28(2)

Abstract: This study examines feedback provided by an English teacher to Chilean secondary student texts, in the context of writing short stories collaboratively in an English as a foreign language class. The study aimed to analyze students’ decisions about the teacher’s types of feedback on their short stories. For this investigation, and under the context of qualitative research, there were analyzed 6 consecutive drafts of the students’ short stories, of a public high school in Chile. This is a qualitative research with an action research design. The data collected was analyzed using Straub and Lunsford (1995) categories to describe the impact of the teacher’s written feedback on students’ decisions. In terms of students’ decisions, participant students adopted most of the teacher’s comments. The student’s texts evidenced progress, but still, regardless the feedback provided, they presented some grammatical and organizational issues.

Keywords: collaborative group learning - English as a foreign language - feedback - students’ decisions - writing process

Resumen: Este estudio investiga la retroalimentación entregada por un docente de inglés a los textos de estudiantes chilenos de enseñanza media, en el contexto de la escritura de historias breves de manera colaborativa en la clase de inglés como lengua extranjera. Este estudio apunta a analizar las decisiones de los estudiantes con respecto a los tipos de retroalimentación del profesor de sus historias breves. Para esta investigación, y bajo el contexto de la investigación cualitativa, fueron analizados 6 borradores consecutivos de las historias breves de los estudiantes de un liceo público en Chile. Esta investigación es de carácter cualitativo con un diseño de investigación acción. Los datos fueron analizados usando las categorías de Straub y Lunsford (1995) para describir el impacto de los comentarios escritos del docente en las decisiones de los estudiantes. En términos de las decisiones de los estudiantes, quienes participaron adoptaron la mayoría de los comentarios del docente. Los escritos de los estudiantes evidencian el progreso, pero, aun así, a pesar de la retroalimentación entregada, ellos presentaron algunos problemas gramaticales y organizacionales.

Palabras clave: aprendizaje colaborativo - inglés como lengua extranjera - retroalimentación - decisiones de los estudiantes - proceso de escritura

1. Introduction

Writing in a foreign language, at secondary level in Chile, does not only involve a wide variety of vocabulary and complex grammatical structures, it also requires the abilities to organize the ideas into a coherent and cohesive text. This task of organizing a text makes writers or students revise and edit their pieces of writing constantly. These revisions carried out by peers and/or teachers may encourage the students to improve their texts. Research has proved that, if the feedback provided is explicit and includes a possible solution on how to improve the text, students tend to adopt it (Bitchener, Basturkmen, East, & Meyer, 2011; Guasch, Espasa & Kirschner, 2013). On the contrary, if the feedback given is vague or the students feel an excessive control from the teacher, they tend to ignore it. Thus, students make some decisions regarding the kind of feedback they receive and the changes or improvements they decide to consider.

In the context of this investigation, in the public educational Chilean system, the writing skill is promoted through written tasks of a communicative nature, which is part of Planes y Programas of the Ministry of Education in Chile (2005). The nature of the written tasks aims at being communicative, that is to pay more attention to the dialogic process of writing rather than producing something to obtain a result. Concerning the work and development of writing, the tasks that students have to do are not generally oriented to real audiences. According to Hyland (2010) “many pedagogical tasks aim to promote discrete skills” (p. 113), like improving punctuation or grammatical forms. Instead Hyland proposes that learners should acquire skills in the following aspects of writing knowledge: content, system (appropriate language), process of writing, genre and context (audience awareness). Out of the teacher researcher experience, it can be stated that some teachers of public high schools might not be aware of the importance of delivering students communicative and practical, written tasks. The reasons can be classes, not enough time to prepare classes or to assess students’ drafts. Therefore, the process approach for writing appears as impractical and time-consuming.

The importance of feedback as a tool of formative assessment and its potential to foster students learning has been widely studied (Brown, 2006; Duijnhouwer, 2010; Hattie & Timperley 2007; Irons, 2008; Nicol & Macfarlane‐Dick, 2006). Most of these studies consider feedback as a key aspect that provides with information to reduce the gap between their initial performance and the one required to reach a specific standard or “mastery goals” (Duijnhouwer, 2010, p.37). However not much is known about the students’ response to teachers’ feedback in the Chilean context, at secondary level. Correa, Martínez, Molina, Silva, and Torres, (2013) and Tapia-Ladino, Arancibia and Correa (2016) have carried out research about feedback at secondary and university level respectively. Correa’s results in 2013 evidenced that secondary students at a public school in Chile do prefer feedback oriented to the ideas of their pieces of writing rather than to the use of the language. Along these lines, Tapia-Ladino, Arancibia and Correa (2016), in a study carried out at university level; found out that undergraduate students are motivated by the teachers’ feedback, the authors explain, “Students look for hints or guides in the teachers’ feedback, that can help them to solve different aspects of their thesis” (p.10). Even though this is study at university level, it evidences the students’ needs for effective or useful feedback to complete a task.

In this context, it becomes relevant to discuss the character of writing; Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) propose two writing models: a knowledge telling model of writing and a knowledge transforming model of writing. The authors explain that novice writers tend to assume the telling model in which the production of the text is mainly based in content stored in the long term memory. Expert writers, according to the authors, employ the knowledge transforming model, which implies more elaboration and they are able to generate and evaluate the content produced during writing. It is also interesting to note that the authors also add that “writing abilities develop when writing tasks are sufficiently challenging to call out knowledge and sufficiently manageable to call out transforming” (p. 110). Therefore, in the knowledge transforming model the writer is presented by a task which is set in a specific environment. The task should consist on a writing composition or assignment, with a potential audience and a possible deadline that the writer has to respect.

Flower and Hayes (1981) note that the writing process can be described in relation to the environment in which the written task is assigned. It is also pointed out that the writing process is not linear, but recursive, meaning that the person who is writing can go back and forth to revise as many times as she/he wants the piece of writing. As far as for revising the written task, Flower and Hayes (1981) mention that the main objective is to assess and reassess the task. This process of rewriting is carried out with the help of a monitor, in this case, the teacher. In this context, this paper analyzes students’ decisions about the teacher’s written feedback on short stories created by Chilean secondary students.

2. Literature Review

In the pedagogical field of teaching and learning writing, feedback is defined as a type of dialogue between the teacher and students in order to improve their texts. (Sommers, 2013). In others words, feedback is a type of communication that seeks to orient the performance of the learners. Along these lines, Hattie and Timperley (2007) state that feedback aims to modify the gap between the learner initial level and the reference level.

In terms of the role of feedback in writing tasks, Nunan (1999) emphasizes the importance of knowing what to modify, how to do so and when to do it. It is also important to distinguish the relevance between giving feedback of qualitative and quantitative nature, from which the latter tends to be confusing by just being a numerical comment like a score or a mark, instead of a response to the students’ ideas (Ferris, 2003). Students tend to be worried about making mistakes, and they may think that doing this can affect the teacher’s attitude towards them. Liu (2008) highlights that the learners should be aware of the benefits that those potential mistakes could provide for them. In addition, Ellis (2009), Ferris and Roberts (2001) note that the significance that the learners might attribute to errors may depend on how the teacher provides feedback, in which students can identify the negative or positive aspects of the given feedback. Referring to the function of feedback Hyland, (2009) states that “feedback on writing plays a central role in the enculturation of students into disciplinary literacy and epistemologies” (p. 132). The author explains that the main role of feedback is to engage and promote students learning process. According to Liu (2008), the learners’ decision about which written feedback to adopt or not adopt, is part of a reflective process. Such process involves thinking about correcting or modifying grammatical mistakes that were probably underlined or highlighted. Ferris (2004), adds that corrective feedback depends on the type of linguistics mistake, “Students may be less capable, for instance, of self-editing some lexical errors and complex, global problems with sentence structure than more discrete morphological errors” (p. 60). Thus, students tend to notice first those mistakes they understand and know how to improve them.

Ellis (2010) defines the concept or learner engagement in the context of written corrective feedback. The author explains “I use the term engagement to refer to how learners respond to the feedback they receive” (p. 342) and he adds that learners’ responses can be classified into three perspectives: cognitive, behavioral, or attitudinal response. Ellis also notes that learners’ individual difference and context can affect the engagement with the feedback offered. Sachs and Polio (2007) add to the previous perspectives the idea of noticing, through the feedback, “the gap between their interlanguage (IL) and the target language (TL)” (p. 69), that is the learners’ capacity of paying attention to the feedback provided and identifying what needs to be changed or modified in their texts. Concerning the learners’ engagement, Tapia-Ladino, Arancibia and Correa (2016) in a study carried out at university level in Chile, concluded that “students evidence a positive reaction towards the written comments which incline them to accept the suggestions or corrections provided by the teacher” (p. 11). The authors add that this positive reaction is explained by the students’ acknowledgement of the teacher’s expertise.

According to Evans (2000) it is important to consider the importance of providing authentic feedback, which as the author describes, “it is actionable, timely and consistent” (p. 5). This type of feedback provides meaningful learning opportunities for the students to learn from their mistakes.

Riazzi, (1997) and Reid (2000) point out that it is important to reinforce and regulate students’ emotions, attitudes and motivations towards positive feedback, since it enhances the learners’ willingness to write and revise. In relation to positive feedback, Sugai and Horner (2009) define it as “the positive way of communicating respect to the student by describing how the strengths in a behavior or performance match the desired expectations” (p. 56). Thus, positive comments show the students that they are on the right track to fulfill the task required. Ferris and Roberts, (2001) explain that in overall, the main function of giving effective and positive feedback can be defined as “guide students to adopt an active and autonomous role, where it can be recognized and reinforced students’ needs” (p.28). Thus, students would be able to understand the relevance of feedback, which needs to be clear and straightforward, fostering students’ participation in the development of written tasks.

Guasch, Espasa and Kirschner (2013) refers to epistemic and suggestive feedback, as the one that requires “explanations and or clarifications or the combination of epistemic and suggestive feedback” (p. 202). This means that the feedback is more effective if it provides a correction plus and metacognitive explanation that helps students to progress. When students receive positive feedback and strategies on how to improve, they feel motivated to check their compositions because they have received clear indications or comments on how to improve their texts. Nevertheless, it is also interesting to note that some authors like, Hyland and Hyland (2001) suggest that praise or positive feedback may imply an imbalance of authority, so teachers tend to refrain themselves from these type of comments.

When mentioning the teacher’s feedback on students’ written texts Straub and Lunsford (1995) propose two perspectives to study teachers’ feedback: the what and the how. The what perspective is linked to “what the comment may be addressed to, like the writer’s wording, organization or ideas” (p. 156). In other words, it refers to the focus of the writing’s topic. The how view of analyzing a teacher’s feedback relates to “the shape of the comment, or mode known as the image a teacher creates for her/himself and the degree of control she/he exerts through that comment” (p. 158). This definition relates to the mode of the teacher’s feedback. Straub and Lunsford (1995) propose three main or broad categories: “local issues, global issues and issues about the larger contexts of writing”. (p. 159). Local issues refer to local structure, wording and correctness. The authors also pay attention to ideas, development and global structure, which aim at analyzing a text considering the “macroscopic areas of such, or global matters” (p.159). They also explain that when other types of comments emerge, linked to issues that go beyond the text, can be classified extra-textual comments.

In this context, it is possible to state that the role of feedback relates to the concept of Vygotsky (1978), Zone of Proximal Development. Thus, the students writing performance may improve due to the help or support received from their peers or teacher’s feedback. Following Sommers (2013), the idea of feedback as a conversation or “dialogue” between the students and the teachers.

3. Research Method

The current research had as a main objective to describe students’ decisions about the teacher’s written feedback to short stories they produced. Therefore, it was important to consider the learners ‘decisions regarding teachers’ written feedback. Students worked in collaborative groups and they received written feedback while they were working on their short stories.

This research was conducted under the qualitative approach. Sampieri (2006) describes it as “the type of paradigm that allows the researcher to have detailed data of the issue that is been studied” (p. 21). Its flexible and deep nature of data collection and its respective analysis allows having a deep exploration of the individuals’ ideas, in order to appreciate, interpret and analyze the variety of the data that will be obtained. Creswell and Plano (2007) adds the following: “through this type of paradigm it is possible to explore and fully understand the significance that individuals or groups attribute to a determined social or human matter” (p. 4). In this study, the ideas and thoughts of the participants are about the teacher written feedback to the short stories they created. These characteristics determine the qualitative nature of this research, which is oriented to analyze the participants’ experiences about written feedback.

The present study is developed based on an action- research design. Mills (2007) defines action research as, “a systematic inquiry conducted by teacher researchers in the teaching learning environment” (p. 5). The author adds that the main steps of an action research design are: (1) to identify an area of focus, (2) to collect data, (3) to analyse and interpret data and (4) develop an action plan. Along these lines, this research relates to classroom dynamics, specifically students’ writing process in English as a foreign language. The researcher, in this case the teacher together with the students, identified a specific problem, concerning students’ writing ability. Some of the problems emerged from the application and analysis of a diagnose test applied in the context of a regular class of English. This test was assessed with an analytic rubric, which considered the following aspects: task completion, content and ideas, use of English, coherence and cohesion. Some of the weaknesses identified were: students’ weak background knowledge of the English language, in terms of managing grammar, spelling, and use of vocabulary; coherence/cohesion and punctuation. In addition, participants wrote long paragraphs generating confusion when reading and comprehending the ideas, students were not able to differentiate main ideas from secondary, lack of a balanced or equivalent participation within the groups and format issues regarding structure of the short story: beginning, development and end.

3.1 Participants

The participants of this research were a deliberate sample because all the participants involved in this study are the teacher researcher students in the EFL class. Atkinson (1990) explains that deliberate sample generally englobes representative cases in which the participants meet the criteria that the researcher considers necessary to carry out a research. Participant students were in 10th grade of a public high school, their ages ranged between 15-18 years old. For this research, it is important to point out that 10 students were selected to analyze their decisions regarding the teacher’s feedback. To protect the participants’ identity and watch for the ethical aspects of the research, all the interviews carried out were anonymous, and they signed and informed consent in which they agree to use the information provided only for the sake of this study.

As it was mentioned before, the students worked collaboratively, so the students selected were organized into 2 groups. Group 1(G1) consisted of 5 students who were in second grade of high school and Group 2 (G2) consisted of 5 students of the same grade. Their assignment entailed writing a short story, developing two drafts and a final version of the story, considering and making decisions about the written feedback provided by the teacher researcher. The topic chosen by G1 was “An evil spirit” and the topic chosen by G2 “Wizards and Gods”

The English level of students ranges from pre-intermediate to an intermediate level. Students’ levels of performance in the English language were analyzed considering their marks, daily observation, teachers’ comments on their behavior and participation in the English classes. In relation to the participant teacher, it is possible to state that: she has been teaching since 2011. She worked a year in a private educational institution, and then the following years up until the present, she has been teaching English in a public high school. She has been working with this grade (10th) for the past two years, where she has four hours a week to teach them English. Two or three of those hours are devoted to the practice of writing.

3.2 Instruments

The instruments considered in this research, consisted on written documents, which corresponded to: 2 drafts, a final version of the short story by group. After students wrote their stories, all the necessary information was collected, assessed and analyzed with an analytic rubric. In the case of students’ drafts, each group worked on 2 drafts and their corresponding final version.

Regarding the data analysis, the aspects studied were the teacher’s written comments and the decisions students took based on these comments, through the different drafts. These decisions were observed on whether students adopted or not the feedback given by the teacher. The teacher’s written feedback was analyzed following Straub and Lunsford (1995) categories. These categories are presented in Table 1 below.

Focus

Mode

Global

Ideas, development, Global structure

Corrections

Imperatives: firm and soft directives

Evaluation: qualified, negative, praise, firm negative

Advice

Local

Wording, correctness, Local structure

Extra-textual comments

Indirect requests

Closed questions: problem posing, heuristic

Open questions: problem posing, heuristic

Reflective statements: interpretation, explanatory, experience, remarks, response, reaction.

Table 1. Straub & Lunsford (1995) Feedback categories.

The analysis was carried out by taking into consideration 2 groups of students and their respective drafts and final version. The information from draft 1 draft 2 was organized into tables. This information is related to the teacher’s written comments to the students’ short stories and students’ decisions observed from draft 1 to draft 2. Once the data was organized, table 1 (draft 1) was compared with table 2 (draft 2) in order to establish the changes that the teacher written comments may have triggered in the students’ stories. This information was also contrasted with the final version, which is summarized in Tables 4 (G1) and 7 (G2). The decisions the students made was studied through content analysis technique. Gibbs (2002) defines content analysis as “a social research method which involves reading lots of written material, in order to organize the most important data and start the analysis of such” (p. 3). In this study the information was classified following Straub and Lunsford (1995) categories.

4. Results

The analysis of group 1’s first draft will be based on teacher’s feedback and students’ adoption or non-adoption of the teacher’s comments, considering the data presented in Table 2, which summarizes the types of feedback provided to this group, and Figure 1, which presents an example of G1 written production.

Teacher’s comments draft 1

Types of feedback

a) Students: first of all, your story is interesting and creative! Well done!

b) Don’t forget to use punctuations to organize your ideas, otherwise it is difficult to read! Within punctuation, there are commas, periods, etc. Be careful with some verbs and their conjugation (related to personal pronouns). Don’t forget to replace the subjects for personal pronouns to help/make the reading process to become into an easier one.

c) Despite some grammatical mistakes, your story is really good!

a) Praise

b) Wording/

Imperative

c) Praise

Table 2. Types of feedback G1.

Considering Table 2 and Figure 1 it is possible to mention that the comments provided by the teacher to the first draft were divided into 3 main categories. The first one corresponds to the Global category (Straub & Lunsford, 1995), which specifically aims at giving praise. The teacher attempts to give comments that might increase students’ self-confidence, creativity, originality and re-assure their good performance, aspects that Hyland (2002) emphasizes in the writing process.

Figure 1. Draft 1 G1

In the second category, Wording, which refers to the structure of the sentences or paragraphs, the teacher points out that the use of tenses, organization of ideas and punctuation in the short story. The feedback mode that predominates in the revision of the short stories corresponds to the imperative mode. This type of mode, according to the authors, corresponds to authoritative comments and they mainly refer to topic issues, content, and organization. These comments also indicate eliminations, conciseness and reinforcement of ideas, as it is evidenced in Table 2 letter c).

So far, it has been explained, the analysis of group 1 related to the teacher’s feedback on students’ first piece of written work. When it comes to discuss students’ adoption or non-adoption observed in draft 2 (Table 3 and Figure 2), it can be said that students did reorganize their ideas into clearer and shorter paragraphs to facilitate the reading comprehension of such. Students also paid attention to modify or adjust mistakes concerning grammatical issues such as: punctuation, orthography, spelling and replacement of concepts to avoid redundancy when writing.

Teacher’s comments draft 1

Types of feedback

draft 1

Adoption or non-adoption draft 2

a) Students: first of all, your story is interesting and creative! Well done!

b) Don’t forget to use punctuations to organize your ideas, otherwise it is difficult to read! Be careful with some verbs and their conjugation. Don’t forget to replace the subjects for personal pronouns to help the reading process to become into an easier one.

c) Despite some grammatical mistakes, your story is really good!

a)Praise

b)Wording/

Imperative

c)Praise

Feedback adopted

Organization of ideas into shorter and clearer paragraphs.

Focus on punctuation, capital letters, pronouns/replacement

Replacement of some parts of the story to make it easier to read.

Focus on orthography, grammatical mistakes.

Feedback not adopted

Students adopted all the feedback provided.

Table 3. G1 adopted and non-adopted feedback from draft 1 to draft 2.

Figure 2. Draft 2 G1

In view of the changes that students made in their written composition, the comments given by the teacher to students’ second draft were divided into 3 main categories. The first one corresponds to the Praise category, in which the teacher values the story, but it is interesting to note that she also refers to grammar issue. According to Hyland (2009) this type comments correspond to compound comments, when more than one aspect is addressed in one comment. The teacher’s feedback also coincides with what Evans (2000) highlights regarding the importance of providing authentic feedback, which orients the students to do something specific to improve his writing performance. This is the case of the comment that correspond to the wording category in Table 3.

Comparing the teacher’s feedback from draft 1 to the feedback given in draft 2, some similarities take place. For instance, the type of feedback given is positive and focuses on the quality of the short story. It praises then students’ effort to develop characters and describe them in order to fit in the story. In relation to draft 2, the feedback besides focusing on the quality of the short story, also focuses on underlying that the previously mistakes that were made, were corrected and modified.

When adjusting their mistakes, students paid attention to the organization of paragraphs, which relate to Global Structure/Wording category. Students focused on organizing ideas into shorter and clearer paragraphs. Comparing the paragraphs of draft 2 with the ones from draft 1; paragraphs were organized following the structure of a short story beginning, development and end, these 3 main parts were clearly identified. When it comes to discuss the third category, Wording students focus on the spelling of the words. Students paid attention to grammatical rules such as the adjective before the noun, replacing the subject for a pronoun to avoid repetition, and so forth. As the comments given by the teacher suggested, students not only corrected their mistakes related to grammatical issues, but they also related them to the global structure, linking both elements into their short story. In the third and last category, Praise, students were told that they were doing a great job during the development of their second draft. Some improvements made the short story even better than it already was. When describing students’ adoption or non-adoption of the feedback given by the teacher in draft 2, in the Praise/Corrections category for example, the learners took their time to identify, read and comprehend their mistakes. Hence, students’ attention was focused on grammar and spelling aspects of course, but they specially paid attention to content and development of ideas. In this way, the learners had the chance to rewrite or edit their piece of writing, promoting students’ awareness of their own mistakes.

For the final version of students’ short story, they made their decisions based on the progress and discussions that took place during the development of their group work. Table 4 shows the teacher’s comments on draft 2 and their impact on the final version of students’ short story.

Regarding students’ progress when writing their final version, it might be stated that the learners’ own writing ability was reinforced through motivation, willingness and self-confidence at the moment of writing (Riazi, 1997; Cumming, 2002; & Reid, 2000). Students’ adoption of the teacher’s comments was positive. The learners adopted all the suggestions and pieces of advice provided. They modified mistakes to global structure, grammatical aspects and content in general.

Teacher’s comments draft 2

Types of feedback

draft 2

Draft 2

Teacher’s

comments

final version

a) Good job! You identified many mistakes in your story and were able to correct them properly, great!

b) You also joined the paragraphs making the story easier to read and understand.

c)There were some mistakes related to the plural of words and punctuation

d)… but in general you did

a) Praise

b) Global structure (Ideas and development)/

Wording/

Positive

c)Wording

d)Praise

Feedback adopted

Very well-organized ideas. The body of the written composition is clear.

Focus on spelling and word order.

Replacement of concepts to avoid repetition.

Usage of a wide variety of words/concepts. Ideas’ coherence and cohesion are clear.

a) Very well-done! You could identify the mistakes that were pending and you fixed most of them.

b) You were also able to re-arrange the ideas and revise the spelling errors that were also pending from the previous draft (2).

c) This is a very good story!

Table 4. G1 Types of feedback final version.

Group 2

The analysis of G2’s first draft will be based on teacher’s feedback and students’ adoption or non-adoption of the teacher’s comments. It is possible to say that: the teacher’s feedback was divided in 4 main categories: Praise, Global Structure/Advice, Wording/local Structure/Imperative and Ideas/Development. Table 5 summarizes the types of feedback analyzed from G2, whereas Figure 3 presents an example from G2.

