considerations of feedback on academic writing in … · considerations of feedback on academic...
TRANSCRIPT
RunningHead:CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 1
Considerations of Feedback on Academic Writing in Post-Secondary Settings
By Joanne Struch
The University of Manitoba
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 2
Considerations of Feedback on Academic Writing in Post-Secondary Settings
Introductory Note
This presentation followed a round table format with multiple purposes: to generate
discussion about feedback among the faculty and students in attendance at the symposium and to
consider some of the assumptions about feedback that arise from these discussions. As such, I
first provided a context for a discussion about feedback in post-secondary education by
presenting a brief review of some of the literature about feedback on second language academic
writing. Participants in the round table then had the opportunity to discuss feedback from their
perspectives as teachers, students, and faculty members. Before the presentation I applied for and
obtained permission through ENREB to digitally record the discussions, with the consent of
participants, as part of a study entitled “An investigation of student and faculty perspectives on
feedback in academic writing in a post-secondary setting”. Therefore it is also possible to include
in this paper some of the themes of the roundtable discussions. This paper, then, has two parts.
The first is the formal presentation and the second is a summary of some of the discussions.
Part 1: Contextualizing the round table topic
In post-secondary settings, writing is a staple of academic work and a dominant way of
evaluating student knowledge in a field (Canagarajah, 2011; Seror, 2008). Written comments on
academic writing, commonly referred to as ‘feedback’, then, can be a “potentially a powerful
influence on learning and achievement in higher education” (Hyland, 2013, p. 180). Methods and
systems of giving feedback on academic writing, not to mention purposes for feedback, remain
contested topics in research about academic writing in post-secondary settings (for example,
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 3
Cartney, 2010; Duncan, 2007; Murtagh & Baker, 2009; Rowe, Leigh & Petocz, 2008; Slomp,
2012; Vardi, 2013; Wardle & Roozen, 2012).
For second language learners in post-secondary settings, academic writing is a
particularly high-stakes activity. These students work not only within new linguistic structures
but also within academic discourse which, as Duff (2010) suggests, involves “enculturation,
social practice, positioning, representation, and stance-taking” (p. 170) through the negotiation of
“institutional and disciplinary ideologies” (p. 170). Written feedback is part of this academic
discourse, yet in English as an Additional Language (EAL) courses, like English for Specific
Purposes (ESP) courses, we don’t often teach students about feedback as an academic structure
in the same way that we teach other academic skills (such as argumentation, research, academic
writing). Furthermore, the language of this feedback is often different from the language that we
formally teach in ESL classes1. This disconnect can cause students to be confused about what the
feedback means or how to interpret the feedback. For example, in a small study that I conducted
in which my objective was to investigate how written feedback is understood and interpreted by
undergraduate EAL students, I asked three EAL students about their impressions of the feedback
they received on academic writing in their (non-EAL) university courses2. One of the themes that
1 I realize that this may not be true for all instructors. Individual instructors may teach their students how tointerpret the course-specific feedback, and some writing books do have feedback symbols and shorthand.However,thelanguageoffeedbackisnotgenerallyaregulartopicincludedinESL/ESPcourses.2Forthestudy,Iconductedhour-longinterviewswith3studentswhoidentifiedthemselvesasEALlearners.Intheinterviews, I asked questions about the current and past educational pursuits of the participants, the types offeedbacktheyhavereceivedontheirwriting intheircurrentundergraduatecontext, thetypesof feedbacktheyfindmost/leastuseful,whattheydowhentheyreceivefeedbackandhowthefeedbacktheyhavereceivedintheircurrentNorthAmericanundergraduatecontextcomparestothefeedbacktheyhavereceivedinothereducationalcontexts(forexampleintheirnativecountryandlanguage).Iaskedparticipants,iftheyfeltitwouldhelpthemtoexplaintheirperceptionsoffeedback,tobringcopiesofcurrentwritingassignmentsasexamplesofthekindsoffeedback they receive. The undergraduate students who participated in the study were from three differentlinguistic, cultural andeducational backgrounds. Eachof theparticipantshad variedexperienceswithwriting intheir first languageand inEnglish.Additionally, eachof theparticipantsalsohaddifferentexperienceswith thefeedbacktheyhadreceivedonwritingintheirfirstlanguage.
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 4
emerged from the interviews was the participants’ perceptions of the feedback as somewhat
coded. Two of the participants point to the phrases “be more specific”, “reword”, “word choice”,
and “go deeper” as well as notations like “o.k.”, circles and “x”es as points of confusion for them
in the feedback. They viewed these phrases and special notations as almost code-like structures
that require some specialized or 'insider' knowledge in order to interpret them. Hyland (2013) has
pointed out that “not all the messages conveyed [in feedback] are explicit or… related to the
work at hand” but that they “inform students of their tutors’ beliefs about their subject, about
learning, and about the value of literacy in their disciplines” (p. 180). I think that these “hidden
messages” (Hyland, 2013) represent assumptions about academic writing, feedback on academic
writing, and knowledge frameworks that often go unquestioned but that represent a form of
cognitive injustice. It is these unquestioned assumptions that has become the focus of my
research. The objectives of my dissertation project are to investigate assumptions about academic
writing in English that are present in feedback on the writing of first year ESL students in a
Canadian university and how the academic construct of feedback on written assignments is
accessible (or inaccessible) to students whose first language is not English.
Research about feedback on academic writing in applied linguistics is a context for these
research objectives. Historically, this research has taken a sort of causal approach to feedback by
attempting to determine the most appropriate types of feedback to ensure language accuracy in
writing (for example, Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005; Ferris & Roberts,
2001; Chandler, 2004; Farid & Samad, 2012). Some recent research about second language
writing however, questions accuracy as a condition of academic writing (Canagarajah, 2006;
Evans et al., 2010; Horner et al, 2011; Zawicki & Habib, 2014). These writers suggest that what
have been considered errors in second language writing are not necessarily barriers to good
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 5
writing, but a way of negotiating language (Horner et al., 2011) in a globalized, post-colonial
world in which the number of people for whom English is not their first language is
“substantially larger” than the number of people who claim English as their first language
(House, 2003, p.557). These writers point out that the multilingual makeup of classes in post-
secondary settings in North America requires a new way of thinking about teaching writing. This
observation raises questions about what it means for those giving the feedback (such as
instructors, professors or teachers) to understand accuracy as a fixed standard and how the
underlying, and often unexplored, assumptions about feedback are related to “issues of power
and access” (Seror, 2008, p. 161) in second language academic writing and academic writing in
general.
These ‘unexplored’ assumptions about feedback and their connections to power and
access, then, are my particular interest: What assumptions do we make about feedback that
confirm a ‘power over’ relationship, for example? What are the structures, language, modes of
feedback that we use that imply a tacit knowledge about what is expected? What expectations do
we have of our students to understand the feedback that we give them?
A subtext to questions of accuracy, language, and power is the knowledge practices
involved in feedback on academic writing, including what types of knowledge are assumed, what
types of knowledge are privileged, and how students can negotiate feedback in the high-stakes,
power laden, processes of academic writing. Therefore, I think it is necessary to consider
feedback within a cognitive justice framework. Theories of cognitive justice question
“conceptions of knowledge...what it means to know...what counts as knowledge and how that
knowledge is produced” (Santos, Nunes & Meneses, 2007, p. xxi). Cognitive justice frameworks
investigate the “culturally embedded character of knowledge and…of producing knowledge”
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 6
(Coleman and Dionisio, 2009, p. 397) and attempt to understand the “epistemological
dominance” (Andreotti, Ahenekew & Cooper, 2011, p. 40) which is the result of the suppression,
through colonialism, of other “forms of knowledges and…the subaltern social groups whose
social groups were informed by such knowledges” (Santos, Nunes and Meneses, 2007, p. xix).
There are a number of different ways in which theorists term considerations of
knowledge and justice, including cognitive justice (Guilherme, 2014; Santos, 2007a,b, 2011;
Santos, Nunes & Meneses, 2007; Visvanathan, 2009), epistemic justice (Code, 2014; Fricker,
2008), epistemic responsibility (Code, 1987), epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2008) and epistemic
ignorance (Kuokkanen, 2008). I have chosen to use the term ‘cognitive justice’ here because of
its position in the, now relatively frequently quoted, assertion that “there is no global social
justice without global cognitive justice” (Santos, Nunes & Menenses, 2007, p. ix). The cognitive
justice frameworks pioneered by Santos, Nunes, Meneses, Visvanathan and others suggest a
transnationalism that is appropriate for considering knowledge frameworks in second language
learning. In addition, these same theorists assert that “the need for cognitive justice” (Andreotti,
2011, p. 381) is central to the “quest for epistemological exchange, balance and equity” that is
“currently at the centre of academic discussion and research” (Guilherme, 2014, p. 69). This
assertion also seems appropriate in a discussion that involves pedagogical practices in academic
writing. At the same time, I acknowledge the implicit limitations in choosing one phrase to
describe a multi-layered concept.
