Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Higher Education, Academic Writing Assessment and Formative Feedback

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dynamic Assessment of Students’ Academic Writing

Abstract

In this first chapter, I begin by introducing the key aspects of dynamic assessment research discussed in the book and presenting an outline of the chapters. Key studies on academic writing and formative feedback on academic writing and debates around academic writing assessment in higher education are reviewed in order to contextualise the research reported in the book. The chapter shows that there are still concerns about supporting students in higher education with their academic writing for their success in the discipline of their choice. It briefly introduces dynamic assessment as an alternative assessment approach to academic writing assessment in higher education to address these concerns which will be taken up in the rest of the book.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is also important to acknowledge that there is Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education journal, dedicated to improving assessment and evaluation in higher education. Many studies reviewed in this chapter come from it and focus on student learning.

  2. 2.

    TOEFL is an acronym for Test of English as a Foreign Language developed by Educational Testing Services in the US. The current version, TOEFL iBT, is delivered over the internet and is used to assess test takers’ English language proficiency in an academic context. It has a Writing section in addition to Listening, Speaking and Reading.

  3. 3.

    IELTS refers to International English Language Testing System developed by University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations, British Council and IDP: IELTS Australia. IELTS Academic includes Listening, Speaking, Academic Reading and Academic Writing. It is for test-takers who want to study undergraduate and postgraduate degrees or seek professional registration (e.g., medical doctor) in an English speaking context.

  4. 4.

    The terms tutor and teacher are used interchangeably in this book.

  5. 5.

    The symbol ^ refers to the sequence.

References

  • Ackerman, J. M. (1993). The promise of writing to learn. Written Communication, 10(3), 334–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010003002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2017). Researching feedback dialogue: An interactional analysis approach. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(2), 252–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1102863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajjawi, R., & Boud, D. (2018). Examining the nature and effects of feedback dialogue. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1106–1119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alavi, S. M., & Taghizadeh, M. (2014). Dynamic assessment of writing: The impact of implicit/explicit mediations on L2 learners’ internalization of writing skills and strategies. Educational Assessment, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2014.869446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alderson, J. C., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (1996). TOEFL preparation courses: a study of washback. Language Testing, 13(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/026553229601300304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antón, M. (2009). Dynamic assessment of advanced second language learners. Foreign Language Annals, 42(3), 576–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antón, M. (2018). Dynamic diagnosis of second language abilities. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 310–323). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barkaoui, K. (2007). Rating scale impact on EFL essay marking: A mixed-method study. Assessing Writing, 12(2), 86–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of experimental article in science. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, C. (2005). Reference guide to writing across the curriculum. West Lafayette, IND.: Parlor Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2), 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloxham, S., & Campbell, L. (2010). Generating dialogue in assessment feedback: Exploring the use of interactive cover sheets. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 291–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno, H. (2002). Standing the test of time: Revisiting a first year diagnostic procedure. In Paper presented at the 6th Pacific Rim Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonanno, H., & Jones, J. (2007). Measuring the academic skills of university students. Sydney: Learning Centre, the University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, D. (2009). Strategies for using feedback students bring to higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.

  • Chanock, K. (2000). Comments on essays: Do students understand what tutors write? Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chetwynd, F., & Dobbyn, C. (2011). Assessment, feedback and marking guides in distance education. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 26(1), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. (2014). A language as social semiotic based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2012). Academic literacies and systemic functional linguistics: How do they relate? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(1), 64–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connors, R. J., & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cots, J. M., Llurda, E., & Garrett, P. (2014). Language policies and practices in the internationalisation of higher education on the European margins: An introduction. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 35(4), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2013.874430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Linguistics and Education, 26, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damianakis, T., Barrett, B., Archer-Kuhn, B., Samson, P. L., Matin, S., & Ahern, C. (2019). Transformative learning in graduate education: Masters of social work students’ experiences of personal and professional learning. Studies in Higher Education, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1650735.

  • Davin, K. J. (2018). Mediator and learner engagement in co-regulated inter-psychological activity. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 282–294). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., et al. (2019). What makes for effective feedback: Staff and student perspectives. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devlin, M. (2013). Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: Conceptualising the success of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38(6), 939–949. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.613991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donohue, J. P. (2002). Genre-based literacy pedagogy: The nature and value of genre knowledge in teaching and learning writing on a university first year media studies course. Ph.D., University of Luton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed-forward’: Improving students’ use of tutors’ comments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(3), 271–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google Docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckes, T. (2008). Rater types in writing performance assessments: A classification approach to rater variability. Language Testing, 25(2), 155–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellery, K. (2008). Assessment for learning: A case study using feedback effectively in an essay-style test. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(4), 421–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Toro, M., & Furnborough, C. (2018). Evaluating alignment of student and tutor perspectives on feedback on language learning assignments. Distance Education, 39(4), 548–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1520043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, R., Falik, L. H., Rand, Y., & Feuerstein, R. S. (2002). The dynamic assessment of cognitive modifiability: The learning propensity assessment device: Theory, instruments and techniques (Revised ed.). Jerusalem: ICELP Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, J., Haggerty, J., & Artemeva, N. (2016). Mitigating risk: The impact of a diagnostic assessment procedure on the first-year experience in engineering. In J. Read (Ed.), Post-admission language assessment of university students (Vol. 6, pp. 43–65). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. (2004). Knock-on effects of mode change on academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, S. (2010). SFL: A theory of language for dynamic assessment of EAL. NALDIC Quarterly, 8(1), 37–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004–05). Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. (2007). IELTS washback in context, studies in language testing series 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219408326207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). London: Hodder Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handley, K., & Williams, L. (2011). From copying to learning: Using exemplars to engage students with assessment criteria and feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haywood, H. C., & Lidz, C. S. (2007). Dynamic assessment in practice: Clinical and educational applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Healey, N. M. (2015). Towards a risk-based typology for transnational education. Higher Education, 69(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9757-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. (2010). National student survey: Findings and trends 2006 to 2009. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEFCE. (2014). National student survey results and trends analysis 2005 to 2013. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, M., Ryan, T., & Phillips, M. (2019). The challenges of feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1237–1252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1599815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002). The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, S. (2009). Writing discipline: Comparing inscriptions of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. In F. Christie & K. Maton (Eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistics and sociological perspectives (pp. 106–128). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey, S., Martin, J. R., Dreyfus, S., & Mahboob, A. (2010). The 3 × 3: Setting up a linguistic toolkit for teaching academic writing. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics (pp. 185–199). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huot, B. (2002). (Re)Articulating writing assessment: Assessment for teaching and learning. Utah: Utah State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyatt, D. F. (2005). ‘Yes, a very good point!’: A critical genre analysis of a corpus of feedback commentaries on master of education assignments. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(3), 339–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2013a). Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K. (2013b). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1–19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006c). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanič, R., & Lea, M. R. (2006). New contexts, new challenges: The teaching of writing in UK higher education. In L. Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching academic writing in UK higher education (pp. 6–15). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing quest. Language Teaching, 41(02), 237–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppell, M., & Carless, D. (2006). Learning-oriented assessment: a technology-based case study. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 13(2), 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoch, U. (2009). Diagnostic assessment of writing: A comparison of two rating scales. Language Testing, 26(2), 275–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532208101008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kozulin, A., & Garb, E. (2002). Dynamic assessment of EFL text comprehension. School Psychology International, 23(1), 112–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, J. A., & Applebee, A. N. (1987). How writing shapes thinking: A study of teaching and learning. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2004). Dynamic assessment of L2 development: Bringing the past into the future. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 49–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P., Poehner, M. E., & Swain, M. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lea, M., & Street, B. V. (1998). Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23(2), 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, N. (2005). The teacher-student writing conference and the desire for intimacy. College English, 68(2), 186–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/30044673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, C. (2007). Dynamic assessment: Assessment for and as teaching? Language Assessment Quarterly, 4(3), 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lidz, C. S., & Elliot, J. G. (2000). Introduction. In C. S. Lidz & J. G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications. Amsterdam: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, T. M. (2003). Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language & Education: An International Journal, 17(3), 192–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, T. M., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 5–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillis, T. M., & Turner, J. (2001). Student writing in higher education: Contemporary confusion, traditional concerns. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510020029608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llosa, L., & Malone, M. E. (2018). Comparability of students’ writing performance on TOEFL iBT and in required university writing courses. Language Testing, 36(2), 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532218763456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahboob, A., Dreyfus, S., Humphrey, S. L., & Martin, J. R. (2010). Appliable linguistics and English language teaching: The Scaffolding Literacy in Adult and Tertiary Environments (SLATE) project. In A. Mahboob & N. Knight (Eds.), Appliable linguistics: Texts, contexts and meanings (pp. 25–34). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manchón, R. M. (2017). The multifaceted and situated nature of the interaction between language and writing in academic settings: Advancing research agendas. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, & R. Wette (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students: Instructional approaches (pp. 183–199). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2009). Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. Linguistics and Education, 20(1), 10–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (2016). Meaning matters: A short history of systemic functional linguistics. WORD, 62(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2016.1141939.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R., Maton, K., & Doran, Y. J. (Eds.). (2020). Accessing academic discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and legitimation code theory (1st ed.). London & New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2014). ‘Uni has a different language … to the real world’: Demystifying academic culture and discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5), 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.890570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback to students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 4(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787403004001003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Northedge, A. (2003). Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251032000052302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Office for Students. (2018). National student survey results 2018. Retrieved February 5, 2019, from Office for Students https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/student-information-and-data/national-student-survey-nss/get-the-nss-data/.

  • Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (2010). Feedback alignment: Effective and ineffective links between tutors’s and students’ understanding of coursework feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903201651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: A qualitative interview study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 369–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oskoz, A. (2005). Students’ dynamic assessment via online chat. CALICO Journal, 22(3), 513–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, D., Flores, M. A., Simão, A. M. V., & Barros, A. (2016). Effectiveness and relevance of feedback in higher education: A study of undergraduate students. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 49, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitt, E., & Norton, L. (2017). ‘Now that’s the feedback I want!’ Students’ reactions to feedback on graded work and what they do with it. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 499–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1142500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E. (2005). Dynamic assessment of oral proficiency among advanced L2 learners of French. Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E. (2018). Probing and provoking L2 development: The object of mediation in dynamic assessment and mediated development. In J. P. Lantolf, M. E. Poehner, & M. Swain (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sociocultural theory and second language development (pp. 249–265). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E., & Lantolf, J. P. (2013). Bringing the ZPD into the equation: Capturing L2 development during Computerized Dynamic Assessment (C-DA). Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 323–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813482935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulos, A., & Mahony, M. J. (2008). Effectiveness of feedback: The students’ perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O’Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(3), 277–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, P. (2008). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). London: The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read, J. (2008). Identifying academic language needs through diagnostic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 180–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riazi, A. M. (2016). Comparing writing performance in TOEFL-iBT and academic assignments: An exploration of textual features. Assessing Writing, 28, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, D., Rose, M., Farrington, S., & Page, S. (2008). Scaffolding academic literacy with indigenous health sciences students: An evaluative study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(3), 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787402003002004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: Revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scouller, K., Bonanno, H., Smith, L., & Krass, I. (2008). Student experience and tertiary expectations: Factors predicting academic literacy amongst first-year pharmacy students. Studies in Higher Education, 33(2), 167–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serrano, M. M., O’Brien, M., Roberts, K., & Whyte, D. (2017). Critical pedagogy and assessment in higher education: The ideal of ‘authenticity’ in learning. Active Learning in Higher Education, 19(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417723244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29(7), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (2001). The power of tests: A critical perspective on the uses of language tests. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, P. N. (2017). Investigating the learning transfer of genre features and conceptual knowledge from an academic literacy course to business studies: Exploring the potential of dynamic assessment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 25, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, P. N., & Coffin, C. (2012). Dynamic assessment, tutor mediation and academic writing development. Assessing Writing, 17(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.11.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. (2019). Affordances of TOEFL writing tasks beyond university admissions. Assessing Writing, 41, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2019.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328(5977), 450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L. A., & Solomon, A. (2006). Effective faculty feedback: The road less traveled. Assessing Writing, 11(1), 22–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Surridge, P. (2008). The national student survey 2005–2007: Findings and trends. London: Higher Education Funding Council for England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., & Drury, H. (2007). An integrated approach to teaching writing in the sciences. In A. Brew & J. Sachs (Eds.), Transforming a university: The scholarship of teaching and learning in practice (pp. 117–125). Sydney: Sydney University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, J. (2012). Feedback-giving as social practice: Teachers’ perspectives on feedback as institutional requirement, work and dialogue. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.611870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuck, J. (2018). Academics engaging with student writing: Working at the higher education textface. Milton: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. (2011). Language in the academy: Cultural reflexivity and intercultural dynamics. Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2002). The effects of mediation in computer assisted dynamic assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 18(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. (2009). An investigation into written comments on assignments: Do students find them usable? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 67–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors’ written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. (2010). The impact of formative feedback on the development of academic writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 519–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. (2018). Academic literacy across the curriculum: Towards a collaborative instructional approach. Language Teaching, 51(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U., Andon, N., & Cogo, A. (2011). Embedding academic writing instruction into subject teaching: A case study. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787410387814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U., & Tribble, C. (2011). The best of both worlds? Towards an English for academic purposes/academic literacies writing pedagogy. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2010.525630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodward-Kron, R. (2002). Disciplinary learning through writing: An investigation into the writing of undergraduate education students. Ph.D., University of Wollongong.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward-Kron, R. (2004). ‘Discourse communities’ and ‘writing apprenticeship’: An investigation of these concepts in undergraduate Education students’ writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(2), 139–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward-Kron, R. (2005). The role of genre and embedded genres in tertiary students’ writing. Prospect, 20(3), 24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodward-Kron, R. (2008). More than just jargon—The nature and role of specialist language in learning disciplinary knowledge. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7(4), 234–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013). The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing through tutor-tutee interactions and revisions: A case study of a multilingual writer in EAP tutorials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100709.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Lang and Applied Linguistics, The Open University, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, UK

    Prithvi N. Shrestha

Authors
  1. Prithvi N. Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Shrestha, P.N. (2020). Higher Education, Academic Writing Assessment and Formative Feedback. In: Dynamic Assessment of Students’ Academic Writing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55845-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55845-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55844-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55845-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation