VENTAS DE ENERGÍA

All three teachers appeared to provide constructive feedback “immediate” feedback tailoring to students needs to become “productive, effective and efficient” (Sallang & Ling, 2019, p. 2) L2 writers. However, approaches to providing feedback varied from one teacher to the other.

5.2.2.1 Written Feedback

Ms Raisha mostly provided corrective feedback in written form in that she tended to focus on error correction and problems with language use. She then used examples from work submitted in the previous lesson to share in the subsequent lesson, as a guide to summary writing.

I normally corrected the essays my students submitted […] In the next lesson, I would share the comments from everybody’s work (keeping it as anonymous work) and had it projected on the screen […] I believe they could learn from other people’s mistakes and see how their friends wrote their summary. I don’t use samples of writing from references books

(Ms Raisha)

Student’s summaries were projected on the screen, edited and corrected with her comments. Ms Raisha used them to illustrate elements that contribute to a good executive

summary. Although the focus was mainly on grammar, Ms Raisha also made suggestions regarding the presentations of ideas too.

Ms. Raisha discussed on the summaries her students wrote from the previous lesson. The focuses were more on analyzing common mistakes such as grammar (example: cacti-cactus), tense structure, word choice and parallelism. She also looked into spelling and the format for writing executive summary.

(Fieldnotes, 27/04/2016)

Ms Raisha also made comments in relation to the overall content:

I realized that some of the contents were redundant. I suggest, omit points that you don’t need. Sentences were too brief […] lack of features or main ideas that you were supposed to cover […] remember not to put any suggestions and recommendations when writing executive summary

(Fieldnotes, 27/04/2016)

Without the use of editing symbols (indirect feedback), the comments seemed to be explicit and straightforward so that the students could edit their own work later. After the lesson, Ms Raisha told her students that she was really impressed with how positively they responded in the classroom and believed that this was evidence that her feedback had been useful. However, I also observed that some students did not respond to the comments they received.

While some students were responding towards the commen ts given by Ms. Raisha, asking how they could improve, I realized some students were not involved in the discussion and could not been bothered to see the comments on their paper […] they seemed to be busy doing some other work.

(Fieldnotes, 27/04/2016)

Ms. Raisha appeared confident that this kind of corrective feedback would help her students to better understand and notice errors and to subsequently know by themselves whether the work was correct or incorrect20_{. However, at the end of the lesson, Ms Raisha} confided:

Do you know that I had to put extra effort so that my students could really learn from their own mistakes? […] I retyped two summaries they submitted last night […] one which I considered as ‘good’ […] one

20 _{First level of feedback – on ta sk or product. See Ha ttie, J. a nd Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of}

which I considered ‘bad’ with the comments so that the whole class could see […] did you realise that some said that was useful? […]I really want them to learn […] but of course I realised some did not participate to what we were discussing in the classroom.

(Ms Raisha) 5.2.2.2 Oral Feedback/Teacher-Student Conferencing

Dr Dalia preferred face-to-face feedback because of time constraints:

I don’t have the privilege of having extra classes because of my tight schedule having to teach between campuses […] Normally my students and I stayed back after class […] They showed me how far they have progressed […] some came in and asked me to read for comments […] I provided feedback from what the students produced […] they explained and asked how they could improve […]

(Dr Dalia)

This approach appeared to promote more interaction with students both during and after lessons. I observed Dr Dalia giving and receiving feedback by asking open -ended questions regarding meeting their expectations of the writing task. In one of the lessons on writing citations, she asked:

Do you still remember how to write your citation correctly using APA format?

How do you cite Malay authors where surname is not available? What about Chinese and Indian authors where it can be confusing sometimes as which is the given name and family name? Are they the same as citing English names?

(Dr Dalia)

The majority of the students responded to these questions by showing how confident they were at writing citations. Those who found it problematic would let her know and would then get individual input during or after the lesson.

This kind of teacher-student conferencing also allowed Dr Dalia to ask focused questions, thereby requiring her students to take more responsibility when deciding on the task and selecting the right content before writing their annotated bibliography. In another lesson, she asked:

How do you know that the articles that you chose are reliable and suitable for academic tasks?

Have you extracted the main ideas from the four articles for your annotated bibliography?

(Dr Dalia)

Working in groups, the students read their articles, received feedback from their group members and discussed what needed to be clarified with Dr Dalia. The clarification appeared to give the students reassurance and further confidence to complete the task. Dr Dalia said that her students seemed to be more problem specific when writing annotated bibliography:

I had to point out […]basically the technical part […] most of the comments were on the format for technical part, the lan guage fulfils what academic writing requires […] students were also confused with this alphabetical order between chronological order when writing bibliography […] students were more worried about their technical part of writing but I did pick up language errors in the classroom.

(Dr Dalia)

These discussions suggest that writing in L2 is not simply about language use but also involves technical skills necessary for academic writing. This kind of verbal feedback in the form of questions and answers between the teacher and students seemed to be effective in building confidence, combining the formulation of questions, giving answers and listening to concerns.

Mr. Eilyas too offered this kind of teacher-student conferencing in the classroom. Before he took his seat, he asked:

Any groups would like to discuss anything with me? Group that is ready to discuss can come forward to discuss problems you face when writing your project paper.

(Mr Eilyas)

Mr Eilyas saw receiving and providing feedback as particularly important. From discussions with his students, he had learnt that some of them had problems constructing basic sentences and some had dilemmas as to whose ideas would be included when writing in groups.

During the discussion, I asked them to reread the sentences with errors and we discussed the grammatical rules […] this is not a grammar class but I feel at some point I have to spare time if the students needed help […] the students edited their work […] it was all verbal consultation, I didn’t mark their paper […] I think they learn more this way than receiving a paper full with comments […] we discussed the problems […] sometimes students had problems with writing the ideas […] some students didn’t even know what to write […] I didn’t know then but I

learned that each student had different problems […] I shall take Obesity as topic for an example […] I asked them WH questions first […] What is it? Why? How do you solve the issue of obesity […] students might have limited amount of information to say or they could be shy, but by discussing, they will be fed with information and later able to decide wisely what to focus. I was just there to facilitate and approve what they thought was right for their written task. The honour was on them.

(Mr Eilyas)

Through this approach, Mr Eilyas provided individual attention to students’ different needs. He felt that this was an effective way of providing feedback to his students. He also said that he was able to set aside regular times to discuss his students’ writing progress as he had fewer hours of teaching in that particular semester and regularly encouraged them to take advantage of this. He considered the students he met outside of the classroom as ‘very responsible of their own learning’. Every time Mr Eilyas proposed teacher-student conferencing during class, his students seemed to be focused on the advice they required for their particular problem,

When I met my students in groups, they already identified their problems […] they presented their problems and they themselves gave suggestions […] Problems could be on grammar, content and also the presentation of their report writing […] I just listened to them discussing and only corrected them if I saw there were mistakes and mismatched of ideas […] told them how they could do it better according to what has been suggested from the books […] whenever there were differences of ideas among the group members, I dissected them […] I dissected the ideas […] I asked them the outcomes of each idea […] I asked them to give more details […] and they decided on what to be included, not me.

(Mr Eilyas)

As more teacher-student interactions took place, more clarification and explanation was provided. Mr Eilyas explained his preference for verbal feedback as follows: “with verbal

feedback, students are able to discuss and will look into their weak areas […] I feel they could explore more”.

5.2.2.3 Peer Feedback

While providing some students with individual attention, fully discussing their problems, Mr Eilyas and Dr Dalia both encouraged peer feedback. Dr Dalia’s reason for opting for peer feedback was that providing individual written feedback was challenging due to ‘time constraints’. At the same time, she believes it is an approach that ‘could help to

maximise their learning’. Mr Eilyas did not mention the time constraint, focusing entirely

on the benefits of peer feedback as assisting the group writing process.

Normally, I will ask them to exchange their work after their first draft […] their peers will see the mistakes […] in groups, they will discuss what they felt went wrong […] they will re-correct themselves […] after they have done the correction and feeling satisfied, lastly they will reach me […] I will look at the mismatched errors […] the most mistakes done, the common mistakes […] I will proofread and correct them before their final revision

(Mr Eilyas)

Both Mr Eilyas and Dr Dalia described writing as a recursive procedure of pre-writing, drafting, and evaluating, within which feedback is crucial at all stages. Whereas peer feedback occurred during the pre-writing and drafting stages, teacher feedback came later:

I asked my students to work among themselves and they worked until they came out with their first draft […] the group members corrected and edited the work themselves for couple of times before they asked me to have a look

(Mr Eilyas) I asked my students to turn to the next person seating to them to comment. I asked them to look into its main idea, supporting details, grammar, parallelism […] once they have done that, I wrote the answer on the board and explain draft

(Dr Dalia)

However, students did not seem to receive guidance on peer feedback and on giving effective comments. My question was, how did the students know what to say when giving peer feedback? Interestingly, both Mr Eilyas and Dr Dalia seemed to trust that their students would incorporate and make changes in light of their peers’ comments in the early stages of writing, leading to students having more ability to learn. I previously quoted Mr Eilyas regarding peer feedback:

in groups, they will discuss what they felt went wrong […] they will re- correct themselves […] after they have done the correction and feeling satisfied, lastly they will reach me.

(Mr Eilyas)

Although neither teacher set up any guidelines, the students did appear to be encouraged to take part actively in re-correcting during group discussions and identifying their mistakes, thereby contributing to their writing development.

On one occasion, during Dr Dalia’s lesson, writing guidelines emerged from the peer feedback:

Dr. Dalia had a lesson on writing an outline for annotated bibliography. The previous week, she asked her students to read two articles on Deforestation and asked individually to write an outline. Sitting in pairs, she asked the students to have their work on the table and exchange their work for some feedback. While the students were reading pair’s work, Dr Dalia wrote on the board, a tick box sort of check list identifying the elements for annotated bibliography:

• Tone of the writer • Language use • Type of essay • Thesis statement • Supporting details

Using the ‘checklist’, students were seen to have small talk with their pair as if comparing between the two outlines written by two different individuals.

(Field notes, 28/3/2016)

After the students submitted their outline for their annotated bibliography, they read the first draft to their group members. Dr Dalia then requested the students to provide feedback using a different ‘checklist’, which she wrote on the board.

Dr Dalia detailed out the criteria for writing annotated bibliography. She asked the students to pay more attention to these criteria when proofreading their own draft:

• Provide in text citation, make reference list

• Introduction paragraph – mention type of article, author’s name,

author’s autobiography

• Body paragraphs – the overall summary/ aim/ objective/ purpose

of the article/ mention target readership

• Author’s tone • Use of language

• Critical/ logical organisation • Roles of articles in the bibliography • Comparison with other sources • Use objective reasoning

(Field notes, 25/4/2016)

Students looked for the criteria in their own draft and discussed with group members how they could improve. Aside from the above criteria, I heard Dr Dalia reminded them to check on format, grammar (specifically plurality, use of articles), spelling and word choice.

5.2.2.4 The use of code switching in developing feedback dialogue

In UoN, English is used as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) for science and technological course and students are assessed in the target language. However, in L2 writing, I observed that some students faced problems in understanding their reading materials both before the writing process stage and during the composing stage. Students were also observed to have difficulties putting down words on paper. I observed later that there were short bursts of code switching from the three teachers when communicating with the students. The practice of code switching in their classroom appeared to play a significant role in supporting and optimizing students’ uptake in the L2 writing process. Ms Raisha, Mr Eilyas and Dr Dalia had different takes on the role of code switching for their students. The possible impact of code switching on students’ learning is discussed in Section 6.2.4.

Ms Raisha

Ms Raisha was very proactive and always approached her students for ‘verbal bantering’, hoping to initiate talk to express ideas. In the classroom, Ms Raisha appeared ‘to break

into’ the students’ mother tongue, Malay.

I code switch to encourage my students to get involved with classroom discussion, I did not prohibit them to code switch […] I code switched whenever I felt that my students were struggling because their vocabulary density was lacking.

(Ms Raisha)

I observed Ms Raisha code switch between English and Malay, while the students were doing their summary writing. I was curious why she did this.

Ms Raisha and her students were preparing to write a summary based on two pages article on Camel, Plants and Desert. After scanning and skimming the article, Ms Raisha reminded her students to be more focus at formulating the ideas. She cautioned her students not to misinterpret an d switched to Malay

‘jangan salah tafsir’ (do not misinterpret) and ‘makna jangan terpesong’ (do

not change the meaning)

(Classroom Observation 1 – 20/24/2016)

This time, the students had to read about 8000 words long article on Domestic Violence before writing their executive summary with their pair. Ms Raisha advised her students to skim and scan the article and look at the salient points to be reported in the summary. She suggested her students to keep their focus and aim writing the summary on three points from causes/ effects/ advantages/

disadvantages etc and suddenly Ms Raisha switched to Malay ‘kalau ada causes beribu-ribu’ (even if you have thousands of causes), choose only three predominant points and write a brief summary on it.

(Classroom Observation 3 – 18/5/2016)

It seemed that Ms Raisha consciously code switched in order to reiterate her instructions alternating the second language use with English in order to aid students’ comprehension. On another occasion I heard Ms Raisha and her students using both languages.

1. The two students code switched with their pair when they were discussing points around reasoning (which points are more important to include in the summary) […] Ms Raisha asked the two students (in English) to double check with the pair if they had any doubt as what points were significant or not as there could be different interpretation.

2. When the next pair approached Ms Raisha, they were asked to explain what they understood from reading the article. The two students explained the main point of the article in Malay. Here, when they wrongly interpreted, Ms Raisha explained first in English and again in Malay.

(Classroom Observation 2 – 27/4/2016)

The students appeared to use code switching as a strategy to gain more understanding of the articles read for their summary writing. It appeared that Ms Raisha was trying to support her students when they realised that their target language knowledge was inadequate to convey their intended message. She was perhaps also trying to maintain her social relation with the students.

Dr Dalia

Code switching in Dr Dalia’s classroom was also common, especially when helping students improve their choice of words.

When I went round, students had problems stringing ideas together to formulate one complete thesis statement. Here I allowed code switching to help students to find suitable words to express their views, to encourage them to open up but otherwise I would prefer them to communicate and respond in front of the whole class in English.

(Dr Dalia)

Dr Dalia believed that students were often held back by their restricted vocabulary. As a teacher, she felt that the use of code switching in the classroom could accommodate her students’ low language proficiency.

Mr Eilyas

Mr Eilyas had a very different view of codeswitching. He told me that classroom interaction in the target language provided a more valuable experience as it provided a ‘natural environment for them’. One incident illustrates his attitude towards code switching:

The students sat with their group members and started to discuss in Malay among themselves and suddenly I heard Mr Eilyas shouted, ‘Only English please!’ – but his students still continued, in Malay, this time whispering.

(Classroom Observation 3 – 28/4/2016 )

When I asked Mr Eilyas what his view on code switching was, he said:

I don’t encourage students to code switch but to certain extend I do allow because I understand they are all L2 learners […] somehow or rather along the line they do use mother tongue here and there but I embrace that they have to strive using the language

(Mr Eilyas)

I observed that Mr Eilyas never used Malay, but his students used their mother tongue when carrying out tasks within their group. Although code switching appeared as a natural aspect of the bilingual classroom interaction, Mr Eilyas seemed to believe that if he only used the target language it could be more meaningful and effective than code switching.

Mr Eilyas only permitted the use of target language in order to make learning more real