Introduction
The effectiveness of teacher feedback has
been so controversial that the majority of the
publications in L2 writing have been
devoted to this subject for the past two
decades. While some scholars, the most
prominent of whom Truscott (1996), argue
against grammar correction and believe that
it does not help learners improve, others
such as Ferris (1999) and Chandler (2003)
argue for the practice The literature on the
subject is full of studies in support of both
parties making it impossible to come up
with a definite answer.
However, no matter what literature says
about its effectiveness or ineffectiveness,
students demand teacher feedback because
they believe it is necessary and helps them
improve (Lee, 2008). Surface-level errors
are so important to learners that ESL
teachers may lose their credibility among
learners if they do not correct all such errors
in their students’ writings (Radacki &
Swales, 1998). ESL students were reported
to believe that a good writing is one which is
error-free (Leki, 1990). Also, surveys
regarding students’ attitudes toward
feedback in ESL context (e.g., Ferris, 1995;
Satio, 1994) and EFL context (e.g., Diab,
2005; Enginalar, 1993) indicate that learners
are concerned about accuracy, and to them,
an effective feedback is the one in which
teachers pay attention to linguistic errors.
The present study was developed as a
response to such demands while minimizing
the obstacles in the way.
The grammar correction debate so far
After Truscott questioned the effectiveness
of grammar feedback in 1996, there has
been a very hot debate among scholars and
researchers regarding the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of providing students with
error correction. This debate has been
mainly between Truscott (1996) on the one
hand, and Ferris (1999), Chandler (2003),
and Bruton (2009) on the other hand.
Truscott (1996) argues that most writing
regarding corrective feedback has simply
taken the value of grammar correction for
granted. All practitioners practice it because
they assume it is effective. Moreover, the
side effects of such a practice, like its effect
on learners’ attitude and the energy and time
it consumes in writing classes, are often
neglected. He cites Cohen’s review in which
he had concluded that L1 students often pay
no attention to corrections. Even if
motivated enough to look at and understand
the corrections, students may still not be
motivated enough to incorporate them in
their future writing. Truscott also argues that
the students who do try to write in
accordance with the feedback they receive
may not do so for long, and as soon as they
leave that particular class or write in a
different context for a different teacher with
different concerns, they may ignore the
original advice.
Truscott believes that grammar correction is
harmful. Relying on research carried out in
L1, he argues that students who do not
receive corrections have a more positive
attitude toward writing. They may not be
better writers in comparison with those
receiving corrections, but they have been
observed writing more. He claims that even
in L2, grammar correction has harmful
effects. He believes that it is so because of
the “inherent unpleasantness of correction.”
They do not learn as well as uncorrected
students do because they shorten and
simplify their writing in order not to be
corrected (Truscott, 1996, p. 355).
Ferris (1999), responding to Truscott’s
(1996) review of the research on grammar
correction, regards Truscott’s conclusion
that grammar correction has no place in
writing instruction and it should be
abandoned as “premature and overly strong”
(p. 2).Unlike Truscott, Ferris believes that, if
not all, many students can improve their
writing as a result of appropriate teacher
feedback, so instead of abandoning such a
practice, she believes that we should make
our corrections more effective. In her
opinion, the individual student variables
affecting their willingness and ability to
benefit from teacher feedback need to be
explored. Also, one needs to investigate
which methods or techniques in corrective
feedback provision can lead to short term
and long term student improvement. Only
when these variables are explored enough,
one can decide on the effectiveness or
ineffectiveness of grammar correction.
Chandler (2003) did a thorough study on the
efficacy of various types of error feedback
and their influence on students’ fluency and
accuracy in writing. The two groups were
found similar in error rates prior to the
study. On the other hand, the experimental
group’s change was statistically significant
at the end of the instruction. Regarding
fluency, both groups significantly improved
over the 10 weeks between the first and fifth
assignments, and they did not differ from
each other over the semester. Chandler
(2004) believes that although she did not
calculate any measure of syntactic
complexity, the results of her holistic rating
are an indication, not proof, that the writings
did not become simpler. The study by Robb
Ross, and Shortreed (1986), who did have a
measure of syntactic complexity, also
showed that all of their groups receiving
corrective feedback improved in syntactic
complexity.
Truscott (2007) did a meta-analysis on
corrective feedback. He found a positive
effect for corrective feedback in
uncontrolled studies, which he attributed to
either bias in the setting of testing or the use
of avoidance strategy by learners. He
believes that corrected students write shorter
and simpler texts in order to avoid making
mistakes. As such, even the observed
improvement in accuracy may be due to
learning how to avoid structures about
which they are not sure.
Bruton (2009), looking at the research and
argument in error correction, questions
Truscott’s anti-correction position by
drawing three basic conclusions: first, he
believes that research into this topic should
recognize that “language focus in L2 writing
should be seen within a framework of
pedagogical options, including minimally
differing pedagogical purposes, writer goals
and writing tasks, in relation to writer
characteristics and context” (p.600). Second,
the effect of language focus in L2 writing
should not be limited to the issue of
grammatical accuracy. Third, even in such a
limited view, common sense and intuition
defies that correction is harmful to
developing accuracy and lack of correction
or simply more writing practice can result in
improvement.
Bruton (2009) views the ongoing debate
about correction as a “rather tedious sterile
academic debate” which has damaged the
field by giving researchers a narrow
perspective and line of attention. Truscott
(2010) objected to and rejected this view;
however, Bruton (2010, p. 491) insists on
his position and explains that he does not
mean that the issue of grammar correction in
L2 writing is not important or is less
important than it was in the past; however,
“the debate is tedious because the same
points are reiterated; it is sterile because
most of the research central to the
argumentation against correction remains
the same, with the numerous recognized
flaws…; it is academic in the sense that it
does not really have much relevance for
most mainstream L2 writing contexts or
practices.” Bruton (2010) also expresses his
concern about the fact that “sometimes
academic debate uses research results and
instruments to convince non-academics of
their arguments, when the design of the
research cited are far from sound” (p. 491).
He also emphasizes the role of factors such
as instruction, tasks, and grades in affecting
learners’ success:
If corrective feedback recognizes interest in
the content of tasks, which are within the
students’ capabilities, is supportive and
constructive, while rewarding improvement,
reflected in the grading system, the
conditions might be propitious for
improvement… If teacher response
emphasizes the defects (in red), shows a lack
of interest for the content and offers
criticism, reinforced by negative grades
based on errors, the circumstances are
hardly beneficial for improvement…Any
grading system for L2 writing, probably
needs to reward improvement, both in terms
of content and new language use, together
with complexity/accuracy, and in terms of
reducing recurrent errors. (pp. 496-497)
Teachers are also known to have their own
beliefs about what constitutes good feedback
and how it must be provided, which
sometimes contradict those of students. For
example, teachers tend to perceive their
feedback more positively than students do.
Tutors believe that they provide more
detailed feedback than their students think
they do. They also perceive their feedback to
be more useful than students do. Finally,
teachers tend to find their assessment to be
fair while students are not sure about that
(Carless, 2006).Lee (2009) also reports
some discrepancies between teachers' beliefs
and what they practice. For instance, they
tend to focus more on language form while
they believe they should not. They practice
comprehensive error marking though they
believe it should be selective. They also
grade students' writings though they believe
that grades draw learners' attention away
from the intended feedback provided with
the teacher.
No matter what conclusion research studies
come up with, language teachers seem to
continue providing their learners with
corrective feedback mostly because they
think they should. Leki (1990) asserts that
although written comments to students’
writings are time consuming, teachers still
continue to provide them with these
comments because they believe that that will
help the writers improve. He also believes
that teachers do so because their job not only
requires them to evaluate students’ writings
but also needs them to justify their
evaluation.
Grading dilemma
Providing corrective feedback can result in a
clash of roles on the part of the teacher. Leki
(1990) holds three roles for a writing teacher
in responding to her students’ writings:
teachers as real readers (audience); teachers
as coaches; and teachers as evaluators.
