The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content
Abstract
While reading student papers, teachers often ask themselves, “How can I give the best feedback to help my students improve their compositions?” The question is difficult because there is little agreement among teachers or researchers about how teachers should respond to student writing. Much of the conflict over teacher response to written work has been whether teacher feedback should focus on form (e.g., grammar, mechanics) or on content (e.g., organization, amount of detail). Griffin (1982) has noted, “the major question confronting any theory of responding to student writing is where we should focus our attention” (p. 299). Changes in both the focus of composition teaching and the focus of feedback have occurred over time. Early in the nineteenth century, rhetoric was taught, and little or no attention was paid to grammatical correctness (Connors 1985). Toward the end of the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, interest in grammatical correctness grew. Textbooks focused on exercises that required students to find and correct errors. In recent years, there has been emphasis placed on the writing process (see Krapels, this volume). Many process writing textbooks have been published which focus on content through several drafts of a paper and leave scrutiny of form to the final draft. However, many teachers maintain a strong interest in correctness in spite of this recent focus on process (Applebee 1981). Should classroom teachers' written feedback focus on form or content? Does the research in composition support the current trends in composition teaching to focus on content?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Error feedback in L2 writing classes
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00039-x · Cited by 981
The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 · Cited by 900
Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Bitchener, J. (2008) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 · Cited by 871
Ferris, D. R. (2004) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 · Cited by 679
Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9 · Cited by 648
Metadata
- Authors
- Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E.
- Venue
- Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2012-10-06
- Pages
- 178-190
- OpenAlex
- W1536460121
- Cited by
- 454
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 162.62
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/cbo9781139524551.016
- The paper
- Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (2012). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. Second Language Writing. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524551.016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.