Google Docs or Microsoft Word? Master's students' engagement with instructor written feedback on academic writing in a cross-cultural setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 ◽  
pp. 102672
Author(s):  
Murad Abdu Saeed Mohammed ◽  
Musheer Abdulwahid AL-Jaberi
Author(s):  
Hania Salter-Dvorak

This paper discusses feedback for developing L2 writing. It presents data from a serendipitous audio-recording of one L2 master's student's tutorial with her dissertation supervisor at a UK university, which is extracted from a 13-month linguistic ethnography. Following 'academic literacies' scholars, I view the tutorial as a 'literacy event' (Heath, 1982: 83), which, I argue, takes place in a 'backstage' (Goffman, 1959) social learning space where student–teacher power relations and identities may be asymmetrical, contested, and fluid. In line with the tenets of linguistic ethnography (Copland and Creese, 2015: 13), the discourse analysis of the tutorial considers how the interaction here is 'embedded in wider social contexts and structures'. I identify dominant institutional discourses and discuss how these create power relations that interact with language, identities, and agency in the student's experience. These data are triangulated with post-recall interviews with the two participants, the dissertation draft with the lecturer's written feedback, the summative feedback, and course documents. Findings demonstrate that, while the student was interested in developing argumentation, the supervisor focused on other aspects. I relate this to recent literature on knowledge transformation and argumentation in academic writing, and discuss its implications for L2 master's students by drawing on Bourdieu's notion of 'right to speak' (1991).


Author(s):  
Kym Jolley

In this pilot study, two second year writing classes at a university in Japan completed two group writing tasks using Microsoft Word and Google Docs. After both tasks were completed, the students (N=45) completed a short survey containing Likert scale items about their preferences when writing under the different conditions. Willing individuals also answered a second survey containing open-ended questions to gain a deeper understanding about the first survey results. Findings showed that the students preferred using Google Docs for the writing tasks due to ease of use and submission of the final document, as well as the ability to understand online written feedback from the instructor.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 527-542
Author(s):  
Noof Saleh Alharbi

This current research forms part of a broader investigation into the problems Saudi postgraduate students face in English academic writing. The study used the interpretive paradigm to investigate and interpret the perceptions of Saudi postgraduate students and their supervisors in relation to the difficulties they encountered regarding academic writing in English. Therefore, the study adopted a sequential mixed-methods design. The quantitative phase of the research employed a questionnaire whereas the qualitative phase employed semi-structured interviews and document analysis. In total, 275 students completed the prepared questionnaire whilst 15 students, both male and female, and 9 supervisors participated in the semi-structured interviews. The research also used ten samples of written feedback students had received from their supervisors. SPSS descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data quantitatively, and MAXQDA software was used to analyse the data qualitatively. The study identified that Saudi postgraduates encounter a range of difficulties in their academic writing, which were due to several underlying causes. Therefore, to address this issue and to contribute to knowledge in the field, the author of this study devised a theoretical model to assist Saudi postgraduate students overcome their difficulties with English academic writing. The main focus of the current study is to explain this model in detail.


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Sefton ◽  
Ian Barnes ◽  
Ron Ward ◽  
Jim Downing

This paper describes a technique for embedding document metadata, and potentially other semantic references inline in word processing documents, which the authors have implemented with the help of a software development team. Several assumptions underly the approach; It must be available across computing platforms and work with both Microsoft Word (because of its user base) and OpenOffice.org (because of its free availability). Further the application needs to be acceptable to and usable by users, so the initial implementation covers only small number of features, which will only be extended after user-testing. Within these constraints the system provides a mechanism for encoding not only simple metadata, but for inferring hierarchical relationships between metadata elements from a ‘flat’ word processing file.The paper includes links to open source code implementing the techniques as part of a broader suite of tools for academic writing. This addresses tools and software, semantic web and data curation, integrating curation into research workflows and will provide a platform for integrating work on ontologies, vocabularies and folksonomies into word processing tools.


2020 ◽  
pp. 289-308
Author(s):  
Peter Milnes ◽  
Clare Fenwick ◽  
Keith Truscott ◽  
Winsome St John

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document