Feature Article

Corrective Feedback: Sharing Ideas

and Perspectives Teacher to Teacher
Jenell L. Rae
Sugiyama Jogakuen University
Writing instructors often lack consistency or a solid system for corrective feedback insecond-language (L2) writing. Error correction is greatly affected by subjectivity, and many
writing teachers struggle with the best approach to giving feedback on assignments. This
becomes even trickier as writing occasions and student populations change from continent
to continent. Whether in one’s home country or abroad, texts and students vary according
to context, and writing teachers need to be ready for a broad range of linguistic diversity.
In this paper I will describe my presentation on corrective feedback at the 2015 CUE SIG
Conference on Diversity: Communication and Education. I will first examine different
schools of thought and approaches on error correction, including common grading styles
and methods employed by writing instructors. I will then discuss some pedagogical concernsthat writing instructors should address. In the latter part of this paper, I will describe andreflect on the workshop that I facilitated during the presentation. First, I will outline theprocedure I used to run the workshop, then describe the discussion that ensued as the resultof workshop participants sharing ideas and feedback on a common writing assignment.
Lastly, I will conclude that sharing ideas and perspectives through professional development
workshops assists in strengthening teaching methods and practices.

One point of discussion that comes up time and time again among educators
is the challenge for teachers to give accurate or valued feedback on assignments
in writing classes. Sharing ideas and perspectives on how we provide corrective
feedback is a practice that is important for the growth of teachers because weare often stuck in a bubble due to individualized approaches to error correction.
By attending conferences, workshops, and other platforms that offer professional
development, we break out of this bubble when we share research, teaching ideas,
and materials. Typically, teachers have their own approach to error correction.
273

Rae

However, as language teachers, we all know that linguistic and cultural differences
exists and students studying a second language need more feedback on syntacticalissues with grammar, patterns, and style. As a result, providing error correction
and giving meaningful feedback becomes an even more challenging task. In
addition, error correction can be daunting and overly time consuming, especially
if a text is riddled with errors that obstruct meaning because of the absence ormisuse of grammatical and syntactical conventions. As a result, language teachersand L2 writing instructors often search for various approaches to help students
become better writers and overcome the challenges they face. The first logicalstep in giving effective feedback is to understand these challenges by studying theprocess of how L2 writing develops, and the various factors that affect output.
Diana Ferris (2011) tells us in her seminal text Treatment of Error in Second
Language Writing:Because L2 students, in addition to being developing writers, are still in theprocess of acquiring L2 lexicon and morphological and syntactic systems,
they often need distinct and additional intervention from their writing
teachers to bridge these gaps and develop strategies for finding, correcting,and avoiding errors (p. 9).
In this paper, I will describe a presentation and workshop that I gave andfacilitated at the CUE SIG 2015 Conference on Diversity: Communicationand Education in September 2015. The presentation covered my backgroundas a writing instructor in various teaching situations in the U.S. and Japan, andmy experience over many years with student response to corrective feedback. I
then describe some pedagogical concerns with error correction, as outlined in
the presentation. In the second part of this paper, I will describe the workshopthat I facilitated and draw some conclusions based on the ideas and perspectives
shared by workshop participants during and after the presentation.

BackgroundIn the first part of my presentation, I described my teaching history and themethods I have espoused, mostly through trial and error. My journey began over274

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

eleven years ago when I was hired out of graduate school to teach freshman English
composition (English 101) and developmental English at several community
colleges in the greater Los Angeles area. During this time, I was introduced to abroad range of linguistic diversity, including many Generation 1.5 multilingual
students, for whom English wasn’t necessarily the primary language. Rumbautand Ima (1988) coined the term Generation 1.5 as a result of a study on Southeast
Asian refugees who immigrated to California when they were young. Other
scholars have described Generation 1.5 as children of immigrants who arrive in
the United States as children or teenagers, and share cultural and other valuesof both their home country and the new country (Harklau, Losey, & Siegal,
1999, p. 5). As can be expected, this negotiation of culture spills into language,especially oral and written communication in postsecondary institutions, such ascommunity colleges.
The linguistic diversity I came across in Los Angeles sent me on a quest tofind strategies and tools to help my students become better writers. Roughlyeighty percent of the student population in my developmental English classes
was 1.5 Generation or L2 writers; the percentage was almost the same in English
101, as many of the students had progressed through the system. Many of thesestudents were from Mexico or other Latin American countries, and a small
percentage came from China or Vietnam. I struggled my first year of teaching
because I was not prepared for the vast majority that lacked English skills. As aresult of the cultural diversity and the variety of English levels that I encountered,I decided to go back to school and earn a TESOL certification to understandbetter the linguistic challenges of the population at hand. After completing
the TESOL certification, I began to teach ESL writing at a university in Los
Angeles, and then eventually all levels of ESL in an Intensive English Programat the University of Arizona. It was in this position that I began to reflect on thevarious methods available for corrective feedback in L2 writing.
Some Methods Used for Corrective Feedback
For many writing teachers, correcting every mistake often seems to be the logicalway to give feedback on essays and paragraphs. However, it is often the case
275

