The Ecology of Writing, Feedback, and Revision Practices in an Upper-level Undergraduate English Course

Abstract

A dearth of knowledge exists in empirical literature regarding how effectively upper-level college students (juniors and above) and their professors communicate during feedback rounds of written assignments, in addition to the resources that these students utilize when revising. Therefore, this single case study explored how college students and their course professor perceived the role of feedback and revision on written assignments in an English course, how the professor constructed feedback, and how students interpreted the feedback and revised their written assignments. Data sources consisted of classroom observations, interviews, documents and artifacts, and field notes. The data was analyzed by engaging in multiple rounds of coding. First cycle codes included initial (Saldana, 2016) and a priori codes to examine the language of the participants in an effort to better understand the nuances of their communication and writing practices. Second cycle codes included pattern coding so as to collapse codes into thematic categories that highlighted findings. Five findings emerged from the data I collected: (1) students perceived feedback to be shaped by their experiences, the way students perceived feedback was situational and context-dependent, and feedback should function to improve the piece, (2) students had similar processes for applying feedback, (3) students used myriad resources to revise their written assignments, however, they were not always aware of all of the resources that they used, (4) the professor perceived feedback as being valuable when it is effective, and feedback is most effective when it is personalized to the writer, dialogic, and instructive, and (5) when providing feedback, this professor predominantly saw herself as a writing coach and likewise provided coaching-style feedback to students in varied modalities, but primarily through digital end comments.