You are here:

How language choices in feedback change with technology: Engagement in text and screencast feedback on ESL writing
ARTICLE

Computers & Education Volume 135, Number 1, ISSN 0360-1315 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

An understanding of the impact of our technological choices in giving feedback has become a necessity for instructors. However, few studies have explored how technology choices might be influencing the nature and language of feedback. The present study investigates how the modes of video and text change the language used to give feedback and by doing so, shift its interpersonal aspects. The study employs engagement, from the appraisal framework, to investigate parallel collections of screencast and MS Word feedback from three English as a second language (ESL) writing instructors over four assignments in intact classes. This engagement analysis highlights how other voices are considered in the feedback and provides understanding of the position of the instructor and the role of the feedback itself and how they shift across modes. Text feedback was found to position the instructor as a single authority while video feedback better preserved student autonomy, offering feedback as suggestion and advice and positioning the instructor as one of many possible opinions. Understanding these differences can help instructors choose technology that will best support their pedagogical purposes.

Citation

Cunningham, K.J. (2019). How language choices in feedback change with technology: Engagement in text and screencast feedback on ESL writing. Computers & Education, 135(1), 91-99. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved June 25, 2019 from .

This record was imported from Computers & Education on April 7, 2019. Computers & Education is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.03.002

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References