Discussion analysis of written feedback

The frequent comments justifying the mark reported in other studies (Ivanič, Clark, & Rimmershaw, 2000) were absent in this feedback, but unlike the formative feedback reported in the preliminary study (see Section 5.4.2) this is not surprising, since a specific mark was only given by one tutor. Comparisons with the literature are not easy to make and may not always be appropriate given this small sample. However, it is worth noting that in Hyatt’s (2005) study of 600 feedback scripts for graduates in Politics, he found that content comments were most frequent (31.8%), followed by stylistic (27.8%) and developmental (23.5%) comments. In this

formative feedback stage, stylistic comments (reference and language and expression categories) were most frequent (32.4%) with little to separate content (25.6%) and developmental comments (24.3%) in the frequency count. Hyatt’s sample was almost certainly based on summative feedback, so caution is required when making direct comparisons.

The critical analytical category was assigned to more comments than any other category in this sample and aspects of CAW tended to be prioritised by tutors and students in terms of feed forward points for future work (see Section 7.5 above). Similar to earlier findings (e.g., Hyatt, 2005; Mutch, 2003), the balance of praise on ‘content’ comments was more positive than overtly negative, with twice as many positive to negative content comments, but analysis that included combined softened negative comments indicated a more negative tone in the overall feedback. In this study developmental future comments were much less frequent than developmental alternatives (task focused feedback). In this respect, tutors can only mark what is in front of them, and if there is a need to prioritise and avoid overload, they may find it

37

In the year following this data collection I began to use screencast feedback in the same MATESOL module on the basis that the video element in screencasts enhances the audio commentary (See Section 2.6.3). I carried out action research with my module group and presented this work at two conferences in summer 2011.

172

easier to focus on what the student might have done or could have done in the assignment rather than looking forward to future tasks.

Given that this feedback was the first that students received on their taught Master’s programme, the high frequency of comments on language and referencing is not surprising. Tutors discussed the task as giving practice in producing a “good essay” and the content on which these tasks were based did not necessarily feature in later summative titles. Students were also not able to use comments to revise the task, so this may have influenced the balance of comments going to generic skills rather than content. The point was made by Paul in the preliminary study that he felt he was being trained in how to write, not in what to write.

Comments on language were relatively more frequent than those on content, so command of English is clearly relevant here. Preliminary study findings indicated that language could be a source of difficulty even for students with higher scores than the IELTS 6.0 or 6.5 that these students held on entry to their programme. The question that arises, however, is whether the marked focus on stylistic and language issues in the written feedback was likely to give students the wrong impression about the way they would be marked in later summative assessments. In their think aloud study of twelve lecturers marking according to assessment criteria, Bloxham, Boyd and Orr (2011) concluded that surface features did not figure in judgements on grades in summative marking. They referred to surface features as:

…apparently technical and relatively minor tasks that the student had or had not done correctly, including spelling, punctuation, grammar and citation as well as presentation. (p. 666)

The authors of that study suggested that a focus on such surface features “may give students an inappropriate picture of their importance in achieving high grades” (2011, p.668). In Flora’s case, her feedback focused on technical and language issues, but she expressed a wish for more feedback on ‘structure’ which relates to content and, by implication, argument.

The Bloxham study did not report exclusively on the work of international students, and in the case of these students it could be argued that grammar takes on increased importance when it obscures meaning, as a number of comments in

173

formative feedback suggested. The importance of citation in terms of developing an argument in ‘documented essays’ was put forward in Section 2.3.4, so such stylistic features were arguably not ‘minor’ at this formative feedback stage, and in relation to the development of CAW. Focus on stylistic elements, however, tends to

background content, with content likely to assume a higher importance in summative assessment.

Hyatt (2005) called for “...introducing a reflexive explanatory element to ... feedback commentary”, as a form of disciplinary induction and his categories of

reflective questions and informational content could arguably be viewed to function

in this way. Such comments have a similar quality to the reader response style ‘facilitative’ comments recommended in composition literature in the US for feedback on drafts (e.g., Straub, 1997). However, this formative feedback was on finished products and no comments were recorded in these categories. It is also possible that the early timing of this formative feedback explains why such reflexive comments were absent. Hyatt viewed reflective comments as inducting students into the discipline, but perhaps the formative nature of the tasks and the fact that students were only a few weeks into their taught programme had some bearing on the absence of such comments.