Lợi ích từ việc giảng viên nhận xét tương tác vào bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên

v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI

LỢI ÍCH TỪ VIỆC GIẢNG VIÊN NHẬN XÉT
TƯƠNG TÁC VÀO BÀI VIẾT TIẾNG ANH
CỦA SINH VIÊN
TRƯƠNG ANH TUẤN*; LANNIN AMY**; NGÔ QUÝ CHUNG***
*

Trung tâm gìn giữ hòa bình Việt Nam - BQP, ✉
**
Đại học Tổng hợp Missouri, Hoa Kỳ
***
Học viện Khoa học Quân sự, ✉

TÓM TẮT
Trong quá trình dạy và học viết tiếng Anh, giáo viên thường phản hồi trực tiếp vào bài viết của
sinh viên, làm cơ sở để người học chỉnh sửa trước khi hoàn thiện bài viết. Việc này được coi là
tốn thời gian, công sức của giáo viên, nhưng giới nghiên cứu vẫn đang tranh luận về hiệu quả của
nó đối với chất lượng bài viết. Trong nghiên cứu này, chúng tôi phân tích tác động của phản hồi
tương tác của giảng viên đối với chất lượng bài viết tiếng Anh của sinh viên Việt Nam học tiếng
Anh như một ngôn ngữ thứ 2. Chúng tôi thu thập trên 30 bài viết về 15 chủ đề của 03 sinh viên
đại học người Việt trong 24 tuần. Tác động của phản hồi tương tác được phân tích theo chuẩn
của Ferris, chất lượng bài viết được phân tích định tính theo chuẩn Viết Phân tích của Hoa Kỳ, so
sánh kết quả sử dụng phương pháp ANOVA (định lượng). Kết quả cho thấy, người học tiếp thu,
sử dụng gần 70% góp ý nhận xét của giảng viên, và có cơ sở thống kê để nhận định chất lượng
bài viết lần cuối cao hơn lần đầu, đặc biệt về nội dung, bố cục, văn phong (không cải thiện về sử
dụng từ và ngữ pháp). Kết quả nghiên cứu giúp cải thiện quy trình dạy và học viết tiếng Anh trình
độ đại học tại Việt Nam.
Từ khóa: nhận xét của giáo viên, phản hồi, phản hồi tương tác, viết tiếng Anh.

1. INTRODUCTION

Teachers’ responses to student writing has been
acknowledged as central to teaching composition
(Freedman, Greenleaf, & Sperling, 1987). In
fact, since the early twentieth century, Carpenter
et al (1913) considered the role of response or
“criticism” to the teaching and learning of writing
as “one of the most important in the whole problem
of teaching English, upon which the value of the
criticism success in teaching composition finally
depends” (Carpenter, Baker, & Scott, 1913, p. 142).

84

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

Responding to students’ writing is arguably
a most widely adopted method; yet it is time
consuming and “the least understood” (Sommers,
1982, p. 170). The questions of how to write helpful
comments, to what extent teacher written response
is supportive to student revision, and whether
student successful revision is the result of teacher
comments, are never simple to answer.
A growing body of research has attempted to
answer these tricky questions. Teacher written
response has been examined in both first language

NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

(L1) and second language (L2) writing classes.
Teacher response, as agreed upon by most teachers
and researchers, has evolved into more than just
written marginal or end comments. Responses may
include all types of interaction with student drafts.
They could be formal, informal, in written, or oral
forms to a series of drafts, or to one polished final
paper. Responses may be used in formal mainstream
classrooms, or in an informal, casual interaction
between teacher and student (Freedman et al., 1987).
Teacher response might be explicit, implicit, or
a combination of both. A teacher might comment
as explicitly as “I’m interested in your idea here,”
“I like your voice in this paragraph,” or “I think
this sentence needs a verb.” Teachers might also
engage indirectly, such as “What do you think this
paragraph lacks?” or “I’m lost here!” Reflective
response might also be used, such as “I’m just
curious to see what is happening here,” or “as a
reader, I like to see more details in this scene.”
In this study, we attempted to explore the effects
of reflective response on student revision as defined
by Anson (Anson, 1989). The study was a pilot
study for a future research with greater sample. We
examined 15 papers, including 30 drafts produced
by three college students who studied English as
a second language over a period of two academic
semesters (24 weeks). These papers were written as

an additional writing exercise, out of the students’
normal class time, and not for credit or grading. No
pressure was placed on the students with regard to
what they wrote, when they wrote, and where. By
doing this, we intended to give more freedom to
the students, and avoid imposing the concepts of
teacherly “ideal text” on the students (Sommers,
1982). The students would revise their drafts only
because they wanted to do so, not because of
meeting any requirements by the teacher for the
purpose of grading.
The effects of reflective response were analyzed
using a rating scale developed by Ferris (1997). We
assessed if the students’ subsequent revisions were

the result of the teacher response, and if the changes
in drafts improved the overall writing quality as
evaluated using a version of the National Writing
Project’s analytical writing continuum (NWP,
2009). Improvement in a student’s paper was
determined by two procedures: (a) holistic scoring
of the first and final drafts on a six-point scale, and
(b) analytical scoring centered on six traits: content,
structure, stance, sentence fluency, word choice,
and conventions.
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. L1 response research and theory
Written teacher response has been a topic
drawing concern from a large number of researchers
and educators, resulting in a growing body of

research in the field. As early as 1913, Walter
Barnes wrote:
I believe that children in the grades live, so
far as the composition work is concerned, in an
absolute monarchy, in which they are the subjects,
the teacher the king (more often, the queen), and the
red-ink pen the royal scepter...In our efforts to train
our children, we turn martinets and discipline the
recruits into a company of stupid, stolid soldierkinsprompt to obey orders, it may be, but utterly devoid
of initiative (Barnes, 1913, pp. 158-159).
Similarly, a teacher who emphasizes
mechanical errors, or “[a teacher] ferrets out the
buried grammatical blunder, who scents from afar
a colloquialism or a bit of slang” (Barnes, 1913)
was not an effective composition teacher, to use the
words by A. Lunsford & Connors (1993).
Research in written teacher response was
blooming during the 1970s when there was a shift
from focusing on a final, polished paper submitted
for grade to emphasizing the multiple draft process.
A number of studies have addressed the issue
of whether teacher response is supportive to the
improvement of student writing (e.g. Anson, 1989;
Connors & Lunsford, 1988; Freedman et al., 1987;
Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981; A. A. Lunsford &
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

85

v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
Lunsford, 2008; A. Lunsford & Connors, 1993;
R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, 2006; Moxley, 1989;
Sperling & Freedman, 1987; Straub, 2000) among
many others. Though written comment was the most
widely used method, also the most time-consuming
(Sommers, 1982), the influence of written teacher
response on student writing improvement is still
controversial. Earlier researchers showed their
skeptical view on the effectiveness of teacher
response while more recent researchers have
expressed milder, more balanced arguments over
the influence of written teacher response on student
writing revision and quality (Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2003, 2004).
2.2. Earlier skepticism
Researchers (such as Hairston, 1986;
Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981; Sommers, 1982;
Sperling & Freedman, 1987) tended to draw
a bleak picture of the effectiveness of written
response to the improvement of student drafts. For
example, in Knoblauch & Brannon’s (1981) review,
teacher comments showed minimum influence on
student writing, students failed to interpret and
handle teacher responses, and even if the students
understood the feedback, their paper was not better.
Sommers (1982) reported that “teachers’
comments can take students’ attention away from

their own purposes in writing a particular text
and focus that attention on the teachers’ purpose
in commenting” (p. 149). Students made changes
in their paper in the way the teacher wanted, not
what they thought was needed. Teacher responses
focused more on errors than on idea development,
and teachers did not prioritize errors to be fixed.
Sommers also observed that “teachers’ comments
are not text-specific and could be interchanged,
rubber-stamped, from text to text” (p. 152). Teacher
response tended to be generic, which included
vague directives and abstract commands. Brannon
& Knoblauch (1981) reported that students revise
their drafts to meet their teacher’s expectation,
not because of their need for idea development.

86

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

Teacher response was believed to be authoritative
and imposing, which emphasized logical, rational
arguments, rather than being reflective and clear.
More importantly, written response was even
reported to be unsupportive and even harmful to both
teachers and students (Hairston, 1986; Sperling &
Freedman, 1987). Hairston believed that responding
may leave negative effects on teachers (such as

frustration, burn-out, and despair) and on students
(cognitive overload, defensive barriers that resist
teacher comment). Sperling & Freeman (1987), in a
case study with a high school student, reported that
response was not supportive to student revision,
and that the student misinterpreted the teacher’s
message. The student seemed to ignore problems
pointed out in the comments by the teacher. These
observations are echoed by Wilson who reported
that students receptively accepted the comments,
and made changes to satisfy the teacher, to have
good marks, which damaged and demotivated
students’ view of what writing means (Wilson,
2009). Sperling & Freeman, therefore, called for
clearer, more careful, well-constructed, helpful,
relevant feedback from teachers in responding to
student drafts.
2.3. More recent balanced perspective on
response
A milder, more balanced view in judging
teacher’s written feedback and student revision was
noticed in recent studies (i.e. Anson, 1989; Beason,
1993; Crone-Blevins, 2002; Freedman et al., 1987;
A. Lunsford & Connors, 1993; R. Lunsford &
Straub, 1995; Mathison-Fife & O’Neill, 1997;
Smith, 1997; Sperling, 1994, 1996; Straub, 1997).
These researchers attempt to construct an analytical
framework in examining teacher comments and the
influence on student writing.
Freedman, et al., (1987) conducted an extensive

ethnographic study (surveying 715 junior high
school students, 560 teachers from 116 National
Writing Project sites) and reported that response
during writing processes is significantly more


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

helpful than response to final polished products.
Teacher response is preferred over peer, parent,
or other adult response. But when grading was
involved, teacher feedback was not helpful on the
final piece submitted for grading.
In a series of studies, Sperling (1994,
1996) proposed that in order to reach a deeper
understanding of student writing in the context
of school, teachers should have in mind five
orientations when responding to student writing: i)
interpretive (relating elements in students’ writing
to teachers’ prior knowledge and experience or
to students’ prior knowledge and experience); ii)
social (playing different social roles in reading
students’ papers, such as peer and literacy scholar,
teacher, and aesthetic reader); iii) cognitive/
emotive (reflecting reasoning and emotions as
teachers read students’ papers); iv) evaluative
(critically assessing students’ writing, explicitly and
implicitly, opening chances for extensive criticism
on students’ writing); and v) pedagogical (treating
students’ papers as teaching and learning tools)

(Sperling, 1996, pp. 23, 24). These orientations
form an analytical framework for investigating the
perspective of teacher-as-reader in responding to
student writing. Having questions, relating to prior
knowledge and experience, playing multiple roles
in reading a paper, and sharing these hypotheses
with students helps students understand themselves
better as writer and reader. The framework might
serve as a holistic approach to investigating student
writing in classroom context where teacher response
is valued.
In their landmark research, Straub & Lunsford
(1995; 2006) investigated 3,500 comments by 12
experienced teachers and professors of English on
156 sets of responses. The researchers examined
written teacher comments by analyzing the “focus”
and “mode” both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Focus is understood as the issue to which the
comment refers while the mode refers to how the
comment is shaped.

Figure 1: Categories for analyzing comments
(R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, p. 159)

FOCUS
Global
Ideas
Development
Global structure
Local

Local structure
Wording
Correctness
Extra-textual

MODE
Corrections
Evaluations
Qualified
Negative
Evaluations
Imperatives
Advice
Praise
Indirect Requests
Problem-Posing Questions
Heuristic Questions
Reflective Statements

Straub & Lunsford reported that most of the
teachers’ comments were text-specific, focused on
global issues. The comments were framed in a nonauthoritative mode and supported writing as a process.
Anson (1989) attempted to examine responding
styles and their relationship with thinking styles.
The researcher categorized written teacher response
styles into three groups of dualistic, relativistic,
and reflective. Dualistic responders tend to focus
their attention on surface errors and mechanics.
Teacher responders clearly prescribed what is right
from what is wrong, and that students should make

changes in their revision. “The tone of the responses
implied that there were standards for correct and
incorrect ways to complete the assignment, and that
a teacher’s job was to act as a judge by applying the
standards to the student’s writing,” or “[the tone]
was highly authoritative and teacherly” (Anson,
1989, pp. 344, 348). Grammatical issues seem to be
the focus of dualistic comments. Dualistic response
emphasized narrowly prescriptive comments
(Straub & Lunsford, 1995). Dualistic response
tends to focus on spelling out issues, not to offer
options for revision. The following example is a
typical dualistic response:
There are some serious problems with this
paper. For one thing it is far too short, and the ideas
in it, if any, are at the moment barely articulated…
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

87


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
one obvious reason why you did not write more,
is that you have very serious deficiencies in your
knowledge of the mechanics of writing. I am
referring here to tense, spelling, punctuation, and
sentence structure (Anson, 1989, p. 344).
The second type of responders, relativistic,

commented almost nothing. They wrote minimum
comments on the margins of student papers as well as
in the summary statements. Relativistic responders
seemed to avoid focusing on the student’s text,
and to be “entirely unconcerned with giving the
students anything more than a casual reaction…
the text seems ‘owned’ by the writer” and teachers
did not want to intrude into the text. Relativistic
responder provides “no options for revision,” just
“idiosyncratic response of a single reader” (Anson,
1989, pp. 349-350).
The third approach examined was reflective
response. Reflective responders tend to make
suggestions and possibilities for future revision.
This type of comment expresses concerns for
student writers in “ideas, textual decisions,
personal reactions.” Reflective responders acted
as “representative readers” of student text, not
authoritative teachers. Final choices of whether or
not making any changes to the drafts will be decided
by the students themselves. Reflective response also
implies that the student writing was “in-process
drafts” which serves as “tools for further learning.”
Reflective responders often phase “maybe you could
think about…”, “what if you…”, “and how about
seeing if there’s a way to…” The tone of reflective
response tended to be collaborating, suggesting,
guiding, and modeling. The reflective responder
seems to be “rhetorically sitting next to the writer”
(Anson, 1989, pp. 351, 353). Below is an example

of a reflective commentary to the student’s writing:
Hi Bobby. The first thing that strikes me before
I even read your story is that it’s very short… I’m
wondering if it’s short for a good reason, or it’s
short because you just couldn’t think of things to
say. It’s possible for a piece of writing that’s very

88

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

short to be very good. Poetry is that way, certainly.
On the other hand, the more you put in, the more
chances are that your reader is going to be able to
get into your story. Stories generally- and this essay
is a story- are fairly well-detailed… if you just keep
it short and don’t put in many details then we never
really get into your story at all (Anson, 1989, p. 351).
Reflective responses tend to “place more
responsibility on the writer … not just in the style or
form of the response, but in its focus and content.”
By challenging the students to rethink their essays,
reflective response appeared to “challenge the
students to rethink their ways of viewing the world”
(Anson, 1989, p. 352).
2.4. L2 written feedback research
Research in L2 written feedback has been
growing, with attention being paid to the

effectiveness of teacher’s written comments to
student writing and in the ways feedback is given
(e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener
& Ferris, 2012; Bruton, 2009a, 2009b, 2010;
Chandler, 2003; Conrad & Goldstein, 1999;
Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995b, 1997,
2001, 2003, 2004; Ferris, 2010; Ferris, Brown, Liu,
& Stine, 2011; Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997;
Guénette, 2007; Hartshorn et al., 2010; F. Hyland
& Hyland, 2001; K. Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Leki,
1990; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010; Truscott,
1996, 1999, 2007; Van Beuningen, De Jong, &
Kuiken, 2012; Zamel, 1985). Earlier L2 written
feedback research yielded similar findings to L1
research. Teacher comments were reported to be
vague and form-related. They focused on language
errors rather than on global issues such as ideas and
organization (Zamel, 1985).
Research in the 1990s tended to focus on what
to respond to (either on form, content, or both),
and reported mixed findings. Focus on form was
believed to be helpful for student writing (Ashwell,
2000; Chandler, 2003; Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990;
Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997; Leki,
1990). In an empirical study with 72 college


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

students from mixed backgrounds, Fathman &

Whalley (1990) reported that specific comments
on grammatical errors have greater effect on the
improvement of grammatical accuracy than general
comments on content do. The researchers also
noted that both grammar and content response
might be provided either separately or at the same
time “without overburdening the students” (p. 187).
This claim was further supported by later studies
(e.g. Ashwell, 2000; Ferris, 1997). Feedback on
some selective patterns of errors was helpful to
student writing (Ferris, 1995b). Chandler (2003)
reported, for example, that error correction helped
students gain greater accuracy than when they did
not receive error feedback. Form-related comments
(on grammatical errors) led to better grammatical
accuracy than content-related feedback did (Fathman
& Whalley, 1990; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Error
correction helped prevent error fossilization (i.e. a
tendency to resist to change errors so that the errors
become fixed) in L2 learners (Higgs & Clifford,
1982; Lalande, 1982).
However, earlier studies in L2 written feedback
also revealed that error correction was ineffective,
even harmful to students’ fluency, and led to no
improvement in long-term progress (Fazio, 2001;
Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Robb,
Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; Sheppard,
1992; Truscott, 1996). Truscott (1996), for
example, claimed that error correction was harmful
to student fluency and led to no improvement in

long-term progress and that students might not gain
anything from error feedback. Zamel (1985) and
Lunsford and Connors (1993) reported that teacher
feedback was often vague, form-related, and
inaccurate. Truscott (1999) suggested that teachers
should adopt a correction-free approach in teaching
writing, and teachers should focus on extra writing
practice rather than spending time handling errors.
In recent reviews, Ferris summarizes a number
of issues in response research: i) teachers often rely
on marginal or end of paper notes whose purpose is
to request, suggest, give information, encourage, and

provide positive feedback. A number of techniques
have been utilized to respond: questioning, making
statements and imperatives, recommending, etc., ii)
teachers adjust their responses to types of writing
task and student writing proficiency; and iii) some
response styles tend to be more effective to revision
than the others. Comments about information,
grammar, or mechanics are more likely to lead to
successful revision than comments about such issue
as thinking or argumentation (Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Ferris, 2003).
One of the main concerns in L2 response
scholarship is how to determine if teacher response
affects student revision. Several taxonomies have
been developed to trace revision changes. Faigley
& Witte (1981) proposed a system that traces
revision by classifying changes into surface changes

(changes that do not result in new information)
and text-based changes (changes that lead to new
content or deletion of old content) (Faigley & Witte,
1981). Storch (2010) and Ferris (2003) argues that
this revision scheme tends to be misleading because
i) students tend to make by far greater number of
surface formal changes than text-based changes
within a writing, and ii) the scheme does not deal
with how such a change affects the general quality
of the draft.
Another procedure monitoring teacher response
and student revision is proposed by Ferris (1997).
This rating scale traced the students’ drafts and
the teacher’s response to see how students utilized
the comments in their revision. Students’ revision
was coded as not revised, successful revision, and
unsuccessful revision. These changes were also
determined if they improve quality of the paper,
have mixed effects, or have negative effect. This
method “more directly addresses the influence of
teacher feedback and its effects not only on the
types of revisions students make but on whether
those changes actually improve the quality of the
students’ texts” (Ferris, 2003, p. 36). A number of
studies have applied this analytic model in working
with teacher’s comments and the effect on student’s
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

89


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
revision (i.e. Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris,
1997, 2001; F. Hyland, 1998).
Many researchers, such as Bitchener and Ferris
(2012), Storch (2010), Guénette (2007); K. Hyland
and Hyland (2006), and Ferris (2003, 2004),
suggests that future studies in L2 response should
consider student background and motivation level
for L2 learning. These include the amount of time
students commit to spend on writing (in-class and
out-of-class). The relationship between students and
teacher should also be noted. The types of writing
student compose, the ways teacher constructs
responses (linguistic, pragmatic, etc.) might also
count in the relationship between response and
revision. Whether or not teacher’s written feedback
is harmful to student’s writing as Truscott (1996,
1999) claims or whether teacher’s feedback is
helpful to students’ immediate revision are also
issues that merit further explorations.
There has been a debate about whether or
not teacher’s written feedback is helpful to nonnative students of English (e.g., Chandler, 2003;
Ferris, 1997, 1999, 2004, 2011; Ferris, 2006; A.
Lunsford & Connors, 1993; Truscott, 1996, 1999,
2007; Zamel, 1985). Among many types of written
feedback, the current study only explores only one
type, written reflective feedback, and to examine

if written reflective response has any effect on
ESL students’ revision. Given the fact that written
feedback is still the most widely adopted method
by writing teachers and is time consuming and
yet appropriately examined, it is necessary to
investigate whether or not teachers’ feedback make
a difference to students’ writing progress. The study
was designed to answer the two following research
questions:
1. To what extent does teacher’s written
reflective response influence ESL learners’ revision
process?
2. To what extent does ESL students’ revised
draft improve after receiving teacher’s written
reflective response?

90

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

3. THE STUDY
3.1. The participants
The study was conducted on three female
college students. They were Vietnamese first year
students (mean age is 20). They were pursuing
different degrees in different majors, at different
universities. For the purpose of ethics, their names
are coded as Queen, Pie and Tea. Queen was

studying English and commerce in Singapore; Pie
was following a business program at a university
in Wellington, New Zealand; and Tea was studying
finance in Russia.
The length of the participants’ experience
with English varies. Queen has been learning
English since she was at her secondary school in
Vietnam (for about seven years) and she is now
learning English in Singapore. Pie and Tea have
acquired Russian as their second language. Pie
learned Russian for six years before switching to
English when she began her business program in
Wellington in 2009. By the time data for the study
was collected, Pie has been learning English in New
Zealand for roughly a year. Tea, interestingly, still
used Russian as a means for her accounting program
since Russian was a language of instruction at her
university. Tea, however, wanted to learn English
since she was considering a Master’s degree in an
English speaking university. By the date of the data
collection process, Tea had been learning English
for almost two years. To fully examine the effect
of teachers’ responses (if any), it is appropriate to
select the participants with diverse backgrounds of
English learning.
All of the participants were former students
at the universities in Vietnam where two of the
researchers used to teach but were not current
students at the time of this study. Following the
university’s approval, an email was sent out to

recruit the participants. These three students were
the ones who agreed to join the study. They were
female students who appeared to have a clear
commitment and plan to their studies, which might
give credit to their motivation in learning English.
All of them were eager to participate in the study


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

since it offered them opportunities to be exposed
to English, to practice writing in English, and to
receive feedback from the researchers.
3.2. Data collection process
The data for the current study (the students’
series of drafts and final version) were collected over
a period of two academic semesters (24 weeks). All
of the writing was done outside of school, not for
credit or grading. It was made explicit before the
participants joined the project that there would be
no rules on how the writing had to be done, with
no time constraints. It was also up to the students’
interests and personal habits to decide when, where,
and what to write. We provided the students with
some writing prompts if they did not wish to selfselect topics/themes to write about. In fact, most of
the writings came from these students’ self-selected
topics. Only two teacher-provided writing prompts
were used.
The participants wrote multiple drafts. After
finishing each draft, they sent the teacher researcher

for comments. Since the focus of the study was
on reflective feedback, the researcher interacted
reflectively with these students’ drafts by writing
exploratory comments at the end of each draft. The
researcher then returned the students the drafts with
comments. The students studied the comments and
decided one their own what to do with the draft.
They would continue to revise and edit their draft,
which again would be sent to the researcher; or the
student may refuse to revise and stop writing about
that topic. If the students chose to revise their drafts,

they would revise it and send the revised paper to
the teacher until the students were satisfied with the
final draft.
Most of the drafts were written over two weeks.
Some topics resulted in up to four drafts plus the
final version. Seven topics/themes per student were
collected during this period, yet only five of the
papers per student were selected for analysis. This
was because the students chose not to revise the
other two topics for some reason. In total, 15 papers
with more than 30 drafts were collected for analysis
over a period of 24 weeks.
3.3. Analysis of the effect of written feedback
on revision
Since the study attempted to see how the
teacher’s reflective feedback affects the students’
revision, Ferris’s (1997) analytic model was used
to analyze the revision. A number of L2 feedback

studies have adopted this procedure (i.e. Conrad
& Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1997, 2001; F. Hyland,
1998). The procedure cross-checked the student’s
drafts and teacher’s response to see to what extent
the revision was successful, following the comment.
According to this scheme, three main categories
were coded in analyzing student drafts: not revised,
successful revision, and unsuccessful revision.
These categories were further examined to see to
if the changes were minimal or substantive, and if
they generally have positive effect, mixed effect, or
negative effect. A rating scale was adopted to aid
the coding process (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Rating scale for revision (Ferris, 1997, p. 322)

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

91


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
Figure 3 below described how the coding procedure worked in tracing the influence of the teacher’s
feedback on the students’ writing across the drafts:
Figure 3: Analysis of effects of teacher’s feedback on drafts
Earlier Draft

Teacher’s Feedback

My first day at
the school, I had
a placement test
which took me
about two hours
with other students.
I did my test not
well because my
basic
English
knowledge
was
very bad. After
that, a manager
called
Simon
introduced us about
regulation’s school
and campus tour.
Sometimes when
the manager was
taking I did not
understand, but he
tried to explain for
me what did he say.
When I felt nervous
he helped me more
confident. I thought
he is not also a good

manager but only is
a devoted teacher.

Queen, this is a clear essay
about a good topic. It seems
that you are right on track to
descriptive writing.
As a general reader, I can see
a few of your activities on
the first day at the university.
This is about your first day,
a difficult day, at a foreign
strange university. You
therefore should describe it
more specifically, add more
details to help readers see
how difficult you felt on
that day. For example, you
could write more on (1) your
feelings on the way to the
university, (2) what you saw
at the university (students,
buildings, anything you
thought it’s strange!) (3)
who took you there or you
went there yourself? (4)
what you felt when you
saw the placement tests and
how you did it, any special
strategies? If you could

remember, give one example
in the test that you think it’s
tricky (5) how the manager
helped you to understand
all the instructions and rules
and regulations? How you
thought of him/her before
and after his/her orientation?
(6) after the orientation, you
went to make the student ID.
Tell me more about it and
the process of ID issuing in
a Singapore university.

After
finished
introduction,
we
went to student
service centre to
made student cards
which we helped us
can use computer
rooms and borrow
books from library.
Then we got home
and to prepared for
the first day at class.

