Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong …aflwrite/article/Student reactions to...

Student reactions to teacher feedback in two

Hong Kong secondary classrooms

Icy Lee *

Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Faculty of Education, The Chinese

University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong, China

Abstract

This study investigates the reactions of students in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms to their

teachers’ feedback, focusing particularly on the factors that might have influenced their reactions. Student

data from questionnaires, checklists and protocols were triangulated with teacher data from interviews,

classroom observations and feedback analysis to situate student reactions in their specific contexts. The

results show that students, irrespective of proficiency level, wanted more written comments from teachers.

The students of lower proficiency were less interested in error feedback than those of higher proficiency,

though both groups preferred more explicit error feedback from teachers. Students did not understand all of

the teacher feedback, which could be due to its illegibility, apart from other plausible factors not explored in

the study. The results suggest that the teachers’ feedback, which was mostly teacher-centred, made students

passive and dependent on teachers. The paper concludes that it is important for teachers to be aware of the

impact of their feedback practices on student expectations and attitudes, which should be fed back to

teachers to help them develop reflective and effective feedback practices.

# 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Teacher feedback; Student reactions; L2 writing

Introduction

Despite the important role students play in the feedback process, much of the feedback

research has put teachers at the centre of the stage, focusing on the strategies teachers use in

giving feedback, their stances and perspectives, and the impact of teacher feedback on student

writing (e.g., Ferris, 1997; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Stern &

Solomon, 2006). Students tend to be viewed as mere recipients—when in fact they can be and

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 144–164

* Tel.: +852 2609 6940; fax: +852 2603 6129.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001

should be active and proactive agents in the feedback process (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a).

Without understanding how students feel about and respond to teacher feedback, teachers may

run the risk of continually using strategies that are counter-productive. As teachers give feedback

on student writing, it is crucial that student responses to the feedback are fed back to teachers as a

heuristic to help them develop reflective and effective feedback practices.

Research on the student perspective on feedback only began to develop in the 1990s (e.g., Cohen,

1987; Diab, 2005; Eginarlar, 1993; Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Leki, 1991).

Most of the research has focused on student preferences and expectations based on one-off

questionnaire surveys (e.g., Cohen, 1987; Ferris, 1995), and there have rarely been any attempts to

link student reactions to actual teacher feedback in specific contexts. Recently, there has been a call

for research that examines the complexities involved in the issue of feedback by examining the

context that surrounds it (Hyland & Hyland, 2006b). Indeed, feedback occurs between teachers and

students in particular cultural, institutional, and inter-personal contexts, and student responses are

affected by different aspects of the context. Although research has suggested that L2 students

believe that teacher feedback is useful and can help them improve their writing (e.g., Ferris, 1995;

Hyland, 1998), and that they prefer teachers to focus more on local than global issues (e.g., Cohen,

1987; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994), these findings are presented in a decontextualized and broad-

brush fashion. We know little about the nature of the teacher feedback these students have received

and the context surrounding the feedback that has caused such student perceptions.

Additionally, almost all of the feedback studies on student perceptions and preferences have

been conducted in college/university settings. There is a paucity of research that addresses the

secondary school context. A focus on school students is important since by the time students

enter college or university, they will have been exposed to L2 writing for a substantial period of

time, long enough to cause them to develop ingrained attitudes toward L2 writing. An awareness

of secondary L2 learners’ reactions to teacher feedback can help us better understand how school

teachers may adjust their feedback, taking into account relevant contextual factors to engender

positive student responses, to cater to student needs, and to bring about long-term beneficial

effects on student writing.

This study contributes to existing feedback research by relating student reactions to actual

teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms, focusing particularly on how the

contextual factors might have influenced student responses to teacher feedback.

Student perspectives on teacher feedback

Previous research on student views of feedback has consistently shown that students treasure

teacher feedback and attach much greater importance to it than other forms of feedback, such as

audio feedback, peer evaluation, and self-evaluation (Leki, 1991; Saito, 1994; Yang, Badger, &

Yu, 2006; Zhang, 1995). Most surveys of student preferences show that students are particularly

positive about receiving feedback on language issues, although they also want teachers to

comment on content and ideas of their writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Leki, 1991;

Oladejo, 1993; Saito, 1994). As L2 students place a high premium on accuracy in writing, they

are eager to have all their errors pointed out by the teacher (Komura, 1999; Lee, 2005; Leki, 1991;

Rennie, 2000). While studies by Radecki and Swales (1988) and Lee (2005) show that students

wanted overt correction of errors (i.e., direct error feedback) from teachers, most of the other

studies (e.g., Arndt, 1993; Hyland, 2001; Saito, 1994) suggest that students preferred indirect to

direct error feedback, where they were given clues and also a more active role to play in the

feedback process. Since these studies involved learners of different ages, backgrounds,

I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 144–164 145

motivations, and proficiency levels and took place in different classroom contexts, learner and

contextual factors might have influenced students’ preferences. More advanced students like the

L2 graduate students in Leki’s (2006) and Riazi’s (1997) studies, for example, particularly valued

teacher feedback as a useful means to help them develop disciplinary literacy. Thus, learner

individual differences may have a direct impact on students’ expectations and reactions to

teacher feedback.

The classroom context can also have a direct impact on the way students perceive teacher

feedback. Take student reactions to teacher feedback in single-draft vis-a-vis multiple-draft

classrooms as an example. In multiple-draft classrooms, where the majority of research on

teacher commentary has taken place, there is evidence to show that students generally attend to

teacher comments and think that they help them improve their writing (Diab, 2005; Ferris, 2003;

Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). However, when comments are given to single or terminal drafts,

students may react differently as they do not have to utilize the comments as much as in multiple-

draft classrooms (Ferris, 2003). In single-draft classrooms, vague and cryptic comments are

likely to bother students less than similar comments given to intermediate drafts in process-

oriented classrooms (Cohen, 1987). Thus, student reactions to teacher feedback are influenced by

the instructional context in which feedback is delivered.

How students respond to feedback may also be influenced by the teacher who delivers the

feedback. Findings such as students welcome praise (Gee, 1972) but like to receive both praise

and constructive criticism (Ferris, 1995; Hyland, 1998) are generalizations that need to be

examined more closely with regard to who the teacher is and how the comments are given.

Hyland and Hyland’s (2006b) study suggests that students are more likely to find teacher

feedback useful when it engages the student writer and when it is contextualized—that is, given

in consideration of individual student needs. When feedback is used to build relationships with

students and targeted to their personality and needs, students are more likely to perceive it as

effective. Hence, student reactions may be influenced by who the teacher is and how s/he

interacts with students during the feedback process.

Existing research on student views of teacher feedback is limited by the weak link between

student reactions and actual teacher feedback situated in specific contexts. When teacher

feedback is investigated without reference to specific learner characteristics and classroom

contexts, it is dangerous to generalize results from one group of learners to another group with

markedly different characteristics, especially those operating in completely different contexts.

Feedback is a social act. Hyland and Hyland (2006b) remind us that students are ‘‘historically and

sociologically situated active agents who respond to what they see as valuable and useful and to

people they regard as engaging and credible’’ (p. 220). Thus, it is necessary to go beyond the act

of feedback per se to examine the factors that influence student reactions. With this purpose in

mind, the present study seeks to answer the following research questions:

1. What are the characteristics of teacher feedback and the instructional context in which

feedback is given?

2. How do students react to the feedback provided by their teacher in their specific context?

3. What factors might have influenced student reactions to teacher feedback?

Participants and method of study

Data in the study were collected from two Secondary 1 (S1, i.e., Grade 7) classrooms in a

Band 1 and Band 3 schools, respectively. In Hong Kong secondary schools, students are put into

I. Lee / Journal of Second Language Writing 17 (2008) 144–164146

three different bands according to their academic abilities—Band 1 being the highest and Band 3

the lowest. Band 1 students are generally proficient in English and motivated in learning,

compared to their Band 3 counterparts, though diverse abilities may exist in each banding. The

Band 1 school that participated in the study was known as an elite Band 1 school in Hong Kong,

whereas the Band 3 school was known as one of the weakest Band 3 schools in the territory. In

this article, students in the Band 1 and Band 3 classrooms are referred to as high proficient (HP)

and low proficient (LP), respectively. The participants of the study include 58 students (36 HP

and 22 LP), all Cantonese speakers aged between 12 and 13, and their two teachers. Both

teachers, referred to as Teacher A and Teacher B, are Cantonese speakers with teaching

experience of 5 and 12 years, respectively.

To situate student reactions in the specific context in which feedback was provided, student

data from three different sources (questionnaires, checklists, and protocols) were triangulated

with data gathered from teacher written feedback, classroom observations, and teacher

interviews. Data collection spanned one school year over 9 months. A bilingual version of the

student questionnaire (see Appendix 1 for English version) was administered to all 58 students

toward the end of the school year, after four compositions (two in Term 1 and two in Term 2) had

been collected (though students wrote more than four compositions, about six to eight in the

entire school year). The questionnaire data were subjected to SPSS analysis, yielding mainly

descriptive data (hence tendencies are reported). Student checklists (see Appendix 2) and

protocols (see Appendix 3 for protocol guide) were completed by nine students in response to the

teachers’ feedback on the four compositions—six HP and three LP students randomly selected

from different ability levels within each of the two classrooms. (Only three LP students were

selected as Teacher B said it was difficult to get consent from his students, who were mostly

uninterested in the English subject, to perform checklists and protocols outside class time). The

checklist mainly asked students to respond to each feedback point, referring to any comment,

underlining, or correction made on the student text, such as a written intervention by the teacher

(see Hyland, 2003) marked in the composition by evaluating their own understanding of the

feedback and its usefulness. The protocol required students to talk aloud their feelings (i.e.,

affective responses), in Cantonese, after completing the checklist. The checklist data were

collated, and the protocol data were translated and transcribed, yielding both quantitative and

qualitative data. As for the teacher data, feedback was gathered from a random selection of

student texts based on the four compositions from which student protocols and checklists were

collected. Teacher A and Teacher B were both told to randomly select 10 student texts for each of

the 4 compositions, and in the end, a total of 76 student texts (40 from HP and 36 from LP

students) were collected, all of which was in-class writing completed within 30–40 minutes.

Teacher feedback was analyzed in terms of the focus of feedback (i.e., whether it was on content,

organization, language, etc.); error feedback strategies (see question 10 of the student

questionnaire in Appendix 1 for the range of error feedback strategies examined); and the focus

on written commentary (i.e., whether it was on content, organization, language, etc.). The

composition lessons (in which the composition topic was assigned and writing took place

afterwards) and feedback lessons based on the four compositions (in which the teacher gave oral

feedback before returning marked compositions) were observed and videotaped. The classroom

observation data were transcribed and summarized to throw light on the teachers’ instructional

and feedback practices. Interviews were conducted in Cantonese with the teachers before the

study (see Appendix 4 for pre-study interview guide) and after each observed lesson, mainly to

allow the teachers to explain the procedure adopted in the lessons. The interviews were

audiotaped, translated, and transcribed, providing information about the teachers’ beliefs and


rationales of their feedback practices. Together, the above multiple sources of teacher data throw

light on the teachers’ feedback practices and how student reactions could be interpreted within

their specific contexts.

Results

Teachers’ feedback practices and instructional contexts

A total of 962 feedback points were collected from the 40 student texts marked by Teacher A.

There was an average of 24 feedback points per essay (of 200 words on average—i.e., 1 feedback

point per 8 words). Her feedback was thus rather detailed. Table 1 shows that Teacher A’s written

feedback focused on language form, as 75.8% of it was on errors. About 24% of the feedback was

commentary, mainly terminal comments on issues relating to content (e.g., Interesting content)

and language use (e.g., Good choice of vocabulary). A mark (out of 10 for ‘‘content’’ and 10 for

‘‘accuracy’’) was also given to each composition. As for Teacher B, 469 feedback points were

collected from the 36 texts he marked, averaging 13 feedback points per student text (of 100

words on average, thus 1 feedback point per 7–8 words). Teacher B’s feedback was even more

form-focused, as about 98% of his feedback was on errors. He also gave a mark (out of 100), but

without reference to any assessment criteria. Written comments were sparse (only 1.7%), mostly

brief remarks like ‘‘Good.’’ As for the error feedback strategies, Table 2 shows that both teachers

mainly used overt corrections (i.e., method B—providing corrections for errors). Teacher A used

a slightly greater variety of error feedback strategies, about a third of which were coded (i.e.,

method C—categorizing errors with error codes). Coded feedback, however, was not used by

Teacher B.


Table 1

Focus of written feedback

Written feedback Teacher A (%) Teacher B (%)

Error feedback 75.8 98.3

Comments 24.2 1.7

Content 41.2 25.0

Accuracy 37.3 0.0

Organization 1.3 0.0

Others 20.2 75.0

Total 100 100

Table 2

Error feedback strategies

Error feedback strategies Teacher A (%) Teacher B (%)

A. Underline/circle the errors 17.1 30.8

B. Underline/circle the errors/and provide corrections 45.8 63.1

C. Underline/circle and categorize the errors 33.7 0.0

D. Underline/circle, categorize the errors, and provide corrections 3.4 6.1

E. Give a hint about the errors by putting a mark in the margin 0.0 0.0

F. Give a hint about the errors by categorizing them in the margin 0.0 0.0

Total 100 100

The interview data show that Teacher A was a conscientious teacher who delivered feedback

according to the school policy, which required teachers to mark student writing in detail and

respond to every single error made. She said, ‘‘I will correct their errors, give marks and

comments.’’ The criteria ‘‘content’’ and ‘‘accuracy’’ used in her feedback were also part of the

school policy, where ‘‘organization’’ was subsumed under ‘‘accuracy.’’ The classroom

observation data show that the focus of writing was on both content and language, since

Teacher A, after assigning the composition topic, normally brainstormed ideas with students,

drawing their attention to relevant language structures and vocabulary related to the topic.

Students produced single drafts; self-/peer evaluation was not used, though she did suggest that

students proofread each other’s writing before submission. In all the feedback lessons observed,

Teacher A went through a similar procedure. She started by asking students to read (and read

aloud) some ‘‘beautiful sentences’’ written by some students, and then asked them to do a

proofreading exercise consisting of a rather random collection of errors made by students. The

approach was largely teacher-dominated. Even in the proofreading exercise, the teacher tended to

dominate by providing the correct answers, without giving students opportunities to engage in

discussion or asking students to analyze the errors. After the proofreading exercise, she returned

the compositions to the students. Teacher A required students to correct the sentences that

contained errors. Conferencing with students did not occur, though some students might have

needed to see the teacher after class when they saw the comment, ‘‘See me.’’ As an additional

strategy to encourage students to take their writing seriously, she required students to read aloud

their compositions to their parents at home and obtain their signatures afterwards (since students

in this elite school are mostly from middle-class families where parents are assumed to be

reasonably proficient in English).

Like Teacher A, Teacher B was also guided by a school policy that required comprehensive

marking of written errors. He believed that grammar should be given the top priority in feedback,

as revealed in the interview data: ‘‘Grammar is the number one priority.’’ This was reflected in his

composition lessons, where he spent the major part of the lessons explaining grammar points,

such as pronouns, verb tenses, and subject–verb agreement. In a typical writing lesson, a writing

frame was provided, a sample was given (e.g., from the textbook), and students were required to

copy sentences from the sample. Ideas were provided for students because Teacher B believed

that the students ‘‘have nothing in their minds.’’ The approach adopted, according to Teacher B,

aimed to reduce student errors and to control for the final product so that his time in marking

could be reduced. Given the vast differences in the language abilities of the LP and HP students

and that both teachers said they marked errors comprehensively, one would expect a larger

amount of error feedback by Teacher B. However, because of Teacher B’s instructional focus that

aimed to reduce student errors, the amount of error feedback in the LP students’ writing was

comparable to that in the HP students’ writing, as there was 1 instance of error feedback per 7–8

words (a total of 461 error feedback points for 36 LP texts of about 100 words each), compared

with 1 instance of error feedback per 10 words in the HP texts (a total of 729 error feedback points

for 40 HP texts of about 200 words each). Like Teacher A, Teacher B required students to turn in

only one draft for each writing task. Self-/peer evaluation and conferencing were not used. In his

feedback lessons, he repeated the points mentioned in the composition lessons, focusing on

different grammar points pertinent to the writing task and telling students the ‘‘correct’’ answers

for different errors made. At times, Teacher B was seen reprimanding the students for their bad

performance. For instance, in one feedback lesson, Teacher B said, ‘‘You wrote this part badly.

And you did not pay enough attention in class. Have a quick look at it. Few of you are ok but the

majority did it badly.’’


Students’ reactions from questionnaires

How did the students react to their teachers’ feedback? The questionnaire findings show that

the HP students responded favorably to Teacher A’s practice (i.e., giving a mark and error

feedback plus comments), as 72.2% of them wanted the teacher to continue with the practice (see

Table 3). The LP students’ reactions to their teacher’s feedback were found to be more mixed,

with the largest group (40.9%) expressing a wish for not only a mark/grade and error feedback

(largely his current practice), but also comments from the teacher. Only 18.3% of the LP students

preferred the teacher’s existing practice (i.e., mark/grade + error feedback).

Students’ preference for more written comments is shown in Table 4, where 72.2% and 45.4%

of the HP and LP students, respectively, hoped the teacher would give more written comments in

future. Such a preference is supported by the results in Table 5, which show that more HP students

said they would be most interested in the teacher’s comments (rather than error feedback and

marks/grades). A similar trend is noted among the LP students, as more of them said they would


Table 3

In the next few compositions, which of the following do you prefer to get from the teacher?

Student feedback preferences HP students (%) LP students (%)

A. Only grades/marks 2.8 4.5

B. Only response to errors 0.0 4.5

C. Only written comments 2.8 9.1

D. Mark/grade + error feedback 5.5 18.3

E. Mark/grade + written comments 16.7 4.5

F. Error feedback + written comments 0.0 9.1

G. Mark/grade + error feedback + written comments 72.2 40.9

H. None of the above 0.0 9.1

Total 100 100

Table 4

Which of the following type of feedback would you like your teacher to give more in future?


A. Written comments 72.2 45.4

B. Error feedback 19.4 27.3

C. None of the above 8.4 27.3

Total 100 100

Table 5

In the future compositions, which of the following would you be most interested in finding out?


A. The mark/grade 38.9 36.4

B. Teacher’s comments on my writing 47.2 36.4

C. The errors I have made 11.1 27.2

D. Others (please specify) _____ 2.8 0.0

Total 100 100

be most interested in the teacher’s comments, though they seemed to be equally interested in the

marks/grades (see Table 5).

In terms of students’ attitudes to the overall balance among content, organization, and

accuracy as broad criteria for marking writing (see Table 6), the HP and LP students seemed to

hold different views. About half of the HP students wanted the teacher to give more feedback on

content, but they appeared to show little concern for the organization of their writing—only

11.4% of them wanted more emphasis on organization. The LP students, on the other hand, were

more divided in their preferences—23.8% wanted more feedback on content, 28.6% on

organization, and 28.6% on language.

In general, there seemed a tendency for students to wish for ‘‘more’’ from the teacher. When

asked what the teacher should focus on less in their feedback (see Table 7), the majority of both

HP (80.6%) and LP students (54.5%) chose ‘‘none of the above.’’ Consistently, questions that

asked about preference for ‘‘more’’ feedback (Tables 4 and 6) received a much lower percentage

of response in the ‘‘none of the above’’ option than questions that asked about ‘‘less’’ feedback

(Tables 7 and 8).

As we examine students’ attitudes toward error feedback specifically, which received the

greatest attention in both classrooms, the findings consistently reveal a difference between the HP

and LP students—the latter seemingly less interested in error feedback. Table 7 shows that 31.8%


Table 6

Which area would you like your teacher to emphasize more in future?


A. Content 51.4 23.8

B. Organization (e.g., paragraphing, links between ideas) 11.4 28.6

C. Language (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, sentence pattern) 34.3 28.6

D. None of the above 0.0 19.0

E. Others (please specify) _____ 2.9 0.0

Total 100 100

Table 7

Which of the types of feedback would you like your teacher to give less in future?


A. Written comments 5.5 13.7

B. Error feedback 13.9 31.8

C. None of the above 80.6 54.5

Total 100 100

Table 8

Which of the following areas would you like your teacher to emphasize less in future?

Student feedback preferences HA students (%) LP students (%)

A. Content 5.5 9.6

B. Organization (e.g., paragraphing, links between ideas) 30.6 19.0

C. Language (e.g., grammar, vocabulary, sentence pattern) 22.2 38.1

D. None of the above 41.7 33.3

E. Others (please specify) _____ 0.0 0.0

Total 100 100

of the LP students but only 13.9% of the HP students wanted their teacher to focus less on error

feedback. Table 8 indicates that the largest group of LP students (38.1%) wanted their teacher to

emphasize ‘‘language’’ less (compared with content and organization), but this view was shared

by fewer of the HP students (22.2%). A big contrast in the HP and LP students’ attitude toward

error feedback is further demonstrated in Table 9, where the biggest group (40.9%) of LP students

said that they wanted the teacher to respond to none of their errors, whereas 77.8% of the HP

students wanted the teacher to respond to all of their errors.

When asked about the error feedback strategies they preferred specifically (see Table 10), the

majority (55.6%) of the HP students opted for ‘‘underline/circle errors, categorize them, and

provide correction’’ (method D), which requires the teacher to work out everything for them. This

strategy, however, was least frequently used by the teacher (see Table 2). The largest group of LP


Table 9

Tick ONE box below to indicate the amount of error you want your teacher to respond to


A. None 2.8 40.9

B. All 77.8 31.8

C. Some only 19.4 27.3

Total 100 100

Table 10

Which of the following method would you like your English teacher to use more in future when responding to errors?


A. Underline/circle my errors (e.g., has went) 5.6 0.0

B. Underline/circle my errors and provide corrections

for me (e.g., has went (gone))

11.1 36.4

C. Underline/circle my errors and categorize them

(e.g., has went (verb form))

22.2 18.2

D. Underline/circle my errors, categorize them, and

provide corrections for me

(e.g., has went (gone) (verb form))

55.6 27.3

E. Give me a hint about my errors (e.g., by putting a mark

in the margin to indicate an error on a specific line)

0.0 9.0

F. Give me a hint about my errors and categorize the errors for me

(e.g., by writing ‘T’ in the margin to indicate a ‘‘Tense’’ error

on a specific line)

0.0 0.0

G. None of the above methods 0.0 9.1

Total 100 100

Table 11

To what extent were you able to correct the errors accurately according to the teacher’s feedback?

Student feedback preferences Totally Some Not at all Total Mean

5 4 3 2 1

HP students (%) 5.6 66.7 22.1 5.6 0.0 100 3.7

LP students (%) 9.1 9.1 72.7 0.0 9.1 100 3.1

students, similarly, wanted the teacher to play an active role in error correction, as 36.4% of them

wanted the teacher to underline and correct errors (method B), and 27.3% wanted them to

underline, correct, and categorize errors for them (method D).

Students’ attitudes toward errors can be examined in conjunction with their perception of the

efficacy of teacher feedback (see Table 11). While over 70% of the HP students (‘‘4’’ and ‘‘5’’ on

the Likert scale) thought they were able to correct the errors accurately based on the feedback,

this is true only for 18.2% of the LP students. Such results can be partly explained by the results in

Table 12, which shows that about half of the HP and LP students said that only some of the written

feedback was legible.

What were the students’ most preferred activities after receiving the teachers’ feedback?

Table 13 shows that the HP students’ three most preferred activities were reading the comments

(61.1%), correcting all the errors (55.6%), and reading aloud some good sentences in class

(33.3%). The results suggest that the HP students were generally happy about what Teacher A

asked them to do, except for ‘‘reading aloud the writing to parents’’ (i.e., ‘‘L’’ in Table 13), which

did not turn out to be a popular activity. ‘‘Rewriting the whole composition’’ (i.e., ‘‘E’’ in

Table 13—with Chinese translation in the bilingual student questionnaire carrying the meaning

of ‘‘revising’’) was not considered as important as ‘‘correcting all errors’’ (i.e., ‘‘C’’). As for the

LP students, the most preferred activity was reading the comments (40.9%), which was not

actually happening because Teacher B rarely provided comments on student writing. The next

two preferred activities are ‘‘asking the teacher for clarifications’’ (i.e., ‘‘F’’) and ‘‘holding an


Table 12

Was your teacher’s feedback legible?

Student feedback preferences Totally Some Not at all Total Mean

5 4 3 2 1

HP students (%) 2.8 41.7 44.4 8.3 2.8 100 3.3

LP students (%) 13.6 22.7 50.0 9.1 4.6 100 3.3

Table 13

Which of the following do you think your English teacher should ask you to do more often after s/he has returned your

composition?


A. Read the grade/mark 19.4 9.1

B. Read the comments 61.1 40.9

C. Correct all the errors 55.6 18.2

D. Correct some of the errors 8.3 9.1

E. Rewrite the whole composition 0.0 9.1

F. Ask the teacher for clarifications, explanations, or help in class 22.2 22.7

G. Consult dictionaries, grammar books, or writing textbooks 8.3 13.6

H. Refer back to previous compositions 13.9 4.5

I. Work with a partner to help each other improve the composition 19.4 18.2

J. Work on a proofreading exercise 27.8 9.1

K. Read aloud some good sentences in class 33.3 9.1

L. Read aloud the writing to my parents. 2.8 9.1

M. Hold an individual conference with the teacher to get his/her advice 8.3 22.7

N. None of the above items 2.8 9.1

O. Others (please specify) _____ 0.0 0.0

You can tick a maximum of three boxes.

individual conference with the teacher’’ (i.e., ‘‘M’’). The results about HP and LP students’

preference for reading teacher comments seem to corroborate the earlier finding that students

wanted to get more comments from teachers.

Overall, the questionnaire data suggest that the HP students reacted to the teacher feedback

more favorably than did their LP counterparts. Where mismatches occurred, the HP students

wanted more input from the teacher in terms of written comments, particularly those on the

content of their writing, and the provision of both correct answers and codes (indicating error

types) for their errors. However, they did not particularly welcome reading aloud their writing to

their parents. As for the LP students, the findings illustrate more mismatches, with students

asking for more written comments, a lesser focus on errors, and opportunities to ask their teacher

for help and advice.

Students’ reactions from checklists and protocols

Data gathered from the student checklists by and large corroborate the questionnaire data,

indicating that the HP students were more positive than the LP students in terms of their

understanding of the teacher feedback, their ability to correct their errors, and their view of the

usefulness of teacher feedback. Table 14 shows that out of a total of 724 feedback points collected

from the compositions of the 6 selected HP students, over 90% (‘‘4’’ and ‘‘5’’ on a Likert scale) of

the feedback was regarded as comprehensible. The HP students said they were able to correct over

90% of the errors, and 88.7% of the feedback was considered useful. As for the LP students, of the

194 feedback points collected from the compositions written by the 3 selected LP students, slightly

over half (‘‘4’’ and ‘‘5’’ on a Likert scale) of the feedback was deemed comprehensible, and 22.6%

(‘‘1’’ and ‘‘2’’ on a Likert scale) was found difficult to understand. The LP students were able to

correct only 44.4% of the errors, and only 45.3% of the teacher feedback was felt to be useful.

