Reflective practice: A longitudinal - mofet.macam.ac.il .Reflective practice: A longitudinal case

Embed Size (px)

Text of Reflective practice: A longitudinal - mofet.macam.ac.il .Reflective practice: A longitudinal case

  • 1 1

    IFAW, 2016

    Reflective practice: A longitudinal

    case study on supervisor feedback

    Neomy Storch

    School of Languages & Linguistics

    The University of Melbourne

    neomys@unimelb.edu.au

  • Introduction

    Research to date:

    Experimental studies on effective

    written corrective feedback (e.g. Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Hartshorn et al.,

    2010; Van Beuningen et al., 2008)

    Surveys & descriptive CSs on

    feedback given on draft chapters

    of thesis (e.g. Basturkmen et al., 2012; Kumar & Stracke, 2007)

    Theoretical framework?

    2

    Feedback= most

    powerful factor in

    learning to write well

    (Leki, 2000)

  • Sociocultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978)

    Cognitive development

    occurs in highly contextualized activities

    in collaboration with a more knowledgeable

    individual (expert)

    requires effective assistance: scaffolding (Wood

    et al., 1976)

    mediated by tools (e.g. language)

    However: Not all forms of assistance qualify as

    scaffolding

    3

  • Attributes of effective scaffolding

    Dynamic process

    Attuned to the needs of the novice (learner):

    guided by the learners performance

    e.g. Aljaafreh & Lantolf (1994): implicit explicit scale

    of feedback on language use

    over time, scaffold gradually removed as learner

    becomes self-regulated

    Encourages/allows handover (van Lier, 2000)

    4

  • The study

    Aim:

    Use sociocultural theory (SCT) to analyse the

    feedback that I give as a supervisor: what do I

    respond to? How do I respond? Does my feedback

    change over time?

    Overarching research question:

    Is the kind of feedback I provide as a supervisor =

    scaffolded assistance?

    i.e Over time: quantity & directness

    5

  • Research design

    Retrospective case study

    Student participant: Maya (pseudonym) Japanese female

    Master in Applied Linguistics completed successfully in 2011

    Minor thesis (10,000 words): CSs of L2 students processing corrective

    feedback on their writing

    Feedback process (approx. 1 week cycle): draft submitted (email) receives feedback (email) meets supervisor (face to face)

    Data: Collected over 1 month 3 drafts of a literature review chapter + written feedback

    (electronic) on these drafts

    6

  • 7

  • Analysis of feedback

    All feedback points (Storch & Tapper, 2000) in body of text

    = comments, symbols, deletions, corrections

    Quantity

    Focus of feedback: content (ideas, intended meaning, interpretation of research)

    structure (organization of ideas, paragraph structure)

    language (expression/accuracy)

    other (e.g. headings)

    Form Comment: rhetorical form (e.g. statement, question)

    Corrective feedback: direct (e.g. reformulation, deletion) vs.

    indirect (e.g. underline)

    8

  • Coding feedback

    9

    Example of feedback Form Focus

    Concerning the revision process following

    feedback, less research

    Deletion Language/expression

    Think aloud showed the had an influence

    Reformulation Language/ accuracy

    The revision of the composition was

    conducted referring to the reformulated

    text

    Underlining Language/expression

    Whats the link between these two

    statements?

    Question Structure (cohesion)

    Perhaps Schmidts point about could be

    discussed here Suggestion Content (ideas)

    You have mentioned revision in the

    heading already

    Statement Other/sub-heading

    Not clear please explain Directive Content (interpretation of results)

  • Directness continuum

    Direct (explicit) Indirect

    deletions questions underlining

    reformulations statements suggestions

    directives

    10

  • Findings: Quantity & form of feedback

    Draft 1

    (15 Nov)

    Draft 2

    (11 Dec)

    Draft 3

    (15 Dec)

    No. words 3399 3298 3101

    No. of feedback

    points 181 165 47

    Deletions 53 (29%) 58 (35%) 16 (34%)

    Reformulations 48 (26%) 66 (40%) 14 (30%)

    Underlining 20 (11%) 21 (13%) 5 (11%)

    Comments 60 (33%) 20 (12%) 12 (26%)

    11

  • Findings: Focus of feedback points

    Draft 1

    (N=181)

    Draft 2

    (N=165)

    Draft 3

    (N=47)

    Content

    (ideas)

    27

    (15%)

    7 5

    Structure

    (coherence,

    logic)

    17 8 1

    Language

    (expression,

    grammar)

    133

    (73%)

    149

    (90%)

    41

    (87%)

    Other 4 1 0

    12

  • Comments: No. & Focus

    Draft 1

    (N=60)

    Draft 2

    (N=20)

    Draft 3

    (N=12)

    Content

    (ideas)

    27 (45%)

    7 (35%) 5 (42%)

    Structure

    (coherence,

    logic)

    17 (28%) 8 (40%) 1 (8%)

    Language

    (expression,

    grammar)

    12 (20%) 4 (20%) 6 (50%)

    Other 4 (7%) 1 (5%) 0

    13

  • Comments: Form

    Draft 1

    (N=60)

    Draft 2

    (N=20)

    Draft 3

    (N=12)

    Directives

    20 (33%) 6 (30%) 2 (17%)

    Statements

    17 (28%) 6 (30%) 3 (25%)

    Questions

    21 (35%) 5 (25%) 6 (50%)

    Suggestions 2 (3%) 3 (15%) 1 (9%)

    14

  • Summary of findings

    Quantity of feedback over time:

    Substantial amount on Drafts 1 & 2

    only on Draft 3

    Focus of feedback:

    Mainly on language (range 70-90%)

    Form of feedback:

    most feedback on all 3 drafts, particularly corrective

    feedback = Direct (deletions & reformulations)

    few suggestions

    On Draft 3, questions > directives

    15

  • Discussion

    Focus & form of feedback on language:

    concurs with other research findings (e.g. Basturkmen et al., 2012; Kumar & Stracke, 2007)

    Evidence of scaffolding? Only 3rd draft

    Quantity of feedback points

    Directness of comments

    However:

    Still predominantly direct corrective feedback

    Why?

    16

  • No. & type of errors

    Draft 1 Draft 2 Draft 3

    Total 113 113 69

    Morphology 73 (65%) 47 (42%) 30 (43%)

    Syntax 8 (7%) 30 (27%) 24 (35%)

    Expression/le

    xical choices

    28 (25%) 35 (30%) 13 (19%)

    Other (e.g.

    punctuation)

    3 1

    17

  • Response to feedback

    Draft 1: Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), which has an essential role in L2 learners writing, is

    to provide learners with error correction in their writing. Since the 1980s, the effectiveness

    of WCF has attracted researchers attention to researches.

    Draft 2

    Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is believed to have an essential role in L2 learners

    writing. Since the 1980s, however, a debate about WCF has attracted researchers attention

    and whether the WCF truly lead to improve in students writing has started being discussed

    Draft 3:

    Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is to provide learners with error correction in their

    writing.

    18

    Definition needed

  • Explaining findings

    Type of errors: ease of providing direct corrective

    feedback?

    Revision: New errors introduced (e.g. awkward

    expressions, over/misuse of linking devices)

    Expediency? Tools used?

    Lack of awareness of pattern of feedback

    provision and messages transmitted?

    19

  • Final reflections

    Mayas comments:

    My supervisor gave me a lot of w-h questions or asked

    for elaboration and clear explanation, which made me

    spend a lot of time. First, for example, I tried to

    understand what she asked Since my supervisor

    kindly gave me a lot of feedback, I sometimes felt

    overwhelmed though feedback was all helpful.

    Need to critically reflect on our own

    feedback practices

    20