As stated in Chapter 1, the study reported here examined in detail the experiences and perceptions of 24 participants in a class with 43 students after the implementation of a combination of self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback in a large multilevel EFL writing class in a private university in the southern part of Taiwan. This chapter is organized in terms of the five research questions posed in Chapter 1. According to each question, the findings of this study are reported in five sections: (1) students’ responses to pre-writing discussion, (2) students’ perceptions of self-directed feedback, (3) student writers’ opinions about peer feedback (written and oral), (4) students’ responses to teacher feedback, and (5) students’ views about self-directed, peer, and teacher feedback.
There is a summary section to present the findings from these five research questions at the end of this chapter.
Students’ Responses to Pre-Writing Discussion
Pre-writing discussion is an activity aimed to help student writers to have a further understanding of the assigned text through the process of brainstorming textual meanings, cultural comprehension, syntactical structure, and personal experiences. To report the findings of students’ responses to pre-writing discussion, two data sets are used—the Journal of Classroom Activities and Observation and the interviews with participants. In the end of this section, there is a conclusion to present the major findings.
Journal of Classroom Activities and Observation Related to Pre-Writing Discussion The Journal of Classroom Activities and Observation describes the general situation of the pre-writing discussion activity. The first assigned text, “Wandering Home” by Dominique Browning, was discussed on September 24, 2008, by five groups, each composed of eight or nine students. In spite of the fact that, before the pre-writing discussion, the instructor had exchanged ideas with the students about the concept of
“home,” asked students to scan the text to get the main idea, compared the author’s viewpoints about “home” with those of individual students, the activity was not
successful due to the limitation of the students’ English speaking ability and the students’
unfamiliarity with others in their group. In the notes of the classroom observation, the researcher stated:
At 11:35 a.m., the instructor asked each group to discuss the article “Wandering Home” in English for 15 minutes. The group in which I participated was not very successful because of the limited English-speaking ability. The students were unable to express their ideas thoroughly, and some would use Chinese instead. From the five groups, only two student representatives were able to report the short conclusion of their groups in simple English before the class was dismissed at 12:00 p.m.
It seemed to me that code-switching might be an alternative for students to pass over to the next stage of communication in English only. I discussed this issue with the instructor to improve the effectiveness of the pre-writing discussion. (Journal of Classroom Activities and Observation, 9/24/2008)
The second assigned text, “The Dog and the Wolf,” a fable stating the advantages and disadvantages of two different lifestyles, was discussed on December 3, 2008. At that time, speaking in Chinese, the students appeared more able to freely communicate their thoughts. The fifth group, attended by the researcher, was in a heated debate over the differences between the dog’s lifestyle (restrained yet free of anxiety over physiological needs) and the wolf’s (free but insecure about basic needs). The following are two passages from the researcher’s classroom observation:
The group that I was in as an observer and audience started the task by the group members taking turns to speak out their opinions about these two different lifestyles. First, Sandra, the leader of the fifth group, said that the wolf in the fable was very foolish because he might die in order to maintain freedom and dignity. If there were no life, there would be no hope at all. The wolf would prefer dying to living without freedom, unlike the dog. Ida responded to this argument saying that the wolf’s lifestyle was very similar to that of the
wanderers in our last assignment. Could we say for sure that there was nothing praiseworthy in the lifestyle of wanderers? With few material possessions, the wanderers could move from place to place with ease, without having the many anxieties that afflict other people. They had deliberately chosen to lead the life they led, and were fully aware of the consequences. In the same way, the wolf, in seeking independence and dignity, chose a simple way of life without too many constraints.
Sharon suggested that the wolf could not find food around there due to the tight guarding of the dog and his companions. This did not mean that the wolf could not wander away to other areas to find food. Life always presents many choices. Peggy counter-argued that the wolf was in a very weak physical condition, not having any strength to move, so he was lying under a big tree when the dog met him. How could it be possible for him to move to other areas to hunt?
