Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2009) INTI University College, Malaysia

STUDENT RESPONSE TO TEACHER FEEDBACK ON MULTIPLE-DRAFT COMPOSITIONS IN ESL CLASSROOM

Shamshad Begham Othman1 and Faizah Mohamad2
MARA University of Technology Terengganu, Malaysia (1shamshad@tganu.uitm.edu.my; 2fareema@tganu.uitm.edu.my)

ABSTRACT
Throughout the decades, teachers have been trying to find ways to improve second language writing instruction so that students can be proficient in their writing. One of them is by giving feedback with the assumption that students would understand the feedback and they would use the teachers commentaries to improve their writing. However, in many cases, teachers find that little improvement has been made when students submit their revisions. Therefore, this study is to investigate why students do not improve their work even though teachers feedback has been provided. It is done by examining students responses to teachers feedback on their compositions in terms of content and form by instituting the multiple-draft procedure. The participants in this study were 52 students from MARA University of Technology, Terengganu, Malaysia. These students wrote a first draft, revised it after getting feedback on content; and further revised it after receiving feedback on form. The findings showed that generally most students responded successfully to the teachers feedback on their first and second drafts that resulted in improved final drafts. However, some students could not respond well to content-focused feedback that specifically asked them to discuss their ideas. This is largely contributed to their limited language competence. Students also found it difficult to respond to form-focused feedback in relation to tenses, word choice, subject-verb-agreement, nouns, adverbs and rephrasing of sentences. The difficulty in grasping the rules embedded in these categories could be the factor in students using different types of revision strategies such as closely followed, initial stimulus, avoidance by deletion and not related. Among these strategies, closely followed is considered successful and it is the most used strategy for both content and formfocused feedback. The implication of the study is that giving written feedback to students is beneficial because it improves their essays. However, written feedback should be complemented with oral feedback so that teacher would be able to get to the problems that students face when writing their essays. Another implication is that computers would help the students a lot when instituting a multiple-draft procedure. This is because the features such as cut, copy, paste, spelling and grammar check can minimize the time spent on reorganizing, revising and editing the drafts.

KEYWORDS
Multiple draft, Teacher feedback, Content-focused feedback, Form-focused feedback, Student response revision strategies

INTRODUCTION The problem in using the target language to express their ideas in writing is common among ESL writers. Sometimes students have the ideas for their essays but owing to a lack of proficiency in the language, they cannot produce content that is convincing. On the other hand, there are students whose language is quite satisfactory but they lack ideas and the result is that their essays do not have a positive effect on the readers So teachers feedback that focuses on form and content should be given to the students so that their writing can be improved. They are then able to substantially present the content using linguistically wellformed structures. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of incorporating feedback in the revision process can only be achieved when there is cooperation between the teacher in giving feedback and the ESL writers in revising their essays. There is a need for both parties to understand the feedback giving and receiving situation so that students can produce good quality writing. Dheram (1995) says that teachers should assume the role of a consultant who facilitates learners each revision process in order for these learners to create better texts and learners on their part, should not treat the first draft as the final product but they have to revise again and again so that they know how to write better. Dheram like other researchers and practitioners, agrees that teachers should focus on content in giving their feedback rather than on form. He stresses that even though there is a need to shift the focus from language use to content, teachers and learners must also arrive at a consensus on the function and nature of teachers commentary so that students are able to incorporate these comments in their revision process. This means that if teachers are aware of learners needs in revising their work and at the same time learners are able to understand their teachers comments, incorporating feedback in the revision process will prove successful. Cohen and Cavalcanti (1990) as cited in Dheram (1995) suggest that teachers and learners should agree on the areas to be commented upon because they note that there is a mismatch between what both parties thought about the aspects of writing emphasized in feedback. How students incorporate feedback when revising their work can be found in a study done by Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996). In the second part of their study, 21 participants were drawn from the sample of participants who contributed to study A. These participants were interviewed to see how they used teachers feedback in their L2 composing. In this study, they found that learners tried to rewrite their writing in response to teachers marks and comments to eliminate ungrammaticality at the word and sentence level where in actual fact they were aware that their teachers wanted them to add examples or elaborate on certain points in their writing. The findings in this study suggested that ESL writers usually associate revision processes with correcting their errors. Porte (1997: 61) contends that, Unskilled writers have been seen to revise from a narrow outlook and make changes addressing the surface grammatical structure of compositions, usually at the level of the word, rather than deeper issues of content and organization. The findings also showed that students found it difficult to interpret feedback and it became a source of frustration on their part in not knowing precisely what their teachers expected them to do with correction symbols and comments. Researchers (Ferris, 1995; Frantzen and Rissel, 1987; Leki, 1991 [cited in Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1996]) stress that in situations where revision is the major component of the pedagogy, learners may remain uncertain about what to do with experts response and how to incorporate it into their own revision process. The situation whereby learners are unable to understand and use teachers feedback in their revisions is bound to exist in a second language writing pedagogy classroom. Researchers

(Zamel, 1983; Cohen, 1987; Raimes, 1987 [cited in Paulus, 1999]) attribute this problem in part to writing teachers who focus primarily on form without addressing the actual ideas and meaning conveyed in the text. In addition, other researchers (Leki, 1990; Susser, 1994; Reid, 1994; Winer, 1992 [cited in Paulus, 1999]) say that the problem is further highlighted when writing teachers themselves are often uncertain of the best way to provide feedback to their students. Thus it can be seen that students expectations of the types of teacher feedback must be in congruent with the types of feedback actually given by writing teachers. If this situation can be made to exist in ESL classrooms, then learners are able to notice, understand and utilize experts feedback in their writing and revision strategies. Ferris (1995) also examines how students process feedback when revising their work. In her study, the participants reported that in order to help them in responding to the feedback on their essays, they got the help from instructors, tutors, friends, grammar books, and dictionaries. They got the help from these outside sources in their early drafts. As for the final drafts, most of these students tried to make the correction themselves and if they do not understand the comments, they took the step of not responding to the feedback. Their way of ignoring some of the feedback might be due to the fact that they do not need to rewrite the final drafts. However, highly motivated students appreciate feedback on final drafts because they could use the comments to improve future essays. Ferris also found out that most of the students reported that they did not have difficulty in understanding teachers commentaries and this contradicted the findings of Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996) which revealed that students found it difficult to interpret their teachers feedback and they were frustrated because they did not know how to respond to the correction symbols and comments found in their multiple-draft essays. However, few students in Ferris study reported having problems in teachers feedback focusing on the illegibility of teachers handwriting, problems related with grammar corrections and symbols used to indicate grammatical errors as well as the way teachers posing questions about content in their essays. The questions about content were too general and sometimes too specific which resulted in students confusion in handling the feedback. In her study, we do not know the feedback giving sequence used by the teacher, that is, whether the teacher applied content-focused feedback first then followed by form-focused feedback on later drafts or whether she applied both types of feedback simultaneously on all the drafts. If she had both types of feedback on the drafts, students would find it difficult to respond to the comments because Zamel (1985) as cited in Kepner (1991: 306) suggests that, Written response which combines error corrections and positive comments regarding content or organization can only be confusing and contradictory, as students are not likely to know which type of response deserves higher priority. Conrad and Goldstein (1999) also did a study on the issue of how learners incorporated feedback in their essay drafts. The subjects were students taking an advanced ESL composition course at a large urban university in the United States and they were involved in multiple-draft essays. The three students involved in this study had equivalent writing proficiency and minor surface-level problems in their writing. The data collected were drafts of student papers, written comments made by the teacher and transcripts of conferences between teacher and student.

