The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Feedback on second language students' writing
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444806003399 · Cited by 1,048
Self-citation‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about
Wingate, U. (2011) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001 · Cited by 392
Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009 · Cited by 348
Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms
Lee, I. (2008) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001 · Cited by 344
Feeling feedback: students’ emotional responses to educator feedback
Ryan, T., & Henderson, M. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1416456 · Cited by 189
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
- 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
- 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