A Move Analysis of Written Feedback in Higher Education

Abstract

One way to examine whether or not there is a match between tutor intentions and student perceptions is to focus on the feedback given to students. This paper presents a move analysis of a corpus of written feedback provided to postgraduate students enrolled in a part-time Education program. This paper focuses on the discussion of the information types found in written feedback, the patterns of organising such information and the linguistic preferences that signal tutor intentions. The paper is relevant to researchers in discourse analysis and tutors providing assessment feedback.

Moves, Intentions and the Language of Feedback Commentaries in Education

“…Other avenues that may be explored in future research involves getting specific bits of feedback written by tutors, exploring how they are linguistically realised, and subsequently asking students" interpretation. Notes *As the discussion here builds on the initial study (Mirador 2000), a couple of the examples derive from the same work.…”

Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast

“…This use of mitigation strategies in managing negative feedback is functionally captured in Yelland's (2011) refinement of Mirador's (2000) move framework for written feedback. Yelland's (2011) updated framework redefines several of Mirador's (2000) moves-sections of text performing particular communicative purposes (Swales, 1990)-as steps-smaller functioning units that work to accomplish a particular move (Kanoksilapatham, 2007;Swales, 1990)-under a broader move of managing negative comments. Yelland (2011) found that instructor feedback was particularly concerned with the management of negative feedback.…”

“…Some frameworks based on the idea of the rhetorical move, or specific communicative purpose (Swales, 1990), attempt to functionally capture the purposes in feedback. Yelland's (2011) refinement of Mirador's (2000) move framework for written feedback, for instance, includes mitigation strategies for managing negative feedback. Differences in the way negative feedback is mitigated may be a component of what students and instructors perceive as different between screencast and text feedback.…”

Students' Response to Peer and Teacher Feedback in a First-Year Writing Course

“…In order to improve the quality of peer feedback and, thus, boost studentwriters' confidence in the comments from their peers and increase the level of usefulness of these comments in revision to that observed elsewhere (see Belcher, 1989;Lam, 1991;Paulus, 1999), writing instructors may undertake the "coaching" (Leki, 1990) of students' in providing useful, constructively critical feedback in all aspects of reviewing. One of the ways would be to show them models of teacher feedback and the most important "moves" (see Mirador, 2000, for a move analysis of teacher written feedback 5 ). The training of students in reader response, an idea also supported by researchers (Allaei & Connor, 1990;Jacobs et al, 1998;Stanley, 1992;Tsui & Ng, 2000;Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996) as a necessary means for improving the quality of peer feedback, is crucial because of the recognised complexity of the task: it is not only a question of what, but also of how, feedback should be given.…”

“…5. The following main moves in teacher written feedback are reported by Mirador (2000): General impression; Highlighting strength/s; Positivising; Calling attention to weakness/es; Suggesting improvement; Affective judgment; Probing; Overall judgement Another obvious reason for the difference in the student-writers' response to peer and teacher feedback has to do with the issue of target audience. Indeed, student-writers presumably value the importance of incorporating feedback on the basis of the rewards which may accrue from the activity.…”