ABSTRACT
Writing instructors and researchers appear to have a love-hate relationship with the issue of teacher feedback on student writing. As discussed in chapter 1, for several decades, both L1 and L2 scholars made extremely negative pronouncements about the nature and effects of teacher response, especially instructors’ written commentary. Research reviews by Hillocks (1986), Knoblauch and Brannon (1981), and Leki (1990a) suggested that regardless of how written teacher feedback was delivered, there was no evidence that it was successful in helping students to progress as writers. Nonetheless, as noted by Ferris and Hedgcock (1998), Hairston (1986), and Leki (1990a), composition instructors invest a great deal of time in annotating student papers with their feedback:
The alternative to written feedback that is not only suggested but urged in the composition literature is one-to-one writing conferences between teachers and students (e.g., Atwell, 1998; Carnicelli, 1980; Elbow, 1973; Zamel, 1982, 1985). Pro-
ponents of the exclusive use of writing conferences point out the considerable advantages of immediacy, negotiation, and opportunity for clarification that are possible with this approach. They further point to the conclusions of research reviews mentioned earlier that written commentary by instructors is ineffective and can even be resented by student writers.
