This article examines how international students navigate feedback from a supervisor while working on a group writing project in a diverse English medium of instruction (EMI) bachelor’s program at a public university in Denmark, where no formalized writing or language support resources are offered in the students’ first year of instruction. Data were collected in qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 11 students who were identified through a survey of a first-year bachelor of arts cohort. Results from the survey showed that despite using a supervision model of education, few students perceived changes in feedback compared to their secondary school experiences, and most did not deploy their own past writing experiences to aid their groups. Three student portraits drawn from the interview pool provide a qualitative, “thick description” of experiences, focusing on feedback. The study ultimately uncovered that student expectations about feedback are intimately related to secondary school experiences regardless of country of origin. In addition, complicated emotions arise as a result of specific misunderstandings about supervisor feedback. The findings highlight the need for more attention to communicating clear expectations about feedback, and the article concludes with recommendations for institutionally led feedback literacy.

Despite the current widespread use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) feedback, many issues regarding its efficacy still remain unresolved. Recent studies mainly focus on correctly detected errors with a lack of attention on the comprehensiveness of error detection, or error coverage. Error coverage is interesting because little is known about the capacity of AWE systems to fully detect common second language (L2) errors. It is also important to investigate the potential effect of such capacity on student uptake and retention, which are important constructs in fostering L2 writing development. To this end, the present study compared teacher feedback and AWE error coverage in L2 writing classes. The findings suggest that both the AWE system and the teacher demonstrated low error coverage across grammar, usage, and mechanics error categories. However, they indicated differences in the types of errors they identified most frequently. The AWE system flagged more mechanical errors, whereas the teacher provided twice as many corrections for grammar errors, including wrong/missing words, prepositions, and incorrect word forms. While the AWE system performed moderately in flagging articles and comma errors, it struggled with more nuanced grammatical errors, suggesting it may not be a reliable standalone tool for addressing specific needs of L2 learners’ writing challenges. Interestingly, coverage was positively associated with successful uptake, with students utilizing a wider variety of revision acts (i.e., change, add, delete, remove) on AWE errors identified compared to errors not identified. However, error coverage did not correlate with short- or long-term retention of accuracy, implying that retention may result from the interplay of error coverage with other factors. Findings provide implications for writing teachers regarding the employment of AWE systems and for AWE developers regarding the future optimizations of the AWE systems.

This qualitative study investigates how writing instructors compose feedback in multimodal digital environments, focusing on the rhetorical and relational dimensions of their design choices. Drawing on social semiotics and multimodal composition theory, the study analyzes feedback artifacts, instructor interviews, and student surveys from six first-year writing courses. Findings reveal that instructors engage in complex feedback design work across communication modes, often without formal training or shared frameworks. Instructors tended to default to text-based habits shaped by genre memory but adapted their strategies in response to communicative breakdowns and student needs. The study identifies three core themes: reliance on print-era conventions, rhetorical problem-solving through modal layering, and ambiguity in feedback interpretation. Despite these challenges, instructors demonstrated creativity and care in their attempts to communicate clearly and relationally. The article calls for a rhetorical framework to support multimodal feedback design, emphasizing the need for pedagogical reflection, professional development, and student co-interpretation. As genAI and platform automation continue to evolve, the findings underscore the importance of feedback as a site of human judgment and presence. The article concludes with recommendations for instructors, writing programs, and institutions to better support feedback as intentional, relational work.

Teacher written feedback is a central area of L2 scholarship and writing teacher education yet considerable research has focused on written corrective feedback (WCF) with considerably less attention paid to discourse-level (DLF) teacher written feedback. Our article identifies the gaps in the current teacher written feedback scholarship, explains why these gaps are problematic, and provides detailed recommendations for an agenda that examines teacher DLF and students’ use of this feedback. Our goal is to encourage scholars to explore new avenues of research that better take into account what writing “is” and “does” as well as take into account the linguistically heterogenous reality of 21st century writing classrooms.

This Teaching Tip introduces the Feedback Menu, a flexible protocol designed to promote student agency and feedback literacy in writing instruction. By allowing students to select the focus and mode of feedback they receive, the Menu helps tailor response to individual learning needs and supports meaningful revision at any stage of the composition process. The protocol is adaptable for use in first-year composition, professional writing, multilingual, and upper-division courses, in both face-to-face and online formats. Concrete implementation steps, sample menu items, and considerations for different teaching contexts are provided.

Continuous revision policies provide sizable benefits to students, though one previously unexplored avenue of research is how such policies can help students develop a growth mindset. For the purposes of this article, a continuous revision policy is one where students are able to revise their work on a rolling basis up until a predetermined point in the semester, with multiple rounds of revision being accepted and encouraged. This article details the results of a semester-long study of a basic writing classroom wherein the objective was to determine how a continuous revision policy can help students develop a growth mindset. By taking the opportunity to revise their work on a continuous basis, these students were able to receive and implement instructor feedback on their work to both improve their grades and enhance their understanding of the writing process. In this way, students gained confidence in their writing and were able to develop an outlook on their work more in line with the growth mindset, gaining a better understanding of writing as a skill that can be gained via practice and effort rather than a talent that some students naturally have.

In this teaching tip, we propose purposeful pre- and post-writing conferences as a teacher practice to support young children’s early writing practices. We share how teachers can facilitate children’s idea development through conversational moves during writing conferences and provide a model for what this could look like using a task-based composing prompt.

Asking students to reflect on their learning experiences during a first-year course may not be a radical idea; however, asking them to pre-flect and then reflect on their experiences is an approach that can help set the scene for an effective learning moment. In our Teaching Tip, we detail an activity used in a first-year English Composition course that encourages students to think and pre-flect first, prior to a peer-review activity, which contributes to a more thorough student learning experience. Taking time for pre-flection and reflection can help students question their own contributions in the classroom community (Bean, 2011) and can guide revisions that happen during peer review. Our tip will share the process and actual instructional material so other writing faculty members can replicate this effective experience in their own classrooms.

This brief article discusses the advantages of using a student grade proposal within a labor-based grading framework, focusing on how the grade proposal may reinforce the equity-related aims of labor-based grading and hone students' ability to self-assess. The article discusses the learning outcomes of the grade proposal and its process, then ends with a sample grade proposal.

This paper explores how Chinese ESL students utilize Generative AI (Gen AI) in their writing processes, focusing on the stages of writing, specific methods of use, and language practices. The study was carried out in an English-medium instruction (EMI) environment at a Sino-American university in China. Data were collected through online surveys with 157 participants and follow-up interviews with nine students. Quantitative analysis of the survey data uncovered general patterns, while analysis of the interview data, using Polio & Freedman’s (2017) coding method to identify themes, provided detailed illustrations. Subsequent analysis indicates that students primarily engage with Gen AI in the early stages of writing for brainstorming to overcome initial hurdles. Information retrieval happens frequently throughout the writing process. However, ethical concerns and academic integrity issues discourage students from directly incorporating AI-generated text into their drafts. Regarding language use, Chinese ESL students make flexible language choices based on task goals, content relevance, and the perceived cultural appropriateness of AI-generated content. Though limited, this paper expounds on how Gen AI is flexibly utilized in ESL writing and aims to inspire future academic research in this emerging area. The assistive role of Gen AI in ESL writing is emphasized, and strategies for its responsible and critical use are proposed.

Effective written feedback is crucial to student learning and fostering writing skills. Responding to student writing is a multi-faceted and complex process which requires a more nuanced understanding in second language writing research. This study explored teachers’ beliefs and practices about written feedback may be influenced by a range of factors. Data were collected from four middle-school English teachers in China via stimulated recall tasks and semi-structured interviews reflecting retrospectivly on how and why teachers gave feedback to student writing. Findings revealed intersections between feedback strategy and learner proficiency level; feedback scope and time constraints and teacher workload; and feedback focus and contextual factors. The implications of these findings in relation to teacher professional development, contextualised teacher education, and the changing landscape of written feedback practices in the age of AI are discussed.

L2 writing, known as a cognitively demanding process, has also been perceived to encompass emotional aspects for L2 writers, as they tend to exhibit various feelings towards teacher feedback on their writing performance. The current study therefore explored EFL Vietnamese students’ emotions toward teacher-written feedback and how their emotions were perceived to impact their engagement and writing performance during the writing process. Data was obtained through semi-structured interviews with the involvement of college Vietnamese students after their essays and teacher feedback were collected. The results showed variations in students’ emotions were found at different rounds of teacher-written feedback, which were perceived by the students to influence their cognitive resources, motivation, and self-regulation of learning. Pedagogical implications are discussed with an emphasis on how to provide or modify teacher written feedback at different stages of the writing process to sustain and promote student engagement with teacher feedback and their writing practice.

In this article I discuss some of the issues that scholars are and aren’t writing about in relation to the recent resurgence in contract grading, and reflect on my own experience using contract grading in composition and other classes. I come to the topic as a scholar and university teacher in rhetoric and composition, though my discussion certainly is relevant to teachers in many disciplines and institution types. My aim is to offer an analysis of the benefits and drawback of the “new” contract grading, with special attention to what I call the “more is better” mantra that informs many current iterations of contract grading.

Within response scholarship, although there is some literature addressing response in the context of thesis projects, the student perspective is notably absent. This article brings the students’ perspectives into focus as it is collaboratively written by three thesis students and their adviser. Three main findings are presented discussing the relationship between the thesis adviser and student and the feedback provided throughout the process. First, context plays a critical role in the manner in which the relationship is viewed by both the thesis adviser and student, with factors such as age, prior coursework and supervision of the student, the thesis adviser’s knowledge of the topic, IRB protocols, etc. playing an important role in how both the student and adviser perceive the relationship. Second, written and verbal feedback each play crucial roles in the feedback process, with their relationship often being reciprocal as the written feedback plays an agenda-setting role for verbal exchanges. And, lastly, students’ emotional responses to their thesis adviser’s written feedback are often directly related to the labor that the feedback will create rather than the tone or focus of the feedback itself.

This teaching tip outlines a structured approach to incorporating a “Professional Blog Writing” assignment in a Business and Professional Writing course. Designed to develop students’ understanding of document design and professional communication, the assignment encourages students to apply designing and writing principles to create audience-focused, purpose-driven content in a professional blogging context. Through a combination of collaborative learning, independent writing, and iterative revision, this assignment promotes critical thinking, creativity, and practical skills essential for professional success.

This study explored a way to help Japanese university students write longer essays while maintaining grammatical accuracy. Participants were three groups of students enrolled in a one-year EFL course in consecutive academic years (N = 111), and the number of words they wrote in 30 minutes and the number of errors made per 100 words were compared. To improve the participants’ grammatical accuracy, comprehensive coded feedback (e.g., Bonilla, et al., 2018, 2021; Hartshorn, et al., 2010) and selective metalinguistic explanation (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Sheen, 2007) were provided on the 12 paragraphs/essays they submitted. The first, sixth, and last essays were analyzed to assess their verb tense and mechanical errors. Regarding the length of writing, the first group kept writing about 150 words, the second group was encouraged to increase the length of writing at their own discretion, and the third group was systematically guided to write longer essays by following a prescribed guideline. The ANOVA results showed that the two groups that wrote longer essays significantly outperformed the short-essay group in the length of writing without sacrificing grammatical accuracy. The correlation analyses produced evidence against a possible trade-off between accuracy and fluency (Lambert & Kormos, 2014; Skehan, 2009).

The positive effects of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) on linguistic accuracy are well-documented (Evans et al., 2010). However, studies on DWCF without exception have adopted a pretest-posttest research design; therefore, they were unable to explore the dynamics of development (Larsen-Freeman, 2006). In addition, all of the previous DWCF studies exclusively provided indirect feedback to students. Consequently, our knowledge is limited as to whether a modified version (providing direct feedback) of DWCF would be effective. To address this issue, in this study 24 university undergraduate students composed a total of 288 essays and received modified DWCF (direct feedback) on a weekly basis in two advanced writing courses over 12 weeks. The essays were analysed by applying both pretest-posttest and time-series analyses. Statistically significant differences were found in the linguistic accuracy indices (errors per words, errors-free clause ratio) in the student’s data between the pretest and posttest. The time-series analysis showed dynamics of the development of linguistic accuracy. This study showed that a modified version of DWCF is also effective and provides deeper insight into the dynamic processes of linguistic accuracy development.

Although writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programs have been commonplace since the 1970s, the focus has largely been at the level of assessment and programmatic development and less on the instructors, particularly graduate teaching assistants (TAs) who adopt these practices. In this article, we describe a pilot WAC graduate-level course in writing pedagogy that our institution developed as part of our recent membership in the Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL). We also share how one science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) graduate student revised her approach to assignment design, feedback, and assessment for a general education course and deepened her understanding of herself as an instructor as well as her students. We end by reflecting on how training in writing pedagogy can support graduate student identity development and improve student learning.

Current scholarship in writing pedagogy and peer review focuses on how and what to write and say. What is often left unaddressed in these discussions are how we listen and how we teach our students to listen, making listening an often overlooked and understudied piece of the peer review and writing response process. Yet, the quality of the feedback we receive and offer is directly tied to how well we listen to what is said and written. To this fill this gap, this teaching article offers two activities, Lighting Talks and 2x2x2 Storytelling, that promote students’ listening skills so that writing instructors might close the response feedback loop by teaching students how to listen and in turn, teach students how to engage more fully in peer review.

This paper examines some of the labor three professors from three different disciplines needed to exert to produce effective VF on student writing for the first time. The research on VF demonstrates that students want more video comments but the labor to learn how to make VF has not been fully identified. I completed a case study with three professors to collect data. I interviewed the professors at the beginning, middle, and end of the study. After transcribing and coding the interviews, I identified where the professors exerted a significant amount of labor to make VF for the first time. To be motivated to try VF, instructors would benefit from an account of the time needed to learn video literacies, manage paralinguistic activity, and design and organize comments for a video. This paper answers the following research questions: What are the limitations of making VF for the first time? What kinds of labor are required to produce VF for the first time? What do educators need to know before making VF for the first time?

The relationship between tutoring and teaching has been a recurrent topic of interest among writing center directors and writing program administrators. While scholarship agrees tutoring experience aids composition teachers with implementing process pedagogy and fostering a collaborative classroom, the relationship between tutoring and assessment of student writing is less clear. This qualitative study uses interviews with eight graduate teaching assistants with tutoring experience to examine how they transfer and juxtapose knowledge, practices, and values for response between the writing center and classroom. Like previous scholarship, this research finds writing center tutoring contributes to teachers’ enactment of constructivist, student-centered pedagogy and enhances their understanding of students’ relationship to writing and feedback, standard language ideology, and systemic inequities in education. However, evaluation led these instructors to experience tension between their values and preferred respondent roles, with many reporting anxious grading processes and some experimenting with alternatives to traditional grading. The article concludes with suggestions to build bridges between tutoring and teaching contexts, particularly through explicit attention to antiracist pedagogy and alternative assessment practices.

Research in feedback literacy (Carless & Boud, 2018; Molloy, Boud, & Henderson, 2020; Yu & Liu, 2021; Zhang & Mao, 2023) explores student use of written feedback and barriers to feedback uptake; the role of faculty in designing contextually appropriate feedback has been termed teacher feedback literacy (Carless & Winstone, 2023). When feedback does not achieve desired results, faculty must evaluate their feedback practices; they may be unaware of underlying features that hinder feedback effectiveness. In this paper, a long-time instructor of first-year college composition (FYC) interrogates her own feedback practices using tools from the specialization dimension of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT, Maton 2014; Maton 2016a; Maton 2016b). A translation device (Maton & Chen, 2016) connecting feedback data to LCT concepts was constructed to code responses to 105 student drafts. Subsequent analysis reveals that knowledge codes, which legitimate student achievement through demonstration of specialized knowledge and skills, predominate in the feedback. Comments foregrounding the dispositions, intentions, and agency of the student writers occur much less frequently. From these results, the instructor identifies potential barriers to student feedback uptake, including code mismatches and code confusion, which may be mitigated through adjustments to written responses and classroom instruction.

Giving feedback to student writing is one of the writing teacher’s most important tasks in the classroom, and there are many forms of feedback that writing teachers can use such as written feedback, teacher-student conferencing, peer feedback or self-assessment. More than these options, the influx of technologies into writing classrooms provides teachers with the use of screencast video feedback when responding to student writing. In this article, two second language writing teachers questioned their feedback practices when responding to students’ texts and implemented feedback innovation by using screencast video feedback in their classrooms with the goal of exploring how their attempts to use video feedback affected their individual practices. The implementation of video feedback opened their eyes as writing teachers because of its multimodality. The combination of aural, visual, textual, and gestural modes was particularly innovative for them because it helps them to envision feedback as a tool for promoting the improvement and learning of writing instead of correcting students’ immediate errors in writing. This article provides ideas and suggestions for writing teachers interested in improving feedback practices with screencast video feedback.

In this teaching tip, I introduce an exercise that engages students in offering feedback on their peers' in-progress thesis statements. The exercise encourages students' critical awareness of their own and others' writerly choices.

Within the context of second language (L2) writing, learner engagement with feedback has elicited significant theoretical and empirical interest (e.g., Zhang & Hyland, 2018; Zheng & Yu, 2018). Research has highlighted the dynamic nature of learner engagement with corrective feedback (WCF), but the ways in which learner and contextual factors impact such engagement with WCF in authentic classrooms are still underexplored (Han, 2019). Furthermore, little is known about how L2 learners engage with WCF from an ecological perspective, which considers the relationships between learners and their surrounding environments (Bronfenbrenner,1993; van Lier, 2000). Situated in an adult French as a second language (FSL) setting in Canada, this study adopted an ecological perspective to analyze the influence of learner and contextual factors on learners’ affective, cognitive, and behavioural engagement with WCF on linguistic errors. Participants in this study were five adult students registered in an FSL program in the francophone province of Quebec. Data were collected from multiple sources, including students’ drafts with written feedback provided, semi-structured interviews, retrospective verbal reports, and other class documents. Findings show that learner and contextual factors influence learners’ affective, cognitive, and behavioural engagement with WCF in a number of complex ways.

For many students, peer review can be muddled or frustrating. They can feel uncomfortable with the process if they do not feel confident with their own writing, and many believe poor past performances disqualify them from offering constructive feedback. Because writing center tutors are trained in sharing feedback in a kind and helpful manner, they are positioned to be excellent models for students inexperienced with or damaged by feedback. Learning how to participate in effective peer review can remove the emotional baggage attached to writing and create a respectful community of writers in the classroom. In this teaching tip, we explain how to embed writing center tutors in writing-intensive courses to improve peer review practices.

This article describes an exercise that can be implemented in a range of writing classrooms in order to help students unpack and craft a revision plan based on instructor or peer feedback that they received on their writing.

In this teaching tip, I introduce a hermit crab review activity. In the hermit crab review, students take an unusual form to contain their peer feedback, a form that frames and curates their peer response. This playful form of peer feedback makes peer review more accessible to students who are not proficient in providing feedback.

This teaching tip build on scholarship around the disconnect between teacher expectations and student experiences of peer review (Ahmed, 2021). In particular, it frames writers' feedback preferences through Elbow and Belanoff's (2000) "kinds of responses," and encourages reviewers to hit the "sweet spot" of constructive and supportive feedback after reading DePeter (2020). This framing helps scaffold the "asks" of peer review for students in a situation that is often fraught, challenging, and/or confusing, providing teachers with an opportunity to effectively teach an important and relevant transferable skill.

The study explored six ESL university students’ behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with e-rater feedback on local issues and examined any changes in students’ engagement over two weeks. We explored behavioral engagement through the analysis of screencasts of students’ e-rater usage and writing assignments. We measured cognitive and affective engagement by analyzing students’ comments during the think-aloud protocol and reflection surveys. The findings indicated that the students had varying levels of engagement with the feedback. Behaviorally, all students used a range of revision operations to address errors based on the provided feedback. Cognitively, some students were more engaged than others. Affectively, students experienced both positive and negative reactions toward e-rater feedback. While some students’ engagement with feedback did not change over two weeks, others’ engagement grew more negative. We conclude that e-rater feedback could positively impact students’ accuracy in local aspects of writing if students are actively engaged with the feedback.

Student self-analysis and reflective work can be useful components of the writing classroom. This article examines a student self-diagnostic tool, developed by the author, which can elicit closer attention paid to the student’s own writing, analysis, and research processes and to other desirable outcomes the teacher’s learning plan may be pursuing. This tool, the Genre Understanding Sheet or GUS, has been successfully deployed in a variety of writing courses such as introductory composition, business and professional writing, and technical communication. The article examines the GUS and its development and rationale, reviews the underlying science and theory-work which inform its design, offers advice for integrating it into the writing classroom and making productive use of student output, and concludes with a discussion of benefits and the optimal motivation for teachers who choose to deploy it in their own classes. An annotated sample GUS is included.

As preparation for the rhetoric and composition job market becomes more readily available through multiple sources, some cover letter writers may find themselves confused by the well-meaning, but perhaps conflicting, responses to writing given by mentors from differing backgrounds, statuses, and epistemes. This article seeks to illuminate the rhetorical situation behind the cover letter with simulated writing responses to a genuine cover letter by five reader archetypes: a supportive reader, a critical reader, an outside reader, a teaching-centric reader, and a research-centric reader. Through this exercise, cover letter writers are shown how to weigh writing advice through the juxtaposition of each reader’s response. Cover letter readers as a secondary audience are also addressed with considerations for preparing future job market participants.

Creating inclusive pedagogies that serve the whole student is a goal of many writing programs and writing centers, but it's difficult to find pathways to implement this goal. Employing responsive reflection to students' writerly identity work may offer instructors and writing center directors an accessible path to both encourage writerly identity development across contexts as well as reflect on pedagogical practice for inclusivity.

This exercise guides students in first- and second-year college writing classes through the process of developing their Zero Draft into a completed essay by asking them to respond to five reflective questions. This is a metacognitive project that asks students to expand the ideas in their zero draft to transition from their brainstorm to a finished essay. It is a scaffolded writing assignment that supports students to develop a robust portable writing process that they can transfer to future writing projects.

This teaching tip presents a strategy for teachers in all grade levels to use interactive portfolios to better document, scaffold, and assess individual multilingual student's writing progress in group writing tasks.

Assigning grades is conventionally the exclusive, lonely terrain of the instructor, even as other aspects of teaching and responding to student writing are collaborative. As an alternative that promotes student engagement and agency, labor-based contract grading is used in a growing number of writing classrooms. This article strives to add to these conversations by describing evidence-based, student-led grading as an option that engages students as well as a broad construct of writing. This approach foregrounds students’ own response to their writing, in the form of evidence-based interpretation and use arguments for their grades. It engages students in the process of assessment, in this case, in responding not only their labor but also to their writing process and writing they produce. First, the article briefly describes themes and challenges in conventional grading and in contract-based grading. Then, the article offers context and example material for evidence-based student interpretation and use arguments for summative grades. The article closes with limitations and ongoing considerations.

This review considers Ellen C. Carillo's The Hidden Inequities in Labor-Based Contract Grading, an important contribution that examines labor-based grading contracts through a disability studies lens.

This case study investigates how two English language learners use knowledge co-constructed while collaboratively processing written corrective feedback (WCF) on jointly produced texts. It does so through the lens of sociocultural theory (SCT). This study extends the extant literature by investigating how co-constructed knowledge emerging from their interactions was manifested in subsequent individual writing and speaking tasks which were similar—but not identical—to the original collaborative writing tasks. Data were collected from video recordings of participants’ interactions as they collaboratively processed WCF; individual retrospective interviews, during which participants watched the video recordings and identified what they learned; and observation of individual writing and speaking tasks. Results show that participants were able to use some of the knowledge generated through these interactions when completing writing and speaking tasks individually. Additionally, participants displayed the ability to transform this knowledge to meet the demands of new contexts. This indicates that usage of the knowledge generated while collaboratively processing WCF was not mindless copying, but that participants were able to either internalize, or begin the process of internalizing, this knowledge.

As labor-based grading contracts gain momentum in first year writing classrooms, new kinds of response to writing take center stage. We explore how session notes composed by embedded peer tutors and students become rich tools in a writing process and create a gateway to the writing center for first-year students. By reading session notes in conversation with students’ reflective writing, we put forward three key findings: students articulate a relationship between building confidence in their writing and their willingness to seek, receive, and value feedback; students discuss how the labor required for an ‘A’ pushed them to access and learn about resources outside of the classroom; and students’ interactions with the Writer’s Workshop during their first two semesters of college indicate that they can build long-term relationships with peers and with the Writer’s Workshop (including as staff members) beyond first-year-writing and beyond their first semester.

Despite a wealth of research on feedback practices in synchronous and asynchronous courses, little has been done to investigate such practices in hybrid writing pedagogy. How do instructors make choices about providing feedback when both instructional modes are operating in a course? A qualitative study conducted with fourteen instructors who teach hybrid writing courses at a large state university reveals how they navigate a series of choices about providing feedback on student writing. This study shows that instructional modality, use of the LMS, and labor conditions influence the decisions instructors make about how and when to provide feedback, especially on low-stakes work. While there is an emerging sense of thoughtful and critical decision-making around types of feedback and modality, this study finds that instructors do not yet have an integrated strategy when using the LMS to provide feedback in hybrid courses.

In this essay I discuss the pedagogical implications of a classroom activity in which students work reflectively with instructor feedback provided to their writing. Using the comments feature in Google Docs, these “Feedback Conversations” create a dialogue between student and instructor using feedback as the exigence for collaboration in developing a student’s writing process. This activity addresses the work of Anthony Edgington (2020) and Pamela Gay (1998), by offering an exercise which allows instructors to remain reflective on their feedback practices, while also instigating a “conversation” between student and instructor. By offering a virtual space to house this conversational exercise, students are provided a chance to take autonomy in their own learning and writing development. Feedback Conversations give students a direct say in the development of their process, ensuring that the instructor’s is not the only voice being afforded a say in how students are to use feedback to develop their writing process.

While a great deal is known about instructor response to student writing—from commenting practices to student perceptions—less is known about how feedback impacts students’ writing and writerly development. While we set out to study students’ explicit engagement with written instructor feedback, our initial experimental design was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we describe the dialogic collaborative process that emerged as we considered both the data we were able to collect and, in turn, feedback anew. This article proposes that feedback on student writing is a boundary object which affords those interacting with it the opportunity for collaboration despite the different languages, meanings, and priorities they bring to it. The results present an initial framework for theorizing feedback as boundary object, which includes 1) a linguistic comparison of the words used by instructors and students to talk about writing and 2) structural trends that we have termed “dialogic infrastructures,” describing the form and orientation of instructor feedback and corresponding student responses. We also share implications of this nascent theory for future feedback research and writing classroom practices.