STUDENTS’ VOICE ON FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONS IN ACADEMIC WRITING

(Based on Erasmus Teaching Experience in Slovak and Hungarian University)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.234216

Keywords:

academic writing; EFL students’ voice; writing instructions; feedback

Abstract

Although studies on the approaches and methods of teaching Academic Writing in university classroom are extensive, comparative studies on students’ evaluation of the classroom strategies and techniques applied are still scant. A current paper is based on our comparative research conducted both at Slovak and Hungarian universities at the faculty of Humanities. The objective of this particular study was to explore senior university students’ “voice” on feedback and instructions in EFL academic writing classroom. It suggests that the pinpoint is on the students’ viewpoint rather than their supervisors’. Therefore, our task was to scrutinize the students’ perspectives and based on them develop further research. Observably, the analysed data furnish more positive students’ responses (within both Group A-Slovak and Group B-Hungarian) on feedback, as well as on being graded and being recognised as a writer. However, grading might be an issue in EFL classroom: based on the research, it awakes heterogeneous opinions of the respondents. The final section of the questionnaire was aimed at finding out how instructions for writing during studies can be improved. It is notable that both groups (A and B) (from 66,67% to 100%) consider feedback, professional tutoring, online support and extra courses in writing as an effective tool for improving writing skills within academic curriculum. A logical follow-up of the study might be investigating most appropriate and “customer-friendly” ways of feedback and instruction. This might further instigate creating resources to support the unfolding of academic writing feedback across EFL program Europe-wide.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Olena Hundarenko, the University of Zilina, Slovakia

assistant professor

Department of English Language and Literature 

Faculty of Humanities 

References

  1. Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
    |
  2. Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson D. (2015). The Calibration of Student Judgement through Self-Assessment: Disruptive Effects of Assessment Patterns. Higher Education Research & Development, 34 (1), 45-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934328
    |
  3. Brisk, M. E. (2014). Engaging students in academic literacies. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.12.003
  4. Bruce, S., & Rafoth, B. (Eds.) (2009). ESL writers: A guide for writing center tutors (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Boynton/Cook.
  5. Burgess, H., Sieminski, S., & Arthur, L. (2006). Achieving your doctorate in education. London, UK, and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  6. Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and evaluation in Higher education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
    |
  7. Chitez, M., Kruse, O., Castellу, M. (2015). The European writing survey: background, structure, implementation, and some results. Winterthur: ZHAW Zurich University of Applied Sciences. Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 9.
  8. Dmitrenko, N. Y., & Budas, I. O. (2021). The Impact of Feedback on Students’ Autonomous ESP Learning Outcomes. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 13(2), 323-339. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/13.2/424
  9. Esterhazy, R., & Damsa, C. (2017). Unpacking the Feedback Process: An Analysis of Undergraduate Students’ Interactional Meaning-Making of Feedback Comments. Studies in Higher Education, 44(2), 260-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1359249
    |
  10. Fairbairn, G., & Winch, Ch. (2011). Reading, writing and reasoning (3rd ed). Maidenhead: OU.
  11. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Research implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  12. Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/ 10.3998/mpub.263445
  13. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. DOI: 10.3998/mpub.2173290
  14. Frodesen, J. (2001). Grammar in writing. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.). Teaching English as a second or foreign language (3rd ed.), (pp. 233-248). Boston, MA: Heinle.
  15. Hanna, K. J. (2015). Student perceptions of teacher comments: Relationships between specific aspects of teacher comments and writing apprehension (doctoral dissertation, 2010). Retrieved April 7, 2015 from http://proquest.umi.com.eserv.uum.edu.my/pqdweb?index=0&did=1949552481&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD &VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1340782765&clientId=28929.
  16. Hassan, B. (2001). The Relationship of Writing Apprehension and Self-Esteem to the Writing Quality and Quantity of EFL University Students. Mansoura Faculty of Education Journal, 39,1-36.
  17. Hedgcock, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2009). Teaching L2 composition: purpose, process, and practice (3rd ed). Routledge.
  18. Hedgcock, J. (2010). Theory-and-practice and other questionable dualisms in L2 writing. In P. K. Matsuda (Ed.), Practicing theory in second language writing (pp. 229-244). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
  19. Hundarenko, O. (2020). Students’ Perspectives on Academic Writing in European Higher Education (Based on 2019 Erasmus Teaching Experience in Slovak and Hungarian University). Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(4), 87-102. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/12.4/335
  20. Hundarenko, O. (2019). Challenges of teaching academic writing skills in ESL classroom (Based on international teaching experience). Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 11(4), 70-83. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/158
  21. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
  22. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399
  23. Kara, S. (2013). Writing anxiety: a case study on students’ reasons for anxiety in writing classes. Anadolu Journal of Educational Sciences International, 3(1), 103-111. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ajesi/issue/1528/18750
  24. Khan, S. (2016). Process writing instruction and assessment. Langlit, 2/3, 788-794.
  25. Kostikova, I., Viediernikova, T., Holubnycha, L., & Miasoiedova, S. (2019). The Competency -Based Approach to Passing First Certificate in English. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 111, 117-130. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/100
  26. Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2008). InterViews (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
  27. Lazebna, O., Dychka, N., & Kotvytska, V. (2016). Teaching students of information technology specialties english writing. Advanced Education, 6, 11–15. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.72947
  28. Lane, J., & Lange, E. (2011). Writing clearly: an editing guide (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Heinle.
  29. Leláková, E. & Bačová, B. (2015). Development and innovation of curriculum in foreign language. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 2(1), 61-68. https://doi.org/10.14738/assrj.21.644
  30. Lee, I. (2007). Feedback in Hong Kong secondary writing classrooms: Assessment for learning or assessment of learning? Assessing Writing, 12, 180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.02.003
    |
  31. Leitch, R., Gardner, J., Mitchell, S., Lundy, L., Odena, O., Galanouli, D. and Clough, P. (2007). Consulting pupils in assessment for learning classrooms: the twists and turns of working with students as co-researchers. Educational Action Research, 15 (3), 459–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650790701514887
    |
  32. Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 1990, 5-19.
  33. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level-writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
    | |
  34. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: a guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1992.
  35. Montgomery, J., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99.
    | |
  36. Na Phuket, P. R., & Othman, N. B. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ errors in writing. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(32) 99-106.
  37. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Van Merrieünboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.), (pp. 125-143). New York: Erlbaum.
  38. Nikolenko, O., Rebenko, M., & Doronina, N. (2021). Academic Literacy: The Analysis Of First-Year Ukrainian University Students’ Errors In Essay Writing. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 13(1Sup1), 279-298. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/13.1Sup1/396
  39. Odena, O., & Burgess, H. (2017). How doctoral students and graduates describe facilitating experiences and strategies for their thesis writing learning process: a qualitative approach. Studies in higher education. Available Open Access at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1063598
    | |
  40. O’Keeffe, L., Rosa, A., Vannini, I., & White, B. (2020). Promote Informal Formative Assessment practices in Higher Education: the potential of video analysis as a training tool. Form@re Open Journal Per La Formazione in Rete, 20(1), 43-61. https://doi.org/10.13128/form-8241
  41. Payne, A. R. (2012). Development of the academic writing motivation questionnaire. Master's thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA. http://purl.galileo.usg.edu/uga_etd/payne_ashley_r_201212_ma
  42. Plonsky, L., & Mills, S. V. (2006). An exploratory study of differing perceptions of error correction between a teacher and students: Bridging the gap. Northern Arizona university applied language learning, 16, 55-77.
  43. Reynolds, D. (2009). One on one with second language writers: A guide for writing tutors, teachers, and consultants. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  44. Sermsook, K., Liamnimitr, J., & Pochakorn, R. (2017). An Analysis of Errors in Written English sentences: A Case Study of Thai EFL Students. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 101-110. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p101.
  45. Sverdlova, I. (2021). Procedures for assessing cognitive skills of prospective language teachers. Advanced Education, 18, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.231421
    |
  46. Tyagi, B. (2012). English for specific purposes: introduction and role of teachers in teaching ESP. The Journal of English language teaching, 23.
  47. Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2017). Developing Evaluative Judgement: Enabling Students to Make Decisions about the Quality of Work. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3.
    | |
  48. Thomson, P., & Walker, M. (2010). The Routledge doctoral supervisor’s companion. Abingdon: Routledge.
  49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. (A. Kozulin, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  50. WAC Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Basic Principles of WAC. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/intro/pop3a.cfm
  51. Wasfy, N. F., Abed , R. A. R., Gouda, E. M., Ghaly, M. S., & El-Wazir, Y. M. (2021). Effectiveness of instructional design framework based on cognitive load theory for clinical skills training. Advanced Education, 18, 102–108. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.225686
    |

Downloads

Published

2021-12-29

How to Cite

Hundarenko, O. (2021). STUDENTS’ VOICE ON FEEDBACK AND INSTRUCTIONS IN ACADEMIC WRITING : (Based on Erasmus Teaching Experience in Slovak and Hungarian University). Advanced Education, 8(19), 62–68. https://doi.org/10.20535/2410-8286.234216

Issue

2021: Issue 19

Section

ARTICLES

License

Copyright (c) 2021 Olena Hundarenko/Dr Hundarenko

Creative Commons License

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

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

    1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

    1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).