This paper examines the effects of improvement in writing quality on two significant areas in L2 business writing: (1) the short term writing goals and the long term writing goals and (2) the degree of involvement in the student annotations and the teacher feedback. Student annotation training and three businessletter writingtasks were completed over an intensive 5week period. All the participants were college undergraduates enrolled in a prerequisite course for business writing at the College of Business in Korea. The degree of involvement in the Student Annotations, Teacher Feedback, Comment on Comment, and Reflection was found pivotal in the short term writing goals versus the long term writing goals: (1) the lowerlevel proficiency writers benefit from the greater degree of student involvement and higher improvement in the writing quality, (2) the degree of student involvement elicits higher frequency in teacher feedback, (3) greater degree of student involvement elicits higher frequency in the student annotations, and (4) the greater the involvement, perceptions varied between the types of student annotations and the types of teacher feedback. The results of this study indicate salience in L2 business writing research in ESP.
Comment on Comment: The Effectiveness of Student Annotations and Teacher Feedback in L2 Business Writing Jiyon Lee (Ewha Womans University) Lee, Jiyon 2011 Comment on Comment: The Effectiveness of Student Annotations and Teacher Feedback in L2 Business Writing Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 11-3, 547-575 This paper examines the effects of improvement in writing quality on two significant areas in L2 business writing: (1) the short term writing goals and the long term writing goals and (2) the degree of involvement in the student annotations and the teacher feedback Student annotation training and three business-letter writing-tasks were completed over an intensive 5-week period All the participants were college undergraduates enrolled in a prerequisite course for business writing at the College of Business in Korea The degree of involvement in the Student Annotations, Teacher Feedback, Comment on Comment, and Reflection was found pivotal in the short term writing goals versus the long term writing goals: (1) the lower-level proficiency writers benefit from the greater degree of student involvement and higher improvement in the writing quality, (2) the degree of student involvement elicits higher frequency in teacher feedback, (3) greater degree of student involvement elicits higher frequency in the student annotations, and (4) the greater the involvement, perceptions varied between the types of student annotations and the types of teacher feedback The results of this study indicate salience in L2 business writing research in ESP Key Words: student annotations, teacher feedback, degree of involvement, comment on comment, L2 business writing 548 Jiyon Lee Introduction By far, studies on L2 writing feedback have provided vital information validating the need to bring more favorable methods on how to manage a writing classroom Let alone the existing issues for language teachers in L2 writing, ultimately, there always has been an interest to encourage and to institute L2 learners as "independent-writers" (Brown, 2001; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Harmer, 2004; Hyland, 2002, 2003; Xiang, 2004) To instill the awareness in writers, numerous cases in L2 writing have discussed the variables describing the relationship among learner types, feedback types, and sociocultural aspects According to Casanave (2003), the researcher described the "sociopolitical" phenomenon of a L2 writing class from the author’s professional experience Because the concept of language employment is commonly referred to as a "social activity" (Hyland, 2003; McNamara, 2001), writing not only requires schema to produce lines of text, but also the product of writing (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hyland, 2003; Swales, 1990) needs to match the purpose in the particular social activity, which is known as genre-based writing (Swales, 1990; Tribble, 1996; Hyland, 2002, 2003) writing a business letter consumes a large Commonly, part of the working-day for business professionals, and writing a business letter engages the writer to accomplish effective written communication in content, organization, and accuracy (Frendo, 2005) that meets the demands of the "situation and context" (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998) This study, therefore, attempts to underscore the effects of student annotations and teacher feedback in L2 business writing quality Also, in this study, a quantitative analysis aims to correlate the degree of involvement (Donna, 2000; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; You, 2004) to the student annotation types and the teacher feedback types The student writers were required to Comment on Comment 549 write persuasive business letters with additional involvement: varying forms of student annotations Any form that defines the degree of involvement―Student Annotations, Teacher Feedback, Comment on Comment, and Reflection―is investigated in this research Therefore, the purpose of this study is to bring extended insight into the effectiveness of student annotations and teacher feedback in L2 business writing This study includes the following research questions: What are the effects of the short term and the long term writing goals on the improvement of L2 business writing quality? What are the effects of the degree of involvement in the student annotations and the teacher feedback on the improvement of L2 business writing quality? Literature Review The significant shift in the lingua franca, from French to English, has altered attitudes in teaching and learning English Notably, the English language has emerged undisputedly as the global communication medium By all means, English as the lingua franca represents communication that pervades "both within countries and internationally" (Kirkpatrick, 2007) The world language, therefore, has become the medium among people from different nations and across different disciplines The relationship can be seen further between the non-native speakers of English (NNS) and the international context The relationship of the non-native speaker in an international context therefore specifies the communicative purpose, which can be seen in English for Specific Purposes (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Harding; 2007) Notably, identifying the root of the 550 Jiyon Lee communicative purpose draws attention to the teaching needs It leads to specially designed teaching―for instance, in L2 business writing (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hyland, 2003)―to fit the needs of the learner in specific genres (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hyland, 2003; Swales, 1990) Within the discourse communities, Swales explains that the preferred way of communication can differ; for example, writing is considered the predominant medium in the information exchange, especially for those office workers (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998) Therefore, written business English and business communication has become unavoidable for L2 writers In L2 writing, however, Connor and Kaplan explained how writing for the native speaker can possess attributes different from the non-native speaker (Connor & Kaplan, 1987) It is only natural for the non-native speaker to write with restrictions; differently however, flexibility is freely-present for the native-speaker to write, since the native-speaker has a larger knowledge-capacity of the English language Additionally, Grabe and Kaplan have actively shown that in contrastive rhetoric, writing practices of certain languages and cultures can produce writing that would be considered inappropriate for native-speaker situations; such as, patterns in organization, lexis, and linguistic features (as cited in Hyland, 2002) It is necessary to recognize that certain features requisite in English writing may not exist in the L2 writer’s native language To make sure L2 writing succeeds, the next juncture in hand is the significant role of the L2 writing instructor (2003) investigated English-language the writing "issues skills." in Tools the to Kroll acquisition enhance of writing improvement for teachers and students indicate new advances to bridge both writing skills and successful results in writing A possible explanation is given by Warschauer in that, for example, computer media may allow the learners to be in control over Comment on Comment 551 their learning—instead of the learning controlling the learner (as cited in Kroll, 2003) Because all writing production begins and ends with the writer alone for both L1 and L2 writers, it is important that writing instructors attempt to develop autonomous writers; in essence, self-discovery writers (Brown, 2001; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Harmer, 2004; Hyland, 2002, 2003; Xiang, 2004) The autonomous writers, therefore, would be able to make educated decisions about their own writing (i.e patterns in organization, lexis, and linguistic features) To address the issue of teacher feedback (Bitchener et al., 2005; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009) and student revisions in L2 writing (Choi, 2010; Goldstein, 2004; Sach & Polio, 2007), effective and useful teacher feedback is considered as the primary scaffolding strategy (Frankenberg-Garcia, 1999; Hyland, 2003; Kabilan, 2007; Shin, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986) Scaffolding can bring profound effect in learning when a proficient individual assists a lower level learner to eventually reach independent improvement (Guerrero & Villamil, 2000; Vygotsky, 1986) To most students, in a setting similar to the Korean context, the teacher’s role becomes imperative in scaffolding, which later the learner-writer is able to better the particular learning or strategy to its own independent ability In contrast, Truscott (1996) suggests the concern of undependable feedback Truscott addresses that the quality and the type of feedback may not be in congruence with what the student writer needs; for example, feedback given "not on the accuracy of the language they use to convey their ideas" (as cited in Kroll, 2003) Despite the controversy over effective or ineffective feedback in grammar, Ferris (1999), however, gives her effort to support teacher feedback (as cited in Kroll, 2003), which brings positive effects in the student revisions, which is consistent with the studies in self-monitoring and student annotations (Brown, 2001; Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Harmer, 2004; Hyland, 2002, 2003; Suh, 2005; Xiang, 2004) In addition, Schneider and Andre (2005) open the study with 552 Jiyon Lee a striking question all teachers and student inquirers would like to know: "How well students think university prepares them for the writing they will in their future work lives?" They also stress "the transfer of writing skills from university to the workplace." Similar to the genre-pedagogy (Hyland, 2007), local skills in writing not merely reflect what is needed to complete a writing task at the workplace The quality of teacher feedback, the types of teacher feedback, and the tools to enhance improvement in L2 writing—such as, student annotations and self-monitoring assessments (Frendo, 2005; Suh, 2005; Todd et al., 2001; Xiang, 2004) —may contribute to the confidence-building and appropriate L2 writing classroom (McNamara, 2001) Therefore, reacquainting the purposes of writing research and instruction—with the true human-writer involvement and the true environmental push—can reveal what writing instruction and writers require in the L2 writing classroom (Casanave, 2003; You, 2004) Research Method 3.1 Participants The participants in the study included 20 college undergraduates in Korea: seniors, juniors, sophomores, and freshmen The participants are expected to have at least eight years of English language practice and currently have academic writing experiences All the participants are women with no workplace training, and they all were enrolled in a prerequisite foundation course for business writing at the College of Business The 20 participants were equally divided into two groups and equally into similar writing proficiency levels that reflect their pretest scores: (1) Experimental: higher-level writing proficiency (five students) and lower-level writing proficiency (five students) and (2) Control: higher-level writing proficiency (five students) and lower-level writing proficiency (five students) The pretest was holistically scored using the adapted Test of Comment on Comment 553 Written Examination (TWE) on a scale from (lowest) to (highest) 3.2 Data Collection Procedure A different writing prompt was given for each writing task: the pretest, the in-class writing task (one prompt for all three drafts), and the post-test The student annotation training and the overall three writing tasks were completed over an intensive 5-week period Each writing prompt asked the student writers to write a persuasive business letter adapted from a business English course book (Clark et al., 1994) The pretest and the post-test did not require any student annotations nor any teacher feedback For the pretest and the post-test, a limit of 30 minutes was given to complete the task The in-class writing task, however, was designed to measure the degree of involvement; it included the Student Annotations (SA) and the Teacher Feedback (TF) in all the three drafts (see Figure 1) the process and to narrow the miscommunication in the student annotations due to any of writing that includes the To speed student annotations language barriers, all the students were trained and therefore required to compile a list of useful annotations from the adapted subcategories (Storch & Tapper, 1997) and from the adapted categories of response intentions (Johnson, 2000; Todd, et al., 2001,) The compiled list of student-derived student annotations was made into a packet that was ready for use during the in-class writing task Importantly, to measure further the student-involvement, the participants in the experimental group received additional instruction to complete the Reflection (R1 and R2) and the Comment on Comment (CC1 and CC2) before draft two (D2) and draft three (D3) To measure further the teacher-involvement as well, one additional teacher feedback (TF2*) in response to the 554 Jiyon Lee FIGURE In-Class Writing Task Procedure Experimental Control Draft D1 ↓ Student Annotation SA1 ↓ Teacher Feedback TF1 Draft D1 ↓ Student Annotation SA1 ↓ Teacher Feedback TF1 Reflection R1 ↓ Comment on Comment CC1 ↓ Teacher Feedback TF2* Draft D2 ↓ Student Annotation SA2 ↓ Teacher Feedback TF2 Draft D2 ↓ Student Annotation SA2 ↓ Teacher Feedback TF2 Reflection R2 ↓ Comment on Comment CC2 Draft D3 ↓ Student Annotation SA3 Draft D3 ↓ Student Annotation SA3 Comment on Comment 555 Comment on Comment (CC1) was required before the teacher feedback (TF2) in draft two The Reflection (R1 and R2) was not statistically observed due to the small sample size The purpose of the Reflection (R1 and R2), which was adapted from a feedback assessment form (Frendo, 2005), was to encourage student awareness (McNamara, 2001) in response to the teacher feedback (TF1 and TF2) from the previous draft (D1 and D2) The choices (☺, , and ) circled in the Reflection by the student writers gave a success indication of either a positive, neutral, or negative response to the teacher feedback (TF1 and TF2) that they received in the previous draft (D1 and D2) To sustain the awareness level and to encourage effective self-monitoring in the revision process, the student writers were then required to respond to the teacher feedback (TF1 and TF2) from the previous draft (D1 and D2) Considering the extra amount of work required in the in-class writing task that requires to write the student annotations, a limit of 60 minutes was given to complete the persuasive business letter (Caudery, 1990; Polio et al., 1998; Shin, 2011) Once the completed drafts were submitted, all the student annotations (SAs, Rs, and CCs) and all the teacher feedbacks were categorized and quantified according to the adapted subcategories and the adapted participants (pretest, categories of response intentions 3.3 Data Analysis The writing quality for all the post-test, draft 1, draft 2, and draft 3) from both groups was holistically scored implementing the adapted Test of Written Examination (TWE); it was measured on a scale from (lowest) to (highest) To measure the writing improvement, the means and standard deviations for D3-D1 (it does not include draft 2) and for Post-Pre (post-test and pretest) were calculated to determine the differences in the writing proficiency levels and 556 the Jiyon Lee two groups Also, a two-way ANOVA analysis was performed in the following three areas: (1) to observe the improvement in writing quality in the short term effect (D3-D1) and in the long term effect (Post-Pre) in comparison with the Level and the Group, (2) to investigate whether the interaction effect is present between the students' level and the group, and (3) to determine the differences in the degree of involvement for all the student annotations (SA), the student annotations and comments on comment (SACC), and the teacher feedbacks (TF) Next, the Pearson's chi-square test was used to investigate the differences in the frequency distribution of the Student Annotations and the Teacher Feedback between the two groups The t-test also was used to observe the statistical differences between the mean of the Student Annotation frequency and the Teacher Feedback frequency in each of the sub-categories used in the two groups The adapted sub-categories were used by both the teacher and the student writer in the student annotations, comments on comment, and the teacher feedback; however, the adapted categories of response intentions were not calculated in the present study since it was used differently between the teacher and the student writer To determine the consistency in the coding of the Student Annotations (SA), Comment on Comment (CC), and Teacher Feedback (TF), the interrater reliability ranged from 86 to 94 All the types of Student Annotations, Comment on Comment, and Teacher sub-categories Feedback were and the into categorized adapted into categories the adapted of response intentions and were coded and quantified by the teacher of the course It was later cross-examined with another rater to reach an agreement in the holistic scoring, in the coding, and in the counting of frequencies of the student annotation types and the teacher feedback types The rater holds a doctorate in English Education and is currently a college professor in English Comment on Comment 561 the two-way ANOVA was used in the research The two-way ANOVA results (see Table 6) show a significant difference in each of the Level and the Group in the total frequency of SACC (SACC is the total frequency of all the student annotations and all the comments on comment together) The Level and the Group have a significant effect on the total frequency of SACC below the 05 level (Level, p = 02; Group, p = 03) No interaction effect was found between the Level and the Group on the total frequency of SACC (p = 10) The greater the degree of involvement (Experimental-High, M = 29.80; Control-High, M = 11.40; Experimental-Low, M = 9.80; Control-Low, M = 7) in the student annotations and comments on comment (SACC) supports the findings on the quality of writing improvement long term (Experimental-High, M = 39; Control-High, M = 16; Experimental-Low, M = 2.31; Control-Low, M = 1.95) and short term (Experimental-High, M = 39; Control-High, M = 38; Experimental-Low, M = 3.11; Control-Low, M = 91) by the Level and the Group Therefore, statistical significance