Examining EFL learners’ quantity and quality of uptake of teacher corrective feedback on writing across three different editing settings

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100911
Saleh Mosleh Alharthi
{"title":"Examining EFL learners’ quantity and quality of uptake of teacher corrective feedback on writing across three different editing settings","authors":"Saleh Mosleh Alharthi","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100911","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the role of dialogue in feedback uptake, no study has examined students’ uptake in different dialogue-based settings. Therefore, this study on 20 EFL Saudi students examined their uptake of feedback in self-dialogue-based, learner-learner dialogue-based, and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Analysis of teacher corrective feedback and students’ first and revised drafts of essays revealed that the rates of uptake quantity (92.3 %, 97.5 % &amp; 95.4 %) and uptake quality (71.3 %, 80.5 % &amp; 93.4 %) varied across the three settings, respectively. Moreover, while students integrated more global feedback in the teacher-learner dialogue (38.8 %) and learner-learner dialogue-based editing settings (38.8 %), they integrated more local feedback (69.1 %) in the self-dialogue-based editing setting. A post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in the uptake quantity in favor of learner-learner dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings and in the uptake quality in favor of the teacher-learner dialogue-based editing setting. Moreover, learner-learner and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings led to higher global feedback quality than self-dialogue-based setting. Students’ local feedback uptake differed significantly for the self-dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Despite the perceived learning benefits of feedback dialogues, students were challenged by initial apprehensions, feedback nature and technology use in feedback dialogues. The study offers useful implications for teachers and researchers.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":"63 ","pages":"Article 100911"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524001041","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 role of dialogue in feedback uptake, no study has examined students’ uptake in different dialogue-based settings. Therefore, this study on 20 EFL Saudi students examined their uptake of feedback in self-dialogue-based, learner-learner dialogue-based, and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Analysis of teacher corrective feedback and students’ first and revised drafts of essays revealed that the rates of uptake quantity (92.3 %, 97.5 % & 95.4 %) and uptake quality (71.3 %, 80.5 % & 93.4 %) varied across the three settings, respectively. Moreover, while students integrated more global feedback in the teacher-learner dialogue (38.8 %) and learner-learner dialogue-based editing settings (38.8 %), they integrated more local feedback (69.1 %) in the self-dialogue-based editing setting. A post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in the uptake quantity in favor of learner-learner dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings and in the uptake quality in favor of the teacher-learner dialogue-based editing setting. Moreover, learner-learner and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings led to higher global feedback quality than self-dialogue-based setting. Students’ local feedback uptake differed significantly for the self-dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Despite the perceived learning benefits of feedback dialogues, students were challenged by initial apprehensions, feedback nature and technology use in feedback dialogues. The study offers useful implications for teachers and researchers.
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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Assessing Writing
Assessing Writing Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
17.90%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
期刊最新文献
Designing a rating scale for an integrated reading-writing test: A needs-oriented approach Towards a better understanding of integrated writing performance: The influence of literacy strategy use and independent language skills Modeling the interplay between teacher support, anxiety and grit in predicting feedback-seeking behavior in L2 writing Validation of the individual and collective self-efficacy scale for teaching writing in post-secondary faculty How L2 student writers engage with automated feedback: A longitudinal perspective
×
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:481959085
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