Research Article

Effectiveness of Direct Feedback versus Indirect Feedback in the Learning of English as a Second Language

Mohd Rashid Bin Mohd Saad 1 * , Sedigheh Abbasnasab Sardareh 1, Rosalam Che Me 1, Abdul Jalil Bin Othman 1
More Detail
1 Department of Language and Literacy Department, Faculty of Education, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia* Corresponding Author
Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 1(1), July 2017, 44-61
Published: 01 July 2017
OPEN ACCESS   1199 Views   751 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

This is a report of a study which evaluated the direct feedback intervention to improve Grade 1 ESL pupils in a Malaysian primary school context. Although direct feedback is well-known in the North American continent, in the Malaysian context this instructional approach is largely unknown. Further some research works in this area suggest that that reading comprehension strategy instruction is not carried out in the majority of reading classrooms. We used a quasi-experimental approach with nonequivalent control group design to collect the causal connections between intervention and outcomes. For the purpose of this study, an independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare reading performance of Grade 1 Malaysian ESL students with direct feedback and no direct feedback. Unpaired ttest was carried out for direct feedback (N=40, Mean=67.65 and SD=5.45) and control group (N=35, Mean=50.37, SD=2.98) conditions with t = 16.69 (df=73, and standard error of difference=1.035) and the two-tailed P-value was less than 0.0001 and by conventional criteria suggested a very high practical significance. The effect size for the post-test intervention revealed that really large (Ellis, 2009) Cohen’s d effect size of (3.93) and Hedges’ g of (3.82) for contravening variables were found. In an ESL Malaysian context, the direct feedback to improve Grade 1 ESL pupils may have some advantages in improving the English reading performance. However, the benefits to the students of this study is still to be determined, and further exploration is needed with welldesigned research and a universal method of outcome measurements.
Keywords: Direct Feedback, Grade 1, Malaysian ESL setting, Reading performance

CITATION (APA)

Mohd Saad, M. R. B., Sardareh, S. A., Me, R. C., & Othman, A. J. B. (2017). Effectiveness of Direct Feedback versus Indirect Feedback in the Learning of English as a Second Language. Mediterranean Journal of Social & Behavioral Research, 1(1), 44-61.

REFERENCES

  1. Abbasnasab Sardareh, S., & Mohd Saad, M.R. (2012, December 7). A Sociocultural Perspective on Assessment for Learning: The Case of a Malaysian primary school ESL context. In LSP 2012 Committee, Language Academy, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. Paper presented at The 8th International Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) Seminar: Aligning Theoretical Knowledge with Professional Practice, (66, 343 353). Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.277
  2. Abbasnasab Sardareh, S. & Mohd Saad, M. (2013a). Malaysian primary school ESL teachers questions during Assessment for Learning. English Language Teaching, 6(No. 8), 1-9. doi:10.5539/elt.v6n8p1
  3. Abbasnasab Sardareh, S. & Mohd Saad, M.R., (2013b). Defining Assessment for Learning: A proposed definition from a sociocultural perspective. Life Science Journal. 10(2), 2493- 2497.
  4. Abbasnasab Sardareh, S. Mohd Saad, M.R., Othman, A.J., & Che Me, R. (2014). ESL teachers questioning technique in an Assessment for Learning context: Promising or problematic? Life Science Journal. 10(3): 161-174. doi:10.5539/ies.v7n9p161
  5. Assessment Reform Group. (1999). Assessment for learning: Beyond the black box. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Berk, L. (2009).Child development (8th Ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
  7. Bell, B. (2000). Formative assessment and science education: A model and theorizing. In R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds), Improving Science education: The contribution of research (pp. 48-61). Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
  8. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, policy & Practice, 18(1), 5- 25.
  9. Bernhardt, E.B. (2011). Three approaches to reading comprehension in Intermediate German. The Modern Language Journal. 67(2), pp. 111–115. Online Version: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1983.tb01478.x
  10. Black, P. (2000). Research and the development of educational assessment. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3&4), 407-419.
  11. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
  12. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
  13. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (pp. 81-100). London, UK: Sage.
  14. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing a theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.
  15. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2012). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and learning (2nd Ed., pp. 206-229). London, UK: Sage.
  16. Block, C. C., & Duffy, G. G. (2008). Research on teaching comprehension. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (Vol. 2). New York: Guilford Press.
  17. Bråten, I. & Samuelstuen, M.S. (2004). Does the influence of reading purpose on reports of strategic text processing depend on students’ topic knowledge? Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 (2) (2004), pp. 324–336. Online Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.324
  18. Bråten, I. & IH. Strømsø, I.H. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts.Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), pp. 111–130. Online Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9075-7
  19. Cassidy, S. (2007). Inexperienced students’ ability to self-assess: Exploring links with learning style and academic personal control. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 313-330.
  20. Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438-481.
  21. Crooks, T. J. (2002). Educational assessment in New Zealand schools. Assessment in Education, 9(2), 237-253.
  22. Cruickshank, D., Jenkins, D., & Metcalf, K. (2009). The act of teaching (5th Ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  23. Dawson, M. E. (2005). Are they really learning what we’re teaching? Journal of College Science Teaching, 34(5), 34-35.
  24. DeMeester, K., & Jones, F. (2009). Formative assessment for PK–3 mathematics: A review of the literature.Retrieved from: http://lsi.fsu.edu/Uploads/1/docs/Formative20Assessment%20Lit%20Review%20FCRSTEM.pdf
  25. Duke, N.K., Pearson, P.D., Strachan, S.L., & Billman, A.K. (2011).Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S.J. Samuels, A.E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed.), International Reading Association, Newark, DE (2011), pp. 51–93.
  26. Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S. E. Israel & G. G.
  27. Duffy (Eds.),Handbook of research on reading comprehension. pp. 347-372. New YorkRoutledge. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London, UK: Routledge.
  28. Ellis Online Effect Size Calculator http://www.polyu.edu.hk/mm/effectsizefaqs/calculator/calculator.html
  29. Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia.
  30. Gipps, C. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London, UK: The Falmer Press.
  31. Hattie, J. C. (2009). Visible learning: A Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
  32. GraphPad http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/ttest2/
  33. Hattie, J. C., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
  34. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
  35. Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
  36. Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia. (2010). KSPK & KSSR. Bahagian Pembangunan Kurikulum. Online Version: www.ippm.edu.my/KSSR/KSSR.ppt
  37. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. (2012). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013 – 2025. Online version: www.moe.gov.my/userfiles/file/PPP/Preliminary-Blueprint-Eng.pdf
  38. Klenowski, V. (2009). Australian indigenous students: Addressing equity issues in assessment. Teachin Education, 20(1), 77-93.
  39. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254- 284.
  40. McDonald, B., & Boud, D. (2003). The impact of self-assessment on achievement: The effects of self- assessment training on the performance in external examinations. Assessment in Education, 10(2), 209-220.
  41. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 51, (pp. 297-284). New York, NY, US: Elsevier Science.
  42. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research review. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp.754-783). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  43. Mortimer, E. F., & Scott, P. H. (2000). Analyzing discourse in the science classroom. In R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: The contribution of research (pp. 126-142). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  44. Mortimore, P., Sammons, P., Stoll, L., Lewis, D. & Ecob, R. (1988) School Matters: The Junior Years. Shepton Mallett: Open Books.
  45. Orlich, D. C., Harder, R. J., Callahan, R. C., Trevisan, M. S., and Brown, A. (2007). Teaching strategies: A guide to effective instruction. 8th Ed. Houghton Mifflin. Company: Boston, MA.
  46. Pellegrino, J. W. (2002). Knowing what students know. Issues in Science and Technology, 19(2), 48-52.
  47. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional strategies. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
  48. Shavelson, R. J., Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Wiley, E. W. (2005). Window into the mind. Higher Education, 49, 413-430.
  49. Marshall, B., & Drummond, M. (2006). How teachers engage with assessment for learning: Lessons from the classroom. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 133-149.
  50. McNamara, D.S. (2011). Measuring deep, reflective comprehension and learning strategies: Challenges and success. Metacognition and Learning, 6 (2), pp. 195–203. Online Version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11409-011-9082-8
  51. Moje, E.B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change.Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52 (2) , pp. 96–107. Online Version: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20111747
  52. Munns, G., & Woodward, H. (2006). Student engagement and student self-assessment: The REAL framework. Assessment in Education, 13(2), 193-213.
  53. Ogden’s Basic English http://ogden.basic-english.org/
  54. Ogden’s Basic English short stories http://ogden.basic-english.org/abpr.html
  55. Ogden’s Basic English’s Word-pictures http://ogden.basic-english.org/wordpic.html
  56. Online utility tools http://www.online-utility.org
  57. Popham, W. J. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  58. Pressley, M. (2008). Epilogue: What the future of reading research could be. C.C. Block, S.R. Parris (Eds.),Comprehension instruction. Research-based best practices (2nd ed.), The Guilford Press, New York, pp. 391–413
  59. Ramaprasad, A. (1983). On the definition of feedback. Behavioral Science, 28(1), 4–13.
  60. Shute, V. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189.
  61. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
  62. Van Zee, E. H., Iwasyk, M., Krose, A., Simpson, D., & Wild, J. (2001). Student and teacher questioning during conversations about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 159-190.
  63. Weinstein, C.E., Ridley,D.S., Dahl,T., & E.S. Weber, E.S. (1988). Helping students develop strategies for effective learning. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  64. Weinstein, C.E., & Mayer, R.E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching . pp. 315-327. New York, NY: Macmillan.
  65. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2000). Understanding by design. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
  66. Wilen, W. (2004). Refuting misconceptions about classroom discussion. Social Studies, 95(1), 33-39.
  67. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
  68. Wiliam, D., & Thompson, M. (2008). Integrating assessment with instruction: What will it take to make it work? In C. A. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 53–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.