Any learner in any level feels feedback provision in their writing process. Feedback is a type of idea given to the work done by someone. Teachers work hard to provide constructive feedback only to find it ignored. There are some discussions risen against grammatical correction. Findings show that grammatical correction was useless. In order to define the benefit of grammatical correction, researchers found interesting data. As an example, Leki (1991) determined ESL tertiary students had a wish that their writing teachers to advocate direct feedback on their writing. Similarly, comments on grammar and content are more interesting for students in comparison with other branches. The Bitchener’s study found out the improvement in the correct usage of the English articles a and the were affected on low-intermediate ESL learners by Writing Corrective Feedback (WCF). The results of the learners who got WCF outweighed significantly the learners who did not get WCF. Moreover, they maintain their accuracy level for two months on average. Results of researches by Evan et al.(2011) vary considerably.
However, sometimes student’s writing may even worsen. In this case both participants grow increasingly deflated. In this situation following ways of giving feedback in process writing can be beneficial for everybody.
- Teacher editing
This is especially for students who commence writing. Because they can understand their mistakes only with the help of their teachers. The editing and the proof reading ought to be done to arm instruction and set an example.
- Peer editing.
Here, the writings are exchanged and correction is conducted by other students. They give comments for one another or write their feedback beside the writing. By this way, they will be prepared to be able to correct and give comment in the future when they are asked.
When someone checks his own writing he tends to miss out his mistakes. Because especially most people write what they are sure. That is why the text should be left for a night, clean the mind and do another type of activity then they come back to their writing with clear mind to edit. In the classroom we may have students write their essays one day, gather the papers and supply students with the checklist of the editing and proof-editing features. Students can edit and proof- read their texts the following day on their own or in pairs.
Techniques of giving feedback
- Learners can be interrupted during making mistakes when
− They are demanded to be accurate with sentence structures.
− Most of the students repeat the same mistake.
- Feedback can be given at the end of speech when
− The activity is orientated to raise fluency and to be able to communicate
- The teacher should ignore the errors when
− The speech is going on by the group work or during role play
− Speaking student is shy
− Complex and personal idea is being given by the learner.
- Coming out of task difficulty learners are corrected in various ways.
− Errors should be ignored if the activity is for fluency
− But they may be corrected if the goal is accuracy
- In accordance with learners abilities correction strategies vary.
− By fostering shy learners to communicate and correcting them less
− Brilliant learners are corrected more so that they are challenged.
- Support can be given to self-correct by
− Making a gesture, stopping learners, giving a question.
− Indicating to the nature of the error, by saying e. g. past tense.
− Stressing the incorrect form.
− Repeating the sentence with a questioning intonation.
− Asking other learners for the correct form.
− Asking one of the learners to write errors and correct them at the end of activity.
Some practical ways of giving feedback on written work:
− Dotting errors and asking learners to correct them / using correction symbols.
In some companies the workers who *make (1) contribution are rewarded for their accomplishments and it is one of the effective ways of increasing work * profit(2) but there are also other several ways to encourage employees to *(3) hard.
Generally* (4) rewarding some employees by employers while the rest do not get this opportunity *(5) may impinge others to be spiteful towards them. However, it is implemented so as to exceed the intensiveness of the working process.
Correction symbols GR-grammar
WO-word order Sp-spelling
L=incorrect choice of lexis ^=omission
− Providing correct answers for learners / correcting specific errors and leaving others.
1-GR 2-L 3-^ 4-P 5-Sp
In some companies the workers who made contribution are rewarded for their accomplishments and it is one of the effective ways of increasing work efficiency but there are also other several ways to encourage employees to work hard.
Generally, rewarding some employees by employers while the rest do not get this opportunity may impinge others to be spiteful towards them. However it is implemented so as to exceed the intensiveness of the working process.
− Getting learners to exchange their copies / praising learners’ writing for its strength.
Well written. Ideas are given coherently. Inspite of some errors structure is good.
Effective feedback should not be excessively critical, lengthy or complex, however instead provide learners with the means that help take responsibility for their learning. Regarding not only what they will say but how they should say it, teachers can be sure that their exertion to encourage the advancement of student’s writing skills will not be in vain.
- Behizadeh Nadia and George Engelhard Jr. «Historical View of the influences of measurement and writing theories on the practice of writing assessment in the United States» Assessing Writing 16 (2011) 189–211.
- Anongnad Petchprasert «Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning» Literal article. 2012.
- Broad Bob. What we Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2003. Print
- Diederich P.G., French J. W., Carlton S. T. (1961) Factors in Judgments of Writing Ability. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
- O’Neill, Peggy, Cindy Moore and Brian Huot. A Guide to College Writing Assessment. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 2009. Print.