MULTIMODAL LEARNER-DRIVEN FEEDBACK

Clare Maascmmaas@uni-trier.de @Clare2ELT

Multimodal LDF

Digital DeliveryDialogic

Feedback

Ideasfrom HE

Digital Feedback Delivery

Email[Farshi and Safa 2015]

Audio recording [Johanson 1999, Brearley and Cullen 2012, Merry and Orsmond2008]

Text-editing software features [McCabe, Doerflinger and Fox 2011, Cloete 2014]

Dialogic Feedback

Learner-Centred Feedback [Campbell and Schumm-Fauster 2013]

Interactive Cover Sheets [Bloxham and Campbell 2010]

Ideas from HE

Feedback depth [Glover & Brown 2006]1. indication of weakness2. correction of weakness3. correction of weakness with explanation and future suggestions

Sustainability [Carless, Salter, Yang and Lam 2011] formative, interactive and impacting students’ future work

Feed Forward & Involvement

Multimodal LDF

Digital Delivery

DialogicFeedback

Ideasfrom HE

Multimodal Learner-Driven Feedback

feedback given by teacher learners ‘drive’ how and on what

choose delivery mode for feedback ask questions about any aspect of their writing pose specific and general questions put questions in footnotes /margins, at end of text, or interactive cover sheet re-draft

Multimodal LDF - Handout

Adapted fromCampbell andSchumm-Fauster2013

Multimodal LDF – Students’ Requests

I would like to receive the email feedback please, with some comments on my thesis statement, the vocabulary and expression: is it sophisticated and formal enough? And sentence structure – is it clear and natural?

I would like to ask you to give me feedback on my introduction via

email on tenses (especially I’m not sure if I need the past progressive

more in the first part?)

In this sentence ["A.J. as an example to/for other

women"], I don´t know the right preposition. We are told ‘example for’ is wrong, but I think here it can be correct. Can you help me in this case?

I always use ‘make an argument’ but it sounds like school English. What is a better word than ‘make’?

Receptivity to LDF – Study 1 [Maas 2016]

Aim: Explore Ss’ perceptions of usability and effectiveness of LDF Surveyed 30 undergrad Ss, B2 level, English Studies, Trier U. Feedback delivery options: corrections, correction symbols, handwritten

feedback, email, audio recording, face-to-face

positive attitude to LDF for lang. accuracy and text structure improvements in essay grades

Perceptions of Multiodal LDF – Study 2

Aim: Explore perceived benefits of digital feedback modes for lang. accuracy and academic skills

Surveyed 36 postgrad Ss, C1+ level, British Studies, Trier U. Feedback delivery options: Track-changes, in-text comment

bubbles, audio recording, email.

Perceptions of Multimodal LDF – Study 2

Delivery mode Used Found easy to use

Track changes 22% 60%

Comment bubbles 78% 100%

Audio recording 39% 90%

Email 50% 88%

Lang. aspect / Skill Significantlyimproved

Somewhatimproved

Barely/notimproved

Grammar

Natural expression

Punctuation

Transitions

Sentence structure

Vocabulary

register

Aspects of general language accuracy

Perceptions of LDF – Study 2

Perceptions of Multimodal LDF – Study 2

Lang. aspect / Skill Most ‘significantly improved’ by …

Most improved (significantly + somewhat) by …

Grammar Comment bubbles Comment bubbles & feedback emailNatural expression Comment bubbles Comment bubblesPunctuation Track changes Track changesTransitions Audio recording Audio recordingSentence structure Comment bubbles Track changes & audio recordingVocabulary Audio recording & feedback email Comment bubblesRegister Audio recording Comment bubbles

Aspects of general language accuracy

Perceptions of Multimodal LDF – Study 2

Lang. aspect / Skill Significantlyimproved

Somewhatimproved

Barely/notimproved

Narrowing topic

Researching

Formulating a thesis

Critical thinking

LogicalargumentationText structure

Using sources

Understanding genres

Academic skills related to writing

Receptivity to LDF – Study 2

Lang. aspect / Skill Most ‘significantly improved’ by …

Most improved (significantly + somewhat) by …

Narrowing topic Feedback email Feedback emailResearching Audio recording Feedback emailFormulating a thesis Feedback email Feedback email & audio recordingCritical thinking Audio recording Audio recordingLogical argumentation Comment bubbles Audio recordingText structure Feedback email Track changesUsing sources Track changes & audio recording Track changesUnderstanding essay genres

Comment bubbles Audio recording

Academic skills related to writing

Multimodal LDF - Conclusions

Studies show: EAP Ss’ openness to feedback dialogues EAP Ss appreciate multimodal / digital feedback LDF can provide sustainable, category 3 feedback LDF has positive effect on S-T interaction Best delivery mode linked to learning goals and to

affordances of each mode

LDF is potentially a highly useful tool for improving both foreign language and writing skills sustainably

Multimodal LDF

Helpful to provide training: how to map feedback to parts of text how to break feedback into manageable chunks having the text to hand when reading/listening to feedback asking specific questions how to engage with feedback received keeping a record of feedback received

Why Multimodal LDF?

LDF is potentially a highly useful tool for improving both foreign language and writing skills sustainably in various contexts

References Bloxham, S. & L. Campbell (2010). Generating dialogue in assessment feedback: exploring the use of interactive cover sheets.

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 291--300.

Brearley, F. & W. Cullen (2012). Providing Students with Formative Audio Feedback. Bioscience Education, 20(1), 22-36.

Campbell, N. and J. Schumm-Fauster (2013). Learner-centred Feedback on Writing: Feedback as Dialogue. In M. Reitbauer, N. Campbell, S. Mercer, J. Schumm and R. Vaupetitsch (Eds) Feedback Matters (pp. 55--68). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 395–407.

Cloete, R. (2014). Blending offline and online feedback on EAP writing. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 2(4), 559--571.

Farshi, S.S. and S.K. Safa (2015). The Effect of Two Types of Corrective Feedback on EFL Writers’ Skill. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 1--5.

Glover, C., Brown, E. (2006). Written Feedback for Students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective? Bioscience Education, 7.

Johanson, R. (1999). Rethinking the Red Ink: Audio-Feedback in the ESL Writing Classroom. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 4:1, 31--38.

McCabe, J., A. Doerflinger & R. Fox (2011). Student and Faculty Perceptions of E-Feedback. Teaching of Psychology, 38(3), 173--179.

Merry, S. & P. Orsmond (2008). Students’ attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1-11.

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.

Further Reading Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second

language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10:2, 171-182.

Maas, C. (2017). Receptivity to Learner-Driven Feedback in EAP. ELT Journal, 71:2, 127–140.

Maas, C. (2018). Perceptions of Multimodal Learner-Driven Feedback in EAP. Journal of Writing and Pedagogy, 9:3. [forthcoming/in review]

Thank you for your attention!Any questions?

www.ClaresELTCompendium.wordpress.com @Clare2ELT