (1990) i n d i c a t e s that we, as teachers, s h o u l d be r e s p e c t f u l of students* rights to t h e i r o w n e x p r e s s i o n t h r o u g h writing, "as t e a c h e r s we a p p r o p r i a t e a
students* p a p e r to o u r s e l v e s by m a r k i n g it in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h our, o w n m e n t a l _i m a g e of the ideal_tejxt. to w h i c h we want
s t u d e n t s * p a p e r s ho c o n f o r m ** (p. 2) . But w h e n there is a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the teachers, NST s a n d NNSTs, in v i e w of w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s an ideal text, a d d i t i o n a l p r o b l e m s arise. Students' r e c e i v i n g f e e dback w i l l r e s p o n d in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the f e e d b a c k th e y have received, but if they receive two
d i f f e r e n t types of feedback, t h e y w i l l not k n o w to w h i c h type t h e y s h o u l d conform.
in the sense of not f o c u s i n g on the same asp e c t s of writing. For example, some teachers m a y e m p h a s i z e the m e c h a n i c s of w r i t i n g in th e i r f e e d b a c k to students, w h i l e o t h e r teac h e r s m a y e m p h a s i z e content. G r e a t e r a w a r e n e s s of t h e i r f e e d b a c k m a y lead to t e a c h e r s t a k i n g m e a s u r e s to be mo r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h th e i r c o l l e a g u e s in their f e e d b a c k t h r o u g h o u t the i n s t i t u t i o n in w h i c h t h e y work, as well as g r e a t e r c o n s i s t e n c y in
i n s truction. Second, it is h o p e d that, u n l i k e o t h e r studies c o n d u c t e d to d e t e r m i n e the d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NSTs a n d NN S T s in t h e i r f e e d b a c k on writing, b y d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h d e m o g r a p h i c v a r i a b l e s m i g h t lead to N ST a n d N N S T d i f f e r e n c e s in f e e d b a c k on writing, this s t udy mi g h t p r o v i d e a s olid ba s i s for those w h o w i s h to find the means to e l i m i n a t e or r e d u c e these
C H A P T E R 2: L I T E R A T U R E R E V I E W
This study c o m p a r e s n a t i v e speaker teachers' (NSTs) a nd n o n - n a t i v e speaker t e a c h e r s (NNSTs) in their a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on writing. In addition, it a t t e m p t s to d e t e r m i n e those factors that c o n t r i b u t e to any d i f f e r e n c e o b s e r v e d b e t w e e n the two groups. As a f r a m e w o r k for this study I wil l r e v i e w the l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d to f e e d b a c k on L2 w r i t i n g a nd the l i t e r a t u r e that deals w i t h NSTs a n d NNSTs' d i f f e r e n c e s e s p e c i a l l y in their a t t i t u d e s t owards g i v i n g f e e d b a c k on s t u d e n t s ' writing.
F e e d b a c k on L2 W r i t i n g
O v e r the p a s t several dec a d e s there hav e b e e n m a n y
studies r e l a t e d to fe e d b a c k on w r i t i n g (Ferris, 1995; Kepner, 1991, c i t e d in Mings, 1993; Leki, 1991; Lhyle & Kullany,
1987, c i t e d in Mings, 1993; R a d e c k i & Swales, 1988; Robb, Ros s & Shortread, 1986; Zamel, 1985; Zellermayer, 1989, c i t e d in Mings, 1993. The interest or p r o l i f e r a t i o n of such studies m a y be due not o n l y to t h e o r e t i c a l concerns, but als o to the
fact that feedback, in most cases, is p a r t of teaching, and that teachers, e s p e c i a l l y w r i t i n g teachers, invest so m u c h time r e s p o n d i n g to students' w r i t i n g that there are b o u n d to be such q u e s t i o n s as: Does g i v i n g f e e d b a c k ass i s t students? W h a t f o r m s h o u l d it take? H o w m u c h s h o u l d there be of it?
Stu d i e s R e g a r d i n g F e e db a c k on L2 W r i t i n g Vann, M e y e r a nd Lorenz (1984) c o n d u c t e d a study
c o n c e r n i n g f a c u l t y re s p o n s e to w r i t t e n errors of students w h o w e r e n o n - n a t i v e speakers of English. In p a r t i c u l a r this s t udy was d e s i g n e d to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h s e ntence level errors are j u d g e d to be the most serious b y a c a d e m i c s a n d to find out w h a t k i n d of factors m a y i n f l u e n c e this judgment. The s u r v e y was c o n d u c t e d to m e a s u r e h o w a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of f a c u l t y f r o m the P h y s i c a l Sciences, S ocial Sciences, E d u c a t i o n and
H u m a n i t i e s at Iowa State U n i v e r s i t y w o u l d r e s p o n d to c e r t a i n c o m m o n E SL w r i t i n g errors. The 164 r e s p o n d e n t s r a n k e d the
r e l a t i v e g r a v i t y of 12 ty p i c a l ESL w r i t t e n e r r o r s o c c u r r i n g in 24 sentences. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d that m o s t r e s p o n d e n t s d i d not fi n d all the e r rors e q u a l l y grievous, rather, th e i r j u d g m e n t s g e n e r a t e d a h i e r a r c h y of errors. The r e s u l t s of the st u d y also i n d i c a t e d that b o t h the age a nd a c a d e m i c d i s c i p l i n e of f a c u l t y m e m b e r s m a y be imp o r t a n t factors in p r e d i c t i n g t h eir r e s p o n s e s
to c e r t a i n ESL students* w r i t i n g errors. In this study, the g r o u p w i t h the least tolerant o p i n i o n s of ESL errors was the 45- 54 y e a r old category, w h i l e the mo s t t o l e r a n t w e r e in the 55 a n d o l d e r group. A c a d e m i c s in the h u m a n i t i e s a n d social s c i e n c e s w e r e mor e lenient in t h e i r j u d g m e n t s th a n a c a d e m i c s in the p h y s i c a l sciences.
Zamel (1985) c o n d u c t e d a s t u d y c o n c e r n i n g ESL teachers' r e s p o n s e s to student writing. The r e s ults of her study suggest that E SL te a c h e r s are similar to t h e i r n a t i v e - l a n g u a g e
c o u n t e r p a r t s in the types of c o m m e n t s they make on students' writing: confusing, arbitrary, a n d in c o m p r e h e n s i b l e . Vihile
t e a c h e r s a s s u m e that the p r e s c r i p t i o n s th e y give students have " u n i v e r s a l l y - a c c e p t e d defin i t i o n s " that t r a n s m i t the same
"values" to t h e i r students, such was not f o u n d to be the case. Furthe r m o r e , ESL teachers r a r e l y s e e m to e x p e c t students to revi s e the text b e y o n d the surface level. W h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h n a t i v e l a n g u a g e counterparts, E SL t e achers w e r e m o r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h l a n g u a g e specific errors a n d p r o b l e m s . C o h e n a n d C a v a l c a n t i in t h e i r s tudy (1988) in Brazil a s k e d the f o l l o w i n g r e s e a r c h questions: 1. W h a t do language t e a c h e r s focus on in g i v i n g f e e d b a c k on w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n s in an a d v a n c e d LI or FL w r i t i n g c o u rse?
2. W h a t f e e d b a c k do students r e p o r t that the y u s u a l l y get f r o m t h e i r teachers?
In t h e i r s tudy there were two sets of subjects: three e x p e r i e n c e d teac h e r s of w r i t i n g a n d nine students. Three s t u d e n t s w e r e s e l e c t e d by the r e s e a r c h e r to p r o v i d e v e r b a l r e p o r t s as to h o w they h a n d l e d teachers' feedback. T h ere were three c o u r s e s in c l u d e d in the st u d y at two d i f f e r e n t sites, an E F L i n s t i t u t e a nd a university: an E FL i n s t i t u t e w r i t i n g
course^ a u n i v e r s i t y EFL w r i t i n g c o u r s e , and an a d v a n c e d LI u n i v e r s i t y w r i t i n g course in P o r tuguese. The t e a c h e r in the EFL i n s t i t u t e was not a n a t i v e E n g l i s h speaker, r a t h e r a n a t i v e P o r t u g u e s e speaker, but h a d r e c e i v e d her s c h o o l i n g in E n g l a n d b e f o r e i m m i g r a t i n g to Brazil. B o t h t e a chers of the u n i v e r s i t y c o u rses were n a t i v e P o r t u g u e s e speakers: one taught an a d v a n c e d u n d e r g r a d u a t e c o u r s e in EFL c o m p o s i t i o n a nd the o t h e r taught a f r e s h m a n cou r s e for a d v a n c e d c o m p o s i t i o n in P o r t u g u e s e .
The EFL i n stitute w r i t i n g sample was on the topic "Good Fen c e s M a k e G o o d N e i g hbors" w h i c h wer e m a r k e d for the range a n d a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of vocabulary, sentence a n d p a r a g r a p h structure, c o r r e c t n e s s of grammar, a n d s p e l l i n g a n d
p u n c t u a t i o n . The c o m p o s i t i o n s w e r e not to be m a r k e d for c o n t e n t .
In the u n i v e r s i t y EFL course, the students r e a d a s t ory b y C a r l o s D r u m m o n d de A n d r a d e in E n g l i s h a n d w r o t e a
c o m p o s i t i o n d i s c u s s i n g e i t h e r (1) w h e t h e r the story c o u l d be u n d e r s t o o d or not or (2) w h e t h e r life itself c o u l d be
u n d e r s t o o d or not.
The u n i v e r s i t y LI w r i t i n g sample (in Portuguese) was a c o m p o s i t i o n on the topic "Suicide". The c o m p o s i t i o n was a s s e s s e d p r i m a r i l y for its m e r i t s as an e x a m p l e of
For the EFL inst i t u t e p o r t i o n of the study, the c o m m e n t s that the t e a c h e r made m o s t l y p o i n t e d out p r o b l e m s r a t h e r than p r a i s e d strengths. A l s o the t e a c h e r o n l y dealt w i t h
a p p r o x i m a t e l y half of the issues of form: c o r r e c t n e s s of
grammar, s p e l l i n g and p u nctuation, that c o u l d have b e e n dealt w i t h .
For the u n i v e r s i t y EFL p o r t i o n of the study, s i m ilar to the EFL institute, b o t h the teachers* c o m m e n t s p o i n t e d out d e f i c i e n c i e s e xcept for one w r i t t e n on the h i g h p e r f o r m e r ' s paper: "Very g o o d o r g a n i z a t i o n of ideas". The vast m a j o r i t y of the teachers' co m m e n t s s i mply s i g n a l e d the e x i s t e n c e of a
p r o b l e m w i t h o u t p o i n t i n g out its nature.
F o r the u n i v e r s i t y LI p o r t i o n of the study, si m i l a r fi n d i n g s w e r e reported, that is, m o s t of the teachers*
c o m m e n t s s i m p l y s i g n a l e d the e x i s t e n c e of a p r o b l e m w i t h o u t p o i n t i n g out its nature.
A n o t h e r s tudy that was c o n d u c t e d to i n v e s t i g a t e
teachers* r e s p o n s e s to students c o m p o s i t i o n was done b y Santos (1988). In this study r e s p onses of 96 p r o f e s s o r s in the
h u m a n i t i e s a n d social sciences a n d 82 p r o f e s s o r s in the
p h y s i c a l scie n c e s wer e investigated. The p r o f e s s o r s w e r e a s k e d to rate one of two compositions, one w r i t t e n by a Chi n e s e
student, the o t h e r b y a K o r e a n student, on six 1 0 -point scales, three of w h i c h f o c u s e d on the c o n t e n t (holistic
f o c u s e d on l a nguage (comprehensibility, a c c e p t a b i l i t y a nd i r r i t a t i o n ) . The results of the study were as follows:
(a) c o n t e n t r e c e i v e d l ower r atings than language; (b) p r o f e s s o r s f o und the erro r s h i g h l y c o m p r ehensible,
g e n e r a l l y unirr i t a t i n g , but a c a d e m i c a l l y un a c c e p t a b l e , w i t h lexical erro r s r a t e d as the m o s t serious; (c) p r o f e s s o r s in the h u m a n i t i e s a nd social s c i ences were m o r e lenient, a n d gave h i g h e r ratings, in their j u d g m e n t s than p r o f e s s o r s in the
p h y s i c a l sciences; (d) o l d e r professors, a g e d f r o m 50 to 77, w e r e less i r r i t a t e d by e rrors t h a n y o u n g p r o f e s s o r s , a g e d fr o m 27 to 50.
Robb, Ross a n d S h o r t r e a d in their study (1986) e v a l u a t e d the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t types of feed b a c k on e r r o r in the w r i t t e n w o r k of s e c o n d lang u a g e writers. F o u r types of e r r o r t r e a t m e n t w e r e compared, e a c h of w h i c h p r o v i d e d EFL w r i t e r s w i t h p r o g r e s s i v e l y less salient i n f o r m a t i o n for m a k i n g
r e v i s i o n s in t h e i r c o mpositions. The s u bjects w e r e 134
J a p a n e s e c o l l e g e f r e s h m e n r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d to four sections of E n g l i s h c o m p osition. Students a t t e n d e d a t o tal of 23
c l a s s e s o v e r the a c a d e m i c year, f r o m m i d - A p r i l to m i d - J a n u a r y for a total of 34.5 h ours of c l a s s r o o m instruction. D u r i n g this time t h e y w e r e a s s i g n e d c o m p o s i t i o n s e a c h week. All the c o m p o s i t i o n a s s i g n m e n t s were i dentical for the four sections a n d i n c l u d e d a s e l e c t i o n of expository, n a r r a t i v e a nd
13
r e q u i r e d to revise their w e e k l y e ssays b a s e d on the fe e d b a c k p r o v i d e d b y the instructor. F o r the first group, the l o c a t i o n of the error, the c ontent of the error, for example,
s u b j e c t / v e r b agreement, and the c o r r e c t e d v e r s i o n of the e r r o r w e r e given. For the s e c o n d g r o u p l o c a t i o n of the e r r o r a n d the c o n t e n t of the e r ror w e r e g i v e n but not the c o r r e c t e d version. F o r the third group o n l y the l o c a t i o n of the e r r o r was p r ovided. For the fourth g r o u p o n l y the i n d i c a t i o n that
there w a s an e r r o r or errors w a s p r o v i d e d but n o t h i n g else. The s t udents wrote five n a r r a t i v e test c o m p o s i t i o n s at e q ual i n t e r v a l s d u r i n g the a c a d e m i c year. T h e s e five
c o m p o s i t i o n s w e r e a n a l y z e d a n d g r a d e d u s i n g 1 s u b j e c t i v e a n d 18 o b j e c t i v e m e a s u r e s of w r i t i n g ability, such as the total w o r d s written, a h o l i s t i c r ange of w r i t i n g abilities, a nd a u s a g e c o r r e c t n e s s score (Brodkey & Young, 1981, c i t e d in Robb, Ros s & Shortreed, 1986). The r e s ults of the s t u d y we r e as f o l l o w s :
In general, the more d irect m e t h o d s of f e e d b a c k did not p r o d u c e re s u l t s that w e r e c o m m e n s u r a t e w i t h the amount of e f f o r t r e q u i r e d of the i n s t r u c t o r to d r a w the students' a t t e n t i o n to surface error. R a t h e r p r a c t i c e in w r i t i n g over time r e s u l t e d in g r a dual inc r e a s e s in the m e a n scores of all four groups, w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h the initial p r e t e s t scores, r e g a r d l e s s of the m e t h o d of f e e d b a c k th e y received.
On the f l u e n c y measures, initial d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g the g r o u p s on the first two tests g r a d u a l l y diminished. The
re s u l t s for this m e a s u r e p r o v i d e some c o u n t e r e v i d e n c e to the c l a i m that overt c o r r e c t i o n 'causes* f o r e i g n language w r i t e r s to be o v e r l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h surface s t r u c t u r e to the e x t e n t that f luent w r i t i n g is constrained. On the o t h e r hand, overt c o r r e c t i o n does not se e m to i mprove t h e i r w r i t i n g either.
As seen f r o m these studies, the p r a c t i c e of feed b a c k seems to be r a t h e r diverse, w h a t is f o c u s e d on w h i l e g i v i n g f e e d b a c k a n d the m a n n e r in w h i c h it is g i v e n seems to cha n g e f r o m one t e a c h e r to another.
One of the m a i n co n c e r n s of r e s e a r c h that is r e l a t e d to f e e d b a c k is, w h e t h e r f e e d b a c k is of a n y value. B e l o w are some of the studies w h i c h have d e alt w i t h the v a l u e of feedback.
Va l u e of F e e d b a c k
Zamel (1981) in her study, a f t e r w a r n i n g of the p o s s i b l e n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s of feedback, as s e r t s that f e e d b a c k
f a c i l i t a t e s learners' h y p o t h e s i s t e s t i n g a n d t h eir
i n t e r l a n g u a g e development. P r o p e r f e e d b a c k allo w s l e arners to c o n f i r m a n d d i s c o n f i r m their hypotheses, t h e r e b y a l t e r i n g the t r a n s i t i o n a l rules of t h eir d e v e l o p i n g i n t e r l a n g u a g e grammar.
Brock, Graham, Day, and L o n g (1986) w e r e c a u t i o u s a n d n o n - c o n c l u s i v e about the v a lue of feedback; the y c o u l d not f i n d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n c o r r e c t i v e f e e d b a c k and i m p r o v e m e n t in n o n n a t i v e speakers' i n t e rlanguage. F r o m t h eir
15
i n q u i r y t h e y do not c o n c l u d e that c o r r e c t i v e f e e d b a c k is e i t h e r e f f e c t i v e or ineffective- Dou b t s are u n r e s olved.
Robb/ Ross a nd S h o r t r e e d (1986) q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r h i g h l y d e t a i l e d f e e d b a c k on s e n t e n c e - l e v e l w r i t i n g m e c h a n i c s is w o r t h the instructors' time and energy. T h e y co n c l u d e that w h i l e some focus on f o r m m a y be justified/ the dir e c t c o r r e c t i o n of surface e r r o r s (at the sentence level) is not s u p p o r t a b l e .
B l e y - V r o a n (1989) e x p r e s s e s c a u t i o n o v e r the w o r t h a n d e m p h a s i z e s the limits of e r r o r correction. However/ he also states: "There is a general a g r e e m e n t that n e g a t i v e e v i d e n c e
(e.g./ i n f o r m a t i o n on u n g r a m m a t i c a l i t y ) is at least s o m e t i m e s useful/ a n d sometimes/ t h o u g h not always/ n e c e s s a r y " (p. 48).
L i g h t b o w n a n d Spada (1990) fo u n d that input enhancement/ that iS/ r e c e i v i n g w r i t t e n f e e d b a c k on form/ b o t h p o s i t i v e and negative/ does result in learners' c o n s c i o u s n e s s r a i s i n g a nd g e n u i n e i m p r o v e m e n t in learners' i n t e r l a n g u a g e systems- Still/ th e y c a u t i o u s l y c o n c l u d e that: In p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h w i t h le a r n e r s in these c o m m u n i c a t i v e m e a n i n g - b a s e d programs/ we have o b s e r v e d su b s t a n t i a l g r o w t h in t h e i r lang u a g e d e v e l o p m e n t in the a b s ence of f o r m - f o c u s e d instruction. R e s u l t s f r o m the p r e s e n t st u d y indi c a t e that such lear n e r s c an also
b e n e f i t f r o m input enhancement. Some d i s m i s s the p a p e r - a n d p e n c i l tasks as 'monitored' t a s k s /
a n d thus less i n t e r e s t i n g as an i n d i c a t i o n of e f f e c t s of i n s t r u c t i o n on i n t e r l a n g u a g e
competence. But an oral p e r f o r m a n c e i n f l uence was als o o b s e r v e d on students' in r e l a t i v e l y
s p o n t a n e o u s or 'unmonitored' tasks.
We take these changes in oral p e r f o r m a n c e as e v i d e n c e that input e n h a n c e m e n t c a n b r i n g about g e n u i n e cha n g e s in l e a rners i n t e r l a n g u a g e
systems, (p. 29)
K r a s h e n a nd W h ite (1991) e x a m i n e d s p e c i f i c a l l y
(and exclusively) the e ffects of s p e l l i n g i n s t r u c t i o n on learners' a b i l i t y to spell correctly. W i t h the a i d of m o d e r n q u a n t i t a t i v e analysis, the a u t h o r s r e e x a m i n e d d a t a u s e d in e a r l y studies. T h e i r results s h o w e d that m o s t formal s p e l l i n g i n s t r u c t i o n is p r o b a b l y a w a s t e of time.
A l t h o u g h it is d e b a t a b l e that f e e d b a c k has a ny a ctual value, the m a i n i n c l i n a t i o n seems to be that there is a p o s s i b i l i t y that f e e d b a c k is u s e f u l to the l e a r n e r a nd that the f o r m that it s h o u l d take w i l l be d e c i d e d b y future
r e s e a r c h .
Since it is the students w h o are d i r e c t l y effected, or not, f r o m the f e e d b a c k they receive, r e s e a r c h on students' r e a c t i o n s to f e e d b a c k has also b e e n conducted.
17
Leki (1991) c o n d u c t e d a r e s e a r c h in w h i c h 100 ESL
s t u dents in f r e s h m a n c o m p o s i t i o n cla s s e s e v a l u a t e d w h a t kinds of p a p e r m a r k i n g tec h n i q u e s hel p t h e m the most to improve t h e i r writing, w h i c h kinds of c o r r e c t i o n s they e v e n read, w h i c h c o r r e c t i o n s they feel they r e t a i n best, a n d what
r e a c t i o n s t h e y have to p o s i t i v e a nd n e g a t i v e c o m m e n t s on b o t h f o r m a n d the con t e n t of their writing. The re s u l t s of the p r e l i m i n a r y study suggest that these students e q u a t e g o o d w r i t i n g in E n g l i s h w i t h e r r o r free writing, and, t h e r e f o r e that the y w a n t a n d expect th e i r c o m p o s i t i o n t e a c h e r s to c o r r e c t all e r r o r s in their w r i t t e n work.
F e r r i s (1995) in h e r s tudy h a d 155 s t udents at two
levels of a u n i v e r s i t y ESL p r o g r a m r e s p o n d to a survey. The res u l t s of the s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d that s t u dents p a y mor e
a t t e n t i o n to teachers' f e e d b a c k p r o v i d e d on p r e l i m i n a r y drafts (vs. final drafts) of t heir essays; that the y u t i l i z e a
v a r i e t y of s t r a t e g i e s (such as r e r e a d i n g the e s s a y p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n to teachers' comm e n t s or r e w r i t i n g the p a p e r p a y i n g a t t e n t i o n to teachers' comments) to r e s p o n d to teachers'
comments; that the y a p p r e c i a t e r e c e i v i n g c o m m e n t s of
e n c o u r a g e m e n t ; a n d that, overall, they find teachers' f e e d b a c k u s e f u l in h e l p i n g t h e m to improve t h eir writing.
R e d e c k i a n d Swales in th e i r study (1988) i n v e s t i g a t e d E SL students' p r e f e r e n c e s a n d views on feedback. F i f t y - n i n e
s t u dents in four ESL c lasses wer e s u r v e y e d to l e arn their a t t i t u d e s to w a r d s feedback. Most of the students r e p o r t e d p o s i t i v e or at least neu t r a l r e a c t i o n s u p o n r e c e i v i n g a
h e a v i l y m a r k e d p a p e r w h a t e v e r the n a t u r e of marking. T h e y also felt s a t i s f a c t i o n about the fact that t h eir p a p e r s were
marked. In this study most students e x p r e s s e d ap p r o v a l for m a r k i n g symbols. N e a r l y all the students i n d i c a t e d that they u s u a l l y r e v i e w e d t h eir c o r r e c t e d w o r k o n l y one or two times; i m m e d i a t e l y u p o n r e c e i v i n g it or b e f o r e a tas k or examination.
E n g i n a r l a r (1993) in his s t udy s u r v e y e d the a t t i t u d e s of 47 f r e s h m e n s t u dents at M i d d l e East T e c h n i c a l U n i v e r s i t y in Turkey, to the f e e d b a c k p r o c e d u r e e m p l o y e d b y two E n g l i s h c o m p o s i t i o n instructors. The p r o c e d u r e i n v o l v e d mainly:
(a) i n d i c a t i o n of lingu i s t i c errors w i t h codes, a nd
(b) v a r i o u s types of brief c o m m e n t s to h e l p the students
i m p rove t h e i r drafts. To sur v e y the students* a t t i t u d e s a 20- i t e m q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t i n g of i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c r a t i n g
q u e s t i o n s a n d o p e n - e n d e d items was p r epared. The results of this s u r v e y r e v e a l e d that the st u d e n t s hav e a h i g h l y f a v o r a b l e o p i n i o n of the u t i l i t y and d i d a c t i c v a l u e of f e e d b a c k
p r o c e d u r e s . Students* c o mments al s o r e v e a l e d d i f f e r e n t student o r i e n t a t i o n s to t e a c h e r fe e d b a c k in r e v i s i o n work. Some of the students, for example,
d i d not r e v i e w th e i r f e edback a nd just r e a d it w i t h o u t r e v i s i n g a c c o r d i n g to the fe e d b a c k the y hav e received.
19
NSTs v e rsus N N STs on F e e d b a c k on W r i t i n g
One of the most f r e q u e n t l y r e s e a r c h e d v a r i a b l e s w h e n c o m p a r i n g NSTs a n d NNSTs, is in the are a of w r i t t e n feedback. Do NSTs a n d N N STs d i f f e r in t h eir p r a c t i c e or a t t i t u d e s
t o w ards w r i t t e n feedback? If so, why? B e l o w are some studies r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NSTS a n d N N STs in their
f e e d b a c k on writing.
James (1977) c o n d u c t e d a study c o n c e r n i n g the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NSTs a n d NNSTs* a t t i t u d e s towards learners' w r i t t e n errors. The teac h e r s wer e first a s k e d to find an e r r o r in each of 50 s e n t e n c e s on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and then to indi c a t e h o w serious e a c h e r r o r was on a 5-point scale. A f t e r e v a l u a t i n g scores for the two groups, he r e p o r t e d that N N S T s t e n d e d to be m o r e severe cri t i c s than NSTs b e c a u s e the y gave h i g h e r po i n t v a l u e s for the seri o u s n e s s of e rrors t h a n the NSTs.
A n o t h e r s t udy on the p e r c e p t i o n of erro r s was c o n d u c t e d b y S h e o r e y (1986). NSTs a nd NNSTs f r o m the U n i t e d States and I n dia w e r e investigated. Out of the 97 c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by c o l l e g e - l e v e l students, 20 sente n c e s c o n t a i n i n g eight types of e r r o r w e r e g i v e n to the teachers to evaluate. The results
i n d i c a t e d that N N STs wer e not as lenient as NSTs in t h eir e r r o r judgments, as they c o r r e c t e d m o r e e r rors tha n NSTs.
K o b a y a s h i (1992) in his study i n v e s t i g a t e d h o w E n g l i s h n a t i v e s p e a k e r s (ENSs) and J a p a n e s e n a t i v e speakers (JNSs) at p r o f e s s o r i a l , graduate, and u n d e r g r a d u a t e levels e v a l u a t e and
edit E SL c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n b y J a p a n e s e c o l l e g e students. A total of 269 subjects first e v a l u a t e d two c o m p o s i t i o n s in terms of g r a m m a t i c a l i t y , c l a r i t y of meaning, naturalness, and o r g a n i z a t i o n u s i n g 10-point s c a l e s .
E n g l i s h n ative speakers wer e m o r e strict about
g r a m m a t i c a l i t y than were J a p a n e s e n a t i v e speakers. In terms of c l a r i t y of m e a n i n g and o r g a n i z a t i o n E n g l i s h n a t i v e - s p e a k e r p r o f e s s o r s a n d g r a duate students gave mor e p o s i t i v e
e v a l u a t i o n s for b o t h c o m p o s i t i o n s than did the c o m p a r a b l e J a p a n e s e - s p e a k e r groups. However, the J a p a n e s e u n d e r g r a d u a t e s e v a l u a t e d b o t h c o m p o s i t i o n s m u c h m o r e p o s i t i v e l y than d i d the E n g l i s h u n d e r g r a d u a t e s . C o m p a r i s o n s in terms of n a t u r a l n e s s a c r o s s gro u p s w e r e not g e n e r a l i z a b l e b e c a u s e of w i t h i n - g r o u p d i f f e r e n c e s . The subjects the n e d i t e d the c o mpositions,
c o r r e c t i n g e v e r y t h i n g that s e e m e d u n g r a m m a t i c a l , u n a c c e p t a b l e or unn a t u r a l - ENSs p r o v i d e d far mor e c o r r e c t i o n s and c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s m o r e a c c u r a t e l y than d i d the JNSs. iJNSs left m a n y
e r r o r s u n c o rrected, e s p e c i a l l y e rrors i n v o l v i n g articles, number, prepo s i t i o n s , and lexical items w h i c h o c c u r in
J a p a n e s e as loan words fr o m English. In the p r o f e s s o r i a l and g r a d u a t e - l e v e l LI groups, the h i g h e r the a c a d e m i c status of the e v a l u a t i n g group, the mor e a c c u r a t e l y the g r oup c o r r e c t e d e r r o r s .
The studies d e s c r i b e d in this s e c t i o n i n dicate there is a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NSTs and N NSTs w i t h r e g ards to feed b a c k
on students* writing. But o p i n i o n s v a r y as to what causes these d i f ferences. There are several reasons that m i g h t cause a difference: the s e t t i n g w h e r e the language is used, the culture, a n d the d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l systems a nd b a c k g r o u n d
(Lado, 19 86) .
B e a r (1985) in his study of lang u a g e e d u c a t i o n in T u r k e y i n d i c a t e d that f o r e i g n language t e a c h i n g in T u r k e y c arries e l e m e n t s of the b e h a v i o r i s t i c approach, that NSTs m i ght be less b e h a v i o r i s t i c in their o r i e n t a t i o n than NNSTs, and
s u g g e s t e d that m i g h t be w h y there is a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n NSTs a n d N N STs in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on writing.
N i c k e l (1973) stated that NSTs m a y be m o r e t o l e r a n t of w r i t t e n err o r s t h a n NNSTs b e c a u s e of t h eir b e t t e r
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the target language as such a n d e s p e c i a l l y of the w i d e scope of its norms.
In this st u d y it is thought that such v a r i a b l e s as d i f f e r e n t e d u c a t i o n a l backgrounds, levels of education, and y e a r s of t e a c h i n g experience, m i g h t cause d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NSTs a n d N N STs in t h e i r a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on writing.
W h i l e r e v i e w i n g the literature, I d i d not come across any s t udy that i n v e s t i g a t e d the above v a r i a b l e s w i t h r e g ards to d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NSTs and NN S T s on w r i t t e n feedback. Thus, I was u n a b l e to r e v i e w l i t e r a t u r e that r e l a t e d to above
f e e d b a c k on writing, the study w i l l p r o v i d e an i nsight as to h o w to red u c e these d i f f e r e n c e a n d thus increase c o n s i s t e n c y in f e e d b a c k to L2 students on t h e i r writing.
C H A P T E R 3: M E T H O D O L O G Y
The p u r p o s e of this s tudy was to i n v e s t i g a t e if
a n d h o w NSTs and NNSTs d i f f e r in t heir a t t i t u d e s to f e e d b a c k on w r i t i n g a nd if so, why? The study was c o n d u c t e d by
a n a l y z i n g the answers to a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i s t r i b u t e d to 41 teachers: 20 NSTs and 21 NNSTs. The p u r p o s e was to find if there w e r e any di f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n NSTs and NN S T s in their a t t i t u d e s to fe e d b a c k on w r i t i n g a n d if there were, w h i c h v a r i a b l e s m i g h t be c o n t r i b u t i n g to these d i fferences.
This c h a p t e r includes four sections. In the first
s e c t i o n the subjects are described. The s e c o n d s e c t i o n gives i n f o r m a t i o n about the i n s t r u m e n t that was u s e d in this study. The t h i r d s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s the p r o c e d u r e for the data
coll e c t i o n . Data a n alysis c o m p r i s e s the final section. Su b j e c t s
This s t udy was c a r r i e d out at B i l k e n t U niversity, M i d d l e East T e c h n i c a l u n i v e r s i t y ( M E T U ) , a nd H a c e t t e p e University, in Ankara, Turkey. Bilkent, M E T U and H a c e t t e p e are E n g l i s h - m e d i u m u n i v e r s i t i e s , wh e r e most students a t t e n d an E n g l i s h
p r e p a r a t o r y school in o r der to g a i n e n o u g h p r o f i c i e n c y in E n g l i s h lang u a g e to be able to f o l l o w c o u r s e s in th e i r c h o s e n f a c u l t y .
A l t h o u g h in this s t udy there we r e 41 subjects, all EFL te a c h e r s in Turkey, two of the N N STs were b o r n a nd e d u c a t e d in G e r m a n y a n d c o n s i d e r e d G e r m a n their nati v e language.
Therefore, for ease of analysis, dat a f r o m their
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s we r e not i n c l u d e d in the da t a analysis. T able 1 d i s p l a y s subjects, d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g to t heir status as a NST or NNST. T a ble 1 VR - N N S T s (N=41) Subjects f % NSTs 20 48.8% NNSTs 19 46.3% Other 2 4.9% TOTAL 41 100%
N i n e t e e n of the subjects wer e n a t i v e spea k e r s of T u r k i s h (48.89^), a n d 20 of the subjects w e r e n a t i v e spea k e r s of
E n g l i s h (46.3%). The r e m a i n i n g two subjects i n d i c a t e d their n a t i v e l a n g u a g e as G e r m a n (4.9%).
T a b l e 2 disp l a y s subjects d i v i d e d a c c o r d i n g to their g e n d e r .
Ta b l e 2 G e n d e r (N=41) 25 Gender f % Male 13 31.7% Female 28 68.8% TOTAL 41 100%
T h i r t e e n of the subjects w e r e male (31. 7% ) , a n d 28 w e r e female
(68.3%)-T a b l e 3 di s p l a y s subjects a c c o r d i n g to level of t h eir e d u cation. T a b l e 3. T.evel of F.diication (N=41) Degree f % BA 22 56.3% M A 17 41.5% Ph. D. 2 4.9% TOTAL 41 100%
T w e n t y - t w o of the subjects h a d B.A.s (56.35s).
S e v e n t e e n of the subjects h a d M . A . s (41.55s) a nd the r e m a i n i n g two h a d Ph.D. s, (4.95s) .
T a b l e 4 disp l a y s subjects a c c o r d i n g to the field of t h eir h i g h e s t d egree obtained.
T a b l e 4 F i e l d of H i g h e s t Degree O b t a i n e d (N=41) Field of highest degree obtained f % ELT 22 53.7^ E n g lish literature 12 2 9 .235s Other 7 175s TOTAL 41 1005s
T w e n t y - t w o of the teachers i n d i c a t e d that their h i g h e s t d e g r e e w as o b t a i n e d in the f i eld of ELT ( 5 3 .75s) , 12 of the t e a c h e r s i n d i c a t e d that their h i g h e s t d e g r e e was o b t a i n e d in the f i e l d of E n g l i s h l i t e rature (29.35s). The r e m a i n i n g
t e a c h e r s h a d r e c e i v e d their h i g h e s t d egree in fields o t h e r t h a n E L T or E n g l i s h literature (175s).
T a ble 5 displays subjects a c c o r d i n g to y e a r s of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e . T a ble 5 (N=41) 27 Years of Teaching experience f % 0-3 7 17.5% 4-7 8 19.9% 8-11 13 31.7% 12-15 7 17.5% 16 + 6 14.6% TOTAL 41 100%
Of the 41 subjects, 7 of t h e m i n d i c a t e d that they h a d 0- 3 y e a r s of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (17.5%), 8 of t h e m i n d i c a t e d that t h e y h a d 4-7 years of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (19.9%), 13 i n d i c a t e d that they h a d 8-11 y e a r s of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (31.7%), 7 of t h e m i n dicted that t h e y h a d 12-15 y e ars of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (17.5%) a nd the r e m a i n i n g six i n d i c a t e d that t h e y h a d 16+ years of t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e (14.6%).
M a t e r i a l s
A single q u e s t i o n n a i r e was u s e d to o b t a i n the da t a for this s t udy (see A p p e n d i x A for q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . The
q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of three parts. The first part was u s e d to g a t h e r b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n about the subjects, in o r d e r to a n a l y z e the data l a ter b a s e d on e d u c a t i o n a l
b a c k g round, level of education, a nd y e ars of t e a c h i n g
e x p e r ience. The s econd part of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of a sample s t u d e n t 's composition, to w h i c h t e a c h e r s wer e a s k e d to give feedback; this was u s e d to d e t e r m i n e if NNSTs a n d NSTs w e r e c o n s i s t e n t in their actu a l f e e d b a c k p r a c t i c e w i t h what t h e y rep o r t about h o w they give feedback. The text that I c h o s e i n c l u d e d errors or d e f i c i e n c i e s in all a s p e c t s of
w r i t i n g (see A p p e n d i x B for sample s t u d e n t ' s c o m p o s i t i o n w i t h f e e d b a c k on all aspects of w r i t i n g ) . The t h i r d p a r t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t e d of items w h i c h a s k e d the subjects to b o t h rate a n d rank five a spects of writing: content,
o r g a n i z a t i o n , g r a m m a t i c a l lang u a g e use, v o c a b u l a r y usage, and m e c h a n i c s in terms of their importance. A t t i t u d e to fe e d b a c k on w r i t i n g was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d as p e r c e i v e d o r d e r of
i m p o r t a n c e of these aspects of writing. The r a t ings and
r a n k i n g of these aspects of w r i t i n g a t t e m p t e d to isolate the N S T s a n d NNSTs' a t t itude towards wh a t the y c o n s i d e r e d most
29
i m p o r t a n t in writing, e i t h e r c o n t e n t or g r a m m a t i c a l language use. It was also a s s u m e d that what teachers c o n s i d e r e d
i m p o r t a n t in w r i t i n g w o u l d be r e f l e c t e d in their f e e d b a c k on the student composition. For the r a t ings a L i k e r t - s c a l e was u s e d to score the r e sponses on the questionnaire, w i t h (1) = not at all impor t a n t (2) = a little imp o r t a n t (3) = somewhat i m p o r t a n t (4) = v e r y important. For the r a n k i n g subjects
r a n k e d the as p e c t s of writing, w i t h 1 = most important, and 5 = least important.
The sample student c o m p o s i t i o n in the s e c o n d part of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e came b e fore the r a t i n g a n d r a n k i n g items w h i c h m a d e up the t h i r d part. The r e a s o n for this was that the r e s e a r c h e r d i d not want to give clues as to w h a t he w o u l d be a n a l y z i n g in the sample c o m p o s i t i o n w h i c h he felt m i g h t direct su b j e c t s if th e y h a d b e e n a s k e d to c o m p l e t e the r a t i n g a nd r a n k i n g first.
P r o c e d u r e
B e f o r e a d m i n i s t e r i n g the qfuestionnaire, p i l o t t e s t i n g was c o n d u c t e d u s i n g three i n s t r u c t o r s f r o m B i l k e n t University. One of the i n s t r u c t o r s was f r o m the A m e r i c a n liter a t u r e
department, a n d was an NST. The o t h e r two w e r e f r o m the f r e s h m e n E n g l i s h d e p a r t m e n t and we r e N N S T s . The r e s e a r c h e r e x p l a i n e d that this q u e s t i o n n a i r e was g o i n g to be a d m i n i s t e r e d for his research. W h e n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s we r e completed, the r e s e a r c h e r a n d the pi l o t testers d i s c u s s e d p o s s i b l e p r o b l e m s
r e l a t e d to the cfiiestionnaire. The p i l o t testers s u g g e s t e d some m o d i f i c a t i o n s r e l a t e d to m a k i n g the i n s t r u c t i o n s c l e a r e r and c h a n g i n g the r e sponses for r a t i n g a n d r a n k i n g f r o m n e g a t i v e to p o s i t i v e wording. These changes w e r e i n c o r p o r a t e d into a
r e v i s i o n of the questionnaire.
A f t e r the n e c e s s a r y c h a nges w e r e made, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d to the actual subjects, NSTs a nd N N S T s .
S u b j e c t s w e r e 10 teachers fr o m H a c e t t e p e U n i versity, 9 fr o m B i l k e n t U n i v e r s i t y and 22 fr o m M i d d l e East T e c h n i c a l
Univ e r s i t y . B e f o r e subjects w e r e a s k e d to fill in the
ques t i o n n a i r e , r e s e a r c h e r e m p h a s i z e d that p a r t i c i p a n t s ' names w o u l d be kept confidential. In o r d e r to p r e v e n t bias in the subjects' responses, the r e s e a r c h e r d i d not tell the subjects that he w o u l d be a n a l y z i n g w r i t i n g f e e d b a c k a n d t h eir
a t t i t u d e s towards w r i t i n g feedback. A f t e r subje c t s showed
c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the instructions, v e r b a l l y e x p l a i n e d by the researcher, the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e a d m i nistered.
Data A n a l y s i s P r o c e d u r e
F or the data analysis, dat a g a t h e r e d t h r o u g h the q u e s t i o n n a i r e wer e a n a l y z e d b y e m p l o y i n g d e s c r i p t i v e
s t a t i s t i c s of frequencies, perc e n t a g e s , means, and st a n d a r d devi a t i o n s . These statistics f o r m e d the b a s e l i n e data for the c o m p a r i s o n of NSTs and NNSTs f r o m t h e i r r a n k i n g a nd r a t i n g of a s p e c t s of writing. The means of the two g r oups wer e a n a l y z e d u s i n g i n d e p e n d e n t sample T - t ests and M a n n - W h i t n e y U - W i l c o x o n
