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 learner’s 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

What’s the link between these two

statements?

Question Structure (cohesion)

Perhaps Schmidt’s 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……

Maya’s 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