The findings in this study showed that students were able to revise successfully in response to feedback when they were asked to add examples, facts or details but few students were able to utilize teacher commentary successfully, when they had to be more explicit in their arguments or when they had to explain or analyze the issue that was raised in their papers. We can see that students in this study were not able to incorporate all their teachers feedback in their revision even though they were quite proficient in their writing. They were assumed to be quite proficient in their writing based on the fact that they made less grammatical errors. Conrad and Goldstein (1999) suggest that the reasons for not being successful in incorporating all the feedback were due to factors such as misinterpretation of teachers comments, lack of content knowledge, effect of strongly-held beliefs, influence of classroom instruction, level of self-motivation and pressure of other commitments. They were able to derive the reasons from teacher-student conferences because through these conferences, students were able to express what they thought of their teachers commentary and also how they revised their essays. Thus we can see that even though Dheram (1995) says that teachers and learners need to come to a mutual agreement on the nature and function of feedback in order to secure successful feedback utilization in students revision process, the above findings revealed that teachers are now facing a challenging task in giving feedback. This is because teachers do not only have to think of their students preference of the types of feedback but they also have to take into consideration factors that affect students mentality, feelings, and attitude. Due to these reasons, Conrad and Goldstein (1999: 173) conclude their findings by saying that, Although we believe teachers should always critically assess their feedback, students consistent lack of success of making certain kinds of revisions might not be a sign or failure on the part of either the teacher or the student but it may be a signal to adopt a different instructional strategy. The result of this study showed that for learners to incorporate teachers commentary in their writing is not that easy because many factors will come into play. Their interpretation of teachers feedback will always clash with their own experience, amount of content knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. All these factors will create stumbling blocks to their success in employing their revision strategies in producing better quality essays that can impress writing instructors. A study by Lee (2008) on the reactions of students in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms to their teachers feedback also revealed that students reactions and attitudes to teachers feedback are an intricate matter, intertwined not only with student characteristics like proficiency level, but also with teacher factors, such as teachers beliefs and practices and their interactions with students, as well as the instructional context in which feedback is given.

THE PURPOSE OF STUDY The researchers intended to examine how students are going to respond to teachers feedback on their multiple-draft compositions in ESL classrooms. This study was guided by the following research questions with regard to students responses and teachers feedback that the researchers intended to investigate. 1. 2. Are students able to incorporate teacher feedback into their own revision process? Which revision strategy is considered as successful and commonly used by the students?

METHODOLOGY The study involved two ESL classrooms, which consisted of 52 students. They were requested to write an essay and this essay underwent two revisions: first, on content and second, on form. Teachers commentaries consisted of content-focused feedback and formfocused feedback. These two types of comments were written on students essays contentfocused feedback was found on the first draft and form-focused feedback was found on the second draft. After the first submission, the researchers asked the class teacher to give comments on the content of the essays based on 7 categories, namely, Introduction, Thesis Statement, Topic Sentence, Content 1, Content 2, Content 3 and Conclusion. Then, the essays were returned to the students for them to revise. After the revision, the essays were submitted again to the teacher and again she was requested to mark the essays, but this time, she had to give her comments based on form. The comments made on form were categorized as follows: Table 1. Form-focused Categories
1. 3. 5. 7. 9. Tenses Word Choice Plural Nouns Singular Nouns Count Nouns 2. 4. 6. 8. Adverbs Prepositions Spelling Rephrase

10. Substitution 12. Do+Verb 14. Pronouns 16. Insertion of words and phrases 18. To-infinitives 20. Deletion of words and phrases

11. Noncount Nouns 13. Articles 15. Subject-Verb-Agreement 17. Nouns 19. Adjectives

As for the revision strategies, the researchers classified the strategies based on Hylands study (1998) which were closely followed, initial stimulus, and avoidance by deletion. The researchers also added one more strategy, which was not related. Closely followed means the students followed closely to the corrections or suggestions made by their teachers on their essays when revising their work. Initial stimulus was seen by the students as an initial stimulus that triggered them to rewrite in a number of ways and some of which, unfortunately failed to respond to the real issue being presented in the teachers commentary. Avoidance by deletion was where the students avoided responding to their teachers comments by deleting the problematic feature without substituting anything else in their revisions. Not related meant that the students tried to utilize teachers feedback, but their ideas were irrelevant to the teachers comments that resulted in their failure to revise their essays. In determining the revision strategies used by the students, the researchers calculated the number of each type of strategy after the students made their revisions based on contentfocused and form-focused feedback. These calculations were tabulated for the purpose of analysis.

FINDINGS This research work was conducted to study students response to multiple-draft procedure in writing. The researchers were interested to examine whether or not students incorporated teachers commentary in their multiple-draft compositions. The students in this study had to write three drafts of essays whereby the teachers provided content-focused feedback on the first draft and form focused-feedback on the second draft. The findings of the study were presented based on the research questions posed. RQ1: Are students able to incorporate teacher feedback into their own revision process? The success and failure in incorporating the content-focused feedback and the form-focused feedback were shown in Table 2 and Table 3. Table 2. Content-focused Feedback and Revision Success Revision Success
Content-focused feedback Introduction (N = 7) Thesis Statement (N = 33) Topic Sentence (N = 16) Content 1: Extra time for revision (N = 34)) Content 2: More opportunities for discussions (N = 39) Content 3: Availability of lecturers for consultation (N = 42) Conclusion (N = 40) Successful % 71.4 66.7 62.5 44.1 66.7 52.4 55.0 Not successful % 14.3 33.3 31.3 55.9 30.8 47.6 42.5 Not attempted % 14.3 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.5

Table 2 shows that students were successful in revising most of the categories commented by the teacher with the exception of content 1 (Extra time for revision). This category showed that the percentage of failure was more than the percentage of success that were 55.9% and 44.1% respectively. This failure in incorporating the feedback on this category could be due to the difficulty in understanding teacher commentary. The following was an example taken from a students writing: Excerpt from students first draft (S 3): One-week study leave gives extra time for revision to students. This is because, during the study leave week, students do not have to attend their classes. So, they do not have to think about their classes. They can study and do revision about any subjects that they want without have to follow their fix timetable. Teachers comments: You may explain how they can benefit from the revision they do during study week.

Excerpt from students revision (second draft): One-week study leave gives extra time for revision to students. This is because, during the study leave week, students do not have to attend their classes. During the study week leave, students can fill their time to do revision on their study. They also do not have any assignments to do. So, this can help the students to prepare themselves for the coming final examinations. From the example, it appeared that the student did not understand the meaning of the word benefit as written in the teacher commentary. As a result, the student was less able to incorporate the feedback in her revision. The difference between the percentage of success and the percentage of failure was only 4.8% for content 3 (Availability of lecturers for consultation). This showed that students did have difficulties in incorporating teachers comments on this point. In relation to this point, the word availability seemed to pose a problem to the students. This could be seen from the example taken from a students writing. Excerpt from students first draft (S 25): Students would have the ability of lecturers for consultation. Students can make discussions with the lecturer about the topic that hard to understand. From the lecturers will give an exercises to the students. Students must do the exercises given by the lecture. Next, students would go to see the lecturer again to get the answer, and if there is a mistake discuss with the lecturer about the mistake and try to do it again. As a result student become more understands on the topic that they didnt understands at first. Teachers comments: Explain why they are available. Excerpt from students revision (second draft): Availability of lecture for consultation is also one of the way to help the students. Students can make discussions with the lecturer about the topic that hard to understand. From that, lecturers will give an exercises to the students. Students must do the exercise given by the lecturer. Next, students would go to see the lecturer again to get the answer, and if there is a mistake discuss with the lecturer about the mistake and try to do it again and again. As a result, students become more understands on the topic that they didnt understand at first. Having a one-week study leave before examinations also good for our health especially students, because as we know many student feel tension when they study and they felt that they didnt have enough time to make revision. One-week study leave will help the students to relax their mind to make revision and pay more attention on topic that they didnt understand. When the teacher asked the student to explain why lecturers were available during the oneweek study leave, she repeated what she had in her first draft without responding to her teachers comments. This could be due to the fact that she had not really understood the

meaning of available and she might think the comment was asking her to explain how lecturers can help the students during this week. According to Williams (2003), the failure of students revisions on content might be due to three reasons: the students may not read the comments at all, may read them but not understand them, or may understand them but not know how to respond to them. Teachers comments on content are less beneficial if students are clueless of what they mean or how to use them productively to improve their skills as writers. The study also intended to see how students incorporated form-focused feedback in their revisions. It was found that most students were able to respond to this type of feedback. This can be seen in Table 3. Table 3. Form-focused Feedback and Revision Success Revision Success
Form-focused feedback Tenses (N = 130) Word Choice (N = 104) Plural Nouns (N = 272) Singular Nouns (N = 51) Count Nouns (N = 7) Noncount Nouns (N = 32) Articles (N = 137) Subject-Verb-Agreement (N = 73) Nouns (N = 14) Adjectives (N = 27) Adverbs (N = 4) Prepositions (N = 120) Spelling (N = 62) Rephrasing (N = 72) Substitution (N = 92) Do + Verb (N = 36) Pronouns (N = 41) Insertion of words and phrases (N = 98) To-infinitives (N = 16) Deletion of words and phrases (N = 170) Successful (%) 65.4 66.3 76.8 82.4 71.4 81.3 83.9 63.0 57.1 77.8 50.0 79.2 77.4 54.2 76.1 91.7 75.6 72.4 75.0 81.8 Not Successful (%) 10.8 10.6 6.3 5.9 0.0 6.3 2.9 15.1 21.4 11.1 25.0 5.0 11.3 25.0 8.8 0.0 2.4 5.1 6.3 1.8 Not Attempted (%) 23.8 23.1 16.9 11.8 28.6 12.5 13.1 21.9 21.4 11.1 25.0 15.8 11.3 20.8 15.1 8.3 22.0 22.4 18.8 16.5

Table 3 shows that most students were able to revise successfully for all categories found under form-focused feedback. The reason for this success could be due to the fact that whenever the teacher commented on students errors, she usually provided the correct response for the errors. This made it easy for the students to incorporate the comments in their revisions. The outcome of this can be seen in Table 3, where the analysis showed a high percentage of revision success for all categories as compared to the percentage of revision failure for similar categories. Nevertheless, the findings also revealed that students had difficulties in 6 out of 20 categories, namely, tenses, word choice, subject-verb-agreement,

nouns, adverbs and rephrasing of sentences as the successful rate of the revision did not reach 70%. This low percentage of revision success infers that students generally found it hard to grasp the rules embedded in these categories. This finding is supported by Ma (2006) who reveals that explicit form-focused feedback might only be beneficial to specific error categories. The analysis showed that most students responded well to teachers feedback and they were able to incorporate content and form-focused feedback into their revisions. The students did welcome teachers commentary and they did think that these comments were helpful to them. Those few students who could not incorporate the feedback in their revisions had other factors that hindered their success. RQ2: Which revision strategy is considered as successful and commonly used by the students? The revision strategies used by students in content-focused and form-focused feedback were presented in the following Table 4 and Table 5. Table 4 shows four types of revision strategies adopted by students when receiving contentfocused feedback. The students received 211 comments from the teacher and the effect of these comments could be seen from the way they devised their revision strategies. The findings showed that out of the 211 comments, 117 comments were closely followed. This type of revision strategy was most favoured by the students because they just followed whatever comments given by the teacher without deviating from what had been asked for. The least number of revision strategy used by the students was avoidance by deletion. According to Garcia (1999: 100), text-based writing feedback has its limitations whereby in her study she said that, New texts pose fresh problems to writers, so knowing what was wrong with one text written in the past may not help a writer overcome the problems encountered while writing a new one. She suggests that students need to be given real-time feedback on the questions that they have in their minds at the time when they are struggling to write their drafts. She further stresses the fact that text-based writing feedback leads learners to resort to reduction strategies because they are unable to express their original ideas. However, Hyland (1998) and Garcia (1999) both agree that when students exercise the avoidance strategy, they believe that their texts are flawless and their quality has improved. Table 4. Revision Strategies due to Content-Focused Feedback No of comments 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total No of students 3 3 12 10 18 6 52 Total no of comments 3 6 36 40 90 36 211 Closely followed 1 23 22 52 19 117 Initial stimulus 1 3 9 6 14 8 41 Avoidance by deletion 1 1 3 5 1 11 Not related 1 1 4 9 19 8 42

Table 5 shows that the students received a total of 1558 comments on form on their essays. The effect of these comments could be seen in the revision strategies adopted by the students. These revision strategies were similar with those adopted after receiving content-focused feedback. The students utilized 1166 comments in the form of closely followed revision strategy as a result of teachers commentary. The students when revising their texts mostly adopted this type of revision strategy. The least number of revision strategy used by the students in form-focused feedback was not related strategy. Table 5. Revision Strategies due to Form-Focused Feedback No of comments 1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 >50 Total No of students 1 11 17 13 8 2 52 Total no of comments 8 174 440 457 369 110 1558 Closely followed 8 136 309 336 282 95 1166 Initial stimulus 3 23 18 11 2 57 Avoidance by deletion 35 104 94 71 13 317 Not related 4 9 5 18

In summary, the most successful and commonly used strategy used by students in both content-focused and form-focused feedback was the closely followed strategy. When a student used a closely followed revision strategy, it means two things. First, the student had understood the teachers comments, and second, that she followed the comments closely without really understanding why the teacher made such comments. The latter situations could be found frequently occurring when students revised form-focused feedback on their essays. This is parallel to Hylands (1998) view that states most of them followed closely the feedback given without really understanding the rules of grammar that were needed when revising their essays.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY The study has brought about certain realization to the researchers with regard to teaching writing to ESL learners. Teachers find that teaching writing is not a task to be enjoyed but a tedious one. Only those committed teachers could handle this time consuming task. The researchers could see that giving written feedback to students is beneficial to their improvement in L2 composing. However, written feedback should be complemented with oral feedback so that the teacher would be able to get to the problems that students face when rewriting their essays. Giving feedback could be made easier if think-aloud protocol is introduced to ESL learners. This is where the learners record whatever is on their mind while they are writing so that when the teacher corrects their essays, she would be able to listen to the problems her students encountered while writing or revising. This will result in a more effective teacher commentary.

10

When instituting a multiple-drafting procedure, the use of computers would help the students a lot. The time spent on writing using pen and paper could be used to think of how to interpret teachers feedback and to improve the content and language in their essays. Thus, students will not find it burdensome to rewrite everything again and the use of computers will improve their writing quality and help develop their thinking skills.

CONCLUSION In conclusion, if students do not respond positively to teachers feedback, it is not that the feedback is not effective but there are many factors that interact with the students ability to respond and incorporate the comments in their revision process. Hyland and Hyland (2006) specify factors such as language proficiency, diverse cultural expectations, new teacherlearner experiences and different writing processes can interact in significant ways with students interpretation of teachers commentary and their negotiation of revisions. Students use various strategies to respond to teachers commentary such as following closely the corrections made by the teacher or avoiding the corrections altogether by not incorporating them in their revision process. We can also see that students respond differently to different types of feedback. Some students might respond positively to content-focused feedback because they might possess some writing skills as well as the content knowledge of the topic. On the other hand, there are students who respond positively to form-focused feedback due to factors such as the instructional context itself and the perception of students themselves towards the meaning of a good essay. It can also be concluded that to respond to feedback is neither an easy task for students nor is it any easier for teachers to give their feedback on students writing assignments. The difference in the frame of reference between both parties makes it difficult for students and tedious for teachers to handle this multiple-drafting procedure. However, if a positive outcome is expected of this procedure, students and teachers should meet halfway in this matter; students should be more alert towards teachers commentary and teachers on their part should be more aware of the multifaceted problems faced by students. Despite variations in response of students, we cannot deny the fact that teachers feedback have its crucial role in determining how students respond to it in a process-oriented writing pedagogy specifically in multiple-draft settings.

11

REFERENCES Conrad, S.M. and Goldstein, L.M. (1999) ESL Student Revision after Teacher-Written Comments: Text, Contexts, and Individuals, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8:2, 147179. Dheram, P.K. (1995) Feedback as Two-Bullock Cart: A Case Study of Teaching Writing, ELT Journal, 49:2, 160-168. Ferris, D.R. (1995) Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms, TESOL Quarterly, 29:1, 33-53. Garcia, A.F. (1999) Providing Student Writers with Pre-Text Feedback, ELT Journal, 53:2, 100-106. Hedgecock, J, and Lefkowitz, N. (1996) Some Input on Input. Two Analyses of Students Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing, The Modern Language Journal, 80:3, 287-308. Hyland, F. (1998) The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on the Individual Writers, Journal of Second Language Writing, 7:3, 225-286. Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006) Contexts and Issues in Feedback L2 Writing: An Introduction, in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts & Issues, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 1-21. Kepner, C.G. (1991) An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second Language Writing Skills, The Modern Language Journal, 75:3, 305-313. Lee, I. (2008) Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary Classrooms, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17:3, 144-164. Ma, J.H. (2006) The Effect of Differential Feedback on Writing Accuracy of L2 College Students, English Teaching, 61:3, 213-230. Paulus, T.M. (1999) The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8:3, 265-289. Porte, G.K. (1997) The Etiology of Poor Second Language Writing: The Influence of Perceived Teacher Preferences on Second Language Revision Strategies, Journal of Second Language Writing, 6:1, 61-78. Wlliams, J.G. (2003) Providing Feedback on ESL Students Written Assignments, The Internet TESL Journal, 10, accessed 27 October 2008 from <http://iteslj.org/>

12