Understanding The Impact of Feedback On Student Writing in Upper Elementary-Aged Children

Global Education Journal
www.franklinpublishing.net 73
Understanding The Impact Of Feedback On Student Writing In Upper Elementary-Aged

Children
Bonnie Palmer, Christie Evans, Emma Barrett, & Jordan Vinson

James Madison University
Harrisonburg, Virginia
This research was conducted in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Masters of Arts in
Teaching.
December 11, 2014
Dr. Smita Mathur
Understanding the impact of feedback on student writing in upper elementary-aged children
Introduction
Writing is a significant part of elementary education in the public school system in
Virginia. We have observed and recognized through practicum experiences that a large amount
of time is spent on the writing process in the classroom and there is a heavy emphasis on writing
for the Virginia Standards of Learning. With such a heavy emphasis on writing in the public
school system, the importance of the feedback given to students to edify them as they develop in
their writing skills is valued.
A review of literature has shown that students become more confident as they engage
with the writing process, which includes writing and revision (Andrade, Xiaolei, Ying, & Akawi,
2009; Mikume & Oyoo, 2010). Feedback given is often based on mechanical errors and
corrections (Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valds, Garnier, 2002; Clare, Valdes, PattheyChavez, 2000). The revisions that are made are dependent upon the feedback given, and the
quality of the revisions are equated with the quality of the feedback (Dinnen and Collopy, 2009;
Matsumura et al, 2002). Overall, teachers do not feel prepared to give good feedback on student
writing, and there is limited professional development in giving feedback to students on their
writing (Degroff, 1992). Every teacher or school appears to approach teaching writing in a
different way. Literature looked at one or two types of feedback while none examined all three.
There is limited information on self-evaluation and copious amounts of information on teacher-

based feedback and peer-based feedback. Although there is a significant amount of research done
on the writing process, most of the research focuses in on a specific aspect of the writing process
or a specific type of feedback in a given study. The goal of the study is to learn more about the
overall impact of each type of feedback.
Student preference of feedback was also a topic we were interested in exploring in our
research. Students may respond to different types of feedback in different ways. One type of
feedback may increase a students writing self-efficacy and better support them as young writers.
We were curious as to how students responded to each of the feedbacks we were examining
(teacher, peer, and self-evaluation) and to see if one type was most valued by the students. As a
result of our literature review and observations, we believe there is a need for improved practice
in giving feedback to elementary students in writing. We investigated the outcomes associated
with teacher-based feedback, peer-based feedback, and self-evaluation in order to improve this
practice.
Purpose and Significance
The purpose of this exploratory study was to find out the outcomes associated with
different types of feedback, specifically teacher, peer, or self-evaluation on student writing. The
research will benefit educators by informing future writing instruction in the upper-elementary
classroom. Instructors will gain knowledge of how various forms of feedback can shape student
writing and, as a result, will be able to make an informed decision when selecting a feedback
method. Students will in turn benefit from receiving proven, effective feedback. This inquiry is
important because it provides information on the outcomes associated with different types of
feedback, which will help teachers decide what type of feedback to use in their classrooms for
writing assignments. It fills in the gap in literature in outcomes of teacher-based feedback, peerbased feedback, and self-evaluation. We found there was a large gap in research on selfevaluation outcomes. This inquiry adds new insight into student preferences for feedback
methods and outcomes that are associated with feedback. The results of this inquiry will benefit
teachers, pre-service teachers, administrators, school officials, professors of pre-service teachers,
and writing professors.
Review of Literature
Types of Feedback
Teacher-based feedback. In an ideal situation, teacher-based feedback provides students with

the opportunity to elaborate on and reform their ideas over multiple drafts of their writing works
(Clare, et. al, 2000). Students who did not have experience with the writing process and
conferencing initially saw feedback as just something that was used for grading (Mikume &
Oyoo, 2010). According to Linda Degroff (1992), teachers generally feel a lack of expertise in
responding to student writing. The nature of teacher-based feedback may be influenced by two
principal factors: student writing achievement and student topic knowledge. Degoff examined
the feedback provided to student drafts. An analysis of written teacher responses revealed six
significant findings: (1) high achievement drafts received more response feedback than the two
low-achievement drafts; (2) teachers often used language to inform and elicit but seldom to
direct student writing; (3) evaluations were largely positive; (4) teachers offered more positive
evaluations to higher than lower achievement writing; (5) across all drafts, teacher responses
focused principally on content, followed by process, style, and mechanics; and (6) teacher-based
feedback was generally not influenced by students topic knowledge (Degroff, 1992).
Teachers general lack of expertise is reflected not only in the nature of feedback, but
also in the effectiveness of feedback to generate improvement. An Analysis of Feedback Given
to Strong and Weak Student Writers compared evaluative and descriptive feedback and their
respective impact on student writing (Dinnen & Collopy, 2009). Descriptive feedback has
proven to be the superior feedback method. Student responses in Pupil Commentary on
Assessment for Learning indicate that evaluative comments do not aid writing skill
development (Cowie, 2005). In contrast, descriptive feedback has been shown to be more
effective in increasing student achievement. Students demonstrated a strong preference for
descriptive feedback and stated that it was more helpful than evaluative comments (Dinnen &
Collopy, 2009). Nevertheless, teacher-based feedback continues to be more evaluative in nature.
In What Does it Take to Make a Change? Teacher-based feedback and Student Revision,
Silver and Lee compared three types of feedback: advice, praise, and criticism. The three
distinct methods of feedback were defined as follows:
Advice is defined as containing an explicit recommendation for remediation, a relatively
clear and accomplishable action for improvement. Praise is defined as an act which attributes
credit to another for some characteristic, attribute, or skill. Criticism is defined as an expression
of dissatisfaction or negative comment (Silver & Lee, 2007, p. 31). Students were exposed to
each form of feedback and asked to reflect on each type. However, in contrast to Dinnen and

Collopys findings, the majority of students expressed a preference for feedback in the form of
praise.
Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valds, and Garnier (2002) studied how instructional
standards in writing are translated into classroom practice by teachers in diverse, urban third
grade classrooms and compared the higher- to the lower-achieving schools. They found that
writing assignments from higher-achieving schools were higher quality (quality determined by
cognitive challenge, clarity of learning goals, alignment of learning goals with the assignment
task, and the overall quality of the assignment) than those of lower-achieving schools. The
researchers also found that the quality of the writing assignment impacted the quality of the
content in students writing. Of the three types of feedback (surface level, clarification level, and
content level), most teacher-based feedback was surface level. The teachers in the lowerachieving schools comparatively gave more feedback on the content of student ideas than did the
teachers in higher-achieving schools, but the amount of content feedback overall was lacking. In
general, many writing assignments did not require students to engage with substantive content.
Because of the lack of content feedback, students did not show much improvement in their
writing content across drafts, and many teachers had unclear goals as to what they expected the
students to learn as a result of doing the writing assignment. Generally, the students from both
types of schools showed improvements in the organization, mechanics, and content of their
written work from first to final drafts, but the amount of improvement was predicted by the
amount and quality of feedback the students received from their teachers (Matsumura et al,
2002). Similarly found by Dinnen and Collopy (2009), the effectiveness of teacher-based
feedback is dependent on both the approach in which feedback is administered and the content of
feedback.
As previously stated, most written teacher-based feedback focused on writing mechanics
(Matsumura et al., 2002). There is ongoing debate on the effectiveness of error correction when
providing students feedback on their writing. Truscott and Hsu (2008) found that error correction
helps students reduce the errors in their writing on which they receive correction. However, they
found that error correction and revision on a writing task was not an indicator of learning as
measured by the completion of a new writing task (Truscott & Hsu, 2008). Similarly Clare,
Valdes, and Patthey- Chavez (2000) found most of the feedback given was mechanical and the
students therefore responded by improving punctuation, grammar, and spelling, which proved

that the amount of feedback students received predicted improvement in the quality of writing
mechanics, not content. They found in their research that only 14% of feedback given on
elementary student drafts addressed content-level issues. The authors stated that consistent with
previous research they found, the quality of student writing showed relatively little improvement
over successive drafts and that students mostly received teacher-based feedback on mechanics
and very little on the content level. This demonstrated in this study that mechanical feedback is
not the most effective type of feedback (Clare, et al., 2000).
Peer-based feedback. Peer-based feedback, also referred to as peer response, peer assessment,
peer review, and peer editing, is commonly used in the writing process. Rather than seeking
feedback on their writing from teachers, students work together to review and provide feedback
to their peers writing. Peer-based feedback is more informal than teacher-based feedback. In
peer-based feedback, students have a chance to defend their meanings, ask questions, and request
clarification. This method of feedback provides students with a non-threatening environment so
they feel safe to agree and disagree with the feedback they receive (Ghani & Asgher, 2012).
Significant social benefits of peer-based feedback include a nonthreatening audience, immediate
feedback, reduced writing apprehension, development of positive attitudes about writing,
increased motivation to revise, and increased quality of writing (Dix and Cawkwell, 2011).
Also, the use of conferencing in a group with peers allowed students to learn from each other
and from the revision aspect of the writing process (Mikume & Oyoo, 2010).
Bronwen found that students viewed help from peers as important and more useful than
help from teachers. She concluded that being able to understand the language used in peer
explanations and ease of access to timely help were the main reasons for this preference
(Bronwen, 2005). The studies conducted by Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, and Smeets (2010)
and Eksi (2012) both found that students felt that peer-based feedback was just as helpful if not
more helpful than teacher-based feedback when revising their papers. The studies concluded that
peer-based feedback could be substituted for teacher-based feedback and the students would not
experience any loss of effectiveness.
Olson (1990) studied the writing revision process with and without peer-based feedback.
His study included four groups of students who participated in the revision process: (1) students
who received revision instruction and revised writing with a peer; (2) students who revised
writing with a peer but did not receive revision instruction; (3) students who received revision

instruction but revised writing alone; and (4) students who had no revision instruction and
revised alone. Students who had revision instruction and worked with a peer had the highest
quality rough and final drafts out of the four groups. All groups were able to significantly
improve the surface structure quality of their writing across drafts. Overall, they found that peerbased feedback had positive effects on the quality of students writing (Olson, 1990). Likewise,
Rahimi compared student writing of students who were trained in giving peer-based feedback
with students who did not receive the training. The study showed that training students in peerbased feedback is beneficial not only in editing their peers papers but also in their own writing
abilities (Rahimi, 2013) concluding that peer-based feedback has a positive impact on improving
student writing.
Another study conducted by Corinne Kindzierski compared independent revisions with
peer-writing revisions. The study found that when revising independently, students generally
made fewer conventional errors, used fewer words, and incorporated more repetition of words.
When using peer revision students made more personal references, wrote slightly longer drafts,
and tended to have more organized drafts (2009). Stephanie Dix and Gail Cawkwell used a case
study approach to investigate the effectiveness of peer review in a New Zealand classroom
comprised of 6-year-old students. Prior to introduction of peer group response, the teacher noted
what her students needed to learn in order to improve their writing. After implementing the
strategy of peer review, students became more active listeners, were more aware of the messages
in writing, revisited their writing to add further detail, and expressed positive feelings toward
writing (Dix and Cawkwell, 2011). These two studies show specific improvements that were
made in writing as a result of peer-based feedback.
Self-Evaluation. The ability to evaluate ones own writing, or self-evaluation, is an integral part
of the writing process. However, there is a lack of literature related to self-evaluation. This can
be attributed to the fact that self-evaluation is often used in conjunction with teacher- and peerbased feedback. When working individually, beginning writers do little spontaneous revision in
their texts, and their revisions are mainly superficial (Chanquoy, 2001). In addition, novice
writers often demonstrate inadequacy in detecting or in effectively correcting errors they make
while producing written material (Cameron, Edmunds, Wigmore, Hunt, Linton, 1997).
According to Chanquoy (2001), a delay between writing and revising can improve the nature
and frequency of students revisions. Childrens revisions are focused on clarifying their texts

