Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback for Academic Discourse: The Sociomaterial Potential for Writing Development and Socialization in Higher Education

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background. There is a prevailing belief that unfocused written corrective feedback may not be suitable to promote students’ academic writing development.

Purpose. This perspective piece demonstrates how unfocused written corrective feedback reflects the principles of sociomateriality, which views learning as dynamic.

Perspectives. Unfocused written corrective feedback has the potential to support university students’ academic discourse socialization. This perspective is based on the observation that actual written corrective feedback in a classroom setting is varied and contextual, and not focused on any particular grammar form or writing feature.

Conclusion. Unfocused written corrective feedback represents an optimal approach to support university students’ awareness and engagement with variables found in their learning ecology. These variables can support students’ academic writing development.

About the authors

D. B Loo

Universiti Malaysia Sabah

Author for correspondence.
Email: daronloo@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9203-3608

References

  1. Anderson, T. (2017). The doctoral gaze: Foreign PhD students' internal and external academic discourse socialization. Linguistics and Education, 37, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2016.12.001
  2. Anderson, T. (2021). The socialization of L2 doctoral students through written feedback. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 20(2), 134-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2020.1726758
  3. Brudermann, C., Grosbois, M., & Sarré, C. (2021). Accuracy development in L2 writing: Exploring the potential of computer-assisted unfocused indirect corrective feedback in an online EFL course. ReCALL. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834402100015X
  4. Dang, T. K. A., Bonar, G., & Yao, J. (2021). Professional learning for educators teaching in English-medium-instruction in higher education: a systematic review. Teaching in Higher Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1863350
  5. Dimova, S. (2020). English language requirements for enrolment in EMI programs in higher education: A European case. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100896
  6. Elliott, S., Hendry, H., Ayres, C., Blackman, K., Browning, F., Colebrook, D.,.. & White, P. (2019). ‘On the outside I'm smiling but inside I'm crying': Communication successes and challenges for undergraduate academic writing. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(9), 1163-1180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2018.1455077
  7. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  8. Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-material assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.649421
  9. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
  10. Gourlay, L. (2017). Student engagement, ‘learnification' and the sociomaterial: Critical perspectives on higher education policy. Higher Education Policy, 30, 23-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0037-1
  11. Gravett, K. (2020). Feedback literacies as sociomaterial practice. Critical Studies in Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2020.1747099
  12. Guerrettaz, A. M., Engman, M. M., & Matsumoto, Y. (2021). Empirically defining language learning and teaching materials in use through sociomaterial perspectives. The Modern Language Journal, 105(S1), 3-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12691
  13. Kobayashi, M., Zappa-Hollman, S., & Duff, P. A. (2017). Academic discourse socialization. In P.A. Duff, & S. May (Eds.), Language Socialization (pp. 239-254). https:. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02255-0_18
  14. Knoch, U., May, L., Macqueen, S., Pill, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Transitioning from university to the workplace: Stakeholder perceptions of academic and professional writing demands. IELTS Research Reports Online Series (Reference: 2016/1).
  15. Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100734
  16. Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers' attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809
  17. Loo, D. B. (2020). Is Language Awareness Supported by Grammar Lessons, Indirect and Metalinguistic Feedback? An Examination of Graduate Students' Writing across Drafts. rEFLections, 27(1), 1-21.
  18. Loo, D. B. (2021). Am I promoting feedback cycle and sociomaterial learning? Insights from practitioner inquiry on written corrective feedback in final drafts. Issues in Language Studies, 10(1), 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.33736/ils.2573.2021
  19. Loo, D. B., Keough, W., Sundaresan, A., & Thomas, D. (2018). Perceptions towards engagement: The case of Thai English majors in an international higher education environment. LEARN Journal, 11(2), 116-133.
  20. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
  21. McKinley, J. (2019). Evolving the TESOL teaching-research nexus. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 875-884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.509
  22. Morita, N. (2009). Language, culture, gender, and academic socialization. Language and Education, 23(5), 443-460. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780902752081
  23. Nguyen, Q., & Buckingham, L. (2019). Source-use expectations in assignments: The perceptions and practices of Vietnamese Master's students. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 90-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2018.10.001
  24. Nicolás-Conesa, F., Manchon, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848-873. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
  25. Nieminen, J. H., Tai, J., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2021). Student agency in feedback: beyond the individual. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1887080
  26. Pineteh, E. A. (2014). The academic writing challenges of undergraduate students: A South African case study.International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 12-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p12
  27. Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs.comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners' writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
  28. Reynolds, B. L., & Kao, C. W. (2021). The effects of digital game-based instruction, teacher instruction, and direct focused written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of English articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1617747
  29. Rose, H. (2019). Dismantling the ivory tower in TESOL: A renewed call for teaching-informed research. TESOL Quarterly, 53(3), 895-905. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.517
  30. Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
  31. Winstone, N. E., & Carless, D. (2021). Who is feedback for? The influence of accountability and quality assurance agendas on the enactment of feedback processes. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2021.1926221
  32. Yu, S., Jiang, L., & Zhou, N. (2020). Investigating what feedback practices contribute to students' writing motivation and engagement in Chinese EFL context: A large scale study. Assessing Writing, 44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100451
  33. Yusuf, N. K., Yunus, M. M., & Mohamed, A. E. (2018). Workplace writing in L2 experiences among millennial workforce: Learning to write in English. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 24(1), 145-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2018-2401-11
  34. Zhang, Y., Yu, S., & Yuan, K. (2020). Understanding Master's students' peer feedback practices from the academic discourse community perspective: A rethinking of postgraduate pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(2), 126-140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2018.1543261
  35. Zukas, M., & Malcolm, J. (2019). Reassembling academic work: A sociomaterial investigation of academic learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(3), 259-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1482861

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.