Meaningful Feedback for FCE Students

Outline

I. Introduction

            A. Demands of the exam on students and teachers

            B. Dilemmas teachers face when correcting work

            C. Problems that may arise when giving feedback

                        1. Definition of meaningful feedback.

II. Purpose of the study and rationale

III. Research questions

IV. Delimitations and limitations of the research

V. Research procedures

            A. Participants

            B. Materials

            C. Procedure

VI. Appendix

            A. Model questionnaire

            B. Model interviews

Meaningful Feedback for FCE Students

Introduction

           

Correcting written work is an everyday task for teachers training students to take the First Certificate in English exam since candidates must write two compositions in one hour and twenty minutes. Applicants for this test need to develop an assortment of writing skills to successfully deal with the tasks the exam requires. The teachers’ guidance along this process is of the essence not only to further the students’ writing skills but also to give them feedback on their actual written production.

When managing students’ written work, the dilemmas teachers face range from correcting absolutely every single error to selecting only certain aspects of the students’ productions and providing the correct version of the students’ mistake or signalling it. “One question teachers may ask themselves is whether providing corrective feedback helps improve student writing” (Tran, 2013, p. 1). Regardless of the chosen modality to correct work, when training students to sit an international examination, the teachers’ feedback is a critical factor for students’ development and improvement of their writing skills.

Literature Review

Teachers, therefore, face the twofold challenge of teaching writing skills and correcting students’ work in a way that candidates can learn from their mistakes and learn to avoid making them again in the future. Nevertheless, it may occur that feedback given by teachers is not understood by teenage students because it is phrased in such a way it eludes them or is so subjective that students do not know how to apply the teacher’s suggestions in a pragmatic way. Ferris (2015) expounds that when teachers correct a piece of work and “students can’t see any rhyme or reason or pattern to it (...) it is overwhelming” (p. 73), she also argues that this type of feedback is not likely to be productive. It seems pertinent to raise the question of how teachers can give feedback of written work in a way that is productive and meaningful to adolescents preparing FCE. Meaningful feedback is unambiguous and written in such a way that students can understand and apply the corrections made.

Objective and Rationale

It is the aim of this study to examine diverse ways of giving feedback to detect the ones that promote a student-centred approach and that treat errors in a way that is meaningful for students in the context of an FCE training course at a language school in Ramos Mejía, Buenos Aires. This research can provide teachers preparing FCE candidates with approaches to correcting that can be constructive both for students and teachers.

The feedback teachers present to students can be either a helpful source of input or an elusive message. This may be subject to the teachers' knowledge of their students, the language used by the teachers and whether teachers decide to focus on all the mistakes at the same time or not. Correcting what a student wrote can result in highly subjective outcomes, thus feedback can appear to be too heavily centred on the teachers’ views and style and, consequently escape students’ understanding. As Tran (2013) explains “there is clearly no best feedback type, but it is beneficial for the teacher to be aware of the range of options from which to choose” (p. 10), therefore it could be necessary for teachers to explore sundry ways of giving feedback and make an informed choice of the one that seems to be the most suitable system for each class.

The ways of giving feedback that will be examined and assessed are global, direct feedback, which focuses on all the mistakes the learners make and provides a correct version of them. Global, indirect feedback will also be explored, in this way; all mistakes are signalled for students to correct. Finally, focused, indirect feedback will be given where students receive the signalling of some types of mistakes for them to make necessary corrections. As well as the different ways of treating errors, the teacher will write a couple of sentences concerning the piece’s organization, paragraphing, tone and task fulfillment for each composition.

This research will be carried out at a language school in Ramos Mejía, Buenos Aires. The headquarters of the institution were founded in 1927 and the Ramos Mejía branch in 1996. Students of all ages and levels attend lessons there and external candidates certify their English level by sitting institutional exams.

While the main aim of this exploratory action research is to examine ways of giving feedback to see which one caters for students’ needs and preferences, problems may arise if students do not take it seriously when asked about their feelings and opinions towards correction. An additional issue that may happen is that students do not turn in written work when asked.

The participants of the study will be 8 students at a B1 / B2 level of proficiency according to the CEFR who are attending 2 hour lessons twice a week to prepare themselves to attempt FCE. They have been studying English for over 6 years and started this course in March 2018 with the hope of sitting for the exam in December the same year. The students are between 17 and 19 year olds and they are three girls and five boys.

A questionnaire will be designed to learn about students’ feelings and preferences concerning correction and feedback, as it has been established that in order to provide students with meaningful feedback, teachers need to understand what teenagers experience when they receive corrections on written productions. This tool will make it possible to identify which ways students feel more comfortable with. Having ascertained that, three different ways of giving feedback to these students will be compared in order to assess the one/s that can be meaningful and useful to them. An interview with each student will be carried out at three different moments of the course to find out about their views and feelings regarding the different ways they have received feedback. The interviews will take place the lesson after the students have received their corrected work so that they have a couple of days to read and process the feedback. Afterwards, results will be analyzed and discussed.

References

Ferris, D. (2015). Interview with Dr. Dana Ferris [Waller, L.], MSU Working Papers, 6, 70-74, http://sls.msu.edu/soslap/journal/index.php/sls/article/download/68/58

Tran, T. (2013). Approaches to Treating Student Written Errors, MIDTESOL, 1-12, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1002.4479&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Appendix

 Model questionnaire nº 1

1. How do you feel when you have to write compositions for your FCE course? Why? 2. How do you feel when you receive your work back? 3. To what extent do you feel you understand the corrections made by the teacher? Choose and say why you think this is. 3. I completely understand them. 2. I understand some of them. 1. I understand very little. 4. In what ways do you like your compositions to be corrected? 5. Would you like to give any suggestions regarding the correction of your compositions?

Model interview nº 1 (after using global, direct feedback)

1. How did you find this way of correcting your compositions? 2. What do you think is the best aspect of your composition? 3. What do you think you need to work on for your next composition? 4. To what extent do you feel you understand the corrections and comments made by the teacher?

Model interview nº 2 (after using global, indirect feedback)

1. How did you find this way of correcting your compositions? 2. Do you think it is more or less useful than the one we tried before? Why?   3. Did you know how to correct the marked mistakes? How did you notice? How did you correct them? 4. What do you think is the best aspect of your composition? 5. What do you think you need to work on for your next composition? 6. To what extent do you feel you understand the corrections and comments made by the teacher?

 Model interview nº 3 (after using focused, indirect feedback)

1. How did you find this way of correcting your compositions? 2. Do you think it is more or less useful than the one we tried before? Why?  3. Did you know how to correct the marked mistakes? How did you know? How did you correct them? 4. Have you noticed any connection between the marked mistakes? Which one? 5. What do you think is the best aspect of your composition? 6. What do you think you need to work on for your next composition? 7. To what extent do you feel you understand the corrections and comments made by the teacher?