Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perspectives on Feedback in L2 Writing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts

Abstract

Feedback is “information provided by an agent (e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie and Timperley 2007, p. 81), with “direct, useable insights into current performance, based on tangible differences between current performance and hoped for performance” (Wiggins 1993, p. 182). In L2 writing, feedback has been a topic of perennial interest to language/writing teachers. In different parts of the world, L2 teachers spend a large amount of time responding to student writing; however, the effectiveness of teacher feedback has often been called into question (Cumming 1985; Lee 2016; Truscott 1996; Zamel 1985). Early works by Zamel (1985) and Cumming (1985) published in the 1980s have uncovered some major problems of teacher feedback. In Zamel’s (1985) study, for example, ESL teachers were found to misconstrue student texts, give arbitrary and unhelpful feedback, and fail to help students develop strategies to improve their writing. In 1996, Truscott published a controversial article that questions the place of grammar correction in teacher feedback, and since then research on feedback in L2 writing has proliferated at an unprecedented rate, with research on written corrective feedback (WCF) emerging as one of the most vibrant research topics in the field of L2 writing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. (1985). Cognitive psychology and its implications (2nd ed.). New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2005). Prospects for the implementation of assessment for learning. Assessment in Education, 12(1), 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., Joughin, G., & Liu, N. F. (2006). How assessment supports learning: Learning-oriented assessment in action. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. E., & Cheng, W. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language, Learning and Technology, 12(2), 94–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 58–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2008). Enriching activity theory without shortcuts. Interacting with Computers, 20, 256–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, R. (1990). The theory of structural cognitive modifiability. In B. Z. Presseisen (Ed.), Learning and thinking styles: Classroom interaction (pp. 68–134). Washington, DC: National Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. B. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instruments, and techniques. Glenview: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., Hoffman, M., & Miller, R. (1980). Instructional enrichment. Baltimore: University of Park Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Rynders, J. (1988). Don’t accept me as I am. New York: Plenum.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furneaux, C., Paran, A., & Fairfax, B. (2007). Teacher stance as reflected in feedback on student writing: An empirical study of secondary school teachers in five countries. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45(1), 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, L. M. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, L. M. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185–205). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006a). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). State-of-the-art-article: Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2014). Revisiting teacher feedback in EFL writing from sociocultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 48(1), 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2016). Teacher education on feedback in EFL writing: Issues, challenges, and future directions. TESOL Quarterly, 50(2), 518–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research, 20(2), 248–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). A methodological synthesis of research on corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 617–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1995). Social dimensions of second-language writing instruction: Peer response groups as cultural context. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Composing social identity in written communication (pp. 89–109). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimension. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6(2), 186–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Presseisen, B. Z. (1992, February). Implementing thinking in the school’s curriculum. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Association for Cognitive Education, Riverside, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: “I am not the teacher”. ELT Journal, 52, 19–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swain, M. (1997). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning. Revista Canaria de Estudios, 34, 115–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. M. Y. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Socio-cultural theory: A framework for understanding the socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. J., Shang, H. F., & Briody, P. (2012). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26, 234–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M., & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 22–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G. (1993). Assessing student performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D. (2001). An overview of the relationship between assessment and the curriculum. In D. Scoop (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment (pp. 165–181). Westport: Ablex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to students’ writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Hong Kong

    Icy Lee

Authors
  1. Icy Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lee, I. (2017). Perspectives on Feedback in L2 Writing. In: Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-3922-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-3924-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation