Keywords
Practitioner inquiry
Feedback cycle
Sociomaterial learning
How to Cite
Abstract
This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. The practitioner inquiry was shaped by mixed methods, through the quantitative (categorisation) and qualitative (analytical) examination of WCF. The categorisation of WCF was guided by a feedback typology and the extent of learning opportunities. A total of 309 instances of WCF were found across 55 final drafts. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback on Content and Language was frequent. Furthermore, most of the WCF was restricted to the final essay, with minimal expansive opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond this writing course. In the subsequent analysis of the WCF, this study concluded that feedback was provided for the purpose of keeping track of work done. To really promote a feedback cycle or sociomaterial learning, writing instructors should consider improving students’ feedback literacy skills.
References
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Black, D. A., & Nanni, A. (2016). Written corrective feedback: Preferences and justifications of teachers and students in a Thai context. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 16(3), 99-114.
https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2016-1603-07
Bolton, K., Botha, W., & Bacon-Shone, J. (2017). English-medium instruction in Singapore higher education: Policy, realities and challenges. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 913-930.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1304396
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132
Carless, D. (2020). Longitudinal perspectives on students' experiences of feedback: A need for teacher-student partnerships. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(3), 425-438.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1684455
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Casey, A. (2012). A self-study using action research: Changing site expectations and practice stereotypes. Educational Action Research, 20(2), 219-232.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2012.676287
Chang, G. C. L. (2014). Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262-275.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha
Chen, L., Loo, D. B., & Tajoda, H. (2016). Effects of students' engagement on written corrective feedback on writing quality. APHEIT Journal, 5(2), 40-54.
Chong, S. W. (2020). Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1730765
Driscoll, D. L., Paszek, J., Gorzelsky, G., Hayes, C. L., & Jones, E. (2020). Genre knowledge and writing development: Results from the writing transfer project. Written Communication, 37(1), 69-103.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088319882313
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers' philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6-23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706
Gibbs, P., Cartney, P., Wilkinson, K., Parkinson, J., Cunningham, S., James-Reynolds, C., Zoubir, T., Brown, V., Barter, P., Sumner, P., MacDonald, A., Dayananda, A., & Pitt, A. (2017). Literature review on the use of action research in higher education. Educational Action Research, 25(1), 3-22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2015.1124046
Gourlay, L. (2017). Student engagement, 'learnification' and the sociomaterial: Critical perspectives on higher education policy. Higher Education Policy, 30(1), 23-34.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0037-1
Gravett, K. (2020). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in Education, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099
Gravett, K., & Winstone, N. E. (2019). "Feedback interpreters": The role of learning development professionals in facilitating university students' engagement with feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), 723-738.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1498076
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2019). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 1-16.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410
Huang, L. S. (2018). A call for critical dialogue: EAP assessment from the practitioner's perspective in Canada. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 35, 70-84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.07.005
Jou, Y. (2019). Scaffolding L2 writers' metacognitive awareness of voice in article reviews: A case study of SFL-based pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 41, 100770.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100770
Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). "I just want to do it right, but it's so hard": A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.11.001
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510701415433
Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn010
Lee, I. (2019). Teachers' frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10(3), e00427.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.427
Loo, D. B. (2015). Problematising unfocused written feedback: A case study on four university students' essays. Issues in Language Studies, 4(1), 63-74.
https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.1646.2015
Loo, D. B. (2020). Is language awareness supported by grammar lessons, indirect and metalinguistic feedback? An examination of graduate students' writing across drafts. rEFLections, 27(1), 1-21.
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Ng, L. L., & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor's direct and indirect feedback: How do they impact learners' written performance? 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(3), 95-110.
https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2403-08
Okuda, T. (2020). The writing center and international students in a Japanese university: A language management perspective. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(4), 778-791.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1693515
Orland-Barak, L. (2005). Portfolios as evidence of mentors' learning: What remains "untold". Educational Research, 47(1), 25-44.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188042000337541
Orland‐Barak, L. (2009). Unpacking variety in practitioner inquiry on teaching and teacher education. Educational Action Research, 17(1), 111-119.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790802667485
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners' explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Sutton, P. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49(1), 31-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2012.647781
Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving grammatical accuracy in Thai learners' writing: Comparing direct and indirect written corrective feedback. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430-442.
https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.4.430
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Wei, W., & Cao, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback strategies employed by university English lecturers: A teacher cognition perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020934886
Willey, I., & Tanimoto, K. (2013). "Convenience editors" as legitimate participants in the practice of scientific editing: An interview study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12(1), 23-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.10.007
Yu, S. (2020). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1742872
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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Zukas, M., & Malcolm, J. (2019). Reassembling academic work: A sociomaterial investigation of academic learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(3), 259-276.
Copyright Transfer Statement for Journal
1) In signing this statement, the author(s) grant UNIMAS Publisher an exclusive license to publish their original research papers. The author(s) also grant UNIMAS Publisher permission to reproduce, recreate, translate, extract or summarize, and to distribute and display in any forms, formats, and media. The author(s) can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from UNIMAS Publisher, provided that the author(s) acknowledge and reference publication in the Journal.
2) For open access articles, the author(s) agree that their articles published under UNIMAS Publisher are distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work of the author(s) is properly cited.
3) For subscription articles, the author(s) agree that UNIMAS Publisher holds copyright, or an exclusive license to publish. Readers or users may view, download, print, and copy the content, for academic purposes, subject to the following conditions of use: (a) any reuse of materials is subject to permission from UNIMAS Publisher; (b) archived materials may only be used for academic research; (c) archived materials may not be used for commercial purposes, which include but not limited to monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, license, transfer of copyright, loan, etc.; and (d) archived materials may not be re-published in any part, either in print or online.
4) The author(s) is/are responsible to ensure his or her or their submitted work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others. Corresponding author(s) has (have) obtained permission from all co-authors prior to submission to the journal. Upon submission of the manuscript, the author(s) agree that no similar work has been or will be submitted or published elsewhere in any language. If submitted manuscript includes materials from others, the authors have obtained the permission from the copyright owners.
5) In signing this statement, the author(s) declare(s) that the researches in which they have conducted are in compliance with the current laws of the respective country and UNIMAS Journal Publication Ethics Policy. Any experimentation or research involving human or the use of animal samples must obtain approval from Human or Animal Ethics Committee in their respective institutions. The author(s) agree and understand that UNIMAS Publisher is not responsible for any compensational claims or failure caused by the author(s) in fulfilling the above-mentioned requirements. The author(s) must accept the responsibility for releasing their materials upon request by Chief Editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
6) The author(s) should have participated sufficiently in the work and ensured the appropriateness of the content of the article. The author(s) should also agree that he or she has no commercial attachments (e.g. patent or license arrangement, equity interest, consultancies, etc.) that might pose any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. The author(s) also agree to make any relevant materials and data available upon request by the editor or UNIMAS Publisher.