Teacher Written Commentary in Second Language Writing Classrooms
Abstract
Although second language writing instructors know that providing effective written feedback is essential to any good composition course, beginning and seasoned teachers alike struggle with this challenging task. In Teacher Written Commentary in Second Language Writing Classrooms, Lynn M. Goldstein uses ample research and experiential evidence to explain both how and why teachers should comment on their students' writing assignments. Among the problems that Goldstein addresses are how to attend to the product without slighting the process, how to intervene in process without appropriating product, how to facilitate student comprehension and use of teacher feedback while promoting student independence, and how to respond efficiently while remaining attentive to individual student needs. While it may not necessarily reduce the time spent on commenting, the book will enable teachers and teachers-in-training to provide written commentary that will help their students to become stronger and more independent writers in English. This volume is the only source that contains such in-depth consideration of the issues and the range of practices within teacher written commentary and the only resource that focuses solely on issues of rhetoric and content in multilingual writing students' texts. Teachers and teacher educators will appreciate the Goldstein's thorough and well-grounded analysis. Lynn M. Goldstein is Professor, TESOL and Applied Linguistics, Monterey Institute of International…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Feedback on second language writing offers considerable learning benefits, providing writers with a sense of audience and an understanding of what readers value in a text.
“Feedback on second language writing is widely acknowledged to offer considerable learning benefits, providing writers with a sense of audience and an understanding what readers' value in a text (Goldstein, 2005;K. Hyland, 2016).”
From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Goldstein, 2005
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing
Zhang, Z. (., & Hyland, K. (2018) · Assessing Writing · doi:10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004 · Cited by 546 · see citing works
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990532 · Cited by 398 · see citing works
- Authors
- Goldstein, L.
- Publisher
- University of Michigan Press/ELT
- Published
- 2005
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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