Direct Versus Indirect Feedback in

Tutoring ESL StudentsBy Leah Davis and Kendra Williamson

Background Teacher, student, and tutor perspectives Case studies and implications Solutions

Overview

In commenting and conferencing, which form of feedback best fits the role of the tutor and satisfies the desires of the student: direct feedback or indirect feedback?

Research Question

Direct versus Indirect Feedback

Imperative◦ Revise your thesis to make it more specific.

Explicit◦ This is a weak thesis that lacks specificity.

Direct Feedback

Direct Feedback

Questions◦ Can you make this thesis more specific?

Hedges◦ You might want to use more specific ideas in this

thesis.

Indirect Feedback

Indirect Feedback

Perspectives“The students want to be told specifically what is wrong [in their papers]. Don’t be afraid to [tell them].”—BYU international writing professor

Value learning and self-discovery Use “hedged” criticism—native politeness

features (Baker, 2010, p. 76) May get caught up form rather than content

(Diab, 2005, p. 29) Deal with balancing intervention (helpful)

and appropriation (harmful) (Ferris, 2007, p. 167)

Teacher Perspective

Value direct error feedback and perfection in writing (Leki, 1991, p. 203).

Experience a conflict between previous and current English learning experiences (Leki, 1991, p. 204).

Are aware of their limited English proficiency and feel disappointed when teachers do not give correction (Ferris, 2007, p. 168).

ESL Student Perspective

Expect correction, but not in indirect or polite forms. (Baker, 2010, p. 77)

Misunderstand indirect comments◦ Student: “Yeah I think it’s, you mean, uhh…

exactly not wrong, but you mean it’s better, right? Or—I—my sentence is wrong. I don’t understand this.”

◦ Teacher: [laughs] ◦ Student: “Uhhh because you put you can.”

(Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 279).

ESL Student Perspective

Value student autonomy and teaching over fixing

Peer: not teacher, avoid being too directive (Soven, 2001, p. 206)

Tutor: knowledge about writing

Tutor Perspective

Case Studies & Implications

3 pairs of Masters students tutored ESL students (Weigle & Nelson, 2004, p. 207-219).

Case Studies

Name Nationality Experience GoalsTutor

1

Tutee 1

Anna Czech Republic 1st Year Masters Give Correct Grammar Instruction

Daniel Indonesian Intermediate ESL Get Questions Answered

Tutor 2

Tutee 2

Sandra American Final Year Masters Give Feedback on Meaning

Lian Chinese Advanced ESL Communicate Meaning

Tutor 3

Tutee 3

Kerry American Experienced ESL teacher

Teach How to Brainstorm &

ReviseKwan Korean Advanced ESL Get Good Grades,

Pass GMAT

Many variables: “Not a direct connection between specific roles and the perceived success of tutoring” (Weigle & Nelson, 2004, p. 222).

Find out tutee’s goals. Adapt personal goals. Recognize that having different goals is normal. Consider language proficiency.

Case Study Implications

Solution

For low-proficiency ESL students:◦ Direct comments—easiest to process (Baker, 2010, p.

83) ◦ Negotiation (Ewert, 2009, p. 253)◦ Scaffolding (Ewert, 2009, p. 253)

Simplify the task, keep learner motivated, respond to challenges, demonstration

Solution: Know the Student

For higher-proficiency ESL students:◦ Direct and indirect comments for culturally adept◦ Identify, but do not correct (Lee, 1997, p. 466)◦ Negotiation and scaffolding

Solution: Know the Student

“Teachers often objectively stated the issue at hand and then softened the illocutionary force of their following suggestions by using hedging.” (Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 279)

“It is important to identify appropriate comment types for different kinds of errors and to be able to put them to use effectively according to each context.” (Nurmukhamedov & Kim, 2010, p. 281)

Solution: The Mixed Model

Low–intermediate: direct

Solution: The Mixed Model

• Intermediate–high: direct/indirect combinations

Baker, W. & Bricker, R. H. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38, 75-84. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2009.12.007.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. Elsevier Science Ltd, 25(4), 465-477. PII: S0346-251X(97)00045-6.

Leki, I. (1991). The Preferences of ESL Students for Error Correction in College-Level Writing Classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24:3, 203-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x.

Nurmukhamedov, U., & Kim, S. H. (2010). ‘Would you perhaps consider . . .’: Hedged comments in ESL writing. ELT Journal, 64:3, 272-282. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccpo63.

O’Brien, T. (2004.) Writing in a foreign language: Teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 37, 1-28. doi: 10.1017/S0261444804002113.

Soven, M. (2001). Curriculum-based peer tutors and WAC. WAC for the new millennium: Stategies for continuing writing-across-the-curriculum programs, 200-232.

Weigle, S. C. & Nelson, G. L. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 203-225. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.011.

References

Questions?