Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback
Keywords:Training, Feedback, TAs, Sentence level issues, Science, Scaffolded
In this paper, we discuss our research into the effects on student writing of giving sentence-level feedback at several stages in a scaffolded assignment in a large second year science course. Our results indicate that feedback that draws on the reader’s intuitive sense for writing, rather than on their technical grammatical knowledge, was the most popular choice for TAs assessing student work, and also led to the most revisions on the students’ parts. Accordingly, we argue that focusing on this more intuitive approach might be a fruitful strategy for TA training.
Agius, N., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Students' and teachers' views of written feedback at undergraduate level: A literature review. Nurse Education Today 34, 552-559.
Alford, E. M. (1997). Training TAs to help students learn engineering discourse. Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change 3, 1543-1548.
Anson, C., Dannels, D., Flash, P., & Gaffney, A. (2012). Big rubrics and weird genres: The futility of using generic assessment tools across diverse instructional contexts. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1).
Bailey, R. (2009). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the role and utility of written assessment feedback. Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education, 1. doi: 10.47408/jldhe.v0i1.29.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters. https://doi-0rg.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/10.21832/9781783095056
Bonilla López, M., Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295 Carter, T., & Thirakunkovit, S. (2019). A Comparison of L1 and ESL Written Feedback Preferences: Pedagogical Applications and Theoretical Implications. Journal of Response to Writing, 5(2), 139-174.
Covill, A. (2012). College students’ use of a writing rubric: effect on quality of writing, self-efficacy, and writing practices. Journal of Writing Assessment, 5(1), Article 1.
Cripps, M., Hall, J., & Robinson, H. (2016). “A way to talk about the institution as opposed to just my field”: WAC fellowships and graduate student professional development. Across the Disciplines, 13(3), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.3.09
Doan, L. (2013). Is feedback a waste of time? The student’s perspective. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice 1(2), 3-10.
Douglas, T., Salter, S., Iglesias, M., Dowlman, M., & Raj, E. (2016). The feedback process: Perspectives of first and second year undergraduate students in the disciplines of education, health science and nursing, Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 13(1).
Freestone, N. (2009). Drafting and acting on feedback supports student learning when writing essay assignments. Advances in Physiology Education, 33(2), 98–102. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.90127.2008
Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.
Glover, C., & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: Too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education, 7(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2006.07000004
Hedengren, B. (2004). A TA’s guide to teaching writing in all disciplines. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Hounsell, D. (2007). Toward more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud and N. Falchikov, eds., Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term (pp. 101-113). Routledge.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education. 14(1), 63-76. DOI: 10.1177/1469787412467125.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: a meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.
Li, J., & De Luca, R. (2014) Review of assessment feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 39:2, 378-393. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709494
Mohebbi, H. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9
Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-019-0084-9
Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2011). Feedback alignment: effective and ineffective links between tutors’ and students’ understanding of coursework feedback Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136.
Pereira, D., Flores, M., Veiga, A., & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in Higher Education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies in Educational Evaluation 49, 7–14.
Pokorny, H., & Pickford, P. (2010). Complexity, cues and relationships: Student perceptions of feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), 21-30.
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903541007
Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. ( 2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260–272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291.
Rodrigue, T. K. (2012). The (in)visible world of teaching assistants in the disciplines: preparing TAs to teach writing. Across the Disciplines, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2012.9.1.01
Rodrigue, T. K. (2013). Listening Across the Curriculum: What Disciplinary TAs Can Teach Us About TA Professional Development In The Teaching of Writing. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 2(2), Article 5, 1-14.
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00117714
Thomas, K. E. (2018). Comparing explicit exemplar-based and rule-based corrective feedback: Introducing analogy-based corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12470
Winstone, R., Parker, M. & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners' agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17-37.
Winzenried, M. A. (2016). Brokering disciplinary writing: TAs and the teaching of writing across the disciplines. Across the Disciplines, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.3.11
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Michael John Kaler, Jonathan Vroom, Christoph Richter
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.