名古屋外国語大学論集第2号

2018年2月

Research NoteStudent Vs. Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing
Steven CHARLES

Introduction
Teachers need to give feedback on students’ writing as it helps students improvetheir writing (Hyland, 2016) and students want teachers to recognize and monitor their writing. The role and effectiveness of peer feedback is generally lessunderstood by students. While students may view feedback from their peers as
inferior to teacher feedback, peer feedback can serve to not only increase theamount of feedback students receive but also improve students’ sense of agency
as writers and increase interaction among students.
This paper documents a one-term research project on two second-year
writing classes at a university in Japan. Each class consisted of 17 second-year
English majors who wrote three papers over the course of a 15-week term. Eachpaper went through a three-draft cycle with the teacher giving feedback on thefirst and third (final) draft, while the students provided feedback to their partners
on the first and second drafts. Students were given peer review worksheets withquestions and checklists to aid them in providing feedback. Teacher feedback
consisted of minimal, coded feedback (circling errors, “SP” for spelling errors,“GR” for grammar errors, etc.).
245

This project attempts to examine differences between teacher and student
feedback as well as gauge students’ perceptions of both forms of feedback. In
addition to the peer review worksheets, students were also asked to complete
a 6-point Likert scale questionnaire regarding their perceptions of teacher andstudent feedback.

Beliefs About Feedback
The general advantage of peer feedback is that it creates a more active learning
environment (Hyland, 2014) while also providing a more private exchange
between language learners. On the other hand, peer feedback may suffer fromL2 students’ abilities and willingness to correct another L2 learner’s work
(Bitchener &Ferris, 2012). Hyland (2014) noted that peer feedback may focus
mainly on surface errors (spelling and grammar, for example).
Teacher feedback generally has the advantage of being perceived as more“authentic”, owing to the “superior” language proficiency of the teacher. Inaddition, teacher feedback is more likely to address structural errors in students’
writing, thus perhaps complementing the tendency towards correction of surface
forms mentioned previously.
The cultural context of the students may also shape their perceptions ofboth teacher and peer feedback. In the Confucian East Asian societies, students
may be more likely to perceive the teacher or “sensei” as the final authority ofstudents’ performance and thus may not see the value in giving or receiving
peer feedback (Gobel, Thang and Mori in Apple, Da Silva and Fellner, 2017).

Methodology
The second-year students in this study had previously completed two terms ofwriting at the first-year level. Their previous assignments included two paragraphs and four full-length essays (three in which the topic was provided and afourth which gave students a choice of three topics).
246

Student Vs. Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing ■Drafts were assigned to students as homework, with class time being devoted
partially to peer review. Students chose their peer review partners and, barring
absences, kept their partners throughout the term in order to maintain someconsistency during the term.
Initially, the students were given a peer editing sheet that contained a checklist of errors and their frequency. An excerpt is shown below:
Always

Often

Sometimes

Never

Article problem
Missing word
Wrong word
Spelling error
Word order error
The editing sheet taught students what errors to look for and provided scaffolding
as they improved their reviewing skills and independently marked errors andprovided feedback to their peers.
At the end of the peer review session, students would return the review sheets
and the marked drafts to their review partners. A second print of the drafts would
be given to the teacher who would provide feedback the following week. In thisfashion, each student would receive feedback from both peer and teacher. Thestudents were encouraged to compare and contrast peer and teacher feedback
and then incorporate it into their next drafts.
In order to track student progress, the teacher gave a hypothetical gradeon the first draft, which was not shown to the student. This grade was thenexamined alongside the final grade to show progression (if any) in the students’performance after rounds of feedback. Student feedback was not measured by
any quantitative method but perceptions of peer feedback were gauged on a
6-point scale that will be described in the next section.

247

Results
Regarding teacher feedback, the results were mixed and ambiguous. Most
students exhibited some improvement over a three-draft cycle, but this can beattributed to a number of factors including teacher feedback, peer feedback andeven student self-correction. Due to limitations of this project, there was noattempt to separate the effects of teacher and peer feedback.
Results are displayed below:
Class 1 Unit 1 Unit 1Unit 2 Unit 2
Unit 3 Unit 3
DIF
DIF
DIF
(n=17) Draft 1 Draft 3
Draft 1 Draft 3
Draft 1 Draft 3
AVE70

70

0.77

76

79

3.1

69

80

11STD

5.8

4.7

4

5.47

4.1

10.8

6.7

8.6

Class 2 Unit 1 Unit 1
Unit 2 Unit 2
Unit 3 Unit 3
DIF
DIF
DIF
(n=17) Draft 1 Draft 3Draft 1 Draft 3Draft 1 Draft 3
AVE68.675

6.45

71.875

3.27080.3

10.3

STD

4.2

5.6

5.2

6.1

5.3

3

4.7

4.5

5.9

The second class exhibited greater variation (mainly improvement) between
drafts and even over the course of the term. No research was conducted to
examine this discrepancy but speculative explanations can include: student
motivation, quality of peer review and teacher performance.
As for perception of feedback, the responses to the questionnaire were also
mixed, with the majority of students expressing a desire to receive feedback fromthe teacher, but milder support for giving and receiving peer feedback.
Question

Strongly agree------------Strongly disagree

1. I like receiving feedback on my57%
writing..

20%

22%

2. Feedback helps me improve my66%
writing.

16%

8%

8%

3. Teacher feedback is the best.

11%

3%

3%

77%

248

Student Vs. Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing ■4. I like feedback from other stu30%
dents.

