Викладач Довженко О.А.

Викладач Зражевська Є.В.

Сумській Національний Аграрний Університет

Feedback in the writing process: a model

and methods for implementation

Feedback is a fundamental element of a process approach to writing. It can be defined as input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision. In other words, it is the comments, questions, and suggestions a reader gives a writer to produce 'reader-based prose' as opposed to writer-based prose. Through feedback, the writer learns where he or she has misled or confused the reader by not supplying enough information, illogical organization, lack of development of ideas, or something like inappropriate word-choice or tense.

A review of the literature on writing reveals three major areas of feedback as revision. These areas are: peer feedback, conferences as feedback, and teachers' comments as feedback. (Evaluation and error correction two other major areas of the literature can also be considered as feedback in revision under some situations.)

Input means anything which helps students get ideas for writing. This includes invention strategies such as brainstorming, fast writing, clustering, and interviewing. This may also include readings for models of good writing or readings related to a particular topic. Vocabulary development (brainstorming words associated with a particular topic) may also be included here.

In the literature on writing, peer feedback is referred to by many names, for example, peer response, peer editing, peer critiquing, and peer evaluation. For example, peer response may come earlier on in the process with a focus on content (organization of ideas, development with examples), and peer editing nearing the final stages of drafting with a focus on grammar, punctuation, etc.

There are several advantages given for using peer feedback in whatever form it may take. It is said to save teachers' time on certain tasks, freeing them for more helpful instruction. Feedback is considered to be more at the learner's own level of development. Learners can gain a greater sense of audience with several readers (i.e. readers other than the teacher). The reader learns more about writing through critically reading others' papers.

The first step in implementing peer feedback is to train students for the task. Research shows that students have a tendency to read for surface mechanical errors, usually referred to as 'lower order concerns' (LOCs). Students tend not to read for 'higher order concerns' (HOCs) such as the development of ideas, organization, and the overall focus of what they are writing.

Peer reading is rarely given a comment of 'good'. Usually, the readers keep an eye on finding grammar mistakes or choice of words.

The distinction between the teacher's management of LOCs and H O C s is crucial to the feedback process. But training students to read for more than lower order concerns is not easy, and, as the student's comment above suggests, not always successful. But the rewards—that is, getting student-readers to read with a writer in mind—are worth the problems or unsuccessful sessions.

As with peer feedback, there are several advantages of conferences between the student-writer and teacher-reader. One advantage mentioned is the interaction between the teacher and student. The teacher-reader is a 'live' audience, and thus is able to ask for clarification, check the comprehensibility of oral comments made, help the writer sort through problems, and assist the student in decision-making. Thus, the teacher's role can be perceived as a participant in the writing process rather than as a grade-giver. And compared to writing comments, conferences also allow more feedback and more accurate feedback to be given per minute.

Most teachers of writing will agree that making comments on students' papers causes the most frustration and usually takes the most time. Teachers worry whether the comments will be understood, produce the desired results, or even be read. Such worries are justified if we believe the research.

To avoid writing ineffective or inefficient comments, the first step is for the teacher to respond as a concerned reader to a writer as a person, not a grammarian, or grade-giver. Another recommendation is to limit comments according to fundamental problems, keeping in mind that students cannot pay attention to everything at once. This again requires teachers to distinguish clearly between 'higher order' and 'lower order' concerns, not only when commenting on final drafts, but also when giving written comments as part of the writing process. The rationale here is that LOCs may disappear in a later draft as the writer changes content. For example, the writer may eliminate paragraphs or rewrite sentences where surface problems may have existed.

We tend to write comments from three different roles or points of view. Firstly, we write as a reader interacting with a writer— that is, responding to the content with comments such as 'good point' or i agree'. The next role is that of a writing teacher concerned with points of confusion and breaks in logic, but still maintaining the role of a reader. The types of comments written here refer to the specific point of confusion—the effect the confusion has on a reader confused by. They also refer to strategies for revision—choices of problem solving, options, or a possible example. The final role we play is that of a grammarian. These comments are written with reference to a grammar, giving a reason why a particular grammatical form is not appropriate (as with tense choice).

To help ourselves write more effective comments, we are now developing a list of recommendations (based on input) for reference while we are writing comments. Six of these are:

1 connect comments to lesson objectives (vocabulary, etc.);

2 note improvements: 'good', plus reasons why;

3 refer to a specific problem, plus strategy for revision;

4 write questions with enough information for students to answer;

5 write summative comment of strengths and weaknesses;

6 ask 'honest' questions as a reader to a writer rather than statements which assume too much about the writer's intention/meaning.