5 Responding to writing Dana Ferris Response to student writing and its effects on writers is a vitally important topic for second language (L2) writing teachers and researchers. For many teachers, the act of responding (whether orally or in writing) represents the largest investment of time they make as writing instructors. For students, the feedback they receive from both instructors and peers may be the most significant component in their successful development as writers. The potential value of teacher feedback has been highlighted by the widespread adoption over the past fifteen years of a process ap- proach in North American English as a second language (ESL) writing classrooms (see Matsuda, Chapter 1 this volume), meaning that students have the opportunity to receive and review teacher feedback and then to submit revised versions of their papers. Further, the increased empha- sis on other forms of response in both native language (L1) and second language (L2) composition teaching, such as teacher-student conferences and peer feedback, may also be attributed to the popularity of the process approach with its cycles of multiple drafts. The nature and effects of teacher commentary and peer feedback in L2 writing classes have both been widely investigated over the past decade. This chapter looks first at historical perspectives on response to student writing and then moves to a discussion of key issues (and their pedagogi- cal implications) in teacher and peer response to [2 writing that have been identified by previous research. Finally, it highlights questions and strate- gies for future studies on this vitally important area of L2 composition research, ~ Perspectives on response to student writing As noted by Leki (1990a), initial L1 research concerning written teacher commentary on student writing revealed a discouraging picture, with teachers finding that regardless of their comments, students’ writing did not improve in subsequent writing tasks. A frequently cited early L1 review asserts, “We have scarcely a shred of empirical evidence to show that students typically even comprehend our responses to their writing, 119120. Dana Ferris let alone use them purposefully to modify their practice” (Knoblauch & Brannon, 1981, p. 1). Reviews by Hillocks (1986) and Knoblauch and Brannon (1981) concluded that regardless of how written teacher feedback was delivered (in the margins or at the end of the paper, in red or black pen, through correction symbols or verbal commentary, tc.), it appeared to be unsuccessful in helping students to improve their writing; worse, students seemed either to resent or ignore teacher feed- back. To the “composition slaves” of the world — teachers toiling away late into the night to provide comments or corrections on student papers (Hairston, 1986) - the conclusions of these research reviews were dis- couraging indeed. The resulting widespread view that teacher feedback was ineffective and unappreciated by students undoubtedly contributed to the corresponding rise in the use of peer feedback and teacher-student conferencing in writing classes, classroom concepts that later came to be termed collaborative approaches.” The next phase in the history of response to student writing thus focused on strategies considered less “appropriative” (i.e., directly or indirectly forcing onto the author of a paper the teacher's views of what student writing should achieve). As chronicled by Zhang (1995), in na- tive language composition, peer feedback was widely adopted because it was seen as more appealing and less threatening and disempowering than teacher commentary. When teachers did give feedback, they were encour- aged to do so in face-to-face teacher-student writing conferences, again seen as preferable to written teacher feedback because conferences of- fered students opportunity for on-the-spot negotiation and clarification. As time went on, other researchers began to point out that the response-and-revision dynamic was far-more complex than previous studies and reviews had considered. Most early studies had been conducted in contexts in which students wrote only one draft of a paper, submitted it to the teacher for correction and evaluation, and then moved onto the next writing assignment. As students and teachers increas- ingly adopted multiple-draft approaches to writing instruction, it became important for researchers to consider carefully the effects of feedback on student writing given prior to asking students to revise their papers. In addition, scholars argued that earlier teacher feedback studies were too decontextualized, looking at the student paper and written teacher com- ments in isolation without considering anything else about the writing class or the relationships between teachers and students (see Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997; Leki, 1990a; Mathison-Fife & O*Neill, 1997; Reid, 1994; Silva, 1988, for discussions of these contextual issues). Given the differing contexts in which research was conducted, it should not be surprising that results of studies and researchers’ interpretations of their findings in the area of responding to writing have been somewhat inconclusive and even contradictory (not unlike the findings in other areasResponding to writing 121 of L2 research). In a recent review of numerous studies on teacher com- mentary in the English as a second language (ESL} or English asa foreign language (EFL) context, Goldstein (2001) calls on future researchers to remember that “[b]ecause teacher commentary, student reactions to com- mentary, and student revisions interact with each other, research needs to look at all three simultaneously” (p. 86). Reid (1994) reports on an example from her own teaching that illustrates how teacher commentary taken out of context can be seen to misrepresent the dynamics of the classroom. In a unit in which her stu- dents were drafting persuasive essays late in the semester, she informed them that she would review their drafts and highlight any logical fallacies by using labels such as “hasty” or “oversimplification” in the margins. She notes: ‘An outside examiner viewing those remarks might conclude that lam being obtuse, negative, and appropriative. Instead, my students view it as a game: They fully understand the shorthand of the response, which reminds them of our classroom discussion and activates their background knowledge about logical fallacies. (p. 281, emphasis added) As researchers and theorists continue looking at all types of response to student writing, ic has become clear that such examinations need to take place within multiple-draft, longitudinal, and carefully contextualized research designs. It is encouraging to note that researchers examining response to student writing have recently begun to take seriously the need for triangulated, longitudinal research designs examining this issue and that some valuable insights have emerged as a result (c.g., Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 2001; Ferris, Chaney, Komura, Roberts, 8 McKee, 2000; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998). Further, while teacher-student conferences and peer feedback are cer- tainly appealing alternatives to written teacher feedback on student writing, they will not and should not completely replace written teacher commentary. Not all writing teachers have the time and space to hold regular one-to-one conferences with their students (due to heavy student loads and/or lack of office space). Some students may be uncomfortable with face-to-face interactions with their teachers; others may process and utilize feedback better in written than oral forms. Furthermore, peer feed- back clearly represents a different response dynamic from teacher-student feedback because of varying levels of expertise and competence on the part of student writers as well as ascribed respect and authority. Teacher and peer response ideally should co-exist peacefully within a writing class, but there is no evidence, nor have any compelling arguments been advanced, that one should completely replace the other. It is thus as- sumed in this discussion that all three types of feedback — written teacher commentary, oral teacher-student conferences, and peer feedback — areOe 122 Dana Ferris 1. Feedback is most effective when it is delivered at intermediate stages of the writing process. 2. Teachers should provide feedback on all aspects of student texts, including content, rhetorical structure, grammar, and mechanics. 3. Teacher feedback should be clear and concrete to assist siudenis with revision, At the same time, teachers need to be careful not to appropriate student texts, 4. Teacher feedback must take individual and contextual variables into aecount. 5. ESL writers attend to teacher feedback and attempt to utilize it in their revisions. \\ 6, Teacher-student writing conferences may be more complex with L2 writers. 7. There is a great deal of variation in what students talk about during peer feedback and how they interact with one another — which may be related to how the teacher models feedback and structures peer response sessions. 8. Research evidence is conflicting about the degree to which students utilize peer feedback in their revisions. 9. Students appear to enjoy peer feedback and find it help ful V Figure 5.1. Response to student writing: Generalizations from previous research qualitatively and practically different from one another and that all three forms have their legitimate roles within L2 writing instruction. Teacher response to L2 writing: Research approaches and findings Examinations of teacher commentary on student writing have included text analytic studies, quasi-experimental approaches, and survey research on student attitudes toward teacher commentary. (See Polio, Chapter 2 this volume, for a discussion of these research types.) These studies have highlighted a number of specific issues and implications for L2 writing instructors. Figure 5.1 summarizes these issues; each is discussed in suc- ceeding sections of the chapter.Responding to writing 123 FEEDBACK IS MOST EFFECTIVE WHEN IT IS DELIVERED AT INTERMEDIATE STAGES OF THE WRITING PROCESS Most L2 composition instructors, researchers, and theorists now agree that teacher feedback is most effective when it is delivered at intermedi- ate stages of the writing process, when students can respond to feedback is-fuBsequent revisions and may thus be more motivated ro attend to teacher suggestions (Ferris, 1995; Krashen, 1984; Leki, 1990a; Zamel, 1985). Thus many North American ESL writing instructors now encourage or even require students to write multiple drafts of their pa- pers, providing opportunities for feedback (written teacher commentary, teacher-student conferences, peer feedback) during and between the writ- ing of various drafts. With numerous opportunities for students to re- ceive feedback and revise, teachers can choose to focus on different issues (content, organization, grammar, style) at different stages of the writing cycle. While some scholars have urged teachers to give feedback only on content and organization in early drafts, saving sentence-level issues for the end of the process (e.g., Zamel, 1985), others have noted that ESL writers are capable of dealing effectively with more than one type of feedback on the same draft (Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1997). TEACHERS SHOULD PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON ALL ASPECTS OF STUDENT TEXTS, INCLUDING CONTENT, RHETORICAL STRUCTURE, GRAMMAR, AND MECHANICS Influenced by process approach advocates and social constructionists (see Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Johns, 1990; Silva, 1990, for sum- maries), writing instruction and assessment have increasingly focused on students’ ideas, mastery of rhetorical strategies and forms, and awareness of audience. As teachers’ priorities for student writing have changed, the types of feedback they have given students about their writing have changed as well. Though early L2 studies of teacher feedback reported that ESL writing teachers focused almost exclusively on sentence-level errors (Cumming, 1985; Kassen, 1988; Zamel, 1985), later investigations, including both student survey research and text analytic examinations of teacher commentary, indicated that teachers (perhaps influenced by the process paradigm) provided feedback that responded to students’ ideas and organization as well as their errors in grammar and mechanics (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Dessner, 1991; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Lam, 1992). Further, as teachers modeled these priorities, student writers indicated that they paid attention to and valued feedback on all aspects of their writing (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). The above generalizations would suggest that teachers should focus their feedback efforts primarily on intermediate drafts of student texts,124 Dana Ferris perhaps limiting final draft feedback to some affirmation of what the writer has done well and to a summative suggestion or two about prob- lems or issues the writer should consider for future assignments (and/or for future iterations of the paper in question if portfolio assessment is being, utilized). It also seems clear that teachers should give feedback about a variety of writing issues, including ideas, organization, gram- mar, mechanics, vocabulary, and style, depending upon the needs of the individual student, the developmental stage of the text, the specifications of the particular assignment, and the overall expectations of the writing course. TEACHER FEEDBACK SHOULD BE CLEAR AND CONCRETE TO ASSIST STUDENTS WITH REVISION. AT THE SAME TIME, TEACHERS NEED TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO APPROPRIATE STUDENT TEXTS Both L1 and L2 survey studies on student reactions to teacher feedback have reported consistent findings that students appreciate clear, concrete, specific feedback (see, for instance, Ferris, 1995, and Straub, 1997). A text analytic study linking various types of teacher comments to the effectiveness of student revisions reported that teacher questions asking for specific information or giving concrete suggestions led to more-effective student revisions than feedback that was more general or abstract (Ferris, 1997, 2001). In a recent case study of three stu- dent writers’ revisions after receiving teacher feedback, Conrad and Goldstein (1999) found that teacher comments that challenged students’ logic or argumentation were most likely to be problematic for the student writers. Such findings would indicate that ESL writing instructors should be straightforward, concrete, and fairly directive in their feedback to 12 writers. On the other hand, both Li and L2 composition scholars have warned teachers against “appropriating” (taking over) students’ texts by being too authoritative and direct in their feedback (see, e.g., Brannon & Knoblauch, 1982; Elbow, 1973; Krashen, 1984; Sommers, 1982; Zamel, 1985), When teachers cross out portions of student texts and substitute other words or ideas, make directive suggestions, or use the imperative mood, these behaviors communicate to student writers that the teacher’s priorities are more important than what the writer wants to say in his or her own text. Such appropriative behavior can frustrate, demotivate, and ( otherwise disempower student writers. To avoid appropriation, teachers have been advised and even trained to ask questions rather than to use {Statements or imperatives, to avoid the ase of “T” and “you” (as in “you should . ..”), to use hedges to soften criticism or suggestions, and to com- \ municate thaeany tevisiousiareilett solelyrasthetllecrecion of thatexts author.Responding to writing 125 A number of L2 researchers and teachers have questioned whether a “nonappropriative” approach to feedback is optimal for L2 writers. Leki (1990a), commenting on this issue, notes that while Knoblauch and Brannon’s interesting perspective on improvement may well be pertinent for Ll writers, the peculiar situation of L2 writers makes adoption of their attitudes somewhat more problematic for the L2 writing teacher. Ant element of prescription appears necessary in responses to 2 student papers because L2 students have a smaller backlog of experience with English grammatical and rhetorical structure to fall back on, not having had the same exposure to those structures as native speakers have had. (p. 59, emphasis added) Other researchers have highlighted the unique status of L2 writ- ers and resulting implications for instruction and specifically teacher feedback (Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997; Silva, 1993, 1997). Reid (1994) spoke out strongly against what she termed “the myths of appropriation,” arguing that com- position teachers, out of fear of being appropriative, were failing to distinguish between appropriation and necessary intervention. Other researchers have pointed out that L2 writers may have linguistic, cul- tural, and rhetorical differences that could cause them to misinter- pret teacher indirectness in either written comments or face-to-face conferences (Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997). Second language writ- ing teachers concerned with clarity and helpfulness on the one hand and appropriative behavior on the other must strive for a_balance be- tween the two concerns with which both they and their students feel comfortable. TEACHER FEEDBACK MUST TAKE INDIVIDUAL AND CONTEXTUAL VARIABLES INTO ACCOUNT The needs, desires, and abilities of individual student writers with regard to feedback are often overlooked by researchers and theorists. Teach- ers, in their efforts to be nonappropriative and consistent, may forget that “one size does not fit all” and that different students may re- quire different types of feedback. In the United States, several au- thors have observed that there are differences in background between international student writers and long-term U.S. residents (i.e., immi- grants) that may have specific implications for teacher feedback (Ferris, 1999; Leki, 1992; Reid, 1998; see also Harklau, Losey, & Siegal, 1999). For instance, international students may never have experienced “composing” or “revision” in their English classes in their home coun- tries and may fail to see the need or purpose for multiple drafting, re- vision, or teacher feedback (except to explain their grade and tell them126 Dana Ferris what they did “wrong”), While immigrant students may have already experienced multiple drafting and teacher feedback as characteristics of the American composition classroom, they may be unfamiliar with tech- nical jargon related to either rhetorical issues (“thesis,” “transition”) or grammatical points (“subject-verb agreement,” “sentence frag- ment”), terms they are likely to find written by teachers on their papers. It is important for writing instructors to assess their particular stu- dents’ prior experiences, knowledge, and expectations at the beginning of a course and to explain their own responding strategies to their stu- dents (see also Leki, 1992; Reid, 1998). Teachers also need to be aware of student motivations. Students and instructors in foreign language (FL) classes (e.g., students studying Spanish in the United States or English in FL contexts) tend to see writing as language practice or as a way to demonstrate comprehension of literature. Foreign language students may not be as motivated to revise and edit their writing as students who understand that their academic and future career success may depend to some degree on their ability to master the conventions of English writing (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). In sum, not all L2 writers are identical in their experience, knowledge, and motivations simply be- cause they-are-writing-in-a second language (sce Silva and Reichelt, Chapter 4 this volume, for some student voices speaking out on this topic.) Teachers also need to be aware that different types of assign- ments may lend themselves to diverse forms of feedback (Ferris et al., 1997). For instance, a teacher suggestion to “add more detail” might be very helpful if the student is working on a narrative de- scription but counterproductive if the student is working on a per- suasive text, in which extraneous detail could actually distract the reader and weaken the argument. Finally, as teachers analyze stud- ies of teacher feedback and consider their own response strategies, they should be aware of institutional and_courseconstraints on the effects of feedback. For instance, student journal entries are typically designed to build students’ fluency and reflective thinking abilities and are almost never revised by students; feedback or correction on these is not likely to have much effect on student writing. Similarly, extensive feedback on an in-class graded midterm, while it might help the student know how to approach such a task the next time, will not have the same immediate and observable effects as com- ments on an intermediate draft of an essay to be revised for a grade or to be submitted in a portfolio, Teachers, therefore, should con- sciously vary their feedback to match the goals of the writing task: responding as a reader to the content of journal entries, giving test- taking strategy tips in feedback on in-class essay exams, and givingResponding to writing 127 specific text-based suggestions on papers that students will revise again. ESL WRITERS ATTEND TO TEACHER FEEDBACK AND ATTEMPT TO UTILIZE IT IN THEIR REVISIONS As previously noted, carly L1 reviews reported discouraging findings about students’ attention to and utilization of teacher feedback. How- ever, it is important to remember that these reviews were written in the 1970s and early 1980s and were primarily studies of classes and teachers following the “current-traditional” paradigm: teachers gave feedback, along with a grade, on the ONLY draft, which was never expected to be revised. More recent L1 studies (e.g., Beason, 1993; Sperling, 1994; Straub, 1997, 2000) have indicated that although student writers may have strong feelings about the types of feedback they prefer, they nonethe- less appreciate and take seriously the comments and suggestions made by their teachers. Early ESL studies focused only on the effects of error correction on student writing, reporting similarly discouraging results (see Leki, 1990a; Truscott, 1996, for reviews). Again, however, when researchers began to look at the effects of feedback in multiple-draft settings, they quickly saw that L2 writers were just as inclined (maybe more so) as their L1 peers to attend to and address their teachers’ feedback. Such evi- dence comes from some of the research paradigms discussed by Polio (Chapter 2 this volume), including student survey research, text anal- ysis, and quasi-experimental studies (e.g., Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2001; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Kepner, 1991; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997). How- ever, because ESL writers are likely to at least attempt to follow their teachers’ suggestions in revision does not always mean they will be suc- cessful in doing so (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Ferris, 1997, 2001). As already noted, research on the effects of teacher feedback indicates that ESL writers may be more capable of dealing successfully with some types of comments than others (e.g., statements rather than indirect requests or suggestions). Though this body of research is still too small and pre- liminary for definitive pronouncements, it is fair to say that since ESL writers will likely take teacher feedback very seriously, teachers need to be thoughtful in providing feedback, helpful in showing students how to revise their texts successfully (with or without feedback), and determined to hold students accountable for at least considering feedback they have received (see Ferris, 1997, 2001) Student survey research on reactions to teacher commentary has also been helpful in highlighting the types of comments ESL writers appre- ciate and feedback that is (at least occasionally) problematic for them. For instance, students indicate that they appreciate praise but not at the128 Dana Ferris expense of constructive criticism, that they struggle with understanding correction symbols and codes, that teacher questions may either be too specific or too general and therefore confusing, and that they value feedback on all aspects of their writing, although they feel the most strongly about receiving feedback on their grammar problems (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Leki, 1991). Finally, if asked to choose, most students prefer teacher feedback to peer- or self-evaluation (Hedgecock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Zhang, 1995). TEACHER-STUDENT WRITING CONFERENCES MAY BE MORE COMPLEX WITH L2 WRITERS As previously noted, teacher-student conferences have become a popular pedagogical tool, especially in L1 composition classes. Suggestions are plentiful on ways to implement such conferences successfully, with “success” usually defined as amount of student engagement in the discussion, particularly in books by Murray (1985) and Harris (1986). Some L1 scholars are so enthusiastic about the potential of the face-to-face writing conference that they suggest doing away with most other writing class activities so that time can be allotted for con- ferences (Carnicelli, 1980; Garrison, 1974). Though L2 writing spe- cialists are also favorably disposed toward writing conferences (see Ferris 8 Hedgcock, 1998; Zamel, 1985), almost no research has been done on the nature and effects of teacher-student conferences with ESL writers. The best-known study on writing conferences with ESL students is a case study by Goldstein and Conrad (1990). They examined the writing conferences and subsequent revisions of three university ESL writers, finding qualitative and quantitative differences in the na- ture of the conferences themselves and in their influence on students’ later writing. Goldstein and Conrad point out that “ESL students bring with them diverse cultures and languages...that potentially af- fect how students conference and how their teachers respond to them” (1990, p. 459). A related study by Patthey-Chavez and Ferris (1997) examined the first drafts, conference transcripts, revisions, and first drafts of the next assignment written by eight university composition students — half native English speakers and the other half interna- tional students. The researchers found differences in the conferences and revisions between high- and low-achieving students; however, they also found that even weaker writers attempted to utilize their teach- ers’ suggestions when revising and that all eight students improved their essays after conferences with their teachers. These two studies, covering only seven ESL writers in total, can hardly be considered conclusive.Responding to writing 129 Further, both L1 and L2 researchers have warned that “in empower- ing students to retain ownership of their writing, we force them into roles for which they are not prepared and with which they are not comfortable” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998, p. 142). Some students may have aural comprehension problems that may limit the effectiveness of conferences; others may feel inhibited from questioning or arguing with a teacher under any circumstances and may thus not understand teachers’ attempts to “empower” them, instead incorporating instruc- tors’ suggestions verbatim into their papers because of teachers’ per- ceived superior knowledge (Delpit, 1988; Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Newkirk, 1995; Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997), Ferris and Hedgcock (1998) suggest that teacher-student writing conferences may be im- plemented successfully if teachers explain the purpose, nature, and dynamics of conferences and if students take notes and/or audiotape conferences to augment their memory and place less of a burden on their aural comprehension abilities. If students are uncomfortable for cultural or personal reasons with meeting privately with an instruc- tor, conferences can be conducted in threes (two students, one teacher), during class with peers otherwise engaged, or online via e-mail (see Pennington, Chapter 12 this volume, for further discussion of online possibilities) Peer response in L2 writing classes: An overview Potential benefits and drawbacks of peer feedback Second language writing teachers and researchers appear to hold attitudes toward peer feedback that are almost exactly opposite their views on teacher response. Although few practitioners muster much enthusiasm about the work involved in giving feedback to their student writers (mainly because it is so labor-intensive), most nonetheless would acknowledge the necessity for teacher feedback, and all would agree that their students seem to expect it. In con- trast, a great deal of excitement — mostly coming from L1 research and pedagogy — has been generated by the notion of peers giv- ing each other feedback. However, as research and practice have in- tersected, L2 writing teachers and theorists have begun increasingly to question the appropriateness of peer response activities for ESL writers. Ferris and Hedgcock (1998, pp. 170-171) summarize various poten- tial benefits claimed by advocates of peer response: Students can take active roles in their own learning (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994).130 Dana Ferris Students can “reconceptualize their ideas in light of their peers’ reac- tions” (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994, p. 746). Students can engage in unrehearsed, low-risk, exploratory talk, which is less feasible in whole-class or teacher-student interactions. Students receive “reactions, questions, and responses from authentic readers” (Mittan, 1989, p. 209, but see Leki, 1990b, and Newkirk, 1984 for counterarguments to this assertion). Students receive feedback from multiple sources (Chaudron, 1983; € Mittan, 1989). : Students gain a clearer understanding of audience (readers’) needs by receiving feedback on what they have done well and on what remains unclear (Mittan, 1989; Moore, 1986; Witbeck, 1976}. Responding to peers’ writing builds the critical skills needed to analyze and revise one’s own writing (Leki, 1990b; Mittan, 1989). Students gain confidence (or reduce apprehension) by seeing peers’ strengths and weaknesses in writing (Leki, 1990b; Mittan, 1989). a However, a number of scholars, researchers, and teachers have also raised various concerns and objections about peer response: ¢ Students misunderstand the purposes for peer feedback and are un- comfortable with it (Leki, 1990b; Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995). « ¢, Peer feedback activities can be especially uncomfortable for students nS ,o° from “collectivist” cultures, who are more interested in group solidarity than individual achievement (Allaci 8 Connor, 1990; Carson, 1992; Sw Carson & Nelson, 1994, 1996). a ¢ Students, due to their limitations as both developing writers and L2 learners, are simply not very good at giving one another helpful feed- back, thus calling into question the time and effort needed to implement peer response (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Leki, 1990b; Nelson & Carson, 1998). Research on peer feedback Research on written teacher commentary and teacher-student confer- ences has been relatively sparse, but there has been a proliferation of stud- ies on peer response in L2 writing classes over the past ten years.* This body of research has examined the nature of interaction in peer feedback dyads or groups (including analysis of the substance of comments made in addition to participation dynamics and stances taken by peers), the effects of peer response on student writing, and student attitudes toward peer re- sponse. From these studies emerge three generalizations about the contentResponding to writing 131 of peer feedback, its effects on revision, and student reactions to peer re- sponse. Next, these generalizations are presented and discussed briefly. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF VARIATION IN WHAT STUDENTS TALK ABOUT DURING PEER FEEDBACK AND HOW THEY INTERACT WITH ONE ANOTHER — WHICH MAY BE RELATED TO HOW THE TEACHER MODELS FEEDBACK AND STRUCTURES PEER RESPONSE SESSIONS Several researchers have looked at the nature of commentary peers give about other students’ papers (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Villamil & deGuerrero, 1996). Though terminology and methodology haye varied from one study to another, these researchers have examined issues such as the aspect of the texts students focused on (e.g., thesis, support, me- chanical issues, organization), whether they asked questions or offered critical evaluations or suggestions, and what personae or “stances” they assumed (¢.g., prescriptive, interpretive, or collaborative). It is difficult, because of the differences across these studies, to offer generalizations about their findings, but it is fair to say that all four sets of researchers found peer feedback to be a complex process affected by a wide variety of interpersonal and contextual factors and that a wide variety of feedback types and stances appeared to benefit a range of student writers in various ways. Further, both L1 and L2 researchers (e.g., Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Howard, 2001) have suggested that peer feedback, for better or for worse, can be influenced by the priorities modeled by the teacher in giving feedback and in structuring the class in general and peer response sessions in particular. For instance, if the teacher functions primarily as proof- reader, marking grammar, spelling, and punctuation without ever giving substantive comments on content, students giving each other feedback may follow the teacher’s lead and focus on the same issues. In addition, a key to successful peer feedback sessions is prior training of students to be effective responders (Berg, 1999; Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Mittan, 1989; Stanley, 1992). One specific pedagogical issue that arises is the degree to which in- structors should structure peer response sessions by providing specific questions or tasks on a “feedback form” to which peers respond, either orally or in writing, in conjunction with peer feedback activities. Some writers, concerned again with issues of teacher appropriation, have advo- cated leaving peer response largely unstructured and allowing students to set their own agendas (see Elbow, 1973; Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Nelson & Murphy, 1992/93). Others have argued that novice student writers (espe- cially L2 writers) lack necessary schemata to assess each other’s writing, to give helpful feedback, and to frame such feedback in appropriate terms (e.g., Mittan, 1989; Reid, 1994). This latter view would support peer132. Dana Ferris feedback sessions that are “teacher-choreographed” — including care- ful modeling and training of students prior to beginning peer feedback activities, providing, specific tasks and questions for peer feedback ses- sions, and building in accountability mechanisms so that both responder and receiver would take the feedback process seriously (see Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998). RESEARCH EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING ABOUT THE DEGREE TO WHICH STUDENTS UTILIZE PEER FEEDBACK IN THEIR REVISIONS Studies of the effects of peer response on students’ subsequent revisions have focused on one or more of the following issues: (1))Do students uti- lize their peers’ comments when they revise (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993)2(2) What sorts of revisions do students make after receiving peer feedback (Bérger, 1990; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Huang, 1994; Resh, 1994)?(3)Does peer feedback help students to improve their papers (Hedgcock& Lefkowitz, 1992; Resh, 1994)? Results of these studies have been mixed. Connor and Asenavage (1994) report that only 5 percent of student revisions were attributable to comments made by their peers, while Mendonca and Johnson (1994) found that their participants utilized peer feedback in $3 percent of their revisions. Berger (1990) found that the major- ity of her subjects made only surface changes, while Connor and Ase- navage noted that at least some of their subjects made more text-based (global) changes after receiving peer feedback. As already noted, sub- jects and research methodologies varied widely in these studies, so it is difficult to draw conclusions about the effects of peer response in all contexts. For instance, Connor and Asenavage’s eight subjects were fresh- men who also received teacher feedback prior to undertaking revision; Mendonca and Johnson’s subjects, however, were graduate students, most of whom were paired with peers in the same academic discipline. Further, the graduate students were writing papers about their own aca- demic fields, but the freshmen were writing on more general composi- tion class topics. Under such circumstances, it stands to reason that this latter group of students would hold their peers’ feedback in higher re- gard than the freshmen writers would, especially when students knew that they would also receive feedback from the teacher on the same draft. To consider the overall “effects” of peer feedback, a number of issues need to be looked at more extensively by researchers: * Were students trained or prepared for peer feedback, and did this prepa ration affect the substance of their peer feedback sessions and how they subsequently approached revision?Responding to writing 133 r © Dostudents give more-effective feedback and take the process more se- riously when teachers structure the process for them, or when students themselves have the responsibility to choose the direction, tone, and focus of the peer response sessions? © Is peer response implemented regularly in the writing class, and are students placed in consistent pairings or groupings? ¢ Are teacher expectations for peer response clear and reasonable? When such questions have been examined systematically in a body of research, then we can more accurately assess the nature and effects of peer response and determine whether it is beneficial for L2 writers (or at least for some of them). Because at least some studies have suggested that students do utilize peer suggestions in revision, it is premature to suggest, as some have done (e.g., Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995), that peer feedback is not appropriate for ESL writers. STUDENTS APPEAR TO ENJOY PEER FEEDBACK AND TO FIND IT HELPFUL In general, researchers have found that peer response is well received by student writers and that they enjoy the process (Leki, 1990b; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). On the other hand, students sometimes question the efficacy of peer feedback, express concern about either their peers’ competency to evaluate their work or their ability to give critical feedback constructively and not hurt- fully, and clearly prefer teacher feedback over peer feedback when asked to choose (Berger, 1990; Leki, 1990b; Zhang, 1995). To this point, the available evidence does not suggest that ESL student writers have strongly negative feelings toward peer feedback or feel that it is harmful to them. Summary of previous research As previously noted, the scarcity of research on some aspects of response to student writing and the lack of comparability of studies that do exist make it difficult, and perhaps even inappropriate, to draw hard-and- fast conclusions about how teachers should approach their own com- mentary and peer response activities. Still, several generalizations do emerge: © Students appear to appreciate and value both teacher and peer feedback and to feel that feedback helps them to improve their writing. © Teachers and peers, in providing commentary, take a wide variety of stances and cover a range of issues about student texts. Though it may have been accurate in the past to claim that teachers and peers respond only to sentence-level issues, this no longer appears to be true.| x & 134 Dana Ferris © There is considerable variation across teachers and peers giving feed- back and student writers processing it as to the nature of feedback | Biven and the ways in which the commentary is utilized by writers. This variation occurs across text types, students’ linguistic and cultural \ backgrounds, and their L2 proficiency and writing ability. \* Students, at least under some circumstances, consider and utilize \ teacher and peer feedback in constructing revisions of their texts. These revisions occur on both global and surface levels. Implications for teaching These generalizations lend themselves to several practical conclusions for responding to student writing. First, teachers should not abandon ci- ther providing feedback themselves or facilitating peer response. Though there are some caveats to this — for instance, students at lower levels of language and writing proficiency are probably less capable of processing copious teacher feedback or engaging in peer response — there is enough positive evidence that both sources of feedback are valuable to (and val- ued by) students to continue these practices until such time as there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Second, teachers should examine their own responding practices to see whether their feedback is clear and responsive to the needs of individual students and/or texts. They should also be diligent in preparing students for peer feedback, particularly in modeling the types of feedback that are most helpful and appropriate. Finally, teachers should be intentional in helping students to revise, secing that they understand and can utilize feedback they have received, and cre- ating accountability mechanisms to make sure that students are taking the response-and-revision process seriously. Limitations of previous research The review of research on written and oral teacher feedback and on "peer response has shown that many questions about response to student x writing have not been adequately considered by previous researchers. First, because of the time- and labor-intensive nature of discourse ana- lytic research, sample sizes in many studies have been quite small. It is necessary therefore to add data and observations from more teachers and students. In addition, it is important to consider the student population being studied and how the characteristics of that audience may affect the response-and-revision dynamic. For instance, newly arrived interna- tional students in the United States may have limited experience with either teacher feedback during the writing process or with peer responseResponding to writing 135 (Ferris, 1999). If they either react negatively to feedback or do not utilize it effectively in revision, this may be due more to student characteristics than to flaws in the feedback they have received. Similarly, the effects of age, maturity, educational experience, and expertise about the topic under discussion may all impact the results of the studies of response and revision, To summarize, we must be careful not to prematurely embrace or dismiss various response strategies unless adequate numbers of sub- jects and contexts have been examined using consistent methodologies and research paradigms. (See Goldstein, 2001, and Polio, Chapter 2 this volume, for a discussion of various ways to conduct rigorous research on 12 writing response.) We might, once such studies have been conducted, decide (for instance) that peer feedback is more appropriate for some student audiences than for others, or that some students could succeed with less teacher intervention. At this point, however, we have too little data to make such pronouncements. Second, there has been, for the most part, a disconnect between the suggestions of practitioners about response to student writing and research that has been conducted on various aspécts Of response. As a result, many crucial pedagogical questions remain unexamined by researchers. For example, with regard to peer feedback, a number of concrete suggestions have been offered about how to make peer re- sponse activities more effective (e.g., Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998; Mittan, 1989), These include issues such as carefully grouping students into per- manent response pairs, providing structured peer response forms, and implementing mechanisms to hold peer feedback givers and receivers accountable for taking the process seriously. Yet none of the previous studies have investigated whether such practical ideas make a difference in the nature and effects of peer response. As for teacher response, various suggestions have also been made: that teachers carefully explain their responding strategies to their stu- dents, that they give students options about the types of feedback that they would like to receive, and that teachers hold students accountable for explaining how they have (or have not) utilized the feedback they have received. It has also been suggested that teachers avoid rhetorical and grammatical jargon and indirectness and that they selectively priori- tize their feedback rather than overwhelming the student with too many criticisms and suggestions. Again, however, we have little evidence as to whether any of these ideas ultimately makes a difference in the effects of teacher commentary on student writing. Most crucially, we have almost no longitudinal evidence about the extent to which feedback helps students to improve their writing over the long term. Studies of teacher and peer feedback typically consider only how the effects can be observed in revisions of the same paper. There are few attempts to trace these effects any further. Though it136 Dana Ferris would be challenging and time-consuming to address this issue, various types of text-analytic and ethnographic approaches could be used to investigate it, to the great potential benefit of students and teachers alike. There is no doubt that “coaching from the margins” (Leki, 1990a) is a challenging and time-consuming task, whether it is undertaken through teachers’ written commentary, teacher-student conferences, or peer feed- back. However, there also appears to be little doubt among teachers or their students about the importance of feedback to students’ develop- ment as writers. We have made great strides in the past fifteen years in understanding the nature and effects of feedback, but we still have a long way to go. Most important, teachers and researchers need to iden- tify and execute a research agenda that addresses the most critical ques- tions still surrounding the processes of feedback, revision, and student development. Notes 1, This chapter focuses on research and implications regarding response to student writing that emphasizes students’ ideas and rhetorical structure. For a discussion of grammar issues in L2 writing, see Frodesen and Holten, Chapter 6 this volume. 2. Fora recent discussion on the history and use of such collaborative pedago- gies as conferencing and peer review in the L1 setting, see Howard (2001). 3. Other types of feedback that are discussed in the literature include audio- taped teacher feedback and teacher or peer response delivered electronically (via e-mail or specialized software), However, because research on these forms of feedback is as of this writing relatively rare, these options are not explored further in this chapter. 4. For a review and analysis of many of these studies on peer review in greater depth than space permits in this chapter, see Liu and Hansen (2002). References Allaei, S., & Connor, U. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural col- laboration. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28. Beason, L. (1993), Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395-421, Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241. Berger, V. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback. CATESOL Journal, 3, 21-35, Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157-166.Responding to writing 137 Carnicelli, T. A. (1980). The writing conference: A one-to-one conversation. In T, Donovan & B. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching writing (pp. 101-131). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Carson, J. G. (1992). Becoming biliterate: First language influences. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 37-60. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19. Chaudron, C. (1983). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback on revision, Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention, Toronto. (EDRS No. ED 227 706}. Cohen, A. D., & Cavaleanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B, Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Re- search insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). New York: Cambridge University Press. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276. Conrad, $., & Goldstein, L. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher writren comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-180. Cumming, A. (1985). Responding to the writing of ESL students. Highway One, 8, 58-78. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298. Dessner, L. E. (1991). English as a second language writers’ revision responses to teacher-written comments. Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(3), 827A. Elbows, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (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). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339. Ferris, D. R. (1999). One size does not fit all: Response and revision issues for immigrant student writers. In L. Harklau, K. Losey, & M. Siegal (Eds.), Generation 1.5 meets college composition (pp. 143-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for academic purposes (pp. 298-314). Cambridge; England: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D., & Hedgecock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ferris, D., Chaney, $., Komura, K., Roberts, B., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at the International TESOL Convention, Varicouver, B.C.138 Dana Ferris Ferris, D., Pezone, $., Tade, C., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 155-182. Garrison, R. (1974). One-to-one: Tutorial instruction in freshman composition. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2, 55-83. Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to student writers. In T. Silva & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), On second language writing (pp. 73-89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990), Student input and the negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460. Hairston, M. (1986). On not being a composition slave. In Charles W. Bridges (Ed.), Training the new teacher of college composition (pp. 117-124). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Harklau, L., Losey, K., & Siegal, M. (Eds.). (1999), Generation 1.5 meets college composition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harris, M. (1986). Teaching one-to-one: The writing conference. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Hedgecock, J., 8 Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255- 276. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163. Hillocks, G., Jr (1986). Research on written composition: New direc- tions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and the National Conference on Research in English. Howard, R. M. (2001). Collaborative pedagogy. In G. Tate, A. Rupiper, 8¢ K. Schick (Eds.), A guide to composition pedagogies (pp. 54-70). New York: Oxford University Press. Huang, S. (1994). Learning to critique and revise in an English-as-a-foreign- language university writing class. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(10}, 3120A. Johns, A. M. (1990). L1 composition theories: Implications for developing theo- ries of L2 composition. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). New York: Cambridge University Press. Kassen, M. A. (1988), Native and non-native speaker teacher response to foreign language learner writing: A study of intermediate-level French. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 1-15. Kepner, C, (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305-313. Knoblauch, C., 8 Brannon, L. (1981). Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News, 10, 1-4. Krashen, S. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lam, C. Y. P. (1992). Revision processes of college ESL students: How teacher comments, discourse types, and writing tools shape revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, §2(12), 4248A.Responding to writing 139 Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press. Leki, L. (1990b), Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5~19. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218. Leki, L. (1992). Understanding ESL writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284. Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. L. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235-254. Mathison-Fife, J., & O'Neill, P. (1997). Re-seeing research on response. College Composition and Communication, 48, 274-277. McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1-43. Mendonea, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarierly, 28, 745-769. Mirtan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communica- tive power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman. Moore, L. (1986). Teaching students how to evaluate writing. TESOL Newsletter, 20(5), 23 Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effec- tiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-132. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M, (1992/93). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student. TESOL Journal, 2(2), 23-26. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142. Newkirk, T. (1984). Direction and misdirection in peer response. College Composition and Communication, 35, 301-311. Newkirk, T. (1995). The writing conference as performance. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 193-215. Patthey-Chavez, G. G., & Ferris, D. R. (1997). Writing conferences and the weaving of multi-voiced texts in college composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 51-90. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68. Reid, J. (1994). Responding to ESL students’ texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 273-292. Reid, J. (1998). “Eye” learncrs and “Ear” learners: Identifying the language heeds of international student and U.S. resident writers. In P. Byrd &140 Dama Ferris J.M. Reid, Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teach- ing ESL for college-bound students (pp. 3-17). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Resh, C. A. (1994). A study of the effects of peer responding on the respon- der as writer-reviser. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(12), 377 1A-3772A, Silva, T. (1988). Comments on Vivian Zamel’s “recent research on writing pedagogy”: A reader reacts... TESOL Quarterly, 22, 517-520. Silva, T. (1990). Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B, Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 11-23). New York: Cambridge University Press. Silva, T. (1993). Toward an understanding of the distinct nature of L2 writing: The ESL research and its implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 657-671. Silva, T. (1997), On the ethical treatment of ESL writers. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 359-363. Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 148-156. Sperling, M. (1994). Constructing the perspective of teacher-as-reader: A framework for studying response to student writing, Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 175-207. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 91-119 Straub, R. (2000). The student, the text, and the classroom context: A case study of teacher response. Assessing Writing, 7, 23-55. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. Villamil, O.'S., & deGuerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 Witheck, M. C. (1976). Peer correction procedures for intermediate and advanced ESL composition lessons. TESOL Quarterly, 10, 321-326 Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-102, Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222. uy T