Working within the Black and Wiliam (2009) framework, Wiliam (2011) argues that good feedback is crucial to moving learning forward and that ‘the use of assessment information to improve learning cannot be separated from the instructional system within which it is provided’ (p. 4). He defines feedback as “information generated within a particular system, for a particular purpose (...) but [feedback] requires an additional condition, that it actually improves student learning, for it to be counted as good” (p. 4).
As is evident from Table 9.2 above, the three teachers’ feedback in the observed lessons was typically brief and evaluative across the three cases. There were incidents where the teachers gave evaluative feedback in the form of grades or they used short non-specific comments such as ‘Well Done’, ‘Very Good’, and ‘Keep it up’. This practice is in contrast to the literature findings that feedback should be specific to the task at hand and students should be provided with detailed information about how to improve (Clarke, 2005; Black and Wiliam, 1998a). Black et al. (2003) argue that feedback given as rewards or grades generally enhances the ego of the students rather than task involvement. A negative consequence of this is that might result from this is that it can lead students to compare themselves with others and focus on their image and status, rather than encouraging the students to think about the work itself and how they can improve it. Wiliam (2011a) also discourages the use of grades stating that “as soon as students get a grade, the learning stops” (p.123). Thus, Black and Wiliam (1998b) recommend feedback during learning to be in the form of comments rather grades. The teachers should provide current, accurate, and focused feedback, with examples and reasonable directions for the students to progress (Earl, 2013). In this way, feedback allows students to see the gap between their actual production and some reference point that makes sense to them.
The data collected in my study also suggest that all three teachers shared a preference for positive feedback during interaction with students, providing feedback in the form of praise to students as approval of accepted answers. The teachers appeared to relate it to the purpose of motivation. They seemed to believe feedback in the form of praise was effective, especially among the young and low proficiency students, as it validated and rewarded their successful responses, and encourages them to engage further. This is supported by Fisher and Frey (2007), who state that feedback in the form of praise is something that has to be offered to students. The study by Sardareh (2014) reported similar findings where most of the teacher feedback was in the form of praise. However, while this kind of feedback supports further engagement, it does not specifically progress learning, because of the lack of explanation and advice about what to do next (Earl, 2013). Hattie and Timperley (2007) go further, insisting that this kind of feedback is ineffective, as praise can shift attention from the task to the self, and promote surface learning that is performance focused.
Contrary to the practice of the teachers, the scholars (reviewed in Chapter 2 and Chapter 4) state that simply showing the right and wrong answers provides little help for student improvement. Nitko (2005, p.17) confirms this point by saying that
“teachers may give feedback with marks or with grades, but that type of feedback is not what is needed. Teachers need to use specific feedback to help students improve their learning.” Thus, it may be concluded that the teachers’ way of giving feedback did not help the students to improve their learning. To enhance its effectiveness, feedback should be positive and constructive. Negative feedback does not give students an opportunity to learn, rather it demotivates them. Plessis et al. (2003) assert that “negative feedback does not help learners and it should be avoided. Negative feedback makes learners feel unsuccessful, ashamed and unable to do the work. Instead of motivating learners, negative feedback tends to push learners away from accomplishing the desired tasks” (p.12).
It is understandable in many cultures that teachers are the experts in their field and consequently, their feedback is valued. However, if students rely too heavily on a teacher’s feedback, the authoritative role of the teacher is maintained and students’ independence in thinking, autonomy and self-assessment are limited. The data from Table 9.2 suggests that teachers believed feedback should be solely provided by the teacher. This might suggest that the teachers considered themselves as the expert providing feedback to learners. However, it is more likely to be the influence of the behaviourist approach to teaching language and the traditional role of teachers within it, visible in the three observed classrooms (Buhagiar, 2007). Within this perspective, students are viewed as passive recipients in the learning process, with teachers playing the more prominent role. Hence, the teachers’ beliefs about assessment and their role within it may have been shaped by behavioural and language proficiency issues.
Rachel, Ken, and Maya seemed to be aware of the importance of feedback as they frequently provided oral feedback on students’ work. The teachers employed simple, short and instantaneous oral feedback during observations of students doing their work or of work in progress. The teachers seemed to affirm that immediate correction was the best in correcting students’ spoken errors. It was also argued to be an effective and efficient feedback mode as students became aware of their errors. They appeared to believe that students must be corrected and helped to identify their mistakes in order for them to learn. Since it appeared to benefit students and have a positive effect, the teachers favoured oral feedback over-written comments, because in an active communication there exists the possibility to check the meaning of misunderstood statements and ambiguities can be adjusted. This is
as a formal response to finished products completed by students of any age, where feedback leads to a conversation between teacher and student, while formal feedback on finished products is more suitable for older students as written feedback has the advantage of being more permanent than oral feedback, so students can review and use it as needed.
Giving feedback within any sociocultural environment is complex, including the primary ESL context. Its effectiveness also depends on a student’s own identity and preferences (Shute, 2008). This study suggests that non-directive feedback does not always bring about benefits for learning. For example, Rachel used her body language and facial expression to remind the students about the limitations in their responses (see Extract 6.8). Although this would help the students to identify their weaknesses, it is still important to give students direct and explicit feedback so that they know their weaknesses to focus on for future learning. Furthermore, this suggests that feedback is shown to be a ‘soft’ manner, but Brookhart (2008) states that its message about students’ learning must be expressed explicitly to support learning.
The findings also indicate that feedback giving practices in primary ESL contexts are complex and may depend on the age related characteristics of young learners. Of importance to the discussion of the teachers’ understanding of formative assessment is that teachers consider feedback an important aspect of formative assessment in the primary ESL context. This suggests that teachers recognise that young learners benefit from receiving feedback and/or that it is appropriate to enable conditions for providing feedback in the primary ESL classrooms. Feedback provision occurs during a task and is implemented to monitor learning, which includes providing feedback on elements of the task or on the process or completing it. This implies that children are expected to focus their attention on the task at hand for a certain amount of time before they receive feedback. As discussed in Chapter 2, young learners’ attention span develops as they mature. It seems plausible to infer that introducing diversity in technique type may be appropriate when working with young children, as it helps to address the issue of their short attention span.
The use of appropriate and quality type feedback can be viewed as a significant tool in enhancing student learning (Hatie and Timperly, 2007). When teachers provide feedback, Black and Wiliam (2009) note that it has to relate to the needs of the subject taught and that it has to be an immediate intervention in the flow of classroom discussion. It is also important for teachers to make sure that students get
the right feedback that encourages their learning and that brings their learning forward. What happens is that when feedback is vague or faulty, some students make inappropriate modifications to their work or sometimes become demotivated to learn more or make any adjustments to their work (Earl, 2013). Herschell, Greco, Filcheck and McNeil (2002) recommend that the nature of feedback should be planned and specific rather than haphazard and general. Attending to these forms of feedback would facilitate teachers in identifying students’ needs and more likely to see positive outcomes from their students.