92

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

How the
feedback
worked
The first day I went to school, I got (1) fail to revise
up at seven o’clock and had breakfast.
After that, I went to school by bus at
eight o’clock. When I was coming to
the school, I saw a beautiful campus (2) revise
appeared in front of my eyes (2). successfully
My first day at the school, I had a with minimal
placement test which took me about change
two hours with other students. I did my
test not well because my basic English (3) fail to revise
knowledge was very bad. I thought “if
I want study at university in Singapore (4) revise
I must study very hard” (4). Then, a successfully
manager called Simon introduced us with minimal
about regulation’s school and campus change
tour. Sometimes when the manager
was taking I did not understand, but he
tried to explain for me what he said. He (5) revise
used easier words to explain his ideas successfully
(5). When I felt nervous he helped me with minimal
more confident. I thought he is not also change
a good manager but only is a devoted

teacher.
After finished introduction, we went to
student service centre to made student
cards which we helped us can use
computer rooms and borrow books
from library. I began take photos for it. (6) revise
After the staff gave me an ID number successfully
and I waited she gave me my student with substantive
card. I had to pay ten dollars for it. change
Before I went home other students and
I came to computer room and library.
In the library did not have lots of
books because this was a new school.
It established in 2008, so it had little
students. After that, we went to canteen
to drink some things (6). Then we got
home and to prepared for the first day
at class. I hoped the first day at class
would be a good day for us.
Later Draft


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

The coding procedure framework was based
on Ferris (1997). All recommendations from the
teacher’s comments were first identified. We then
located these recommendations in the final drafts
before we determined whether or not the students
used these suggestions to make changes to their

final drafts. We further assessed if the changes were
minimal or substantive. Finally, we determined if
the changes led to successful revision.
Two independent raters were recruited to do the
coding. These raters have been teaching English for
ten years and hold their Ph.D. in English education
and M.A. in TESOL. They were carefully trained
with clear demonstrations before their actual coding.
The inter-rater reliability correlation between the
two raters was .85.
3.4. Assessing the improvement of the student
writing
In an attempt to qualitatively measure possible
improvement in student writing, eight experienced
English instructors were recruited to analyze the
first drafts and final drafts. Two out of eight raters
hold an M.A. degree in TESOL; four hold M.A.
in English Education, and two Ph.Ds. Before the
actual scoring, a demonstration scoring session
was designed to familiarize the scorers with the
process and address possible issues arising from
the scoring process. These raters examined the first
and final drafts and scored the papers based on a
version of the NWP’s analytic writing continuum
(NWP, 2009). Improvement in a student’s paper
was determined following two main procedures:
i) holistic scoring of the first and final draft on a
six- point scale; and ii) analytical scoring based on
a six-trait scoring guide.
3.4.1. Holistic scoring

Before each scoring session, all identifying
information was removed so that the raters did not
know which draft was the first draft and which draft
was the final draft. Each pair of the papers (the
first and final draft) went through two independent
readings by two different raters, which resulted
in two independent sets of scores. If there was

an obvious discrepancy in the scores (equal or
greater than two points) after the two readings, a
third independent reading was required. The final
score for that paper was the average of the three
independent readings.
3.4.2. Analytical scoring
After the holistic scoring, the raters analyzed
each draft in detail. The analysis centered on the
following traits (NWP, 2009): (i) Content (including
quality and clarity of ideas and meaning); (ii)
Structure (organization of the paper); (iii) Stance
(including tone, voice, and style); (iv) Sentence
fluency (sentence structure, sentence flow and
rhythm, clarity of sentences); (v) Diction (word
use, range of vocabulary, expressions); and (vi)
Conventions (spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
paragraph breaks).
4. FINDINGS
4.1. Teacher’s written reflective feedback did
influence student revision
Analysis of the student drafts showed that
teacher’s written reflective comments did help

improve the student revision. The students in the
study mostly utilized the teacher’s written comments
and most of the comments led to successful revision.
The students only ignored a small percentage of the
teacher’s comments.
Graph 1 shows the percentages of the six
categories of the rating scale for revision among
the drafts. Based on the Ferris’s (1997) procedure,
most of the teacher’s comments led to successful
revision. The students utilized about 67 percent
of the suggestions and recommendations by the
teacher. Among this, 33% of the comments resulted
in minor revision with positive effects on final drafts,
and nearly 34% of the comments led to substantial
revision with positive effects on the final drafts.
Only about a third of the suggestions in
teacher responses led to no revision or revision
with negative effects in final drafts. Among these
categories, the students ignored about 16% of
the teacher’s comments, and about 15% yielded
negative or mixed effects.
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

93


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI

Graph 1: Influence of response on revision via revision rating scale
4.2. Improvement and progress recorded for the final drafts
Statistical tests based on the holistic scoring and analytical scoring showed that the final drafts scored
significantly higher than the first drafts. Analytical six-trait scoring showed that final drafts tended to
improve in content, structure, stance, and sentence fluency. No clear improvement in final drafts was found
with word choice and conventions.
4.2.1. Holistic scoring
To statistically compare the two sets of scores (first draft scores and final draft score) of the same
students’ papers, analysis of variance is recommended to be the appropriate method. used. The two sets of
scores were analyzed by running a one-way ANOVA. The result of the ANOVA was presented in Table 1
and Table 2 below. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for first draft and final draft scores provided by
eight raters. Table 2 shows the statistical result comparing the mean scores of the two sets of drafts. As the
tables show, the mean score of the final draft is statistically significantly higher than the mean score of the
first drafts (p = .0048), at both α levels of .05 and .01.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics for the two sets of scores

Descriptive Statistics for First Draft Scores and Final Draft Scores
Measure
Mean
St. Dev.
Variance
Minimum
Maximum
First draft
2.4533
0.7738
0.5987
1.0
4.00
Final draft

3.4053
0.9229
0.8518
1.75
5.00
Total
2.9293
0.9668
0.9346
Table 2: Analysis of variance for improvement across first drafts and final drafts

Analysis of Variance Comparing the Score Means for Paper Improvement
Source
SS
DF
MS
F
P
Between
6.7973
1
6.7973
9.37**
0.004827
Within
20.3071
28
0.7253
Total
27.1044

29
0.9346
*p < .05
**p < .01

94

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

Six one-way ANOVA tests were run to compare the sub-scores of the six traits (content, structure,
stance, sentence fluency, diction, and conventions) given on first and final drafts. The combined results
were presented in Table 3. As the table shows, the mean sub-scores of the final draft’s content, structure,
stance, and sentence fluency were statically significantly higher than those of the first drafts at α level of .05
(Content at both α levels of .01 and .05). With regard to diction and conventions, the mean sub-scores of the
final drafts showed no progress.
Table 3: ANOVA comparing means of sub-scores of the six trait

Analysis of Variance comparing the means of sub-scores of the six traits
F
P
Content
9.15**
0.005218
Structure
5.72*

0.023731
Stance
5.65*
0.024527
Sentence fluency
6.46*
0.016853
Diction
3.02
0.093232
Conventions
1.88
0.181224
*p < .05
**p < .01
4.2.2. Analytical scoring
The quality of the drafts over time was also evaluated by the eight raters using analytical scoring. The
evaluation was based on the six-trait scoring guide. Summary of these raters’ comments are presented in
Table 4 below. These comments are a compilation to reflect the overall comments given, not comments on a
particular paper or by a particular rater. The raters wrote mostly for themselves as fellow teachers and were
not drafting comments that would go to the students.
Table 4: Summary of scorers’ comments based on the NWP’s (2009) analytic scoring continuum
Traits
First draft
Content (including Ideas are related but not
quality and clarity of developed
ideas and meaning) Expand your examples
Subject is not clear, no clear
focus

Final draft
Use of details
Considerably longer
Good content with more details
The lead is good
Begin with a good example
Add some explanations, details
Interesting lead + end; ideas more developed
Good additional information helped this piece flow
more naturally
There is potential but much should be cut
The writer adds more global, abstract background
information in paper 2
The imagery and language use in this piece is stronger
Simplicity in conveying ideas

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

95


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI

Structure
(organization of the
paper)

Stance (including

tone, voice, and
style)
Sentence fluency
(sentence structure,
sentence flow and
rhythm, clarity of
sentences)

Diction (word use,
range of vocabulary,
expressions)

Conventions
(spelling,
punctuation,
capitalization,
paragraph breaks).

