-
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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)
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
6/26
AN EXAMINATI ON OF A
FEEFBACK EXPERIENCE
Feedback: Conference & Written
Tranh
First case is a re-examination
Goldstein & Conrad
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
7/26
TRANHS CONFERENCESTWO-CAREER FAMILIES
Shared discourse
Goldstein controling the discourse
Tranh who shared or controlledthe discourse
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
9/26
TWO-CAREER FAMILIES
EPISODE 2Goldstein &
Conrad
Comment animplicit attempt
to avoidovergeneralizing
Tranh
Raised a culturalissue
He avoidovergeneralization
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
12/26
Examination of Hisako
Research of Goldstein and Khols (2002)
Teachersfeedback and
student'srevision.
Teachersfactors
Contextualfactors
Studentsfactors
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
16/26
DATA COLLECTIONHisakoss drafts
Annes feedback
Electronic correspondence
Interview
Discuss with Hisako
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
18/26
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
19/26
She repeated verbatim the comments she had given toHisako on the previous draft. All the comments were
identical to the first draft.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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
-
8/3/2019 Feedback and Revision in Second Language Writing Thursday
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.