1

‘Feedback in EAP’ Oxford Brookes BALEAP PIM Saturday 23 November, 2013

Programme Abstracts

Time 10.15 -10.45

Venue BG10/11

Session Plenary

Presenter Jane Sjoberg, University of Birmingham

Session title Peer review – making it work

Session contents International students are often reluctant to engage in peer-to-peer feedback and do not always appreciate its importance in the learning process. Class activities that involve peer review of the students’ own writing sometimes fall flat and can lead to further disillusionment regarding the value of peer-to-peer feedback on the part of both the students and the teacher. In what I hope will be an informal and fun opening session, I will invite you to think about some of the cultural, personal and language-based reasons for students’ reluctance to engage in peer review activities. I will then offer a few practical suggestions to (i) encourage greater awareness of the value of peer review activities and (ii) maximise learner engagement. Some of these suggestions will be based around in-class activities and others will lend themselves to asynchronous communication in blended learning environments.

Bio Jane Sjoberg has over 25 years’ teaching experience both in the UK and abroad. She now mostly teaches and develops materials in EAP from foundation to postgraduate levels at the University of Birmingham.

10.45 – 11.10 Coffee break

Venue BG05

2

SESSION 1

Time 11.10 – 11.40

Venue BG01

Session 1 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenters Dr. Nilufer Demirkan-Jones and Dr. Desmond Thomas, University of Essex

Session title Syllabus re-design using peer and expert feedback: a case study from Azerbaijan

Session contents In this session we will discuss how peer feedback between teachers was utilized to ensure that they were engaged in the revision and the re-design of the syllabi for Practical English and Methodology Courses. The presentation will also discuss issues relating to overall programme feedback. Over the last three years the International Academy at Essex University has been working very closely with five Azeri Universities on an EU funded TEMPUS RITSA project (Reforming Interpreting and Translation Studies in Azerbaijan). One of the main aims of the project has been to improve language teaching and teacher training in Azerbaijan. The IA therefore has been assisting these partner institutions: in the specification of

syllabi for Practical English and Methodology courses; in the development of Quality Assurance processes in order to achieve compatibility with the Common European Framework levels; with the selection and introduction of appropriate materials for these courses. The session will focus on the issues encountered around providing feedback on syllabus re-design processes, and will aim to answer the following questions: To what extent have syllabus designers imposed their own view of

teaching and learning? To what extent were teachers and students involved in the re-

design? What expertise do syllabus designers have? How does their

expertise relate to the needs of the syllabus and of the learners? The presentation will highlight the importance of peer feedback: it will discuss the necessity of creating focus groups and engaging teachers in the critical process of identifying issues regarding their own teaching situation, such as the need to re-design an existing syllabus. It will be argued that utilizing peer feedback will produce better results when implementing changes.

Bio Nilufer Demirkan-Jones is the Graduate Director with overall responsibility for MA TESOL, Pre-Masters Graduate Diploma and CPD Courses. Her current research interests include Programme Design and Evaluation, Teacher Education, Learning Strategies. Desmond Thomas is Course Director for the MA TESOL. He lectures on MA courses, his specialist areas being English language teaching methodology, teacher training, teaching practice and research methods for education.

3

Time 11.10 – 11.40

Venue BG10

Session 1 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenter Jill Northcott, University of Edinburgh

Session title Feedback on in-sessional ESAP online academic writing courses for postgraduates

Session contents This presentation will describe an initiative to develop students’ abilities to tackle postgraduate assignments by providing online academic writing courses for specific academic specialisms. The courses ideally run as early as possible in the academic year in order to provide students with structured support in writing an essay before formally assessed assignments are due. Assignments with prescribed reading are provided by the academic department or school. EAP tutors provide online feedback on weekly tasks and assignments which build the essay section by section. Subject tutors give feedback on the final essay. These are supplemented by joint EAP/subject specialism face to face feedback sessions. Piloting and evaluation of the courses has raised a number of issues and concerns related to :

1. Providing feedback for both L1 and L2 English speakers. 2. Differences between subject specialist and EAP tutor approaches

to giving feedback. It is hoped that PIM participants anticipating moving into this or similar areas themselves, involving supporting academic writing development for both L1 and L2 postgraduates, will find this account of our experience thought-provoking and helpful.

Bio Jill Northcott is Lecturer and Head of English for Business and Law at the English Language Teaching Centre, University of Edinburgh. Her main research and teaching interests are in the areas of Legal English and ESAP.

4

Time 11.10 – 11.40

Venue BG11

Session 1 DIVERSE FORMS OF FEEDBACK

Presenter Gemma Stansfield, London School of Economics

Session title Corrective feedback on L2 writing in one-to-one tutorials: in the zone?

Session contents A considerable proportion of an EAP teacher’s time involves giving feedback on written work. Of the many aspects of feedback on L2 writing, student writers generally expect and/or express a desire to be corrected and one-to-one tutorials are an ideal opportunity to provide individualised feedback. Yet too often corrective feedback is passively received, largely ignored or is the source of frustration. This presentation reports on an action research project undertaken to address these issues. How can students be more actively involved in the corrective feedback process? What type of corrective feedback should we use to optimise grammatical development? In what ways can grammatical progress be seen? I will report on a brief journey through the literature of direct, indirect, implicit and explicit types of correction from the perspective of an EAP teacher, culminating in (i) a re-conceptualised view of corrective feedback grounded in socio-cultural theory and (ii) a study undertaken to examine its effects on accuracy in writing. The study tracked changes in the grammatical accuracy of two cases over one term of an EAP Foundation Programme. The feedback was grounded in Vygotsky’s concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and based on Aljaafreh & Lantolf’s (1994) 0-12 step ‘regulatory scale’1, designed to move learners from other-regulated to self-regulated correction through feedback that is graduated, contingent and dialogic. Based on qualitative data collection and mixed-method analysis, changes in grammatical accuracy within and across tutorials for the two cases and positive impacts on the tutorial feedback setting will be presented, as well as difficulties experienced along the way and a reflection on corrective feedback post-study. Delegates can expect a theoretically-grounded but practical presentation on corrective feedback in tutorials, along with opportunities for discussion and exchange of practice.

Bio Gemma Stansfield is Co-ordinating Language Teacher (EAP) at the London School of Economics. She has the DELTA, an MA in ELT & Applied Linguistics, a PGCE in post-compulsory education and 15 years’ teaching experience.

1 Examples of steps on the regulatory scale:

Step 0 = Tutor asks the learner to read, find the error and correct them independently, prior to the tutorial.

Step 6 = Tutor indicates the nature of the error, but tries not to identify the error.

Step12 = Tutor provides examples of the correct pattern when other forms of help fail to produce an appropriate responsive action.

5

Time 11.10 – 11.40

Venue Abercrombie building – The Lab/Space to Think

Session 1 FEEDBACK WITH TECHNOLOGY

Presenter Dustin Hosseini, University of St Andrews

Session title Implementing effective learning through real-time collaboration: Google Docs as an efficient vehicle for written feedback

Session contents This workshop presents educators with a brief but highly practical introduction to Google Drive with the main focus highlighting Google Docs as a free and effective online learning/teaching tool that is accessible across all computers and mobile devices with Internet access. For students, this effective learning tool allows groups to collaborate simultaneously from virtually any place. In addition to typing up ideas or tasks for sessions focused on lexis, grammar, presentations, research and writing, students can collaborate on authoring texts through the chat and comments functions. Chat is useful when peers are physically apart or if silence is required. The comments function is highly versatile in that it can be used for peer feedback marking and social annotation activities. Educators can join in at any stage, or monitor and provide feedback as needed through either of these methods. Finally, use of Google Docs for collaborative purposes will equip today’s generation of learners for the work environment of today and the very near future. To close, Google Docs equips students and teachers with the means to collaborate on written tasks, assignments and course work in real-time while empowering users to become both more independent and collaborative, and more at ease with cloud technologies. Participants in the session will have the opportunity to discuss how the use of Google Docs can work in their own context. In addition, if participants bring a laptop –or– tablet (e.g. an iPad or similar) they will likely be able to greatly benefit through being able to engage with Google Docs directly. Keywords: Google Docs; instantaneous/synchronous feedback; peer collaboration; peer feedback; peer marking; e-learning; m-learning; social annotation.

Bio Dustin Hosseini teaches on a range of EAP courses at the University of St Andrews. His interests include academic writing, e-learning, open access materials, and the social construction of attitudes on native-speakerism.

6

SESSION 2

Time 11.45 -12.15

Venue BG01

Session 2 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenters Mary Martala-Lockett and Claire Weetman, University of Hertfordshire

Session title Enhancing student practice through peer feedback

Session contents Process writing forms an integral part of the syllabus on the International Foundation Programme. In an attempt to help students engage more with the process and to help them improve their written work we introduced the use of classroom-based peer feedback in conjunction with students’ notes and summaries, essay plans and subsequent essays and reports. Students gave feedback to one another on all aspects of writing which had been covered in class, such as topic sentences, cohesion, whether the conclusion adequately reflected the introduction and so forth according to worksheets which prompted them to check a peer’s work. This was trialled last year with our higher level IFP groups. All the work was carried out in a controlled classroom environment with the writing lecturer at hand to help and offer further explanations. This process appears to have contributed a great deal to students focusing on key aspects of their writing, and enabled them by the end of the year to be more critical evaluators of their own work, which in turn made them better writers. We aim to continue to develop the peer-feedback process to enhance the students’ written skills before including the skill of speaking. By sharing our experience and sample materials with BALEAP colleagues through our presentation and the ensuing discussion, we hope to enable them to evaluate the extent to which this practice can be implemented in their own modules.

Bio Mary Martala-Lockett has been teaching English for 25 years, 11 of which have been in HE. She is interested in academic writing and feedback and has co-authored “Successful Academic Writing”. Claire Weetman has been teaching English for 18 years in Turkey, Thailand, Poland, Australia and the UK. She is interested in blended learning and motivating international students.

7

Time 11.45 -12.15

Venue BG10

Session 2 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenter Katherine Taylor, University of Leeds

Session title Feedback opportunities afforded to both doctoral student and tutor through one-to-one support

Session contents In this presentation, I explore issues around feedback through discussion of a case study of my recent one-to-one work with a PGR student. I challenge the notion of ‘giving (receiving) feedback’, seeing mentoring, with its focus on developing noticing skills and facilitating reflection on practice (Malderez, 2009), as more appropriate in the context of working with doctoral students. I discuss how both the mentee and mentor benefitted from the opportunity to reflect on their practices afforded by a one-to-one intervention. The mentee, encouraged to explore both key linguistic structures and (biomedical) disciplinary conventions more fully, was able to engage more successfully in the process of academic writing, and to complete the product of her Transfer Report. I, in a mentor role, have been able to explore my own practices, finding notions from Schön’s (1983) description of an epistemology of practice useful in making sense of some of the challenges I faced: in complex, uncertain practices – such as (supporting) doctoral research endeavours - neither problems nor responses are standard, so that the challenge is in identifying and (re)framing problems, through engaging in a conversation with the situation/ being open to it talking back e.g. coming to realise the mentee’s inability to accurately employ passive vs. active structures did not reflect a lack of understanding of the structures, as initially thought, but arose from the difficulty of differentiating in her work between the agency of the researcher and the agency of research objects.

This intervention further strengthens my conviction that support for (doctoral) students is most effective when differentiated by discipline. However, given the range and depth of disciplinary difference (see e.g. Nesi and Gardner, 2012) this poses questions about what demands can be made on EAP practitioners. Participants will be able to consider and discuss the notions of mentoring vs. feedback, and the extent/limitations of possible EAP interventions. Malderez, A. (2009) Mentoring In Burns, A. and Richards, J. The Cambridge Guide to Second Language Teacher Education Nesi, H. & Gardener, S. (2012) Genres Across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Practitioners Think in Action

Bio Katherine Taylor teaches both international students within the Language Centre and home students in the university-wide development unit. She supports primarily PGR students from a wide range of disciplines and is particularly interested in issues around transition. She is currently pursuing a PhD in practice-based learning and knowledge development.

8

Time 11.45 -12.50

Venue BG11

Session 2 and 3 DIVERSE FORMS OF FEEDBACK Symposium on Corrective Feedback

Presenters Session 2: Kerry Tavakoli, University of St Andrews Session 3: Prof. Christian Krekeler, University of Konstanz, Germany

Session title Session 2: Feedback unlimited Session 3: Written corrective feedback on L2 writing: is it relevant for EAP? Discussion for both at end

Session contents Kerry Tavakoli Written feedback and student-teacher conferences on first and second drafts of essays and reports are the main vehicle for the development of writing and language skills for international students. However, student uptake is very variable and many errors persist, indicating that acquisition is not taking place. Ferris (2010) suggests that while SLA-focused researchers investigate whether written CF facilitates the acquisition of particular linguistic features, L2 writing researchers generally emphasize the question of whether written CF helps student writers improve the overall effectiveness of their texts. A more holistic approach to CF, giving feedback on a variety of different written and oral tasks, might lead to more acquisition. Students on a pre-Master’s in Business course were asked to submit a weekly news log from websites such as BBC and Financial Times, giving their response to the news in a few sentences every day. This was corrected and returned with comments from the teacher, thus the language feedback was secondary to the critical discussion. Another strand of the programme, Cultural Studies, traced the development of capitalism in the West from the Reformation through to the Post-war period. The students were required to do background reading to write short assignments and give presentations. Feedback was given on all tasks, both spoken and written (electronic). Students were encouraged to revisit the corrected work to ‘notice’ their errors (Schmidt, 1994). It is difficult to measure acquisition gained by this constant feedback, but the students appreciated the involvement of the teacher in their learning and in some cases made a conscious effort to write more accurately. It may be that since the work was not assessed, the corrections to be made did not seem threatening. Delegates will get a view of corrective feedback from the SLA researcher’s perspective, rather than just that of the academic writing teacher.

9

Christian Krekeler: Written corrective feedback (CF) on L2 writing has been widely discussed in the language learning literature. Numerous studies have been carried out to assess the effectiveness of CF in classroom settings and to investigate the learning potential of CF from an SLA perspective. This research seems justified, not least because language teachers often spend considerable time supplying CF to their learners. In this presentation, I will summarise the main findings of such research, including my own research with advanced L2 learners, and apply the emerging issues to the specific area of EAP and to more advanced L2 learners in general. As most CF on L2 writing is directed at linguistic accuracy, this will include a discussion of the role linguistic accuracy plays for EAP learners. It will also be discussed whether CF is in conflict with the main task of teaching academic writing. In summary, I will argue that CF on L2 writing has the potential to distract EAP learners and I will therefore argue for a limited use of CF at certain stages in the drafting process. As an alternative, student teacher conferences are proposed which may include discussions about linguistic accuracy. Thus, the main aims of the session are to present an overview on the effectiveness of CF on L2 writing and, more specifically, to discuss the role of CF in the context of academic writing.

Bio Kerry Tavakoli’s main EAP focus is on teaching reading for writing. She uses this as a forum to explore the application of SLA theory to academic writing, in which corrective feedback plays a key role. Christian Krekeler is Professor of German as a Foreign Language, Head of the Centre for International Students at the University of Konstanz and editor of “Informationen Deutsch als Fremdsprache (a journal on German language teaching)

10

Time 11.45 -12.15

Venue Abercrombie building – The Lab/Space to Think

Session 2 FEEDBACK WITH TECHNOLOGY

Presenters Chloe Courtenay and Rebecca Coleman, University of Kent

Session title Using GradeMark - getting students interested in their online feedback

Session contents The University of Kent is rolling out GradeMark (part of the Turnitin package) on courses campus wide to provide feedback on written student assignments. Within our department we piloted the use of the software on one of our advanced International Foundation Programme (IFP) modules and the pre-sessional courses before introducing it on credit bearing courses including the IFP, In-sessional and World Languages courses in 2012. However, using this new technology comes with some issues. Many staff have found it ‘clunky’, difficult to access off campus and have experienced connection problems. Moreover, students tend to look solely at their grades without looking at the detailed feedback provided by their tutors in the form of comments, annotations and highlights on GradeMark. Students who query their marks often do not read feedback to find out why the mark has been awarded. Students also tend to not consider comments in their feedback before embarking on the next assignment. Although teachers will be familiar with students not reading written feedback, it seems that by having the feedback in a virtual environment the problem is exacerbated by the fact that students cannot see the feedback in the same way as a written assignment covered in comments. For some, the effort of going online to look up the comments seems a step too far. This workshop will consider ways in which to encourage students to not only read comments, but also to use the feedback to improve further academic work including one to one feedback sessions, reflective practice and moving away from graded work. In this session delegates will have the opportunity to reflect and discuss strategies for using GradeMark effectively as a learning tool. The workshop will include an overview of what we do at CEWL, the problems we face, and a brief analysis of possible solutions.

Bio Chloe Courtenay is an EAP Tutor and Course Convenor at the University of Kent, where she teaches on IFP, in-sessional and pre-sessional programmes. She has worked in EAP since 2001 in both the UK and in China as well as on ESAP, EFL and ESOL provision in both FE and HE. Rebecca Coleman is an EAP Tutor, Course Convenor at the University of Kent where she teaches on in-sessional, CELTA, IFP and pre-sessional programmes. She has worked in the UK in both EFL and EAP since 2007.

11

SESSION 3

Time 12.20 – 12.50

Venue BG01

Session 3 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenter Catherine Mitsaki, Queen Mary University of London

Session title Critical friends, critical engagement and independent learning: does peer feedback work?

Session contents The concept of ‘Critical Friends’ involves collaborative learning, working towards shared goals, constructive feedback and development of independent thinking skills by working in fixed groups for longer time periods, that is, until a project is completed. Unlike working with random groups for different tasks, which is quite common in the language classroom, this approach involves not only grouping students according to similar interests and goals but also establishing a culture for formative feedback through empowering the student to develop solid, empirical standards as well as balancing the group dynamics as the group evolves. Such a model appears to be quite relevant to the EAP classroom, where learners are expected to be more mature and part of their training involves developing independent study skills. This talk will present the results of action research conducted with pre-masters students over the last 3 years in the Language Centre at Queen Mary University of London. The main tenets of the concept will be briefly outlined; then, theoretical and practical issues regarding group dynamics, motivation, formation of identity and quality of feedback will be discussed before looking at a set of linguistic and behavioural indicators as a way of measuring the effects of employing this technique. Apart from statistics, samples of student work during the drafting and re-drafting process at different stages of the programme and student comments on their experience will also be available to facilitate further discussion. This type of teaching / learning experience has provided good amount of evidence for collaborative learning and learner autonomy. Yet, to what extent such groups can offer better results as a method compared to more traditional and less autonomous (and complicated) class management? Delegates will have the chance to debate views and share experience on this issue as well as discuss the practicalities of adopting this approach.

Bio Catherine Mitsaki is a Teaching Fellow at QMUL, Pre-Master’s and MA in Applied Linguistics and English Language Teaching programmes. Her research interests include Language Acquisition, Learner Autonomy and disfluency patterns.

12

Time 12.20 – 12.50

Venue BG10

Session 3 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenter Victoria Mann, University of Sheffield

Session title Written assignment feedback and dyslexic international students

Session contents Feedback is a vital formative tool that can highlight the strengths of a student’s writing and can provide guidance about areas for further development. For feedback to be effective, however, the student needs to be able to both understand the content and act on the advice provided. This presentation will consider the difficulties that international students with dyslexia face in both the writing process and being able to respond to feedback provided. Using a case study, it will look at examples of difficulties in writing, including spelling, grammar, and interpretation of assignment titles. The presentation will then discuss potential strategies for improving the accessibility of feedback and for supporting students in implementing feedback advice. These strategies will include annotated model answers; Brookheart’s model of clarity, specificity and tone; and criteria referencing. By the end of the session, the delegates will have an insight into the challenges of providing feedback to second language students with dyslexia, and will have explored strategies to ensure feedback is effective.

Bio Victoria Mann works in the English Language Teaching Centre at the University of Sheffield, specialising in specific learning difficulties. She has a particular interest in multiple literacy practices and SpLDs.

13

Time 12.20 – 12.50

Venue Abercrombie building – The Lab/Space to Think

Session 3 FEEDBACK WITH TECHNOLOGY

Presenter Lisa Hale, Oxford Brookes University

Session title Using a social bookmarking tool (Diigo) to engage students in feedback

Session contents Firstly, the workshop will briefly introduce the social bookmarking tool, Diigo. Then we will move on to look at how this tool has been used by students and teachers to work collaboratively to give feedback and leave comments on online resources using the highlighting and annotation functions and then the tagging and sharing functions. Participants will gain first-hand experience of using Diigo and see examples of how it has been used with a group of pre-sessional students studying on an academic reading course. Some students will also be there to give their side of the experience.

Bio Lisa Hale manages and teaches on the University English pre-sessional programme at Oxford Brookes University. She is currently studying for a Master’s in Online and Distance Education with the Open University. She is interested in the use of technology in EAP.

12.50 – 2.00 Lunch

Venue Abercrombie Atrium (next to The Lab)

14

SESSION 4

Time 2.00 –2.30

Venue BG01

Session 4 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenter Ricky Lowes, Plymouth University

Session title Closing the loop in feedback

Session contents The presentation will focus on how feedback can be a continual loop, leading to a deepening understanding of the issues that feedback has been given on, and to active steps to be taken by both giver and receiver of feedback. Examples will be given of feedback given by students on learning activities and materials, and by a lecturer giving feedback in peer observation. The concept of feedback is expanded to include video recordings for self-observation as well as feedback given by others. The presentation will show how quick and simple techniques can be used effectively to engage participants in the process of working within a feedback loop. The key issue I am exploring is how to move beyond 'feedback and finish' to 'feedback becomes feedforward': how to continue to explore and deepen the process. I hope to be able to talk about how I have gathered feedback on learning experiences from students using post-its, (quick and simple, and easy to manipulate) and then collated the results and presented them back to the students with additional comments and suggestions; how video can be used for self and peer observation and an additional layer of feedback can be drawn in; using the Comment function in Word to respond to students' reflective diaries (and other work); and the 'You said: We did' format to show how feedback can be acted on by both teachers and students. I hope delegates will learn some simple and effective techniques that are easy to use and will encourage them to view feedback as the beginning rather than the end stage of a learning process - which of course it is, otherwise why would we bother with it?

Bio Ricky Lowes has worked in ELT since 1981. Her professional interests are academic vocabulary learning, peer learning, intercultural exchange, and materials development. She currently works at Plymouth University.

15

Time 2.00 –2.30

Venue BG10

Session 4 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenters Ann Smith and Juliet Thondhlana, University of Nottingham

Session title How can undergraduate Engineering and Business assessed group projects inform EAP feedback processes?

Session contents Formative feedback can affect the quality of the group interaction which in turn can influence the quality of the final assessment. As undergraduate modules are frequently employing group projects as a form of assessment, this presentation draws insights from the investigation of two contrasting group projects used in two departments at the University of Nottingham; Engineering and Business. The summative assessments in the projects will be briefly outlined and opportunities for formative feedback within the duration of the project will be explained. The presentation will contrast the feedback processes in the two projects and examine the different formats and opportunities for formative support. Examples of the type of difficulties international students face in group projects will be explored and the feedback and advice given will be analysed. It seems that constructive formative feedback can affect the quality of the group project management and student interaction which in turn influences the quality of the final written report and oral assessment. Finally, we will show how this information is benefitting the assessed group project in the new lower level pre-sessional EAP module at the Centre for English Language Education.

Bio Ann Smith is a lecturer at the School of Education at the University of Nottingham. She has extensive experience in EAP teaching, syllabus design, assessment and MA teacher training. Her interests include group projects, intercultural communication and syllabus design. Juliet Thondhlana is a lecturer in Applied Linguistics and EAP at the University of Nottingham. She has taught EAP-related courses as well as published in the area. Her research interests include assessed group work, needs analysis and academic literacies.

16

Time 2.00 –2.30

Venue BG11

Session 4 DIVERSE FORMS OF FEEDBACK

Presenter John Slaght, University of Reading

Session title Feedback on extensive reading activities: getting them to read between and beyond the lines

Session contents Extensive reading has been described as ‘the single most effective way to improve language proficiency’ (Maley 2005: 354) and certainly would seem to significantly enhance language development in reading and writing (Day and Bamford 1998) as well as helping to develop the students’ lexical and structural range and accuracy. Extensive reading is also the activity that, in many instances, most occupies students’ time on higher education courses and they are expected to read widely and independently (Slaght 2012: 6). However, students need to be motivated to read extensively, actively, selectively, critically and independently. Feedback on extensive reading practices can play a highly effective role on EAP programmes in developing these aspects of reading. This presentation describes a system where students are expected to produce a weekly reading review of a text or texts they have chosen independently. Ultimately, they select two of their most successful reviews to be included in their continuous assessment portfolio. These reading records are expected to provide a brief description of a text but with an emphasis on critically evaluating the accessibility and clarity of content, the style, the writer’s purpose and the student’s overall reaction to their selection. Feedback is framed both in direct response to the student’s comments on the text but also can include advice about further reading, the suitability of sources being used and the level of interest generated by the student’s evaluation of the text. The aim is to set up a channel of communication based on shared views about texts which motivates students to read extensively, to apply their minds to what they are reading and to develop a lifelong habit. It has been used successfully over time and can involve either teacher or peer feedback depending on the level and needs of the students involved.

Bio John Slaght is Director of Assessment, coordinator of academic reading and author of two English for Academic Studies books on academic reading and two on extensive writing and research skills.

17

Time 2.00 –2.30

Venue Abercrombie building – The Lab/Space to Think

Session 4 FEEDBACK WITH TECHNOLOGY

Presenter Clare Lavery, Northumbria University

Session title 2 for 1: screen capture in ESAP for both student support and liaison with subject specialists

Session contents Materials for self access on Blackboard can prepare students for assessment criteria and feedback modes. Screen capture software is increasingly used to enhance the feedback process (Stannard 2011). Why not kill two birds with one stone? This talk argues that by viewing ‘feedback in action’ on selected assignment exemplars, we can create learning units to support the criticality of international students in their core modules. To create these materials both ESAP lecturers and subject specialists need to open a more in depth dialogue on how they assess work and how feedback to international students is delivered or mediated. Difficult questions need to be asked about how subject specialists may respond to non-standard work or errors, how they place focus on form or content in their discipline and how their discourse is constructed. ESAP lecturers can be a crucial part of this process. This talk discusses the use of screen capture technology as an in-house teacher development tool. By marking selected ‘exemplars’ to a core module in Law, subject specialists can view their feedback process through the eyes of colleagues and through the eyes of ESAP specialists. The ESAP lecturers can use this joint reflection on feedback modes to identify areas for contextualized materials development. The simulation of formative feedback using screen capture creates a ‘think aloud protocol’ for all to view and discuss. This simulated feedback process and subsequent analysis facilitates the important cross discipline exchange needed to embed ESAP successfully in a subject discipline (Solan & Porter 2010). In the end the ESAP specialist can work with their subject specialists to create blended learning units from exemplars to enhance acculturation to feedback modes. Participants will be given practical examples of the issues and solutions in applying this software as an interdisciplinary team and will be invited to reflect on its use as a teacher development tool within their own context.

Bio Clare Lavery has worked in teacher development, materials production, editing and ELT marketing for over 30 years. In 2000 she researched the needs of Language assistants worldwide which led to the creation of a website and online resources for the British Council/BBC. A trainer in CLIL and culture in the language curriculum, she has published textbooks in the area of content-based learning. She currently lectures in ESAP at Northumbria University.

18

SESSION 5

Time 2.35-3.05

Venue BG01

Session 5 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenters Dr. Cathy Benson and Agnes Young, University of Edinburgh

Session title We don’t really know the person at the end of the email address – teachers, students and online feedback

Session contents The English Language Teaching Centre (ELTC) (University of Edinburgh) offers a range of in-sessional language courses to support international students. Two of these (Essential Grammar and Writing Post-graduate assignments) have been delivered online since 2007, with students submitting written assignments by e-mail, and receiving tutor feedback through the same medium. We discontinued face-to-face classes for these courses for practical reasons; however, some colleagues have found the distance-learning mode less rewarding than face-to-face teaching, a few even maintaining they find it isolating. The CPD programme at the ELTC includes a peer observation element, conducted in a non-evaluative manner: pairs of teachers take turns to observe each other’s lessons and decide on the most fruitful foci for post-observation discussion. Most colleagues claim they find this interesting, enjoyable and productive. We felt peer observation need not be restricted to face-to-face classes: discussing the experience of providing electronic feedback with a colleague might constitute one way of rendering it less isolating. Accordingly, we did two mutual peer observations, over consecutive Essential Grammar courses. For the first, we compared the feedback we gave all students for one selected assignment; for the second, we considered the work of one individual from each group over the whole (7-assignment) course. Discussion points included the nature and amount of feedback given, student uptake and progress, and students’ evaluation of the course. We subsequently ran a workshop for colleagues, where we described our experience of peer observation and facilitated an exchange of views and concerns. One objective of this workshop was to encourage colleagues to use peer observation in a similar way, having found it very reassuring and helpful ourselves; we hope this will happen in 2013-14. Our presentation will report on the peer observations, and summarise the opinions expressed, and insights offered, during the workshop. We hope delegates who are involved in providing online feedback, and who may even share some of the anxieties of our colleagues, may be encouraged to try out this type of supportive peer observation in their own practice.

Bio Cathy Benson and Agnes Young have taught at the ELTC, University of Edinburgh, for many years. They teach and direct a range of EAP courses, both pre-sessional and in-sessional.

19

Time 2.35-3.05

Venue BG10

Session 5 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenter Dr. Amanda French, Birmingham City University

Session title Developing process-led feedback strategies for students’ academic literacies

Session contents Developing effective academic writing in higher education is a gradual process, largely dependent on students learning how to present and articulate their learning with confidence using appropriate academic writing practices for their particular discipline. Feedback, this paper argues, is a vital part of any such academic writing development process (Ivanic & Lea, 2006). However, there is plenty of evidence that students often do not read or value their lecturers’ feedback carefully (Duncan et. al., 2007) they also fail to act on feedback and are more interested in their grade (Higgins, et al, 2002). Many lecturers feel equally disillusioned as students fail to pick up carefully marked work or repeatedly make the same mistakes. Moreover, a lack of training for lecturers around effective academic literacy development for students (Lea & Street, 2006; Lillis & Turner,2001) means that lecturers are not sure how to help students develop their academic writing. This can mean that lecturers’ feedback comments often reflect under-theorised, skills-based perceptions of what ‘good’ writing practices are (Catt and Gregory, 2006). This workshop will challenge the low status of academic literacies development for students. Using a recent research project it will explore ways in which lecturers and students can be encouraged to view written feedback as an integral part of a practice-based, situated approach to developing academic literacies. By exploring case studies drawn from the study, participants will be encouraged to engage directly with their own perceptions and experiences of feedback and consider how they could help develop more process-led academic writing development practices in different disciplines through feedback. Catt, R. and G. Gregory (2006). The Point of Writing: Is Student Writing in Higher Education Developed or Merely Assessed? Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education: in Theories, Practices and Models. L. Ganobcsik-Williams. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan: pp. 16-29. Duncan, N. Prowse, S., Hughes, J. & Burke, D. (2007) Do that and I’ll raise your grade, Innovative module design and recursive feedback, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol 12 (4), pp. 437 - 445 Ivanič, R. and M. R. Lea (2006). New Contexts, New Challenges: the Teaching of Writing in UK Higher Education in Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education. L. Ganobcsik-Williams. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan: pp.6-15. Lea, M. R. and B. V. Street. (1998 ‘Academic Literacies’. Learning Matters, Student Writing in Higher Education: An Academic Literacies Approach’. In Studies in Higher Education. Vol 23. No. 2 pp.157-172. Lillis, T. & J. Turner (2001) Student writing in higher education

Bio Amanda French is a lecturer in Education Studies and Early Years at Birmingham City University. She holds a PhD in lecturers’ perceptions of academic writing. She has taught writing development in FE, Adult Ed and HE for 25 years. She recently completed a feedback project with first years.

20

Time 2.35-3.05

Venue BG11

Session 5 DIVERSE FORMS OF FEEDBACK

Presenter Julie Moore, Bristol University

Session title From teacher to editor: a shift in approach to feedback on writing

Session contents As language teachers, we have a tendency to ‘mark’ student writing, highlighting and/or correcting errors, as well as giving general comments. Invariably though, students skim through the returned piece of work, then file it away without really taking in our feedback. In an EAP context, however, writing is not simply a language practice exercise as an end in itself, but preparation for the real-world writing tasks that students will encounter in their wider studies. The writing process is one that students need to actively engage with if they are to become successful academic writers, at whatever level. In this talk, I draw on my experience as both a professional writer and editor, as well as an EAP tutor, to explore how the role of editor, rather than ‘marker’, might be applicable in an EAP context. I suggest that by acting more like editors whose job is to work with the student writer to improve their draft, we can encourage students to engage more with our feedback, to take a more active role in the process of writing and rewriting, and to genuinely help them improve both their writing skills and the final product. I’ll look at the process of moving from content editing, to copyediting, and finally proofreading, including examples of practical activities to help shift the focus of formative feedback and to encourage both tutor and student to slot into slightly different, and hopefully more interactive, roles. You will, hopefully, go away with ideas for how you can shift your own role in giving feedback away from ‘teacher/marker’ towards ‘editor/collaborator’ and provoke a more proactive response from your students

Bio Julie Moore is a freelance writer, researcher and lexicographer, as well as an EAP tutor at Bristol University and a teacher trainer. She is co-author of the new C1 level of the Oxford EAP series (OUP).

21

Time 2.35-3.05

Venue Abercrombie building – The Lab/Space to Think

Session 5 FEEDBACK WITH TECHNOLOGY

Presenter Cath Brown, University of Sheffield

Session title Peer feedback in EAP speaking tasks using audio recordings

Session contents Audio recordings of speaking tasks allow learners the opportunity to provide valuable peer feedback, whether in the context of the classroom or online. This session will focus on incorporating a peer feedback stage into EAP speaking tasks by using audio recordings. Workshop participants will make a short recording of themselves doing an EAP speaking activity. They will then participate in a variety of peer feedback tasks and reflect on the usefulness of these for their own teaching context. The peer feedback tasks in this workshop are drawn from a range of sources including EAP course books and resource books, as well as from peer feedback checklists and rubrics in use at the ELTC in Sheffield.

Bio Cath Brown is a tutor at the University of Sheffield English Language Teaching Centre with HE experience in the UK, China and Japan.

3.05 – 3.25 Coffee break

Venue BG05

22

SESSION 6

Time 3.25-3.55

Venue BG01

Session 6 PEER FEEDBACK

Presenter Russell Mayne, University of Leicester

Session title Strongly disagree: student feedback reliability issues

Session contents There is a large body of research on the issue of student evaluation of teaching (SETs) (Wright & Jenkins-Guarnieri 2012). Much of the research indicates that student perception of what equates to “good teaching” is often related to “non-teaching” factors like body language and physical attractiveness (Ambady & Rosenthal 1993), first impressions (Clayson 2013) gender (Laube et al 2007) and personality (Murray, Rushton, & Paunonen, 1990). Likewise evaluations of “good courses” may be more related to course rigor (Johnson 2003), and (expected) grades (Goldman 1985) than materials or teaching. It is also surprisingly unrelated to learning outcomes (Clayson 2009).Although some research questions these criticisms (Aleamoni 1999), it is arguably useful for EAP teachers to be aware of the controversies in this field. In light of this how much credibility should student feedback be given and what alternatives are there? Delegates will learn about potential pitfalls to avoid when using SETs and also what research says about how to ensure better quality SETs. Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1993) “Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations from Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 431-441. Aleamoni, L.M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 153-166. Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students’ learn?: A meta-analysis and review of the literature Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16-30. Clayson, D. E. (2013) initial impressions and the student Evaluation of teaching Journal of Education for Business 88:1, 26-35 Johnson, V. E. (2003). Grade Inflation: A Crisis in College Education. New York: Springer. Laube, H., Massoni, K., Sprague, J., & Ferber, A. L. (2007) “The Impact of Gender on the Evaluation of Teaching: What We Know and What We Can Do.” NWSA Journal, 19(3), 87-104 Goldman, L. (1985) “The Betrayal of the Gatekeepers: Grade Inflation.” Journal of General Education, 37, 97-121. Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013 forthcoming) On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching: The State of the Art Review of Educational Research, 1-45 online at http://rer.aera.net DOI: 10.3102/0034654313496870 Murray, H.G., Rushton, J.P, & Paunonen, S.V. (1990) “Teacher Personality Traits and Student Instructional Ratings in Six Types of University Courses.” Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 250-261. Wright, S.L., & Jenkins-Guarnieri, M.A. (2012) student evaluations of teaching: combining the meta-analyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37/6 683-699

Bio Russell Mayne works at the ELTU at the University of Leicester and is interested in research and teacher beliefs.

23

Time 3.25-3.55

Venue BG10

Session 6 FEEDBACK FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES

Presenter Anthony Brooks, University of Bangor

Session title Critical thinking and feedback

Session contents The teacher teaches, the student produces and the teacher provides feedback on their production. What then is the place of Critical Thinking (CT) in this process? A teacher/lecturer may offer a comment such as, “So what?” or “More CT needed” in order to signify some attempt at feedback which often causes the students to be perplexed rather than enlightened as to how they might improve their work for the future. It has occasionally (1) been suggested before that CT is something tacit, a notion presumed to be understood by all, therefore a more overtly understood definition of CT should prove useful in order that this method of thought have a real chance of being garnered by teacher/lecturers as well as by their students. CT could be defined as a method that aims toward objectivity and open enquiry rather than relying on inadequately evaluated opinion and argument which is poorly structured. This includes notions of relevant evidence, defining key concepts, providing clear lines of reasoning, being balanced rather than biased, offering counter-arguments, using hedging and of fostering an attitude which questions assumptions. Pre-teaching and feedback on this (as well as on correcting grammar in feedback) may then be given as student and teacher can attempt to achieve a mutual clarity. Being actively reflective thereby becomes important to both parties, and therefore opens up the possibility of a shared journey, for both facilitator and the facilitated, teacher and student. This presentation will therefore attempt to examine the matters of the utilisation of CT and the process of such teaching and, particularly, formative feedback (with reference to particular examples of feedback as a key variable in student improvement). Note: It is hoped that delegates will get a clearer perception about the notions of CT as an identifiable, rather than tacitly understood, method of education directed towards providing edifying feedback.

(1) Atkinson,D., 1997. A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 31 (1), p73. Anderding, A, 2012, Teaching EAP. [online] Available at: http://teachingeap.wordpress.com/author/alexanderding/ Accessed 01 September 2012.

Bio Anthony Brooks teaches ‘Critical Thinking’ classes for ‘Arts’, ‘Science’, ‘General’ and one to one. He provides lectures on ‘Perception and Robots’, ‘Art for Art’s Sake’ and ‘The History of Film’.

24

Time 3.25-3.55

Venue BG11

Session 6 DIVERSE FORMS OF FEEDBACK

Presenter Andrew Woodard, University of Durham

Session title Reformulation in EAP: justifying its usefulness for feedback and group-writing tasks

Session contents The two aims of this talk are: a.) to justify the usefulness of reformulation in EAP b.) to provide some examples of classroom activities based around reformulation. Whilst reformulation encounters a 'practicality problem' as a form of feedback on students' individual pieces of writing, it can quite easily be used for feedback on group-writing activities. Reformulation is a kind of direct feedback that, when part of a classroom activity, also combines oral meta-linguistic explanation. As such, the high effectiveness attributed to this kind of feedback (Bitchener and Ferris 2012) carries over directly to it. It is argued here that reformulation is particularly effective for EAP because EAP centrally involves text analysis (Alexander et al. 2008), features of which (notably devices for coherence and cohesion) can be modelled on a piece of writing the students themselves have originated. Such text-level features of writing are hard to feedback on using 'reactive' feedback methods, such as a correction code or feedback form comments which students may find it difficult to act upon. Reformulation is also useful for modelling the rhetorical moves of the distinct genres of academic writing, which may simply be absent or unsuccessfully attempted in student writing. In the second part of the talk, I will share examples of group-writing activities that involve reformulating students' texts; they aim to highlight the reformulations in order to enhance the students' noticing of the changes that have been made and their rationale. Editing software (such as Word's 'track changes' function) can help in this regard. These activities notably highlight cohesion and coherence devices, in line with findings that this area is one which seems to particularly benefit from reformulation (Dannatt 2013). This talk will hopefully stimulate an exchange of ideas about the role of reformulation as well as practical advice about how to make it work with students that delegates can take away and integrate as part of their toolbox of feedback techniques.

Bio Andrew Woodard is an EAP teacher at ELC at Durham University, and has been studying for a PhD in philosophy of language/linguistics (part-time) since 2009 at Durham.