Content uploaded by Claudia Keh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Claudia Keh on Apr 13, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation
Abstract
This paper is written for any teacher who has tried or uses the 'process approach' to writing, and for any teacher who knows of the approach in theory only, not from practice. The emphasis of the paper is one feedback in the writing process, as feedback is the drive which steers the writer through the process of writing on to the product. Specifically, three types of options for feedback are described and discussed. These are peer feedback, conferencing, and written comments.
... Entendemos que, de fato, o feedback pode ser um instrumento de grande auxílio no processo da (re)escrita, haja vista poder levar o aluno-redator a detectar falhas na sua composição e, assim, ficar sabendo onde confundiu o leitor, aperfeiçoando, cada vez mais, o seu texto. Essas falhas podem ser por falta ou por excesso de informação, por falta de desenvolvimento de uma ideia, organização ilógica, bem como por escolha inapropriada de palavra ou de tempo verbal (KEH, 1990 Podemos dizer que o feedback, uma vez que é um elemento bastante utilizado (DELLAGNELO, 2000), já faz parte do processo do ensino da escrita. Os alunos-redatores parecem reconhecer a necessidade de receber uma correção do professor perante sua composição. ...
... Além disso, uma vez que o professor não proporciona atividades de revisão de textos, a prática do feedback, tido como instrumento essencial do processo da escrita(KEH, 1990; DELAGNELO, 2000;BATTISTELLA;LIMA, 2015), é reduzida. Obviamente, é possível dar um bom feedback na abordagem do produto, como também os alunos não estão impedidos de revisar suas composições. ...
A prática do "feedback" no ensino da escrita em inglês tem sido largamente influenciada pela abordagem do processo. No entanto, é necessário investigar se os professores de línguas têm reconhecido a influência do "feedback" para o ensino da escrita. Este artigo tem como objetivo verificar a prática do "feedback" no processo do ensino da escrita, no contexto universitário, tanto na perspectiva do professor quanto do aluno. Caracteriza-se por ser um estudo de cunho qualitativo e de base descritiva e interpretativista, tendo como paradigma os limites da Linguística Aplicada. Os participantes desta pesquisa foram três professores universitários de escrita pertencentes a duas universidades públicas e cinco alunos de cada professor. A coleta de dados consistiu de aplicação de dois questionários, de entrevista e de observações. Fundamentam este trabalho autores como: Dellagnelo (2000), Peñaflorida (2002), Battistella e Lima (2015). Os resultados mostraram que a abordagem do processo está presente significativamente nas aulas de produção textual, que o "feedback" dos comentários escritos é a estratégia mais utilizada pelos professores e que a correção acompanhada de comentários na margem da folha é o procedimento de correção mais usado pelos professores de escrita. A análise dos dados ainda sugere que a ênfase do "feedback" recai tanto nos aspectos do conteúdo como nos aspectos da gramática. De um modo geral, esta investigação revela que os professores participantes reconhecem a importância do "feedback" para o ensino da escrita e que estão extrapolando os limites dos aspectos gramaticais de ensino, valorizando também os aspectos de conteúdo.
... To overcome this problem, of course, learners will need a stage of improving writing based on the feedback provided by the teacher. Feedback is a basic element in writing which can be defined as input from the reader to the writer who provides information related to revision (Keh, 1990). However, providing feedback in the assessment process is often not possible for learners to do due to limited time (Barrot, 2021). ...
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of using corrective feedback from Grammarly combined with noticing activities to evaluate students' academic writing. A quantitative method with a quasi-experimental method design was used to analyze the academic writing of fourth-semester students majoring in English Education at a private university in Sidoarjo. The results of this study are that the experimental class has a higher average value than the control class. This is in line with the significant reduction in grammatical errors in students' academic writing in the experimental class. This proves that using corrective feedback from Grammarly combined with noticing activities successfully reduces grammatical errors in students' academic writing.
... Lalande (1982) defines CF as "any procedure used to inform a learner whether an instructional response is right or wrong." Keh (1990) regarded CF as a fundamental element of a process approach to writing and defined it as input given to the writer from the reader with the effect of providing information for the writer for revision. In 2007, Ellis provided a further and more precise definition of CF as the responses to learner utterance which contains an error. ...
This study investigates the impact of focused direct written corrective feedback on learners’ written compositions within a theoretical framework. Emphasizing clarity, conciseness, and specificity in feedback provision is found to enhance writing accuracy and fluency significantly. The benefits of such feedback extend beyond specific tasks, facilitating skills transfer to diverse writing contexts and contributing to academic success. Future research should examine the effects of feedback types on writing proficiency, their sustainability, and interactions with other variables. Educators should aim to deliver timely, comprehensive feedback, integrate self-assessment practices, and leverage technology to establish an empowering feedback culture for students. In conclusion, focused direct written corrective feedback proves to be a crucial tool for educators in fostering writing skills among learners. With ongoing exploration and innovation, this approach promises to produce more skilled and confident writers in the future.
... The purpose of feedback is to correct learners' mistakes and improving their understanding,fluency,and accuracy in language learning. Keh(1990) deemed that feedback can be defined as input to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision. There are three areas of feedback as revision in writing were also summarized,which includes peer feedback, conferences as feedback, and teachers' corrective feedback. ...
This paper examines the various methods and strategies for correcting written errors in English writing, focusing on techniques that can be effectively implemented by both teachers and learners. The study aims to provide practical guidance on how to address different types of errors and enhance the quality of learners’ writing.
... As students elaborated in interviews, PeerMark questions "reminded them of the important aspects of PFTs" (such as content and structure), while the commenting tool "drew their attention to smaller areas" (like vocabulary and grammar). Thus, these features facilitated comprehensive feedback on both global and local areas (Li & Li, 2018), countering the tendency to solely focus on surface-level errors (Keh, 1990). This indicates higher quality of peer feedback, leading to higher successful revision rate in PFT 6 and suggesting greater improvement in revision quality (Noroozi et al., 2016). ...
In the context of process-oriented writing instruction, the significance of engaging students in draft revision is widely acknowledged (McGarrell and Verbeem, ELT Journal 61:228–236, 2007). Nevertheless, L2 learners often exhibit limited motivation for writing, leading to inadequate revision efforts. This quasi-experimental study investigates the use and efficacy of technology-enhanced peer feedback workshops (PFWs) in comparison to traditional teacher oral feedback (TOF) in promoting student motivation for draft revision and revision quality. Over a 10-week academic English course, 18 EFL business freshmen received TOF for 3 writing tasks while they participated in PFWs facilitated by PeerMark for another 3 writing tasks in the first and second halves of the term respectively. Analysis of survey responses, interviews, peer feedback, students’ written works, and the teacher’s field notes reveals that PeerMark-based PFWs were well-received by students and had a positive impact on their motivation for draft revision and revision quality. Implications for pedagogical practices are discussed.
... They discovered that, throughout the writing process, the teachers tend to give only a little feedback on global issues like organization of the writing while paying more attention to local issues like grammar and mechanics. Keh (1990) pointed out that teacher-written feedback, which was often short, could cause problems in terms of not providing enough feedback to the students to revise their writing. On the contrary, as shown in Table 02, the outcomes of the present study showed that 50% of the total respondents strongly agreed that video feedback helped them to elaborate their writings while the rest of the 50% agreed with this notion, although not strongly like others. ...
Feedback given by teachers to students is one of the most productive ways of improving the performance of learners, including the learners who use English as a Second Language (ESL). However, there has been a continuing dispute over the efficiency of different feedback methods. Even though the written form of feedback is the most frequently used method of feedback used by teachers, studies have found that it has several disadvantages. This study investigated the efficiency of video feedback as a teacher feedback method during the development of paragraph writing skills of ESL learners. The study explored whether students who received video feedback reported a higher level of accuracy/ correctness in their written work when compared to those who received written feedback. It also investigated ESL learners' perceptions towards video feedback and whether video feedback could be used as an alternative to written feedback. The sample comprised 20 undergraduates enrolled in the Industrial Management degree program at the University of Kelaniya. Over a five-week period, a test group was provided with video feedback while a control group was provided with written feedback. In addition to a comparative analysis of the accuracy of paragraph writing, a questionnaire was given to the test group at the end of the study to study their perception on video feedback. The quantitative and qualitative data collected were analyzed using SPSS statistics and thematic analysis, respectively. The findings revealed that video feedback facilitated a higher level of accuracy in the paragraphs written by those who received video feedback from teachers. The study verified that video feedback is a method preferred by and convenient for learners. It helped them to interact easily with teachers and to revise the paragraphs they were writing. The findings showed that video feedback could be used as an alternative to written form of feedback.
... Different meanings are given to this term; Kepner (1991), for instance, defines corrective feedback as a method used to inform students whether the response to instructions is right or wrong. Keh (1990) also defines it as "the input from the reader to the author which results in giving the author information to review" (p. 294). ...
The current study aimed to assess the effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) on Iranian EFL learners' writing at the macro (i.e., rhetorical organization, task response, cohesion, and coherence) and micro levels (i.e., lexical resource, punctuation, grammatical range, and accuracy) with a dynamic assessment approach in focus. To this end, the Oxford Quick Placement Test was run on 150 male and female Iranian EFL learners, of whom 80 homogeneous intermediate learners were designated and allotted to an experimental group and a control group. The two groups received WCF in the sense that the teacher provided symbols such as WW for 'wrong word', SP for 'spelling', T for 'tense', WO for 'word order', etc. while marking their written productions. The difference was that the experimental group experienced a dynamic assessment of L2 writing during the term (in which the teacher taught and tested the learners in an ongoing fashion and provided prompts, hints, support, and encouragement every session), whereas the participants in the control group experienced a conventional class, devoid of an ongoing dynamic assessment component. At the culmination of the treatment, the collected data were statistically analyzed. The results exhibited that although the experimental group meaningfully outpaced the control group regarding the micro-levels of writing, no substantial difference was detected between the macro levels of writing in both groups. Thus, it was concluded that written corrective feedback and the dynamic assessment can significantly improve the writing of the students at micro-levels. This study has some implications for the teachers working on writing in ELT classes.
This research focuses on the effectiveness of using an indirect corrective feedback strategy on students’ writing skills of recount text to provide an alternative and effective way to complete their work in writing, especially in writing recount text. The researcher uses a quasi-experimental design by Collecting data using a test, and each class is given a pre-test before treatment and a post-test after treatment. It indicates that the treatment was successful. Independent T-test calculation researcher. T-test was calculated to compare the two means between the experimental and control groups. The table above shows that the value of sig (2-tailed) is 0.000 at the critical value for the 5% level. The significance value is less than 5% or (0.000 <0.05). So, the null hypothesis can be rejected. It can be concluded that the study’s indirect corrective feedback strategy is effective
Due to their efficiency, stability, and enhanced language comprehension and analysis capabilities, generative AIs have attracted increasing attention in the field of writing as higher-level automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback tools. However, few studies have examined the impact of pre-service teachers using generative AI in combination with their own teaching experience to provide feedback on Chinese writing. To fill this gap, based on 1035 writing feedback texts, we examined the differences in writing feedback between 11 pre-service teachers and Erine Bot (a generative AI) and interviewed the pre-service teachers about their willingness to cooperate with generative AI. The collaborative writing feedback generated by the pre-service teachers using AI was compared with the feedback generated by the pre-service teachers and generative AI separately. We identified that, although Ernie Bot provided significantly better feedback than the pre-service teachers in three specific areas (except for language expression), and both Ernie Bot and the pre-service teachers had respective advantages in terms of writing strategy, human–computer cooperative writing feedback was significantly better than the writing feedback provided by either Ernie Bot or the pre-service teachers alone. The was true across all aspects of the feedback in terms of focus and strategy. These findings can support the training of pre-service teachers and improve the writing quality of their students via implementing AI to provide more effective writing feedback.
Self-Regulated Strategy of Development (SRSD) is an intervention designed to improve students' academic skills through a six-step process that teaches students specific academic strategies and self-regulation skills (mention them here). When it comes to writing, self-regulation allows students to manage tasks and monitor progress (also called self-monitoring), among other key skills. There are many ways to use strategy instruction to help students improve their writing skills in English.
The study reported in this article investigated the reactions of 178 professors to two 400-word compositions, one written by a Chinese student and the other by a Korean student. The professors, 96 of whom were in the humanities/social sciences and 82 of whom were in the physical sciences, were each asked to rate one of the two compositions on six 10-point scales, three of which focused on content (holistic impression, development, and sophistication) and three of which focused on language (comprehensibility, acceptability, and irritation). The results were as follows: (a) Content received lower ratings than language; (b) professors found the errors highly comprehensible, generally unirritating, but academically unacceptable, with lexical errors rated as the most serious;(c) professors in the humanities/social sciences were more lenient in their judgments than professors in the physical sciences; (d) older professors were less irritated by errors than younger professors, and nonnative-speaking professors were more severe in their judgments than native speakers. The results suggest the need for greater emphasis on vocabulary improvement and lexical selection.
The abstract for this document is available on CSA Illumina.To view the Abstract, click the Abstract button above the document title.