<p>The aim of this investigation was to find out how students react to and make use of oral and written feedback given to them in class. Another aim was to find out if they preferred one form over the other and whether they make more use of that form. The investigation was conducted at a Swedish upper secondary school and consisted of a questionnaire survey and interviews with groups of students and with their teachers. The interviews with the students focused on clarifying some of the results from the questionnaire. The teacher interviews gave the teachers a chance to give their version of what they thought worked better and why they chose to work that way.</p><p> </p><p>The results showed that students welcome feedback, especially positive feedback used for encouragement. However, they also thought that there was a higher limit to the amount of feedback they could benefit from. Too much of one sort could be ignored or perceived as discouraging. The feedback mostly used in class was oral feedback. This was also what the students thought they benefited from the most since it invited to discussion about their work. Most of the students thought the feedback should be delivered in private because it could be embarrassing to receive feedback in front of their peers. Nevertheless, feedback on pronunciation and smaller errors that could be of use for their peers as well was acceptable in front of the class.</p>

The aim of this investigation was to find out how students react to and make use of oral and written feedback given to them in class. Another aim was to find out if they preferred one form over the other and whether they make more use of that form. The investigation was conducted at a Swedish upper secondary school and consisted of a questionnaire survey and interviews with groups of students and with their teachers. The interviews with the students focused on clarifying some of the results from the questionnaire. The teacher interviews gave the teachers a chance to give their version of what they thought worked better and why they chose to work that way.   The results showed that students welcome feedback, especially positive feedback used for encouragement. However, they also thought that there was a higher limit to the amount of feedback they could benefit from. Too much of one sort could be ignored or perceived as discouraging. The feedback mostly used in class was oral feedback. This was also what the students thought they benefited from the most since it invited to discussion about their work. Most of the students thought the feedback should be delivered in private because it could be embarrassing to receive feedback in front of their peers. Nevertheless, feedback on pronunciation and smaller errors that could be of use for their peers as well was acceptable in front of the class.

When teaching English as a foreign language (EFL), teachers use feedback in order to help students to improve their English skills. They can use both oral and written feedback to encourage students to make progress. Oral and written feedback play a significant role in second language acquisition, and this study could raise teachers' awareness of the different feedback strategies that can be employed in EFL classrooms. This could benefit their teaching performance and students’ learning. This study aims to examine the different types of oral and written feedback used in the EFL classroom, as well as teachers’ own perceptions of feedback. The approach used to conduct this study was both quantitative and qualitative. Three types of data material were collected in a secondary school (grades 7-9) for the analysis: three secondary school teachers were interviewed; their English lessons were observed; and their feedback on student essays was collected. The material collected was used in the analysis, which indicated that the teachers used different types of feedback. The most frequent oral feedback types used were recast, elicitation, and praise. However, the teachers employed different strategies regarding to how they provide this feedback. Two of the teachers provided feedback in the traditional way by using corrective types of feedback frequently, while one teacher chose not to correct students too often and instead encouraged them by giving them praise. The evaluation of different feedback types performed in this study suggests that recast as an implicit feedback type provided orally could be more effective in a communicative classroom setting, as it does not interrupt the communicative flow. In writing, on the other hand, explicit feedback combined with face-to-face sessions could lead to better results. It would be interesting to investigate in further research the effects of different oral and written feedback types.

The syllabus for English 5 through 7 in Sweden states that students should learn to understand and write different types of text, one being academic papers. Therefore, teachers are required to guide students in their academic writing process as they transition to formal written English.  Through this study, we aim to investigate the best practices of formative feedback from instructors on L2 academic writing and see the attitudes of students and teachers when it comes to given and received feedback. Moreover, we also aim to connect the results that are found through research to the Swedish national curriculum. This will be done through educational databases such as the Malmö university library database and ERIC. We have found a total of ten empirical studies that touch upon the two aforementioned aims. Research in the field of formative feedback displays how students have a healthier attitude towards oral communication as they may directly communicate with the instructor at the cost of time. In contrast, instructors disagree by claiming that it is not as efficient as written feedback where they may take on a larger number of students in a shorter amount of time whilst providing more accurate responses. Teachers ought to be aware that while efficiency is important, it is not as vital as student progression in academic writing. Also, it would be interesting to examine the attitudes and levels of comfort of students in regards to peer reviewing and self-feedback with a focus on L2 learners.

