Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday

8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday

1/26

FEEDBACK AND REVISION

IN SECOND LANGUAGE

WRITING:CONTEXTUAL, TEACHER,

AND STUDENT VARIABLES

Camila Fuentes

Ximena Landeros

Carla Leiva


2/26

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

Sociopolitical issues: - Number of classes teacher need to teach.

- Number of institution where the teacher works.

- Resources available to ensure student success.

- Class size.

Program and institutional attitudes toward L2 writers.

Program and curricular requirements. Program philosophies about effective feedback.

Entrance and exit requirements.


3/26

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

TEACHER FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS

REVISION Electronic feedback

- E-mail & comment function in Microsoft Word.

- Virtually unexplored.

Conference feedback (Goldstein & Conrad, 1991)

- Students differed in how they interacted with the teacher depending on

their degree.

Written feedback

- Students find teacher commentary confusing.

- They may use teacher feedback without understanding the reason.- They think they have understood when actually they do not.

- They do understood a comment but may not know how to use it in a

revision.


4/26

The shape of written commentaryGoldstein & Conrad (1991); Ferris (2001)

Students had difficulty with comments that:

Did not directly state that a revision was needed

Did not attempt revision or revised unsuccessfully

response to such comments. Did not understand the intent of comments that are

hedged in some way.

Less successful

Abstract difficulties

Explaining points of view

More successful

Concretes difficulties

Adding necessaries details.


5/26

STUDEN TS INDIVIDUALFACTORS ON R EVISION

Other research included :

The feeling that the teachers feedback is not valid or is

incorrect (Dressner, 1991; Goldstein & Khols, 2002)

A lack of content knowledge needed to undertake the revision(Anglada, 1995; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999)

A lack of motivation (Pratt, 1999)

A receptivity to or resistance to revision (Enginarlar, 1993;

Radecki & Swales, 1998)

A distrust of the teachers content knowledge (Pratt, 1999) A mismatch between how the teacher responds and the

students expectations for response (Hyland, 1998, 2000)


6/26

AN EXAMINATI ON OF A

FEEFBACK EXPERIENCE

Feedback: Conference & Written

Tranh

First case is a re-examination

Goldstein & Conrad


7/26

TRANHS CONFERENCESTWO-CAREER FAMILIES

Shared discourse

Goldstein controling the discourse

Tranh who shared or controlledthe discourse


8/26

TWO-CAREER FAMILIESEPISODE 1

Goldstein & Conrad

Overgeneralization

Feedback have to beclear

Appropiate revisionstrategy

Tranh

Defend with source ofevidences

Removed his contentcomplety

Not to do a research


9/26

TWO-CAREER FAMILIES

EPISODE 2Goldstein &

Conrad

Comment animplicit attempt

to avoidovergeneralizing

Tranh

Raised a culturalissue

He avoidovergeneralization


10/26

TRANHS USE OF WRITTEN

FEEDBACKDISCRIMINATION

Goldstein&

Conrad Revision

SupportDevelopment of

logical argumentsMake question toclarify of thecommentary.

Tranh No use reseach

Removed info

No show

connection Added details


11/26

MULTIPLES FACTORS to clarify the topic:

Lack of content

Goldstein

& Conrad

Tranh

Motivation

Time

Knowledge:- Places- Text-specific

Not knew how to provide the depth of analysis and aexplanation that the discussion required


12/26

Examination of Hisako

Research of Goldstein and Khols (2002)

Teachersfeedback and

student'srevision.

Teachersfactors

Contextualfactors

Studentsfactors


13/26

o

Participants

A native speaker of Japanese (20)

She was an international graduate student at small

private graduate school in California, studying for MAin international policy.

The online section in which Hisako was enrolled

focused on policy studies writing and had three

students .

HisakoThe student

Native speaker of English and had an MA in

TESOL

She had been teaching in English studies programbut had never taught English studies (ES) 325.

She was relatively inexperienced teacher ofacademic writing.

Anne

The

teacher


14/26

The lesson and assignments

Each students had to decide on a policy issue, wrotean annotated bibliography, wrote the introduction to aliterature, and wrote the literature review.

It were designed to build on each other as studentslearned to read academic sources in policy studies andto used these sources in their policy writing.


15/26

.Hisako and hertwo classmates

used

Microsoft word

To write drafts

Anne used

the commentFunction in

Microsoft word

To give feedbackon the drafts as e-mail attachments.


16/26

DATA COLLECTIONHisakoss drafts

Annes feedback

Electronic correspondence

Interview

Discuss with Hisako


17/26

Electronic commentary and revisions Patterns of

response and reaction

Hisakosrevision

Hisako showed pattern of removingproblematic elements

Hisako did not revise in response toAnnes commentary.


18/26


19/26

She repeated verbatim the comments she had given toHisako on the previous draft. All the comments were

identical to the first draft.


20/26

Why did Hisako either remove text or not

revise with such frequency?

Annes policy was to grade only the final draftof each paper.

Hisako reserved her efforts on her ES 325 papers for the finaldraft.

Hisako had decided that she would notask to Anne questions the feedback

writing problems.

Hisako Ill find out on the web


21/26

THE ELECT RONIC

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN

ANNE AND HISA KO

.

Anne

Anne did not directly offer such help nor

ask Hisako why she was not revising in response to herfeedback.

Nor did she ask Hisako if she was having anydifficulties

Ann assumed that Hisako had understood .

Hisakos reluctance to

approach Anne

directly


22/26

HISAKO

STATED

THAT

HISAKO WAS ASKED ABOUT WHAT SHE

PLANNED TO DO BETTER

UNDERSTAND HOW TO WORK. SHE

REPLIED ILL FIND OUT ON THE

WEB

I couldnt askher how to findinformation

I didnt havetime to ask

her


23/26

Hisako

constructedAnne as

She would not askedquestions when she did

not understand herfeedback

Someonewho would notpenalize her for failing

to revise in response tofeedback and did not

affect her grades.

Anne

constructedHisako as

Competent, since she

did not ask questions orindicate difficulty.

Capable ofunderstanding.

Lazy for not revising inresponse to her

commentary.


24/26

In sum

The pattern of commentary and revision we see with

Hisako and Anne was influenced by

Hisakos time constraints.

Annes grading policies.

Annes unfamiliarity with policy content and

policy writing.

How Anne and Hisako each constructed to each

other.


25/26

Sometimes teachers comments may not be clear .

Teachers need to build the means for students to

communicate their needs.

LESSONS LEARNEDFrom Tranh & From Hisako


26/26

FINAL

CONCLUSION

As teachers we need to look at each

student and his or her context individually

if we are to give optimal feedback to all

students.

Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday

Documents