Rae

that teachers have little consideration for the development of process and the
linguistic challenges that carry over into writing.
Correcting every error. As a novice teacher, I was on a quest to correct every
error, as I felt I had to, and I often overlooked structural attributes or the valueof the message in the piece of writing. Ferris (2011) understands this dilemma
when she mentions that many writing teachers, with red pens in hand, noticeerrors because they are focused only on grammatical and syntactical issues, notthe overall message of the piece of writing. I fell into this category and quickly
became overwhelmed with the amount of time I was spending on giving
feedback, with no measure as to the value of ideas, nor the value students placedon my corrections.
Correction codes sheets. Another method I have experimented with is using
correction codes sheets, which include a combination of codes, abbreviations,and editorial marks for identifying local and global issues in a text. I began using
this system my second year of teaching, and instead of correcting every mistake, I
used the codes and editorial marks listed on the sheet to indicate errors. Students
were instructed to reference the sheet, and to decipher and correct their errors
accordingly. While this did reduce the time I spent giving corrective feedback,students were often overwhelmed by the number of marks on a text or some of
the codes called for more explanation. I still use correction codes sheets, but now
I take the time to explain what the marks mean before I evaluate an assignment.
As a supplement, I sometimes allow for an in-class editing workshop, in which
students can ask me questions about the corrective feedback I have given.
Rubrics. Over the years, I have used rubrics as a tool for evaluation. Rubrics
work hand and hand with corrective feedback in that points can be assigned to
the focus and attention a student gives to the feedback provided by the teacher.
For example, the rubric I use currently for a developmental writing class has asection that evaluates student effort on addressing teacher feedback. Moreover,another section gives the teacher an opportunity to evaluate grammar, spelling,
and punctuation after students have made corrections to a text. I have foundrubrics to be useful because they keep students accountable for the quality of
their writing, and teachers have a basis for responding to a written text.
276

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

Student Response to Corrective Feedback
Many writing teachers ponder this common thought: Do students look at andvalue the corrective feedback I give them? However, how well teachers prepare
students to pay attention to accuracy seems to be a key factor in giving feedback(Ferris, 2011). Through experience, I have found that the majority of students do
not look at corrective feedback if a writing assignment calls for only one draft.
Moreover, unless a teacher gives points for correcting mistakes, only a special few
take the time to correct the errors noted. This common pattern has prompted me
to reflect on different approaches to getting students to notice or pay attention
to feedback on accuracy. One approach I have taken is to allow for peer-editing
workshops in which students identify and correct errors in response to feedback
from peers and the teacher. This approach creates a collaborative dynamic in theclassroom, in that students help and motivate each other to improve the qualityof writing.
Some Pedagogical Concerns with Corrective Feedback
In the next part of my presentation, I discussed some pedagogical concerns withgiving corrective feedback on writing assignments. The three areas addressed inthis section were fairness in giving corrections, time spent on corrective feedback,and different grading styles.
Fairness in giving corrections. Fairness and consistency should always
be at the core of giving corrective feedback. Quite often students get mixed
messages or are confused if teacher feedback veers from the model presented.
For example, if a course curriculum revolves around process writing, a teacher
should only consider global issues such as development, organization, unity, andawareness of audience on a first draft. However, many teachers cannot resist theurge to correct local errors in all drafts, which can confuse students about theimportance of making global revisions before moving on to the editing stage.
Also, if a teacher returns illegible scribbles, illogical corrections, or inappropriate
corrections not relevant to the stage of writing, this is unfair. In other words, thefeedback a teacher gives should be consistent and relevant to the assignment. It
is imperative that writing instructors are fair when giving corrective feedback.
277

Rae

Feedback that lacks fairness and consistency devalues the writing process andmay result in frustration on the side of the end receiver. As Zamel (1985) foundin his famous study on how students perceive error correction, “ESL writing
teachers often misread student texts, are inconsistent in their reactions, makearbitrary corrections…and view themselves as language teachers rather thanwriting teachers” (p. 86). It is up to writing teachers to reflect on corrective
feedback practices and to adjust their methods accordingly to be fair in all
aspects.
Time Spent on Corrective Feedback. Many writing teachers spend too
much time on error correction. All writing teachers have all been guilty of this at
one time or another. The result is an overabundance of corrections that ends up
being time-consuming and overwhelming for the teacher, as well as for students.
As mentioned earlier, for students to value corrective feedback at any stage, theyneed an adequate amount of time to reflect and respond to the suggestions theteacher gives. Ferris (2011) suggested that teachers ask students to respond tocorrections as homework “to ensure that a teachers’ time in providing corrective
feedback is not wasted and that students will benefit more from the corrections”(p. 91). Another approach to offering valuable feedback is student-teacher
conferencing, or offering feedback in longer intervals, so that the writer has time
to digest the feedback in a longer amount of time.
Different Grading Styles. As mentioned earlier, writing teachers need to
be fair and consistent when they give corrective feedback. This idea also applies
to fairness and consistency when a teacher employs a grading style. Gradingstyles can vary depending on the writing occasion, but the method used should
be identifiable and clear to the receiver of the feedback. Teachers should share
their approach or explain their method for giving feedback with students. For
example, teachers should think about whether they will give indirect or direct
feedback to writing assignments. Indirect feedback means the teacher circles or
identifies errors, leaving it up to the student to make the correction. However, if
a teacher uses this method, it is important for he or she to think about support
available for students who struggle to make corrections themselves. With direct
feedback, a teacher identifies and corrects errors, usually in context. If a teacher
278

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

prefers to give direct feedback, will the feedback be focused on a single type oferror? Or, will it be unfocused, which means the teacher will direct the feedback
to a greater range of errors. Choosing the best style or method of correction isno easy feat, although student levels and the writing occasion usually dictate
the method. Research has shown that direct feedback is almost imperative
for low-level writers. Rod Ellis (2012) made this point in a lecture he gave in
Korea on corrective feedback. He asserts that direct feedback is probably the best
method for lower levels because for students who have a weak language ability,
even showing them their mistakes may not be enough due to their inability to
distinguish the right way to write. However, as many of us have learned, evenadvanced second-language writers can benefit from additional feedback, so
corrective methods should be considered based on student need as well.
Holistic Grading. From my experience, holistic grading is a powerful
method for comparing different approaches and styles for grading. Instructors
can learn from each other, as well as give a more objective score to a final
assignment. Holistic grading (scoring) involves a group of evaluators, mostly
teachers, who rate the overall proficiency level of a piece of student writing
according to a single summary judgment, which is typically a scale or rubric(Singer & LeMahieu, 2011). During this section of the presentation, I discussed
my experience with holistic grading at a community college. I participated ina holistic grading session, during which three instructors worked together and
rated the essays for each others’ classes, per the rubric provided. The instructor
for the course then averaged out his or her score with that of the other two
instructors; thus, a common score was established. The last part of the session
included an in-depth departmental discussion on some of the common issues
found in the essays brought to the table.

Corrective Feedback Teacher Workshop

Lastly, I facilitated a workshop on corrective feedback, during which audience
members were invited to evaluate a piece of writing, share their evaluations withother audience members, and discuss the rationale behind the evaluations. The
workshop consisted of three parts.
279

Rae

Background and Materials
For the first part of the workshop, I distributed copies of an instructor-evaluatedparagraph assignment (Appendix A) from a first-year university student in adevelopmental writing class, with the name of the student omitted. The prompt
for the assignment asked students to argue for or against an issue. Topic sentencesfor various issues were provided on the assignment for modeling.
ProcedureWorkshop participants were asked to evaluate the piece of writing in sevenminutes, using their preferred method or style of correction. I also provided the
rubric for the assignment (Appendix B), and I requested that participants use therubric for the assignment to give a final evaluation. The rubric included four areasfor evaluation: paragraph (elements and organization), grammar, formatting,and the overall communicative quality of the piece of writing. I also distributeda correction codes (Appendix C) sheet that was distributed to students. I
encouraged participants not to correct every error; however, I did ask that they
be prepared to justify or explain their score to a partner or group member. Afterthe review time, participants paired with other workshop attendees or worked
in small groups to compare their corrections and evaluations of the piece ofwriting. Participants were given seven to ten minutes to compare corrections andevaluations, and then the floor was opened up to a general discussion.
Discussion
As I expected, methods for correcting and evaluating varied between groupmembers. One group reported that evaluations were opposite, with one evaluatorgiving high marks and the other one low marks. One group averaged out theirscores because they had similar outcomes for the evaluation of the assignment.
Another group included the course coordinator for the writing class, andbecause of her familiarity with the program, she tended to be the strictest ofgroup members. At the end of the discussion, most groups agreed that sharing
their ideas in a group setting was a powerful tool for recognizing and examining
different styles and approaches to corrective feedback and methods of evaluation.
For the last part of this activity, I showed audience members the teacher’s
280

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

corrections for the same piece of writing, as well as the rubric evaluation she gave.
The rubric score the teacher gave was surprisingly lower than most of the scores
given by workshop participants. This observation brought up an interesting
point for discussion. Some noted that the corrective feedback provided by theteacher was unfair or could be potentially overwhelming for the student writer.
For example, some of the correction codes used to give feedback were not statedon the correction codes sheet distributed to the student. At the sentence level, an
average of two words per sentence was marked as erroneous.
To conclude this presentation and workshop, I summarized the points
made earlier in my presentation and made some clear connections between thepedagogical concerns brought up earlier and how they applied to the content of
the workshop. For example, I reiterated that teachers should be fair, consistent,
and transparent when they give corrective feedback on writing assignments.
It is important that students have a clear understanding of feedback given on
assignments, in a sufficient, yet realistic, amount of time. Instructors should
not spend unnecessary time on error correction either. If there are too many
corrections or corrections are illegible or beyond the grasp of the student
receiving them, then an adjustment needs to be made. I again recommended
that teachers participate in a holistic grading workshop, if possible, to experiencesharing evaluative methods and other ideas related to college writing, just as they
did in this workshop.
As an educator who has taught writing across the globe, the main motivation
for this presentation and workshop was for me to share my experiences as a writing
instructor with other academics, and in turn, for audience members to share theirexperiences as well. As mentioned before, it is easy for teachers to get trapped ina teaching bubble due to time constraints and other duties, so workshops suchas this are paramount for professional development. Comparing methodology
and approaches to teaching is a solid way for teachers to strengthen pedagogy.
I observed that in this workshop, participants felt at ease sharing ideas, which
created a dynamic and engaging atmosphere for participants and the workshop
facilitator. For example, in one group, the teachers had similar evaluations,although their approach to correcting the assignment was completely different;
281

Rae

one focused on global issues and the other on a combination of both. In anothergroup the teachers were on opposite sides of the spectrum but took the time to
discuss in length their differences in approaches.
Moreover, this presentation and workshop enabled me to reflect on mypedagogy, as I was prompted to review my history with corrective feedback. I
also developed a deeper understanding of the process by noting suggestions andcomments shared by audience members. The reciprocal environment I created inthis presentation energized and motivated me to become an even better writing
teacher, and I have since reflected on different approaches to corrective feedback
from the different views and angles shared by the academics in the audience.

Conclusion

As teachers, we need to think deeply about the feedback we give in all academic
contexts. We are guides for building a foundation for students, and thefoundation should be well informed and researched. Of course, it takes many
years of experience to find the best approach or practices for teaching, always
considering the student population at hand. As a teacher who has taught in
the U.S. and in Japan, I know firsthand that it is not always easy to adjust one’s
instruction to fit the context at hand, especially in the area of error correction.
We should constantly be asking ourselves how we can apply our experience tothe present context and be prepared to make adjustments when necessary. As
Casanave (2009) wrote in her chapter on teacher training and writing, we needto ask ourselves why we approach writing feedback the way we do. Otherwise,
she contends, “without asking the hard ‘why’ questions and attending the
local realities of our writing instruction, we risk fomenting ideological clashes
and spreading Western hegemony and arrogance” (p. 256). This approach toteaching is a pitfall that many of us have fallen into, and one way to avoid this is
to access the situation through conversations and discussions with other teachers
experienced in the current context, as I hoped to accomplish in this presentation
and workshop.

282

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

References

Casanave, C. P. (2009). Training for writing or training for reality? Challenges
facing EFL teachers and students in language teacher education programs.
In R. Manchon (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts learning,teaching, and research (pp. 256-275). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Ellis, R. (2012). The typology of written corrective feedback. Lecture presented
at Joint TESOL seminar series in Seoul National University, Seoul.
Ferris, D. (2011). Responding to student errors: Issues and strategies.
In Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.) (pp. 78121). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Harklau, L., Losey, K. M., & Siegal, M. (1999). Generation 1.5 meets college
composition issues in the teaching of writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Rumbaut, R. G., & Ima, K. (1988). The Adaptation of Southeast Asian Refugee
Youth. A Comparative Study. Final Report to the Office of Resettlement.
San Diego, CA: San Diego State University.
Singer, N. R., & LeMahieu, P. (2011, December 1). The effect of scoring orderon the independence of holistic and analytic scores. The Journal of Writing
Assessment, 4, 1-13. Retrieved from http://journalofwritingassessment.org/
article.php?article=51
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79102.

Author bio

Jenell Rae is from the U.S. and has been teaching ESL, EFL, and English for about
12 years. She was the coordinator of First-year Grammar and Third-year Reading
and Writing at Sugiyama Jogakuen in Nagoya, Japan, but recently returned to Los
Angeles, California, where she is a full-time ESL instructor at East Los Angeles
College. cordelia68us@yahoo.com
Submitted: April 3, 2016
Accepted: November 29, 2016
283

Rae

Appendix A

284

Corrective Feedback, OnCUE Journal, 9(3), pages 273-286

Appendix B

285

Rae

Appendix C

286