Identifying the Linguistic Features and Content of Teacher Electronic Feedback and Students’ Text Revisions in Writing

Huda Suleiman Al Qunayeer

Abstract


Despite the substantial work on teachers’ feedback on students’ writing, scant attention has been paid to electronic (e-) feedback. In order to fill up this gap, the current study on teacher e-feedback provided to ten pairs of Saudi learners via E-Blackboard identified seven categories of the linguistic features of e-feedback: directives, questions, combined comments, confirmation, error corrections, praise and single statements on linguistic accuracy, content, organization and appropriateness. The students made most text revisions in responding to directive feedback, questions and combined comments, while least text revisions in responding to error corrections, suggestions and statements, and no text revisions in responding to confirmation and praise. The quantitative counts of these categories of feedback and students’ responses demonstrate the prevalent categories of feedback and text revisions. Most of the teacher’s electronic feedback focused on issues related to students’ use of the language in writing, followed by content and idea development, appropriateness and organization. Similar results were obtained from the quantitative analysis of students’ text revisions. This could be due to students’ low language proficiency and inadequate language competence in English, which hindered them from using accurate language in their assignments. Cross-referencing of students’ text revisions to the various patterns of teacher e-feedback revealed that most of students’ text revisions resulted from directive feedback, questions and combined comments. The study offers pedagogical implications for teacher feedback practices and students’ responses to feedback.

Keywords


Linguistic Features of Electronic Feedback, EFL Learners, Academic Writing, Text Revisions

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alhaisoni, E. (2012). The Effect of Writing Proficiency on Writing Planning Strategy Use: A Case Study of Saudi Learners of English. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3),78-100.

Al-Khairy, M. A. (2013). Saudi English-Major Undergraduates' Academic Writing Problems: A Taif University Perspective. English Language Teaching, 6(6),1-12.

Alvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387-400.

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of second language writing, 9(3), 227-257.

Bacquet, G. (2019). Is Corrective Feedback in the ESL Classroom Really Effective? A Background Study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 8(3),147-154.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.

Boubekeur, S. (2015). Teaching and Learning Writing through Providing Teacher’s Feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(6), 16-22.

Brice, C. (1995). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED394312.

Chen, L. (2009). A Study of Policy for Providing Feedback to Students on College English. English Language Teaching, 2(4), 162-166.

Dunworth, K., & Sanchez, H. S. (2016). Perceptions of quality in staff-student written feedback in higher education: a case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 576-589.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2017). Writing with 21st century social tools in the L2 classroom: New literacies, genres, and writing practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 52-60.

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80-95.

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1-13.

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: the practitioners’ perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47-77.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.

Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of second language writing, 7(3), 255-286.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.

Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171-182.

Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 185-212.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 206-224.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of second language writing, 13(1), 63-80.

Javid, C. Z., & Umer, M. (2014). Saudi EFL learners’ writing problems: a move towards solution. Proceeding of the Global Summit on Education GSE, 4-5.

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18.

Langer, P. (2011). The use of feedback in education: a complex instructional strategy. Psychological reports, 109(3), 775-784.

Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of second language writing, 17(3), 144-164.

Ma, J. (2018). Usability of Teacher Written Feedback: Exploring Feedback Practices and Perceptions of Teachers and Students. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 15(1).

Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72.

Rassaei, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the Effects of Three Types of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of English Wh-Question Forms by Iranian EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-106.

Russell, V. (2009). Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21-31.

Treglia, M. O. (2008). Feedback on Feedback: Exploring Student Responses to Teachers' Written Commentary. Journal of Basic Writing (CUNY), 27(1), 105-137.

Treglia, M. O. (2009). Teacher-written commentary in college writing composition: How does it impact student revisions? Composition Studies, 37(1), 67-86.

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and composition, 21(2), 217-235.

Vasu, K., Ling, C. H., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2016). Malaysian tertiary level ESL students’ perceptions toward teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-assessment in their writing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(5),158-170.

Zarifi, A. (2017). Iranian EFL learners’ reaction to teacher’s written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(3), 254-261.

Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102.

Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24.

Zoghi, A., & Nikoopour, J. (2014). The interface of error types, teacher’s feedback, and students’ uptake. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(1), 54-62.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.9n.6p.82

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD. 

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.