JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 3 (2),141-l 63 (1994)

Feedback on Feedback: Assessing

Learner Receptivity to Teacher
Response in L2 Composing

JOHN HEDGUXK
Monterey Institute of International Studies

NATALIE LEFKOWI-IZ
Central Washington University

Writing research has generated impressive empirical data on composing

processes, including text production,.recursive pr&edures, ond the cohtribu-
tion of feedback to revision. Second lanauaae (L2) intervention studies further
indicate that certain forms of teoche; feedLa;k affect text quality more
positively than others. Mixed findings suggest that we should look beyond the
written product to explore the cognitive effects of intervention as they
influence the mediation01 processes of text construction and modification. Few
studies have accounted for learner reactions to teacher intervention behaviors
which impact emerging composing skills and ultimate proficiency.
This study focuses on the following research questions: (1) How do L2
learners react when they receive teacher feedback? (2) How do these
responses affect the evolution of students’ perception of text quality and their
composing processes? (3) Do English as a Second Language (ESL) and foreign
lanpuaae (FL) learners differ systematically in terms of self-atxxaisal Dotterns
andre<po&& to feedback? Ciuantitative data based on an bhalysis bf an in-
death survey of 247 basic L2 1110 ESL and 137 FLI writers’ resoonses to
feidback cdnventions employed by their composition instructors ore pre-
sented. The findings provide insight into teacher behaviors which function
positively and negatively as apprentice writers create and modify text.

Over the past two decades or more, researchers have generated impressive
empirical data on the composing processes of first language (Ll) and second
language (L2) learners. Much of this work has focused on the production of
extended discourse within emergent linguistic systems, the recursive procedures

We would like to acknowledge ‘Ibny Silva, Bona Leki, and the anonymous Journal of Second
Language Writing reviewers who provided incisive, thorough, and encouraging comments as this
article underwent revision. Responsibility for errors, omissions, and infelicities of style lies solely
with the authors. Results of this study were first presented at the annual meeting of the American
Association for Applied Linguistics, Atlanta, GA, April 1993.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to John Hedgcock, Language Studies
DivisimESOL, Monterey Institute of International Studies, 425 Van Buren Street, Monterey, CA
93940.
141
142 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

followed by apprentice writers, and the incorporation of feedback in the revision

of text (Kroll, 1990). L2 educators are particularly interested in how teacher
intervention in writing instruction influences the composing process, and more
specifically, in how apprentice writers react to the feedback they receive on their
intermediate and final products. Studies of teacher intervention in Ll writing
(e.g., Freedman, 1984; Hillocks, 1979, 1982) and in L2 composing (e.g.,
Chat&on, 1984; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Kepner, 1991; Mangelsdorf, 1989;
Roen & Willey, 1988) indicate that certain forms of expert response affect text
quality more positively than others; mixed findings suggest that we may need to
look beyond written output alone to explore the impact of teacher intervention as
it bears on the mediational processes inherent in constructing and revising L2
text.
However, few studies to date have accounted for learner reactions to the
intervention behaviors and techniques thought to influence emerging composing
skills and ultimate writing proficiency. Studies conducted by Ll writing
researchers (viz., Beach, 1979; Hendrickson, 1984; Hillocks, 1982), while not
particularly numerous, still outnumber those conducted by L2 composing
specialists. Radecki and Swales (1988), noting the “apparent paucity of work”
(p. 355) on writer response to teacher feedback in L2, refer only to Cohen’s
(1987) study of L2 composing strategies as a source of information concerning
writers’ reactions to instructors’ marks and comments. Leki’s (1991) subsequent
survey of English as a Second Language (ESL) students’ preferences for error
correction styles begins to fill the void highlighted by Radecki and Swales
(1988). While her study is limited in scope, Leki (1991) proposes new ways of
understanding how students’ views of teacher feedback styles may affect the
composing process; she further suggests that teacher response behaviors may
need to be modified in order to accommodate students’ specific educational
needs and expectations.

The Heterogeneous Population of Second Language Writers

In considering the types of teacher feedback which might be most effective in
helping L2 learners to become effective writers, we must avoid assumptions that
the population of L2 writers is in any way homogeneous. In fact, the term second
language writer covers at least two very distinct categories of learner: in the
North American context, second language writer may refer to immigrant and
nonimmigrant students enrolled in English-medium educational institutions
(ESL students) as well as English-speaking students acquiring a foreign
language (FL students). Because the vast majority of L2 writing studies have
focused on ESL learners, and because second language education in North
America is almost synonymous with ESL, the population of FL writers has been
largely overlooked (Kepner, 1991, is an exception). Clearly, the ESL and FL
populations are distinct in many respects; nonetheless, they share the fundamen-
tal goal of acquiring writing skills in a language other than their primary
language. Furthermore, college-level North American ESL students acquiring
 Feedback on Feedback 143

writing skills in English and FL students learning their respective target

languages typically have achieved a considerable level of primary language
literacy, and therefore confront a task that is unlike that faced by Ll apprentice
writers.
In areas where ESL writers’ backgrounds differ from those of their FL
counterparts, we would expect to find divergent composing behaviors and
feedback preferences. One clear distinction between the two groups has to do
with the nature of prior training in Ll literacy, writing in particular; an ESL
student whose experience as an Ll writer has involved product-centered
instruction, for example, may approach the task of L2 writing rather differently
from the North American FL student. A frequently noted consequence of a
product-centered view of composing on the part of ESL students is that they tend
to display a strong concern for grammatical accuracy (Leki, 1991). North
American FL learners whose training in English composition has been influ-
enced by a process approach, meanwhile, may place a relatively lower priority on
aspects of grammatical form than ESL students (cf. Kepner, 1991). A further
feature which separates the FL writer from the ESL writer concerns the
purposes for which writing is undertaken. While college-level ESL writers
generally need to acquire writing skills in English in order to pursue a formal
education and to achieve career goals, FL students most frequently write
compositions because writing constitutes a form of language practice. FL
students typically do not need to learn to write in the target language in order to
acquire a survival skill, as do the majority of ESL learners, Moreover,
composing in most FL settings is not a core element of the curriculum, but rather
an ancillary component (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992). These environmental
factors no doubt influence learners’ perceptions of the act of writing, their
personal approaches to the task of composing, and their views of the roles to be
played by the feedback supplied by their L2 teachers.

Teacher as Audience
While process-oriented and collaborative models that involve peer response are
commonplace in L2 writing instruction (Davies & Omberg, 1987; Stanley,
1992), the teacher may still serve as the sole audience for the texts produced by
novice writers (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Mangelsdorf, 1989); this pattern
is particularly prevalent in FL teaching in the U.S. For highly justifiable
reasons, the status of teachers as unique members of an “authentic” audience for
apprentice writers has recently been challenged (Mittan, 1989; Roen, 1989). As
Ll researchers (e.g., Flower, 1988) and L2 specialists (e.g., Land & Whitley,
1989) have observed, many teachers act principally as evaluators, rather than as
collaborators or as willing recipients of the information students are expected to
communicate. Even in their well-defined capacity as assignment-givers and as
evaluators (Devenney, 1989; Reid, 1989), L2 teachers have been found to display
concerns which operate at cross-purposes with those of their student writers
(Cumming, 1989). Murray (1989) observes that, in marking student texts,
144 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

teachers bring to bear “an inevitable evaluation that stems from a discourse
community that more often than not is different from that of the students” (p.
84). This mismatch is still prevalent in both the ESL and FL communities.
Researchers as well as practitioners should be especially interested in the various
roles teachers play as readers and as respondents-that is, as providers of
feedback to apprentice writers who aspire to become members of an L2
discourse community (cf. Leki, 1991).

Teacher as Agent: Response Behaviors and Norms

In highly traditional models of L2 writing instruction, where feedback or
assessment consists merely in the assignment of a score or grade, the teacher’s
role as respondent is not a very active one, since the communization between
reader and writer is unidirectional. Even in such cases, however, the teacher’s
assignment of an evaluative grade is likely to invoke a complex set of criteria,
many of which may be entirely subconscious. These criteria may be applied with
a notorious level of inconsistency and unpredictability (Gumming, 1990). This
problem of unpredictability and unevenness in ev~uation becomes especialty
apparent when L2 composition raters are asked to articulate their criteria
(Kobayashi, 1992; Santos, 1988; Vann, Meyer, & Lorenz, 1984). Similar
inconsistencies and arbitrariness have been discovered in the written and verbal
feedback of Ll composition teachers (Hillocks, 1982). The most “consistent”
finding in this area seems to be that written response among Ll and L2
instructor is diffuse; while some raters focus principally on substance,
organization, and writing style, others regularly aim their red pens at mechan-
ical concerns such as spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. For research on
Ll teacher behaviors, see Freedman (1979, 1984) and Hillocks (1982); for L2
findings, see Gungle and Taylor (1989), Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1986), Roen
(1989), and Semke (1984).

Feedback Types and Modality

Along with variability in implicit expectations and criteria comes wide variation
in the ways in which instructors display their reactions to student-generated text.
Hillocks (1982) and Knoblauch and Brannon (1981) summarize Ll studies
examining a number of response types, including negative versus positive,
marginal versus terminal, and extensive versus intensive feedback styles; none of
these strategies apparently contributes to differences in overall writing quality.
In an effort to classify response types according to L2 teachers’ intentions and
performance expectations, Kobayashi (1992) outlines a distinction between
“evaluative” feedback, which essentially makes a judgment of writing quality,
and “corrective” feedback, which focuses on the corrections made by editors.
Little empirical data are available concerning the potential effects of the latter in
Ll (Hendrickson, 1984), although Freedman (1984) holds that teacher response
should take a form which helps writers “consciously identify and solve their
composing problems” (p. 3) if the feedback is to contribute to the quality of the
 Feedback on Feedback 145

writing. Clearly, the same recommendation should apply to the apprenticeship of

L2 writers.

Writers’ Reactions: Correction and Revision

Given the wide variation observed in Ll and L2 teacher response, it is no wonder
that writers’ reactions to these behaviors are equally disparate. Empirical
evidence based on Ll studies (viz., Beach, 1979; Hillocks, 1982; Knoblauch &
Brannon, 1981) and on L2 investigations (viz., Kepner, 1991; Mangelsdorf, 1989)
suggests that traditional, sentence-level “correction” contributes only mini-
mally, if at all, to meaningful revision of learners’ text. Moreover, as Ll studies
show, correction can only produce results if a revision phase is built into the
instructional cycle (Beach, 1979); this generalization is virtually axiomatic in
ESL composing. Revision in itself, of course, does not guarantee that writing
quality will improve (Roen & Willey, 1988). Referring to Ll writers, Beach
(1979) maintains that when effective revision does take place, it is unlikely to
occur on all textual dimensions simultaneously. Effective revision in Ll and L2
requires the engagement of the learner, as well as the careful application of
feedback practices which can guide the writer to an awareness of the informa-
tional, rhetorical, and linguistic expectations of the intended reader (Blanton,
1987; Hillocks, 1982).

Cognition and Creativity

A requirement of any productive feedback procedure is that it contribute to,
rather than inhibit or disrupt, the complex creative operations inherent in the
creation, modification, and presentation of text (Blanton, 1987). Process models
of writing apprenticeship typically endeavor to simulate or to replicate the
nonlinear, recursive nature of composing and learning by allowing for the
restructuring of knowledge and text. In Ll-based instructional models, for
example, learners are allowed time to reflect and to seek input as they reshape
their plans, ideas, and language (Flower & Hayes, 1980a, 198Ob, 1984@lower,
Hayes, Carey, S&river & Stratman, 1986); LZbased pedagogical models
similarly incorporate a set of cyclical procedures (Zamel, 1983, 1985, 1987). In
classroom practice, the cyclical approach encourages and rewards early attention
to idea development, clarity, and coherence prior to the identification and
correction of sentence- and word-level grammatical accuracy. Ideally, feedback
serves to raise writers’ awareness of the needs of the audience*<,Teacherfeedback
is therefore aimed at nourishing further creativity (Flower, 1988) and at inducing
problem-solving and critical thinking (Cumming, 1989).

Affective Considerations
A related feature of process-based models of composition teaching is the
recognition that learners’ psycho-affective reactions to text generation, feedback,
and revision bear directly on the successful application of procedures leading to
rhetorically and linguistically well-formed text (cf. Leki, 1991). Negative
146 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

attitudes toward text creation and apprehension due to unfavorable teacher

response have been shown to inhibit, or to completely stifle, the recursive
operations which are so fundamental to meaningful revision among Ll writers
(Daly, 1985; Hillocks, 1982) as well as L2 students (Gungle & Taylor, 1989).
Teacher intervention which focuses prematurely on linguistic form, for example,
can discourage writers altogether and can prevent them from making needed
discourse-level changes, especially among L2 learners (Jones, 1985). In addition,
as numerous Ll studies have shown, instructors’ corrections and comments
frequently tend to be critical in nature and may consequently remove all
incentive to revise the text, since the writer may feel that further revision will
subject him or her to subsequent u~avorable scrutiny (Baumlin & Baumlin,
1989; Bazerman, 1989; Gee, 1972; Hausner, 1975; Shaughnessy, 1977; Stevens,
1973; Taylor & Hoedt, 1966).

THE STUDY

In light of findings on intervention in Ll and L2 writing instruction, this

investigation was undertaken to provide exploratory data on teacher behaviors
which may function positively and negatively as ESL and FL apprentice writers
create and modify text. Three research questions undergird the study’s design:

1. How do L2 learners react when they receive feedback from their instructors?
2. How do these responses bear on the evolution of students’ perceptions of
overall text quality and composing processes?
3. What are the systematic differences between FL and ESL learners in terms
of self-appraisal patterns and their responses to feedback?

The study is partly heuristic in nature and is intended to provide data that will
facilitate the formation of more precise research questions and hypotheses
(Selige ,@rShohamy, 1989). A further goal is to characterize writers’ understand-
ing oft ‘ke role of feedback in the writing process so that teachers might manage
their students’ revision processes more sensitively and effectively.

METHOD

Data for this study are based on a quantitative analysis of a 45item survey
administered to 247 L2 writers. The questionnaire elicited responses to a range
of feedback conventions and intervention practices employed by their instructors
in ESL and FL courses.
Subjects
In an effort to include a wider range of the L2 learner population than is typically
included in such studies, we conducted our survey among both foreign language
and second language students. In the FL group (N= 137), there were 79
 Feedback on Feedback 147

undergraduate students of French, 28 students of Spanish, and 30 students of

German, all of whom were enrolled in second- and third-year college courses
where reading and writing are strongly emphasized. In the ESL group, there
were 110 students enrolled in nonnative sections of first- and second-semester
freshman composition. Students from both groups represented a range of majors
and all had studied FL or ESL at the college level for an average 2.2 semesters
(French = 2.2, Spanish = 3.8, German = 3.0, ESL = 1.7).
Although we found statistical differences to exist between the FL and ESL
groups within variables such as length of target language study, major, and
preferences for feedback style, we considered all of our subjects to be elementary
level writers in the languages they were studying by virtue of their placement in
courses which were foundational in approach, design, and content. While we
could not account for primary language literacy, it is safe to say that none of the
subjects were inexperienced writers in their respective Lls.
It should be emphasized that students who have experienced formal primary
language writing instruction are not necessarily successful writers in any
language. While college FL learners may have developed competent primary
language writing skills, for example, one cannot automatically assume that they
are comparable to college ESL writers in terms of their L2 writing ability or
potential. FL learners’ literate backgrounds by no means guarantee them an
advantage in developing target language writing proficiency. According to the FL
and ESL teaching experience of the investigators, any presupposition that FL
learners have a favorable advantage over their ESL counterparts, or vice versa,
may be misleading. We therefore did not assume any a priori differential in
writing experience or expertise on the part of either the FL or ESL group.
Following Henning (1991), information concerning subjects’ motivation to
acquire writing skills was collected. Students were asked to indicate their level
of enjoyment in their writing classes (Table l), and to rate the usefulness of the
writing skills they were being taught; we also requested a self-assessment of
writing proficiency. There was little difference between the groups in terms of
the perceived usefulness of their writing classes; the mean rating for both groups
was 4.8 (SD = 1.1) out of a possible 6, indicating a fairly high value placed on
learning to write. Both groups’ mean ratings of their own writing skills fell in
the average range, with a composite rating of 3.7 (SD = 1.2), indicating that
subjects had a somewhat low self-perception of their own L2 writing skills.
As for positive attitudes toward writing instruction, however, the ESL group
mean of 4.0 (SD = 1.2) was visibly lower than that of the FL group’s mean of 4.5
(SD = 1.0). This difference suggests that the FL subjects may have been more
highly motivated to study than the ESL subjects. This is not surprising, as our
FL subjects, though elementary-level writers in their respective target languages,
were enrolled in intermediate- and advanced-level language courses which were,
in general, major requirements or electives (and hence self-selected); our ESL
subjects, on the other hand, were all enrolled in required courses.
148 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

TABLE 1
Attitudes and Self-Assessment

Both Groups’ - FLb - ESP

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

I enjoy the writing I do in my FUESL class 4.3 (1.1) 4.5 (1.0) 4.0 (1.2)
I feel I am developing skills I will use in the
future 4.8 (1.1) 4.8 (1.1) 4.8 (1.1)
Compared to my classmates, I am a highly
competent FUESL writer 3.7 (1.2) 3.7 (1.2) 3.7 (1.1)

Note. Respondents referred to a g-point Likert scale, where 6 = strongly agree and
1 = strongly disagree.
“N = 247. bN = 137. ‘N = 110.

Materials
Our 45-item questionnaire (see the Appendix) requested background informa-
tion and included a series of open-ended questions concerning the types of
teacher feedback which subjects found most and least helpful in revising essays
for their L2 teachers. Twenty-seven of the questions required subjects to respond
by using a 6-point Likert scale; these items focused on subjects’ reported level of
enjoyment, continued motivation to improve L2 writing skills, self-assessment of
L2 writing proficiency, preferences for various feedback styles on intermediate
and final drafts, and beliefs about the benefits of specific teacher intervention
behaviors.
In line with Leki (1991), students were asked to reflect on how helpful they
found their instructors’ comments regarding the content, organization, style,
lexical sophistication, and grammatical and mechanical accuracy of the assign-
ments they submitted. These questionnaire items were designed to reflect major
focal areas found in typical Ll and L2 writing assessment profiles (cf. Hamp-
Lyons, 1991; Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughey, 1981). Students
were also queried about the helpfulness of proofreading symbols and red marks.
In contrast to Leki (1991), however, the questionnaire prompts were sequenced
and clustered to elicit students’ reactions to particular teacher behaviors at the
intermediate and final draft stages of essay development. In this way, the
instrument provided information concerning not only how subjects felt about
feedback on terminal drafts, but also how they made use of teacher feedback in
revising their papers. The final 12 questionnaire items asked subjects to assign a
percentage value to the six text features just mentioned in order to represent the
priority system they believed their teachers were using in writing evaluation;
subjects were subsequently asked to assign a percentage weight that they felt
should be assigned to each textual feature.
The potential dangers of interpreting questionnaire data such as these should
not be understated; reliability problems associated with self-report measures
such as the one employed in this study have not been overlooked by the
 Feedback on Feedback 149

investigators. Factors which cannot be controlled or detected through the

analysis of questionnaire responses include subjects’ level of understanding of
questionnaire items, their accuracy in reporting on their own beliefs and
behaviors, their willingness to supply all of the information desired, and their
frankness. Further difficulties inherent in assessing self-report data involve
measurement problems induced by the design and character of the instrument
itself, namely, response bias and random response behaviors. As an exploratory
instrument, however, the questionnaire can serve as a highly informative tool
because its results can point to systematic patterns within large groups of
subjects; if used judiciously, it can tell researchers whether or not they are asking
the right questions before they proceed with further quantitative or qualitative
inquiry. Moreover, following assessments of descriptive data, factor and path
analyses performed on questionnaire outcomes can lead to the formulation of
more precise items and item clusters, which subsequently can be used to conduct
more focused investigations (Pedhazur, 1982; Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). While
acknowledging the reservations expressed by critics of questionnaire studies, we
propose to make use of our findings as a preliminary and tentative contribution
to the research on teacher feedback.

Procedures
Following a standard protocol, questionnaires were administered in individual
course sections during the fifth and sixth week of the term in order to ensure that
all subjects had received intermediate and final feedback on at least one writing
assignment.

Analyses
Descriptive analyses were performed on subjects’ responses to 42 of the 45 items
on the questionnaire; each of the 42 items was thus considered a potential
variable. Subjects’ responses to three open-ended questions concerning teacher
response were also catalogued for future qualitative analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of this investigation are ultimately intended to inform both

researchers and practitioners, hence the outcomes selected for presentation here
are directed at both audiences. Because the corpus of data is so extensive,
discussion will be restricted to the outcomes that touch most directly on the
research questions outlined earlier.

Learner Reactions to ‘Ibacher Response

As expected, subjects’ collective responses to survey questions about preferred
and dispreferred teacher intervention practices varied widely, and in a number of
cases, the ESL subjects responded quite differently from the FL subjects.
150 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

Modality
The initial questions appearing on the survey concerned subjects’ preferred
mode of teacher response. Table 2 shows that, across the FL and ESL groups,
written feedback combined with writing conferences was the most desirable
form of teacher response, with 60% of subjects preferring this option. Written-
only feedback was the next most preferred mode, with 30% of respondents
selecting this as the most meaningful method of teacher response; verbal-only
feedback trailed behind at 10%. The markedly greater preference for written-
only feedback among FL students is striking, but not unexpected, since findings
reported elsewhere in this study also indicated a more pronounced orientation
among this population toward surface aspects of text. FL subjects may assume
that errors in this area can be detected and corrected most effectively through the
written marks made by their teachers (cf. Freedman’s, 1984, Ll study and
Leki’s, 1991, ESL study). While verbal-only feedback was consistently dis-
preferred by both populations, our ESL subjects indicated a markedly higher
preference for combined feedback types (65%) than did their FL counterparts
(56%), reflecting a marginal difference between the response patterns of the two
groups.

Preferred Intervention Practices

Tables 3 and 4 display the statements with which subjects were asked to express
their agreement or disagreement: The items in nble 3 focus on intermediate-
draft intervention, while Table 4 items focus on teachers’ final-draft responses.
These teacher response behaviors are ranked from most highly valued to least
highly valued on the basis of across-group mean scores. Both FL and ESL
responses indicate a strong concern for formal text features, such as lexical and
grammatical accuracy. Idea development and sequencing rank third and fourth
for the whole population, but the higher preference among ESL writers for
comments on idea development and sequencing is noteworthy; ESL subjects also
expressed a stronger preference for teachers’ comments on writing style than did
FL subjects. This is a predictable outcome, given the heavy emphasis in FL
curriculum design and classroom methods on formal accuracy in speech and

TABLE 2
Writer’s Preferred Teacher Response Modes

I feel I am MOST likely to make meaningful

and noticeable improvements in my writing Both Groups - FL - ESL
when the instructor (choose one). . . N (%I N (%I N (%I
Gives me extensive written comments 74 (30%) 49 (36%) 25 (23%)
Explains her comments to me in a writing
conference 24 (10%) 11 (8%) 13 (12%)
Gives me written comments AND meets with
me 149 (60%) 77 (56%) 72 (65%)
 Feedback on Feedback 151

written production, as well as on grammatical form over content. The response

patterns of the ESL subjects, in contrast, may reflect the practices of the
nonnative freshman composition classroom, where the generation of substantive
ideas and the identification of a purpose take precedence over editorial
concerns-at least in the initial stages of preparing an essay (Zamel, 1987). It
may also be the case that, if the ESL writers were genuinely more advanced in
their L2 writing proficiency, they neither need nor want grammar-oriented
feedback. Comments on mechanical features (e.g., punctuation, capitalization,
and spelling) were consistently ranked across the FL and ESL groups as being of
only moderate concern, and the use of the red pen was equally unpopular among
both sets of subjects.
These data are telling not only of different perceptions and experiences on the
part of FL and ESL writers, but also of focal areas in writing response which
should be brought to the attention of writing instructors. Between-draft
intervention in essay development has, in certain L2 contexts, been shown to be
completely ineffectual (Mangelsdorf, 1989; Roen & Willey, 1988), while in Ll
contexts, it has apparently contributed to moderate to significant improvements
in writing quality (Freedman, 1984; Hillocks, 1979,1982). If teacher feedback is
to be at all productive or effective in guiding L2 writers toward a more reader-
centered product as they revise, it can only contribute to the process between
drafts, when such feedback is understandable and accessible to students
(Blanton, 1987).
Parallel differences were found between the FL and ESL groups in terms of
their views concerning teacher feedback on terminal essay drafts (Table 3). That
is, ESL writers expressed a higher concern for rhetorical, as opposed to

TABLE 3
Writers’ Reactions to leacher Intervention on First Drafts

On a first draft, the instructor should Both Groups* - FLb - ESL’

always.. . M (SD1 M 601 M (SD1
Comment on and correct my vocabulary use 5.4 (0.8) 5.4 (0.8) 5.4 (0.9)
Correct my grammatical errors 5.4 (2.1) 5.4 (2.7) 5.3 (1.0)
Comment on my ideas & how they are
developed 5.1 (1.0) 4.9 (1.1) 5.4 (0.8)
Evaluate the way I have organized my ideas 5.0 (I .O) 4.8 (I.11 5.4 (0.8)
Correct punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
etc. 5.0 (I .2) 4.9 (1.3) 5.1 (1.0)
Use a set of proof-reading symbols 5.0 (1.2) 5.1 (1.2) 4.8 (1.2)
Evaluate my writing style 4.8 (I .2) 4.5 (1.3) 5.2 (1.0)
Use a red-colored pen 4.6 (1.3) 4.7 (1.4) 4.5 (1.2)

Note. Respondents referred to a 6-point Likert scale, where 6 = strongly agree and
1 = strongly disagree.
‘N = 247. bN = 137. “N = 110.
152 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

grammatical, text features than did FL writers, indicating a stronger preference

for comments on idea sequencing and writing style. This finding may be related
to the likelihood that FL instructors and their students share assumptions about
the appropriateness of rhetorical forms due to shared educational and cultural
experiences. In the majority of university FL settings, instructors are native
speakers of English; in contrast, very few ESL instructors are native speakers of
their students’ Lls and are not liable to share the rhetorical schemata which their
students bring into the ESL classroom. Consequently, a major concern in ESL
instruction is to provide apprentice writers with practice in the rhetorical styles
of the U.S. academy. It is therefore not surprising that attention to rhetorical
structure is considered by ESL writers to be so salient.
While concern for lexical correction is still high for both groups, idea
development appears to be of greater importance for ESL writers than for FL
writers at this stage. Interest in grammatical correction is still high for both
groups, but a subtle divergence between the FL and ESL groups is apparent when
Table 4 is compared to Table 3. FL writers’ concerns are more content-oriented
in final drafts, while their concerns are more grammatically and mechanically
oriented in initial drafts; the opposite appears to hold for ESL writers. In some
ways, ESL subjects’ priority rankings in Tables 3 and 4 are more consistent with
a process approach to writing instruction and essay development, in that their
mean scores suggest a concern for revision of content prior to revision of formal
text features. Discussions with several of the ESL instructors confirmed this
observation; teachers reported that most in-class and out-of-class writing
assignments involved at least one iteration of a reading-brainstor-
ming-drafting-feedback-revision-editing sequence. FL subjects, on the other
hand, clearly rank concern for grammatical, lexical, and mechanical aspects
more highly than concern for content and its presentation, leading us to speculate
that they are less familiar with writing instruction that involves extensive
recursion, at least in their FL courses. It could also be that the FL writers had
experienced revision and recursion in their Ll training, but that they viewed FL
writing tasks as quite removed from the writing they had done in their Ll.
Although divergence between FL and ESL writers may be partly attributable
to students’ prior training and teachers’ instructional styles, we may plausibly
trace it to the fact that ESL students must produce written products in English
not only in their ESL courses, but in all of their courses-courses in which
writing assignments are not designed to improve students’ writing proficiency.
Whereas FL students compose L2 texts uniquely for their FL instructors as a
form of language practice, ESL students operate in a much broader rhetorical L2
context; in fact, their academic progress and achievement in U.S. universities
depends directly or indirectly on their English language proficiency.
A third set of prompts on the survey queried subjects about the response
behaviors they would prefer to see their teachers display in providing feedback on
their writing assignments (Table 5). Collective rankings for comments and
corrections on grammatical, lexical, and mechanical features clearly outstrip
 TABLE 4
Writer’s Reaction to Teacher Response on Final Drafts

On a final draft, the instructor should Both Groups* FLb ESL’

always.. . M (SD) M (SD1 M (SD)

Comment on and correct my vocabulary use 5.2 (1.0) 5.2 (1.0) 5.1 (1.0)
Comment on my ideas & how they are
developed 5.1 (1.2) 5.2 (1.3) 5.1 (1.1)
Evaluate the way I have organized my ideas 5.1 (1.1) 4.9 (1.2) 5.3 (0.8)
Correct my grammatical errors 5.1 (1.2) 5.2 (1.3) 5.1 (1.1)
Evaluate my writing style 4.9 (1.2) 4.7 (1.4) 5.1 (1.0)
Correct punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
etc. 4.9 (1.2) 5.0 (1.3) 5.0 (1.1)
Use a set of proof-reading symbols 4.8 (1.2) 4.9 (1.3) 4.7 (1.2)
Use a red-colored pen 4.5 (1.2) 4.5 (1.5) 4.4 (1.3)

Note. Respondents referred to a g-point Likert scale, where 8 = strongly agree and
1 = strongly disagree.
‘N = 247. bN = 137. =N = 110.

concern for teacher comments on content and style for both the FL and ESL
groups. As for the FL students, this essentially means that they generally want
more of the same: Their response patterns indicate a much stronger preference
for attention to formal features than to matters of organization, content, or style.
However, a perusal of the rankings assigned by the ESL writers reveals several
distinctly content-oriented preferences. ESL writers, for example, ranked

TABLE 5
Writer’s Perceptions of Beneficial Response Behaviors

Generally, I learn the most when my Both Groups’ - FLb - ESL’

instructor.. . M (SD1 M (SD1 M (SD)

Highlights grammatical mistakes 5.3 (0.9) 5.5 (0.7) 5.0 (1.0)

Checks my vocabulary 5.0 (0.9) 5.1 (0.9) 4.8 (1.0)
Highlights mechanical mistakes (i.e.,
punctuation, spelling) 5.0 (1.0) 5.1 (1.0) 4.8 (1.1)
Identifies errors with correction symbols 4.7 (1.2) 4.8 (1.2) 4.6 (1.1)
Comments mainly on the organization of my
essays 4.6 (1.2) 4.2 (1.3) 5.1 (0.8)
Highlights errors with a red-colored pen 4.5 (1.7) 4.5 (2.0) 4.4 (1.3)
Comments mainly on the content of my
writing 4.5 (1.2) 4.3 (1.2) 4.8 (1.1)
Comments mainly on my writing style 4.4 (1.2) 4.1 (1.2) 4.9 (1.0)

Note. Respondents referred to a B-point Likert scale, where 6 = strongly agree and
1 = strongly disagree.
‘N = 247. bN = 137. ‘N = 110.
154 J. Hedgcock and N. tefkowitz

comments on idea organization as more useful than grammatical corrections,

while the latter were rated as second in importance (although less important
than they were considered by the FL writers). Teacher response to writing style
and content were still viewed by ESL students as more useful than were
instructors’ reactions to lexical and mechanical mistakes. Both groups expressed
a moderate preference for the use of correction symbols on the part of their
teachers, although teachers’ use of the red pen again appeared to be consistently
disfavored.

