For Blog Post, for Tuesday, March 7 on Evans, et al:
What are the advantages and disadvantages for teachers and students of dynamic written corrective feedback? Would you consider using it in teaching L2 writing? Why or why not? If you answered in the affirmative, how do you think you might use it in your teaching?
ReplyDeleteDynamic WCF has its own features, such as it provides meaningful, timely, constant, and manageable feedback to students. When I prepared for my road test, my boyfriend corrected my false driving skills one by one, until I fully acquired the correct driving skills. Sometimes, I knew the correct driving behaviors through taking the learning permit test, but I was just not able to apply it in real-life driving. Thus, through my boyfriend’s repetitive instructions, those target driving skills become automation in my mind. Similar to learning how to drive, ESL learners learn how to produce an error-free writing text through making mistakes and receiving constant feedback. Students may produce a same type of error the second time when they write the text, but through constant exposure to the correct form, they will eventually develop language accuracy.
However, dynamic WCF also has its weaknesses. Instead of taking risks to produce more challenging sentences, students are more likely to stay in their language comfort zones. The amount of clause/T-unit clause and vocabulary use will be decreased. When I taught ESL to Saudi students in California, once in a week, I spent an entire class to have conferences with students about their writing. On average, students revised their writing texts three times before no error was identified on forms and the logic became smooth. However, I would say that students became less likely to produce new complex sentences because of my “timely” feedback. In the end, their writing texts were all accurate, but chances were that they could produce an “i+1” written piece as well.
In my current teaching job, I have a Spanish couple in my class. Learning alphabet is challenging to them, especially with “g,” “j,” and “h.” Every time when they forget how to pronounce these alphabets or mispronounce them, I offered dynamic feedback to them. Different from the studies results from the articles we have read about WCF or dynamic WCF, my dynamic oral CF just doesn’t work. They have been exposure to alphabet for a long time, but still they have a hard to say them correctly. One of the things I have learned from this problem is that they may dependent on me to tell them the right pronunciation (they used to write down the pronunciation in Spanish). If my assumption is true, then dynamic feedback may result in students’ lack of independent thinking abilities, because eventually their teachers will provide a timely feedback to them.
As a second language learner myself, I have benefitted from the dynamic WCF. Meanwhile, I am suffering from the lack of confidence if I submit a paper without consulting a writing consultant. Similar to the situation happened to my students as mentioned above, I need to be confident about my writing and take the risk of using more complex sentences even when there is nobody who can proofread my essay.
On our second or third week of the semester, we talked about our viewpoints and orientation regarding the teaching of writing. I could not help to notice how much my text-oriented orientation influenced how I perceived this study by Evans et al. While looking for advantages and disadvantages, I kept thinking, “how can students NOT benefit from DWCF? I also wished the authors had given more details on Truscott’s research. I have to confess I was surprised and intrigued by Truscott’s assertion that “error correction is a failure and that the question “How effective is correction?” should perhaps be replaced by ‘‘How harmful is correction?’’ (p. 230 in Evans et al.). I am very interested by this, because, even if I haven’t read his research (but I’m now planning to), I imagine the type of feedback or the circumstances in which it was given was not appropriate for either the type of assignment or the students’ proficiency level. I remember mentioning in class that I was told never to grade with red ink, and to always point out something the student had done right (“Great conclusion!” or “Good point!”), which is a practice supported by Krashen’s affective filter theory (or so I was told). I wonder if the teachers in Truscott’s studies were the kind that only marked mistakes in big circles with red ink and therefore “traumatized” students instead of helping them.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I found that one advantage of DWCF presented by Evans et al was this:
“Errors were marked using indirect codes, and students were expected to keep error tally sheets (list of error by type for each paragraph), error lists (comprehensive list of all errors in context), and edit logs (record of number of edits needed to eliminate all errors). These additional tools not only raised student awareness of the accuracy of their writing, but also provided a basis for classroom instruction which focused on the most frequent error types produced in their writing.” (p.232).
Nevertheless, that kind of list would not help all students. They would help me, for example, because I love lists and as a language learner I have learned from them, but not everybody has the same learning style. Moreover, I thought it was a good idea to consider students’ errors as part of the class instruction (which can somehow be considered a “needs analysis,” each group of students can have different needs), as long as individual students are not put on the spot or identified.
