Writing Feedback from a Research Perspective

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Being an essential part of teaching and learning, feedback in close connection with evaluation is the focus of many researchers. Their interest lies mainly in automated systems, learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of writing feedback and feedback on feedback, new forms of feedback and their efficacy for motivation and writing performance. The review aims to identify the prevailing directions of research in the field.

Methods. The review is based on 194 documents extracted from the Scopus database. The ultimate results of the search for “writing feedback” were limited to a field filter (social sciences, arts & humanities), a language filter (English), a document type (article, review, book chapter, conference paper) as well to manual screening in accordance with the inclusion criteria and relevance to the theme.

Results and Discussion. Seven directions of research were identified: automated and non-automated evaluation; feedback on writing: general issues; automated feedback; peer review and teacher feedback on writing; perceptions and emotions relating to writing feedback; feedback on scholarly writing; evaluation and improvement in Chinese calligraphy. The reviewed documents proved the prominence of the topic and greater interest in new computer-mediated forms of feedback on writing.

Conclusion. The results of the review may serve as a guidance for researchers at large and potential JLE authors focused on teaching and learning writing. The limitations of the review are linked to the scope and methods applied.

About the authors

L. Raitskaya

MGIMO University

Email: raitskaya.l.k@inno.mgimo.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2086-6090

E. Tikhonova

HSE University; Russian Biotechnological University

Author for correspondence.
Email: jle.hse.journal@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8252-6150

References

  1. Aben, J. E. J., Timmermans, A. C., Dingyloudi, F., Lara, M. M., & Strijbos, J. (2022). What influences students' peer-feedback uptake? Relations between error tolerance, feedback tolerance, writing self-efficacy, perceived language skills and peer-feedback processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102175
  2. Aranha, S., & Cavalari, S. M. S. (2015). Institutional integrated teletandem: What have we been learning about writing and peer feedback? DELTA Documentacao De Estudos Em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada, 31(3), 763-780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445039175922916369
  3. Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275
  4. Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students' writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
  5. Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning': Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
  6. Carter, S., Sun, Q., & Jabeen, F. (2021). Doctoral writing: Learning to write and give feedback across cultures. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 12(3), 371-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-07-2020-0054
  7. Chang, G. C. L. (2014). Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha
  8. Chang, T., Li, Y., Huang, H., & Whitfield, B. (2021). Exploring EFL students' writing performance and their acceptance of AI-based automated writing feedback. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 31-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3459043.3459065
  9. Cotos, E., & Pendar, N. (2016). Discourse classification into rhetorical functions for AWE feedback. CALICO Journal, 33(1), 92-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.27047
  10. Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412452980
  11. Cunningham, K. J. (2019). How language choices in feedback change with technology: Engagement in text and screencast feedback on ESL writing. Computers and Education, 135, 91-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.002
  12. Cunningham, K. J., & Link, S. (2021). Video and text feedback on ESL writing: Understanding ATTITUDE and negotiating relationships. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100797
  13. Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
  14. Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.974026
  15. Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42(1), 333-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023
  16. Howard Chen, H., Sarah Cheng, H., & Chirstine Yang, T. (2017).Comparing grammar feedback provided by teachers with an automated writing evaluation system. English Teaching and Learning, 41(4), 99-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2017.41.4.04
  17. Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
  18. Knight, S. K., Greenberger, S. W., & McNaughton, M. E. (2021). An interdisciplinary perspective: The value that instructors place on giving written feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 115-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418810127
  19. Kumaran, S. R. K., McDonagh, D. C., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). Increasing quality and involvement in online peer feedback exchange. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3134698
  20. Lai, Y., & Zhang, X. (2021). Evaluating the stability of digital ink Chinese characters from CFL beginners based on center of gravity guided by calligraphy. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 19-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3451400.3451404
  21. Lam, S. T. E. (2021). A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An activity theory perspective. Computers and Composition, 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102666
  22. Lee, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., & Yu, L. (2021). Ensemble multi-channel neural networks for scientific language editing evaluation. IEEE Access, 9, 158540-158547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3130042
  23. Lipnevich, A. A., Murano, D., Krannich, M., & Goetz, T. (2021). Should I grade or should I comment: Links among feedback, emotions, and performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102020
  24. Li, R., Meng, Z., Tian, M., Zhang, Z., Ni, C., & Xiao, W. (2019). Examining EFL learners' individual antecedents on the adoption of automated writing evaluation in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 784-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1540433
  25. Liu, M., Li, Y., Xu, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Automated essay feedback generation and its impact on revision. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 502-513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2612659
  26. Liu, Q., & Wu, S. (2019). Same goal, varying beliefs: How students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 299-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.03
  27. Mazzotta, M., & Belcher, D. (2018). Social-emotional outcomes of corrective feedback as mediation on second language Japanese writing. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(1), 47-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.17.1.47
  28. Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
  29. Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
  30. Parker, P., & Baughan, P. (2009). Providing written assessment feedback that students will value and read. International Journal of Learning, 16(11), 253-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v16i11/46715
  31. Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407
  32. Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Johnson, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Automated writing instruction and feedback: Instructional mode, attitudes, and revising. The Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 3, 2089-2093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621471
  33. Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Weston, J. L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). The writing pal intelligent tutoring system: Usability testing and development. Computers and Composition, 34, 39-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2014.09.002
  34. Saricaoglu, A. (2019). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners' written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X
  35. Stevenson, M. (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001
  36. Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2010). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 206-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651909353304
  37. Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating EFL students' linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V12I1.46428
  38. Thirakunkovit, S., & Chamcharatsri, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140-170.
  39. Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course.Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
  40. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
  41. Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798
  42. Yu, S., Di Zhang, E., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643
  43. Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021). What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850
  44. Wang, Y., Shang, H., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students' writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300
  45. Wei, J., Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (2019). Handling the loss of innocence: First-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(1), 157-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1541074
  46. Wilson, J., Ahrendt, C., Fudge, E. A., Raiche, A., Beard, G., & MacArthur, C. (2021). Elementary teachers' perceptions of automated feedback and automated scoring: Transforming the teaching and learning of writing using automated writing evaluation. Computers and Education, 168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104208
  47. Wu, Y., Lu, X., Zhou, D., & Cai, Y. (2013). Virtual calligraphic learning and writing evaluation. Proceedings - 6th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design, ISCID 2013, 2 108-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCID.2013.141
  48. Zhang, M., He, Q., Du, J., Liu, F., & Huang, B. (2022). Learners' perceived advantages and social-affective dispositions toward online peer feedback in academic writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.973478
  49. Zhang, X., & McEneaney, J. E. (2020). What is the influence of peer-feedback and author response on Chinese university students' English writing performance? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 123-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.259
  50. Zhang, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Student engagement with automated feedback on academic writing: A study on Uyghur ethnic minority students in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2102175

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.