A typology of the characteristics of teachers’ written feedback comments on second language writing

Pearson, William S.

doi:10.1080/2331186x.2021.2024937

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As such, it can reduce the pressure on the writing instructor, offer timely and more frequent FB to students, and consequently offer positive learning experiences. The literature suggests that the method of FB delivery to learners can have a significant impact on their motivation to learn and perceptions of the learning experience (e.g., Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Pearson, 2022; Shang, 2022), while more positive perceptions can lead to deeper learning (e.g., Alzahrani & O’Toole, 2017; Wei & Chou, 2019). Here, offering learners timely FB can positively impact learning (Rodríguez et al, 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is substantial evidence that FB provision is crucial to writing development since it highlights weaknesses in learners’ writings and provides formative explanations as to why they are considered problematic (Phuwichit, 2016). Furthermore, the method of FB delivery has a significant impact on the learner’s motivation and perception of the learning experience (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Pearson, 2022; Shang, 2022). In this regard, the literature suggests two main characteristics that effective FB should preserve: timely provision and adequacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Integrating Computer-Based Feedback into Writing Classrooms: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Alnasser

2022

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, the integration of computer-based feedback (CBF) systems, as assistive tools for instructors, into EFL writing contexts has attracted researchers’ attention. However, EFL learners’ perceptions toward such tools’ application remain under-investigated. Therefore, this study investigates EFL learners’ perceptions toward integrating CBF into writing classrooms in the Saudi higher education level. We adopted a quasi-experimental research design with a mixed-method approach for data collection and purposive sampling as sampling technique. We administered pre-questionnaires to two groups of Saudi male EFL undergraduate students undertaking an English program ( n = 40). The experimental group’s participants developed four multiple draft essays after receiving automated feedback on each essay (i.e., the treatment), after which post-questionnaires were administered to measure shift in their perceptions. The findings suggest that majority of participants held positive views on this tool, and some of their views positively changed at a statistically significant level after practice. However, we identified few student concerns regarding these systems. Thus, although integrating such tools into writing classes provides learners with positive experiences and encourages their engagement in learning, instructors must ensure the students’ access to functional devices and appropriate Internet connections.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Integrating Computer-Based Feedback into Writing Classrooms: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

Alnasser

2022

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides teacher feedback on linguistic errors, teacher commentary is a widespread and important feature in responding to L2 writing. Teachers' written feedback commentary (WFC) can be divided with respect to focus or target, mode and tone, syntactic structure, explicitness and length [8]. According to Ene and Upton [5], feedback target consists of three levels: the general level, the discourse level and the form level.…”

Section: Theoretical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Each of these subcategories is further classified into more fine-grained subtypes. For example, feedback on mechanisms includes feedback on punctuation, spelling, formatting and style [8].…”

Section: Theoretical Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of the Types of Teaching Assistants' Feedback to English Writing

2024

trance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to improve the quality of teaching assistants' written corrective feedback in English writing classes, this paper explores the characteristics and types of teacher assistants' written corrective feedback. By analysing the students' manuscripts with feedback provided by teaching assistants, this study finds out that in regard to feedback types, teaching assistants use direct feedback most frequently, followed by metalinguistic feedback, and then indirect feedback. In terms of feedback focus, teaching assistants pay most attention to language form, followed by ideological content and text structure, while pay less attention to the overall quality of writing. With respect to feedback tone, teaching assistants can provide writing feedback with various feedback tones based on students' writing conditions.

show abstract

“…In view of the above, we may assume that L2 writers may employ their cognitive and linguistic resources differently depending on writing environment. Considering the scarce research that compares the effects of teacher WCF in P&P and CM writing (Pearson, 2022), especially with non-university students, it may be theoretically and pedagogically relevant to explore whether there are specific L2 benefits associated with writing and processing feedback on P&P or Internet-enabled devices. To fill this gap, the current study explored the effects of teacher WCF on the linguistic accuracy of texts written and rewritten collaboratively by adolescent low proficiency EFL learners after receiving and processing unfocused direct feedback in CM and P&P environments.…”

Section: Pen-and-paper Versus Computer-mediated Cwmentioning

confidence: 99%

A classroom-based study on the effects of WCF on accuracy in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated collaborative writing

Cerezo

Nicolás‐Conesa

2022

10.14746/ssllt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared the effects of computer-mediated (CM) versus pen-and-paper (P&P) writing on written accuracy and feedback processing in tasks written and rewritten collaboratively following a pedagogical treatment in two intact authentic classrooms. The study involved 32 secondary education low-proficiency English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners writing two descriptive texts collaboratively and receiving in-class training in the identification and correction of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors. Participants were provided with unfocused direct error correction (EC). Error logs were used to facilitate noticing of teacher corrections (i.e., feedback processing). Dyads were required to rewrite their texts for evidence of feedback uptake. Results indicate that writing collaboratively on the computer with the availability of the Internet contributes to increased grammatical and lexical accuracy. No differences were found between writing environments regarding feedback processing or accuracy of rewritten texts.

show abstract

A typology of the characteristics of teachers’ written feedback comments on second language writing

Cited by 7 publications

References 69 publications

EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Integrating Computer-Based Feedback into Writing Classrooms: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

EFL Learners’ Perceptions of Integrating Computer-Based Feedback into Writing Classrooms: Evidence From Saudi Arabia

An Evaluation of the Types of Teaching Assistants' Feedback to English Writing

A classroom-based study on the effects of WCF on accuracy in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated collaborative writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About