Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:06:45.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes towards online feedback on writing: Why students mistrust the learning potential of models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2015

Carola Strobl
Carola Strobl*
Affiliation:
Department of Translation, Interpreting, and Communication, Ghent University, Belgium (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This exploratory study sheds new light on students’ perceptions of online feedback types for a complex writing task, summary writing from spoken input in a foreign language (L2), and investigates how these correlate with their actual learning to write. Students tend to favour clear-cut, instructivist rather than constructivist feedback, and guided self-evaluation through model solutions in online learning environments. However, the former type is too limited to tackle all dimensions of advanced writing. Constructivist feedback, in the form of guided modelling, allows addressing the higher-order concerns involved in summary writing. In addition, it is widely acknowledged that activating the zone of proximal development (ZPD) through cognitive involvement is beneficial to learning. To investigate students’ learning from both types of feedback, a one-group pre-post-test intervention study was set up. Students attending a course on summary writing in L2 within a bachelor programme in Applied Languages (n=38) followed an individual online learning module containing both instructivist fill-the-gap exercises and model solutions with constructivist guiding questions for self-assessment. The students’ actual learning gain was measured through pre- and post-tests, and compared with their perceived learning gain, as expressed in self-evaluation. The comparison reveals a dichotomy between the students’ observed learning curve and an underestimation of their own progress. This dichotomy was found to originate in a mismatch between their expectations towards the online learning module and the characteristics of the constructivist feedback conveyed. This mismatch can be attributed to three key factors: (1) evaluation, (2) linguistic focus, and (3) learner motivation.

Keywords

constructivist feedbacklearner attitudessummary writingmodellingpost-secondary education
Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 27 , Supplement 3 , September 2015 , pp. 340 - 357
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aljaafreh, A. and Lantolf, J. P. (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4): 465–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotos, E. (2011) Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback. CALICO Journal, 28(2): 420–459. http://www.equinoxpub.com/journals/index.php/CALICO/article/view/22995 Google Scholar
Diab, R. L. (2005) EFL university students' preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Doyle, W. (1977) Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. Review of research in education, 5: 163–198.Google Scholar
Duijnhouwer, H., Prins, F.J. and Stokking, K. M. (2012) Feedback providing improvement strategies and reflection on feedback use: Effects on students’ writing motivation, process, and performance. Learning and Instruction, 22(3): 171–184.Google Scholar
Elen, J. (2013 “Instructional disobedience”: Challenging instructional design research. Earli 15th biannual conference, München, Germany: unpublished keynote speech.Google Scholar
Enginarlar, H. (1993) Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2): 193–204.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2002) The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in language teaching. ReCALL, 14(1): 2–15.Google Scholar
Felix, U. (2005) E-learning pedagogy in the third millennium: The need for combining social and cognitive constructivist approaches. ReCALL, 17(1): 85–100.Google Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2007) Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4): 459–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1): 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heift, T. (2005) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2): 416–431.Google Scholar
Heift, T. (2010) Prompting in CALL: A longitudinal study of learner uptake. The Modern Language Journal, 94(2): 198–216.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2): 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (2010) Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2): 171–182.Google Scholar
Karagiorgi, Y. and Symeou, L. (2005) Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8(1): 17–27.Google Scholar
Kintsch, E., Steinhart, D., Stahl, G., Matthews, C. and Lamb, R. (2000) Developing summarization skills through the use of LSA-based feedback. Interactive Learning Environments, 8(2): 87–109.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A. (2002) Can we support CSCL? Educational, social and technological affordances for learning. In: Kirschner, P.A. (ed.), Three worlds of CSCL: Can we support CSCL?. Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands, 7–47.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012) The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4): 390–403.Google Scholar
Kulhavy, R. W. (1977) Feedback in written instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2): 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandernach, B. J. (2005) Relative effectiveness of computer-based and human feedback for enhancing student learning. The Journal of Educators Online, 2(1). http://www.thejeo.com/Archives/Volume2Number1/MandernachFinal.pdf.Google Scholar
Martínez, N. E. and Roca de Larios, J. (2010) The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagata, N. (1993) Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3): 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. and Manchón, R. (2012) Investigating L2 writing development from multiple perspectives: Issues in theory and research. In: Manchón, R. (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 221–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajares, F. (2003) Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2): 139.Google Scholar
Pujolà, J. -T. (2001) Did CALL feedback feed back? Researching learners’ use of feedback. ReCALL, 13(1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radecki, P. M. and Swales, J. M. (1988) ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3): 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, G. L. (1991) Effective feedback strategies in CALL: Learning theory and empirical research. In: Dunkel, P. (ed.), Computer-assisted language learning and testing: research issues and practice. New York, NY: Newbury House Publishers, 155–167.Google Scholar
Rosselle, M., Sercu, L. and Vandepitte, S. (2009) Learning outcomes and learner perceptions in relation to computer-based feedback. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1): 45–61.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2): 129–158.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. W. (2001) Attention. In: Robinson P. (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Segev-Miller, R. (2004) Writing from sources: The effect of explicit instruction on college students' processes and products. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 4(1): 5–33.Google Scholar
Shute, V. (2008) Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1): 153–189.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010) Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2): 29–46.Google Scholar
van Beuningen, C. (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F. and Veldkamp, B. P. (2012) Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58(1): 263–272.Google Scholar
Woodrow, L. (2011) College English writing affect: Self-efficacy and anxiety. System, 39(4): 510–522.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Strobl supplementary material

Supplementary material

Download Strobl supplementary material(File)
File 42.5 KB