Hindrances to L2 Graduate Students' Incorporation of Written Feedback into their Academic Texts

Document Type : Research

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of TEFL, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant professor in Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty Member of Payam Noor UNversity, Tehran, Iran

3 Full Professor in Department of English Langauge and Literature, Faculty Member of Shahid Chamran University, Ahvaz, Iran

Abstract

The present study employed a qualitative approach to investigate L2 graduate students’ reasons for not incorporating supervisor feedback into their theses/dissertations. Think-aloud protocols were employed to examine 54 L2 master’s degree and doctoral students’ reasons for ignoring their supervisors’ comments on their theses/dissertations. Employing an inductive categorization approach, we categorized students’ reasons thematically into four main classes of specificity of comments, clarity of comments, the compatibility of comments with students’ perceived abilities, and students’ retention of their autonomy.
A significant issue in the feedback literature is students’ engagement with comments. Engagement is reported to determine the success of a feedback practice and explain the differential success of students receiving comments in second language writing programs (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013; Han, 2017; Han & Hyland, 2015). Han and Hyland (2015), highlighting the significance of students’ engagement with feedback, assert that “learner engagement is a critical link that connects the provision of WCF with learning outcomes” (p. 31). One of the consequences of students’ poor engagement with supervisor feedback is their failure to apply comments (Sinclair & Cleland, 2007). Boud (2015), too, argues that the "feedback loop" is completed when a student has enacted the information and has incorporated the comment into the subsequent versions and tasks. Nonetheless, as Storch & Wigglesworth (2010) state, the investigation of students’ engagement with comments has been an overlooked research area. Bounds, et al. (2013) have found that studies on students’ engagement with feedback has been an underexplored area of research, which requires more studies to cover a blind spot in the field (Burke, 2009). Winstone, Nash, Rowntree, and Parker (2017) assert that the findings of studies on factors affecting students’ engagement can help us improve the quality of supervisor feedback and students’ learning opportunities.
Despite the significance of the issue of students’ incorporating supervisor feedback into their revisions as an indicator of students’ engagement with feedback, to the best of our knowledge, it has remained an unexplored area of research. Some researchers have investigated this issue, but all of them have focused merely on students’ perceptions. For instance, some studies (e.g., Caffarella & Barnett, 2000; Can & Walker, 2011) found a significant relationship between students’ perceptions of feedback and their revision process. Carless (2006), in his survey study, found that one of the major reasons that hindered students’ incorporation of comments was their inability to comprehend the comments. Sadler (2010) stated that to apply comments, students need to understand them; he also posited that students’ lack of suitable knowledge to decode the provided comments leads to their inability to benefit from the provided comments. Kumar and Stracke (2007) found that students’ attitude toward critical comments, and supervisors’ respect for students’ voice can affect their revision decisions; they also found that those who had more positive attitudes toward academic writing made more revisions. The present study put a step forward and investigated L2 graduate students’ reasons for ignoring comments by the use of stimulated recall interviews.
Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) have argued that the methodological complexity of think-aloud protocols can be regarded as a major hindrance to investigate the details of students’ engagement with feedback. However, the present study benefited from a retrospective data collection procedure in the form of stimulated recall interviews to have a better understanding of the reasons why L2 graduate students do not incorporate some supervisor comments. To be more specific, this research contributes to the body of first and second language writing literature by responding to the following research questions:
Research question one: What are L2 advanced students’ main hindrances to incorporation of written feedback into their academic texts?
Research question two: Is there any significant difference between L2 master’s degree and doctoral students’ reasons for ignoring their supervisors’ feedback?
The present study employed a qualitative approach to investigating L2 graduate students’ reasons for not incorporating supervisor feedback into their theses/dissertations. The participants included 39 master’s degree and 15 doctoral TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) student in four different Iranian universities. The researchers selected TEFL theses/dissertations because of their availability to these texts and their writers.
The corpus of the present study included the two versions of 54 theses and dissertations: a version with supervisor feedback and the subsequent (revised) version. These texts were collected; the provided comments and the incorporated and ignored comments were identified for further analysis. In the present study, we defined supervisor feedback as any sort of written alphanumeric information provided by a supervisor that a post-graduate student should engage with to improve the quality of his/her performance and/or add, modify, or omit an item from his/her cognitive set to move toward the designated reference point determined by the community of practice. The comments ranged from a sign (a question mark, highlight, etc.) to comments as long as a page.
In order to examine master’s degree and doctoral students’ reasons for ignoring comments into the subsequent version of their texts, stimulated recall interviews were employed. The participants were invited to participate in the interviews to examine the provided prompts (the two versions of their theses/dissertations), and disclose their reasons for not employing the provided comments. These reasons were, subsequently, categorized into different classes thematically. An inductive category formation procedure (Mayring, 2004) was employed to induce the themes from the responses. The interviews were conducted in students’ native language, Persian. Students’ first language was employed to avoid missing or misunderstanding interviewees’ information (Pavlenko, 2007). Each interview took about 20 minutes and, on average, we had 3 double-spaced pages of transcription (Persian) for each interviewee.
The findings indicated that students did not apply some comments because of four main reasons: being too general, being unclear, sensing the incompatibility of feedback requirements with their abilities, and defending their autonomy. The results showed that masters’ and doctoral students ignored unclear and general comments with no significant difference in quantity. However, significantly more master’s students ignored the comments they found beyond their abilities, and significantly more doctoral students ignored the comments that did not respect their autonomy. The findings are discussed in the light of various linguistic, psychological, and sociological theories. Several pedagogical implications are also provided based on the findings of this study.

Keywords

References

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Andrade, M., & Evans, N. (2013). Principles and practices for response in second language writing: Developing self-regulated learners. New York: Routledge
Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3), 465-487.
Baker, B., & Hansen Bricker, R. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38, 75-84.
Bandura A (1997) Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barouch-Gilbert, A. (2016). Academic probation: Student experiences and academic probation: Student experiences and self-efficacy enhancement. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 10(3), 153-164.
Bitchener, J., Basturkmen, H., East, M., & Meyer, H. (2011). Best practice in supervisor feedback to thesis writers. Retried from <http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/best-practice-supervisor-feedback.>
Boud, D. (2015). Feedback: Ensuring that it leads to enhanced learning. The Clinical Teacher, 12(1), 3-7.
Bounds, R., Bush, C., Aghera, A., Rodriguez, N., Stansfield, R. B., & Santeen, S. A. (2013). Emergency medicine residents’ self-assessments play a critical role when receiving feedback. Academic Emergency Medicine, 20, 1055-1061.
Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 41-50.
Busse, V. (2013). How do students of German perceive feedback practices at university? A motivational exploration. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(4), 406-424.
Butler, A. C., Godbole, N., & Marsh, E. J. (2013). Explanation feedback is better than correct answer feedback for promoting transfer of learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 290-298.
Butler, D. L., & Cartier, S. C. (2004). Promoting effective task interpretation as an important work habit: A key to successful teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 106, 1729-1758.
Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58(1), 1-14.
Caffarella, R. S., & Barnett, B. G. (2000). Teaching doctoral students to become scholarly writers: The importance of giving and receiving critiques. Studies in Higher Education, 25(1), 39-52.
Can, G. (2009). A model for doctoral students' perception and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. (PhD Dissertation). Utah State University, Utah, USA.
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2011). A model for doctoral students’ perceptions and attitudes toward written feedback for academic writing. Research in Higher Education, 52, 508-536.
Can, G., & Walker, A. (2014). Social science doctoral students’ needs and preferences for written feedback. Higher Education, 68, 303-318.
Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219-233.
Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as dialogue. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory 1-6. Retrieved from <http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_389-1.>
Covert-Vail, L., & Collard, S. (2012). New roles for news times: Research library services for graduate students. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/nrnt-grad-roles-20dec12.pdf.
Cumming, A., Yang, L., Qiu, C., Zhang, L., Ji, X., Wang, J., Wang, Y., Zhan, J., Zhang, F., Xu, C., Cao, R., Yu, L., Chu, M., Liu, M., Cao, M., Lai, C. (2018). Students’ practices and abilities for writing from sources in English at universities in China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 1-15.
Daniel, S. M., Martin-Beltran, M., Peercy, M. M., & Silverman, R. (2015). Moving beyond yes or no: Shifting from over-scaffolding to contingent scaffolding in literacy instruction with emergent bilingual students. TESOL Quarterly, 7(2), 393-420.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
Erlam. R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41, 257-268.
Fedor, D. B. (1991). Recipient responses to performance feedback: A proposed model and its implications. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 9, 73-120.
Fenton-Smith, B., & Humphreys, P. (2016). Language specialists’ views on the academic language and learning abilities of English as an additional language postgraduate coursework student: towards an adjunct tutorial model. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(2), 280-296.
Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51-62.
Ferris. D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329.
Gilmore, J., Vieyra, M., Timmerman, B., Feldon, D., & Maher, M. (2015). The relationship between undergraduate research participation and subsequent research performance of early career STEM graduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 86, 834-863.
Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Hendrickx, M. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 248-258.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 69, 133-142.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
Hatziapostolou, T., & Paraskakis, I. (2010). Enhancing the Impact of Formative Feedback on Student Learning through an Online Feedback System. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 8(2), 111-122.
Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to sociolinguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.
Holmes, K., & Papageorgiou, G. (2009). Good, bad and insufficient: Students’ expectations, perceptions and uses of feedback. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 8(1), 85-96.
Hoomanfard, M. H., Jafarigohar, M. Jalilifar, A. R., & Hosseini, S. M. (2018). Comparative study of graduate students’ self-perceived needs for written feedback and the supervisors’ perceptions. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 24-46.
Hoomanfard, M. H., & Rahimi, M. (2020). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer feedback online written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing ability. Journal of Lnguage Research, 11 (33), 327-352 [In Persian].
Huxham, M. (2007). Fast and effective feedback: Are model answers the answer? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 601-611.
Kinsley. K., Besara, R., Scheel, A., Colvin, G., Brady, J. E., & Burel, M. (2015). Graduate conversations: Assessing the space needs of graduate students. Library and Information Services Faculty Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activity, 3, 1-23.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 21, 390-403.
Kumar, V., & Stracke, E. (2007). An analysis of written feedback on a PhD thesis. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(4), 461-470.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2014). Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Smith, J. K. (2009). “I really need feedback to learn:” Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback messages. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 347-367.
Lizzio, A. & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263-275.
Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative content analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardorff & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research (pp. 266-269). London: Sage.
Morrison, B., & Evans, S. (2018). Supporting non-native speaker student writers making the transition from school to an English-medium university. Language Learning in Higher Education, 8(1), 1-20.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random vs. negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375-401.
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
Nietfeld, J. L., Cao, L., & Osborne, J. W. (2006). The effect of distributed monitoring exercises and feedback on performance, monitoring accuracy, and self-efficacy. Metacognition Learning, 1,159-179.
Pavlenko, A. (2007). Autobiographic narratives as data in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 163-188.
Pishghadam, R., & Jajarmi, H. (2016). Trust in research: trust and its role in citing language studies in Iran. Journal of Language and Translation Studies, 48(2), 1-4.
Platten, P. (2010). Initiation of the self-regulated feedback loop: The effects of feedback and strategy modification on vocabulary learning, motivational beliefs and self-regulation processes (PhD Dissertation), The University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA.
Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting second language development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.
Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 143-154.
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.
Regan, P. J. (2010). Read between the lines: The emancipatory nature of formative annotative feedback on draft assignments. Systemic practice and action research, 23(6), 453-466.
Robinson, P. (1995). Aptitude, awareness and the fundamental similarity of implicit and explicit second language learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.) Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 303-357). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Rosa, E. M. & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269-292.
Ryan, J., & Carroll, J. (2005). ‘Canaries in the coalmine’: International students in Western universities. In J. Carroll & J. Ryan (Eds.), Teaching international students (pp. 3-10). New York, NY: Routledge.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, Adaptation, and Adjustment: Theory, Research, and Application (pp. 281-303). New York: Plenum Press.
Serge, S. R., Priest, H. A., Durlach, P. J., & Johnson, C. I. (2012). The effects of static and adaptive performance feedback in game-based training. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(3), 1-9.
Simpson, S. (2016). New frontiers in graduate writing support and program design. In S. Simpson, N. A. Caplan, M. Cox, & T. Phillips (Eds.), Supporting Graduate Student Writers: Research, Curriculum, & Program Design (pp. 1-20). Ann Arbor: University Michigan Press.
Sinclair, H., & Cleland, J. (2007). Undergraduate medical students: Who seeks formative feedback? Medical Education, 41(6), 580-582.
Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334.
Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.
Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6, 95-108.
Vardi, I. (2009) The relationship between feedback and change in tertiary student writing in the disciplines. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(3), 350-361.
Wang, S. L., & Wu, P. Y. (2008). The role of feedback and self-efficacy on web-based learning: The social cognitive perspective. Computers and Education, 51, 1589-1598.
Wiliam, D. (2007). Keeping learning on track. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1098). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Williams, S. E. (1997). Teachers' written comments and students' responses: A socially constructed interaction. Presented in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, March 12–15, Phoenix, Arizona.
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). It would be useful, but I wouldn't use it: Barriers to university students' feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 11, 1-16.
Wood, D. J., Wood, H. A., & Middleton, D. J. (1978). An experimental evaluation of four face-to-face teaching strategies. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 1, 131-147.
ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research)
Volume 12, Issue 37
February 2021
Pages 219-246

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics