An Analysis of Feedback Given to Strong and Weak Student Writers

Improvement-oriented feedback has been shown to be more effective at raising writing achievement than simple evaluative feedback. This study investigates whether teachers differ in the feedback they give to weak and strong writers as well as how feedback differs across grades. Interviews were conducted with 15 teachers about the feedback they gave students on their writing. Contrary to expectations, analyses indicate that both weak and strong writers received minimal improvement-oriented feedback. However, strong writers received more positive evaluative feedback while weak writers received more negative evaluative feedback. This research has implications for both teacher education and the professional development of teachers. “Writing today is not a frill of the few, but an essential skill for the many” (The National Commission on Writing, 2003, p. 11), sums up the importance of writing in our society today. The July 2005 report by the National Commission on Writing maintains that over 90% of state agencies surveyed acknowledged that writing is a key factor that determines whether one is hired or promoted. The pervasiveness of standardized assessments measuring progress, particularly the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, provides another example of the need to improve student writing. Research suggests formative assessment is effective in raising student 240 • Reading Horizons • V49.3 • 2009 achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). While formative assessment has been defined in multiple ways (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Black & Wiliam, 1998; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Sadler, 1998), it is commonly conceived of as that which measures student knowledge and skills and is used by teachers to appropriately modify instruction to improve student understanding. One way to help student achievement improve is by giving effective feedback as it serves as a way in which a teacher communicates to students the difference between his or her actual level of performance with the standard or goal. This study investigates whether teachers differ in the feedback they give to weak and strong writers as well as how feedback differs across grades. Sadler (1989) suggests, “The learner has to (a) possess a concept of the standard being aimed for, (b) compare the actual level of performance with the standard, and (c) engage in appropriate action which leads to some closure of the gap” (p. 121). Similarly, Hattie and Timperley (2007) describe formative feedback in the form of questions: Where am I going; How am I going; and Where to next? Theoretical Framework Inherent in the concept of formative assessment is Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of development where feedback has not only been considered an element of formative assessment, but also as a means for moving students into the zone of proximal development where learning takes place. According to Vygotsky (1978), the zone of proximal development includes the skills and understandings that are not yet reached but are in the process of being achieved. Simply put, the zone of proximal development is the difference between a student’s potential level when assisted by adults and his or her current level of performance. Feedback serves as a way to scaffold students (Shepard, 2005), move them into the zone of proximal development, and complete a task that they were previously unable to complete on their own (Poehner & Lantolf, 2005). Bangert-Drowns, et al., (1991) explain that students construct their knowledge after receiving feedback as they respond to that feedback, evaluate the responses after receiving feedback, and adjust accordingly. When learning has been scaffolded, students show increased achievement (Black & Wiliam, 1998). In a study conducted by Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, and Schuder (1996), low-achieving second grade students were provided additional coaching and modeling; this group showed improvement over students who were instructed using more traditional means. When teachers ask questions to scaffold a student’s efforts, student achievement improves again suggesting a link between An Analysis of Feedback Given to Strong and Weak Student Writers • 241 types of feedback and raised student achievement (Elawar & Corno, 1985). Research also indicates that a few, clear goals and objectives can guide scaffolding so it is more effective because by providing scaffolding that more often focuses on fewer topics, the effectiveness of scaffolding is more saturated, and thus, more effective (Many, Taylor, Wang, Sachs, & Schreiber, 2007). Students may have different levels of actual and potential development, which indicates that they may need different feedback to move into the zone of proximal development. Studies describe forms of feedback that are effective at scaffolding students. Hattie and Timperley’s (2007) meta-analysis suggested that feedback that scaffolds students’ understanding and is related to learning goals was most effective at raising student achievement. In discussing the use of feedback to move students into the zone of proximal development, one study addresses the use of feedback for learners of different ability levels (Tzuriel, 2000). This research, reflective of Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of cognitive development, suggests that while students may seem to have the same level of actual development, they may have extremely different levels of potential development at that instance. This means that, given the same situation, teachers may need to give students who seem to have lower levels of potential development more feedback in order to make gains similar to students with higher levels of potential development (Tzuriel, 2000). Types of Feedback Studies suggest that there are certain types of feedback that are more or less effective at raising student achievement (Elawar & Corno, 1985; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). The effectiveness depends on the approach taken in giving the feedback as well as the content of feedback. Approach is defined as feedback that is evaluative versus descriptive, taskoriented versus student-oriented, and improvement-oriented versus achievement-oriented (Tunstall & Gipps, 1996). While students received feedback that was evaluative and descriptive in its approach (Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006) research has found that descriptive feedback is more effective at raising student achievement than feedback that merely evaluates the extent to which something is right or wrong (Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991; Elawar & Corno, 1985; Kulhavy, 1977). Evaluative feedback is corrective in nature and typically tells a student whether something is right or wrong. Descriptive feedback tends to explain why something is incorrect and then explains how to improve. Not only is descriptive feedback more helpful 242 • Reading Horizons • V49.3 • 2009 at increasing student achievement, students also reported it is more helpful in improving their writing (Cowie, 2005). While teachers give feedback related to the task and to the student (Dixon, 2005), studies suggest that feedback that focuses on the task is more effective at raising student achievement than feedback oriented towards the student (Crooks, 1988; Sadler, 1989). In fact, student oriented feedback has been shown to be ineffective at raising student achievement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This relates back to how feedback serves as an element in formative assessment as feedback on the person will not help students to compare their actual performance to the standard or expectation and thus is ineffective at scaffolding student learning. Improvement-oriented feedback has been shown to be more effective at increasing student achievement than achievement-oriented feedback (Cho et al., 2006). Improvement-oriented feedback is more closely related to mastery learning whereas achievement-orientated feedback has a stronger relationship to performance learning. In other words, feedback that suggests ways to improve is more effective at raising student achievement than feedback that describes whether or not one has been successful. As Fuchs and Fuchs (1986) found, when teachers give improvement-oriented feedback, that which discusses what is wrong and how to improve it, student achievement increases. In addition, studies indicate that students appreciate feedback that offered ways to improve rather than feedback that focused on correctness (Burnett, 2003; Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2002). Content feedback refers to the substance of the feedback. Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valdes, and Garnier (2002) found that feedback on the ideas within writing helped improve the quality of student writing more than feedback on conventions. Both the lowerand higher-achieving schools included in the study gave minimal content feedback, and results suggested that students’ content did not improve significantly on their final drafts. Not only is content feedback effective at raising student achievement, but students did not appreciate feedback that merely provided feedback on conventions (Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2002). Feedback that Raises Achievement in Specific Groups Different types of feedback may be more effective for different groups of students. For example, lower-achieving students may actually be hindered by selforiented feedback that takes the form of praise (Cowie, 2005; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). Though knowing that feedback has been shown to raise student achievement in certain student groups, there have, unfortunately, been few studies in this area. An Analysis of Feedback Given to Strong and Weak Student Writers • 243 The current study aims to identify the content and approach of feedback given to weak and strong writers which may help to fill the gap in the literature. By understanding the feedback strong and weak writers receive, one may come closer to identifying what feedback is most useful at improving the writing of these students. Specifically, this study examines the feedback teachers provid