Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [University of Aberdeen]On: 06 October 2014, At: 06:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Open Learning: The Journal ofOpen, Distance and e-LearningPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/copl20
Providing Effective Support:Investigating feedback to distancelanguage learnersFiona HylandPublished online: 19 Aug 2010.
To cite this article: Fiona Hyland (2001) Providing Effective Support: Investigatingfeedback to distance language learners, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance ande-Learning, 16:3, 233-247
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680510120084959
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of theuse of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Open Learning, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2001
Providing Effective Support: investigatingfeedback to distance language learnersFIONA HYLANDUniversity of Hong Kong
ABSTRACT Interaction and feedback on performance are essential elements of the languagelearning process. On a distance-learning course, since opportunities for interaction may belimited, feedback plays a crucial role in opening and maintaining a dialogue between tutorsand students. Using text analysis, questionnaire and interview data, this study explores bothtutor and student perspectives on the feedback offered on a distance language course. It � ndsthat there are considerable individual differences in the feedback offered by tutors and thereis also variation in the type of feedback the students want and their reported uses of it. Thearticle suggests that more training for both tutors and students is necessary to adequatelyexploit feedback’s potential in a distance-learning context.
Introduction
Feedback plays an essential role in language learning and is particularly importantfor distance language learners, since it may be their only opportunity to getinformation on their performance. Feedback also serves an important function inmotivating and encouraging students. Research suggests that in conventional lan-guage courses, written teacher feedback is highly valued and appreciated by students(Saito, 1994). This motivational aspect may be even more signi� cant in the dis-tance-learning context where the student is essentially learning without the presenceof teacher and peers.
Although feedback plays such a crucial role in distance education, it is largelyunexplored in a distance language learning context. We therefore need to look moreclosely at the feedback offered to distance language students. By examining the waysthat students use feedback we may be able to devise feedback systems which targetstudents’ language problems more speci� cally. Armed with clear guidelines onfeedback, a course coordinator on a language course may also be able to guide tutorsand monitor their feedback more effectively.
Written Feedback Issues
For distance language learners, most response comes in the form of written feedbackon their assignments. However, the literature on feedback on student writing inconventional education settings suggests that written feedback may be of poor
ISSN 0268-0513 print; ISSN 1469-9958 online/01/030233–15 Ó 2001 The Open UniversityDOI: 10.1080/02680510120084959
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
234 F. Hyland
quality, and may be misunderstood or misinterpreted (Hayes & Daiker, 1984;Sommers, 1982; Wall & Hull, 1989; Zamel, 1985).
An important issue in second language learning is where to focus feedback.Accuracy is obviously a central concern for second language (L2) writers and for thisreason it has been suggested that teachers may over focus on form in their feedbackto L2 students (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Zamel, 1985; Truscott, 1996). Otherresearchers suggest that feedback on both form and content issues can be useful(Eskey, 1983; Fathman & Whalley, 1990). Yet others argue that using this form/content perspective for examining feedback is too narrow, since experienced teach-ers tailor their feedback according to contextual features (Ferris et al., 1997).
Another area for research has been the use made of written feedback by Englishas a Second Language (ESL) students. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) compareddata from ESL students’ processing of feedback with teachers’ comments on whatthey meant by the feedback and found many miscommunication problems. Similarproblems were uncovered by Hyland (1998). This potential for misinterpretationmay be even more critical when students and teachers have limited opportunities forface-to-face contact as is the case in a distance-learning context.
Studies on Feedback to Distance Learners
Feedback to distance learners has been examined from a number of differentperspectives. Jarvis (1978) outlined three levels at which marking of assignmentscould function: (1) marking as a means of assessment; (2) marking as a means ofcommunicating knowledge; and (3) marking as a way of facilitating learning. Jarvissuggested that tutors should try to focus more on the third level and should try tostimulate a ‘dialogue’ between themselves and their students. Carnwell (1999)considers that a major outcome of such a dialogue should be greater studentautonomy and independence via the encouragement of a deeper, re� ective approachto learning.
Cole et al. (1986) listed a number of items essential for effective feedback in adistance-learning context. They suggested tutors should adopt a sympathetic andsupportive approach, giving encouragement tempered with honesty and explana-tions for grades offered. Feedback should offer positive comments on strengths, notvague generalizations. Criticisms should be constructive and students should haveopportunities to respond to comments, thus setting up a dialogue. A study byRoberts (1996) of 22 Geology students suggested that the items listed by Colecorresponded closely to the students’ preferences for feedback. Students especiallywant detailed feedback. Rice et al. (1994) solicited mathematics students’ opinionsabout feedback and also found that speci� c detailed comments were seen as mosthelpful. Stevenson et al. (1996) investigated psychology students’ perspectives onfeedback and found that they too wanted detailed facilitative comments on bothgood and problematic work.
There has been very little research on feedback offered on language learningcourses in a distance-learning context. White (1994, 1995, 1997) has looked atstrategy use of distance language learners and classroom learners of Japanese and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 235
French. She found that distance learners tended to use more metacognitive strate-gies like self-management, advance organization and revision strategies. Whiteargued that this would help students to develop into autonomous language learners.Whilst White’s study does not focus on feedback, it is possible that feedback mayplay a role in reinforcing and encouraging such behaviours.
The discussion above suggests that language learning constitutes a � eld wherefeedback is especially important and needs detailed investigation since feedback mayhelp students to not only understand the problems with their current performance,but also to develop language learning strategies.
The Present Study
The overall objective of the study described in this paper was to investigate distancelanguage students’ beliefs and expectations about tutor feedback and their use of thefeedback. It also investigated the feedback the students received and their tutors’perceptions of useful feedback. Speci� cally the study addressed the following ques-tions:
(1) What kinds of feedback did students studying on an English language course atthe Open University of Hong Kong receive on their assignments?
(2) What kinds of feedback did they � nd most helpful?(3) What use did they report making of the feedback that they received?(4) What kinds of feedback did tutors see as most helpful?
Methodology
Research Setting
The course investigated was a foundation level, credit-bearing course, EL100,focusing on general English pro� ciency. This course is open to all students at theOpen University of Hong Kong and has a 10-month duration. The students whoenroll on this course typically come from a wide range of disciplines, includingBusiness, Social Sciences and Arts. The course includes a wide range of self-learningprint and audio visual materials. Sixteen two-hour optional tutorials are providedduring the course.
Students can get both oral and written feedback on their work. They are givenapproximately one page of written comments on a summary sheet attached to theirassignments, together with notes and corrections on the student texts themselves.They can also discuss their work orally with their tutors, either during the four hoursper week allocated to them for telephone tutorials or during tutorials.
Data Collection
Questionnaire A questionnaire was sent to all 250 students enrolled in the coursehalf way through its duration. By this time the students had received feedback onthree of their � ve assignments. This questionnaire focused on student attitudes to,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
236 F. Hyland
and beliefs about, feedback and their reported behaviour after receiving feedback. Atotal of 108 questionnaires were returned: a response rate of 43.2%. Of therespondents, 40.4% were males and 59.6% were female. All students with oneexception reported that Chinese was their � rst language.
Interviews In order to investigate both tutor and student perspectives on feedbackin more detail, in-depth interviews were carried out with 10 students and four tutors.The students were from four different tutorial groups and consisted of four male andsix female students, all with Cantonese as their � rst language. Their ages rangedfrom 26 to 42 and they worked in a variety of occupations including the travelindustry, manufacturing, merchandizing, accountancy, the civil service and comput-ing. For four students EL100 was their � rst Open University course, while the othershad already completed other courses. Their motivations for taking the course wereinstrumental rather than intrinsic; they all wanted to improve their English for workor study related reasons.
The interviews followed a semi-structured format (Cohen & Manion, 1985,pp. 293), with open-ended prompts, so that if students raised other relevant issuesthey were encouraged to talk about them. Interviews were conducted face to faceand were recorded and transcribed.
Four tutors were also interviewed, to investigate their practices and beliefs aboutfeedback. Two of these interviews were conducted face to face and two via thetelephone. The tutors were all experienced ESL teachers, but only one tutor (TutorA) had previous experience of distance tutoring. They all had higher degrees inapplied linguistics or English language teaching and all four were female non-nativeEnglish speakers. This re� ected the general composition of tutors on the course.
Collection of feedback from tutors All assignments and related feedback given by thefour tutors on the third assignment were collected and photocopied. Since thenumber of active students in each group varied and students did not hand in all theirassignments, the total number of assignments received from each tutor varied: 26assignments were collected from Tutor A, 18 from Tutor B, 14 from Tutor C and19 from Tutor D, making a total of 77 assignments. The feedback was written onthe texts and on an assignment cover sheet. The assignment included a short essayquestion and a taped speech on the topic ‘Potential cross-cultural communicationproblems in Hong Kong’. For the analysis, only the feedback on the written textswas considered.
Data Analysis
The feedback classi� cation scheme Feedback classi� cation systems used in writingresearch have often used a basic form/content dichotomy as their central feature(Ziv, 1984; Zamel, 1985). However, it is important to consider feedback within itscontext. In a distance-learning context, feedback is playing an additional teachingand support role. Therefore comments given to the students in this study were, afterconsideration, related to two broad areas important for the distance learner:
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 237
(1) the product (i.e. the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment itself); or(2) the learning process (i.e. the strategies and actions the students should take to
improve their language).
Focus on the product Feedback that focused on the product was subcategorised asfocused on one of four categories:
(1) Content(2) Organization(3) Language accuracy(4) Presentation
Comments on content focused on issues relating to the message of the writing,commenting on the ideas and information offered. Feedback in this categoryincluded criticisms and suggestions such as: ‘You could have included your ownexperience’; ‘You need to discuss and identify areas of cross cultural problems suchas eating, food and language’; and positive comments such as ‘You have given somereal life examples and you’re sensible to refer to the ideas in text A.’
Feedback focused on organization discussed the coherence and cohesion of thetext. An example of this focus is the following suggestion: ‘What you have toimprove is the use of connectives to link up the different points of your argument toensure a smoother transition of ideas.’
A third focus of feedback was on language accuracy. Tutors often highlightedgrammatical or lexical problems: ‘The problem is language. For example youconfuse different parts of speech’, ‘The fact is that you have made up or misusedsome lexical items, e.g. inducted for introduced.’
Finally a small amount of the feedback focused on the presentation of the assign-ment. This included comments such as ‘Please double space your assignment nexttime’.
Focus on the learning process Feedback that focused on the learning process wassubcategorised into one of three areas:
(1) Encouragement(2) Reinforcement of learning materials(3) Suggestions to improve students’ language learning process
In their interviews all the tutors and the students mentioned the important role thatfeedback had to play in terms of support and encouragement. Tutors pointed out thatfor some students who chose not to attend the tutorials, the feedback couldconstitute the only contact they had with another person on their learning progress.Feedback offering encouragement and support tended to be very generalised andincluded comments such as: ‘The essay is well written. Keep it up!’, ‘It is obviousyou have put effort into writing your essay’ and ‘Congratulations on your goodperformance!’
In training sessions and through her monitoring of the tutors’ marking, the coursecoordinator had stressed the importance of linking feedback to relevant learning
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
238 F. Hyland
materials to ensure that learning was reinforced and students knew where to look forsolutions to their problems. Although not as frequently used as one might expect,some examples of these types of comments were found in the data: ‘Please refer toUnit 6 to compare various methods of attribution’ and ‘Look at Unit 6, pages 27 to28 for examples of paraphrasing’.
Through their feedback, the tutors also suggested learning strategies to the stu-dents, i.e. possible actions they could take to improve their language learning: ‘It ismost essential for you to read as much as possible to familiarise yourself with Englishsentence structures’ and ‘Please come to the tutorials to better prepare yourself forthe next assignment’.
All the summary comments made to the students on the assignment sheet wereanalyzed using this classi� cation system. An examination was also made of the waythat the tutors handled speci� c language problems on the student texts.
Findings
The Feedback Received by the Students
Comments on assignment sheets For all four tutors, most feedback was given on theproducts. As we can see in Table I, less than 17% focused on the process of learning.Product focused feedback was most likely to deal with content problems, withcontent focused feedback accounting for nearly 45% of all feedback. Although thetutors often mentioned the language problems of the students in their interviews,only 22% of comments addressed language concerns, while 15% focused on organi-zation.
There were, however, considerable variations in the proportions of feedback givenby different tutors, with Tutors B and D focusing more on language issues andTutor C on organizational features to a greater extent than the others. TutorA—who had the longest experience of tutoring on distance-learning courses—focused more on the learning process than the other tutors, offering more encour-agement and suggesting more learning strategies. Perhaps surprisingly given thecontext of the study and instructions given to the tutors in training sessions, verylittle mention was made of the learning materials.
The in-text interventions As well as looking at the summary comments, an examin-ation was made of all the in-text corrections and comments written on the studentessays themselves to see how tutors dealt with language problems. The four tutorsdiffered quite considerably in their approaches. The majority of Tutor A’s interven-tions were complete corrections or reformulations (83%). In contrast 80% of allTutor B’s feedback involved pointing out problems with no speci� c advice on howto deal with them. Similarly, only 23% of Tutor C’s interventions were completecorrections. Tutor D’s feedback was more evenly balanced between highlightingproblems (46%) and complete corrections (54%).
From the above analysis we can see that each of the four tutors offered quitedifferent patterns of feedback to their students, despite the fact that they had all been
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 239
TA
BL
EI.
Foc
us
offe
edb
ack
for
all
fou
rtu
tors
(%)
Foc
us
onp
rod
uct
Foc
us
onle
arn
ing
pro
cess
Lan
guag
eR
ein
forc
emen
tof
Su
gges
tin
gT
uto
rC
onte
nt
Org
anis
atio
nA
ccu
racy
Pre
sen
tati
onE
nco
ura
gem
ent
lear
nin
gm
ater
ial
lear
nin
gst
rate
gies
A4
9.2
13.3
13.
31
.71
1.7
0.8
10.0
B3
5.3
7.0
40.
01
.29.
44
.72
.4C
52
.522
.51
2.5
0.0
3.3
4.2
5.0
D3
7.2
15.1
30.
22
.37.
01
.27
.0
All
tuto
rs4
4.8
15.1
22.
11
.27.
82
.76
.3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
240 F. Hyland
TABLE II. Usefulness of comments on different areas of writing
Very useful Useful Sometimes useful Not useful at allArea (%) (%) (%) (%)
Organization/structure 20.4 62.0 16.7 0.9Grammar 23.1 53.7 19.5 3.7Vocabulary 12.0 52.8 32.4 2.8Spelling & punctuation 8.5 43.4 45.3 2.8Academic conventions 5.6 52.3 39.3 2.8Content and ideas 15.7 57.5 25.9 0.9
given similar training on how to mark assignments. They discussed the reasons fortheir practices in their interviews. Tutor A indicated that the amount of correctionshe gave depended on the students’ level. For example she suggested that underlin-ing didn’t work for weaker students who couldn’t correct errors independently, butworked well for more advanced students. Tutor B gave very little correction on thepapers, but had a system which involved underlining and grouping similar errorstogether to discuss in her summary comments. Tutor C felt time constraintsprevented detailed correction on all language errors and so focused only on majorreoccurring errors. For Tutor D there were two con� icting issues. While she wasaware that students might not be able to correct their errors by themselves, she wasconcerned that complete correction might result in text appropriation and ‘mightdistort their original meaning’. This made her selective in her correction of errors.
We will now examine the student responses to gauge the extent to which there wasa match between the tutors’ feedback and the students’ expectations.
Students’ Feedback Preferences
Students’ wants and preferences were investigated both through the questionnaireand the interviews. Generally students were quite positive about the helpfulness ofall the feedback they had received for improving their language skills. Nearly 70%found it to be either very helpful or helpful, and another 28% found it sometimeshelpful. Only 2% suggested that it was not helpful at all.
More speci� cally in terms of feedback on writing, comments on organization andstructure were found to be most useful (see Table II). Over 82% rated suchcomments as useful or very useful. Students also rated comments on grammar andcontent and ideas highly, but found comments on other aspects of writing such asspelling and punctuation and academic conventions less useful.
The students also gave information about what they thought should be the mainpurpose of their tutor’s written feedback. Over half of them believed that the teachershould act primarily as a facilitator, showing them where their general strengths andweaknesses were (see Table III). Others (37.7%) thought their tutors had animportant role to play as a corrector of their language errors, but few wanted theirtutor to focus on giving them an audience response or an assessment of their level.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 241
TABLE III. Main purpose of written feedback
Purpose Frequency Percentage
To show you your strengths and weaknesses in English 54 50.9To improve your language accuracy 40 37.7To respond to your ideas 7 6.7To show you your current English language level 5 4.7
Total 106 100
In his interview one student explained how he expected feedback on this courseto focus more on language accuracy than other courses. He was still taken aback atthe number of language problems pointed out in his assignments, as he had not beenaware of many of the problems when writing assignments for other subjects:
In fact I was quite surprised that I made so many mistakes. I think thegrammar feedback has been helpful to me because for the past years Ididn’t realise these grammatical mistakes. It opened my eyes.
Tutors giving feedback on courses other than language courses may feel thatcorrecting students’ language errors is a trivial and time wasting activity and mayprefer to concentrate on other issues when giving feedback. However, this studentbelieved that such tutors had misled him into repeating errors by omitting tomention his common language problems.
We’ve already seen that the tutors dealt with language errors in a variety of ways.Students also revealed differences in the type of feedback they preferred to receiveon language problems. Around 40% preferred summary comments explaining theirmajor language problems. Another 29% of students wanted all their mistakescompletely corrected while almost 30% preferred tutors to simply highlight areaswhere there were problems and were prepared to accept responsibility for thecorrection themselves. The results are shown in Table IV.
In their interviews students explained the reasons for their different preferences.Those who wanted complete correction sometimes lacked con� dence in their ownability to self correct: or felt that it was the teacher’s responsibility to correctlanguage errors not theirs: ‘If she shows me there is a mistake, she needs to correctit for me.’ In contrast, others found highlighting mistakes more effective as they
TABLE IV. Preferred feedback on language problems
Type of feedback Frequency Percentage
Longer comments summarizing the major language problem areasI need to work on 44 41
The problems highlighted or underlined and left to me to correct 32 30All language problems identi� ed and corrected 31 29
Total 107 100
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
242 F. Hyland
TABLE V. Reported actions after receiving feedback
Action taken after reading feedback Frequency Percentage
I put the assignment away, but reread the comments whendoing future assignments 47 43.5I try to correct the errors shown in the assignment 39 36.1I make a mental note for future assignments 33 30.5I write down points to remember for future assignments 20 18.5I take some other action 2 1.8
recognised that it forced them to be more active in their use of feedback and saw thepotential for focusing and extending their independent language learning activitiesvia the feedback:
I prefer she circles some mistakes and shows some examples and gives methe chance to discuss because this gives me a chance to practice my oralEnglish and discuss the mistake with other classmates.
I can use the book to check the correct answer. I want to do the correctionsmyself. When I do more, I learn more.
The Use Students Made of the Feedback
What actions did the students take in response to the feedback they received?Students were � rst asked what they paid most attention to when reading feedback.A majority (57%) reported that they focused most on the more general commentssummarizing the strengths and weaknesses of the assignment. Another 28% said thatthey focused on the in-text comments and corrections written on the assignments,while only 15% said they paid most attention to the mark. This suggests that manystudents were motivated by the desire to improve, rather than simply to obtain credittowards their degree.
To investigate whether students followed up the feedback, they were asked whataction they took after reading their tutor’s comments (see Table V). They couldchoose more than one alternative. The � rst option, ‘I make a mental note of thefeedback’, covered passive responses. However, although more than 30% chose thisoption, many linked this with another action and only 17% said that this was theonly thing they did.
This active use of feedback was reinforced by the interviews. Seven of the 10students discussed how they systematically � led away their assignments and referredto the feedback when writing a new assignment or preparing for the examination.They believed that the information gained from feedback was transferable from onepiece of writing to another and made a conscious effort to utilise it.
Students were also asked to state the action they would be most likely to take ifthey couldn’t understand their tutor’s feedback or couldn’t correct some errors thathad been highlighted (see Table VI).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 243
TABLE VI. Most likely action if there is a problem understanding/using the feedback
Likely action Frequency Percentage
Consult a dictionary or grammar book 45 42.0Ask the tutor to explain during tutorial 28 26.1Telephone the tutor to get an explanation 20 18.7Ask a fellow student or other person for help 9 8.4Ignore the problem/comment 5 4.8
Total 107 100
What is interesting here is the extent to which students relied on their ownresources for dealing with problems, rather than seeking help. In fact 42% reportedthat they would use a reference book to check on the problem. The next mostpopular option was to discuss the matter with the tutor in the tutorial. Althoughtelephone tutoring times are provided to students for exactly these kind of problems,only 18.7% said they would phone the tutor. This reluctance to seek help in this waywas con� rmed in both tutor and student interviews.
Practical reasons may have been partly responsible for this lack of use. Althoughtutors usually made their telephone tutoring hours later in the evening, somestudents commented that they worked long hours or shifts and didn’t get home untiltoo late and suggested that e-mail would be more convenient. However, the resourcewas appreciated by others:
I prefer she talk in the telephone because if she just write it and I have � ndsome problem understanding I cannot know it. If I telephone to her and Ihave some problem she can tell me immediately and I can tell her as well.
Students like the one quoted above were aware of the advantages of the telephonefeedback over written feedback in terms of the opportunities it offered for two-waycommunication, negotiation of meaning and immediate, direct feedback.
The Tutors’ Perspectives on Feedback
As we have seen in the above section, the students both valued the feedback andmany made attempts to systematically use it. However, despite spending hoursmarking student assignments, the tutors seemed unsure as to whether their feedbackwas either useful or actually used:
But for those weak students, I just � nd that it’s not because they don’twant to listen to you. It’s simply because they don’t have that kind ofcapability of changing themselves, of improving themselves, in that shorttime. (Tutor A)
I expect them to at least note down the areas for improvement, but as onestudent said they know their weaknesses and they want to improve, butthey don’t know how to do so. (Tutor C)
I think they probably just read it through. (Tutor D)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
244 F. Hyland
While the tutors were quite sceptical about the potential for feedback to improvestudents’ language, they did see feedback as serving an important function in adistance-learning context, encouraging and supporting students. Tutor A showed anawareness of the dif� culties faced by a distance learner.
I have got to be more understanding and should be more compassionate,especially when I understand that the adults have got such a hard job.
Tutor B felt that encouragement was one of her more successful feedback strategies:
I hope that the encouragement I put in the feedback sheet will be helpfulto them. Because just some grammar points may not be very helpful toimprove the language, because they cannot improve the languageovernight.
Tutor C again stressed the importance of this:
I see my main role as a supporter because I realise how vulnerable a lot ofthem are, if I am not careful they would drop and then they would losehope. So encouragement is the most important thing.
Tutor D explained how the signi� cance of this supportive role had only becomeclear to her by her experiences teaching the course:
Interviewer: Do you think you have changed the way you give feedbackcompared with other teaching situations?
Tutor: Yes de� nitely, more detailed and more encouragement …. In the� rst year I was less sympathetic. I was treating it as a regular assignmentwhere I was seeing the students regularly.
The four tutors held different views on the most helpful feedback for the students.Tutor A felt that speci� c comments linked to the course materials were most useful,but stressed that these needed to be linked to ‘macro’ comments suggestingstrategies to improve students’ performance. Tutor B believed feedback on speci� clanguage problems was most useful, together with comments on organization:
I think I focus quite a lot at grammar, but I also look at organization. Firstgrammar, and then organization, and then content. But very speci� cfeedback is the most helpful, like putting down what grammar mistakesthey make and how the mistakes can be corrected.
Tutor D echoed Tutor B’s priority list, but Tutor C felt that written feedback wasless helpful than discussion when dealing with accuracy problems. She found it moreuseful to focus her written feedback on both organization of ideas and ways ofhelping students to develop independent and critical thinking skills.
Thus while all four tutors strongly emphasised the supportive function of feed-back, their views on what feedback would be most helpful varied. This meant thatstudents might receive very different feedback according to the tutorial group theywere placed in. The potential for a mismatch between student expectations andactual feedback was therefore quite high.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 245
Discussion and Conclusions
One of the most interesting aspects of this study, which echoes earlier studies offeedback given on conventional language courses, is the individual nature of boththe feedback given by tutors and the students’ wants and expectations. The � ndingsof the analysis of the feedback sample show that tutors highlighted quite differentaspects when giving feedback and used a variety of methods when dealing withlanguage problems. The questionnaire and student interviews also show that stu-dents may have quite different wants and expectations regarding feedback.
In a conventional setting there may be opportunities for students and tutors todiscuss feedback issues in more detail, but this may not be the case on a distancecourse. As we have seen, many of the students in this research were reluctant tophone their tutor to enter into a dialogue with them on their feedback. As tutorialsare not compulsory, some might have had no direct contact with the tutor. Thus anymismatch between student wants and needs and tutor responses could be easilyoverlooked.
The amount of self reliance demonstrated by the students is interesting andencouraging. Many were used to working alone and solving problems related to theircourse by themselves, and were therefore happy to use their own resources to correctthe language problems on the TMAs, and even saw such actions as helping theirindividual learning processes. They were active not passive recipients of theirfeedback. However, while self-motivation and autonomous learning are importantcharacteristics of successful language learners, it is also important that students donot overlook the institutional support being offered.
In the student orientation session for this course, considerable time is spentsuggesting language learning strategies to the students. The importance of bothattending the tutorials and maintaining regular contact with the tutor is emphasised.Whilst e-mail, as some students suggested, might be an alternative way to discussfeedback, there is a need for students to have as many opportunities for ‘live’interaction as possible on a language course and this can be better provided bytelephone contact. The general reluctance of students to enter into a dialogue withtheir tutor on their feedback via the telephone was therefore disappointing. Investi-gating the reasons for this reluctance in more detail is an area for further study.
In addition, a written guide for students offering advice on possible languagelearning strategies and ways to bene� t from feedback could be developed. TheLanguage Learner’s Good Study Guide developed by the Centre for Modern Lan-guages at the Open University (Centre for Modern Languages, 1995) would providea good starting point for the development of such a guide, but it would need to belinked to the speci� c learning context and target language.
Distance language courses need mechanisms for discussing feedback and elicitinginformation from students on their feedback needs and wants. One way of doing thismight be to provide students with a cover sheet with their � rst assignment in whichthey could write some of their feedback requirements. Another might be to incorpor-ate a short piece of re� ective writing into the � rst assignment in which studentsexplain their feedback needs and outline how they propose to use feedback. The
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
246 F. Hyland
tutor could use this as input for his/her future feedback and also as a basis for atutorial class discussion on the possible ways to use feedback.
Tutors may also need more support and training in ways to give feedback on adistance language course. The tutors in this study demonstrated an awareness thatsupport and encouragement are an important dimension of feedback in this context,but they gave less feedback that focused on the learning strategies and the coursematerials than we might expect. The importance of including suf� cient feedback inthese categories is an aspect that may need to be emphasised in tutor trainingsessions and in tutor handbooks.
Learning a language through the distance-learning mode is a challenging task andthe feedback we offer students who choose this route may be crucial to them, bothin terms of improving their performance and in terms of helping them to improvetheir learning strategies. It also plays a special role in encouraging and supportingthem. Giving feedback that addresses all three areas adequately is essential.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank Frances Morley of the Department of Languages,The Open University (UK) for her helpful comments on an earlier version of thispaper. The author was until recently an Assistant Professor in the School ofEducation and Languages at the Open University of Hong Kong, and wishes tothank the Open University of Hong Kong for its support for this research.
Fiona Hyland is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Curriculum Studies,University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong. E-mail: , [email protected] . .
References
CARNWELL, R. (1999) Distance Education and the need for dialogue, Open Learning, 14(1),pp. 50–55.
CENTRE FOR MODERN LANGUAGES (1995) The Language Learner’s Good Study Guide (MiltonKeynes, Open University).
COHEN, A.D. & CAVALCANTI, M.C. (1990) Feedback on compositions: teacher and studentverbal reports, in: B. KROLL (Ed.) Second Language Writing. Research insights for theClassroom (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
COHEN, M. & MANION, L. (1985) Research Methods in Education (2nd edn) (London, CroomHelm).
COLE, S., COATES, M. & LENTELL, H. (1986) Towards good teaching by correspondence, OpenLearning, 1(1), pp. 16–22.
ESKEY, D.E. (1983) Meanwhile back in the real world … Accuracy and � uency in secondlanguage teaching, TESOL Quarterly, 17, pp. 315–323.
FATHMAN, A. & WHALLEY, E. (1990) Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versuscontent, in: B. KROLL (Ed.) Second Language Writing. Research Insights for the Classroom(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
FERRIS, D.R., PEZONE, S., TADE, C.R. & TINTI, S. (1997) Teacher commentary on studentwriting: Descriptions and implications, Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, pp. 155–182.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
Providing Effective Support 247
HAYES, M.F. & DAIKER, D. (1984) Using protocol analysis in evaluating responses to studentwriting, Freshman English News, 13(2), pp. 1–5.
HYLAND, F. (1998) The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers, Journal ofSecond Language Writing, 7, pp. 255–286.
JARVIS, P. (1978) Students’ learning and tutors’ marking, Teaching at a Distance, 13, pp. 13–17.RICE, M., MOUSLEY, J. & DAVIS, R. (1994) Improving student feedback in distance education: a
research report, in: T. EVANS & D. MURPHY (Eds) Research in Distance Education 3: RevisedPapers from the Third Research in Distance Education Conference (Geelong, Vic., DeakinUniversity Press).
ROBERTS, D. (1996) Feedback on assignments, Distance Education, 17(1), pp. 95–116.SAITO, H. (1994) Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language
writing: a case study of adult ESL learners, TESL Canada Journal, 11, pp. 46–70.SOMMERS, N. (1982) Responding to student writing, College Composition and Communication, 33,
pp. 148–56.STEVENSON, K., SANDER, P. & NAYLOR, P. (1996) Student perceptions of the tutor’s role in
distance learning, Open Learning, 11(1), pp. 22–30.TRUSCOTT, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes, Language
Learning, 46, pp. 327–369.WALL, S.V. & HULL, G.A. (1989) The semantics of error: What do teachers know? in: C. ANSON
(Ed.) Writing and Response (Illinois, NCTE).WHITE, C. (1994) Language learning strategy research in distance education: the yoked subject
technique, in: T. EVANS & D. MURPHY (Eds) Research in Distance Education 3: RevisedPapers from the Third Research in Distance Education Conference (Geelong, Vic., DeakinUniversity Press).
WHITE, C. (1995) Autonomy and strategy use in distance foreign language learning: research� ndings, System, 23 (2), pp. 207–221.
WHITE, C. (1997) Effects of mode of study on foreign language learning, Distance Education,18(1), pp. 178–196.
ZAMEL, V. (1985) Responding to student writing, TESOL Quarterly, 19, pp. 79–101.ZIV, N. (1984) The effects of teacher comments on the writing of four college freshmen, in: R.
BEACH & L.S. BRIDWELL (Eds) New Directions in Composition Research (New York, GuilfordPress).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f A
berd
een]
at 0
6:17
06
Oct
ober
201
4
