Literature Review of Teachers’ Written Feedback摘要：在英语学习者语言学习与学得方面，教师反馈语是最具影响力的因素之一，但是教师反馈语的影响可以是积极的也可以的消极的。
为了给予学生有效的反馈语，教师应在特定的环境中灵活地有效地使用反馈策略。
本研究主要关注教师反馈语对英语语言学习者写作能力提高的重要性。
因此，本研究首先运用二语习得相关的理论来作为教师反馈语的理论基础：中介语假说，输入、输出性假说，交互性假说；其次通过对反馈语，教师反馈语，反馈类别以及反馈方法的阐述来研究英语语言学习中教师反馈语的影响作用。
最后，通过对各种反馈语效度的回顾为本研究奠定基础。
为了提供有效的反馈语，教师应充分考虑学生的错误纠错和真实的课堂环境。
无论采用什么样的方法，在英语语言学习中，教师要详尽明确地提供有效可靠的反馈语。
Abstract: Teacher feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but the impact can be either positive or negative. In order to give effective feedback, teachers should flexibly and efficiently use feedback strategies in specific contexts. The article focus on the importance of teacher written feedback on L2 students’ writing development and achievement. Hence, this study first covers the SLA theory such as inter-language hypothesis, input hypothesis, output hypothesis, interaction hypothesis model as the theoretical foundation of feedback providing. Secondly, the study overviews the researched related to feedback and writing feedback, including definition of feedback, categories of feedback, methods for feedback, especially studies for the writing feedback for ESL/ EFL students. Finally, the effectiveness of various kinds of feedback would be reviewed to lay a foundation for the present study. In order to give effective written feedback, teachers should fully consider their students’for error correction and classroom realities. No matter what method is used, it is important for teachers in ESL/EFL settings to give students a crystal clear explanation.Keywords:feedback; teacher written feedback; effectiveness; language teachingand learning1. FeedbackFeedback originally refers to the information about a product that a user gives back to its supplier and maker. It was introduced to the education field describing that students can get useful response from their teachers to ensure a rewarding and thought-provoking learning process.1.1 The Definition of FeedbackThe research into feedback has been an important issue in Second Language Acquisition. Black and William (1998) investigated a wide range of educational settings and suggested that learners could benefits from feedback significantly. According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary(1989), feedback refers to the “return of part of the output of a system to its source, esp. so as to modify the output”. In Second Language Acquisition, the input and output of language are two crucial procedures in the learning process. The feedback given to the output of the learners helps them to correct mistakes and improve the competence. Ramaprasad (1983) defined feedback as “information about the gap between the actual level and the reference level of a system parameter which is used to alter the gap in some way”. In this definition, the effect of feedback is emphasized in that it must be translated into action and change the original practice which may not reach the reference level. In Second Language Acquisition, the reference level of output is set by the teacher or by the educational system, and feedback is given in various forms as long as it can stimulate the students to “alter the gap”and become more competence intercultural communicators.1.2 Feedback in WritingFeedback study in writing instruction began with the observation that feedback giving is the most important task for writing teachers. Feedback in writing refers to the input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision, including the comments, questions and suggestions a reader gives to a writer. Through feedback, the writer learns about his or her problems and how thereader has been misled or confused. Then the writer could provide more information, enhance logical organization, clarify development of ideas and appropriate word choice or tense (Keh, 1990).Straub (2000) thinks that responding to students; writing is a great challenge for writing instructors, as it is time-consuming and sometimes unrewarding if students do not read the feedback attentively. Straub’s statements for writing feedback raise consonance of many writing teachers. As a feedback, usually in the written form, is an indispensable part of any writing course, teachers devote a great amount of time and energy to the comments. In both first language writing and second language writing study, scholars singled out feedback as a chapter in their writing handbook (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998). As Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) stated, teachers and researchers recognize that feedback is necessary for any writing teacher, but what is the best way to comment on students’ drafts may vary with the context.1.3 Types of feedbackAbout the types of feedback that teachers give on students’ writing, the previous studies have focused on several parameters, such as form or content feedback, direct or indirect feedback, positive or directive feedback. They are interrelated and overlapped, so it is not easy to give a literature review simultaneously persuasive and clear-cut. Basically, two pairs of schemata are adopted to differentiate written feedback in students’ writing: form and content feedback, which are two mainly big categories of feedback given in the educational system.1.3.1 Form FeedbackForm feedback refers to the grammar and mechanics feedback that provide suggestions or requests about grammatical mistakes and incorrect spelling of words. Form feedback puts emphasis on form of writing instead of content of writing. There are some frequently grammatical mistakes that are referred to as high-frequency errors. (Mings, 1993) Some researchers have studied mistakes concerning the form of language and provided some useful checklist which divided mistakes into several categories.Vann (1984) interviewed some University teachers to find out their view on ESL errors. The categories located by him addressed 10 grammatical problems: Spelling, Subject-verb, Article, Relative Clauses, Command splice, Tense, Prepositions, It-deletion, Pronoun agreement and Word order. (Vann et al., 1984: 431). The latest study of categories of form errors saw Ferris and Robert’s division, which includes 5 categories: Verb errors, Noun ending errors, Article errors, Wrong word and Sentence structure. (Ferris & Roberts, 2001)The repeatedly occurring mistakes attract the attention of writing teachers and appealed to most of the feedback. Form feedback could be further divided into direct and indirect feedback, also referred to as explicit and implicit feedback. The direct feedback provides the students with the correct form. The direct feedback could take any of the following method: “crossing out an unnecessary word, phrase or morpheme, inserting a missing word or morpheme, and writing the correct form above or near to the erroneous form”. (Ellis, 2009) Direct feedback can provide students with explicit guidance about how to correct their mistakes. Ferris and Roberts (2001) suggested that direct feedback is probably better than indirect feedback, especially for lower level students. The indirect feedback involves pointing out the students’ errors without correcting it specially. The methods implemented include: “underlining the errors or using cursors to show omissions in the student’s text or by placing a cross in the margin next to the line containing the error”. (Ellis, 2009) Some teachers use self-invented symbols and signs to indicate the categories of the errors, but do not offer the correct form directly. Indirect feedback is preferred by some scholars because they think it can guide the learners to solve the problems and reflect about their own language teaching. Indirect is very useful when it incorporated with student self-revision, but lower proficiency students may be unable to identify and correct errors even when they have been marked for them. Ferris (2006) found that students utilized direct feedback more consistently and effectively than indirect types, partly as it involves simply copying the teacher’s suggestion into the next draft of their papers.1.3.2 Content FeedbackContent feedback refers to the feedback provided aiming at the content of student’s writing. In the rating rubric of most language examinations, besides grammar and mechanics, there are other categories like content and organization. These aspects are not concerned with prescriptive language rules, but they are inseparable from the quality of writing. About the content feedback on students’writings, there is no clear and specific analysis model. Ferris (1997) produced a model which was developed through the examination of a number of graded essays, and the result was tested by further experiment. The three categories for analysis are directive, grammar/mechanics comments and positive comments. The grammar/mechanics categories is quite similar to the previously introduced models above. The directive and positive feedback are further explained as follows. (Ferris, 1997)The directive feedback defines three subcategories: asking for information, making a suggestion or request and giving information.1.Asking for information: to ask writers to provide further information, either know or unknown to the reader. Rhetorical questions are often used to stimulate students to further thinking.2.Making a suggestion or request: to suggest or request in the margin or at the end of the writing. Both suggestions and requests can be in either statement or question form.3.Giving information: to express their perceptions about the text and the writer. There are two distinct sub-types to this mode of comment: reader response and textual information. For the reader- response type, teachers read students’writing and respond it like a real reader, giving the information about how reader feel about writer’s ideas and organization. The textual information is providing the writer information from another writer’s text which the writer might have misunderstood or missed. (Lin, 2009)The positive feedback is used to praise or encourage writing. Usually, the positive comments are provided in the margins or at the end of the writing. According to some scholars, student’s motivation and and self-confidence may be damaged if they received too much criticism (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). Hyland (2001)investigated 51 end comments on students’essays and classified them into three groups: criticism, suggestion and praise. Praise is easy to identify, so the main focus of their study is on the differentiation of criticism and suggestion.In L2 writing instruction, although the mitigated criticism can improve the confidence and motivation of the students, it may have the disadvantage of implicitness. Suggestions and praise should be used cautiously regarding to students’level and the relationship between students and teachers.2. Theoretical FoundationLearning to write in a second language or in a foreign language is a challenge. Second language writing is also second language acquisition, so some SLA theories lay foundation for the feedback activity in writing pedagogy. Input learners can draw upon different conditions and social identities in the interaction process which are three approaches to incorporate a social angle in SLA. Therefore, input hypothesis, output hypothesis and interaction hypothesis make foundation to the actual practice of teacher written feedback.2.1 Inter-language HypothesisInter-language refers to the language produced by learners in the course of acquiring the target language. Learners are hypothesized to pass through a series of inter-languages, each of which has a set of rules that, while deviating from the target language, have a degree of internal consistency (Nunan, 1999). The term “inter-language”was produced by the American linguist Larry Selinker (1972). Inter-language as a mental system appeals to the learner’s L1 system but is also different from the target language. Therefore, inter-language is a unique linguistic system and provides explanation for how L2 acquisition takes place. According to inter-language hypothesis, L2 learners have a grammatical system of inter-language and it is inappropriate to evaluate their performance in terms of the target language grammar. In L2 learners’ inter-language, errors are natural occurrence, towards which teachers and learners should hold a positive attitude, because errors could improve learners’ language proficiency to some extent.2.2 Comprehensive Input Hypothesis of KrashenESL/EFL acquisition is impossible without input, and the exposure to input decides the level of language acquisition. Feedback as input provided to help improve writing competence which should be effective. The input hypothesis declares the importance of input in SLA and regulates the principles in providing language input.Language input is the linguistic material for learners seeing, listening, reading, and writing, they process these materials by brain and form a set of regular system related with target-language. In the late of 1970s and the early of 1980s, American linguist Krashen (1985) put forwards the famous “Monitoring Theory Pattern” which includes Language Acquisition and Learning, Monitoring Theory, Natural Acquisition Order Hypothesis, Comprehensible Output Hypothesis and Affective Filter Hypothesis. From which the Comprehensive Input Hypothesis is the key one in language acquisition theory. The comprehensive input theory is the core content in this pattern, and other four hypothesis have internal relations with comprehensive input hypothesis. According to Krashen and Terrell (1983:32): “we acquire language by understanding input that is a little beyond out current level of competence”. Krashen claimed that L2 acquisition depends on comprehensible input. He described the acquirer’s present level of competence as i, and the level immediately following i as i+1, the language just above present competence. In this formulation, we may say that rough turning consists of knowing what a learner’s i is, and then being able to gauge i+1 (Johnson, 2002).Despite the transparency of input hypothesis, some scholars criticized it for existing problems. Knowledge is hard to measure, so it is impossible to judge the level of present competence (i). What’s more, (+1) is also an ambiguous concept to define, as no one could figure out what (+1) might mean. Therefore, it is very difficult to assess the hypothesis objectively, and so interaction between input and output is indispensable in writing instruction.2.3 Comprehensive Output Hypothesis of SwainThe research indicated that only depended on “Comprehensive Input Theory” isnot enough for language learners to really efficiently study language. In 1985, in allusion to the shortage of Krashen’s Comprehensive Input Theory, Swain put forward “Comprehensive Output Theory”. Swain considered that though the comprehensive input theory is important for language acquisition, it cannot make foreign language learners have the ability of correctly and fluently speaking English. “Only by meaningfully using language can learners make the correction of grammar in their own target-language reach a high level and then have sufficient language output is totally necessary under the condition of having enough language input”. (Swain, 1985)Meanwhile, Swain emphasized only learners feel the necessity of improving and developing their own target-language can language output be conducive to language acquisition. Swain also thought it is “negotiation of meaning”foster language acquisition that because of it can not only contribute to students’ comprehensive input but also can create opportunity to language output. Therefore, language output plays a prominent role in student’s second language acquisition.2.4 Interaction Hypothesis of LongIn 1983, Long put forward “Interaction Hypothesis”in the second language acquisition, which is established on the foundation of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis. Long as well as Krashen, he thought comprehensive input plays an important role in second acquisition, but Krashen considered that it is natural for students to understand input while Long payed more attention to the condition of comprehensive input. Long (1985) classified interaction into two aspects: “two-way communication”and “one-way communication”, and two-way communication is more conducive than one-way communication to language acquisition. Because in the process of two-way communication, the two side can make proper interaction modification when meets difficulties, which can not only improve the language comprehensive input but also its comprehensive output. When native speakers communicate with non-native speakers, each sides will make an interaction modification for the success of communicating.Michael Long acknowledged the importance of comprehensible input, but heargued that when input is modified through the negotiation of meaning, it is more effective. The “negotiation of meaning” is defined as “the interactive work that takes place between speakers when some misunderstanding occurs”(Ellis, 1997: 141). Negotiation of meaning could take various forms in communication, such as repetition utterance and response modification, etc. In spoken language instruction, the negotiation of meaning may involve “saying things again, perhaps using others words and simpler structures, using lots of gestures”(Johnson, 2002: 95). In L2 writing instruction, interaction usually takes form of written feedback.In a word, in L2 writing instruction, input, output and interaction cannot be separated: on the one hand, students make progress through producing writings; on the other hand, teacher feedback as a means of interaction provides opportunity for meaning negotiation, and becomes comprehensible input to enhance students’acquisition of written language. The quality of input and the person to interact with can decide improvement of inter-language. Although inter-language hypothesis stresses the nature of L2 learning as a process of reaching target language but may never reach the destination, ESL/EFL learners need to seek feasible means to improve the proficiency of target language. Input, output and interaction hypothesis provided encouraging assumptions for ESL/EFL learning.3. Related Studies of Teachers’ Writing Feedback3.1 International and Chinese Teachers’ Written FeedbackIn L2 writing instruction, feedback given is an important issue. Feedback from international teachers is different from feedback of Chinese teachers in several aspects.Yang (2005) studied the differences between a Chinese teacher and an international teacher’s feedback on a Chinese University student’s essay entitled “College as a Melting Pot”. The research was conducted in the northeast normal university in China and was published on Foreign Language Research. She interviewed 3 international teachers and carried out a survey of 59 students to support her research results. She stated that the Chinese teachers gave more feedback onsentence level, while the international teacher could locate Chinese students’ writing problems on discourse level such as the logic and rhetorical structure problems. The international teacher’s feedback stressed that the Chinese student’s writing lacked the logic precondition and found some incoherent which Chinese teachers did not take as mistakes (Yang, 2005: 79-81).To be more specific, Yang (2005) found that one problem is about reference: when one word is used to refer to a previously described idea, the word might appear for the first time and was taken for granted to related to the idea, but the international teacher could not see the natural relationship between them. For example, the student writer stated “Besides, entertainment, the most important thing is study”, but the international teacher did not find anything relating to the concept of “entertainment”. However, the Chinese teacher could understand the hinted idea in previous sentences: “This period is the golden age of ourselves. We have energy enthusiasm. We enjoy ourselves at spare time. We surf on the internet. We also read books by our inspiring ancestors”. The international teacher expected more specific explanation to the hinted idea because they may have different understanding about “entertainment”. The abstract words such as “spirit” is used by the Chinese students to refer to “teamwork spirit” in the sentence “I think there is a kind of spirit in it. It is the spirit to attract us to mix one another”, but the international teacher did not see the embedded cultural implication of Chinese culture.Hou and Geng (2010) evaluated the differences in feedback between a Chinese English rater and a native English rater. One Chinese teacher, one international teacher and 38 students participated in the experiment. The two teachers rated the students’ writings from four aspects: Organization, Content, Grammar, and Dictation. In terms of mean score, the Chinese teacher gave the highest score to Organization and the lowest score to Grammar, while the international teacher gave the highest score to Grammar and the lowest score to Content.Hou and Geng (2010) reported that in terms of Organization and Dictation, the difference between raters were not significant. However, the difference was significant in terms of Content and Grammar. The international teacher focused moreon Content, while the Chinese teacher attached great importance to Grammar. In the interview, both the Chinese teacher and the international teacher stated their point of view on Content and Grammar. The Chinese teacher showed tolerance to students’content, because in her eye, grammar and sentence structure were more important for students. She did not expect students to be very original and creative in ideas. On the contrast, the international teacher believed that university students should have creative mind and ample sources for examples, evidence and data. For grammar, the Chinese teacher stressed the difference between past tense and the present tense, while the international teacher argued that tense was not definite sometimes and it was more crucial for an essay to be coherent, clearly descriptive and getting idea across.The studies review above examined the difference in written feedback Chinese teachers and international teachers, but not state the similarities and difference between the two sources of feedback systematically. Therefore, the respective characteristics of Chinese and international teacher’s feedback need to be explored further.3.2 International and Domestic Studies of Teachers’Writing FeedbackIn the field of writing instruction and research, scholars have studied various aspects of feedback, such as the characteristics of feedback focus (Ferris, 1997; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Ellis, 2009), the effects of written feedback on students’ revisions (Truscott, 1999; Ferris, 1999; Hyland, 2001; Sugita, 2006; Wu, 2010), the teacher and learner perception and belief of written feedback (Ferris, 1995; Lee, 2004, 2008, 2009; Lin, 2009).The recent focus on assessment and teacher feedback response in foreign and second language writing instruction (cf. Hamp-Lyons, 1991) has generated considerable interest in the knowledge and meta-cognitive processes used by learners as they draft and modify their written products (Devine, 1993; Gordon, 1990). Paradoxically, however, “there has been almost no work done on students’attitudes and approaches to students’attitudes and approaches to written assessment”(Durst,1990, p. 403). Similarly, little is known about how L2 students regulate their development as writers, although recent empirical studies have begun to examine L2 writers’ perceptions of expert feedback, their strategies of feedback incorporation, and their composing process in general (Ferris, 1995).Because teacher feedback response and evaluation are typically the principal means by which L2 learners measure their progress as writers, there is an obvious need to understand their views of instructor feedback, their efforts to respond to their instructor’s comments, and the influence of these of efforts have on actual performance (Henning, 1991). As Sheppard (1992) argues that “more empirical research of all types is needed to confirm, clarify, and deepen our understanding of what may be a universal tendency in language learning”(p.108), namely, that of assuming that all expert feedback is noticed, understood, and utilized. Investigations of the role of teacher response in first, second and foreign language writing present significant challenges to this assumption.Other studies argued that although providing on feedback on students writing is one of the most important tasks for writing teachers, it has always been presented as a problematic practice in the literature. Ideally, feedback is used by teachers to build relationships with students and help them improve their writing. In many EFL contexts, however, teacher feedback tends to discourage and confuse students and is not producing the desired outcomes in terms of enhancing student learning. Despite the strenuous efforts of feedback researchers and “the best practices” principles they have come up with, there exists a huge gap between the ideal and the reality with regard to feedback in EFL writing classrooms (Lee, 2013a).In order to understand the status of relevant domestic research, Min (2006) examined the types of revision given by students such as the surface change and the text-based change. He found that students made more revision on micro-structure changes to substitute, reorder and even per-mutate the sentences. He proved that students’ writing improved based on the peer feedback.Chen (2004) conducted an experiment in which the treatment group was required to practice the peer feedback activity, while the control group did not have the peerfeedback for reference. They found that the treatment group with peer feedback obtained slightly better scores for their revision compared with the control group without peer feedback. The results also showed that the treatment group improved with respect to organization and content.Lin (2009) examined the effectiveness of teacher feedback, peer feedback, and online peer feedback in Taiwanese EFL college students’ writing. He reported that the students who received teacher feedback improved most, peer feedback group came to the second, and online feedback improved least.A simple, yet intricate question that has informed the feedback research agenda in L2 writing is how feedback can be made more effective to improve student learning.while research effort has been devoted to finding out what feedback strategies work best in the writing classroom (de Jong & Kuiken, 2008, 2012 ), such research is decontextualized (Goldstein, 2006). There is a paucity work of that explores teachers’own attempts to explore the feedback strategies that might work best in their specific contexts.4. The Methodological ApproachAccording to the literature review, this research is a typical social science research. Social science research must be conducted within the framework of a paradigm. According to Lincoln and Cuba (2000), two major paradigms were generally employed in social science research: the empiricist approach or the interpretivist approach. The former mainly adopts quantitative and experimental methods to test assumptions and research questions and usually involves large samples of participants, while the latter chiefly use qualitative and naturalistic approaches to uncover human experience inductively (Patton, 2002).5.SummaryThis study gives a thorough review to the feedback, feedback writing, types of feedback and theoretical foundation of feedback. The effectiveness of feedback in writing is affected and shaped by many factors: quality of feedback, types of feedback and so on. Although both Chinese and western scholars, such as Ellis (2009), Ferris。