I have used DWCF in the past, but I am now doubting myself, and reflecting on whether it was the best option or not at that moment. I think I am going to take some time to read Truscott’s research to have a better idea on why he opposed it, because I think that Evans et al did not provide enough, solid reasons or facts for me to build a strong opinion on this practice.
I am not entirely sure how I feel about the system of dynamic written corrective feedback (WCF) presented by Evans, Hartshorn, and Strong-Krause (2011) and the role that it might play in my classroom. I think that the underlying premise focusing on the immediate needs of the learner, learner’s continued interaction with the feedback, and understanding that this is a “learning process” rather than a one-time correction is a strength. I think that this type of correction might be beneficial to those students who are determined and independently motivated as they have something more pointed to examine and “fix”. Also I think that beginning small with a manageable text size is important, but I also think that it is important to continue to expand the size requirements until it is more representative of what they will need to write in real life.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to some of the weaknesses. To begin with, I question the authenticity of the writing task. I understand that the focus is on the type of feedback, but it seems to me that the limited text size and the timed element would actually change how the students were approaching writing. Fang mentioned that students may choose to stay within their comfort zone which I think can be expanded when considering that they may not have time or space to really explore different complexities.
Another element of the study I questioned was the repetitive nature of dynamic WCF. I personally struggle with constantly pointing out mistakes (such as articles) because I feel it might contribute to discouraging emotions about one’s writing ability. For example, when I find an article mistake in my students writing many will say “I am always so bad with articles and can never get them right”. I point out that articles are not as simple as they may appear and that it is a process of learning. But I still feel bad that they see it as a personal “inability” rather than as a complex feature.
However, Fang brought up an important point with her example of learning to drive. I can see where there are occasions when pointed and repetitive feedback is helpful in learning to actually do something, especially when you may have a good conceptual understanding.
Finally, I wonder how dynamic WCF might interact with computer based writing. Often times, word will catch certain mistakes and the reader “thinks” about them before changing them. Isn’t this kind of similar to dynamic WCF? But I wonder if in either situation the student really thinks about the mistake and the correction and “learns” from the process of having the mistake pointed out or do they simply make the change?
While I cannot completely affirm that I would use this type of feedback in my classroom, I believe I would experiment with in and see what happens.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read articles like this, I can't help but think not only of my experiences as an instructor but also of my experiences as a learner. The article mentions multiple times that there must be so many factors yet to discover that influence whether WCF works. I believe that a lot of those could be discovered—and a lot of this strategy’s weaknesses could be mitigated—if WCF took sociocultural ideas (which already overlap with WCF through the requirements that feedback be meaningful and manageable) more into account. I would like to share an experience I had which shares many similarities with the modality used in this study but that I think also highlights other important factors to learning, many of which have already been mentioned by my peers here.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most fruitful exercises I undertook to improve my Spanish writing ability was when, as an undergrad, I decided to sign up for pen pals in Spanish-speaking countries, respond to their letters, and then take their letters to a Spanish tutor for correction. I asked her to point out every error and inconsistency, and I think she did. The feedback I received fit the criteria that Fang pointed out—meaningful, timely, constant and manageable—and I grew tremendously as a writer and as a speaker during that time.
First, working one-on-one with my tutor ensured that error correction was in my ZPD, making it both meaningful and manageable. Second, Rocky talks about the importance of authentic tasks, which relates to the “meaningful” requirement of WCF. The task I was setting for myself was highly authentic and meant that I was learning structures that felt relevant. Finally, Fang, Claudia and Rocky all mention issues to do with negative states that might impede students from leaving their “language comfort zones,” as Fang so nicely put it. Claudia brings up the potential trauma of red ink, and Rocky talks about how discouraging it could be to have the same error pointed out time and time again. My pen pal letters always ended up full of red ink, but I never experienced it as traumatizing. I credit a number of factors: My tutor was gentle and kind (as I imagine Fang’s boyfriend must have been!). Also, this was a self-sponsored, low-stakes activity. Had I been writing for a grade, or if I hadn’t had the support of a tutor to make sure I wasn’t miscommunicating to my pen pals, I’m sure I would have been tempted to stick to simpler ideas and sentences. In that way, my tutor was not only great for my learning; she served as a psycho-emotional safety net that empowered me to focus on communicating my ideas and experiment without worry.
So my thinking is that it will be very interesting to see how this area of inquiry evolves as researchers branch out into different learning contexts and try to identify additional factors that impact learning.
When it comes to corrective feedback, context is everything. My goal isn’t to help students compose error free products; it’s to help them to think deeply and meaningfully. In this study, however, “better” (p. 231) means more accurate.
ReplyDeleteBonnie Sunstein always reminds me that there is no one writing process, but a unique process for each writer in each context. Editing/ polishing can be important components of process writing in some contexts, but we don’t know whether they are part of the “traditional process approach” the control group experienced. Bonnie gives a great talk about qualities of “healthy” first drafts, like subjects and verbs that don’t agree because inaccuracy in first drafts is an important part of thinking.
The control group did not demonstrate gains in accuracy. I wonder to what extent they made gains in complexity? What kind of errors did the students continue to make? It seems that gains in accuracy might come at the expense of complexity. I’d say the sample paragraphs in the appendix are particularly lacking in complexity for college-level writing.
We don’t have any details about what the control group experienced. What did the teacher do? What was the pedagogy like? The teacher gave feedback. To what degree was “error free” a goal of that feedback?
Finally, this study makes me think about three of my current students who have diagnosed reading disabilities and continue to narrowly miss the cutoff score for the Praxis writing exam. I have to wonder about the extent to which an artificial writing assignment in a control setting models the types of writing and conditions for accuracy required of classroom teachers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe benefit of the dynamic WCF for students is receiving immediate feedback whenever students feel the need. Evan et al (2011) showed that DWCF is effective especially for the linguistic accuracy of writing. Accordingly, the ultimate goal of the dynamic WCF was to produce error-free text in this study. I agree that the accuracy of writing is crucial regardless of the level of the students, but at some point competence, fluency, and complexity are also important components to improve their writing. For this reason, I think Truscott’s viewpoint is meaningful for those teachers or students who strongly touted the importance of accuracy in writing.
DeleteThe clarity of writing not only covers the mechanical issues, but also the organization and syntactic fluency as well. For those lower level who conduct writing sentence by sentence, I think dynamic WCF is beneficial because they can identify the errors promptly and apply/practice to other sentences before moving on to next step (e.g. writing a paragraph). For this reason, I would like to consider DWCF in teaching L2 writing for my future students in consideration of their level of language proficiency and their preference.
As students’ learning styles differ, not all students prefer to have DWCF in some aspect. For example, if my students are intermediate-higher level, I would examine if a topic of a prompt question is related to their field or if they are familiar with the certain topic. These factors will also affect their writing motivation. Moreover, I think even experienced writers made a mistake in their writing so they need to review their writing pieces several times until they have an error-free writing piece. In my teaching, I will ask my students to read several times before receiving feedback. Instead of giving WCF promptly I will ask them first. I also believe providing constant WCF is important to improve writing so effective instructional method will be carefully considered when providing DWCF.
I find this article very interesting as I was reading it. The advantage of the article is, a teacher gives every paragraph received feedback. The students are required to correct errors until it is an error free work. I believe that students learn from their mistakes. This is like saying “practice makes perfect”. When a Second language student writes his paper and gets wrong. He might then have a strong attitude towards re-writing it again and again which can lead to accuracy. Last week I taught my students how to write a paragraph. This week they write their paragraphs and ask me to read them so as to know if they are right.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Fang on the disadvantage of written corrective feedback that, students are likely to stay in their language comfort zone. Last semester when I taught advanced Swahili class. Students had a lot of writing from a series they watch online. Most students, where in a situation that made them feel very confident and comfortable on what they are writing. It appeared that most of the writings had a lot of mistakes, especially in vocabulary used sentences. I had to tell them to write short paragraphs using simple sentences.
I believe this is a good way of giving WCF and I like it, but I am not ready to use it because, feedback must focus on the most immediate needs of the learner. Unfortunately I am too busy sometimes which make it hard for me to give an immediate feedback. I also think feedback needs to be manageable. As a teacher I need enough time to provide quality feedback and my students need enough time to process and apply the feedback they receive. I am not interested in teaching language two writing but, I can teach my students how to write paragraphs in the classroom. I have observed my students and they don’t like much feedback. I guess because they are elementary Swahili students. May be when they join advanced class then they will be ready to receive more feedback.