19%

35%

3%

8%

3%

5. I like giving feedback to others. 17%

24%

34%

4%

9%

4%

6. Giving feedback helps me
50%
become a better writer.

6%

34%

7. Giving feedback to others is36%
difficult.

36%

12%

9%

8. Giving feedback to others ispointless.

6%

13%

28%

28%

9. I use feedback to improve my63%
writing.

31%

10. Getting feedback is pointless.

9%

6%

19%

6%

34%

13%

6%
25%

19%

The majority of students (66%) strongly agreed that feedback helps them
become better writers, yet only a slight majority said they liked receiving
feedback. This is perhaps similar to the attitude a sick individual would have totaking a necessary medicine with an unpleasant taste. Questions 2 and 9 have
similar values with slightly altered wording yet they received strong approval
ratings (66% and 63%, respectively), indicating that students understood thevalue of feedback and were conscious of its intended purpose. Indeed, as
mentioned previously, students’ performance did improve over the course of
the three-draft cycle and the entire term, demonstrating a noticeable correlation
between receiving feedback and improvement of writing skills.
Student belief that feedback from the teacher is preferable to peer feedback
was the majority (97%) opinion with 77% strongly agreeing. This correlates topreviously mentioned attitudes that L2 students think the native-level teacher
is more qualified to give feedback and a cultural attitude that the teacher is thefinal authority. This attitude may be further enforced with Japanese students whocome from an educational background in which peer review is not the norm,
leading some to view the process with doubt (Apple &Da Silva in Apple, Da
Silva & Fellner, 2017).
249

However, student attitudes towards giving and receiving peer feedback
received mostly positive (if mild) support, so perhaps many students view peer
feedback as valuable but teacher feedback to be superior. Interestingly, more
students said they liked getting feedback than giving feedback. Although the pairgroupings were designed to create a mutually beneficial feedback cycle, perhaps
some students doubted their ability to give peers suitable or useful feedback.
It is also important to note that, while in the minority, a significant number ofstudents expressed negative views of giving and receiving feedback. Questions
8 and 10, with their negative (“pointless”) wording, received 47% and 34%agreement respectively. No further information is available but speculative
explanations could include students’ lack of peer reviewing experience or lackof confidence in their ability to provide peer review.
The final, optional section of the questionnaire (shown below) contained
three incomplete sentence stems that gave students the opportunity to express
their attitudes towards feedback.
1. I like feedback from my teacher because:
2. I like feedback from other students because:
3. I like giving feedback to other students because:
Responses to all three stems were generally positive. Typical responses to#1: “I can notice my mistakes” and “my essay is improving [sic]”. Responses
to #2 included statements such as: “they can give me good advice” and “friends
give me some suggestions to make my writing better [sic]”. Likewise, responses
to #3 were also positive overall: “I can learn many things from their drafts” and“my ability to find mistakes will [improve]”. These responses indicate that the
majority of students desire feedback and understand the purpose of both teacher
and peer feedback.

250Student Vs. Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing ■Conclusions
The data gathered for this project indicate that feedback is desired and utilized
by students. The students’ papers improved gradually over the term, with aparticularly sharp improvement seen in the third assignment. In addition, thestudents generally expressed approval of receiving feedback from both teacherand peers. This appears to be evidence that feedback is both wanted and effective.
There are limitations to this study that could become areas for future research.
Although it can be concluded that feedback is necessary and effective, the difference in effectiveness between teacher and peer feedback is unclear. Students’
papers were examined over a three-draft cycle, with no separate analysis ofteacher and peer feedback. Further studies could include independent analysesof the two sources of feedback. Future research could also examine students’role as peer reviewer, with increased in-class training on the peer review process.
Such training could help students who lack confidence as peer reviewers andincrease the quality of feedback given.
Even the cultural context of this project reveals issues to be examined. The
teacher is from an Anglosphere society and the majority of the students are East
Asian. While these two categories are by no means absolute or closed systems,
there are general patterns of behavior in these cultures which may shape or
possibly interfere with the teacher/student relationship, specifically expectationsof both parties in the writing classroom. Further examination of these culturalbeliefs may reveal (to both parties) how to improve their writing and feedback
techniques.

Reference List
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisitionand Writing. New York and London: Routledge.
Gobel, P., Thang, S. M. & Mori, S. (2017). Revisiting Studies on Casual Attribution In ESL/EFL
Contexts: Toward an Alternative Model. In M. T. Apple, D. D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.), L2
Selves and Motivations in Asian Contexts (11–28). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.

251

Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and Researching Writing. New York and London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2014). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, N. S. (2009). Written Peer Feedback by EFL Students: Praise, Criticism and Suggestion. Komaba
Journal of English Education, Vol. 1: 129–139.
Retrieved from http://park.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/eigo/KJEE/001/129-139.pdf
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs About Peer Interaction and Peer Corrective Feedback: Efficacy Of Classroom
Intervention. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 97 No. 3 (Fall 2013), 611–633. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/43651696
Ting, M. & Qian, Y. (2010). A Case Study of Peer Feedback in a Chinese EFL Writing Classroom.
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics,Vol.33, No.4, 87–98.
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). Learners’ Roles in a Peer Feedback Task: Do They View Themselves asWriters or Reviewers?. The Journal of Asia TEFL, Vol. 10, No. 3, 31–57.

252