As for the student protocol data, students’ responses were categorized as either ‘‘positive’’ or

‘‘negative.’’ Table 15 shows a breakdown of the types of positive and negative responses, with

examples provided. Positive responses include comments on the overall quality of writing,

usefulness of feedback, the teacher, understanding of the feedback, and positive feelings about

the feedback. Negative responses include comments on the overall quality of writing, self-

reprimand, negative feelings about the feedback, lack of understanding of the feedback, and

uselessness of the feedback. Table 15 shows that out of the 137 responses collected from the HP


Table 14

Results of student checklists

Totally Some Not at all Total Mean

5 4 3 2 1

I understand the feedback indicated

HP students (%) 79.6 12.2 6.4 1.5 0.3 100 4.7

LP students (%) 32.0 26.3 19.1 13.8 8.8 100 3.6

I knew how to correct it

HP students (%) 78.6 12.9 7.2 0.9 0.4 100 4.7

LP students (%) 28.1 16.3 24.2 19.0 12.4 100 3.3

I found the feedback useful

HP students (%) 71.8 16.9 8.4 2.2 0.7 100 4.6

LP students (%) 23.7 21.6 19.1 12.9 22.7 100 3.1

students, 58.4% of them were positive comments, mainly to do with the overall quality of writing

(33.8%) and usefulness of teacher feedback (36.3%). A small percentage (2.5%) was about the

teacher’s effort in delivering feedback. Although the checklist data suggest that the HP students

were generally positive when they were asked to talk aloud their feelings, a substantial amount of

negative responses (41.6%) were engendered, mainly negative feelings (33.3%) and self-

reprimand (31.6%). For the LP students, the majority (71.4%) of the 49 responses were negative,

mainly due to a lack of understanding of the teacher feedback (37.1%) and negative feelings

(31.4%). Overall, the student protocol data suggest the teacher feedback caused greater

frustration among the LP than HP students.

Factors affecting student reactions to teacher feedback

Preference for teacher written comments

Regardless of proficiency level, students in the study asked for more written comments, and

reading the comments was the most preferred activity for both groups of students. These results are

irrespective of whether the teacher concerned had been giving written commentary or not. As

Teacher A wrote comments on student texts, the HP students wished for more because they might

find comments useful in terms of informing them of the quality of their writing other than of their

grammatical accuracy. As for Teacher B, he rarely wrote comments on student texts, and this might

have made the LP students curious about their teacher’s judgment of their writing apart from how

accurate it was. This confirms what is said in the research literature about students wishing to get

feedback on not only language but also other issues like content and organization (Hedgcock &

Lefkowitz, 1994; Leki, 1991). Written commentary can help students see how their teachers are

reading their writing and what strengths and weaknesses they have (Goldstein, 2005), particularly

in areas other than language accuracy. Given the teachers’ error-focused feedback in the study, it is


Table 15

Results of student protocols

Example HP students

(%)

LP students

(%)

Total

HP students LP students

Positive responses

Overall quality of writing A lot tidier 33.8 35.7 58.4 28.6

Usefulness of feedback I’ve learnt a lot 36.3 57.1

Comment on teacher Very devoted 2.5 0.0

Understanding of feedback I understand 11.2 0.0

Positive feeling I’m quite happy 16.2 7.2

Total 100 100

Negative responses

Overall quality of writing Not good enough 7.1 20.0 41.6 71.4

Self-reprimand Very careless 31.6 0.0

Negative feeling Very disappointing 33.3 31.4

Lack of understanding

of feedback

I don’t know

what’s wrong

28.0 37.1

Uselessness of feedback Useless 0 11.5

Total 100 100 100 100

not difficult to explain why students asked for more comments. Nevertheless, student preference for

written comments has to be interpreted with reference to the instructional context—that is, single-

draft classrooms where revision was not required. If feedback had been delivered in multiple-draft

contexts where students were required to utilize comments to improve their writing, student

reactions to written comments might have been different.

Differential preference for error feedback

In the study, the LP students appeared to develop a less positive attitude toward error feedback

than did their HP counterparts, asking for a lesser focus on errors in teacher feedback. This could

be explained in several ways. First, given the LP students’ low level of English proficiency, it is

not surprising that some would not like to have their errors pointed out, as it is discouraging and

demotivating to receive papers awash in red ink. Second, the teacher’s pedagogical approach

might be another factor that influenced student reactions to teacher feedback. Teacher B’s highly

error-focused approach in his teaching, assessment, and post-writing oral feedback, which should

have been intended to help students develop more positive attitudes to error feedback, could have

caused apprehension among students, especially because such pedagogical activities were

delivered in a mechanical, discouraging, and oppressive manner, as observed in the lessons.

Thus, the teacher’s personality (and attitude to student errors in writing) might be another crucial

factor that explains the HP and LP students’ different attitudes to error feedback. While Teacher

A was encouraging in her approach, commending student effort (e.g., reading out beautiful

sentences written by students) and praised by students in the protocols (see Table 15), Teacher B

appeared to be much less appreciative of students’ efforts in writing, providing cynical comments

from time to time. This could have discouraged the LP students from learning about their written

errors. Although research has shown that L2 students have a strong preference for error feedback,

this study has shown that such a generalization needs to be taken with great caution because how

the teacher delivers error feedback and the way pedagogical activities are used in conjunction

with error feedback could influence students’ reactions to teacher feedback. Overall, students’

differential preference for error feedback could be caused by individual differences such as

proficiency level and motivation. Specifically, student incentive in the study was found to be

inextricably linked with the teacher’s personality and pedagogy, which can directly influence

student reactions to teacher feedback.

