Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the teachers implemented innovative feedback approaches in their writing classroom and the extent to which the innovative feedback approaches impacted upon student attitude and performance in writing. In the writing classroom, teacher feedback serves as an assessment as well as a pedagogical tool to enhance the teaching and learning of writing. While there is no shortage of literature on the topic of feedback per se, there is scant research on teachers’ attempts to implement change to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of such feedback innovation on student learning. Drawing on data gathered from individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires, student focus group interviews, pre-and post-writing tests and classroom observations, this study seeks to explore two teachers’ change initiative in their writing feedback approaches.

The study used multiple sources of data including individual teacher interviews, student questionnaires and student focus group.

The results suggest that the innovative feedback approaches helped to enhance the motivation and writing performance of the students. The paper concludes with implications and insights to help teachers implement similar feedback innovations in their contexts.

First, the findings suggest that focused written corrective feedback is a viable option for responding to student writing, especially for low proficiency students in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts. Second, teachers might consider the option of removal or delay in the reporting of scores, where appropriate. Third, more intensive training might be necessary to help students improve their peer evaluation skills and their ability to write more constructive comments for their peers.

The significance of the study lies in the contribution it can make to existing writing feedback research that pays insufficient attention to teacher feedback in real classroom contexts, uncovering the process through which teachers attempt to bring improvement to conventional feedback practices, as well as the impact of feedback innovation on student learning in naturally occurring classroom contexts.

In 2004, the Council for Higher Education (CHE) required a curriculum responsiveness to the teaching and learning of literacies at the programme level, which needed to be addressed across all disciplines. This study aims to describe a situated higher education (HE) collaboration project between mechanical engineering and the Department of Applied Language Studies (DALS) at Nelson Mandela University from 2010 to 2014. The collaboration project aimed to develop the literacies levels of engineering students, reduce the first-year attrition rate and prepare engineering students to meet the high graduate attribute expectations of a competitive workplace amid employer concerns that engineering graduate communication competencies were lacking and insufficient.

The collaboration study used a mixed-method approach, which included student and lecturer questionnaires, as well as an interview with one engineering lecturer to determine his perceptions of the collaboration practices instituted. As the sample was purposeful, two mechanical engineer lecturers and 32 second-year mechanical engineering students from 2012 to 2013 were selected as the study’s participants, as they met the study’s specific needs. From the questionnaire responses and transcribed interview data, codes were identified to describe the themes that emerged, namely, rating the collaboration practices, attitudes to the course, report feedback provided and report template use.

Most of the student participants viewed the collaboration practices positively and identified their attitude as “positive” and “enthusiastic” to the language/engineering report collaboration initiative. The report feedback practices were viewed as improving writing skills and enabling the students to relate report writing practices to workplace needs. The engineering lecturers also found that the collaboration practices were enabling and improved literacy levels, although time was identified as a constraint. During the four-year collaboration period, the language practitioner increasingly gained report content knowledge, as well as unpacking the specific rhetorical structures required to produce the report text by co-constructing knowledge with the mechanical engineering lecturers.

Studies have shown that language practitioners and discipline lecturers need to change their conceptualisation of academic discourses as generic transferable skills and autonomous bodies of knowledge. Little benefit is derived from this model, least of all for the students who grapple with disciplinary forms of writing and the highly technical language of engineering. Discipline experts often tend to conflate understandings of language, literacy and discourse, which lead to simplistic understandings of how students may be inducted into engineering discourses. Therefore, spaces to nurture and extend language practitioner and discipline-expert collaborations are needed to embed the teaching and learning of discipline-specific literacies within disciplines.

For the collaboration project, the language practitioner and mechanical engineering lecturers focused their collaboration on discussing and negotiating the rhetorical and content requirements of the Design 3 report as a genre. To achieve the goal of making tacit knowledge and discourse explicit, takes time and effort, so without the investment of time and buy-in, interaction would not be sustained, and the collaboration would have been unproductive. As a result, the collaboration project required regular meetings, class visits and negotiations, as well as a language of description so that the often tacit report discourse conventions and requirements could be mutually understood and pedagogically overt to produce “legitimate texts” (Luckett, 2012 p. 19).

In practice, peer collaboration is often a messy, complex and lengthy process, which requires systematic and sustained spaces to provide discourse scaffolding so that the criteria for producing legitimate design reports are not opaque, but transparent and explicit pedagogically. The study also describes the organisational circumstances that generated the collaboration, as establishing and sustaining a collaborative culture over time requires planning, on-going dialogic spaces, as well as support and buy-in at various institutional levels to maintain the feasibility of the collaboration practice.

Literacy and discourse collaboration tends to reduce role differentiation amongst language teachers and specialists, which results in shared expertise for problem-solving that could provide multiple solutions to literacy and discourse learning issues. This finding is important, especially as most studies focus on collaboration practices in isolation, whilst fewer studies have focused on the process of collaboration between language practitioners and disciplinary specialists as has been described in this study.

Research has shown that the discursive patterns students use in their email interactions with their teachers are not linguistically and socio-culturally appropriate. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to try to explore how socio-cultural conventions influence the Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ choices of discourse strategies in their email communications within an academic context. The study, then, investigates the impact of social distance and gender on the stylistic features of students’ email texts.

The email texts written by 180 university students majoring in Applied Linguistics were systematically analyzed based on such patterns as opening and closing moves, reduced forms, text connectives, symbolization and emoticons. Alternatively, three semi-structured interviews were conducted to gauge the participants’ motives underlying the selection of particular discourse features.

The findings revealed that students, despite many statements to the contrary, were aware of the socio-cultural conventions governing email writing style and could write status-appropriate email messages, which rightly reflected the etiquette of email communication within an academic context.

The findings may offer certain benefits to EFL teachers and students.

The paper highlights understanding of a specific social group in relation to their interaction with different status social groups in the context of a specific communication technology and to some extent the perceived effectiveness of such approaches by those invoking them.

This study examines English faculty perceptions of the Writing Center at American Design University in Qatar (ADU-Q) through a social capital analysis. This was part of a larger study that took a sociocultural approach to English faculty perceptions of writing center work at ADU-Q. One of the emergent themes in that study was the lack of students’ language skill transfer from English courses to their disciplines. This finding has critical implications for the development of writing center and writing-across-the-disciplines work by uniting the fields of Composition, TESOL, and writing center research.

This study attempts to evaluate the effect of the corpus-based inductive teaching approach with multiple academic corpora (PICA, CAEC and Oxford Corpus of Academic English) and conventional deductive teaching approach (i.e., multiple-choice items, filling the gap, matching and underlining) on learning academic collocations by Iranian advanced EFL learners (students learning English as a foreign language).

This is a quasi-experimental, quantitative and qualitative study.

The result showed the experimental group outperformed significantly compared with the control group. The experimental group also shared their perception of the advantages and disadvantages of the corpus-assisted language teaching approach.

Despite growing progress in language pedagogy, methodologies and language curriculum design, there are still many teachers who experience poor performance in their students' vocabulary, whether in comprehension or production. In Iran, for example, even though mandatory English education begins at the age of 13, which is junior and senior high school, students still have serious problems in language production and comprehension when they reach university levels.

This study aims to broaches several endemic challenges for academics who support doctoral writing: writers are emotionally protective of their own writing; writing a thesis in English as a second language is a challenging, complex task; and advising across cultures is delicate. Giving constructive feedback kindly, but with the rigour needed to raise writing quality can seem daunting. Addressing those issues, the authors offer a novel way of working with writing feedback across cultures.

The case study research team of two candidates and one supervisor stumbled onto an effective way of working across cultural and institutional difference. What began as advisory feedback on doctoral writing became an effective collaborative analysis of prose meaning-making. The authors reflected separately and collectively on how this happened, analysed reflections and this narrative inquiry approach led to theories of use to writing feedback practice.

The authors cross between theory and praxis, showing that advisors and supervisors can create Bhabha’s post-colonial third space (a promising social space that sits between cultures, beyond hierarchies, where new ways of thinking can be collaboratively generated) as a working environment for international doctoral writing feedback. Within this zone, Brechtian alienation, a theory from theatre practice, is applied to prompt emotional detachment that enables focus on writing clearly in academic English.

Arguably the writing feedback session the authors described remains bound by the generic expectations of a western education system. The study is exegetical, humanities reading of practice, rather than a social science gathering of empirical data. Yet the humanities approach suits the point that a change of language, attitude and theory can give positive leverage with doctoral writing feedback.

The authors provide a novel practical method of supporting international doctoral candidates’ writing with feedback across cultures. It entails attracting the writers’ interest in theory and persuading them, via theory, to look objectively and freshly at their own writing. Also backed by theory, a theoretical cross-cultural space allows for discussion about differences and similarities. Detachment from proprietorial emotions and cross-cultural openness enables productive work amongst the mechanics of clear academic English text.

Underpinned by sociocultural and metacognitive approaches to learning, reflection from student and supervisor perspectives (the data), and oriented by theory, the authors propose another strategy for supporting doctoral writing across cultures. The authors demonstrate a third space approach for writing feedback across cultures, showing how to operationalise theory.

This paper, which originates in an English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) classroom activity in Hong Kong, aims to explore English learners’ expressive and creative potential in writing by studying their work in the literary narrative genre.

A group of upper secondary students (15-16 years of age) with limited English resources and competence was enlisted to remake a folktale with visual and written prompts.

The writing samples demonstrate that these low-level EFL writers are able to refashion the narrative elements, and to communicate meanings for their own purposes. They exhibit logicality and problem-solving skills in their attempts to challenge and transform idea and to include themes of interest to them. There is also evidence of creative play with language in their use of dialogues and figures of speech.

These writing outcomes suggest the need to re-vision English language arts practices in increasingly diverse education systems. Genre-based instruction, with its emphasis on “writing to mean” as a social activity supported by learning to use language, could lead to widening EFL learners’ access to genre knowledge and to greater life chances.

A linguistics-based pedagogy scaffolding less able EFL writers while they learn to build effective narratives is identified as a way forward.

Although the idea of using narratives to engage EFL learners in writing is not entirely new, this paper contributes to the field by responding to low-level learners’ writing that goes beyond linguistic “correctness”, and developing strategies for supporting creativity and language play.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate and compare the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion and small-group collaborative drafting as pre-writing tasks on Iranian intermediate English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. Additionally, the difference between the writing components was examined.

To achieve these objectives, a group of 120 intermediate EFL learners participated in a pretest–posttest study in which they were randomly assigned into two experimental groups and one control group. The students in all three groups were tasked with writing a textbook evaluation report for the pretest and posttest. The pre-writing process in the first experimental group consisted of a group-to-whole student-led oral discussion, while the second experimental group engaged in small-group collaborative drafting.

The results indicate that both pre-tasks were effective in improving the participants’ writing skill, while collaborative drafting was even more efficient. Furthermore, it was observed that more writing components improved through collaborative drafting. It is concluded, therefore, that the social atmosphere created through oral discussion and the scaffolding resulting from collaborative drafting can help in writing improvement.

The findings herein can have implications for first language (L1) composition instruction and second language (L2) writing teaching and, thus, underscoring the utility of the social constructivist approach to writing instruction.

As there has been no study conducted to explore the effects of group-to-whole student-led oral discussion on EFL learners’ writing skill and to compare its impacts to those of small-group collaborative drafting, the results of this study fill this gap in the literature.

The purpose of this paper is to describe how dominant social practices embedded in situated report‐writing activities in an automotive discourse community in South Africa causally shape component engineers' perceptions of literacy. The study explores how the dominant practices of supervisor feedback and report acceptance causally impact on effective report‐writing perceptions during report text production.

Critical ethnography is the preferred methodology as it explores cultural orientations of local practice contexts and incorporates multiple understandings to provide a holistic understanding of the complexity of writing practices. This study focuses on data collected during two interviews and a focus group discussion with four L2 component engineers as well as the questionnaires their two L1 supervisors completed.

The engineers tended to measure or associate literacy and effective writing standards with supervisor feedback practices. These feedback practices interacted causally with the meanings or associations, the participants gave to or associated with literacy and their report‐writing competency. As a consequence, literacy was often described in terms of correct wording or terminology, grammatical correctness, spelling, sentence structures or styles in reports as determined by their supervisors during feedback practices, rather than report content, structure or technical details.

The participants constructed literacy in terms of correct language, word and spelling use and focused on linguistic errors in their report writing. They tended to perceive rhetoric and engineering discourse as separate entities rather than rhetorically constructed contextual knowledge. Language problems were usually attributed to human being inefficiencies and L1 standards rather than the individual creation of knowledge.

This paper not only impacts causally on engineering workplace writing practices but on higher education and future report‐writing practices. Digital technologies and systems will increasingly impact on report‐writing practices, what constitutes contextual knowledge and acceptable literacies as varied and different audiences define acceptable writing practices.

The paper shows that on‐the‐job writing research is limited and research that has been done often focuses on criteria for good writing as defined by experts in the field. If all workplace writing‐practice research adopts this expert view, it offers no insight and understanding into what implicitly and explicitly guides writers. Writing‐practice research also needs to focus on the voices of writers so that the influence of human social behaviour on these practices can be understood.

The use of plagiarism detection software such as Turnitin or SafeAssign has become common in higher education. While frequently used to catch plagiarism, some institutions have used it as a learning tool to help students better understand plagiarism and the conventions of academic writing. In an international branch campus in the Middle East, a survey was given to undergraduate students, primarily second language students, on the use of Turnitin to help with their writing. Most participants found that the software helped them improve their paraphrasing skills, understand the use of citations, avoid plagiarism and, to a lesser extent, improve their language skills.

أﺻﺑ ﺢ ا ﺳﺗ ﺧدام ﺑ رﻧﺎﻣﺞ اﻟﻛﺷ ف ﻋن ا ﻻﻧﺗ ﺣﺎ ل ﻣﺛ ل Turnitin أو SafeAssign ﺷ ﺎ ﺋ ﻌًﺎ ﻓ ﻲ ا ﻟ ﺗ ﻌ ﻠ ﯾ م ا ﻟ ﻌ ﺎ ﻟ ﻲ . ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ا ﻟ ر ﻏ م ﻣ ن ا ﺳ ﺗ ﺧ د ا ﻣ ﮭ ﺎ ﺑ ﺷ ﻛ ل ﻣﺗ ﻛرر ﻟﻠﻘﺑ ض ﻋﻠ ﻰ ا ﻻﻧﺗ ﺣﺎ ل ، ﻓﻘد ا ﺳﺗ ﺧدﻣﺗ ﮫ ﺑ ﻌ ض اﻟ ﻣؤﺳﺳﺎ ت ﻛﺄداة ﺗ ﻌﻠﯾ ﻣﯾ ﺔ ﻟ ﻣ ﺳﺎ ﻋدة اﻟ طﻼب ﻋﻠ ﻰ ﻓ ﮭم ا ﻻﻧﺗ ﺣﺎ ل ﺑ ﺷﻛل أﻓ ﺿ ل واﺗﻔﺎ ﻗﯾﺎ ت اﻟﻛﺗﺎﺑ ﺔ ا ﻷ ﻛﺎدﯾ ﻣﯾ ﺔ. ﻓ ﻲ ﺣ ر م ﻓ ر ع دو ﻟ ﻲ ﻓ ﻲ اﻟﺷ ر ق ا ﻷ و ﺳ ط ، ﺗم إ ﺟ ر ا ء د ر ا ﺳ ﺔ ا ﺳ ﺗﻘ ﺻ ﺎﺋﯾ ﺔ ﻟ ط ﻼ ب اﻟﻣر ﺣ ﻠ ﺔ اﻟﺟ ﺎ ﻣﻌﯾ ﺔ ، و ﺧ ﺎ ﺻ ﺔ ط ﻼ ب اﻟﻠ ﻐﺔ اﻟ ﺛﺎﻧﯾ ﺔ ، ﺣ و ل ا ﺳ ﺗ ﺧ دا م Turnitin ﻟﻠﻣ ﺳ ﺎ ﻋ دة ﻓ ﻲ ﻛﺗﺎﺑﺎﺗ ﮭم. و ﺟ د ﻣﻌ ظ م اﻟﻣ ﺷ ﺎ ر ﻛﯾ ن أ ن اﻟ ﺑ ر ﻧﺎ ﻣ ﺞ ﺳ ﺎ ﻋ دھ م ﻋ ﻠ ﻰ ﺗ ﺣ ﺳ ﯾ ن ﻣﮭﺎ ر ا ت إ ﻋ ﺎدة اﻟ ﺻ ﯾﺎ ﻏ ﺔ وﻓ ﮭم ا ﺳﺗ ﺧدام ا ﻻﺳﺗ ﺷﮭﺎدا ت وﺗ ﺟﻧ ب ا ﻻﻧﺗ ﺣﺎ ل وﺗ ﺣﺳﯾ ن ﻣﮭﺎ راﺗ ﮭم اﻟﻠ ﻐوﯾﺔ إﻟ ﻰ ﺣد أﻗ ل.