CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 140Student Assessment and FeedbackDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesLinguistics and Education Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback

Ken Hyland, Fiona Hyland·2006·Feedback in Second Language Writing
DOI 10.1017/cbo9781139524742.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As a pedagogical genre, teacher written feedback is designed to carry a heavy informational load, offering commentary on the form and content of a text to encourage students to develop their writing and consolidate their learning. The information offers the assistance of an expert, guiding the learner through the “zone of proximal development” (Vygotsky, 1978) and providing opportunities for students to see how others respond to their work and to learn from these responses. Feedback plays a pedagogical role by pointing forward to other texts students will write, assisting students to work out the text's potential and to comprehend the writing context, and providing a sense of audience and an understanding of the expectations of the communities they are writing for. The substantial comments that many teachers write on student papers thus do more than simply justify a grade. They provide a reader reaction and offer targeted instruction. Often, however, written feedback has been seen as purely informational, a means of channeling reactions and advice to facilitate improvements. Response is therefore discussed as if it were an objective, impersonal, and purely didactic discourse – simply an interaction between a teacher and a text. But, although the information in feedback is a key factor in learning to write, it is effective only if it engages with the writer and gives him or her a sense that it is a response to a person rather than to a script.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781139524742.013

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Personalisation is a key factor in feedback assimilation, with students more likely to value feedback that takes into account their individual needs.

    “This personalisation is a key factor in feedback assimilation, with students more likely to value feedback that takes into account their individual needs (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).”

    From Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly (2019) · cites this paper as Hyland & Hyland, 2006

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
Affiliations
University of London (GB)
ORCID
Ken Hyland
Venue
Feedback in Second Language Writing
Publisher
Cambridge University Press
Published
2006-08-14
Pages
206-224
DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139524742.013
OpenAlex
W1550188472
Cited by
140
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 13
FWCI
12.25
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 2244 d)
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Linguistics and Education Research
Keywords
teacher written feedback, written corrective feedback, zone of proximal development, writing instruction, student writing, reader response

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