The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Responding to Student Writing
Abstract
Because writing teachers invest so much time responding to student writing and because these responses reveal the assumptions teachers hold about writing, L1 writing researchers have investigated how composition teachers respond to their students' texts. These investigations have revealed that teachers respond to most writing as if it were a final draft, thus reinforcing an extremely constricted notion of composing. Their comments often reflect the application of a single ideal standard rather than criteria that take into account how composing constraints can affect writing performance. Furthermore, teachers' marks and comments usually take the form of abstract and vague prescriptions and directives that students find difficult to interpret. A study was undertaken to examine ESL teachers' responses to student writing. The findings suggest that ESL composition teachers make similar types of comments and are even more concerned with language-specific errors and problems. The marks and comments are often confusing, arbitrary, and inaccessible. In addition, ESL teachers, like their native-language counterparts, rarely seem to expect students to revise the text beyond the surface level. Such responses to texts give students a very limited and limiting notion of writing, for they fail to provide students with the understanding that writing involves producing a text that evolves over time. Teachers therefore need to develop more appropriate responses for commenting on student writin…
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
“Research has found that L2 writing teachers tend to pay more attention to formal correctness than to the discourse level of writing (Zamel, 1985)”
From Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? (2005) · cites this paper as Zamel, 1985
In the citing paper
“Other studies have also found that ESL teachers tend to focus on the sentence level when responding to students' writing (Cohen, 1987; Zamel, 1985).”
From Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? (2005) · cites this paper as Zamel, 1985
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–334 of 334
Training Korean EFL Teachers to Respond to Student Writing
진, 숙. (2011) · Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics · doi:10.15738/kjell.11.3.201109.701
Name, N., & Wolcott, S. K. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1837762
The Application of CAE in English Teaching to Cultivate Learner Autonomy
Lu, J., Wang, M.-M., & Guo, Y.-M. (2011) · 2011 Fourth International Conference on Information and Computing · doi:10.1109/icic.2011.122
Explicit Observation of EFL Writing Process
최영주 (2011) · English21 · doi:10.35771/engdoi.2011.24.1.013
Grammar versus Content: KFL/ESL Teachers' Trends in Feedback on College Student Writing
Ko, K. (2011) · The Korean Language in America · doi:10.2307/korelangamer.16.2011.0041
Effectiveness of Three Different Error Correction Methods on ESL Korean Children’s Recount Writing
고보애 (2010) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.17936/pkelt.2010.22.3.002
de Figueiredo, F. J. Q. (2009) · Revista Polyphonía · doi:10.5216/rp.v16i1.6276
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.008 · Cited by 1
Texts and materials in the writing class
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.007
Approaches the Marking Electronic Texts
Holmes, M. (1999) · doi:10.17161/iallt.v31i3.9704
Desmitificando la escritura en inglés como L2
Arboleda, A. (1997) · Lenguaje · doi:10.25100/lenguaje.v0i25.14015
A Comparative Study of Peer Feedback and Teacher Feedback in the Context of ESP Teaching
刘, 巍. (2023) · Overseas English Testing Pedagogy and Research · doi:10.12677/oetpr.2023.51005
Using Feedback in ESL and EFL Asynchronous Online Environments
Olesova, L. A., & de Oliveira, L. C. (2017) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2933-0.ch012
Professional Development Landscapes: Facilitating Collaborative Action Research for CPD
Yucel, B., & Güçeri, M. (2017) · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-1747-4.ch006
Perspectives on Feedback in L2 Writing
Lee, I. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9_5
Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndromes
Howard, C. (2015) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17014211
A Case for Peer Review Inclusion in Writing Assessment
Bodola, M. R., & Siam, S. D. (2015) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6619-1.ch014
“Peer review is a commonly used best practice for process writing and student-centered instruction (Goldstein & Conrad, 1990; Kroll, 1991; Zamel, 1985).”
MethodDon't Get It Right, Just Get It Written
Noursi, O. H. A. (2015) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6619-1.ch013 · Cited by 1
Application of Network Platform in EFL Writing Feedback
Kang, H., & Shi, Z. (2012) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-31656-2_106
İÇERİK TABANLI DERSLERDE YABANCI DİLDE YAZMA BECERİSİNİ GELİŞTİRME
Elatia, S. (2011) · doi:10.17244/eku.35323
“For the language learners, feedback provides a checkup point and a validation of their learning progress (Zamel 1985).”
BackgroundPratt, D. (2010) · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9843-6_4
The Theoretical Model of Composing
Pratt, D. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9843-6_6
Effect of topical knowledge on L2 writing
He, L. T. (2011) · cIRcle (University of British Columbia) · doi:10.14288/1.0071206 · Cited by 4
Pratt, D. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9843-6_5
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.001
Researching writing and writers
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.012
Syllabus design and lesson planning
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.006 · Cited by 1
Hyland, K. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511667251.013
Metadata
- Authors
- Zamel, V.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Zamel, Vivian
- Venue
- TESOL Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1985-03
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 79
- ISSN
- 0039-8322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2069741599
- Cited by
- 763
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 43 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 43
- FWCI
- 72.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- TESOL Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- writing revision, student perceptions of feedback
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