Given the unequal power relation between a
teacher and a student, Leki sees it unrealistic
to accept that teachers can read learners’
writings in the same way as they read texts
they read on their daily life. A teacher may
also act as a coach as well as an evaluator.
This way she needs to cooperate with
learners in that process. As such, she will be
responsible if students fail to meet the
criteria because it means she had not
intervened enough when necessary.
However, this being a collaborator and a
judge at the same time is a contradiction
which sounds difficult to resolve. Being an
evaluator (the third role) also contradicts
with another notion taught to students.
Usually, students are encouraged to have in
mind an audience for their writings, but
simply knowing that the reader is not going
to be a simple audience and is an evaluator
distorts such a notion (Leki, 1990).
While being an evaluator can be in clash
with other roles a writing teacher may have,
performing such a role seems inevitable.
However, being an evaluator is not as
problematic as being an assessor. While an
evaluator may evaluate a piece of writing by
commenting on the weak points or
specifying the parts or elements which need
to be amended, she does not need to assign
any score or grade to that piece of work. On
the other hand, when acting as an assessor, a
teacher is required to provide learners with a
grade or score which can sum up her
evaluation in the form of a single easily
interpretable grade or score. However, such
a practice may divert learners’ attention
away from teacher feedback and as a result
do more harm than good (Lee, 2009).
Lee (2009), having administered a
questionnaire to 206 secondary teachers and
having conducted an interview with a few of
them, explored their beliefs and their
reported practices to examine the extent to
which they correspond each other. She
identified ten mismatches between teachers’
beliefs and their written feedback practice.
She found out that “teachers award
scores/grades to student writing although
they are almost certain that marks/grades
draw student attention away from teacher
feedback” (p. 16). She states that the
feedback analysis shows that all the teachers
give their students’ writings a score.
However, they do not believe that much in
their usefulness because they think scores
and grades divert learners’ attention away
from teacher feedback to the extent that
some students may even ignore them
particularly when they are not required to
revise and resubmit their drafts for better
grades. “One teacher remarked, ‘The
majority of students do not pay attention to
the comments’. Another teacher even said,
‘For students, they only look at the scores’.”
(p. 17).
This way, as Hamp-Lyons (2007) points out,
in many contexts writing assessment is
taking over writing instruction, that is,
increasing attention is being paid to the issue
of grading or scoring student writing.
Connors and Lunford (1993), having
conducted a discourse analysis of comments
on 3,000 marked papers, observed that more
than 80% of the comments had a judgmental
tone. Such studies show that instructors read
assignments for the purpose of grading and
their feedback is mainly concerned with
justifying the grades given (Li & Barnard,
2011).
One may wonder why teachers do not stop
grading or scoring student writing if they are
aware of the harm it does. Lee (2009),
quoting the same teachers, argues that
grading is necessary for summative
purposes. One teacher in the follow-up
interviews emphasized the importance of
grading by saying that he believes that
compositions, except identifying students’
difficulties in writing, serves another
function, i.e., it serves for teachers to hand
over score sheet. As such it seems that “the
summative function of feedback has made
teachers use scores/grades although they are
fully aware of the harm that can be done to
students” (p. 17).
However, that is not the only reason why
teachers continue grading learner writing in
conjunction with the corrective feedback
they provide them with. Learners demand
such a practice. Lee (2008) studying both
high proficient (HP) and low proficient (LP)
students of English during an academic year,
examined their preference for the type of
feedback they received. 72.2 percent of HP
students and 40.9 percent of LP students
chose the option ‘mark/grade + error
feedback + written comments.’ In response
to the question ‘In the future compositions,
which of the following would you be most
interested in finding out?’, ‘teacher’s
comments on my writing’ ranked first by
47.2 percent in HP students and 36.4 percent
in the LP students. ‘mark/grade’ stood
second by 38.9 percent in HP students and
36.4 percent in LP students.
The present study
Having been confronted with all such
contradictions, we tried to find a middle
ground compromising all such problems. In
fact, it was tried to find a solution for
motivating learners’ to attend to teacher
feedback while providing them with grades
that can satisfy teachers’ sense of obligation
in having summative evaluation and
learners’ sense of need for such an
evaluative feedback without jeopardizing
learners’ attendance to teacher feedback. It
not only does not divert learners’ attention
from teacher feedback, but it also gives
them, at least for the majority of learners, a
reason and the needed motives to attend to
that.
The solution we came up with was a simple
technique called Draft-Specific Scoring,
based on which learners are provided with
corrective feedback as well as a grade which
represents the teacher’s general evaluation
of that piece of work. The final score would
be the mean of all the grades learners have
received for their assignments during the
course. However, the grades learners receive
are not fixed. Students can improve their
grades by applying teacher feedback to their
writings and revising their first and mid
drafts. Usually, students are given two
opportunities to go through this procedure of
drafting and revising. The final score each
student receives on any assignment is used
to come up with the mean score. The present
study was an attempt to check the effect of
this newly-developed technique on the
fluency, grammatical complexity, and
accuracy of the texts learners write over the
course of instruction. As such the following
research questions were formulated:
1. Does the fluency of texts written by
learners change over the course of
instruction as a result of using DSS
when providing teacher corrective
feedback?
2. Does the grammatical complexity of
texts written by learners change over
the course of instruction as a result
of using DSS when providing
teacher corrective feedback?
3. Does the accuracy of texts written by
learners change over the course of
instruction as a result of using DSS
when providing teacher corrective
feedback?
Method
Participants
There were 85 participants present in two
groups from two different universities,
namely University of Tehran and Azad
University. There were 26 (10 male and 16
female) participants in the treatment group
at the University of Tehran. Their age
roughly ranged from 22 to 25. They were all
high intermediate EFL learners studying
English Literature. They were all Iranian but
for one Chinese female student. For the
control group, 57 participants were present,
all studying English Literature and
Translation at Azad University. After these
participants were filtered, 31 (12 male and
19 female) participants with an age range of
21 to 27 remained. Since the participants at
Azad University were more heterogeneous
in language proficiency level in comparison
with those studying at the University of
Tehran, they were matched based on the
Oxford Quick Proficiency Test they had
taken as a requirement of their department
and the results of the pretest in writing. As a
result, out of the 57 participants for the
control group, there remained only 31 for
data analysis.
Procedure
During the first 3 sessions, the preliminaries
of writing were taught to both groups, and
using model essays, different parts and
components of an essay were discussed and
instructed. The base of the instruction was
TOEFL iBT independent Task in writing
which is very similar to IELTS task 2 in
writing. In these tasks, test takers are given a
prompt and are asked to write an essay on
that in a limited time. The given time is 30
minutes in TOEFL iBT and 40 minutes in
IELTS test. As such, learners were informed
of the criteria based on which their writing
samples were supposed to be evaluated and
scored. In the fourth session, samples of
students’ writing were collected as the
pretest. Participants in both groups were
given 80 minutes to plan and write about a
given topic. The samples were scored and
returned to the participants with teacher
comments on them. They received scores
given by their instructor based on the
general impression and the quality of their
writing. The two sets of scores given by
expert raters were later contrasted for
making sure that the participants in both
groups were comparable in their writing
proficiency. No significant difference was
found between the two groups at the pretest:
t (55) = .11, p = 0.91.
To prevent Halo and Hawthorne effects,
both groups were kept blind to the fact that
they were being studied. During class time,
some of the learners’ writing samples were
chosen and discussed with the whole class,
and their weaknesses and strengths were
pointed out. Each session, learners’ essays
were collected, scored, and commented on
by the teacher researcher. At the end of each
session, the participants were assigned a
new topic to write about for the following
session. Their essays had to be at least 150
words long, typed and printed in an A4
paper. Learners’ essays were read by the
researcher, and for the grammatical
mistakes, learners were provided with
indirect corrective feedback, i.e., the errors
were underlined but not corrected. To keep
the conditions the same for all, no explicit
feedback were given in the samples for the
problems they had with the style of writing
and issues such as topic development, topic
relevance, coherence, and cohesion. Instead,
some of those samples with such problems
were identified and discussed with the whole
class during the class time. However, for all
essays, if necessary, it was commented that
they need to be improved stylistically in
terms of topic development, for instance.
The participants were required to revise the
drafts they had submitted based on the
feedback they had received and return them
to the teacher the following session. The two
groups were told that their final score would
be the average score for all the scores they
had received for their assignments during
the course. Both groups wrote 9 assignments
during the course including the pretest, and
the posttest. However, they did not have the
opportunity to revise their drafts for the
posttest. As such, they received comments
on only 8 assignments during the whole
course. Their final exam was regarded as
their posttest.
Up to this point, the procedure followed was
the same for both the control and treatment
groups. However, the two differed in one
major aspect. The scores given to the essays
written by learners in the control group were
fixed, that is, they did not change after the
revisions made by learners, but in the case
of the treatment group, learners could
improve their scores by the revisions they
made. For example, a learner who had
received 14 out of 20 for the draft she had
submitted could revise her sample based on
the feedback she had received and improve
her score. She could receive 16, or 18 or any
other score based on the quality of her
revised sample. She could even receive the
same score in case the revisions were not
satisfactory. The revised samples were again
commented on and returned. The learners
had one more opportunity to revise their
returned samples and undergo the same
procedure. This is what we call Draft
Specific Scoring.
Both groups received a sample of the score
profile in which the instructor would record
their scores in order to come up with their
final score at the end of the semester. Their
final score would be the mean of all the
scores they received on their assignments
during the semester. For the treatment
group, the final score they received on the
last revision they submitted was taken into
account while for the control group the
single score they received for each score
were used to calculate their final score. They
were also recommended to keep a similar
profile for themselves. Here are the sample
score profiles for both treatment and control
groups:
Performance measures: Fluency,
grammatical complexity, and accuracy
Regarding the fluency measures, a number
of measures were present to choose from.
Chandler (2003) used the amount of time it
took her participants to write an assignment.
She did so because the length of each
assignment was fixed. However, Truscott
(2004) objected to that. Truscott believes
that the number of words must be the
measure used to assess fluency. The studies
done before Chandler (2003) had also used
the number written words as the measure of
fluency. The same measure is also used in
the present study as the measure of fluency.
In order to check for the complexity of texts
written by students in both groups over time,
two measures were examined as introduced
by Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim
(1998) as some of the best measures used in
the literature: the ratio of the number of
clauses to the number of T-units, and the
number of dependent clauses used. The
second measure was also used by Robb et al.
(1986) to check learners’ change in
grammatical complexity. Maybe this
measure can be regarded as a more
straightforward measure because it is in the
form of frequency rather than ratio and can
be more easily interpreted as it is affected
only by one index not two as in a ratio.
In the case of checking the change in
learners’ accuracy level, the ratio of error-free T-units to the number of T-units was
used as introduced as the best measure of
accuracy by Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and
Kim (1998).
In order to be consistent and accurate in
counting the number of different elements
such as T-units, error-free T-units,
dependent clauses, and the number of
clauses in participants’ samples, there had to
be an operational definition for each. A
dependent clause could be any type of
adverb clauses, adjective clauses, or noun
clauses. All reduced clauses were also
counted. An independent clause was one
which was complete in meaning and did not
need any other clause to complete it. A T-unit was an independent clause with all the
dependent clauses attached to it. As such,
every sentence including only one
independent clause was also a T-unit
(Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim, 1998).
An error-free T-unit was a T-unit which did
not include any kind of error but for spelling
and punctuation. All the writing samples
were rated with only one rater for the
measures in fluency, grammatical
complexity, and accuracy. As Chandler
(2003) states, in such studies, the intra-rater
reliability is more important than the inter-rater reliability. The intra rater reliability for
all the measures was above .94. In order to
check the change in learners’ fluency,
grammatical complexity, and accuracy,
either the gain scores were checked or the
SPANOVA was used.
