Understanding and Providing ‘Cohesive’ and ‘Coherent’ Feedback on Writing
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.26461Keywords:
feedback, genre pedagogy, teaching learning cycleAbstract
This paper, building on results from a large online embedded language and literacy development project, introduces the notions of ‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’ in feedback and outlines steps that instructors can take to provide such feedback in their own contexts. Cohesion in feedback can be defined in terms of its goals, audience, and organisation; and coherence in terms of how instances of feedback work together to scaffold a student into developing a deeper understanding of issues in their writing. The paper argues that feedback which is cohesive and coherent is not a collection of reactions to student’s errors/mistakes, but it is a thoughtfully and carefully drafted text which responds to a student’s writing based on an assessment of their needs. The paper includes an evaluation of how students respond to such feedback by sharing examples of students’ drafts, the feedback they received, and their responses to the feedback. This paper helps us in understanding the nature of feedback as well as understanding how to apply it with the goal of making our students stronger, more independent, and self-regulating writers.
References
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education Vol. 31.2, pp. 219–233.
Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on Essays: do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 95-105.
Doughty, C. & M. Long (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63/2 pp. 97-107.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. & J. Hedgcock (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Heift, T. and Rimrott, A. (2008) Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System 36 (2): 196–213.
Hyland, F. (2001). Providing Effective Support: investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 233-247.
Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, pp 83-101.
Kregar, S. (2011) Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback Types in Computer-Assisted Language Learning. Unpublished PhD thesis. The Florida State University.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66.2, 140–149.
Martin, J.R. and Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London and Oakville: Equinox.
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50: 3, pp. 133-164.
Painter, C. (1989). Learning the Mother Tongue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error Correction in the Foreign Language Classroom: Reconsidering the Issues. London: Springer.
Rezaei, S. & Derakhshan, A. (2011) Investigating Recast and Metalinguistic Feedback in Task-based Grammar Instruction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 655-663.
Sheen, Y. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41 (2): 255–283.
