Cover not available

Article published In: Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 35:2 (2022) ► pp.540–564

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

“We improved presenting voice in our writing”

The role of teacher feedback in revising personal statements

ORCiD logo with link | Shandong University
ORCiD logo with link | Shandong University
ORCiD logo with link | Victoria University of Wellington
Published online: 21 September 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.20023.wan
Abstract
This study investigated the role of teacher feedback in presenting students’ voice and writing quality of personal statements (PSs). PSs are essays intended to grant writers’ admission into graduate programs. Twenty third-year undergraduate students majoring in English participated in this study. Three drafts were collected in an English as a foreign language (EFL) writing class, and teacher feedback was given on the first two drafts. Three participants were interviewed to share their thoughts about voice development and revisions. Drafts 1 and 3 were analyzed using an analytic voice rubric, a holistic rating, and an analytic rubric. It was found that students presented a unique voice in Draft 3 and improved their writing quality by using teacher feedback in classroom contexts. Overall voice was found to strongly correlate with writing quality. Findings of the study demonstrate the importance of teacher feedback in improving students’ abilities to articulate their voice and writing quality in EFL writing.
Resumen
“Hemos mejorado la presentación de la voz en nuestra escritura”: El papel de la retroalimentación docente en la revisión de declaraciones personales
En el presente trabajo se ha estudiado el papel de la retroalimentación docente en la presentación de la voz del estudiante y la calidad de su escritura en las declaraciones personales, las cuales son ensayos decisivos para solicitar la admisión a programas de posgrado. Veinte estudiantes universitarios de tercer año de la carrera de Inglés participaron en este estudio. Tres borradores fueron recopilados en la clase de escritura de inglés como lengua extranjera (EFL por sus siglas en inglés) y los dos primeros recibieron retroalimentaciones docentes. Fueron entrevistados tres participantes para saber sus ideas sobre el desarrollo de la voz y las revisiones. Los Borradores 1 y 3 fueron analizados utilizando una rúbrica analítica de voz, una calificación holística y una rúbrica analítica. Se encontró que los estudiantes presentaron una voz única en el Borrador 3 y mejoraron la calidad de su escritura utilizando los comentarios del docente en los contextos del aula. Además, se evidenció que la prominencia general de la voz se correlaciona fuertemente con la calidad de la escritura. Los resultados obtenidos en el presente trabajo revelan la importancia de la retroalimentación docente para mejorar la calidad de escritura y las habilidades de los estudiantes para articular su voz en la escritura de EFL.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Research questions
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1The general context of writing PSs
    • 4.2Participants
    • 4.3Procedures
    • 4.4Writing tasks
    • 4.5Measures
    • 4.6Research instruments
    • 4.7Data collection and data analysis
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Results of RQ1
    • 5.2Results of RQ2
    • 5.3Results of RQ3
    • 5.4Survey-based results
      • 5.4.1The effects of teacher feedback on the development of voice in revising PSs
      • 5.4.2The effects of teacher feedback on writing quality
      • 5.4.3Students’ general perceptions and attitudes toward teacher feedback
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion and implications
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
References (63)
References
Barton, E., Ariail, J., & Smith, T. (2004). The professional in the personal: The genre of personal statements in residency applications. Issues in Writing, 15(1), 76–124.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bekins, L. K., Huckin, T. N., & Kijak, L. (2004). The personal statement in medical school applications: Rhetorical structure in a diverse and unstable context. Issues in Writing, 15(1), 56–75.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. S. (2001). The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. In D. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp. 23–37). Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). “Blessed in my own way:” Pedagogical affordances for dialogical voice construction in multilingual student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 271, 122–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiu, Y. T. (2016). Singing your tune: Genre structure and writer identity in personal statements for doctoral applications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 211, 48–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 571, 55–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ding, H. L. (2007). Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 368–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DiPardo, A., Storms, B. A., & Selland, M. (2011). Seeing voices: Assessing writerly stance in the NWP analytic writing continuum. Assessing Writing, 16(3), 170–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dowhan, A., Dowhan, C., & Kaufman, D. (2009). Essays that will get you into medical school. Barron’s Educational Series.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 321, 335–349. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ene, E., & Upton, T. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46(1), 80–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 411, 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 18–22. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 31–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanauer, D. I. (2014). Appreciating the beauty of second language poetry writing. In D. Disney (Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp. 11–22). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helms-Park, R., & Stapleton, P. (2003). Questioning the importance of individualized voice in undergraduate L2 argumentative writing: An empirical study with pedagogical implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 245–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hirvela, A., & Belcher, D. (2001). Coming back to voice: The multiple voices and identities of mature multilingual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 83–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers and Education, 711, 133–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jwa, S. (2012). Modeling L2 writer voice: Discoursal positioning in fanfiction writing. Computers and Composition, 29(4), 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lam, W. S. F. (2000). L2 literacy and the design of the self: A case study of a teenager writing on the internet. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 457–482. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Singapore. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I. (2006). Negotiating socioacademic relations: English learners’ reception by and reaction to college faculty. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(2), 136–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Y., & Deng, L. M. (2019). I am what I have written: A case study of identity construction in and through personal statement writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 371, 70–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. K., & Tardy, C. M. (2007). Voice in academic writing: The rhetorical construction of author identity in blind manuscript review. English for Specific Purposes, 26(2), 235–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678–699. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. (2019). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 00(0), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romano, T. (2004). Crafting authentic voice. Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samraj, B., & Monk, L. (2008). The statement of purpose in graduate program application: Genre structure and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 193–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language Learning, 68(2), 507–545. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written corrective feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stapleton, P. (2002). Critiquing voice as a viable pedagogical tool in L2 writing: Returning spotlight to ideas. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(3), 177–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1996). Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In E. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp. 45–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tang, C., & Liu, Y. T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 351, 26–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tardy, C. M. (2016). Voice and identity. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 349–363). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writer benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoo, H. J. (2017). Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 321, 72–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 361, 90–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, C. G. (2013). Measuring authorial voice strength in L2 argumentative writing: The development and validation of an analytic rubric. Language Testing, 30(2), 201–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 311, 73–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, C. G., & Llosa, L. (2008). Voice in high-stakes L1 academic writing assessment: Implications for L2 writing instruction. Assessing Writing, 13(3),153–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue