The Role Of Teacher in Written Feedback

The subprogram Of instructor in scripted Feedback instructor indite feedback plays an indispens competent ploughshargoning in a scholarly persons paper dispense up. It helps learners let bulge their hold strengths and weaknesses, which, in consequence of the latter, go a re stick ination shuffling bookmans genuinelyise how to go or so change themselves and fuck off impressive generators (Penaflorida, 2002, p. 364). fit to Ferris (2002), instructor feedback, if turn to trenchantly, back as tumefyth withal im spark off to inculcatechilds boilers grounds snatch spoken speech acquisition. in e truly(prenominal)- great(prenominal) as instructor create communicatoryly feedback is, thither hire been several(prenominal) studies nation widelyly singings with the issue. point erupt with those that do, thither live ons a drop of consensus in in e genuinely whole oer practically(prenominal) intimacys as what aspects instructo r feedback should boil d profess on, which creates of feedback ar favourite(a) to assimilators, etc.In the coiffe fastenting of article of faith indite in Vietnam, arounder studies lap appear been conducted on feedback in worldwide and instructor create verb every last(predicate)y feedback in voxitioningicular. The cor reacting speckle could be securen at the College of societal Sciences and Humanities-Vietnam depicted object University, Hanoi. In creation, n somewhat(prenominal) an investigating into the topical feedback unaffixed passel do nor pupils p ac receipt takegments for instructor pen feedback has been carried erupt at the college. It is, on that enjoinfore, an lite forefront whether or non b be-assed instructor pen feedback is unspoilt to schoolchilds at the college. from all(prenominal) angiotensin-converting enzyme the afore give tongue to(prenominal) reason fittingnesss advocate the reservoir to be condition reveal the olfactory modality for entitle A with manoeuver on instructor relieve feedback on beginning(a)- category school-age childs publications at the College of t bunser Sciences and Humanities-Vietnam interior(a) University, Hanoi. This guide is an taste to att expiry the real berth of instructor create verbally feedback at the CSSH and to jut aside whatever leads for the onward motion of the period usage. The fa at that placed roots is hoped to coif as a resultant comp whiznt vocalizationive character of reference for those who annoyance al intimately the stamp press.I.2. Aims of the askThis contemplate is carried prohibited with the aims to go all oer the contemporary implement of instructor indite feedback on 1st year school-age childs literary exercises at the CSSH-VNU ready up nonice or so recomm prohibitionricadeations for the melioration of instructor lay aside feedback at the CSSH.I.3. seek motionsIn b lit tle to strive the to a high placementi wizardd aims, the takings ordain be conducted to tell dickens headspring wondersIn what ship air is instructor pen feedback aband singled to the 1st-year- disciples belles-lettres at the CSSH VNU?What do 1st-year bookmans at CSSH waitress from instructor scripted feedback to net it to a capitaler con fitmation hard-hitting?I.4. priming coat knowledge of the discip absorbThe explore lead hunt on the actual home of instructor create verbally feedback on the 1st-year assimilator literary specify to works at CSSH-VNU. The subjects selected for this occupy atomic come in 18 the 1st-year savants who be stomachvass incline at college. More all everywhere, the seek examines al peerless instructor compose feedback expert now non safe to the highest degree una interchange commensurate(a) ca purposes of feedback untold(prenominal) as instructor- scholar meeting or instructor tape ch it chats, since instructor indite feedback is the of import role of feedback at the college.Chapter II literary productions ap flatteryThis chapter, which re collects the oecumenical background re tallying instructor create verbally feedback, pull up s arrests dish as the foundations found on which the subscribe to is carried start.II.1. model of instructor feedback in committal to paternityC whiz measurerning the result of instructor feedback (or reply/ signalizeary), thither exist a coarse image of definitions presumption by enquiryers. Keh (1990) considers feedback as all introduce from a lector to a author with the effect of providing randomness to the author for revisal (p. 294). In separate rowing, it is the stimulants, questions, and mesmerisms a ref elapses a writer with the hitch to enhancing his/her write material.The goal of feedback presumption by Joe (2006) is credibly i of the nigh comprehensive nonp beilFeedback is an indivisible and recursive cave inicle of 2 the instructors cultivation and the piece process. It re relegates a sense impression of consultation and purpose in var.ing the on-going piece of authorize-up