Using written teacherfeedback in EFL compositionclasses

James Muncie

This article describes some theoretical concerns about providing writtenteacher feedback on mid-drafts of compositions in process writing. Thefact that teachers occupy the roles of 'expert' and 'evaluator' means thatthe learners have a much reduced level of choice in deciding whether ornot to use that feedback. The subsequent lack of critical involvement withthe feedback by the student means that there is less chance of it becominginternalized and having effect beyond the immediate piece of work. In-stead, peer feedback is advocated on mid-drafts, and teacher feedback onfinal drafts. Students are required to produce a summary entitled 'How Ican improve future compositions', using points from teacher's and peers,which the students then use for reference in writing future work. This isrecommended (having been tried with university students in Japan on anacademic writing course) as being useful in promoting learner autonomy,while ensuring that the feedback has an effect beyond the immediatecomposition, thus helping to improve long-term writing ability.

Introduction: In recent years the process approach to writing has become thefeedback in the mainstream orthodoxy in EFL composition classes. This approach seeks

process approach to shift emphasis away from an endless stream of compositions assignedby the teacher, written by the learners, handed in for marking by theteacher, handed back to the learners, and promptly forgotten by them asthey start on the next assignment. Instead, the emphasis is on the processof writing itself, and involves pre-writing work to generate ideas, and thewriting of multiple drafts to revise and extend those ideas. Feedback isseen as essential to the multiple-draft process, as it is 'what pushes thewriter through the various drafts and on to the eventual end-product'(Keh 1990: 294). Various types of feedback are possible, including peerfeedback, conferencing, and written teacher-feedback, as well as moreinnovative methods such as the use of taped commentaries (Hyland1990) and computer-based response. In fact, the possible approaches tofeedback are so varied and numerous that Lynch (1996: 155) suggeststhat teachers should 'offer learners a range of feedback types ... [which]may stand a greater chance' of success than reliance on a singletechnique'.

One issue which often emerges from the body of research and advice onthis matter, however, concerns the aim of feedback in the writingprocess—which seems to be a fairly short-term one of helping learnersto improve their drafts in order to end up with a final piece of work

ELT Journal Volume 54/1 January 2000 © Oxford University Press 2000 47

Problems withmultiple

teacher-roles

48

which is better than those first attempts. This is reflected in the fact(remarked on by Leki 1990: 58) that much of the research on the subjectis about how feedback affects learners' revision of their work (e.g.Fathman and Whalley 1990, Ferris 1997), and that most of the advicegiven for teachers was that they should intervene during the writingprocess so that the learners can use their comments in improving furtherdrafts (Reid 1994; Tribble 1996).

Providing this type of feedback during the writing process involves theteacher in assuming different roles—such as 'audience', 'assistant'(Tribble 1996: 119), 'consultant' (Dheram 1995: 160), or 'reader' (Keh1990: 301). These are in addition to the more traditional teacher role ofan evaluator of learners' work.

For a teacher to adopt some or all of these roles will often necessitate aquite considerable change in the manner in which he or she teaches.Changes of this type are, however, frequently restricted by a variety offactors, such as institutional requirements, the wider educational culture,and the teacher's own personal beliefs, to name but a few (Clarke 1994).These factors will often combine to produce a situation where, even if ateacher is able to fulfil the roles of reader, collaborator, assistant, etc., heor she is also forced into the role of ultimate evaluator. I suspect that themajority of EFL composition teachers are further required to evaluatetheir students' work at least once during a course. In my view, thisoverriding and inescapable role of evaluator, in addition to the teacher'sstatus as the 'expert', adds an authoritarian dimension to the teacher'sattempts at collaboration, which leaves the learner with a fundamentallack of choice when it comes to revising his or her work based on theteacher's comments. At this point I should mention that I am primarilyconcerned with written feedback on content and organization ratherthan on surface-level errors, as these areas are more central to thecontext of my research, which was academic writing at university level.

