readers respond

Is ‘very good’ really good?

Yehwa Suh

This paper is a critical review of the article, ‘‘‘Very good’’ as a teacherresponse’, written by Wong and Waring inELT Journal63/3 (2009). In theirstudy, the authors argue that teachers’ feedback such as ‘very good’ does notalways have a positive impact on learners in the classroom. They conductedconversation analyses (CA) on a few sequences drawn from form-focusedanswer-checking interactions in ESL classrooms. In these interactions, oneof the teachers responded to the students’ correct answers by saying ‘verygood!’ in an excited tone with affirmative nods, which might, according toWong and Waring, implicitly indicate ‘case closed’ or include a ‘finale-like’tone. For example, one student did not raise a question immediately butinstead put that question later in the lesson (p. 197). In another example, likethe first student, a student demonstrated insufficient understanding ofa grammar point after the topic had moved on (p. 199). Analysing suchsequences, the authors suggest that even positive feedback tokens canironically have a negative impact on the learning situation as they couldpotentially shut down the sequence and inhibit students’ learning andparticipation (p. 201).

Their study has an important implication because it explores possibleeffects of positive feedback while the majority of research has its focus on thecorrective type (for example Ellis 2009; Loewen, Li, Fei, Thompson,Nakatsukasa, Ahn, and Chen 2009). It is still questionable, however, if theirargument can be considered to be substantiated for a number of reasons.I would like to examine the article in more detail with regard to the followingthree questions:

1 Did the learners lose an opportunity to ask a question after all because ofthe teacher’s feedback?

2 Is it possible to attribute the delay of the question solely to the teacher’sfeedback?

3 Could the CA report be consistent with the perceptions of the learnersinvolved in the research?

First, it seems that the authors assume learners should have all the subjectmatter solved before the class moves on to the next topic. In the article,Wong and Waring state

There is, of course, always the issue of whether Miyuki or Marie had anyconcerns to voice earlier on in the first place. One might argue, forexample, that their questions might emerge over time. (p. 199)

214 ELT Journal Volume 64/2 April 2010; doi:10.1093/elt/ccq003ªª The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on Decem

ber 2, 2014http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

As the authors admit, it is not uncommon that students do not immediatelycome up with a question or instantly recognize that they have not fullyunderstood the subject. If the learners in the research data interpreted theteacher’s ‘very good’ as a sign of ‘case closed’, it would be more likely thatthey would have never asked a question even after the topic had moved on.Since the students did raise a question when they found it necessary, theseinstances might conversely prove that the students were able to find space toparticipate.

Second, this study seems to neglect the multiplicity and dynamic aspectof contextual factors that could also affect classroom interactions.Buzzelli and Johnston (2002: 27) suggest three major ways thatdifferentiate the contexts in which language is used: what is happening,who the participants are, and what their relationships are. Although thedata include detailed descriptions within the sequences such as the tone ofvoice and when and how the utterances were produced with what gestures,other important contextual factors are not mentioned. For example, wedo not know the class size or the characteristics of the learners such astheir age, the length of learning experience, or their cultural background.Any of those could be a major reason for not raising a question at themoment that the authors regard as more ‘appropriate’. In the research ofBoxer and Cortes-Conde (2000: 213), the data illustrate that studentshold different perceptions about the teacher and student relationshipdepending on their culture. Tomlinson and Dat (2004) conducteda qualitative study on Vietnamese EFL learners and reported that someof their research participants found it awkward to speak up during thelessons. Reigel (2008) suggests that the development of EFL learners can begreatly affected by feedback from peers in classroom. Not only the teacher’sfeedback but also many other factors could be constituents of thesesequences. Providing such data may lead to a different understanding of theinteractions.

Last, I would like to point out that their examination largely relies on theauthors’ subjective interpretations of the utterances. As Wong andWaring admit that they ‘. . . are not privy to what was going on intheir heads at the time . . .’ (p. 199), their interpretations of theutterances may well be highly subjective. Tsui (2001) suggests thatclassroom research should not be conducted solely on the basis of whatcan be observed. ‘Approaches to analyzing classroom interaction alsomoved from solely an observer’s perspective to include a participant’sperspective and using a variety of data apart from classroom discoursedata’ (Ibid.: 121). They could and should have interviews with the learnersand teachers.

This study raises an important issue by suggesting that we should rethinknot only what feedback to give but also how to give such feedback, byproblematizing the common notion that praising would simply giveaffirmation and encouragement to learners. However, Wong and Waring donot seem to succeed in convincing the readers with their argument becauseof their lack of consideration of some critical aspects mentioned elsewherein this review. In order to explore the issue of positive feedback, it isnecessary to look at how learners engage in the interactions and what

Is ‘very good’ really good? 215

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on Decem

ber 2, 2014http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

meanings they construct within the events. We need more evidence fromthe learners and teachers involved. Without having deep insights intolearners and teachers, any classroom research could lose persuasiveness inits educational context.

ReferencesBoxer, D. and F. Cortes-Conde. 2000. ‘Identity andideology: Culture and pragmatics in content-basedESL’ in J. K. Hall and L. S. Verplaetse (eds.). Secondand Foreign Language Learning Through ClassroomInteraction. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.Buzzelli, C. A. and B. Johnston. 2002. The MoralDimensions of Teaching: Language, Power and Culturein Classroom Interaction. New York: Routledge-Falmer.Ellis, R. 2009. ‘A typology of written correctivefeedback types’. ELT Journal 63/2: 97–107.Loewen, S., S. Li, F. Fei, A. ThompsonK. Nakatsukasa, S. Ahn, and X. Chen. 2009. ‘Secondlanguage learner’s beliefs about grammarinstruction and error correction’. The ModernLanguage Journal 93/1: 91–104.Reigel, D. 2008. ‘Positive feedback in pairwork andits association with ESL course level promotion’.TESOL Quarterly 42/1: 79–98.

Tomlinson, B. and B. Dat. 2004. ‘The contributionsof Vietnamese learners of English to ELT

methodology’. Language Teaching Research 8/2:199–222.Tsui, A. B. M. 2001. ‘Classroom interaction’ inR. Carter and D. Nunan (eds.).The Cambridge Guideto Teaching English to Speakers of OtherLanguages. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Wong, J. and H. Z. Waring. 2009. ‘‘‘Very good’’ asa teacher response’. ELT Journal 63/3: 195–203.

The authorYehwa Suh is a third generation Korean living inJapan, where she is known as Yoka Otatsu. She isa cheerful mother to a lovely four-year-old girl anduniversity teacher who enjoys teaching English,sharing lesson ideas with colleagues, and doing anMA TESOL with an interest in communicativelanguage teaching in EFL contexts among others.Email: yoka_o@hotmail.com

216 Yehwa Suh

at University of C

alifornia, San Francisco on Decem

ber 2, 2014http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from