21

The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Teachers Feedback Practices in Second Language Academic Writing Classrooms Carlo Magno

De La Salle University, Manila

Arceli M. Amarles

Philippine Normal University, Manila

Abstract
This study provides support for the hypothesized factors of feedback practices (feedback on form, content, and writing style) employed by writing teachers in second language academic writing classes. Participants were 380 college students in a university in the Philippines who were enrolled in English academic writing classes. A 30-item questionnaire containing teachers feedback practices were administered among students. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis, the three categories of feedback employed by writing teachers in academic writing classes were supported ( =1409.49, df=402, /df=3.5, RMR=.05, GFI=.96, CFA=.92, RMSEA=.08). Results further showed convergence of the three factors. The actual measure of feedback attained precision where the TIF curve covers 95% of the distribution. Pedagogical implications on the use and types of feedbacks employed in the language classrooms were discussed in this paper.
2 2

Keywords: feedback practices in writing, feedback on form, content, writing style,

assessment of writing

Feedback plays a central role in developing writing proficiency among second language learners. This is especially true for academic writing in the Philippine setting since the goal of writing instruction in this course is to teach both the conventions of writing in a particular academic context as well as the grammatical forms needed to perform writing tasks. In this regard, Filipino students strive hard to meet the writing demands of the course and the preferences of their writing teachers. Feedback as viewed by Furnborough and Truman (2009) entails the existence of gaps between what has been learned and the target competence of the learners, and the efforts undertaken to bridge these gaps. This feedback is provided to ask for further information, to give directions, suggestions, or requests for revision, to give students new information that will help them revise, and to give positive feedback about what the students have done well (Ferris, 1997). Feedback also comes in various linguistic forms, may be in questions, statements, imperatives, or exclamations, and comments can be softened through the use of a variety of hedging devices (Ferris, 1997). Since teacher responses to student writing are expected to help students develop their ideas fully and present them effectively, feedback needs to cover all aspects of students written texts, including issues of content, organization, style, grammar, and mechanics (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1997; Hedgcock & Leftkowitz, 1994).

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

22
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Forms of Feedback in Writing Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) found significant variation in the teachers commentary across different essay assignments given to students with different proficiency levels. They conclude that teachers feedback goes beyond whether a teacher responds to content or form, instead the substance and form of teacher responses vary significantly depending upon the genre of writing being considered and the abilities and personality of individual students. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) pose that teachers and students need to work more on establishing agreement between their separate agenda for feedback and on expanding the repertoire of strategies learners need to employ for maximum benefit from the feedback provided. Fathman and Whalley (1990) further reiterate that revision in and of itself has a positive effect on the quality and accuracy of the students written output. Findings of these studies offer help to writing teachers in making informed choices in providing feedback to learners. Treglias study (2009) posits that students understood and were able to address corrections whether feedback is indirect/hedged or direct, assuring writing teachers that mitigating their comments will not affect the clarity of its intent. In a similar study, Treglia (2008, p. 39) claims that mitigation serves as a face-saving technique and a tool to motivate and engage students actively in the revision process. Findings dispute earlier studies of Hyland and Hyland (2001) which recognize the role of mitigation as a source of misunderstanding between L2 learners and their writing teachers, and that the students responding favorably to mitigation show proof of the students advanced English-language proficiency and their awareness of the use of mitigation as a form of politeness (Ferris, 1997). Lee (2009) reveals a number of mismatches between teachers beliefs and practice in written feedback, namely, (1) teachers pay most attention to language form but they believe theres more to good writing than accuracy, (2) teachers mark errors comprehensively although selective marking is preferred, (3) teachers tend to correct and locate errors for students but believe that through teacher feedback students learn to correct and locate their own errors, (4) teachers use error codes although they think students have a limited ability to decipher the codes, (5) teachers award scores/grades to student writing although they are almost certain that marks/grades draw student attention away from teacher feedback, (6) teachers respond mainly to weakness in student writing although they know that feedback should cover both strengths and weaknesses, (7) teachers written feedback practice allows students little room to take control although teachers think students learn to take greater responsibility for learning, (8) teachers ask students to do one-shot writing although they think process writing is beneficial, (9) teachers continue to focus on student written errors although they know that mistakes will recur, and (10) teachers continue to mark student writing in the ways they do although they think their effort does not pay off. In an earlier investigation made by Lee (2004), results show that teachers and students preferred comprehensive error feedback, and that the students were reliant on teachers in error correction.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

23
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Benefits of Feedback Bitchener, Young, and Camerons (2005, p. 313) investigation reveals that direct oral feedback in combination with direct written feedback did not only have a greater effect than direct written feedback alone on improved accuracy over time, but it also found that the combined feedback option facilitated improvement in the more treatable rule-governed features (past simple tense and definite article) than in the less treatable feature (prepositions). Moreover, they believe that upper intermediate L2 writers can improve the accuracy of their use of rule-governed linguistic features if they are regularly exposed to oral and written corrective feedback. Bitchener and Knochs (2008) query on the extent to which different written corrective feedback options (direct corrective feedback, written and oral metalinguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; no corrective feedback) improve students accuracy in the use of two functional uses of the English article system. The study shows that (1) students who received all three written corrective feedback options outperformed those who did not receive written feedback, (2) students level of accuracy was retained over seven weeks, and (3) there was no difference in the extent to which migrant and international students improved the accuracy of their writing as a result of written corrective feedback. The Present Study Related literature and studies posed that teachers feedback practices are not just dictated by the perceived difficulties or needs of the students in their writing classes but also by the existing external factors such as teachers beliefs on feedback, cultural, and institutional contexts, among others. This study, in particular, considers the demands and conventions of academic writing in the way teachers provide feedback to the students written output. Given this phenomenon, this study asserts for the provision of the three types of feedback on students written output in their academic writing classes, namely, focus on form, focus on content, and focus on the writing style of the individual students. Since academic writing has its own genre, it is deemed necessary to include writing style as one of the criteria in providing feedback. Feedback on form is consist of the marks used by the teacher to correct error on grammatical features, capitalizations, punctuations, tenses, and other surface structures (McNamara, Crossley, & McCarthy, 2010). Feedback on content involves comments on the organization of the idea in the composition. It includes the sufficient thoughts contained in the composition such as providing main and supporting ideas, noting details, and length of the paper (Bartlett, 2007). Lastly, feedback on writing style involves assessment of the use of language, persuasion, originality, and creativity (Thais & Zawacki, 2006). These three forms of feedback such as focus on form, content, and writing style need to be assessed. (1) Assessment of feedback genres is important to determine if feedback is properly implemented in a writing class. Proper
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

24
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

implementation considers the type of students, approach of teachers, and general culture of the institution on assessment. (2) Assessment of feedback is useful as a mechanism of improving the writing composition of students. This aspect involves using assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning where assessment plays a central role for learning to write. (3) Assessment of feedback serves as a way to monitor the quality of written composition produced by students. The main end of assessment is to improve students learning. This outcome should be the main end of the assessment procedure done in writing classes. Effective outcome is attained if the process of writing is monitored (Magno, in press). The present study provides evidence of the three genre structure of feedback in English academic writing using a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The internal consistency and convergence of the three genres was also determined. The use of the factor analysis is a way of providing evidence of typologies and categories of constructs such as feedback in writing. In order to subject the genres into the factor analysis, the specific forms of feedback needs to be quantified though assessment. In line with this, a questionnaire was constructed under the three genres of feedback, form, content, and writing style. Method Participants The participants in the study were 380 Filipino college students who are enrolled in English Academic Writing classes in a university in Manila, Philippines. These students are taking a course in teacher education with ages of 16-18 years. The students use English as their second language, where it is used in the home and conversation with others. The medium of instruction in the Philippine Higher education is English and almost all references used are written in English. Instrument The present study constructed a 30-item questionnaire that students used in assessing the degree of feedback that their teachers use in an English writing class. The items are based on the common practices that teachers focus on when giving feedback on their students composition writing. The items are categorized into three major focus: Feedback on form (20 items), content (8 items), and writing style (7 items). Example of item for feedback on form is the teacher indicates (underlines/encircles) errors, corrects them and categorizes them with the help of a marking code. For content, the teacher emphasizes the topic sentence in each paragraph, the teacher emphasizes organization of ideas. For writing style the teacher emphasizes on originality and imagination. The items were reviewed by two English faculties who are also teaching English academic writing. The internal consistency, factorial and convergent validity of the genres of feedback was determined.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

25
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Procedure The 30-item questionnaire was administered to the participants enrolled in English academic writing classes to determine their views on how their English teachers marked their compositions. Before selecting the classes, the teachers of the English writing classes were asked if their students have already started writing academic papers and if they have received feedback. This was ensured in order for students to appropriately answer the 30 item questionnaire. The students were first given the purpose of the study. They were asked if they are willing to give time and participate by answering the 30 items questionnaire. Once they agreed, they were given instruction how to accomplish the form. It took the participants 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Results The descriptive statistics were derived by obtaining means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals. The internal consistency of the items for each category was also determined using Cronbachs alpha. The three genre of feedback were intercorrelated to assess its convergence. The three-factor structure of the feedback genre was further assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To determine the precision of the questionnaire a Test Information Function (TIF) was produced using a Graded Response IRT model. Table 1

Means, Standard Deviation, Confidence Interval, and Cronbachs alpha of the Forms of Feedback
(1) --.56** .57** 2.97 0.42 380 [2.93, 3.01] .79 (2) --.75** 3.34 0.46 380 [3.29, 3.38] .78 (3)

1 2 3

Form Content Writing style

M SD N
95% CI Cronbachs alpha **p<.01

--3.26 0.52 380 [3.21, 3.32] .83

The scores of the participants are within the middle region for the feedback on form (M=2.97, SD=0.42). The mean values are above the middle range for feedback on content (M=3.34, SD=0.46) and writing style (M=3.26, SD=0.52) with high variability. Accuracy was also obtained because there is a small range within the confidence interval at 95%.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

26
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Acceptable internal consistencies were also obtained for each of the genres of the feedback with high Cronbachs alpha values (.79, .78, and, .82). There is a remarkable internal consistency in the responses of students for the feedback focused on writing style. Convergence of the three genres was also attained by obtaining significant intercorrelations among feedback on content, form, and writing style. An increase in one type of feedback likely increases the use of other feedback. This shows that each type of feedback goes along with each other. The factorial structure of the three genres of feedback is tested using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The CFA is used because there is a developed and specific hypothesis about the factorial structure of the forms of feedback. The structure proposed consists of the forms of feedback in academic writing that comprise three factors: Feedback on form, content, and writing style. The CFA is conducted in order to determine the degree to which the solution fit the data would provide evidence for or against the three factors of feedback in academic writing.

Figure 1. CFA of the Feedback for Writing

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

27
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

The results of the CFA showed that all 30 items are significant (p < .001) for each of their category. This shows that the items are good estimates under their type of feedback. The intercorrelations of the three factors (form, content, and writing style) are also significant which achieved convergence. This result was consistent with the bivariate correlation conducted in the descriptive analysis. The three-factor structure of the feedback for academic writing was proven where the model attained an adequate fit. The goodness of fit indices obtained were 2=1409.49, df=402, 2/df=3.5, RMR=.05, GFI=.96, CFA=.92, RMSEA=.08. The goodness of fit attained means that there is a fit between the three-factor structure of feedback with the observed data under constraint. To further support the items evidence of validity in the study, a graded response IRT model was conducted. The person reliability obtained was .88 with a separation value of 2.68 and the item reliability obtained is .99 with a separation value of 9.55. High reliability estimates were obtained and the high separation values indicate that the items are composed of factors. The Test Information function (TIF) was estimated and results showed that the measurement of the 30 items for feedback attained precision because the curve covers 95% of the distribution.

Figure 2. Test Information Function

Discussion The present study proposed three focus of feedback on students academic writing: Feedback on form, content, and writing style. A questionnaire was developed to assess specific manifestations of these factors. The questionnaire was able to satisfactorily address reliability by having high internal consistency as well as validity by the convergence of factors, support for its factor structure, and precision of the measurement tool. Results of this study give second language writing teachers valuable information as to the various dimensions of feedback as a pedagogical tool, from
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

