University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

(USC Thesis Other)

Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP

1

EXAMINING URBAN HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS TEACHERS’
WRITTEN FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS AND
APPLICATIONS OF CULTURALLY RELEVANT PEDAGOGY

By

Steven Michael Rivas

________________________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2020
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 2
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the three people who have not only made me the scholar
I am today, but the person I am with an aspirational heart and tenacious spirit. These three people
are my sister Dr. Lisa Marie Rivas, my brother Brien Christopher Hunt, and above all, my
mother Andrea Dawson Leonard.
To my sister: Yes, technically you became doctor before me. I could not be prouder of the
dentist, sister, and individual you are. You have always been a foundational source of inspiration
for me. Your strength, wisdom, and tenacity to achieve your dreams is quite honestly
astonishing. You were the first to put me on the stage and make me perform in front of an
audience. In many ways, that was the catalyst for me to develop my own “voice” both artistically
and scholarly. Thank you for being my sister, my friend, and the inspiration you have always
been. You are awesome Dr. Rivas. I hope one day my nephew likes me.
To my brother: You are no longer physically with us, but you are definitely present in
heart and spirit. Without your particularly special heart and incredible spirit I would not have had
such incredible memories of light and joy in my younger years. We all miss you so much.
However, our lives are forever blessed because of you. You taught me to “express yourself.” I
hope that you look down from above with pride. All we need is food and creative love.
To my mother: Not only did you give me life, you gave me the life I know and love. How
can I thank the person who has given me everything I know? Your strength, passion, love, and
joy are some of the most admirable qualities you have passed to me and ones that I would not
hold without you. I am not sure how best to thank you but know I will always be here for you
from holding me as a baby to holding you as an old lady. Because you loved me, challenged me,
and supported me I am the man and scholar I am today.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To Dr. Julie Slayton, my dissertation chair: You once told us that a person said to you
that you are like freshly baked bread: hard on the outside but warm and soft on the inside. You
have definitely challenged me and supported me. I feel like a far more rounded scholar-
practitioner than I ever imagined I would become. Your questions, approaches, and lessons are
valuable experiences that I will forever treasure. Thank you for your support and expertise.
To Dr. Lisa Regan, professor, mentor, and committee member. Foremost, thank you for
your knowledge and expertise. From you, I learned how students of all abilities are gifted. From
you, I learned to see from the perspective of a student. From you, I learned to not use highly
descriptive adjectives in my social science writing. Thank you for being the incredible mentor
you have been. Fight on!
To Dr. Paula Carbone, professor, mentor, and committee member: From Teaching
English Language Arts in Secondary Classrooms A and B, to Secondary Content Area Literacy
to Guided Practice to Research in Teacher Education you have been a consistent and
inspirational professor and mentor. I am the English teacher I am today because of your wisdom,
passion, and expertise. In reading many of your articles you note that you often miss being with
youth in the English Language Arts classroom, your approaches, strategies, and expertise live on
in my classroom (as I am sure many of your former students). Thank you.
To my ASGL colleagues: Thank you for supporting me through this process and helping
me to see how instruction goes beyond a canon of literature to global competence.
To my USC TEMS colleagues: Thank you for the laughter, tears, joy and support. We all
went through this journey together and supported each other through the tough and joyous times.
Let’s go change the face of education together.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 4
To Mayra Montes: Your spirit and heart are greatly valued. You have pushed me and
supported me and I am forever grateful. You also give me the “chancla” when I need it so that I
may stay focused and headed in the right direction. Thank you for your love, kindness, wisdom,
expertise, and heart. Somehow, someday I will return the love and lessons you have given to me.
To Arleen Garcia: From British Literature, Advanced Expository Writing for Teachers, y
Composición y Gramática Avanzada at CSUN to ASGL, you have been a source of joy. I cannot
thank you enough for being a light in my life. Thank you for supporting me and challenging me.
Gracias y no pos wow!
To Jillian Guthrie: From M.A.T. to today, you have made me laugh, cry (silly, sappy
Youtube videos) and smile. Thank you for your support. You certainly are an amazing English
teacher.
To Andrew: While our journey has just begun, thank you for your support and love. You
certainly have been a source of wisdom and support. You pushed me when I needed it.
To my K-12 Teachers: All of you contributed to the scholar I am today. Your expertise
and knowledge that you gave to me resonated with me throughout my educational trajectory and
resonate throughout this dissertation in many ways.
To my professors at CSUN and USC: Thank you for all the content area knowledge and
content-pedagogy knowledge you have given me. I would not be the scholar I am today. Without
your lessons.
To all my friends: Thank you for your support, laughs, kindness, and love.
To Madonna: Your strength, style, and music have been a source of inspiration to me.
To Lady Gaga: Again, your style, strength, and music are sources of light for the
community.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 5
Abstract
This dissertation examined ten teacher participants’ written feedback to student writing and how
that feedback along with writing instruction reflected tenets and themes of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy (CRP) and Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRT). Both beliefs and actual practice were
explored. The research question that informed this study was: How do high school English
teachers believe they use written feedback on historically marginalized students’ writing tasks to
contribute to their students’ ability to become proficient in academic writing? This qualitative
study used interviews and document analysis to understand teachers’ beliefs and practices in
written feedback to student writing. The findings revealed minimal manifestations of the tenets
and themes of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching in writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing in the teachers’ beliefs about these beliefs and
practices. In their actual written feedback from student samples, teachers used written feedback
to comment on and question students’ ideas, to note where students did well and could improve.
Use of feedback as macro comments was noted as well response to students’ ideas in
commentary was found. Content and form-based feedback were also explored in the student
writing samples. Teachers assumed foci for their written feedback given each student sample was
either content or form based. The teacher participants noted more often than not an assumed
focus on content. There were cases when the assumed focus reflected in the actual written
feedback, when it did not manifest, and when the assumption somewhat manifested.
Keywords: Written Feedback to Student Writing, Culturally Relevant Pedagogy,
Culturally Relevant Teaching, Content-Based Feedback, Form-Based Feedback

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Abstract
List of Tables
List of Figures
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Background of the Problem
The Role of Teacher Ideology and Practice
The Complexity of Teaching Writing
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Significance of the Study
Researcher Role and Identity
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Ideology of Instruction in Urban Contexts
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching
Secondary Writing Instruction and Written Feedback
Conceptual Framework
Teacher Ideology
Feedback to Student Writing and Its Affordances
Affordances of Written Feedback: Beyond the Three Original Tenets
Conclusion
Chapter Three: Methods
Research Design
Sample and Population
Site Selection
Participant Selection
Instrumentation and Data Collection
Interviews
Artifacts of Student Writing with Feedback
Data Analysis
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Ethics
Limitations
Delimitations
Conclusion
Chapter Four: Findings
Finding Area 1: What Teacher Participants Believed They Did in Their Writing
Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as a
Manifestation of Academic Achievement
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as a
Manifestation of Cultural Competence
2
3
5
9
10
11
12
13
13
14
16
17
19
19
21
22
42
75
113
115
115
116
117
119
119
121
121
122
126
126
128
129
133
135
137
138
138
140

143

143

152
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 7
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as a
Manifestation of Socio-political Critique and Consciousness
Misunderstanding of CRP/CRT Tenets
Academic Achievement
Cultural Competence
Socio-political Critique and Consciousness
Exclusion of Students’ Culture and Identity from the Written
Feedback to Student Writing and Writing Instruction
Exclusion of Students’ Identity (Culture and Outside School Lives)
Specifically in Written Feedback to Student Writing
Beliefs About Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student
Writing from Relatively Traditional Means
Conclusion
Finding Area 2: What Teachers Did in Their Written Feedback to Student
Writing
Teacher Participants Used Written Feedback to Student Writing and
Noted Its Importance
Teacher Participants Use of Written Feedback to Indicate Areas
Where Students are Doing Well in Academic Writing
Teacher Participants Use of Written Feedback to Focus on Areas of
Growth in Students’ Academic Writing
Teacher Participants’ Use of Written Feedback Crafting Questions to
Push Student Thinking in Academic Writing
Teacher Participants Use of Written Feedback in the Form of “Macro”
Comments Responding to the Writing Task Overall
Teachers Participants’ Use of Written Feedback to Respond to
Students’ Ideas in the Form of Statements
Written Feedback: Content-Based and Form-Based
Overall Written Feedback to Student Writing
Written Feedback Provided to Writing Samples of “Struggling
Writers”
Written Feedback Provided to Writing Samples of “Typically
Developing Writers”
Written Feedback Provided to Writing Samples of “Advanced
Writers”
Stated Focus in Written Feedback Versus Actual Written Feedback
Assumptions about written feedback were accurate in actual
written feedback
Assumptions about written feedback were inaccurate in the
actual written feedback
Assumptions about written feedback were somewhat accurate
in the actual written feedback written feedback
Written Feedback as a manifestation of the theme of building positive student
to teacher relationships
Conclusion
Revised Conceptual Framework

159
164
164
165
166

167

170

173
179

180

181

190

196

204

208

216
219
220

221

222

224
225

225

229

231

234
237
238

241

247

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 8
Summary of Findings
Chapter Five: Discussion
Summary of Findings
Teachers Participants’ Beliefs About Their Writing Instruction and
Written Feedback to Student Writing
Teacher Participants’ Actual Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to
Student Writing in Practice
Implications and Recommendations
Implications and Recommendations for Practice and Policy
Practice
Preservice Teacher Education
Inservice Teacher Professional Development
Policy
University Teacher Preparation
District Level Professional Development Policy
Implications for Future Research
Conclusions
References
Appendix A: Initial Interview Protocol
Appendix B: Follow-Up Interview Protocol

241
246
247

247

248
249
250
250
250
252
254
254
255
256
258
260
267
273

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Teacher Participants in Relation to Years Teaching and Courses Taught
at Time of Data Collection
Table 2 Participants in Relation to Title I Status, School Population,
% ELL, %SPED, % Gifted, and Genre of Artifacts Collected
Table 3 Content Versus Form Findings Across Teacher
Participants and Student Writing Samples.
Table 4 Total Comments Versus Actual for “Struggling Writers”
Table 5 Total Comments Versus Actual for “Typically Developing Writers”
Table 6 Total Comments Versus Actual for “Advanced Writers”

124

125

220

222

224

225

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Distribution of Socio-Economic Status Factors by Seating Arrangement
at the Three Tables in the Kindergarten Classroom
Figure 2. Distribution of Socio-Economic Status Factors by Seating Arrangement
in the Three Reading Groups in the Second-Grade Classroom.
Figure 3. Variations in Teacher-Directed Behavior for Three Second-Grade
Reading Groups During Three Observational Periods Within a Single Classroom.
Figure 4. Conceptual Framework
Figure 5. Revised Conceptual Framework

32

32

33

114

241
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 11
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In this chapter, I explain the background of the problem of the study. Next, I provide a
statement of the problem, which grounds the research question. After, I provide both the purpose
and significance of the study. These discussions provide a context for the study. I will conclude
the chapter with a brief discussion on the organization of the study. The researcher role and
identity are discussed as well.
Background of the Problem
Historically, marginalized/minoritized high school students have not performed at
academically proficient levels when compared to their White counterparts (Applebee et al.,
2003). This opportunity gap is also present in the area of college level writing (Beck et al.,
2013). Yet, skill in written communication is crucial to students’ readiness for success in college,
as well as their ability actively participation in a democratic society (Beck et al., 2013). Students’
success in higher education and professional life depends greatly on secondary writing
instruction (Graham & Perin, 2007). Thus, all students need to become efficient writers.
However, teachers often fail to create learning opportunities for students of all ability levels and
cultural and linguistic backgrounds that enable them to be proficient in the type of critical
thinking required in complex writing tasks (Applebee et al., 2003; Beck et al., 2018; Nystrand &
Gamoran, 1997). This failure is the result of the role that teachers’ beliefs play in the pedagogical
choices they make when teaching historically marginalized and minoritized students as well as
complexity of teaching writing.
The historical trajectory to feedback has largely been towards correction of grammatical
error rather than commentary on ideas and content for historically marginalized/minoritized
students and students of linguistic variety (Ferris, 1994, 2003; Ferris et al., 1994; Freedman,
1987; Sherry, 2017). In contrast, teachers of students with more gifted tendencies tend to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 12
comment on ideas using more collegiate language and advancing students in their critical
thinking (Sherry, 2017). Thus, historically marginalized/minoritized students receive less
commentary that would help them advance their own academic thoughts in writing. Students of
non-marginalized groups are identified more frequently in gifted courses/programs then their
historically marginalized/minoritized peers (Applebee et al., 2013).
This suggests then lower performing writers continue to not perform to standards in
academic writing (Applebee et al., 2013) while higher performing writers grow more towards
their proficiency (Applebee et al., 2013). Finding areas of growth and areas of strength is critical
to the academic writing proficiency of all writers and should be addressed irrespective of
proficiency level (Ferris, 1994, 2003; Ferris et al., 1994; Freedman, 1987).
The Role of Teacher Ideology and Practice
The K-12 school population is becoming increasingly diverse (Bartolomé, 2004; Milner,
2010, 2017). Teacher ideology varies across settings and these beliefs about students manifest in
the teachers’ approach to and interaction with students (Milner, 2010, 2017, Philip, 2011).
Moreover, these ideologies and beliefs influence the practice, content, and approach that teachers
elect in their classrooms (Bartolomé, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Milner, 2010, 2017; Philip,
2011). Despite the role these various teacher ideologies play in teachers’ approaches to teaching
their students, they are infrequently examined or questioned (Bartolomé, 2004; Ladson-Billings,
1992; Milner, 2010, 2017; Philip, 2011). These unexamined ideologies can lead to cultural
conflict in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1992; 2014; Philip, 2011). In fact, teachers often
employ pedagogy for lower-income, historically marginalized/minoritized students that is often
reductive practice or “Pedagogy of Poverty” (Haberman, 1990).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 13
With such a profound effect on diverse students’ learning opportunities in United States
public schools, it is essential that teachers employ pedagogy that is culturally relevant to students
of historically marginalized communities (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Ladson-Billings (1992) argued that teachers must employ Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in order
to afford students opportunities to achieve academically, gain cultural competence, and critically
examine culture and society with proficient socio-political competence, thus developing a
cultural consciousness. With teacher practice having a profound impact on student learning
(Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003) and an ever-increasing population of students who are from
historically marginalized groups, teacher pedagogy and practice—which includes teacher written
feedback to student writing—must address the needs of learners with cultural and linguistic
variety.
The Complexity of Teaching Writing
For years, secondary English Language Arts teachers have understood and acknowledged
that providing feedback to students’ writing is central to their approach to solid writing
instruction (Freedman, 1987). Yet research shows that there is not one appropriate pedagogical
approach for teaching writing and using written feedback to student writing for even
homogenous groups of White students who speak English as their home language and where
families are affluent (Beck et al., 2018). It is a complicated practice and there is evidence that
response to student writing can confuse writers and promote negative attitudes toward writing
(Sherry, 2017). Furthermore, researchers have debated the most effective way to respond to
students in terms of the type of feedback: content or form (Ferris, 1994; Ferris et al., 1994;
Sherry, 2017). For example, in the mid-1980s the literature suggested that teachers should give
feedback on content on first drafts and grammatical functions on following drafts (Straub &
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 14
Lunsford, 1996). Later, in the 1990s, the literature moved to a focus on both content and form
(Beck, Cavdar, & Wahrman, 2018). Additionally, literature emphasized using the “questioning
model” and avoiding commentary that is, “…harsh, negative, or authoritarian” (Straub, 1996 as
cited in Ferris, 2003, p. 13).More recent research suggests that students will improve their
writing simply by re-drafting on several occasions (Beck et al., 2018; Ferris, 1994, 2003).
However, there is clear consensus that becoming more proficient in academic writing requires
writing practice and feedback from writing teachers (Ferris, 1994; Ferris et al., 1994; Freedman,
1987). All student writers will improve their writing abilities with focused feedback on areas of
growth irrespective of content or form-based feedback (Ferris, 1994; Ferris et al., 1994;
Freedman, 1987). Feedback to student writing is even more complex when students are
culturally and linguistically diverse (Sherry, 2017). When the student population is not culturally
homogenous, it becomes ever more complex to use appropriate written feedback as a mechanism
in teaching writing (Beck et al., 2018; Sherry, 2017).
Statement of the Problem
Historically marginalized/minoritized students require that teachers align their instruction
to engage their lived experiences (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2014), funds of knowledge (Moll &
Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 2005), and community (Ladson-Billings, 1994, 2014; Milner, 2010,
2017). Historically marginalized/minoritized students have been left out of the discourse of
United States schooling (Bartolomé, 2004; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Milner, 2010, 2017) and the
accepted academic discourse of academic composition (Ferris, 2003; Freedman, 1987).
Traditional schooling in the United States (Delpit, 1988; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Ladson-
Billings, 2014) and traditional approaches to writing instruction have historically not included
historically marginalized/minoritized students in the consideration of pedagogical practice
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 15
(Ferris, 1994; Freedman, 1987). Traditional writing instruction has not only ostracized
historically marginalized/minoritized students in terms of culture/ethnicity but as well students of
linguistic diversity (Ferris, 2003). Students of linguistic diversity—especially—need models of
strong academic language (Schleppegrell & O’Hallaron, 2011) in writing and written feedback
that validates and encourages idea development (Freedman, 1987; Ferris, 1994; Ferris et al.,
1994; Sherry, 2017).
Developments in national standards require that students read and produce coherent
narrative, argumentative, and informative texts (Common Core State Standards, 2010). The
national Common Core State Standards for writing assert and maintain that
...each year in their writing, students should demonstrate increasing sophistication in all
aspects of language use, from vocabulary to and syntax to the development and
organization of ideas and they should address increasingly demanding content and
sources. (Common Core State Standards, 2010)
The demand for coherent writing, mature and stylized syntax, and increasing inclusion of outside
sources and content necessitate linguistic and academic maturity in formal writing (cite). These
standards are set for all students (Common Core State Standards, 2010). irrespective of culture,
language, and capability.
While the United States has adopted rigorous college/career ready standards (Beck et al.,
2013), historically marginalized/minoritized students underperform in writing and teachers more
often that not do approach teaching writing and using written feedback in culturally responsive
ways to support their learning (Sherry, 2017) ,. The problem, then, is that writing instruction
including feedback must be used in such a way to meet these new, more-ambitious standards
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 16
while ensuring that writing instruction and written feedback as to student writing as core
practices of literacy instruction is culturally relevant (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004).
Traditional practices to literacy instruction and writing instruction have not included the
voices of historically marginalized groups (Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004). This study was situated in the
literature and concepts of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy which is a pedagogical approach that
not only lets students feel academic success to achieve academically and contributes to students’
maintenance and growth of their cultural competence, but builds a critical consciousness to
overcome and deconstruct structures that perpetuate social inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
Writing is a chance for students to express their articulate and critical voices. These critical
voices can lead to overcoming and deconstructing those social structures that perpetuate social
inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Thus, across all instructional practices—including written
feedback to student writing—teachers should include opportunities for students gain the capacity
to question inequity. A socio-culturally or socio-politically neutral approach to teaching practice
does not help students combat inequitable social structures (Shor, 1992 as cited in Cadiero-
Kaplan, 2004).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is two-fold. First, I wanted to understand the types of feedback
provided to historically marginalized and students on their writing tasks and how likely that
feedback is to contribute to their ability to become proficient in academic writing. Second, I
wanted to understand how teachers’ beliefs about their students are reflected in the quality of the
written feedback they provide to students on their writing. For these purposes, the following
research question informed my dissertation study:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 17
1. How do high school English teachers believe they use written feedback on
historically marginalized students’ writing tasks to contribute to their students’ ability
to become proficient in academic writing?
I conducted interviews with high school English teachers (grades 9-12). I also gathered artifacts
of student work with teacher commentary focusing on the commentary provide to the students.
Significance of the Study
This study is critical for many purposes. Academic writing is an essential practice at the
university/college level. With a push for all students to be prepared to meet the academic
demands of the Common Core State Standards, it is essential that students are prepared to
compose at advanced levels upon exiting the secondary school system. Additionally, I am
passionate about writing. As a developing teacher educator, I intend to assist future pre-service
teachers to be prepared to meet the demands of writing instruction at the secondary level that
affords opportunities for all learners to be prepared to meet university/college demands. This
study will inform my practice as an instructional coach as well in the district where I work where
I currently focus on assisting teachers across content areas to integrate literacy practices in all
domains of English Language Arts in their content area courses.
I contend that proficient academic writing is a critical skill for students to gain success in
overcoming inequity in society. If Culturally Relevant pedagogical practice does lead to the
success of historically marginalized students (Ladson-Billings, 1992), then written feedback that
both contributes to students’ academic achievement, cultural competence and the development of
a critical conscious and that contributes to students’ proficiency in academic writing is critical.
One of these social structures that perpetuate inequity for historically marginalized
students is the notion of hegemony. Hegemony is, “the power of one class to articulate the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 18
interest of the other social groups to its own” (Mouffe, 1979 p. 184 as cited in Cadiero-Kaplan,
2004). Hegemonic social structures are inequitable, oppressive social structures (Cadiero-
Kaplan, 2004). Thus, students need to be equipped to overcome these hegemonic structures.
Moreover, in English classrooms Kelly (1997) offers that:
across the country it can be found that the literacy (curriculum) falsely suggests a set of
practices that are univocal and generic, thereby denying literacies, the myriad ways in
which seemingly generic skills are practiced—imported, adopted, adapted, and
transformed within specific cultural frameworks. (as cited in Cadiero-Kaplan, 2004 p. 8)
Students then need the written feedback to their writing that is critical and prepares them to
recognize perspectives and inequities of social structures and are not “univocal and generic”.
Writing instruction that includes written feedback cannot be isolated from students’ home
cultural/linguistic patterns (Ferris, 2003). Writing pedagogy, then, must crucially consider the
affective and sociocultural needs and identities of all learners constituting an arena in which all
learners are secure in taking risks and trusting the guidance of others, including peers and
teachers (New London Group, 1996). Thus, culturally responsive and situated written feedback:
…should never be used to judge, but used developmentally, to guide learners to the
experiences and the assistance they need to develop further as members of the
community capable of drawing on, and ultimately contributing to, the full range of its
resources. (New London Group, 1996, p. 21)
Culturally responsive and situated written feedback contributes to the students’ development of
their voice to contribute to the potential to overcome inequities and positively contribute to
society.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 19
Researcher Role and Identity
I am a novice researcher who conducted this study as part of the degree of Doctor of
Education in Educational Leadership with an emphasis in Teacher Education in Multicultural
Societies. I work at an urban high school as an English Language Arts teacher. The catalyst and
interest for the theme of this dissertation came out of my own passion for teaching writing and
responding to student writing. I regularly interact with students who desire the guidance to
become proficient writers in academics. My conversations and experiences with secondary
students reveal that they are often intimidated by academic writing and that academic writing as
a terrifying endeavor. For this reason, I wanted to understand teacher written feedback and how
that can a positive and reflective force in writing instruction for students of historically
marginalized groups. This dissertation was based in my own beliefs in Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy with an admitted challenge of transferring this ideology into practice. Thus, on one
hand I wanted to understand and examine other teachers’ practices in written feedback to student
writing while reflecting on my own practices. As an educational scholar-practitioner, I wanted to
better understand the relation between urban high school English teachers’ beliefs and their
actual practices.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one discusses the state problem,
the background of the problem, significance of the problem, and purpose for the study. Chapter
two presents the relevant literature explored to situate this study and the original conceptual
framework. Major bodies of literature include: ideology of instruction in urban contexts;
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, and secondary writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing. Chapter three provides the methodology used to answer research questions that includes
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 20
the criteria for participants, the collection of data and approaches to data analysis and
justification for a qualitative study. Chapter four presents the findings of the analysis along with
a revised conceptual framework created as a result of the findings noted in the study. Chapter
five presents an executive summary of the findings as well as the implications for policy,
practice, and research. Areas for future research are also presented in Chapter five.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 21
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This dissertation looked closely at the nature of written feedback provided to historically
marginalized students on their writing tasks in in high school (grades 9-12) English classrooms
and the beliefs their teachers held about how written feedback supported students’ ability to
become proficient in academic writing. The research question that propelled this study was:
How do high school English teachers use written feedback on historically marginalized
students’ writing tasks to contribute to their students’ ability to become proficient in
academic writing?
In order to address these research questions, I drew upon three areas of theory and
research: Ideology of Instruction in Urban Contexts, Culturally Relevant and Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy and Secondary Writing Instruction/Feedback to Student Writing. The
literature contributed to the construction of my conceptual framework.
The purpose of examining these bodies of literature was to gain insight that enabled me
to answer the research question posed above. This review begins with the Ideology of Instruction
in Urban Contexts. This literature is important because it enabled me to understand the way that
teachers’ ideologies are fundamental to their pedagogical decisions and how they influence their
practice. Next, Culturally Relevant and Culturally Responsive Pedagogy literature is presented. I
included this literature because, I wanted to understand the tenets of such pedagogy and how
they might manifest in the practice of using written feedback on students’ writing tasks. Then, I
present literature related to Secondary Writing Instruction/Feedback to Student Writing. This
body of literature revealed the historical developments of responding to student work, trends in
response, and applications with students of cultural and linguistic variety. Finally, I offer my
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 22
conceptual framework. This framework guided my research design, data collection and data
analysis.
Ideology of Instruction in Urban Contexts
Given that teachers’ conscious and unconscious beliefs and actions with regard to written
feedback are expressions of their underlying ideologies, it was important for me to explore the
way that ideology manifests in teachers’ instruction in urban contexts. Thus, within this section, I
first define the concept of ideology and then I provide typologies presented in the literature of
teacher ideology. Finally, I included literature on the manifestation of ideology in teacher
practice.
Bartolomé (2008) offers that ideology is a complex set of ideas that attempt to rationalize
or construct a particular social context. A similar construction is that ideology:
[must] be understood as existing at the deep, embedded psychological structures
of personality. Ideology more often than not manifests itself in the inner histories
and experiences that give rise to questions of subjectivity as they are constructed
by individual needs, drives, and passions, as well as the changing material conditions and
social foundations of a society. (Darda, Torres, & Boltadano, 2002, as cited in Bartolomé,
2004, p. 75)
Instruction is innately tied to the instructor’s beliefs and ideological system (Milner,
2010). Ideology then informs the instructional practices of the teacher and inevitably informs the
manner in which the instruction is delivered. Milner (2010) offers that there are five areas that
constitute ideology: color blindness, cultural conflicts, the myth of meritocracy, low
expectations, a deficit mindset, and a context-neutral mindset. Milner (2010) argues that these
areas of ideology influence the instructional, pedagogical, and curricular decisions of the teacher.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 23
The first area of ideology is colorblindness. Milner (2010) suggests that this is when
teachers deliberately ignore the race, culture, and ethnicity of students in their classes. As well,
this may include their own race. Milner (2010) argues that a teacher’s own culture shapes how
he/she teaches, what materials he/she decides to use, and even how that particular teacher
decides to assess his/her students. This goes beyond the interaction in the classroom and into the
assessment of tasks and responses to student work. The lack of understanding of culture of the
student and the understanding of one’s own culture directly contributes to how the teacher is
deciding to select materials and assess their students (Milner, 2010).
Another area of ideology concerns the myth of meritocracy. Milner (2010) asserts that
this is a clear recognition of socioeconomic status. However, the lack of understanding of the
complexities of poverty and class contributes to a dissonance between teacher and student. This
concept is the notion that success is achieved by hard work alone and ignores the fact that social
institutions have been created to benefit some while marginalizing others (Milner, 2010). These
barriers to success are deep-rooted in the social fabric and teachers may not be aware of their
existence or have not been subject to them as a result of opportunities that are afforded to
dominant groups. Milner (2010) argues that it can be a complex notion for a teacher to assist
students with economic disparities should he/she not understand the particular realities that
plague these students.
Milner (2010) states that a third area of ideology in the classroom is the idea of low
expectations for students. This is where educators see their students as not capable of completing
tasks or as lacking what it takes to be ready to learn (Milner, 2010). This suggests that educators
cannot see where opportunities for growth exist. Milner (2010) also suggests that teachers who
cannot see these opportunities will subsequently not design experiences that provide them with
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 24
opportunities for critical thinking and instead enact reductive practices. This, Milner (2010)
suggests, is an unending cycle of teachers not designing rigorous experiences for learners,
students not being challenged, and then not learning in ways that afford them critical thinking
opportunities. Assessment and response to student work often reflects this approach (Milner,
2010). This endless cycle can be interrupted by teachers’ use of asset mindset seeing where
students have talents and capabilities (Milner, 2010).
Milner (2010) provides one final notion of ideology, which he notes as a “context-neutral
mindset” Similar to the idea of the low expectations in that teachers ignore an aspect of the
reality of the students in the classroom (Milner, 2010). Teachers who adopt a context-neutral
mindset do not understand that the context (i.e., community, culture, etc.) greatly contributes to
the learning in the classroom. Additionally, although teachers may have strong content and
pedagogical knowledge, this will not be sufficient if the particular context is ignored.
Irrespective of culture or affluence, teachers must understand contexts of students and reflect that
understanding in the design of their students’ learning experiences (Milner, 2010).
Bartolomé (2004) provides insight into the ideology of the urban teacher who elects
methods that are not contextually appropriate. By methods, Bartolomé (2004) means particular
pedagogical moves that teachers use. These methods are often isolated from context and not
appropriate for particular contexts. Bartolomé (2004) noted in her work to support future
teachers to be culturally responsive,
one of my greatest challenges throughout the years has been to help students to
understand that a myopic focus on methodology often serves to obfuscate the real
question—which is why in our society subordinated students do not generally succeed in
school. (p. 3)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 25
To improve the access to content, teachers must adopt a socio-historical perspective of current
conditions and concerns that shape and reflect the lived experiences of socially perceived
minority students. Bartolomé (2004) offers that this will combat the “quasi-colonial nature” of
socially perceived minority/marginalized students.
Teachers are able to see inequity and challenge that conflict when they adopt a
contextualized, humanizing pedagogy (Bartolomé, 2004). When teachers understand historical
and current conditions of their students and the role that schools as institutions have played in the
past and present, they are able to disrupt inequities for marginalized students. Bartolomé (2004)
asserts that if teachers in urban contexts do not adopt this ideological stance, they are robbing
students of their culture, language, histories, and practices inevitably dehumanizing the students
as individuals. Any conversation that does not include the amelioration of historically
marginalized students’ academic standing is incomplete if it does not address practices of
schools that have been historically discriminatory and have led to dehumanization (Bartolomé,
2004).
Bartolomé (2004) argues that teachers must take strategic action in creating classroom
culture and employing pedagogy that provides access to marginalized students. In doing this,
teachers must,
re-evaluat[e] the failure or success of particular instructional methods used with
subordinated students…[and adopt]…a shift in perspective—a shift from a narrow and
mechanistic view of instruction to one that is broader in scope and takes into
consideration the socio-historical and political dimensions of education. (p. 3)
Bartolomé (2004) discusses effective methods that are needed to provide access to content by
marginalized students and why these ought to be used, why some strategies are effective and
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 26
some not in a particular sociocultural context, and the political nature of schools and teachers’
reproductive pedagogical practice that does not afford equity for historically marginalized
students.
Bartolomé (2004) asserts that teachers must be politically conscious and aware in such a
way that they understand with clarity the socio-historical and socio-political climate of their
students. Teachers must possess political clarity so that they can design, modify, and adapt
learning experiences that respect and challenge students from diverse groups in various learning
environments. To this extent teachers who are working on their own particular political clarity
are able to recognize that teaching is, “…not a politically neutral undertaking” (Bartolomé, 2004,
p. 8). Teachers understand that schools are socializing institutions that reflect the larger culture
and thus must mirror the culture’s values, norms, and processes. Bartolomé (2004) contends that
teachers working towards political clarity understand that they can either maintain the current
climate or they can disrupt inequity at the classroom level so that the classroom does not mirror
larger inequities in society. The asymmetrical power relations in larger society are disrupted in
the classroom by careful design of learning experiences by the teacher and the teacher’s growth
towards political clarity (Bartolomé, 2004).
Bartolomé (2004) argues that teachers need to be aware of their orientation towards the
capabilities of students. Drawing from a long history of literature on the most discussed model in
education literature, Bartolomé (2004) asserts that the deficit mindset model has been well taught
to teachers and researched plenty. However, teachers with even the most sophisticated and
advanced pedagogical practices cannot merely employ these practices and not understand their
own beliefs about the potentials of the students. Advanced strategies are ineffective if the teacher
either explicitly or implicitly, “…subscribes to a belief system that renders ethnic, racial, and
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 27
linguistic minority students at best culturally disadvantaged and in need of fixing…or, at worst,
culturally or genetically deficient and beyond fixing” (Bartolomé, 2004 p. 5). Teachers then are
inclined to improve learning outcomes if they are aware of and adapt their orientation towards
students from a deficit mindset to an asset mindset.
Bartolomé (2004) notes that teachers should adopt a humanizing pedagogy. This
pedagogy manifests in academically rigorous, student-centered learning opportunities such as
cooperative learning, language experience, process writing, reciprocal teaching, and whole
language activities. Such strategies, when used consciously and critically, can, “…help to offset
or neutralize our deficit-based failure and recognize subordinated student strengths” (Bartolomé,
2004, p. 10). Humanizing pedagogy ensures that teachers value the lived experiences of the
students in all aspects (culturally, linguistically, etc.) and connect learning to prior knowledge
(Bartolomé, 2004). Such instruction is contextually connected and uses the experience of
students to gain insight into their potentials. Instruction that derives from a humanizing pedagogy
does see deficits; rather, it embraces assets to afford equity to students.
Bartolomé (2004) offers that ideological interrogation of one’s practice assists teachers in
understanding inequity. Teachers must, “…examine the political and cultural role that counter-
hegemonic resistance can serve to contest and transform the exclusionary harmful and
fundamentally undemocratic values and beliefs that inform dominant educational practice in the
United States” (p. 98). With diversity increasing in United States public schools, clashes of
ideology between teachers and students become more present and preparation to maneuver these
conflicts is essential in teacher preparation programs (Bartolomé, 2004).
Often uncritically and unconsciously, teachers hold ideologies about existing social
orders that reflect dominant ideologies, which are potentially harmful to historically
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 28
marginalized/minoritized students (Bartolomé, 2004). Teachers’ unexamined and non-critical
ideological stances lead to the lack of interrogation of inequities and acceptance of current
hegemonic structures.
Bartolomé (2004) revealed the results of a study that was completed with a colleague
with a focus on showing teachers that teaching is not an apolitical undertaking. The study also
focused on how to assist teachers in understanding asymmetrical power relations in schools and
designing strategies for students to, “short-circuit[] potential inequalities they may experience”
(Bartolomé, 2004, p. 101).
Bartolomé (2004) noted that the high school elected for the study was in Southern
California near the Mexican-American border. The school had an impressive academic record
and was culturally/linguistically diverse. The researcher elected this school for the combination
of diversity present and the effective academic program and student assessment results. The
researcher decided on four exemplary educators ranging in experience that included three
different content areas (English, History/Social Science, and Math) and one administrator. They
were selected for their various teaching abilities, content-specialties and varying encounters with
students (Bartolomé, 2004). Data was collected using open-ended questions that were meant to
reveal:
1. The teachers’/administrator’s attitude and beliefs toward low-SES, non-white, and
linguistically diverse students.
2. The teachers’/administrator’s personal histories that led them to teaching and their
experience as students.
3. The teachers’/administrator’s teacher preparation program and its content.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 29
4. The teachers’/administrator’s definition of effective teaching and experience at the
high school and thoughts on why the high school has been effective. (p. 211)
The researcher sought to code these findings into what they revealed about educators’
ideological stances on diverse learners. The analysis process revealed several codes which
included: (1) asymmetrical relations of power, (2) rejecting deficit views of diverse students, (3)
interrogating romanticized views of dominant culture, (4) witness of subordination and cultural
border crossers, and (5) educators and dedicated cultural brokers (Bartolomé, 2004). The
researcher found the teachers needed more explicit knowledge of these areas and that they were
often unconscious of the particular concerns in the given codes. However, the educators made
efforts to assist minority students towards their success and subsequently improved the academic
achievement of diverse students (and improving overall academic performance of the school as a
whole). It was evident to the researchers that they felt that the educators did not see teaching as
an apolitical act and needed to become more explicit about the implications of their practice and
the ideologies they held (Bartolomé, 2004).
Rist (2000) discussed the social stratification in classrooms underlying ideological
structures that exist. There was process by which expectations and social interactions gave rise to
the social organization of the class (Rist, 2000). Rist (2000) argued that through social means,
“…out of a large group of children and an adult…there emerge patterns of behavior,
expectations of performance, and a mutually accepted stratification system delineating those
doing well from those doing poorly” (p. 267). The purpose of the analysis was to explore how
the initial expectations of the teacher related to the child’s chances for success or failure within
the public school system (Rist, 2000). Research had shown that teacher expectations of students
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 30
might, in fact, have had a strong influence on the academic performance on that individual
(Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968; Wilson, 1963 as cited in Rist, 2000).
Rist (2000) referred to his study of a kindergarten teacher’s expectations of students and
the potentials for success were determined by those expectations held by the teacher and the
attributes assigned to the students were determined subjectively. Five basic propositions
succinctly state the argument presented in the analysis and the longitudinal study conducted
(Rist, 2000). First, the kindergarten teacher possessed an expectation of an ideal type of student
who could achieve success both in the classroom and in the larger society (Rist, 2000). Second,
upon the first interactions between the teacher and student subjective evaluations were made of
the students as to the possession or absence of desired traits that are crucial to anticipated
success. Third, students received differential treatment and more teaching time was given to the
group of students who were deemed “fast learners” along with reward-directed behavior and
attention from the teacher. Rist (2000) noted that students deemed “slow learners” were taught
infrequently, received more control-oriented behavior, and received little if any supportive
behavior from the teacher. Fourth, interactional patterns became rigidified, almost caste-like
where the gap in performance of the students widened as the year progressed. Fifth, a similar
process of grouping students occurred in later years in schooling; however, in these years various
instructional materials were used to group students rather than subjective evaluations (Rist,
2000).
Rist (2000) elected a kindergarten classroom as these are initial social interactions for
students. A longitudinal study spanning 2 1/2 years with a single group of African American
children was elected. Data was collected by means of a bi-weekly 1 and half hour observations in
an urban school in kindergarten through the children’s initial months of their second-grade year
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 31
(Rist, 2000). The researcher conducted a combination of formal and informal observations, with
the essential difference between these observations was that during formal observations, “…a
continuous handwritten account was taken of classroom interaction and activity as it occurred”
(Rist, 2000 p. 271). As well, the researcher used interviews of the children and teachers. Data
was collected in the late 1960s. The school serviced students from kindergarten through eighth
grade. All students, teachers, staff, and administrators were African American. The kindergarten
teacher examined in the study was middle class and was raised in a home that values traditional
morals, neat appearance, education as a means for success, and the use of Standard American
English. There were 30 students in the class and a wide range of socioeconomic statuses present.
Education level of parents/guardians differed. The researcher did not indicate any reason to being
assigned to the particular class and how he came to find the class.
Rist (2000) noted that the teacher had assigned tables of students based on information
gathered from records that parents had submitted. The teacher assigned the groups of students
based on their personal appearance and success on initial tasks. There was various content
provided on these information records ranging from home information to public funding
information. One of the limitations of the teacher’s understanding of the students was that there
were no cognitive assessments included in the information provided. The grouping of the
students varied between the four groups. Groups varied based on ability with Standard American
English and success on tasks. Figure 1 included students who were more well-behaved and
demonstrated more success in the use of Standard American English whereas Figure 2 and
Figure 3 demonstrated less efficiency in these areas as assessed by the teacher (Rist, 2000).

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 32

Figure 1. Distribution of Socio-Economic Status Factors by Seating Arrangement at the Three
Tables in the Kindergarten Classroom. (Rist, 2000)

Figure 2. Distribution of Socio-Economic Status Factors by Seating Arrangement in the Three
Reading Groups in the Second-Grade Classroom. (Rist, 2000)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 33

Figure 3. Variations in Teacher-Directed Behavior for Three Second-Grade Reading Groups
During Three Observational Periods Within a Single Classroom. (Rist, 2000)

Rist (2000) found that this arrangement revealed her expectations about the students and
how they would perform academically. Rist (2000) observed that Figure 1 became the exemplar
for behavior for Table 2 and Table 3. This was a result of the more internalized behaviors from
the teacher that the student of Table 1 would attempt to correct the behaviors of students at the
lower performing tables. Additionally, Rist (2000) found that the teacher focused primarily on
Table 1 with respect to instruction and as well was closer to students of Table 1 in terms of
proximity. The primary communication between the teacher and students of Table 2 and Table 3
was to manage behavior and not instructionally related. Moreover, the students of Table 1 were
seen mocking and ridiculing the students of Table 2 and Table 3 (Rist, 2000). The researcher
concluded that students had indeed lived up to the expectations of the teacher per the
arrangement she had made. Those students placed at the higher-performing table achieved more
success academically and those placed at the lower performing tables achieved lower levels of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 34
success. An irony noted by the researcher was that none of this arrangement was based on any
formal academic assessment and solely based on non-cognitive factors (Rist, 2000).
Philip (2011) provided a construction of ideology that he deemed “ideology in pieces”
that derives from the work of Hall’s (1982, 1996) theory of ideology and diSessa’s (1993) theory
of conceptual change. This frame of ideology derives from the intersection of sociological
approaches to teacher education and teacher-as-learner approach. By synthesizing these two
frames, “…conceptual change research is pushed to contend with social sensemaking as
embedded in history reflexively related to a political and economic system” (Philip, 2011, p.
310). Philip (2011) noted that the framework of ideology in pieces permits a more
comprehensive theory of teachers’ ideological sensemaking and development that includes their
cognitive, social, and structural dimensions that are not explicit in the sociological approaches
and teacher-as-learner approaches (p. 300). He noted the prevalence of commonsense in
conceptions of ideology. This is not the understanding of commonsense that connotes, “…sound
and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts” (Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary as cited in Philip, 2011, p. 298). Rather, Philip (2011) adopted the
understanding of commonsense to refer to, “…strictly elements of sensemaking that people use
as self-evident, or, as unnecessary or difficult to further justify” (p. 302).
Philip (2011) argued there were inherent conflicts when educators adopted “naturalized
axioms” in their classrooms. Naturalized axioms were the category of cognitive elements of
commonsense that people used in their social sensemaking (p. 302). Examples of naturalized
axioms included, “some kids are just smart,” “inequality will always exist,” and “competition is
good.” Philip (2011) argued that the issue with naturalized axioms is that, “…[as a result of their]
context specificity and lack of systematicity naturalized axioms can prevent people from seeing
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 35
contradictions or similarities across contexts” (Wagner, 2006 as cited in Philip, 2011, p. 311).
Another issue with these naturalized axioms was that they were often not justified or lacked
clarity and perpetuate social inequities (Philip, 2011).
Philip (2011) discussed the notion of conceptual change across contexts and that it
derived from the intersection of the concepts of re-articulation and ideological change. Re-
articulation refers to a, “…collective contestation of critical meanings” (Hall, 1982 as cited in
Philip, 2011, p. 301). Philip (2011) offers that through the process of re-articulation many of the
commonsensical meanings and connotations of words, concepts, images, stories, were
deconstructed and an association with new meaning was established.
Philip (2011) provided a summary of his framework for ideology in pieces with six
primary features:
1. When making sense about implicitly or explicitly racialized contexts, people tend to
rely heavily on taken for granted assumptions termed naturalized axioms.
2. As they are socially shared and systematically situated, naturalized axioms often
“stabilize a particular form of power and domination” (Philip, 2011, p. 305)
3. Naturalized axioms are cued to specific contexts, applied locally and do not require
global consistency (diSessa, 1993 as cited in Philip, 2011).
4. Since people interpret different contexts, or different aspects of the same context
through a different set of naturalized axioms, their lack of systematicity can prevent
people from noticing contradictions, and their context sensitivity can prevent people
from seeing similarities” (Philip, 2011, p. 305).
5. Developing a well-elaborated and internally consistent system of thought involves
learning to see key pivotal concepts in particular contexts and for these concepts to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 36
become mutually articulated. This is in contrast to perspectives that see learning as
being able to see past the particularities of a context in order to identify abstracted
principles.
6. Learning a concept requires an “expansive set of underlying, context-dependent
knowledge resources and coordination knowledge that [permits one] to understand
how the [concept] can be recognized as useful and sensibly applied in varying
circumstances” (Wagner, 2006 as cited in Philip, 2011, p. 305)
7. Even if someone can meaningfully use a concept in one context, it does not imply he
or she can use it in another. Learning to use a concept in a particular context entails
recognizing relevant features and making meaningful inferences in that context.
(Phillip, 2011, p. 305)
After the presentation of ideology through the framework above, Philip (2011) explained the
study he conducted to examine change in teachers’ sensemaking about race, racism, and racial
justice.
Philip (2011) created a teacher research group consisting of five teachers. There were
four teachers in their second year of teaching and one teacher in his first year. All were either
math or science teachers. They had been selected because they had applied to be part of a
university-based teacher research group and were focused on incorporating issues of race and
racial justice in their classroom (Philip, 2011). Participants met every two weeks from October to
May to develop research projects on issues, questions, concerns or challenges that were pressing
to them as teachers that dealt with social justice. Participants conducted their own classroom
projects and then at weekly meetings would receive feedback from peers and the researcher’s
comments as well. Class meetings consisted of discussing a particular theme. The meetings
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 37
began with the researcher presenting ideas on social justice and hegemony in society. All
participants from the research group had attended the same Master’s/Credential program that had
a programmatic emphasis on social justice.
Philip (2011) noted that he collected data from all participants within the research but
paid special attention to one math teacher, which he provided the pseudonym Alan. Alan was a
white male, from a suburban, upper middle-class neighborhood. His research focus in the
consultation group was on student deficiencies. His mathematics course was non-tracked with
mixed capabilities. Alan argued for a non-tracked program at his school site as this was antithetic
to his belief in social justice as tracking has historically marginalized students and
disproportionately placed non-marginalized groups into more advanced courses (Philip, 2011).
The researcher attempted to balance the discussion of historical, social, and political
manifestations of racial inequity in education while ensuring that practice was discussed as well
(Philip, 2011). The researcher justifies his selection of Alan as a primary research focus because
his, “…research question showed the greatest change in emphasis from a systematic focus, to a
deficit-framing of students, to an emphasis on classroom and school practices” (Philip, 2011, p.
307).
Philip (2011) noted that his primary form of data collection included field notes from the
consultations and audiotape transcripts of each meeting. The final data source was an exit
interview the researcher conducted with Alan at the end of the consultation meetings/research
groups (Philip, 2011). Philip (2011) offered that his approach to analysis was through analyzing
the transcripts of the meetings for stances where the particular speakers interpreted or explained
student success and behaviors through:
1. individual choices or values of students or those of their families and communities;
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 38
2. systematic or institutional processes such as inequitable resources, school policies, or
classroom practices. (p. 308)
The researcher noted that whenever the participants shifted between these two areas of focus he
would note that shift (Philip, 2011). The researcher then inferred naturalized axioms from the
assumptions presented by the participants. He noted that assumptions were natural indicators of
naturalized axioms and included:
1. existential assumptions, or ‘assumptions about what exists;’
2. propositional assumptions, or ‘assumptions about what is or can be or will be the
case;
3. value assumptions, or “assumptions about what is good and desirable.” (Fairclough,
2003, p. 55 as cited in Philip, 2011)
The researcher reiterated that his primary concern was the teachers’ ideological
sensemaking and transformations regarding race, racism, and racial justice (Philip, 2011).
However, the researcher noted that these terms were often not explicitly used in the data excerpts
provided (Philip, 2011). Philip (2011) noted that, “… race and racism are often not explicit in
conversations because the, ‘normative climate in the post-Civil Rights era has made illegitimate
the public expression of racially based feelings and viewpoints’” (Bonilla-Sevilla, 2003, p. 11).
Thus, inferring notions of ideological stances from teachers had to be based on the assumptions,
as they were not explicitly present in the data collected (Philip, 2011).
The researcher presented his findings in four episodes with the intention to,
“…demonstrate the alternative explanations, possibilities, and opportunities that arise when
Alan’s experiences are analyzed through the ideology in pieces framework” (Philip, 2011, p.
308). Philip (2011) offered an ideology in pieces analysis of the shifts in Alan’s ideological
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 39
framework. From this framework—although considering findings from both teacher-as-learner
perspectives and sociological perspectives—the researcher reported findings (Philip, 2011).
Episode 1 from the findings detailed Alan’s intentions to create a curriculum that was
socially, politically, and economically just or served to assist students to deconstruct norms of
oppression (Philip, 2011). Through the transcript where Alan discussed homework and his
research topic as questioning those practices that were implemented because “they are just done”
systematically (which the researcher noted as a naturalized axiom) (Philip, 2011). Philip (2011)
noted that Alan was able to recognize racism at the systematic level and could clearly make
sense of students’ non-engagement in classrooms in terms of “traditional” school practices. The
researcher also noted that, according to the transcript, Alan has revealed practice of naturalized
axioms in that he spoke to the reasons that students were not successful such as “they would
rather play than work” and that students from poor families do not do well because “they do not
have sufficient time to work on schoolwork” (Philip, 2011, p. 315) Philip (2011) noted that
Alan’s sensemaking of his practice revealed his salient shift towards dominant deficit naturalized
axioms. This was a critical shift as Alan shifted from looking at classroom practice to out of
classroom context, which influences classroom decisions (Philip, 2011). In concluding about the
findings from episode 1, Philip (2011) called upon previous research to explain the findings:
Alan demonstrated the tendency to move, “within a closed circle, producing not
knowledge, but a recognition of the things [one] already knows” (Hall, 1982 p. 75). It is
worth noting, however, that Alan, “picked out features in the context that relate to critical
information required” (diSessa & Sherring, 1998, p. 1172) about the obligations some
students have at home, which are relevant to the concept of “teachers blaming students.”
(p. 313)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 40
Philip (2011) noted that in Episode 2 of his findings that he was concerned with Alan’s
deficit framing. The researcher referred Alan to previous research that suggested that teachers
focus on external forces (outside of the classroom) rather than creating conditions inside the
classroom that could provide better conditions or access. The researcher framed his findings
from the ideology in pieces framework in noting that it was inaccurate to claim that Alan was
being resistant or hypocritical when he notes “blaming his students” (Philip, 2011). However, the
researcher found that the nature in which Alan was framing his question and articulating about
students was a clear example of teachers blaming students (Philip, 2011). Alan was working to
value the contributions of students and provide a space for them to grow and was learning to go
beyond the natural axiom of students do not have time or working from a frame of teachers
blaming students (Philip, 2011).
In episode 3, the researcher recalled articulating that the way questions were framed in
inquiry could also be quite political as in the shift from “why do students fail at being students?”
to “why do schools fail students at being students?” (Philip, 2011). The researcher noted that
Alan had demonstrated an understanding of students’ dynamic personalities (how students
perceive learning) and of big picture issues (such as examining issues of racism through
curriculum) (Philip, 2011). The researcher noted that this was the first time that Alan had noted
these ideas in isolation to his research question demonstrating that Alan had an implicit
understanding that the research question had essentialized students and did not see them in their
dynamic complexity (Philip, 2011).
In Episode 4, Philip (2011) argued that in this point of the findings relevant naturalized
axioms changed in their contextual salience. It was significant that Alan began to stress the
contextual nature of particular students’ efforts in contrast to the essential nature of students
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 41
being successful or unsuccessful (Philip, 2011). Alan began to self-assess his instructional
practice and adjust to the students rather than write them off by blaming their circumstances
(Philip, 2011). The researcher notes that, “…naturalized axioms about students’ responsibilities
at home, which were originally used with deficit meanings are now articulated…to emphasize
systematic inequities” (Philip, 2011, p. 323). The development of the concept teachers blaming
students was critical for Alan to see the relevance of race and racism in his inquiry.
Philip’s (2011) study concluded with a discussion for the reasons for Alan’s change in
thinking towards students and systematic change. The researcher noted that a number of
experiences influenced Alan’s change and these experiences can shape a shift in an educator’s
ideology (Philip, 2011). This particular conceptual growth and change was, “incremental growth,
systematization, and organization of knowledge resources that only gradually extend the span of
situations in which a concept is perceived as applicable” (Wagner, 2006, p. 10 as cited in Philip,
2011). The experiences that contributed to Alan’s shift in change ideologically included:
1. exploring the idea that schools do not often promote the learning of students;
2. findings in the [inquiry process] indicated that there were no significant differences in
how students spent their time after school;
3. …[Alan] recognized that systematic inequities place people at a much greater
advantage or disadvantage in comparison to issues of individual choice;
4. changes in Alan’s classroom practice that greatly influenced students’ success at
homework; and
5. participating in the group discussions, where particular ways of making sense of
inequity and student success and failure were highlighted for Alan. (Philip, 2011, p.
323)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 42
The ideology of teachers greatly influences their instructional practices and how they
respond to students in various situations (Milner, 2017; Rist, 2000; Philip, 2011). The various
ways teachers manifest their ideologies in the classroom are both implicit and explicit and these
ideologies must be overtly understood and interrogated (Bartolomé, 2004; Philip, 2011).
Teachers of historically marginalized/minoritized students must be aware of the conceptions they
have about their students and ensure that they are contextualized, appropriate and applicable to
the given situation and not a rehearsed or ‘canned’ de-contextualized statement (Philip, 2011). In
writing instruction, our stances greatly influence the way we respond to students (Sherry, 2017).
However, our responses to students must be culturally responsive and appropriate (Ladson-
Billings, 1992). I now turn from teacher ideology to the literature of Culturally Relevant and
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching
In understanding feedback to student writing and the ways in which that feedback
promotes proficiency, I wanted to understand how that feedback is culturally relevant and the
ways that culturally relevant feedback promotes success in academic/expository writing. Thus, I
needed to explore the literature of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and understand its conception,
evolution, and application. I needed to understand how it has been discussed theoretically and
applied in empirical studies.
Ladson-Billings (1992) reflected on the idea of her conceptualization of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy that arose from the work of various scholars who study the bridging between
students’ culture at home and the practices of teachers in the classroom. Culturally appropriate
teaching presented itself first in the literature as researchers connected the culture of Native
Hawaiians into the literacy/reading instruction of elementary age students (Au & Jordan, 1981 as
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 43
cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). “Culturally Congruent” appeared next in the literature where
researchers studied linguistic and social interactions between students and teachers (Ladson-
Billings, 1992). Mohatt and Erickson (1981) found that when teachers combined Native
American and Anglo language patterns students’ achievement on assessments increased (as cited
in Ladson-Billings, 1992). Finally, “Culturally Compatible” arose in the literature when teachers
used the culture of Native Hawaiians in instruction across the content where the researchers
found success in integrating this culture into instruction and seeing clear achievement (Vogt,
Jordan, & Tharp, 1987, p. 281 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). All of these studies attempted
to bridge the classroom to the home because of “cultural mismatch” (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
Ladson-Billings (1992) discussed the continued work of scholars to bridge home/culture
to the classroom when she discussed the notion of “cultural synchronization.” This work
described the necessary interpersonal context that must exist between teachers and African
American students (Irvine, 1990 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). This work extended beyond
linguistic interactions to the, “…acceptance of students’ communication patterns, along with the
constellation of African American cultural mores such as mutuality, reciprocity, spirituality,
deference and responsibility” (King & Mitchell, 1990 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). This
work was critical to the development of culturally relevant pedagogy and its development as it
began to explore such notions as: institutional contexts, teacher-student interpersonal contexts,
teacher and student expectations, and the societal contexts (King & Mitchell, 1990; Irvine, 1990
as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). Ladson-Billings (1992) noted that these pivotal studies were
the break with cultural deficit or cultural disadvantage orientations, which led to compensatory
educational interventions. Thus, Ladson-Billings (1992) posited effective pedagogical practice
that not only addressed student achievement but affirmed and accepted cultural identity and the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 44
interrogating of socio-political structures and inequities. This type of pedagogy was culturally
relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
Ladson-Billings (1992) offered that several questions formulated a theoretical model of
culturally relevant pedagogy:
1. What constitutes student success?
2. How can academic success and cultural success complement each other in settings
where student alienation and hostility characterize the school experience?
3. How can pedagogy promote the kind of student success that engages larger social
structural issues in a critical way?
4. How do researchers recognize pedagogy in action?
5. What are the implications for teacher preparation generated by this pedagogy? (p.
469)
Ladson-Billings (1992) offered that the theoretical assumptions and tenets derived from
her 2-year longitudinal study of eight teachers. The teachers were nominated through a series of
community nomination (Foster, 1991 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1992). By this, Ladson-
Billings (1992) means that she consulted with parents, community members, administrators and
other teachers creating lists to cross-check. Once there were sufficient commonalities between
the lists, Ladson-Billings (1992) elected her sample of all-female, five African American, three
white elementary school teachers from Northern California. These community nominations were
based on who the participants believed were effective teachers in practice (Ladson-Billings,
1992).
The study was divided into four phases (Ladson-Billings, 1992). During the initial phase
teachers underwent an ethnographic interview (Spradley, 1979 as cited in Ladson-Billings,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 45
1992). During these interviews, teachers were asked about their background, philosophy of
teaching, ideas about curriculum, classroom management, and parent and community
involvement. The second phase of the study was teacher observations that were not scheduled,
and the researcher was given carte blanche to come to the classroom as she needed. Data
collection occurred during these observations and included: (1) field notes, (2) audiotapes of the
class, and (3) conversations with the teacher. Ladson-Billings (1992) noted that she made
decisions based on what to videotape in her third phase as a result of becoming familiar with the
teachers’ styles and classroom routines. Data was collected for 2 years on average 3 days a week.
During the fourth phase of the study teachers worked together as a research collective to view
segments of one another’s tapes (Ladson-Billings, 1992). These meetings were 10 in total and
lasted about 2-3 hours (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
Ladson-Billings (1992) noted that her analytical process derived from her interest in
desiring to challenge deficit paradigms of African American students (Bloom, Davis, & Hess,
1965). The study and theoretical underpinnings here required a, “…paradigmatic shift towards
looking in the classrooms of excellent teachers, through the reality of those teachers” (Ladson-
Billings, 1992, p. 470 emphasis in the original). Ladson-Billings (1992) noted that having
concrete experiences as a criterion of meaning was essential for analysis. The researcher noted
that there were two particular concrete experiences that were used as criterion of meaning:
1. selecting parents from the researcher’s school of interest to have discussions with
about the selections of teachers for the study and eliciting their opinions and ideas
about the schools and teachers
2. the teachers themselves and their teaching expertise and range of experience from 12-
40 years amongst the participants. (Ladson-Billings, 1992, p. 470)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 46
Ladson-Billings (1992) posited that knowledge (or in this case her findings) emerged in
dialectical relationships. Teachers convened to discuss videos of their instruction to examine
one’s pedagogy and meaning was constructed here through the reciprocal dialogue that took
place. The ethic of caring was discussed between the teachers and the teachers to the students.
Ladson-Billings (1992) noted that rather than the idiosyncratic caring for individual students, the
teachers spoke of the importance of their work for preparing students for confronting inequitable
and undemocratic social structures. Teachers demonstrated an ethic of personal accountability in
the ways they took stands in their practice arguing for particular structures in the classroom or
particular curriculum (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
While Ladson-Billings (1992) used Collins (1991) framework of feminist thought for her
work as a researcher, Ladson-Billings ultimately needed to generate theory as she practiced
theory. Situated in a more “critical paradigm” a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy should
propose to do three things—produce students who can achieve academically, produce students
who demonstrate cultural competence, and develop students who can both understand and
critique the existing social order (Ladson-Billings, 1992, p. 474).
Ladson-Billings (1992) posed various theoretical underpinnings of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy. Three broad propositions arose from the study conducted:
1. the conceptions of self and others held by culturally relevant teachers,
2. the manner in which social relations are structured by culturally relevant teachers,
3. the conceptions of knowledge held by culturally relevant teachers. (Ladson-Billings,
1992, p. 475)
As a participant-observer, Ladson-Billings (1992) found that the teachers conceptualized
their self as practitioners and notions of their students. In general, she found that the teachers
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 47
believed that all the students were capable of academic success. The teachers saw their pedagogy
as art—unpredictable, always in the process of becoming. The teachers saw themselves as
members of the community in which they taught and saw teaching as a way to give back to the
community (Ladson-Billings, 1992).
Culturally relevant teachers consciously created social interactions to assist them in
meeting the criteria of academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness
(Ladson-Billings, 1992). The teachers in the study maintained fluid student-teacher relationships
and demonstrated a connectedness with all of the students. Ladson-Billings (1992) found that the
teachers developed a community of learners and encouraged students to learn collaboratively and
be responsible for one another. Creating classroom culture of respect, rigor, and trust was
essential to the academic achievement of the students.
Ladson-Billings (1992) found that the teachers held particular thoughts about knowledge
with respect to the curriculum and content that they taught and the assessment of that knowledge.
The teachers collectively thought that knowledge was not static; it was shared, recycled, and
constructed (Ladson-Billings, 1992, p. 481). She found that teachers thought that knowledge had
to be viewed critically. The teachers must scaffold to facilitate learning. Teachers had to use
assessment that was multifaceted and incorporated multiple forms of excellence (Ladson-
Billings, 1992).
Twenty-two years later, Ladson-Billings (2014) reflected on her theory of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy in terms of its use and misuse. She noted that her work had been commonly
cited and had become a way to approach teaching and learning. She argued that Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy should have a decidedly more political edge since students of color often
were members of groups that had been politically shortchanged (Beauboeuf-Lafontant, 1999 as
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 48
cited in Ladson-Billings, 2014). Other scholars have argued that for Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy to assist students in achieving academic success that gender needed to be considered
as part of the theory (Dixon, 2002 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 1995). Contemporary definitions
and understandings of culture required research to embrace a more dynamic view (Ladson-
Billings, 2014). Ladson-Billings (2014) conceptualized culture for the sake of her research as,
“…an amalgamation of human activity, production, thought, and belief systems” (p. 75).
Teachers who wanted to understand cultures must recognize the heterogeneity of particular
cultural groups (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
In “re-mixing” Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, Ladson-Billings (2014) offered that her
original conception of the theory was not deficient, rather, its change was meant to reflect,
“…the changing and evolving needs of dynamic systems” (p. 76). In meeting the needs of
current students in urban settings and reflecting scholarship advancements, Ladson-Billings
(2014) offered her updated version of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy including notions in the
ideas of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy (Paris & Alim, 2012 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 2014).
This newer concept of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy remained based in the notions of
academic achievement, cultural competence, and sociopolitical consciousness for minority
students and asserted students as subjects rather than objects (Paris & Alim, 2012 as cited in
Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Ladson-Billings (2014) noted that there seemed to be a static conception of what it meant
to be culturally relevant. Fluidity and variety within cultural groups had been lost regularly in
discussions and implementations of culturally relevant pedagogy. Ladson-Billings (2014) noted
that few scholars or practitioners had taken up the sociopolitical dimensions Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy instead dulling its critical edge or not including it all. In recent observations, Ladson-
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 49
Billings (2014) noted that teachers expressed strong beliefs about the academic efficacy of their
students and were using culturally relevant analogues. However, teachers were limited in
teaching students to develop their ability to being socio-politically critical (Ladson-Billings,
2014). The researcher noted that such initiatives as the Office of Multicultural Arts Initiatives at
the University of Wisconsin-Madison to integrate the Hip Hop/Spoken Word culture into the
academy was a perfect opportunity to model Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings,
2014). However, even this program did not permit students to question existing structures such
as university requirements as they had to be completed by students in the program (Ladson-
Billings, 2014).
Ladson-Billings (2014) discussed her experience at a symposium where her and her
colleagues began to discuss Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. In designing this new theoretical
framework for Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, Ladson-Billings (2014) discussed the notion of
status equalization, which suggested that the classroom environment disadvantaged some
students, just by virtue of who they were. Characteristics such as race, class, gender, language,
immigrant status, culture, or sexual identity served to limit students’ opportunities because others
made judgements about their academic abilities (Cohen, 1979 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 2014).
Cooperative learning derived from this work as it assisted students to mitigate differences
(Cohen, 1979 as cited in Ladson-Billings, 2014). However, “cooperative learning” was grossly
misunderstood and misused as solely a “strategy” and less as a means to mitigate
social/economic and political differences (Ladson-Billings, 2014).
The purpose of coining the term Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy was to ensure the
fidelity of its tenets and to ensure there was no degradation of the meaning and implementation
(Ladson-Billings, 2014). Paris and Alim (2012) argued that Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy must
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 50
focus on global identities that are emerging in the arts, literature, music, athletics, and film and
not on one single ethnic group (as cited in Ladson-Billings, 2014). Culturally Sustaining
Pedagogy also, “…points to the shifts of identity that now move us toward a hybridity, fluidity,
and complexity never before considered in schools and classrooms” (Ladson-Billings, 2014, p.
82). Ladson-Billings (2014) noted that the use of hip-hop culture offered promise for the
practical application of Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy; however, the curriculum of hip hop had
to be used to challenge hierarchical structures and not to sustain them.
Ladson-Billings (2014) shifted to the discussion of Culturally Revitalizing Pedagogy.
This work seeks to revitalize cultural and linguistic structures within existing social and political
structures (Ladson-Billings, 2014). The work of both Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy and
Culturally Revitalizing Pedagogy was to ensure the survival of people who have faced
“systematic extinction” (Ladson-Billings, 2014). Ladson-Billings (2014) offered additionally that
Culturally Revitalizing, Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy, and Culturally Relevant Pedagogy were
all essentially about reclaiming and restoring cultures affected by structure or systematic
oppression.
Bennett (2012) offered a distinction between culturally relevant teaching and culturally
responsive teaching in her study. She suggested that Culturally Responsive Teaching was
multifaceted and complex and consists of various approaches, characteristics, and effects.
Extending beyond Culturally Relevant Teaching, Culturally Responsive Teachers created a
community of learners with empathy and understanding and, “…embrace an attitude to support
diversity and knowledge and skills to incorporate content with culture relevant to individual
students to facilitate learning” (Bennett, 2012, p. 382). Bennett (2012) framed her research from
three tenets of Culturally Relevant Teaching as both Culturally Relevant Teaching and Culturally
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 51
Responsive Teaching prepared teachers to create curriculum that empowered students socially,
intellectually, emotionally, and politically. The three tenets were: (1) teachers recognize
conceptions of self and others, (2) teachers understand the significance of social interaction and
promote social engagement in the classroom, and (3) teachers consider the conception of
knowledge (Bennett, 2012).
Bennett (2012) focused her study on the effective and ineffective facets of field
experience that contributed to pre-service teachers’ developing understandings of culturally
responsive teaching. Multicultural education also provided a lens for this research (Bennett,
2012). Multicultural education had the purpose and goal to revolutionize schools and educational
institutions to ensure all students from various ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups received
an equal education. Critical to developing culturally responsive teachers is the cultural
immersion experiences. These experiences offered pre-service teachers the opportunity to
develop a better understanding of issues related to multicultural education and culturally
responsive pedagogy by connecting theory to practice with diverse students (Bennett, 2012).
Drawing on other research, she offered that participation and full immersion in field experiences
with diverse populations had provided deeper connections between theory to practice through
practical applications. Without Culturally responsive teaching, Bennett (2012) argued that
schools would continue to contribute to the marginalization of minority and lower
socioeconomic populations.
Bennett’s (2012) study had to the goal to contribute to the field on how to better prepare
teachers to meet the needs of students from cultures different from their own. The following
research questions guided the inquiry:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 52
Research Question 1: While pre-service teachers tutor diverse student populations, what
effective facets of field experience contribute to developing understandings about
culturally responsive teaching?
Research Question 2: While pre-service teachers tutor diverse student populations, what
ineffective facets of field experience provide limited contributions to developing
understandings about culturally responsive teaching?
Bennett (2012) selected a qualitative research design to examine in detail and depth sociocultural
aspects of teaching (Patton, 2002 as cited in Bennet, 2012).
Bennett (2012) selected a community center that maintained a partnership with her
university and contained a diverse student population. Most children who attended the
community center received free and reduced lunch and were approximately 70% African
American, 20% Hispanic, and 10% White or from other racial and linguistic backgrounds. Out of
the 35 pre-service teachers enrolled in an elementary writing methods course entitled “Teaching
Writing” taught by the researcher, convenience sampling was used to choose eight pre-service
teachers because the participants were accessible and willing to participate. The course instructor
Maya (pseudonym) did not explicitly teach Culturally Responsive Teaching despite the English
Learner component in the course (Bennett, 2012). Bennett (2012) noted that she separated the
pre-service teachers into two groups for the inquiry and analysis (Group A and Group B). All the
pre-service teachers were white, English-speaking, middle class and ranged from ages 19-24 and
attended a large, southeastern university (Bennett, 2012).
Data collection came from various sources to ensure richness of data (Bennett, 2012).
The researcher used teacher reflections (critical task questions pre-service teachers answered
each week), written field notes, and a reflexive journal (Bennett, 2012). The reflexive journal
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 53
was maintained throughout the research to triangulate data and explore deeper interpretations.
Additionally, Bennett (2012) conducted three individual and two focus group interviews.
The researcher noted that she wanted to, “…unearth the essence of the experiences of the
study, not just variables within the case, to understand the pre-service teachers’ experiences as
they tutored diverse populations” (Miles & Huberman, 1994 as cited in Bennett, 2012, p. 390).
Bennett (2012) used a constant-comparison-methods of analysis of the data to discover central
themes and categories. Strauss and Corbin (1990) maintain that it was critical to ask questions
and make comparisons throughout the process (as cited in Bennett, 2012). The researcher noted
that she read all data items a minimum of three times (Bennett, 2012). Then, the researcher
categorized the data into chunks with codes and compared them against the codes found in the
reflexive journal (Bennett, 2012). Related chunks were labeled and sorted according to similarity
with codes that were identified previously (Bennett, 2012). The researcher then identified
categories conflating codes from the data and attributed meaning to these (Bennett, 2012).
Bennett (2012) offered that she used a within-case analysis approach as well in the
inquiry. This type of analysis, “…examine[d] themes and relationships within the context of [a]
study that confirm[ed] and disconfirm[ed] the evidence toward changes in understanding
culturally relevant teaching” (Bennett, 2012, p. 391). Within case analysis ensures descriptive
cases to gain insight and assist in making the data more manageable with the aim of analysis
(Bennett, 2012). All emergent details were documented and provided evidence of developments
and discoveries to ensure credibility and trustworthiness for each of the participants (Bennett,
2012).
Bennett (2012) also noted that she used cross-case analysis as she wanted to examine
multiple cases of pre-service teachers’ understandings about Culturally Responsive teaching.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 54
Cross-case analysis groups together responses to common questions from different participants
(Bennett, 2012). The researcher was able to find negative cases that enhanced the discoveries
while looking through similarities and differences among cases (Bennett, 2012). Through the use
of cross-case analysis, Bennett (2012) examined the data to understand and find meaning that
could be generalized to other cases.
Bennett’s (2012) findings offered insights to the research questions about effective and
ineffective facets of field experiences for developing understandings of culturally relevant
pedagogy. Effective or ineffective facets referred to whether the pre-service teachers showed
significant change in their understandings of Culturally Responsive teaching as a result of some
particular aspect of the course. Bennett (2012) found that the field experience resulted in an
increased awareness and valuable context to understand and teach students from diverse
backgrounds. Through the cross-case analysis Group A revealed deeper insights and
developments of culturally responsive teaching. Group A made deeper connections, increased
their self-awareness, and demonstrated understandings of differences to others. Bennett (2012)
found that initially the pre-service teachers held simplistic understandings of Culturally
Responsive teaching such as integrating multi-cultural literature or ethnic food.
Bennett (2012) noted that developments of Culturally Responsive teaching became
apparent when members of Group A were able to employ students’ cultures to empower the
students and provide opportunities to critical analyze their learning and create meaning. Initially
in interviews, pre-service teachers did not share any information that suggests to critically
analyze or make meaning of the world, solely incorporating the culture into the curriculum.
Bennett (2012) found that from field experience and scaffolding critical reflection each pre-
service teacher believed that they had develop better understandings of culturally relevant
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 55
teaching. As a result of the field experiences and the reflections, “…[pre-service teachers]
increased their self-awareness, awareness of different cultures, and their understanding of
relationship building because of the one-on-one student-teacher interactions and the scaffolding
critical reflection” (Bennett, 2012, p. 396). With less interaction from teacher educators, Group B
still made assumptions and held misconceptions about their students and did not develop deeper
connections with their students.
Bennett (2012) found that personal connections and relationships suggested pre-service
teachers valued the chance to learn more about elementary students and to get to know the
individual elementary students. This connection and one-on-one basis assisted the pre-service
teachers in developing multiple aspects of culturally responsive teaching. Pre-service teachers
developed relationships and learned more about the students and recognized that these
interactions with students as an important aspect of culturally responsive teaching. These
connections needed be authentic and not artificial. Additionally, pre-service teachers’
perspectives changed from viewing the students as coming from situations to individuals with
talents and agency. Bennett (2012) offered that the pre-service teachers formed deeper
relationships with the students and began to recognize how getting to know the students assisted
in forming a community of learners.
Bennett (2012) inquired about the ineffective facets of field experience that contributed to
the development of Culturally Responsive teaching. One of the key findings was that pre-service
teachers neglected to identify understandings of culturally responsive teaching. Five out of the
eight pre-service teachers found that in their final individual and focus group interviews thought
the course instructor influenced their understanding about Culturally Responsive teaching while
four replied, “No,” or “Not directly.” Bennett (2012) offered that pre-service teachers provided
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 56
vagueness about how course content influenced their understanding about culturally responsive
teaching. The pre-service teachers did not believe the instructor or course content influenced
their understandings about Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, but they were able to identify
particulars of the course that influenced their understandings, such as the field experience
(Bennett, 2012). Bennett (2012) also found that the pre-service teachers with limited one-on-one
student-teacher interactions demonstrated less growth in their understandings about Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy.
Gunn, Bennett, Evans, Peterson, and Welsh (2013) argued for the use of autobiographies
in pre-service teacher education as a “snapshot” tool for building Culturally Responsive
Pedagogy. The authors note that the purpose of the manuscript contains to central parts (Gunn et
al., 2013). Foremost, the authors proposed that teacher educators engage pre-service teachers in
self-examination through brief written autobiographies as a vehicle for developing Culturally
Responsive Pedagogy. Second, the authors discussed how these snapshot autobiographies as a
tool for teacher educators to assess the cultural awareness and needs for the pre-service teachers
(Gunn et al., 2013).
The authors defined various terms that were used throughout the study (Gunn et al.,
2013). Culture consisted of the learned language, beliefs, values, and behaviors infused into
every aspect of peoples’ lives. Gun et al. (2013) defined culture in an effort to argue that teachers
had to be aware of and understand their own identity prior to understanding that of others. The
authors noted that in order to be culturally aware teachers had to engage in self-reflection. This
reflection could serve as a tool to gain individuals’ knowledge of self and others, and through
their own self-awareness individuals recognize connections to and differentness from others.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 57
Gun et al. (2013) argued that through this reflection teachers learn to respect the values and
beliefs of others.
The authors noted that their theoretical frame derived from Mezirow’s (1997, 2000)
Transformative Learning Theory. This theory suggested that the process of change occurred
around a frame of reference based on assumptions developed through life experiences (Gunn et
al., 2013). To understand one’s experiences, beliefs, and assumptions teachers engage in critical
reflection which research shows teachers had to engage in to reflect critically about experiences
with students from diverse ethnic, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. The authors noted that
writing as a tool for cultural awareness through autobiographies and biographies about teachers’
students recognized similarities and differences and developed better understandings about
people who were different from the teacher in practice (Gunn et al., 2013).
Gunn et al. (2013) argued that writing, and more specifically autobiographies, could be
used with pre-service teachers on their journey toward developing culturally responsive
pedagogy. The study was guided by two research questions:
1. What can be learned from a study of pre-service teachers’ brief autobiographies?
2. How can brief autobiographies assist teacher educators in the development of course
content and culturally responsive pre-service teachers?
The authors selected a qualitative design to examine how life experiences influenced the pre-
service teachers’ understandings and perspectives. Gunn et al. (2013) used a case study approach
to answer the research questions and reveal findings.
Gunn et al. (2013) included pre-service teachers (N = 24) who were enrolled in their
second internship at a Southeastern University as well as the instructor. Each pre-service teacher
was placed in a single elementary classroom between kindergarten and fifth grade (Gunn et al.,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 58
2013). Gunn et al. (2013) noted that two schools were selected for the placement of the pre-
service teachers. School A was a Title I school with 79 percent of students on free or reduced
lunch and 67 percent of students spoke English as a second language. School B contrasted
greatly in that only 22 percent of students received free or reduced lunch and only 7 percent
spoke English as a second language. The pre-service teacher’ autobiographies were collected
during the initial meeting of a seminar that met once weekly (Gunn et al., 2013). The seminar
content was designed from the information provided by the participants and an interview of the
initial author of this study. The second author used a semi-structured interview format and an
interview protocol while conducting the interview to design the seminar content (Gunn et al.,
2013).
Gunn et al. (2013) included two forms of data collection for richness of data. Data
sources included: (a) the pre-service teachers’ autobiographies (N = 24) and (b) and interview
with the instructor of the course. The researchers noted that in order to remain confidentiality of
the pre-service teachers, names were removed from the autobiographies and numbers were
assigned. Gunn et al. (2013) note that they used Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software
program to analyze the collected documents after they were collected individually.
The second author identified and coded initial themes (Gunn et al., 2013). To increase the
credibility and dependability of the analysis, each researcher read through the data individually
then met to compare initial analysis and themes that emerged. Initially, researchers coded
independently, and codes were compared resulting in a 92 percent intercoder reliability rate. The
researchers then printed the data by initial codes and sorted until themes either emerged or
collapsed (Gunn et al., 2013).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 59
The initial findings revealed what can be learned from a study of pre-service teachers’
brief biographies (Gunn et al., 2013). The researchers found that many of the pre-service
teachers—when asked about their own culture in reference to Banks (2006) definition—openly
wrote about their religion while none wrote about their sexuality. Socioeconomic status was
discussed as widely as religion amongst the pre-service teachers and in all cases the pre-service
teachers stated that their families’ economic status influenced and impacted their lives. Gunn et
al. (2013) found that when the pre-service teachers discussed diversity it was discussed in ways
that were ethnically or linguistically different from the pre-service teachers. While the pre-
service teachers may have alluded to either excitement or apprehension about working with
diverse students, none of the pre-service teachers discussed their own culture (Gunn et al., 2013).
The majority of pre-service teachers expressed apprehension about working with diverse
students (Gunn et al., 2013).
The pre-service teachers were asked about their decision to become an elementary school
teacher (Gunn et al., 2013). Thirteen out of 24 pre-service teachers responded that they always
loved children. However, Gunn et al. (2013) found that only two pre-service teachers related
their career choice in elementary education to some kind of understanding of educational
psychology, teaching methods, or children’s learning.
The authors’ additional findings revealed insights into the research question regarding
how brief autobiographies of pre-service teachers assist teacher educators in the development of
course content and culturally responsive pre-service teachers (Gunn et al., 2013). The first author
found that pre-service teachers saw ethnicity and language as barriers instead of searching for
ways to explore how to teach all children. Gunn et al. (2013) found that teachers were able to
recognize culture as, “…this spectrum, this grand idea made of different component and to see
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 60
where you fit into all these different areas of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, language,
sexuality…you begin to see that culture is compose of many components” (p. 12). The pre-
service teachers suggested that different aspects of culture had impacted their lives such as
ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status (Gunn et al., 2013).
In Milner’s (2011) study he argued that teachers needed to build cultural competence in
order to effectively teach their students in urban contexts. The focus of the study was to examine
the ways that a white, male, science teacher builds cultural competence in a highly diverse urban
school. Initially, the researcher noted—prior to the election of the teacher mentioned throughout
the study—that he wanted to see why teachers were successful at Bridge Middle School and
what struggles teachers possessed (Milner, 2011). When the science teacher was elected for the
study by recommendation of the principal, the researcher noted the following research questions:
1. What issues did [the science teacher] experience in the school and in his classroom
with students that can shed light on the complexities of teaching and learning in an
urban and diverse school?
2. In what ways were [the science] teacher’s struggles and successes contributory to his
building of cultural competence? (Milner, 2011)
Milner (2011) noted that he wanted to understand how the teacher managed his classrooms, how
he was able to get parents involved, and how the teacher was able to make decisions about
learning opportunities for all his students.
Milner (2011) elected Bridge Middle School for its classification as an urban school in a
relatively large city in the southeastern United States. While there were some affluent students
who attended the school, the majority of the students were from lower socio-economic
backgrounds. Bridge Middle School was a Title I school that received federal funds to assist
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 61
students with instructional and related resources (Milner, 2011). The most recent data for the
student demographics noted that the student population consisted of 59.8 percent African
American, 5.6 percent Hispanic, 31.6 percent White, .3 percent American Indian, and 2.8 percent
Asian American (Milner, 2010). In 2006, there were 27 teachers with 45 percent of the faculty
being African American and 55 percent being white. Bridge Middle School was consistently
nominated as one of the “better” schools in the district. The school was known for success in
sports—basketball, wrestling, track, and football (Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) selected Mr. Hall a white, male, science teacher who had been teaching for
3 years at Bridge Middle School. The researcher selected Mr. Hall as he was nominated by
administration for the study and was selected by colleagues as Teacher of the Year. Milner
(2011) noted that Mr. Hall had a strong work ethic such as minimal breaks and attentive
monitoring during an assembly observed while other teachers seemed to utilize the time for a
break. During Mr. Hall’s planning block, he was preparing for the next class: cleaning lab
supplies, grading papers, and writing on the board.
Milner (2011) used observational formats and interview protocols building on and from
the qualitative research of others for data collection. The researcher conducted observations in
what was called the cultural contexts of the teacher’s classrooms as well as other contexts in the
school building. Throughout the study the research visited various sites such as the teacher’s
classes, school-related activities and events, spaces such as the Honor Roll Assembly, the library,
and the cafeteria. The researcher was in the school for half of a day once per week and on some
occasions 2 days (Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) noted that he analyzed documents and artifacts and conducted interviews
with the teacher. Semi-structured interviews were used with the teacher individually, which were
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 62
tape-recorded, transcribed, and hand coded. The researcher noted—although not tape-recorded or
transcribed—the researcher conducted countless informal interviews, which were recorded in the
researcher’s field notebook. Milner (2011) used analytic induction and reasoning to develop
thematic categories as interviews and observations progressed. The hand-coded analysis
followed a recursive, thematic process. As findings were based largely on both observations and
interviews, “…the patterns of thematic findings emerged from multiple data sources, resulting in
triangulation” (Milner, 2011, p. 74).
Milner (2011) revealed findings from the study in the areas of building cultural
competence, relationships, recognizing identity and confronting race, and communal
commitment. Mr. Hall was able to build and sustain meaningful and authentic relationships with
his students, which allowed him to build cultural competence in the classroom because the solid
relationships allowed him to learn from his students. Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall
recognized the multiple layers of identity among his students and confronted matters of race with
them thus building additional cultural competence. Mr. Hall perceived teaching as a communal
affair as he worked to create a culture of collaboration with colleagues and considered all
students in the context his responsibility (Milner, 2011).
Mr. Hall appeared to understand the importance of building and sustaining relationships
with his students at Bridge Middle School in order to deepen his knowledge about students
(Milner, 2011). Milner (2011) noted that the building of relationships served as a precursor to
learning what was necessary about others. Mr. Hall paid careful attention to the needs of each
student, which seemed paramount to Mr. Hall’s philosophy, thinking, and practices related to
relationship building. Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall resolved to meet the students where they
were, work with them, and develop the kinds of relationships with the students such that he could
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 63
handle the pedagogical and management needs and demands inherent in the space. Mr. Hall
rejected a “one-size fits-all approach” to teaching and learning because he had developed some
deep knowledge about the students’ needs and the students themselves (Milner, 2011). Mr. Hall
relied on the relationships he had established with his students as individuals and paid careful
attention to the idiosyncrasies of the situation.
Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall developed care and concern for his students through
his relationships with them. It was necessary for Mr. Hall to provide students multiple
opportunities to turn in work and that he would explain a concept repeatedly to make sure all
students were learning. As a result, Mr. Hall’s approach to teaching was that he was not going to
accept work that did not demonstrate the best conceptual and intellectual efforts of the students.
Milner (2011) expressed that Mr. Hall’s ability to understand and work through the conflicts that
he encountered with his students was critical to his building cultural competence. Mr. Hall
needed to understand some of the differences and tensions between himself and his students in
order to gain cultural knowledge (Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) revealed findings regarding the ways that Mr. Hall recognized identity and
confronted the matter of race. Mr. Hall was building cultural competence based on what the
students expressed to him and also what they expected of and from him—the students expected
Mr. Hall to “know” them, and they needed to know Mr. Hall. From this, Mr. Hall was able to
build cultural competence because of his willingness to listen to and hear from students who
complained that they did not know him. Milner (2011) noted that those students who showed
resistance to Mr. Hall was because they did not know him or felt disconnected to him and the
classroom experience. To bridge disconnectedness, Mr. Hall used storytelling as a pedagogical
tool to build relationships and to assist Mr. Hall in deepening his cultural knowledge about
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 64
himself and his students (Milner, 2011). Mr. Hall’s identity exposure was a critical element and
prerequisite for his students to feel that they had gotten to know him and to thusly engage in the
teaching and learning experience (Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall recognized and understood the complexities and
multilayered nature of the students’ identities, and he understood that developmentally, many of
the students were dealing with external matters. Mr. Hall was determined to not take conflicts
and misunderstandings in the classroom that emerged as personal attacks against him as the
teacher (Milner, 2011). Milner (2011) noted that both Mr. Hall and his students had to confront
race-related issues collectively in order to create and sustain an environment that was authentic,
responsive and relevant to the students in the classroom context. Mr. Hall appeared to be
working to understand the importance of race in his teaching because some of his students were
persistent in reminding him about the racial incongruence that existed between teacher and
students. Milner (2011) noted that Mr. Hall came to understand that not acknowledging the
prevalence and pervasiveness of race could result in incongruence, disconnections, and barriers
to success in the classroom. To resolve these potential situations, Milner (2011) noted that Mr.
Hall used the conflict and incongruence that seemed prevalent between the students and him as
an opportunity to build cultural competence and build connections with his students.
Milner’s (2011) final findings regarded the ways that Mr. Hall demonstrated communal
commitment and created a culture of care and collaboration. It was critical that people in
educational settings connected to common experiences that united all in the classroom and
school. Mr. Hall embraced the idea that his students were like his family. Milner (2011) noted
that Mr. Hall developed a mindset in order to connect with his students and ultimately for, “…
curricular congruence, pedagogical congruence, and cultural congruence” (p. 85). Mr. Hall was
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 65
able to develop and sustain strong bonds with students and community relationships in the
“larger” school community. Milner (2011) found that Mr. Hall developed a relationship and
reputation with his colleagues and with students who were not even in his classroom.
Additionally, Mr. Hall established meaningful relationships with new teachers in the school and
set the tone for the particular type of teacher he would be when students enrolled in his class in
the future (Milner, 2011).
Milner (2011) noted that Mr. Hall was aware of and consciously took action to ensure his
students felt connected despite cultural incongruence so that they would remain engaged in
learning and stay away from situations that could lead to harm. In essence, Mr. Hall understood
the serious consequences that could manifest should students not feel connected to the class and
school community (Milner, 2011).
Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) offer an overview of the conceptual and theoretical
literature on Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to build a theoretical framework. The authors provide
a clear understanding of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy at the onset of their framework
construction noting that Culturally Relevant Pedagogy maintains that teachers need to be non-
judgmental and inclusive of the cultural backgrounds of their students in order to be effective
facilitators of learning in the classroom. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy focuses on the importance
of culture in schooling and does not focus on race and racism as they relate to the sociohistorical
pattern of schooling in the United States (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). The authors examine
the evolution of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy from leading scholars and broaden the work
through a Critical Race Theory infusion that includes race and racism as normal parts of the
American society that have been integrated into the educational system and the systematic
aspects of school relationships (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 66
The authors note a long history in the development towards the use of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy. They cite scholars who have noted that connections between home-
community and school cultures in developing viable teaching and learning environments: (a)
culturally appropriate (Au & Jordan, 1981); (b) culturally congruent (Mohatt & Erickson, 1981);
(c) mitigating cultural discontinuity (Macias, 1987); (d) culturally responsive (Cazdenn &
Legget, 1981; Erickson & Mohatt, 1982); and (e) culturally compatible (Jordan, 1985; Vogt,
Jordan, & Tharp, 1987). For the purposes of this theoretical framework the authors use the
following understanding of culturally relevant pedagogy:
a pedagogy of oppression not unlike critical pedagogy but specifically committed to
collective, not merely individual, empowerment. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy rests on
three criteria or propositions: (a) students must experience academic success; (b) students
must develop and/or maintain cultural competence; and (c) students must develop a
critical consciousness through which they challenge the current status quo of the social
order. (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 160 as cited in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 68)
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is instrumental for schools to acknowledge the home community
of students, and through sensitivity to cultural nuances integrate these cultural experiences,
values and understandings in the teaching and learning environment (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper,
2011).
The authors provide a historical evolution of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy to ground
their framework. Several authors discussed the concept of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy prior to
Ladson-Billings. Au and Jordan (1981) argue that knowing the difference between school
learning and informal learning is critical in facilitating academic success for students (as cited in
Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). In relation to student to teacher interactions, Mohatt and Erickson
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 67
(1981) assert that (a) student and teacher behaviors need to be taken into context because they
are culturally patterned behavior, and (b) research needs to focus on understanding the effect of
teachers’ behaviors on students (as cited in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Various scholars have argued that cultural incompatibility is one of the factors for school
failure (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). These scholars offer that “cultural continuity” improves
learning environments in that classrooms where the teacher “developed adaptive ways of
teaching” and connected the home-community lives of students there were profound academic
achievements. Moreover, Jordan (1985) find that continuities and discontinuities between the
home-community and school cultures can affect the quality of learning that took place (Brown-
Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Later, Irvine (1990) noted the lack of cultural synchronization in schools,
an anthropological and historical concept that recognizes, “…that Black Americans have distinct
culture founded on identifiable norms, language, behaviors, and attitudes from Africa” (as cited
in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 23). As schools have adopted—primarily—an incongruous
and contradictory structure cultural misunderstandings and cultural aversions can result among
teachers, administrators, students, and parents within [United States’] classrooms (Irvine, 1990
as cited in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
The authors note the significance of Critical Race Theory in the development of their
framework. Initially, scholars argued for a critical theory of race in education that was related to
one created in legal scholarship and subsequently emerged the concept of Critical Race Theory
(CRT) in education which was used to analyze social inequities that are covertly demonstrated
through racist practices within schools (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Critical Race Theory in
education is defined as:
…a framework or set of basic perspectives, methods, and pedagogy that seeks
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 68
to identify, analyze, and transform those structural, cultural, and interpersonal aspects of
education that maintain the marginal position and subordination of [Black and Latino]
students. Critical Race Theory asks such questions as: What roles do schools, school
processes, and school structures play in the maintenance of racial, ethnic, and gender
subordination. (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 72)
Critical Race Theory is built on five tenets of: (1) racialized power; (2) the permanence or
centrality of race; (3) counter-storytelling as a legitimate critique of the master narrative; (4)
interest convergence; and (5) critique of liberalism (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). The authors
use the lens of Critical Race Theory in education to, “…review[] ways that, for instance,
curriculum is designed, the delivery of instruction is executed, classes are composed and
grouped, assessment is determined and processed, school funding is allocated, and redistricting
lines are drawn” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 72). The reason the authors use a CRT frame
is that culturally relevant pedagogy does not explicitly problematize race yet Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy should include an analysis of race and racism. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy, like
Critical Race Theory, recognizes the value of lived experience by marginalized groups in
understanding and making meaning of the world.
Critical Race Theory updates the framework of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. In the
evaluations of the literature, the authors found some universal truths that are applicable to any
and all cultural groups and could lead to the development of a conceptual model of pedagogical
strategies with wide application (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). The purpose of this review of
literature and re-framing was to infuse the tenets of Critical Race Theory into an overview of the
literature that supports a conceptual framework for understanding and studying culturally
relevant pedagogy (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 69
In developing the conceptual framework for Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and its
corresponding teaching behaviors the authors fleshed out five themes: identity achievement,
equity and excellence, developmental appropriateness, teaching the whole child, and student-
teacher relationships (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
The authors begin the discussion of their framework with the following concepts that are
aligned to identity and achievement: identity development, cultural heritage, multiple
perspectives, affirmation of diversity, and public validation of home-community cultures which
includes the social and cultural capital that students bring to school with them (Brown-Jeffy &
Cooper, 2011). Language, behavioral expressions, interpretations of actions, and societal
expectations are all culturally borne and implemented and are all facets to identity. As all people
participate as a member of these microcultures we are all “a multicultural being” (Brown-Jeffy &
Cooper, 2011). Tatum (1997) argues that:
The parts of our identity that do capture our attention are those that other people notice
and reflect back to us. The aspect of identity that is the target of others’ attention, and
subsequently of our own, often is that which sets us apart as exceptional or other in their
eyes. (p. 21 as cited in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 75)
Thus, teachers should realize that students who are racial or ethnic minorities see, view, and
perceive themselves and others differently that those who are of the majority group (Brown-Jeffy
& Cooper, 2011).
In an effort to best serve students who are historically marginalized and attend to the
identities of diverse students, teachers should be aware of their own identities as well as how
those identities may diverge from the identities of their students. In fact, “…by reconnecting with
their own backgrounds, and with the sufferings as well as the triumphs of their own families,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 70
teachers can lay the groundwork for students to reclaim their histories and voices” (Brown-Jeffy
& Cooper, 2011, p. 76). This is a matter of interest convergence as defined by Critical Race
Theory that acknowledges, “…the legitimacy of cultural heritages of different ethnic groups,
both as legacies that affect students’ dispositions, attitudes, and approaches to learning and as
worthy content to be taught in formal curriculum (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 82). This
awareness of one’s identity culturally, socially, and economically assists teachers in becoming
more attuned to the identities of students.
Critical Race Theory notes that cultural awareness does not and should not include
colorblindness or race-neutral policies (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Such dispositions as
colorblindness devalue the experiences and realities of students of color by denying that race
preferences and racism exists. Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) argues that the teacher needs to
be aware of the white power and privilege system in American education. Thus, when teachers
are aware the system is racist they can move forward to not only avoid socially reproducing the
racism but work systematically to re-think the system, recognize, their actions in it, and change
existing structures thus embracing all cultures as equally important (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper,
2011).
Teachers must identify the variation of cultures within a given classroom if they desire to
practice Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). To create an environment
of equitable learning, teachers must embrace the reality of diversity and affirm that diversity as
an asset to the learning experience. All races are valuable and is capture in the argument that,
…rather than think of diverse students as problems, we can view them instead as
resources who can help all of us learn what it feels like to move between cultures and
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 71
language varieties, and thus perhaps better learn how you become citizens of the global
community. (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 79)
Diversity and home-community cultures are used as assets and learning tools for both students
and teachers.
The authors address the following concepts related to the theme of equity and excellence:
dispositions, incorporation of multicultural curriculum and content, equal access, and high
expectations (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). It is necessary to differentiate between equity and
equal opportunity. Equal opportunity does not acknowledge that students need differentiation.
Equity involves providing students what they need to succeed. Providing children what they need
means believing (a) difference is good, (b) differentiated instruction is essential for some, and (c)
CRP practices can enhance learning. Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) maintain that teachers must
accept students through affirmations of their cultural capital. When teachers do not see diversity,
they greatly limit their abilities to meet students’ diverse educational and social needs (Gay,
1994 as cited in Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Students often come to school with previously attained negative affiliations with
scholastic experiences. Students may not see themselves in a positive light in the traditional
material that is usually presented at schools. In fact:
In curriculum and teaching units and in textbooks, students often study historical
events, concepts, and issues primarily from the point of view of the victors. The
perspectives of the vanquished are frequently silenced, ignored, or marginalized. This
kind of teaching privileges mainstream students—those who most often identify with the
victors or dominant group—and causes many students of color to feel left out of the
American story. (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 81)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 72
Curriculum should bring both student and faculty from a variety of cultures and perspectives to
ensure various perspectives, dispositions, and stories are told (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Critical Race Theory maintains that equity and excellence clearly focus on realizing that
race is a significant factor in inequality (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Authors have argued that
race is a “central construct for understanding inequality” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 82).
Critical Race Theory does not accept the belief that equity and excellence are solely defined as
the property of interest of Whites and highlights the exclusionary practices of the educational
system. Teachers must interweave the acknowledgement and inclusion of culture throughout the
entire academic process (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) discuss the theme of developmental appropriateness,
which includes the following concepts: learning styles, teaching styles, and cultural variation in
psychological needs (motivation, morale, engagement, collaboration). It is critical that teachers
know where adolescents and children are in their cognitive and psychosocial development. As
students grow into the higher grades, the notion of developmental appropriateness moves from
considering is, “… this appropriate for a student at a certain age to how does diversity of culture
impact developmental appropriateness” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 75, emphasis in the
original). In addition to understanding what is culturally appropriate or relevant for the culturally
diverse students in the classroom, the teacher must acknowledge, explore, and utilize the
knowledge that students bring with them to school (Ladson-Billings, 1994 as cited in Brown-
Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). Critical Race Theory mirrors this notion in that developmental
appropriateness must also focus on where the student is when entering schools and whether it
can be a direct remnant of racism. Bridging learning from where students are to where they must
be requires innovative teaching methods and assessments (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 73
Teachers must understand the variation of social-emotional and psycho-social needs of
students in the classroom in order to deliver culturally relevant pedagogy. Brown-Jeffy and
Cooper (2011) maintain that teachers should realize that the psychological needs of students may
vary and that students do have different motivations to learn. This developmental
appropriateness also suggests that teachers are cognizant of the dominant and sometimes racist,
non-inclusive ideology that has been institutionalized and legalized in American education.
While teachers act in an arena of standardized curriculum and assessment, they can also embrace
the opportunity to integrate or cultivate additional views of achievement that will allow students
who do not experience achievement through the standard curriculum to obtain success. The goal
should be to cultivate students who want to learn instead of students who will just engage in rote
memorization and regurgitation (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Similarly, teaching the whole child is a theme that includes the concepts of skill
development in cultural context, home-school-community collaboration, learning outcomes,
supportive learning community, and empowerment. Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) maintain
that influences from initial cultural socialization experience sin the family and community shape
the academic identity of students who enter classrooms. Because the influences shape the
academic experiences of students, teachers should be sensitive to how culture race, and ethnicity
influence the academic, social, emotional, and psychological development of students. Teachers
must understand that children bring with them to school culturally-based ways of doing, seeing,
and knowing; in response, culturally relevant teachers find avenues to scaffold those cultural
experiences in order for the students to gain additional meaning and ultimately be successful.
These experiences include their funds of knowledge and cultural capital (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper,
2011).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 74
The last concept by the authors regards student-teacher relationships, which includes the
ideas of caring, relationships, interaction, and classroom atmosphere. This concept is critical as,
“…the nature and extent of the relationships between teachers and their students are critical in
promoting student learning” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 89). Relationships between
studens and teachers must be, “…fluid and equitable and extend beyond the classroom…and
demonstrate a connectedness with all…students and encourage connectedness between the
students” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011, p. 89). In order to form better relationships with
students, teachers should consider and value their students’ counter-stories for their perceived
realities of lived experience for these can reveal institutional and systematic representations of
socio-historically marginalized narratives.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy has three goals for diverse students: promote academic
achievement for students, develop and demonstrate cultural competence, and understand and
critique the existing social order (Ladson-Billings, 1992). Teachers’ awareness of student culture
and the integration of student culture and home-community life is essential to ensuring the
academic success of students (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011; Ladson-Billings, 1992; Milner,
2011). It is one idea to understand the theoretical underpinnings and development of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy; it is another to enact its tenets in practice (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011;
Ladson-Billings, 1992; Milner, 2011). Practitioners must be reflective of their assumptions of
students (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Milner, 2011) and naturalized axioms (Philip, 2011) they
ascribe to students. The literature around Culturally Relevant Pedagogy helped me understand
the tenets of theory and practice that assists historically marginalized youth achieve academic
equity. However, I needed to make the specific and overt connections between these theoretical
and conceptual underpinnings to the practice of feedback to urban students’ writing. I turn next
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 75
to the literature of secondary writing instruction and feedback in English Language Arts
classrooms.
Secondary Writing Instruction and Written Feedback
In order to understand how feedback promotes proficiency in academic and expository
writing in the urban, secondary English Language Arts classroom, I turned to the literature on
secondary writing instruction and feedback. Additionally, I sought to understand the various
ways that scholars have studied teacher feedback to writing. This revealed to me connections
between that feedback and proficiency. It was the goal that I would gain insights into how
teacher ideology informs such feedback and how Culturally Relevant Pedagogy potentially
manifests in such feedback.
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that strategic instruction is a key element in helping students
write well and use writing to learn subject matter across the curriculum. On a foundational level,
providing effective instruction in writing in the elementary grades, when students begin learning
to write and experience difficulty in writing, as waiting later to remediate such writing processes
does not yield successful results. Successful strategies for writing instruction across grade levels
include modeling, explicit instruction, and providing students with opportunities to engage and
practice writing across domains and across disciplines (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Research shows that
teachers must feel competent as writers and writing teachers in order to provide effective
instruction in writing; however, as a result of high-stakes assessment teachers often feel that they
have the time nor the ability to provide quality writing instruction.
The researcher noted that her conceptual framework for the study is based on the notion
that writing is a complex and recursive process that requires strategic decision-making across
multiple domains and content areas (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Empirical studies in elementary
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 76
through high school classrooms revealed that teachers’ perceptions and beliefs about writing and
about themselves as writers can impact their writing instruction and students’ writing
development (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). A core principle of writing instruction is for teachers to
understand the full spectrum of writing and help them envisions themselves as writers.
Researchers have suggested methods, approaches, and strategies for effective writing
instruction. Some research suggests stressing writing as a recursive process, and encourages
instruction in the development of fluency, form, and mechanical accuracy (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
Some authors suggest effective writing instruction comes from group rather than individual
conferences or free writing, inquiry, and revision rather than the imitation of models or isolated
study of grammar. Other researchers suggest that effective writing instruction comes from
effective pre-writing strategies or specific suggestions and feedback provided to students in
response to their writing, in the context of collaborative relationship between teacher and student
writers. Effective writing instruction must make connections to children’s lives outside of the
classroom and use authentic and challenging tasks as writing prompts. Teachers must have ample
time for writing instruction as they engage students in crafting texts through think-alouds, mini-
lessons, monitoring and conferencing (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) used a mixed methods approach in her study regarding effective
writing instruction through a professional development. The study had three primary foci: (a)
teachers’ attitudes towards writing instruction and their perceived competency as writers, (b)
teachers’ perceptions of students’ attitudes towards writing, and (c) the extent to which teachers’
feelings of competency as writers, and (c) the extent to which teachers’ feelings of competency
as writers and writing instructors improved after they completed ten weeks of research-based
professional development workshops (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 77
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that the professional development was conducted within the
context of a partnership between a local university and a school district in Central Massachusetts.
Four elementary schools were selected for the study two of which were Title I schools. The Title
I schools had been identified for the study because they had been identified for improvement
based on the English Language Arts 2008 Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System
(MCAS) standardized test results (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Fifty-three percent of grade four students
fell into the “Needs Improvement” or “Warning” category and subject area sub-scores indicated
that students had attained only 58 percent of all possible points in the reporting categories of
“Composition: Topic Development,” 19.5 percent of all possible points for “Open Response,”
and 13.7 percent of all possible points in the “Writing Prompt” item type (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
Following these results, a state grant was provided for professional development in the area of
writing so that teams of teachers across content areas could create a comprehensive writing
program.
The project described in the study was designed to help restore a portion of lost
professional development opportunities for 28 third and fourth grade teachers with a
supplemental focus on literacy (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). The content of the professional
development met the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, which
was, “…to assist participating schools with implementation of new practices and/or refinement
of existing practices, improve educator effectiveness, and turn around the lowest performing
school districts” (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013, p. 145). Prior to the professional development teachers
discusses frameworks and examined potential alignments to Common Core State Standards.
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that the constructors of the professional development focused on
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 78
refining existing practices for writing instruction. The following were the foci for the
professional development:
1. Examine the purpose of writing, their writing habits, and identify their strengths and
weaknesses as writers.
2. Learn useful strategies to motivate both themselves and their students become more
successful writers.
3. Participate in and learn to construct mini-lessons in writing workshops that include:
writing, conferencing, editing, and publishing.
4. Learn effective methods for evaluating students’ writing, using portfolios and rubrics,
and
5. Learn how to scaffold writing instruction for English Language Learners (ELLs) and
students with Special Needs (SPED). (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013, p. 140)
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that there were 28 participants from four elementary schools
that participated in the workshop for 10 weeks. The participants included: 11 fourth grade
teachers, four third grade teachers, four second grade teachers, three first grade teachers, and one
kindergarten teacher, two reading specialists, two special education teachers and one academic
coach. Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that only 21 participants completed both the pre- and post-
workshop surveys for the study.
The researcher noted that there were various forms of data collection completed during
the professional development. Pre- and post- workshop surveys were administered to teachers
and one-pre-workshop survey administered to consenting students of all participating teachers
(Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). The researcher maintained participant anonymity through self-selected
nicknames and identifying numbers. This anonymity was critical to the study as it dealt with
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 79
attitudes and perceptions of competencies in writing. Bifuh-Ambe (2013) used a Likert scale
type survey which also included open response questions. The researcher noted that the questions
and prompts focused on teachers’ attitude toward writing instruction, their feelings of
competency as writers and writing teachers, and perceptions of their students’ attitudes and
abilities toward writing. The sample of participants was small (n=21) for robust factor analyses
the qualitative data obtained from the open-ended questions were thoroughly analyzed to get
more insights into participants’ perspectives (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
Additional forms of data collection included classroom observations and the content of
the professional development workshops (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Workshop sessions included a
general pattern of facilitators demonstrating skills, and teacher-participants writing and sharing
their work in small groups. Subsequent sessions included participants selecting narrative prompts
from a list to write about and continued working on their narratives at home. The facilitator
responded to the tasks commenting on the recursive nature of writing following the format of:
demonstration, application, and debriefing (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Classroom observations
occurred after the workshops. The researcher settled on two teachers despite the six teachers that
signed up for observations because of timing and availability. Pre-observation meetings
occurred where the researcher communicated to the teachers the main reason for observing was
to examine the extent to which they were implementing target practices as part of the composing
process. The researcher used an observational form titled “Observational Notes for Writing
Instruction” which included the following sections: (1) Classroom Climate/Participants’
Attitudes, (2) Writing Process and (3) Writing Strategies. The researcher conducted post-
observation conversations (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 80
The researcher used univariate analyses of survey data that were conducted to compare
pre- and post-workshop responses to determine changes in workshop participants’ attitudes
towards writing, their perceived feelings of competence as writers and writing teachers, and their
perceptions of their students’ attitudes towards writing, and writing proficiency (Bifuh-Ambe,
2013). The responses of “yes” and “sometimes” responses were calculated together and if the
percentages improved post survey they were considered positive shifts; if the percentages
decreased post-survey, they were considered negative shifts (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). The researcher
used a Fisher Exact Probability Test (p < .05) to determine statistical significance in pre- and
post-survey responses. The narrative responses were coded to find themes that emerged from
open-ended questions and then the themes were categorized depending on the frequency of
responses and emerging and disappearing categories that occurred pre- and post-workshop were
noted (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013).
The researcher revealed various notions regarding attitudes towards writing and
perceptions of competency, teachers’ perceptions of students’ attitudes about writing, classroom
observations, external evaluator findings, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of the
professional development (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Results indicated that many of the teachers
began the workshop feeling positive or somewhat positive about writing and feeling competence
in performing various components of writing. The positive attitude toward writing improved
from 88.87 percent pre-workshop, to 93 percent post-workshop. The researcher also found that
predominantly participants who indicated that they enjoyed writing also thought of themselves as
good writers (85.7 percent). Bifuh-Ambe (2013) also noted that participants who identified
themselves as good writers, also seemed to know characteristics of good writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 81
Some negative shifts were noted in participants’ ability to perform specific domains of
writing such as revising and editing (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). Teachers’ perceived ability to generate
ideas shift negatively from 88.05 percent pre-workshop to 69.1 percent post workshop; and their
ability to give feedback slid from 86.75 percent to 76.18 percent. Bifuh-Ambe (2013) found that
the teachers’ feelings of competency to collaborate during the writing process slipped from 95.3
percent to 94 percent and their control of writing from 90.48 percent to 77 percent. One
noticeable negative shift emerged post-workshop about teacher’s perceived ability to motivate
their students to write. Several participants felt their students were not motivated to write and
they did not know how to motivate their students. The researcher identified the following themes
as domains of writing that teacher-participants identified as having learned during the PD: (1)
writing a topic of interest; (2) avoiding template writing; (3) describing and showing voice; (4)
organize writing workshops in their own classrooms; and (5) evaluating students’ writing (Bifuh-
Ambe, 2013).
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted there was an apparent inability of participants to see a
correlation between teacher knowledge and student performance. A majority of teachers, 66.7
percent considered that their students enjoyed writing while 33.7 percent felt their students did
not enjoy writing. Bifuh-Ambe (2013) noted that the teachers who wrote that the students who
enjoyed writing also enjoyed reading. The researcher turns to the findings of the classroom
observations at this point.
Bifuh-Ambe (2013) found that teachers did not use authentic texts for students’ lived
experiences. However, the students could relate to figurative language used in the text that was
selected and thus the objective of the lesson observed was achieved. An examination of students
writing samples revealed that many had used descriptive word choices as a result of lessons on
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 82
figurative language (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). The researcher turns to the evaluation of the
professional development and the satisfaction of the participants at this point; however, for the
purposes of this study these findings are not pertinent.
Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted that research on the commentary on student papers
was limited in terms of large-scale studies with a large sample of teachers and students. This was
typically because of the nature of analyzing such commentary. The researchers desired to
understand whether teachers’ comments have become more or less prescriptive, longer or
shorter, more positive or more negative. Generally, the speaking the authors noted that, “…the
news from the classroom is not good and…teachers were not responding in ways that would help
them engage with issues, purposes, or goals (Connors & Lunsford, 1993, p. 205).
The researchers collected 21,000 teacher-marked student essays for a national study of
patterns of formal error. Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted they elected a randomized,
stratified, sample of 3,000 papers. The researchers then asked fifty analyzers to find examples of
the top twenty error patterns in the writing of contemporary college students. From the analysis
process the researchers turned from emerging themes of simplistic teacher comments such as
“awkward” or “comma” to comments that were deemed “global comments” (Connors &
Lunsford, 1993). The authors desired to understand the following research questions:
1. What were teachers saying in response to the content of the paper or to the
specific rhetorical aspects of its organization, sentence structure, etc.?
2. What kind of teacher-student relationships did the comments reflect?
The researchers then turn to the collection of data in their study.
Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted that they had a database readily available for their
data collection. The researchers originally called for papers that, “…teachers have responded
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 83
with interlinear, marginal, or terminal comments” (Connors & Lunsford, 1993, p. 205). The
researchers used convenience sampling. The sample analyzed were a group of 300 teachers who
responded to an initial mailing that went out approximately 8,000 teachers. The sample of papers
came from a randomized and nationally stratified by region, size and type of college. From the
sample of 3000 papers, the researchers selected at random 300 papers and divided the papers in
half between the two researchers for analysis. The researchers decided to work inductively
noting any important patterns they could see of teacher response to global rhetorical issues.
Connors and Lunsford (1993) created a list separately then compared their lists noting
commonalities that were based in forms and genres of teacher comments. The researchers
“melded” their lists and came up with a checklist form that they hoped would capture a
substantial number of different kinds of global comments the readers might see. The researchers
gathered a group of 26 “experienced” writing teachers and “eager” readers which were to
examine the teacher comments on each paper and search for a number of specific elements to
record (Connors & Lunsford, 1993).
The researchers noted that they were specifically interested in global comments by
teachers; these comments are general evaluative comments found at the end or the beginning of
papers. Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted, “…global comments by teachers are meant to
address global issues in students’ writing: issues of rhetoric, structure, general success,
longitudinal writing development, mastery of conventional generic knowledge, and other large-
scale issues” (p. 206). The researchers informed the readers to ignore comments such as formal
errors, grammar, punctuation, spelling, and syntax. For analysis purposes the researchers wanted
to get at the ways in which teachers judge the rhetorical effectiveness of their students’ writing,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 84
and the sorts of student-teacher relationships reflected in the comments that teachers gave
(Connors & Lunsford, 1993). The researchers then turn to the findings from their analysis.
The researchers found that 2,241 papers bore some sort of grade; however, these grades
did not always appear on papers with global comments (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). Many
graded papers contained no form of commentary on them. The grades took various forms such as
standard letter grades with pluses and minuses; to standard 100-point number grades; to cryptic
systems of numbers, fractions, decimals; and to symbolic systems of different kinds, including
varieties of stars, moons, checks, check-pluses and minuses. Of the 3,000 papers, 1,934 (64
percent) had identifiable terminal or initial comments. These comments served as the teacher’s
most general and usually final comment on the work of the paper as a whole. Connors and
Lunsford (1993) noted that far more terminal comments appeared on writing tasks.
Connors and Lunsford (1993) found that as they analyzed the texts they were reminded of
how rhetorical forms could reveal the purposes and attitudes of those who evaluated the writings.
The researchers found that teachers tended to return to well-understood topoi as well as to
familiar terms, phrases, and locutions as they made their judgments on student writing. The
researchers noted that these, “…topoi and tropes of commentary have several origins; they are
public and private, conscious and habitual, social and individualistic” (Connors & Lunsford,
1993, p. 210).
Initial and terminal comments contained certain patterns and genres. Many comments
consisted of noting except praise and positive evaluation. The readers found that these positive
comments tended to be the shortest of all the global comments found. Connors and Lunsford
(1993) found that completely positive global comments were the most personal comments and
were even commonly signed with the teacher’s initials. The researchers noted that they found the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 85
common pattern consisted of comments that began by critiquing some aspect of the student’s
writing—often formal or mechanical—and then moved into a positive commentary of the
effective aspect of the papers. However, almost twice as common were comments that consisted
solely of negative judgments. Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted that, “…these completely
critical comments ranged from savagely indignant to sadly resigned, but all gave the message
that the teacher was seriously disappointed with the effort and was not equal to the task of
finding anything about the paper to like” (p. 210).
The researchers found that the most common trope in global comments proved to be the
comment that began positively, with some praise of some element of the paper, and then turned
negative toward. Connors and Lunsford (1993) the most common order was global/local, leading
with rhetorical comments, followed up by comments on mechanical or formal issues. The single
most common kind of comment the researcher found consisted of a positive rhetorical comment
followed by complaints and suggestions of different sorts, often concerning mechanical elements
in the paper. Lengthy comments appear significantly less than short comments. The researchers
found that only 22 percent of the longer comments were concerned exclusively with formal
issues, indicating that 78 percent of all the longer global comments made by teachers took
cognizance of the rhetorical issues in the paper (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). The researchers
then turn to the findings regarding tropes with commentary.
The researchers found that primarily teachers focused on two areas in their responses
using global comments: supporting details and overall paper organization. Connors and Lunsford
(1993) found that a full 56 percent of all papers contained comments on effectiveness—or more
commonly the lack—of supporting details, evidence, or examples. The next most common type
of comments was overall paper organization, with special respect to introduction and concluding
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 86
paragraphs and thematic coherence. To the surprise of the researchers, few comments addressed
issues concerning audience and purpose. Similarly, in quantity, the researchers found that only
11 percent of the papers contained comments concerned with how successfully the paper
responded to the assignment. Few comments concerned writing as a developmental or growth
process; only 8 percent dealt with this matter. On the other hand, Connors and Lunsford (1993)
found that 92 percent of the comments primarily dealt with the single writing task at hand
making no comments on progress or development. The researchers’ primary focus was global
comments and not mechanical/local comments; however, the researcher did report on these
findings as they felt they could not separate them.
The researchers found that 33 percent of the comments mentioned sentence structure that
commented on the effectiveness of sentences and not complaints about the syntactic or
grammatical functionality (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). Only 18 percent of the papers
commented on paragraphs as organic units. General paper formats—in terms of margins,
spacing, neatness, cover sheets, etc.—were only 16 percent of the comments. The researchers
found that the terminal and initial comments served a primary purpose: to justify and explain
final grades. Connors and Lunsford (1993) noted that 59 percent of the initial and terminal
comments were “autopsies” representing a full stop rather than any medial stage in the writing
process. Only 11 percent of the papers commented on the writing task as an ongoing project. The
researchers noted that, “…this study suggests that consistent and widespread use of multiple
drafts and revisions may hold more in theory that it does in practice (Connors & Lunsford, 1993,
p. 213). The researchers turn to discussing reader impressions and findings in this area and as
these are, “…primarily impressionistic and not generalizable” (Connors & Lunsford, 1993, p.
214) they have been excluded for this study.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 87
Ashwell (2000) expanded on the literature with specific respect to the local/global
commentary. The study focused in on a multiple draft composition classroom in where the
researcher seeks to understand the effectiveness of content feedback followed by form feedback.
The study had to primary research questions:
