ror.org/03dbr7087
Abstracts
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss our research into the use of sentence-level feedback at one stage in a scaffolded assignment in a large second year science course. The assignment involved submitting a lab report in three stages: Introduction, Results & Discussion, and then a final submission of all the parts in revised form. At the start of the term, teaching assistants and students were provided with a list (with explanations and examples) of 10 common sentence level issues; for the results and discussion submissions, teaching assistants were required as part of their feedback to identify at least one of these issues in each student’s writing. This section was selected due to it being the penultimate stage: it was hoped that feedback here would be applied to the students’ final submission. We analyzed the feedback and the response to feedback in 62 randomly chosen samples of student writing from the course (circa 16% of the class in total). We examined the issues from the list that teaching assistants preferred to give feedback on, the sorts of feedback that students were most likely to act on, and the success of student revisions arising from the various forms of feedback. We found that teaching assistants preferred to give feedback on issues related to what we would describe as more intuitive, readerly aspects of sentence-level writing (such as awkward phrasing), rather than on technical grammatical issues (such as clarity of antecedents for pronouns); this former sort of feedback also led to the most revisions, and the most successful revisions, on the students’ parts. Accordingly, we argue that focusing on this more intuitive approach might be a fruitful strategy for teaching assistant training, since it would both play to their preferences and to student preferences.
Keywords:
- Training,
- Feedback,
- TAs,
- Sentence level issues,
- Science,
- Scaffolded
Download the article in PDF to read it. Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Agius, N., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Students' and teachers' views of written feedback at undergraduate level: A literature review. Nurse Education Today 34, 552-559.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Alford, E. M. (1997). Training TAs to help students learn engineering discourse. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change 3, 1543-1548.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Anson, C., Dannels, D., Flash, P., & Gaffney, A. (2012). Big rubrics and weird genres: The futility of using generic assessment tools across diverse instructional contexts. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bailey, R. (2009). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the role and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1. doi: 10.47408/jldhe.v0i1.29.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- 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.2007.11.004Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi-0rg.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.21832/9781783095056Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bonilla López, M., Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295 Carter, T., & Thirakunkovit, S. (2019). A Comparison of L1 and ESL Written Feedback Preferences: Pedagogical Applications and Theoretical Implications. Journal of Response to Writing, 5(2), 139-174.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Covill, A. (2012). College students’ use of a writing rubric: effect on quality of writing, self-efficacy, and writing practices. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1), Article 1.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Cripps, M., Hall, J., & Robinson, H. (2016). “A way to talk about the institution as opposed to just my field”: WAC fellowships and graduate student professional development. Across the Disciplines, 13(3), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.3.09Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Doan, L. (2013). Is feedback a waste of time? The student’s perspective. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 1(2), 3-10.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., & Raj, E. (2016). The feedback process: Perspectives of first and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education, health science and nursing, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1).Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Freestone, N. (2009). Drafting and acting on feedback supports student learning when writing essay assignments. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(2), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90127.2008Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Glover, C., & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: Too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2006.07000004Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hedengren, B. (2004). A TA’s guide to teaching writing in all disciplines. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hounsell, D. (2007). Toward more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud and N. Falchikov, eds., Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term (pp. 101-113). Routledge.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education. 14(1), 63-76. DOI: 10.1177/1469787412467125.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Li, J., & De Luca, R. (2014) Review of assessment feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 39:2, 378-393. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709494Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0084-9Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pereira, D., Flores, M., Veiga, A., & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation 49, 7–14.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Pokorny, H., & Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 21-30.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. ( 2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rodrigue, T. K. (2012). The (in)visible world of teaching assistants in the disciplines: preparing TAs to teach writing. Across the Disciplines, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2012.9.1.01Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Rodrigue, T. K. (2013). Listening Across the Curriculum: What Disciplinary TAs Can Teach Us About TA Professional Development In The Teaching of Writing. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 2(2), Article 5, 1-14.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- 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.2013.03.011Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Thomas, K. E. (2018). Comparing explicit exemplar-based and rule-based corrective feedback: Introducing analogy-based corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12470Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Winstone, R., Parker, M. & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Winzenried, M. A. (2016). Brokering disciplinary writing: TAs and the teaching of writing across the disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.3.11Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar