1887
image of “We improved presenting voice in our writing”
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20023.wan
2022-09-21
2022-10-06
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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]
  2. 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]
  3. Bhatia, V. K.
    (1993) Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bitchener, J.
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. 10.1093/applin/amp016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [Google Scholar]
  6. Canagarajah, A. S.
    (2001) The fortunate traveler: Shuttling between communities and literacies by economy class. InD. Belcher & U. Connor (Eds.), Reflections on multiliterate lives (pp.23–37). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853597046‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597046-004 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2015) “Blessed in my own way:” Pedagogical affordances for dialogical voice construction in multilingual student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 122–139. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chiu, Y. T.
    (2016) Singing your tune: Genre structure and writer identity in personal statements for doctoral applications. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 21, 48–59. 10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.11.001 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. 10.1177/0741088306289261
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261 [Google Scholar]
  11. Diab, N. M.
    (2016) A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55–65. 10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014 [Google Scholar]
  12. 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. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  13. 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. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dowhan, A., Dowhan, C., & Kaufman, D.
    (2009) Essays that will get you into medical school. Barron’s Educational Series.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ellis, R.
    (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. 10.1093/elt/ccn023
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349. 10.1017/S0272263109990544
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ene, E., & Upton, T.
    (2014) Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46(1), 80–95. 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2018) Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1–13. 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  19. Ferris, D. R.
    (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 18–22. 10.2307/3588049
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80110‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar]
  21. (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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. 10.1017/S0272263109990490
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S.
    (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Han, Y., & Hyland, F.
    (2015) Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hanauer, D. I.
    (2014) Appreciating the beauty of second language poetry writing. InD. Disney (Ed.), Exploring second language creative writing: Beyond Babel (pp.11–22). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/lal.19.01han
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lal.19.01han [Google Scholar]
  27. (2015) Measuring voice in poetry written by second language learners. Written Communication, 32(1), 66–86. 10.1177/0741088314563023
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314563023 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H.
    (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487
    https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2003.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. 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. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00038‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00038-2 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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, 71, 133–152. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hyland, F.
    (2003) Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–230. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(03)00021‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K.
    (2001) Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185–212. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00038‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Jwa, S.
    (2012) Modeling L2 writer voice: Discoursal positioning in fanfiction writing. Computers and Composition, 29(4), 323–340. 10.1016/j.compcom.2012.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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. 10.2307/3587739
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587739 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, I.
    (2017) Classroom assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer Singapore. 10.1007/978‑981‑10‑3924‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. 10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2006.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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, 37, 70–87. 10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. Matsuda, P. K.
    (2001) Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00036‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9 [Google Scholar]
  41. 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. 10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2006.10.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.1177/1362168815609617
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609617 [Google Scholar]
  43. 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. 10.1177/1362168819879182
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182 [Google Scholar]
  44. Romano, T.
    (2004) Crafting authentic voice. Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 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. 10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1111/lang.12283
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12283 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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. 10.1111/modl.12317
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317 [Google Scholar]
  48. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  49. 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. 10.1111/lang.12029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  50. 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. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(02)00070‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00070-X [Google Scholar]
  51. Swales, J.
    (1996) Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. InE. Ventola, & A. Mauranen (Eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues (pp.45–58). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/pbns.41.06swa
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.41.06swa [Google Scholar]
  52. 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, 35, 26–40. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tardy, C. M.
    (2016) Voice and identity. InR. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp.349–363). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781614511335‑019
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614511335-019 [Google Scholar]
  54. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.
    (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M.
    (2000) Do secondary L2 writer benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00022‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  57. Wiggins, G. P.
    (1993) Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Williams, J.
    (2004) Tutoring and revision: second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173–201. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  59. Yoo, H. J.
    (2017) Textual voice elements and voice strength in EFL argumentative writing. Assessing Writing, 32, 72–84. 10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K.
    (2018) Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. 10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  61. 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. 10.1177/0265532212456965
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212456965 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2017) Voice in timed L2 argumentative essay writing. Assessing Writing, 31, 73–83. 10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.08.004 [Google Scholar]
  63. 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. 10.1016/j.asw.2008.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2008.10.003 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20023.wan
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.20023.wan
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error