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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite a large body of research into the benefits of corrective feedback (i.e., teachers’ reactions to students’ incorrect use of the target language), little is known about how new and experienced second-language (L2) teachers supply feedback to writing and what factors guide their decisions. This paper is a collaborative effort of 1 teacher-educator and 4 graduate students to examine the process of providing written corrective feedback (WCF) to university-level L2 learners. Findings point to complexities involved in WCF provision and the importance of examining CF holistically, as preservice teachers’ corrective choices and learners’ responses to them are often interlinked. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions. Any remaining errors are ours alone.

Welcome to the Fall 2020 issue of the Journal of Response to Writing. Despite the upending of many of our professional lives and day-to-day realities due to COVID-19, our dynamite authors, reviewers, and editors have been hard at work to bring you a robust collection for this new issue. If you are like us, one of the things we have missed the most during this time of emergency migration to online instruction has been the regular interactions we are used to having with the students in our classes. Aptly, many of the articles in this Fall 2020 issue focus on response to writing as it affects the students we teach. Whether it is recognizing the value of student-to-student exchanges during peer review, allowing students agency and choice in feedback and support processes, or keeping them in mind when we plan lessons and try out new techniques in the classroom, the valuable role students play in the process of response to writing cannot be overstated.

This article reports on a large-scale study of peer and instructor response and student reflection on response. The corpus of instructor and peer response to 864 drafts of student writing was collected via ePortfolios from first-year writing courses and courses across disciplines at 70 U.S. institutions of higher education. The following questions guided a qualitative analysis of the data: (a) What are the similarities and differences in the ways instructors and peers respond to college writing? (b) What perspectives do college students have on the feedback they receive on their writing from instructors and peers? Three themes emerged from a review of the literature on peer and instructor response and the results of the analysis of the data: (a) peer responders tend to be more focused on global concerns than instructors, (b) peer responders tend to be less directive than instructors, and (c) students learn as much from reading their peers’ drafts as they do from the comments they receive from peer responders or the instructor. The findings support an argument for placing peer response at the center of the response construct, rather than thinking of peer response as merely a complement to instructor response.

Welcome to the Spring 2020 issue of the Journal of Response to Writing. This year marks our 6th year of publishing, and this new issue contains five articles illustrating how our journal covers a wide range of topics of interest to scholars and teachers of first- and second-language writing.

Welcome to the first issue of the fifth volume year of the Journal of Response to Writing. We are excited to bring you two feature articles and one focused on teaching. Together, these articles span the three major domains we aim to cover: native language, second/additional language, and foreign language writing response. Additionally, the set of articles takes up issues of students’ feedback perceptions and provisions of feedback that can facilitate better student writing.

We are thrilled to introduce and welcome you to our fourth volume year of Journal of Response to Writing. This is the seventh installment of the journal, and we are encouraged by JRW’s growing readership and increasing dissemination of scholarship internationally. As we continue to offer a shared venue for practitioners and researchers of English composition, second language writing, foreign language writing, and writing center studies, we hope that you will kindly share this open-access, online resource with your colleagues and students who are interested in issues of response to writing. In this issue, we are pleased to introduce a range of fascinating articles that offers important insight into response practices across multiple formats, programs, and student backgrounds. In our first article “Peer Reviews and Graduate Writers: Engagements with Language and Disciplinary Differences While Responding to Writing,” Kate Mangelsdorf and Todd Ruecker examine the efficacy and potential of graduate L2 peer review sessions. This under-researched area of inquiry is meaningful given the assumptions many teachers and graduate students share that feedback on graduate-level writing is best provided by content experts with native language proficiency. This study followed 12 graduate students (nine L2 writers) over a 16-week peer review course to examine the impact of language background and discipline on peer review interactions. From their investigation, the authors argue that “students’ attitudes toward language difference. . .played a greater role in making successful peer reviews than students’ categorization as L1 or L2 students.” Manglesdorf and Ruecker further arranged students in peer review groups by similar disciplines, yet they still found that differences in education level (M.A. vs. Ph.D.) could interfere with helpful peer reviews. Nevertheless, the authors indicate that regardless of linguistic or disciplinary differences, all graduate writers can increase their r

This in-house inquiry explores the response practices of a group of L2 writing teachers in our specific program to gain a better understanding of these teachers’ feedback practices and to bring about purposeful change within our local context. Data consist of 4,313 electronic feedback (e-feedback) items given by six writing teachers to 36 L2 students on six writing tasks in a first-year writing course for international students. Using Ene and Upton’s (2014) e-feedback framework, each feedback instance was coded for feedback target, directness, explicitness, charge, and location. Although some variations exist, results show that these teachers overwhelmingly focused on form across writing tasks. Findings also show that the e-feedback was primarily corrective, direct, explicit, and within-text. Following a discussion of our programmatic response to this internal investigation, we conclude by arguing that programs can establish philosophies of response grounded in their specific context based on examination of local practices.

We are pleased to share with you our latest issue of the Journal of Response to Writing. Although not intentionally planned, this issue’s three feature articles all explore the affective dimensions of response, considering both learners’ and instructors’ views on aspects of response practice. The authors point out that just as important as examining what happens when responding is knowing how the people involved experience response. We are pleased to welcome back JRW’s founding editor, Dana Ferris, whose article “‘They Say I Have a Lot to Learn’: How Teacher Feedback Influences Advanced University Students’ Views of Writing” presents the findings from a large-scale longitudinal study investigating how upper division undergraduate students remember the feedback they received from previous teachers. Ferris surveyed 8,500 students across five years to find out how their affective perceptions of teacher feedback corresponded to their views on writing. With both qualitative and quantitative data, Ferris argues that students who report having received more negative feedback also have less positive feelings about writing in general. Multilingual writers in particular remember more critical feedback and find less enjoyment in writing overall. Ferris suggests that these findings should be a reminder to teachers to pay attention to how they respond to students’ texts, as instructor comments can have a lasting impact on learners’ feelings about writing for academic purposes.

Welcome to the first issue of the third volume year of the Journal of Response to Writing. We are very encouraged by the positive response from readers to our previous issues and are excited to share several excellent contributions in this collection. Before introducing those articles, we want to also welcome you to our first issue published under new editorship. Dana Ferris has rejoined the general editorial board while Grant Eckstein and Betsy Gilliland have been appointed as the new coeditors of the journal.

Welcome to the second issue of our third year of publication. As the journal has become more established, we are seeing a wide range of fascinating research and teaching work related to response to writing in both first and second language contexts. This issue is no different. In this issue, we present two research articles, two teaching articles, and a book review. In the first piece, “L2 Learners’ Engagement with Direct Written Corrective Feedback in First-Year Composition Courses,” Izabela Uscinski examines how second language learners of English engage with feedback from their college writing teachers. Uscinski draws on Svalberg’s (2009) definition of engagement, suggesting that it “encompasses not only the cognitive realm, but also affective and social.” To better understand how writers make use of written corrective feedback and whether it leads to meta-awareness and noticing of language structures, she recruited eight Chinese-L1 first-year college students taking a stretch composition course at a university in the United States. She asked the students to meet with her when they had received grammar feedback from their teachers and recorded the computer screen as they revised their essays. Playing back the recordings, she then asked the students to discuss what they had done and why.

This study explores student written responses to teacher feedback and analyzes these responses through the framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA). Drawing on CDA, we examined the structural, interactional, and interdiscursive features of 21 students’ paragraph-length comments on formative teacher feedback on their first assignment draft in a first-year composition class and investigated relations between the text, interaction, and context. The structural analysis indicates that the students’ comments demonstrate their emerging academic literacy skills. Our interactional analysis shows that most students took on an active role as a good student and a hardworking writer, but some students exerted their agency by taking the opportunity to resist the authority of the teacher, while others rejected it altogether. Our interdiscursive analysis illustrates that students used not only language from the teacher’s comments, but also metalanguage of the composition classroom to formulate their responses. Based on our findings, we discuss implications for teaching practices and future avenues for research on students’ responses to teacher feedback.

This study explores students’ response to direct written corrective feedback (WCF) in first-year composition courses. To that end, it focuses on analyzing students’ engagement with direct feedback and meta-awareness of the corrections provided on one of their drafts. Data include students’ revisions recorded with screen-capture software and the video-stimulated recall, which was transcribed and coded for evidence of engagement and meta-awareness. The findings of the study indicate that students’ engagement and meta-awareness may be affected by pedagogical factors, such as feedback delivery method. Based on the insights gained from this study, the author suggests that direct feedback may be more beneficial if it is provided in a comment or in the margin of the paper, and that the student may have a higher potential for learning if a brief explanation about the nature of the error is included. In addition, students may need to be provided with guidelines on how to engage with their instructors’ feedback. The author concludes by suggesting that if direct WCF is provided, students should be held accountable for learning from the feedback, and the author recommends ways in which this can be done without penalizing students for not showing immediate improvements on subsequent writing projects.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) has been increasingly attracting researchers in second language acquisition (SLA) as well as second language (L2) writing practitioners. Bitchener and Storch, two renowned WCF researchers, define WCF as “a written response to a linguistic error that has been made in the writing of a text by an L2 learner” (p. 1). This increasing interest in WCF is understandable because the implementation of WCF is time-consuming as well as pedagogically imperative. However, it is widely known that learners keep making the same error, and thus teachers’ efforts do not pay off easily. Therefore, with the increasing number of published research, it is beneficial to review studies about WCF to synthesize findings and identify issues to guide future research. To this end, Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development comprehensively reviews WCF studies, especially those conducted under cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, the two major driving forces in this domain.

It’s exciting to already be introducing the first issue of our second volume year of this new journal! We’ve been receiving positive feedback on volume 1 and great contributions for this and upcoming issues. In this issue, we present two research articles and two teaching articles. In the first piece, “Papers are Never Finished, Just Abandoned: The Role of Written Teacher Comments in the Revision Process.” M. Sidury Christiansen and Joel Bloch examine the delicate dynamics occurring between teachers’ written comments and subsequent revisions. Their study follows four students receiving written comments from one teacher over a series of three papers and two revisions per paper. The four students were postgraduate science or engineering students, all international students taking an ESL writing course at a university in the U.S. The teacher feedback took the form of marginal comments using the Microsoft Word® Comments tool as well as an add-on set of macros allowing the teacher to standardize commonly made comments (and customize them as needed).

The debate over the efficacy of written teacher comments has raised a variety of questions for consideration by both researchers and practitioners. Teachers can use written comments, in Vygotsky’s (1978) framework, to scaffold the development of student writing. By reflecting on his or her own commenting process, a teacher can assess and modify his or her comments as well as the method by which the comments are delivered. This study examines how four second-language (L2) students responded to comments on a series of three papers. The results show that students overwhelmingly followed the strategy training given during class on how to respond to teacher’s comments; however, the strategies used to make changes did not always result in a positive revision. While students believed they followed the teacher’s suggestions, they did not always pay attention to the paper as a whole, which resulted in problems with coherence or grammar, and even instances of plagiarism. Results indicate that strategy training does not guarantee an outcome of successful revision. This suggests that revision will be more effective for student paper development if understood as part of the creative process of writing rather than mere error correction. Based on these results, several proposals are made for modifying the comment process.

Metacognition is a typical learning outcome in composition courses, but providing feedback on low-stakes reflective writing and assessing highstakes reflective writing are complex tasks that warrant more attention in the literature. Consequently, this article explores how the assignment of and response to low-stakes reflective writing can provide effective scaffolding to higher-stakes reflective writing tasks. We present an example of our strategy for response through one instructor’s experience with responding to her first-year composition student’s low-stakes reflective writing. Ultimately, we call for more research on responding to reflective writing that will ensure the valid and reliable assessment of metacognition in composition courses.

This issue completes the second volume year of JRW. It is hard to believe how quickly the two years have gone by, and we are gratified with the excellent work that authors have shared with us and with the positive response from readers. This issue has five papers—two research articles, two teaching articles, and a book review—which notably discuss response topics from a broad range of pedagogical contexts. With the publication of Magda Tigchelaar’s article, “The Impact of Peer Review on Writing Development in French as a Foreign Language,” we are happy to extend our discussions of response to writing to the teaching of languages other than English. Comparing the effects of peer review and self-review over a semester, Tigchelaar found that student writers were more likely to attend to/apply suggestions from their own self-reviews than they were to incorporate suggestions from their peers. She also found that peers were more likely to emphasize global concerns such as organization, and self-reviewers were more interested in fine-tuning at the sentence level and across sentences (cohesion). In particular, the study argues for a meaningful and increased role for guided self-feedback in writing instruction: “Learning how to review one’s own texts may require more time and training, but this initial investment may plant the seeds for more effective development of autonomous writers.”

This study presents a piloted second language (L2) writing tutor (L2WT) internship program as a way to provide supplemental, sustained writing fellow- style support to L2 writers and classroom teachers in multilingual firstyear composition (FYC) courses in a large U.S. university within the span of one semester. The major facet of the internship program was the tutors’ response to student writing in a one-to-one context for each major essay assignment. The presence and needs of second language writing students in the writing classroom have been clearly articulated in relevant research, but what is less known is how to devise successful methods of support that are both helpful and economical. The author provides evidence that students in L2WT-mediated classes earned higher grades and that the L2WT internship program was perceived as valuable for all parties involved: L2 writers, L2 writing teachers, and the tutors themselves. Additionally, the for-credit internship is a cost-effective option for writing programs without the funding to implement a large-scale writing fellows program. Implications for future offerings of the fellow-style internship, as well as suggestions for how to implement this program in additional contexts, are provided.

Faculty and writing center tutors bring expertise to writing as practice and process. Yet at many institutions, the two groups work in relative isolation, missing opportunities to learn from each other. In this article, I describe a faculty development initiative in a multidisciplinary writing program that brings together new faculty and experienced undergraduate tutors to workshop instructors’ comments on first-year writing. The purpose of these workshops is to assist faculty in crafting inquiry-driven written responses that pave the way for collaborative faculty-student conferences. By bringing together scholarly conversations on tutor expertise and the role of faculty comments in student learning, I argue for the value of extending partnerships between writing centers and programs. Such accounts are important to the field for challenging what Grutsch McKinney (2013) calls the “writing center grand narrative,” which limits the scope of writing center work by imagining centers primarily as “comfortable, iconoclastic places where all students go to get one-to-one tutoring on their writing” to the exclusion of lived realities (p. 3). In this case, I describe a writing center where tutors bring their expertise outside the center and into the faculty office, consulting in small groups with faculty with the aim of enriching the quality of instructor feedback in first-year seminars.

Welcome to the second issue of the Journal of Response to Writing! We are delighted with the warm response to this new journal and to our first issue, of which we are very proud. Thanks again to the authors who shared their work with us and to our Editorial Advisory Board.

My own interest in launching this journal arose in the spring of 2012 when I taught a new doctoral seminar on response to student writing. I had a very bright and engaged group of students who, for the major assignments in the course, reviewed the existing literature and made research proposals related to their own interests around the broad topic of response. Their topics and ideas were fascinating and on the cutting edge, but there was a problem: In several instances, there was little (or no) recent research for them to review.

In a conversation with an editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing, the question was asked, “What is the most popular topic of submitted manuscripts to the Journal?” The response was as decisive as it was quick, “That’s easy. Feedback or response to writing is by far the most commonly submitted topic.” That brief exchange triggered a number of questions that needed answers. First and foremost among those questions is, if response to writing is such a popular topic, might there be a need within our profession for another venue for such scholarship? Though the Journal of Second Language Writing is extraordinary at disseminating the highest quality research on broad aspects of second language writing, space within its pages is limited. Therefore, we determined to investigate whether there is indeed a need for another venue for quality scholarship on response to writing for international dissemination.