was found in the experimental higher-level proficiency writers and in the experimental lower-level proficiency writers The ANOVA results, as shown in Table 8, show no significant differences between the Level and the Group in the total frequency of SA (SA includes only the student annotations without the comments on comment) The Level and the Group have no significant effect on the total frequency of SA (Level, p = 07; Group, p = 64) Also, there is no interaction effect between the Level and the Group on the total frequency of SA (p = 52) It is important to note that depending on the Level and the Group, the total frequency of SA (Experimental-High, M = 15.20; Control-High, M = 11.40; Experimental-Low, M = 6.40; Control-Low, M = 7)―only the student annotations without the comments on comment―sharply declined compared with the 562 Jiyon Lee total frequency Control-High, M of SACC = (Experimental-High, M Experimental-Low, M 11.40; = 29.80; = 9.80; Control-Low, M = 7) As seen in Table 10, a significant difference between the groups in the total frequency of teacher feedback (TF) was found in the ANOVA results, but no significant difference was noted between the levels in the total frequency of teacher feedback (TF) The Level showed no significant effect on the total Table Descriptive Statistics of Total Frequency of SA by Level and Group Level High Low Total Group N M SD Experimental 15.20 11.26 Control 11.40 6.15 Experimental 6.40 6.19 Control 7.00 4.42 Experimental 10 10.80 9.74 Control 10 9.20 5.55 Note: SA includes only the student annotations without the comments on comment Table Two-Way ANOVA Results of Total Frequency of SA by Level and Group Source SS df MS F p Level 217.80 217.80 3.92 07 Group 12.80 12.80 23 64 Level * Group 24.20 24.20 44 52 Note: SA includes only the student annotations without the comments on comment Comment on Comment 563 Figure Mean Differences of Total Frequency of SA by Level and Group frequency of TF (p = 34) The Group, on the other hand, a significant effect was found on the total frequency of TF below the 05 level (p = 02) No interaction effect was indicated Table Descriptive Statistics of Total Frequency of Teacher Feedback (TF) by Level and Group Level High Low Total Group N M SD Experimental 48.00 9.70 Control 31.20 8.93 Experimental 38.20 8.79 Control 32.60 11.33 Experimental 10 43.10 10.14 Control 10 31.90 9.64 564 Jiyon Lee Figure Mean Differences of Total Frequency of Teacher Feedback (TF) by Level and Group Table 10 Two-Way ANOVA Results of Total Frequency of Teacher Feedback (TF) by Level and Group Source SS df MS F p Level 88.20 88.20 93 35 Group 627.20 627.20 6.62 02 Level * Group 156.80 156.80 1.65 22 between the Level and the Group on the total frequency of TF (p = 21) The results imply that the more students were involved in writing the student annotations and comments on comment (Experimental-High, M = 29.80; Control-High, M = 11.40; Experimental-Low, M = 9.80; Control-Low, M = 7), significant involvement was seen in teacher feedback in the experimental group (Experimental-High, M = 48; Control-High, M = 31.20; Experimental-Low, M = 38.20; Control-Low, M = 32.60) The results of the chi-square test revealed whether the sets of differences between the two groups are statistically significant for each comparison The test statistics approximated by the chi-square distribution of groups (see Table 12) were statistically significant at the 1% level These results imply that the Comment on Comment 565 frequency distributions between the two groups show statistically different distributions, and these were affected by each of the group’s related characteristics The results reveal some trends that the number of student annotations in the control group decrease among SA1, SA2, and SA3; however, in the experimental group the number of student annotations increase Specially, the frequency of the student annotations in the experimental lower-level proficiency group sharply increase after the SA2 process The new findings may illustrate positive effects in the extended involvement (CC1 and CC2) that was required before the student revisions in draft and draft Reflection (R1 and R2) also was observed as an added involvement, but it was not quantified due to the small sample size The test statistics, as seen in Table 14, approximated by chi-square distribution of Experimental-High/Experimental-Low and Experimental-High/Control-High groups are significant at the 1% level These results also imply that the frequency distributions between the two groups show statistically different distributions, and these are affected by each of the group’s related characteristics Firstly, only decreasing effects in the Group are found after the TF1 process The findings may indicate that the degree of additional involvement (CC1) was an important factor in the Group The total frequency of CC1 was 52 in the experimental group, and Comment on Comment was not implemented in the control group Secondly, it is worthy to note that a decrease