No abstract

Much of the research on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) scope and strategies has been (quasi-)experimental, generating results peripherally related to authentic classroom contexts. Underpinned by a multidimensional conceptual framework of student engagement with WCF, this classroombased study has explored the scope and strategies used by the teacher regarding WCF. It also investigated how two ESL university students behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively engaged with the scope and strategies of computer-mediated teacher WCF to improve the accuracy of the second draft of the introduction and methodology sections of their research proposal. Data from multiple sources, including students' written texts, screencasts that captured students' revision process, stimulated recall, and semi-structured interviews were analyzed. The findings revealed that the scope of computer-mediated teacher WCF was comprehensive, and the most frequently employed feedback strategy was direct WCF, often accompanied by metalinguistic explanation. Behaviorally, the students improved their drafts' accuracy based on such feedback; however, their cognitive engagement was mediocre. Although affectively the students often experienced positive reactions toward feedback strategies, they felt overwhelmed by a large number of comments.

Although it has been suggested that automated writing evaluation (AWE) can liberate teachers’ time to focus more on higher-order concerns as it can take care of lower-order concerns, AWE’s impact on teachers’ feedback practice is underexplored. Additionally, scant literature exists on teachers’ perception of AWE when they use it to complement their feedback. This study explored how Grammarly shaped postsecondary L2 writing teachers’ feedback when it was used to complement teacher feedback as well as teachers’ perceptions of the tool. To understand Grammarly’s impact, teachers’ comments on 10 essays were analyzed. The teachers then had a semi-structured interview aimed at exploring their perceptions of Grammarly. The findings showed that teachers provided feedback both on global and local aspects of writing despite using Grammarly as a complement, and there was no division of labor such as that a teacher takes care of higher-order and Grammarly takes care of lower-order concerns. The findings also revealed factors that impacted teachers’ feedback, including teachers’ use of Grammarly reports, their attitudes toward automated feedback, as well as their beliefs about feedback and course objectives. Overall, of the six teachers, four were positive about Grammarly, while two were skeptical. The study provides implications on how to use Grammarly meaningfully as a complement to teacher feedback.

Despite suggestions being a common speech act used by writing center tutors, very limited research is available on the use of suggestions in online writing center practice. Drawing upon multiple sources of data including the chat transcript, screen recording of the session, and final revised version of the writer’s text, this case study explores the types and frequency of the suggestion strategies employed by a tutor and the degree of writer uptake of tutor suggestions in a synchronous online writing center session. The findings indicate that the tutor’s use of suggestions throughout the session only led to a partial revision of the writer’s text. While factors contributing to the partial revision include overuse of indirect suggestion linguistic realization strategies (SLRSs) and addressing multiple errors at the same time, using multiple and more direct SLRSs appeared to contribute to successful uptake. The observations of the study suggest that, in order to increase the degree of uptake, tutors might consider addressing one error at a time, utilizing multiple suggestion strategies per error and focusing on using more direct rather than indirect suggestion strategies in order to provide suggestions more effectively in online synchronous writing center sessions.

No abstract