Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T13:24:04.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Instructional Feedback in Writing

from Part II - Domain-Specific Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2018

By
Steve Graham
Edited by
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich  and
Jeffrey K. Smith
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich
Affiliation:
Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Jeffrey K. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback , pp. 145 - 168
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abington, A. (1952). Bigger and better boners. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Afflerbach, P. (2005). National Reading Conference policy brief: High stakes testing and reading assessment. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 151–162.Google Scholar
Albertson, B. (2007). Organization and development features of grade 8 and grade 10 writers: A descriptive study of Delaware student testing program (DSTP) essays. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 435–465.Google Scholar
Andrade, H., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. (2009). Rubric-referenced self-assessment and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research, 102, 287–302.Google Scholar
Balzer, W., Doherty, M., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 410–433.Google Scholar
Bazerman, C. (2016). What do sociocultural studies of writing tell us about learning to write? In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd edn., pp. 11–23). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Beach, R., & Freidrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222–233). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Beck, S., & Jeffrey, J. (2007). Genres of high-stakes writing assessments and the construct of writing competence. Assessing Writing, 12, 60–79.Google Scholar
Burdick, H., Swartz, C., Stenner, J., Fitzgerald, J., Burdick, D., & Hanlon, S. (2013). Measuring students’ writing ability on a computer-analytic developmental scale: An exploratory validity study. Literacy Research & Instruction, 52, 255–280.Google Scholar
Callahan, S. (1999). All done with the best of intentions: One Kentucky high school after six years of State Portfolio tests. Assessing Writing, 6, 5–40.Google Scholar
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 73–84.Google Scholar
Coe, M., Hanita, M., Nishioka, V., & Smiley, R. (2011). An investigation of the impact of the 6+1 Trait Writing model on grade 5 student writing achievement (NCEE 2012–4010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
Coffman, W. (1966). On the validity of essay tests of achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coniam, D. (2009). Experimenting with a computer essay-scoring program based on ESL student writing scripts. European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 259–279.Google Scholar
Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality & Individual Differences, 13, 653–655.Google Scholar
Crossley, S., & McNamara, D. (2017). Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Culham, R. (2003). 6+1 traits of writing: The complete guide, grades 3 and up. New York: Scholastic Professional Books.Google Scholar
Dappen, L., Isernhagen, J., & Anderson, S. (2008). A statewide writing assessment model: Student proficiency and future implications. Assessing Writing, 13, 45–60.Google Scholar
De La Paz, S., Swanson, P., & Graham, S. (1998). Contribution of executive control to the revising problems of students with writing and learning difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 448–460.Google Scholar
Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.Google Scholar
Elliott, S., Kurz, A., & Neergaard, L. (2012). Large-scale assessment for educational accountability. In Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Application to learning and teaching (vol. 3, pp. 111–138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481–506.Google Scholar
Galbraith, D. (1999). Writing as a knowledge-constituting process. In Galbraith, D. & Torrance, M. (Eds.), Knowing what to write: Conceptual processes in text production (pp. 139–159). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (2014). The use of multiple forms of assessment in the service of writing. Literacy Research & Instruction, 53, 96–100.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (2018). A writer(s) within community model of writing. In Bazerman, C., Berninger, V., Brandt, D., Graham, S., Langer, J., Murphy, S., Matsuda, P., Rowe, D., & Schleppegrell, M., (Eds.), The lifespan development of writing (pp. 271–325). Urbana, IL: National Council of English.Google Scholar
Graham, S. (in press). Writers in community model: 15 recommendations for future research in using writing to promote science learning. In Prain, V. & Hand, B. (Eds.), Future research in science education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Bruch, J., Fitzgerald, J., Friedrich, L., Furgeson, J., Greene, K., Kim, J., Lyskawa, J., Olson, C. B., & Smither Wulsin, C. (2016). Teaching secondary students to write effectively (NCEE 2017–4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Bartlett, B., Popadopoulou, E., & Santoro, J. (2016). Acceptability of adaptations for struggling writers: A national survey with primary grade teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 5–16.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 207–241.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Santangelo, T. (2015). Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 498–522.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2011). Throw ’em out or make ’em better? High-stakes writing assessments. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44, 1–12.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Hebert, M., & Harris, K. R. (2015). Formative assessment and writing: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 115, 524–547.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Hebert, M., Sandbank, M., & Harris, K. R. (2016). Credibly assessing the writing achievement of young struggling writers: Application of generalizability theory. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 72–82.Google Scholar
Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., McKeown, D., & Harris, K. R. (2012). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for students in the elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 879–896.Google Scholar
Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperely, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, R. (1994). The literary life and other curiosities. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Heritage, M. (2010). Formative assessment and next-generation assessment systems: Are we losing an opportunity? Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English.Google Scholar
Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Horner, R., Carr, E., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–180.Google Scholar
Hosp, J. (2012). Using assessment data to make decisions about teaching and learning. In Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Application to learning and teaching (vol. 3, pp. 87– 110). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Huang, J. (2008). How accurate are ESL students’ holistic writing scores on large-scale assessments? A generalizability theory approach. Assessing Writing, 13, 201–218.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, J. (2009). Constructs of writing proficiency in US state and national writing assessments: Exploring variability. Assessing Writing, 14, 3–24.Google Scholar
Jones, I., (1998). The effect of computer-generated spoken feedback on kindergarten students’ written narratives. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 9, 43–56.Google Scholar
Karask, H., Fer, S., & Orhan, F. (2014). The effect of using cooperative and individual weblog to enhance writing performance. Educational Technology & Society, 17, 229–241.Google Scholar
Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136–160.Google Scholar
Kluger, A., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.Google Scholar
Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79–97.Google Scholar
Lederer, R. (1993). More anguished English. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
Lederer, R. (2000). The bride of anguished English. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
Linkletter, A. (1962). Kids sure rite funny. New York: Banard Geis Associates.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A., & Smith, J. (2009a). “I really need feedback to learn”: Students’ perspectives on the effectiveness of the differential feedback message. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 21, 347–367.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A., & Smith, J. (2009b). Effects of differential feedback on students’ examination performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 319–333.Google Scholar
MacArthur, C. (2016). Instruction in evaluation and revision. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd edn., pp. 272–287). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (2016). Writing research from a cognitive perspective. In MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (2nd ed., pp. 24–40). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & Shafer, W. (1995). Evaluation of a writing instruction model that integrated a process approach, strategy instruction, and word processing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 278–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumura, L., Patthey-Chavez, G., Valdes, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third grade students’ revisions in lower and higher-achieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103, 3–25.Google Scholar
Moore, N., & MacArthur, C. (2016). Student use of automated essay evaluation technology during revision. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 149–175.Google Scholar
Nicolaidou, I. (2013). E-portfolios supporting primary students’ writing performance and peer feedback. Computers & Education, 68, 404–415.Google Scholar
Parke, C., Lane, S., & Stone, C. (2006). Impact of a state performance assessment program in reading and writing. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12, 239–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, S. (2003). Peer response and students’ revisions of their narrative writing. LI – Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 3, 239–272.Google Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G., Baarksma, M., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Braaksma, M., Tillema, M., Steendam, E., & Raedts, M. (2012). Writing. In Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Application to learning and teaching (vol. 3, pp. 189–228). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Rijlaarsdam, G., Van den bergh, H., Couzijn, M., Janssen, T., Raedts, M., Steendam, E., Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 879–906.Google Scholar
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–140.Google Scholar
Salovey, P., & Haar, M. (1990). The efficacy of cognitive-behavior therapy and writing process training for alleviating writing anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 515–528.Google Scholar
Sanchez, C., Atkinson, K., Koenka, A., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (in press). Self- and peer-grading of formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993a). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 337–354.Google Scholar
Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993b). Writing strategy instruction with gifted students: Effects of goals and feedback on self-efficacy and skills. Roeper Review, 15, 225–230.Google Scholar
Smith, J., & Lipenvich, A. (2009). Formative assessment in higher education: Frequency and consequence. In McInerey, D., Brown, G., & Liem, G. (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessments for learning (pp. 279–296). Charlotte, NC: IAP.Google Scholar
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 324–328.Google Scholar
Toorenaar, A., & Van den Bergh, H. (2008). Observations of peers learning to write. Journal of Writing Research, 1, 53–83.Google Scholar
Underwood, J., & Tregidgo, A. (2006). Improving student writing through effective feedback: Best practices and recommendations. Journal of Teaching Writing, 22, 73–98.Google Scholar
Welch, N. (1977). Getting restless: Rethinking revision in writing instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.Google Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2006). Formative assessment: Getting the focus right. Educational Assessment, 11, 283–289.Google Scholar
Wilson, J., & Czik, A. (2015). Automated essay evaluation software in English language arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality. Computers & Education, 100, 94–109.Google Scholar
Zheng, B., Lawrence, J., Warschauer, M., & Lin, C. (2015). Middle school students’ writing and feedback in a cloud-based classroom environment. Technology, Knowledge, Learning, 20, 201–229.Google Scholar
Zumbrunn, S., Marrs, S., & Mewborn, C. (2016). Toward a better understanding of student perceptions of writing feedback: A mixed methods study. Reading & Writing, 29, 349–370.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×