in change in the teacher feedback frequency was found in the Experimental High-Level group at TF2 The total frequency of teacher involvement (TF1) was 112 in the 566 Jiyon Lee Table 11 Frequency Distribution of Student Annotations by Group Student Annotation Group Total SA1 CC1 SA2 CC2 SA3 SA Experiment-High 24 44 25 29 27 76 Experiment-Low 9 21 32 Control-High 29 22 57 Control-Low 20 15 0 35 Total 82 52 64 38 54 200 Figure Changes of Student Annotations Frequency Table 12 Chi-Square Results of Frequency Distribution of Students Annotations Comparison Target Experimental-High/Experimental-Low Control-High/Control-Low χ2 11.07*** 3.94 p 00 14 Experimental-High/Control-High 11.55*** 00 Experimental-Low/Control-Low 35.05*** 00 Note: CC1 and CC2 were not calculated since Comment on Comment was only applied in the experimental group *** p-value < 01, ** p-value < 05, * p-value < 10 Comment on Comment 567 Experimental High-Level group Even with the frequent teacher involvement (TF1) in the Experimental High-Level Group, such finding suggests that a ceiling effect may have taken place on the writing improvement of the higher-level proficiency writers Although the test statistic approximated by chi-square distribution of the student annotations revealed no significant differences ( χ = 15.91, p = 14), the test statistic approximated by chi-square distribution of the teacher feedback was significant at the 1% level ( χ = 32.56, p = 00) These results imply that the frequency distribution of the SA between the two groups does not show a statistically different distribution; but a frequency distribution of the TF showed statistical differences These were affected by the different characteristics between the SA and the TF The implication of such findings may indicate some differences of trend that are given in the teacher feedback to the student writers Also, there is no significant difference in the Student Annotations between the control and the experimental groups in Table 15 However, sub-categories in teacher feedback types showed statistical significance at the 5% level by t-test, which the difference in the mean value can be seen in Table 16 Among the sub-categories, teacher the feedback result of types the from the transitions/linking adapted words category holds no statistical significance simply because the mean value and the standard deviation of the control group is zero The observation reflects no frequency sample in the control group Next, except in the transitions/linking words in the sub-category, the sub-categories―clarity of expression, syntax, and style―show a significant difference of mean at the 5% level As can be seen in Table 16, the teacher gave more feedback to student writers in feedback types from the adapted sub-categories in the experimental group than in the 568 Jiyon Lee control group Additionally, a significant difference of other in the sub-category, which is not classified as a specific sub-category, was noted at the 10% level As a result, the significant differences between the student annotation types and the teacher feedback types infer different perceptions to fulfill Table 13 Frequency Distribution of Teacher Feedback by Group Teacher Feedback Group Total TF1 TF2* TF2 TF Experiment-High 112 33 95 240 Experiment-Low 69 114 191 Control-High 54 102 156 Control-Low 63 100 163 298 41 411 750 Total Note: TF1 is the total frequency of teacher feedback in draft (Experimental and Control), TF2* (as seen in Figure 1) is the total frequency of teacher feedback after the CC1 (Experimental), and TF2 is the total frequency of teacher feedback in draft (Experimental and Control) Table 14 Chi-Square Results of Frequency Distribution of Teacher Feedback χ2 Experimental-High/Experimental-Low Control-High/Control-Low 10.51*** 1.34 p 00 25 Experimental-High/Control-High 17.36*** 00 Experimental-Low/Control-Low 03 86 Note: TF2* was not calculated since TF2* was only applied before CC1 in the experimental group *** p-value < 01, ** p-value < 05, * p-value < 10 Comment on Comment 569 Figure Changes of Teacher Feedback Frequency the writing process between the student writer and the L2 business writing teacher (Lee, 2009; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) Table 15 Results of Frequency Distribution of Student Annotations by Sub-Categories of Annotation Types Types of Grou Annotations p Frequency M SD E 17 1.70 2.75 C 20 2.00 2.00 E 80 1.48 C 14 1.40 1.17 E 60 1.08 C 40 52 E 50 71 C 10 32 Coherence/ E 30 48 organization C 50 1.58 Transitions/ E 40 70 linking words C 00 00 Clarity of E 70 1.06 expression C 30 68 Quantity Quality Parts of essay Paragraphing t p -.28 78 -1.01 33 53 61 1.63 13 -.38 71 1.81 10 1.01 33 570 Jiyon Lee Lexis Syntax Mechanics Style Other E 14 1.40 2.22 C 11 1.10 1.20 E 60 97 C 20 63 E 60 84 C 10 32 E 27 2.70 2.91 C 27 2.70 2.26 E 50 1.58 38 71 1.10 29 1.76 12 00 1.00 18 86 C 40 84 Note: Comment on Comment (CC1 and CC2) were not included Only Student Annotations in response to their own writing were calculated Table 16 Results of Frequency Distribution of Teacher Feedback by Sub-Categories of Feedback Types Types of Frequency M SD E 56 5.60 1.65 C 65 6.50 2.51 E 24 2.40 1.27 C 29 2.90 1.73 E 17 1.70 82 C 23 2.30 1.57 E 30 48 C 10 32 Coherence/ E 60 70 organization C 13 1.30 1.57 Transitions/ E 70 82 linking words C 00 00 Clarity of E 55 5.50 2.22 expression C 29 2.90 1.91 E 29 2.90 2.28 C 20 2.00 1.89 Feedback Quantity Quality Parts of essay Paragraphing Lexis Group t p -.95 36 -.74 49 -1.07 30 1.10 -1.29 29 21 2.69 03 2.80 01 96 35 Comment on Comment Syntax Mechanics Style Other 571 E 61 6.10 3.18 C 29 2.90 2.85 E 23 2.30 2.26 C 15 1.50 1.43 E 129 12.90 4.77 C 85 8.50 2.95 E 20 2.00 1.25 90 1.20 C Note: TF1, TF2*, and TF2 were calculated 2.37 03 94 36 2.48 03 2.01 06 Conclusion The purpose of this research was to observe the improvement in the writing quality in correlation with the following areas: (1) short term writing goals (in-class writing task with three writing drafts) and long term goals (pre-test and post-test) and (2) the degree of involvement in the student annotations and the teacher feedback The results of this study indicate that the extended practice of student annotations and teacher feedback is salient for L2 business writing research in ESP The degree of involvement in the student annotations and teacher feedback has a pivotal role in the L2 writing classroom, and a significant difference was found in the short-term writing goals versus the long-term writing goals First, between the experimental lower-level proficiency writers and the control lower-level proficiency writers, significant differences were noted Especially, the findings showed evidence to support the answers to the research questions in this study: the more the student involvement with the additional involvement process and the greater the improvement in writing quality, the study has demonstrated benefits to the lower-level proficiency writers Secondly, the higher the frequency of student involvement in the experimental lower-level proficiency writers, the degree of involvement (involving the Student Annotations, 572 Jiyon Lee Reflection, and Comment on Comment) elicits higher frequency in teacher feedback Notably, the findings indicate positive effects of the degree of involvement in the experimental lower-level proficiency writers It can be implied that the greater the degree of student involvement—which includes the Student Annotations, Reflection, and Comment on Comment—the higher the frequency of student annotations were found Furthermore, the greater the degree of involvement in student annotations (Student Annotations, Reflection, and Comment on Comment) and teacher feedback (TF1, TF2*, and TF2), perceptions differed between the teacher needs and the student writer needs in L2 business writing (Lee, 2009; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) The notable observation in the findings of the types of student annotations indicated more and different types of student annotations generated by the student writers A potential implication is that the communicative purpose (Dudley-Evans & St John, 1998; Harding; 2007) had elicited more and different types of student annotations On the other hand, the findings in the types of teacher feedback frequency indicated mostly lower level corrections This may imply the need to write a functional and accurate business letter (Ellis & Johnson, 1994; Frendo, 2005; Hyland, 2003) There are several limitations to this study that needs to be addressed for future L2 writing research To begin with, even though the improvement of writing quality was found meaningfully significant between the short term writing goals and the long term writing goals, "a repeat" of the overall three writing-tasks may be statistically different in the improvement of the short term writing quality and the long term writing quality in future studies A repeat of the overall writing task for a longer period may also indicate whether the extended practice of the student annotations and teacher feedback is significantly effective Another limitation in this study is the small number of data collected; a larger number of participants may affect the results Lastly, analytical scoring is recommended in the revision Comment on Comment 573 processes to help exemplify the degree of involvement in student annotations and teacher feedback References Bitchener, J & Knoch, U (2009) The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211 Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205 Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy White Plains, NY: Pearson Education Casanave, C P (2003) Looking ahead to more sociopolitically-oriented case study research in L2 writing scholarship (But should it be called "post-process"?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 85-102 Caudery, T (1990) The validity of timed essay tests in the assessment of writing skills ELT Journal, 44(2), 122-131 Choi, Y H (2010) Effects of revision training on L2 writing English Teaching, 65(1), 25-53 Clark, L R., Zimmer, K., & Tinervia, J (1994) Business English and communication Westerville: Glencoe Division Connor, U., & Kaplan, R B (1987) Writing across languages: Analysis of L2 text Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Donna, S (2000) Teaching business English Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press Dudley-Evans, T., & John, M J (1998) Developments in English for specific purposes Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Ellis, M & Johnson, C (1994) Teaching business English Oxford: Oxford University Press Ferris, D (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11 Frankenberg-Garcia, A (1999) Providing student writers with pre-text feedback ELT Journal, 53(2), 100-106 Frendo, E (2005) How to teach business English England: Pearson Education Limited Goldstein, L M (2004) Questions and answers about teacher written 574 Jiyon Lee commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80 Guerrero, M C M de, & Villamil, O (2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68 Harding, K (2007) English for specific purposes Oxford: Oxford University Press Harmer, J (2004) How to teach writing England: Pearson Education Limited Hyland, K (2002) Teaching and researching writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hyland, K (2003) Second language writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Hyland, K (2007) Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148-167 Johnson, D W (2000) Reaching out: Interpersonal effectiveness and self-actualization Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon Kabilan, M K (2007) English language teachers reflecting on reflections: A Malaysian experience Tesol Quarterly, 41(4), 681-705 Kirkpatrick, A (2007) World Englishes: Implications for international communication and English language teaching Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Kroll, B (2003) Exploring dynamics of second language writing Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Lee, I (2009) Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22 McNamara, T (2001) Language assessment as social practice: Challenges for research Language Testing, 18(4), 333-349 Montgomery, J L & Baker, W (2007) Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99 Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N (1998) "If I only had more time:" ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68 Sach, R., & Polio, C (2007) Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on L2 writing revision tasks Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100 Schneider, B., & Andre, J.-A (2005) University preparation for workplace writing: An exploratory study of the perceptions of Comment on Comment 575 students in three disciplines Journal of Business Communication, 42(2), 195-218 Shin, S J (2003) The reflective L2 writing teacher ELT Journal, 57(1), 3-10 Shin, S.-K (2011) The effects of time allocation on Korean college students' performance of drafted and timed essays English Teaching, 66(1), 163-177 Storch, N & Tapper, J (1997) Student annotations: What NNS and NS university students say about their own writing Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(3), 245-264 Suh, J (2005) The effect of Korean and English self monitoring feedback in English writing classes on Korean high school students Unpublished master's thesis Ewha Womans University, Seoul Swales, J M (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Todd, R W., Mills, N., Palard, C., & Khamcharoen, P (2001) Giving feedback on journals ELT Journal, 55(4), 354-359 Tribble, C (1996) Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press Truscott, J (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes Language Learning, 46, 327-369 Vygotsky, L (1986) Thought and language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Xiang, W (2004) Encouraging self-monitoring in writing by Chinese students ELT Journal, 58(3), 238-246 You, X (2004) "The choice made from no choice": English writing instruction in a Chinese University Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 97-110 Jiyon Lee Dept of English Education Ewha Womans University 52 Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Korea 120-750 Tel: 02-3277-2647 Email: jiyon@ewha.ac.kr Received: 2011.07.31 Revised: 2011.09.05 Accepted:2011.09.15 ... the effects of the short term and the long term writing goals on the improvement of L2 business writing quality? What are the effects of the degree of involvement in the student annotations and. .. practice of student annotations and teacher feedback is salient for L2 business writing research in ESP The degree of involvement in the student annotations and teacher feedback has a pivotal role in. .. between the teacher needs and the student writer needs in L2 business writing (Lee, 2009; Montgomery & Baker, 2007) The notable observation in the findings of the types of student annotations indicated