Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2009)

INTI University College, Malaysia

STUDENT RESPONSE TO TEACHER FEEDBACK ON

MULTIPLE-DRAFT COMPOSITIONS
IN ESL CLASSROOM

Shamshad Begham Othman1 and Faizah Mohamad2

MARA University of Technology Terengganu, Malaysia

(1shamshad@tganu.uitm.edu.my; 2fareema@tganu.uitm.edu.my)

ABSTRACT

Throughout the decades, teachers have been trying to find ways to improve second language writing instruction
so that students can be proficient in their writing. One of them is by giving feedback with the assumption that
students would understand the feedback and they would use the teachers commentaries to improve their
writing. However, in many cases, teachers find that little improvement has been made when students submit
their revisions. Therefore, this study is to investigate why students do not improve their work even though
teachers feedback has been provided. It is done by examining students responses to teachers feedback on their
compositions in terms of content and form by instituting the multiple-draft procedure. The participants in this
study were 52 students from MARA University of Technology, Terengganu, Malaysia. These students wrote a
first draft, revised it after getting feedback on content; and further revised it after receiving feedback on form.
The findings showed that generally most students responded successfully to the teachers feedback on their first
and second drafts that resulted in improved final drafts. However, some students could not respond well to
content-focused feedback that specifically asked them to discuss their ideas. This is largely contributed to their
limited language competence. Students also found it difficult to respond to form-focused feedback in relation to
tenses, word choice, subject-verb-agreement, nouns, adverbs and rephrasing of sentences. The difficulty in
grasping the rules embedded in these categories could be the factor in students using different types of revision
strategies such as closely followed, initial stimulus, avoidance by deletion and not related. Among these
strategies, closely followed is considered successful and it is the most used strategy for both content and form-
focused feedback. The implication of the study is that giving written feedback to students is beneficial because it
improves their essays. However, written feedback should be complemented with oral feedback so that teacher
would be able to get to the problems that students face when writing their essays. Another implication is that
computers would help the students a lot when instituting a multiple-draft procedure. This is because the features
such as cut, copy, paste, spelling and grammar check can minimize the time spent on reorganizing, revising and
editing the drafts.

KEYWORDS

Multiple draft, Teacher feedback, Content-focused feedback, Form-focused feedback, Student response revision
strategies

1
INTRODUCTION

The problem in using the target language to express their ideas in writing is common among
ESL writers. Sometimes students have the ideas for their essays but owing to a lack of
proficiency in the language, they cannot produce content that is convincing. On the other
hand, there are students whose language is quite satisfactory but they lack ideas and the result
is that their essays do not have a positive effect on the readers So teachers feedback that
focuses on form and content should be given to the students so that their writing can be
improved. They are then able to substantially present the content using linguistically well-
formed structures. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of incorporating feedback in the revision
process can only be achieved when there is cooperation between the teacher in giving
feedback and the ESL writers in revising their essays. There is a need for both parties to
understand the feedback giving and receiving situation so that students can produce good
quality writing. Dheram (1995) says that teachers should assume the role of a consultant who
facilitates learners each revision process in order for these learners to create better texts and
learners on their part, should not treat the first draft as the final product but they have to
revise again and again so that they know how to write better. Dheram like other researchers
and practitioners, agrees that teachers should focus on content in giving their feedback rather
than on form. He stresses that even though there is a need to shift the focus from language
use to content, teachers and learners must also arrive at a consensus on the function and
nature of teachers commentary so that students are able to incorporate these comments in
their revision process. This means that if teachers are aware of learners needs in revising
their work and at the same time learners are able to understand their teachers comments,
incorporating feedback in the revision process will prove successful. Cohen and Cavalcanti
(1990) as cited in Dheram (1995) suggest that teachers and learners should agree on the areas
to be commented upon because they note that there is a mismatch between what both parties
thought about the aspects of writing emphasized in feedback.

How students incorporate feedback when revising their work can be found in a study done by
Hedgcock and Lefkowitz (1996). In the second part of their study, 21 participants were drawn
from the sample of participants who contributed to study A. These participants were
interviewed to see how they used teachers feedback in their L2 composing. In this study,
they found that learners tried to rewrite their writing in response to teachers marks and
comments to eliminate ungrammaticality at the word and sentence level where in actual fact
they were aware that their teachers wanted them to add examples or elaborate on certain
points in their writing. The findings in this study suggested that ESL writers usually associate
revision processes with correcting their errors. Porte (1997: 61) contends that, Unskilled
writers have been seen to revise from a narrow outlook and make changes addressing the
surface grammatical structure of compositions, usually at the level of the word, rather than
deeper issues of content and organization.

The findings also showed that students found it difficult to interpret feedback and it became a
source of frustration on their part in not knowing precisely what their teachers expected them
to do with correction symbols and comments. Researchers (Ferris, 1995; Frantzen and Rissel,
1987; Leki, 1991 [cited in Hedgcock and Lefkowitz, 1996]) stress that in situations where
revision is the major component of the pedagogy, learners may remain uncertain about what
to do with experts response and how to incorporate it into their own revision process. The
situation whereby learners are unable to understand and use teachers feedback in their
revisions is bound to exist in a second language writing pedagogy classroom. Researchers

2
(Zamel, 1983; Cohen, 1987; Raimes, 1987 [cited in Paulus, 1999]) attribute this problem in
part to writing teachers who focus primarily on form without addressing the actual ideas and
meaning conveyed in the text. In addition, other researchers (Leki, 1990; Susser, 1994; Reid,
1994; Winer, 1992 [cited in Paulus, 1999]) say that the problem is further highlighted when
writing teachers themselves are often uncertain of the best way to provide feedback to their
students. Thus it can be seen that students expectations of the types of teacher feedback must
be in congruent with the types of feedback actually given by writing teachers. If this situation
can be made to exist in ESL classrooms, then learners are able to notice, understand and
utilize experts feedback in their writing and revision strategies.

Ferris (1995) also examines how students process feedback when revising their work. In her
study, the participants reported that in order to help them in responding to the feedback on
their essays, they got the help from instructors, tutors, friends, grammar books, and
dictionaries. They got the help from these outside sources in their early drafts. As for the final
drafts, most of these students tried to make the correction themselves and if they do not
understand the comments, they took the step of not responding to the feedback. Their way of
ignoring some of the feedback might be due to the fact that they do not need to rewrite the
final drafts. However, highly motivated students appreciate feedback on final drafts because
they could use the comments to improve future essays.

Ferris also found out that most of the students reported that they did not have difficulty in
understanding teachers commentaries and this contradicted the findings of Hedgcock and
Lefkowitz (1996) which revealed that students found it difficult to interpret their teachers
feedback and they were frustrated because they did not know how to respond to the
correction symbols and comments found in their multiple-draft essays. However, few
students in Ferris study reported having problems in teachers feedback focusing on the
illegibility of teachers handwriting, problems related with grammar corrections and symbols
used to indicate grammatical errors as well as the way teachers posing questions about
content in their essays. The questions about content were too general and sometimes too
specific which resulted in students confusion in handling the feedback. In her study, we do
not know the feedback giving sequence used by the teacher, that is, whether the teacher
applied content-focused feedback first then followed by form-focused feedback on later
drafts or whether she applied both types of feedback simultaneously on all the drafts. If she
had both types of feedback on the drafts, students would find it difficult to respond to the
comments because Zamel (1985) as cited in Kepner (1991: 306) suggests that, Written
response which combines error corrections and positive comments regarding content or
organization can only be confusing and contradictory, as students are not likely to know
which type of response deserves higher priority.

Conrad and Goldstein (1999) also did a study on the issue of how learners incorporated
feedback in their essay drafts. The subjects were students taking an advanced ESL
composition course at a large urban university in the United States and they were involved in
multiple-draft essays. The three students involved in this study had equivalent writing
proficiency and minor surface-level problems in their writing. The data collected were drafts
of student papers, written comments made by the teacher and transcripts of conferences
between teacher and student.

3
The findings in this study showed that students were able to revise successfully in response to
feedback when they were asked to add examples, facts or details but few students were able
to utilize teacher commentary successfully, when they had to be more explicit in their
arguments or when they had to explain or analyze the issue that was raised in their papers.
We can see that students in this study were not able to incorporate all their teachers feedback
in their revision even though they were quite proficient in their writing. They were assumed
to be quite proficient in their writing based on the fact that they made less grammatical errors.
Conrad and Goldstein (1999) suggest that the reasons for not being successful in
incorporating all the feedback were due to factors such as misinterpretation of teachers
comments, lack of content knowledge, effect of strongly-held beliefs, influence of classroom
instruction, level of self-motivation and pressure of other commitments. They were able to
derive the reasons from teacher-student conferences because through these conferences,
students were able to express what they thought of their teachers commentary and also how
they revised their essays.

