Abstract
The bulk of research on written corrective feedback has explored the feedback practices for novice second language (L2) writers. As the number of graduate students in English-medium universities has increased in the last 25 years, the focus of written feedback research has shifted from studies on writings of language learners to studies on writings of graduate students. In an attempt to address this area in the literature, this study investigates electronic written feedback provided to graduate students during their master’s thesis and doctoral dissertation writing stages. The study specifically focuses on the linguistic features of feedback provided on graduate students’ writing and how such feedback is constructed throughout the writing process. To investigate this issue, a small corpus of feedback (previously) given to MA and PhD students in an English Language Teaching (ELT) department was analyzed. The findings show that, overall, question form was mostly preferred. The results indicated that while the methodology section feedback included mostly question forms, written feedback provided in the results section consisted of imperatives. The study concludes with research and teaching implications with regard to the use of electronic written feedback on graduate student writing.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bayyurt, Y. (2010). Author positioning in academic writing. In S. Zyngier & V. Viana (Eds.), Avaliaçoes e perspectivas: mapeandoosestudosempiricosna area de Humanas [Appraisals and perspectives: Mapping empirical studies in the Humanities] (pp. 163–184). Rio de Janeiro: The Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Belcher, D., & Hirvela, A. (2005). Writing the qualitative dissertation: What motivates and sustains commitment to a fuzzy genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(3), 187–205.
Berg, K. E., & Latin, R. W. (2008). Essentials of research methods in health, physical education, exercise science and recreation (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Bitchener, J. (2010). Writing an applied linguistics thesis or dissertation: A guide to presenting empirical research. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Çandarlı, D., Bayyurt, Y., & Martı, L. (2015). Authorial presence in L1 and L2 novice academic writing: Cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspectives. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20(1), 192–202.
Casanave, C. P., & Li, X. (2008). Learning the literacy practices of graduate school: Insiders’ reflections on academic enculturation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Dong, Y. R. (1996). Non-native speaker graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two US institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 369–390.
Dressen-Hammouda, D. (2008). From novice to disciplinary expert: Disciplinary identity and genre mastery. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 27, 233–257.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63–80.
Goldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. (2008). The failure of dissertation advice books: Toward alternative pedagogies of doctoral writing. Educational Researcher, 37, 507–514.
Lee, K. Y. (2013). Hedging expressions used in academic written feedback: A study on the use of modal verbs. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 1, 33–45.
Leki, I. (2006). ‘You cannot ignore’: Graduate L2 students’ experience of and responses to written feedback practices within their disciplines. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 266–285). New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 141–162). New York: The Guilford Press.
McGrath, A., & Atkinson-Leadbeater, K. (2016). Instructor comments on student writing: Learner response to electronic written feedback. Transformative Dialogues: Teaching & Learning Journal, 8(3), 1–16.
McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing helpful feedback: The influence of feedback type on students’ perceptions and writing performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 5. Retrieved from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cjsotl_rcacea/vol2/iss2/5.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviews. System, 33, 293–308.
Salager-Meyer, F. (1994). Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. English for Specific Purposes, 13(2), 149–170.
Simpson, S., Caplan, N. A., Cox, M., & Phillips, T. (2016). Supporting graduate student writers: Research, curriculum & program design. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Communication, 21, 217–235.
Vardi, I. (2012). The impact of iterative writing and feedback on the characteristics of tertiary students’ written texts. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 167–179.
Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback and second language writing (pp. 105–122). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173–201.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Acknowledgement
This research is supported by Boğaziçi University Research Fund (Research Code: 12080).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Yiğitoğlu Aptoula, N., Bayyurt, Y. (2020). Features of Electronic Feedback on Graduate Level Writing. In: Kenny, N., Işık-Taş, E., Jian, H. (eds) English for Specific Purposes Instruction and Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32914-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32914-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32913-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32914-3
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)