In the UWC Writing Centre, we as tutors need to be aware of the way we give our feedback to students so that their work can be revised with greater ease and understanding. The nature of the feedback that is given to students can either help them to understand why they have to do any form of revision, or it may further confuse the students. This blog post intends to highlight how and why we think that feedback is very useful for students’ improvement on the academic writing process, and some guidelines for giving constructive feedback.
Chaudron (1988:150) views feedback as ‘treatment of error’ that may simply refer to ‘any teacher’s behaviour following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error’. Lightbown and Spada (1999:171) also refer to feedback as:
Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect. This includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’.
In like manner, Lyster and Ranta (1997) define feedback as a ‘student’s generated repair’ that is successful. They suggest four ways that such a repair can be accomplished;
Clarification Request: indicates that the student’s writing is misunderstood by a teacher or that the writing is ill-formed in some way. In this regard, it can refer to either problems in accuracy or comprehensibility, or both.
Repetition: redundancy to isolate student’s work, with changes in tone or inflection to highlight the error.
Metalinguistic Feedback: may contain comments, information or questions related to the well-formedness of the student’s writing without explicitly providing the correct form. Points to the nature of the error but attempts to elicit the information from the student.
Elicitation: strategic pauses to allow students to fill in the blanks, questions to elicit correct forms or asking students to rewrite a draft.
In line with this, Chaudron (1988) argues that error corrections in writing must be based on the following questions:
Should learner’s errors be corrected?
When should they be corrected?
Which ones should be corrected?
How should errors be corrected?
Who should do the correcting, student or teacher?
To attempt an answer for the above, we speculated on where student writers tend to struggle with their writing. Fanselow (1977) suggests that students struggle with lack of confidence in themselves, lack of direction where the ideas are going to, the reading of related literature takes students astray (off track) and distractions. John: ‘As a writing coach, this has been very helpful to me as they help me as a tutor to identify where the student might be struggling’. Gordon: ‘Being able to identify their struggle is a first step to giving a good feedback. There are times when you prepare comments for students but during the face-to-face, you would notice that they had a different problem entirely’. Thus, we as tutors have found some of this theory useful in thinking about what students might be struggling with and how we might try to help them through our feedback.
There are two general types of feedback, summative and formative. Formative feedback entails commenting throughout the text on specific errors or missteps that encourages and informs a writer of any gaps in their writing. In view of this, we are of the opinion that feedback in a Writing Centre, focused as it is on writing as a process, needs to be encouraging and formative. Tutors and writers need to see writing a continuous process which can always be improved upon. In contrast, summative feedback is a little too general and it is usually given at the end of an assignment. It does have a place, but perhaps not in the Writing Centre, and certainly not on its own.
Based on the above argument, we believe that feedback is very useful for teachers and tutors because it helps the writers to improve on their writing (Lyster 2001). It might also help to move the text to the next step in the writing process. Feedback also helps to show the writer the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of the text – not only what to correct and how, but also why they need to correct it. As a result, feedback gives the writer opportunities to make informed choices about their revisions and it provokes critical thinking by asking writers and tutors to motivate for what works and what does not.
As a way of conclusion, we suggest a few DOs and DON’Ts (or SHOULDs and SHOULDN’Ts) of feedback:
Talk about the positives before the negatives - with the idea that we do not want the students to feel stupid, they should know that there is something that they are doing well.
Select the most pertinent points - because if all the mistakes are brought out at once, the student could be discouraged to continue or may become completely confused.
Be explicit enough - to make sure the student understands exactly what is being talked about, avoid the use of specialised words (or jargon).
Read over a whole paper/assignment before commenting – this can help a tutor to select the pertinent points for discussion and see the paper as a whole
Give choices to the writer – avoid imposing what you would write or say on the student - so that they feel like part of their work
Play the role of a critical peer – make suggestions and comments rather than telling them what they must do so that they can understand that the writing process treats everyone the same way
Do not use jargon or specialised terms uncritically – these words could be scaring because students might not understand what they mean e.g. coherence, task analysis etc.
Do not be vague in your feedback - you need to clear enough to make the students understand why they have to do a revision.
Do not be negative – that is, do not give them the impression that time is against them; let them rather understand that there can never be a perfect piece of writing but that they can always work on it and improve
Do not feedback paragraph by paragraph – this can be at times make some of your comments redundant, or prevent you and the student from seeing the work as a whole
Do not force writer to own ideas they may not be comfortable with – provide them with choices and let them understand why they need to effect a change
Do not be subjective or biased – focus on the assignment and the student, not on your own plans for the writing or thoughts on the topic
Written by John Foncha and Gordon Igbokwe, based on their presentation at a staff seminar
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Fanselow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign Language Annals 10:
Lightbown, P. M., and Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning 51:265-301.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms.Corrective feedback in SLA.
In this post we want to reflect
on the kinds of things we value in our approaches to student writing tutorials,
and how these ‘normative’ kinds of judgements might shape the way we talk to
students, and the way students tend to respond.
Often, there is, at least
initially, a kind of ‘clash’ between our goals for the writing tutorial and the
goals of the students. In some ways, this can most basically be described as a
clash between a ‘process-oriented’ approach and a ‘product-oriented approach’
to academic writing. We will try to unpack this while trying to avoid
essentialising these issues.
To start with the
product-oriented approach to writing that many students adopt (and that many
lecturers adopt too): this approach is what it sounds like, really. Many students
come to the Writing Centre tasked with producing a piece of academic writing,
in a certain form and following certain guidelines or rules, many of which they
do not fully understand at undergraduate level, and which are often tacit. Most
students at undergraduate level that we tutor are very focused on that product,
on getting it written as quickly and painlessly as possible and on getting the
best possible mark they can. They seldom (at least at the start of coming to
the Centre) see themselves as beginning a process-oriented approach to writing,
where their own personal and academic growth is a focus, and where the product
is one of a series of products that link together to create a sense of forward
motion, personal growth, knowledge building and confidence-building. This
process-oriented approach may be valued in the university in some corners and places,
like Writing Centres, academic-development-type courses and with certain
lecturers and tutors. But on the whole, the approach to writing, learning and assessment
in higher education globally is dominated by a focus on the product, and often
the person producing it is overlooked or under-considered. We in the Writing
Centre take issue with this, because this is not the approach that we value. But
we need to be aware of the kinds of concerns a focus on the product creates for
students about academic writing, so that we can understand our own approaches to
academic writing and our methods of guiding, advising and encouraging students
more reflectively and critically.
When we discussed the idea behind
this blog post – a musing about whether there is something ‘normative’ about
our approach to academic writing, and whether and how we might be imposing this
onto writing tutorials perhaps unconsciously and what effects this might have –
we started with the idea of a ‘traditional’ and a ‘non-traditional’ approach to
tutoring in the university. In the sense that we are using these terms in our
thinking, a ‘traditional’ tutorial places the authority in the tutor to direct
the tutorial and set the agenda, and it also makes the tutor the holder of
knowledge and knowing about what is under discussion. In the ‘non-’ or ‘less
traditional’ approach, the power dynamics are challenged, because the tutor
shares the agenda-setting and authority over directing the discussion with the
student, and both the tutor and student have knowledge that is included and
drawn on in the discussion – the students’ knowledge about the assignment topic
is actively sought because writing tutors do not have subject-specific
knowledge for every assignment that they need to assist students with. We find,
though, that the dominant approach according to students is the more
traditional approach, and that when students are invited to work with the peer writing
tutors differently they tend to initially find this disconcerting or
challenging. Many of them would like us to give them yes and no answers and
tell them what to write and how to write it so that they can complete their
product. Many students do eventually enjoy the different way of working when
they get used to it, but it is initially tricky to get many students to open up
and start talking and take on some of that authority and confidence in their
ideas and their writing. This leads us to wonder what we are valuing in our
approach over the alternative, and why we insist on drawing students into
discussion and conversation, rather than simply capitulating and telling them
what they want to know. Are we making value judgements here about what counts
as the ‘right’ way to assist students with their writing? Are we saying,
tacitly, that a writing tutorial ought to go a certain way or have certain
outcomes? And, if we are, how are these judgements impacting on how we manage
our time with students?
In short, we think the answer is probably
‘yes’. Yes, we are making certain value judgements about what academic writing
is and is not (and these are not just ours because they are informed by theory and
practice in our field). We are saying that writing is a process, and that there
are certain things that need to be valued in that process, like giving the
student full ownership over their own writing, and giving guidance and advice
that develops the student-writer’s capacity and confidence, rather than just
developing single assignments. We are valuing a focus on the ‘deeper’ elements
of writing, like the way the ideas are organised and the way the writer is
creating coherence for the reader, as well as the use of evidence to support
their claims and warrants, over a focus on the ‘polishing’ in terms of fixing
typos and correcting spelling and grammatical errors (unless polishing is what
is needed). We are, to an extent, making a normative kind of judgement – we ought
to go about things in a certain way because of what we value, and not
necessarily because we are trying to make the writing easier to read or nicer
to look at. There are normative criteria that shape academic writing, and what
we value taps into those as well, like how to structure an essay and how to
argue academically and why we do so in certain ways, and why we don’t use exclamation
marks or rhetorical questions, for example.
We do not always communicate
these value judgements overtly; often this is tacit, in the way we gently guide
the conversation through questions and prompts to the issues we think the
student would benefit most from working on with us. We often know what we need
to talk about based on the task before the students as well as our own
experience as writers and tutors, so we don’t often stop and think about what
might be underpinning what we are doing in those conversations. This blog post was an attempt to do a bit of
that reflection and thinking. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this issue
too? What do your value in your writing centres, and how does this shape your
encounters with students, and with other academics?
In the first part of this post I
outlined part of a new approach that we’re taking at the UWC Writing Centre
towards the initial training of peer writing tutors. I described briefly using
a PLA approach called the River of Life, the aim of which was to get the new
and returning tutors to get to know one another, and chiefly to bring the
tutors’ own experiences and knowledge into the training space, to open up a
more open and interactive training environment.
The second PLA technique we used
was Matrix ranking. The idea behind this technique is to get groups of people
to collaboratively draw up a list of qualities or items that correspond to an
issue they need to think about. These get written down in a vertical column.
The facilitator then gets the group to come up with criteria for choosing
between the different criteria or items they have come up with. These are
written along the top in a horizontal column and a grid gets drawn up. The
group then gets to cast votes, using beans or buttons as counters for what is
most to least important or valuable to them, and the criteria or items are
ranked. The idea, essentially, is to collectively share knowledge and ideas,
and to give groups an opportunity to defend their choices to one another and to
try and persuade the other groups members to choose along with them (Rowley
1999). We simplified this activity by removing the horizontal column, but the
essence remained – the collective sharing of knowledge and ideas, and the group
discussing and voting on the most to least important criteria or items. The
issues we spoke about were the characteristics of a successful peer writing
tutors and successful writing tutorials – this session led on from the first
session in which we drew Rivers of Life and then, using a Think-Pair-Share
activity, discussed three readings we regard as fairly foundational in terms of
giving us a framework and a shared language for our work with student-writers.
Thus we had some of the theoretical foundation in place and this activity was
designed to extend and deepen that earlier conversation we started by creating
a more practical application.
The tutors got themselves into
three groups and discussed amongst themselves the characteristics of successful
tutors and tutorials, and came up with eight characteristics per issue, per
group. These they then voted on and ranked them, and presented their matrices
to the whole group. I wandered around and listened in on their discussions and
voting and gave advice and guidance where needed. I then took all the matrices home and
collated them – pulling all the similar characteristics together and creating a
collective list of characteristics that reflected what they had written, presented
and what I had overheard during facilitation. We now have two collaboratively
designed and debated matrices that, very simply, represent what we, as a team,
consider to be good practice. This is informed by the experiences of the
returning tutors, the ideas and input of the new tutors, and all the tutors
drawing on the relevant theory they have read. The matrices are here.
Following this session, on the
second day of training, the tutors received simple scenarios and were divided
into pairs and small groups. They then devised 5 minute role-plays for the
whole group, being as creative as they wanted to be and bringing in their own
experiences with students to add colour and life to the scenario. These were
videotaped and then discussed with tutors giving one another feedback and then
the facilitator stepping in, consolidating and adding relevant points where
necessary. This role-playing has been a part of training since 2011, but every
year we challenge ourselves to be more creative and make this a more
informative, rewarding and fun experience for all the tutors. For the newer
tutors the role plays provide a small insight into some of what can happen in a
tutorial, so that they go into their first encounters with students a little
more prepared. An example of one of the scenarios:
tutor has not read the draft – it’s just the first part of an essay, an intro
and a couple of paragraphs and the student says they are stuck and don’t know
what to write next; tutor uses questions to get the student talking about the
task and their ideas and what research they need to do and how or why they have
to do research before they can keep writing
The feedback on the interactivity
of the revised and renewed tutorial programme was very positive.
‘The role plays were refreshing –
quite a hands on experience of what transpires during consultations.’
‘Very empowering and exposure to the
actual tutorial sessions. More
reflective and engaging. More enriching
to personal development.’
‘Today’s session has been productive
in that new and old tutors shared very varied but good experiences. A good building block for 2013 tutoring.’
‘Provided opportunity for students to
share their ideas, experiences and goals.’
As a result of the feedback, and my own
experience of working in these newer and more engaged and interactive ways with
the tutors, I feel that making the tutor training more collaborative, and also
more up to the tutors themselves in as far as leading their own discussions and
contributing so much of their own experiences, ideas and expertise made these
the most enjoyable and informative, and also empowering tutor training workshops
we have had thus far. I am encouraged by how well it went, and also by how we,
through our own support of one another and mutual teaching and learning in our
ongoing training, are extending what we do with student-writers into our own
training space and taking on the issues of empowerment, collaboration,
friendliness and peer-ness in new ways.
Every January, before the start
of the academic term, I get new and returning peer writing tutors together for
a 2-day training workshop. In 2011 and 2012, when we were establishing our
theoretical framework and basis for what we do in working with student writers
and how we do it, we read a lot – on writing centres, on academic literacies,
on global shifts in higher education – and we spent a lot of time talking about
the readings and trying to relate the key ideas and approaches to our own work
at UWC. There was always an interactive element; in both years the tutors spent
some time role-playing various scenarios representing good practices and less
successful practices in one on one and small group writing tutorials. However,
the majority of the time was spent talking – mostly the coordinator leading the
way and the tutors attempting to follow. It was not truly an interactive and
tutor-focused experience on the whole, although this was the case in part.
This year I wanted to do
something very different. We have seven new tutors joining our team of sixteen
and nine tutors returning, a few for their 3rd year. Thus we have
some ‘old hands’ with many writing tutorials and readings and training sessions
behind them, and a significant portion of the team with a lot of catching up to
do, so to speak. I wanted to create a space where the experienced writing
tutors could do some of the training, through sharing their knowledge and
experience in ways that are relatable and real to the new tutors, and that also
contribute to the building of a collegial environment and a new team morale. I
wanted them to spend a lot of time talking and thinking and laughing – I wanted
them to have fun and to feel confident about stepping into the tutorial space
to work with students when they start coming. Most significantly, I wanted to
step back and try to facilitate the discussions and guide the process rather
than taking control and doing most of the talking.
In thinking about how to achieve
this, I tried out various ideas, and one that really struck me as being
something that would start the ball rolling in the right direction is using
Participatory Learning in Action (PLA) techniques, specifically the River of
Life and Matrix Ranking. The main strength of PLA techniques is that they
encourage links between students’ own lifeworlds and the more formal spaces of
higher education and disciplinary learning, they encourage the sharing of
information through interactive and participatory processes, and they have the
ability to deepen students’ own sense-making of their learning processes
because they start from where the students are and proceed from there (see
Pretty 1995 and Nelson & Wright 1995 for more information and resources). I
wanted to try these two techniques as a way of getting the tutors to start with
their own experiences and move from these into a communal space of sharing
knowledge with one another, and discussing approaches to practice collectively.
We started with drawing our own Rivers
of Life. Each tutor was given coloured crayons and pastels and a piece of
flipchart paper and asked to draw his or her own academic journey, from the
earliest moment they wanted to start at up to where they are now, or even up to
what they hope will be on the horizon. They were also asked to consider their
choice to tutor and how this work has played into their own journey thus far.
Once they had drawn their river they were asked to share their story with a
small group, and then each group chose a spokesperson to give an overview of
some of the similarities of points of divergence and interest in all four
rivers as a means of giving the whole group some insight into the small group
stories. The tutors seemed to enjoy this exercise, with some drawing very
elaborate and colourful rivers and others being a little more cautious with
colour. All of them, however, were able to tell their story through drawing it,
and their comments reflected their feelings about being able to think more
introspectively about where they started and where they are now, and about how
far they have come and what they have achieved.
‘The river of knowledge made me reconnect with my past
academic experiences. It made me know
how important each step, either positive or negative has influenced my academic
‘River of life exercise was interesting because it gave me
an opportunity to recreate the route that I have travelled in my career path.’
‘The idea of formulating my academic journey as a river was
very interesting. It appears the motif
of a river captures the context of my academic life, the struggles, obstacles,
successes of my academic life.’
These are a few of the rivers they drew, used here with their permission but without the
The point of
this exercise, in light of the revised aims and goals for training, was to get
tutors to get to know one another – for the new tutors to be introduced to the
returning tutors and start to feel like part of the team, and for the returning
tutors to get to know one another in new ways. Collegiality is a big part of
the way we build our team and support one another throughout the year and an
exercise like this can contribute towards developing a sense of collegiality.
It also brings the tutors’ own stories and experiences and their own knowledge
into the collaborative training space as a way into the more theoretical
knowledge that followed this session. In the next post I’ll conclude with the
other part of using PLA that I mentioned, and some other interactive tools we
used to good effect.
Pretty, J. et al (1995) Participatory Learning and Action: A
Trainer’s Guide. London: IIED.
Nelson, N. & Wright, S.
(1995) Power and Participatory
Development: Theory and Practice. London: ITP.