{"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 % & 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.</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.
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.