Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content

Fathman, Ann K., Whalley, Elizabeth·2012·Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781139524551.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139524551.016

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E.
Venue
Second Language Writing
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2012-10-06
Pages
178-190
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139524551.016
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

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.