Innovative Methods and Practices of Academic Writing and Writing Instruction
STUDENT RESPONSE TO INSTRUCTOR FEEDBACK ON WRITING: A CASE STUDY
Marti Sevier
English for Academic Success, Department of Linguistics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Many writing instructors struggle with the issue of marking load vs student application of the feedback that has been so laboriously provided. Studies on feedback can echo this frustration. Duijinhouwer, Prins and Stokking (2012) found, for example, that incorporating strategy instruction and reflection questions into feedback had little effect on improvement. However, Ferris, et al. (2013) note that students’ attitudes to writing improved, simply by being part of a research study. So affective factors may be important variables in the enhancement of uptake. The presenter will summarize the results of a small project conducted with a group of lowerintermediate EAL learners in SFU’s Preparation in Academic Skills course, a preentry course for students aiming to attend the university. Bilingual preand postquestionnaires were administered in order to learn the type of feedback they found most useful and whether their attitudes toward feedback had changed over the research period. The research questions considered were: Do students apply instructor feedback to their writing? If not, why not? Specifically, ∙ How well do students understand the feedback given? ∙ What do they think about it? (e.g. is it threatening/trivial/helpful, etc.) ∙ How, if at all, do students USE feedback? ∙ Does feedback result in improvement in writing? ∙ Will students’ attitudes to feedback change as a result of participating in this project? While the question of uptake remains unanswered, other findings were somewhat surprising. Hopefully this presentation will stimulate discussion on the need to account for learner attitude to feedback, and consider how this might be achieved.
References
Duijinhouwer, H, Prins, F, & Stokking, K 2012. ‘Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance’, Learning and Instruction , vol 22, pp.171184. Available from < http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475211000831 > [12 November 2013]. Fathman, A & Whalley, E 1990. ‘Teacher response to student writing.’ In Second language writing Research insights for the classroom, (ed) B Kroll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp178190.
Ferris, D & Hedgecock, J 2005. Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp.203297.
Storch, N 2010. ‘Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research’. International Journal of English Studies , vol.10 , no.2, pp. 2946.
van Beuningen, C 2010 ‘Corrective feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights and future directions’, International Journal of English Studies , vol 10, no.2,pp.127.