An Evaluation of the Approaches toFeedback in ELTBenjamin FILER

Introduction
The importance of feedback in language learning is generally met withwidespread agreement in the world of ELT (Harmer 2007, Ferris 1997,
Ellis 2009). It is seen as crucial for encouraging and consolidating language
learning. Writing in 1998, Black and Wiliam note that feedback probably
has more effect on success than any other factor. Fanselow (1987, p.267)
states that ‘to teach is to provide feedback’. Essentially, it can be justifiably
argued that suitable feedback can help learners to perform to the best of
their ability. If feedback is to be seen as such a major part of successful
language learning, then it also seems acceptable to argue that the approachtaken to giving feedback is equally important.
The objective of this paper is to evaluate some of the approaches to feedback, which can facilitate learning in a positive way for the learner. Thisessay will start by discussing suitable definitions for the term “feedback”.
Following this it will introduce and assess a variety of approaches thatcan be taken towards giving feedback. Firstly, it will address the timing of
feedback and address the question of when it should be given. Then, theissue of who should be giving the feedback will be addressed. Following― 109 ―

this it will focus on what form the feedback can take. Finally, there will be
an introduction of what parts of a student’s work should be given feedback.
Defining Feedback
Before a discussion on the topic of feedback, it seems appropriate to define
the term itself. Ur (1996, p.242) states that ‘feedback is the information
given to the learner about his or her performance of a learning task, usuallywith the objective of improving this performance’. This can be anythingfrom a grade on an exam to a brief oral comment made during class. It is
important to note that she explains the objective of feedback as improving
performance, because this is perhaps the most vital goal of good feedback. It
can also be defined as being part of a dialogue or interaction and therefore
not one-way communication. This looks at the role of interaction as a keyrole in the process of giving feedback. Interestingly, this definition only
mentions the dialogue between teacher and learner. This paper will go on
to address alternative means of giving useful feedback without taking the
traditional teacher to student route. Finally, it is essential that a definitionof feedback addresses the notion of improving performance by identifying
weaknesses and also reinforcing strengths. As a result, feedback should try
to distance itself from being limited to the red pen of a teacher focusing
purely on errors.
Approaches to Giving Feedback• When should feedback be given?
When considering the best time to give feedback, we need to look atwhat particular skill is being practiced. Feedback research is dominatedby writing; however, there is also some worth in looking at feedback
from oral work also. Harmer and Lethaby (2005, p.6) note that the tim― 110 ―ing of feedback during oral work depends on the focus of the activity.
This manifests itself in a divide between accuracy-based and fluency-based
speaking activities. Harmer (2007, p.143) points out that during fluencybased communicative activities, ‘teachers should not interrupt students in
mid-flow’. The justification behind this is to help provide the learners withthe maximum opportunity to communicate, without too much emphasis on
accuracy. Feedback during fluency-based activities should be given after theactivity has finished, unless the students need specific help in completingthe task. On the other hand, due to the nature of accuracy work, the timingof feedback should be different. Teachers need to show students when an
accuracy error has occurred immediately, in order to help them becomeaware of their mistake.
The timing of feedback for written work is rather more complicated as
there is a longer process to consider. Essentially, there are two types of
feedback commonly used in the world of ELT for writing: summativeand formative. The former comes at the end of the writing process andoften has a grade and some teacher comments. If feedback is to be givensummatively, the most important factor is that ‘it must be timely’, in orderto ‘allow students to modify their approach or thinking before the next
assignment’ (University of Essex, Smart Guide on Feedback, p.3).
However, the latter is the type of feedback that follows the whole process ofwriting and therefore, takes place from the start to the end. Hyland (1990,
p.285) argues that ‘the crucial point is that the teacher’s role in student
writing is not the last event in the process’. It is through this formative
feedback that students can reformulate and re-draft written work with theobjective of improvement. Students are able to see the transformation of― 111 ―

