The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback

Abstract This study explores how second language (L2) learners perceive indirect (hedging or indirect speech acts) and direct written teacher feedback. Though research suggests that indirect speech acts may be more difficult to interpret than direct speech acts ( Champagne, 2001 , Holtgraves, 1999 ), using indirect speech acts is often encouraged in the learning process, with the idea that it helps students discover their own errors ( Ferris, 2007 , Riley and Mackiewitz, 2003 ;). However, it may not be effective with L2 learners who often need more explicit instruction to understand how to revise their writing ( Ferris, 2002 ). To examine the effect of different directness types on identifying requested corrections, native and non-native English-speaking university students were given two essays that contained written teacher feedback that differed in its directness. Participants were asked to identify if the teacher comments were praise or criticism. Two response times and accuracy scores were calculated: one, as participants determined if the teacher comment requested a correction and two, as participants made corrections. After each essay, participants answered additional questions regarding the written teacher feedback. Results show that directness type affected how quickly and accurately participants responded to positive and negative teacher feedback.

[1]  Fiona Hyland,et al.  Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback , 2003 .

[2]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students , 2003 .

[3]  John Truscott,et al.  The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately , 2007 .

[4]  D. Ferris The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision , 1997 .

[5]  R. Lakoff Language and woman's place , 1973, Language in Society.

[6]  Gregory R. Hancock,et al.  Use of Instructional Feedback and Modification Methods among University Faculty , 1996 .

[7]  Paul Kei Matsuda,et al.  Second-Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook , 2010 .

[8]  Raymond W. Gibbs,et al.  Contextual effects in understanding indirect requests , 1979 .

[9]  P. Eckert,et al.  Language and Gender: Introduction to the study of language and gender , 2013 .

[10]  R. Ellis,et al.  IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE ACQUISITION OF L2 GRAMMAR , 2006, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[11]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  ERROR FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING CLASSES: HOW EXPLICIT DOES IT NEED TO BE? , 2001 .

[12]  Lana Rings,et al.  The Oral Interview and Cross‐Cultural Understanding in the Foreign Language Classroom , 2006 .

[13]  R. Higgins,et al.  The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning , 2002 .

[14]  Raija Markkanen,et al.  Hedging and discourse : approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts , 1997 .

[15]  Diane L. Schallert,et al.  Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher–student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course , 2008 .

[16]  Thomas Holtgraves,et al.  Comprehending indirect replies : When and how are their conveyed meanings activated? , 1999 .

[17]  Susan Conrad,et al.  ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals , 1999 .

[18]  D. Ferris Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple‐Draft Composition Classrooms* , 1995 .

[19]  Jo Mackiewicz,et al.  Resolving the directness dilemma in document review sessions with nonnative speakers , 2003 .

[20]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Preparing teachers to respond to student writing , 2007 .

[21]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Sugaring the Pill: Praise and Criticism in Written Feedback. , 2001 .

[22]  Terese Thonus,et al.  What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers , 2004 .

[23]  Lynn M. Goldstein Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together , 2004 .

[24]  S. Mills Gender and Politeness , 2003 .

[25]  Terese Thonus,et al.  Tutor and Student Assessments of Academic Writing Tutorials: What Is "Success?". , 2002 .

[26]  J. Benkendorf,et al.  Does indirect speech promote nondirective genetic counseling? Results of a sociolinguistic investigation. , 2001, American journal of medical genetics.

[27]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing , 2002 .

[28]  Terese Thonus,et al.  Dominance in Academic Writing Tutorials: Gender, Language Proficiency, and the Offering of Suggestions , 1999 .

[29]  June Luchjenbroers,et al.  Gendered Features of Australian English Discourse , 2002 .

[30]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Indirect Speech Acts , 2001, Synthese.

[31]  John Truscott,et al.  Review Article The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes , 1996 .

[32]  George Lakoff,et al.  Hedges: A Study In Meaning Criteria And The Logic Of Fuzzy Concepts , 1973 .

[33]  N. Kock,et al.  Expanding the Boundaries of E-Collaboration , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.