and making them more interesting. However, they do not detect the majority of technical errors
(Cameron et al., 1997). A childs grade can have a significant effect on the frequency of
revisions. In general, third graders tend to make more spelling corrections than script or
grammatical corrections. Fourth and fifth grade students perform more script and grammatical
corrections than spelling corrections (Chanquoy, 2001).
Writing feedback can influence childrens self-efficacy. As students go through the
writing process multiple times, their writing self-efficacy increases. The self-efficacy of
elementary-aged girls is particularly susceptible to rubric-referenced self-assessment (Andrade,
Xiaolei, Ying, & Akawi, 2009). In contrast, boys self-efficacy is not related to self-assessment.
According to Andrade et al. (2009), girls derive more satisfaction and confidence from selfgenerated evidence of progress on a writing assignment than do boys, who seek confirmation of
progress from others, such as their teachers and peers.
Conclusion. As a result of a review of literature, three conclusions have been drawn: (1) teacherbased feedback, peer-based feedback, and self-evaluation have the ability to influence student
writing (Dinnen & Collopy, 2009; Olson, 1990; Chanquoy, 2001); (2) the nature of feedback can
impact subsequent revisions of a text (Browen, 2005; Matsumura, Patthey-Chavez, Valds,
Garnier, 2002); and (3) feedback type can have social implications within the classroom and be
reflected in a childs self-efficacy in writing (Andrade, Xiaolei, Ying, Akawi, 2009). Our overall
objective was to understand the outcomes associated with different types of feedback on student
writing. Specifically, the objectives include looking at the outcomes associated with teacherbased feedback, peer-based feedback, and self-evaluation on student writing in upper-elementary
school classrooms. For the purpose of this study, feedback is defined as suggestions for
revisions on content and mechanics given to the students in their writing.
Research Questions
Broad Question: What outcomes are associated with different types of feedback on student
writing?
For the purpose of this study, feedback is defined as suggestions for revisions on content and
mechanics given to the students in their writing. Feedback will include:
a) teacher to target-student
b) peer to target-student
c) target-student to self

Specific Sub-Questions:
1- What types of outcomes are associated with teacher-based feedback on student writing
in upper elementary grades?
2- What types of outcomes are associated with peer-based feedback on student writing in
upper elementary grades?
3- What types of outcomes are associated with self-evaluation on student writing in upper
elementary grades?
Sample Size and Description
The sample was chosen based on practicum placements. As graduate students in the
Master of Arts in Elementary Education program at James Madison University, we were each
placed in a classroom at an elementary school twice a week for full school days during the Fall
2014 semester to gain hands-on experience working with children. This experience is referred to
as practicum. For the purpose of this study, we will refer to ourselves as the teacherresearchers. The teacher-researchers were placed in third to fifth grade classrooms. The students
whose parents gave consent and who participated in writing in our cooperating teachers
classrooms were sampled. In addition, the students gave their assent to participate in the study.
The sample size was 40 third to fifth grade students. Sixteen of the students were in third grade,
11 were in fourth grade, and 13 were in fifth grade. Six of the third grade students attended
School B while the remaining students attended School A. The only reason a student was
excluded from our study is if a parent decided to not give consent for us to include them in our
study.
Population Description
The samples was derived from our practicum placements in public, rural elementary
schools in Virginia, in schools identified as School A and School B. School A serves
approximately 470 students in grades Pre-K to fifth, and school B serves approximately 480
students in Kindergarten to fifth grade. The majority of students are classified as White, nonHispanic, Hispanic, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander.
Assumptions and Rationale
Our research was based on the following two assumptions. First, we assumed that
students between the grades of three and five had previously engaged in some form of formal
writing. Based on our knowledge of the Virginia Standards of Learning, we were confident that

students had knowledge of and practice in the writing process. According to the Virginia
Standards of Learning, second grade students are expected to perform the following writing
tasks: (1) organize writing with a beginning, middle, and end for narrative and expository
writing; (2) expand writing to include further descriptive detail; and (3) revise writing for clarity.
Our second assumption was that students had prior experience with the three forms of
feedback. According to the Virginia Standards of Learning, peer and teacher-based feedback
should begin in the first grade. Beginning writers were also taught how to revise their drafts
based on the feedback received.
Type of Design
We conducted a qualitative study using an exploratory and descriptive design. An
exploratory study is performed when there are very few or no previous studies on the research
topic that is being investigated. In our study, we were investigating the impact of feedback on the
outcome of student writing. This type of research was helpful to us because there was very little
research out there that looks at this topic. Descriptive research is used to describe characteristics
of a population or phenomenon being studied. There are three forms of descriptive research:
observation, case study, and survey. We used the observation and survey methods to study how
different types of feedback impact the writing of third to fifth grade students.
Tools
The following tools were used to collect data:
1. Writing Samples: In order to evaluate changes in student writing from the first draft to
the final draft, we collected and analyzed all of the students writing samples. These
were used to help us determine which errors were corrected and which were remaining
after the student received feedback.
2. Surveys: Four surveys were used: teacher-based feedback survey, peer-based feedback
survey, self-evaluation survey, and a final survey. The teacher-based feedback, peerbased feedback, and self-evaluation surveys gauged students thoughts and dispositions
toward the three forms of feedback. The final survey evaluated students overall
feedback preference and prompted students to reflect on their growth as writers. A James
Madison University professor in the Department of Early, Elementary & Reading
Education, established content validity of our surveys.
a.
Survey 1: The purpose of this 6-question survey was to find out the student feelings towards

teacher-based feedback. The survey is attached below as Teacher-based feedback.

b.
Survey 2: The purpose of this 10-question survey was to find out student feelings towards
peer-based feedback. The survey is attached below as Student-based feedback.

c.
Survey 3: The purpose of this 6-question survey was to find out student feelings towards
self-evaluation. The survey is attached below as Self-evaluation.

d.
Survey 4: The purpose of this 4-question survey was to find out how helpful each type of
feedback was for the students. The survey is attached below as Final.
Methods and Procedures

Procedure
There are three main constructs of our design: teacher-based feedback, peer-based
feedback, and self-evaluation.
Teacher-based feedback. Students wrote responding to a grade-appropriate prompt. Upon
completion of the prompt, the students turned in their writing to the teacher-researcher, who gave
feedback on the students writing. The teacher-researcher held a brief, individual conference
with each student to review the feedback she gave on the paper, to answer any questions the
students had, and to return the paper to the students for revision. The students then wrote a
second, final draft of their prompt using the feedback given by the teacher-researcher and turned
the first draft and final draft in to be graded and evaluated. When every student completed and
turned in their drafts, a short survey was given to obtain students thoughts on the feedback given
by the teacher-researcher.
Peer-based feedback. Students wrote responding to a grade-appropriate prompt and conducted
a peer-review. Before beginning the writing prompt, students were trained in how to conduct a
peer-review session using a writing checklist and how to give feedback to peers. Upon
completion of the prompt, students were paired with another student in the class. The students
read, revised, edited, and made comments on their peers writing using the checklist given to
them. When they finished working on each others papers, they explained the comments,
revisions, corrections, and edits they made. The students then worked individually to write a
final draft of the prompt considering the feedback given by their peer. Once completed, the
students turned in their first drafts, final drafts, and the checklist used in their peer review. When

every student completed and turned in their drafts, a short survey was given to obtain students
thoughts on the peer-feedback method.
Self-evaluation. Students wrote responding to a grade-appropriate prompt. Upon completion of
the prompt, the students edited their own papers. The students read, revised, and edited their
writings using the checklist given to them. The students then wrote their final draft of the prompt
using their feedback. Once completed, the students turned in their first drafts, final drafts, and
any tools used in their self-evaluation. Students were given a short survey to get the students
thoughts on the feedback given by the teacher- researcher.
Data Analysis
In analyzing our data, our group compared the quality of students writing in the first
draft to the final draft written post-feedback. We looked at improvements from original errors in
the first draft compared to the number of the same errors in the final draft. We examined the
following components of usage and mechanics: indenting, ending punctuation, spelling, and
capitalization of letters. In the surveys, we were looking to understand student preferences in the
different types of feedback as well as their confidence after receiving each type of feedback. We
were looking to see if there is a specific type of feedback the students found to be most helpful to
them.
Ethical Considerations
Consent was gained from all participants in the study. Forms were sent home, read,
signed, and returned before the researchers began data collection. If parental consent was not
given, the student was not included in the research project. Not gaining parental consent created
a bias in our study due to the parents decision to remove their child from the study for
unspecified reasons. Students also gave their assent to participate in the study. It was explained
to students that they may choose to not- participate in the study; however, all students completed
the writing assignments.
In order to maintain confidentiality, the following steps were taken:
1. Each child and teacher was assigned a code name, which was used for communication
outside the research team. The real names and identifying information were maintained
in a separate file that was placed in the advisors office in a locked cabinet.
2. Data in the form of observations, writing samples, and surveys were placed in the
advisors office in a locked cabinet.

Data was presented as aggregated, which was designed to prevent identification of

individual students. If specific quotes or narratives of students and teachers were presented, all
identifying features were modified to prevent identification of individuals. Data will be retained
for a maximum of five years after the close of the study. It will be destroyed thereafter.
Results and Discussion
There were four aspects of the paper that we analyzed in the students drafts: indenting,
ending punctuation, spelling, and capital letters. We looked at the total number of errors made in
the first draft for the four aspects. Then we looked at the total number of those errors that were
corrected in the final draft of the paper (improvements). For the purpose of this study, we are
defining improvements as first draft errors that were corrected in the final draft. To calculate the
percent improvement for each aspect, we took the number of improvements made by every
student and divided it by the total number of errors made on the first draft. To calculate the
overall (including all four aspects) percent improvement, we took the total number of
improvements made in all four aspects and divided it by the total number of first draft errors.
When looking at the total number of errors in the final draft, we did not include the creation of
new errors that did not exist on the first draft. Looking at the improvements in errors from a
first draft to a final draft after receiving feedback, there were significant improvements after
students received teacher-based feedback.
For indenting, there was a 71.43% improvement from the first draft to the final draft.
This means that 71.43% of the errors made were corrected. Ending punctuation had a 93.33%
improvement from the first draft to the final draft, spelling had an 80.46% improvement, and
capitalization of letters had a 74.07% improvement. Overall, when comparing the total number
of errors made from the first draft to the final draft after receiving teacher-based feedback, the
students writing had an 80.46% improvement.
When examining improvements after receiving peer-based feedback, it was concluded
that less significant improvements were made compared to teacher-based feedback. For
indenting, there was a 62.5% improvement from the first to final draft, and ending punctuation
showed a 51.72% improvement. Spelling showed a 38.51% improvement, and capitalization of
letters showed an 88.14% improvement. The total number of original errors from the first draft
to the final draft showed a 52.87% improvement. Overall, the highest percentage improvements
made from peer-based feedback were in capitalization, with spelling having the lowest

percentage of improvements.
When examining improvements in writing from first drafts to final drafts after selfevaluation, it was concluded that less significant improvements were made compared to teacherbased and peer-based feedback. . For indenting, there was a 71.43% improvement from the first
draft to the final draft, and ending punctuation errors showed a 23.81% improvement. Spelling
errors showed a 26.67% improvement. The capitalization of letters showed a 52.38%
improvement. Overall, the total number of original errors from the first draft to the final draft
after self-evaluating decreased by 37.02%. The overall findings of the research conducted show
that students made the most improvements when correcting errors from their first draft to their
final after receiving teacher-based feedback. It can be concluded by looking at the correction of
errors on the first draft that teacher-based feedback is the most effective type of feedback and
self-evaluation is the least effective in the terms of usage and mechanics.
During the final survey the students were asked to choose which type of feedback they
found most helpful, the types of feedback they found least helpful, and which type of feedback
they most preferred for writing revisions. They were given the option to choose peer-based
feedback, teacher-based feedback, or self-evaluation for each question. According to responses
on the student surveys, 74.19% of the students selected teacher-based feedback as the most
helpful, 12.9% of the students selected peer as the most helpful, and 12.9% of the students
selected self-evaluation as most helpful. 54.84% of the students selected self-evaluation as the
least helpful, and 41.94% of the students selected peer-based feedback to be the least helpful.
Overall, teacher-based feedback was the most helpful to students.
When looking at student preference for writing revisions, 74.19% percent of the students
selected that teacher-based feedback was preferred, 16.13% stated that self- evaluation was the
most preferred, and 9.68% said peer was the most preferred. The students were asked to explain
their preference of feedback in writing revisions. Some students replied they preferred teacherbased feedback the most because the teacher would tell them what they needed to fix and it was
easier. Other students said teachers are more educated and know what they are doing, and one
student said she enjoyed working with the teacher. Most students who selected self-evaluation
as their most preferred type of feedback stated that they chose it because it was the quickest and
they had to make the least amount of corrections, making it the easiest. One student wrote that
she chose it as her favorite because it allowed her to think about her ideas and what she had

written. Regarding peer-based feedback, one student said that he liked to correct other peoples
drafts and writing. Another said that it helped her to learn from other peoples mistakes and two
students said they enjoyed reading other peoples writing.
Students were asked to choose if they were confident, somewhat confident, or not
confident in their writing. For teacher-based feedback, 81.82% of students said they were
confident, 15.15% said they were somewhat confident, and 3.03% percent said they were not
confident after going through the feedback process and conferencing with a teacher. After going
through the peer-based feedback, 69.44% said they felt confident and 30.65% said they were
somewhat confident. After giving themselves feedback through the self-evaluation process,
72.73% percent of the students said they were confident, 24.24% said they were somewhat
confident, and 3.03% said they were not confident. Overall, after students went through each
different type of feedback, they generally felt confident.
Limitations
The biggest limitation was the teacher-researchers lack of authority within the
classroom. As practicum students, the teacher-researchers were guests in the classroom of the
cooperating teacher. The teacher-researchers had limited authority and were allowed to do only
what the cooperating teachers allowed them to do. Time was limited to what the classroom
teachers allowed the teacher-researchers to use as well. As a result, some students may not have
had the time to give their best effort on their final drafts. Therefore, some final drafts may not
have shown the most improvements that could have been made if the students had more time to
edit and write. A second result of time constraints in the classroom was incomplete student
work. Some students did not have enough work time to finish their final drafts. As a result of
that, some students had their work sent home with them to complete as homework, which did not
allow for the teacher-researchers to control any influences on the students writing. Parents or
older siblings could have helped the student on their final drafts, which would skew the number
of errors corrected.
Other limitations of the data collection revolve around the teacher-researcher not being
able to control everything within the environment in which the writing took place. The writing
took place in classrooms that contained approximately twenty students with one teacher and one
teacher-researcher. Some students could have asked their peers how to spell a word without the
teacher or teacher-researchers knowledge, which would impact the number of errors on their

drafts. There were also times during which the teacher-researcher was not in the classroom when
the writing was being conducted; therefore, the teacher-researcher was not able to control the
environment and what assistance the students received.
Another limitation that was encountered was truancy issues. A few students missed
several days of school when the data was being collected, and those students were not able to
complete final drafts. Because of time limitations, the teacher-researcher was not able to allow
those students to finish their writing. This is accounted for in the results section. Due to
inappropriate content in one students writing, the writing was reviewed by the school principal
and was not returned to the teacher-researcher for the student to complete the writing. This was
also accounted for in the results section. Finally, improvements in writing cannot be attributed
solely to feedback given, but may in part be the result of students cognitive development and
natural progression as writers.
Implications and Further Directions
Overall, the editing process was beneficial to student writing. However, teacher-based
feedback was most beneficial to improvements in the students writing. There are several
directions in which research on feedback on student writing could continue to go. First of all,
our research focused on feedback and changes in mechanical errors in writing such as
punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and indentation. Research with an emphasis on composing
and written expression would be a further direction for research on feedback on student writing.
Composing and written expression would include feedback on a writings central idea,
supporting details, word choice, descriptive language, and organization of ideas. Second, a focus
on specific populations, such as gifted students, would be beneficial since students with different
abilities and disabilities benefit from different forms of feedback and have different learning
styles.
Since teacher-based feedback was the most beneficial type of feedback given, further
research done in this area would continue to improve how feedback in writing is given to
students. It would be beneficial to conduct research to determine what the most impactful
medium for student feedback is. For example, is it more beneficial to student writing to provide
both written and verbal feedback or just written feedback? Further research in this area would
help teachers know the best way to help their students improve in their writing.
Lastly, our research found that the majority of the students were very confident in their

writing at the upper-elementary age. Research consisting of a longitudinal study of student

confidence in their writing from second grade through high school would show how writing
confidence changes as students progress in school.
Conclusion
Overall, the research conducted showed that teacher-based feedback results in the most
improvements to writing in terms of usage and mechanics and was also the most preferred by
students when they receive feedback on their writing. Self-evaluation showed the lowest
percentage of improvement from the first draft to the final draft. Peer-based feedback was
reported by students to be the least preferred and the least helpful, which contrasts what previous
research concluded. Also, students in upper elementary, specifically third to fifth grade, are
generally confident about their writing and the revision process.
References
Andrade, H. L., Wang, X., Du, Y., & Akawi, R. L. (2009). Rubric-referenced selfassessment and self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Research,
102(4),
287-301. doi:10.3200/JOER.102.4.287-302
Cowie, B.. (2005). Pupil commentary on assessment for learning. The Curriculum
Journal, 16:2, 137-151.
Cameron, C.A., Edmunds, G., Wigmore, B., Hunt, A.K. & Linton, M.J. (1997).
Children's
revision of textual flaws. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 20(4), 667-680.

doi:10.1080/016502597385117
Chanquoy, L. (2001). How to make it easier for children to revise their writing: A study of text
revision from 3rd to 5th grades. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 15. Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7391279&site
=ehost-live&scope=site
Clare, L., Valdes, R., Patthey-Chavez, G. (2000). Learning to write in urban elementary and
middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written feedback on student compositions.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED446207)
DeGroff, L. (1992). Process-writing teachers' responses to fourth-grade writers' first
Elementary School Journal, 93(2), 131-44. Retrieved from
drafts.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ456297&sit
e=ehost-live&scope=site
Dinnen, J. L., & Collopy, R. M. (2009). An analysis of feedback given to strong and
weak
student writers. Reading Horizons, 49, 239-256.

Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). The influence of peer group response: Building a
teacher
and student expertise in the writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4),
41-57. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ962604&sit
e=ehost-live&scope=site
Eksi, G. Y. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective?
International Journal of Applied Educational Studies, 13(1), 33-48. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=77851826&site=eho
st-live&scope=site
Ghani, M., & Asgher, T. (2012). Effects of teacher and peer feedback on students' writing at
secondary level. Journal of Educational Research (1027-9776), 15(2), 84-97. Retrieved
from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90613103&site=ehostlive&scope=site
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer
and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing
curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
doi:10.1080/01411920902894070
Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G., Valds, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback,
writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lowerachieving urban schools. Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3.
and higherRetrieved
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid
,uid&custid=s8863137&db=ehh&AN=7433178&site=edslive&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid
Mikume, B. O., & Oyoo, S. O. (2010). Improving the practice of giving feedback on ESL
learners' written compositions. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 337-353.
Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpi
d,uid&custid=s8863137&db=ehh&AN=64405520&site=edslive&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid
Morris Kindzierski, C. M. (2009). "I like it the way it is!": Peer-revision writing
strategies for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Preventing
School
Failure, 54(1), 51-59. Retrieved

fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ845957
&site=ehost-live&scope=site;
http://heldref.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&id=doi:10.3200/PSFL.54 .1.5159
Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without
peer
feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 22. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pbh&AN=5819998&site
=ehost-live&scope=site
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training
influences the quality of students' feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research,
17(1), 67-89. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1005777&site=ehostlive&scope=site;http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
Silver, R., & Lee, S. (2007). What does it take to make a change? teacher feedback and student
revisions. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 6(1), 25-49. Retrieved
fromhttp://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=26700160&site=eho
st-live&scope=site
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of
Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid
,uid&custid=s8863137&db=eric&AN=EJ817433&site=edslive&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Second
Copyright of Global Education Journal is the property of Franklin Publishing Company and
its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

Understanding The Impact of Feedback On Student Writing in Upper Elementary-Aged Children

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Understanding The Impact of Feedback On Student Writing in Upper Elementary-Aged Children

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Global Education Journal