Response to Student Writing (Implication for L2 Students)

Response to student writing has been a source of interest and debate in L1 composition theory and research since the early 1970s, when the “process approach” to teaching composition began to take hold in classrooms around the United States (e.g., Elbow, 1973; Garrison, 1974).

BOOK REVIEW

Title                : Response to Student Writing (Implication for L2 Students)

Author            : Dana Ferris

Publish           : London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. 2003

Pages              : 213 Pages

Saidna Zulfiqar bin Tahir

Response to student writing has been a source of interest and debate in L1 composition theory and research since the early 1970s, when the “process approach” to teaching composition began to take hold in classrooms around the United States (e.g., Elbow, 1973; Garrison, 1974). These scholars, reacting to earlier paradigms in which teachers responded to a finished piece of writing primarily to justify a final grade, strongly suggested that teachers allow students to complete multiple drafts of their papers, encourage substantive revision, and give students feedback while they were in the process of writing rather than at the end of that process.

As research on L2 writing has grown as a sub-discipline of both composition and second language studies (Silva, Leki, & Carson, 1997), a wide variety of studies on response have appeared. These have ranged from discourse analytic studies of the nature and effects of peer response and teacher commentary to experimental studies of the effects of response. There have also been numerous treatments of error correction in L2 writing contexts. This book provides a comprehensive summary and synthesis of previous research on response to L2 student writing, paired with careful critical analyses of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the literature as it exists at the time of writing. The book thus aims to be simultaneously comprehensive in its approach to the existing research and highly practical in showing current and future teachers how this material applies to their everyday endeavors of responding to student writing and teaching composition classes.

The book consists of 2 parts, part 1 consists of 5 chapter and part two consists of 3 chapters, it begins with a theoretical foundations chapter, which overviews both the influence of L1 composition theory and research on L2 response issues and the influence of various L2 theoretical and pedagogical paradigms on the teaching of L2 writing, particularly as they relate to issues of response. The middle section of the volume (chaps. 2–5) focuses on research covering specific subtopics related to response (written and oral teacher response, peer response, grammar feedback, and student views on response). The final section (chaps. 6–8) discusses pedagogical implications of the existing theory and research for the provision of teacher feedback, the facilitation of peer response, and the preparation of teachers to provide commentary on student writing (both content and grammar).

In chapter one (pp.2-18), the writer reviewed the most important stages in the history of L1 scholarship on response to student writing—focusing primarily on written commentary by teachers, which is still “the most widely practiced and most traditional form of response” (Straub & Lunsford, 1995, p. 1), but also touching on error correction and peer feedback. The writer then trace the effects of this theoretical and empirical work on the teaching of writing to L2 students, which exposes another debate—between those who embrace the findings of L1 research and find them largely applicable to and appropriate for L2 writers (e.g., Zamel, 1987) and those who argue that L2 writers are distinct enough that pedagogical practices designed for native speakers need to, at minimum, be closely reexamined before being adopted in L2 settings (Leki, 1990a; Silva, 1988, 1993, 1997; Zhang, 1995). The chapter closes with a summary of the state of the art—of L1 praxis and its influence on L2 writing instruction, noting the recent convergence of lines of research on response in L1 and L2 writing.

In chapter two (pp.19-41), the writer discussed about the nature and effects of teacher response, especially instructors’ written commentary. Research reviews by Hillocks (1986), Knoblauch and Brannon (1981), and Leki (1990a) suggested that regardless of how written teacher feedback was delivered, there was no evidence that it was successful in helping students to progress as writers. The reasons for the persistence of written commentary as a method of delivering feedback are both practical and philosophical. These justifications not only serve to explain why written feedback continues to be widely utilized but also to argue for its continued role in the composition classroom. Besides the two most basic options—written feedback and writing conferences—recent advances in technology have opened up other avenues for teachers and students to communicate about writing. These include audio taped feedback, written comments inserted into students’ computer files (e.g., on a floppy disk or using a software program designed to help teachers insert feedback into student texts), and e-mailed feedback.

In chapter three (pp.42-68), the writer discussed and analyzed in this chapter were published during this time period. From 1986 to 1996, there are few published studies on this topic, due no doubt to the prominence of the process-writing paradigm in ESL writing classes at the time with its consequent de-emphasizing of sentence- level accuracy issues (see chapter 1). In addition, as is discussed later in this chapter, a number of L1 and L2 researchers and reviewers concluded that error correction was ineffective as a means of improving student writing. These two factors—a powerful pedagogical model that actively discouraged a focus on form and a conflicting and somewhat discouraging research base—may well have convinced would-be error correction researchers that error correction in L2 writing was a “dead” issue, as out of vogue as previously trendy L2 teaching approaches like the Silent Way and Suggestopedia (or what Brown [1994] calls “The designer methods of the spirited seventies”).

In chapter four (pp.69-91), the writer discussed about the benefits of peer response and also suggestions for researchers, teachers, and student writers themselves have identified potential and actual problems with peer response. The most prominent complaints are that student writers do not know what to look for in their peers’ writing and do not give specific, helpful feedback, that they are either too harsh or too complimentary in making comments, and that peer feedback activities take up too much classroom time (or the corollary complaint that not enough time is allotted by teachers and the students feel rushed). A summary of sources examining these proposed benefits and drawbacks.

In chapter five (pp.92-116), the writer discussed merely reports on student observations and claims about feedback they have received and its effects on their writing development. There have rarely been any attempts to link student reactions to actual teacher or peer feedback or to student revision; further, attempts to ask the teachers to provide their perspectives on feedback given have been few and far between. This is only problematic if the authors of research studies do not appropriately hedge or qualify their findings with the constant awareness that they are dealing only with student report data, and not proven fact.

In chapter six (pp.117-139), the writer discussed how to help both new and experienced L2 writing teachers develop and refine their responding practices so that they are optimally helpful for student writers, in whatever context instructors find themselves. Though the focus is primarily on the teacher—on how to decide what to say and how to say it—techniques for helping the students to take responsibility for their own progress and develop self-evaluation skills are also discussed. Finally, some guidelines for conducting effective teacher–student writing conferences are presented.

In chapter seven (pp.140-163), the writer discussed more compelling reason to continue providing error feedback is found in the body of studies reviewed in chapter 5. Without exception, L2 writers asked about teacher response make it clear that they expect, value, and benefit from language-related feedback from their instructors, and particularly information about their written errors. Truscott (1996), in his article arguing against the continued use of grammar correction in L2 writing classes, acknowledged this student preference, but asserted that just because students want error correction does not mean that teachers should provide it, and that it is the teachers’ job to help their students adjust to the absence of error feedback. This chapter proceeds on the assumption that such response is useful, and focuses on the various ways in which teachers can and should provide error correction in order to utilize most effectively for the benefit of their students’ writing development over time. To do this, I synthesize the research findings discussed at length in chapters 3 and 5 and use them as a springboard to provide specific suggestions for L2 writing teachers.

In chapter eight (pp.163-180), the writer proceed on the assumption that peer review can be beneficial to L2 student writers and that the problems that have been identified are not insurmountable, focusing on techniques and strategies for making L2 peer review as successful as possible. Research on peer feedback to date has by and large indicated that student’s find it beneficial and those they consider and utilize peers’ suggestions in their revised texts. Some researchers have even presented findings showing that peer feedback suggestions were not only incorporated in student papers but that they helped the quality of the papers and led to student improvement over time.

The book presented current theoretical perspectives on response. Thus, one important target audience group is researchers in L2 composition who are concerned with one or more aspects of response to student writing. Composition researchers who are interested in the contrast between first language (L1) and L2 writers may also find the book of value. Because the book, though research based, is of an essentially practical nature, in-service and pre-service teachers of ESOL/EFL writers should find the book useful as well, especially the pedagogical section (chaps. 6–8). Finally, teacher educators concerned with preparing graduate students for the teaching of writing will find the book to be an important resource on a crucial topic. This book can serve as a supplementary text for courses in “Teaching ESL Composition,” “Second Language Writing Theory/Analysis of L2 Written Texts,” or practical that includes writing components.

This book should have considerable value for both practical and theoretical purposes. Response to student writing—whether it takes the form of teachers’ written commentary on student content, error correction, teacher–student conferences, or peer response—is an extremely important component of the endeavor of teaching L2 writing.

REFERENCES

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Garrison, R. (1974). One-to-one tutorial instruction in freshman composition. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2, 55–84.

Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English.

Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silva, T., Leki, I., & Carson, J. (1997). Broadening the perspective of mainstream composition studies: Some thoughts from the disciplinary margins. Written Communication, 14, 398–428.

Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. F. (1995). Twelve readers reading: Responding to college student writing. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697–715.