Students` perception of teacher feedback on their academic writing as reflected in their revision at the center for religious and cross cultural studies, the graduate school, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta - USD Repository
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF TEACHER FEEDBACK ON THEIR ACADEMIC WRITING AS REFLECTED IN THEIR REVISION Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) Degree in English Language Studies By Niswatin Faoziah Student Number: 056332001
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA2008
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all I would like to thank “Al Mighty ALLAH” and our prophet Muhammad for the universal love that led me to accomplish this thesis. Indeed, writing thesis has seemed to be a struggle, determined head battle on paper, and “God be pleased”, finally I have completed it.
I also express my gratitude to my adviser, Pak F.X. Mukarto who has provided advice and supportive guidance and largerly contributed to the elaboration and completion of this work. He has proved to be a patient and cooperative adviser without whom this work would have never come into being. I have learned a great deal from him, and no words of thanks are really adequate. So the improvement in this work is the result of his guidance, while all errors and mistakes are mine.
My appreciation goes to Pak Bismoko, Pak Dwijatmoko, and Pak Alip for their careful reading and excellent suggestions that were very important to the implementation of my thesis.
My special thanks go to all participants in the research whose work and ideas were generously shared and directly reflected in this study. I am also grateful to the teacher whose expert teaching and the accessibility contributes to the content of my study.
My sincere thanks go to Ibu Merrian, Pak Simon Rae, and Slash, my watchful editor, who has offered invaluable suggestions, slowed me down, and kept me on track.
I would also like to thank all administrators, all lecturers, and students in in English language studies at Sanata Dharma university,(mbak Jeannete, mbak Retno, mbak Ista, mbak Irma, mbak Yanti, Diah for the discussion and sharing.
Finally, my love and appreciation go to my big family in Blora, my incredible patient husband ”Suhadi Cholil”, my children Bunga, Azriel, Zanadin for their patience and unfailing love they have shown during the entire period of my study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE …………………………………………………………………. i APPROVAL PAGE ………………………………………………………….. ii THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE …………………………………… iii STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY …………………………….…………… iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS …………………………………………. ……….. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………. .…….. vi LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………... ix LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………….………. xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …………………………………….. ……….. xii ABSTRACT …………….……………………………………………. …….. xv ABSTRAK …………………………………………………………. ……….. xvii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………………………………………… .. 1 A. Background of Study …………………………………………………. …... 1 B. Problem Identification ………………………………………….……….. 5 C. Problem Limitation………………………………………………………… 6 D. Research Problems………………………………………………… ……… 8 E. Research Goals and Objectives…………………………………………….. 9 F. Research Benefits ………………………………………………………….. 10 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………. 12 A. Theoretical Review ………………………………………………………… 12
1. The nature of Academic Writing ………………………………………… 12
a. Characteristics of Academic Writing ………………… …………… ... 13
b. The Approaches in Academic Writing ……………………………… 15
2. Teacher Feedback on Students’ Writing ………………………………… 23
a. The Nature of Teacher-Written Feedback ………………………….. 25
b. The Form of Teacher Feedback …………………………………….. 28
c. The Function of Teacher Feedback ………………………………… 30
d. The Type of Teacher Feedback ……………………………………… 30
e. The Role of The Teacher in Providing Feedback …………………… 33
f. The Methods of Correcting Students’ Writing ………….…………. 35
3. Revision ………………………………………………………………… 40
4. Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback …………………………….. 42
a. The Concept of Perception ………………………………………….. 42
5. Research Examining Students’ Perceptio ns of Teacher Feedback.…… … 45
B. Theoretical Framework ………………………………………………… . 51
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY………………………………………… 55 A. Research Design ………………………………………………………….. 55 B. Data Setting and Sources ………………………………………………….. 59 C. Data Gathering Instrument ………………………………………………… 61 D. Data Collection Processes ………………………………………………… 68 D. Technique of Data Analysis ………………………………………………. 72 E. Trustworthiness of Research Finding ……………………………………… 75 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS …………………………………………… ……. 77 A. Data Analysis and Presentation……………………………………………… 77
1. Analysis of students’ Document ………………………………………… 78
2. Constructing Interview Questions ………………………………………. 80
3. Conducting Interviews …………………………………………………… 81
4. Managing Interview Data ………………………………………………… 82
B. Findin gs …………………………………………………………… ………… 85
1. A Personal Portrait of Students’ Perceptions of Teacher Feedback …………………………………………………… 87
a. Personal Portrait of Neina ……………………………. ……………… 88
1). Educational Background and Writing Experience…….................. 88 2). Problem Solving……………………………………….…………. 89 3). Need and Expectation…………………………………... ………. 90
b. The Personal Portrait of Mozes ……………………………………… 91 1). Educational Background and Writing Experience……………… .. 92 2). Problem Solving………………………………………………….. 93 3). Need and Expectation……………………………………………. 95
c. The Personal Portrait of Laila ……………………………….……… 96 1). Educational Background and Writing Experience…….. ……… 96 2). Academic Writ ing as a Challenge………………………………. 97 3). Problem Solving………………………………………….…… ... 98 4). Need and Expectation…………………………………………… 99
2. Individual Perceptions of Teacher Feedback ………………..………… . 100
a. Neina’s Perception of Teacher Feedback ………………………….. 100 1). Attention to Teacher Feedback…………………………………. 100 2). Understanding of Grammatical Symbols………………………. 102 3). Interpretation of Teacher Feedback……………………………. 108
b. Mosez’s Perception of Teacher Feedback ………………………… 118 1). Attention to Teacher Feedback………………………………… 118 2). Understanding o f Grammatical Symbols………………………. 121 3). Understanding of Teacher Feedback on Content……………… 126 4). Interpretation of Teacher Feedback…………………………….. 128
c. Laila’s Perception of Teacher Feedback ………………………… 137
1). Attention to Teacher Feedback………………………………… 137 2). Understanding of Grammatical Symbols………………………. 139 3). Interpretation of Teacher Feedback……………. …. ………….. 142
3. Individual Perceptions of Teacher Feedback on Student Academic Writing as Reflected in Revision …………………………… 152
a. How Neina’s Perception of Teacher Feedback Shaped her Revision ………………………………………………… 153
b. How Mosez’s Perception of Teacher Feedback Shaped his Revision ………………………………………………….. 158
c. How Laila’s Perception of Teacher Feedback Shaped her Revision ………………………………………………… 161
C. Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 165
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION……………………………………………… 174
A. Conclusio n………………………………………………………………….. 174 B. Implicatio n …………………………………………………………………. 176 C. Recommendation …………………………………………………………... 178BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………... 179
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………….. 187
Appendix A: List of guiding question for students’ interview…….. ………... 188 Appendix B: Coding Students’ Account …………………………………… .. 190 Appendix C: Teacher’ s Structured Interview Transcriptions…………………. 217 Appendix D: Samples of students’ written documents ……………………….. 220
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Stages in The Writing Process ………………………………… … 17Figure 2.2. The Hayes-Flower Writing Process Model ……………………….. 19Figure 2.3. The Schema of Students’ Perception of Teacher FeedbackAs Reflected in Their Revised Work ………………………………. 52
Figure 3.1. Sample of Student Writing…………………………………………. 65Figure 3.2. Looking at Students’ Perception of Teacher FeedbackAs Reflected in Their Revised Work from Different Sides and Sources………………………………………………….. 66
Figure 3.3. Data Collectio n Processes ………………………………………… 72Figure 3.4. Interactive Technique of Data Analysis ………………………….. 74Figure 3.5. Triangulation of the Three Different Varieties of Data Sources …………………………………………………… 76Figure 4.1. A Sample of Neina’s Writing…………………………………….. 79Figure 4.2. Neina’s First Draft……………………………………………….. 107Figure 4.3. Neina’s Fina l Draft ……………………………………………… 107Figure 4.4. Neina’s First Draft ………………………………………………. 116Figure 4.5. Neina’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 117Figure 4.6. Mosez’s First Draft ……………………………………………… 120Figure 4.7. Mosez’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 121Figure 4.8. Mosez’s First Draft ……………………………………………… 122Figure 4.9. Mosez’s First Draft ……………………………………………… 135Figure 4.10. Mosez’s Final Draft …………………………………………….. 135Figure 4.11. Laila’s First Draft ………………………………………………. 148Figure 4.12. Laila’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 148Figure 4.13. Laila’s First Draft ……………………………………………… 151Figure 4.14. Laila’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 151Figure 4. 15. Neina’s First Draft ……………………………………………… 155
Figure 4.16. Neina’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 155Figure 4.17. Neina’s First Draft ……………………………………………… . 156Figure 4.18. Neina’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… 157Figure 4.19. Mosez’s First Draft ………………………………………………. 159Figure 4.20. Mosez’s First Draft ……………………………………………….. 159Figure 4.21. Mosez’s First Draft ……………………………………………….. 160Figure 4.22. Mosez’s Final Draft ………………………………………………. 160Figure 4.23. Laila’s First Draft ………………………………………………… 162Figure 4.24. Laila’s Final Draft ………………………………………………... 163Figure 4.25. Laila’s First Draft ………………………………………………… 164Figure 4.26. Laila’s Final Draft ……………………………………………… ... 164Figure 4.27. Model of Students’ Perception of Teacher Feedback ……………. 166
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1. Category of Content of Teacher Feedback ………………………… 32Table 2.2. Correcting Code …………………………………………………… 37Table 2.3. Theoretical Blueprint … ………………………………………. ….. 54Table 3.1. Research Par ticipants ………………………………………………. 61Table 3.2. List of Guiding Questions in Initial Interview ……………… ……. 63Table 3.3. Schedule of Data Collection ………………………………….……. 68Table 4.1. Initial Interview Coding …………………………………………… 83Table 4.2. Themes and Emergence of Students’ Perceptions ofTeacher Feedback on Their Academic Writing as Reflected in Their Revised Papers ……………………………………….. ….. 86
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ELT: English Language Teaching EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESL: English as a Second Language CRCS: Center for Religious and Cross Cultural Studies Edu-Back: Educational Background Past-L-Eng: Past Learning English Writ-Exp: Writing Experie nce Purp-AW: Purpose of Academic Writing Char-AW: Characteristic of Academic Writing Writ-Diff:Writing Difficulty Stra-W: Strategy in Writing Refl- L: Reflective Learning Help-TFB: Helpfulness of Teacher Feedback Rlt-AR-AW: Relation of Academic Reading and Academic Writing Int-TFB: Interpretation of Teacher Feedback Conf: Conferences Writ-Style: Writing Style Imp-TFB: Importance of Teacher Feedback Self- Ed: Self Edit Str-Self-Ed: Strategy in Self Edit Self-Conf: Self Confidence Gram-Imprv: Grammar Improvement Const-Rev: Constraint in Revision Reasn-TFB: Reasons for Teacher Feedback St-Expc: Students’ Expectation St-Need: Students’ Need Think-Pro: Thinking Process
Imp-AS-TFB: Importance Aspect of Teacher Feedback Attennt-TFB: Attention to Teacher Feedback Agree-TFB: Agreement of Teacher Feedback Underst-TFB: Understanding of Teacher Feedback Ignor-TFB: Ignorance of Teacher Feedback Reas-Ign-TFB: Reasons of Students’ Ignorance of Teacher Feedback Perso-Trait: Personal Trait Sta-Un-TFB: Strategy in Understanding of Teacher Feedback Stra-Av-Plag: Strategy to Avoid Plagiarism Attid-Plag: Attitude Toward Plagiarism Reas-Rev: Reason for Revision Type-TFB: Types of Teacher Feedback Cultr-Asp: Cultural Aspect of Teacher Feedback Resp-Tf-Style: Response to Teacher Feedback Style Agreem- TFB: Agreement of Teacher Feedback Cont-TFB: Contribution of Teacher Feedback Refl- TF-Style: Reflection of Teacher Feedback Style Clar-TFB: Clarification of Teacher Feedback Peer-FB: Peer Feedback Apprec-TB: Appreciation of Teacher Feedback Motv: Motivation Self- Eff: Self Efficacy Expe-TFB: Experience of Teacher Feedback Usef-TFB: Usefulness of Teacher Feedback Infl- TFB: Influence of Teacher Feedback Writ-Enj: Writing Enjoyment Role-TFB-WE: Role of Teacher Feedback Str-Rlt-AR-AW: Strategy in Relating Academic Reading to Academic Writing Pref-Tp-TFB: Preference to Types of Teacher Feedback Effect-TFB: Effectiveness of Teacher Feedback
Lang-Anxiety: Language Anxiety Com-Barrier: Communication Barrier Teach-Self-Edit: Teaching Self Edit Opini-Plag: Opinion on Plagiarism Reas-N-Rev: Reason not to Revise
ABSTRACT
Niswatin Faoziah. 2008. Students’ Perception of Teacher Feedback on Their Academic
Writing as Reflected in Revision. Yogyakarta: English language Studies, Graduate Program,
Sanata Dharma University.In the process writing approach, responding to students’ texts has been a central task
for writing teachers. They often think that students will learn such comments and apply the
new knowledge to subsequent drafts. Nevertheless, a great deal of researches have questioned
the effectiveness of teacher feedback as a way of improving students’ writing. The grim
picture of research in teacher feedback triggeres the writing teacher to question students’
perceptions and what their responses to teacher feedback are. Inspite of much research
examining teacher feedback, and revision processes, limited studies scrutinized students’
perception and how they have incorporated their perceptions of teacher feedback into
revision. This study scrutinizes students’ perception which takes into account individual
differences such as educational background, need, expectation, previous writing experience
and motivation. It is an attempt to understand the lived experience of the participants as part
of the phenomenon, so phenomenological research seemed to be appropriate to be applied in
the study.This study explored students’ perception of teacher feedback on their academic
writing as reflected in revision. It investigated two research questions namely; (1) what is
students’ perception of teacher feedback?, and (2) how is the students’ perception reflected in
their revision? These two research questions were answered through in-depth interviews, and
analysis of students’ documents. The participants of this study were three students of the
Center for Religious and Cross Cultural Studies at the Graduate School, Gadjah Mada
University, Jogyakarta, and one of the English teacher.The results indicated that students’ perceptions varied considerably according to
educational background, experience, need, expectation, and students’ linguistic differences.
These aspects seemed to stand in the way of students’ perceive of teacher feedback. In
addition to this fact, their perceptions were also directly linked to the teacher’s feedback
practices, which were aimed largerly at mechanical and grammatical accuracy, fluency,
organization of ideas, style and content. In other words, the reseacher argued that students’
perceptions of teacher feedback were mainly a result of their needs, expectations, previous
experiences and teacher feedback practice.Additionally, the research contributed to the fact that there were contradictory
perceptions of students on content of teacher feedback. For students who paid greater
attention to content, and organization of ideas, the disagreement on content feedback was a
medium to widen their perspectives, but not to those who over emphasized grammar.
Consequently students who perceived content and organization of ideas as the main attention
tended to revise all such aspects successfully leading to substantive changes. In contrast,
those who perceived form or grammar as paramount would merely revise grammar over
content or organization of ideas. The study also proved that text-based changes including
content and organization of ideas indeed, were difficult to amend, so students tended to
selectively incorporate teacher feedback as they could, in terms of the ease of revision and
task complexity. Interestingly, the reseacher also discovered that students appreciated teacher
feedback by executing some strategies in response to teacher feedback difficulties such as
correction codes/symbols, and vague comments. These strategies were good attempts to
facilitate them in the revision process. The study illustrated that teacher feedback contributed
greatly to the students’ writing development as to what constitutes of good essay and their
emotional state, particularly their motivation to write.
Key words: academic writing, teacher feedback, text, perception, phenomenological
research.
ABSTRAK
Niswatin Faoziah. 2008. Students’ Perception of Teacher Feedback on Their
Academic Writing as Reflected in Revision. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris,
Program pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sanata Dharma.Dalam pendekatan proses menulis, respon terhadap teks mahasiswa tela h menjadi tugas pokok bagi dosen menulis. Para dosen berpandangan mahasiswa akan belajar dari dari koreksi-koreksinya dan mendapatkan pengetahuan baru dari draft tersebut. Namun, banyak penelitian mempertanyakan efektifitas dari teacher feedback sebagai sebuah metode untuk meningkatkan kemampuan menulis mahasiswa. Sebagian penelitian mengenai teacher feedback sering menekankan efektifitas proses ini sebenarnya terletak pada pandangan mahasiswa dan bagaimana respon balik mereka terhadap teacher feedback itu sendiri.
