Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning?
This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. Th...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
2021-06-01
|
Series: | Issues in Language Studies |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://publisher.unimas.my/ojs/index.php/ILS/article/view/2573 |
id |
doaj-1101114a58bd4cf1838d0be47ade721d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-1101114a58bd4cf1838d0be47ade721d2021-06-30T01:29:24ZengUniversiti Malaysia SarawakIssues in Language Studies2180-27262021-06-0110110.33736/ils.2573.2021Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning?Daron Benjamin Loo0Centre for English Language Communication, National University of Singapore This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. The practitioner inquiry was shaped by mixed methods, through the quantitative (categorisation) and qualitative (analytical) examination of WCF. The categorisation of WCF was guided by a feedback typology and the extent of learning opportunities. A total of 309 instances of WCF were found across 55 final drafts. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback on Content and Language was frequent. Furthermore, most of the WCF was restricted to the final essay, with minimal expansive opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond this writing course. In the subsequent analysis of the WCF, this study concluded that feedback was provided for the purpose of keeping track of work done. To really promote a feedback cycle or sociomaterial learning, writing instructors should consider improving students’ feedback literacy skills. https://publisher.unimas.my/ojs/index.php/ILS/article/view/2573Written corrective feedbackPractitioner inquiryFeedback cycleSociomaterial learning |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Daron Benjamin Loo |
spellingShingle |
Daron Benjamin Loo Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? Issues in Language Studies Written corrective feedback Practitioner inquiry Feedback cycle Sociomaterial learning |
author_facet |
Daron Benjamin Loo |
author_sort |
Daron Benjamin Loo |
title |
Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? |
title_short |
Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? |
title_full |
Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? |
title_fullStr |
Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Am I Promoting Feedback Cycle and Sociomaterial Learning? |
title_sort |
am i promoting feedback cycle and sociomaterial learning? |
publisher |
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak |
series |
Issues in Language Studies |
issn |
2180-2726 |
publishDate |
2021-06-01 |
description |
This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. The practitioner inquiry was shaped by mixed methods, through the quantitative (categorisation) and qualitative (analytical) examination of WCF. The categorisation of WCF was guided by a feedback typology and the extent of learning opportunities. A total of 309 instances of WCF were found across 55 final drafts. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback on Content and Language was frequent. Furthermore, most of the WCF was restricted to the final essay, with minimal expansive opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond this writing course. In the subsequent analysis of the WCF, this study concluded that feedback was provided for the purpose of keeping track of work done. To really promote a feedback cycle or sociomaterial learning, writing instructors should consider improving students’ feedback literacy skills.
|
topic |
Written corrective feedback Practitioner inquiry Feedback cycle Sociomaterial learning |
url |
https://publisher.unimas.my/ojs/index.php/ILS/article/view/2573 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT daronbenjaminloo amipromotingfeedbackcycleandsociomateriallearning |
_version_ |
1721353718395305984 |