Evaluation of Weissberg (2006): Watanabe, Y.

Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland., & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246-265). New York: Cambridge University.

Weissberg (2006) investigated the underlying mechanism of oral tutor feedback to L2 students’ writing in one-on-one writing center sessions. Borrowing socio-cultural framework, he examined linguistic and discourse features of scaffolding specific to writing tutorials. Two NNS graduate students each participated in four one-on-one writing conference sessions. The tutorial conversations were audio recorded and analyzed, utilizing inductive analysis (IA). IA is “an iterative process consisting of repeated cycles of data analysis and hypothesis revision” (Weissberg, 2006, p. 252). In other words, themes and discourse categories, and their underlying structures are identified and revised through repetitive reading of the transcripts.

Weissberg found three levels of categories in writing tutorial discourse: a surface discourse level (i.e., overt conversation moves which structure scaffolding: confirmation checks, information questions, etc.), semantic content level (i.e., topical episodes: grammar, citations, writing process, etc.), and pragmatic level (i.e., the goals of the tutoring session: identification of problem areas, evaluation, reflection, etc.). It was concluded that the most salient components of scaffolding were (a) the tutor’s “lexical, ideational, and affective” (p. 259) attachment to tutee’s discourse, and (b) the utilization of conversational linkages (e.g., acknowledgement) to create instructional point.

Weissberg’s study was unique in that he was concerned on the role of oral feedback on global issues of writing, such as “planning, organizing, [and] revising” (p. 252). The study focus was on the nature of interaction during tutoring, and it is unfortunate that it did not further investigate how scaffolded feedback led to advancement in learners’ writing. However, Weissberg’s list of writing tutorial discourse categories (see Table 13.1, p. 254) will be useful for those who plan to investigate such question.

Although I did enjoy the article because I am particularly interested in oral feedback on writing, I do not recommend reading this article in class. It would be a great article for our classmates to take a look as a reference, since the focus of the class is on the effect of feedback.