The impact of e-feedback on student academic writing · 2015, 5th edition: Gellu Naum 100, 21...

The impact of e-feedback on

student academic writing: a corpus-informed assessment

Mădălina Chitez* (Senior Researcher)Roxana Rogobete** (Postdoctoral Researcher)

*Department of Modern Languages and Literatures**Department of Romanian StudiesWest University of Timisoara, Romania

Academic Writing in Digital Contexts: Analytics, Tools, MedialityThe Eighth International Conference on Writing AnalyticsWinterthur, Switzerland, 5-6 September 2019, https://writinganalytics.zhaw.ch

Content

Introduction: digital technologies in the Romanian HE context• Context & Brief description • Aim of our study

LITERACUM conference• “History”• Results

2

Data• Self-compiled corpora

Analysis• Corpus analysis

Discussion and conclusions

Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania


Digital technologies in the Romanian HE context

3


E-Learning at Romanian universities

▪ “initiating students in ICT, focusing on the possibility to usethese technologies in education and learning”; “teachingactivities […] carried out using various technologies”(Lacurezeanu, Buchmann, Bresfelean, Mares 2011: 222)

▪ “[t]he computer helps to administrate learning resources,students’ linguistic output and corrective feedback” (Nistor,Banciu, Jalobeanu 2005: 255)

4

Challenge:

Collaborative platforms (student/teacher),

Importance of e-feedback – enhance interaction


Aim of the study

➢ to investigate the effects of electronic feedback on students’ academic writing (LITERACUM students’ conference); how students integrate computer-mediated feedback delivered by expert writers into their literary analysis texts

5 Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania


Student conferences in Romanian universities

6

Competition, awards

Jury – feedback, discussion

Specific authors/topics

Timisoara: formative, pedagogical aspects


7

• 2011, 1st edition: Barbu-Blaga 50, 15 students and papers

• 2012, 2nd edition: Caragiale 100, 20 students and papers

• 2013, 3rd edition: Nichita Stanescu, azi, 23students and papers

• 2014, 4th edition: Fundoianu/Fondane 70, 24students and papers

8

9

• 2015, 5th edition: Gellu Naum 100, 21 students and papers

• 2017, 6th edition: Tudor Arghezi, azi, 20 students and 19 papers (one co-authored)

• 2018, 7th edition: Slavici-Cosbuc, 17 students and16 papers (one co-authored)

Academic genres at the crossroads oftradition and internationalization:Corpus-based interlanguage researchon genre use in student writing atRomanian universities

(PROMYS, 2017-2022)

Study powered by

10Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania

Objectives in ROGER

▪ Mapping academic genres at Romanian

universities

▪ Compile a comparable corpus (bilingual) of

academic genres at Romanian universities

▪ Identify and describe academic genre specifics at

Romanian universities

▪ Assess the degree of internationalization of

academic genres in L1 Romanian and L2 English

▪ Design research-based literacy-support strategies11 Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania


12

The ROGS Survey

ROGS resultsSurvey: frequent academic genres in universities

13

Next steps in ROGER

▪ Collection of texts (specific genres in the 4 domains) (AWICNET sub-project)

▪ Corpus processing

▪ Analysis:

▪ (a) rhetorical characteristics: knowledge construction and rhetorical moves, author roles, hedging, metadiscourse, citation practices and text structures;

▪ (b) linguistic features: lexico-grammatical profile and academic phrases14

Participants, writing process, results

▪ 24 titles+summaries

▪ Group discusson selected bibliography

▪ 18 papers (first two pages)

▪ E-feedback (2 papers rejected)

▪ 16 final drafts and presentations – will be published in Literacum magazine (Oct. 19)


Data16



Corpora and multi-modal feedback strategy

17

Summary LITeF1

First two pagesLITeF2

Final draft LITeF3


Summary


▪ LITeF1_01 to LITeF1_24 (3 339 words)

▪ Meeting: group discussion

Selected bibliography, in accordance to their topics; selection of texts to be analysed

First two pages


▪ LITeF2, 18 texts containing 21 490 words

▪ E-feedback: grammar errors, formatting errors visible with „Track changes”; comments regarding coherence and cohesion (+repetitive errors), further suggestions

▪ i-Thenticate

▪ Meeting: group discussion: further guidance

20

One issue: plagiarism

21

▪ i-Thenticate platform

22

Final draft


▪ LITeF3, 16 texts containing 47 775 words

▪ E-feedback: grammar errors, formatting errors visible with „Track changes”;

▪ i-Thenticate

▪ Meeting: group discussion: practicing the presentations

Final revision before publishing

23

Analysis24 Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania


LITefF1

25 Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania

AW phraselist profile LITeF1

2-gram phrases de unde EXPL explanation

de cealalta CA counter-argument

și anume EXPL explanation

3-gram phrases în opera lui REF reference

în același timp SIMA similar argument

suport va fi REF reference

textul suport va REF reference

cele din urmă CONCL conclusion

4-gram phrases lucrarea mea se va REF reference

textul suport va fi REF reference

pe de cealaltă parte CA counter-argument

26

First two pagesAW phraselist profile LITeF2

2-gram phrases ceea ce EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

faptul ca EXPL explanation

in poezia REF reference

si in SIMA similar argument/reference

3-gram phrases punct de vedere EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

lucrarea de față REF reference

în ceea ce EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

din punct de EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

în opera lui REF reference

în poezia lui REF reference

în același timp SIMA similar argument

4-gram phrases din punct de vedere EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

în lucrarea de față REF reference


27

Final draft


AW phraselist profile LITeF3

2-gram phrases in care EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

mai mult SIMA similar argument

cât și SIMA similar argument

3-gram phrases punct de vedere EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

lucrarea de față REF reference

în ceea ce EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

din punct de EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

în poezia lui REF reference

4-gram phrases din punct de vedere EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

în ceea ce privește EXPL, PERSP explanation, perspective

pe de altă parte CA counter-argument

nu în ultimul rând SIMA similar argument

Corpora compared

28

▪LITeF1:

reference, explanation

Basic frequency: PREP, CONJ, PRON▪LITeF2:

reference, explanation, already giving arguments

Basic frequency: PREP, CONJ, PRON, N, VB


▪LITeF2c:

Most common: asking for sources! (citation problems in 23 cases)

▪LITeF3:

references, explanations, arguments/similar arguments, counter-arguments

Basic frequency: PREP, CONJ, PRON, N, VB

similar to expert corpus (LITexp)

29

Wordlists - noun frequency

LITeF1 LITeF2 LITeF3

1 operă 17 operă 68operă 140

2 element 15 nuvelă 67 nuvelă 129

3 joc 15 poezie 59 poezie 107

4 text 13 literatură 57 joc 104

5 poezie 13 element 53 literatură 103

6 nuvelă 13 fapt 42 traducere 98

7 roman 12 text 39 limbă 98

8 literatură 11 poet 30 lume 98

9 scriitor 11 autor 29 text 96

10 lucrare 10 personaj 29 personaj 90

11 analiză 9 scriitor 28 fapt 88

12 societate 9 lucrare 26 moarte 83

Nouns (reference, genre, topics they are dealing with)


30

Verbs

VerbsLITeF1 LITeF2 LITeF3

1fi 46fi 515fi 11532avea 41avea 265avea 6803vrea 31vrea 84putea 2174putea 8putea 84vrea 1305scrie 6face 46face 1176 observa 26privi 567 afirma 23vedea 518 deveni 22pune 51

9 reprezenta 20trebui 5010 da 19observa 4911 pune 19deveni 4112 apărea 17spune 4013 vedea 17duce 40

14 încerca 17reprezenta 4015 exista 16afirma 3916 considera 15ști 3917 afla 15da 3918 prezenta 15trece 3719 găsi 13ajunge 3320 vorbi 13veni 3221 cunoaște 13afla 3122 remarca 13găsi 3023 propune 13părea 2924

90 >200

31

Argumentative structures


Conclusions32 Chitez, M. & Rogobete, R. / ROGER / West University of Timisoara, Romania


AW conclusions

33

▪ Students have difficulties adapting to AW norms, in terms of formatting/citation

▪ Feedback awareness, stage 2 (LITeF2c very important)

▪ E-feedback enhanced by face-to-face feedback



Didactic conclusions/questions/challenges

▪ Questionnaire – process useful or not?

▪ 2019 edition – better alternative?

▪ Teaching staff interferes too much instudents’ text?

34



THANKS!

Please visit us for more exciting results related to Romanian applied corpus linguistic studies at:

https://roger.projects.uvt.ro/

Facebook: ROGER (https://www.facebook.com/rogeruvt/)

35


https://www.facebook.com/rogeruvt/

Date post:	16-Feb-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

The impact of e-feedback on student academic writing · 2015, 5th edition: Gellu Naum 100, 21...

Documents