ESP LEARNER SELF-GENERATED FEEDBACK AS A TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED TASK

• Authors: Anna Franca Plastina
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

In Higher Education, feedback is still largely implemented as an external teacher-centred practice, which has been found to be irrelevant in improving students’ language learning. This paper advocates that internal, or self-generated feedback, has a potential role to play in learners’ formative processes under the condition that it is implemented as a task-based activity enhanced by suitable technological tools. In an experimental study, learners were engaged in the task of creating screencasts, or digital audio-visual recordings, of oral medical reports for authentic professional purposes. The study surveyed the kind of knowledge restructuring processes learners activated as a result of self-generated feedback enhanced by screencast technology. It also sought to understand learners’ perceptions of the experience. Results show that learners used different digital tools for knowledge restructuring leading to readjustment of their initial performances. Screencasts were thus effective in heightened learners’ awareness of the gap between their current weaknesses and their expected goals and in taking necessary action to narrow this gap. Learner perceptions further recorded a positive impact of self-generated feedback enhanced by screencasts, suggesting major motivation and interest in learning.

Keywords

EN

Technology-enhanced feedback; screencasting; TBLL; Self-generated feedback; ESP

• Publisher: IATEFL Poland Computer Special Interest Group & University of Nicosia
• Journal: Teaching English with Technology
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 106-118

Contributors

author

Anna Franca Plastina

• University of Calabria

References

• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the Black Box. Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.
• Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151-167.
• Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399-413.
• Bull, J., & McKenna, C. (2004). Blueprint for Computer-assisted Assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Butler, D.L., & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3.
• European Commission (2012). New Skills and Jobs in Europe: Pathways towards Full Employment. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
• Haber R. J., & Lingard, L. A. (2001). Learning oral presentation skills: a rhetorical analysis with pedagogical and professional implications. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(5), 308-314.
• Heilenman, L. K. (1990). Self-assessment of second language ability: The role of response effects. Language Testing, 7, 174-201.
• Henderson, M., & Phillips, M. (2014). Technology enhanced feedback on assessment. Paper presented at the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, Adelaide, SA. Available at: http://acec2014.acce.edu.au/session/technology-enhancedfeedback-assessment
• Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H. J., & Thorpe, L. (2011). Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 19(2), 117-127.
• Jonsson, A. (2013). Facilitating productive use of feedback in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 63-76.
• Kennedy, G. E., Judd, T. S., Churchward, A., Gray, K., & Krause, K-L. (2008). First year students’ experience with technology: are they really Digital Natives? Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(1), 108-122.
• LeFebvre, L. (2013). Effect of goal-setting and self-generated feedback on student speechmaking. Basic Communication Course Annual, 25, 283-329.
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37-66.
• Mathisen, P. (2012). Video feedback in higher education: A contribution to improving the quality of written feedback. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(2), 97-116.
• McFarlane, K., & Wakeman, C. (2011). Using audio feedback for summative purposes. Innovative Practice in Higher Education, 1(1), 1-20.
• Morris, C., & Chikwa, G. (2014). Screencasts: How effective are they and how do students engage with them? Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1), 25-37.
• Nicol, D. (2013). Resituating feedback from the reactive to the proactive. In D. Boud, E. Molloy (eds.). Feedback in Higher and Professional Education: Understanding it and Doing it Well (pp. 34-49). London: Routledge.
• Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
• Nicol, D., & Milligan, C. (2006). Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (eds.). Innovative Assessment in Higher Education (pp. 64-78). New York: Routledge.
• Plastina, A. F. (2012). Analysing attention in SLA corrective feedback and learner uptake moves. In G. Mininni, A. Manuti (eds), Psycholinguistics. Positive Effects and Ethical Perspectives, vol. II (pp. 155-161). Milano: Franco Angeli.
• Plastina, A. F. (2014). A European approach to language teaching: Developing competency in the usage of Web 2.0 tools. In M.L. Pérez Cañado & J. Ráez Padilla (eds.), Digital Competence Development in Higher Education. An International Perspective (pp. 37-55). Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa and Wien: Peter Lang.
• Plastina, A. F. (2015). Do-It-Our-Way or Do-It-Yourself? ESP learner control in Personal Learning Environments. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 5(1), 35-51.
• Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
• Sadler, R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119-144.
• Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77-84.
• Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300.
• Seror, J. (2012). Show me! Enhanced feedback through screencasting technology. TESL Canada Journal, 30(1), 104-116.
• Thomas, M. Reinders, H., & Warschauer, M. (eds.) (2013). Contemporary Computer-Assisted Language Learning. London: Bloomsbury.
• van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (eds.), Sociocultural Theory and the Teaching of Second Languages (pp. 163-186). London: Equinox.
• Willis, J. (1996). A Framework for Task-based Learning. Harlow: Longman.