Responding electronically to student drafts on campus: Encouraging or discouraging dialogue? (original) (raw)

Abstract

This article reports on an investigation into whether writing centre (WC) respondents at an institution of Higher Education encourage or discourage draft dialogue (a conversation in writing) with students submitting drafts electronically to the WC for feedback. The writing respondents insert local feedback responses or comments directly onto submitted complete drafts using word-processing review functions. The inserted feedback aims to encourage dialogue between students and lecturers by situating the teaching and learning of writing in different genres and disciplinary discourses. The feedback dialogue also aims to promote an understanding of writing as a drafting and responding process. Although the study's findings indicated that the writing respondents encouraged dialogue during the writing-responding process, most drafts included authoritative comments which do not promote dialogue. The study's main recommendations are that writing respondents should ensure that feedback phrasing is dialogical to encourage students to critique and explore discourses and for discipline experts to incorporate draft dialogue as a feedback practice into their writing practices.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (74)

  1. Academic Development Centre. 2003. A brief guide to responding to students' writing. Grahamstown: Rhodes University.
  2. Archer, A. 2005. Access and resistance: Challenges of using on-line environments to teach academic discursive practices. Education as Change 9(2): 74-95.
  3. Barton, D., M. Hamilton and R. Ivanič. (Eds.). 2000. Situated literacies: Reading and writing in context. London: Routledge.
  4. Baynham, M. 1995. Literacy practices: Investigating literacy in social contexts. New York: Longman Group.
  5. Boughey, C. 1995. The Unizul writing respondent programme: An alternative to a writing centre. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the South African Association for Academic Development, Technikon Free State, Bloemfontein, 29 November to 1 December 1995.
  6. ---. 2002. 'Naming' students' problems: An analysis of language-related discourses at a South African university. Teaching in Higher Education 7(3): 295-307.
  7. Brown, H. D. 1991. TESOL at twenty-five: What are the issues? Tesol Quarterly 25:245- 260.
  8. Charles, M. 1990. Responding to problems in written English using a student self- monitoring technique. English Language Teaching Journal 44(4): 286-293.
  9. Christie, F. 1991. Genre and curriculum. Genre approaches to literacy: Theories and practices, eds. B. Cope and M. Kalantzis, 3-15. 1991 LERN Conference, University of Technology, Sydney.
  10. Clark, R. and R. Ivanič. 1997. The politics of writing. London and New York: Routledge.
  11. Coffin, C., M. Curry, S. Goodman, A. Hewings, T. Lillis and J. Swann. 2003. Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London: Routledge.
  12. Collins, J. and R. K. Blot. 2003. Literacy and literacies: Texts, power and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Conrad, S. M. and L. M. Goldstein.1999. ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Texts, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8:147-180.
  14. Dessner, L. E.1991. English as a second language writers' revision responses to teacher- written comments. Dissertation Abstracts International 5:827A.
  15. Emig, J. 1977. Writing as a mode of learning. In Cross-talk in comp theory, ed. V. Villanueva, 7-15. 2003. Second revised edition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  16. Fairclough, N. (Ed.). 1992. Critical language awareness. London: Longman.
  17. Ferris, D. R. 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. Tesol Quarterly 29(1): 33-51.
  18. ---. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. Tesol Quarterly 31(2): 315-339.
  19. ---. 2003. Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  20. Gee, J. P. 1990.Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourses. London: Falmer.
  21. ---. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (critical perspectives on literacy and education). Second edition. London: Taylor & Francis.
  22. ---. 1999. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York: Routledge.
  23. ---. 2001. Reading as situated language: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 44(8): 714-725.
  24. Geisler, C. 1994. Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing and knowing in academic philosophy. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  25. Goldstein, L. M. 2005. Teacher written commentary: In second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  26. Gwin, T. 1991. Giving students the write idea: A way to provide feedback on writing. English Teaching Forum 29(3): 2-5.
  27. Hannon, P. 2000. Reflecting on literacy in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
  28. Harran, M. 1994. A survey of the writing approaches followed by ESL teachers in Port Elizabeth secondary schools where Afrikaans is the first language. MEd (ESL) Course work thesis. Rhodes University.
  29. Hedge, T. 1988. Writing: A resource book for teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  30. Hedgecock, J. and N. Lefkowitz. 1994. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity in second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 3:141-163.
  31. Hinkel, E. 2004. Teaching academic ESL writing: Practical techniques in vocabulary and Grammar. London: LEA Publishers.
  32. Hounsell, D. 1987. Essay writing and the quality of feedback. In Student learning: Research in education and cognitive psychology, eds. J. T. E. Richardson, M. W. Eysenck and D. Warren-Piper. Milton Keynes: Open University Press Hyland, K. 1990. Providing productive feedback. English Language Teaching Journal 44(4): 279-285.
  33. ---. 2002. Teaching and researching writing. Great Britain: Pearson Education.
  34. ---. 2005. Digging up texts and transcripts: Confessions of a discourse analyst. In Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction, eds. P. K. Matsuda and T. Silva, 177-189. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  35. Ivanič, R. 1998. Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  36. Jacobs, C. 2007a. Towards a critical understanding of the teaching of discipline-specific academic literacies: Making the tacit explicit. Journal of Education 41:59-81.
  37. ---. 2007b. Mainstreaming academic literacy teaching: Implications for how academic C. Weir* development understands its work in higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education 21(7): 868-879.
  38. Kapp, R. 1998. Language, culture and politics: The case for multilingualism in tutorials. In Access to success: Literacy in academic contexts, ed. S. Angelil-Carter, 21-35. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.
  39. Keh, C. L. 1990a. A design for a process-approach writing course. Teaching English Forum 28(1): 10-11.
  40. ---. 1990b. Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. English Language Teaching Journal 44(4): 294-304.
  41. Kumaravadivelu, B. 2006. TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. Tesol Quarterly 40(1): 59-81.
  42. Lankshear, C. 1999. Literacy studies in education: Disciplined developments in a post- disciplinary age. In After the disciplines: The emergence of cultural studies. Critical studies in education and culture series, ed. M. Peters. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, Greenwood Press. Available at: http://www.geocities.com/c.lankshear/literacystudies. html. (Accessed on 28 June 2008).
  43. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  44. Leki, I. 1991. Teaching second language writing: Where we seem to be. English Teaching Forum 28(1): 2-4.
  45. Lillis, T. M. 2001. Student writing: Access, regulation, desire. London: Routledge.
  46. Marshall, D., H. Conana, R. Maclons, M. Herbert and T. Volkwyn. 2011. Learning as accessing a disciplinary discourse: Integrating academic literacy into introductory physics through collaborative partnership. ICL Conference: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: Theory research and reflections. Granger Bay: Cape Town.
  47. Matsuda, P. K. 2005. Historical inquiry in second language writing. In Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction, eds. P. K. Matsuda and T. Silva, 33-46. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  48. Matsuda, P. K. and T. Silva, eds. 2005. Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McCormick, K. 1996. The culture of reading and the teaching of English. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  49. McKenna, S. 2002. Changing discourses of academic development at a South African Technikon. South African Journal of Higher Education 17(2): 60-67.
  50. ---. 2003. Paradigms for curriculum design: Implications for South African educators. Journal for Language Teaching 37(2): 215-223.
  51. Mendonca, C. O. and K. E. Johnson. 1994. Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. Tesol Quarterly 28(4): 745-767.
  52. Mills, K. A. 2010. The multiliteracies classroom. New Perspectives in Language and Education. Multilingual Matters. UK. Short Run Press.
  53. Moffett, J. 1968. Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  54. Morley, D. 2003. What's 'home' got to do with it?: Contradictory dynamics in the domestication of technology and the dislocation of domesticity. European Journal of Cultural Studies 6(4): 435-458.
  55. Murray, D. 1972. Teach writing as a process not product. In Cross-talk in comp theory, ed. V. Villanueva, 3-6. 2003. Second revised edition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
  56. Murray, S. and L. Johanson. 1990. Write to improve: A guide to correcting and evaluating written work. South Africa: Hodder and Stroughton Education.
  57. Myles, J. 2002. Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ 6(2): 1-20.
  58. NMMU. 2007. Policy on the underpinning principles of learning experience provision. D811.07, 5 November, S07.51.3. Port Elizabeth: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
  59. Paretti, M. C. 2011. I don't teach ...: The Dis-intergration of language and content. ICL Conference: Dynamic content and language collaboration in higher education: Theory research and reflections. Granger Bay: Cape Town.
  60. Paxton, M. 1995. Tutor responses to student writing. South African Journal of Higher Education 9(1): 189-198.
  61. Perpignan, H. 1990. The student as materials writer. English Teaching Forum 28(2): 18- 23.
  62. Prior, P. 1991. Contextualizing writing and response in a graduate seminar. Written Communication 8:267-310.
  63. Quinn, L. 1999. An examination of the drafting-responding process used to develop students' writing in an English Language for Academic Purposes Course. Grahamstown: Rhodes University (M.A.).
  64. Raimes, A. 1991. Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. Tesol Quarterly 25(3): 407-423.
  65. Reid, J. 1994. Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. Tesol Quarterly 28:273-292.
  66. Sayer, A. 2000. Realism and social science. USA: Sage.
  67. Silva, T.1993. Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. Tesol Quarterly 27:657-671.
  68. Silva, T. and P. K. Matsuda. (Eds.). 2001. On second language writing. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  69. Street, B. 1996. Preface. In The social uses of literacy, M. Prinsloo and M. Breier, 1-9. Bertsham: Sached Books.
  70. Street, B. V. (Ed.). 2001. Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives. London: Routledge.
  71. Writing Study Group of the NCTE Executive Committee. 2004. NCTE beliefs about the teaching of writing. Available at: http://www.ncte.org/about/over/ positions/category/ write/118876.htm. (Accessed on 21 June 2008).
  72. Zamel, V. 1982. Writing: The process of discovering meaning. Tesol Quarterly 16:195- 210.
  73. ---. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESKL students: Six case studies. Tesol Quarterly 17:165-187.
  74. ---. 1985. Responding to student writing. Tesol Quarterly 19(1): 79-101.