Greater coverage vs. deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback

IF 3.8 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Language Teaching Research Pub Date : 2023-12-09 DOI:10.1177/13621688231214910
Carrie Xin Peng, N. Storch, Ute Knoch
{"title":"Greater coverage vs. deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback","authors":"Carrie Xin Peng, N. Storch, Ute Knoch","doi":"10.1177/13621688231214910","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite the proliferation of research on how second language (L2) learners engage with feedback on L2 writing in recent years, little is known about how young and low-proficiency L2 learners process teacher feedback. The present study investigated how Chinese lower-secondary school learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) cognitively and behaviourally engaged with teacher feedback in two conditions: individual written languaging and collaborative oral languaging. Eighty-one students (aged 13–14 years, A1–A2 English proficiency) from two classes and two English teachers at a public lower-secondary school in China participated in this study. Comprehensive teacher feedback (focusing on language errors, content, and organization) was provided to students on three writing tasks completed over six weeks. Findings showed that collaborative processing of teacher feedback elicited students’ deeper cognitive processing, drew their attention to issues beyond linguistic errors and encouraged learner autonomy. On the other hand, individual written languaging promoted students’ noticing of teacher feedback in their languaging process, although with a primary focus on grammar and mechanics. Written languaging also enabled students to act on more teacher feedback points in their revisions than the collaborative processing condition. Pedagogical implications from the comparison of the two feedback processing conditions are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47852,"journal":{"name":"Language Teaching Research","volume":"11 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Teaching Research","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688231214910","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of research on how second language (L2) learners engage with feedback on L2 writing in recent years, little is known about how young and low-proficiency L2 learners process teacher feedback. The present study investigated how Chinese lower-secondary school learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) cognitively and behaviourally engaged with teacher feedback in two conditions: individual written languaging and collaborative oral languaging. Eighty-one students (aged 13–14 years, A1–A2 English proficiency) from two classes and two English teachers at a public lower-secondary school in China participated in this study. Comprehensive teacher feedback (focusing on language errors, content, and organization) was provided to students on three writing tasks completed over six weeks. Findings showed that collaborative processing of teacher feedback elicited students’ deeper cognitive processing, drew their attention to issues beyond linguistic errors and encouraged learner autonomy. On the other hand, individual written languaging promoted students’ noticing of teacher feedback in their languaging process, although with a primary focus on grammar and mechanics. Written languaging also enabled students to act on more teacher feedback points in their revisions than the collaborative processing condition. Pedagogical implications from the comparison of the two feedback processing conditions are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
更广泛的覆盖面与更深入的处理?教师反馈意见的个人处理与合作处理的比较
尽管近年来关于第二语言学习者如何参与第二语言写作反馈的研究激增,但对于年轻和低熟练程度的第二语言学习者如何处理教师反馈知之甚少。本研究调查了中国初中英语学习者在两种情况下(个人书面语言和协作口头语言)如何在认知和行为上参与教师反馈。来自中国一所公立初中两个班级的81名学生(13-14岁,英语水平A1-A2)和两名英语教师参与了本研究。全面的教师反馈(关注语言错误,内容和组织)提供给学生在六周内完成的三个写作任务。研究发现,教师反馈的协同加工激发了学生更深层次的认知加工,使他们注意到语言错误之外的问题,并鼓励了学习者的自主性。另一方面,个人书面语言促进了学生在语言过程中注意到教师的反馈,尽管主要关注语法和机制。与协作处理条件相比,书面语言也使学生在修订中能够根据更多的教师反馈点采取行动。讨论了两种反馈处理条件比较的教学意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
7.10%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: Language Teaching Research is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes research within the area of second or foreign language teaching. Although articles are written in English, the journal welcomes studies dealing with the teaching of languages other than English as well. The journal is a venue for studies that demonstrate sound research methods and which report findings that have clear pedagogical implications. A wide range of topics in the area of language teaching is covered, including: -Programme -Syllabus -Materials design -Methodology -The teaching of specific skills and language for specific purposes Thorough investigation and research ensures this journal is: -International in focus, publishing work from countries worldwide -Interdisciplinary, encouraging work which seeks to break down barriers that have isolated language teaching professionals from others concerned with pedagogy -Innovative, seeking to stimulate new avenues of enquiry, including ''action'' research
期刊最新文献
Preservice English language teacher self-efficacy in Türkiye: A cross-sectional analysis When ChatGPT gets it wrong: investigating third position repair by L2 learners at varying proficiency levels Collocational depth, L1 interference, and strategic engagement: A longitudinal study Investigating pre-service teachers’ AI literacy for ELL instruction: A mixed-methods study Effect of student engagement on growth mindset in learning English-as-a-foreign-language vocabulary: Role of foreign language enjoyment as mediator
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1