their work from the initial idea to the final product, with suitable feedback
throughout.
• Who should feedback be given by?
Traditional classroom methodologies lead the teacher to be the giver of
feedback in all cases in the language classroom. Rinvolucri (1994, p.288)
argues that ‘the problem with this feedback situation is that it is parental
by nature, with the power on the side of the feedback provider’. There has
been a recent shift in ELT of moving the emphasis of giving feedback awayfrom the teacher towards peer review. However, despite this, there is stilla real need and value to teacher feedback as Hyland and Hyland (2006,p.3) highlight that ‘ESL students greatly value teacher written feedback’. It
seems apparent, therefore, that a combination of teacher feedback coupledwith peer feedback is of great value to students.
Taking the responsibility of giving feedback out of the teacher’s hands andallowing the students to be involved in the process themselves can add
an extra dimension to the classroom, particularly in the writing process.
Perhaps the most significant benefit of peer feedback is that it increases
learner autonomy as ‘students take more responsibility for their work andare less dependent on the teacher’ (Morgan 2002, p.29). Huimin (2006, p.40)
adds that it can actively increase the students’ involvement in the writingclass and therefore create a more interactive environment for students toshare their ideas with their peers.
Another reason peer feedback can help facilitate learning in a positive way
is that it can ‘make students more critical readers and revisers of theirown writing’ (Rollinson 2005, p.24). The very nature of giving feedback
to peers should encourage students to think more deeply about their own― 112 ―

work and also revise their essays with more care than previously.
The implementation of peer feedback is something that needs careful planning and this can be ‘a time consuming activity’ (ibid. p.29). In order for
peer feedback to be a success, learners must go through a form of training.
Stanley’s (1992) research has shown that the quality of peer feedback isimproved by training the students on how to do it effectively.
Nelson and Carson (2006, p.43) point out that training is incredibly important because students tend to prefer teacher feedback to peer feedback.
Therefore, students need to be made explicitly aware of the reasons andpotential benefits of peer feedback for it to be a success. Furthermore,
on a more practical note, learners need to be made aware of how to give
suitable feedback that can help both their peers and themselves.
Despite there being a general belief that peer feedback can be a usefulpractice (Huimin 2006, Morgan 2005), there are occasions when it may
be deemed unsuitable. Adapting peer feedback into cultural contexts wherestudents are expecting a certain level of teacher-led response may prove
problematic. As Morgan (2005, p.31) argues, there may be difficulties inachieving effective peer response in mixed nationality groups due to a lackof confidence in evaluating their peers’ work. However, she goes on topoint out that ‘each teacher knows their class best and can experiment tofind what is most appropriate for their teaching situation’ (ibid.).
• How should feedback be given?
The way in which feedback is delivered to the student depends very muchon the particular situation. Just as a full written commentary on a short― 113 ―

oral exercise would be unsuitable, so too would a brief spoken comment
for a draft of an essay. The three methods of giving feedback are basically,
orally, written and computer-mediated.
Firstly, the computer-mediated approach is discussed by Milton (2006), who
introduces the notion of using the Internet as a resource during feedback
to help develop learner autonomy. This is a useful way of allowing thestudent to look at their own work more carefully and then use the relevant
resources on the Internet to improve the piece of work in question.
Another way of using computers for giving feedback is the process of online
computer conferencing between the student and the teacher through email.
Warschauer (1997) argues that during this process students can take a more
active role when seeking feedback, as they can choose to ask questions
when they want. However, the possible downside of this, as discussed by
Kannan and Towndrow (2002) is that students can become demanding of
the teacher and therefore it can become a time consuming activity. With aclear set of guidelines for practice, agreed by the students there are benefits
to be had with this process of feedback if it is practically feasible.
Feedback for spoken work tends to be oral in form because it can beprovided instantly. Techniques of showing incorrectness include repetition
with raised intonation, echoing what has been said with emphasis on the
mistake, and also subtle reformulation from the teacher. Whilst these methods
are particularly useful for accuracy-based activities, teachers need to allow
more room for error. From here the teacher can pick up on good and bad
points of language produced and introduce this in a feedback session after
the activity (Harmer and Lethaby 2005, p.7).
― 114 ―

The majority of research into feedback has gone into the use and effectivenessof what is written by teachers. Written commentary can vary in quality andquantity, but when done effectively it can be of great value to the student.
The major benefit of teacher written feedback is that it provides a critical
instructional opportunity for students and allows convenient access to thepossibility of a one-to-one communication with the teacher directly. The
following section will look in greater detail at the types of written feedback
that can help facilitate learning as best as possible.
• What feedback should be given?
The question of what feedback should be given to students can be a difficult
one to address and has led to some heated debate. A series of exchanges
between Truscott (1996, 1999) and Ferris (1999, 2004) highlight the turbulent
nature of what is and what is not seen as suitable feedback to students.
Another example that displays a possible need for a radical change in
feedback approaches is Lee’s (2011) article asking for a “feedback revolution”. The very fact that there is such literature indicates that there is roomfor new and innovative methods of feedback to be used.
Traditionally, the first piece of feedback students are likely to receive ona piece of writing is a grade. There are many occasions when a summative form of assessment is given to a student with a grade, however; if at
all possible it can help the learner when this is delayed. Harmer (2007,
p.140) notes that giving grades can lead to teacher error and result indemotivated students. Kozlova (2010, p.97) adds that ‘another obstacle tofeedback having the desired effect is the mark’. It seems to be apparent
that returning a piece of work to a student with a clear grade results in aform of closure for the activity. Without this closure students can remain― 115 ―

motivated to improve their work and continue the cognitive process.
Much of the literature on the topic of feedback focuses on how to givecorrective feedback regarding student mistakes (Gass and Mackey, 2006).
There is a need for teachers to be aware of how to provide positive feedback
appropriately alongside correction. Without positive feedback, students canbe left feeling unsure as to whether they are doing things well and thiscan lead to dissatisfaction with the teacher. Furthermore, it can be an
extremely demotivating experience to speak or write in a foreign language
and receive no compliments for successful usage. There is, however, adanger in the over-use of positive feedback. Wong and Waring (2009)
describe how teachers need to use specific techniques when giving positive
feedback to ensure it does not become detrimental to the learners. They
argue that ‘positive feedback should be meaningful and authentic…without
suppressing learning opportunities’ (ibid. p.202).
Once positive feedback has been dealt with, the main part of feedback iscorrective. Many teachers use correction codes to highlight student errors
in written work. These codes can range from fairly simple to much more
complex and detailed. For the use of this system to be effective, students
must have a clear understanding of the codes and be able to react to them.
A problematic issue can arise in the use of codes as explained by Lee(2005, p.34) when teachers can over-use them and result in confusion forthe student and teacher. Therefore, if codes are to be used, they need to
be explicitly clear.
Alongside the use of correction codes is a more indirect form of corrective
feedback by simply indicating an error has occurred without diagnosing― 116 ―

the type. This can either be highlighted with a line under the mistake ornoted in the margin, leaving the students to locate the error themselves.
This form of feedback is recommended by Hyland (1990) because it meansthat the teacher does not take on too much responsibility and the students
have to be active in correcting their own work. He argues that due to thismethod of indirect corrective feedback, ‘students are able to correct up to
three quarters of their errors without further prodding, and the experience
seems to help them avoid the same problems later’ (ibid. p.281).
Valenzuela (2005) offers another alternative to correction codes with asystem of colourful highlighting that highlights not only errors, but also
good work. She argues that this method is simpler and essentially more
effective. Once the teacher has indicated, using coloured highlighter pens,students can work together in order to recognize the error and hopefully
produce a corrected version. A form of minimal marking with this method
can be useful, especially with younger learners, as it can ensure motivationlevels remain high and learners can focus on particular mistakes.
The notion of minimal marking is addressed by Lee (2005, p.34) who argues
that comprehensive error feedback is ‘not only exhausting for teachers,
but can also be very frustrating for students’. Usage of minimal marking
allows the learner, who may be making copious errors, the chance to focus
on a specific area of weakness and aim to improve that without feelingoverwhelmed by an excessive use of corrective red pen. Research conductedby Ferris (2002) has shown that students respond better to minimal marking
that allows them to target selected error types. The major issue to deal withwhen using this approach is that students, often due to their educational
background, have an expectation of their teacher to mark all errors. This― 117 ―

can be resolved by ensuring the learners are made aware of the benefitsof adopting such a process.
Handwritten commentary on written work is often the most fundamental
style of feedback given to students (Sugita 2006, p.34). However, there arevarious approaches to giving this form of feedback. According to Ferris(1997, p.330), the most substantial improvements were made by students
following requests for information in the margins and summarized comments on grammatical issues. Sugita (ibid. p.40) disputes Ferris’ argument
by stating that ‘questions are unlikely to produce substantive changes, orrather they result in minimal changes’. It therefore, becomes apparent that
there is some disagreement in the literature regarding the merits of different
types of teachers’ comment types.
It is important that teachers’ handwritten commentary does not mark theend of the feedback process. This can be an ideal time to introduce teacherstudent conferences once the initial written feedback is given. From here,
students can pick up on any points they want to address and discuss themorally with their teacher. The major benefit of this is that it allows thestudent to take some control over what is discussed and as a result, they
are actively involved in the feedback process.
Conclusion
Having come to the conclusion that feedback is of great importance tolearners, it is apparent that there is not one definitively “best” way togive feedback. However, a move away from purely teacher-led corrective
feedback seems to be more beneficial for the students and can help them toimprove. Johnson (1988, p.93) notes that simply being told about mistakes― 118 ―

from your teacher is insufficient, as learners need to ‘see for themselves
what has gone wrong’. This handing over the responsibility to the students
should play a key role in the giving of feedback. Despite this, it is importantto remember that teacher feedback is not abandoned, but combined with
self-reflection and possibly peer-review.
With this combined approach to feedback, the style of teacher feedback
remains an incredibly important factor. Whether teachers choose to selectively mark using codes or more indirect methods such as underlining
errors, they need to allow room for the students to continue their cognitive
process. Kozlova (2010, p.97) makes the valid point that the feedback
students ‘receive is tailored to their personal learning needs’. Therefore, as
educators, we need to be able to assess the students and make a judgment
as to what type of feedback would suit them best.
References
Black, P. and Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards ThroughClassroom Assessment. http://www.collegenet.co.uk/admin/download/inside%20
the%20black%20box_23_doc.pdf
Ellis, R. (2009). A Typology of Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal 63/2, pp.
97-107.
Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking Rules: Generating and Exploring Alternatives in Language Teaching. New York: Longman.
Ferris, D. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL
Quarterly 31/2, pp. 315-339.
Ferris, D. (1999). The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes: A Response
to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8/1, pp. 1-11.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of Error in Second Language Writing Classes. Ann
Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we,― 119 ―

and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journalof Second Language Writing 13, pp. 49-62.
Gass, S. and Mackey, A. (2006). Input, Interaction and Output: An Overview. AILA
Review 19/3, pp. 3-17.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Teaching (Fourth edition).
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Harmer, J. and Lethaby, C. (2005). Just Right (Upper Intermediate) Teacher’s Book.
London: Marshall Cavendish.
Huimin, Z. (2006). Peer Evaluation. Modern English Teacher 15/2, pp. 37-41.
Hyland, K. (1990). Providing Productive Feedback. ELT Journal 44/4, pp. 279-285.
Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (eds.). (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing:Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, K. (1998). Mistake Correction. ELT Journal 42/2, pp. 89-96.
Kannan, J. and Towndrow, P. (2002). The Role of Collaboration in the Design and
Production of On-line English Language Learning Materials. Teaching and Learning 23/1, pp. 77-84.
Kozlova, I. (2010). Ellis’s Corrective Feedback in a Problem-solving Context. ELT
Journal 64/1, pp. 95-97.
Lee, I. (2005). Why Burn the Midnight Oil? Modern English Teacher 14/1, pp. 33-40.
Lee, I. (2011). Feedback Revolution: What Gets in the Way? 65-1, pp. 1-12.
Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich Web-based feedback: Helping learners become independent writers. In Hyland, K and Hyland, F (eds.). Feedback in Second Language
Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, S. (2002). Peer Review. English Teaching Professional 38, pp. 29-30.
Nelson, G. and Carson, J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture”. In Hyland, K and Hyland, F (eds.). Feedback in Second Language Writing:Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rinvolucri, M. (1994). Key Concepts in ELT: Feedback. ELT Journal 48/3, pp. 287-288.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal
59/1, pp. 23-30.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching Students to Become Effective Peer Evaluators. Journalof Second Language Writing 1/3, pp. 217-233.
Sugita, Y. (2006). The Impact of Teachers’ Comment Types on Students’ Revision.

― 120 ―

ELT Journal 60/1, pp. 34-41.
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes.
Language Learning 46/2, pp. 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for “The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writing
Classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8/2, pp.
111-122.
University of Essex. (2009). Smart Guide on Feedback. University of Essex.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Valenzuela, H. (2005). Colourful Correction. Modern English Teacher 14/2, pp. 42-44.
Warschauer, M. (1997). Computer-mediated Collaborative Learning: Theory andPractice. Modern Language Journal 81/4, pp. 470-481.
Wong, J. and Waring, H.Z. (2009). ‘Very Good’ as a Teacher Response. ELT Journal
63/3, pp. 195-203.

― 121 ―