Keywords

Introduction

Anyone who has attended an English writing course is all too familiar with the following phrases: “critical thinking,” “critical reading,” and “critical writing.” The syllabus almost certainly includes a list of readings that the professor thinks are academic yet appealing to a wide variety of students, quizzes/exams based on departmental requirements, and maybe even graded homework assignments that all culminate in what is really important and at stake: the summative essay assignments. These formal essays are high-stake submissions that students at the American University of Sharjah (AUS), in the context of this chapter, usually have a little less or a little more than a month to complete and constitute the majority of students’ final grades. However, once the essay prompt or assignment sheet is distributed and the rhetorical mode for that particular essay assignment has been defined, students are given very limited direction on how to proceed. In a traditional composition course that existed prior to the turn of the century, probably not much else related to the process of writing happened in the classroom.

In the past, most composition courses focused on fostering critical thinking through reading and analysing a series of texts. These texts, based on politics, sociology, current events, or mostly literature, were the basis of class discussions and in-class activities. Past research encourages this practice. Literature, for example, encourages students to think beyond the discipline so that they benefit well after graduation (Tate, 1993, p. 321). Briggs (2004) defended literature by explaining how it enhances the composition classroom and makes learning more interesting and exciting for students (p. 3). However, composition trends have shifted away from reading and responding to thematic or literary texts. When composition courses focus predominantly on having conservations about readings, they fail to teach students the skill of becoming better writers. This is because most texts, especially those that are based on literature, are not examples of the types of writing they are expected to produce in a composition classroom. A composition classroom should foster understandings of structure, argument, logical reasoning, and concise prose rather than literary content (Teller, 2016). As faculty who teach composition, our primary purpose is to teach students how to write based on their understandings of concepts such as the audience, style, organisation, Aristotelian logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, and elements of argument. In essence, we want our students to learn how to become better writers by having them write as much and as frequently as possible both inside and outside the classroom.

A process-based approach to writing focuses on students and their individual progression as writers. Feedback plays a key role to gauge students’ understanding of the task at hand. The goal is to integrate low-stake activities, tasks that do not carry a lot of weight, so students feel comfortable sharing and developing their ideas through writing. As they become more comfortable and open to feedback, they can perform better on their high-stake assignments, those that have a direct impact on the course grade and are intended specifically to assess learning. It is important to have a series of low-stake activities before the final high-stake, summative submission because it helps students identify and improve their writing with the help of their instructor. Since low-stake tasks do not have a dramatic effect on student grades and usually take place in an informal setting, students are open to feedback and have a vested interest in wanting to integrate the suggestions offered to them. While process-based writing is an approach that both of us regularly use in the composition classroom, our real interest lies in investigating how well this works for other faculty and, more importantly, our students. The purposes of this research are (1) to assess faculty and student perceptions regarding the effectiveness of various feedback practices used in process-based writing classrooms with L2 students at AUS; (2) to explore the challenges encountered by faculty during the provision of feedback practices; and (3) to understand how process writing and its feedback practices benefit writing proficiency. Recommendations on how the process can be improved will also be discussed. The research questions for this chapter are: What are faculty and student perceptions towards feedback practices used in process-based writing classrooms? What are the challenges? How does process writing and its feedback practices improve student writing?

Literature Review

Feedback in the Writing Classroom and Benefits to the Learning Process

Over the past three decades, the field of L2 writing has continually sought to examine the pedagogical practices of process writing and its relationship to formative feedback. As a field, there is now a vast collection of data from research on the effects of feedback on L2 students’ writing. Beginning in the mid-1980s, feedback practices and issues were increasingly influenced by interactionist theories of education, which emphasised the significance of the individual reader and the dialogic nature of writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Probst (1985) proposed that “without the reader, there is only potential for meaning but no meaning itself” (p. 69). This perspective stressed the importance of the reader (teacher, peers) and multiple instances and forms of feedback in order to provide a real audience to the writer.

Feedback has also been widely cited as an important facilitator of learning and performance (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Bandura, 1991; Fedor, 1991). Additionally, Cohen (1985) described the importance of feedback in writing courses as a powerful and essential instructional tool, yet somehow the least implemented when designing course curriculum (p. 33). Further, according to Freedman (1985), teacher feedback on students’ work has powerful potential to shape students’ learning, with the possibility of re-evaluating the cognitive process of how learning happens (p. xi).

In a writing classroom context, feedback has a vital role serving a multidimensional function. In addition to assessment purposes, it has a larger pedagogical role by helping students understand future assignments, recognising the potential of their current writing, and comprehending the contexts in which written work is produced with audience awareness in mind (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 206). When used effectively, it can also act as a medium of interaction between student-teacher and student-student and trigger revisions, which subsequently foster language improvement (Ferris, 1997; Hyland, 1998) and contribute to the process of learning when the nature of it is well chosen (Balzer, Doherty, & O’Connor, 1989; Kluger & DeNisi, 1998). Finally, the widely cited article by Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, and Morgan (1991) demonstrates the benefits to learning that feedback can provide as long as there is an appropriate amount of reflection and purpose to the feedback.

Faculty and Students’ Perceptions of Feedback

The practice of providing written feedback is widely seen by writing faculty as an essential component of any writing course (e.g. Lee, 2007; Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, & Struyyen, 2010; Parr & Timperley, 2010; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dünnebier, 2010; Li & Barnard, 2011). Much of the research has also focused on the type and quality of feedback provided. Some researchers argue that quality feedback should focus on form (e.g. Zamel, 1985; White & Arndt, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Ferris, 2002; F. Hyland & K. Hyland, 2006), while others argue that feedback should focus on content (e.g. Frantzen, 1995; Truscott, 1996; Reid, 1998).

Some studies on students’ perceptions of feedback indicate that students prefer comments on content and ideas rather than on grammatical errors (e.g. Semke, 1984; Zamel, 1985). Yet, other studies show that students value and expect feedback on their grammatical errors (Leki, 1991; Ashwell, 2000; Lee, 2005). Still, there are also results indicating that students expect various types of feedback including content-related, grammatical, and organisational aspects (e.g. Radecki & Swales, 1988; Ferris, 1995; Lee, 2005).

Challenges Encountered by Faculty to Providing Feedback

The main challenge faced by faculty in terms of feedback is the excessive workload and time commitment required to provide quality feedback to students’ writing. As this chapter highlights, process-writing pedagogy places an even greater emphasis on feedback, with faculty often providing feedback multiple times and in different settings per assignment. Many studies focusing on teacher workload in relation to feedback (e.g. Easthope & Easthope, 2000; Litherland-Baker, 2014; Ritter, 2012) have sought to highlight the problem and provide evidence that it is a growing concern among writing faculty. Other studies have focused on providing solutions to the problem (e.g. Golub, 2005; White, 2007). However, as Litherland-Baker (2014) points out, researched analyses and findings do not always align with experiential understandings of how students learn and respond to feedback. Oftentimes, published articles within the discipline do not take into account the struggles of balancing a full workload, instructor development and training workshops, and service opportunities (p. 37). Past research indicates that irrespective of the type of feedback provided, feedback is essential to students. However, there are many external factors such as time, resources, and how the feedback is provided that do not always make it a feasible and effective endeavour.

Method

The process-based approach to writing that the Department of Writing Studies at AUS uses focuses on three types of feedback: in class, online, and during office hours. Teachers also provide feedback through electronic grading rubrics, but this is used as a summative assessment measure. The process-based feedback focuses on low-stake tasks where students are producing and receiving guidance on small components of the final, high-stake essay submission.

Data Collection

Our research is based on two surveys; one that was administered to our colleagues in the Department of Writing Studies, and another to AUS students enrolled in Writing Studies 101: Academic Writing I (WRI 101) and Writing Studies 102: Academic Writing II (WRI 102).

Courses and Participants

WRI 101 and WRI 102 are both sequential composition courses at AUS. They are the first and second of four required general education writing courses for all students pursuing an undergraduate degree at AUS (the latter courses are offered by the Department of English). We specifically chose WRI 102 students because they were already acquainted with process-based learning techniques from their previous course, WRI 101, since incoming AUS first-year undergraduate students cannot be directly placed into WRI 102. We also administered the survey to WRI 101 students for two reasons: to understand how their responses would differ from WRI 102 students who were more familiar with process-based writing, and to increase the sample size in case there were not enough respondents.

Data Collection Tools

The faculty survey consisted of seven questions; six multiple-choice questions and one optional, follow-up open-ended question (see Appendix 1). When applicable and appropriate, the multiple-choice responses utilised a five-point Likert scale. The purpose of the faculty survey was to gauge educators’ overall perceptions of teaching writing as a process. The multiple-choice questions asked the level at which process writing encouraged students to work harder; the extent to which students’ overall writing improved because of process writing; how challenging it was to give feedback during class time; how challenging it was to provide further feedback to work submitted online after class; to rate which type of feedback (in class, online, during office hours) was the most challenging to provide; and whether electronic or traditional paper-based feedback was easier to provide. If faculty felt providing students with feedback on work submitted online after class was ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’, then they were asked to explain why in an optional, open-ended response question.

The student survey comprised of ten multiple-choice questions that yielded purely quantitative results (see Appendix 2). Similar to the faculty survey, a five-point Likert scale, which measures perceptions and provides a range of answer options including a neutral answer choice at the midpoint, was used where appropriate. Otherwise, students were asked one yes/no question and one informational question about the specific writing course they were taking in Spring 2016. The multiple-choice questions asked students how much process writing (the systematic feedback on small components of the essay) encouraged them to work harder on their writing; the extent to which their writing improved because of process writing; how important was the feedback that they received during class, online, and office hours; to rate which type of feedback (in class, online, during office hours) was the most important; whether the feedback they rated as the least important could be eliminated altogether (yes/no question); whether electronic feedback is more effective than traditional paper-based feedback; how useful they found the process model of writing; and which writing course they were enrolled in.

Procedure

Data for this research project was collected in Spring 2016. This was the second consecutive academic year that our department was implementing process-based writing techniques, so both faculty and students were familiar with the process. Both surveys were electronically distributed through the AUS e-learning management system, Blackboard. Both faculty and student participation were voluntary, to be completed on their own time, and participants were assured anonymity. Neither survey took more than ten to fifteen minutes to complete. We had a total of 21 faculty responses, which is high for a department that consists of up to 25 faculty during any given academic year. We received 142 student responses across eight sections of WRI 101 and WRI 102, and selected a random 100 surveys as a sufficient, workable sample size.

Research Findings

Faculty and Student Perceptions Regarding the Effectiveness of Various Feedback Practices

Overwhelmingly, faculty perceptions of process writing were seen as either ‘greatly encouraging’ or ‘encouraging’ to both students’ motivation (see Table 4.1), and improvement of their writing (see Table 4.2). As instructors provide and students receive constructive feedback on individual parts of their writing, they learn how to become better writers. Faculty and students are given an opportunity to work one-to-one in an informal environment to improve. Be it through clarity in writing, understanding and forming an argument, using logical evidence, or integrating scholarly source support based on students’ level of writing, faculty provide the necessary tools for student success.

Table 4.1 Faculty perceptions on how ‘process writing’ encouraged students to work harder on their writing
Full size table
Table 4.2 Faculty perceptions on the effect that ‘process writing’ may have had in improving students’ writing (n = 21)
Full size table

Additionally, students’ perceptions of the benefit of process writing and multiple forms of feedback were also overwhelmingly positive. A majority (91%) of the students felt that the feedback helped them to work harder on their writing (see Table 4.3), and 89% of students felt that process writing and feedback helped them improve their writing proficiency (see Table 4.4). Students also seemed to value all types of feedback and did not differentiate between the value of feedback given in class, during office hours, or on electronically submitted writing through Blackboard (see Table 4.5). As the researchers have observed, students genuinely desire help, and feedback provides them with the informal environment to comfortably ask questions irrespective of the type of feedback they are receiving. Their progress is validated, which gives them the confidence to progress forward with their writing. Moreover, using different feedback methods appeals to students with varying learning needs. Some students prefer asking questions in a large classroom environment, others prefer office hours where they willingly come to ask questions, and some prefer written feedback with no face-to-face communication. In general, using the strategies in combination optimises student learning.

Table 4.3 Students’ perceptions on how feedback helped them to work harder on their writing (n = 100)
Full size table
Table 4.4 Student’s perceptions of the benefit of process writing and its feedback practices on writing proficiency
Full size table
Table 4.5 Students’ perceptions of various types of feedback
Full size table

Students did, however, seem to slightly prefer electronic feedback to traditional (paper-based) feedback with 52% either agreeing or strongly agreeing that electronic feedback was more effective. Surprisingly, 35% of the students were ‘undecided’ on this question, while only 13% either disagreed or strongly disagreed. A majority of students prefer electronic feedback because technology facilitates ease of communication. Our students use Blackboard as their course management system and they also have access to the Blackboard mobile application on their mobile phones which means accessing feedback electronically is much easier than paper-based feedback since the latter occurs in subsequent class meetings and is not immediate. Since faculty utilise the various integrated applications of Blackboard differently, this is one explanation of why 35% of students were undecided about which method they prefer. Students are better equipped to choose between electronic and traditional feedback only if they have been exposed to both, which is not always the case. Student experiences differ depending on how they are taught and by whom.

Conversely, when students were asked to rate whether feedback in class, online, or during office hours was the most important, feedback during office hours ranked the lowest. However, this response is based on two underlying assumptions: (1) all students surveyed are available during their instructor’s office hours to make a valid judgement for this survey question, and (2) all students surveyed visited office hours at least once. Research findings indicated that the majority (89%) of respondents did not think the feedback they rated the lowest (in this case, feedback during office hours) should be eliminated altogether. It follows that students do value feedback during office hours; however, they ranked it as the lowest because time restrictions and/or availability do not always make this type of feedback the most feasible option. This echoes the concerns made by Litherland-Baker (2014) in the literature review section that feedback has to be with purpose in a practical and achievable time frame.

Another point of discussion is how AUS students interpret feedback practices. This is evident in how they sometimes verbally respond after receiving a final letter grade for a formal, high-stake writing assignment for which they have received multiple types of feedback. Often, the more feedback a student receives (whether in class, online, during office hours), the higher the grade she or he thinks is automatically deserved. When an instructor provides feedback, they are seeing a fragmented part of a larger assignment. As mentioned in the literature review, the focus of the teacher’s feedback in a composition classroom can be on content, form, or grammar (Reid, 1998; Lee 2005; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). If an instructor thinks that a student’s thesis statement, for example, is very well-structured and concisely phrased, this does not mean that subsequent topic sentences or content for the remainder of the essay will necessarily also be the same. In reverse, if an instructor reads a topic sentence or body paragraph, it does not mean that this well-written paragraph relates back to the thesis statement or is organised according to the student’s stated thesis. When looking at bits and parts of what will eventually be a cohesive submission, neither the instructor nor the student writer can assume the quality of the collective whole. Moreover, many students assume that the more time they have spent working on an assignment, the higher grade they should automatically receive. This is a faulty cause fallacy that students often make. In reality, the time spent completing an assignment is not a measurable marker of assessment, which is why it never appears on a grading rubric. If a person were to push a giant rock, for example, should that person be rewarded if the rock, after being pushed for five hours, did not move anywhere? The same could be said for the time a student spends on writing an essay.

Challenges Encountered by Faculty During the Provision of Feedback Practices

Most faculty members agreed that giving feedback to students in class was more challenging overall than giving feedback electronically on student work after class. Twelve (57%) faculty members felt that giving feedback during class was ‘moderately challenging’, ‘challenging’, or ‘very challenging’, while three (14%) thought that it was ‘not challenging’ at all. Giving feedback to student work electronically after class was seen as slightly less challenging for most faculty; however, seven (33%) faculty felt that it was still either ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’ (see Table 4.6).

Table 4.6 Perceptions of faculty on the challenges to providing feedback during class-time and online
Full size table

Providing feedback in a composition classroom is challenging depending on the faculty-to-student class ratio; the more students in each class section, the harder it becomes to provide thoughtful feedback to each individual student in class. Instructor feedback, both in class and electronically on student work after class, is also dependent on external factors that cannot be controlled such as enrolment, predetermined class caps, and assigned overloads. This is one explanation why a significant portion of faculty still found electronic feedback after class to be ‘challenging’ or ‘very challenging’; they simply have too many students or too many sections of the same course, which is why electronic feedback becomes a daunting endeavour.

The faculty who believed that providing feedback outside of class was challenging all mentioned similar concerns; mainly time and workload constraints. As mentioned by Litherland-Baker (2014), faculty usually balance teaching with research and service, since year-end evaluations are based on their achievement in all three areas. One faculty member mentioned that in order to provide electronic feedback that is thorough, it would take anywhere from 1.5 to 3 hours for two sections (approximately 40 students). The same professor mentioned: “However, it is a necessary step that students both appreciate and benefit from.” Most faculty acknowledge the advantages of feedback, but also acknowledge the difficulty of providing quality feedback when course loads and class sizes are high.

Future Direction

As the research has demonstrated, formative feedback and process writing are seen as beneficial to student motivation and improvement of their writing. While a vast majority of students felt that all types of feedback were worthwhile, the research discussed their general impression rather than specific reasons why they believe it was beneficial or specific examples of how their writing improved. Incorporating other types of research data such as student interviews or case studies in addition to conducting a detailed analysis of both written feedback and the subsequent effect on students’ writing may provide further insight into exactly how their writing improved based on the feedback they received.

An additional line of inquiry could be the types of feedback itself. Much research has been conducted on the effects of different types of feedback in writing within the context of the language classroom, but in the context of the AUS composition classroom, where students’ language proficiency is usually high, examining the types of feedback given may provide some insight into both common errors that students make and common types of feedback instructors provide. A further detailed analysis and coding of types of feedback, similar to Ferris (2006), may help to provide suggestions to future faculty on what type of feedback is most effective or beneficial to students’ writing improvement.

Recommendations

To produce more comprehensive results, this research should be conducted with multiple instructors, over multiple semesters, and throughout the various courses our department offers. While this would make data collection tedious, the benefit is that results could then be compared/contrasted with what we currently have. An ideal situation would be to begin with Writing Studies 001: Basic Academic Writing (WRI 001), our department’s fundamental composition course, and then chart students’ attitudes toward various feedback practices as they progress through the writing sequence (students enrolled in WRI 001 must take WRI 101 and then WRI 102). However, this is a difficult endeavour because students take semester gaps between writing courses. They also enrol with different faculty, and this is for two reasons: they do not wish to take a subsequent writing course with the same instructor, or the specific writing course that students need is not being offered by their previous professor.

Another recommendation, based on the qualitative faculty survey responses, is that there should be a healthy balance between the various types of feedback used so that constant feedback does not become cumbersome for faculty. On average, instructors in our department teach anywhere between 72 to 90 students every semester. It is impossible to provide thoughtful feedback in class, online, and during office hours multiple times on every major assignment for each student considering that we already provide extensive feedback on students’ final draft submissions. A department-wide discussion of the experience of faculty who have integrated various feedback practices over multiple semesters would yield information on what is best practice. Otherwise, such decisions are at the discretion of the individual faculty member.

Conclusions

For students, too much feedback can create false or unrealistic expectations of what their final summative grade will be. For faculty, too much feedback can lead to higher class averages. However, the benefits of multiple feedback practices for students in a composition classroom are undeniable. Our research findings indicate that process writing and its related feedback practices help students improve their writing because they are more receptive, motivated, and subsequently work harder. Students value all types of feedback (in class, online, during office hours) and find the process model of writing useful. These findings align with faculty perceptions towards process writing.

Teaching composition is no longer simply about reading and responding to texts, but understanding broader concerns of how both a professional writer and a student writer construct an argument, make valid assumptions, and convey meaning through word choice, style, and choices in syntax. As a student progresses through his/her writing assignments, it is the instructor’s objective to offer constructive criticism, positive reinforcement, and encouragement to enhance confidence in writing. Composition instructors facilitate the process through the various feedback practices we use in the classroom, online, and during office hours. Using various types of feedback practices appeals to varying styles of learning and helps students become better writers. Through feedback, students learn how to improve their critical thinking and writing skills because they are not just writing, but learning how to write better.

The benefits of multiple feedback practices for student learners is that they learn how to become better writers through revising their own work. When they utilise class time to revise work with their professor’s help and guidance, the subsequent revisions are thoughtfully integrated in an intelligent and effective manner. The positive, constructive criticisms we offer our students through various feedback practices is what ultimately helps them progress as writers. This is because the feedback they receive is focused and directed with purpose. Moreover, they are more likely to listen and integrate feedback offered to them during process writing because this is when the instructor is facilitating writing versus taking on the role of a summative evaluator.

The majority of the students we teach are not aspiring English or Composition and Rhetoric majors, and they need not be. In a composition classroom, students work with topics that require them to write for a specific audience. They submit and receive feedback for multiple drafts, they receive feedback through peer comments, and they also receive feedback through the final summative assessment. When they go through this sequence repeatedly for every writing assignment in a composition class and then again over the progression of multiple composition courses that they are required to take as part of their general education requirements, differentiated feedback practices help students become better writers. More importantly, feedback helps students find purpose and meaning in their writing submissions that extend beyond the classroom.