Scaffolding writing development: How formative is the feedback?

Abstract


 This paper contrasts students’ perceptions of feedback practices on written texts and their utilization of the feedback against formative assessment pedagogy. It uses observations of nine lessons of English writing in combination with semi-structured interviews of 39 first year upper secondary students in Norway. The findings show that students in general appreciate the feedback, but have diverging views about the different types and forms of feedback provided. The majority want to have one-to-one discussions with the teacher about their texts in addition to written feedback, and to receive more specific comments on both content and language. Most are content to use feedback in a delayed fashion, as a reference point for future writings. This is a result from the working routine in the classrooms where feedback in most cases comes with a grade – without a strict requirement to follow-up comprehensively, with the exception of correcting language errors. The findings highlight the primacy of form in the feedback provided and, in more than one way, poor quality formative feedback from the students’ perspective. It concludes that in order to maximize the formative potential of feedback there is a need to make it more usable, e.g. by giving it to ungraded texts and asking students to produce improved work based on feedback.

Student perspectives on preferences and reported instructor practices of written feedback in the Moroccan EFL university context

“…The non-significant differences between the four subsamples suggest consistency in how students perceive product-based feedback techniques and which ones they prefer to receive from instructors, regardless of their different academic years. In contrast to the present study’s findings regarding WF modes , the teacher as the sole source of WF was highly preferred in the study conducted by Saliu Abdulahi [ 63 ]. The present study’s findings regarding WCF echoed those of Ouahidi and Lamkhanter [ 37 ] and those of Sinha and Nassaji [ 27 ], who found that the majority of the students received direct WCF from their teachers.…”

“…Similar to the present study’s findings regarding a technique for effective WF modes , Elwood and Bode [ 18 ] and Leki [ 96 ] found that detailed feedback with support and guidance was more utilized by the students in their study. Unlike its moderate use in this study, judgmental WF , which is based on assessment criteria during the writing process, was not frequently used according to Saliu Abdulahi’s [ 63 ] study. The findings of Saliu Abdulahi [ 63 ] were also not in harmony with those of the current study, where students have a moderate use of self-assessment when developing evaluative judgment because they regularly self-evaluated their written text before submitting and before receiving the grade, or after looking at the teacher’s assessment criteria that helped them in their writing assignment.…”

“…Unlike its moderate use in this study, judgmental WF , which is based on assessment criteria during the writing process, was not frequently used according to Saliu Abdulahi’s [ 63 ] study. The findings of Saliu Abdulahi [ 63 ] were also not in harmony with those of the current study, where students have a moderate use of self-assessment when developing evaluative judgment because they regularly self-evaluated their written text before submitting and before receiving the grade, or after looking at the teacher’s assessment criteria that helped them in their writing assignment. The current study’s results indicating that students moderately participate in evaluative judgments, did not echo Zhu and Carless’ [ 32 ] study, which revealed that students did not obtain sufficient in-task guidance (e.g., assessment criteria) on how to give peer feedback and develop their abilities to make sound evaluative judgments.…”

“…The perceptions of students regarding the usefulness of feedback, as found in some studies [ 19 , 23 , 25 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 32 ], were linked to feedback types (asynchronous peer feedback or synchronous corrective feedback modes), sources (teachers’ or peers’ review), modes (peer-written or spoken feedback, in-text changes, in-text comments using comment bubbles, feedback emails, and feedback in an audio recording), benefits (based on students’ roles as providers and recipients of dialogic feedback), revision of drafts and learning about writing based on the student’s role (as writers or reviewers), peer feedback changes over time, and use of a rubric. Regarding students’ reported practices, Bonilla López et al [ 22 ] targeted affective factors (low self-efficacy, high self-efficacy), whereas Saliu Abdulahi [ 63 ] focused on the practices used by teachers for WF that were based on the source, mode (oral or written peer feedback), focus (content, structure), assessment criteria, and grading.…”

Does Teachers’ Feedback Serve its Real Purpose? Examining Teachers’ Feedback Practices

“…The study found that teachers used feedback merely for the identification of errors and making corrections, rather than a reflective and critical understanding of learners. However, the literature indicates that feedback is not a surface-level activity rather it is a systematic and rigorous process of engaging teachers and students in the learning process (Saliu, 2017). Teachers have a leading role in this whole exercise.…”