Meskipun sudah banyak penelitian membahas teacher feedback dan proses revisi, penelitian yang memfokuskan dir i pada persepsi mahasiswa dan bagaimana mereka menggabungkan persepsi mereka tentang teacher feedback ke dalam proses revisi termasuk masih langka. Kajian ini berupaya menganalisis persepsi mahasiswa yang memperhatikan unsur -unsur pembeda individual seperti latar pendidikan, pengalaman menulis, dan bagaimana ekspektasi (kebutuhan, motivasi, harapan) mahasiswa terhadap teacher feedback. Peneliti tertarik memperhatikan esensi pengalaman subjek riset dan memahami fenomena, sehingga penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan fenomenologi.
Penelitian ini bertujuan mengeksplorasi persepsi mahasiswa mengenai teacher
feedback
dalam academic writing mereka yang tercerminkan dalam revisi. Studi ini mengkaji dua pertanyaan penelitian. Pertama, apa persepsi-persepsi mahasiswa mengenai teacher feedback? Kedua, bagaimana persepsi-persepsi tersebut terefleksikan dalam revisi mereka. Kedua pertanyaan dalam kajian ini akan dijawab melalui in-depth interview dan didukung oleh analisa dokumen dari paper mahasiswa. Subjek riset ini difokuskan pada tiga orang mahasiswa di Program Studi Agama dan Lintas Budaya, Sekolah Pascasarjana, Universitas Gadjah Mada dan seorang dosen mereka.
Hasil dari riset ini menunjukkan bahwa persepsi-persepsi mahasiswa bervariasi menurut latar pendidikan, pengalaman menulis, dan bagaimana ekspektasinya terhadap teacher feedback. Aspek-aspek tersebut seperti menjadi dasar sejauh mana mahasiswa menerima teacher feedback . Pada kenyataannya, persepsi mereka juga secara langsung terkait dengan implementasi teacher feedback yang secara lebih luas seperti mekanik bahasa, ketepatan tata bahasa, maupun beberapa kecakapan seperti sumber, pengorganisasian, gaya, dan isi gagasan tulisan. Dengan kata lain, peneliti berpendapat bahwa persepsi mahasiswa terhadap teacher feedback merupakan hasil akumulasi dari latar pendidikan, pengalaman menulis, dan ekspektasinya.
Kajian ini menemukan terdapatnya persepsi-persepsi yang berbeda antar mahasiswa mengenai penerimaan teacher feedback dalam hal isi tulisan dan grammar. Mahasiswa yang memandang isi tulisan dan pengorganisasian gagasan merupakan subjek revisi, maka dia cenderung mau menerima revisi dosen secara lebih mendasar dan total baik secara gramatikal maupun menyangkut hal-hal lain terkait isi tulisan. Sebaliknya mahasiswa ya ng menganggap subjek revisi lebih pada masalah gramatikal, dia cenderung hanya merevisi unsur-unsur gramatikal dari tulisan tersebut. Penelitian ini juga menemukan bahwa text-based changes mengenai isi dan pengorganisasian gagasan pada kenyataannya sulit diterima secara utuh, sehingga mahasiswa cenderung untuk selektif dalam melakukan revisi pada wilayah ini berdasar kemudahan tingkat revisinya. Menariknya, peneliti juga menemukan bahwa mahasiswa mengapresisasi teacher feedback dengan cara menerapkan beberapa strategi dalam merespon kesulitan-kesulitan dalam memahami kode dan simbol koreksi serta komentar yang kurang jelas. Akhirnya, kajian ini menunjukkan bahwa teacher feedback memiliki andil besar dalam pengembangan kemampuan
writing
mahasiswa seperti persepsi tentang karakteristik essay yang baik dan lebih memotivasi mereka dalam menulis.
Kata kunci: Tulisan akademik, teacher feedback, teks, persepsi, penelitian phenomenologi
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter sets out to present the background of the study by providing a
clear picture of the key issues in academic writing, teacher feedback practices, and
student perception of teacher feedback. The following part also organizes the
formulation of research problems through three extensive lenses including: research
question, problem limitation, and research goal and benefit.A. Background of Study
In the academic world, writing ability holds a special status. It has been an
essential part of learning and thinking in the school context, particularly in the light of
st
21 century demands. Bandura (1993) states that academic writing may be assigned
for a variety of educational goals; assessing knowledge, promoting critical thinking,
stimulating creativity, encouraging discourse as part of the professional community,
and supporting cognition. Hence, academic writing needs to be learned and developed
during learners’ study particularly those who purse their degree in the graduate
programs. Learners at this level are expected to be able to organize ideas in
conformity and write critically in English with certain standards of prescribed English
rhetorical style and genre, as well as reflect accurate grammar.However, Brown argues that the ability to write is a learned behavior
(2001:334) that signifies that the ability to write well is not a naturally acquired skill;
instructional settings or other environments. It should be practiced and learned
through experience. As claimed by Hadley (1993), writing also involves composing,
which implies the ability either to tell or retell pieces of information in the form of
narratives or description, or to trans form information into new texts, as in expository
or argumentative writing. Perhaps it is best viewed as a continuum of activities that
range from the more mechanical or formal aspects of "writing down" on the one end,
to the more complex act of composing on the other end. It is undoubtedly the act of
composing, however, which can create problems for students, especially for those
writing in a second language (L2) in academic contexts. As illustrated by Bereiter &
Scardamalia (1987:12), formulating new ideas can be difficult because it involves
transforming or reworking information, which is much more complex than writing as
telling. By putting together concepts and solving problems, the writer engages in "a
two-way interaction between continuously developing knowledge and continuously
developing text". Indeed, academic writing requires conscious effort and practice in
composing, developing, and analyzing ideas.Compared to students writing in their native language (L1), however, students
writing in their L2 context have to deal with the difficulties laying down not only in
generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating these ideas into readable texts.
Furthermore, to become a proficient L2 writer, student needs to master some elements
such as content, style and organization as well as surface elements such as grammar,
vocabulary and the actual mechanic of writing.Hyland & Hyland (2006:1) in their article argue that with the development of
learner- centered approaches to writing instruction in North American L1 composition
classes emerged the significance of feedback provision which enabled students to
improve their language proficiency and to become more confident in their writing
abilities. Learner- centered approaches can also be used to train students to be good
writers and become autonomous learners. Therefore, providing feedback to students’
writing is one of the most challenging tasks a writing teacher has. Teachers typically
invest a great deal of time and effort in responding to the student’s text with the
assumption that their feedback will improve the student’s writing. Similarly, the act of
responding to student writing can enormously influence students’ attitudes to writing
and their motivation for future writing. Students tend to perceive that teacher
feedback gives them opportunity to improve their writing. But practically, students
can be easily confused by unclear, vague, and fuzzy comments. They get frustrated
with their writing progress. On the other hand, students can be positively supported to
explore many areas of knowledge and personal creativity through helpful and
constructive responses to their writing. It is clear that teacher feedback serves as an
important source of feedback for affecting students’ writing performance.Even though feedback seems to be the central aspect in learning, the research
findings on teacher’s feedback still give us grim pictures. There are inconclusive
arguments related to the importance of composition teachers provide feedback to their
students. Some researchers like Hedgcock & Lefkowitz (1994) have demonstrated
that students expected and valued teacher feedback on their writing, while other
studies reported very little evidence that teacher feedback actually helped students’
writing improve (Leki,1990). As cited by Sommers (1982), and Hyland (2003:178),
sometimes students misinterpret teacher’s feedback; they fail to understand teacher’s
comments and grammatical symbols in error correction. Students do not read written
teachers’ feedback, and those who read it rarely use the comments in their process of
revision. Teachers often write confusing and superficial comments that focus on
surface errors, may be incongruous, and that reflect paternalistic attitudes; teachers
are regarded as being too authoritarian, formalist and inconsistent.In the context of L2 research, many studies of teacher feedback have also
come to similar conclusion that teachers focus largely on sentence- level concerns and
tend to appropriate students’ text, and are muddled in their responses (Goldstein, in
Silva and Matsuda, 2001:83). Furthermore, a research which is conducted by Zamel
(1985: 86) reported a similar finding as follows:ESL writing teachers misread students texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, make arbitrary corrections, write contradictory comments, provide vague prescriptions, impose abstract rules and standards, respond to texts as fixed and final products, and rarely make content-specific comments or offer specific strategies for revising the texts……. The teachers
overwhelmingly view themselves as language teachers rather than writing teachers.