1. Is the content feedback followed by form feedback pattern of teacher response
superior to other patterns in terms of the improvement it brings about student writing?
2. Is it necessary to separate form and content feedback and to give them at different
stages in the writing process? (Ashwell, 2000)
The researchers then turn to their discussion of subjects and pedagogical context for the study.
Ashwell (2000) selected 50 students from the researcher’s writing courses at a Japanese
university. One course was at a first-year course and the second course was a third year;
however, the researcher noted that, “…both were at the same level of instruction and were the
first writing classes the students had taken at the university” (Ashwell, 2000, p. 231). Students
produced four assignments during the year, two in the first term, and two in the second term with
each writing task consisting of 500 word minimum. Ashwell (2000) noted that two versions
needed to be revised prior to the handing in of the final draft for evaluation. The researcher notes
that although the course did not focus exclusively on drafting assignments, he would describe
these classes as ones in which a process-oriented form of instruction predominated. The
researcher noted the process by which he would provide feedback to students. For the first,
second, and final assignments of the year all students were given content feedback on their first
draft and form feedback on their second draft. This was designed in respect to the research
question of content then form feedback.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 88
The researcher then turned to the discussion of the methods that were used in the study.
Ashwell (2000) noted that in order to answer the research question questions, the recommended
pattern of content feedback followed by form feedback was compared with other forms. The
other forms used to answer the research question were: the reverse pattern and a pattern of mixed
form and content feedback after both the first and second draft. The final comparison form was a
control pattern of no feedback at either stage. Participants were assigned to one of the four
treatment groups in order to achieve a balance of students from the two classes in each group.
Ashwell (2000) assigned participants to groups on the basis of an assessment of the formal
accuracy of their first draft in an effort to achieve similar means for formal accuracy for all
treatment groups for the first draft.
Ashwell (2000) noted that the primary form of feedback used was indirect feedback when
it came to form feedback. This type of feedback is mere circling or underlining where errors
occurred. Indirect feedback affords opportunities for “…guided learning and problem solving” to
take place (Lalande, 1982 as cited in Ashwell, 2000, p. 232) and in previous studies appears to
have, “…a more positive effect on long term student improvement in accuracy and editing skills”
than does direct feedback (Ferris & Hedgecock, 1998 as cited in Ashwell, 2000, p. 233). In
contrast, the content feedback was aimed at, “…principally…multiple-sentence level issues such
as organization, paraphrasing, cohesion, and relevance” (Ashwell, 2000, p. 234). The comments
were personalized; they offered guidance or direction where necessary; they referred specifically
to the students’ text; and positive comments were generally mixed with guidance or criticism
(Ashwell, 2000).
Overall improvements or deteriorations in students’ compositions between first draft and
third draft should not be attributable to overall differences in the amount of feedback received.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 89
Therefore, there was only a 12-minute time limit on feedback provided to each individual draft.
Thus, students in the “content-then-form” feedback group were given 12 minutes of content
feedback on the first draft and 12 minutes of form feedback on the second draft. The “form-then-
content” group were given the opposite treatment and the mixed form and content feedback
group 12 minutes of mixed form and content feedback on both first and second drafts. Twelve
minutes per student allowed for five students’ papers to be processed in an hour, meaning that it
took 7 or 8 hours of work to give feedback to the 38 students outside the control group (Ashwell,
2000).
After third drafts were returned to the students with comments and suggestions for future
writing, copies of remaining drafts and final versions were assessed for formal accuracy by the
researcher (Ashwell, 2000). The assessment tool created was based on five content criteria which
included: “communicative quality,” “organization,” “paraphrasing,” “cohesion,” and “relevance
and adequacy.” Ashwell (2000) noted that, “…these were all aspects that were specifically
emphasized in the content feedback given and in the classroom teaching” (p. 236). After
attending a training meeting at which drafts from another assignment were graded and discussed
three content scorers independently scored any one text without knowing whether it was a first,
second, or third draft. Thus, three trios of scorers were required in order that any one scorer
would only see a first draft, or a second draft or a third draft of any one student’s composition.
Ashwell (2000) noted that interrater reliability was notably low, but it was decided to take the
trio average as a reasonable approximation of the true content score of any text. The researcher
then turned to the discussion of the findings of the study.
The findings revealed that net gains were made in formal accuracy between the first and
third draft by the three groups that received feedback (Ashwell, 2000). The largest gains in
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 90
formal accuracy was seen in the group that received mixed feedback on all drafts. Another key
finding was that when only content feedback was received at particular stage deteriorations in
formal accuracy occurred and that when no formal feedback and no content feedback was
received deterioration or no change in formal accuracy occurred. Across groups one, two, and
three gains were seen in formal accuracy. Ashwell (2000) also found that group four (ones that
did not receive feedback) made gains in formal accuracy. The largest gains in formal accuracy
were in Group three (ones that received a mix of feedback across the drafts). Groups two and
four made equal gain (form then content and no feedback respectively) and group one made the
smallest net gain (content then form) (Ashwell, 2000).
Ashwell (2000) also found that those who did not receive feedback made gains simply by
the process of re-drafting. Ashwell (2000) also found that between the groups that received
feedback and those that did not there were no better gains on either side. Students made more
successful changes to content early on in the drafting process (between draft one and draft two).
Ashwell (2000) found that the mixed pattern of content and form feedback at both stages (the
pattern that was received by group three) might in fact be superior to other patterns and better
than not giving any feedback. However, Ashwell (2000) notes that an “alarming” finding was
that there were no significant gains between the manipulates groups (those who received
feedback) and the control group (those who did not receive feedback). Overall, the research
conducted suggests that the recommended pattern of content feedback followed by form
feedback is not superior to the reverse pattern or to a pattern of mixed form and content
feedback. Comparisons between the control group and then other groups with various
manipulations of feedback revealed that the formal accuracy in the drafts improved with
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 91
feedback rather than without feedback (Ashwell, 2000). As well, in these comparisons (Ashwell,
2000) found that content improved by simply re-writing and re-drafting.
Brice (1995) conducted a study to reveal students’ affective responses to teacher
feedback on writing. Brice (1995) had the following research questions that guided the study:
1. What kinds of teacher-written feedback do students understand and what kinds do
they have trouble understanding?
2. What kinds of teacher-written feedback do students like best and least on their drafts?
3. What kinds of teacher-written feedback do students find most and least useful in
helping them revise drafts and write future essays?
The context for the study was conducted in a section of English 101I course at Purdue University
(Brice, 1995). This course was an expository prose course designed for non-native speakers of
English. The researcher elected to work with students in one class in order to limit the potential
differences in teaching approaches and teacher-response styles (Brice, 1995).
The teacher of this section of English 101I utilized a three-draft system for compositions
where students initially received feedback from a small group of peers on their first draft, and
comments from their teacher on the final two drafts (Brice, 1995). The instructor provided
feedback on the following domains: content, organizations, vocabulary, grammar, and
conventions. The researcher focused on the fourth paper in the semester, which was a report on
an interview they had conducted with an expert in the field (Brice, 1995).
The researcher elected three ESL students who volunteered their time—one male and one
female (Brice, 1995) The participants represented two cultural backgrounds and three languages.
The female—referred to as Michelle (pseudonym)—in the study is a native speaker of Chinese
and Taiwanese from Taiwan, and the two males—referred to as Sedek and Victor (pseudonyms)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 92
are native speakers of Malay from Malaysia (Brice, 1995). The participants rated themselves at
various levels of writing based on informal discussions with the researcher. Victor and Michelle
rated themselves as average writers and Sedek rated himself as a good writer (Brice, 1995).
These participants were elected as they agreed to the time demands and involvement in the study.
The researcher used various methods to collect data for the study. Brice (1995) offers that
the primary data consists of videotapes of the students participating in think-aloud protocols in
which they reacted to comments their teacher wrote on their second and final drafts of their
interview paper. The researcher collected each of the participants’ second and final drafts
(without informing the teachers of the specific students elected for the study) and gave the
comments on drafts back to the students for the first time at their think aloud protocol sections
(Brice, 1995). The researcher instructed the participants to follow the normal procedure they
would follow if they were to have received the draft back in class, but to say all of their thoughts
about the comments they received on their draft out loud (Haynes & Daikers, 1985 as cited in
Brice, 1995). They were encouraged to be candid with their responses to the comments (Brice,
1995). After the think aloud protocols, the researcher conducted interviews concerning their
preferences for written comments and the think aloud protocol. The researcher used a take-home
questionnaire, which focused on their perceptions of the importance of various types of written
feedback. Brice (1995) interviewed the teacher about the assignment, her views about
commenting on student drafts, and her views on teaching writing to ESL students.
The researcher analyzed the data—first—by examining the function of the comments
provided by the teacher on each draft to get a sense of what types of comments each student
received. Brice (1995) used a coding taxonomy that divides comments into explicit and implicit
categories and then further divides them by the level of concern they attend to—either macro or
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 93
micro-level. The researcher considered comments that were on the macro-level to be ones
regarding content and organization. Brice (1995) considered comments that were on the micro-
level as ones that discussed grammar, vocabulary, and conventions. The researcher attempted to
be consistent as possible using already established understandings of explicit and implicit
comments as it was often difficult to decide which category to place a comment (Brice, 1995).
The definition of explicit and implicit cues included:
1. Explicit Cues: Comments that provide writers with explicit directions for revising
their paper. These include instances where the teacher changes/substitutes something,
adds something, deletes something, or gives direct instructions to the writer in the
form of written comments.
2. Implicit Cues: Comments that provide the writer with some type of information
which implies that some type of revision/change should be made, but which does not
explicitly indicate in writing what type of revision is needed. (Brice, 1995)
These cues were then coded by an independent rater using the established coding scheme
achieving an interrater agreement of 0.90.
To analyze the protocol data, the researcher audio taped the video tapes from each think-
aloud protocol session and then transcribed the students’ reactions to their teacher’s written
feedback (Brice, 1995). The researcher and an independent rater parsed the transcripts into T-
units based on the adopted definition achieving an interrater agreement of 0.89.
The researcher noted that she was interested in the affective responses to teacher
commentary. Brice (1995) analyzed these by completing an impressionistic analysis of each
student’s reactions to each comment they attended to in a draft. The impressionistic analysis
focused on three aspects: how well the participants understood various comments, how well they
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 94
seemed to like various comments, and to what extent they agreed with various comments (Brice,
1995). Using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1-3, the researcher placed each student response
which addressed their understanding, appreciation of, or agreement with a comment.
The researcher analyzed what the students did when they were reading through their
commented-on drafts. Brice (1995) created general labels for the type of verbal behavior the
student exbitied while they thought about their teacher’s comments on their drafts. The coding
taxonomy used includes general categories describing behaviors one might expect a person who
is reading written feedback to exhibit including: reading comments and text, referring to
something that is written on the page, describing comments, and explaining something (Brice,
1995). Extra-linguistic responses (laughter, sighs, etc.) were also coded but where not codified in
the established T-units (Brice, 1995). The researcher then turns to the findings of the study,
which are presented concerning each student.
Brice (1995) began with the findings regarding the affective responses towards the
teacher’s comments on Victor’s writing samples. Victor spent the majority of time explaining,
reading, or re-reading teacher’s comments and portions of his own text aloud, and responding to
teacher comments. In 36 of the instances where Victor was explaining, he was explaining what
he meant to say in his paper, and in 18 of the instances, Victor was explaining why he had
included certain information in his text. Brice (1995) found that Victor used much time to
express extra-linguistic expressions and laughing nervously in the first protocol. Victor
addressed 19 of the comments/markings during his protocols, coming back to a few of them
more than once. Victor did not exhibit any behavior that suggested he likes any of the comments;
however, he did indicate that he disagreed with two of them. The comments that Victor
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 95
disagreed with were implicit cues written in the margin next to paragraphs, which described his
expert’s background (Brice, 1995).
Most of the explaining Victor did in his second protocol related to the comments he
disliked where he spent one-third of his time negating these comments (Brice, 1995). Victor
explained that he did not understand why his teacher asked him whether the background
information on his expert was relevant. It was clear that Victor was vested in his writing and in
reading his teacher’s comments. Additionally, this shows that Victor perceived his teacher’s
advice on writing specific papers as well as her comments on his drafts as general information
about her personal preferences (Brice, 1995). Victor demonstrated a medium to high level of
understanding of a majority of the comments in his drafts including explicit comments on the
micro level: substitutions of vocabulary items, additions of grammatical material, or directions
explicitly advising him to delete vocabulary items. However, Victor demonstrated a low-level of
understanding of implicit comments on the micro-level: grammar and vocabulary problems
(Brice, 1995). Victor expressed that he did not perceive the distinction between what the lines
and boxes meant (Brice, 1995). The researcher then turns to findings with Sedek.
Sedek spent the majority of his protocol time reading teacher comments and portions of
his own text aloud, describing teacher comments, explaining his understanding of those
comments, and responding to teacher comments (Brice, 1995). In both drafts, the majority of the
comments both explicit and implicit addressed a macro-level concern—content—while several
in the second draft addressed grammar. The researcher noted that it was difficult to gauge
Sedek’s appreciation of the comments because he, “…exhibited a stable, relaxed attitude while
he was reading [the comments] although he did indicate he was happy with his grade on the final
draft” (Brice, 1995, p. 11). However, Sedek demonstrated a clear understanding of the implicit
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 96
and explicit cues he received on the macro-level (Brice, 1995). Conversely, Sedek exhibited
trouble understanding the teacher’s implicit cues on the micro-level. The researcher noted that in
Sedek’s case there appeared to be a mismatch between what he knew and how he responded to
comments on his drafts (Brice, 1995). Despite understanding and being familiar with the
teacher’s correction and response system, Sedek sometimes misinterpreted these markings on his
paper. Sedek asserted that boxes or lines were not helpful to him and would not help his improve
future drafts in his writing. Brice (1995) noted that Sedek explained he believed comments
should be written in words so students could better understand them. The researcher then turns to
findings about Michelle.
Brice (1995) found that Michelle’s protocol was markedly different from those of Victor
and Sedek. Michelle did a large portion her time responding, reading comments and portions of
her text aloud, as well as explaining and goal setting. The majority of the comments Michelle
received, both explicit and implicit, focused on micro-level concerns: grammar, vocabulary, and
convention use. The researcher notes that the impressionistic analysis of Michelle’s affective
responses did not yield much information about how well she understood various comments.
Michelle had difficulty with implicit comments (Brice, 1995). However, Michelle indicated an
awareness of problems as grammatical ones rather than conceptual ones (Brice, 1995). Michelle
indicated ambivalence towards the usefulness of boxes and lines as an approach to feedback.
Brice (1995) found that Michelle had trouble understanding macro-level comments, which were
implicit. Michelle responded emotionally to comments, which the researcher noted made it easier
to gauge her appreciation of various types of comments. Michelle did not seem to like nor agree
with implicit and explicit comments, which evaluated her writing or suggested she used wrong
vocabulary terms. Michelle also did not like her teacher’s or peer’s explicitly evaluative
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 97
comments which suggested that her expert did not meet the level required by the class. Michelle
revealed that she would like comments on what she did well in her writing, and that she
perceived her teacher only focused on what she did wrong (Brice, 1995).
Ferris (1997) continued this work on comments on student papers exploring implications
for learners that are English Language Learners and therefore is English is their L2. Ferris (1997)
wanted to understand:
1. What characteristics of teacher commentary appear to influence student revision?
2. Do revisions influenced by teacher feedback lead to substantive and effective changes
in students’ papers?
The researcher noted that the limitation to this study was that it only considered written feedback
(Ferris, 1997). Second, the researcher only studied feedback provided between-draft feedback
and not on the final drafts of students (Ferris, 1997). Finally, only one teacher in one particular
context poses a limitation.
Ferris (1997) selected a professor who had been teaching ESL composition at the
college/university level for 10 years. This professor was selected based on student and peer
evaluations and reports from supervisors, which indicated she was a dedicated and successful
teacher (Ferris, 1997). There were 47 students enrolled in three sections of a sheltered ESL
freshman composition course at a large public university in California (Ferris, 1997). The
majority of the students were freshman and sophomores, permanent residents of the United
States, and represented 10 native languages including: Amharic, Estonian, Chinese, Greek,
Hmong, Korean, Lao, Russian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The researcher collected copies of
students’ first and second drafts from the first three essay assignments after requesting them from
the professor (Ferris, 1997). These drafts contained commentary from the teacher and in all the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 98
researcher gathered 247 papers from the 47 students (3-6 drafts per student). Of all these
samples, 110 pairs of first and second revised drafts were usable for analysis (Ferris, 1997). The
researcher then turns to the discussion of analysis of the data provided.
Ferris (1997) used the model of constant comparative analysis. This method is, “…an
inductive approach that produces theory grounded in data” (Ferris, 1997, p. 316). The researcher
derived and refined the categories of commentary during several passes through a subsample of
first drafts. Ferris (1997) noted that the resulting analysis scheme allowed for the examination of
several different features of each marginal and end comment including their length (in number of
words), their type (pragmatic intent and syntactic form), the use of hedges (e.g., please, maybe),
and where the comment was text based or general. Four independent raters (two per paper)
counted and analyzed each teacher comment separately and coded it for analysis resulting in
interrater reliability that ranged from .86 to .92. Ferris (1997) developed a subjective rating scale
that simultaneously considers the degree to which the student utilized each first-draft comment in
the revision and whether the resulting change(s) improved the paper, had mixed effects, or had
negligible or negative effect on the revision. Four independent raters analyzed the first drafts and
revisions using the rating scale and the same four raters participated in this part of the analysis,
but they analyzed different parts of the sample than they did during the first phase (Ferris, 1997).
The coded data were entered into two databases for statistical analyses, which included an
examination of cross-tabulated frequencies and percentages.
Ferris (1997) noted that the vast majority (92 percent) of the marginal comments were
rated short or average, whereas 87 percent of the end comments were rated average or long. The
teacher included few hedges (about 15 percent) in either marginal or end comments, and most of
the comments were text based, although more end comments were rated general. Ferris (1997)
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 99
noted that marginal and end comments differed considerably in type where the most common
type among the marginal notes was ask for information (almost 31 percent), with other
comments being spread consistently across other types. Contrastingly, the most frequent type of
end comment was positive (31 percent). There were few questions (less than 9%), more requests
in statement form (23 percent as opposed to only 11 percent of the marginal comments), and
many more references to the students’ grammatical issues (15 percent of the end comments but
only 3 percent of the marginal comments). The teacher asked a lot of questions, particularly in
marginal comments, provided positive and text-specific feedback, avoided imperatives, and
focused primarily on students’ ideas rather than on grammatical problems (Ferris, 1997).
Ferris (1997) noted that for both marginal and end comments, the most common ratings
were no change, substantive change with positive effects, and minimal change with positive
effects. Few changes were rated as being negative or mixed (Ferris, 1997). The analysis of the
endnotes included many more no change ratings than any other category. The type of comment
that was by far the most common in the marginal notes were ones that pertain to asking the
student to provide further information. Ferris (1997) notes that—in general—the students
appeared to make fairly substantive changes in response to requests for information, though these
major changes did not have uniformly positive results (10 percent of the substantive changes
were rated as being negative or mixed in their effects on the paper). However, nearly 24 percent
of the marginal requests for information resulted in no change, indicating that some students
ignored or avoided these requests (Ferris, 1997). The revisions made in response to requests
phrased as questions or statements had primarily positive effects (55-62 percent), but 8-19
percent of the changes were judged to have mixed effects, and about 26 percent led to no change.
Ferris (1997) noted that imperatives were rare in general in teacher’s comments, but when they
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 100
occurred, the students appeared to take them seriously, especially marginal notes: 72 percent of
the marginal comments in imperative forms appeared to lead to positive changes (Ferris, 1997).
The researcher turned to findings about comment giving information to the student. The
information provided to the students took two forms: (a) giving student writers feedback about
how the reader (teacher) perceives their ideas or organizations and (b) providing information
about another author’s text that student writers may have overlooked or misunderstood (Ferris,
1997). The majority of comments were expressed as statements (244) while few were expressed
as questions (13) (Ferris, 1997). Few of these comments—particularly end comments—did not
lead to any changes, but others (45 percent) resulted in either minimal or substantive, positive
changes and about 14 percent of these comments led to changes with mixed effects. Likewise,
few positive comments led to any changes in the revisions (Ferris, 1997). The teacher made
many more positive comments in endnotes (31 percent) than in marginal comments (18 percent)
(Ferris, 1997).
The teacher did comment on grammar and mechanics and findings the researcher
revealed findings in this area. Comments on grammar were relatively rare overall (Ferris, 1997).
Grammar/Mechanics comments appeared more frequently in end comments (14 percent) than in
marginal comments (3 percent). This teacher-adopted strategy was successful as nearly 78
percent of these end comments and almost 68 percent of the marginal comments influenced
positive changes in the revisions (Ferris, 1997). The researcher turns to effects of other comment
characteristics on revision.
Ferris (1997) found that short comments were the least likely to lead to revision, average
and very long comments were the most likely to lead to positive revisions. End comments that
were average length led to no change in 53 percent of cases. Comments rated as long (16-25
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 101
words) resulted in no change ratings in 41 percent of the cases (Ferris, 1997). Through a cross-
tabulation of comment types with comment length the researcher found that the two types of
comments that were (positive comments and statements that give information to the students)
necessarily intended to produce changes were the most likely to be short and long, respectively
(Ferris, 1997). The intent of a comment may be more significant than its length in predicting
whether it will help the student produce a substantive and effective revision (Ferris, 1997).
However, Ferris (1997) noted that longer comments by definition give more explicit feedback to
student writers and thus may provide more assistance to students as they revise. Comments with
hedges revealed minimal effect on revisions. The presence of hedges certainly did not seem to
inhibit effective revisions as 54 percent of the marginal comments and 61 percent of the end
comments containing them led to positive revisions, whereas comments without hedges were
substantially more likely to lead to a no change rating than comments with hedges (Ferris, 1997).
The researcher interprets these findings and moves to conclusions and implications for further
research, which is examined and studied in the next study mentioned in this literature review.
Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) continued to study teacher response to diverse
writers with various language capacities exploring the gap in empirical study on response to
student writers whose English is deemed as their second language. Ferris et al. (1997) noted that
research in this area was scarce and generally vague. The discourse analytic study was guided by
the following research questions:
1. What is the nature—considering both pragmatic intent and linguistic form—of the
teacher’s written comments?
2. Is there evidence of a variation in teacher response:
-across student ability levels
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 102
-across assignment types
-at different points during the term?
The researchers believed that the development of an analysis model to address these questions
would provide new insights into the analysis of teacher feedback and tools which could be used
to help practicing teachers evaluate their own feedback and to develop the schemata and skills of
novice teachers (Ferris et al., 1997).
The researchers selected an ESL classroom to conduct the study. The ESL teacher studies
was an experiences instructor of ESL composition who has also trained writing teachers and
supervised interns and considered an exemplary teacher at her large public university in Northern
California (Ferris et al., 1997). There were 47 students in the class that consisted of mostly
freshman and sophomores and were enrolled in three different sections of a sheltered-ESL
freshman composition course. Various international groups and languages were represented in
the class (Ferris et al., 1997). For the purposes of this study, each student was identified by the
teacher at the conclusion of the term as being a strong, average, or weak writer based upon the
student’s cumulative written efforts over the course of a 15-week semester (Ferris et al., 1997).
The researchers sought to collect samples of the students’ writing throughout the two
semesters of the study. Copies of preliminary and revised drafts from the first three essay
assignments were collected (Ferris et al., 1997). The first drafts contained handwritten
commentary—both marginal and end comments—provided by the teacher (Ferris et al., 1997).
Ferris et al. (1997) noted that between the two semesters, the teacher slightly changed her
method of providing end commentary, using a separate sheet for end comments rather than
writing them on students’ papers (copies of these were collected as well). A total of 247 papers
were selected from the 47 different students and of these 111 first drafts were usable for analysis
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 103
and there were 110 complete pairs of first and second drafts, for a complete sample of 220 papers
(Ferris et al., 1997). The papers were written in response to writing assignments of three different
types: personal narrative/ analysis, relating another author’s text(s) to personal experience, and
analysis of another author’s argumentative essay. During the second semester of data collection,
the teacher elected to drop the personal narrative assignment and require two argument analyses
instead (Ferris et al., 1997). The researchers turn to their data analysis process here.
The researchers used the constant comparative method for their data analysis (Ferris et
al., 1997). A number of marked papers were examined to develop possible categories for
analysis. The researchers noted that during the preliminary development of categories they asked
for some clarification and explanation as to the intent of the teacher’s comments. The categories
were tested on a subsample of papers, further refinements to the model were made, and then the
remainder of the sample was analyzed according to the finalized scheme. Ferris et al. (1997)
noted that readers attended a training session and then went over sample papers and discussed
how specific comments fit into the categories and resolved various problems associated with the
system, each paper, and with the teacher’s original handwritten commentary. These comments
were then read and coded by two researchers. The examination of the teacher commentary
included two specific phases: (a) the teacher’s goal(s) in writing the comments were judged, and
(b) then the linguistic forms of the comments were categorized. Ferris et al. (1997) came up with
the following specific categories: directives, grammar and mechanics, and positive comments.
The researchers then turn to their findings.
Ferris et al. (1997) noted that in working through the sample of first drafts with the
analysis model the raters had two major difficulties. The raters struggled to determine where one
comment ended and another comment began. Another difficulty was categorizing ‘text specific’
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 104
comments. Despite these difficulties, the researchers’ findings provided insight into the
comments used by the teacher.
Ferris et al. (1997) found that there were more total marginal comments than end
comments, although the end comments tended to be much longer. There were many more
instances of “asking for information” and “questions” in the marginal comments than in the end
comments. Ferris et al. (1997) found that the majority of the end comments were in statement
form and that the end notes had a greater relative percentage of positive comments than did the
marginal notes. There were few occurrences of grammar comments, hedges, or imperatives
across marginal and end comments. Ferris et al. (1997) found that the percentage of text-based
comments was considerably higher for marginal comments (81.3 percent) than for end comments
(67.4 percent).
The researchers noted that there were differences in the findings between the two
semesters of data collection that attributed to analysis and subsequently the findings of the study.
The differences included: (a) different assignments and (b) increased teacher sensitivity (Ferris et
al., 1997). For instance, the teacher wrote more ask for information comments and more
questions during the spring semester. Ferris et al. (1997) also found that the teacher wrote more
ask for information comments and more questions during the spring semester. Ask for
information comments appeared most frequently on papers involving the writer’s personal
experience. In the fall semester, there were more give information comments which appeared
more frequently on papers that responded to other authors’ texts. The researchers also found that
the teacher produced fewer of most types of comments as the semester progressed. Ferris et al.
(1997) found that there were more imperatives, grammar comments, and more total marginal
comments on the personal narrative essays.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 105
The researchers revealed several findings with respect to feedback differences across
student ability level. Ferris et al. (1997) found that the teacher did not show much variety in her
feedback according to students’ perceived ability levels. The researchers noted that the weak
group received the most comments on grammar, while the strong group was addressed with the
fewest imperatives. However, the researchers noted that in all grammar/mechanics comments
were relatively infrequent on all papers. On a final note, the researchers found there were few
significant differences in comment type and form across students’ ability level and those
differences were relatively small, suggesting that the teacher was quite consistent in her feedback
practices with all students (Ferris et al., 1997).
Sherry (2017) sought to understand prospective teachers’ learning trajectory in
responding to students’ writing through a Student Writing Archive Project (SWAP). Sherry
(2017) wanted to examine,
…how [Pre-service Secondary English Teachers] learned to respond to writers with
diverse cultural/linguistic backgrounds by analyzing whether and how Pre-service
English Teachers (PSETs) transformed authoritative discourses organized by the figured
world of traditional writing teaching in U.S. public secondary schools into discourses that
were internally persuasive. (Sherry, 2017, p. 352)
Sherry (2017) noted that there were discourses of writing teaching activities where the
researchers noted what kinds of teacher responses the pre-service teachers found to be possible
and appropriate (and why) and through analyses of their online posts about the SWAP materials,
their reflections on teacher feedback observed at their school placements, and their own written
comments on field-placement students’ writing. These discourses also engendered writing
teacher identities where the researcher attended to the cultural figures (e.g., teacher student),
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 106
social positions (e.g., the reader, writer), and personal-historical models (e.g., their former
student selves, their field-placement teachers, and the students/teachers they encountered in the
Student Writing Archive Project database), with whom the participants identified in their
reflections (Sherry, 2017).
The researcher selected his own English methods course for his site selection at Hillside
University (Sherry, 2017). The researcher noted that Hillside University shared many
characteristics with other institutions and their teacher preparation programs across the country.
The PSETs were enrolled in a fifteen-week English methods course where they went in pairs for
their field placements to local middle or high schools (Sherry, 2017). Sherry (2017) noted that of
these eight field placements, five were located within a ten-mile radius of Hillside University.
Hillside University’s English teacher preparation program offered PSET’s the chance to interact
with diverse students at their field placement sites. Sherry (2017) noted that this is critical as
many novice teachers struggle to respond to diverse student writing tasks in ways that are
culturally/linguistically responsive and appropriate. The Student Writing Archive Project
(SWAP) database was generated with student work from an urban middle school in a large
upper-Midwestern city. In 2015, the city was approximately 60 percent European American, 25
percent African American, and 13 percent Latino/Latina (Sherry, 2017). Sherry (2017) pulled
from a seventh/eighth grade ELL class, which included non-native speakers to include in the
SWAP database student work samples with teacher responses on them (he provides the teacher’s
name as Sami Ghanem. The PSETs worked with these student samples which provided the
candidates more opportunities to engage with writing, writers, and writing teaching associated
with cultural/linguistic diversity not akin to local field placement sites (Sherry, 2017).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 107
The researcher noted that the demographics of PSETs at Hillside University reflected
those of the university and of the teaching profession (Sherry, 2017). Most PSETs were white
women, including 28 of 32 in the two cohorts who participated in the study and these candidates
had little experience with cultural/linguistic diversity. The researcher noted that during his
analyses, two exceptional PSETs emerged as focal cases. Calli Lombardi was born in South
Korea and later adopted by European-American parents from an affluent suburban town in a
northeastern state and Adam Llewellyn was a home-schooled candidate with local residence of
parents of European American and Puerto Rican backgrounds. These two candidates possessed
cultural/linguistic differences unlike their peers as well as schooling experiences that differed
from their colleagues, which made them particularly poignant when it came to the researcher’s
study. Finally, the researcher examines middle school ELL teacher Sami Ghanem whose work
makes up a significant portion of the SWAP database. As a non-native speaker of English
serving non-native students her commentary reflected an experience and connection that less
diverse candidates needed to understand, analyze, and apply (Sherry, 2017). The researcher turns
to the discussion of data collection.
The researcher generated data in fall 2013 and fall 2014 with two Hillside University
cohorts—32 PSETs of whom 14 chose to follow the cultural/linguistic diversity path through the
SWAP (Sherry, 2017). The candidates made use of the SWAP and their field placements in their
senior English methods course. The candidates were to collect student samples from their sites,
read materials on the SWAP, listen to transcripts from Ghanem’s experience, then respond to
student work from their own sites. After this, they wrote reflective essays that synthesized their
experiences across the steps of this process. Sherry (2017) noted that the 14 PSETs posts,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 108
reflections, and responses to their field placement students’ compositions thus formed the
datasets on which the researcher based his analyses.
Sherry (2017) analyzed these data sources sing comparisons within each dataset (e.g.,
SWAP discussion-forum posts) and across datasets (e.g., SWAP discussion forum posts
compared with the PSETs actual responses to their field-placement students’ writing) as well as
the subsequent analyses of the cases of Callie Lombardi and Adam Llewellyn. The researcher
noted trends in content and form within the candidates 31 online discussion forum posts about
Ghanem’s SWAP materials; within the candidates’ 14 reflective essays; and within the
candidates 137 responses to field placement students’ writing. Across the various data sets,
Sherry (2017) compared the PSETs SWAP posts/reflections within their actual feedback to
writers from local classrooms. The researcher analyzed the way the various writing teacher
identities manifested and interacted across databases, artifacts, and interactions (Sherry, 2017).
The researcher then turns to the findings of the study.
Sherry (2017) found that in the candidates’ SWAP discussion forum posts and their final
reflections, most of the PSETs seemed to react from a student perspective, identifying with
students as they read other teachers’ feedback. Many candidates responded to their field-
placement teachers from a student perspective. From this finding, Sherry (2017) noted that the
process of reading other teachers’ responses to students’ writing seemed to position the PSETs as
students rather than as teachers, regarding the figured world of traditional U.S. public secondary
school writing teaching. However, while most of the PSETs identified with students in their
SWAP discussion-forum posts and final reflections about reading other teachers’ feedback, the
candidates took a different perspective when writing responses to actual field-placement
students’ writing (Sherry, 2017). Only 25 of the 137 written responses the PSETs provided on
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 109
students’ writing collected at their field placements similarly identified with students (Sherry,
2017).
Many of the PSETs gave minimal comments and nonspecific praise/corrections to the
writer (Sherry, 2017). This lack of specificity in their feedback was notable given that most of
the PSETs attended their field placement longer than required and were asked to complete tasks
in their program that required the candidates to examine the community, school, curriculum,
class, teacher and students leading up to the student teaching experience. Candidates
demonstrated that in the process of responding to students’ writing, the participants resorted to a
limited set of ‘externally authoritative practices’ associated with teacher response, despite the
fact that these traditional feedback practices contradicted their own history-in-person feedback
preferences as writers (Sherry, 2017). The researcher turns to the findings of the two focal
candidates: Callie Lombardi and Adam Llewellyn.
Callie Lombardi evidenced a process of learning to respond more sensitively to
cultural/linguistic diversity in students’ writing (Sherry, 2017). Lombardi attempted to show
genuine interest in students’ activities while still providing language-level feedback with explicit
explanations. Sherry (2017) noted that Lombardi aligned herself with the positional identity of
student in reading her host teacher’s feedback practices, expressing her distaste for ‘non-specific,
language-level feedback’ that did little more than correct student’s diction. Lombardi admired
the way Sami Ghanem’s work in the SWAP database sensitively responded by identifying with
the students (Sherry, 2017). Similarly, Lombardi appreciated the way that Ghanem responded
sensitively to a student whose home language (Nepali) has no capital letters and did so by
drawing on her own experience as a speaker of language without capital letters. Thus, Ghanem
used her own history-in-person as an ELL student to offer critical-language level feedback,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 110
thereby claiming positional authority as a teacher in a way that was nevertheless encouraging.
Ghanem’s responses offered Lombardi an example of how a teacher might provide language
level feedback that was sensitive to the writer’s cultural/linguistic background. Lombardi saw
these practices as positive alternatives to the traditional approach to teacher feedback evidenced
at her field placement (Sherry, 2017).
Sherry (2017) noted that Lombardi attempted to identify with students in her teacher
feedback on their narratives about their activities outside of school. Lombardi recognized and
appreciated the cultural content of their writing while still providing language-level feedback that
included explicit explanations. While not as fluid as Ghanem’s responses in the SWAP database,
Sherry (2017) noted that Lombardi attempted to engage students’ personal hisotires while she
offered critical feedback but did not claim positional authority as a writing teacher by invoking
her history-in-person as a student of writing. Sherry (2017) recognized that Lombardi’s
recollections of her childhood experiences and of her student-teaching practicum revealed a
tension between her perspective as a student and her sense of what a teacher should do/be in
responding to students’ writing. Or stated in another manner, Sherry (2017) regarded that
Lombardi’s history-in-person feedback preferences as a student of writing conflicted with the
figurative identity of writing teacher she had held until interacting with the materials on the
SWAP database. Lombardi saw that a teacher could invoke her cultural/linguistic experiences as
an ELL student to respond, “…both encouragingly and critically to writers—that her history-in-
person as a student of writing could be a resource for claiming positional authority as a writing
teacher (Sherry, 2017, p. 362). Sherry (2017) found that—unlike most of her peers—Lombardi’s
responses to students’ writing avoided the authoritative discourse of the practices she had
despised and exhibited some of the techniques she had admired.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 111
Sherry (2017) turned to the findings from his other focus student: Adam Llewellyn.
Llewellyn expressed his distaste in his SWAP discussion-forum posts and final reflection for a
focus on mechanics at the expense of writer’s voices admiring Ghanem’s explicit explanations
concerning diction. Llewellyn attempted to indicate explicitly to writers why certain rhetorical
choices seemed appropriate for their audiences and purposes. Sherry (2017) noted that Llewellyn
was disappointed by the emphasis on mechanics over voice at his field-placement. Although
Llewellyn recognized the necessity of providing language-level feedback, he imagined that
students would react negatively to a “primary focus” on grammar. Llewellyn aligned himself
with the positional identity of students in reading other teachers’ feedback indicating that his
history-in-person as a student of writing, and over-emphasis on mechanics, at the expense of
other elements of writing, was a negative practice he associated with an externally authoritative
discourse of teacher response. Llewellyn admired where Ghanem—in the SWAP materials—
provided feedback that attended sensitively to students’ cultural/linguistic differences with
explicit explanations. Sherry (2017) found that Llewellyn’s engagement with Ghanem’s work
showed him that a teacher could honor a writer’s voice while explicitly demonstrating why
mechanics mattered to expressing oneself for a particular audience and genre.
Sherry (2017) found that Llewellyn seemed to suggest the importance of instruction in
language conventions appropriate to a particular academic context—especially for English
Language Learners. While Llewellyn recognized from a teacher’s perspective, the importance of
explicit instructions in the conventions and types of writing appropriate to an academic context,
this perspective clashed with his experience—as a student—of sacrificing his personal voice to
the conventions of school-writing genres. Sherry (2017) found that in Llewellyn’s feedback he
sought to make explicit the reasons for using language differently according to audience and
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 112
genre. Llewellyn’s responses indicated how dialogue and word choice could be used informally
to create characters, but the, “…overall tone of the narrative had to retain a sense of the formal
college admission audience” (Sherry, 2017, p. 365). In offering evaluative comments about
diction, Llewellyn claimed positional authority as writing teacher, but he did so without resorting
to and authoritative emphasis on the (implicit) conventions of a school genre. Llewellyn’s
response did foreground the importance of word choice, both for preserving voice and for giving
an account of oneself for a particular audience and genre. Sherry (2017) found that Llewellyn
linked voice (who they are writing as) and audience (who they are writing to). By making these
roles explicit, Llewellyn suggested teachers might help students see writing as an interaction that
did not necessitate giving up one’s cultural/linguistic voice to be a good student. Llewellyn’s
reflection suggested that a writing teacher might claim positional authority without resorting to
the traditional, externally authoritative practices that conflicted with his history-in-person
feedback preferences as a student of writing (Sherry, 2017).
To sum up, teacher feedback to student writing is an essential aspect of their development
towards proficiency in academic contexts (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013). This feedback is critical and
foundational to building the type of relationship where writing teacher and writing student feel
that they can grow and build community along with a trusting relationship (Connors & Lunsford,
1993). Various instructional practices and approaches exist to implement effective feedback
(Ashwell, 2000; Brice, 1995, Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al., 1995). However, there are more effective
patterns of feedback to increase student proficiency (Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al., 1995). Content
and form feedback need not be isolated (Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al., 1995; Ashwell, 2000). A
balanced mixture between the two assist students in gaining proficiency in academic writing
(Ferris, 1995; Ferris et al., 1995). Diverse students especially benefit from feedback that is
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 113
balanced, specific, detailed and leverages their cultural/linguistic characteristics (Ferris, 1995;
Ferris et al., 1995; Ashwell, 2000; Sherry, 2017). Continued practice with feedback assists
writing teachers make more specific, detailed, and curtailed feedback for developing proficient
academic writers (Sherry, 2017).
Conceptual Framework
In this section, I provide my conceptual framework that provided the overall framework
for this study. According to Maxwell (2013) the conceptual framework is the, “…system of
concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs...research”
(p. 39). In other words, the conceptual framework is a tentative theory of the phenomenon that I
was investigating. The conceptual framework guided how I collected and analyzed the data
provided in this study. The framework contains the elements that functioned together in order to
help me answer the research questions I posed for this study.
The bodies of literature from my literature review were key to developing this tentative
theory and framework. I drew upon ideology as a basis for writing instruction. Then, I turned to
the notion of Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy. Finally, I connected notions of
Secondary Writing Instruction and Feedback to these more epistemological and ideological
notions. It was clear that I needed to make connections between these ideas so that I could frame
my study in such a way to explore these concepts in tandem. I realized as I explored the literature
that there are stances of teachers influenced by their own personal ideologies (Ladson-Billings,
1994; 2014; Milner, 2010) and these ideologies manifest in pedagogical practice (Ladson-
Billings, 1994; 2014, Philips, 2011). In order to develop the conceptual framework, I needed to
understand the notion that ideology and beliefs about pedagogy informed and manifested into
practice—especially the practice of providing feedback to student writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 114
My conceptual framework was built upon the basis of teacher ideology, if that ideology
informed an adoption of Culturally Relevant and Responsive Pedagogy, and the practice of
providing feedback to student writing. Teachers ideologies influence their pedagogical decisions
based on the belief system they hold (Milner, 2010). If the students are historically marginalized,
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy offers equity and access for students through practices that are
culturally relevant and responsive. Figure 1 below offers a representation of these three concepts
and the affordances that teacher ideology and culturally relevant pedagogy can provide.

Figure 4. The relationship between teacher ideology, pedagogy, practice and the
affordances feedback to student writing provides.

In the remainder of this chapter I provide the dimensions of the conceptual framework
that I used for this study. At the end of chapter 4, I introduce the conceptual framework that
resulted from my analysis of the data. I begin this description with a brief discussion of teacher
ideology. Then, I revisit the essential tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Practice. Then,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 115
I present my argument describing how that ought to have manifested in responding to student
writing. Finally, I argued that this feedback, while indeed assisting learners in developing
proficiency in academic writing, is categorized in one of the essential tenets of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1994; 2014) and subsequently realizes itself as a particular
principle of the pedagogy (Brown-Jeffey & Cooper, 2011).
Teacher Ideology
Teachers come to classrooms with established ideologies (Milner, 2010). These
ideologies come from an established inner history and experience that give rise to subjectivity
(Bartolomé, 2004). This subjectivity and perspective manifests teachers’ perceptions about
students and in the implementation of their practice (Ladson-Billings, 1994; 2014; Milner, 2010;
2017). Milner (2010) noted that this subjectivity influences the perceptions teachers have of
students. The perceptions of teachers form in various domains of ideology including:
colorblindness, the myth of meritocracy, low expectations, and a context-neutral mindset
(Milner, 2010). These perceptions influence their pedagogy, practice, and interactions (Ladson-
Billings, 1994; 2014; Milner, 2010; 2017).
Feedback to Student Writing and Its Affordances
The next level discussed in the framework refers to feedback to student writing and its
possibilities. I recognized that feedback affords growth in student composition and it is essential
to their recognition of patterns of error (Ferris, 1994; Ferris et al., 1994). However, students
without written feedback to their writing continue to become more proficient even without
explicit comments—regardless of that feedback being content or form (Brice, 1995; Ferris, 1994;
Ferris, et al., 1994). I argued that this written feedback has an underlying purpose beyond merely
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 116
assisting writers to become proficient when those teachers have adopted Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy.
Written feedback—then—can afford students the opportunity to achieve academic
excellence in academic writing (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Brice, 1995; Ferris, 1994; Ferris, et al.,
1994). Yet, the teacher-student interaction can assist students in becoming culturally competent
and developing a socio-politically consciousness that leads to combatting socio-political
inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1994; 2014). I contended that teachers’ written feedback is a critical
teacher to student interaction and one that validates student thought. Thus, teachers who adopted
Culturally Responsive Pedagogy would utilize their written feedback to student writing to assist
students in the basic tenets of culturally responsive pedagogy, which included academic
achievement, cultural competence, and socio-political consciousness (Ladson-Billings, 1994;
2014).
Affordances of Written Feedback to Student Writing: Beyond Three Original Tenets
Teachers who adopt a pedagogy that is Culturally Relevant endeavor to empower
students towards academic excellence, cultural competence, and socio-political consciousness
(Ladson-Billings, 1994; 2014). Through particular practices that stem from this pedagogical
creed, teachers can use their strategies—in the case of this study, written feedback to student
writing—to accomplish various academic, social, emotional, and political means (Ladson-
Billings, 1994; 2014; Milner, 2010; 2017). I expected to see the teachers provide questioning that
asked students to think about their ideas in sensitive ways and that is curtailed to the needs to the
individual student. When it came to form, I had expected to see connections to the students’
personal growth as a writer and not merely isolated form feedback. This type of feedback—when
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 117
it came to form—should have been contextualized and be addressed when it was a trend in the
students’ writing (Ferris, 1995).
Written feedback to student writing does indeed improve students’ proficiency in content
and form (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Brice, 1995; Ferris, 1994; Ferris, et al., 1994). However, I
contended that this written feedback the teacher provides is evidence that the teacher is working
to assist students in achieving the principles of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (Brown-Jeffy &
Cooper, 2011). When teachers provide instructional practices that meet the needs of historically
marginalized/minoritized students, students are both capable of gaining academic achievement,
cultural competence, and socio-political critique (Ladson-Billings, 1992; 2014).
There are several basic principles to be achieved through the application of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy. I argued that a teacher’s feedback to student writing could support the
students’ ability to make progress in their writing (Ferris, 1997; Ferris, et al., 1997; Sherry, 2017;
I further contended that written feedback—when developmentally appropriate—assisted students
in accessing proficiency in academic writing. Feedback that was personal and curtailed to the
student receives more positive reaction and action to improve writing (Bifuh-Ambe, 2013; Brice,
1995; Ferris, 1994; Ferris, et al., 1994; Sherry, 2017; Beck et al., 2018). In so curtailing written
feedback in such a manner, teachers are teaching the whole child developing positive teacher to
student relationships (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Conclusion
For a secondary English Language Arts teacher to create the teacher to student
relationship where written feedback was both valued and useful and where there were diverse
students, I expected that teachers would apply some of the tenets of Culturally Responsive
Teaching. Historically marginalized/minoritized students need opportunities to engage with
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 118
academic writing that is rigorous yet values and employs their culture and community (Sherry,
2017; Beck et al., 2018). Providing written feedback to student writing is a critical part of the
work of a secondary English Language Arts teacher (Sherry, 2017). I believed I would encounter
all kinds of belief systems of teachers. It was my goal that I could find what those teachers’
perceptions revealed through the interviews and feedback and how those perceptions and
feedback to student writing revealed the tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. At the outset of
my study, I argued that these perceptions, ideologies, and pedagogical practices could support
effective writing instruction through feedback that leveraged what the students brought to the
classroom in terms of their cultural, linguistic, and community characteristics. I anticipated
seeing the various ways that teachers engaged students through feedback understanding the
students as individuals and leveraging their particular qualities.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 119
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
In this chapter, the qualitative approaches, instrumentation, and the methods of data
collection that I used in my study are described. I sought to understand how the written feedback
teachers provided to students’ writing promoted proficiency in academic writing for students in
secondary English classrooms. Additionally, I wanted to investigate if the teachers believed their
students should receive written feedback that reflected the tenets of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy. The following research question guided the study: How do high school English
teachers believe they use written feedback on historically marginalized students’ writing tasks to
contribute to their students’ ability to become proficient in academic writing?
Research Design
I elected a qualitative research design for this study. Qualitative research methodologies
were the best design as I wanted to understand the particular pedagogical phenomenon in
secondary English classrooms regarding written feedback to student writing. Merriam and
Tisdale (2009) note that qualitative research was, “…interested in understanding the meaning
people have constructed—that is—how people make sense of their world and experiences they
have in the world (p. 13). I did just that in my study—attempted to understand the meaning of
teacher written feedback to student writing. A key word Merriam and Tisdale (2009 employ is
constructed. As ideology and use of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy were central to this study, I
wanted to understand teachers’ ideologies and how they manifested in the written feedback they
provided to their students’ written work. Through examining the feedback and perceptions
presented in the interviews, I noted the teachers’ constructed meaning and understanding of the
tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 120
In an effort to understand the teachers’ beliefs about using strategies that reflected
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and the written feedback they provided, I needed to conduct semi-
structured interviews of the selected teachers and collect artifacts that contain written feedback
from teachers on student writing. DeMarrais (2004) defines research interviews as a, “…process
in which a researcher and participant engage in a conversation focused on questions related to a
research study” (p. 55). As suggested by Merriam and Tisdell (2009), interviews helped me
understand perspectives from various viewpoints. Interviews among the participants gave
insights into the teachers’ ideologies. Also, these interviews helped me understand the teachers’
beliefs about providing feedback and their pedagogical stances. Interviews provided me insight
into the teachers’ understandings of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
Maxwell (2013) argues that a researcher must elect methods that will answer the research
questions posed in the study. Interviews are an opportunity to, “…elucidate local processes,
meanings, and contextual influences in particular settings or cases” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 99).
Various secondary teachers were selected for the study who offered a variety of perspectives,
ideologies, and beliefs about Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and feedback. Each individual
teacher had his/her own local processes and meanings regarding the various aspects of the study
I present here. The interviews were conducted in a multiple case study fashion to illuminate these
matters more deeply. I elected individuals who espoused an asset ideology and I anticipated that
they would use Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in their response to student writing. I reasonably
expected the teachers to bring many perspectives.
While interviews were essential to understanding the teachers’ ideologies and beliefs
about written feedback to student writing, I sought to understand how the teachers engaged with
their students through their written feedback and the extent to which that reflected Culturally
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 121
Relevant Pedagogy. To gain understanding for this, I used artifacts of student work that
contained written teacher feedback. My focus was the teacher feedback and not necessarily the
content of the writing task. That is except if this gave me insight into the rigor of the task and the
connection to Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
Sample and Population
Sites Selection
The focus of this study is on secondary English teachers. I used purposeful selection for
my site and participant selection. In this strategy, “…particular settings, persons, or activities are
selected deliberately to provide information that is particularly relevant to the [study’s] questions
and goals” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 79). Thus, I focused on teachers who taught English courses in
grades 9-12. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that researchers must select criteria for their
selection of samples in the study that reflect the purpose of the study. Miles and Huberman
(1984) argue that it is critical to define the parameters of sampling to answer the research
questions in the study and to consider whether the choices made are doing a “representative,
time-efficient job of answering the research questions” (p. 46). To that end, I ensured that I
selected teachers who met the criteria below.
Given that I was focusing on teachers from English Language Arts in high school, I
selected 10 teachers from high schools in urban areas in Los Angeles. For the purposes of this
study I defined “urban”—although not a static term (Milner, 2011)—as related to, “…inner city
schools or large metropolitan areas” (Milner, 2011, p. 68). I selected school sites that represented
all grade levels in high school English: 9
th
, 10
th
, 11
th
, and 12
th
. The goal was to have teachers
who taught a variety of English courses at the high school level that included: AP English
Language and Composition, College Preparatory, and Sheltered English.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 122
I wanted to select sites that served historically marginalized students who required a
culturally relevant approach (Ladson-Billings, 1994; 2014). The size of the school was not
important to the study in terms of geographic space or student population. I sought out schools
with a population of Latinx and African American population higher that 60 percent as this will
be larger than half of the student body. I wanted to study teachers who did not work in affluent
neighborhoods so I sought out schools with Title I classification. I chose Title I schools because
they were afforded additional financial resources because of their high percentages of children
from low-income families. These resources were meant to help ensure that all students were
meeting challenging state academic standards. I also sought out schools with group
representation in terms of English Language Learners, students with special needs, and gifted
classifications.
I ended up with 6 urban high schools in the Los Angeles area. A table detailing the
schools in relation to the participants is provided after the participant selection.
Participant Selection
For purposes of this study—as mentioned—I used purposeful selection of participants. I
intended to, “…deliberately select individuals…that are critical for understanding [particular
phenomena]” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 98). I selected teachers who taught English Language Arts in
urban secondary schools who taught in grades 9-12. For this reason, I selected teachers who
taught Advanced Placement, College Preparatory, and Sheltered English courses to interview
and gather artifacts. Since the study was grounded in writing instruction and the written feedback
of writing, I selected teachers who were known for their asset mindset about student writers and
would have been likely to use feedback that represented the tenets of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy. This was both purposeful sampling and community nomination (Cooper, 2003). In
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 123
this strategy, the researcher selects participants who fit certain criteria as desired by the
researcher or research goals (Cooper, 2003). Recommendations by administrators and school site
lead teachers was requested to nominate ideal participants. I reached out to a total of four
principals for their recommendations which I received a total of 7 participants from their
recommendations. One principal, a colleague of mine, recommended one participant.
Additionally, a professional colleague— a lead teacher at the time I sampled—recommended 2
participants. These teachers nominated by the principals and lead teachers were mentioned for
their reputations as being “effective writing teachers” by the assessment of their colleagues.
Once granted the access to the school sites, I was able to conduct the interviews with the teacher
participants.
The teachers who I selected had a variety of English Language Arts courses that they
taught. Written feedback that is given to more advanced writers tend to be far more content
based and feedback that is given to more novice writers tends to be more content based (Ferris et
al., 1994). Therefore, I did not elect teachers who only taught advanced or remedial courses. I
selected teachers who taught a variety of English courses so that I could see the various
possibilities for written feedback. The teachers I involved in the study included teachers who had
at least 3 years of teaching. These teachers were ones who assigned more than two formal
writing tasks in the semester of their English courses. This was important as I wanted teacher
participants who had been engaging in written feedback throughout the semester and not in one
isolated instance. I examined three student writing samples. The teachers were to select one
student who they deemed struggling, one student who they deemed typically developing, and one
teacher who they deemed advanced. The teacher participants did select three writing samples
from which they removed the names of the students. On the top of the three papers the teachers
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 124
wrote “struggling writer,” “typically developing writer,” and “advanced writer.” The particular
course where the writing task was assigned was not critical to me as I am examined the feedback
in isolation of the course and only in relation to the teacher’s statements about his/her approach
to teaching writing and giving feedback. The genre of the writing was not critical as academic
writing includes various genres (Common Core State Standards, 2010). The actual artifacts
ranged from narrative writing tasks, argument writing tasks, summaries of texts, and responses to
literature. This is detailed in a table that follows.
I offer two tables that detail critical information about the participants. First, I provide a
foundational table detailing the teacher participant in relation to the years they have been
teaching at the time of data collection and the courses they taught at the time of data collection.
Table 1
Teacher Participants in Relation to Years Teaching and Courses Taught at Time of
Data Collection
Teacher (Initials) Years Teaching Courses Taught at Time of
Study
GJ 7 English 12
Literature of Minorities
BK 7 English 9
Read 180
AL 8 English 9
Academic Literacy MS
SF 14 English 9
English 10
EW 20 English 9
English 10 Honors
AP English Literature and
Composition
MS 21 English 10
English 10 Honors
MM 20 English 9
English 9 Honors
JO 11 AP English Literature and
Composition
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 125
Expository Composition
JP 14 AP English Language and
Composition
English 11
RC 3 English 10
English 10 Honors
Note. Teacher participant in relation to years teaching and courses taught at time of data
collection.

Next, I offer the following table that details the participants in relation to their high
school, the English Language Learner population, Special Education population, gifted
population, and the genre of the artifacts provided to me.
Table 2
Participants in Relation to Title I Status, School Population, % ELL, %SPED, % Gifted, and
Genre of Artifacts Collected
Participant
Title I Status of
High
School/Total
Student
Population
% ELL %SPED %Gifted
Genres of
Artifacts
Collected
BK Yes/599 15.2% 16% 11.1%
Response to
Literature
SF Yes/49 20.4% 10.2% 2.1%
Literary
Analysis
GJ Yes/1523 29.8% 19% 17.2%
Narrative
Writing
AL Yes/1566 24.3% 14.5% 13.1%
Informative
Writing
JO Yes/617 27.1% 15.1% 12.1% Poetry Analysis
MM Yes/617 27.1% 15.1% 12.1%
Summary of
Literature
Selection
MS Yes/1407 10.7% 12.8% 16.1% Argument Essay
JP Yes/617 27.1% 15.1% 12.1%
Rhetorical
Analysis (AP
English
Language
Question 2)
EW Yes/888 20.0% 20.7% 13.2% Argument Essay
RC Yes/617 27.1% 15.1% 12.1%
Narrative
Writing
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 126
Note. Participants in relation to the Title I status of the school, school population, % English
Language Learners, % Special Education, % Gifted, and Genre of Artifacts collected.

The first table details the teacher participants with their years of teaching and the courses
they taught at the time of the data collection. Years of teaching ranged from 7 to twenty. The
courses taught by the teachers revealed a variety of course work from remedial courses to more
Advanced Placement courses. This was desired as this meant that teachers had a variety of
students and a variety of levels of student performance.
The second table details the teacher participant in relation to the Title I status of the
school. As noted, all schools selected were Title I schools. Population of students varied. Each
school had a significant population of English Learners, students with special needs, and gifted
students. The genres of the writing tasks were diverse as well. As academic writing includes a
variety of genres and forms a variety of genres was desired for the collected artifacts of student
writing samples with written feedback.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
In this section, I detail my instrumentation approaches and the collection of data in the
study. The use of semi-structured interviews and artifacts of teacher written feedback on student
writing samples were used in the study to answer the research question.
Interviews
I selected interviews to focus on the teachers’ perceptions of written feedback to their
students’ writing and their beliefs/understandings of the types of scaffolds their students need.
For this reason, I conducted two interviews with each participant. Each interview ranged from 45
minutes to 1 hour. The initial interview focused on the teachers’ beliefs about their written
feedback and writing instruction. In the second interview, I asked participants to discuss the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 127
student samples asking questions about the written feedback they provided. I asked the teachers
to think about how themes and tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant
teaching manifested in the instruction of writing and written feedback to student writing.
The purpose of these interviews was to gain insight into the ideological and pedagogical
underpinnings of the teachers involved in the study. Remembering that these interview questions
were to gain understanding in relation to the research questions (Maxwell, 2013), I crafted
questions that were geared at deepening my understanding of the teachers’ ideological and
pedagogical beliefs. I asked the teachers about their practice in relation to writing instruction and
written feedback as it was critical to me to understand the practice in relation to the teachers’
ideology and actual practice. Interviews were all formal and probes were provided to gain deeper
insights should the responses not yield sufficient insights. Such probes included:
You said “________________” could you elaborate more on that idea…
That is great. Have you thought about _________________?
While you mention “_________________”, could you tell me more about_____?
Can you walk me through _____________ in further detail?
What were your thoughts when __________ happened? Please, tell me more.
Had _________ happened instead of _________, how might you ____________?
Great! I really appreciate that response. Could you tell me more about
how/when________?
These probes helped me to understand more about when the teachers did not elaborate fully on
ideas. Often, when asked questions, the teachers would note speak to the ideas in relation to the
questions and these probes served as re-directing and focusing tools.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 128
The various questions asked reflected concepts in my original conceptual framework. I
asked teachers about their teaching ideologies. Moreover, I asked teachers about their
understandings and perceptions of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and how they applied it their
practice of writing instruction. Then, looking at written feedback they gave to their students, I
asked teachers about their practices in this area. Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) note that there
are various tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. I had gone into the original study with the
questions crafted to ask teachers about how the written feedback built student to teacher
relationships, included the culture and identity of the students, and was developmentally
appropriate. While in my original conceptual framework I had meant to discuss “teaching to the
whole child”, this did not manifest in the actual creation of the interviews and thus did not
manifest in the data.
Artifacts of Student Writing with Feedback
Written feedback to student writing is an actual practice in classrooms. To see teachers’
practice of this strategy I collected writing samples with written feedback from each teacher. I
asked that they provide examples of student work where they had commented on the assigned
writing task. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer that documents and artifacts can assist the
researcher in understanding phenomena in relation to the research questions in a qualitative
study. Additionally, documents can assist in providing descriptive information and depictions of
theory (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I asked the teachers to remove student names for the purposes
of maintaining student confidentiality. I collected three student samples from each teacher: one
struggling writer, one typically developing writer, and one advanced writer.
In the initial interview, I asked for these aforementioned samples. I asked the teachers for
their own assessment of the samples. I did not provide a set of criteria for the classification of the
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 129
students as a “struggling writer,” “typically developing writer,” and an “advanced writer.” I did
not give the teacher participants any insight into how they would go about making that choice. I
let the teacher participants make their own assessments of the student samples per the
classifications.
Data Analysis
Data collection began while I was still in the field. Creswell (2009) offers that the process
of data analysis suggests that the researcher makes sense of texts and ideas from data collection.
The process of data analysis is also a recursive process that requires the researcher continually
returns to the data to verify and understand trends and themes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007;
Creswell, 2009). After conducting the interviews and transcribing the interviews from the
teachers, I used open coding and themes from the interviews (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Maxwell
(2013) notes that researchers can use contextual analysis and categorizing to understand narrative
data or interviews. I needed to understand the context of the teachers and the emerging codes
from these teachers in context. Categorizing and connecting the themes and trends to the context
was essential.
At first, I conducted all initial interviews with the teachers. After each initial interview I
wrote a reflective memo. These memos were not analytical in any nature. Rather, they were just
initial objective thoughts and memory from the initial interviews. Then, I returned to the teachers
for their follow up interviews. Again, after the follow up interviews I wrote more reflective
notes. This time I attempted to make comparisons between my reflective notes from the initial
teacher interviews to the follow up interview reflective notes. This was not a part of my ‘formal
analysis’ process; rather, this was just an initial attempt to summarize and capture the essential
main ideas of the teachers’ interviews.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 130
After all interviews were captured and transcribed, I began the formal analysis process.
The process was to examine each individual teacher at first without making comparisons
between the teachers. First, I would examine the initial interviews analyzing what was being said
in the initial interview and making analytical notes on the interviews. After this, I would write an
analytic memo about the teacher overall in their initial interview. Then, I would turn to the
concepts in my initial conceptual framework. I connected the ideas from the original conceptual
framework to the teachers’ thoughts from their initial interview to the ideas of the conceptual
framework. I anticipated certain a priori codes based on the literature on feedback would emerge
as well as emerging (in vivo) codes (Creswell, 2009; Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). These
a priori codes included the notions of my conceptual framework. These a priori codes were
foundational to how I approached both the initial and follow-up interviews.
After, the initial interviews I turned to the follow-up interviews. I completed the same
process examining the ideas in the interviews closely analyzing what was being said in the
interview. Then, I wrote a comprehensive analytic memo of the teachers’ ideas. After this, I
made connections between the language of my initial conceptual framework and how these ideas
may or may not have manifested in the follow-up interviews.
This was not my anticipated process from my initial intentions for approaching data
analysis. Thus, it was necessary to keep methodological memos prior to making any cross-
teacher connections. In these memos, I noted how I was approaching data analysis with respect
to the analysis of each teacher individually and my approach to the overall analytic memos and
the analytic memos making connections between the language of the original conceptual
framework to the ideas in the interviews.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 131
After analyzing all the teachers individually, I turned back to reading through all my
analytic memos. I began to make some connections between the teachers adding connections
between teachers in my analytic memos. These connections would later serve how I would craft
my code book.
It was then I turned to document analysis. I went back to the student artifacts with written
feedback from the teachers. I did not initially examine the type of the written feedback. I
examined the written feedback for connections to the original analytic memos, the connections to
the original conceptual framework, and the cross-connections between the teachers (if
applicable). I completed this for each individual teacher. Then, I made connections between the
teachers for their written feedback.
It was then that I began to craft a code book. In the code book I noted both the a-priori
and in-vivo (emerging) codes in relation to the ideas of the original conceptual framework and
the contents of the interviews. I extrapolated direct quotes from the interviews to place in relation
to the codes. This was my initial code book. From this initial code book, I read through it in its
completion. I returned to reading my original analytic memos.
After completing my initial code book, I was asked to write an initial response addressing
my research question. This initial response was the catalyst for the creation of my second code
book. I separated the ideas from the response into isolated ideas and created a new code book
that was more thematic than the original. These themes were placed in relation to the teachers’
ideas in their interviews (what they said) and the concepts of my original conceptual framework.
Then, I had themes that were arose from follow-up interviews (what they did). Again, in this
code book these themes were placed in relation to the individual teachers and the concepts from
the original conceptual framework. Overall, this began the process of being able to write a more
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 132
thorough response to the research question. Creswell (2009) called this type of coding a
combination of pre-determined and emerging codes. My open coding process focused on
empirical processes (Creswell, 2009). The analysis of the initial interviews revealed more what
the teachers believed they did in their writing instruction and the analysis of the follow-up
interviews and documents revealed more of what the teachers actually did in the practice of
written feedback to student writing. This was not the end of analysis as data analysis was indeed
a recursive process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009).
Multiple cycles of coding assisted me in combining the established codes and emerging
codes in order to derive themes from the data. I completed three cycles of coding as evidenced
above and in a return to document analysis. After the more thematic examination of the
interviews I turned to the student samples with written feedback to student writing. This was a
third cycle of coding. I coded the overall feedback (numeral) versus the type of feedback
(content-based or form-based). I returned to the interviews and noted what the teachers noted
were their assumed focus for the student samples versus what they actually did in their written
feedback. This revealed and influenced the findings of what the teachers actually did in their
written feedback to student writing with respect to content-based feedback and form-based
feedback.
From this process of analysis, I returned to my original conceptual framework. I found
my original framework did not capture exactly what happened or manifested in the experience of
interviewing the teachers and data analysis. This fueled the creation of the revised conceptual
framework that is offered in chapter four after the findings.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 133
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As the researcher in a qualitative study, I was the primary instrument in the study.
Therefore, my biases and perspectives potentially influenced the analysis of the data. Maxwell
(2013) notes that the researcher in a qualitative study must consider their role and involvement in
the study throughout the process. As a secondary English Language Arts teacher with strong
opinions about validating student voice in writing, I came to this study with my own perspectives
and biases about the importance of writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
Maxwell (2013) notes that researchers come with their own biases and perspectives and that the
researcher’s values and expectations may potentially influence interpretations.
However, the concern is not what potentially influenced the study. The use of analytic
memos and methodological memos were critical to ensuring that my own biases were not
influencing how I interpreted the data. Moreover, reflective, observational notes where I merely
wrote the contents of the interviews and did not attempt to analyze the data was my attempt to
ensure objectivity and recognize where biases may attempt to arise. When I would see that my
reflective note became an interpretation rather than an observation, I would stop, reflect, and re-
write the reflective memo is more observational, objective manner.
I used open-ended questions that facilitate a narrative to occur of the teachers’ ideologies
and perceptions. I did not interpret during the interviews. I solely let the teacher respond as they
naturally would. When I felt that there could have been more to offer or clarity was not present, I
would use the probes to understand the teachers’ offerings more. I sought to understand the way
that teachers validated student voice in their writing through their written feedback. As I have
mentioned, I actively sought out teachers who I believed had an asset mindset about their
students. Those assumptions were a result of my commitment to using “community nomination”
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 134
collection processes as I assumed that these teachers possessed such qualities as a result of their
nomination. My data analysis process of initially noting observations in an objective manner
prior to analysis was critical to the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings.
Maxwell (2013) notes that credibility can be established through the use of triangulation.
Triangulation is the process by which researchers, “…collect[] information from a diverse range
of individuals and settings using a variety of methods” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 128). I collected both
interview responses and artifacts. I compared these items to establish validity and reliability of
my findings. As well, I ensured saturation in my data and site. Saturation is the process by which
researchers are in their fields in such amount of time that they feel there will be no new findings
(Creswell, 2009). While there were only ten teachers in the study, I ensure that I spent adequate
time in the field understanding the teachers, probing their ideas during the interviews, writing
reflective memos. Data analysis was perhaps the most comprehensive and thorough aspect to the
study. I ensured that I spent time analyzing the data and thoroughly understanding the contents of
the interviews. Finally, I returned to the literature of Chapter Two plus the qualitative research
that is detailed in this chapter that I had collected to ensure that my analysis and findings are
consistent with previous studies that are thematically similar to my study. I could not simply
assume that my study was original in approach in nature, theme, and approach. I ensured that I
thoroughly understood similar studies from the literature so that I could use these approaches in
my own study. Other empirical studies that approached written feedback to student writing have
been conducted. In saturating myself in the literature and understanding their approaches and
methodologies to similar content, I ensured that I could mirror these tactics for the credibility and
trustworthiness of my findings. As a novice researcher, I need to understand similar approaches
of more experienced researchers.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 135
Ethics
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) note that the process of data collection and data analysis pose
ethical issues in qualitative research. To maintain the ethics, I ensured that I had approval from
the Institutional Review Board of the University of Southern California as well as the permission
of the school district where the teachers were employed. I made sure my data collection was
ethical as a result of the approval of the University of Southern California Institutional Review
board and the approval of the research branch of the district where teachers were employed. This
was also ethical because of the choices I made in designing the interviews, the initial objective
approach to data analysis, and the multiple cycles of coding.
Various ethical issues needed to be considered and checked at the school level. I needed
to ensure that I had informed consent from the administrators present at the school sites I
selected for my study. These administrators knew which teachers I was interviewing and when I
was on campus. The contents of the interviews were kept in a locked office. I promised in my
interviews that their identities would not be revealed or any information in relation to their
identities would be revealed. The use of pseudonyms for the teachers, schools, and the district
were used to ensure utmost confidentiality. Additionally, I needed to gain informed consent
from the teachers I will interview. The teachers were the primary focus of the study and their
consent and involvement was crucial. With respect to the artifacts, I asked teachers to remove
student names from the tasks so that I had no affiliation with the particular students or their
academic endeavors; rather, I focused solely on the feedback that was provided to them. Finally,
I maintained confidentiality of the participants and school sites use in the study. I did not reveal
to other teachers the contents of the other teachers’ interviews, practices, or involvement.
Teachers solely knew they were participants and that there would be other teachers involved.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 136
They were not told who the other teachers were, the school sites involved, or any other
information from other teachers.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 137
Limitations
Limitations include factors that are beyond the researcher’s control. Limitations can
affect the findings of the study and how data is analyzed and interpreted. The following were
limitations that I anticipated and did indeed validate after findings:
1. Truthfulness: The data collected requires that teachers are honest about their beliefs
and practices. This remained a limitation of the study.
2. Authenticity of feedback on artifacts: I collected artifacts from the teachers at their
selection. There was potential that those were not be the most authentic
representations of their feedback. These artifacts may have been their “best”
representations of their feedback practices. They also might not have been the best
representations of the teachers’ written feedback to student writing.
3. Teacher educational backgrounds: The teachers all had different teacher preparation
programs. In the initial interview I asked teachers about their university preparation
and their preparation as writing teachers. Not one university was repeated. Teachers
offered different approaches to writing teacher preparation as well.
4. Selection of student artifacts with written feedback: The teachers both selected the
student samples and classified the student writing samples as “struggling writers,”
“typically developing writers,” and “advanced writers.” The teacher participants
made this choice. This was a limitation because it was their selection and own
personal subjectivity guiding the selection, assessment and classification of the
student writing samples.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 138
Delimitations
Delimitations are factors that the researcher can control and manipulate and restrictions
that I made on myself as the researcher (Miles et al., 2014). One delimitation is that I was a
novice researcher. This was my first full empirical study. This is a delimitation because I learned
more about empirical research as I went through the process of empirical, qualitative study.
Another delimitation was my notion of saturation. While I felt that I spent a significant time in
the field, I could have spent more, probed deeper with the teacher participants in relation to their
ideas had I been a more experienced researcher. Another delimitation was the number of
participants. With more teacher participants, I might have had more variation in the findings, as
the teachers overall did not demonstrate a deep understanding of culturally relevant pedagogy or
culturally relevant teaching and adhered to traditional approaches to providing written feedback
to their students.
The selection of student artifacts with written feedback revealed additional delimitations.
I did not establish a set of criteria for the assessment and selection of the student writing samples.
Moreover, in the interviews I did not ask the teacher participants questions that might have given
me insight into their assessment, selection, and classification of the student writing samples.
Additionally, I did not ask any questions about the drafting process for the student writing
samples.
Conclusion
This study focused on the beliefs teachers held about their students and about the written
feedback they provided in light of their beliefs about their students and their students’ needs in
academic writing. The particular units of analyses for the study were the teachers who were
interviewed and the artifacts collected from the teachers with feedback to student writing. The
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 139
data was collected from the interviews and artifacts. My research question and conceptual
framework guided my study.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 140
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand how teachers believed their written
feedback to student writing contributed to their students’ proficiency in academic writing.
Additionally, this dissertation sought to explore the connection between that written feedback
and the tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) and Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRT).
With reference to the conceptual framework that guided this dissertation, I sought to understand
how teachers’ beliefs about writing instruction revealed evidence of the tenets of CRP/CRT and
translated into how teachers used written feedback in student writing.
More specifically, I sought to understand how teachers’ written feedback demonstrated
the CRP tenets of academic achievement, sociopolitical consciousness, and cultural competence
(Ladson-Billings, 1992). I argued in the conceptual framework that the written feedback to
student writing might also be opportunities for teachers to: “Teach to the Whole Child,” (2)
acknowledge Identity Achievement, (3) build student to teacher relationships, and (4)
demonstrate their way of constructing feedback that was developmentally appropriate (Brown-
Jeffy & Cooper, 2011).
Overall, the data revealed that teachers believed that, in some way, they were using ideas
and tenets from Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in their written feedback. More often than not, the
teachers did not exhibit the exact understandings of these tenets as detailed in the relevant
literature. Culturally Relevant Pedagogy after all, as Ladson-Billings (1992) posited, is effective
pedagogical practice that not only addresses student achievement but also affirms and accepts
cultural identity and the interrogating of sociopolitical structures and inequities. Generally
speaking, when asked about how their written feedback exhibited these overarching tenets, the
teachers tended to be closest to traditional understandings of student achievement as limited to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 141
academic achievement. With respect to the concepts of cultural competence, the teachers often
did not exhibit understanding of the role of this tenet in student learning. There was even less
evidence that teachers understood or were aware of the expectation to develop students’
sociopolitical consciousness and ability to critique the structurally racist society. Additionally,
the vast majority of teachers did not demonstrate that their written feedback was grounded in
CRT/CRP.
The findings are divided into two overarching findings: (1) what the teachers believed or
thought about their approaches written feedback to student writing and (2) what the teachers did
in their written feedback to student writing. With respect to the first finding, while some teachers
exhibited an understanding of the tenets, the vast majority did not. Some teachers noted that they
did not consider the outside school lives of students, culture, or the students’ identities as writers
or as individuals. Instead, they approached written feedback from relatively traditional
perspectives. More specifically, many participants noted that they did not explicitly consider
culture or their students’ outside of school lives when writing written feedback to student
writing. When asked questions about certain tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (cultural
competence, and sociopolitical critique), the teachers did not speak to the ways the written
feedback was a manifestation of these notions as posited by Ladson-Billings and instead
exhibited a misunderstanding of these ideas.
The second overarching finding addresses what the teachers actually did in their written
feedback to student writing. All teacher participants noted the importance of written feedback to
student writing in some capacity. Teachers’ use of written feedback to student writing varied in
purpose. I articulate the various uses each in turn. A majority of teachers used written feedback
to inform students about what they were doing well in terms of their academic writing. Similarly,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 142
fewer than 50% of participants (n=4) used written feedback in the form of macro comments to
address overall success on academic writing tasks. This suggests that a majority (n=6)
contrastingly used written feedback throughout the assignment and not in the form of macro
comments commenting on the overall success of the academic writing task. In addition, many
teacher participants (n=8) used written feedback to point out areas of growth in academic
writing. A small number of teachers provided written feedback to propel or push student thinking
in academic writing (n=3). Thus, a majority of participants did not use written feedback to push
on student thinking in their academic writing (n=7). Fewer than 50% (n=4) of teachers used
written feedback to comment on student ideas. These teachers composed written feedback that
responded to the thinking exhibited in academic writing in the form of statements. This type of
feedback was solely responding to the students’ ideas and not pushing on the students’ thinking.
An additional attribute of the teacher written feedback across the student writing samples was
that it was content-based. For struggling writers, the noted written feedback was far more
content-based than form-based. While for both typically developing writers and advanced
writers, the feedback was more of a mixed-approach including both content and form-based
feedback. When interviewed, each teacher indicated that he/she had a focus that was student
specific indicating that his/her feedback was content- or form-based depending on the needs of
each student and/but in reality this was not necessarily related to the actual feedback that the
teachers provided on the collected student work. I finally turned to the theme of building positive
student to teacher relationships in the written feedback to student writing. A select few teachers
understood the role of writing feedback in building positive student to teacher relationships.
In the remainder of the chapter I provide the two findings and their accompanying
themes. For each finding, I relate how the teachers’ ideas about writing instruction and feedback
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 143
emerged from their beliefs and were revealed through the interview data. I also make
connections between what was said and what was found in the student writing samples provided
by the teachers. A revised conceptual framework that comes out of the findings is provided.
Finally, I provide a summary of the findings to conclude the chapter overall.
Finding Area 1: What Teacher Participants Believed They Did in Their Writing
Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing
All 10 teacher participants, in different ways, communicated that their approaches to
writing feedback reflected tenets of CtRT/CRP. More specifically, three CRT/CRP tenets
emerged as central to teachers’ approaches to writing instruction and feedback: academic
achievement, cultural competence, and sociopolitical critique and consciousness. I address
teachers’ beliefs in relation to each tenet in turn.
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as Manifestation of the
Tenet of Academic Achievement
Ladson-Billings (1995) notes that teachers must create academic experiences that let
students feel success in academic settings where teachers are attending to academic needs such
that they are able to achieve irrespective of the academic area. All 10 teacher participants
believed that their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing helped students
achieve academically. In this theme, I offer how each teacher believed that his/her writing
instruction and written feedback on student writing helped his/her students achieve academically.
Firstly, I share how EW described her beliefs that her writing instruction and written
feedback helped her students achieve academically. She said,
Across the curriculum…right…ya so it kind of ties in with what I just said…doors will
open for you and doors will close for you if you can or can’t do this…ummm… and you
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 144
know the skills when we teach basic writing…the skills…we’re kind of moving
towards…and we have moved here towards writing across the curriculum…and we have
literacy across the curriculum and we are expecting writing across the content areas…in
every class and I think that is one of the reasons that writing has improved across
campus…because even our PE teachers make their students write…everyone is
writing…so whatever field you go into…I don’t need to do this I’m going to be a
rapper…I am going to be a football player. Now we know that athletes are educated
people don’t be fooled by that… so I think that everything has kind of changed now and
people are honoring what we do and I do not know that that was always true.
In this statement, EW demonstrated that she believed that opportunities would be present for
those who were capable of proficient academic writing and that opportunities would be lost for
those who were not able to write proficiently. EW believed that her focus on skills contributed to
the students’ success in writing in an interdisciplinary fashion. EW believed that writing across
the curriculum had contributed to the success of students in academic writing. EW noted that
students often did not believe they needed to be proficient in academic writing in their chosen
careers, calling out professions such as rapping or professional athletics. However, EW believed
that this was a misunderstanding. EW noted that students need to achieve academically to
achieve their desired outcomes. In continuing this notion, EW noted that across areas of study
and across professions individuals needed to be educated and academically proficient.
Another teacher participant offered that his writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing helped students experience success. RC believed that his writing instruction
helped students achieve academic wins. He said,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 145
I think it helps them achieve…I want to go back to the idea of confidence…I mean they
have to be able to believe they belong here and that can be successful and sometimes I
know…that my assignments are really easy because I want them to have a couple of
wins…ya sure that maybe on that quiz or on that final project there they might get a
lower score…but I don’t want it to be a complete defeat…you know loss, loss,
loss…every single day…ya and I think that is one of the reasons I like doing this…like
when I see those wins and they themselves don’t believe that they got those wins and
even in my feedback I always start with something positive…you do a great job of doing
this and like sometimes I have to dig and it is not always easy to find it…like…you did a
really great job about talking about this experience…and then I kind of build from
that…maybe you could be a bit more detailed…what happened from that? Like probe
maybe add more questions about it…I guess it is kind of the Oreo
effect…good…negative…and good.
RC believed in building the confidence of his student writers. He asserted that students had to
feel that they belonged in the writing classroom. RC argued that the students had to believe they
could be successful. RC argued that in creating assignments that were perhaps not as cognitively
demanding as they could be students experienced success in academic settings. RC believed that
he designed his writing instruction and composed written feedback such that students did not feel
defeat constantly. RC believed that he needed to provide positive written feedback to students to
contribute to their academic achievement and proficiency in academic writing. RC believed that
in both probing students and pushing them to expand their ideas in their written feedback he
assisted them in achieving academically. RC noted the importance of letting students feel success
such that they can continue to have achieve academically. RC believed that in providing both
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 146
positive written feedback with corrective written feedback he contributed to their academic
achievement.
Another teacher participant spoke to how he believed his writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing supported students’ academic success. Like EW, MS made the
connection that his writing instruction contributed to the students’ ability to navigate academics
in an interdisciplinary fashion:
You know probably most of the instruction is designed to help them achieve
academically whenever they are in any class and they need to be able to write about a
topic we want them to be able to organize it so I would say for the most part we want
them to be able to try to get students to a point where they are writing with high levels of
style and you know flair you know a lot of times you want them to become proficient and
maybe master the basic you know basic reading and writing so they are communicating
things correctly and also effectively like here is your focus here is your evidence how do
you use the evidence to support your main idea so not just in my class but all classes they
have to do this
MS believed that most of the instruction provided to students was designed to help them achieve
academically, including the instruction that he provided in terms of the writing instruction and
written feedback to student writing. MS noted that in all classes the instructional faculty wanted
students to be able to organize their thoughts efficiently in academic writing. MS noted that
across disciplines teachers wanted their students to be able to writer efficiently to get them to a
point where they were both organized in their academic writing and were able to be stylistic in
their writing. The critical aspect here is that MS believed in the importance of letting students
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 147
feel academic success for future achievement. MS believed that academic writing was the shared
responsibility all content area teachers.
Another teacher participant spoke to how she believed her writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing contributed to their students’ academic achievement. AL reflected
the idea of student confidence similar to the notions presented by RC:
I think that by giving two negative and one positive, it gives them, “Oh, good news, bad
news” situation, and it does build up on their confidence and it does help them become
better writers because then they have confidence to do the next writing assignment better.
Here AL explained that she believed that her approach to providing balanced feedback that was
both corrective and provides areas of strength that she contributed to her students’ academic
achievement. She believed that this approach built their academic confidence in such a way that
they would approach the next writing task having experienced success and having that
confidence to achieve on another writing task. AL’s belief that letting students feel academic
success would contribute to on-going achievement academically.
Next, MM spoke to the ways his writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing contributed to students’ academic achievement. He said,
I mean, what more can they do? They’ll be able to write the required essays they need to
write for higher level AP tests. They’ll be able to pass, be more likely to pass AP exams,
which is all necessary for higher level education, getting into college.
In this response, MM explained how he believed that his writing instruction and written feedback
to students’ writing contributed to their ability to write proficiently enough to write at higher
levels for Advanced Placement exams. He believed that his instruction and written feedback
contributed to their ability to receive passing scores on Advanced Placement exams contributing
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 148
to their academic success such as getting into colleges and having access to higher education.
MM believed that in letting students feel success in his lower level courses (meaning pre-AP)
courses they would eventually achieve academically in more advanced course work.
Another teacher participant believed that his writing instruction and written feedback to
students writing contributed to their academic achievement:
Well, we first have to acknowledge the fact that we live in an environment that has
systems, right? So what are those systems? Systems are expectations, right? This whole
thing is like, you do you and your truth and all that stuff ... it’s like okay, that’s great, but
it still doesn’t negate the fact that when these kids ... They can do them, and they could
speak their truth, but it better be spoken in APA format. You know what I’m saying? As
much as the professors, like, “Oh, you do you; you think who you are,” and all that sort
of stuff, they want it in APA format. First acknowledging the fact that there are going to
be social expectations, regardless of their background. And that’s part of academia. It’s
like there are certain standards that they have to abide by. It’s our responsibility as
teachers to expose them to some of those expectations.
JO believed that in considering academic achievement he had to consider that students lived in
systems. He believed that systems were expectations. He believed that students could speak their
ideas in these systems and sets of expectations; however, students had to be able to speak those
truths within a standard format such as APA. JO believed that an example of students operating
successfully in these systems were that they utilized standard academic practices. Thus, JO
believed that his writing instruction and written feedback to students writing contributed to
students’ ability to operate within these systems of expectations. JO noted that regardless of
students’ backgrounds they would have to operate within systems of social and academic
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 149
expectations. JO believed that it was the responsibility of writing teachers within their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing that they expose students to expectations of
academic conventions. Therefore, JO believed that his writing instruction and written feedback
to student writing focuses on exposing students to these systems of expectations such that they
can achieve successfully in academics. JO believed that he had to let students feel success within
the academic systems of his own English classes and writing instruction so that they would feel
academic success in the future.
Next, JP offered how he believed his writing instruction and written feedback to students’
writing contributed to their ability to achieve academically. He said,
I think just, I feel like I’m just kind of repeating myself. I think, colloquial versus
academic language. Helping them articulate stronger or as strong as possible. Going back
to the structure. Always helping them understand the structure and the fundamentals of
writing. And being intentional to kind of remind them of that and push them to develop
that.
JP believed that his writing instruction and written feedback to student writing focused on
ensuring that students developed the strong academic language for success in academic settings.
He believed that his written feedback and writing instruction focused on developing students’
ability to articulate ideas with clarity. JP believed that the structure and fundamentals of writing
were key to his writing instruction and written feedback and this focus contributed to the
students’ academic achievement. He believed that in being intentional about fundamentals and
structure in writing instruction and written feedback that this contributed to students’ academic
achievement. JP believed that in his writing instruction and written feedback to student writing
he needed to focus on pushing students to develop fundamentals, structure, and academic
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 150
language and this focus contributed to students’ academic achievement. This, he believed, was
the way that his students would feel academic success for continued academic achievement.
Next, SF provided how she believed her writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing contribute to students’ academic achievement. She said,
I think it makes them stronger writers. Hopefully it makes them think better. Especially
when it comes to explaining themselves. That’s really what I’m aiming for, is to make
them better thinkers. Not necessarily better writers.
SF believed that her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing made her
students stronger, more proficient writers. She hoped that these practices helped them think more
effectively, especially in relation to explaining their ideas. SF believed that her aim of focusing
on students become better thinkers in writing instruction and written feedback to students’
writing contributed to the students’ academic achievement. SF believed that her focus on pushing
their thinking such that they could think more critically—and not necessarily becoming better
writers—contributed to their academic achievement. Overall, SF believed that in focusing on
pushing students thinking this contributed to letting her students feel success in their writing
experiences so that they could achieve academically.
Another participant, GJ spoke to how her written feedback and writing instruction
contributed to students’ academic achievement.
I think it makes them stronger writers, makes them more confident when they have to do
it on their own. I’ve had a lot of students who have gone on to college and have come
back to me with feedback that. “Hey, what we did in your class really helped with my
writing here.” I try to constantly keep up with what are they looking for in a college
writing course and how can I help my students with that.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 151
GJ believed in a focus on making her students stronger writers in her written feedback to student
writing and in her writing instruction. She believed that her writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing helped students achieve academically by building their confidence
when the students had to be more self-directed with writing tasks. GJ believed that her writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing had helped students achieve in university
settings as validated by her comments from previous students noting that they had success in
college settings as a result of her approaches with writing instruction and written feedback to
students’ writing. GJ believed that a focus on trends of success in university writing contributed
to her students’ academic achievement.
Finally, BK offered how she believed her writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing contributed to students’ academic achievement:
I think it, and, and like I said earlier I don’t think I’m doing a very good job at all. But I
think what I do, what I am doing is hopefully building up muscle memory and grit and
hopefully by the time they get to you know community college or whatever they at least
can, can manage to write an essay, or a research paper. So I think that they’re gonna be
able to you know write 20 page academic journals or anything like that? No, but I hope
that they look at it and they’re not so scared.
BK held the aspiration that her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing
contributed to students’ ability to write with efficiency, automaticity and stamina when they were
tasked with writing in academic settings. BK did not mention that her approaches in writing
instruction and written feedback were directly contributing to students’ academic achievement.
BK did not believe that how she approached written feedback to student writing and writing
instruction would permit them to compose at the proficiency of those writing academic journals.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 152
Rather, BK hoped that how she approached written feedback to student writing and writing
instruction would contribute to students’ ability to compose proficiently such that they did not
approach writing with hesitation or fear. In essence, BK did not believe that her approaches to
writing instruction and written feedback to student writing directly contributed to their academic
achievement. Rather, her aspiration was that the way she did approach written feedback to
student writing and writing instruction would assist them to achieve academically.
All teacher participants believed or aspired to believe that their approaches to writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing contributed to students’ academic
achievement. Next, I discuss how teachers believed that their approach to writing instruction and
written feedback to student writing contributed to students’ cultural competence. I provide those
teachers that exhibited understanding of this tenet as it was defined in the literature of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy.
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as Manifestation of the
Tenet of Cultural Competence
Four of the 10 teacher participants offered how they believed their approaches to writing
instruction and written feedback to students’ writing were manifestations of the tenet of cultural
competence in ways that are reflective of the traditional literature on CRP/CRT. Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching posits that teachers who adopt this
ideology affirm and accept culture as an integral part of their approaches to instruction (Ladson-
Billings, 1995). Moreover, Culturally Relevant teachers affirm students’ cultural integrity while
maintaining academic excellence and these teachers understand that students are situated in a
cultural context and use that context for an avenue for learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995). I offer
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 153
how these teacher participants believed that their writing instruction and written feedback to
students writing contributed to students’ cultural competence.
JO offered how he believed his writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing contributed to students’ cultural competence. He said,
There is such a thing as using proper grammar. Why is using proper grammar so
important? Why can’t you use your own slang? It’s because if you use proper grammar,
that’s the foundation. So it’s like okay, what’s the big deal about the foundation? It’s like,
you can’t tell me what proper English is. Well, I actually can, because if you use your
neighborhood slang, people in Britain aren’t going to understand you. And people that
learned English in Korea aren’t going to understand you. People in Australia aren’t going
to understand you. But if you have the foundation of using proper English with proper
agreed upon language conventions, then you can communicate with anyone, and not just
the people within your block or your neighborhood. And the same thing with the
academic stuff and providing feedback. A lot of the feedback is for ... These are the
expectations that you will see consistently and repeatedly as you move forward.
JO centered this discussion around the idea of grammar and how he believed that in learning and
implementing proper grammar students become more culturally competent in interacting with
other cultures. JO recognized that students had their own language or version of language they
brought to the writing classroom. While JO recognized students’ language, he believed that he
needed to teach foundational grammar for students to be understood by other cultures. JO did not
believe in getting rid of students’ slang or non-academic register. Rather, he believed that in
teaching them foundations they became more culturally competent. He believed that in learning
conventions of proper English grammar, students expanded their communication to larger
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 154
audiences including various cultures and consequently students could communicate beyond their
local community. JO believed that his written feedback focuses on those conventions of standard
academic language. He believed that in focusing on conventions overall, he was contributing to
students’ ability to navigate and engage an array of cultures.
JO continued to offer how he believed his writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing contributed to students’ cultural competence:
So if I provide them feedback, the feedback has to be specific to the prompt. If the
prompt is saying something, they’re writing something from their perspective, but the
perspective is limited, and the feedback has to address that limitation. It’s like, did you
consider this? Did you consider this perspective? At our school, we do have things where
we want to recognize different perspectives. Not agree, not to ... Don’t agree with
different perspectives, but at the very least, recognize and understand. A lot of people
think if you understand something that implicitly means that you agree with it. It’s like,
no. No, no you don’t. You just need to understand where you’re coming from.
(in response to a follow up question he continued) Well…If you can’t express your
ability to understand why people are coming from where they’re coming from, then
you’re not well-equipped to rebut them at all. Part of the feedback is that. It’s like if you
want to address this issue, you can’t just come from your angle. You got to understand. If
you understand what they’re thinking, then you can properly address those cultural
issues. But if you can’t, then you’re just yelling from your own little corner. It’s much
better to enact change or change perspectives if you can speak as if you’re within that
group or community. That’s a much more effective way. The feedback can help out with
that, but that’s embedded within the prompt.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 155
JO noted that when students provided their perspectives and it was limited that his written
feedback addressed the limitation of their perspective, which he believed contributed to students’
understanding of others’ perspectives. JO asserted that in his written feedback he questioned
students to think about the perspective of others to go beyond their own perspectives. JO saw the
value in his written feedback for having students recognize their own implicit perspectives that
they brought to the classroom in order to understand others’ perspectives perhaps from different
cultures as well as other cultures. JO believed that this practice contributed to his students’
acquisition of cultural competence.
I sought further elaboration of how JO believed that his writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing helped students become more culturally competent. JO believed that
if students were not equipped to understand others’ perspectives then they were not equipped to
rebut others’ should they disagree. JO then believed that recognizing others’ and one’s own
perspective was key to cultural competence. JO believed that in his writing instruction and in his
written feedback to students’ writing students had to understand the perspectives of others such
that students could address social or cultural issues. JO believed that without recognizing others’
perspectives students were limited to their own ideas. JO believed that to become culturally
competent students had to be able to speak as if they were from the culture or group with whom
they were communicating. JO believed this was how his students would become culturally
competent with other cultures. JO believed that he did this in his written feedback.
The next voice who believed that his writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing contributed to students’ cultural competence was JP. JP, like JO, believed that to
contribute to students’ cultural competence that students had to consider perspectives as well. He
said,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 156
I think, I’ve posed it to students that, especially for English, there’s the idea of the canon
or that a lot of the ideas that are presented come from a certain perspective. And that’s a
perspective or certain culture that they’re not necessarily a part of, yet their expected to
take a stance on it. Or to have a response on it relevant to your experiences.
JP believed that he would use his writing instruction and writing curriculum to point out—
especially in light of the canon of texts traditional to English Language Arts classes—that ideas
came from a particular perspective. While using this as an opportunity to let his students
recognize that the perspective of the canon was often not the culture or perspective the students
were part of traditionally speaking. JP affirmed their own perspectives and cultures in his writing
instruction and written feedback and recognized that students were expected to take stances of
these traditional ideas presented in the canon of English Language Arts. JP believed that in
recognizing the perspectives of the canon for his students they were able to make responses
relevant to their own perspectives and experiences. JP thought that he affirmed their own cultural
experiences and recognized traditional ideas that the students might feel that they do not hold.
However, JP believed that in making these traditional ideas overt to the students he contributed
to their cultural competence. In essence. JP affirmed his students’ perspectives and exposed them
to others’ such that they could academically access the content and had their own perspectives
affirmed.
Next, I offer AL as another voice who believed that her writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing contributed to her students’ cultural competence. AL said,
Well a lot of my assignments for writing instruction, they require that the students be
culturally competent. I try to ensure I understand their own context and make a
connection to the content of the class which helps them understand others. Right now
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 157
we’re doing literature of the civil rights which students will write analytical essays on the
texts, and I do incorporate a lot of what’s going on now in the United States because
we’re moving back to “when America was great again.” where we have segregation, or
we have spaces that are safe for people with different ideas. So, I do have the buildup on
like, “Is this happening now?” How are you recognizing others’ ideas?
Here, AL explained how she believed that her assignments for writing instruction necessitated
that students be culturally competent. AL believed that, as a teacher, she understood students’
cultural context and used that understanding in her writing instruction and written feedback to
students’ writing to build her students’ understanding of others. AL provided that she was
currently using the literature of the Civil Rights and making connections to the current political
and cultural context of the United States. AL believed this content, which included students
understanding the notion of segregation and safe spaces where others had different ideas,
contributed to students understanding of cultural competence. AL believed that in her written
feedback when she asked students to consider their own community and country, they were
making connections to those ideas of the past and were recognizing the ideas of others, which
she believed contributed to students’ cultural competence.
Finally, I offer RC as a voice who believed that his writing instruction and written
feedback to students’ writing contributed to students’ cultural competence:
I think it kind of goes back to what I was saying about the positive feedback…I mean in
what I am writing and sometimes I will say things like I ummm…I acknowledge their
resiliency because knowing them and their context that is an accomplishment…or
whatever it is that they are sharing and I make sure that it is out there and it isn’t the first
thing that they see…so that they kind of…I mean that makes it easier to take in the rest of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 158
it…ummm…that those experiences matter so I make sure that they see that…I make sure
that they see that in my written feedback…and I acknowledge it and they feel valued…I
am writing this feedback because I know them as individuals and their hardships, their
context and their culture… I think in teaching writing and providing feedback it is an
opportunity…where…where…I can help them to understand others from different places
may have different ideas.
RC believed that primarily his written feedback where he acknowledged the students’ resiliency
despite their context was critical to affirming their identities and context. RC believed that his
use of positive feedback contributed to their resiliency as he understood the students’ context. In
essence, RC affirmed students’ identities given their context. He believed that in validating their
accomplishments and resiliency he demonstrated that he understood and affirmed his students as
individuals. RC believed that his writing instruction and written feedback to student writing was
an opportunity to contribute to students’ understanding of others and this contributed to their
cultural competence. RC focused on the affirmation of his students’ identities and how his
writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
These teacher participants offered how they believed their writing instruction and written
feedback to students’ writing contributed to students’ cultural competence. Teachers spoke about
the ways that their writing instruction lets students become competent in navigating their own
culture as well offered possibilities for navigating other cultures. Next, I discuss how several
teacher participants believed their writing instruction and written feedback to students’ writing
were manifestations of the tenet of sociopolitical critique and consciousness. I made these
connections between what the teachers believed and the tenet of socio-political consciousness
and critique as they were often not clearly articulated in a way consistent with the literature.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 159
Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student Writing as Manifestation of the
Tenet of Socio-political Consciousness and Critique.
Ladson-Billings (1995) maintains that academic experiences that engender critical
consciousness are ones where students, “…develop a broader sociopolitical consciousness that
allows them to critique cultural norms, values, mores, and institutions that produce and maintain
social inequities. Only 3 of the 10 teachers asserted that they used curricular and instructional
approaches in writing instruction and written feedback to student writing in order to intentionally
get students to critique social structures; yet, even with these three teachers, their understandings
were limited. I share three teachers’ voices as evidence that they believed that their own personal
instructional and curricular approaches with respect to writing instruction were opportunities to
have students critique sociopolitical structures.
Firstly, I share EW’s voice with respect to her belief that her approaches to writing
instruction integrated the opportunity for students to understand and question socio-historical and
sociopolitical structures. While connections might not have been direct manifestations of this
tenet of CRP/CRT, I offer how EW believed that her writing instruction was meeting these
concepts. She said,
Yes this project we just finished yesterday is all about that looking around at your
community, your world and deciding what is working and what is not working and do
something about it and how writing is the agent for that ummm so ya I think the feedback
including the feedback was you know is anyone going to listen to this if it isn’t clear, if it
has errors and it is not strongly connected to the topic and reasoned out and worded with
credible sources is anyone going to listen to this? So I think that connection probably
happened and maybe that is a location for their cultural competence as I am speaking for
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 160
my community and I am doing that ummm with regard to speaking well and having a
vocabulary people will listen to I always talk to them about how we live in this
community and at any time somebody can put a mic in your face and you are going to be
on the Channel 7 news and they are going to ask you to speak for your neighborhood and
if this happened would you be ready? Would you have the words? Are you going to
represent your community? Very well or are you gonna not?
EW believed that she afforded students the opportunity in her instructional sequence to have
students question the functionality of societal structures. In so doing this, EW believed that this
instructional unit would permit students to sharply question with credibility through their
effective use of vocabulary and other sources with established credibility. EW believed that in
her written feedback she provided opportunities to question students’ thinking. EW believed she
used the written feedback to question students on their credibility making connections to
opportunities wherein the local community they would need to have established the credible
voices and ideas.
EW believed that her writing instruction was critical to students’ breaching the structures
of society through their well-articulated voices. She believed that her writing instruction
contributed to the skill that students would not only be respected but be able to confront the
structures that had systematically oppressed them should they use their validated academic
language. EW believed that her writing instruction contributed to this capacity. Inevitably, EW
believed that her writing instruction should permit her students to circumvent the inequities of
society through their proficient academic writing. In one of her later statements, EW discussed
how she believed that her writing instruction addressed how a specific instructional unit had
students examine their own community. EW noted that “…this task is directly connected to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 161
having students develop their voices when oppressed. Farenheit 4521 is all about an oppressive
regime and I think students recognize that and then they actually get the opportunity to practice
with that in their community.” EW used this opportunity to make connections between the
assignment and the notion that her students’ writing proficiently would eventually be the
opportunity to express their own voices to address issues in the community
Another participant believed that her instructional and curricular approaches to writing
instruction were an opportunity to engage in sociopolitical consciousness. GJ believed that her
instructional and curricular approaches that had students question source material in terms of the
voices represented were an opportunity to understand and question voices often privileged over
those historically marginalized:
I think one thing for sure is thinking from... and I’m thinking specifically with my
Chicano and African American literature class, a lot of the literature that we’re analyzing
was either written by white men or was brought together by white men. Thinking about
their responses from the point of view of the oppressed person and thinking about the
authorship and how that affects things has really impacted how my students are
responding in their writing for that class.
GJ specifically discussed that when selecting literature of non-marginalized voices, she found
that it was critical that students think from the perspective of the oppressed or the marginalized.
GJ believed that when students considered the authorship of texts, they were more prepared to
write in ways that would critique the non-marginalized voices as they had taken on the
perspective of the marginalized and done so to critically question those non-marginalized voices.
