1 1
IFAW, 2016
Reflective practice: A longitudinal
case study on supervisor feedback
Neomy Storch
School of Languages & Linguistics
The University of Melbourne
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