List- like in delivery
Break up the middle
paragraph
Very hard to followorganization not clear
The first draft lacks fluency
and organization
Poor voice
The first one felt a little more
focused
It has voice and descriptive
information
Has a focus + connected

ideas but weak fluency+
diction
Sentences are unclear due to
inappropriate structure; even
if the flow of the story seems
good, some sentences are
confusing because of broken
word order
Vary sentence length
Word choice
Missing verbs, article and
preposition, adjective issues,
Plurality, phrasing is unclear
Tense,
subject-verb
agreement problems
Capitalization
Poor spelling

Structure is easy to follow
Paragraph 1-2 start more focused;
The second one seems more professional as the
writer’s fluency and organization are better
There is a greater attempt to organize with paragraphs,
which are chronological.
Add figurative language for interest
Inaccurate subject-verb match but more detail and
better voice
Writer’s voice more clearly
Better sentence structure

The use of transition words
Improved sentence fluency
Much better organized with fluent word choice and
good sentence structure.

Good command of adverbs and adjectives
The thoughts here are profound, but often they are
expressed in language that is difficult to penetrate,
due to a lack of familiarity with nuances of American
expression
Verb tense, article, preposition still persists
Unclear convention change

Analytical, qualitative scoring revealed that final drafts generally improve in content, structure, stance,
and sentence fluency. Most raters agreed that final drafts were considerably longer, richer in details,
explanation and examples, and showed a stronger voice. Ideas were also more developed and flowed more
naturally. Final drafts showed a better lead and ending, and better sentence structures, though confusing
structures still persisted, which influenced the overall clarity of the papers. The raters also reported that there
was no clear improvement in diction and conventions across the drafts. Final drafts still showed a number of
grammatical issues. Among them were the use of verb tenses, articles and prepositions, broken word order,
and weak word use.
5. DISCUSSION
The results from this study indicatively suggest that teacher’s written reflective feedback was helpful to
the student revision. The analysis showed that up to 70 percent of the teacher’s feedback led to successful
revision. Following the teacher’s comments, the students had revised their first drafts, either minimally

96

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

or substantively, and improved the final draft. Only
a small number of the teacher’s comments were
ignored by the students or led to negative and/or
mixed effects. The results provided some support to
previous studies that reported that students highly
appreciated teacher’s written comments and used
teacher’s feedback to guide their revision (i.e.
Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1995a; Radecki
& Swales, 1988,) a larger amount of teacher
responses led to successful revision (i.e.Conrad
& Goldstein, 1999; Fathman & Whalley, 1990;
Ferris, 1997, 2001; Ferris et al., 1997; Kepner,
1991) and the overall quality of the writing was
improved (i.e.Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener & Ferris,
2012; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Bitchener, Young,
& Cameron, 2005; Bruton, 2009b; Chandler, 2003;
Ferris, 2004; Ferris, 2010; Ferris, Chaney, Komura,
Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000;
Lalande, 1982; Van Beuningen et al., 2012).
Teacher’s written reflective feedback clearly
contributed to the students’ improvement on the
overall quality of the writing products. Statistical
tests showed that the final drafts scored significantly
higher than the first drafts. The areas of improvement
included the overall structure, content, stance, and

sentence fluency. This might be due to positive
interpretation by the students when they received the
teacher’s feedback. As Anson (1989) suggests, the
tone of reflective response tends to be collaborating,
suggesting, and modeling. Students are challenged to
rethink their essays following the teacher comment.
Indirect response might be able to lead students to
“cognitive problem-solving,” since students are
able to “self-edit” after receiving teacher comments
(Ferris, 2004, p. 60). In this context, the responder
seemed to be “rhetorically sitting next to the writer,”
but “place more responsibility on the writer… not
just in the style or form of the response, but in its
focus and content” (Anson, 1989, pp. 252, 253).
Reflective feedback perhaps was more helpful to the
ESL students’ revision than ineffective or harmful
as some researchers claim (e.g., A. Lunsford &
Connors, 1993; Polio et al., 1998; Sheppard, 1992;
Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007; Zamel, 1985).

Commenting reflectively during the early stage
of writing, teachers might focus on a broad picture
(i.e. ideas and content) rather than focusing on
hunting for errors and asking the students to fix
them. Weaver believes that teacher should interact
with the student and only focus on errors during the
later stage of writing: “When fixing error becomes
the focal point, we miss all the incredible things
our students are doing and all the incredible growth
they are experiencing… To respond to the writers

first, then to the content of the writing, and only
later to what might need to be revised or edited”
(Weaver, 2008, p. 263).
Holistic and analytical scoring qualitatively
showed that the students’ word choice and
conventions did not seem to improve. The raters
assessed that inappropriate use of words, and
difficulties with punctuation and capitalization were
rampant in both first and final drafts. Regarding
errors in word choice, it was likely that because
basic ESL student writers in this study experiment,
take risks in detailed topics, and develop more
sophisticated syntax, the occurrence of errors may
increase (i.e. Shaughnessy, 1977; Weaver, 2008;
Zinsser, 2006).
The results showed no clear progress in the
use of conventions in final drafts. Neither were
there many spelling errors in both first and final
drafts. Reasons could vary. However, this might
be because the students typed their essays on their
computers instead of writing by hands on papers.
Some software such as Microsoft Word supports
auto-spelling check that aids the students to spell
and punctuate their drafts.
6. CONCLUSIONS
Since the aim of the study was to explore the
impact of teacher’s written reflective feedback on
student revision, teacher’s reflective feedback was
helpful to the students’ revision. Evidence from the
study showed that up to two thirds of the teacher’s

comments led to successful revision. These were
either minimal or substantive changes with positive
effects. Only about 15 percent of the teacher’s
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

97


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
comments did not receive attention from the students.
Likewise, only a small percentage of the teacher’s
feedback resulted in negative or mixed effect (13%).
In terms of quality of the drafts over time
following the teacher’s reflective feedback, holistic
and analytical scorings revealed evidence to support
that final drafts were statistically stronger than first
drafts. Analysis of variance showed that final drafts
scored statistically significantly higher than that
the first drafts. In the final drafts, the mean scores
of content, structure, stance, and sentence fluency
were statistically significant and higher than those
in the first drafts. In contrast, no clear progress was
found with regard to word choice and conventions.
The study showed several implications for
responding to student writing. First, though written
feedback was time consuming, it was helpful and
influential in helping students revise their drafts.
Students seemed to use most of the teacher’s

comments in their revision as they might appreciate
teacher’s written feedback (Enginarlar, 1993; Ferris,
1995a; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994, 1996; Saito,
1994). The fact that most of the teacher’s written
comments in this study led to successful revision
perhaps suggests that teacher’s written feedback
is not harmful to L2 student revision as several
researchers previously claim.
Second, regardless of the writing context (inclass or out-of-class writing, English- or nonEnglish classes), teachers should interact more
with students. Teacher should dramatize the role
of a reader or audience who communicates with
students via written exploratory response (R.
Lunsford & Straub, 1995). By giving exploratory
responses, teachers hold students accountable for
their decision-making in their revision process
(Anson, 1989; Ferris, 2003, 2004).
Third, perhaps due to the fact that ESL students’
writing is developing and ESL students are trying
out with their second language, writing teachers
should show more interest in the students’ papers,
consider the students as emerging writers (Weaver,
2008) and be concerned about student writer behind

98

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

the text (Elbow, 1998; R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995).

Instead of using authoritative voice, a teacher should
perform a role “that allows her to ‘discuss’ a paper
with the writer” (R. Lunsford & Straub, 1995, p.
373). Indirect feedback, as Ferris concludes, leads
students to “cognitive problem-solving,” because
students may be able to “self-edit” after receiving
teacher comments (Ferris, 2004, p. 60).
The fact that the students in this study used
only two writing prompts to write their papers,
and most of their other writings came from their
self-selected topics may help writing teachers
have better teaching strategies. Instead of forcing
students to follow the prompts, rules and the like,
teachers may want to encourage ESL students to
write more descriptively, even to engage more in
out-of-class writing (e.g., free-writing and journal
writing) to develop nuances and fluency (Fulwiler,
1987). Responding should help L2 student writers
improve ability to scrutinize their writing, and more
important, increase their confidence in using their
written language (Ferris, 2004; Lindemann, 1987;
Shaughnessy, 1977; Weaver, 2008).
Though the study helped to confirm that
teacher’s written feedback was helpful to L2 student
revision, due to its scale, it inherently compounds
several weaknesses. The first concern is the limited
number of subjects. Though a number of writings
were collected spanning over two semesters and
though this was a pilot study for a future research
with larger sample, only three students would not

be a perfect representative sample. The second
drawback involves the number of teachers who
provided written response. Only one teacher
researcher responding to the student writings limits
the chances for generalization to other teachers
and students. Third, the study focused on informal
writing (under no time or grading pressure).
Therefore care should be taken in interpreting the
results of the study when writings are produced in
on-demand, formal contexts. Clearly, these issues
merit further considerations in future studies of
teacher’s written feedback and student writing.


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

References:
1. Anson, Christ (1989), Respond styles and
ways of knowing. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and
response: theory, practice, and research (pp. 332366). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of
English.
2. Ashwell, Tim (2000), Patterns of teacher
response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: is content feedback
followed by form feedback the best method?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
3. Barnes, Walter (1913), The reign of red ink.
The English Journal, 2(3), 158-165.
4. Beason, Larry (1993), Feedback and revision
in writing across the curriculum classes. Research

in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422.
5. Bitchener, John. (2008), Evidence in support
of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi: 10.1016/j.
jslw.2007.11.004
6. Bitchener, John, & Ferris, Dana (2012).,Written
corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. New York: Routledge.
7. Bitchener, John, & Knoch, Ute (2008), The
value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research,
12(3), 409-431. doi: 10.1177/1362168808089924
8. Bitchener, John, Young, Stuart, & Cameron,
Denise (2005), The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191205. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
9. Bruton, Anthony (2009a), Designing research
into the effects of grammar correction in L2
writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 18(2), 136-140. doi: 10.1016/j.
jslw.2009.02.005
10. Bruton, Anthony (2009b), Improving
accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even
if it were. System, 37(4), 600-613. doi: 10.1016/j.
system.2009.09.005
11. Bruton, Anthony (2010), Another reply to
Truscott on error correction: Improved situated

designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491-498. doi:
10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001

12. Carpenter, George Rice, Baker, Franklin
T., & Scott, Fred Newton (1913), The teaching of
English in the elementary and the secondary school.
New York: Longmans, Green, and co.
13. Chandler, Jean (2003), The efficacy of
various kinds of error feedback for improvement
in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267296. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
14. Cohen, Andrew, & Cavalcanti, Marilda
(1990), Feedback on written compositions: teacher
and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: research insights for the
classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
15. Connors, Robert, & Lunsford, Andrea (1988),
Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College
Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research. College
Composition and Communication, 39(4), 395-409.
16. Conrad, Susan, & Goldstein, Lynn
(1999), ESL student revision after teacher-written
comments: text, contexts, and individuals. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 147-179.
17. Crone-Blevins, Deborah E. (2002), The art
of response. English Journal, 91(6), 93-98.
18. Elbow, Peter, (1998), Writing without
teachers. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
19. Enginarlar, Hüsnü (1993), Student response
to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2),
193-204.
20. Fathman, Ann, & Whalley, Elizabeth (1990),

Teacher response to student writing: focus on form
versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language
writing: research insights for the classroom (pp.
178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Fazio, Lucy L. (2001), The effect of
corrections and commentaries on the journal
writing accuracy of minority- and majoritylanguage students. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10(4), 235-249. doi: 10.1016/s10603743(01)00042-x
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

99


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
22. Ferris, Dana (1995a), Student reactions to
teacher response in multiple-draft composition
classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
23. Ferris, Dana. (1995b), Teaching ESL
composition students to become independent selfeditors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
24. Ferris, Dana (1997), The Influence of
teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
25. Ferris, Dana (1999), The case for grammar
correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 1-10.
26. Ferris, Dana (2001), Teaching writing
for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M.

Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English
for academic purposes (pp. 298-314). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
27. Ferris, Dana (2003), Response to student
writing: implications for second language students.
Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Ferris, Dana (2004), The “Grammar
correction” Debate in L2 Writing: where are we,
and where do we go from here? (and what do we do
in the meantime ...?). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 13(1), 49-62.
29. Ferris, Dana (2011), Treatment of error in
second-language student writing. Ann Arbor: The
University of Michigan Press.
30. Ferris, Dana (2006), Does error feedback
help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In
K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second
Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Ferris, Dana (2010), Second language writing
research and written corrective feedback in SLA:
Intersections and practical applications. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
32. Ferris, Dana, & Roberts, Barrie (2001),
Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10(3), 161-184.

100

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

33. Ferris, Dana, Brown, Jeffrey, Liu, Hsiang, &
Stine, Maria Eugenia Arnaudo (2011), Responding
to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher
Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234.
doi: 10.5054/tq.2011.247706
34. Ferris, Dana, Chaney, J, Komura, K, Roberts,
J, & McKee, S. (2000, March), Perspectives,
problems, and practices in treating written error.
Paper presented at the International TESOL
Convention, Vancouver, BC.
35. Ferris, Dana, & Helt, M. (2000), Was
Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error
correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at
the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, BC.
36. Ferris, Dana, Pezone, Susan, Tade, Cathy,
& Tinti, Sharee (1997), Teacher commentary on
student writing: Descriptions and implications.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155-182.
37. Freedman, S.W., Greenleaf, C., & Sperling,
M. (1987), Response to student writing: National
Council of Teachers of English.
38. Fulwiler, Toby (1987), The Journal book.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Guénette, Danielle (2007), Is feedback
pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in
studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. doi: 10.1016/j.

jslw.2007.01.001
39. Hartshorn, K. James, Evans, Norman W.,
Merrill, Paul F., Sudweeks, Richard R., StrongKrause, Diane, & Anderson, Neil J. (2010). Effects
of Dynamic Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing
Accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109. doi:
10.5054/tq.2010.213781
40. Hedgcock, John, & Lefkowitz, Natalie
(1994), Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner
receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141163. doi: Doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4
41. Hedgcock, John, & Lefkowitz, Natalie
(1996), Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of
Student Response to Expert Feedback in L2 Writing.
The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.


NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v

42. Higgs, Theodore, & Clifford, Ray (1982),
The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.),
Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language
teacher (pp. 57-79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook
Company.
43. Hyland, Fiona (1998), The impact of teacher
written feedback on individual writers. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
44. Hyland, Fiona, & Hyland, Ken (2001),
Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written
feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,
10(3), 185-212.

45. Hyland, Ken, & Hyland, Fiona (2006),
Feedback on second language students’ writing.
Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. doi: 10.1017/
s0261444806003399
46. Kepner, Christine G. (1991), An experiment
in the relationship of yypes of written feedback to
the development of second language writing skills.
Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
47. Leki, Ilona, (1990), Coaching from the
margins: issues in written response. In B. Kroll
(Ed.), Second language writing: research insights
for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
48. Lunsford, Andrea A, & Lunsford, Karen J.
(2008), “ Mistakes Are a Fact of Life”: A National
Comparative Study. College Composition and
Communication, 781-806.
49. Lunsford, Andrea, & Connors, Robert
(1993), Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student
papers. College Composition and Communication,
44(2), 200-223.
50. Lunsford, Ronald, & Straub, Richard (1995),
Twelve readers reading: responding to college
student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
51. Lunsford, Ronald, & Straub, Richard (2006),
Twelve reades reading: A survey of contemporary
teachers’ commenting strategies. In R. Straub (Ed.),
Key Works on Teacher Response: An Anthology
(pp. 159-189). Portsmouth: NH: Boynton/Cook
Publishers.

52. Mathison-Fife, Jane, & O’Neill, Peggy

(1997), Re-seeing research on response. College
Composition and Communication, 48(2), 274-277.
53. NWP. (2009), Analytic writing continuum.
CA: Berkeley: National Writing Project.
54. Polio, Charlene, Fleck, Catherine, & Leder,
Nevin (1998), “If I only had more time”: ESL
learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay
revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing,
7(1), 43-68. doi: 10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90005-4
55. Radecki, Patricia, & Swales, John (1988),
ESL student reaction to written comments on their
written work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
56. Robb, Thomas, Ross, Steven, & Shortreed,
Ian, (1986), Salience of Feedback on Error and Its
Effect on EFL Writing Quality. TESOL Quarterly,
20(1), 83-95.
57. Saito, Hiroko (1994), Teachers’ practices
and students’ preferences for feedback on second
language writing: A case study of adult ESL
learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
58. Semke, Harriet (1984), Effects of the red
pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
59. Shaughnessy, Mina P. (1977), Errors and
expectations: a guide for the teacher of basic
writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
60. Sheppard, Ken. (1992), Two feedback types:
Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1),
103-110.

61. Smith, Summer (1997), The genre of the
end comment: conventions in teacher responses
to student writing. College Composition and
Communication, 48(2), 249-268.
62. Sperling, Melanie (1994), Constructing the
perspective of teacher-as-reader: a framework for
studying response to student writing. Research in
the Teaching of English, 28(2), 175-207.
63. Sperling, Melanie (1996), Revealing the
teacher-as-reader in response to students’ writing.
English Journal, 85(1), 22-26.
64. Sperling, Melanie, & Freedman, Sarah
(1987), A good girl writes like a good girl: Written
response to student writing. Written Communication,
4(4), 343-369.
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017

101


v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
65. Storch, Neomy (2010), Critical feedback on
written corrective feedback research. International
Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29.
66. Storch, Neomy, & Wigglesworth, Gillian.
(2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention
of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. doi:

10.1017/s0272263109990532
67. Straub, Richard (1997), Students’ reactions
to teacher comments: an exploratory study.
Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.
68. Straub, Richard, (2000) The practice of
response : strategies for commenting on student
writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
69. Truscott, John (1996), The case against
grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327.
70. Truscott, John (1999), The case for “The
case against grammar correction in L2 writing
classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
71. Truscott, John (2007), The effect of error
correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255272. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
72. Van Beuningen, Catherine G., De Jong,
Nivja H., & Kuiken, Folkert (2012), Evidence on the
Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction
in Second Language Writing. Language Learning,
62(1), 1-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
73.Weaver, Constance (2008), Grammar to enrich
and enhance writing. HN: Portmouth: Heinmann.
74. Wilson, M. (2009), Responsive writing
assessment. Educational Leadership, 67(3), 58-62.
75. Zamel, Vivian. (1985), Responding to
Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.
76. Zinsser, W.K. (2006), On writing well:

The classic guide to writing nonfiction: Harper
Paperbacks.

HOW TEACHER’S REFLECTIVE WRITTEN FEEDBACK MAKES A DIFFERENCE
TO ESL STUDENTS’ REVISION
TRUONG ANH TUAN, LANNIN AMY, NGO QUY CHUNG
Abstract: Teacher’s written feedback is arguably the most widely adopted method by English
teachers; yet it is time consuming and the least understood. In the current study, teacher’s
reflective written teacher feedback and its effects on L2 students’ writing revision and quality
were explored. Over thirty drafts from 15 themes were collected from three L2 college students
during two academic semesters (24 weeks). The influence of teacher feedback on the students’
revision were analyzed using Ferris’s rating scale while the students’ writing quality was evaluated
by holistic and analytical scoring following a version of the National Writing Project’s analytic
writing continuum. The analyses showed that teacher’s written reflective feedback was helpful
to L2 students’ revision. More than two thirds of teacher’s comments led to successful revision.
Final drafts also scored statically significantly higher than first drafts. Individual raters reported
that final drafts tended to be richer in content, more organized, and clearer voice while no clear
effect in word choice and conventions was found. The findings suggested several implications for
response practices in the context of L2 writing.
Keywords: writing response, written feedback, reflective feedback, L2 writing.
Received: 11/04/2017; Revised: 11/5/2017; Accepted for publication: 28/6/2017

102

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

Số 08 - 7/2017