國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION
This current study aimed to exam the effects of teacher’s indirect feedback (IDF) and direct feedback (DF) on elementary students’ sentence writing accuracy and to investigate learners’ attitudes and motivation towards different teacher feedback types after the treatment. Based on the results, this chapter presents the discussion on the research questions.
Research Question 1: Did the IDF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in the pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than in the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways?
In the present study, EWPT was conducted to examine the effects of IDF and DF after the treatment in two groups. The findings were twofold. First, by comparing the results of pre- and post-EWPT of IDF group (as shown in Table 3), the improvement between two tests reached the significant level. Second, by comparing the results of retention and post-EWPT of the IDF group (as shown in Table 5), the regress of the retention test was insignificant. The findings were reported and the possible reasons were listed as below.
It is important to note that the significant progress was found on the total score of the post-EWPT and three specific aspects: plural/singular noun, verb tense, and
spelling. The positive result in the present study was correspondent to the previous studies which conducted in different contexts (Huang, 2009; Wang & Hu, 2010; Abedi, Latifi & Moinzadeh, 2010; Lalande, 1982). In addition, adding the rewriting process after receiving teachers’ correction, the current study corresponded to the test result of Lalande’s (1982) research since the IDF group gained better score than the DF group.
The significant improvement of the IDF group in the current study might reflect that
87
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
while getting involved in the process of implementing IDF, learners can gain advantages of enhancing their sentence writing ability in several ways.
First, IDF was to assist them by noticing the grammatical errors and making them aware of the linguistic forms (Ferris, 1999). While noticing the grammatical errors, students knew where to start and what the learning objective was (Schmidt, 1990). By correcting the error, students knew more about their deficit and the error type that they should pay attention to it. Based on the information processing theory (Gagné, 1985), the learning process began with gaining attention and informing learners of the objective (Lalande, 1982). Moreover, Schmidt (1990) stated that if learners were not aware of the grammatical errors; they would not know where and how to improve. In the current study, the implementation of IDF was correspondent to Gagné’s learning process; it drew students’ attention on the error and informed students to learn the error type. In addition, IDF offered students with proper contexts to examine what they need and where their language knowledge needs to be improved. This function
connected Schmidt’s statement since it guides learners to know about their deficit. In short, IDF helped students notice the grammatical errors and linguistic forms with their awareness and this might be one of the reasons to cause the significant improvement on the post-EWPT.
Secondly, learners were actively involved in the guided learning and problem solving process because IDF required learners to work out the accurate form on their own (Lalande, 1982). In order to work out the correct form successfully, students needed to follow the teacher’s guidance which was written beside the error. This
provided students great opportunities to link the prior knowledge with the new content, create authentic chances for them to learn the linguistic forms and apply what they have learned. According to Lowen (2004), the connection of the prior and the new
88
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
knowledge improved the efficiency of learning. Similarly, Chuang (2003) also pointed out that searching for the accurate form caused the interaction between the student and the written feedback. Thus, IDF has created the active learning process (Lalande, 1982) which can make connections between the prior and the new-learned knowledge and encouraged students to solve the grammatical problem on their own.
Third, IDF provided a series of systematic feedback (Lalande, 1982). In IDF, various teacher feedbacks were structured into a system that consisted of six types of error: the five targeted error types and the untargeted errors. Students consistently received these six types of teacher feedback and learned the categorized grammatical knowledge. According to Higgs (1979), the teacher feedback would be the most beneficial to learners when teachers systematically use error codes to remind learners what and where the error was. In the current study, IDF provided a systematic
feedback that consisted of six types of teacher feedback, it systematically helped participants focus on the targeted five error types and the systematic function might benefit on students’ learning effect.
Furthermore, the comparison of the retention and the post-EWPTs was
insignificant, and this might relate to the teacher’s review activity since the teacher taught both the IDF and DF groups and did the same review activity with two groups.
However, it is noted that the preposition of the retention EWPT was significantly increased three weeks later. The result was correlated to the previous studies (Lalande, 1982; Ferris, 2006; Li, 2010). The significant improvement showed that the IDF group learned well from the review activity and was able to maintain what they learned three weeks later.
In short, to answer research question 1, the IDF group performed significantly better in the post-EWPT than in the pre-EWPT on the mean score and on three specific
89
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
error types: plural/singular noun, verb tense and spelling. Secondly, based on the comparison of retention and the post-EWPT, the IDF group performed better in the post-EWPT than in the retention EWPT on the mean score. Then, a significance was found on the aspect of preposition between the post- and retention EWPT.
Research Question 2: Did the DF group perform better in the post-EWPT than in the pre-EWPT? In addition, did the group perform better in the retention EWPT than in the post-EWPT? If yes, in what ways?
Comparing the post- and pre-EWPT, as well as the retention and the post-EWPT, the results were insignificant and accordant with the previous studies (Kepner, 1991;
Sheppard, 1992). The insignificant effect of the DF group in the present study might have related to the following two aspects.
First, based on the meaningful learning theory, if students derived DF, the correct form, without understanding, it would be difficult for them to internalize the correct form (Ausubel, 1978). In the implementation of DF, the teacher offered the correct usage form beside the errors, and students read and revised it. When the learners did not understand why they need it and how to correct, it was a possibility for students to copy the correction directly without understanding and this might have related to the insignificant effect of DF. According to Lin (1990), the meaningful learning only happened when students explored the knowledge themselves; otherwise, the learning was meaningless to students. As Willingham (1990) also stated, students learned better from working out solutions and fixing the grammatical errors by themselves. DF did not encourage students to work out or to fix the grammatical errors; on the contrary, it provided the accurate form beside the error for students’ convenience (Huang, 2009).
By reading and following DF for 14 weeks, students might be accustomed to receiving
90
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
answers from the teacher instead of thinking and understanding. As a result, students lost excellent opportunities of being actively engaged in the learning process,
connecting the new knowledge to the prior knowledge and constructing knowledge on their own. As Gagné (1985) proposed, knowledge is constructed by the learner, not derives from the environment; students would have learned better if they construct the grammatical knowledge by thinking and exploring on their own.
Second, the very nature of DF entailed a high number of modification, as was the case in the current study: DF led to many different changes to the students’ original sentences than in the IDF group, which in effect meant that, even though students understood all the teacher feedback in both groups, the number of DF they had to remember was much higher than that of IDF. Students were likely to forget the grammatical knowledge since DF did not provide learners with a simple and
systematic feedback. While students received the different correction feedbacks, they learned different new information without knowing that they should pay attention to one concept. From the students’ view, DF was not systematic and might be too much and discrete to remember. Therefore, teachers should provide a more systematic feedback for getting students involved into the learning process instead of passing discrete language knowledge (Cohen & Robbins, 1976; Zamel, 1985).
To answer research question 2, the DF group did not perform significantly better in the post-EWPT and in the retention EWPT.
Research Question 3: Did the IDF group and DF group perform differently in the post-EWPT? Besides, did the two groups perform differently in the retention EWPT? If yes, in what ways?
91
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Comparing the mean scores on the post-EWPTs, as shown on Table 9, there was no significant difference between these two groups. The result showed that the effects of IDF and DF were not significantly different, that is to say, the effects of IDF and DF were quite similar on the mean score.
On the view of the two retention EWPTs, no significant difference between the IDF and DF groups on the mean scores was found. According to Table 10, the IDF group gained 28.76 points while the DF group gained 27.24 points on the retention EWPTs. The comparison result did not reach the significant level, that is, the retention IDF and DF was similar on the mean scores.
To answer research question 3, based on the comparison of the post-EWPTs and the retention EWPTs, the IDF and DF group did not perform differently on the mean score.
Research Question 4: Did the IDF group and DF group express different attitudes toward the treatment? If yes, in what ways?
Comparing the replies of the seven sections of ELAQ, the DF group showed more interest and motivation on 2 sections: interest in foreign countries and motivation of future school or employment. The DF group also expressed more positive attitude toward the treatment. This result was supported by the statistic evidence as follows.
In section one, interest in foreign countries, the DF group showed more interest than that of the IDF group on the questions of contacting foreign friends with e-mail and writing correct English sentences. In section two, motivation of future school or employment, the DF participants agreed more on the description of learning English is for future employment and making junior high English easier. It showed that the DF group had more learning motivation than the IDF group. The significant difference in
92
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
section one and two might be because of the encouragement from their parents or families. According to their teacher, the parents of the DF group were mostly from higher social status than that of the IDF group. In other words, the parents of the DF group were mostly working in the technology industry while that of the IDF group were mostly running a store in the traditional market. The DF group might be affected by their families and considered communicating with others via written words in English as important. The positive attitude toward communication facilitated their attitude and motivation toward learning English sentence writing. Besides, the parents of the DF group considered the learning in junior high school and getting a better job as important. On the contrary, that of the IDF group did not, since the parents expected their children to inherit their business. These different values from families might be the possible reason to cause the significant difference of section one and two.
As for section six, attitudes toward the treatment, the DF group also expressed more confidence in understanding the teacher’s marking, written words and correction style. The significant difference might be because the DF group was accustomed to DF for years. From grade one to five, students have received DF, the most common and traditional feedback form, for five years. Since students were familiar with the feedback content and the format, DF was easier than IDF to understand and apply to revisions. Students’ confidence was boosted because they considered themselves to totally understand DF, write accurate sentences with DF and they considered DF as beneficial on self-detecting errors. Being used to DF became the possible reason of the significant difference in section six.
On the specific questions, the IDF group scored higher than the DF group on question 13, correcting the errors on workbooks always makes me nervous. The result showed that the IDF group expressed the feeling of being nervous while in the process
93
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
of implementing IDF. The result of expressing more anxiety was different from the senior high school students in Huang’s (2004) and Huang’s (2009) study. The participants in senior high school expressed their preference on the IDF since they considered it as more beneficial to learning (Huang, 2004). In addition, Huang (2009) echoed the same idea that the senior high school learners liked IDF better because of the concern of being lazy. In a word, the current finding was not in accordance with the findings in the senior high school contexts, and this different finding might be ascribed to the young participants in the current study. The primary school students were too young to take the effect of the teacher feedback into consideration, they might only express the attitude toward receiving the unfamiliar feedback and this might lead to the significantly different result on question 13.
However, the DF group scored higher than the IDF group on 3 questions, and the results showed the significant difference.
On question 18, I can understand the markings and the written feedback from the teacher; the DF group expressed more confidence in understanding toward the
teacher’s marking and written feedback. On question 19, I can understand the teacher’s correction style; the DF group showed more confidence in understanding the teacher’s correction style. As for question 20, the teacher feedback is helpful for me to
self-detect errors; participants in the DF group considered DF as beneficial in developing their error-detecting ability. The DF group presented more confidence in understanding the markings and the written feedback, understanding the teachers’
correction style and considered the teacher feedback as helpful on self-detecting errors.
This finding was correspondent to Leki’s (1991) study noticing that students acknowledged the value of error identification and appreciated the direct teacher feedback. Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1994) proposed the similar result that learners
94
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
considered the direct feedback beneficial because of its convenience to understand and to apply; and they expected consistency on direct error correction from their teachers.
In brief, to answer research question 4, the DF group presented more positive attitude toward English learning from section 1 and 2; besides, the DF group showed more confidence toward the teacher feedback on section 6: the attitudes toward the treatment. The possible reason of the positive attitude from the DF group might be because of the stronger learning motivation from students’ families and being used to receiving DF. On the other hand, the IDF group expressed significant anxiety on question 13 and the possible explanation of the result was the young learners might not be accustomed to IDF and they were too young to take the learning effect of IDF into consideration. In addition, the DF group expressed that they were confident in
understanding the teacher’s markings, written feedback, and correction style; they also considered DF as beneficial to self-detecting ability. These positive attitudes toward DF might relate to the use of the traditional teacher feedback style.
95
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
96
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
CHAPTER SIX