Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing

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

Abstract

Although teachers spend a massive amount of time writing feedback on student texts, this aspect of teachers’ work is “often fraught with frustration and uncertainty” (Ferris 2014, p. 6). As a result, teacher feedback has drawn considerable attention from both researchers and practitioners. In many L2 contexts, particularly in large classes typical of school contexts, the written mode of teacher feedback has remained the major kind of feedback in writing classrooms. In this chapter, therefore, “teacher feedback” refers mainly to teacher written feedback.

The original version of this chapter was revised. An erratum to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_11

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. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assessment Reform Group. (2002). Assessment for learning: 10 principles. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 57(3), 278–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis, TOEFL iBT RR-11-05. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Available at: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-05.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on written compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, S., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Texts, contexts and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, A., & So, S. (1996). Tutoring second language text revision: Does the approach to instruction or the language of communication make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 197–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esfandiar, F., Yaqubi, B., & Marzban, A. (2014). Learning corrected target forms: Students’ corrective feedback through teacher’s written corrective feedback in Iranian EFL context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(4), 504–512.

    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 

  • Ferguson, G. (1993). Implementing innovation in language education. Edinburgh Working Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 27–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.

    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. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  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. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.

    Book  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., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing class: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182.

    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 

  • 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. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63–80.

    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 

  • Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2016). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing from a sociocultural perspective: A case study on two writing conferences in a Chinese university. Writing and Pedagogy, 8(3), 433–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the middle: Why writers need writing tutors. College English, 57(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, H. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.

    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 

  • Lalande II, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.

    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. (2009). A new look at an old problem: How teachers can liberate themselves from the drudgery of marking student writing. Prospect: An Australian Journal of Teaching/Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), 24(2), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2012). Spare the red pen! Modern English Teacher, 21(2), 60–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108–119.

    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. (2015, November). Working hard or working smart: Comprehensive versus focused written corrective feedback in L2 classrooms. Plenary paper presented at the Symposium on Second Language Writing, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand.

    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 

  • Lortie, D. C. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses to teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maliborska, V., & You, Y. (2016). Writing conferences in a second language writing classroom: Instructor and student perspectives. TESOL Journal, 7(4), 874–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moussu, L. (2013). Let’s talk! ESL students’ needs and writing centre philosophy. TESL Canada Journal, 30(2), 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurmukhamedov, U., & Kim, S. H. (2010). ‘Would you perhaps consider …’: Hedged comments in ESL writing. ELT Journal, 6(3), 272–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2 development. Berlin: Springer Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. K. (1993). Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL writer. Writing Center Journal, 13, 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. K., & Nelson, J. V. (1995). L2 writers and the writing Center: A national survey of writing center conferencing at graduate institutions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 113–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 272–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarino, A. (2013). Language assessment literacy as self-awareness: Understanding the role of interpretation in assessment and in teacher learning. Language Testing, 30(3), 309–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL Learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Wataru, S. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Journal, 60(1), 34–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learner’s written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weigle, S., & Nelson, G. (2004). Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2002). Undergraduate second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Basic Writing, 21(2), 73–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeh, C.-C. (2016). EFL college students’ experiences and attitudes towards teacher-student writing conferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 2(2), 37–65.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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). Teacher 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_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_6

  • 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