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

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Assessing Writing Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2024.100871
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 ,&nbsp;Atef AbuSa'aleek ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Atef AbuSa'aleek ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

技术为教师纠正学生的写作提供了便利,但有必要从语言学的角度研究书面、音频和截屏模式如何影响教师对电子(e-)反馈的评价性语言。本研究利用系统功能语言学评价框架中的参与资源,考察了书面、音频和截屏模式对教师在对 15 对沙特 EFL 学习者的写作和文本修改进行电子反馈时的评价性语言的影响。对电子反馈的语言分析表明,在三种电子反馈模式中,教师的参与资源各不相同。具体而言,截屏和音频电子反馈模式以扩展资源(扩大对话空间的资源)为主,而书面反馈模式则以收缩资源(限制/关闭对话空间的资源)为主。此外,音频和截屏反馈模式包含更多的陈述和建议,而书面反馈模式则以命令/指令和建议更正为主。内容分析显示,截屏电子反馈模式解决了更多写作中的全局性问题;然而,音频和书面电子反馈模式解决了更多写作中的局部性问题。尽管截屏电子反馈模式和音频电子反馈模式的总体文本修改成功率更高,但除了学生的全局性文本修改外,没有发现其他显著差异。这项研究为教师有效回应学生的写作提供了有益的教学启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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
A comparative study of voice in Chinese English-major undergraduates’ timed and untimed argument writing The impact of task duration on the scoring of independent writing responses of adult L2-English writers A structural equation investigation of linguistic features as indices of writing quality in assessed secondary-level EMI learners’ scientific reports Validating an integrated reading-into-writing scale with trained university students Understanding the SSARC model of task sequencing: Assessing L2 writing development
×
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