Writing centre tutoring sessions: addressing students’ concerns

Winder, Roger V P; Kathpalia, Sujata S.; Koo, Swit Ling

doi:10.1080/03055698.2016.1193476

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…ALAs at CQUniversity provide assignment feedback in online and face-to-face consultations. These consultations are 60-90 minutes, but ALAs accord a fraction of that time to grammar feedback because it is timeconsuming (Dikli & Bleyle, 2014) and deemed less important than the long-term augmentation of higher order skills such as developing an argument (Winder, Kathpalia, & Koo, 2016). Students on the other hand value grammar feedback and identify immediate grammar correction as their number one concern (Huang, 2011).…”

Section: Academic Learning Advisors' and Students' Attitudes To Grammmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

O'Neill

Russell

2019

AJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universities are increasingly looking towards online technology to assist their students. Grammarly advertises itself as the world’s most accurate online grammar checker, yet little research exists on its performance as a feedback tool in universities. This paper reports on a study investigating students’ perceptions of Grammarly when used in conjunction with advice from an academic learning advisor. Using a mixed methods sequential explanatory design, the study compared one group of students’ responses to the feedback they received from Grammarly (n = 54) with another group’s responses to the traditional non-automated grammar feedback they received from the Academic Learning Centre at CQUniversity (n = 42). Results show that students receiving feedback from Grammarly responded more positively to 9 of the 15 survey items and were significantly more satisfied with the grammar advice that they received compared with non-Grammarly students. No significant differences were registered between cohorts or delivery mode, which suggests that Grammarly can be used effectively by academic learning advisors to provide grammar support for both international and domestic students, online and on campus. It is recommended, however, that the program be used in conjunction with academic learning advisor input as the program is currently not accurate enough for independent use to be justified.

show abstract

Section: Academic Learning Advisors' and Students' Attitudes To Grammmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

O'Neill

Russell

2019

AJET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the academic setting of higher education, students need to become competent in academic writing. Both teachers and students consider written feedback essential in the process of developing this competence (Adcroft 2011;Carless 2006;Weaver 2006;Winder, Kathpalia, and Ling Koo 2016). However, academic writing does not automatically improve after providing written feedback (Burke and Pieterick 2010;Crisp 2007;Higgins, Hartley, and Skelton 2001;Rae and Cochrane 2008;Weaver 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills

Schillings

Roebertsen

Savelberg

et al. 2019

Educational Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic writing is a complex competence in higher education. To develop this competence, teachers' written feedback is vital, especially if it contains feed-up, feedback and feedforward information. However, academic writing does not always improve after provision of written feedback. The purpose of this study was to explore if peer-to-peer dialogue between students about teachers' written feedback does enhance students' understanding of written feedback. Sixtythree second-year university students participated in a pretest-post-test design with mixed methods. Questionnaire data showed that peer-to-peer dialogue increased students' understanding of feed-up, feedback and feed-forward information. Focus group data demonstrated that the dialogue helped students to understand the assessment criteria better (feed up) and offered suggestions for improvement (feed forward). High quality teachers' written feedback was perceived as an important condition. Peer-to-peer dialogue among students about teachers' written feedback seems promising in enhancing students' understanding on how to improve their academic writing assignments.

show abstract

“…The policy was established due to a shift in instructional pedagogy from a product-focused one to a writing-process approach (Kim, 2018). Such policies have been widely adopted to regulate the type of help administered while prioritising content, including arguments over surface features such as grammar (Winder et al, 2016). However, these policies have been studied within native English educational contexts, while few studies have explored L2 English contexts.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

‘Tutoring Is Not Proofreading’. Exploring the Perceptions of Writing Tutors at University Writing Centres, Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Study

Al-Owayid¹

2020

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic discourse is highly complex and requires writers to follow specific writing conventions. Many Saudi university students have underdeveloped writing skills (Al-Khairy, 2013). One way to assist second language (L2) learners and develop their academic writing skills is through academic language support offered by writing centres. The challenge for writing centre tutors lies in the predominant belief among many L2 students that tutors’ only role is to fix students’ mistakes. Although there has been significant growth in writing centres in Saudi universities, the perceptions of writing tutors concerning tutoring non-native students are still under-researched. This study uses thematic analysis to explore the role of writing tutorials as perceived by writing centre tutors in Saudi settings. Data were obtained using an interpretive inquiry through individual interviews of two tutors. The main findings of the interviews were that tutors perceived proofreading requests, low writing proficiency of tutees and tutees’ understanding of tutors’ role as influencing their tutorial practices. The implementation of this study may help regulate the role of tutors in writing centres in Saudi universities by highlighting new avenues that can improve writing tutorials, especially in Saudi Arabia.

show abstract

Writing centre tutoring sessions: addressing students’ concerns

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly

Peer-to-peer dialogue about teachers’ written feedback enhances students’ understanding on how to improve writing skills

‘Tutoring Is Not Proofreading’. Exploring the Perceptions of Writing Tutors at University Writing Centres, Saudi Arabia: An Exploratory Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About