Murad Abdu Saeed , Atef AbuSa'aleek , Mohammed Abdullah Alharbi
{"title":"从评价框架审视教师在书面、音频和截屏反馈中对英语学习者写作的评价性语言:语言学视角","authors":"Murad Abdu Saeed , Atef AbuSa'aleek , Mohammed Abdullah Alharbi","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Technology facilitates teacher corrective feedback on students' writing, but there is a need to examine how written, audio and screencast modes affect teacher's evaluative language of electronic (e-) feedback from linguistic approaches. By using the engagement resources of the appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study examined the effect of written, audio and screencast modes on the instructor's evaluative language in his e-feedback on writing and the text revisions of 15 pairs of Saudi EFL learners. The linguistic analysis of the e-feedback revealed that the instructor's engagement resources differed across the three e-feedback modes. Specifically, the screencast and audio e-feedback modes were dominated by expanding resources (resources expanding the space for dialogue) as opposed to the prevalence of contracting resources (resources limiting/shutting down the space for dialogue) in the written feedback mode. Moreover, the audio and screencast feedback modes contained more statements and suggestions whereas the written feedback mode was dominated by commands/orders and suggested corrections. The content analysis revealed that the screencast e-feedback mode addressed a higher number of global issues in writing; however, the audio and written e-feedback modes addressed a higher number of local issues in writing. Despite the higher overall rate of successful text revisions resulting from the screencast and audio e-feedback modes, no significant differences were found except in relation to students' global text revisions. The study offers useful pedagogical implications for instructors in effectively responding to students' writing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Examining teacher’s evaluative language in written, audio and screencast feedback on EFL learners’ writing from the appraisal framework: A linguistic perspective\",\"authors\":\"Murad Abdu Saeed , Atef AbuSa'aleek , Mohammed Abdullah Alharbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Technology facilitates teacher corrective feedback on students' writing, but there is a need to examine how written, audio and screencast modes affect teacher's evaluative language of electronic (e-) feedback from linguistic approaches. By using the engagement resources of the appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study examined the effect of written, audio and screencast modes on the instructor's evaluative language in his e-feedback on writing and the text revisions of 15 pairs of Saudi EFL learners. The linguistic analysis of the e-feedback revealed that the instructor's engagement resources differed across the three e-feedback modes. Specifically, the screencast and audio e-feedback modes were dominated by expanding resources (resources expanding the space for dialogue) as opposed to the prevalence of contracting resources (resources limiting/shutting down the space for dialogue) in the written feedback mode. Moreover, the audio and screencast feedback modes contained more statements and suggestions whereas the written feedback mode was dominated by commands/orders and suggested corrections. The content analysis revealed that the screencast e-feedback mode addressed a higher number of global issues in writing; however, the audio and written e-feedback modes addressed a higher number of local issues in writing. Despite the higher overall rate of successful text revisions resulting from the screencast and audio e-feedback modes, no significant differences were found except in relation to students' global text revisions. The study offers useful pedagogical implications for instructors in effectively responding to students' writing.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Assessing Writing\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"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/S1075293524000643\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000643","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Examining teacher’s evaluative language in written, audio and screencast feedback on EFL learners’ writing from the appraisal framework: A linguistic perspective
Technology facilitates teacher corrective feedback on students' writing, but there is a need to examine how written, audio and screencast modes affect teacher's evaluative language of electronic (e-) feedback from linguistic approaches. By using the engagement resources of the appraisal framework within Systemic Functional Linguistics, this study examined the effect of written, audio and screencast modes on the instructor's evaluative language in his e-feedback on writing and the text revisions of 15 pairs of Saudi EFL learners. The linguistic analysis of the e-feedback revealed that the instructor's engagement resources differed across the three e-feedback modes. Specifically, the screencast and audio e-feedback modes were dominated by expanding resources (resources expanding the space for dialogue) as opposed to the prevalence of contracting resources (resources limiting/shutting down the space for dialogue) in the written feedback mode. Moreover, the audio and screencast feedback modes contained more statements and suggestions whereas the written feedback mode was dominated by commands/orders and suggested corrections. The content analysis revealed that the screencast e-feedback mode addressed a higher number of global issues in writing; however, the audio and written e-feedback modes addressed a higher number of local issues in writing. Despite the higher overall rate of successful text revisions resulting from the screencast and audio e-feedback modes, no significant differences were found except in relation to students' global text revisions. The study offers useful pedagogical implications for instructors in effectively responding to students' writing.
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.