Demand for ‘more’ teacher effort and students as passive recipients

In the study, both HP and LP students showed a tendency to demand greater effort on the part

of the teacher—that is, more written comments and more explicit error feedback (i.e., providing

correct answers and/or categorizing error types—see Table 10). Such a reaction could be a direct

result of the teacher-dominated approach to feedback. As teachers marked student writing in

detail, responding to errors comprehensively and not providing opportunities for student-centred

activities like peer/self-evaluation, students were rendered passive and became more and more

reliant on the teacher. Therefore, students wanted teachers not only to indicate errors but also to

provide corrections and indicate error types. Belcher and Liu (2004) suggest that as students

relinquish power to their teachers, they want to be told what to do rather than take initiative to

direct their own learning, which seems to describe the students in the study. While most of the HP

and LP students in the study wished for more written comments and found reading the comments

afterwards the most preferred activity, almost none of the students preferred revising the whole


composition (see Table 13). Since both teachers in the study required only single drafts and

minimal student participation in the evaluation process, students were likely to look up to the

teacher as the sole authority in feedback and themselves as passive agents in the learning-to-write

process. Revising their own writing based on teacher comments might not even have crossed their

minds. The study has demonstrated that teachers’ feedback practices have a direct influence on

student reactions and expectations. Simply put, teacher-dominated feedback practices breed

passive and dependent learners.

Student uptake of teacher feedback

Not all the students said that they were able to act on the teacher feedback (mainly by

correcting errors) or found it useful, particularly the LP students. This confirms previous research

which shows that teacher feedback is not always understood (Zamel, 1985). As the bulk of the

feedback was on errors in the study, language proficiency is one possible reason to explain why

more LP students said they were unable to correct their errors. A related factor is student

motivation. With low motivation, students are less likely to take teacher feedback seriously and

find it useful (see Guenette, 2007). Taught by a teacher who believed they had ‘‘nothing in their

minds’’ and who did not appreciate their efforts in writing, the LP students are an example of a

self-fulfilling prophecy—that is, if no one, especially the teacher, believes they can achieve, they

will not. MacDonald (1991), working from a social psychological perspective, suggests that

students usually have one overall reaction rather than a separate set of reactions to teacher

feedback. For weaker students particularly, when their papers receive poor grades, their overall

reaction is usually one of frustration and disappointment, and to reduce such tension they are

likely to discredit teacher feedback. A caveat, however, is that, although the LP students in this

study were assumed to be less motivated than their HP counterparts, there is no concrete evidence

to suggest that these LP students necessarily lacked motivation because of their low language

proficiency (though research has found motivation to be a main determinant in second/foreign

language achievement—e.g., Dornyei, 1994). Another plausible factor that can explain why

teacher feedback might not always have been perceived as useful is the quality of the feedback.

Quality of feedback covers a range of issues, such as consistency, accuracy, and

comprehensibility. The questionnaire data reveal that comprehensibility might be a problem,

as only 2.8% and 13.6% of HP and LP students, respectively, found the feedback totally legible,

that is, legible all the time. The fact that teachers are obligated to give comprehensive feedback to

student writing, plus the fact that English teachers generally have a very heavy workload (e.g., in

Hong Kong, each secondary English teacher normally teaches three large English classes and has

to mark a large number of compositions every 2 or 3 weeks), results in an undesirable

phenomenon where teachers probably have to write fast to cope with their heavy marking load.

Clearly, when students cannot read some of the teacher’s handwriting, teacher feedback is

rendered less effective. This is one possible factor that explains why not all the feedback was

understood by the students. Thus, whether students find teacher feedback useful and effective

hinges on a multitude of factors, including students’ proficiency and motivation and quality of

teacher feedback, such as legibility.

To conclude, the factors that appear to have influenced student reactions to teacher feedback

include the instructional context, teacher factors, such as personality, pedagogical approach, and

activities, and student factors, such as student expectations, proficiency, and motivation. These

factors are seen to be in an intricate relationship with one another, as it is hard to single out one

factor as the main source of influence.


Implications

Although generalizations cannot be claimed based on data gathered from only two secondary

classrooms, the implications considered in this section may be applicable to similar EFL/ESL

contexts.

Written comments

Students’ request for more written comments, irrespective of student proficiency level and

teachers’ current feedback practices, sends a clear message to teachers that students want more

information about their written performance, aside from feedback on errors.

In a classroom culture where students are used to playing a passive role as in the study,

however, students may simply wish to read teacher written comments without a desire to do

anything with the comments. While teachers may want to respond to student requests by writing

more comments on student texts, it is important to consider what kind of commentary would help

students most (and at what stage of writing) and how students can be helped to utilize teacher

comments (e.g., by summarizing teacher comments in terms of their own strengths and

weaknesses in writing). It is equally, if not more important, to take notice of the contextual factors

that may influence teacher construction of and student reactions to written comments. More is not

necessarily better. How teachers can balance written commentary with error feedback and

maximize its effectiveness within their particular cultural, institutional, and inter-personal

contexts is an area that warrants further research.

Error feedback

The study has demonstrated that an error-focused approach to feedback can cause resistance

in some students, particularly the weaker ones, though ironically they are the ones who need to

learn the most from error feedback. Whether students are considered HP or LP (although students

in the study were divided into the HP and LP groups, student language abilities still varied within

each classroom, possibly with some LP students within the HP group and vice versa), it is

important that teachers respond to errors according to student abilities (Straub, 2000) and avoid

overwhelming students with excessive negative error feedback. Feedback informed by a flexible

policy that takes into account student abilities is more likely to help students develop interest,

confidence, and self-esteem in writing than a rigid policy that requires comprehensive error

feedback across the board. LP students are especially vulnerable, so it is necessary to enhance

their motivation through encouraging feedback. If not, the result is likely to be lowered self-

esteem and diminished interest in writing. Future research can specifically address the feedback

strategies teachers of low-proficiency students can use to motivate them—for example, by

praising their effort, focusing on interesting content, and responding to selected error patterns.

