Instructional Science

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 145–165

The study of teachers' written feedback to students' writing: changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts

  • Michal Zellermayer


This paper identifies four successive phases in the study of written feedback to students' compositions. The studies included in these phases are distinguished by views of writing instruction reflected in their theoretical frameworks: the view of writing instruction as a series of teacher provided stimuli and students' responses to these stimuli; the view that the writing class is a rhetorical community, where teacher and students interact as readers and writers over texts; the view of learning to write as a phenomenon both natural and problematic, where school may interfere with students' natural development; the view that learning to write, like all other learning, depends on successful student-teacher interactions within student's zone of proximal development. While reviewing recent studies of written feedback, the paper shows how these changing views of writing instruction are accompanied by changing theoretical perspectives for the study of the provision and processing of written feedback as well as by a gradual expansion of research contexts for looking at this problem. Finally, in view of such a line of development, it suggests an agenda for future research.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89, 369–406Google Scholar
  2. Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas. Urbana, IL: National Council of teachers of English.Google Scholar
  3. Applebee, A. N. (1984) Contexts for learning to write. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  4. Applebee, A. A. and Langer, J. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168–175.Google Scholar
  5. Arnold, L. V. (1961). Effects of frequency of writing and intensity of teaching evaluation upon the performance in written composition of tenth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  6. Bames, D. and Schemilt, D. (1974). Transmission and interpretation. Educational Review, 26(3).Google Scholar
  7. Beach, R. (1979). The effects of between drafts teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation in high school students' revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(2), 111–119.Google Scholar
  8. Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Bereiter, C. and Scardamalia, M. (1982). From conversation to composition: the role of instruction in a developmental process. In R.Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Volume 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Brannon, L. and Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students' rights to their own texts: a model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 157–166.Google Scholar
  11. Britton, J. N., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A. and Rosen, H. (1975). The developments of writing abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, A. L. and Ferrara, R. A. (1984). Diagnosing zones of proximal development. In J.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: a functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5–32.Google Scholar
  14. Butler, J. F. (1980). Remedial writers: the teacher's job as corrector of papers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 270–277.Google Scholar
  15. Carroll, J. A. (1984). Process into product: teacher awareness of the writing process affects students' written products. In R.Beach and L.Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cazden, C. (1980). Peek-a-boo as an instructional model: discourse development at home and at school. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 17, 1–29.Google Scholar
  17. Cicourel, A. V. (1980). Three models of discourse analysis: the role of social structure. Discourse Processes, 3, 101–132.Google Scholar
  18. Clark, C. M. (1986). Research into practice: cautions and qualifications. In T. E.Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, G. A. (1969). Interpreting the penciled scrawl: a problem in teacher theme evaluation. ERIC ED 039241.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, A. D. (1987a). Student processing of feedback on their composition. In A. L.Wenden and J.Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  21. Cohen, A. D. (1987b). Studying learner strategies: feedback on composition. Paper presented at the Symposium on SLA Research. AILA Congress, Sydney.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen, A. D. and Cavalcanti, M. (1987). Giving and getting feedback on composition: a comparison of teacher and student verbal report. Evaluation and Research in Education, 1(2), 63–73.Google Scholar
  23. Corsaro, W. (1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  24. Coupe, N. (1986). Evaluating teachers' responses to children's writing. In J.Harris and J.Wilkinson (Eds.), Reading children's writing, a linguistic view, London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  25. Dunn, S., Florio-Ruane, S. and Clark, C. M. (1985). The teacher as respondent to the high school writer. In S. W.Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: response and revision. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Research Report No. 13. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Google Scholar
  27. Ervin, P. G. and Calev, A. (1984). The influence of Christian name stereotypes on the marking of student essays. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(2), 223–227.Google Scholar
  28. Flower, L. (1979). Writer-based prose: a cognitive basis for problems in writing. College English, 41, 19–37.Google Scholar
  29. Freedman, S. W. (1978). The evaluators of students' writing. ERIC ED 150079.Google Scholar
  30. Freedman, S. W. (1984). The registers of students and professional expository writing: influence on teachers' responses. In R.Beach and L.Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York, Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  31. Freedman, S. W. (1987). Response to student writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.Google Scholar
  32. Gavelek, J. R. (1986). The social context of literacy and schooling: a developmental perspective. In T. E.Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  33. Gee, T. C. (1972). Students' response to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6, 212–219.Google Scholar
  34. Gere, A. R., Schuessler, B. F. and Abbott, R. D. (1984). Measuring teachers' attitudes toward writing instruction. In R.Beach and L.Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  36. Green, J. L. and Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional conversations — a sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. L.Green and C.Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  37. Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P.Cole and J.Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III: speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gumperz, J. J. (1981). Conversational inference and classroom learning. In J. L.Green and C.Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  39. Harris, W. V. (1977). Teacher response to student writing: a study of high school English teachers to determine the basis of teacher judgement of student writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 115–185.Google Scholar
  40. Hayes, M. F. and Daiker, D. A. (1984). Using protocol analysis in evaluating responses to student writing. Freshman English News, 13(2), 1–5.Google Scholar
  41. Hillocks, G.Jr. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16(3), 261–278.Google Scholar
  42. Hillocks, G.Jr. (1986). Research on written composition, new directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.Google Scholar
  43. Kelly, M. E. (1973). Effects of two types of teacher responses to essays upon twelfth grade students' growth in writing performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  44. Kline, C. R. Jr. (1973). Instructors' signals to their students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Conference on College Composition and Communication, New Orleans. ERIC ED 083 600.Google Scholar
  45. Kroll, B. M. and Schafer, J. C. (1978). Error analysis and the teaching of composition. College Composition and Communication, 29, 242–248.Google Scholar
  46. Lees, E. O. (1979). Evaluating student writing. College Composition and Communication, 30, 370–374.Google Scholar
  47. Lynch, C. and Klemans, P. (1978). Evaluating and evaluations. College English, 40, 166–180.Google Scholar
  48. Marzano, R. J. and Arthur, S. (1977). Teacher comments on student essays: it doesn't matter what you say. ERIC ED 112 412.Google Scholar
  49. McCracken, N. M. (1985). Teachers' response to student writing: a description of the process as teaching, problem-solving, reading and composing. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46,03A.Google Scholar
  50. Michaels, S. (1981). Sharing time: children's narrative style and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442.Google Scholar
  51. Mosenthal, P. (1983). Defining classroom writing competence: a paradigmatic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 217–251.Google Scholar
  52. Odell, L. (1980). Business writing: observations and implications for teaching composition. Theory Into Practice, 19, 225–240.Google Scholar
  53. Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317–36.Google Scholar
  54. Philips, S. U. (1986). Participant structures and communicative competence: Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. B.Cazden, V. P.Johns and D.Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  55. Piazza, C. L. (1987). Investigating context variables in research on writing. Written Communication, 4 (2), 107–137.Google Scholar
  56. Piché, G. L., Michlin, M. L., Rubin, D. L. and Sullivan, A. (1977). Effects of dialect-ethnicity, social class and quality of written compositions on teachers' subjective evaluations of students. Communication Monographs, 44(1), 60–72.Google Scholar
  57. Piché, G. L., Rubin, D. L., Tumer, L. J. and Michlin, M. L. (1978). Effects of nonstandard dialect features in written compositions on teachers' subjective evaluations of students and composition quality. Research in the Teaching of English, 12, 107–118.Google Scholar
  58. Purves, A. C. (1984). The teacher as reader: an anatomy. College English, 46(3), 259–265.Google Scholar
  59. Rafoth, B. A. and Rubin, D. L. (1984). The impact of content and mechanics on judgments of composition quality. Written Communications, 1, 446–458.Google Scholar
  60. Rogoff, B. and Wertsch, J. (Eds.) (1984). Children's learning in the “zone of proximal development”. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  61. Rose, A. (1982). Spoken versus written criticism of student writing: some advantages of the conference method. College Composition and Communication, 33(3), 326–330.Google Scholar
  62. Scardamalia, M. (1987). Constructivity and response to criticism. Paper presented at the AERA annual meeting in Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  63. Scardamalia, M. and Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Schroeder, T. S. (1973). The effects of positive and corrective written teacher feedback on selected writing behaviours of fourth-grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 1935A.Google Scholar
  65. Schwartz, M. (1984). Response to writing: a college-wide perspective. College English, 46(1), 55–62.Google Scholar
  66. Searle, D. and Dillon, D. (1980). The message of marking: teacher written responses to student writing at intermediate grade levels. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 223–242.Google Scholar
  67. Siegel, M. E. A. (1982). Responses to student writing from new composition faculty. College Composition and Communication, 33(3), 302–309.Google Scholar
  68. Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Communication and Composition, 33(2), 148–156.Google Scholar
  69. Taylor, W. F. and Hoedt, K. C. (1966). The effect of praise upon and quantity and quality of creative writing. Journal of Educational Research, 60, 80–83.Google Scholar
  70. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Witte, S. P. (1983). Topical structure and writing quality: some possible text-based explanations of readers' judgments of student writing. Visible Language, 12 (2), 117–205.Google Scholar
  72. Wood, D., Bruner, J. S. and Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar
  73. Ziv, N. (1984). The effect of teacher comment on the writing of four college freshmen. In R.Beach and L.Bridwell (Eds.), New directions in composition research. New York, Guilford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michal Zellermayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Tel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations