revisions made by students (e.g.

, Ferris, 1997); and (4) the effect of teacher versus peer

feedback (Chaudron, 1984; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992).
Table 2.1 Different Forms of Feedback
Types
Teacher
Written
Feedback

Forms
Commentary
Rubrics
Minimal
marking/Coding

TeacherStudent
Conferencing

Peer Feedback

Electronic
feedback
Teacher/whole
class conference
Teacher-mini
Conference
One-on-one
conference

Characteristics
The most common type/Handwritten comments on the studen
paper
A variation on commentary/The use of cover sheets with
criteria
A type of in-text, form-based feedback/Indication of the
location and type of error, rather than direct correction/More
effective in stimulating a student response and in developing
self-editing strategies
Comments on electronic submission by email/Linking to onlin
explanations of grammar
Complement for the limitations of one-way written feedback
Encouraging students to think about writing as something that
can be organized and improved
Giving writers an opportunity to talk about their writing and
reflecting on the process
Giving teachers a chance to listen, learn, and diagnose
Creating an authentic social context for interaction and learning
Creating a learners participation, and nonjudgmental
environment
Developing critical reading skills
Understanding reader needs
Reducing teachers workload

II.4. 1 Teacher Written Feedback

Over the last twenty years, much research has been conducted in the area of teacher
feedback in L2 composition. These studies have most often investigated: (1) the effect of
various feedback foci (i.e. content vs. form) on student compositions; (2) student preferences
for different feedback foci and techniques; and (3) students' reactions to feedback already
received on their writing. This research has consistently shown that students want and value
feedback. Even though quite a substantial body of research on feedback in L2 writing exists,
the findings in these studies have often been inconclusive and contradictory.
Research on teacher feedback has been focused primarily on its ineffectiveness in both
the Ll (Hillocks, 1986; Sommers, 1982) and the L2 contexts (Zamel, 1985), blaming either
the vague, rubber-stamp quality of the comments or the reliance on error correction as the

32
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com