Feedback for emerging writers: The good, the bad & the ugly

Undergraduate students of varied linguistic backgrounds and academic experiences are often given writing assignments. When faculty consider providing learners with constructive, formative, and potentially transformative feedback, however, various pedagogical dilemmas arise regarding employing effective methods, including selecting the particular: stage(s) of the writing process, modalities (e.g. aural or visual), and (a)synchronic digital strategies for their comments. The amount of attention and time to allocate to corrective feedback (e.g. direct, explicit, focused grammar-based and/or indirect, guided metalinguistic commentary), higher-order organization and discipline-specific content, deep revision, audience engagement, the production of the actual comments (e.g. instructor-generated handwritten vs. computer-mediated feedback), mutual scaffolding with dialogic interaction, and balanced (grading) rubrics are also of relevance. Student and teacher perceptions of effective instructor and peer feedback (e.g. handwriting in the margins of a rough draft in contrast to electronic comments with digital tools to track changes) regarding fostering student autonomy, meaning negotiation, (revision and correction) uptake, and writing development are also discussed. Potential acts of text appropriation in the writing process, along with online submission and feedback tools in electronic course management systems, are also mentioned. Collaborating with technologists, librarians, peer tutors, and other faculty regarding the multifaceted stages of writing is also touched upon.