��ݮ����Ƶ����

Example: 

Much of the research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has revolved around investigations into the effectiveness of focused WCF, with mounting evidence providing support for this type of feedback in producing accuracy gains (Van Beuningen, 2010). For example, Bitchener and Knock’s (2009) 10-month study into the effects of focused WCF on a targeted linguistic category using direct and metalinguistic feedback found a positive effect on grammatical accuracy that endured over time. Some research studies have examined the effectiveness of unfocused WCF or compared focused to unfocused WCF. In their study investigating the differential effects of focused versus unfocused WCF, Sheen, Wright, and Moldawa (2009) were able to show that while both types of error correction produced significant improvements in accuracy of articles, because the CMC AND WCF 5 unfocused WCF did not outperform the control group, the researchers were unable to demonstrate the benefits of providing unfocused over focused corrective feedback. Other studies have explored direct WCF compared with indirect WCF, although these results are somewhat inconclusive. Some researchers claim an advantage to direct WCF, particularly with regards to continued long-term effects on the acquisition of simple linguistic forms (Van Beuningen, de Jong & Kuiken, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009) while other researchers (Frear & Chiu, 2015) point to improvements in accuracy as a result of indirect WCF. Ferris (2010) suggests both direct and indirect feedback can deliver complementary results since both have the potential to induce L2 writers to become aware of and notice a mismatch between their own written production and target-like norms.

Feedback: The passage makes connections and comparisons among studies on written corrective feedback (WCF). It highlights that focused WCF has been shown to improve accuracy over time, as evidenced by Bitchener and Knock’s (2009) study. It contrasts these findings with research on unfocused WCF, such as the study by Sheen, Wright, and Moldawa (2009). Additionally, it compares direct and indirect WCF, noting that some studies (e.g., Van Beuningen et al., 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009) support the effectiveness of direct WCF for simple linguistic forms, while others (e.g., Frear & Chiu, 2015) highlight the benefits of indirect WCF. Ferris (2010) further suggests that both types of feedback can complement each other.

Example:

Both Strange & Hardy-Cox (2016) and Sabri (2011) demonstrated how “the student experience” has transformed into a broad categorical term that has translated into a policy framework that homogenizes and erases the experiences of marginalized students. Due to this transformation, I understand the concept of “student experience” has become inadequate for orientating and navigating the student experience when used without third-wave theories of student development (Strange & Hardy-Cox, 2016).  This is emphasized by the shift in how students have become viewed as consumers and as a result, shifted how institutions approach student consultations (Sabri, 2011). While this shift in understanding has assisted institutions in addressing the diverse needs of students, the homogenization of our understanding of “student experience” remains an issue. For example, UK higher education institutions and their preference to use the experiences of privileged students within the quality assurance process – this raises the question of whose voices are valued and understood when we speak about student experiences (Strange & Cox, 2016; Sabri, 2011).   

When thinking of my experiences as a student union leader, advocacy was a key component of my role. To achieve this, ensuring intersectionality and the centering of marginalized communities was utilized in various areas of decision-making. While this may have created tensions with certain groups, the benefits of using an intersectional framework were clear – as most, if not all, campaigns that aim to improve the student experience from the perspective of access and equity aim to address the barriers that prevent marginalized students from navigating the higher education landscape to what we understand as the traditional university student (i.e., white, cis, male, able-bodied). 

Feedback: The student reflects on the concept of "student experience" as presented in the literature by contrasting it with their own experiences as a student. Their reflection then presents an anecdotal evidence supporting the authors' arguments for a need to acknowledge how different the experience of marginalized students' is in higher education. 

Example: 

Critique example: Patel's (2022) study on using AI for personalized language learning highlights the technology's potential to tailor educational content to individual needs. However, it overlooks the critical socio-emotional components of learning, focusing solely on algorithmic customization without considering the motivational benefits of human interaction. This gap points to a need for future research to explore how AI can not only adapt to learners' cognitive profiles but also enhance emotional and social engagement. For example, scholars (e.g., James, 2023) have been experimenting with AI-empowered platforms to promote community and peer interaction as a potential solution to support both intellectual and emotional learning in ESL classrooms. 

Feedback: In this example the author indicates the limitations of Patel’s study – which only focused on one element of AI for education – and then suggests directions for future research in the field. 

Example:

We, the authors, recommend that teacher educators and those involved in teacher preparation, development, and implementation constantly reflect on how teacher candidates are constructing their understanding of teaching and theory–practice relationships. Enabling teacher candidates to establish a sound foundation to start their teaching careers is one of the broad goals of teacher preparation. More research is needed to understand the context of teacher preparation and how programs and individual faculty can offer appropriate, coherent learning experiences that shift away from the traditional divide between theory and practice. While a considerable body of literature about theory and practice in teacher education exists, theory–practice dynamics continue to be a challenge in terms of how teacher educators can best support teacher candidates as they develop their own understanding of theory–practice relationships in the context of learning to teach. This case study research adds to the knowledge base of teacher education, providing insight into the nature of faculty and teacher candidates’ thinking about theory– practice relationships and how this may shape practice. It also provides insight into some of the tensions and challenges faculties of education may experience as they implement new programs and/or practices that explicitly attend to creating strong theory–practice relationships. 

From: Goodnough, K., Falkenberg, T., & MacDonald, R. (2016). Examining the nature of theory–practice relationships in initial teacher education: A Canadian case study. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 39(1), 1-28. 

Feedback: The passage recommends that teacher educators and those involved in teacher preparation should continually reflect on how teacher candidates understand teaching and the relationship between theory and practice. It suggests that programs and faculty should provide coherent learning experiences that bridge the traditional divide between theory and practice. Additionally, it highlights the need for more research to offer insights into effective teacher education practices and the challenges faced by faculties in implementing new programs that strengthen theory–practice relationships.

Example:

Brown (2020) examines how mobile apps facilitate language learning, showing significant improvement in vocabulary acquisition among learners. Garcia et al. (2021) explore the role of virtual reality (VR) environments in enhancing language comprehension and cultural immersion. Zhang (2019) analyzes the effectiveness of online forums in encouraging language practice and interaction outside the classroom. Meanwhile, Patel (2022) discusses the use of artificial intelligence in personalizing language learning experiences, adjusting to individual learner's strengths and weaknesses.  

Feedback: The example above is merely a summary of different research studies, without presenting any clear connection or comparison among studies, or the author’s stance.  

Example:

The integration of technology into language education, as explored by recent research, offers a multifaceted view on enhancing learning outcomes. Brown (2020) highlights the role of mobile apps in vocabulary acquisition, suggesting technology's effectiveness in providing accessible learning tools. This notion of accessibility is complemented by Garcia et al. (2021), who delve into virtual reality (VR) environments, illustrating technology's capacity not only for language comprehension but for immersive cultural experiences as well, thereby broadening the scope of language learning beyond traditional methods. Zhang (2019) extends this discussion to online forums, which fostered community and interaction among learners, emphasizing the social aspect of language acquisition. On the other hand, Patel (2022) introduces a personalized approach through artificial intelligence, indicating a shift towards adaptive learning technologies that cater to individual needs. Collectively, these studies underscore a trend towards interactive and personalized learning experiences in language education, facilitated by technological advancements. 

Feedback: In this example the author made connections among studies and supported their own claims with evidence from the existing literature.