Upload
leah-davis
View
234
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
At the English as a Second Language mini-conference in March 2012, I co-presented a research paper on tutors giving direct comments to help ESL students improve their writing.
Citation preview
Direct Versus Indirect Feedback in
Tutoring ESL StudentsBy Leah Davis and Kendra Williamson
Background Teacher, student, and tutor perspectives Case studies and implications Solutions
Overview
In commenting and conferencing, which form of feedback best fits the role of the tutor and satisfies the desires of the student: direct feedback or indirect feedback?
Research Question
Direct versus Indirect Feedback
Imperative◦ Revise your thesis to make it more specific.
Explicit◦ This is a weak thesis that lacks specificity.
Direct Feedback
Direct Feedback
Questions◦ Can you make this thesis more specific?
Hedges◦ You might want to use more specific ideas in this
thesis.
Indirect Feedback
Indirect Feedback
Perspectives“The students want to be told specifically what is wrong [in their papers]. Don’t be afraid to [tell them].”—BYU international writing professor
Value learning and self-discovery Use “hedged” criticism—native politeness
features (Baker, 2010, p. 76) May get caught up form rather than content
(Diab, 2005, p. 29) Deal with balancing intervention (helpful)
and appropriation (harmful) (Ferris, 2007, p. 167)
Teacher Perspective
Value direct error feedback and perfection in writing (Leki, 1991, p. 203).
Experience a conflict between previous and current English learning experiences (Leki, 1991, p. 204).
Are aware of their limited English proficiency and feel disappointed when teachers do not give correction (Ferris, 2007, p. 168).
ESL Student Perspective
Expect correction, but not in indirect or polite forms. (Baker, 2010, p. 77)
Misunderstand indirect comments◦ Student: “Yeah I think it’s, you mean, uhh…
exactly not wrong, but you mean it’s better, right? Or—I—my sentence is wrong. I don’t understand this.”
◦ Teacher: [laughs] ◦ Student: “Uhhh because you put you can.”
(Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 279).
ESL Student Perspective
Value student autonomy and teaching over fixing
Peer: not teacher, avoid being too directive (Soven, 2001, p. 206)
Tutor: knowledge about writing
Tutor Perspective
Case Studies & Implications
3 pairs of Masters students tutored ESL students (Weigle & Nelson, 2004, p. 207-219).
Case Studies
Name Nationality Experience GoalsTutor
1
Tutee 1
Anna Czech Republic 1st Year Masters Give Correct Grammar Instruction
Daniel Indonesian Intermediate ESL Get Questions Answered
Tutor 2
Tutee 2
Sandra American Final Year Masters Give Feedback on Meaning
Lian Chinese Advanced ESL Communicate Meaning
Tutor 3
Tutee 3
Kerry American Experienced ESL teacher
Teach How to Brainstorm &
ReviseKwan Korean Advanced ESL Get Good Grades,
Pass GMAT
Many variables: “Not a direct connection between specific roles and the perceived success of tutoring” (Weigle & Nelson, 2004, p. 222).
Find out tutee’s goals. Adapt personal goals. Recognize that having different goals is normal. Consider language proficiency.
Case Study Implications
Solution
For low-proficiency ESL students:◦ Direct comments—easiest to process (Baker, 2010, p.
83) ◦ Negotiation (Ewert, 2009, p. 253)◦ Scaffolding (Ewert, 2009, p. 253)
Simplify the task, keep learner motivated, respond to challenges, demonstration
Solution: Know the Student
For higher-proficiency ESL students:◦ Direct and indirect comments for culturally adept◦ Identify, but do not correct (Lee, 1997, p. 466)◦ Negotiation and scaffolding
Solution: Know the Student
“Teachers often objectively stated the issue at hand and then softened the illocutionary force of their following suggestions by using hedging.” (Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 279)
“It is important to identify appropriate comment types for different kinds of errors and to be able to put them to use effectively according to each context.” (Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 281)
Solution: The Mixed Model
Low–intermediate: direct
Solution: The Mixed Model
• Intermediate–high: direct/indirect combinations
Baker, W. & Bricker, R. H. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38, 75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. Elsevier Science Ltd, 25(4), 465-477. PII: S0346-251X(97)00045-6.
Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24:3, 203-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x.
Nurmukhamedov, U., & Kim, S. H. (2010). ‘Would you perhaps consider . . .’: Hedged comments in ESL writing. ELT Journal, 64:3, 272-282. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccpo63.
O’Brien, T. (2004.) Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1-28. doi: 10.1017/S0261444804002113.
Soven, M. (2001). Curriculum-based peer tutors and WAC. WAC for the new millennium: Stategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculum programs, 200-232.
Weigle, S. C. & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 203-225. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.011.
References
Questions?