Potential Impact of nacher Response on Writing Processes

The results shown in Table 6 represent subjects’ views concerning the rating
system and text features they felt their instructors had used in responding to and
evaluating their writing. Students were asked to assign a percentage value to the
relative priority given by their instructors to features such as content, linguistic
accuracy, organization, lexical variety, mechanics, and style. Those features
appear in descending order of importance, according to the values assigned by
the combined FL and ESL groups. This is where the most striking divergence
between the collective perceptions of the two populations surfaced: The priority
reportedly assigned by ESL teachers to content was twice that reportedly
assigned by FL teachers, while the priority reportedly assigned by ESL teachers
to language accuracy was 11% lower than that reportedly assigned by FL
teachers. Similarly, the mean proportion assigned to organization by ESL
subjects was 21%, compared to only 11% assigned by FL subjects. FL subjects
likewise indicated that their teachers attended to mechanical features and lexical
accuracy more frequently than did their ESL counterparts, a trend that can be
attributed to the form-focused character of college-level FL curricula and
instructional practices. Both groups indicated that style was the least important

TABLE 6
Writers’ Perceptions of Instructors’ Evaluation Priorities

Both Groups* ~ - ESL=

Text Features M (SD) M (SD)

Content (i.e., ideas, evidence, examples,

etc.) 22 (13.7) 15 (9.9) 30 (13.3)
Language use (i.e., grammar) 22 (13.0) 27 (14.5) 16 (7.2)
Organization (i.e., paragraph sequencing,
logical development, etc.1 16 (9.6) 12 (6.0) 21 (9.7)
Vocabulary (i.e., accurate word usage) 15 (8.0) 18 (8.7) 11 (5.21
Mechanics (i.e., punctuation, capitalization,
spelling, etc.) 14 (9.5) 18 (9.8) IO (6.9)
Stvle (i.e., expression, tone, etc.) 11 (6.7) IO (6.7) 12 (6.6)

Note. Refers to the relative importance subjects felt their instructor assigned to
feature based on feedback. Values are mean percentages.
“N = 247. hN = 137. ‘N = 110.
 Feedback on Feedback 155

TABLE 7
Writers’ Preferences Concerning Evaluation Priorities

Both Groups’ - FLb - ESF

Text Features M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Content (i.e., ideas, evidence, examples,
etc.) 22 (10.9) 15 (8.9) 29 (12.9)
Language use (i.e., grammar) 22 (10.1) 27 (12.6) 16 (7.6)
Organization (i.e., paragraph sequencing,
logical development, etc.) 17 (7.5) 13 (6.7) 21 (8.3)
Vocabulary (i.e., accurate word usage) 15 (6.5) 19 (7.6) 11 (5.3)
Mechanics (i.e., punctuation, capitalization,
spelling, etc.) 12 (7.4) 15 (8.1) 10 (6.7)
Style (i.e., expression, tone, etc.) 12 (7.0) 11 (6.3) 13 (7.6)

Note. Refers to the relative importance subjects feel should be assigned to each
feature in teacher feedback. Values are mean percentages.
“N = 247. bN = 137. “N = 110.

text feature among their writing teachers, although ESL subjects indicated that
this feature was more important to their teachers than it reportedly was to their
FL counterparts’ teachers.
The outcomes displayed in Table 7 were based on a similar set of prompts; in
this final section of the questionnaire, however, the aim was to elicit subjects’
views concerning their own views of the priorities that should be assigned to
particular text features. Interestingly, FL and ESL subjects’ mean responses
were a virtual imprint of the response patterns displayed in Table 6. That is, both
groups’ reported views about the aspects of their texts that should receive their
teachers’ attention were a direct reflection of the priorities they thought their
instructors were already observing (or vice versa). Again, FL subjects expressed
a lower concern for content and organizational features, and a greater concern for
grammar, lexicon, and mechanics. This outcome is somewhat surprising, since
it suggests that subjects were by and large satisfied with their instructors’
response behaviors-even though many of their open-ended responses indicated
negative reactions to teachers’ feedback styles.

Differences Between FL and ESL Writer Reactions

As for FL-ESL differences, the findings reported here confirm the obvious in
one respect: The two populations expressed very distinct attitudes toward teacher
intervention. Outcomes presented in Tables 6 and 7 strongly suggest, for
example, that the ESL students had experienced rather different teacher response
patterns in their writing classes when compared to the FL population. In another
respect, however, the study offers partial support for the initial presupposition
that L2 writers do share similar beliefs about what they gain from instructor
feedback. For example, subjects’ responses to questions about teacher interven-
tion on intermediate drafts, terminal comments, and preferred response patterns
156 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowifz

show agreement in 14 out of 24 cases (Tables 3-5). However, the differences in

these areas, in combination with the clear distinctions highlighted in our queries
about perceived priorities in feedback on writing, reveal a much stronger focus
on linguistic accuracy among FL students and a more pronounced desire to
communicate ideas coherently among ESL students.
A further note to be made here is that two interpretive dimensions tend to
merge in the analysis of subjects’ reported reactions to classroom procedures.
While we have endeavored principally to identify systematic trends in FL and
ESL students’ psychoaffective responses to teacher intervention, the character of
the questionnaire prompts has also led us to make inferences about FL and ESL
teacher behaviors as observed by our subjects. We have touched on possibly two
layers of data: learners’ perceptions of teacher response norms and their effects,
in addition to actual classroom practices. In so doing, however, we have
suggested not only that ESL subjects respond differently to teacher feedback
than do FL subjects, but also that ESL writing instruction is perhaps distinct
from FL instruction on a number of levels. The differences we have attempted to
trace indicate that teachers formulate their responses to student writing in order
to meet the needs of particular learners in particular settings (cf. Kepner, 1991;
Leki, 1991). Future studies conducted under more tightly controlled conditions
(viz., within the confines of a single classroom setting) will shed light on the
interaction between teachers’ expectations and behaviors on the one hand and
writers’ responses to feedback on the other hand; such investigations might also
characterize the effectiveness of specific feedback norms and styles.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

To inform future researchers of the pitfalls associated with the type of study
reported here, we should point out design flaws which emerged after the data
analysis was complete. One such defect concerns the grouping of subjects whose
problems and needs were potentially divergent. Our instrument was unfor-
tunately not designed to capture subjects’ demonstrable strengths and weak-
nesses as L2 writers; we were therefore unable to account directly for individual
factors that actual writing performance frequently manifests (cf. Skehan, 1991).
Consequently, the variation in feedback preferences of the skilled and unskilled
writers in the sample is not reflected in the data. Although we compared
subjects’ self-perceptions of their L2 writing abilities (see Subjects section), our
study would have benefitted from the inclusion of reliable appraisals of subjects’
measurable proficiency in one or more L2 writing subskill areas. Future
investigations of this nature may involve comparisons of the feedback prefer-
ences of skilled versus unskilled L2 writers.
Methodological defects notwithstanding, our preliminary results offer a
partial response to the first research question, which asks how L2 writers react
when they receive teacher feedback. Although both the FL and ESL populations
report generally favorable views toward teacher response, outcomes revealed
 Feedback on Feedback 157

variation which was closely tied to the differential attention paid to specific text
features, and to the particular instructional setting (i.e., FL vs. ESL). Subjects’
reported preferences for, and beliefs about, their teachers’ response behaviors no
doubt reflect the principles and practices they have observed in operation in their
writing classes.
FL and ESL practitioners will find some good news and some bad news in
these findings. The good news seems to be the consistently high concern among
ESL subjects for matters of content, rhetorical structure, and writing style.
These very stable patterns suggest that aspects of process-oriented pedagogy
have influenced the thinking of this category of L2 learner. FL subjects, on the
other hand, displayed response norms which were distinctly form-focused; FL
students further report that their teachers display feedback behaviors aimed
largely at grammatical and lexical accuracy, as opposed to fluency, idea
generation, and rhetorical organization. This finding may be attributable to a
view among FL learners and practitioners that composing is primarily a form of
language practice- a purpose rather different from that which drives most
college-level ESL writing instruction. The first research question therefore
merges with the third, which concerns the systematic differences between FL
and ESL populations: Learners’ perceptions about what constitutes useful
feedback vary according to the orientation and demands of the specific L2
learning context.
Teachers’ reported instructional practices appear to exert a strong influence
on students’ beliefs about the priority of the transmission of meaning, the
observation of rhetorical conventions, and formal (sentence-level) accuracy. FL
subjects claimed to “learn the most” when their teachers highlight grammatical
errors, correct word choice, and attend to mechanical mistakes. ESL students
also ranked grammatical features as important, but were more concerned with
issues of content and meaning (Table 5). Greater mismatches had been
anticipated between subjects’ preferred response modes and their perceptions of
teachers’ actual feedback practices, since there is considerable evidence that
teachers’ and writers’ expectations are not always congruent in the Ll setting
(Freedman, 1984; Murray, 1989) or in the L2 context (Cumming, 1989;
Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992). These findings are, in fact, indicative of a
close pairing between teachers’ response behaviors and learners’ beliefs about
their effectiveness.
This relationship invokes a major question already addressed in the composi-
tion literature, namely, that of how effective instructors’ feedback practices are
in improving text quality and in bringing about writing proficiency in Ll (cf.
Beach, 1979; Hillocks, 1982) and L2 (Cumming, 1989; Mangelsdorf, 1989; Roen
& Willey, 1988). Concomitant to this question is the extent to which learners’
positive belief about teacher feedback correspond to measurable improvement in
the quality of their L2 writing, an issue which still bears further exploration in
Ll (Hillocks, 1982) and in L2 (Leki, 1991; Radecki & !&vales, 1988). That is, do
writers who report “learning the most” from form-focused feedback really need
158 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

it? And do they actually benefit from it? Similarly, do writers who report
“learning the most” from content-focused feedback show tangible growth in
writing proficiency? This investigation suggests that apprentice writers at least
think that they gain from their instructor’s responses to their texts. The
information that FL writers gain from their teachers’ feedback, however, appears
to be decidedly different from that gained by their ESL peers.

REFERENCES
Baumlin, J.S., & Baumlin, T.E (1989). Paper grading and the rhetorical stance. In B. Lawson, S.
Sterr Ryan, & W.R. Winterowd (Ms.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in
reading student writing (pp. 171-182). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bazerman, C. (1989). Reading student texts: Proteus grabbing Proteus. In B. Lawson, S. Sterr Ryan,
& W.R. Winterowd (Eds.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student
writing (pp. 139-146). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Beach, R. (1979). The effects of between-draft teacher evaluation versus student self-evaluation on
high school students’ revising of rough drafts. Research in the Teaching of English, 13,
111-119.
Blanton, L. (1987). Reshaping ESL students’ perspectives of writing. EZZ Journal, 41, 112-118.
Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15,
l-14.
Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A.L. Wenden & J. Rubin
@Is.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Gumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language Learning, 39,
81-141.
Gumming, A. (1990). Expertise in evaluating second language compositions. Language Testing, 7,
31-51.
Daly, J. (1985). Writing apprehension. In M. Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in
writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp. 43-82). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Davies, N., & Omberg, M. (1987). Peer group teaching and the composition class. System, 15,
313-323.
Devenney, R. (1989). How ESL teachers and peers evaluate and respond to student writing. RELC
Journal, 20, 77-90.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus
content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insightsfor the classroom (pp.
178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L. (1988). The construction of purpose in writing and reading. College English, 50,
528-550.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980a). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem.
College Composition and Communication, 31, 21-32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1980b). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling
constraints. In L.W. Gregg & E.R. Steinberg (Ed.%), Cognitive processes in writing (pp.
31-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1984). Images, plans and prose: The representation of meaning in writing.
Written Communication, I, 120-160.
Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., S&river, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the
strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.
Freedman, S.W (1979). How characteristics of student essays influence teachers’ evaluations.
Journal of Educational Psychalogy, 77, 328-338.
 Feedback on Feedback 159

Freedman, S.W. (1984). The evaluation of; and response to student writing: A review. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 247 605)
Gee, T. (1972). Students’ responses to teacher comments. Research in the Teaching of English, 6,
212-221.
Gungle, B., &Taylor, V (1989). Writing apprehension and second language writers. In D. Johnson &
D. Roen @is.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 235-248). New York:
Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (Ed.). (1991). Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. Nonvood,
NJ: Ablex.
Hausner, R. (1975). Interaction of selected student personality factors and teachers’ comments in a
sequentially developed composition curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham
University.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing
instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, I, 255-276.
Hendrickson, J.M. (1984). The treatment of error in written work. In S. McKay (Ed.), Composing in
a second language (pp. 146-159). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Henning, Cl. (1991). Issues in evaluating and maintaining an ESL writing assessment program. In L.
Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 279-291).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Hillocks, G. (1979). The effects of observational activities on student writing. Research in the
Teaching ofEnglish, 13, 23-35.
Hillocks, G. (1982). The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the
composing process. Research in the Tenching of English, 16, 261-278.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V, & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition:
A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Jones, S. (1985). Problems with Monitor use in second language composing. In M. Rose (Ed.), When
a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp.
96-118). New York: The Guilford Press.
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, 75,305-313.
Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art.
Freshman English News, 10, l-4.
Kobayashi, T. (1992). Native and nonnative reactions to ESL compositions. TESOL Quarterly, 26,
81-112.
Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Land, R., & Whitley, C. (1989). Evaluating second language essays in regular composition classes:
Toward a pluralistic U.S. rhetoric. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing:
Empowering ESL students (pp. 284-293). New York: Longman.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes.
Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In
D. Johnson & D. Roen (Ed.%), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134-145).
New York: Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task.
Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, I, 235-254.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D.
Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219).
New York: Longman.
Murray, I? (1989). Teachers as readers, readers as teachers. In B. Lawson, S. Sterr Ryan, & WR.
Winterowd @Is.), Encountering student texts: Interpretive issues in reading student writing
(pp. 73-85). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
160 1. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