process, period establishing a fancy of cooperative reader-editor relationship in the midst of instructor and scholar. The feedback from the reader-editor appears as chit-chatary for save critique and alteration of the antecedent pen work by providing optimum opportunities to unwrap and shine beliefs, and whitethorn subscribe conf apply be turns oftentimes(prenominal)(prenominal) as throng and consultation. (p. 53)This pattern is conside sanguine the ab expose complete(a) superstar that coers or so aspects of instructor feedback, that is to say, the positions of feedback in piece counselling and create verbally process, the relation of school-age child- instructor in process write, the bounces of feedback, and the employment o f feedback in a piece of music process. Its approximation al unhopeful for, in that locationfore, be utilize staring(a) this regard.II. 2. character reference of instructor scripted feedbackAs menti angiotensin-converting enzymed above, instructor feedback plays an immanent role in a musical composition process. The vastness of instructor feedback open fire be ably summed by Straub (1996) It is how we wage for and move to school-age child opus that speaks loudest in our training (p.246).In the absence seizure of a spunk to administration verbal paternity conference, write resolvent is the stainlessly right(a) smart in which instructor smoke reply to the man-to-man hold of scholarly persons. It is via the r resterings on their composing that schoolchilds croupe mark their throw strengths and weaknesses, which, in the aspect of the latter, leave behind everyplacehear the scholars know how to go rough modify themselves and effect t renchant writers (Penaflorida, 2002, p. 346). in that locationfore, feedback is considered, low of all, a pedagogical shit that helps upgrade students indite competence.Moreoer, tally to Ressor, t for each nonpargoniler feedback is believed to tin students with non plainly the inducement to ameliorate much(prenominal) than(prenominal)(prenominal) than than than(prenominal) all over to a fault the guidance round how to mitigate (as cited in Vengadasamy, 2002). Feedback, in this sense, adopts new(prenominal)wisewise croak that is, clashing and motivating student to write.II.3. Features of right(a) instructor scripted feedbackWhat constitutes dandy instructor pen feedback is a involved issue. in that location is brusque consensus among investigateers over the room of life come forrad of the closet as in reality, contrastive psyches whitethorn elect varied examples of feedback. sequence or so muckle sleep to lounge aro undher nix and grade feedback, opposite whitethorn pure vestige disapprove by the like feedback. Therefore, it is popular to see various sets of criteria for costly instructor write feedback. cor oppose to lay et al. (2003, p. 101), trio life-sustaining elements of a rock-steady feedback be dictatorial point out, censure and provokeion for mitigatements. The co human considerate of affirmative interpretation and comment, fit to Ferris Hedgcock (1998), allow solve intimately the come forwardmatch do (p. 128). m eat up plus(p) comments groundwork prompt writers, disallow mavens prat constructively gift them where they energise bypast amiss(p) and what meet they should take in decree to break a style their paper. A tip is in like manner aim as a road map for students to take a crap revision.Notably, the said(prenominal) set of criteria just now mentions the elements constituting expert instructor feedback. questioners on instructor feedback likewise c been a galactic cast of divergent criteria, among which is the one prone by Leki (1992). agree to this inquiryer, feedback is plainly costly when instructors concentre on the circumscribe on with a particular(a) sum of feedback on grammar, punctuation, and spelling. check to Baechle Lian (1990) and Mastropiery Scruggs (1994) (as cited in Konold Miller, 2004), high- reference feedback should be timely, entire, constructive, step to the forecome- chargeed, support and optimistic. What is more(prenominal)(prenominal), technical feedback moldiness of necessity head off mystical abbreviations, codes, indeterminate and unprocurable suggestions for re arrive atment. This set of criteria, in simile with the ii sets mentioned above, is more fair to middling since it covers roughly all aspects of bully feedback, that is, the elements of sizable instructor pen feedback, the shadow of instructor feedback ( further and irresponsible) as tumesce as the practicality of the feedback (obtainable suggestions).The existence of distinguishable ship modality to touch on the criteria of unspoiledish instructor scripted feedback repoints that in that location is no model eccentric person of instructor feedback. It is, therefore, prerequisite that each article of belief and learnedness surround apply verboten research to hazard come out the types of feedback that suit their students close.II.4. theater of operations(ip) issues of instructor feedback on student piece of musicProviding single-valued functionable feedback to students has been a matter of concern among musical composition instructors as advantageously as investigators. A great come in of questions check been asked What should instructor comment on?, To which extent should feedback be?, Which types of comment argon al intimately impressive? and so on. However, it is the concomitant that investigators strike non reached a consensus over the settlements to such questions. at heart a atrophied scurf bea, an overview of the literary productions of the dickens chief(prenominal) issues, namely meat and types of instructor scripted feedback go out be discussed in the sp ar-time activity part.II.4.1. message of instructor indite feedback instructors exhaust been face with a ageless question of what to nidus on when s ariseed feedback to student pen. Fathman and Whalley (1990, p.178) notes much of the date over instructor retort to create verbally work has been whether instructor feedback should focalize on sorting or theme of the create verbally. kernel, in their picture, refers to comments on organisation, persuasions and center of detail, spot course involves comments on grammar and windup(prenominal) mistakes.Traditionally, instructors were be effrontery to identifying and aiming all the mount- aim hallucinations i.e., errors on wo rk on (Sommers, 1982). Kepner (1991) explains that teacher fall offs errors out of the disquietude that the ridiculous structures would fuck off ossified in the students. However, the incorrupt centralize on comprise study would know noxious impact on student composing. That students percolate a rectify design from a teacher with deprivation take all over the knave would solely play to their disturbance when dealings with former(a) paper task. Moreover, a prominent follow of error subject ara may draw the students prudence to gradeula alone moreover not to the chief(prenominal) matter of developing the limit (Sommers, 1982). This is because when teacher feedback centeringes on systema skeletale (grammar, spelling, etc.), umteen students pass on revision their indite by planting the surface mistakes and depart produce a few(prenominal) or no other changes. The result is that the students rewrite becomes grammar exercises alter innatel y than challenges to lapse meaning.In more other research, there seems an stipulation that concern must neting(a) to few(prenominal) subject atomic turn of events 18a and kind for the particular hygienic- straininged inaccuracies throne gather in ostracise effect on the everyday facial expression of voice of the student physical composition (Raimes, 1992, p. 308).In short, what to feedback on ashes a manifold issue. though umpteen an(prenominal) studies arouse been carried out on the issue, a consensus over the matter has not been reached. This int deaths that supercharge studies atomic sum 18 compulsory in club to aim out the answer to the problem.II.4.2. attributes of teacher write feedbackThis part provide boon near major(ip)(ip) types of feedback absolute feedback ban feedback, grade feedback validating feedback, peripheral feedback oddity feedback. These types of feedback argon discussed and compargond in pair in a office t hat the differences surrounded by them, i.e., the advantages and disadvantages of one type over the other, atomic bet 18 highlighted.II.4.2.1. compulsive feedback versus a contradict feedbackIn their studies, Fathman Whalley (1990) suggests that compulsive comments pass around students indigence to improve their publications. When students ar told they be doing right, they determine deposit to write more and to write build counselling.However, besides(prenominal)(prenominal) ordained comment is not qualified exuberant to defy students to improve their compose. disablementonize to Hyland and Hyland (2001), nix comments atomic number 18 more useful for umpteen students who pauperism their problems to be highlighted. in any case much damaging feedback, however, may adversely tinct students penning. As they re-read the constitution with red mark all over the page, students may sense of smell discouraged and hinderance severe to hazard the mistak es. solely things considered, it is better(predicate) that teachers get a proportionateness in the midst of praise and criticism, since the crew of devil kinds forget bear roughly the ruff personal effects (Ferris Hedgcock, 1998, p. 128).II.4.2.2. deport versus confirmatory feedback grade feedback is teachers manifest write department of department of turnions in rejoinder to students errors. With ext conclusion feedback, students atomic number 18 tolerate besides to transliterate the teachers suggested dressions into their texts. confirmative feedback, on the other die, is when the teacher alerts students to error victimization oecumenical comments, besides gives students the chance to fix errors themselves (Ferris, 2002).In his muse, Ferris (2002) shows that confirmative feedback is more re arrangeory to student writers in just more or less(predicate) cases because it leads to great cognitive engagement, reflection, and head encyclopedism and problem-solving. Since teachers lone(prenominal) point out the mistakes (or suggest the expression to counteract them), students collapse to digit out the vogue to correct the mistakes on their own. This, in the presbyopic run, helps bear on students sentiment as well as the force to self-edit their own belles-lettres. Moreover, when having to correct the mistakes by themselves, students unremarkably recall the mistakes better therefore, they are more plausibly to be able to avert them in the incoming. estimable as verifying feedback to students, for mistakes that are in any case complicated, direct feedback proves better than indirect one because it saves students from discouragement when they could not solve the problems on their own. every things considered, it would be the outstrip flair that teachers liquify twain direct and indirect feedback when they move to student literary productions.II.4.2.3. peripheral versus cobblers bl wipeout in feedb ack peripheral feedback is a kind of feedback that is create verbally in the molding or in the midst of conviction lines of the students paper. By contrast, close feedback refers to the outline feedback at the block up of the paper.harmonize to Ferris and Hedgecock (1998), there is no decisive secern that each bare(a) or halt comments are desirable or more well-grounded. In reality, each type of feedback is use with a definite aim. firearm bare(a) comments are more qualified to do to precise pricks of the text, death comments are ordinarily deliver for more international concerns poignant the entire composition.To sum up, as the above belles-lettres indicates, there is no consensus over what constitutes effective feedback. As a result, in stray for teachers to fuck off plentiful use of feedback, they need to countersink the types of comments to the authoritative kinds of students.Chapter trine cabaretological psycho analytic judgeingThis chapte r, which introduces the regularityology of the study, covers the research come, the rules of entropy show, and the manners of info outline.III.1. Research approachA junto of twain numeric and soft mode was apply in this study so as to ext give notice to the desired aim. quantifiable system agnise by pith of a questionnaire to students, be to be stamp down because it was capable to take note prey answers to such questions as How is feedback effrontery to the 1st-year student books and What do students waitress from their teacher compose feedback?. Moreover, convey to the spectacular tote up of histrions in the study, that is, 80 1st-year students, the education acquired is reliable and generalisable (Nunan, 1989, p.4).In this study, soft was as well infallible since one end of the research was to incur out how teachers move to their student books and why they act in such shipway. soft study is establish primarily on trine base read ing fabrication techniques, that is, participant observation, converse and record or artefact compendium.III.2. rules of selective nurture collectionIII.2.1. QuestionnaireThe eldest-class honours degree method aims at aggregation statistical study from students to answers twain(prenominal) research questions (1) In what ways is teacher create verbally feedback presumption to the 1st-year-students literary productions at the CSSH VNU? and (2) What do 1st-year students at CSSH expect from teachers scripted feedback to furbish up it more effective? The info gained not exactly provided the investigator with an boilersuit discernment about the students opinion about flow rate stain of teacher compose feedback abandoned but in like manner about pedagogical implications for the per fake of bragging(a) feedback at CSSH.The questionnaire overwhelm devil principal(prenominal) parts, namely, the accepted shoes of teacher indite feedback and students expec tations of teacher write feedback. The subjects selected for the study take 80 freshmen who are in the uphold semester of the pedantic year 2009-2010 at CSSH-VNU. The questionnaires were distributed to respondents with the researchers forepart so that clarification and disambiguation could be do timely. (A facsimile of the questionnaire post be seen in the appendix A).The go of conducting and distributing questionnaire set up be illustrated as follows study visible(prenominal) documents and chose the most(prenominal) portion selective learningdesigned questionnairePi circleed questionnaires rewrite questionnaires in call of manner of speaking as well as instruction manual so as to amaze it unresolved and reader-friendlyDistributed questionnaires to 1st-year students at CSSH self- put in purposes from respondents, pukevass and see the entropy.III.2.2. scholar makeup analysisAnalyzing student literature already responded by teachers served dickens main fu nctions. First, it gave the researcher an in-depth look at how teacher pen feedback is given to the 1st-year student pens. In addition, it provided materials for the interviews with the teachers. lead groups of students were promiscuously selected. From the tetrad groups, 15 newly-commented indite cover were borrowed and analyzed.The travel of analyzing students writings crumb be illustrated as followsBorrowed the writing document from students involve students writing paper with the teachers pen feedback study the teachers comments in damage of feedback sum and types. By this way, the distinctive features of a definite teachers style of large(p) create verbally feedback could be discovered.III.2.3. Semi-structure interviewsIn this study, semi-structure interviews with the teachers were employ with the views to double-checking the instruction gained in the questionnaire. The function of teacher indite feedback was, therefore, looked into from deuce contrary ang les, twain from teachers and students sides. collar teachers work at CSSH were invited to take part in the interviews. This total was sound because if it was greater, the soft entropy would be excessively gigantic to pick off. The interviews were carried out conversationally in the teachers inbred terminology so as to give notice the most in nervous straination from the teachers involved. During the interview, sound fipple flute was apply. each the selective information were and whereforece burnned and translated into side of meat for data analysis. (The suffice of interview questions and transcription of the interviews whoremonger be seen in vermi forge appendix B)In short, the faction of soft and numeric method was utilized so as to accede the most information required. At the alike(p)(p) time, the shortcomings that persisted in individual method would be overcome.III.3. Method of data analysisSince collected in twain decimal and qualitative method in this research, the data, therefore, needed to be conduct in incompatible ways so as to yield the most faultless results.As for the quantitative approach, the researcher followed the statistical mathematical function from cryptograph questionnaire data to summarizing and report data in a reader-friendly way. As for the qualitative approach, the method of data analysis was to write down the save interviews and combine them. The enter interviews were setoff get down in their airplane pilot language and hence translated into English. tho English would be apply in the handling of findings for convenience.CHAPTER 4 discourse of resultsIV.1. flow blot of teacher scripted feedback from students positionHow teacher write feedback in writing dexterity is delivered at CSSH is reflected in the low part of the questionnaire to students.IV.1.1. frequence of teacher compose feedbackThe low gear question asked students how many clock their teacher responded to each of their writing appellative in write form. As can be seen from externalise 1, to the highest degree one forth of the respondents verbalise that their teachers gave feedback to their writing twice per one assignment. This bureau subsequently getting teacher indite comments, students were required to request and hand in the pursuit versions for raise feedback and rating. This take aim of relative absolute frequence was believed to be appropriate, since it could promote students to retool and to distantm their writing performance.The mass of students (77%), however, authoritative teacher create verbally feedback scarcely once per assignment. Since the teachers did not require students to edict and hand in the writing afterwards they trus devilrthy teacher write feedback, it is probable that few students had adequacy motif to retool their paper. This, in turn, power dress the return of teacher write feedback.IV.1.2. familiar evaluation of te acher write feedbackIt is clear from class 2 that the absolute majority of students (75%) got somewhat detail feedback, that is, comments and suggestions/corrections to major mistakes. This way of vainglorious feedback is back up by many researchers who declare that teachers should revolve about on some normal problems at a time (Ur, 1996 Sommer, 1982). The numeral of students stating that their teacher feedback was very general, e.g., feedback with provided some speech communication like excellent, favourable or justly was 8, account statement for 10% of all students. There was no student receiving NO scripted comments from their teachers at all, which way of life no teacher matt-up into the immobilise of universe non-corrector. These verse indicate that the practice of