As an observer and audience, I really enjoyed the pre-writing discussion session because the students could communicate subtle feelings and thoughts in Chinese much better than in English. Their active participation contributed to the use of the students’ first language, but it highlighted the gap of language proficiency between English and Chinese. In other words, the students still needed to work hard on improving their English competence. (Journal of Classroom Activities and Observation, 12/3/2008; emphasis added)
Generally, students’ performance in the pre-writing discussion was improved when they familiarized themselves with the procedure and knew one another, and when they were
permitted to use their native language. This activity highlights one controversial issue—
what language should be used in the process of discussion? It seems that students at the stage of language development are still incapable of using the target language (English) well enough to express their intended meanings. However, if they are not given an
opportunity to practice the target language they are acquiring, it may be difficult for them to transfer from the stage of interlanguage to that of the target language. If they are required to employ the target language to discuss, they may either keep silent or convey their ideas incompletely. This would hinder two-way communication.
Students’ Perceptions of Pre-Writing Discussion as Shown in Interview Interviews are another source to report student responses to the pre-writing
discussion activity. There are three types of responses to this activity: helpful, unhelpful, and neutral. The helpful response type includes two reasons, namely that student writers are able to gain more ideas, examples, and knowledge from peers in the pre-writing discussion to compose their drafts, and that this activity helps them to more thoroughly understand the topic so they can get inspiration from their peers’ talks. The following example of Hank’s statement can represent the first type of reason:
That is a great favorite of mine. For example, in our discussion that day, some peers were against the wolf’s lifestyle, while others were for it. Everyone had a different opinion. You could absorb much more knowledge when everyone gave his/her views. You could write your draft by citing examples given by your peers.
(Hank, para. 37; emphasis added)
The significance of Hank’s statement reveals that the major goal of the pre-writing discussion is to gain more ideas, examples, and experience as writing materials from peers through brainstorming to compose the drafts.
Another reason concerning the helpful response type is that a more thorough understanding of the topic can be gained, and peers’ opinions can inspire writers to produce their essays. The following example from Sharon can be used to illustrate this point:
S: It’s easier for us to understand what the text is talking about if we have eight students together to discuss it; moreover, the opinions from my peers will inspire me when I am composing my own draft. (Sharon, para. 44; emphasis added)
Sharon’s response showed another purpose of this activity: to approach the topic from varied angles by different students so that they could better understand the topic and get inspiration for composing their writings.
Second, there is the unhelpful response type to the pre-writing discussion. The students’ reasons included that the pre-writing discussion was superficial and discursive in the exchange of ideas, time-consuming with low efficiency, and with no specific goal to reach.
1. Superficial and discursive in the exchange of ideas
The viewpoints of Julia and Belinda can be used to illustrate this type of reason:
J: I think eight people are too many. I feel, um, five people are enough.
Sometimes eight people have too many ideas, but with five people, we can
understand others’ ideas in depth. Unless there is plenty of time, fewer people would be better. (Julia, para. 30; emphasis added)
B: Either the group was too quiet, or the discussion was too discursive. (Belinda, para. 43; emphasis added)
What Julia and Belinda said points out certain possible defects in the pre-writing discussion activity. Even though the instructor had given a lecture on the topic, some students still were incapable of thinking critically on the issue, and therefore, their remarks tended to be shallow and desultory.
2. Time-consuming with low efficiency
The statements of Alison and Audrey can exemplify this type of opinion:
A: It is easy to become noisy, and an eight-student group lacks efficiency.
Probably, four-student groups are better for the discussion to get going.
(Audrey, para. 54, emphasis added)
A: I still feel it’s time-consuming. (Alison, para. 46, emphasis added) For students who were used to the teacher-as-knowledge-dispenser learning style, it seemed to be more difficult to change concepts about learning. Generally, they were efficiency-oriented learners—to know the answers directly was much more important than to search for them through a long process. The concept of learning as a process of discovery by learners themselves was foreign to them.
3. No specific goal to reach
Ching’s statement can represent this type of response:
C: In addition to there being too many members, there is no specific goal to reach for the discussion. As a result, everyone says what he or she likes. We
are keeping on talking and don’t come to any conclusion. (Ching, para. 52;
emphasis added)
Ching’s opinion showed that certain students preferred to have one peer to tell them well-assorted viewpoints about the topic under discussion so that they could easily remember and use them to compose their drafts. In addition, they might have felt more confident in using the conclusions reached by group members in a consensus.
Third, there is the neutral response type to the pre-writing discussion. Sandra maintained that the appropriateness of the topic had an impact on the quality of discussion:
S: It depends on the topic, I guess. The first topic on “Home” was pretty dry, so no one in our group felt like talking about it. However, when it came to the second topic on “The dog and the wolf,” our discussion got so heated that we almost fought each other. So I guess it’s better to have a more interesting topic!
H: Are you saying that the efficiency of pre-writing discussion is closely related to its topic?
S: Yes!
H: So it’s better to have a controversial topic?
S: Mm, it’s also easier to write on. (Sandra, paras. 59-63)
The significance of Sandra’s statement reveals two important implications: First, the topic must be at the level of the students’ knowledge and experience so that they are able to express their perspectives more vividly and concretely in the discussion sessions. In other words, the required background knowledge for students to understand the assigned
topic should be taken into consideration. Second, a controversial and interesting topic makes it easier for students to produce their essays, which is especially true for the argumentative genre.
In short, students’ perception of pre-writing discussion in interviews can be summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Students’ Responses to Pre-Writing Discussion in Interviews
Helpful Writers ________________________________ ____________________________________
Gain more ideas, examples, knowledge Mandy (H), Eva (H), Jean (H), Lou (I), for writing drafts Winnie (I), Lisa (I), Hank (L), Chu (L) Understand topic better and get inspiration Sharon (H), Aki (I), Ina (I), Tom (L) from peers’ opinions
Unhelpful Writers
________________________________ ____________________________________
Superficial and discursive in exchange Julia (H), Ava (H), Linda (I), Belinda (L),
of talk Flora (L)
Time-consuming and low effect Alison (H), Ina (I), Jessica (I), Audrey (L) No specific goal to reach Mico (L), Ching (L)
Neutral Writers
________________________________ ____________________________________
Topic decides the activity’s efficiency Sandra
From Table 2, one learns that 4 of 7 (57.14%) high achievers, 5 of 8 (62.5%) intermediate writers (Sandra is not taken into calculation), and 3 of 8 (37.5%) low achievers regarded the pre-writing discussion as helpful to them to compose their drafts.
Writers at the high and intermediate level of writing ability were more likely to feel satisfied with this activity than those at the low level. The reason that the low achievers tended to feel the pre-writing discussion to be unhelpful can be drawn from the
viewpoints of Belinda and Ching mentioned above. Generally, the low achievers seemed to be unable to organize information as effectively as their peers with good writing skills.
Belinda’s opinion, “the discussion was too discursive,” and Ching’s view, “we don’t come to any conclusion,” reveal that they could not draw key points from the discussion for the following step of draft writing.
Conclusion
There are several findings in the pre-writing discussion from the Journal of
Classroom Activities and Observation and the student interviews. First, the language used in this activity has an impact on the results of the discussion. Students can communicate their subtle ideas better in their native language than in the target language, but in doing so they may lose an opportunity to practice the language they are acquiring. Second, the advanced and intermediate writers tend to regard this activity as helpful, while the poor writers appear to take it as unhelpful. The less competent writers lack sufficient ability to organize their peers’ viewpoints in discussion, and this can be the reason why they hold this activity to be unbeneficial. Finally, the choice of topic matters—controversial and interesting topics matching students’ background knowledge and experience can attract them to actively involve in the pre-writing discussion and facilitate their writing.
Students’ Perceptions of Self-Directed Feedback
To investigate students’ perceptions of self-directed feedback, the researcher interviewed 24 participants out of the multilevel EFL writing class with 43 students and examined their worksheets for self-directed feedback. This section includes (a) in the interview, three aspects of self-directed feedback—general response to, concerns about,
and suggestions for improving self-directed feedback activity, (b) students’ self-directed feedback worksheets, and (c) conclusion.
