Teachers’ Feedback on efl students’ Writings: a linguistic or Life Syllabus Perspective Reza Pishghadam, Reza Zabihi and Momene Ghadiri, Iran
|
Download 3 Mb.
|
1 2
|
Teachers’ Feedback on EFL Students’ Writings: A Linguistic or Life Syllabus Perspective Reza Pishghadam, Reza Zabihi and Momene Ghadiri, Iran Reza Pishghadam has a Ph.D. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) from Allameh Tabataba’i University in Tehran. He is currently on the English faculty of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran. He is now associate professor of TEFL, who teaches first language theories, sociopsychological aspects of language education, and applied linguistics. Over the last five years, he has published more than one hundred articles and books in different domains of English language education. In 2007, he was selected to become a member of the National Association of Elites of Iran. In 2010, he was classified as the top researcher in humanities by the Ministry of Sciences, Research, and Technology of Iran. His current research interests are: Psychology and Sociology of language education, Cultural studies, Syllabus design, and Language testing; affiliation: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. E-mail: pishghadam@um.ac.ir Reza Zabihi is a PhD candidate of Applied Linguistics in University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. He is also a member of Iran’s National Elites Foundation (INEF). He also holds an MA degree in Applied Linguistics from Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. His major research interests include syllabus design as well as sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic studies. He has published 40 research articles in local and international journals and is currently teaching at University of Isfahan, Iran; affiliation: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran. E-mail: zabihi@hotmail.com Momene Ghadiri is a PhD candidate of TEFL at the University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran. Her main areas of research are English teaching, discourse analysis, and sociolinguistics. She holds an MA degree in TEFL; affiliation: Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran E-mail: momene.ghadiri@gmail.com Menu Abstract Introduction Theoretical background Method Data sources 1. Written feedback 2. Classroom observation Results 1. Document analysis of written feedback 2. Analysis of observation data Discussion References Appendix Abstract In this study we adopt a mixed methods approach to examining the extent to which ELT (English as a Foreign Language) university professors integrate relevant life skills into the L2 writing curriculum, particularly through the feedback that they normally provide learners with. The first phase of the study involved the collection of quantitative data to examine the nature of second language (L2) writing teachers’ linguistic-bound or life-responsive feedback. To this end, analysis of the number and types of feedback provided by L2 writing teachers on written compositions (N = 300) was conducted. Follow-up classroom observations (N = 8) were also carried out. The results from document analyses revealed that around 70% of all the feedback covered grammatical issues and mechanics of writing, while paying little, if any, direct attention to the enhancement of learners’ life skills. Besides, the follow-up qualitative phase (classroom observations) added more plausibility to the results obtained from document analyses of written feedback. There were found rare cases where the critical and creative thinking abilities of language learners were highlighted, but these were argued to be triggered in an indirect, limited, and sporadic fashion. In the end, the theoretical and practical implications of this study were discussed. Introduction It goes without saying that youngsters are the most resourceful and dynamic members of the society, by virtue of their substantive physical and intellectual endowments. Lamentably, however, one has to acknowledge the fact that a great majority of our younger generation is incapable of utilizing its full potential in a socially desirable manner due to the absence of proper instruction and motivation. Therefore, learning life skills is a fruitful practice that helps individuals to deal effectively with everyday challenges of life; accordingly, life skills training can enable individuals to behave in pro-social ways and help them take more responsibility for their behaviors and actions. In effect, school can be an appropriate place for introducing life skills programs alongside other academic subjects (Matheson & Grosvenor, 1999). Therefore, given the fact that schools enjoy a high credibility with students’ parents and community members (WHO, 1997), they can be sites for a ‘life skills intervention’ (Behura, 2012). In this view, life skills are defined by the Mental Health Promotion and Policy (MHP) team in the World Health Organization (WHO) as “the abilities for adaptive and positive behavior that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life” (WHO, 1999). The pivotal life skills emphasized by the WHO include psychosocial and interpersonal competencies such as, decision making, problem solving, creative thinking, critical thinking, effective communication, interpersonal relationship skills, self-awareness, empathy and understanding, coping with emotions and coping with stress. It is widely acknowledged that the enhancement of these skills should be seriously taken into account in the context of education (Brooks, 2001; Francis, 2007; Goody, 2001; Larson & Cook, 1985; Matthews, 2006; Noddings, 2003; Radja, Hoffmann, & Bakhshi, 2008; Spence, 2003; Walker, 1999). Nowadays in many parts of the world, life skills training form a crucial and regular section of the school curriculum. As a value-addition program, life skills education aims at helping individuals understand their own real self, adjust socially and emotionally, and become enabled to evaluate their abilities and potentials (Francis, 2007). Further, life skills education guides students in the enhancement of their decision making skill as well as their abilities to construct positive values and self-concept and, in so doing, promote and modify their contributions to the society (Spence, 2003). Over the past thirty years or so, the attitudes towards literacy have been fading away from literacy for its own sake to its potentiality to be used in real life (Oxenham et al., 2002). As Singh (2003) has pointed out, an essential hallmark of literacy education should comprise the activities which aim at enhancing life skills rather than being designed primarily as a precondition of programs. More specifically, within the communicative paradigm of language teaching, the writing skill is admired for its unique stature. It is through writing that individuals can convey a variety of messages to different readers. Yet it seems that the writing process imposes great demands on the learners, making this skill difficult to be mastered. To enhance the skill of writing, teachers generally work on the vocabulary, grammar, fluency and the mechanics of writing. However, no doubt that “writing is a human activity which reaches into all other areas of human endeavor—expansive in a way that casts doubt on conventional boundaries between individual and society, language and action, the cognitive and the social” (Atkinson, 2003, p. 10). Having referred to the current status of the field of L2 writing as the “post-process” era, Atkinson (2003) seeks to give prominence to the complex nature of L2 writing and call for training teachers and researchers who can transcend the traditional outlooks on the teaching of L2 writing which normally foreground issues such as mechanics of writing, drafting, peer review, editing, grammar, vocabulary, etc. and, instead, take into consideration the multifarious connections that can be made between L2 writing and the intellectual, political and sociocognitive issues. By and large, it thus seems that merely mastering the subskills of writing cannot guarantee the success in effective writing (Olshtain, 2001). Apparently, more is needed to be successful in this skill. Straightforward though this characterization may seem, it raises the thorny issue of whether language teachers showcase response, resistance, or restraint to move beyond the teaching of writing subskills. In most recent years, the notion of ‘life syllabus’ has been introduced based on which language teachers are recommended to give more priority to life issues in English Language Teaching (ELT) classes (Pishghadam, 2011; Pishghadam & Zabihi, 2012; Pishghadam, Zabihi, & Kermanshahi, 2012). Accordingly, it has been argued that life should be given more primacy than language in class. It implies that language syllabus must be planned based on the principles of life syllabus. This is not at all to suggest that language learning should be ignored in ELT contexts; it is merely to show that language learning should not be considered the end product of a language class. Rather, primacy ought to be given to the improvement of learners’ life qualities through the development and application of life syllabuses in ELT classes. Recently, the extension of the aims of ELT syllabus design to include non-linguistic objectives in the syllabus has been an important shift of focus in English language teaching in the sense that practitioners of the field no longer have to merely enhance learners’ language-related skills and knowledge (Richards, 2001). Alternately, they are more or less responsible for advancing learners’ whole-person growth, including not only their intellectual development but also their learning strategies, confidence, motivation, and interest. Under this account, it reasonably seems that L2 teacher feedback has an important role to play in the promotion of learners’ life qualities. As Freire (1998) puts it, sometimes even a simple gesture on the part of a teacher, be it a significant one or not, may have an abysmal effect on a student’s life. Further, previous studies on students’ views about error feedback (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1995; Gram, 2005; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland, 2003; Komura, 1999; Lee, 2005; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999) have generally demonstrated that L2 learners highly value teacher feedback on their writings. Therefore, by virtue of the unique features that most of the ELT classes enjoy (Pishghadam, 2011) and based on the ‘post-process’ view of L2 writing which considers L2 writing as a manifold activity that comprises an assembly of sociocognitive, cultural, and ideological issues (Atkinson, 2003), English language teachers should try to foreground life issues in writing classes. Therefore, in this study we take a mixed methods approach to examining the extent to which EFL university professors integrate relevant life skills into the writing curriculum, particularly through the feedback that they normally provide learners with. Theoretical background On its first appearance in the 1950s, applied linguistics was considered synonymous with language teaching (Strevens, 1992) which, over time, is currently being studied as a division of applied linguistics, and is highly open to receive ideas from several branches of applied linguistics such as sociolinguistics and psycholinguistics. These areas have shed some light on English language learning and teaching to help ELT practitioners enrich their understanding of the field. These ideas are in the form of prescriptions which are supposed to enhance and enrich the field of English language teaching and learning, but virtually, it is argued, make English teachers nothing but consumers of the findings of other disciplines (Schmitt, 2002). Considering that any discipline has two complementary parts of theoretical and applied, it seems to us that, in the case of the field of ELT, the applied part has been ignored. According to Pishghadam’s (2011) proposal, language teachers should no longer be consumers of the findings of other disciplines but should rather take on a more contributory and life-changing status. The idea was further developed by Pishghadam and Zabihi (2012) with the aim of introducing a new type of syllabus, i.e. life syllabus, to ELT professionals and encouraging the ELT community to consider the promotion of learners’ life qualities prior to language learning. Given this apparent significance, the question of whether language teachers consider life issues, and to what extent, should be investigated extensively. The significance of the present study thus lies in examining one application of the theory of applied ELT to English language classes, giving the theory more empirical adequacy. Granted that the writing ability, more than any other skill, imposes great demands on the learners, making this skill difficult to be mastered, we believe that language teachers should make attempts at enhancing learners’ life qualities in writing classes rather than merely working on the vocabulary, grammar, fluency and the mechanics of writing. In this manner, for instance, DasGupta and Charon (2004) have suggested reflective writing exercises to be integrated into the medical curriculum in order to enhance the empathy of medical students. Moreover, Deane (2009) advocates the use of such reflective practices in writing for the purpose of enhancing students’ self-belief and confidence. More specifically in the L2 context, others have also made attempts at shifting the focus of inquiry in L2 teaching to creative writing practices (e.g., Rojas-Drummond, Albarran, & Littleton, 2008; Vass, 2004) as well as those which can enhance learners’ critical thinking abilities in writing classes (cf. Mok, 2009), considering the facts that there is a close link between learners’ thinking skills and writing development and that these skills play significant roles in one’s success in life (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In another vein of argument, Kubota (1999) portrays the links that should essentially be made between L2 writing and issues of power, race, social class, and gender. For the purposes of characterizing L2 writing, Atkinson (2003), inspired by Trimbur’s (1994) notion of “post process”, refers to the process of L2 writing as a manifold activity that comprises an assembly of sociocognitive, cultural, and ideological issues: Writing is a human activity which reaches into all other areas of human endeavor—expansive in a way that casts doubt on conventional boundaries between individual and society, language and action, the cognitive and the social. I therefore view the notion of “post-process” as an appropriate basis on which to investigate the complex activity of L2 writing in its full range of sociocognitive situatedness, dynamism, diversity, and implications (p. 10). Firstly, the origin of the social situatedness of L2 writing can be traced back to Swales’ (1990) concepts of genre and discourse community as well as Johns’ (1990) discussions of social constructionism which can additionally be brought to bear on what Atkinson (2003) hopes to consider as one part of the ‘post-process’ view of L2 writing. In much the same way, the ideological outlook on L2 writing (Atkinson, 2003) has been developed on the grounds that reading and writing are not only related to individual and cognitive aspects but also directly enmeshed with relations of power as well as with societal and cultural issues (e.g., Belcher, 2001; Bourdieu, 1977; Pennycook, 1996; Vandrick, 1995). Moreover, L2 writing can be regarded as a cultural activity (Atkinson, 2003) where issues such as the domination of western social institutions as well as the influence of culture on learners’ L2 writings can be discussed extensively (e.g., Kubota, 1999; Spack, 1997). In this connection, there is no doubt that feedback plays a central role in developing writing proficiency among second language learners (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006); 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). Besides, studies on teacher feedback (e.g., Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1995; Gram, 2005; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Hyland, 2003; Komura, 1999; Lee, 2005; Leki, 1991; Roberts, 1999) have generally confirmed that L2 learners highly value teacher feedback on their writings. Seen through a different lens, writing teachers provide spoken and written feedback not only to support learners’ writing development but also to improve their confidence as writers. In effect, as Lee (2009, p. 131) has pointed out, “writing is a personal process where motivation and self-confidence of the students as writers may expand or contract depending on the type of comments incorporated in the feedback.” For instance, in addition to the favorable impacts that peer feedback has on the writing quality, it has also proved beneficial in enhancing learners’ critical thinking abilities, autonomy and social interaction (Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006). Therefore, granted that one of the techniques through which life skills can be imparted is to provide appropriate feedback to individuals, it is important, along the lines of applied ELT (Pishghadam, 2011), to check out the extent to which teachers’ feedback on learners’ writings incorporates learners’ life issues. Therefore, in this study we attempt to examine whether EFL university professors provide learners more with linguistic skills or life issues. The following research questions were addressed in this study: What are the characteristics of teachers’ feedback on learners’ writings? To what extent do language teachers try to enhance learners’ life qualities in writing classes? Method In this study, a triangulation of document analyses and classroom observations was used in order to enhance the validity of inferences made (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). Data Sources 1. Written Feedback A total number of three-hundred essay compositions, provided with feedback, were subject to investigation. Two raters were asked to rate the documents based on the scoring sheet provided for them. The scoring system was based on seven categories of mechanics (punctuation, spelling, capitalization, face, paragraphing, handwriting, space), grammar (tense, sentence structure, structure complexity, phrasal structure, number, agreement, article, preposition, pronoun, etc.), organization (paragraph development, paragraph structure, essay development, essay structure), style (tone, mode, register, formality, awkward structure, appropriateness of use), unity (relevance of sentences to the topic, relevance of sentences to each other, transitions), vocabulary (word usage, word choice, use of different and complex vocabulary), and content (development of idea, quality of idea). In addition, four categories of life-responsive language teaching, i.e. life-wise empowerment (the language teacher’s ability to support mental well-being and behavioral preparedness of learners including creative and critical thinking), adaptability enhancement (the language teacher’s ability to foster adaptive and positive behaviors that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life including problem-solving and decision making), pro-social development (the language teacher’s ability to promote personal and social development including interpersonal bonds and effective communication), and life-over-language preference (the language teacher’s ability to center attention on learners’ qualities of life including their feelings and emotions in comparison with linguistic points) were also taken into account. In this connection, Pishghadam, Zabihi and Ghadiri (2012) developed and validated a scale for the measurement of life-responsive language teaching beliefs through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), coming up the aforementioned subscales. The internal consistency of the scale was also found to be .94, indicating high reliability. Accordingly, appropriate descriptive statistical procedures were followed to interpret the results of the document analyses quantitatively and determine the significant differences between the life-wise and linguistic-bound feedback provided. 2. Classroom observation In order to shed more light on the issue, the data collection procedure was followed by 12 hours observation of EFL writing courses at three universities in the province of Isfahan. Eight 90-minute academic writing classes were observed. The researchers tried to pay careful heed to teachers’ practices inside the class. Consequently, the feedback provided for the students were analyzed in terms of linguistic-bound or life-wise pointer. The data pertaining to classroom observations were analyzed and interpreted qualitatively to examine the degree to which the feedback provided by EFL writing teachers concerned life-wise or linguistic-bound issues. The data were subsequently analyzed in terms of the eleven categories cited above. The detailed information on the observed classes is shown in Table 1. Table 1 Characteristics of the Observed L2 Writing Classes
Results 1. Document Analysis of Written Feedback Finally, the data obtained from three-hundred essay compositions, provided with feedback, were analyzed. Two raters were asked to rate the documents based on the scoring sheet provided for them. The inter-rater reliability between the raters was obtained to be 80%, indicating high reliability. Accordingly, descriptive statistics were utilized to interpret the results of the document analyses quantitatively and determine the significant differences between the life-wise and linguistic-bound feedback provided. As it is shown is Table 2, a total number of 3516 feedbacks were provided on the 300 compositions under investigation. Among these, grammar (N= 1386) and mechanics (N= 1065) enjoy the highest frequency. That is, around 70% of all the written feedbacks revolved around grammatical issues and mechanics of writing. Table 2 Type, Number, and Percentage of Linguistic-bound and Life-responsive Written Feedback
In order to better illustrate the types of feedback given, the readers are provided with some examples, as can be seen in the sample extracts below. The first extract clearly sketches the conventional categories of feedback provided such as grammar, vocabulary, mechanics (spelling, punctuation), and organization (see Appendix). In much the same way, the second extract (see Appendix) depicts part of an essay being provided with feedback including those pertaining to grammar, organization, vocabulary, and content (development of idea, quality of idea). To put the results on a more concrete footing, below we refer to a rating scale provided by an L2 writing teacher, all centering on linguistic-bound issues such as mechanics of writing, grammar, organization, vocabulary, style and content. 
Sadly, however, the underlying factors of life-responsive language teaching did not receive well-deserved attention. Nonetheless, some instances of life-responsive feedback were occasionally observed, as might best be seen in the following extracts, though these can be argued to be indirectly triggering learners’ life skills. As can be seen, in these extracts, the teacher’s feedback not only revolves around issues such as grammar, vocabulary, organization and mechanics of writing, but it also triggers learners’ creative thinking (can you think of another way to express your opinion?), critical thinking (I don’t see your justification strong enough; Did you try to be critical? Try to send your information in an objective manner), and effective communication with the reader (Who is your reader? Can you effectively communicate and convey your points to the reader? Try to communicate well with your reader), as well. 
|
1 2