國立虎尾科技大學 |

Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing.

Record Type:	Language materials, printed : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing./
Author:	DeCapua, Sarah E.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2016,
Description:	288 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International77-12A(E).
Subject:	Higher education. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10144636
ISBN:	9781339997568

Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing.
DeCapua, Sarah E.

Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2016 - 288 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2016.

In this mixed-methods research study, the author investigated a group of first-year college students' responses to and uses of their teachers' written feedback on their draft writing in a First-Year Composition (FYC) course. The author also examined, through corpus analysis, these students' definitions of "useful written teacher feedback." Methods of data collection included surveying 37 students, interviews with three of those students, and review of the papers on which the interviewees received their teachers' feedback. Study results regarding students' experiences with, and responses to, written teacher feedback indicate that the students relied heavily on such evaluation to guide their revision processes because they believed that feedback improved their writing. Further, corpus analysis revealed that students defined "useful written teacher feedback" as that which engaged them in dialogue; was helpful/beneficial; necessary for improved writing skills; and explanatory/guiding. Study data from the three interviewees revealed four patterns regarding students' expectations of their writing teachers: (a) The novice writers expected their writing teachers to be expert-practitioners; (b) The students valued the final, graded product more than the revision process; (c) The students were unconcerned by appropriation of their writing; (d) The teachers' feedback did not have to be positive to be considered useful. The author discusses these patterns in conversation with extant scholarship, as well as further considerations of the study as a whole. This discussion is followed by suggestions that the dissertation findings hold both for the field of composition studies and her writing pedagogy. Finally, in conjunction with presenting the limitations of the study, the author provides areas of potential future research indicated by the study, as well as her concluding thoughts.

ISBN: 9781339997568Subjects--Topical Terms:

1148448
Higher education.

Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing.
LDR:02980nam a2200325 4500 001 890642
005 20180727091501.5
008 180907s2016 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781339997568
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10144636
035 $a (MiAaPQ)iup:11353
035 $a AAI10144636
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a DeCapua, Sarah E. $3 1148447
245 1 0 $a Student response to written teacher feedback in first-year composition: Defining what students find useful & whether they believe it improves their writing.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2016
300 $a 288 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 77-12(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Resa Crane Bizzaro.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 2016.
520 $a In this mixed-methods research study, the author investigated a group of first-year college students' responses to and uses of their teachers' written feedback on their draft writing in a First-Year Composition (FYC) course. The author also examined, through corpus analysis, these students' definitions of "useful written teacher feedback." Methods of data collection included surveying 37 students, interviews with three of those students, and review of the papers on which the interviewees received their teachers' feedback. Study results regarding students' experiences with, and responses to, written teacher feedback indicate that the students relied heavily on such evaluation to guide their revision processes because they believed that feedback improved their writing. Further, corpus analysis revealed that students defined "useful written teacher feedback" as that which engaged them in dialogue; was helpful/beneficial; necessary for improved writing skills; and explanatory/guiding. Study data from the three interviewees revealed four patterns regarding students' expectations of their writing teachers: (a) The novice writers expected their writing teachers to be expert-practitioners; (b) The students valued the final, graded product more than the revision process; (c) The students were unconcerned by appropriation of their writing; (d) The teachers' feedback did not have to be positive to be considered useful. The author discusses these patterns in conversation with extant scholarship, as well as further considerations of the study as a whole. This discussion is followed by suggestions that the dissertation findings hold both for the field of composition studies and her writing pedagogy. Finally, in conjunction with presenting the limitations of the study, the author provides areas of potential future research indicated by the study, as well as her concluding thoughts.
590 $a School code: 0318.
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 1148448
650 4 $a Language arts. $3 556677
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 567738
650 4 $a Educational evaluation. $3 555501
690 $a 0745
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0681
690 $a 0443
710 2 $a Indiana University of Pennsylvania. $b English. $3 1148429
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 77-12A(E).
790 $a 0318
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2016
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10144636