Results
Due to the design of the study, SPANOVA
could be the best statistical test for data
analysis. However, this test has some
underlying assumption which must be met.
In this section for research questions in
which such assumptions were met, the
results of SPANOVA were reported. In
other cases, the gain score analysis was used
as a good substitute to the use of
SPANOVA.
The first research question addressed the
existence of any significant change in
learners’ fluency of writing and the
difference between the two groups as a
result of the intervention received by the
treatment group. A SPANOVA was
performed for the two groups across the two
time periods (pretest, and the posttest).
There was a significant interaction between
time and group, Wilks’ Lambda = .74, F (1,
55) = 18.96, p < .0005, partial eta squared =
.26. There was a substantial main effect for
time, Wilks’ Lambda = .57, F (1, 55) =
41.04, p < .0005, partial eta squared =
.43.However, the main effect for Group,
comparing the effect of the intervention on
the two groups, was not found statistically
significant, F (1, 55) = 1.02, p = .32,
suggesting a lack of benefit for any group
over the other one and an improvement for
both groups in the number of words written.
It is worth mentioning that according to
Cohen (1988, pp. 284-7), .01 eta squared
shows small effect, .06 shows moderate
effect, and .13 represents a large effect size.
Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics
for the two groups across time.
The second research question addressed the
change in learners’ grammatical complexity
of texts written across time from the pretest
to the posttest. Since the picture looks
somewhat blurred after using SPANOVA, it
seems reasonable to analyze the data using
another procedure. The comparison of the
gain scores of the two groups from pretest to
posttest is a good substitute to the use of
SPANOVA and is mathematically the same
as that (Anderson, Auquier, Hauck, Oakes,
Vandaele, & Weisberg, 1980).
Regarding the first measure of grammatical
complexity, that is, the ratio of the clauses to
T-units, there was no significant difference
between the gain scores of the two groups at
the end of the instruction, t (55) = -.25, p =
.79. The paired samples t tests run between
each group’s pretest to posttest showed no
significant difference for the treatment
group [t (25) = 1.33, p = .20], but for the
control group, it was found statistically
significant, t (30) = 3.86, p = .00, eta squared = .33.
Regarding the second measure of
grammatical complexity, that is, the number
of dependent clauses used, a SPANOVA
was performed for the two groups across the
two time periods (pretest, and posttest).
There was a significant interaction between
time and group, Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F (1,
55) = 5.24, p = .03, partial eta squared = .09.
There was a substantial main effect for time,
Wilks’ Lambda = .79, F (1, 55) = 14.80, p <
.0005, partial eta squared = .21. However,
the main effect for Group, comparing the
effect of the intervention on the two groups,
was not found statistically significant, F (1,
55) =.90, p = .35, suggesting a lack of
benefit for any group over the other one
though they both had significantly improved
over time. Table 3 summarizes the
descriptive statistics for the two groups
across time.
The analysis of the gain score also shows the
same pattern. The Mann-Whitney U test run
between the gain scores of the two groups
was not found statistically significant, U =
288, z = -1.85, p = .06. The Wilcoxon
Signed Rank tests between the two groups’
change from pretest to posttest showed
significant differences for both the treatment
group, z = - 2.63, p = .01, and the control
group, z = -2.41, p = .02.
All the above statistics indicate that as in the
case of previous measure of grammatical
complexity, no significant difference was
observed between the two groups in the
complexity of texts they wrote. However,
unlike the previous measure, this measure
showed a significant improvement in both
groups’ complexity of texts they wrote.
The last question checked whether the two
groups did not differ from each other in the
accuracy of texts they wrote across time
from pretest to posttest. The data were
analyzed using gain score procedure. The
independent samples t test run to compare
the two groups’ gain scores in accuracy was
found significant, t (55) = 2.48, p = .02, Eta
squared = .10 which is a large effect size.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the descriptive
statistics for the two groups’ gain scores.
Moreover, the difference between the
treatment group’s mean of accuracy measure
from pretest to posttest was statistically
significant, t (25) = -2.82, p = .01 with a
quite large effect size (Eta squared = .24).
However, this change was not found
statistically significant for the control group,
t (30) = 1.14, p = .26, suggesting an
advantage for the treatment group over the
control group. This shows that while DSS
was successful in improving the accuracy of
texts written by learners across the course of
instruction, the control group did not
succeed in improving in accuracy.
Discussion
In the present study, as an attempt to find a
solution to the long-lasting problems
grading and even corrective feedback were
said to cause, it was tried to examine the
effect of Draft-Specific Scoring on the
fluency, grammatical complexity, and
accuracy of the texts learners write. This
was mainly a response to the previous
research in the field which indicates that
learners receiving corrective feedback write
shorter and simpler texts due to the use of
avoidance strategy while their accuracy does
not improve.
While both groups significantly improved in
fluency from pretest to posttest, the
difference between the two groups was not
found statistically significant even though
the treatment group had outperformed the
control group by 55 words in the posttest.
This pattern of results suggests that what
Truscott states about the disadvantage for
the correction group in fluency is not true
because even the control group improved in
fluency.
In the case of change in learners’
grammatical complexity of the written texts
over time, the measure involving ratio
showed no difference between the gain
scores of the two groups. However, based on
the descriptive statistics, both groups had a
decrease in the complexity of their written
texts. Although this decrease was
statistically significant for the control group,
it was not for the treatment group.
Since this first measure was in the form of a
ratio, it was affected by two variables, the
numerator and the denominator. The change
in any one of these can have its own
interpretation while the combination of the
two makes it very difficult to interpret.
Therefore, the second measure, the number
of dependent clauses, can be a better index.
Maybe that was why Robb et al. (1986) also
used this measure for checking grammatical
complexity. The results of checking this
measure indicate that not only did the
complexity of learners’ texts not decrease,
but it actually increased over time. This
increase was significantly different for both
groups but not from each other. The
observed pattern of results regarding
grammatical complexity is in line with that
in Robb et al. (1986). All in all, these
findings indicate that at least even if the
provision of corrective feedback plus DSS
does not increase the grammatical
complexity of the learners’ texts, it does not
let it decrease.
Regarding the final research question,
examining the change in learners’ level of
accuracy, the results point to the superiority
of DSS approach over the more traditional
methods of feedback provision. While
learners receiving corrective feedback alone
did not improve in accuracy, the ones
receiving corrective feedback plus DSS did
improve in accuracy over time.
It seems that Truscott (1996, 2004, 2007)
has been right to some extent regarding the
behavior of learners receiving corrective
feedback alone. The control group was
observed not improving in accuracy.
Regarding grammatical complexity, it
showed a significant decline according to
one of the measures and showed a
significant improvement according to
another measure more commonly used in the
literature. The control group, however,
improved in fluency, which contradicts
Truscott’s prediction. On the other hand, the
treatment group receiving corrective
feedback plus DSS proved to be more
successful in improving in fluency,
grammatical complexity, and accuracy.
Even when learners receiving corrective
feedback alone improved in a measure,
those receiving corrective feedback plus
DSS could outperform them. This shows
that DSS has the potential to overcome the
weaknesses traditional methods of feedback
provision have.
DSS also seems to be more consistent with
the process approach to writing in which the
emphasis is on mid drafts rather than final
drafts. Feedback on mid drafts assume a
much higher importance to the extent that
Muncie (2000) states that if feedback is
going to work, it does so on mid drafts.
Moreover, many studies (Ellis & He, 1999;
Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamazaki, 1994; Long,
Inagaki, & Ortega, 1998; Mackey, 1999;
Mackey & Oliver, 2002; Mackey & Philip,
1998; McDonough, 2005) have connected
interactional feedback with L2 learning
since it causes learners to notice L2 forms.
They are all based on Long’s interactional
hypothesis (Long, 1996, 2006). He proposes
that due to the role of interaction in
connecting “input, internal learner
capacities, particularly selective attention,
and output in productive ways,”
interactional processes can facilitate
language learning (Long, 1996, pp. 451-452). Such helpful processes can include the
negotiation of meaning and the provision of
recasts, both of which regarded as kinds of
corrective feedback to help learners detect
their problematic utterances. One process
that can arise from such feedback is
modified output (Swain, 2005), which can
be helpful in language learning (Mackey,
2006). In addition, no matter in
conversational interactions or in written
interactions, learning will not occur if there
is not a form of noticing on the part of
learners. In case learners do not pay
attention or attend to the feedback the
teacher provides them with, there will be no
L2 development. In case they notice it, but it
does not result in any modified output, again
whether learning has occurred or whether
the potential for learning has been fully
fulfilled is questionable.
On the one hand, by motivating learners to
attend to teacher feedback, DSS is a device
to ensure learners’ paying attention to
teacher feedback and their noticing of that.
On the other hand, by requiring them to
revise their drafts, it helps them have
modified output. Since understanding
teacher feedback and teacher intention has
not always been easy for learners, when they
attempt to incorporate teacher feedback in
such a system, there are times when
questions are raised for them about teacher
intention by, for example, underlining a
sentence. It is also possible that they revise a
sentence underlined by the teacher, but in
the returned draft, they observe that the
same sentence is underlined again. In usual
systems of evaluation, this usually results in
frustration on the part of the learners
resulting in the abandonment of the draft by
him. However, in DSS learners, having a
good reason for it, consult with the teacher
about his or her intention. This is what can
be called the negotiation of meaning. As
such, it can be observed that DSS has the
potential to incorporate all the necessary
processes for helping learners develop their
L2.
Conclusion
Using DSS, teachers will not have to change
the principles underlying their practice.
Teachers are repeatedly reported to express
their belief in grading. Grading also helps
teachers have a better overall assessment of
their students at the end of the semester
(Lee, 2009). Teachers, however, are aware
of the harm grading may do to learners.
They know when learners see grades on
their paper, they will most probably ignore
teacher comments and feedback (Lee, 2009),
but still they continue to grading not only
because of their belief in grading and
actually their kind of obligation for it, but
also because of their students’ demands for
that. Students strongly demand for grades
because grades help them evaluate
themselves easier. Grades are also more
easily interpreted than sometimes elaborate
comments all over their paper (Lee, 2008).
If teachers continue grading, learners will
pay less attention to their feedback. If they
stop grading, they will face new problems.
DSS lets teachers continue their preferred
practices while minimizing the negative
effect of grading and changing its weak
point to strength. It uses grading as a
motivating factor which not only does not
divert learners’ attention from teacher
feedback, but it also ensures their attendance
to it.
DSS also addresses Hamp-Lyons’ (2007)
concern. She believes that in most contexts,
writing assessment is taking over writing
instruction. As a result, grading and scoring
student writing is increasingly receiving
more attention. DSS changes the old
practice in which grading was ‘the end’ in
the story of writing instruction. It makes
grading a new ‘once upon a time’ in each
draft. It combines assessment with
instruction without omitting any. It keeps
both assessment and instruction in one go.
Learners do not only become aware of the
teacher’s evaluation of their work, but they
also know that this is the beginning of the
revision process. They know that when they
receive a grade on their writing sample, it
works like a compass to be used with
teacher feedback in order to improve their
writing skill and find their way to a better
performance.
All in all, it seems that what is important is
not whether teachers provide their students
with corrective feedback. What is of utmost
importance is whether learners’ attend to the
feedback they are provided with. Even mere
attendance cannot be the end of the story.
Learners need to attend and apply the
corrective feedback they receive. In other
words, learners need to notice the input and
try to have an output based on the intake
they had. This way, teachers’ efforts are
more likely to result in the desired outcome.
Draft-Specific Scoring, as a technique
ensuring such a process, can be quite helpful
in pursuing such instructional objectives.
