Perceptions of multimodal learner-driven feedback in EAP
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33292Keywords:
Learner-driven feedback, muldimodal feedback, L2 WritingAbstract
The ‘Learner-Driven Feedback’ (LDF) procedure is innovative in its combination of approaches to feedback provision in second/foreign language writing instruction which a) respond to learners’ individual queries and b) employ digital modes of delivery ([anonymised ] 2016). In LDF, formative feedback is given by the teacher, but the learners indicate on what aspects of their writing and in what mode they would like to receive feedback. In this study, LDF was used with 36 postgraduate students of an English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class at a university in Germany. The presented analysis of survey data highlights high levels of receptivity to LDF and reveals students’ perceptions of the affordances of different digital delivery modes for improving their writing. While feedback in the form of margin comment bubbles was perceived to be helpful to foster improvement in general language accuracy, students preferred emailed or audio-recorded feedback for the improvement of their writing related academic skills. The potential applicability of LDF for EAP and other writing instruction contexts is discussed based on these findings.
References
Brearley, F.Q. & W. R. Cullen (2012) “Providing Students with Formative Audio Feedback”, Bioscience Education, Vol. 20, No. 1, 22-36. doi: 10.11120/beej.2012.20000022
Campbell, N. and J. Schumm-Fauster (2013). Learner-centred Feedback on Writing: Feedback as Dialogue. In M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Schumm and R. Vaupetitsch (Eds) Feedback Matters (pp. 55--68). Frankfurt: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978-3-653-03442-4/6
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., Lam, J., 2011. Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education 36, 395–407. doi:10.1080/03075071003642449
Cloete, R. (2014). Blending offline and online feedback on EAP writing. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 2(4), 559--571.
Farshi, S.S. and S.K. Safa (2015). The Effect of Two Types of Corrective Feedback on EFL Writers’ Skill. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6:1, 1--5. doi: 10.7575/aiac.alls.v.6n.1p.26
Ferris, D. (2004). The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13:1, 49—62. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Glover, C., Brown, E., 2006. Written Feedback for Students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education 7. doi:10.3108/beej.2006.07000004
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10:2, 171--182.
Johanson, R. (1999). Rethinking the Red Ink: Audio-Feedback in the ESL Writing Classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 4:1, 31--38.
Kress, G., (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. New York. Routledge.
[anonymised], C. (2016). Receptivity to Learner-Driven Feedback in EAP. ELT Journal, ccw065. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccw065
McCabe, J., A. Doerflinger & R. Fox (2011). Student and Faculty Perceptions of E-Feedback. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 173--179. doi: 10.1177/0098628311411794
Merry, S. & P. Orsmond, “Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files”, Bioscience Education, Vol. 11, No. 3 (2008), pp. 1-11. doi: 10.3108/beej.11.3
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. doi: 10.1080/02602931003786559
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 203–234. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990507
Weaver, M. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 31 (3): 379-394. doi: 10.1080/02602930500353061