Thus we can see that even though Dheram (1995) says that teachers and learners need to
come to a mutual agreement on the nature and function of feedback in order to secure
successful feedback utilization in students revision process, the above findings revealed that
teachers are now facing a challenging task in giving feedback. This is because teachers do not
only have to think of their students preference of the types of feedback but they also have to
take into consideration factors that affect students mentality, feelings, and attitude. Due to
these reasons, Conrad and Goldstein (1999: 173) conclude their findings by saying that,
Although we believe teachers should always critically assess their feedback, students
consistent lack of success of making certain kinds of revisions might not be a sign or failure
on the part of either the teacher or the student but it may be a signal to adopt a different
instructional strategy. The result of this study showed that for learners to incorporate
teachers commentary in their writing is not that easy because many factors will come into
play. Their interpretation of teachers feedback will always clash with their own experience,
amount of content knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes. All these factors will create stumbling
blocks to their success in employing their revision strategies in producing better quality
essays that can impress writing instructors. A study by Lee (2008) on the reactions of
students in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms to their teachers feedback also revealed
that students reactions and attitudes to teachers feedback are an intricate matter, intertwined
not only with student characteristics like proficiency level, but also with teacher factors, such
as teachers beliefs and practices and their interactions with students, as well as the
instructional context in which feedback is given.

THE PURPOSE OF STUDY

The researchers intended to examine how students are going to respond to teachers feedback
on their multiple-draft compositions in ESL classrooms. This study was guided by the
following research questions with regard to students responses and teachers feedback that
the researchers intended to investigate.
1. Are students able to incorporate teacher feedback into their own revision process?
2. Which revision strategy is considered as successful and commonly used by the students?

4
METHODOLOGY

The study involved two ESL classrooms, which consisted of 52 students. They were
requested to write an essay and this essay underwent two revisions: first, on content and
second, on form. Teachers commentaries consisted of content-focused feedback and form-
focused feedback. These two types of comments were written on students essays content-
focused feedback was found on the first draft and form-focused feedback was found on the
second draft.

After the first submission, the researchers asked the class teacher to give comments on the
content of the essays based on 7 categories, namely, Introduction, Thesis Statement, Topic
Sentence, Content 1, Content 2, Content 3 and Conclusion. Then, the essays were returned to
the students for them to revise. After the revision, the essays were submitted again to the
teacher and again she was requested to mark the essays, but this time, she had to give her
comments based on form. The comments made on form were categorized as follows:

Table 1. Form-focused Categories

1. Tenses 2. Adverbs
3. Word Choice 4. Prepositions
5. Plural Nouns 6. Spelling
7. Singular Nouns 8. Rephrase
9. Count Nouns 10. Substitution
11. Noncount Nouns 12. Do+Verb
13. Articles 14. Pronouns
15. Subject-Verb-Agreement 16. Insertion of words and phrases
17. Nouns 18. To-infinitives
19. Adjectives 20. Deletion of words and phrases

As for the revision strategies, the researchers classified the strategies based on Hylands study
(1998) which were closely followed, initial stimulus, and avoidance by deletion. The
researchers also added one more strategy, which was not related. Closely followed means the
students followed closely to the corrections or suggestions made by their teachers on their
essays when revising their work. Initial stimulus was seen by the students as an initial
stimulus that triggered them to rewrite in a number of ways and some of which, unfortunately
failed to respond to the real issue being presented in the teachers commentary. Avoidance by
deletion was where the students avoided responding to their teachers comments by deleting
the problematic feature without substituting anything else in their revisions. Not related
meant that the students tried to utilize teachers feedback, but their ideas were irrelevant to
the teachers comments that resulted in their failure to revise their essays.

In determining the revision strategies used by the students, the researchers calculated the
number of each type of strategy after the students made their revisions based on content-
focused and form-focused feedback. These calculations were tabulated for the purpose of
analysis.

5
FINDINGS

This research work was conducted to study students response to multiple-draft procedure in
writing. The researchers were interested to examine whether or not students incorporated
teachers commentary in their multiple-draft compositions. The students in this study had to
write three drafts of essays whereby the teachers provided content-focused feedback on the
first draft and form focused-feedback on the second draft. The findings of the study were
presented based on the research questions posed.

RQ1: Are students able to incorporate teacher feedback into their own revision process?

The success and failure in incorporating the content-focused feedback and the form-focused
feedback were shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Content-focused Feedback and Revision Success

Revision Success
Successful Not successful Not attempted
Content-focused feedback
% % %
Introduction (N = 7) 71.4 14.3 14.3
Thesis Statement (N = 33) 66.7 33.3 0.0
Topic Sentence (N = 16) 62.5 31.3 6.3
Content 1: Extra time for revision (N = 34)) 44.1 55.9 0.0
Content 2: More opportunities for discussions 66.7 30.8 2.6
(N = 39)
Content 3: Availability of lecturers for 52.4 47.6 0.0
consultation (N = 42)
Conclusion (N = 40) 55.0 42.5 2.5

Table 2 shows that students were successful in revising most of the categories commented by
the teacher with the exception of content 1 (Extra time for revision). This category showed
that the percentage of failure was more than the percentage of success that were 55.9% and
44.1% respectively. This failure in incorporating the feedback on this category could be due
to the difficulty in understanding teacher commentary. The following was an example taken
from a students writing:

Excerpt from students first draft (S 3):

One-week study leave gives extra time for revision to students. This is because, during the
study leave week, students do not have to attend their classes. So, they do not have to think
about their classes. They can study and do revision about any subjects that they want without
have to follow their fix timetable.

Teachers comments:

You may explain how they can benefit from the revision they do during study week.

6
Excerpt from students revision (second draft):

One-week study leave gives extra time for revision to students. This is because, during the
study leave week, students do not have to attend their classes. During the study week leave,
students can fill their time to do revision on their study. They also do not have any
assignments to do. So, this can help the students to prepare themselves for the coming final
examinations.

From the example, it appeared that the student did not understand the meaning of the word
benefit as written in the teacher commentary. As a result, the student was less able to
incorporate the feedback in her revision.

The difference between the percentage of success and the percentage of failure was only
4.8% for content 3 (Availability of lecturers for consultation). This showed that students did
have difficulties in incorporating teachers comments on this point. In relation to this point,
the word availability seemed to pose a problem to the students. This could be seen from the
example taken from a students writing.

Excerpt from students first draft (S 25):

Students would have the ability of lecturers for consultation. Students can make discussions
with the lecturer about the topic that hard to understand. From the lecturers will give an
exercises to the students. Students must do the exercises given by the lecture. Next, students
would go to see the lecturer again to get the answer, and if there is a mistake discuss with the
lecturer about the mistake and try to do it again. As a result student become more
understands on the topic that they didnt understands at first.

Teachers comments:

Explain why they are available.

Excerpt from students revision (second draft):

Availability of lecture for consultation is also one of the way to help the students. Students
can make discussions with the lecturer about the topic that hard to understand. From that,
lecturers will give an exercises to the students. Students must do the exercise given by the
lecturer. Next, students would go to see the lecturer again to get the answer, and if there is a
mistake discuss with the lecturer about the mistake and try to do it again and again. As a
result, students become more understands on the topic that they didnt understand at first.

Having a one-week study leave before examinations also good for our health especially
students, because as we know many student feel tension when they study and they felt that
they didnt have enough time to make revision. One-week study leave will help the students to
relax their mind to make revision and pay more attention on topic that they didnt
understand.

When the teacher asked the student to explain why lecturers were available during the one-
week study leave, she repeated what she had in her first draft without responding to her
teachers comments. This could be due to the fact that she had not really understood the

7
meaning of available and she might think the comment was asking her to explain how
lecturers can help the students during this week.

According to Williams (2003), the failure of students revisions on content might be due to
three reasons: the students may not read the comments at all, may read them but not
understand them, or may understand them but not know how to respond to them. Teachers
comments on content are less beneficial if students are clueless of what they mean or how to
use them productively to improve their skills as writers.

The study also intended to see how students incorporated form-focused feedback in their
revisions. It was found that most students were able to respond to this type of feedback. This
can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3. Form-focused Feedback and Revision Success

Revision Success
Successful Not Successful Not Attempted
Form-focused feedback
(%) (%) (%)
Tenses (N = 130) 65.4 10.8 23.8
Word Choice (N = 104) 66.3 10.6 23.1
Plural Nouns (N = 272) 76.8 6.3 16.9
Singular Nouns (N = 51) 82.4 5.9 11.8
Count Nouns (N = 7) 71.4 0.0 28.6
Noncount Nouns (N = 32) 81.3 6.3 12.5
Articles (N = 137) 83.9 2.9 13.1
Subject-Verb-Agreement (N = 73) 63.0 15.1 21.9
Nouns (N = 14) 57.1 21.4 21.4
Adjectives (N = 27) 77.8 11.1 11.1
Adverbs (N = 4) 50.0 25.0 25.0
Prepositions (N = 120) 79.2 5.0 15.8
Spelling (N = 62) 77.4 11.3 11.3
Rephrasing (N = 72) 54.2 25.0 20.8
Substitution (N = 92) 76.1 8.8 15.1
Do + Verb (N = 36) 91.7 0.0 8.3
Pronouns (N = 41) 75.6 2.4 22.0
Insertion of words and phrases (N = 98) 72.4 5.1 22.4
To-infinitives (N = 16) 75.0 6.3 18.8
Deletion of words and phrases (N = 170) 81.8 1.8 16.5

Table 3 shows that most students were able to revise successfully for all categories found
under form-focused feedback. The reason for this success could be due to the fact that
whenever the teacher commented on students errors, she usually provided the correct
response for the errors. This made it easy for the students to incorporate the comments in
their revisions. The outcome of this can be seen in Table 3, where the analysis showed a high
percentage of revision success for all categories as compared to the percentage of revision
failure for similar categories. Nevertheless, the findings also revealed that students had
difficulties in 6 out of 20 categories, namely, tenses, word choice, subject-verb-agreement,

8
nouns, adverbs and rephrasing of sentences as the successful rate of the revision did not reach
70%. This low percentage of revision success infers that students generally found it hard to
grasp the rules embedded in these categories. This finding is supported by Ma (2006) who
reveals that explicit form-focused feedback might only be beneficial to specific error
categories.

The analysis showed that most students responded well to teachers feedback and they were
able to incorporate content and form-focused feedback into their revisions. The students did
welcome teachers commentary and they did think that these comments were helpful to them.
Those few students who could not incorporate the feedback in their revisions had other
factors that hindered their success.

RQ2: Which revision strategy is considered as successful and commonly used by the
students?

The revision strategies used by students in content-focused and form-focused feedback were
presented in the following Table 4 and Table 5.

Table 4 shows four types of revision strategies adopted by students when receiving content-
focused feedback. The students received 211 comments from the teacher and the effect of
these comments could be seen from the way they devised their revision strategies. The
findings showed that out of the 211 comments, 117 comments were closely followed. This
type of revision strategy was most favoured by the students because they just followed
whatever comments given by the teacher without deviating from what had been asked for.
The least number of revision strategy used by the students was avoidance by deletion.
According to Garcia (1999: 100), text-based writing feedback has its limitations whereby in
her study she said that, New texts pose fresh problems to writers, so knowing what was
wrong with one text written in the past may not help a writer overcome the problems
encountered while writing a new one. She suggests that students need to be given real-time
feedback on the questions that they have in their minds at the time when they are struggling
to write their drafts. She further stresses the fact that text-based writing feedback leads
learners to resort to reduction strategies because they are unable to express their original
ideas. However, Hyland (1998) and Garcia (1999) both agree that when students exercise the
avoidance strategy, they believe that their texts are flawless and their quality has improved.

Table 4. Revision Strategies due to Content-Focused Feedback

No of No of Total no of Closely Initial Avoidance Not
comments students comments followed stimulus by deletion related
1 3 3 1 1 1
2 3 6 1 3 1 1
3 12 36 23 9 - 4
4 10 40 22 6 3 9
5 18 90 52 14 5 19
6 6 36 19 8 1 8
Total 52 211 117 41 11 42

9
Table 5 shows that the students received a total of 1558 comments on form on their essays.
The effect of these comments could be seen in the revision strategies adopted by the students.
These revision strategies were similar with those adopted after receiving content-focused
feedback. The students utilized 1166 comments in the form of closely followed revision
strategy as a result of teachers commentary. The students when revising their texts mostly
adopted this type of revision strategy. The least number of revision strategy used by the
students in form-focused feedback was not related strategy.

Table 5. Revision Strategies due to Form-Focused Feedback

No of No of Total no of Closely Initial Avoidance Not
comments students comments followed stimulus by deletion related
1-10 1 8 8
11-20 11 174 136 3 35
21-30 17 440 309 23 104 4
31-40 13 457 336 18 94 9
41-50 8 369 282 11 71 5
>50 2 110 95 2 13
Total 52 1558 1166 57 317 18

In summary, the most successful and commonly used strategy used by students in both
content-focused and form-focused feedback was the closely followed strategy. When a
student used a closely followed revision strategy, it means two things. First, the student had
understood the teachers comments, and second, that she followed the comments closely
without really understanding why the teacher made such comments. The latter situations
could be found frequently occurring when students revised form-focused feedback on their
essays. This is parallel to Hylands (1998) view that states most of them followed closely the
feedback given without really understanding the rules of grammar that were needed when
revising their essays.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY

The study has brought about certain realization to the researchers with regard to teaching
writing to ESL learners. Teachers find that teaching writing is not a task to be enjoyed but a
tedious one. Only those committed teachers could handle this time consuming task.

The researchers could see that giving written feedback to students is beneficial to their
improvement in L2 composing. However, written feedback should be complemented with
oral feedback so that the teacher would be able to get to the problems that students face when
rewriting their essays.

Giving feedback could be made easier if think-aloud protocol is introduced to ESL learners.
This is where the learners record whatever is on their mind while they are writing so that
when the teacher corrects their essays, she would be able to listen to the problems her
students encountered while writing or revising. This will result in a more effective teacher
commentary.

10
When instituting a multiple-drafting procedure, the use of computers would help the students
a lot. The time spent on writing using pen and paper could be used to think of how to
interpret teachers feedback and to improve the content and language in their essays. Thus,
students will not find it burdensome to rewrite everything again and the use of computers will
improve their writing quality and help develop their thinking skills.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, if students do not respond positively to teachers feedback, it is not that the
feedback is not effective but there are many factors that interact with the students ability to
respond and incorporate the comments in their revision process. Hyland and Hyland (2006)
specify factors such as language proficiency, diverse cultural expectations, new teacher-
learner experiences and different writing processes can interact in significant ways with
students interpretation of teachers commentary and their negotiation of revisions. Students
use various strategies to respond to teachers commentary such as following closely the
corrections made by the teacher or avoiding the corrections altogether by not incorporating
them in their revision process. We can also see that students respond differently to different
types of feedback. Some students might respond positively to content-focused feedback
because they might possess some writing skills as well as the content knowledge of the topic.
On the other hand, there are students who respond positively to form-focused feedback due to
factors such as the instructional context itself and the perception of students themselves
towards the meaning of a good essay.

It can also be concluded that to respond to feedback is neither an easy task for students nor is
it any easier for teachers to give their feedback on students writing assignments. The
difference in the frame of reference between both parties makes it difficult for students and
tedious for teachers to handle this multiple-drafting procedure. However, if a positive
outcome is expected of this procedure, students and teachers should meet halfway in this
matter; students should be more alert towards teachers commentary and teachers on their
part should be more aware of the multifaceted problems faced by students. Despite variations
in response of students, we cannot deny the fact that teachers feedback have its crucial role
in determining how students respond to it in a process-oriented writing pedagogy specifically
in multiple-draft settings.

11
REFERENCES

Conrad, S.M. and Goldstein, L.M. (1999) ESL Student Revision after Teacher-Written
Comments: Text, Contexts, and Individuals, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8:2, 147-
179.

Dheram, P.K. (1995) Feedback as Two-Bullock Cart: A Case Study of Teaching Writing,
ELT Journal, 49:2, 160-168.

Ferris, D.R. (1995) Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition

Classrooms, TESOL Quarterly, 29:1, 33-53.

Garcia, A.F. (1999) Providing Student Writers with Pre-Text Feedback, ELT Journal, 53:2,
100-106.

Hedgecock, J, and Lefkowitz, N. (1996) Some Input on Input. Two Analyses of Students
Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing, The Modern Language Journal, 80:3, 287-308.

Hyland, F. (1998) The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on the Individual Writers,
Journal of Second Language Writing, 7:3, 225-286.

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006) Contexts and Issues in Feedback L2 Writing: An

Introduction, in K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing:
Contexts & Issues, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, pp 1-21.

Kepner, C.G. (1991) An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the
Development of Second Language Writing Skills, The Modern Language Journal, 75:3,
305-313.

Lee, I. (2008) Student Reactions to Teacher Feedback in Two Hong Kong Secondary
Classrooms, Journal of Second Language Writing, 17:3, 144-164.

Ma, J.H. (2006) The Effect of Differential Feedback on Writing Accuracy of L2 College
Students, English Teaching, 61:3, 213-230.

Paulus, T.M. (1999) The Effect of Peer and Teacher Feedback on Student Writing, Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8:3, 265-289.

Porte, G.K. (1997) The Etiology of Poor Second Language Writing: The Influence of
Perceived Teacher Preferences on Second Language Revision Strategies, Journal of Second
Language Writing, 6:1, 61-78.

Wlliams, J.G. (2003) Providing Feedback on ESL Students Written Assignments, The
Internet TESL Journal, 10, accessed 27 October 2008 from <http://iteslj.org/>

12