Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Reviewed by Stephanie Dewing, University of Colorado, Denver

Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press Pp. 308         ISBN 9780521672580 Reviewed by Stephanie Dewing University of Colorado, Denver January 9, 2009 Feedback is a key component of teaching second language writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2006b). This is something I have always been aware of as a second language (L2) learner and educator; however, Hyland and Hyland opened my eyes to the multiple facets of feedback in second language writing. They provide a thorough explanation of hotly debated issues in second language writing and address the key questions that guide that debate: “What kinds of feedback are most appropriate in different contexts? What are the most effective teacher practices? How do students perceive and respond to feedback? How do cultural factors influence response? And does feedback improve student writing in the long term?” (p. 2). It is apparent, and not surprising, that many of the issues that surround the debate over the place of feedback in second language writing remain unresolved. In an attempt to address these issues, Hyland and Hyland (2006b) compiled a series of fourteen chapters from well-known and well-respected researchers in the field of second language writing. The authors have addressed a broad range of topics related to issues of feedback. The book is broken down into three broad categories: (a) situating feedback: sociocultural dimensions, (b) shaping feedback: delivery and focus dimensions, and (c) negotiating feedback: interpersonal and interactional dimensions. Within each of these broad categories are more specific subcategories that include contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a), sociocultural theory and peer feedback (Villamil & Guerrero, 2006), cultural issues in peer response (Nelson & Carson, 2006), the negotiation of teacher feedback in academic settings (Tardy, 2006), effects of written error correction on student writing (Ferris, 2006), electronic and web-based feedback (Ware & Warschauer, 2006; Milton, 2006), feedback on portfolio-based writing (Hamp-Lyons, 2006), reflective feedback and I-Search papers (Johns, 2006), contextual, teacher and student variables of feedback and revision (Goldstein, 2006), interpersonal aspects of response (Hyland & Hyland, 2006c), fostering feedback dialogue in electronic written exchange (Hewings & Coffin, 2006), scaffolded feedback (Weissberg, 2006), and graduate students’ response to discipline-based written feedback (Leki, 2006). It is evident that the authors approached these chapters from a sociocultural perspective of learning. “Like all acts of communication, (feedback) occurs in particular cultural, institutional and personal contexts, between people enacting and negotiating particular social identities and relationships, and is mediated by various types of delivery” (Hyland & Hyland, 2006a, p. 10). In other words, feedback cannot be separated from the context in which it is given and received. I found the breadth of studies in this book particularly helpful to broaden my understanding of issues related to feedback in second language writing. However, as someone who works at an undergraduate institution with students who are learning English as a second language and students learning Spanish as a foreign language, there were a few chapters in particular that really resonated with me. I will address each of these chapters individually. First, the overview presented in Hyland and Hyland (2006a) is particularly thorough and effectively highlights key issues related to feedback in L2 writing as well as the pros and cons of different forms of feedback (e.g. written feedback, peer feedback, computer-mediated feedback, and oral feedback in writing conferences). Although each is addressed separately, I agree with the authors that “to be effective, feedback should be conveyed in a number of modes and should allow for response and interaction” (p. 5). I have also found in my own experiences, and echoed in this article, that ESL students tend to “greatly value teacher written feedback and consistently rate it more highly than alternative forms, such as peer feedback and oral feedback in writing conferences” (p. 3). It is important for all educators to take students’ perspectives and individual needs into account when providing feedback to them. With respect to written feedback, the authors discuss the debate that has been going on for over ten years between two well-known names in the field: Truscott and Ferris. Truscott (1996, 1999) has argued against correcting errors in second language writing suggesting that it is not beneficial and is in some cases detrimental to students’ development. Ferris (1999, 2002), on the other hand, has argued that students who receive error correction feedback over a period of time can improve their language accuracy. And although the authors acknowledge that there are other factors that contribute to that improvement, written feedback is thought to be a significant contributing factor. I will address error correction in more detail during my review of the chapter written by Ferris herself. Finding a balance between correcting form and content is something that many teachers struggle with, myself included. Hyland and Hyland (2006a) argue that the separation of the two is artificial and impossible. There are many sides to this debate, all of which appear to be supported by empirical research studies. It appears that the researchers have yet to reach a conclusion and at this point in time it is the knowledge and awareness of the multiple perspectives of the debate that benefit us as second language educators. This book provides that knowledge and awareness by presenting both the pros and the cons of each of the perspectives and by backing up all claims with multiple references of empirical case studies. Two other chapters provide greater detail on two of the debates mentioned above: peer response and error correction in writing. In Chapter 3, Nelson & Carson (2006) state that “revision is widely understood to be the key to effective writing, but the quality of the revision depends crucially on the quality of the feedback that the writer receives, whether from self, peers, tutors in a writing center, or a writing instructor” (p. 42). Nelson and Carson reiterate the fact that studies have consistently found that students prefer teacher feedback to anything else. However, they have also found that peer response can be beneficial for L2 writers under certain conditions, especially when students have received training in peer response. While that conclusion was not surprising, it is interesting to note that Nelson and Carson found that students who share a common language and cultural expectations engage in more successful peer response interactions than students in heterogeneous cultural groupings. Some factors thought to contribute to that finding include the bond of a common language, shared cultural expectations, facility of social interaction in L1, students’ confidence in their L1 peers’ ability to provide effective feedback, and the desire to maintain the harmony of the group. The authors propose that the less successful interactions in heterogeneous groups may be attributed in part to the sometimes problematic social nature of peer response groups. However, “group dynamics are complex and it is unlikely that any one factor is ever the cause of successful or unsuccessful peer group interaction and outcomes” (p. 43). The underlying suggestion for practitioners is to be aware of and take into account the potential influence of language and culture on peer group interactions. According to Nelson & Carson (2006), taking culture into account will allow practitioners to better understand the context in which feedback contributes to their students’ second language writing development. More specific suggestions and recommendations for engaging students in peer response are outlined under pedagogical implications (pp. 54-55), which are extremely useful for all educators. The final chapter, mentioned above, is a representative of the side of the debate in favor of grammar correction in L2 writing (Ferris, 2006). This chapter was most useful to me personally because I do not have time in my class to conduct peer reviews or engage in writing conferences. Therefore, the majority of the feedback I provide is written and I want to learn how to do it effectively. The questions that Ferris poses resonate with me as questions that I, too, have about my own students and undergraduate institution (p. 82). Does error feedback from instructors help L2 writers to improve their accuracy in the short run (from one draft of a paper to the next) and in the long run (from the beginning to the end of a semester)? Do teachers give their students accurate and complete feedback on their errors? What strategies do instructors use to give error feedback, and what is the effect of differing teacher strategies on student writing? Are differing types of and categories of errors affected differently by error treatment? The ultimate question that Ferris (2006) poses is: Is error correction worth doing at all? I believe that this is the question that most teachers ask. It is the question I hear most often from my peers and the question I most often ask myself. In her chapter, Ferris attempts to answer that question. She begins by revisiting her debate with Truscott, who makes a case against grammar correction. She also distinguishes between direct and indirect feedback. Direct feedback is when the teacher provides the correct linguistic form next to the error. Indirect feedback is where the teacher highlights the error by underlining, circling, providing a code, etc. without writing the correct linguistic form for the student. Intuitively and with the support of some empirical studies, it appears that indirect feedback leads to greater L2 writing improvement due to the fact that it forces the student to reflect on the errors and self-edit. However, other studies have shown that while indirect feedback improves student writing, there is not a significant difference in the level of improvement between those who have received direct versus indirect feedback. Ferris, based on her research, argues that a combination of the two, depending on the type of error, may be most helpful. Through a longitudinal research study of 55 ESL students who wrote multiple-draft essays and received indirect, coded feedback and in some cases direct feedback from their instructors, Ferris (2006) found that the students made significant progress in accuracy over the semester. However, there was tremendous individual variation in the amount of progress students made, which suggests that students’ ability to benefit from grammar instruction and feedback varies. Ferris also found that the teachers accurately marked the majority of all errors and rarely left errors unmarked. Ferris found, however, that “short term ability to edit certain types of errors did not always translate to long-term improvement” (p. 95). Ferris made the distinction between “treatable” and “untreatable” errors here. She defines “treatable” errors as those that occur in a patterned, rule-governed way (e.g. verb tense, subject-verb agreement, articles, and so forth) while “untreatable” errors do not (e.g. word choice, sentence structure, and idioms). There were statistically significant differences in how teachers responded to the differing types of errors. This forced me to stop and think about how I address the different types of errors in my own students’ writing. I was thankful for the forced reflection on my own practice and am confident that this kind of reflection could benefit other educators as well. In the end, based on the findings of hers and other studies, Ferris provides four possible feedback approaches for teachers: (a) provide primarily indirect feedback, (b) locate errors rather than label or code them, (c) vary feedback approaches for treatable and untreatable error types, and (d) use a relatively small number of error categories when providing feedback. Also, she suggests that students benefit most from in-process feedback, which is provided during the revision process so that students are able to apply the feedback the immediately, rather than on final draft. I took this to mean that if my students are engaged in a multiple draft essay, I should take the time to highlight errors. However, if they are only turning in one draft of an essay and there is no revision involved, chances are that they will not benefit much, if at all, from the feedback I provide. This book repeatedly reminded me, though, that every situation is different and what is best for one student may not be best for another. In fact, my relationship with every student is unique and therefore, the way I provide feedback and the way they respond to it will vary from one student to the next. Even though I commented specifically on a very small percentage of the articles presented in this book, I found value in each of the chapters. I plan to start implementing the ideas I have taken from this well-written and informative text in my own classroom. My only reservation is that although this book was published only two years ago, several of the studies drew on conclusions that were reached from previous studies that the authors had conducted. While I do not discount the value and merit of those conclusions, the evidence presented in the book could have been strengthened through additional studies that have been conducted more recently. That being said, I found the recommendations outlined in several of the chapters to be timely and useful for second and foreign language educators. I would recommend this book to anyone who teaches a second or foreign language and in particular to those that incorporate a writing component into their curriculum. In fact, this is a great volume for any educator who has diverse learners in their classroom. References Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing classes. Ann Arbor, MIK: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). New York: Cambridge. Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185-205). New York: Cambridge. Hamp-Lyons, L. (2006). Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 140-161). New York: Cambridge. Hewings, A. & Coffin, C. (2006). Formative interaction in electronic written exchanges: Fostering feedback dialogue. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 225-245). New York: Cambridge. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006a). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-20). New York: Cambridge. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006c). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 206-224). New York: Cambridge. Johns, A. M. (2006). Students and research: Reflective feedback for I-search papers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 162-182). New York: Cambridge. Leki, I. (2006). “You cannot ignore”: L2 graduate students’ response to discipline-based written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 266-285). New York: Cambridge. Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich Web-based feedback: Helping learners become independent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 123-139). New York: Cambridge. Nelson, G. & Carson, J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting “culture.” In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42-59). New York: Cambridge. Tardy, C. (2006). Appropriation, ownership, and agency: Negotiating teacher feedback in academic settings. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 60-78). New York: Cambridge. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. 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, 111-122. Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 21-41). New York: Cambridge. Ware, P. D. & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 1-20). New York: Cambridge. Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: Tutorial conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 246-265). New York: Cambridge. About the Reviewer Stephanie Dewing is a doctoral student at the University of Colorado, Denver in Educational Research and Innovation. Her research interests include second language teaching and learning, with a particular interest in English language learners, feedback in second language writing, and identity and language learners.She is employed at the Air Force Academy as Deputy Director of International Studies and Assistant Professor of Spanish.