ESL writing teachers face the challenge of providing written feedback that is both effective and motivating to students. Thus, many end up making use of praise (or positive feedback) before offering criticism. Past research, however, has not put enough emphasis in how students receive praise. In fact, Hyland and Hyland’s (2001) article is one of the few and most recent works to focus on praise above other types of feedback. Yet, they have not accounted for the possibility of different types of praise as Kamins and Dweck (1999) have suggested. In our study, two types of praise (person and performance) have been considered as well as cultural background and L2 proficiency. An original survey was developed in order to analyze these three variants and understand how L2 learners perceive and attribute value to praise in written feedback. A total of 106 participants rated six different samples of praise based on how clear, helpful, valuable, encouraging to revision, kind, and motivating the comment of praise is. In the conclusion, praise type seems to be the most significant variant as participants showed preference to performance over person praise.

Many teachers want to help their students develop a growth mindset about their ability to do mathematics. Research has shown, however, that teachers simply do not know how to promote growth mindsets in their classrooms. Existing research suggests that one way teachers can support students' development of a growth mindset is through the written feedback they provide students. This study combines the research done on students' mindsets and written feedback to examine the interaction between student mindset and written feedback by analyzing written feedback provided to students in a College Algebra class and how students used that feedback based on their homework resubmissions and their interviews. This study suggests that students do not use their written feedback relative to their mindset towards learning mathematics, but rather that their definitions of success in a mathematics class drive their interpretation and use of their written feedback. This study also suggests that students' definitions of success in mathematics contribute to their mindsets towards learning mathematics. Findings from this study inform teachers about how students interpret and use written feedback in a mathematics class. Teachers should provide students with opportunities to change their definitions of success in mathematics, which may change their mindset towards learning mathematics.

Includes vita. / Title from PDF of title page. / Document formatted into pages; contains 323 pages. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references. / Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format. / ABSTRACT: Peer response in which students work together in dyads or small groups to critique and provide feedback on one another's writing is compatible with communicative approaches to foreign language teaching and process approaches to the teaching of writing. Computer-mediated communication has been considered a viable tool for both the teaching of languages and the teaching of writing. There is, however, scant information on how computer-mediated peer response functions in the foreign language classroom. This dissertation investigated how college Spanish learners provided feedback to their peers and the impact of feedback on revision. It also examined the factors that influenced how students wrote their comments, and how they perceived the use of computers for peer response. Case study methodology was used to collect and analyze data from two writing tasks performed as part of a semester-long course. / ABSTRACT: Data sources consisted of written feedback, first and second drafts, interview transcripts, learning journals from 12 participants and the teacher-researcher field notes. Analysis of data indicated that peer response is a complex event, influenced by a variety of contextual factors. Results also indicated that the participants used feedback depending on their needs. Students used reacting, advising and announcing language functions when providing feedback, and focused mostly on content. The revisions made by the participants contradicted the idea that peer feedback directly influences revision; more than half of the revisions made by the participants originated in the writers themselves and not in the suggestions given by their peers. Analysis of the revisions made, based on peers' suggestions indicated that the impact of peer response was strong on the length of the essays, limited on their language below the clause level, and weak on the essays' communicative purpose. / ABSTRACT: The participants' language proficiency and the characteristics of the writing task were perceived by the participants as factors that influenced how they wrote feedback for their peers. Finally, although the students considered that using the word processing language tools allowed them to learn about language and focus on content, the role of technology was perceived as supplementary to oral peer response / System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader. / Mode of access: World Wide Web.

Studien syftar till att undersöka hur fyra svensklärare arbetar med skriftlig respons, vilka effekter den har på elevers skrivutveckling samt hur eleverna beskriver sina upplevelser av att motta respons. En kvalitativ metod har använts genom att fyra svensklärare på högstadiet har intervjuats. Därefter gjordes gruppintervjuer med fyra av respektive lärarrespondents elever. Intervjuerna analyserades och data kategoriserades i syfte att få svar på studiens frågeställningar, vilka är: • Vad beskriver lärarna att de fokuserar på i den skriftliga respons de ger till eleverna, på vilket sätt ger de respons och varför? • Vilka effekter beskriver lärarna att deras skriftliga respons har på elevernas skrivutveckling? • Hur beskriver eleverna sina upplevelser kring den respons de ges på sina skriftliga framställningar? Resultatet visar att lärarna arbetar med tre typer av respons: slutkommentarer, matriser och markeringar i elevtexten. Det sistnämnda upplever eleverna som störande. Lärarna kommenterar huvudsakligen på innehåll och genreanpassning. Det framkommer att lärarna inte har en klar uppfattning om vilka effekter deras respons har på deras elevers skrivutveckling. Eleverna uppskattar att få berömmande kommentarer. Däremot är inte matriserna och slutkommentarerna lika uppskattade då eleverna upplever språket i dessa som svårbegripligt. Dock är eleverna huvudsakligen intresserade av vilket betyg deras produkt uppnått, vilket gör att kommentaren förlorar sitt värde. Eleverna upplever även att responsen inte utvecklar deras skrivförmåga. Detta beror dels på att responsen saknar instruktioner angående hur eleverna ska utvecklas och dels för att ett system för hur de ska spara den skriftliga responsen saknas. / The purpose of this study is to investigate how four teachers of the Swedish language apply their written feedback on their students’ assignments, what different effects it has on students’ writing process and how they describe their experiences of receiving the feedback. A qualitative method has been used by interviewing four teachers at a senior level school, thereafter interviewing their pupils by dividing them into four groups of four. Furthermore, the interviews were analyzed and data was categorized with the purpose of answering the question formulations of the study, which are: • According to the teachers’ descriptions, what is their main focus of the written feedback they apply on their students’ assignments, in which way and why? • What effects do the teachers describe that their written feedback has on the students writing process? • How do the students describe their experiences of receiving feedback on their written assignments? The results show that the teachers work with three types of feedback: final comments, templates and marks in the text. The latter is considered disturbing according to the students. The teachers mainly give feedback based on the content and how well the student has interpreted a certain genre. The conclusion is that the teachers do not have the proper awareness of the effects of their feedback on their students writing processes. Furthermore, the students clearly state they appreciate compliments on their assignments. However they find them difficult to understand due to the challenging language in the feedback. They also state the final grade to be more valued than the teachers’ final comments, resulting in the feedback losing its value. Also to be stated is that the students find that the response of their teachers does not develop their writing skills. This is due to the fact that the feedback lacks information on how to further improve and develop their skills, and also since there is no system for saving the different types of feedback.

The present licentiate thesis aims to investigate pupils’ understanding and use of teacher written feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL). The study was carried out in two Swedish lower secondary schools in two different classrooms, one in year eight with 14-year-old pupils and one in year nine with 15-year-old pupils. A case study research design was adopted to gain insights into nine pupils’ understand-ing and use of feedback. The three participants in year eight wrote ‘a letter to Barack Obama’ and received teacher written feedback in their draft texts and on a separate paper with individualized comments. The six pupils in year nine wrote about ‘mov-ies’ and received teacher written feedback in their draft texts but were also provided with a writing checklist. Data were collected from multiple sources but the data used for analysis were comprised of pupils’ draft and final version texts and pupil reflec-tive interviews.  The findings suggest that pupils understand many of the issues addressed by the teachers in their written feedback. Most pupils express their understanding using everyday language and by resorting to different strategies such as explaining why the feedback is provided, suggesting adequate changes or just by providing a correc-tion. However, it seems hard for a few pupils to understand the use of implicit types of written feedback. The results of the present study also suggest that it is hard to know a priori what pupils will experience as difficult to understand when it comes to the language used by the teachers in their written explanations. The findings further show that the majority of feedback points trigger pupils to make revision operations that involve major text-based changes. In other words pupils make more changes than those addressed in the teachers’ written feedback. The results also highlight that most pupils do not challenge their teachers’ feedback.  The findings of this study contribute to research on foreign language (FL) writing by providing insights from pupils’ perspectives and may fill a gap in the field of FL writing, since there are not many studies based on pupils’ perceptions. The context in which this study took place, lower secondary level and EFL in Sweden, also makes an additional contribution to the field of FL writing.

Peer response in which students work together in dyads or small groups to critique and provide feedback on one another's writing is compatible with communicative approaches to foreign language teaching and process approaches to the teaching of writing. Computer-mediated communication has been considered a viable tool for both the teaching of languages and the teaching of writing. There is, however, scant information on how computer-mediated peer response functions in the foreign language classroom. This dissertation investigated how college Spanish learners provided feedback to their peers and the impact of feedback on revision. It also examined the factors that influenced how students wrote their comments, and how they perceived the use of computers for peer response. Case study methodology was used to collect and analyze data from two writing tasks performed as part of a semester-long course. Data sources consisted of written feedback, first and second drafts, interview transcripts, learning journals from 12 participants and the teacher-researcher field notes. Analysis of data indicated that peer response is a complex event, influenced by a variety of contextual factors. Results also indicated that the participants used feedback depending on their needs. Students used reacting, advising and announcing language functions when providing feedback, and focused mostly on content. The revisions made by the participants contradicted the idea that peer feedback directly influences revision; more than half of the revisions made by the participants originated in the writers themselves and not in the suggestions given by their peers. Analysis of the revisions made, based on peers' suggestions indicated that the impact of peer response was strong on the length of the essays, limited on their language below the clause level, and weak on the essays' communicative purpose. The participants' language proficiency and the characteristics of the writing task were perceived by the participants as factors that influenced how they wrote feedback for their peers. Finally, although the students considered that using the word processing language tools allowed them to learn about language and focus on content, the role of technology was perceived as supplementary to oral peer response.