Examining Efl Learners’ Quantity and Quality of Uptake of Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Across Three Different Editing Settings
SSRN, ISSN: 1556-5068
2024
- 69Usage
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Despite the role of feedback dialogue in feedback uptake, no study has examined students’ uptake in different dialogue-based settings.Therefore, this study on 20 EFL Saudi students examined their uptake of feedback in self-dialogue-based, learner-learner dialogue-based, and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Analysis of teacher corrective feedback, first drafts (N. 60 drafts) and revised versions of essays (N. 60 drafts) revealed that the rates of uptake quantity (92.3%, 97.5% & 95.4%) and uptake quality (77.3%, 80.5% & 93.4%)varied across the three settings, respectively.Moreover, while students integrated more global feedback in the teacher-learner-based dialogue(38.8%)and learner-learner-based dialogue editing settings (38.8%), they integrated more local feedback (69.1%) in the self-dialogue-based editing setting. A post-hoc analysis showed significant differences in the overall uptake quantity in favor of the learner-learner dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings and in the overall uptake quality in favor of the teacher-learner dialogue-based editing setting. While no significant differences in global feedback uptake were found, the local uptake differed significantly for the sake of the self-dialogue-based and teacher-learner dialogue-based editing settings. Despite the perceived learning benefits of feedback dialogues, students were challenged by initial apprehensions, feedback nature and technology use in feedback dialogues. The study offers useful implications for teachers and researchers.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know