Pedhazur, E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (2nd
ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Radecki, P., & SwaJes, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work.
System, 16, 355-365.
Reid, J. (1989). English as a second language composition in higher education: The expectations of
the academic audience. In D. Johnson & D. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering
ESL students (pp. 220-234). New York Longman.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Roen, D. (1989). Developing effective assignments for second language writers. In D. Johnson & D.
Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 193-206). New York:
Longman.
Roen, D.H. & Willey, R.J. (1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising.
Research in the leaching of English, 22, 75-88.
Santos, T (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students.
TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69-90.
Seliger, H., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Semke, H.D. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1991). Individual differences in second language learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 13, 275-298.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Stevens, A. (1973). The effects of positive and negative evaluation on the written composition of low
performing high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University
Taylor, W., &_Hoedt, K. (1966). The effect of praise upon the quality and quantity of creative writing.
Journal of Educational Research, 60, 80-83.
Vann, R.J., Meyer, D.E., & Lorenz, EO. (1984). Error gravity: A study of faculty opinions of ESL
errors. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 427-440.
Zamel, V (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL
Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
Zamel, V (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.
Zamel, V (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 697-715.
 161

APPENDIX
Questionnaire
The purpose of this questionnaire is to improve the teaching of composition. The
aim is NOT to evaluate professors or teaching assistants. Please do not sign your
name: all responses are anonymous.
Where appropriate, please circle the number that most closely corresponds to
your opinion. Where questions are open-ended, please be spectfic. Thank you for
taking the time to answer the questions thoughtfully.

A. Background information.
1. What is your major?
2. How many semesters of foreign language have you had at the college level?

B. Feedback on writing.
3. When you are asked to revise an essay in your foreign language class, what
kind of comments from your instructor do you find most helpful? least
helpful?

Most helpful

4. Least helpful

5. Please complete the following statement by listing as many specific

suggestions as you can. “I think my writing would show greater improve-
ment if my instructor’s feedback and comments. . . ”

6. I feel I am most likely to make meaningful and noticeable improvements

in my writing when the instructor (please check only one).
- gives me extensive written comments.
- explains her comments to me in a writing conference.
- gives me written comments and meets with me.

To respond to questions 7-33 please refer to the following scale:

6 = Strongly Agree 4 = Somewhat Agree 2 = Disagree
5 = Agree 3 = Somewhat Disagree 1 = Strongly Disagree

7. I enjoy the writing I do in my foreign lan-

guage class. 654321
162 J. Hedgcock and N. Lefkowitz

8. I feel I am developing writing skills in for-

eign language that I will use even after I
complete the course. 654321
9. Compared to my classmates, I am a highly
competent foreign language writer. 654321
10-17. In a first draft (that is, an essay you will rewrite at least one time), I think
the instructor should always

10. comment on my ideas and how they are de-

veloped 654321
11. evaluate the way I have organized the ideas in
my essay 654321
12. evaluate the way I express my thoughts and
arguments (that is, my writing style). 654321
13. evaluate my use of vocabulary and make cor-
rections . 654321
14. correct my grammatical errors. 654321
15. correct punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
indentation, etc. 654321
16. use a set of correction, or proof-reading,
symbols. 654321
17. use a red-colored pen. 654321
18-25. In a final draft (that is, an essay that will not be rewritten and will
receive a grade), I think the instructor should always

18. comment on my ideas and how they are de-

veloped. 654321
19. evaluate the way I have organized the ideas in
my essay. 654321
20. evaluate the way I express my thoughts and
arguments (that is, my writing style). 654321
21. evaluate my use of vocabulary and make cor-
rections. 654321
22. correct my grammatical errors. 654321
23. correct punctuation, capitalization, spelling,
indentation, etc. 654321
24. use a set of correction, or proof-reading,
symbols. 654321
25. use a red-colored pen. 654321
26-33. Generally, I learn the most when my instructor

26. comments mainly on the content of my writ-

ing. 654321
 Feedback on Feedback 163

27. comments mainly on the organization of my

essays. 654321
28. comments mainly on my writing style. 654321
29. checks my vocabulary. 654321
30. highlights grammatical mistakes. 654321
31. highlights mechanical mistakes (i.e., punc-
tuation, spelling, etc.). 654321
32. identifies errors with correction symbols. 654321
33. highlights errors with a red-colored pen. 654321

34-39. Your instructor may consider various features as s/he evaluates and
comments on your essays. Six of these features are listed below. Once
you are sure you understand what each term means, indicate the relative
importance you feel your instructor assigns to each feature, based on the
feedback you are given on your essays. The amount assigned to each
feature should be expressed as a percentage (for example, O%, lo%,
25%, 70%, etc.). The percentages you assign should add up to exactly
100%.
34. Content (i.e., ideas, evidence, examples, etc.)
35. Language use (i.e., grammar)
36. Mechanics (i.e., punctuation, capitalization, spelling, indentation,
etc.)
37. Organization (i.e., paragraph sequencing, logical development,
etc.)
38. Style (i.e., expression, tone, etc.)
39. Vocabulary (i.e., accurate word usage)

***Please check your figures to make sure they add up to HO%!***

40-45. Consider again the features listed above, this time indicating the relative
importance which you feel should be assigned to each feature when
instructors offer feedback to writing students. Again, be sure that your
percentages add to 100%.
40. Content (i.e., ideas, evidence, examples, etc.)
41. Language use (i.e., grammar)
42. Mechanics (i.e., punctuation, capitalization, spelling, indentation,
etc.)
43. Organization (i.e., paragraph sequencing, logical development,
etc.)
44. Style (i.e., expression, tone, etc.)
45. Vocabulary (i.e., accurate word usage)

***Please check your figures to make sure they add up to MO%!***