Trischa Duke

Tutorium in Intensive English, Office of the Vice Provost for Global Engagement

Trischa Duke is a Senior Lecturer at UIC’s Tutorium, where she has taught intensive and academic English courses since 2010 and has served as the chair of the Tutorium’s Accelerator Program since 2018. She specializes in curriculum and faculty development in intensive English and university pathway programs. Her research focuses on post-secondary English language learner development and retention as well as second-language writing and writing instruction. She teaches English for Academic Purposes, international freshman orientation, and writing support courses.

Duke is a 2022-23 Action Research Scholar.

Trischa Duke

Trischa Duke

Investigating International Students’ Perceptions and Utilization of Instructor Writing Feedback Heading link

Abstract

This qualitative action research study examines international undergraduates’ perceptions and utilization of instructor feedback on their writing in an effort to improve student writing skill development by more effectively aligning feedback with its uptake. Classroom artifacts that are an established part of the course, such as writing assignment rubrics, self-review checklists, and reflective journal entries, will be collected and analyzed in order to trace the feedback cycle throughout students’ writing process.

 

Findings will be used by instructors to examine their current feedback practices and how they might more effectively align these practices with student expectations and uses of constructive feedback.

Feedback is one of the most influential factors on student learning in any learning context. It is paramount for educators to balance learning activities with sufficient opportunities for feedback as a means of formatively assessing progress and fostering the development of target knowledge and skills (Havnes, Smith, Dysthe, & Ludvigsen, 2012). A classroom culture of feedback allows students to consider mistakes as learning opportunities while also fostering students’ ability to utilize instructor and peer feedback as a tool to build the necessary skills to organize and apply the feedback provided to them (Denault, Hintz, & Thielges, 2017).

Most studies on writing feedback for international students center on written corrective feedback, which focuses almost exclusively on grammatical issues (see Ferris, 1995; Hyland, 2000; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Rao, 2017; Kim & Emelianova, 2019; Lee & Mohebbi, 2021). The focus on students’ ability to correct problematic grammatical structures typically aligns with the goal of preparing students for the high stakes English-language exams they must take in order to gain admittance to English-language universities. The goal is to pass the test, and the test prizes grammatical accuracy.

An issue arises, however, between the mismatch between international students’ expectations for English-language composition courses and the expectations of instructors of those courses, who, instead of focusing on only grammatical accuracy, often prioritize content and development of ideas. The understanding of “effective writing” that undergirds university composition courses is based in rhetorical studies, as opposed to the basis in linguistic studies that informs the writing instruction that international students typically encounter in their home countries. As a result, students often do not understand or do not know how to respond to instructor feedback on their writing, and they may be disappointed that they are not receiving more feedback on their language. This mismatch may lead to confusion and demotivation among students, hampering their ability to succeed.

This study seeks to understand how students interact with the instructor feedback they are given on their writing, specifically targeting international students in their first year of study at an American university. It will examine students’ expectations for feedback, their opinions about the feedback they receive, and their understanding and utilization of the feedback to improve their writing.

Study participants included 57 UIC students enrolled in ELSI 041 English for Academic Purposes I (EAP I) and ELSI 043 English for Academic Purposes II (EAP II) during the fall semester of 2023. ELSI 041 is a ten-hour non-credit developmental English course designed for first-year undergraduate students in the UIC Global International Accelerator Program. ELSI 043 is a three-hour non-credit developmental English course designed for first-year undergraduate students in the UIC Global International Accelerator Program. Both courses focus on developing students’ academic writing skills; they utilize a scaffolded approach to the writing process in which students receive targeted constructive feedback at various points throughout the process.

This study examined classroom artifacts, including writing assignment drafts, instructor feedback, and reflective journal entries, in order to more fully understand how international first-year undergraduate students in ELSI 041 and ELSI 043 perceive the feedback they receive on their writing and how they utilize that feedback throughout the revision process.

The aim of this study is to understand how international students interact with the instructor feedback they receive on their writing assignments. Specifically, the study will focus on the following questions:

  1. How do students perceive instructor feedback (do they have a generally positive or negative view of feedback, do they understand the feedback they are receiving, and are they motivated by the feedback to improve their writing drafts)?
  2. How do students utilize instructor feedback in their writing process (to what extent do students use the feedback they have received, and to what extent do the revisions students make based on instructor feedback improve their writing)?

While we were unable to analyze all of the data collected, we focused on data that would help us to target each of the sub-questions of the research questions listed above. Preliminary results based on the data analyzed are as follows.

A. As demonstrated by the post-course survey that students completed as part of Journal 5, students surveyed have an overall positive view of the feedback they received from their instructor. Of the 57 students enrolled in EAP courses, 23 students completed the survey, for a completion rate of 40%. 87% of students surveyed felt that the feedback they received was extremely effective in helping them understand how to improve their writing, and another 8.7% rated instructor feedback as effective. The remaining 4.3% said instructor feedback was somewhat effective in helping them understand how to improve their writing.

B. The post-course survey showed that while students generally reported understanding how to improve their writing based on the instructor feedback they received, they were less confident in their ability to apply the feedback effectively. 60.9% of the students who completed the survey felt that they were extremely effective in using feedback, while 26.1% rated their use of feedback as effective, and 13% said their use of feedback was somewhat effective. The difference between these numbers and those in the previous question suggests that there is a disconnect between students’ understanding and application of feedback that instructors should attempt to address.

C. Comments from student reflective journals were overwhelmingly positive in response to how the feedback they received had helped them to improve their writing over the course of the semester. Key themes that emerged from the data include increased confidence and motivation; more effective revision strategies; greater focus on content rather than language; and an improved sense of effective writing when reviewing both their own and peers’ writing.

D. Evaluation criteria for the first draft of the summary paragraph of the summary-response essay writing assignment used in this study show the distribution of constructive instructor comments. Of the 46 first-draft rubrics analyzed, comments indicate that 74% of students struggled with identifying the pattern of organization of the article summarized, and 57% struggled with identifying the article’s main idea. Just under half of the students (43% and 41%, respectively) had difficulty achieving balance of main and supporting ideas in their paragraph and accurately identifying key supporting ideas. Most students were able to accurately identify the author and title of the article in their paragraph, with only 17% requiring constructive comments.

E. This final table takes the distribution of constructive instructor comments into account to demonstrate students’ improvement between the first draft (Draft 1) and final draft (Draft 2) of the summary-response assignment. All five criteria for the summary paragraph show an improvement of 8 percentage points or more, up to 15 percentage points. It should be noted that application of instructor feedback is only one of multiple factors contributing to increased average scores for Draft 2; peer feedback, self-assessment, and adequate revision time are among the others.

F. The findings of this study collectively show that the feedback practices currently utilized by EAP instructors are effective to extremely effective. Students have an overall positive view of the feedback they receive on their writing from their instructor. They report that they understand the feedback they receive and are motivated to use the feedback to improve their writing. Rubric comments and scores for first and second drafts of the summary-response writing assignment show that students are generally improving their writing between drafts. Based on comments collected from students and their self-reporting of their confidence level to apply the feedback they receive, it can be assumed that students are generally effective at applying instructor feedback to improve their writing.

  • Results will be shared with Tutorium administrators and faculty. Faculty will have the opportunity to apply the study’s findings to their own practice and to work collaboratively to find ways to close the gap between students’ understanding and application of the feedback they receive.
  • During the Fall 2023 and Spring 2024 semesters, this study was shared with various interested groups on the UIC campus, including action research panels for GC 593 (FA23) and GC 594 (FA24) and the LSRI speaker series (SP24).
  • Presentation proposals will be submitted to various English language teaching and action research-focused conferences, including TESOL International, the Conference on College Composition and Communication, and improving University Teaching.
  • Once data analysis is complete, findings will be compiled into a potentially publishable article focused on measuring and improving writing feedback practices.

Conducting this action research project has had a significant impact on my teaching and my professional development:

  • Developing this action research study has helped me to be more reflective in my teaching practice and to encourage other faculty to do the same. Rather than making assumptions about the effectiveness of our feedback to students, we are able to devise ways to meaningfully measure the effectiveness of our current practices and to identify areas for improvement. 
  • Leading a team of faculty members through the process of conducting this study was enriching not only for me but for the faculty members as well. Having gone through the IRB process, I am no longer intimidated by it as I prepare for my dissertation. Now that they have completed the CITI training and are familiar with the IRB process, the faculty I worked with are considering conducting studies of their own.
  • I am grateful to the CATE team for their continuous support and encouragement throughout this process, including a scaffolded framework for developing a research study, access to campus resources and people across campus who could guide me through each step of the process, and continued support for professional development, including invitations to conferences and other means of disseminating my work.
  • The most significant impact of this research project is the community of practice that has been established among action research scholars and cultivated by the CATE team. I have connected with fellow instructors across disciplines and formed mutually supportive relationships that have extended beyond my cohort to an ongoing writing accountability group and potential mentoring opportunities for future action research scholar cohorts. I look forward to growing these connections as the program grows.