The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.551-580
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Received 15 May 2021 Revised 20 Jun 2021 Accepted 27 Jun 2021

L2 Writers’ Engagement and Needs for Teacher Written Feedback: A Case of a Korean College English Composition Class
JungEun Choi
Faculty of Liberal Education, Seoul National University (

© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


As a relatively under-researched area, the present study focused on L2 writers’ reactions to teacher written feedback in a comprehensive way. Specifically, multidimensional student engagement involving behavioral, affective, and cognitive reactions and student needs for teacher commentary were examined through a triangulation of data collection. As a case study, the present study examined a real-world practice of teacher feedback provided in an authentic English composition class in South Korea. One native English teacher and 13 Korean college students participated in this study. This paper first describes the types of teacher written comments according to the intent, linguistic features, text specificity, and the presence of hedges. Then, it examines the students’ uptake in the subsequent revision by the feedback types, attitudinal responses and cognitive processing, and their wishes for the kind of teacher written feedback they would like to receive. The results revealed that content-related comments dominated in the teacher’s end comments, whereas a majority of the marginal notes addressed linguistic features. However, in the students’ revision process, the grammar-related marginal comments were often ignored due to changes in content by the teacher’s end comments. In addition, characteristic patterns for emotional and cognitive engagement and students’ actual needs were observed. Based on the results, pedagogical implications are suggested.

Keywords: teacher written feedback, student engagement, student needs, process writing in English, Korean college students


This article is a developed version of the author’s master’s thesis.

1. Ashwell, T. 2000. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9(3), 227-257.
2. Bailey, R. and M. Garner. 2010. Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper it is written on? Teachers’ reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher Education 15(2), 187-198.
3. Bitchener, J. 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2), 102-118.
4. Bitchener, J. and D. R. Ferris. 2012. Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
5. Bitchener, J. and U. Knoch. 2009. The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37(2), 322-329.
6. Bitchener, J. and U. Knoch. 2010. The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31, 193-214.
7. Bitchener, J., S. Young and D. Cameron. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3), 191-205.
8. Blanton, L. L. 2002. Seeing the invisible: Situating L2 literacy acquisition in child-teacher interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing 11, 295-310.
9. Brannon, L. and C. H. Knoblauch. 1982. On students' rights to their own texts: A model of teacher response. College Composition and Communication 33(2), 157-166.
10. Brice, C. 1995. ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of TESOL, Long Beach, CA. ERIC Document 394 312.
11. Buckingham, L. and D. Aktuğ-Ekinci. 2017. Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students’ approaches to revision. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 26, 1-16.
12. Chandler, J. 2003. The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3), 267-296.
13. Chi, F.-M. 1999. The writer, the teacher, and the text: Examples from Taiwanese EFL college students. Paper presented at the World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan.
14. Cho, S. 2011. Internalization of feedback. English Teaching 66(3), 3-22.
15. Choi, J. 2017. Effects of different types of written corrective feedback on Korean high school students’ writing. Foreign Language Education Research 21, 21-40.
16. Cohen, A. 1987. Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. L. Wenden and J. Rubin, eds., Learner Strategies in Language Learning, 57-69. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Cohen, A. D. 1991. Feedback on writing: The use of verbal report. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13(2), 133-159.
18. Cohen, A. D. and M. C. Cavalcanti. 1990. Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 155-177. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Connors, R. and A. Lunsford. 1993. Teachers' rhetorical comments on student papers. College Composition and Communication 44, 200-223.
20. Conrad, S. M., and L. M. Goldstein. 1999. ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(2), 147-179.
21. Crompton, P. 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. English for Specific Purposes 16(4), 271-287.
22. Cumming, A. 1995. Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belcher and G. Braine, eds., Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy, 375-397. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
23. Ellis, R. 2010. A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 335-349.
24. Ellis, R., Y. Sheen, M. Murakami, and H. Takashima. 2008. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36(3), 353-371.
25. Enginarlar, H. 1993. Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System 21(2), 193-204.
26. Fathman, A. K. and E. Whalley. 1990. Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 178-190. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27. Ferris, D. R. 1995. Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. TESOL Journal 4(4), 18-22.
28. Ferris, D. R. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31(2), 315-339.
29. Ferris, D. R. 2003. Responding to writing. In B. Kroll, ed., Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing, 119-140. New York: Cambridge University Press.
30. Ferris, D. R. 2006. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland, eds., Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31. Ferris, D. R., J. Brown, H. Liu and M. E. A. Stine. 2011. Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly 45(2), 207-234.
32. Ferris, D. R., S. Pezone, C. R. Tade and S. Tinti. 1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6(2), 155-182.
33. Ferris, D. R. and B. Roberts. 2001. Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3), 161-184.
34. Fredricks, J. A., P. C. Blumenfeld and A. H. Paris. 2004. School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research 74(1), 59-109.
35. Goldstein, L. 2001. For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to student writers. In T. Silva and P. K. Matsuda, eds., On second language writing, 73-89. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36. Han, Y. and F. Hyland. 2015. Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing 30(1), 31-44.
37. Hedgcock, J. and N. Lefkowitz. 1994. Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(2), 141-163.
38. Hedgcock, J. and N. Lefkowitz. 1996. Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal 80(3), 287-308.
39. Hillocks, G. J. 1986. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, National Conference on Research in English.
40. Hyland, F. 1998. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(3), 255-286.
41. Hyland, F. 2003. Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31(2), 217-230.
42. Hyland, F. and K. Hyland. 2001. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3), 185-212.
43. Hyland, K. and F. Hyland. 2006. Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland, eds., Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, 206-224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44. Jang, S.-S. 2012. Types of information in written corrective feedback and its efficacy on L2 acquisition. English Teaching 67(3), 3-25.
45. Knoblauch, C. H. and L. Brannon. 1981. Teacher commentary on student writing: The state of the art. Freshman English News 10, 1-4.
46. Knoblauch, C. and L. Brannon. 2006. Introduction: The emperor (still) has no clothes—Revisiting the myth of improvement. In R. Straub, ed., Key Works on Teacher Response, 1-16. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.
47. Lee, I. 2004. Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(4), 285-312.
48. Lee, I. 2008. Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(3), 144-164.
49. Lee, I. 2014. Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing 19, 1-5.
50. Lee, I. 2020. Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing 49, 100734.
51. Leki, I. 1990. Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 57-68. New York: Cambridge University Press.
52. Liu, X. and J.-W. Lee. 2014. EFL college students’ reactions to their writing teachers’ corrective feedback. English Teaching 69(3), 81-103.
53. McGroarty, M. E. and W. Zhu. 1997. Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning 47(1), 1-43.
54. Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
55. Mohebbi, H. 2021. 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: An interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 6, 3.
56. Montgomery, J. and W. Baker. 2007. Teacher-written feedback: Student perception, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(2), 82-99.
57. Parr, J. M. and H. S. Timperley. 2010. Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching, and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing 15, 68–85.
58. Polio, C., C. Fleck and N. Leder. 1998. “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(1), 43-68.
59. Rahimi, M. 2019. A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research.
60. Reid. 1994. Responding to ESL students' texts: The myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly 28, 273-292.
61. Robb, T., S. Ross and I. Shortreed. 1986. Salience of feedback on error and its effect of EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20(1), 83-95.
62. Semke, H. D. 1984. The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17, 195-202.
63. Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction: Developments, issues, and directions in ESL. In B. Kroll, ed., Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, 11-23. New York: Cambridge University Press.
64. Sommers, N. 1982. Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication 33, 148-156.
65. Shintani, N., R. Ellis and W. Suzuki. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning 64(1), 103–131.
66. Storch, N. and G. Wigglesworth. 2010. Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 303-334.
67. Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46, 327-369.
68. Truscott, J. 1999. The case for “the case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8(2), 111-122.
69. Truscott, J. 2007. The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4), 255-272.
70. Truscott, J. 2016. The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In Y. Leung, ed., Epoch Making in English Teaching and Learning: A Special Monograph for Celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th Anniversary, 129-141. Taipei: Crane.
71. Truscott, J. and A. Y. Hsu. 2008. Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(4), 292-305.
72. van Beuningen, C. G., N. H. de Jong and F. Kuiken. 2008. The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156, 279-296.
73. van Beuningen, C. G., N. H. de Jong and F. Kuiken. 2012. Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62(1), 1-41.
74. Zamel, V. 1983. The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case-studies. TESOL Quarterly 17(2), 165-187.
75. Zamel, V. 1985. Responding to writing. TESOL Quarterly 19(1), 79-101.
76. Zhang, Z. and K. Hyland. 2018. Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing 36, 90-102.
77. Zheng, Y. and S. Yu. 2018. Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing 37, 13-24.