Of course, sensitive teachers in their role of collaborators would try notto couch their feedback in overtly authoritative or threatening ways,following advice such as that from Diffley and Lapp (1988, cited inWhite and Arndt 1991: 125) to 'respond as a genuine and interestedreader rather than as a judge and evaluator'. None the less, the factremains that at the end of the day (or semester, course, etc.) judges andevaluators are exactly what most teachers are, and the students know it.I will illustrate my point using an example of mid-draft feedbackpresented in White and Arndt's book on process writing (ibid.: 126). Theteacher's written response to a first draft on 'Family New Yearcelebrations in your country' took the form of a letter to the student,which included praise and reader-styled comments, e.g. 'I really enjoyedreading your draft. You have some good expressions...'. The letter thenproceeds to make suggestions such as 'Why don't you begin with thatsentence?', 'Now, at this point you can tell your reader what night it is',and 'Then you can explain what New Year's Eve means in Uruguay,how ..., and 'You can end by ... '. The advice given is never threatening,

James Muncie

and its content seems to have been very well thought our—exactly thesort of thing any teacher would wish his or her students to take on board.

The student's final draft is then presented to us, incorporating all thesuggestions which the teacher had made. The draft is, therefore, muchbetter than the one before, and 'indicates the benefits of the work whichhad gone into it' (ibid.: 135). The exercise has been a valuable oneaccording to the short-term aim, discussed above, of improving drafts.However, it is hardly surprising that the text is better than the previousdraft—after all, it is now a product of the organizational skills of anexpert. This example, along with the many other studies which also showhow the quality of texts improves after teacher feedback (see Ferris1995), can be viewed as demonstrating that either because of theknowledge that the person giving them the 'advice' will eventually beevaluating the paper, or perhaps simply out of respect for the teacher'sgreater skill at writing, when reacting to teacher feedback on mid-drafts,learners (consciously or otherwise) do not employ their faculty ofchoice.

This lack of choice means that in producing the revised draft, the learnerdoes not have to decide what to do, only (at best) how to do it. Thisimplies a lack of critical processing and evaluation of the feedback. Theresult of not having to deal with the feedback at this extra, evaluatoryand decision-making level of reasoning can be argued to reduce, in turn,the impact of the feedback and revision process on the long-termimprovement in writing ability.

I mentioned above that the overwhelming picture which one gets fromthe literature on the subject is that the aim of EFL composition classes isa short-term one—to facilitate improvement in drafts. Naturally, teacherintervention is the most effective way of achieving this. If, however, wereconsider our aims to incorporate long-term improvement in writingability, the usefulness of this short-term technique becomes less obvious.It is arguable that greater learner choice, albeit accompanied by lesssuccessful results in the short term, will eventually produce learners whoare able to function more autonomously and with a greater degree ofself-confidence in their writing than would otherwise have been the case.

We could also add to our aims the general educational principles thatteachers 'have only been really successful when they have madethemselves redundant', and that they ought to 'encourage learnerautonomy, not teacher dependence' (Lewis 1993: 188). Providing mid-draft feedback which has the effect of reducing the necessity of learnershaving to choose and discriminate would not appear to be the best wayof realizing these principles.

Alternatives to In the introduction I mentioned that feedback was 'what pushes themid-draft teacher writer . . . on to the eventual end-product' (Keh 1990: 294). This idea is

feedback central to the process-writing approach, and none of the commentsabove go against this in any way. However, if mid-draft feedback is to

Reconsidering ouraims

Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes 49

avoid the problems stated, then it is better provided by the writer's peersthan by the teacher. When this is the case, the feedback is more likely tobe perceived to be coming from people who are genuine collaboratorsand interested readers of the writer's work, roles which are unaffectedby any overshadowing role of evaluator. This being so, the writer hascomplete choice over which comments to utilize, and to what extent, aswell as being faced with the problem of how to utilize them. It could beargued that the quality of the feedback received from peers would notbe the same as that received from the teacher, but any feedback which ishonest fulfils the purpose of providing the writer with some readerawareness. The provision of structured feedback sheets and other formsof learner training also go a long way to alleviate that risk (even, and infact especially in the eyes of the learners themselves who, in myexperience, come to value peer feedback sessions as one of the mostuseful parts of the writing cycle).

Results from a questionnaire given out to 29 upper-intermediatecomposition students at a Japanese university tend to support theseideas. The questionnaire was designed to elicit students' attitudes to anduse of different feedback types in the writing process. When asked torate the value of peer feedback sessions in 'making you a better writer',on a scale of 1 ('not at all useful') to 5 ('extremely useful'), the averagerate was 4.03 (sd 0.66). Evidence of the use made of the feedback fromone session showed that of 29 students, 26 (90 per cent) madeamendments to their texts as a result of the feedback they received.At the same time, 17 of those 26 (65 per cent) reported that they did notuse all the recommendations of their peers, which would indicate thatthe students were discriminating in their incorporation of the feedback.In contrast, in answer to the question 'If the teacher gave you feedbackon your second draft, would you use it in writing your final draft, and ifso, how?', only 6 out of the 29 (21 per cent) responded with some kind of'conditional yes', e.g. 'Yes, if I agreed with it'. The majority (79 per cent)did not indicate that they would exercise any kind of discrimination orchoice in utilizing a teacher's mid-draft feedback. Naturally, these resultsmust be viewed with some caution, especially as they do not reflectactual use of feedback, only students' perception of its use, or in the caseof the last question, how they might use it. Nevertheless, they do serve tolend some support to the belief that when faced with feedback frompeers or teachers, learners would exercise much less critical choice whendealing with teacher feedback. Whether this is due simply to a desire toplease the teacher in order to get better marks, or whether it is becausethe learners have greater respect for the teacher's skill at writing is not atissue here, as both cases reflect a lack of the kind of reflection andcritical evaluation of the feedback which would be likely to result ininternalization and a positive long-term effect.

Using teacher All this is not to say that teachers of writing have no role to play beyondfeedback that of a classroom organizer. The fact that the teacher is more

knowledgeable than the learners about the linguistic and rhetorical

50 James Muncie

features of English texts gives him or her a unique role to play infacilitating the improvement of the learners' writing ability. Teacherfeedback on learners' texts is wanted (both by the students and by theteachers themselves) and necessary. If the feedback is not to be givenmid-draft, then it must be provided on the final draft. This, however,brings with it the problem of what the learner should do with thatfeedback, since the writing task is over. This, indeed, is one of theliterature's main objections to final-draft feedback (e.g. Tribble 1996:122).

One technique that I have found useful in overcoming this problem isthat of getting students to produce, on the day that the compositions arereturned to them and that the new cycle begins, a summary entitled'How I can improve future compositions.' On this paper, they write a listof text-general points extrapolated from the text-specific comments thatthey received both from their peers and from the final-draft feedbackthat they have just read. Throughout future writing cycles the learnersare frequently reminded to refer back to this summary whilst composing,and to ensure that they are following its recommendations. At the end ofevery writing cycle, they add more points to the list from the feedbackwhich they received on that work. Over time, fewer and fewer points areadded as learners begin to appreciate the areas which they individuallyneed to concentrate on, and improvements are made. This system is atits most simple when a course concentrates on a specific genre, such asacademic writing. On a more general writing course covering severalgenres, students would have the additional task of deciding whether thepoints they write only apply to a particular genre, or are more general innature.

The advantages of such a system over mid-draft written teacherfeedback are threefold. Firstly, the learners need to process thefeedback at a level of critical evaluation and decision-making in orderto translate the comments into points which they can use in thefuture—using greater mental effort which, in turn, is more likely to leadto internalization of that feedback. Secondly, the summary which theyproduce and use in the future is indisputably theirs in origin; the elementof choice is always present when the learners construct their summariesfrom the variety of teacher and peer comments available to them. Thisensures that the learners are able to act on the teacher's comments, butin an autonomous, self-directed way. Thirdly, and perhaps mostimportantly, this technique bridges the gap between learners' texts,allowing feedback on one composition to be used directly in the writingof future texts, and thus helping to produce improvement which goesbeyond that of the current draft and into the long-term. The studentshave each produced, for themselves, a personalized guide to writingbetter compositions, which they can continue to use long after the courseis finished.

Student reaction to the technique seems to be positive; in the samequestionnaire survey reported on above, 28 out of the 29 respondents

Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes 51

claimed to have used 'How I can improve future compositions' duringthe writing and revising of their work, and when asked to rate 'How Ican improve future compositions' for usefulness in making them a betterwriter on a scale from 1 ('not at all useful') to 5 ('extremely useful'), theaverage rating was 4.03, the same as for the peer feedback sessions(sd 0.80).

Conclusion Being able to use feedback in a positive way is central to the process ofdeveloping writing skills. But feedback can only be truly effective in thatdevelopment if the learners are encouraged and able to analyse andevaluate it themselves. This, I have argued, will only happen on mid-draft written feedback if it comes from the learners' peers rather thanfrom the teacher, as only in this way will the learners really need todecide for themselves on the merit of the comments, and whether or notto include them in their revised draft.

Teacher feedback can also be aimed at longer-term improvements. Withthe technique I have described, students are able to use such feedback ina way that goes beyond simply improving on the draft at hand to be ofdirect use in the writing of future compositions, in or out of theclassroom. Furthermore, the actual writing of 'How I can improve futurecompositions' involves a high degree of evaluation and decision-making,increasing the amount of mental processing which the feedbackundergoes. This in itself can serve to help the learners to internalizethe feedback, which should again produce long-term improvements.

As I mentioned in the introduction, there are many establishedtechniques and theories about the place of feedback in the writingprocess, all of which have their merits. Feedback is vital to writing and inhelping learners to improve their writing skills, and whatever form ittakes, it can have the positive effect of producing in the learner a senseof reader awareness and of giving him or her an outside view of the text.I believe that the technique outlined above can usefully be added to ateacher's repertoire of feedback methods, and that in addition to thebenefits of other kinds of feedback, it can go further in helping learnersto gain a feeling of autonomy in their writing, and in producing longer-term improvements in their writing ability.

Received January 1999

ReferencesClarke, M. 1994. 'The dysfunctions of the theory/

practice discourse'. TESOL Quarterly 28/1:9-26.

Dheram, P. 1995. 'Feedback as a two-bullockedcart'. ELT Journal 49/2: 160-8.

Diffley, F. and R. Lapp. 1988. 'Responding tostudent writing: teacher feedback for extensiverevision'. Workshop presented at TESOLChicago.

Fathman, A. and E. Walley. 1990. 'Teacherresponse to student writing: focus on formversus content' in B. Kroll (ed.).

Ferris, D. 1995. 'Student reactions to teacherresponse in multiple draft composition class-rooms'. TESOL Quarterly 29/1: 33-53.

Ferris, D. 1997. 'The influence of teacher com-mentary on student revision'. TESOL Quarterly31/2: 315-39.

Hyland, K. 1990. 'Providing productive feedback'.ELT Journal 44/4: 279-85.

Keh, C. 1990. 'Feedback in the writing process: amodel and methods for implementation'. ELTJournal 44/4: 294-304.

Kroll, B. (ed.). 1990. Second Language Writing.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52 James Muncie

Leki, I. 1990. 'Coaching from the margins: issues The authorin written response' in B. Kroll (ed.). . . , . . , . _ . , . ,

Lewis, M. 1993 The Lexical Approach. Hove: J a m e s M u n c i e l s currently a Lecturer in EnglishLanguage Teaching Publications. Language Education at Hiroshima University. He

Lynch, T. 1996. Communication in the Language h a s a n M S c i n Applied Linguistics from theClassroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. University of Edinburgh, and has experience of

Reid, J. 1994. 'Responding to ESL students' texts: teaching English in Greece, Portugal, and thethe myths of appropriation'. TESOL Quarterly UK, as well as in Japan. Current interests include28/2: 273-92. the teaching of composition and oral fluency,

Tribble, C. 1996. Writing. Oxford: Oxford Uni- a nd the effects of wider learner purpose onversity Press. learning.

White, R. and V. Arndt. 1991. Process Writing.Harlow: Longman. Email: <muncie@ipc.hiroshima-u.ac.jp>

Using written teacher feedback in EFL composition classes 53