Students’ Opinions about Self-Directed Feedback in Interviews General response to self-directed feedback.
With the help of ATLAS.ti, the interview data were analyzed. The findings of students’ general responses to the self-directed feedback can be categorized into two types: helpful and unhelpful. The first response type (helpful) is the students’ belief that self-directed feedback improves their writing competence because (a) the Self-Directed Feedback Worksheet guides them to check details and raises their awareness of certain items and questions, and (b) this worksheet is more organized and complete for writers to do self-reflection on essays. The opinion that the worksheet is beneficial for student writers to check details can be exemplified by the following statements:
1. Two high achievers’ (Julia and Sharon) viewpoint about self-directed feedback activity J: I think this self-directed feedback activity is really good. For example, my
organization is sometimes in disorder. Sometimes when I found there weren’t enough details to support the topic sentence, I would change it into something more conceptual, so that more ideas could be contained. (Julia, para. 50;
emphasis added) [ATLAS.ti uses paragraph instead of line numbers for quotes]
S: I think it helps me to check whether I didn’t compose my summary or the conclusion very well. (Sharon, para. 62; emphasis added)
To Julia, the significance of self-directed feedback activity lay in the fact that the worksheet functioned as a reminder for her to check organization and the sufficiency of the details to support her argument. In other words, the items and questions listed on the worksheet were conducive to raising student writers’ awareness. Similarly, Sharon paid attention to improve her summary and conclusion. In other words, both students made use of the activity to improve the content of their essays.
2. The responses of two low-achieving writers (Tom and Ching)
C: I can understand where my essay went wrong by checking against some details. (Ching, para. 74; emphasis added)
T: I think it helps me check whether I have completed what I need to or not.
(Tom, para. 70; emphasis added)
Tom and Ching stated that this activity helped them to check something wrong or missing.
In other words, their concerns were more in the aspect of what should be present in their essays. Their emphasis was somewhat different from that of Julia and Sharon, who placed weight on improving their writings’ quality. The former was a passive check of required essay components whereas the latter was active enhancement of the writings’
comprehensibility.
Another perceived reason why self-directed feedback is beneficial to writers was that the worksheet was well-organized and complete as a tool for systematic draft checking. The following student statements can illustrate this point:
E: Um...I feel not too bad about it, I think. If you read through your paper after you finish writing, you’ll find awkward sentences or misspellings. Then, you take out the teacher’s worksheet to check your errors. It’s more organized:
you check outlines, grammar, content, sequence, and so on. It’s more (2.0)…
yes, more complete. (Eva, para. 74; emphasis added)
J: It can be counted as one more check. When I do proofreading myself, I can’t think of so many details, but with the worksheet, I may know what I’m missing and what I need to add. (Jessica, para. 68; emphasis added)
C: I find that there is a lot of stuff that demands my attention if I follow the criteria on the worksheet provided by the instructor. If any minor part goes wrong in my essay, the readers will probably not be able to understand what I wanted to express. They might misunderstand it. (Chu, para. 58; emphasis added)
To these three students, the worksheet was designed to help them to orient their attention in a systematic way to the questions and items they could not afford to neglect if they wanted to improve their writing performance. To most of the student writers, the details listed on the worksheet were items they could not think of without missing some of them.
The second response type (unhelpful) was that certain students entertained an opposite opinion about the self-directed feedback activity—low efficiency. Their reasons for this response included their failure in spotting errors by themselves, their uncertainty about mistakes, their lack of knowledge to make revisions, and the limitations of the worksheet. The following student examples can be used to illustrate the point that they cannot find anything wrong by checking the items of the worksheet against their essays:
The second response type (unhelpful) was that certain students entertained an opposite opinion about the self-directed feedback activity—low efficiency. Their reasons for this response included their failure in spotting errors by themselves, their uncertainty about mistakes, their lack of knowledge to make revisions, and the limitations of the worksheet. The following student examples can be used to illustrate the point that they cannot find anything wrong by checking the items of the worksheet against their essays: