From autopsy to autonomy in writing centres : postgraduate students' response to two forms of feedback in a health professions education module

IF 0.1 Q4 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
S. Daniels, R. Richards
{"title":"From autopsy to autonomy in writing centres : postgraduate students' response to two forms of feedback in a health professions education module","authors":"S. Daniels, R. Richards","doi":"10.5785/32-3-644","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In post-apartheid South Africa, writing centres exist in almost every university to address the academic writing needs of students. At Stellenbosch University Writing Lab, writing consultants use collaborative learning and peer feedback in their work with writers in one-to-one consultations. As part of a larger research project about how students in a Health Professions Education Master’s degree responded to different types of feedback, our study focuses on whether the feedback received in a writing consultation compares to, or differs from, the feedback from the class group members. Our findings suggest that in general the students were open to interventions such as writing consultations. Furthermore, peer feedback from both a class group member as well as a writing consultant was experienced as useful. The study further shows that the consultants’ approach to giving feedback was in line with the pedagogy practised in writing centres. The article concludes with measures that were implemented to address uncertainties identified in the study. We recommend that the purpose of consultations be clarified to lecturers, that consultations be integrated in the writing process before the assignment is marked and, to minimise role confusion, that consultants describe to students the way consultations work at the beginning of the consultation.","PeriodicalId":43109,"journal":{"name":"Per Linguam-A Journal of Language Learning","volume":"24 1","pages":"48-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Per Linguam-A Journal of Language Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5785/32-3-644","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In post-apartheid South Africa, writing centres exist in almost every university to address the academic writing needs of students. At Stellenbosch University Writing Lab, writing consultants use collaborative learning and peer feedback in their work with writers in one-to-one consultations. As part of a larger research project about how students in a Health Professions Education Master’s degree responded to different types of feedback, our study focuses on whether the feedback received in a writing consultation compares to, or differs from, the feedback from the class group members. Our findings suggest that in general the students were open to interventions such as writing consultations. Furthermore, peer feedback from both a class group member as well as a writing consultant was experienced as useful. The study further shows that the consultants’ approach to giving feedback was in line with the pedagogy practised in writing centres. The article concludes with measures that were implemented to address uncertainties identified in the study. We recommend that the purpose of consultations be clarified to lecturers, that consultations be integrated in the writing process before the assignment is marked and, to minimise role confusion, that consultants describe to students the way consultations work at the beginning of the consultation.
从解剖到写作中心的自主:研究生对卫生专业教育模块中两种形式反馈的反应
在种族隔离后的南非,几乎每所大学都有写作中心,以满足学生的学术写作需求。在Stellenbosch大学写作实验室,写作顾问在与作家一对一的咨询中使用协作学习和同伴反馈。作为一个更大的研究项目的一部分,关于卫生专业教育硕士学位的学生如何回应不同类型的反馈,我们的研究重点是在书面咨询中收到的反馈是否与班级小组成员的反馈相比较或不同。我们的研究结果表明,总的来说,学生们对书面咨询等干预措施持开放态度。此外,来自班级小组成员和写作顾问的同伴反馈都是有用的。这项研究进一步表明,顾问提供反馈的方法与写作中心的教学方法是一致的。文章总结了为解决研究中确定的不确定性而实施的措施。我们建议向讲师澄清咨询的目的,在标记作业之前将咨询整合到写作过程中,并在咨询开始时向学生描述咨询工作的方式,以尽量减少角色混淆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Per Linguam-A Journal of Language Learning
Per Linguam-A Journal of Language Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信