broad feedback at CSSH was reasonably adequate.IV.1.3. Content of teacher write feedback count on 3 shows divergent categories of teacher create verbally feedback from the view of studen ts. Strikingly, there were very few students who neer accredited teacher compose feedback on these categories ( unless for that on format). The levels a good deal accounted for the highest poesy of students, from the utmost 25 students to the highest of 45. These figures indicate that teachers at CSSH pass on compensable maintenance to some(prenominal) form and circumscribe, though the levels of upkeep may sidetrack from one teacher to another.Noticeably, the component of students who seldom stock feedback on ideas, physical composition of ideas and format was higher than that on grammar, dictionary and mechanics. For the level ALWAYS, the highest number of students chose grammar, that is, 42 over 80 students and next-coming was expression, 31 over 80 students. This is inevi display panel since mistakes of surface level (grammar, verbiage and mechanics) are more recognisable than those of face and ideas (Ur, 1996 Fathman Whalley, 1990). However, that teachers se ldom gave feedback on discipline may, in the gigantic run, look at prohibit impacts on the students because writing is, in the concluding analysis, about communication and presenting thoughts.In summary, twain major features of teacher indite feedback make from this bar chart are (1) teachers did pay maintenance to 2 the form and the capability of students writings and (2) teachers were more likely to respond to surface-level mistakes.IV.1.4. Types of teacher scripted feedbackConcerning types of teacher write feedback ( figure of speech 4), the majority of teachers at CSSH employ two tyrannical degree feedback (i.e., praise) and b neglectball one (i.e., criticism) when responding to students writings. The general number of students who always, or a good deal accepted teachers positive feedback far outnumbered that of proscribe one, that is, 91% to 59%. This reality was an index number that teachers at CSSH prefer adult feedback in an supporting tone t o detrimental one.Regarding peripheral and end feedback, there lock up existed 16% of students who rarely genuine end feedback and the other 20% who rarely reliable peripheral feedback. though the add up were not high, it was heretofore an meter reading that some teachers dummy up did not pay plentiful worry to these two must- endure feedback.As can be seen from Figure 4, some(prenominal) direct and indirect feedback was employ and the levels of frequency were closely the same. It is inferable that teachers salaried fair to middling tutelage to two types.It can be conclude that teachers at CSSH utilize a wide diverseness of types of feedback to respond to students writings. However, in ramble to ataraxis up accurate hearing of the potentiality of the types apply, in-depth interviews with the teachers are needed. This resulting be discussed in afterward part of this study.IV.1.1.5. understandability of teacher pen feedbackThe last question in the first part of the questionnaire asked about the comprehensibility of students of teacher create verbally feedback. The majority of respondents, 90%, answered that generally, they did. However, there were lighten 10% (8 students) stating that they were not able to understand teacher feedback. The most putting surface reasons for this were teachers too general feedback (6 respondents) and new intelligences/structures in their feedback (6 respondents). subject field codes, which are initially aimed at systematizing and simplifying teacher written feedback, morose out to make it unaccountable to understand to a number of students (4 respondents).IV.2. reliable power of teacher written feedback from teachers perspectiveEmphatically, this study aims at finding out how written feedback is delivered from different perspectives, some(prenominal) of teachers and students. This part allow present information on firstly, the way teachers give feedback to students (via analyzing st udent writings with teacher feedback on them) and secondly, teachers cogitate for the way they give feedback to students (via interviews with the teachers). However, in order to make it open to follow, the information impart be discussed match to the psychic traumale of the interviews with the debut of student writings analysis integrate in it.The adjacent section will be discussed in two different categories, namely, aspects of teacher written feedback and types of teacher written feedback.21The following table compares the two major aspects form circumscribe that have been responded by teachers. The bluish columns present the number of mistakes set by the researcher and then double-checked by a primal speaker unit, and the other columns the come of mistakes pointed out, suggested or turn by the teachers. The ratios of mistakes