Recent Changes - Search:

CompFAQs Home

CBW Home (new window)

Basic Writing @ CompFAQs

Feedback and Basic Writing

Technology Tools

Generation 1.5 Students

Teaching Basic Writing

Assess & Respond

Course (Re)Design

Teaching Strategies

Basic Writing and Service-Learning

Teaching Reading in Basic Writing

ELL Student Writing

Trends Shown in the CBW Survey of Basic Writing Programs

Basic Writing Resources

Best Practices Home

Personal Writing

Collaborative Practices
Course Credit
Theme-Based Courses

BW Teacher Reading List

BW Grad Syllabi Home

edit SideBar

Feedback and Basic Writing Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliography

Because “feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement” (Hattie and Timperley 81), there has been an a lot of scholarship produced throughout the years.

Sources for Teacher Feedback

Anson, Chris. “Reflective Reading: Developing Thoughtful Ways to Respond to Students’ Writing.” Key Works on Teacher

Response: An Anthology. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2006. 361 382. Print.

This article explores what influences teachers when responding to student writing; these include timing, institutional standards, personal belief, goals, and circumstances. Chris Anson also discusses some alternative responses and evaluations.

Auten, Janet & Melissa Pasterkiewicz. “The Third Voice in the Session: Helping Students Interpret Teachers’ Comments on

Their Papers.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 32.4. (2007): 1–6. Print

Using their unique perspective of working in a college writing center, Janet Auten and Melissa Pasterkiewicz explain how students interpret the comments left on their papers by their teachers. A specific example is used to show the student’s mistakes and frustrations at the teacher’s written feedback.

Bardine, Bryan A., Molly Schmitz Bardine, and Elizabeth F. Deegan. “Beyond the Red Pen: Clarifying Our Role in the

Response Process.” English Journal 90.1 (2000): 94–101. Print.

Even though Bryan Bardin, Molly Schmitz Bardine and Elizabether Deegan talk about high school students in this article, the observations are easily applied to basic writers. Both the teachers’ and the students’ perspectives of written feedback are shown.

Butler, John. “Remedial Writers: The Teacher’s Job as Corrector of Papers.” College Composition and Communication

31.3 (1980): 270–277. Print.

John Butler gives reasons and examples as to why teachers should use different kinds of responses to the remedial (basic writer) students than they do to “better” writers. These responses should be simple and positive so that the remedial student can both understand what the teacher is communicating and be encouraging.

Daiker, Donald A. “Learning to Praise.” Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Ed. Chris M. Anson. Urbana, IL:

NCTE, 1989. 103–113. Print.

Believing that it is easier for teachers to respond to mistakes than it is to praise; Donald Daiker encourages the practicing of intentional praise. He gives examples of how to do this within the four response levels.

Frances, Zak. “Excluseively Postitive Responses to Student Writing.” Journal of Basic Writing 9.2 (1990): 40–45. Print.

After studying the results of a research project comparing the effects of using a mixture of different types of feedback with using only positive feedback, Zak Frances finds that there are no significant differences in their performances. The students who were only given positive feedback did seem to begin changes and corrections independently.

Gilbert, Mike. “Responding to Writers: What I Value.” English Journal 79.5 (1990): 49–51. Print.

Mike Gilbert explains what he finds of value in student writing. Responses directed to the student influence the perception of the classroom beging a safe place to write.

Hattie, John, and Helen Timperley. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77.1 (2007): 81–112. Print.

John Hattie and Helen Timperley feel that more learning is achieved if both the student and teacher are asking the same questions. These questions are; Where am I going? How am I going? and Where to Next?

Murray, Don. Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching. New Jersey: Boynton/Cook, 1982. Print

In Don Murray’s essay, “What Can You Say Besides Awk?” how teachers misunderstand the uses of written feedback is explored. Praise and simple comments are crucial for feedback to be productive in students’ revision process.

Sweeney, Marilyn Ruth. “Relating Revision Skills to Teacher Commentary.” Teaching English in the Two Year College 27.2

(1999): 213–218. Print.

Students receive both inductive and deductive feedback from teachers. Marilyn Sweeney looks at how basic writing students can be affected by both practices.

Treglia, Maria Ornella. “Feedback on Feedback: Exploring Student Response to Teachers’ Written Commentary.”

Journal of Basic Writing 27.1 (2008): 105–135. Print

Maria Treglia advocates the use of mitigation in written teacher responses to student’s writing. This can help minimize the chance of hurt feelings which aids in the revision process.

Sources for Teacher Feedback: Verbal

Anson, Chris M. “Response Styles and Ways of Knowing.”Anson, Chris M. ed. Writing and Response:

Theory, Practice, and Research. Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1989. Print.

Chris Anson’s study looks at different styles of feedback by a pool of teachers. Anson looks at the different methods and analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each.

Beach, Richard. “Showing Students How to Assess: Demonstrating Techniques for Response in

the Writing Conference.” Anson, Chris M. ed. ‘’Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and
Research.’‘ Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1989. Print.

Richard Beach strongly believes that response alone teaches students to assess their own work. Beach asserts that by questioning students on motives and meanings they will learn to look at their own work critically.

Butler, John F. “Remedial Writers: The Teacher’s Job as Corrector of Papers.” ‘’College

Composition and Communication.’‘ 31.3 (1980): 270–277. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

John Butler’s theory that there is a disconnect between what the teacher means by a mark on a paper and what the students sees are two very different things, is explored in this article.

Harris, Muriel. Teaching One-to-One: The Writing Conference. Urbana, Ill: National Council →of Teachers of English, 1986. Print.

Muriel Harris’s guide is an all encompassing look at verbal feedback. Every step of the conferencing process is covered from the rationale of conferencing to activities and strategies to implement.

Luban, Nina, Ann Matsuhashi and Tom Reigstad. “One-to-One to Write: Establishing an Individual-

Conference Writing Place.” The English Journal. 67.8 (1978): 30–35. Web. 10 Dec. 2012.

Nina Luban et al. examine the process that needs to be taken to establish a verbal response system on the secondary level. The article also provides a section on the practice of verbal feedback and how it should be structured.

Madigan, Chris. “Applying Sonald Murray’s ‘Responsive Teaching.’” ‘’College Composition and

Communication.’‘ 39.1 (1988): 74–77. Web. 5 Dec. 2012

In praise of Donald Murray’s conferencing technique Chris Madigan expounds on the virtues of conferencing in contrast to written teacher feedback. Madigan explains the way he approaches conferencing and how it has improved his ability to teach.

Monroe, Barbara. “Feedback: Where It’s at Is Where It’s At.” The English Journal. 92.1 →(2002): 102–104. Web. 1 Dec. 2012.

Barbara Monroe searches for alternatives from what she belives is the number one cause of English teacher burnout, marking papers. Monroe proposes alternatives and how to implement them into a classroom.

Murray, Donald M. Learning by Teaching: Selected Articles on Writing and Teaching. 2nd.

Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1982. Print.

A major voice in basic writing Donald Murray explains his method of teaching writing by not marking papers. Murray presents his finding that students learn more by figuring it out themselves by using him as a sounding board.

Sweeney, Marilyn Ruth. “Relating Revision Skills to Teacher Commentary.” TETYC. (1999): →213–218. Web. 9 Dec. 2012.

Marilyn Sweeney looks at differences in means of response. Different types of response are deemed to be more helpful for verbal versus written feedback.

Thomas, Dene and Gordon Thomas. “The Use of Rogerian Reflection in Small-Group Writing

Conferences. ” Anson, Chris M. ed. Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research.
Urbana, Ill.: NCTE, 1989. Print.

Dene and Gordon Thomas analyze the use of small group feedback as a means of both teacher and peer response. The argue that writing is collaborative and ideas need to be talked through at all stages of the writing process.

Sources for Peer Feedback

Carless, David, and Ngar-Fun Liu. “Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment.”

Teaching in Higher Education 11.3 (2006): 279–290. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Carless and Liu focus on peer feed back and assessment, finding peer feedback to be more effective for student learning if they are able to give feedback without being graded on that feedback.

Ching, Kory Lawson. “Peer Response in the Composition Classroom: An Alternative Genealogy.”

Rhetoric Review 26.3 (2007): 303–319. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Kory Lawson Ching provides an alternate origin of peer response to that of Anne Ruggles Gere’s history of writing groups. She asserts that peer feedback is most effective if accompanied by an instructor’s input.

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi. “Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback

and the quality of revised writing.” Assessing Writing 16 (2011): 274–292. Web. 24 Nov.

Nuwar Mawlai Diab compares peer review and self review, and whether one is more effective than the other, and how. The information was gathered through a study of a control group who self edited and an experimental group whose work was peer reviewed, and concluded in favor of peer review.

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi. “Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language

errors in revised drafts.” System 38 (2010) 85–95. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Similar to the study done that compares peer review and self review, and whether one is more effective than the other, however no control group was used, conclusions were drawn from analyzation of final drafts.

Dünnebier, Katrin, Narciss, Susanne, Strijbos, Jan-Willem. “Peer feedback content and sender’s

competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback →perceptions and efficiency?” Learning and Instruction 20 (2010): 291–303. Web. 24 Nov.

Dünnebier et al. identify two types of peer feedback and the success or better results of each.

Fernsten, Linda. “Peer Response: Helpful Pedagogy or Hellish Event.” The WAC Journal 17 (2006): 33–41. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Linda Fernsten describes her experience with a student fearful of a peer review session in a basic writing class, and connects it to an experience of peer editing a colleague’s work.

Grobman, Laurie. “Building Bridges to Academic Discourse: The Peer Group Leader in Basic

Writing Peer Response Groups.” Journal of Basic Writing 18.2 (1999): 47–68. Web.

Grobman suggests the use of a peer group leader, a student who has been through the class before, to facilitate peer workshopping.

McMahon, Tim. “Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: using action research to overcome →students’ reluctance to criticise.” Educational Action Research 18.2 (2012): 273–287.

Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Tim McMahon describes a research project in which he implemented a program designed to generate high-quality peer feedback through critical response.

Nilson, Linda B. “Improving Student Peer Feedback.” College Teaching 51.1 (2003): 34–38.

Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Linda Nilson identifies the failings of peer feedback and then presents an alternative to the peer feedback process.

Shute, Valerie J. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78.1 →(2008): 153–189. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Valerie Shute provides general information on feedback research as a whole. What kinds of feedback, what’s useful, what’s not.

Smeets, Stijn, Onghena, Patrick, Dochy Filip, Tops, Lies, Gielen, Sarah. “A comparative study

of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school
writing curriculum.” British Educational Research Journal 36.1 (2010): 143–162. Web. 20
Nov. 2012.

Smeets et al. discuss whether peer feedback can be substituted for teacher feedback, and also looks at how it can be improved.

Zhao, Huahui. “Investigating Learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on

writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom.” Assessing Writing
15 (2010): 3–17. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.

Huahui Zhao looks at the effectiveness of feedback, the differences in peer versus teacher and the effectiveness of each. Another important aspect is identifying whether students understanding feedback, and how that informs their revision process.

Sources for What are Some Alternative Forms of Feedback?

Grobman, Laurie. “Building Bridges to Academic Discourse: The Peer Group Leader in Basic

Writing Peer Response Groups.” Journal of Basic Writing 18.2 (1999): 47–68. Web.

Because Basic Writers often do not see themselves as experts, Grobman creates the role of the peer-group leader to bridge the gap between basic writing students and the academy, and to model giving responses to student writing. This peer is chosen as a former basic writing student who has been successful in first year writing.

Harris, Muriel. “Collaborations Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center

Tutorial vs. Peer-Response Groups.” College Composition and Communication 43.3
(1992): 369–383. Web.

In this article, Harris asserts the differences between writing center tutoring and peer classroom feedback, namely that tutors are trained to ask questions of the writer, set an agenda, and focus on the writer in a way that peer response often does not accomplish.

Newkirk, Thomas. “Direction and Misdirection in Peer Response.” ‘’College Composition and

Communication’‘ 35.3 (1984): 300–11. Web.

Newkirk conducts a study to determine the similarities and differences between instructor and student responses to student writing. He found that instructors were unable to predict what appeals to students, and, likewise students incorrectly predicted what their instructors prefer in student writing.

North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English 46.5 (1984): 433–446. Web.

North re-defines the image of the writing center by debunking impressions that it is a editorial center for failing writers, and instead championing the idea that writing centers exist to help all writers to become better and more effective at what they do.

Edit - History - Print - Recent Changes - Search
Page last modified on May 09, 2013, at 08:58 AM