Marlies Schillings - Phd project data for study 1

<i>Title</i>: A review of educational dialogue strategies to improve academic writing skills. <br><br>

<i>Methods</i> <br><br>

Search strategy: In April 2017, we searched the following online databases: Web of Science, EMBASE, ERIC, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar. At first, we searched on ‘feed up’, ‘feed back’ and ‘feed forward’ but this strategy did not produce enough suitable articles so we added the term ‘feedback’. To minimize the chance of missing relevant articles, the scope was broad and included the following string of keywords and Boolean operators: ‘dialogue OR discussion OR conversation’ AND ‘feedback’ AND ‘writing’.<br><br>

Inclusion and exclusion criteria: The electronic literature search was limited to English full-text studies published since 1990. Only articles that met the following inclusion criteria were selected: peer-reviewed, empirical studies with a particular focus on academic writing, published in the field of academic education, including all disciplines that discussed interventions employing face-to-face feedback dialogue. We excluded literature reviews and case studies, studies that did not focus on academic writing or studies that only addressed the online, digital or ICT aspects of the main topics.<br><br>

Data extraction: The first author performed the search, yielding 1508 records. After removal of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of the remaining records (N=1182) were screened on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The resulting records (N=304) contained the topics ‘dialogue’, ‘feedback’ and ‘writing’. Further eligibility was subsequently assessed by reading the full articles on this list. After this phase, 102 articles remained for consideration. Of those, only articles that discussed a feedback intervention involving ‘face-to-face dialogue’ before submission of an academic writing assignment were included. As a result, the final review was based on 19 studies (Figure 1).<br><br>

Data analysis: We scrutinized each intervention for the presence of feed-up, feed-back and feed-forward information (Black and Wiliam, 2009; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Jonsson, 2012; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Price et al., 2010; Rae and Cochrane, 2008). For the purpose of this review, we considered educational strategies such as assessment criteria, exemplars, worked examples and training (e.g. instructions or workshops) as expressions of feed-up information; written lecturer feedback and written peer review/assessments as feed-back information; and instructions to revise draft products as feed-forward information. In the next step, we checked which and how many participants were involved in the dialogue (student-student, lecturer-student or a combination of both). Since the studies did not describe the content of the face-to-face dialogues, we did not categorize them in terms of feed up, feed back and/or feed forward. Third, we operationalized intervention outcomes in terms of students’ perceptions of the intervention, their marks and by text/dialogue analysis. Finally, in assessing the effectiveness of each intervention, we took into account the methodological characteristics of each study, including their study design, data sources and data collection methods (Creswell, 2014).

**标题**：提升学术写作能力的教育对话策略研究综述

**方法**

检索策略：2017年4月，我们检索了以下在线数据库：Web of Science、EMBASE、ERIC、CINAHL、PsycINFO及Google Scholar。最初我们以"feed up""feed back"与"feed forward"作为检索词，但该策略未能获取足够数量的合格文献，因此新增了"feedback"检索词。为尽可能避免遗漏相关文献，我们扩大了检索范围，并采用包含关键词与布尔运算符的检索式："dialogue OR discussion OR conversation" AND "feedback" AND "writing"。

纳入与排除标准：本次电子文献检索限定为1990年以来发表的英文全文学术研究。仅纳入符合以下标准的文献：经同行评议的实证研究，且研究主题聚焦学术写作，发表于学术教育领域，涵盖所有探讨采用面对面反馈对话干预手段的学科。我们排除文献综述、案例研究、未聚焦学术写作的研究，以及仅探讨主题的在线、数字化或信息与通信技术（ICT）维度的研究。

数据提取：第一作者完成本次检索，共获取1508条记录。剔除重复记录后，对剩余1182条记录的标题与摘要进行纳入排除标准筛查，最终得到304条主题涵盖"对话（dialogue）""反馈（feedback）"与"写作（writing）"的记录。随后通过阅读全文对该304条记录开展进一步合格性评估，该阶段结束后剩余102篇文献可供考量。其中，仅纳入探讨在提交学术写作作业前采用"面对面对话"反馈干预手段的文献。最终，本次综述共纳入19项研究（见图1）。

数据分析：我们针对每项干预手段，核查其是否包含前置反馈（feed-up）、即时反馈（feed-back）与后续反馈（feed-forward）信息（Black and Wiliam, 2009; Hattie and Timperley, 2007; Jonsson, 2012; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Price et al., 2010; Rae and Cochrane, 2008）。结合本次综述的研究目的，我们将评估标准、示例范文、完整样例与培训（如指导或工作坊）等教育策略视为前置反馈（feed-up）的表现形式；将讲师书面反馈与同伴书面互评/评估视为即时反馈（feed-back）的表现形式；将修改草稿作品的指导视为后续反馈（feed-forward）的表现形式。下一步，我们核查了参与对话的参与者类型及人数（学生-学生、讲师-学生或二者结合）。由于相关研究未对面对面对话的内容进行描述，我们未从前置反馈（feed-up）、即时反馈（feed-back）及/或后续反馈（feed-forward）的维度对其进行分类。第三，我们从学生对干预手段的感知、成绩以及文本/对话分析三个维度对干预结果进行操作化定义。最后，在评估每项干预手段的有效性时，我们考虑了各项研究的方法学特征，包括研究设计、数据来源与数据收集方法（Creswell, 2014）。