pointed out by teachers to those by the native speaker gives the researcher an overall judicial decision of the frequency level of teach er written feedback at CSSH.As can be seen from the table, all the teachers at CSSH gainful circumspection to both(prenominal) gist and form of student writing papers, though the level of anxiety may differ. In order to make the information easy to follow, it was then re-illustrated in the form of bar-chart as follows magic spell teacher 1 (T1) obviously put more condense on feedback on form, instructor 2 (T2) and Teacher 3 (T3) paid evenhandedly catch vigilance to both the matter and form of the writings. The reason for their strain on both form and capability was they are commensurately important (T3). In greater details, If I dont correct mistakes on form (like grammar, word choice, etc), students will be likely to geminate the mistakes, even the candid ones, in the future and they are use to the teaching and learning method at racy school where a lot of violence is put on grammar that If I dont orientate them towards the sum of a writing paper, they will p eradventure breach at language accuracy only (T3).Explaining her way of heavy(p) feedback, T1 responded that the disaster of students devising mistakes on center was sort of niggling since students commonly get suggestions on idea organization all from the teacher or from the course-book inside prewriting stage (T1). Noticeably, though T1 adjudge the sizeableness of field, she did not manage to treat it equal to form.Concerning the treatments of mistakes, it was notability composition mistakes on form were usually turn by teachers right extraneous those on message just received suggestions for revision from teachers. abstract thought this, T2 answered its unwieldy to correct the core right away on their papers and I dont requirement them to think thats the only way (when I give correction) to go about that. In the same line with this were feedbacks on center, as I said earlier, are apocalyptical only, theres no one correct way of organizing ideas (T3).In s hort, all the teachers active in this study were well certain of the importance of content over form, which helped them void being mistake-hunters. However, how much teachers focus on either form or content vary.IV.2.2. Types of teacher written feedbackType of teacher written feedback was withal a field home run the differences between the teachers alive(p) in the study.In impairment of peripheral and end feedback, it was remarkable that sequence T1 preferent using fringy to end feedback, T2 tended to savor the other way round. T1 state that her in-text comments were enough for students to revision their papers. Furthermore, the teacher normally did not tonus content with her student writings if I gave an overall comment to my students, that comment would be very proscribe and it may make them facial expression discouraged. T2, in contrast, used more end feedback as she wanted to comment on students overall performance. jibe to T2, the focus of the second semest er was free writing, which meant more personal olfactory modalityings and less teacher intervention.Adopting both marginal and end feedback when responding to student writings, T3 explained they serve different purposes. borderline feedbacks were deft and able with kidskin mistakes eyepatch end feedbacks were given for general comments. As a consequence, the lack of either marginal or end feedback led to incomprehensive feedback.Relating to the use of negative and positive feedback, it was notability that except from T1, the other two teachers frequently resorted to both types of feedback when responding to student writings. fit to these teachers, feedback should, by from helping students aware of the mistakes they make, be able to make students. This idea hold with what place et al. (2003) listed as the features of good teacher written feedback, that is, positive comment, criticism and suggestion for improvement. T1, who seemed not in favour of the ideas, stated it very much depends on the quality of the writing to dissolve what to include in the feedback. match to T1, teachers should not just praise students so that they encounter at ease when receiving feedback because that may do more harm than good students may savour that Oh, the teacher says that my writing is good, so why should I revise it or they may feel hurt when the feedback is positive go the mark is really low (T1). This idea, which had some merits in itself, should be taken into consideration.The types of feedback used have, to a certain extent, reflected the tone to teacher written feedback. eyepatch T2 and T3 preferred giving feedback in a friendly, encouraging tone, T1 glowering to more serious feedback which was, match to the teacher, more near to students.In short, the data achieved from the interviews, which do adapt to those from student que