28
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

the perspective of both the teachers and the students. Different feedback practices employed by writing teachers in L2 classrooms provide a clearer picture of not only what feedback is used for but also how it is administered by the teachers and how it is perceived by the students. Most commonly feedback is conducted on the part of the teacher and students do not have a stake on how feedback is done. Having a questionnaire that assesses the quality of feedback allows students to (1) become aware of the specific feedback mechanism used by their teachers and (2) teachers can monitor how students rate their feedback quality. On the first account of assessing feedback, students develop a metacognitive awareness of different ways of doing feedback on their written output. The items specifically points to specific ways of conducting feedback in the three areas of form, content, and writing style. Having such awareness creates standards on how they will further improve their written output. On the second account, teachers can monitor consistently haw they deliver their feedback based on the students rating. The idea of assessing an assessment procedure or meta-assessment (i. e., metaevaluation) expands the current literature of giving feedback on academic writing. Assessing how assessment is conducted such as feedback in academic writing maintains the utility, accuracy, feasibility, and propriety of the assessment. The means (M=3.34) indicate that majority of the feedback is given in terms of content and a little low for form (M=2.97). However, feedback on content is also strongly related to the two other forms of feedback. This indicates the emphasis on the generation of students content-knowledge which provides the substance of the corpus they are writing about. The results of this study indicated that writing teachers also looked into the technical aspects of written compositions of L2 students which refer to form. This is explained by the fact that writing teachers looks for the accuracy in students written output in terms of the choice of language to be used in expressing ideas. This also includes the employment of discipline in writing as shown by the proper acknowledgement of experts contribution in the field being undertaken (writing style). Further, the emphasis on content or style might be brought by the writing demands of the academic contexts which are expected to be developed in Academic Writing classes. On the other hand, the focus on form affirms that writing teachers also give importance to the grammatical correctness of the written outputs. The findings of the CFA explain the fact that writing teachers use different strategies in providing feedback. It showed that the type of feedback is determined by the purpose and the context that shapes this feedback by having conformed that feedback is multidimensional (composed of several factors). These findings contribute to present findings about providing feedback. Previous studies (e. g., Treglia, 2008, 2009) have developed ways how beneficial feedback is but the present study forwards theory by proving a new typology for determining how feedback is conducted. Clearly, no matter what the purpose of feedback is, it is worth noting that students must understand the feedback and be capable of doing something with it. Teachers must also be consistent with their feedback and adapt it to their students language needs and their ability to self-correct. The findings are reminders that

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

29
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

students expect feedback from their teachers and generally feel that feedback helps them. Insights on feedback can be generated based on the findings. First, feedback does not occur in a vacuum but within a hierarchy of interrelating subsystems (Lee, 2004). The overall context of work, teachers beliefs and educational background determine the types of feedback employed by teachers in their writing classrooms. Pedagogical implications can be seen from this claim. Teachers should be involved in the process of change by engaging themselves in seminars where they critique institutional policies regarding feedback. Further, teachers should also be encouraged to conduct classroom research to find out the effects of their feedback practices and how students perceive these feedback strategies. In doing so, the types of feedback provided by the teachers are those that are found to be effective for the students. Thus, feedback aligns with the writing needs of the students. Should teachers keep on providing corrective feedback to the written outputs of their students? By all means, they should! The success or failure of corrective feedback depends on the types of error committed by the students, kinds of writing they are asked to perform, and students proficiency level, among others. These being the case, appropriate feedback is a must - given at the right time and in the proper context. Another contribution the study provides is the method of assessing feedback from students perception. Feedback is commonly done by teachers and it is assessed as part of their performance appraisals from a rater. The use of the questionnaire and rating coming from the students provides an immediate monitoring scheme for the teachers if feedback is done properly. The three factors evidenced in the study provide a framework in categorizing types of feedback. Different authors in academic writing references provide different perspectives on the types of feedback given for academic compositions. But the present study was able to provide a nomenclature on three general aspects of providing feedback useful for establishing and extending further models that involve feedback in writing as a construct. References Bartlett, E. J. (2007). Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students, Language Teaching Research, 12, 409431. Bitchener. J., Young, S., & Cameron, J. ( 2005 ). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing research: Insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). New York: Cambridge University Press.

2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734

30
The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment January 2011, Vol. 6(2)

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision, TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-319. Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182. Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback, Distance Education, 30, 399418. Hedgcock, J., & Leftkowiz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in second language composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: the case of Hongkong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312. Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers beliefs and written feedback practices. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22. Magno, C. (2009). A metaevaluation study on the assessment of teacher performance in an assessment center in the Philippines. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 3, 75-93. Magno, C. (in press). Learning to write. In N. Seel & D. Quinones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of learning sciences. New York: Springer. McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86. Thais, C., & Zawacki, T. M., (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life. Portsmounth: Boynton/Cook Pub. Treglia, M. (2008). Feedback on feedback: exploring student responses to teachers written commentary. Journal of Basic Writing, 27, 34-46. Treglia, M. (2009). Teacher-written commentary in college writing composition: how does it impact student revisions? Composition Studies, 37, 67-86. About the authors Dr. Carlo Magno is presently a faculty of the counseling and educational psychology department of De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. Majority of his research is focused on the assessment of student learning. Correspondence can be addressed to him at crlmgn@yahoo.com. Ms. Arceli Amarles is presently a faculty of the Philippine Normal University. She is currently taking her PhD. in English and Applied Linguistics at De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines.
2011 Time Taylor Academic Journals ISSN 2094-0734