The current study reports on the “rhetoric revision log,” which was developed to help second language writing students track their progress in improving rhetoric-related issues in their writing (such as organization and topic development). Sixty-six English as a second language (ESL) students were divided into one control and two treatment groups. Students in the two treatment groups used the rhetoric revision log to keep a record of teacher written feedback in several rhetoric-related areas throughout the course of one semester. The two treatment groups differed in that in one the students used only the log (log-only), while in the other (log + conference) students also participated in structured writing conferences in which the teacher discussed the rhetoric revision log with the students. Results revealed that both treatment groups improved more in their overall writing ability than the control group. Moreover, students in the log + conference group were more likely than the other two groups to improve in rhetoric-related writing features over the course of the semester. These findings suggest that using the rhetoric revision log helped students improve not only rhetoric-related aspects of their writing, but also their overall writing ability.

As research on corrective feedback targeting linguistic accuracy in second language (L2) writing expands in scope and quality, we continue to gain insights about the effects of feedback on L2 writers. Nevertheless, comparatively little research has focused on the teachers themselves – those who make the pedagogical decisions about the use of feedback in the classroom. Thus, we have sought to better understand the variables that may shape practitioners’ choices about feedback targeting linguistic accuracy. The purpose of this study was to analyze learner, teacher, and situational variables that may influence correct feedback choices in the L2 classroom. Data were collected by means of an electronic survey distributed to over 1000 ESL/EFL writing teachers in 69 different nations. In addition to investigating the entire data set, we examined those practitioners who provide the most and least feedback targeting linguistic accuracy. We analyzed variables such as learner age, proficiency, purposes for language learning, the ESL/EFL context, and type of institution, as well as the teachers’ L1, level of education, academic background, years of experience, and professional responsibilities. A number of systematic differences between groups were observed. Explanations for these findings are explored and suggestions are given for future research. Teacher attention to linguistic accuracy versus rhetorical instruction