Empowering students

The study has shown that teacher-dominated feedback practices are likely to produce

passive and reliant learners. There is a lot teachers can do to alter student expectations of and

attitudes toward feedback, mainly by requiring students to play a much more active role in

the learning-to-write process—for example, by engaging in self-/peer evaluation, by

participating in the development of assessment criteria for different writing tasks, or by


telling teachers what they want from their feedback, such as feedback on specific error

patterns. All these provide interesting avenues for further research. In particular, it is

important to examine the issue of student empowerment in feedback with reference to the

specific contexts in which teaching and learning take place.

Student uptake of teacher feedback

Student uptake of teacher feedback is a complex issue and is beyond the scope of the study.

Nonetheless two implications can be drawn. First, to facilitate student uptake of teacher

feedback, it is important for teachers to engage in feedback practices that take into account

individual differences such as proficiency and motivation. Guenette (2007) argues that ‘‘any type

of feedback that does not take the crucial variable of motivation into consideration is perhaps

doomed to fail’’ (p. 52). Second, it is possible that teachers who focus on comprehensive error

feedback, as in the study, are more likely to produce illegible written feedback than those who

give error feedback more sparingly, since comprehensive error feedback puts a greater demand

on teachers in terms of the amount of feedback they write on student texts. Teacher B’s wish to

reduce student errors and to spend less time on marking underlines the need for writing teachers

to find ways to make error feedback less burdensome for themselves. One alternative is for

teachers to give feedback selectively, aiming at quality rather than quantity, focusing on really

important areas like pervasive error patterns (Ferris, 2003), and hence reducing the amount of

feedback and the strain on teachers. This will make it more likely for teachers to produce legible

feedback. The implication is also for teachers to explore different modes of feedback, such as the

use of feedback forms that contain clearly stated criteria, saving teachers’ time in writing

comments pertinent to the criteria, and other feedback modes like audio feedback and computer-

based feedback. Future research can explore these alternatives to written teacher feedback and

how students respond to them in their specific contexts.

Conclusion

Student reactions to teacher feedback are shaped by factors beyond the individual act of

feedback. Lantolf and Pavlenko (2001) argue that students are active agents in the feedback

process who ‘‘construct the terms and conditions of their own learning’’ (p. 145). This study

reveals that students’ reactions and attitudes to teacher feedback are an intricate matter,

intertwined not only with student characteristics like proficiency level, but also with teacher

factors, such as teachers’ beliefs and practices and their interactions with students, as well as the

instructional context in which feedback is situated. Although teachers do no necessarily improve

their practice by listening to their students and accommodating their needs, to cater to student

needs, it is important that teachers factor into their decision-making their students’ expectations

and perceptions and let these inform their feedback. Future research could examine the

relationships between student reactions and their learning and performance in writing, and how

teachers can vary their feedback according to student needs to maximize the benefits of feedback.

References

Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. Brook & L. Walters (Eds.),

Teaching composition around the Pacific rim: Politics and pedagogy (pp. 90–116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

Belcher, D., & Liu, J. (2004). Conceptualising discourse/responding to text. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 3–6.


Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner

strategies in language learning (pp. 57–69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal,

23(1), 28–42.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273–284.

Eginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193–204.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly,

29, 33–53.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.

Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

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, 155–182.

Gee, T. C. (1972). Students’ responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6, 212–221.

Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University

of Michigan Press.

Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal

of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language writing.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2

writing. Modern Language Journal, 287–308.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing,

7(3), 255–286.

Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: Investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning,

16(3), 233–247.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 10, 185–212.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written

feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis. Sacramento:

California State University.

Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as

people. In M. Breen (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning (pp. 172–182). London: Longman.

Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language

Annals, 24, 203–218.

Leki, I. (2006). ‘‘You cannot ignore’’: Graduate L2 students’ experience of and response to written feedback practices

within their disciplines. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

MacDonald, R. B. (1991). Developmental students’ processing of teacher feedback in composition instruction. Review of

Research in Developmental Education, 8(5), 1–5.

Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89.

Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355–365.

Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? Unpublished master’s thesis.

Sacramento: California State University.

Riazi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A socio-cognitive analysis of text production and learning among

Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105–137.

Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of

adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11, 46–70.

Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11, 22–41.

Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7,

23–55.


Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.

Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101.

Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing classroom. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.


Appendix A. Student questionnaire


Appendix B. Student checklist


Appendix C. Student protocol

1. What was your first impression of the teacher’s feedback?

2. How did you feel when you received the feedback?

3. Did you understand the feedback?

4. Did you find the feedback useful?

Appendix D. Pre-study interview guide

1. Feedback practice—Describe and explain your feedback practice.

2. Focus of feedback—What areas do you focus on? Why?

3. Error feedback—Do you mark errors comprehensively or selectively? Why? What strategies

do you use in providing error feedback? Explain.

4. Written comments—Do you write comments on student writing? Why? How do you see the

functions of your written comments? What do you expect students to do afterwards?

5. Grade/score—Do you give student writing a grade/score? Why?

6. Student role—What roles do you expect your students to play in the feedback process?

Explain.

Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong …aflwrite/article/Student reactions to...

Documents

Transcript of Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong …aflwrite/article/Student reactions to...