Am i promoting feedback cycle and sociomaterial learning? Insights from practitioner inquiry on written corrective feedback in final drafts

Abstract

This study employed practitioner inquiry to determine whether feedback cycle and socio-material learning was promoted through the provision of written corrective feedback (WCF). The context of study was the final draft submitted in an academic writing course for arts and social science students. The practitioner inquiry was shaped by mixed methods, through the quantitative (categorisation) and qualitative (analytical) examination of WCF. The categorisation of WCF was guided by a feedback typology and the extent of learning opportunities. A total of 309 instances of WCF were found across 55 final drafts. Indirect and metalinguistic feedback on Content and Language was frequent. Furthermore, most of the WCF was restricted to the final essay, with minimal expansive opportunities for students to extend their learning beyond this writing course. In the subsequent analysis of the WCF, this study concluded that feedback was provided for the purpose of keeping track of work done. To really promote a feedback cycle or sociomaterial learning, writing instructors should consider improving students’ feedback literacy skills.