These considerations about feedback, knowledge and justice are therefore linked to
educational justice and raise questions about what types of knowledge are privileged and how
that privilege is represented (Andreotti, Ahenakew & Cooper, 2011; Fricker, 2008; Santos, 2011;
Santos, Nunes & Meneses, 2007) in various educational contexts. It is possible that
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 7
understanding the connections between the language of feedback, how it is perceived by
students, and what assumptions about knowledge are inherent in that feedback can be important
for programs, such as English for Academic Purposes programs, Academic writing courses, or
University 1 courses that prepare students for “institutional and faculty expectations” (Benesch,
2001, p. 23) in post-secondary settings. This understanding may be able to help these programs
better prepare students for success in writing in high-stakes settings. On a larger scale, these
understandings may contribute to considering feedback as an issue of cognitive justice in post-
secondary contexts, with insights that can possibly extend to other student populations. For
example, examining the assumptions that underpin feedback on academic writing has relevance
for other knowledges, such as indigenous knowledges, that are represented by the varied student
populations in Canadian universities.
Part 2: Discussion themes and highlights
For the round table discussion, I asked participants to consider the following questions
about feedback from their perspectives as teachers, students, and faculty members:
• Briefly discuss academic writing in your area of study/teaching: what are some of the characteristics of academic writing that are discipline-specific? What are some types of writing assignments for which you would provide/receive written feedback?
• What are some of the things that you take into consideration when you give feedback
on written assignments or when you read feedback that has been given to you on a written assignment? What aspects of the writing are the focus for the feedback?
• What do you expect your students to ‘do’ with the feedback on their academic
writing? Or, if you are a student, what do you ‘do’ with the feedback you receive? What do you think your instructors expect you to ‘do’ with it?
• In the discipline/area that you work in within education, have you observed any
particular practices/conventions/assumptions around feedback on written assignments?
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 8
In the relatively short time (about 10 – 15 minutes) available for discussion, it was not possible
for the three groups to delve into all of these questions. However, it is possible to trace three
themes through the discussions that did take place: considerations involved in providing
feedback, connections between feedback and assessment, and student perspectives on feedback.
Within each of these themes, there are multiple threads that reflect the participants’ roles as
instructors3, students, or both.
Considerations involved in providing feedback. From their points of view as
instructors, discussion participants commented on the various considerations that they make
when providing feedback to their students. A thread in this theme was considerations of the
purposes for feedback. Common to these considerations was that a purpose of feedback is to
contribute to learning. As one participant noted: “evaluation is not to penalize people, it is to see
if they have learned something or not”. Another participant said that she expects her students to
“use the feedback to improve in their next assignment.” Remarking on the reality of their
situations, though, some of these same participants also indicated that they often have no way of
knowing if it fulfills this purpose. One participant noted, for example that students “go on to a
different set of instructors…there is no way to track if they have used the feedback I have
provided”.
Ways of providing feedback was also a topic of discussion within this theme. A main
method of providing feedback discussed by participants was written feedback, with or without a
rubric (to be discussed more in a later section). However, face-to-face meetings (including
having students read the writing aloud) were also mentioned by some participants as a preferred
method of providing feedback. One participant noted that his reason for giving one-to-one
3 Iamusing ‘instructor’here tomean theperson inan instructional role. In thediscussionsathand, thatmightmeanateacherinaK-12setting,aninstructoratacollege,orafacultymemberatauniversity.
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 9
feedback was because he “treat[s] every single person differently” and doesn’t “have a standard
set of expectations for every single person”.
For one participant, the method of providing feedback is connected to the amount of time
it takes to provide feedback. She said: “I have to consider how many students I have in my class
and how much time I can actually realistically spend on giving feedback.”
Student perspectives on feedback. A number of the discussion participants, in their
roles as students, indicated that they are often uncertain about the feedback they receive. They
identified two main reasons for this uncertainty: a lack of rubrics to indicate how writing can be
improved and how it is assessed, and uncertainty about what some of the feedback actually
means. Many of the participants, in their roles as students, agreed that rubrics are necessary at
the university level. As one participants put it, rubrics should be used “so they [students] know
what they are being marked on, what they are being judged on.”
A number of participants commented about not understanding the comments they receive
from their instructors. Various participants specified the source of this incomprehensibility. One
noted that it is tied to the grade: “I’m not understanding where the mark on the paper is coming
from based on the comments.” Another noted that it is based on the notations used for the
comments: “I find that comments that do have these kind of abstract markings, they are using a
system of editing that is maybe more suited towards like journalism, for example, and maybe
they are not giving the legend that they are using and they assume that oh all students will know
what…the c with two lines or whatever what these markings mean.” Other students specified
that their confusion comes from the language of the feedback: “sometimes when professors say
you should go deeper I don’t know how deeper should be”.
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 10
Some of the international student discussion participants also raised questions about the
roles that cultural and language differences play in their understandings of the feedback they
receive.
Connections between feedback and assessment. The theme that perhaps garnered most
discussion among participants, from both instructor and student perspectives, was the ways in
which feedback and assessment are connected. The use and development of rubrics was the topic
that dominated this theme. From student perspectives, rubrics were almost undisputedly
considered a necessity. Some participants said: “I am definitely pro rubric” and “I would never
dream of giving an assignment to students without giving them a rubric that laid out all of the
expectations ahead of time and then marking it right on that rubric”. As noted in the previous
section, these students also discussed the impact that the lack of rubrics has on the assessment of
their written work.
However, from instructor perspectives, rubrics were not an undisputed necessity in
feedback or assessment. One participant, for example, noted that she gives “copious feedback”
but that she doesn’t “believe in rubrics.” She explains it this way: “My course outlines are very
specific; they give the parts that are required and how much weighting they have. So it is not
really a rubric but it is telling people exactly what to include and what it is going to be marked
out of and it is philosophical.” Instructors also discussed whether they use rubrics, why they use
rubrics or not, how they develop rubrics and whether or not they hand out the rubric ahead of
time.
Summary
It is not possible to draw conclusions or make generalizations about feedback in post-
secondary settings from these discussions. However, the discussion themes highlight student and
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 11
instructor ideas about feedback, specifically purposes for feedback and types of feedback. The
discussions about assessment and feedback demonstrate that the two are clearly connected in the
minds of both the students and instructors who took part in the discussion.
Finally, the discussion themes also raise student and instructor concerns around some of
the constraints placed on feedback because of program or institutional situations. The
acknowledgement by a participant that although her purpose for giving feedback is to help
students with future writing, she has no way of knowing if it does because her students move on
to other courses is one example of this. It points to the possibility within programs, departments
or faculties that discussions around responding to student writing might be helpful for students’
development as writers. In addition, the point raised by one participant (and acknowledged by
the other group members as consistent with their experiences) about the time it takes to give
feedback on writing raises a further institutional constraint around feedback. That participant
said that when she worked with a small group of students she was “able to give them a lot of
feedback”, allow them to revise their writing and then “look at it again and again”, which is
“where their writing really improved”. However, with a group of 35 or more students, “it is just
not feasible”.
This acknowledgement is consistent with Seror’s (2009) study in which both students and
instructors noted the importance of feedback but the instructors also viewed feedback as an
“onerous and undervalued task in a university setting where ideal feedback practices were, in
fact, incompatible with institutional pressures to limit resource expenditures, maximize research
productivity, and adhere to strict grade distributions” (Seror, 2009, p. 223). Therefore, it is
necessary to further consider the interconnectedness of feedback and institutional parameters
such as class sizes, instructor teaching loads and student attainment. The discussions in this
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 12
round table suggest that investigation of feedback within the context of the institution is an area
for further study.
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 13
References
Amara, T. M. (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context. ELT Voice - India, 5(1), 34-44. Andreotti, V. D. O. (2011). (Towards) decoloniality and diversality in global citizenship
education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9(3-4), 381–397. Andreotti, V., Ahenakew, C., & Cooper, G. (2011). Ethical and pedagogical challenges in higher
education. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples, 7(1), 40–50.
Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics, and practice. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. Canagarajah, A.S. (2011). Codemeshing in academic writing: Identifying teachable strategies of translanguaging. Modern Language Journal, 95(3), 401–417. Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). The place of world Englishes in composition: Pluralization continued. College Composition and Communication, 57(4), 586–619. Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551-564. Chandler, J. (2004). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 57–58. Code, L. (1987). Epistemic responsibility. Hanover, N.H: Published for Brown University Press
by University Press of New England. Code, L. (2014). Ignorance, injustice and the politics of knowledge. Australian Feminist Studies,
29(80), 148–160.
Coleman, W. D., & Dionisio, J. (2009). Globalization, Collaborative Research, and Cognitive Justice. Globalizations, 6(3), 389-403.
Duff, P. A. (2010). Language Socialization into Academic Discourse Communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 169-192.
Duncan, N. (2007). 'Feed-forward': improving students' use of tutors' comments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271-283.
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 14
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463. Farid, S. & Samad, A.A. (2012). Effects of different kind of direct feedback on students’ writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 232-239. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need
to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.
Fricker, M. (2008). Forum on Miranda Fricker’s Epistemic Injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Theoria, 23(61), 69–71.
Guilherme, Manuela. (2014). 'Glocal' languages and north-south epistemologies. In A. Teodoro and M. Guilherme (eds.), European and Latin American Higher Education Between Mirrors, 55-72. Rotterdam: Sense publishers. Horner, B., Lu, M., Royster, J. J. & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English 73(3), 303-321. House, J. (2003). English as a lingua franca: A threat to multiculturalism?. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556-578.
Hyland, K. (2013b). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180–187.
Kuokkanen, R. (2008). What is hospitality in the academy? Epistemic ignorance and the (im)possible gift. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 30(1), 60–82.
Murtagh, L. and Baker, N. (2009). Feedback to feed forward: Student response to tutors’ written
comments on assignments. Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 3(1), 20–8. Rowe, A. D., Wood, L.N. & Petocz, P. (2008). Engaging students: Student preferences for feedback. Paper presented at the Higher Education Research and Development
Society of Australasia (HERDSA) Conference. Rotorua, New Zealand 2008. Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2008/media/Rowe.pdf
Santos, B.S. (2007a). Beyond abyssal thinking. Revista Critica de Ciencias Sociais 80. Retrieved
from http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2007-06-29-santos-en.html Santos, B.S. (2007b). From an epistemology of blindness to an epistemology of seeing. In B. de
Souza Santos (ed.), Cognitive justice in a global world: Prudent knowledges for a decent life, 407-438. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Santos, B. S. (2011). The university in the twenty-first century. Eurozine, 1–14. Retrieved from
CONSIDERATIONSOFFEEDBACK 15
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2010-07-01-santos-en.html Santos, B. S., Nunes, J. A., & Meneses, M. P. (2007). Introduction: Opening up the canon of
knowledge and recognition of difference. In B. S. Santos, (ed.) Another knowledge is possible: Beyond northern epistemologies, ix-lxii. London: Verso.
Séror, J. (2009). Institutional Forces and L2 Writing Feedback in Higher Education. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(2), 203–232.
Seror, J. (2008). Socialization in the Margins: Second language writers and feedback practices in university content courses. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of British Columbia.
Slomp, D.H. (2012). Challenges in assessing the development of writing ability: Theories, constructs and methods. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 81-91. Vardi, I. (2013). Effectively feeding forward from one written assessment task to the next. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(5), 599-610. Visvanathan, S. (2009). The search for cognitive justice. Knowledge in Question, 597. Retrieved
from http://www.india-seminar.com/2009/597.htm. Wardle, E. & Roozen, K. (2012). Addressing the complexity of writing development: Toward an ecological model of assessment. Assessing Writing, 17(2), 106-119. Zawicki T. M. & Habib, A. S. (2014). Negotiating “errors” in L2 writing: Faculty dispositions
and language difference. In T.M. Zawicki and M. Cox, (Eds.), WAC and Second Language Writers: Research towards linguistically and culturally inclusive programs and practices, 183-210. South Carolina: Parlour Press.