Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing

Abstract

Research on feedback in second language writing has grown enormously in the past 20 years and has expanded to include studies comparing human raters and automated writing evaluation (AWE) programs. However, we know little about the ways students engage with these different sources of feedback or their relative impact on writing over time. This naturalistic case study addresses this gap, looking at how two Chinese students of English engage with both teacher and AWE feedback on their writing over a 16-week semester. Drawing on student texts, teacher feedback, AWE feedback, and student interviews, we identify the strengths and weaknesses of both types of feedback and show how engagement is a crucial mediating variable in the use students make of feedback and the impact it has on their writing development. We argue that engagement is a key factor in the success of formative assessment in teaching contexts where multiple drafting is employed. Our results show that different sources of formative assessment have great potential in facilitating student involvement in writing tasks and we highlight some of these pedagogical implications for promoting student engagement with teacher and AWE feedback.

Roles of Teacher Feedback in Promoting Effective English-Medium Instruction of a Business Subject

“…Despite various arguments on the efficacy of the typified feedback on L2 learning, previous research commonly shows that teacher feedback is an effective practice in writing instruction; it helps ESL/EFL learners to revise and correct diverse issues in their texts (Williams, 2004). It has also been noted that the effectiveness of CF depends on multiple factors: learners' developmental readiness or proficiency level (e.g., Ammar & Spada, 2006;Gitsaki, & Althobaiti, 2010), the target language structure (e.g., Ellis, 2007;Yang & Lyster, 2010), and interactive, collaborative learning environment (Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch, 2012;Zhang & Hyland, 2018). In a recent study on teacher CF, Zhang and Hyland (2018) argue that it is effective to the extent that it promotes learners' interactions with a teacher.…”

The Effectiveness of Pre‐sessional EAP Programmes in UK Higher Education: A Review of the Evidence

“…Key to demonstrating skill development in writing are the text‐analytic measures which researchers utilise. Beyond Issitt's () corpus linguistic techniques, there are a multitude of measures of L2 writing development, including but not limited to T‐unit length (Storch & Tapper, ), the ratio of surface errors (van Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken, ), error‐type frequency counts (Han & Hyland, ; Zhang & Hyland, ), use of lexical bundles (Hyland, ), and impressionistic global textual judgements (Archbald, ; Storch & Tapper, ). It is recommended for future studies which track writing‐development from pre‐sessional to the main programme to adopt a range of text‐analytic measures, selected because they cohere with the ‘double duty’ which PSP written tasks and assessment perform: helping students develop their academic language and skills while providing certification that they have reached the required proficiency level (Banerjee & Wall, ; Seviour, ).…”

Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Students’ L2 Writing: State of the Art

“…Such emotional responses are not only felt by students learning L2 writing in their home countries but also L2 writers studying abroad, as reported by Ryan and Handerson (2017) that international students were more likely than domestic students to find feedback comments to be discouraging, upsetting and too critical. Zhang and Hyland (2018) state that student engagement with written corrective feedback assists language acquisition and writing development. They argue that engagement is a significant factor in the attainment of formative assessment in teaching contexts where multiple drafting is applied (Zhang and Hyland, 2018).…”

“…Zhang and Hyland (2018) state that student engagement with written corrective feedback assists language acquisition and writing development. They argue that engagement is a significant factor in the attainment of formative assessment in teaching contexts where multiple drafting is applied (Zhang and Hyland, 2018). While, Han and Hyland (2015) find that the tertiary learner engagement to written corrective feedback is complex cognitively, the behaviourally, and the affectively; and individual differences in learner engagement with WCF seems attributed partly to learners' beliefs and experiences about WCF and L2 writing, their L2 learning objectives, and to the interactional context in which written corrective feedback was received and processed.…”