Students’ draft 1 characteristics’

Teacher’s comments draft 1

Types of Feedback

draft 1

a) Identification and division of the short story into 3 main parts: beginning, middle and end. A title is put to each paragraph to distinguish them.

b) Development of the characters. It is a bit messy and disorganized.

c) Development of ideas without considering the pace/flow of their short stories.

a) Good idea to work with the topic of wizards, it’s trendy!

b) Remember to organize your ideas to present the short story as it is: a story divided into paragraphs.

c)Don’t forget to use punctuation, commas, etc. articles, tenses and subjects cannot be forgotten

a) Praise

b) Global structure (Ideas development)/

Advice

c)Wording/

local structure /Imperative

d)Global Structure (Ideas development)

Table 5. Types of feedback G2.

Figure 3. Draft1 G2.

Table 5 shows that the teacher provides comments in the praise mode that is, she makes a positive judgement about the students’ writing. (Straub and Lunsford, 1995). The teacher refers to the topic Wizards and Gods, which is considered interesting to be developed in students’ short story. It can be added that such topic is described by the teacher as trendy and motivating for the students to work on. In the second category, Global Structure, students organized their ideas into paragraphs. The ideas were clear, in terms of understanding, which facilitated the comprehension of the story as a whole. Taking into account the comments given in the Global Structure category, a comparison can be made between G1 and G2, in terms of arrangements of the short story. G2 wrote their first draft considering that it was a good idea to put a title to every paragraph they wrote, whereas G1 did not. In the Wording/local Structure/Imperative category, it can be highlighted that students had certain grammatical issues related to punctuation and use of tenses. Thus, for the Ideas and Development category presented problems with the development of the characters and the plot the short story, as well as, with the pace to read it and understanding it.

Regarding Figure 3, it is possible to mention the topic of students’ short story was related to Wizards and Gods. Grammatical issues such as use of tenses and punctuation can be identified. Concerning the use of punctuation, it can be stated that, as it was mentioned before, it does not facilitate the reading of the short story. In the case of adoption or non-adoption of the feedback, students from G2 in draft 1 made some changes. Some evidences are shown in Table 6, as well as, in Figure 4.

Teacher’s comments on draft 1

Types of Feedback

draft 1

Adoption or non-adoption on draft 2

Good idea to work with the topic of wizards, it’s trendy!

Remember to organize your ideas to present the short story as it is: a story divided into paragraphs.

Don’t forget to use punctuation, commas, etc. articles, tenses and subjects cannot be forgotten

Praise

Global structure (Ideas development)/

Advice

Wording/

local structure /Imperative

Global Structure (Ideas development)

Feedback adopted

Organization of the short story into clearer and paragraphs,

Correction of grammatical mistakes, related to word order, concepts, spelling, orthography.

Feedback not adopted

Diversity of vocabulary.

Punctuation in general.

Table 6. G2: Adopted and non-adopted feedback from draft 1 to draft 2

Figure 4. Draft2 G2

Figure 4 presents an extract from a short story, which is related to the topic of Gods and it takes place on Earth. It is possible to mention that this paragraph presents a wide range of vocabulary, including the use of the connectors which and therefore to link ideas. It can be also said that the usage of grammatical structures such as had planned and which envied one another, improves the writing of the ideas presented in this paragraph. Thus, the organization of ideas in this specific extract is clear, showing a good level of coherence.

According to Table 6, for draft 2 the teacher’s feedback that was given to the students was divided in 2 main categories, according to Straub and Lunsford (1995). Focus includes global aspects, such as structure and ideas/development. In the case of the following category, mode, this one comprises praise, as it can be seen above in Table 6, some examples are: Good idea to work with the topic of wizards, it’s trendy!

The feedback provided was oriented towards fostering students’ self-confidence and motivation, reminding them that they were able to make decisions on their own. It might be seen that the teacher’s feedback might have helped students to perform better in draft 2. Regarding students’ decisions on draft 2 after receiving feedback, it can be stated that grammatical and organization issues were improved, and students took their time to make decisions and discuss them before writing. Students felt more at ease regarding the feedback provided because they felt that it was more oriented towards revision than grammatical flaws. Regarding the type and level of effectiveness of the given feedback for G2, it can be inferred that the feedback may have had a positive impact on draft 2 since students paid more attention to the comments given than in draft 1.

It is important to add that, considering Table 6 as reference, students organized their ideas into shorter and clearer paragraphs, in which the sentences were easy to read and the pace of the written composition was suitable for any reader. They also worked on adjusting some grammatical and spelling mistakes. Despite these adjustments, students kept on writing some words in the wrong manner. It is also possible to think that this specific part was not revised and worked as a group, which did not allow the exchange of ideas and collaborative group work to actually take place.

In relation to the adopted or non- adopted feedback in G2’s draft 2, it can be stated that grammatical aspects such as spelling, and orthography were improved, but not at their extent. Students also enhanced the development of ideas and content in general, which allowed them to enrich their short story, in terms of coherence and cohesion. Regarding the non-adopted feedback, students did not improve in terms of: punctuation in general, diversity of vocabulary, punctuation and grammar. Thus, the students did not adopt all the comments provided by the teacher and there were certain issues that were presented in draft 1, which remained in draft 2. In the case of the final version, some evidence is displayed in Table 7 below.

Feedback draft 2

Types of feedback

draft 2

Feedback adopted Draft 2

Teacher’s comments

a)You definitively improved several aspects of your work. (Grammatical aspects, as well as organizational ones).

b)There are still issues to understand your story (to have a complete/fully understanding), but your effort was great

a) Praise

b)Negative evaluation

Praise/

Global Structure (Ideas development)

Grammatical aspects such as:

spelling and orthography. Elements linked to organization of ideas were also improved.

Some issues left aside include:

Punctuation in general, diversity of vocabulary and replacement of nouns.

a) It is important to point out that you mended some grammatical mistakes in your story. That’s good!

b) You also re-arranged some paragraphs that were already previously re-arranged to clarify the ideas that were a bit confusing.

c) Keep in mind that there are still some punctuation issues, as well as vocabulary problems that you tried to fix, but did not fix them completely.

Table 7. Types of feedback given by the teacher for the final version.

It is important to consider, that in the first place, students made their decisions based on the progress and discussions that took place during the development of their group work. Considering the previous ideas, they took into account the teacher’s feedback regarding: grammatical and organizational aspects like orthography and rearranging ideas in order to be more coherent. The feedback that was not adopted is related to punctuation and vocabulary elements, such as use of commas and periods and not improving the diversity of vocabulary. Although students did not adopt all of the feedback, they still made some changes that improved their short story.

5. Conclusions and Discussion

When describing students’ decisions about the teacher’s types of written feedback on their short stories, it is important to mention that students’ adoption or non-adoption related to the teacher’s feedback was analyzed.

It can be said that there might be some reasons to explain and interpret students’ adoption or non-adoption. For example, G1 adopted features such as organization of ideas in draft 2 because they identified and learned the structure of a paragraph, thus they were able to re-arrange their short story in a better way. The teacher told them how to improve their text, providing them with help and guidance. As Guasch, Espasa and Kirschner (2013) note when the feedback provides and explanation it is easier for the students to understand it and therefore to adopt it. Thus, it appears to be that the learners managed to re-order their ideas into clearer and shorter paragraphs because they had a previous background on such a topic, and had the respective knowledge to do so. It can also be added that students modified mistakes concerning grammatical elements like punctuation, spelling, and replacement of words in order to avoid repetition. When correcting errors, as Liu (2008) explains some teachers tend to underline and fix every little mistake that is on the written composition. In G1, this was partially done, since some mistakes were underlined, because the idea was to orient students into self-discovery on those errors. In terms of the characteristics of the teacher’s feedback, this was oriented to be positive and corrective, as Ellis (2009) indicates feedback is a tool to improve their story without feeling punished for making mistakes.

In the case of the final version, the learners considered and revised all the given feedback from draft 1 and 2 to be used in the final version of their story. This helped them to comprehend the importance of the teacher’s piece of written advice. This complete adoption of the feedback offered may be explained in the light of Tapia, Arancibia and Correa’s study (2016), in that research the authors explain that students tend to adopt almost all the feedback because they acknowledged a degree of expertise to the teacher. According to Hyland (2009) feedback helps students to feel engaged with the written task, putting into practice the target language to construct and reconstruct knowledge, reflecting upon their own decisions.

In the case of G2, regarding draft 1, students adopted some of the given feedback in draft 1 and 2, therefore; their final version still presented some grammatical mistakes and issues related to coherence and cohesion. Hyland (2002) suggests that one of the most important elements of the written task is negotiating the possibilities of writing with students, mediating elements such as time, working modality, deadline, topic, etc. In this way, students are more organized, in terms of the aspects that they need to consider when writing, and hence, their writing process may improve. In this specific area of producing and writing new sentences, it is important to give feedback to students, especially for G2. Hyland (2009) adds that the reason of such necessity of stressing the need of giving feedback is because EFL novice writers need to be guided, at the beginning of their writing process.

In relation to the adopted feedback, it appeared that the learners focused on improving grammatical mistakes. This can be supported by Oliver and Mackey ‘study (2003) who found that students tend to adopt or uptake feedback that is situated in specific language contexts. Regarding feedback not adopted by G2 it could be explained by Sachs and Polio (2007) theory, that is, students did not notice the comments provided by the teacher or there might have had a negative attitude towards feedback received or they did not feel comfortable working in that kind of context (Ellis, 2010), which might have arisen some arguments within the group.

To sum up, according to Straub and Lunsford (1995), G2 adopted feedback that included global structure, which included an improvement in organizing their story, as well as, mending half of their grammatical mistakes concerning: spelling and orthography. In relation to the non-adopted feedback, features like punctuation and diversity of vocabulary were aspects that students could not or decide not to improve. The aspect of diversity of vocabulary may have not been improved due to its complexity, therefore, as Ferris (2004) explains, this degree of complexity does not allow them to edit their texts.

In this study feedback was not focused exclusively on corrective feedback, as it was explained before, Straub and Lunsford (1995) categories were applied to characterize feedback provided by the teacher and feedback adopted or not by the students. Following these categories, it is possible to conclude that the teacher’s mode comments were mostly Praise an Imperatives. While Focus comments were oriented to local aspects like wording and structure, global comments were oriented to ideas development. In relation to the feedback adopted by the students: imperative mode and ideas development were adopted by both groups. The non-adopted feedback was evident in Group 2 and was related to Global issues like vocabulary diversity.

This research has shown that learners respond or engage differently with feedback. The two groups tended to adopt feedback related to paragraph organization, however corrective feedback was partially adopted. In the case of the feedback provided in the praise mode, it is not possible to observe explicit changes through the process of writing the short stories, but following Riazzi, (1997) and Reid (2000) who note that positive feedback enhances the leaner’s willingness to revise, we can infer that the praise mode of feedback fostered students’ motivation to improve their short stories.

References

Atkinson, P. (1990). The Ethnographic Imagination: textual construction of reality, London: Routledge.

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M. & Meyer, H. (2011). Research Report: Best Practices in Supervisor Feedback to Thesis Students. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa.

Brown, E.(2006). Refocusing written feedback. Paper presented at the 13th Improving Student Learning Symposium, Imperial College, London.

Correa, R., Martínez, M., Molina, M., Silva, J. & Torres, M. (2013). The impact of explicit feedback on EFL High School students engaged in writing tasks. Profile. Issues in Teacher’s Professional development, 15(2), 149-163.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cumming, A. (2002). If I had known 12 things. In L. Blanton, & B. Kroll (Eds.), ESL composition tales: Reflections on teaching (pp. 123-134). Michigan, United States: University of Michigan Press.

Duijnhouwer, H. (2010). Feedback Effects on Student’s Writing Motivation, Process and Performance (Phd Thesis). Universiteit Utrecht, Pays-Bas.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.

Evans, V. (2000). Successful writing: Intermediate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘Grammar Correction’’ Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. DOI: /10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gibbs, G. (2002). Evaluation of the impact of formative assessment on student learning behaviour. Learning communities and assessment cultures: connecting research with practice. Newcastle: Northumbria University.

Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Kirschner, P.A., (2013). E-feedback focused on students’ discussion to guide collaborative writing in online learning environments. In K. Pytash, & R. Ferdig (Eds.), Preparing Teachers to Teach Writing Using Technology (pp.195-208). Pittsburgh, United States: ETC Press.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. DOI:10.3102/003465430298487

Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. New York: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2010). Second language writing. New York. Cambridge. University Press.

Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London: Continuum.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8

Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. London: Routledge

Liu, Y. (2008). Taiwanese students’ negotiations within academic writing: Becoming playwrighters and film directors”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 86-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.003

Mills, G.E. (2007). Action research: A guide for the teacher researcher. NJ: Pearson Education.

Ministerio de Educación. (2005). Currículo nacional. Planes y programas (enseñanza media). Santiago, Chile.

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090

Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Toronto: Heinle Cengage learning.

Oliver, R. & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519-533. DOI: 10.1111/1540-4781.00205

Reid, J. (2000). The Process of Composition, Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Riazi, A. (1997). Acquiring disciplinary literacy: A social-cognitive analysis of text production and learning among Iranian graduate students of education. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 105-137. DOI: 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90030-8

Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners ‘use of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. DOI: /10.1017/S0272263107070039

Sampieri, R. (2006). Metodología de la investigación. México D.F.: McGraw Hill.

Straub, R. & Lunsford, R. (1995). 12 Readers reading: Responding to student writing. Cresskill, NH: Hampton.

Sommers, N. (2013). Responding to Student Writers. Boston, New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered approaches. Exceptionality, 17(4), 223-237. DOI: /10.1080/09362830903235375

Tapia- Ladino, M., Arancibia, B. & Correa, R. (2016). Rol de los Comentarios Escritos en la construcción de la tesis desde la perspectiva de estudiantes tesistas y profesores guías. Universitas Psychologica, 15(4), 1-14.

Vygostky, L.S. (1987). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.