Обратная связь при обучении письму: обзор современных исследований
Аннотация
Введение. Будучи неотъемлемой частью преподавания и обучения, обратная связь, как и оценивание в целом, находится в центре внимания многих исследователей. Их интерес сводится, главным образом, к автоматизированным системам, восприятию учащимися и преподавателями обратной связи при написании и откликах на обратную связь, новым формам обратной связи и их эффективности для мотивации и выполнения письменных работ.
Цель обзора. Определение преобладающих направлений исследований в этой области.
Методы. Обзор основан на 194 документах, извлеченных из базы данных Scopus. Конечные результаты поиска по запросу «обратная связь на письменные задания» были ограничены фильтрами полей (социальные науки, искусство и гуманитарные науки), языковым фильтром (английский), типом документа (статья, обзор, глава книги, доклад конференции), а также ручным отбором в соответствии с критериями включения и релевантностью.
Результаты. Были определены семь направлений исследования: автоматизированная и неавтоматизированная оценка; обратная связь по написанию: общие вопросы; автоматизированная обратная связь; рецензирование и отзывы учителей о письме; восприятие и эмоции, связанные с отзывами о письме; отзывы о научном письме; оценка и совершенствование китайской каллиграфии. Рассмотренные публикации подтвердили актуальность тематики и возросший интерес к новым компьютерным формам обратной связи на письменные задания.
Вывод. Результаты обзора могут послужить руководством для исследователей в целом и потенциальных авторов журнала, ориентированных на преподавание и обучение письму. Ограничения обзора связаны с масштабом и применяемыми методами.
Скачивания
Литература
Aben, J. E. J., Timmermans, A. C., Dingyloudi, F., Lara, M. M., & Strijbos, J. (2022). What influences students' peer-feedback uptake? Relations between error tolerance, feedback tolerance, writing self-efficacy, perceived language skills and peer-feedback processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2022.102175
Aranha, S., & Cavalari, S. M. S. (2015). Institutional integrated teletandem: What have we been learning about writing and peer feedback? DELTA Documentacao De Estudos Em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada, 31(3), 763-780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-445039175922916369
Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1223275
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students' writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
Carter, S., & Kumar, V. (2017). ‘Ignoring me is part of learning': Supervisory feedback on doctoral writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(1), 68-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1123104
Carter, S., Sun, Q., & Jabeen, F. (2021). Doctoral writing: Learning to write and give feedback across cultures. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 12(3), 371-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/SGPE-07-2020-0054
Chang, G. C. L. (2014). Writing feedback as an exclusionary practice in higher education. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 262-275. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.37.3.05cha
Chang, T., Li, Y., Huang, H., & Whitfield, B. (2021). Exploring EFL students' writing performance and their acceptance of AI-based automated writing feedback. Paper presented at the ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 31-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3459043.3459065
Cotos, E., & Pendar, N. (2016). Discourse classification into rhetorical functions for AWE feedback. CALICO Journal, 33(1), 92-116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v33i1.27047
Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412452980
Cunningham, K. J. (2019). How language choices in feedback change with technology: Engagement in text and screencast feedback on ESL writing. Computers and Education, 135, 91-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.002
Cunningham, K. J., & Link, S. (2021). Video and text feedback on ESL writing: Understanding ATTITUDE and negotiating relationships. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100797
Dikli, S., & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.03.006
Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S., & Conklin, S. (2015). The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(2), 197-207. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.974026
Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42(1), 333-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.12.023
Howard Chen, H., Sarah Cheng, H., & Chirstine Yang, T. (2017).Comparing grammar feedback provided by teachers with an automated writing evaluation system. English Teaching and Learning, 41(4), 99-131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6330/ETL.2017.41.4.04
Hyland, K. (2013). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240-253. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003
Knight, S. K., Greenberger, S. W., & McNaughton, M. E. (2021). An interdisciplinary perspective: The value that instructors place on giving written feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 22(2), 115-128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787418810127
Kumaran, S. R. K., McDonagh, D. C., & Bailey, B. P. (2017). Increasing quality and involvement in online peer feedback exchange. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1(CSCW). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3134698
Lai, Y., & Zhang, X. (2021). Evaluating the stability of digital ink Chinese characters from CFL beginners based on center of gravity guided by calligraphy. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 19-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3451400.3451404
Lam, S. T. E. (2021). A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An activity theory perspective. Computers and Composition, 62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102666
Lee, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., & Yu, L. (2021). Ensemble multi-channel neural networks for scientific language editing evaluation. IEEE Access, 9, 158540-158547. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3130042
Lipnevich, A. A., Murano, D., Krannich, M., & Goetz, T. (2021). Should I grade or should I comment: Links among feedback, emotions, and performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102020
Li, R., Meng, Z., Tian, M., Zhang, Z., Ni, C., & Xiao, W. (2019). Examining EFL learners' individual antecedents on the adoption of automated writing evaluation in China. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(7), 784-804. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1540433
Liu, M., Li, Y., Xu, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Automated essay feedback generation and its impact on revision. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 10(4), 502-513. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2016.2612659
Liu, Q., & Wu, S. (2019). Same goal, varying beliefs: How students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 299-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.03
Mazzotta, M., & Belcher, D. (2018). Social-emotional outcomes of corrective feedback as mediation on second language Japanese writing. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 17(1), 47-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.17.1.47
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020). Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(4), 527-540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Mulliner, E., & Tucker, M. (2017). Feedback on feedback practice: Perceptions of students and academics. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 266-288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1103365
Parker, P., & Baughan, P. (2009). Providing written assessment feedback that students will value and read. International Journal of Learning, 16(11), 253-262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/cgp/v16i11/46715
Ranalli, J., Link, S., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2017). Automated writing evaluation for formative assessment of second language writing: Investigating the accuracy and usefulness of feedback as part of argument-based validation. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 8-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1136407
Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Johnson, A. C., & McNamara, D. S. (2018). Automated writing instruction and feedback: Instructional mode, attitudes, and revising. The Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 3, 2089-2093. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621471
Roscoe, R. D., Allen, L. K., Weston, J. L., Crossley, S. A., & McNamara, D. S. (2014). The writing pal intelligent tutoring system: Usability testing and development. Computers and Composition, 34, 39-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2014.09.002
Saricaoglu, A. (2019). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners' written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834401800006X
Stevenson, M. (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.05.001
Still, B., & Koerber, A. (2010). Listening to students: A usability evaluation of instructor commentary. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(2), 206-233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651909353304
Tambunan, A. R. S., Andayani, W., Sari, W. S., & Lubis, F. K. (2022). Investigating EFL students' linguistic problems using Grammarly as automated writing evaluation feedback. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 12(1), 16-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/IJAL.V12I1.46428
Thirakunkovit, S., & Chamcharatsri, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140-170.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course.Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Yu, S. (2021). Feedback-giving practice for L2 writing teachers: Friend or foe? Journal of Second Language Writing, 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100798
Yu, S., Di Zhang, E., & Liu, C. (2022). Assessing L2 student writing feedback literacy: A scale development and validation study. Assessing Writing, 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100643
Yu, S., Geng, F., Liu, C., & Zheng, Y. (2021). What works may hurt: The negative side of feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100850
Wang, Y., Shang, H., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students' writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300
Wei, J., Carter, S., & Laurs, D. (2019). Handling the loss of innocence: First-time exchange of writing and feedback in doctoral supervision. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(1), 157-169. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1541074
Wilson, J., Ahrendt, C., Fudge, E. A., Raiche, A., Beard, G., & MacArthur, C. (2021). Elementary teachers' perceptions of automated feedback and automated scoring: Transforming the teaching and learning of writing using automated writing evaluation. Computers and Education, 168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104208
Wu, Y., Lu, X., Zhou, D., & Cai, Y. (2013). Virtual calligraphic learning and writing evaluation. Proceedings - 6th International Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Design, ISCID 2013, 2 108-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCID.2013.141
Zhang, M., He, Q., Du, J., Liu, F., & Huang, B. (2022). Learners' perceived advantages and social-affective dispositions toward online peer feedback in academic writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.973478
Zhang, X., & McEneaney, J. E. (2020). What is the influence of peer-feedback and author response on Chinese university students' English writing performance? Reading Research Quarterly, 55(1), 123-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.259
Zhang, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Student engagement with automated feedback on academic writing: A study on Uyghur ethnic minority students in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2102175
Copyright (c) 2022 Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики»
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
Авторы, публикующие статьи в журнале, соглашаются с условиями политики авторских прав.