In the next brief response, GJ continued her discussion around perspectives from her own
curriculum and instruction with respect to authorship for the purposes of teaching writing:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 162
I think just being aware of cultural norms and expectations, like I said with viewpoints a
lot of who is the person writing this or stating this and how do we respond to that.
GJ believed that she made students aware of the viewpoints in cultures and this she believed
contributed to the ways that students would respond to various perspectives. The interview
continued with specific reference to sociopolitical critique and consciousness in the actual
written feedback to students. She said,
Most of what I bring in. I try to bring in things that are relevant to their everyday lives.
I definitely do that in my feedback. Yeah. As much as I can, try to make it culturally
relevant for them because a lot of the push back that I get is, “Why does this matter for
me?” If I can bring that into them and be like, “Look, this is why it matters,” whether in
my writing or my verbal feedback then that always tend to be beneficial to them.
GJ believed that the materials she selected were representative of the student population that she
taught. While “relevancy” alone was not pertinent to the critique of unquestioned societal
structures, GJ believed that this created buy-in to the instructional program. GJ believed that her
written feedback was an opportunity for her to engage in a discussion with her students to
understand the need for proficient academic writing that would lend to a credible voice. GJ
believed that in creating this buy-in to the curriculum she elected for her students would
eventually lead to students understanding the social structures around the that they could
eventually combat.
Lastly, another participant, RC believed that his instructional and curricular approaches
with writing instruction were an opportunity have students challenge the structure of being a
marginalized voice:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 163
I think because…the idea of them…they are so used to being forgotten…so in the
classroom they are not seeing themselves in the page they don’t see themselves on the
videos in the audio or in the video so then I think it is important to be more direct in the
feedback where were at a point where I am seeing you for who you are…I am not being
marginalizing in the feedback here because I am talking to you specifically and I know
the kind of student you are….I know what you are capable of and I know some of the
kinds of things you have been through….and everything that you have heard or felt up to
this point we are going to try to…that is not who I want you to be now…if that makes
sense…no it’s not that I don’t want you to be that its…more…We will acknowledge that
it exist but I think it is more intentional when it is written and intentional when it says
something to the effect of you’re not marginalized and you are recognized…
RC believed that his writing instruction and curriculum was an opportunity to address the
students’ voices who were often “forgotten.” RC believed that students did not innately see their
own voices in the typical curricular or instructional canon of English Language Arts.
Consequently, RC believed that in his writing instruction and specifically in his written feedback
he acknowledged the voices of the students and recognized their own voice so that they did not
continue to feel that forgotten place in society. RC believed that in both his writing instruction
and in his written feedback he had to ensure that the students did not feel the effect of
marginalization and were recognized as individuals.
These three teachers believed that their writing curriculum and writing instruction were
manifestations of the ways teachers could design instructional and curricular structures in writing
instruction that afforded students the opportunity to confront the marginalization of societal
structures. While I have detailed the way teachers demonstrated their written feedback to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 164
students’ writing and writing instruction were manifestations CRP/CRT, I offer how several
teachers exhibited a misunderstanding of CRT/CRP practices in their practice.
Misunderstanding of CRP/CRT Tenets
I offer three teachers who showed a misunderstanding of the three tenets of CRT/CRP.
For each tenet, I provide a teacher who exhibited a misunderstanding. While more than one
teacher might have exhibited a misunderstanding, I offer the teachers who demonstrated the
greatest misunderstanding in their discussion. Each tenet will be discussed in turn.
Academic achievement. At one point in her discussion, one teacher exhibited a
misunderstanding of how her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing was a
misunderstanding of the tenet of academic achievement. Ladson-Billings (1995) offers that
Culturally Relevant teachers should ensure their instructional practices have students experience
success for ongoing academic excellence. BK showed a misunderstanding of this tenet in her
response:
I think it just depends on the assignment. The feedback is for the assignment and
particular to the prompt I’m giving. So, the feedback is more for what is going on in the
assignment…what is wrong with the logic…I try to focus on the success of the particular
assignment. I find that students often don’t read my feedback anyway…so it really is just
to comment on the success of that particular writing task. For teaching writing, it usually
just comes out of what the students currently need and what are the needs of what I am
asking them to do in that individual writing task.
BK believed that her written feedback should focus solely on the particular or individual
assignment. BK believed that her written feedback should be isolated to the task and not
connected to other writing tasks. If indeed academic achievement necessitated that students
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 165
experienced success and were provided opportunities in tasks such that they could use what their
learning in tasks to transfer that across academic settings, then this isolated approach to written
feedback would not contribute to the students’ overall academic success. BK believed that her
writing instruction was geared at the individual assignment or prompt. This approach was
isolated to the single task and not the overall academic success of the students.
Cultural competence. I offer one teacher who demonstrated a misunderstanding of the
tenet of cultural competence in her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
Ladson-Billings (1995) offers that Culturally Relevant teachers use students’ culture as a vehicle
for learning and affirm students’ cultural identities. MS demonstrated a misunderstanding of this
tenet:
Hmmmm…umm I’m not sure unless the topic…hmm…culturally competent…unless if I
am understanding you correctly if we are trying to have them…if you could clarify if you
are saying culturally competent if you are trying to say have them have a working
knowledge of Shakespeare of having a working knowledge of literary elements those are
cultural competencies as I might think about them so I they can kind of understand ideas
of voice you know and what does it mean to communicate….what does effective writing
look like so in terms of those competencies you know I think the feedback does help
them understand what is effective and what is expected in good writing…you know
culturally I think it’s just about having them understand whatever you are looking at…
MS exhibited a misunderstanding here of the tenet of culturally competent. He believed that his
writing instruction and written feedback to student writing would contribute to students’ cultural
competence if the prompt or writing task itself was dealing with the topic of cultural competence.
MS believed that having a working knowledge of literary elements or of Shakespeare contributed
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 166
to students’ cultural competence. Moreover, MS believed that cultural competence was having a
working knowledge of Shakespeare or literary elements. MS did not demonstrate that he used
students’ cultural identity as a vehicle for learning. Rather, MS discussed the particulars of the
individual assignment and focused on effective writing fundamentals. MS did not provide
evidence that he integrated student cultural identity or affirmed student cultural identity in how
he approaches writing instruction or written feedback to student writing.
Sociopolitical critique and consciousness. I offer one teacher, SF, who exhibited a
misunderstanding of the tenet of sociopolitical critique and consciousness in her writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing. Beyond those individual characteristics of
academic achievement and cultural competence, students must, “…develop a broader
sociopolitical consciousness that allows them to critique cultural norms, values, mores, and
institutions that produce and maintain social inequities” (Ladson-Billings, 1995, p. 162). She
said,
Depending on what I’m working at, but I don’t ask them questions, about why they’re
writing that. Or how does it relate to you? Whatever the case might be. So they can
maybe connect to it. Sometimes it doesn’t always work that way. But I do try to make it
relevant to them and I think that it’s important to do so. So they understand what they’re
doing.
SF believed that in asking questions about what the students were writing or asking about the
relevancy in student writing she contributed to students’ ability to be socio-politically conscious
and critique structures of society. SF believed that in helping students making connections they
were gaining socio-political consciousness. SF believed that she engaged students in
sociopolitical consciousness through the relevancy of the content she elected. SF believed that in
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 167
making the writing instruction and written feedback to student writing relevant to the students
she was engaging students in engendering sociopolitical consciousness and critique. This was a
clear misunderstanding of the tenet as it might appear in her writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing. These beliefs and practices did not reveal how SF prepared students
to develop a broader sense of sociopolitical consciousness that helped them questions social
structures and inequities through her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
These three teachers exhibited a misunderstanding of the essential tenets of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching. While misunderstanding with these tenets
was present to some extent in other voices, I offer ones who showed the greatest
misunderstanding as examples of how written feedback to students’ writing were clear
demonstrations of the misunderstanding.
Exclusion of Students’ Culture or Identity from Written Feedback to Student Writing and
Writing Instruction
Five teachers noted that they did not consider students’ identity in their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing. Brown-Jeffey and Cooper (2011) assert that
teachers must understand that children bring with them to school culturally-based ways of doing,
seeing, and knowing; in response, culturally relevant teachers find avenues to scaffold and
integrate those cultural experiences and identities in order for the students to gain additional
meaning and ultimately be successful in academic contexts. I provide how several teachers either
did not consider how they integrated students’ identity and culture or consciously elected to
exclude these notions into their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
I provide JO as a teacher participant that noted that he did not consider students’
identities or culture in her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 168
I think the only cultural part that plays into their writing is whether or not they can read
properly? The culture provides some perspective in terms of how you look at the world,
but how you look at the world is of no use if it’s maintained within a vacuum. So your
view of the world is enriched and supplemented with your ability to see patterns that exist
across time, and across cultures as well. But because if you just represent your
perspective, under just your cultural perspective, it’s in a vacuum, and you become very
limited. So it’s not so much even a cultural thing; it’s almost like a socioeconomic thing.
I see that as a bigger hindrance. Now, one can claim that certain cultures put more stress
on education. And those cultural groups tend to perform better academically, can read at
a higher level and so on and so forth, but I think it’s really more socioeconomic.
From what I’ve seen if you get cultures and you just compare from a ... make everything
equal, so pick out a socioeconomic strata within that culture, so if I get upper middle
class kids regardless of their cultural or ethnic background, they all perform relatively the
same. You have some variation, but it’s not too bad. A lot of the difference that I see is
more socioeconomic, and well, from a socioeconomic standpoint if you’re poor or if
you’re struggling, reading might not be the priority, because other things take place.
People throw out those fancy terms like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and all that crap,
but yeah, I think it’s more of a socioeconomic thing than a cultural thing really. For the
most part, but I do believe there are differences in culture so I do not consider that in
teaching writing or in my…you know…feedback on their papers.
JO believed that it was less culture that plays into students’ writing and more about an issue of
socioeconomic status or their ability to read proficiently and for this reason he did not consider
the students’ culture or identities in his writing instruction or written feedback to student writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 169
JO believed that culture and perspectives that were gained from the students’ own lived
experiences and perspectives were of no value if they were not exposed to others’ ideas. JO
believed that the students’ culture and perspectives were limited if they existed without exposure.
This exposure to others’ perspectives contributed to students’ ability to recognize trends across
culture and time. JO asserted that it was less a matter of culture to be understood and more of a
socioeconomic concern. JO continued his discussing illustrating how those of a middle-class
social stratum would perform academically speaking relatively similar with less variation. JO
then noted that one who was of a lower class might not perform in academic settings well as they
might not have had a culture that placed emphasis on reading. All this to say that JO did not
believe in integrating culture in the writing instruction he provided or the written feedback to
student writing. Needless to say, then he did not find a way to integrate the students’ culture or
identities such that they could make meaning and ultimately be successful in the academic
context of writing instruction and academic writing.
I offer SF as another teacher participant who exhibited an exclusion of students’ identity
and culture from her writing instruction and written feedback to student writing. SF spoke to the
situational context of the classroom and less to the integration of students’ culture or identities as
they would be brought into the writing instruction or written feedback to student writing:
I don’t think I bring in their culture or something like that …Well, when... okay, this
would be for my eighth-grade kids. We were talking about Tom Sawyer and how he
tricks the kids into working for him, and he kind of has a realization about work and play.
As far as, being paid or not. And they were really not understanding that concept of how
he was getting these kids to see that he was actually having fun. So, therefore they
thought, “Oh, it’s not a chore, it’s fun.” But, yet, if he said let me pay you for it, they
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 170
probably wouldn’t have actually done it. So, therefore there was a difference in the way,
it was the perspective of actually doing the work…I think that it has to be explained in
class and students have to understand the stories so that they can write about them….it’s
more about them understanding stories and how to write well.
SF believed that she does not integrate the students’ culture into her writing instruction and
written feedback to student writing. SF discussed that when discussing the novel Tom Sawyer
she tried to make connections between their own understandings and their own perspectives. SF
believed that stories for her writing instruction have to be explained in class and excluded the
culture or identities of students in her explanations of how she engenders meaning through the
students’ own identities or cultures. SF did not demonstrate that she elected to integrate students’
identities or cultures into her writing instruction and written feedback to students writing such
that they are able to make meaning and ultimately be successful in academic settings.
Exclusion of students’ identity (culture and outside school lives) specifically in
written feedback to student writing. I turn to areas specifically where the teachers excluded
students’ identity and culture specifically when discussing their written feedback to student
writing where in the interviews students samples were discussed. For the purposes of re-
contextualizing, Brown-Jeffey and Cooper (2011) argue that Culturally Relevant teachers must
integrate students’ culture, ways of knowing, and their cultural ways of understanding in all
aspects of teaching and learning so that students can make meaning and ultimately be successful
in their academic contexts.
I begin with RC as a voice of teacher who did not include students’ cultural ways of
knowing or understanding into the written feedback he provided to students. He said,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 171
You know what’s funny… I don’t write it here…but if I am sitting down with a student
and they are struggling…the very first thing I normally ask…I mean I will have some
kind of anecdote…in mind and I will ask them about…and for this one I asked
about…like I would ask : What do you like watching on Netflix? Okay What part? What
about it? Ummm so if I don’t remember specifically what they liked watching but I
remember this student had a hard time describing something I would ask them to describe
a show they watch or a scene that they are excited about or tell me why they are excited
about it…oh so that was a really sad moment? Well describe what was going on in this
scene…What made it so sad? Umm and then I kind of make them kind of notice the
things I want them to write…like oh are they noticing that it slows down a lot when there
is a lot of emotion…okay well how can you slow something down in writing…so I guess
when it becomes when I bring in their culture I guess….I bring in their popular culture
RC believed that he did not include in the students’ culture or their identity in the written
feedback he provided to these students. RC does assert that he attempts to engage with the
student in his written feedback by making connections through popular culture and media. RC
believed that in making those connections about discussions in class or about popular culture he
was including “students’ culture.” Later, RC believed that in bringing popular culture into the
written feedback he was including students’ culture or identity into the written feedback her
provided to students. There was no evidence in the discussion provided that he consciously
considered the way that students’ cultural associations or ways of knowing had been considered
in the crafting of the written feedback that he provided to students. While he might have
considered media or popular culture, his approach as described tended to not reflect the
conscious inclusion of student culture or identity in the approach to written feedback.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 172
Next, MS offered how he did not include the students’ identity or culture in the way he
crafts written feedback to students’ writing. He said,
Again I don’t think there is any kind of feedback that connects with that so I don’t know
other than…you know I would have to think about what that would look like or you
know they certainly have expectations of having to be able to write more
comprehensively…so the questions are designed to help them tap into that
expectation….that they are writing or developing as a writer so I don’t know if you
consider that as cultural…but you know I haven’t really thought about that kind of
feedback…
MS believed that he did not provide feedback that intentionally includes students’ culture.
Rather, MS focused his discussion on the fluency of the student to write more comprehensively.
MS believed the focus of his written feedback should be on the engaging students with the
expectations of the writing they are completing. MS believed in doing this he was connecting to
the type of writer the students is which he doubted was something “cultural.” MS did not
demonstrate in this response the way that he may have included students’ culture or identity in
the way he provides written feedback to students’ writing. Moreover, MS consciously noted that
he did not believe that the written feedback had in actuality included students’ identity or culture
and admittedly noted that there were not exemplars of feedback that included or had the intention
of including students’ identity or culture.
Finally, I offer MM as voice that believed he did not consider or integrate students’
culture or identity in the way he provides written feedback to students’ writing. He said,
This is a happy face, so that would be an emoji. No, I don’t typically think about that. I
typically just see what could be improved or what is going well in the students’ writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 173
MM believed that in providing the symbol of an emoji this would be the way that he integrated
students’ culture or identity into the way he provided written feedback to students. Admittedly,
MM noted that he does not consider the students’ culture or identity in the way that he crafts
written feedback. There was no evidence in his approach to written feedback that he integrates
the students’ culture such that they can make meaning from the writing tasks he assigns.
These teacher participants did not demonstrate in their discussions about how they
believed they integrated students’ culture or identities in the way they provide written feedback
or writing instruction. Whether through a conscious decision to not integrate the students’
identity or culture or a misunderstanding of notion, these teachers did not demonstrate how they
would use their writing instruction or written feedback to integrate students’ identity or culture
such that students could make meaning and ultimately be successful in their academic settings.
Beliefs about approaching writing instruction and written feedback to student writing from
relatively traditional means.
Five teacher participants demonstrated that they approach written feedback and writing
instruction from traditional means. I define “traditional approaches” in writing instruction and
written feedback as ones that are “…disconnected from the cultural/linguistic particularities of
the present audience and purposes” (Sherry, 2017 p. 371). Moreover, this traditional approach to
written feedback is, “…among [traditional] teachers an accepted albeit canon for commenting on
students’ texts where traditional writing teachers have… responded in the same ways to the same
aspects of student texts (e.g. with language-level corrections), regardless of the writer, the stage
of the writing process, or the rhetorical situation” (Somers, 1982 p. 155 as cited in Sherry, 2017).
Moreover, traditional approaches to the teaching of writing as exhibited in written feedback to
student writing typically center around those areas of language, conventions, and areas where
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 174
students have not demonstrated coherence of logic ;however, more often than not focuses on
grammatical error (Bomer, Land, Rubin, & Van Dike, 2019). Thus, the teacher participants
approached writing instruction and written feedback that was: (1) disconnected from students’
culture or linguistic particularities, and (2) focused on the writing task irrespective of the writer
as an individual, the stage of the writing process, or the situation in which the students are
writing.
I offer JO as a voice who approached written feedback from traditional based on the
notions he provided about his beliefs about written feedback. He said,
The written feedback, so depending on the unit and what standard or standards I’m
focusing on, most of the feedback will be centered around around that. So if I’m going
over how to organize the body paragraph right then I’ll bring up, oh, the elaboration here
is weak, right? Or the evidence that you chose to support your statement, right, doesn’t
really match. So it depends on what I’m teaching at that time. And I try to point out like
simple language convention or grammar mistakes that can be simply corrected, right? So
if I see like a pattern that a student has, then I was like, hey, just focus on this language
convention that you can also fix. And so it’s like what am I teaching at that time? Like
which part of writing am I teaching? And I try to find like a common grammar mistake
students make that can be easily fixed. So I can address that.
JO’s approach to written feedback revealed that he focused on the particular standards he is
teaching at the time or standards in a given unit of instruction. JO revealed a focus on
organization, elaboration and support of ideas. JO asserted that how he crafts written feedback to
student writing depends on what he is teaching at that time. Akin to traditional approaches to
written feedback, JO mentioned that should he see a pattern of misunderstanding in such
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 175
conventions as language he will point this out to students in the written feedback he provides.
Overall, JO believed that his approach to written feedback focused on what he is teaching at the
time, some set of standards, and the patterns of error of the students. JO did not demonstrate in
his response that he considers the cultural or linguistic particularities of the students.
Additionally, JO did not demonstrate that the way he approached written feedback in a way that
changed over drafts or in various rhetorical situations. While he may focus on areas of error in
the given writing task, there was no evidence that the feedback was curtailed to the student given
the student’s own individuality.
Next, I offer MS as a voice who approached written feedback from relatively traditional
approaches. He said,
Well uhh…I think very…well I think we are trying to directly help students help them
develop as writers so thinking about those elements of writing…so there are different
models…six trait writing…you know the Common Core standards they talk about three
main areas….your elaboration your focus your organization and then your conventions—
your language and your style—umm you know feedback is designed of course to start to
try to give them some very target some actionable areas on big ideas and then of course
filling it in with areas where they can do better in style and language…
MS believed that he works to develop the students as writers through developing traditional
elements of effective writing. MS mentioned a curricular approach to writing known as six trait
writing which details information of traditional, effective academic writing. MS believed that he
focused his written feedback to student writing on a set of standards and traditional elements
such as elaboration, focus, organization, language and style. MS believed that his written
feedback is designed in such a way to focus on areas where the students can grow and in areas of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 176
language and style. MS did not demonstrate in his response that he considers the linguistic or
cultural particularities of the students. While MS mentioned that he believed he focused his
written feedback on developing the students as writers especially in light of their style, he did not
demonstrate in the response how he would craft written feedback given the students as an
individual, how that written feedback would alter over the course of various drafts, or how
written feedback may have been altered given a different rhetorical situation.
Next, I provide BK as another voice who approached written feedback from traditional
approaches. She said,
Uh, my philosophy on written feedback. I think it’s really important but I, I think that it’s
not sustainable, or at least what they, what is necessary. The kind of feedback that’s
necessary for these kids, it would take me years, like it, it would take months to provide
that kind of feedback on certain things. So honestly you know, full discloser I don’t
really, I, I wouldn’t even know where to start, really. I, I don’t know where to start, other
than saying “hey you’re not following the protocol of which I’ve told you to write in.”
You know, and I’ll give ‘EM an outline of something, but for the most part, I’m I’m
pretty terrible at it.
BK believed that written feedback believed that the type of feedback that would be needed for
her student population would take a great deal of time and time that she believed is both not
sustainable and feasible. Admittedly, BK noted that she often does not know where to start in the
written feedback she provides. BK offered that she believed she provided written feedback that
addresses students’ inability to follow a protocol that she uses in her writing instruction or some
type of outline. BK did not demonstrate in her response that she considers the cultural or
linguistic qualities of the students in her approach to written feedback. Additionally, BK did not
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 177
demonstrate that how she would alter her written feedback to student writing given the students
as individuals or how she believed she would differentiate the written feedback given that there
was another rhetorical situation or multiple drafts.
Next, I offer SF as another voice who approached written feedback from relatively
traditional approaches. She said,
I feel like it’s very important to give written feedback, if they do not get written feedback,
how are they supposed to figure out what their mistakes are? Sometimes, I have been told
by administration that I give too much feedback and I should just focus on one thing.
That, I don’t think that’s fair to the kids, if they’re struggling in a lot of areas. I think that
I should mention that area and maybe it’s something we should work on. Not maybe in
that moment, but it’s something that we should work on.
SF believed that written feedback is critical to provide students as it is needed to understand
areas of error. SF mentioned that she had been advised by her administration to solely focus on
one area because she typically provides a significant amount of written feedback to student
writing that her administration felt would be overwhelming to her learners. However, SF did not
believe that this was a fair approach given her student population. SF exhibited that she may
focus on a given area of error perhaps in the form of a trend in error as something she believed
she would work on with her students in an ongoing fashion. However, SF did not demonstrate
that she would consider the linguistic or cultural particulars of her students in how she
approaches written feedback to student writing. In the response, SF did not exhibit that she
would alter the written feedback given the rhetorical situation or at various stages of the writing
process.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 178
Next, I offer MM as voice that demonstrated traditional approaches to written feedback to
student writing. He said,
I provide very little written feedback to students. I used to provide more. I found that
most of them don’t really respond to it or necessarily read it, and I have found that
through conversations with students, “Hey, did you read this? Or what do you think about
this? Does this make sense?” And usually they don’t notice it or I have to redirect them
individually to the written feedback which can be time consuming, and sometimes by the
time you bring their attention to it, the kind of the moment is lost, the teachable moment
is lost. So it’s been a struggle to make written feedback effective.
Admittedly, MM believed that he provides little written feedback to student writing having
previously provided written feedback in more abundance. MM believed that through
conversation over his teaching career that he has found students do not find the utility in written
feedback to student writing. MM did mention that he would use written feedback to students
writing focused on teachable moments. However, MM believed that his approach to written
feedback has been a struggle to make that written feedback effective. MM did not speak to the
ways he would approach written feedback given various rhetorical situations or how his written
feedback would alter over various stages of the writing process. Additionally, MM did not
demonstrate that his written feedback would consider and be crafted around the linguistic or
cultural particulars of his students.
These teacher participants exhibited that they believed they approach written feedback to
student writing from relatively traditional approaches. More often than not the teachers
demonstrated that they believed they focus their written feedback and writing instruction to
student writing was focusing on those areas that in the literature are traditionally considered
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 179
conventional approaches. Teacher participants here believed or demonstrated that they did not
approach the written feedback considering the linguistic or cultural particulars of their students.
Moreover, these teacher participants did not exhibit that they altered their written feedback given
various rhetorical situations or how that feedback would be changed over the course of the
writing process.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this finding discussed what teachers believed about their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing. Their beliefs were discussed through various
themes. Various teachers demonstrated that their written feedback and student writing were
reflective of the foundational tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant
Teaching: (a) academic achievement, (b) cultural competence, and (c) sociopolitical critique and
consciousness. However, other teacher participants demonstrated a misunderstanding of the
foundational tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching: (a)
academic achievement, (b) cultural competence, and (c) socio-political critique and
consciousness. Likewise, teachers demonstrated an exclusion of students’ culture or identities
from their beliefs about their writing instruction. This was also found more specifically in the
written feedback that the teachers believed they provided to their students. Through their
discussion of their beliefs, teachers demonstrated that they approach written feedback from
relatively traditional means excluding the students’ linguistic or cultural particulars or the way
the teachers believed that they would alter their written feedback given various rhetorical
situations or over the course of several drafts. These themes were findings from what the
teachers believed they did in their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing. I
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 180
turn to the second area of findings where teachers demonstrated what they did in their written
feedback to student writing based on discussions of specific student samples.
Finding Area 2: What Teachers Did in Their Written Feedback to Student Writing
The second area of findings pertains to the findings from the interviews where I and the
teacher participants discussed specific students’ samples with written feedback provided to the
students. These findings are based off the follow up interviews examining actual students’
samples where the teacher participants provided written feedback to student writing. I reiterate
here at this point that traditional approaches to written feedback are ones that center around those
areas of language, conventions, and areas where students have not demonstrated coherence of
logic; however, more often than not focuses on grammatical error (Ferris, 1997). In this area of
the findings, I present how the teachers used written feedback on student writing. When
addressing the actual written feedback to student writing, I make connections to whether that
feedback was indeed any manifestation of CRP/CRT. This is woven throughout.
All teacher participants noted—to some degree—the importance of written feedback to
student writing. Foremost, written feedback to student writing was used to validate what students
do well in academic writing. Various teachers exhibited how their written feedback was used to
focus on areas of growth in academic writing. Few teacher participants used written feedback
focused on content to propel ideas in the form of questions. Thus, a majority of teacher
participants did not use written feedback to propel student thinking in their writing samples. A
sample of teacher participants used written feedback to point out overall success on the writing
tasks in the form of macro comments. Several teachers used written feedback to respond to
students’ ideas in the form of statements not pushing on their thoughts, but merely commenting
on their ideas. Fewer than half of the teacher participants used written feedback to comment on
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 181
both content and form. Consequently, the others had a sole focus on content or form in their
written feedback to student writing. Finally, various teacher participants used written feedback to
focus on trends in error for the students.
Teacher Participants Used Written Feedback to Student Writing and Noted Its Importance
All 10 teacher participants noted the importance of written feedback and used written
feedback on student writing. Applebee (2013) found that a majority of secondary English
teachers not only graded papers but responded to papers with instructional feedback and noted its
importance. I offer each teacher in turn in their interview a capture of when they noted they use
written feedback to student writing and deemed it as important to their writing instruction. I offer
areas where each teacher in turn found written feedback to student writing critical and confirmed
their use of written feedback.
First, I offer BK and her discussion of where she noted that found written feedback to
student writing was important. She said,
I think written feedback is really important, but sometimes it is not sustainable. I
mean…how else will students know what the expectations are, learning targets.
BK provided later where she noted that she uses written feedback to student writing. She said,
Yes, I use written feedback. It is important for me to communicate what the district has
told me that I need to cover for writing…and what I am teaching…I think that is captured
in the written feedback that I give.
BK both provided that she found written feedback to student writing important for her students.
BK noted that she used written feedback to student writing for the purposes of communicating
learning targets and expectations. Thus, BK did both provide written feedback and noted its
importance in her own writing instruction. BK mentioned learning targets suggesting that she has
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 182
had a focus on academic success. This was not a direct connection or manifestation of CRP/CRT
tenets focused on academic achievement and instead made more general connections to
academic success.
Next, I offer GJ and how she communicated that she found written feedback to student
writing important and her confirmation that she uses written feedback to student writing. She
said,
I’ve really been thinking a lot about the difference in feedback and the difference in
writing styles between my three populations and how crucial it is that I provide feedback
that is differentiated. I use a lot of feedback which would be GenEd, Sped, and EL and
really thinking about how I respond to each of those knowing especially with my EL
population, the way that they write things is going to be different than what I would see
in a GenEd student and trying to grade more on the overall idea instead of the
breakdown of grammatical rules and stuff like that.
Upon returning to the follow up interview, GJ revealed a reflection of how important she both
found the written feedback she provides to students. GJ noted a reflection in that she wanted to
continue to use her detailed feedback to student writing but consider more about differentiating
that written feedback she provides to students of various groups in her population. GJ did make
some connection to the success of students in their academics in reference to various subgroup
levels. There was not solid evidence that this was “letting students feel success” in ways that
would be consistent with the tenet of “academic achievement.”
Third, I provide RC who noted the importance of written feedback and confirmed that he
used written feedback to student writing. He said,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 183
Just that I need to have more opportunities to provide feedback….haha…no I just feel
that I provide these three comments as a sort of summary all the time. But, I would like to
have more opportunities to provide feedback…because…ya….it is like crucial because it
is how they learn and also I think the students really appreciate the feedback I provide
because it makes them feel like someone took an interest in what they wrote and actually
read what they wrote.
RC, like GJ, noted a reflection upon return to the follow-up interview. RC revealed that upon
reflection he thought that he needed more opportunity to provide written feedback to student
writing. RC noted that he both found written feedback to student writing critical and that he felt
that the written feedback is valued by the students. In this discussion he evidenced that he both
found written feedback critical and that he used written feedback to student writing. While RC
noted the importance of written feedback as a means of validating students as they might feel
appreciated, there was not evidence here that he led them to academic achievement in the way
consistent with the literature of academic achievement in CRT/CRP.
Fourth, I provide JO as a teacher participant who both used written feedback and noted
the importance of written feedback to student writing. He said,
What happens is, if the piece of writing or writing assignment isn’t scaffolded a lot, the
student, when they have to generate their own ideas from a piece of text that they have to
write about, they can’t generate enough ideas, and what they produce is far less than what
we do as a class. There’s a huge drop off between like, hey we read this together, we
analyzed it together, verses read something on your own and write it on your own. on
your own, generate ideas and analyze ideas on your own. So, I think that’s why the
written feedback I use is important…it’s like they need to know where they are making
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 184
errors in the writing process between the “I do” to the “You do”…because many get lost
in the “we do” so…there’s a huge drop off in terms of what they produce in their essay
and that’s what student as well.
In discussing one of the lower performing students’ samples, JO noted that this type of students
needs a great deal of scaffolding. JO noted the critical nature of the written feedback in noting
where students make errors in their writing from the onset to writing instruction to the students
doing independent writing tasks. In this discussion, JO noted the importance of written feedback
to student writing for areas of error and that he uses written feedback to student writing. The
discussion of both academic success and letting students feel success for academic achievement
was absent from this discussion. There was a greater focus on a divergence between product and
writing instruction.
Fifth, I provide JP as a teacher participant who both used written feedback to student
writing and noted the importance of providing written feedback to student writing. He said,
Yeah, so nothing that you haven’t mentioned. Nothing that I necessarily haven’t
mentioned, but I think just reinforcing that feedback could be ... I don’t know if a lot of
research or a lot of discussion has been made around it, but that feedback is also a
potential space for social justice or it should be seen as a potential space for social justice.
That that if we understand African American and Latino students are marginalized groups
to begin with, then our feedback should be ways to center those voices. That’s where I
find the written feedback to student writing so crucial. I want to push our students to
understand the importance of centering theirs and other voices. That their writing
shouldn’t be, okay, I completed a five-paragraph essay. What really is the content there?
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 185
In what way are you putting your voice out there? And in doing that, that is a level of
social justice.
JP noted that he finds the written feedback that he provides as an interesting space to include a
social justice frame. Noting that African American and Latino students are indeed marginalized
groups, JP recognized that the written feedback he uses is an opportunity to center their voices in
discussions. JP asserted that writing should be less about the completion of the writing task and
opportunity for marginalized voices to provide their ideas on content. JP recognized the
opportunity for social justice in the written feedback he provides to students. In this discussion,
he both confirmed he used written feedback and noted the critical nature and opportunity for
written feedback to be used to center marginalized voices and empower Latino and African
American students. JP made connections to perhaps validating the students’ voices and pushing
them beyond completing a task to using the written feedback to have students “enter” a
conversation on a topic of social concern. There was no direct connection here that he let
students feel success for achieving academically. Rather, there was a focus that might suggest the
beginnings of developing a critical voice. However, this was not a tangential connection to the
tenet of critical consciousness as there was not solid evidence.
Next, I offer MM as a teacher participant that noted he noted the importance of written
feedback and confirmed that he uses written feedback to student writing. He said,
Okay, so my question is more of a probing question, “What do we call this?” And I’m
assuming that the student can probably answer that question since he or she has already
been able to identify these other plot elements. What I’m looking for is, “Internal
conflict.” So, to me writing this feedback was important for pointing out the content
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 186
vocabulary for the student. I mean that’s why I use…we English teachers use feedback
right…as a teachable moment to show examples…right?
In discussing a specific example of written feedback that MM provided to a student, MM noted
that he used written feedback as a teachable moment for content areas vocabulary. In this
discussion he confirmed his use of written feedback to students writing and the essential
importance of written feedback. MM noted that the written feedback is critical as it is a method
for teaching and one that permits students to learn certain elements of the discipline. MM
focused his written feedback here for the purposes of seeking content area vocabulary. There was
not clear evidence of the students feeling academic success or that he was using that written
feedback to let students feel success for the purposes of academic achievement, as expected by
CRT/CRP.
Next, I offer EW as a voice that confirmed that she uses written feedback to student
writing and asserted that it is important in her writing instruction. She said,
Okay so ummm that one student that I have in mind is umm so he struggling but he is not
without some skill so you know I have some students who have arrived in high school
that I would say have almost no writing skills and we are back to square one with some of
those kids. When I think of struggling writers a student who you know has some skill
but…so some of things that I do are try to identify just some basic skills that seem to be
lacking and if we kind of target those basic skills that will be needed to be a writer…and
some of those super low kids who come with no writing skills and all I do a lot of
modeling for them…sentence frames…just a lot of basic…elementary kind of things just
to get them engaged in writing…for these lower performing students I find the written
feedback that I use is especially important…they need the most scaffolding and modeling
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 187
in the feedback for learning….and you know I just want them to get to the writing….and
then I can use my written feedback to help them grow…which is what they really need.
EW noted that her written feedback that she uses is particularly critical for lower performing
students. EW argued that these lower performing students need the most scaffolding and
modeling and the written feedback that she provides to students is a critical opportunity for this.
EW noted that her written feedback is an opportunity for learning and for improving the writing
of lower performing students. In this discussion, EW confirmed that she used written feedback
and the importance of using written feedback to student writing. EW did suggest using written
feedback for the growth of academic writing. This suggests that her written feedback might have
been used for academic success. The use of the written feedback to let students feel academic
success in this was not clearly articulated or evidenced. Thus, there was no clear connection
between EW’s approach and the tenet of academic achievement as articulated by CRT/CRP.
Next, I offer another teacher, MS, as a participant that confirmed he uses written and
noted the importance of written feedback to student writing. He said,
Well I mean this is the student who has a lot of good things going on this is a student who
can develop ideas a little bit better…who is a little bit more comprehensive in using and
integrating evidence…umm you know the feedback here is starting to get a little more
nuanced a little more sophisticated and I find that I use feedback that changes for more
advanced students and that’s important that I differentiate my written
feedback…so…ummm in this case “What is significant about these statistics?” trying to
get the students to deepen their commentary be more thoughtful about their
commentary… so in this case they got the basics down and this one does not so much
…but if they have the basics down alright let’s try to get some more depth in here and in
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 188
some cases…like this one “What is your main idea? The student kind of jumps into the
topic without necessarily carefully transitioning and connecting one idea to
another…which can be sophisticated…but…you that is an issue we might still see here…
In this discussion, MS discusses the typically developing student from his student samples. MS
asserted that as students become more advanced the written feedback he uses becomes more
“sophisticated and nuanced.” MS provided various examples of how his written feedback is
nuanced for this particular student. Moreover, MS confirmed his use of written feedback and the
importance of written feedback that is differentiated given the student to which he is responding.
Like EW, there was evidence here that MS used the written feedback to point to areas for growth
in the student writing. However, in terms of letting the students feel academic success for future
achievement academically—as with the previous examples above—this was not clearly
articulated or evidenced.
Next, I offer AL as a teacher participant who confirmed her use of written feedback to
student writing and articulated the importance of written feedback to student writing. She said,
Basically, it’s the way he’s writing and what he’s introducing. I did some of my good
start. He needs to improve on his body paragraphs, but he is starting ... He is
understanding the use transition sentences, and what is required of the beginning of the
introduction of the essay. I think he is an example of how my written feedback has helped
students. They kind of one day just….like apply…apply it to their writing. He needed the
written I feedback just to like understand structure…and now…more often than not…he
does understand basic structure…like he has solid essays.
AL noted the success of the student which she believed was a result of her written feedback she
provides to this student. AL provided that there is still some area of growth. However, AL
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 189
asserted that this is an example of how when she has used written feedback it has been important
to the growth of her students as writers. AL discussed that this student particularly needed the
written feedback she provided to him for developing the structure of proficient academic writing.
In this portion of the interview, AL exhibited that she both used written feedback to student
writing and that it was important to her for the purposes of her students developing more
proficient academic writing. AL’s response exhibited—like other teacher participants—that the
use of written feedback for growth was part of her practice. Again, this suggests some sense of
academic success but was not consistent with the notion that she was using the written feedback
to let students feel that success for ongoing academic achievement that is reflected in the tenets
of CRP/CRT.
Finally, I offer SF as a teacher participant who spoke to the importance of written
feedback and confirmed that she uses the written feedback to respond to her students’ writing.
She said,
I feel like it’s very important to give written feedback, if they do not get written feedback,
how are they supposed to figure out what their mistakes are? Sometimes, I have been told
by administration that I give too much feedback and I should just focus on one thing.
That, I don’t think that’s fair to the kids, if they’re struggling in a lot of areas. I think that
I should mention that area and maybe it’s something we should work on. Not maybe in
that moment, but it’s something that we should work.
SF noted that it is critical that she provides written feedback to students. She noted this for the
purposes of noting areas of error in students’ writing tasks. SF noted that she has been told to
provide minimal feedback and found that notion to be unfair to students because the written
feedback is something that indicates areas where the students can grow and have made errors. In
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 190
this discussion, SF both confirmed her use of written feedback to student writing and its
importance. SF’s offerings were like other teacher participants in that they noted the importance
and saw the written feedback as an opportunity for growth in future writing tasks. This suggested
evidence of eventual academic success but did not articulate or evidence the way that the actual
written feedback would let students feel academic success for ongoing academic achievement in
the way envisioned by CRP/CRT.
Thus, all teacher participants indicated the importance of written feedback to student
writing. While indeed all participants confirmed their use of written feedback, their practice
varied. Areas where the teacher participants evidenced their use of written feedback and
articulated the importance of the practice were also varied. Essentially, all teacher participants
use written feedback and deem it a critical practice. Overall, these offerings from the teacher
participants suggest that the teachers saw written feedback as an opportunity for future academic
success. However, direct connections to CRP/CRT tenets was not clearly evidenced or
articulated by any of the teachers in this sample.
Teacher Participants Used Written Feedback to Students to Indicate Areas Where
Students were Doing Well in Academic Writing.
Teacher participants used written feedback to note where students have done well in their
academic writing (n=7). Brice (1995) noted that teachers of writing often use their written
feedback to validate what students have done well in their academic writing for the purposes of
repeating such rhetorical approaches. These seven teacher participants demonstrated that they
used written feedback to students’ writing to note what students are doing well in their academic
writing. The critical aspect of this type of written feedback is it essentially lets students feel
success in their writing. Subsequently, students feel success in academics for ongoing academic
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 191
achievement (Ladson-Billings, 1995). To show the range of written feedback to student writing I
provide multiple examples where the teachers have provided written feedback to student writing
across their multi-level students.
I offer EW as an initial voice of a teacher participant who used written feedback to note
what students are doing well in their academic writing. EW provided the following comments to
student samples that exemplified how—across student samples—she demonstrated that she used
written feedback to validate what students have done well in their writing tasks. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have done a good job of including convincing reasons to Save
Percy Jackson and the Lightening Thief. Continue to practice these skills:
punctuation and capitalization, paragraph organization, and providing concrete
supporting details.
Typically Developing Writer: While you have done a good job taking a stance and
supporting your position, you have not connected the essay to the prompt to save this
book from the flames.
Advanced Writer: This exceptional essay shows an advanced level of creativity and
writing ability. Some very small corrections would perfect it. Continue to practice
creative writing strategies!
Across all feedback samples, EW noted where students have done well in their writing tasks. EW
composes this written feedback such that the students can continue to repeat what they have done
well in the writing tasks. EW pairs these areas of achievement with areas where the students can
grow in their writing tasks. EW validated what students had done well in their academic writing
in these comments. This let students feel academic success such that they could achieve
academically in future academic writing tasks.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 192
Next, I offer RC as a teacher participant that demonstrated in his written feedback that he
notes where students have done well in their academic writing. RC wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have a very interesting story with some great sensory language. I
have noted a few areas where you can grow overall. However, great job!
Typically Developing Writer: You have demonstrated an exciting story here! I have noted
areas where you could continue to grow. Keep up the good work! I am excited to see how
the story develops!
Advanced Writer: This was such a fascinating story. You have a very original idea
(unless I am not up to date) and you writing makes it really easy to enjoy. There is very
little to suggest here. You have great sensory details and insightful dialogue. Your
structure allows you to be appropriately suspenseful with the story. Excellent work.
Across the examples of written feedback to student writing, RC provides comments that noted
where the students have done well. Additionally, RC coupled his areas of growth with the
comments of how the student has done well such that they will repeat what they have done well
in other academic writings. RC’s comments noted areas of success which permitted students to
know areas of success they could potentially use for future academic achievement.
Next, I offer MS as a voice that demonstrated that he uses written feedback to student
writing to note where students have done well in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have some clear perspectives. Some evidence you have provided
is valid. Stronger organization and development is needed.
Typically Developing Writer: Overall, you have a general sense of focus. Clear
development and organization needed.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 193
Advanced Writer: You have excellent development. You also have clear organization and
strong use of language here. Consider how to use some of the style elements from class.
MS evidenced that across the writing samples he points out areas where the students have done
well. Like previous teacher participants, MS did include areas where the students could improve
in their academic writing tasks. Overall, MS provided where students had done well in their
writing tasks such that they could repeat these elements in future writing tasks. MS validated
what students were doing well in their academic writing so that they could feel academic
success. MM used the written feedback here was that could potentially let students feel ongoing
academic success for further academic achievement.
Next, I offer MM as a voice that used written feedback to note where students have done
well in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: I can see that you have done well describing the central conflict,
(student name removed). This is a great start.
Typically Developing Writer: You have done well in summarizing some of the key ideas
from text. I would have liked to see more of the “plot vocabulary” in your summary,
(student name removed).
Advanced Writer: You have solid summary of the story here. Great use of plot
vocabulary! Develop more details of the characters.
Across the writing samples, MM exhibited that he used written feedback to note where students
had done well in their writing tasks. MM did provide areas where the students could improve
across the writing samples. Overall, MM noted where the students had done well such that they
could repeat these in additional academic writings. MM had a clear focus on validating students
doing well in using the content area vocabulary. The critical aspect of academic achievement of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 194
CRP/CRT is that students feel that success for future academic achievement. In providing and
noting areas of success, MM’s written feedback could potentially allow students to feel the
success and potentially apply this to future academic endeavors.
Next, I offer JP as a teacher participant who exhibited how he provided written feedback
that noted what students have done well in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have noted where Cesar Chavez has provided evidence to support
his claim with clear evidence. However, clarify what Chavez means when he says
“reaching” towards and/or with?
Typically Developing Writer: This is a strong thesis. However, I think it is in the wrong
location. Consider moving to the introduction and building that paragraph/your essay
from here.
Advanced Writer: You have a strong conclusion to this paragraph and present and
interesting perspective. Consider revising your thesis to reflect the perspective you
present here.
Across the examples of written feedback to student writing, JP provided areas where the students
have done well in their academic writing. Like other participants, JP coupled this with areas
where the student can improve. Overall, JP demonstrated that he used written feedback to student
writing to note where students have done well in academic writing. JP noted where students were
doing well in their academic writing. This could potentially allow for sttudents to feel academic
success in their academic writing with the aspiration that students would feel ongoing academic
success.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 195
Next, I provide GJ as a teacher participant that demonstrated that she used written
feedback to student writing to note where students had done well in their academic writing. She
wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have some varied sentence structure here which is good.
While varied sentences are important, be sure that they aren’t too long. Break it up with a
pause—a semicolon or comma or just break into two sentences.
Typically Developing Writer: I like the mood set here. Add more description to focus on
the six sentences.
Advanced Writer: I love how in the character’s head we are already given hints to allude
to who the narrator is. Build on this idea and add more ten
Overall, GJ demonstrated that in her written feedback to student writing she noted where
students have done well in their writing tasks. Like other teacher participants, GJ paired her
comments where she noted students were doing well in their academic writing with areas where
the students can continue to grow. GJ pointed out areas of academic success in the students’
writing. This provided students with the opportunity to experience academic success so that they
could feel that achievement for the aspiration that they would feel this for ongoing academic
achievement.
Finally, I provide AL as a teacher participant who demonstrated in her written feedback
to student writing that she noted areas where the students did well in their academic writing. She
wrote,
Struggling Writer: Good start on representing your ideas. Let’s continue to work on
structuring your body paragraphs.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 196
Typically Developing Writer: You have some interesting ideas presented here in this
paragraph—I enjoyed reading this paragraph. However, there are some long sentences
here that need to be clarified. For example, this one…how can you split this sentence into
two to clarify?
Advanced Writer: You have a good start to this initial body paragraph. However, you
need to add more details here and use clear language to improve the presentation of your
ideas.
Overall, AL demonstrated that she used written feedback to point out areas where the students
have done well in their academic writing. Like many of the teacher participants, AL paired her
areas where she found the students did well in their academic writing with areas where the
students can continue to develop in their academic writing. AL noted area of success in the
academic writing. AL’s practice here could lead to students knowing their areas of academic
success for future academic achievement.
These seven teacher participants used written feedback to note where students did well in
their academic writing tasks. Their comments were often coupled with areas where the students
can continue to grow in their academic writing. Overall, the teachers’ comments validated
students’ effective performance in various areas in their writing tasks.
Teacher Participants Used of Written Feedback to Focus on Areas of Growth in Students’
Academic Writing
All teacher participants used written feedback to focus on areas of growth in academic
writing (n=10). Teacher feedback that recognizes areas where students can grow is one of the
primary avenues students learn and develop writing strategies (Applebee, 1981; Ferris, 2003;
Sherry, 2017). These eight teacher participants demonstrated that they used written feedback to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 197
note areas where students could grow in their academic writing. Again, to show the range of the
written feedback that the teachers provide to students I have provided examples from each of the
students’ writing samples demonstrating various levels of writing ability and to show the range
of the teachers’ written feedback to student writing. Noting areas of growth lets student
understand where there is a need for future academic success. This suggests that students would
understand where their areas of improvement in academic tasks are so that they would
understand how to achievement in future academic tasks (Ladson-Billings, 1995).
First, I offer EW’s written feedback to student writing and how she demonstrated that she
used written feedback to note areas of growth in academic writing. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: Continue to practice the skills of punctuation, capitalization, concrete
details, supporting details and paragraph organization.
Typically Developing Writer: A stronger introduction would focus on the topic and
perhaps use the language from the prompt to begin.
Advanced Writer: Avoid repetition by using pronouns.
EW recognized and commented on areas where the students—across all writing samples---could
grow in their academic writing. For the struggling writer, EW noted that this writer should work
on their content and form in their academic writing. For the typically developing writer, EW
noted that the area of growth was around the introduction and using the language of the prompt.
Finally, for the advanced writer, EW noted areas of redundancy. Overall, EW found areas where
the writers could learn and develop stronger writing strategies. In this written feedback to student
writing EW noted areas where the students would address areas of concern for future writing
tasks that could assist with their academic success.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 198
Next, I offer BK’s written feedback to student writing that demonstrated how she
recognized areas of growth for the students. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: You could break this into two sentences. Remember how we start our
intro with a hook? This dives right into your topic.
Typically Developing Writer: Remember to cite your source. It is not clear which are
your words and what words are those of the author’s.
Advanced writer: Where is the rest of your conclusion? This needs to be developed
further so that the main ideas of your discussion are reviewed at the end of your essay for
your reader to remember what was argued.
BK found areas of growth across all students. BK crafted written feedback for the struggling
writer to reflect on the area of syntax. For the typically developing writer, BK noted the area of
growth as the use of standard citation. Finally, BK noted the area of growth for the advanced
writer as a more strengthened concluding paragraph. Overall, BK found areas for the students to
grow such that they can develop stronger writing approaches. BK used the written feedback to
note areas where the students could focus on in future writing tasks so that they could feel future
academic success when addressing these areas.
Third, I offer GJ who crafted written feedback to student writing that recognized areas of
growth for the students. She wrote,
Struggling writer: Try to make this opening statement clearer. As it is, it is slightly
confusing. It requires a couple of reads to get through to understand.
Typically Developing Writer: Try to build the analysis more. Most of this paragraph was
based on evidence and very little of your own analysis/thought.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 199
Advanced Writer: At the beginning, you said he was kind of reliable. Stay consistent. If
you get to the end of your essay, any essay, and you realize that your vies have changed,
it only takes a few revisions to fix the rest of your essay.
GJ provided areas in her written feedback where students could grow. For the struggling writer,
GJ focused on clarity of ideas. For the typically developing writer, GJ centered this written
feedback on the balance between evidence and analysis. For the advanced writer, GJ noted that
coherence was an area for growth. Overall, GJ found crafted written feedback that that
recognized areas of growth for students to learn more proficient academic writing strategies. GJ
found the areas where students would focus for future writing tasks so that they could feel
success in their coming writing tasks.
Fourth, I offer RC who composed written feedback to student writing that found areas of
growth for students. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: Your story could be improved with some great details. Go back and
find places where you can describe settings, events, or characters.
Typically Developing Writer: You have a few, not many, long sentences that can benefit
from commas and periods. Separate them into different sentences.
Advanced Writer: You have sentences that are really long. Find the subject (the
thing/person doing the action) and the verb, then add a period after you find these.
RC crafted written feedback for the struggling writer that focused on the development of details
and description. For the more advanced writers, RC demonstrated that he found areas where the
students could improve their syntax. Overall, RC crafted written feedback that recognized areas
of growth for the students to improve their writing approaches.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 200
Fifth, I offer JO who wrote—albeit minimal—written feedback that showed areas where
the students could grow in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: You need to expand you thesis to reflect the essay overall.
Typically Developing Writer: You need to integrate the poetic devices you list here into
your thesis.
Advanced Writer: You need to check your comma usage int this. Sometimes it makes
your sentences awkward or run-ons.
JO found areas of growth across the student samples. His focus for the struggling writer was on
the expansion of ideas. For the typically developing writer, JO noted the area of growth to
synthesize sentences for the clarity of the students’ thesis. Finally, for the advanced writer, JO
noted that the area of the growth for the writer was in the use of commas for clarity. Overall, JO
wrote written feedback that recognized areas of growth for students to improve writing
approaches. JO noted areas where the students could strengthen their academic writing. These
areas would eventually be focus areas for future academic writing tasks for ongoing academic
success.
Next, I offer JP who composed written feedback that recognized areas where students
could grow in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: Your ideas here to be evaluated more thoroughly. What appeal is
Chavez using here and why? Is it effective?
Typically Developing Writer: Extend your evaluation/argument here to explain Chavez’s
purpose and whether or not it was reached/effective?
Advanced Writer: Extend this a bit further. You need to evaluate this evidence more and
make the connection to your thesis.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 201
JP provided written feedback to student writing that recognized areas of growth across the
writers. For the struggling writer, JP noted an area where the evaluation of evidence could be
further developed consider a particular rhetorical device. For the developing and advanced
writers, JP noted areas where the students might have deepened the complexity of their analysis.
Overall, JP found areas of growth crafting feedback that addressed these areas. In deepening the
complexity of the writing tasks, the teachers created the opportunity for students to note areas of
success and achievement in academic writing.
Seventh, I offer MM who crafted written feedback to student writing that found areas of
growth in student writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: This sentence would benefit from using the academic language on
Schoology: “The book (title of the book) by (author of the book).”
Typically Developing Writer: I would have liked to see you use the vocabulary discussed
in class. This right here would be a good opportunity to use the term “plot.”
Advanced Writer: I think you could use the vocabulary we used to discuss plot to make
this portion of your discussion stronger and clearer.
MM composed written feedback that noted areas where the students would benefit from using
the academic language or content vocabulary from the class. Across all writing samples, MM
wrote feedback regarding those areas. In essence, MM used written feedback to not areas of
growth for his student writers with particular attention to academic language and content
vocabulary. As in previous examples from MM, his focus was on the use of the academic
language. His focus here was such that students would know how to successfully integrate the
academic language for future writing tasks to contribute to their proficiency in academic writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 202
Subsequently, this could potentially lead students note areas for future academic success and
growth.
Next, I offer AL who crafted written feedback that recognized areas of growth in her
students’ writing samples. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: Your thesis should be one sentence for clarity. This one is so long it
almost is not clear what you are arguing here.
Typically Developing Writer: Between paragraphs two to three the essay becomes a tad
vague. Try using clearer transition phrases and use a lead in sentence for paragraph three
for the purpose of clarity.
Advanced Writer: Your topic sentence needs to reflect the content of your paragraph here.
The topic sentence is almost about something entirely different from what the rest of the
paragraph discusses.
AL offered written feedback that recognized areas of growth for clarity of ideas that is
demonstrated from the three samples of written feedback provided. Overall, AL used written
feedback to not areas of growth for the writers. AL recognized the areas where students could
focus on growing in their academic writing for future success in writing tasks.
Ninth, I offer MS who composed written feedback that recognized areas of growth in his
students’ writing tasks. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: The basic focus of your thesis is not quite clear. You need to clarify
this as it is central to your entire discussion.
Typically Developing Writer: The focus of this paragraph is not clear here. You need to
decide which of the two ideas you are going to focus on. You have two main points and
this makes the paragraph overall unclear.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 203
Advanced Writer: Your balance between the author’s words and yours is a little off. Try
to use more of your words to deepen analysis.
MS used the written feedback here to note—for the two lower performing students—areas where
they could use more clarity in their ideas presented. For the advanced writer, MS noted a balance
between authorial words and the students which was not balanced as the area of growth. MS
used the written feedback here to focus on the areas of growth that included clarity and balance
of evidence and analysis. MS’s comments noted the areas for growth in future academic writing
tasks. This would be focus areas for students’ future academic success in similar writing tasks.
Finally, I offer SF who wrote written feedback that recognized areas of growth for her
student writers. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: This section of the discussion should be about the differences between
the play and the poem. It seems like you only discuss one of the texts here where the task
was to discuss the differences and similarities of both.
Typically Developing Writer: You do not discuss this idea anywhere in your essay. This
is what your body paragraph should have been about. It is typically not a good idea to
introduce a new idea in the final paragraph.
Advanced Writer: Your idea here does not address the thesis you have discussed. I
suggest omitting this as it confuses your reader at this point of your discussion.
SF provided the struggling writer with feedback that pertained to the content of addressing the
prompt and discussing the texts effectively. For the typically developing writer, SF noted that an
idea was presented that traditionally speaking should not be included in the final paragraph.
Overall, SF demonstrated that she uses written feedback to note areas of growth across all
student samples. SF noted the critical nature of written feedback in previous commentary. She
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 204
found that it was critical for students to know areas of growth for their ongoing improvement in
academic writing. This evidenced—here and in previous commentary—that she used that written
feedback for students to understand areas where they could grow for future academic success in
writing tasks.
In conclusion, all teacher participants used written feedback to note areas of growth.
Teachers found areas across all students’ samples to note these areas of growth and were not
relegated to any classification of the students (struggling, typically developing, and advanced).
Rather, all teacher participants crafted written feedback noting an areas of development in the
students’ writing.
Teachers’ Used of Written Feedback Crafting Questions to Push Student Thinking in
Their Academic Writing.
Fewer than 50% of teachers used written feedback crafting questions to push on students
thinking in their academic writing (n=4). Teachers who use a dialogic approach—or questioning
for continued development—to responding to student writing attempt to seek and interpret and
understand student thinking resulting in an exchange of understanding between writing teacher
and writing student (Ballock, McQuitty, & McNary, 2018). Written feedback that extends
beyond mere praise or just not success attempts to address students’ thinking (Ferris, 1994).
Solely praising the work does not push on that commonsense people use in their social sense
making (Philip, 2011) and non-personalized, cliché feedback may indeed be a form of
“naturalized axioms” (Philip, 2011). Written feedback that does not propel thinking does not
allow for that, “…prevent[s] people from seeing contradictions [in thought] or verifying
similarities across contexts” (Wagner, 2006 as cited in Philip, 2011 p. 311). Four teacher
participants wrote written feedback that poses questions to push student thinking in their
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 205
academic writing. I provide examples of the written feedback from each of the student samples
that teachers provided.
First, I offer JP that wrote written feedback in the form of questions to push on student
thinking in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: Why did you note that this particular device that Chavez uses as being
effective—especially in light of the other ones you present in the essay?
Typically Developing Writer: What exact feelings is Chavez reaching towards and into by
using pathos here?
Advanced Writer: How can you extend your analysis here? What connotation do these
words bring? What emotions is Chavez aiming to bring up here?
JP provided students with written feedback where he questioned the students thinking. For the
lower performing student, JP questioned the student on the effectiveness of the particular
rhetorical device discussed in relation to the others in the essay. For the typically developing
writer, JP sought to question the student’s understanding of the emotionality of the author in the
text. Finally, JP used questioning to get the student to further develop the depth of their analysis,
the associative meanings of words, and the emotionality in the text. Overall, JP used questioning
to question the students’ ideas across all writing tasks developing a dialogic relationship between
writing teacher and writing student. Across JP’s written feedback here there was evidence that he
was propelling the thought around the issues in the writing tasks. This approach could lead to the
students’ ability to note issues of incoherency in thought and transfer to similar issues in the
writing task or perhaps in the context of another writing task.
Next, I offer MS who crafted written feedback to student writing in the form of questions
to push on student thinking in their academic writing. He wrote,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 206
Struggling Writer: What is your argument here? How can you further develop the
argument?
Typically Developing Writer: What is the significance of these statistics?
Advanced Writer: What do you believe is the significance of this evidence here? You use
it well and I wonder: Why is it such a salient piece of evidence?
MS provided students with written feedback that asked them to think about the depth of their
arguments and the significance of evidence they provided in their academic writing. In essence,
MS used questioning in his written feedback to develop the students’ thinking in their writing
tasks with evidence and the arguments they provided. This worked to build the dialogic
relationship between writing teacher and writing student. MS pushed on the students’ ability to
note significance and develop argument through precise claims and evidence. This could lead to
the students’ ability to recognize similar contexts in additional writing tasks or address issues
like the ones presented in the writing task.
Third, I offer RC who composed written feedback in the form of questions to push on
students’ thinking in their academic writing. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: How can dialogue help you develop this character?
Typically Developing Writer: Why does this character feel this way? How can you make
their feelings more apparent?
Advanced Writer: How would more sensory details make the narration here more
effective?
RC used written feedback to push on students’ thinking in developing their narrative writing
tasks. Across the writing samples, RC demonstrated in his written feedback the way he propels
student thinking in the written feedback he provides to students on the narrative samples. This
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 207
use of questioning continued RC’s dialogic relationship between writing teacher and writing
students. RC’s written feedback here pushed on the development of the students’ writing tasks.
His approaches possibly could lead to the students’ ability to recognize issues for future writing
tasks or address similar contexts akin to this writing task.
Finally, I offer AL who crafted written feedback to student writing in the form of
questions to push on student thinking in their academic writing. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: How would someone who does not listen to others feel in this
scenario? What emotions would they feel?
Typically Developing Writer: How can you teach your peers to treat others equally?
Advanced Writer: How is money connected to the treatment of others?
AL demonstrated that she used written feedback to push on student thinking in the writing tasks
that she assigned students. In these examples, AL questioned the students’ thinking about the
emotionality of their arguments and equality as those were the subject matter of the writing tasks
she assigned to students. This questioning contributed to the way that AL built a dialogic
relationship between writing teacher and writing student. AL’s written feedback found areas to
develop the students’ thinking for future or similar writing tasks where perhaps a sense of
sympathy might need be integrated into the writing tasks.
These four teacher participants here used written feedback to question students’ thinking.
Their written feedback was an attempt to understand and push on student thinking in their
academic writing such that teachers are able to engage in that “dialogic” commentary between
writing teacher and writing student. The use of the written feedback to push on student thinking
served to combat written feedback that might be perceived as or in fact manifest as a type of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 208
“naturalized axiom.” This type of feedback that did not propel the thinking of students prevented
them from recognizing similarities and incoherency across contexts.
Teachers’ Use of Written Feedback in the Form of “Macro” Comments Responding to the
Writing Task Overall.
Teacher participants used written feedback in the form of “macro” comments to comment
on the writing task overall (n=4). Ashwell (2000) noted that writing teachers use “macro”
comments to summarize overall performance on students’ writing tasks. “Macro” commentary to
student writing is traditionally provided to students at the beginning or end of writing tasks to
note the overall performance of student writers (Ferris, 2003). Four teacher participants used
written feedback in the form of “macro” comments to note overall areas of success and areas for
continued development for the students’ writing samples. The approach to the “macro”
comments varied. However, these teacher participants did use the comments to provide overall
success and areas of continued development for the students. In noting overall academic success,
this does let students feel a sense of academic achievement. While this does let students feel that
success perhaps to contribute to their overall academic achievement (Ladson-Billings, 1994), this
is, or might be, limited in that it is not an extension in any overt way that resembles developing
the students’ cultural competence or sociopolitical consciousness.
First, I offer EW as a teacher participant who used written feedback in the form of
“macro” comments to note overall performance on students’ writing tasks. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have done a good job of including convincing reasons to save
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief. Continue to practice these skills: punctuation,
capitalization, paragraph organization, providing concrete details, and supporting details.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 209
Typically Developing Writer: This essay is well written on so many counts. What is
missing however, is a counterclaim. Are there reasons why some people might reject this
book?
Advanced Writer: This exceptional essay shows an advanced level of creativity and
writing ability. Some very small corrections would perfect it. Continue to practice
creative writing strategies!
EW used “macro” comments composed on the first page of her students’ writing tasks. For each
of the samples, EW noted areas where the students have done well overall in the writing tasks.
Additionally, EW noted areas where the students might continue to grow in this writing task
either for additional drafts or for future writing tasks. Overall, EW used the “macro” comments
to not success and areas of development for the students in their writing tasks. Across the
samples of macro comments EW noted features of success. In noting this success, EW provided
students with the opportunity to understand their successes for future academic tasks similar to
the task mentioned here. There was no clear evidence that this was the teacher’s thought to
develop cultural competence or sociopolitical consciousness.
Second, I offer RC as a teacher participant who used written feedback in the form of
“macro” comments to note overall performance on students writing tasks. He wrote,
Struggling Writer:
Very interesting idea for a story. Here are a couple of things to work on:
1. You only dialogue in the beginning and when you do the formatting is a little off.
Review the notes so you know how to format it. Find some places where you can add
conversations.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 210
2. You have some sentences that are really long. Find the subject (the thing/person
doing the action) and the verb, then add a period after you find these. You have
sentences that have more than one subject. Let me know if you have a hard time
finding these.
3. Your story idea can be improved with some great details. Go back and find places
where you can describe settings, event, or characters.
Great job overall! Let me know if you have any questions.
Typically Developing Writer:
Exciting story here!! Here are a couple of things to consider for your next draft:
1. When you have two people speaking, make sure they each have their own paragraph.
This will also separate your writing into more paragraphs, so it can look more like a
book.
2. You have few, not many, long sentences that can benefit from commas and periods.
Separate them into different sentences.
3. You tell a bit more than you show here. Practice using the sensory details more so
they can help you show what’s going on and help the reader imagine what you see as
you write.
Keep up the great work! Excited to see how this story develops!
Advanced Writer:
This was such a fascinating story. You have a very original idea (unless I’m also not up
to date) and your writing makes it really easy to enjoy. Here are a couple of suggestions:
1. You have inconsistent comma use. This seems to be a common problem, so I will go
over it next week with the whole class.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 211
2. I can see that you are very careful with you writing, but I also see spots where you
rushed it. My suggestion for strong writers it to get into the habit of re-reading your
work silently and aloud. Not sure if you already do this, but it helps you catch small
mistakes.
There is very little I can suggest here. You have great sensory details and insightful
dialogue. Your structure allows you to be appropriately suspenseful with the story.
Excellent work!
RC used “macro” comments to comment of the overall performance of the students’ writing
tasks. RC approached “macro” comments using a positive comment, noting areas of continued
growth and then ends the comment with a positive response. RC used the “macro” comments to
comment on the overall performance of the student on the writing tasks and the areas for
continued development. Across the written feedback, RC had noted success of the students. The
comments were noting features of success and features that could be improved. This approach
offered students the opportunity to feel academic success for future academic achievement.
Again, this did not evidence that this was the teachers’ attempt to develop the cultural
competence of the students or development of a critical consciousness.
Next, I offer JO as a teacher participant who used “macro” comments to note overall
performance on students’ writing tasks. JO’s approach to macro comments was an assessment of
their performance using the Common Core State Standards. Thus, for each student writing
sample JO used provided the standard and a comment that corresponded to the standard with a
score on a four point scale. In the interview JO noted that these scores indicate: a “1” is
emerging, a “2” beginning, a “3” is proficient, and a “four” is advanced. For the purposes of
clarity, I provide the standards commented on in their entirety. For each student sample after I
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 212
use the corresponding code rather that the standards in whole. The standards assessed on the
writing task are as follows:
1. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2: Write informative/explanatory texts to examine and
convey complex ideas, concepts, and information clearly and accurately through
effective selection, organization and analysis of content.
2. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.4: Produce clear and coherent writing in which the
development, organization, and style are appropriate to task, purpose and audience.
3. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.4: Determine the meaning of words or phrases as they
are used in text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of
specific word choices on meaning at tone, including words with multiple meanings or
language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful (Include Shakespeare as
well as other authors).
4. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.5: Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how
to structure specific parts of a text (e.g. the choice of where to begin or end a story,
the choice to provide a comedic or tragic resolution) contribute to its overall structure
and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.
5. CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.1: Demonstrate command of the conventions of
standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking (Common Core State
Standards, 2019).
The actual standards were accompanied with comments. JO wrote,
Struggling Writer:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 213
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2: Your overall essay begins to examine the complex
ideas in the poem. There are some areas where you could clarify and expand on your
ideas with more clarity (2.5/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.4: The essay often has issues with clarity of ideas and
using precise, accurate language Consider reading aloud for clarity when you are
writing/revising (2.5/4)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.4: You begin to discuss the complex language used in
the poem. However, I think you could have found more evidence and expanded on
those ideas overall.
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.5: You begin to discuss how certain author’s choices
impact the overall text. There are areas that could have been more developed in the
essay so that you can make your discussion clearer (2.5/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.1: Your overall mechanics are somewhat effective. You
have some word choice issues and some issues with pronouns.
Typically Developing Writer:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2: Your overall discussion essay explains many of the
complex ideas from the essay with clarity. I think with some areas in your discussion
you could be clearer and use more direct language (3/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.4: Your essay is clear throughout and many of the
ideas are fresh. Some areas could be developed with more specific word choice
(3.5/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.4: You discuss some of the author’s word choices
well and demonstrate how those word choices affect the text (3/4).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 214
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.5: You effectively discuss how author’s choices
impact the text overall. Some issues with word choice are present (3/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.1: Your conventions are effective. Not serious issues
with conventions to interfere with meaning.
Advanced Writer:
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.2: Your overall essay is effective and examines the
ideas well and do so in a refreshing manner (4/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.11-12.4: The writing here is clear and in many places
stylistically creative (4/4)
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.4: You discuss the author’s word choices well and
thoroughly. You do so to articulate the overall success of diction on the text (4/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.11-12.5: You did a great job discussing the author’s choices
and how those choices impact the text overall (4/4).
CCSS.ELA-Literacy.L.11-12.1: You have an effective command of conventions
(4/4).
JO demonstrated a different approach to “macro” comments than the other teacher participants.
JO’s “macro” comments were guided by the Common Core State Standards. At the end of the
student writing samples, JO crafted these comments to note the overall performance of the
students in the particular writing task. It was clear that JO used the language of the standards in
the written feedback to student writing in his “macro” comments. Overall, JO’s written feedback
in the form of “macro” comments was guided by the Common Core State Standards and note the
overall performance of the students on their writing tasks. While this was not mentioned, in this
data, JO noted an approach to mastery learning. In this learning, students could continue to grow
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 215
based on a particular set of standards. JO did note areas of success in relation to the standards
letting the students feel success for future academic achievement. However, this did not evidence
the teacher’s development of the students’ cultural competence or a development of a critical
consciousness in any overt way.
Finally, I offer MS as a teacher participant who used “macro” comments to note the
overall performance on students’ writing tasks. The “macro” comments appeared at the end of
the writing task to note the students’ performance on their writing tasks. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have some clear perspectives. There is some evidence that is
valid. Stronger organization and development is needed.
Typically Developing Writer: Overall, there is a general sense of focus. Clear
development and organization is needed.
Advanced Writer: There is excellent development here. You have clear organization and
strong language.
MS used written feedback in the form of “macro” comments to note the overall performance of
the students on the individual writing tasks. These “macro” comments were concise and provided
students with one general area of strength and one general area of continued growth. In essence,
MS used these “macro” comments to comment on the students’ success and areas for
development. MS noted the areas of success on the students’ writing tasks. This did note areas of
success for continued or future academic success. This did not mention in any overt way that the
teacher was evidencing the development of the cultural competence or a critical consciousness
for his students.
These four teacher participants used written feedback in the form of “macro” comments
to provide students with a summary of their performance on various writing tasks. Whether
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 216
appearing at the end of the writing task or the beginning, essentially the “macro” comments
served the same function to note areas of growth and areas of success in the writing task overall.
Teachers’ Use of Written Feedback to Respond to Students’ Ideas in the Form of
Statements
Several teachers used written feedback to respond to students’ ideas in the form of
statements (n=4). Teachers’ feedback that responds to students’ ideas can be an, “…instructive
device to improve the teaching and learning of students” (Noor, Aman, Mustaffa, & Seong, 2010
as cited in Bijami, Pandian, & Singh, 2016 p. 60). These four teacher participants used written
feedback to respond to students’ ideas. Previously, I have offered where teachers have used
written feedback to question student thinking. This written feedback differs in that these teachers
crafted written feedback that commented on the students’ ideas present in the writing tasks. The
teacher participants here provided examples of student writing tasks that were in-process. In-
process writing refers to students writing that has multiple drafts (Smagorinsky, 2008). For this
reason, responding to student ideas, “…help[s] learners understand how to produce the most
satisfying and communicative text and, in the process, develop in terms of both [the students’]
literacy skills and sense of self” (Smagorinsky, 2008 p. 96). This type of feedback was not meant
to push on student thinking. Rather, this type of feedback was to solely make statements about
the ideas presented in the writing tasks. They were not corrective or inquisitive in nature. This
feedback was for the purposes of producing more satisfying, developed texts. As it was isolated
to the particular task and not to an extended commentary on issues, this written feedback did not
overtly address the tenets of CRP/CRT. I offer four teacher participants that used written
feedback to respond to students’ ideas.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 217
First, I offer JP as a teacher participant who used written feedback to respond to students’
ideas in the form of statements. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: I also agree with your statement with the power of Chavez’ choices
with figurative language. I thought it made the speech more appealing.
Typically Developing Writer: When I read this speech, my thoughts were similar. I
believe that Chavez is “reaching” towards something powerful here.
Advanced Writer: These words do have a strong connotative power. I have not thought
about those words you select to analyze in that way. Great!
JP used the written feedback here to comments on students’ ideas in the writing task. These
comments reveal JP’s approach to responding to the students’ concepts through statements that
note where the students have used novel approaches to analysis. In these written responses, JP
noted agreement with statements and validation of the students’ thinking. The comments are
validating and praising students’ approach to analysis int their writing tasks. The comments were
not corrective or inquisitive in nature.
Next, I offer RC as a teacher participant who used written feedback to respond to
students’ ideas in the form of statements. He wrote,
Struggling Writer: You have a very interesting idea and approach to developing this
character in your story.
Typically Developing Writer: What a great way of building excitement and anticipation
using dialogue!
Advanced Writer: You have developed such a strong climax here. You’re really showing
a strong, creative approach to narrative writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 218
RC used written feedback here to note areas of originality and creativity in the students’
narrative writing task. Moreover, he validated their approaches to the writing task noting areas
where the students’ ideas were not only effective but engaging to the reader. As evidenced, these
comments were not inquisitive or corrective.
Third. I offer BK as a teacher participant who used written feedback to respond to
students’ ideas in the form of statements. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: Your way of closing the argument revealed great insights into the
story.
Typically Developing Writer: You have a creative counterargument to those who would
not think the same way as you. What great word choice and approach!
Advanced Writer: Your argument here is creative and one that I have not thought of in
that way. Interesting ideas and I appreciate how much detail you include to make your
reader more engaged.
Across, all samples BK used her written feedback to respond to the students’ ideas and
approaches. The feedback was not corrective or did not push on student thinking. Her written
feedback here validates the students’ thoughts and approaches in the writing task. BK noted
areas of originality and creativity in the students thinking.
Finally, I offer GJ as a teacher participant who used written feedback to respond to
students’ ideas. She wrote,
Struggling Writer: What a great way of discussing the motivation of the character. I agree
that his motivation was developed here as opposed to other areas.
Typically Developing Writer: I agree here with how you thought this would happen and
note where the character does hesitate and continue with the process.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 219
Advanced Writer: Wow! My expectation was something different. This is interesting how
you developed the idea of the motivation of the character. I agree with your ideas and
thought of it this way to when I first read the novel.
GJ crafter written feedback to respond to the students’ ideas present in the writing tasks. Her
approach here was to note where students have discussed their ideas with creativity in their
approach to their analysis. The written feedback was not corrective or pushing on student
thinking. Her written feedback validated students’ ideas and connected her own thoughts with
that of her students.
These teacher participants crafted written feedback that responded to students’ ideas
where the students were original in their approach to the writing task. Across the teacher
participants, the written feedback here validated students’ ideas and approaches in their
discussions in the writing. These writing tasks were in-process writing tasks. Thus, the written
feedback was an opportunity for the teachers to note and validate student thinking as they crafted
additional drafts.
Written Feedback: Content-Based and Form-Based
Traditionally, written feedback to student writing either focuses on the content or form in
the students’ writing (Ferris, 1997). Form refers to the areas in students’ writing of mechanics,
usage, grammar, and syntax (Ferris, 1997; Ashwell, 2000). Content refers to the ideas,
coherency, and logic in the students’ writing (Ferris, 1997; Ashwell, 2000). The following table
presents the findings of the teacher participants’ focus for the written feedback to student
writing. In the interviews the teacher participants were asked where they placed their focus on
the student samples. The following table reveals those findings.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 220
Table 3
Content Versus Form Findings Across Teacher Participants and Student Writing Samples
Teacher Participant Struggling Writer Typically
Developing Writer
Advanced Writer
BK Content Content and Form Content and Form
GJ Content Content Content
MM Content Content Content
SF Content and Form Content and Form Content and Form
EW Content and Form Content and Form Content and Form
MS Content Content Content
JO Content Content Form
JP Content Content Content
RC Content and Form Form Form
AL Content Content and Form Content and Form
Note. Content Versus Form Findings Across Teacher Participants and Student Writing Samples
Overall written feedback to student writing. Overall, the written feedback to student
writing showed a stronger representation of teachers who focused their efforts on crafting written
feedback on content. Five teachers—across writing samples—noted that they solely focused on
content feedback to students (n=5). Two teacher participants noted that they held a balanced
approach to written feedback across writing samples (n=2). Four teachers noted a variation of
approaches to written feedback including areas where the focus was both content and form,
solely content, or solely form (n=4). Connors and Lunsford (1993) in their study found that over
half the teacher participants crafted written feedback that focused on the content of student
papers especially focusing on: supporting details, evidence, or examples. Moreover, Ashwell
(2000) noted that teachers tended to ere on the side of noting written feedback that focuses on the
ideas, logic, coherency in the written feedback they provide to students.
Across, the teacher participants and samples, there is a significant representation of
written feedback that focused on the content of the students’ writing. Teachers confirmed this
when asked where they placed their focus in crafting their written feedback to student writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 221
However, following I provide a more disaggregated representation of the actual written feedback
to student writing from the student samples.
Written feedback provided to writing samples of “struggling writers.” Teacher
participants noted a greater focus on content-based written feedback for their struggling writer
student samples. Typically, writing teachers focus on the mechanics, grammar, usage, and syntax
for struggling writers (Ferris, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997). However, seven teachers noted a focus
on content solely (n=7) and three teacher participants focused on both content and form for their
struggling teacher participants (n=3). Overall, 10 teachers noted some focus on content in their
written feedback they provide to students.
The teacher participants noted that their focus for the struggling writers was on the
content or content and form. This suggests that teachers did not reflect the typical trajectory of
written feedback given the literature notes that for struggling writers teachers typically note areas
of form and less on the areas of content. While some teachers noted they focused on both content
and form for struggling writers, this was not the significant group for only three teachers noted
this for their struggling writers. The following table illustrates the disaggregated teacher
comments for struggling writers. The table notes the total amount of comments, the number of
comments focused on content and the total amount of comments that focused on form.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 222
Table 4
Total Comments Versus Actual Comments for “Struggling Writers”
Teacher Participant Total Comments Content Form
BK 9 7 2
GJ 12 4 8
MM 2 2 0
SF 5 3 2
EW 7 4 3
MS 14 11 3
JO 7 3 4
JP 8 4 4
RC 5 4 1
AL 7 6 1
Note. Total comments versus actual comments for “struggling writers.”
Written feedback provided to writing samples of “typically developing writers.”
Teacher participants noted a mixed approach to content and form feedback for their “typically
developing” writers. Writing teachers typically have a balanced approach to written feedback for
learners that they deem neither advanced nor struggling (Ferris, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997). Five
teachers noted that they focused on content for their “typically developing” writers (n=5).
Contrastingly, four teachers noted a balance between content and form for their “typically
developing” writers (n=4). One teacher noted a focus on solely form for his “typically
developing writer” (n=1). Overall, nine teachers noted some focus on content for their “typically
developing writers” (n=9).
This suggests that the teacher participants noted a more significant emphasis on content
across writing samples. However, form remains a strong emphasis as five teachers noted it as a
focus. Thus, teacher participants did indeed reflect the literature on student writers in between
struggling and advanced. There was a representation of both form and content written feedback
across the teacher participants’ student samples. The following table illustrates the disaggregated
teacher comments for typically developing writers. The table notes the total amount of
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 223
comments, the number of comments focused on content and the total amount of comments that
focused on form.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 224
Table 5
Total Comments Versus Actual Comments for “Typically Developing Writers”
Teacher Participant Total Comments Content Form
BK 16 11 5
GJ 16 7 9
MM 3 3 0
SF 14 7 7
EW 9 7 2
MS 23 7 16
JO 8 4 4
JP 4 4 0
RC 5 4 1
AL 11 9 2
Note. Total comments versus actual comments for “typically developing writers.”
Written feedback provided to writing samples of “advanced writers.” Teacher
participants noted a mixed approach to written feedback for their “advanced writers” with a more
significant representation of noting content feedback. Traditionally, writing teachers focus their
written feedback to more advanced writers on content (Ferris, 1997; Ferris et al., 1997). Four
teachers noted a sole focus on content for their “advanced writers” (n=4). Contrastingly, two
teachers noted a sole focus on form (n=2). Four teachers noted a focus in their written feedback
to “advanced learners” containing both content and form (n=4). This suggests then that eight
teachers noted a focus on content in some form to the advanced learners (n=8).
Thus, the teacher participants did indeed note their written feedback to advanced students
was focused on content. This is reflective of the research that notes that for more advanced
students’ writing teachers tend to comment on areas of content rather than areas of form. The
following table illustrates the disaggregated teacher comments for advanced writers. The table
notes the total amount of comments, the number of comments focused on content and the total
amount of comments that focused on form.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 225
Table 6
Total Comments Versus Actual Comments for “Advanced Writers”
Teacher Participant Total Comments Content Form
BK 7 6 1
GJ 9 4 5
MM 2 2 0
SF 6 4 2
EW 21 3 18
MS 6 3 3
JO 7 5 2
JP 8 8 0
RC 4 3 1
AL 9 8 1
Note. Total comments versus actual comments for “advanced writers.”
These findings reveal where teachers placed their focus overall, for struggling writers, for
typically developing writers, and advanced writers. Findings revealed that overall teachers
focused more of their written feedback on content. For struggling writers, the written feedback
focused more on content. The written feedback provided to typically developing writers revealed
a mixed approach of both content and form. Finally, a mixed approach was also revealed for
advanced writers including both content and form based written feedback.
Stated focus in written feedback versus actual written feedback. Teacher participants
were asked what they believed to be their focus for the written feedback they provided to
students’ writing samples. Analysis of each of the participants’ actual practice of written
feedback on the student writing samples revealed additional findings. I discuss each in turn.
Assumptions about written feedback were accurate in actual written feedback. Four
teacher participants’ assumptions about their practice of written feedback were accurate in the
actual written feedback the teachers provided to students on the writing samples (n=4). Teacher
assumptions and beliefs often manifest in the instructional approaches provided to students
(Milner, 2010). The following teacher participants revealed this notion that their assumptions
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 226
about their practice did indeed manifest in their actual practice of written feedback to students’
writing. I offer each teacher in turn followed by analysis:
BK’s assumptions about her written feedback to student writing were accurate across all
writing samples. The following details the relation between stated focus and actual written
feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: BK noted a focus on content and form for her struggling writer. Of
the nine total comments, seven were content based and two were form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: BK noted a focus on content and form for her typically
developing writer. Of the sixteen total comments, eleven were content based and five
were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: BK noted a focus on content and form for her advanced writer. Of
the seven comments, six were content based and one was form based.
BK’s assumptions about her written feedback did indeed manifest in the written feedback that
she provided to students. Across, the three samples BK noted a focus on both content and form
based written feedback to student writing. While there was representation of both content and
form, content was the more significant representation in the written feedback BK provided to her
students. Nevertheless, both content and form did appear in her written feedback and thus her
assumptions about her written feedback were accurate.
MM’s assumptions about her written feedback to student writing were accurate across all
writing samples. The following details the relation between stated focus and actual written
feedback:
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 227
a. Struggling Writer: MM noted a focus on content for his struggling writer. Of the two
comments provided two were focused on content and no written feedback was form
based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: MM noted a focus content for his typically developing
writer. Of the three total comments, three were content based.
c. Advanced Writer: MM noted a focus on content for his advanced writer. Of the two
total comments, two were content based and no written feedback was form based.
MM’s assumptions about his written feedback did manifest in the written feedback he provided
to students. More than other participants, MM had the strongest correlation between his
assumptions and the actual written feedback he provided to students. MM noted a focus on
content across all three student samples and the written feedback was all content based.
SF’s assumptions about her written feedback to student writing were accurate across all
writing samples. The following details the relation between stated focus and actual written
feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: SF noted a focus on content and form for her struggling writer. Of
the five total comments, three were content based and two were form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: SF noted a focus on form and content for her typically
developing writer. Of the fourteen total comments, seven were content based and
seven were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: SF noted a focus on form and content for her advanced writer. Of
the six total comments, four were content based and two were form based.
SF’s assumptions about her written feedback manifested in the written in feedback she provided
to students. Across the writing samples, SF noted a focus on both content and form across
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 228
student writing samples. SF demonstrated a balance of both form and content for her typically
developing writer, while for her struggling writer and advanced writer the focus was more
content. However, SF did not a focus on both areas an across writing samples there were both
content and form written feedback.
Last, EW’s assumptions about her written feedback to student writing were accurate
across student writing samples. The following details the relation between stated focus and actual
written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: EW noted a focus on both content and form written feedback for
her struggling writer: Of the seven total comments, four were content based and three
were form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: EW noted a focus on both content and form for her
typically developing writer. Of the nine total comments, seven were content based
and two were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: EW noted a focus on both content and form for her advanced
writer. Of the twenty-one total comments, three were content based and eighteen were
form based.
EW’s assumptions about her written feedback manifested in the written feedback she provided to
students. Across the writing samples, EW noted a focus on both content and form in her written
feedback to student writing. For her lower performing students, EW provided more content-
based feedback. However, for her advanced student EW crafted more written feedback that was
form based. Across, student samples EW did indeed craft written feedback that was both content
and form based.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 229
Overall, these teacher participants stated focus for their written feedback to student
writing was accurate in relation to the actual written feedback provided to students. I now turn to
the teachers whose stated focus for the written feedback was not accurate in relation to the actual
feedback produced.
Assumptions about written feedback were inaccurate in the actual written feedback.
Two teacher participants’ assumptions about their practice of written feedback were inaccurate in
the actual written feedback provided to students of writing samples (n=2). Teachers’ assumptions
about their practice may not come to fruition in their actual practice (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper,
2011). The following teacher participants revealed this notion that their assumption about their
written feedback did not manifest in their actual written feedback to student writing. I discuss
each in turn.
GJ’s assumptions about her written feedback to students’ writing were inaccurate across
student writing samples. The following details the relation between stated focus and actual
written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: For her struggling writer, GJ noted a focus on content. Of the
twelve total comments, four comments were content based and eight comments were
form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: For her typically developing writer, GJ noted a focus
on content. Of the sixteen total comments, seven were content based and nine were
form based.
c. Advanced Writer: For her advanced writer, GJ noted a focus on content of the nine
total comments four were content based and five were form based.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 230
GJ noted a focus on content across all student writing samples. However, this did not come to
manifest in the actual written feedback. Generally speaking, GJ focused on both content and
form in the written feedback she provided to students. Moreover, when she noted a focus on
content and although content and form were both present, form-based feedback was often the
more significant representation in the written feedback she provided. Overall, GJ’s assumptions
about her written feedback did not come to manifest in the actual written feedback she provided
to students.
Additionally, JO’s assumptions about the written feedback he provided to students did
not actually manifest in the written feedback he provided to students. The following details the
relation between stated focus and actual written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: JO noted a focus on content for his struggling writer. Of the seven
total comments, three were content based and four were form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: JO noted a focus on content for his typically
developing writer. Of the eight total comments, four were content based and four
were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: JO noted a focus on form for his advanced writer. Of the seven
total comments, five were content based and two were form based.
JO noted a focus of content for his struggling writer as well as his typically developing writer.
However, the actual written feedback revealed a balanced approach to both content and form.
For his advanced writer, JO noted a focus on form. However, did not manifest in the written
feedback he provided to students. The written feedback provided to the advanced writer was
more heavily focused on content with few comments noting areas of form.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 231
In conclusion, these teachers’ stated focus did not manifest accurately in the actual
written feedback to student writing. I now turn to teachers whose state focus was somewhat
accurate in the actual written feedback to student writing.
Assumptions about written feedback were somewhat accurate in the actual written
feedback. Four teachers’ assumptions about their written feedback somewhat reflected in their
actual written feedback provided to students on the writing samples (n=4). While teachers’
assumptions about their practice reflect in their instruction (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011), they
often do not (Milner, 2010). However, teachers’ beliefs and assumptions may reflect in their
actual practice at times while at others no (Milner, 2011). The following teacher participants
revealed this notion that their assumptions about their written feedback somewhat manifested in
the actual written feedback. I discuss each in turn.
JP’s assumptions about his written feedback somewhat manifested in the written
feedback he provided to students. The following details the relation between stated focus and
actual written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: JP noted a focus of content for his struggling writer. Of the five
total comments, four were content based and one was form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: JP noted a focus on content for his typically developing
writer. Of the four comments total, four were content based and none were form
based.
c. Advanced Writer: JP noted a focus of content for his advanced writer. Of the seven
total comments, five were content based and two were form based.
JP noted a focus on content across the student writing samples. This focus did manifest in his
written feedback for his typically developing writer with no form comments provided to this
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 232
student. However, for both his struggling writer and his advanced writer both content and form
commentary manifested. Overall, content feedback was present in the written feedback he
provided to students. For this reason, JP assumptions about his written feedback somewhat
manifested in the written feedback.
MS’s assumptions about his written feedback to student writing somewhat manifested in
the written feedback he provided to students. The following details the relation between stated
focus and actual written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: MS noted a focus on content and form for his struggling writer. Of
the fourteen total comments, eleven were content based and three were form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: MS noted a focus on content for his typically
developing writer. Of the twenty-three comments, seven were content based and
sixteen were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: MS noted a focus of content for his advanced writer. Of the
twenty-one comments he provided, three were content based and eighteen were form
based.
MS noted a focus on content across all student writing samples. However, for his struggling
writer MS noted a focus of both content and form. For the struggling writer, MS did indeed focus
more on content-based feedback over form and for this MS’s assumptions somewhat manifested
in his written feedback to student writing. While content feedback was present in the typically
developing and advanced student, the written feedback was largely more form based. For these
students, MS’s assumptions about his written feedback did not manifest in the actual feedback he
provided to students. Overall, MS somewhat exhibited that his assumptions about his written
feedback manifested in the actual written feedback he crafted on the student writing samples.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 233
RC’s assumptions about his written feedback to student writing somewhat manifested in
the written feedback he provided to students. The following details the relation between stated
focus and actual written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: RC noted a focus of both form and content for his struggling
writer. Of the five total comments, four were content based and one was form based.
b. Typically Developing Writer: RC noted a focus on form for his typically developing
writer. Of the five total comments, four were content based and one was form based.
c. Advanced Writer: RC noted a focus of form on the advanced writer. Of the four total
comments provided, three were content based and one was form based.
RC was the only teacher participant to note that assumed his written feedback was solely focused
on form for more than one student. Across all student samples, RC assumed that his focus was
form with the exception of the struggling writer who he assumed was a focus on form and
content. While RC’s assumption of focusing on form and content did manifest in his written
feedback for the struggling writer, for the typically developing writer and the advanced writer,
his assumptions did not manifest in the actual written feedback. For this reason, RC’s
assumptions somewhat manifested in the written feedback he provided to students.
Last, I offer AL. AL’s assumptions about her written feedback somewhat manifested in
the written feedback she provided to students. The following details the relation between stated
focus and actual written feedback:
a. Struggling Writer: AL noted a focus on content for her struggling writer. Of the seven
total comments, six were content based and one was form based.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 234
b. Typically Developing Writer: AL noted a focus on content and form for her typically
developing writer. Of the eleven total comments, nine were content based and two
were form based.
c. Advanced Writer: AL noted a focus on content and form for her advanced writer. Of
the nine total comments, eight were content based and one was form based.
AL’s assumptions about her written feedback were by and large consistent with the actual
written feedback she provided to students. AL noted a focus on content across all students, and
the content feedback was the more significant representation of written feedback in all student
writing samples. However, AL did note a sole focus on content feedback for her struggling
writer and did in fact craft written feedback that was form based. For this reason, AL’s
assumptions somewhat manifested in the written feedback although her assumptions were
perhaps more consistent that other teacher participants in this category.
Overall, these teacher participants’ assumptions about their written feedback more or less
manifested in the written feedback they provided to students. These teachers stated focus did
manifest in the actual written feedback. However, there we slight variations in the actual written
feedback in relation to the actual written feedback.
Written feedback as a manifestation of theme of positive student to teacher relationship.
Three teachers spoke to and provided examples of written feedback that accurately
represented the theme of building positive student teacher relationships. Building positive
student to teacher relationships in written feedback maintains that teachers must use instructional
approaches that demonstrate a sense of connectedness with the student recognizing their
individuality (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). I offer three teachers that demonstrated this theme
in their written feedback and response in the interview.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 235
First, I offer RC as a teacher participant who demonstrated the theme of building positive
student to teacher relationships in the written feedback and response. He said,
Ummm so I…I guess this is similar to the feedback about the energy level…for example
such feedback as…exciting story….here you wanted it to be exciting….here….ok so ya I
always make sure that there is some kind of compliment here…. And in this one I was I
am more about the excitement which I think was what he wanted the reader to pick up on
anyway…and I wanted to even acknowledge that I was excited to read it…right? This
student had not completed a full writing task for me so this was an accomplishment…a
big one for him…so I wanted to make sure I recognized that throughout the feedback. I
say “I am excited to see how this writing develops and I know this was challenging for
you…great!” I am sure the intention…my intention was to acknowledge the excitement
that he creates….I was like this in high school..haha…
RC recognized the students’ challenges in the response here. RC crafted written feedback that
complimented and validated the students’ efforts. RC recognized the students’ completion of the
assignment was a feat for the student and considered this when crafting the written feedback. RC
revealed the sense of connectedness he has to the student and how that manifested in the written
feedback he provided to this particular student. RC revealed his own connectedness recognizing
that he felt his own academic performance mirrored that of the student.
Next, I offer EW as a teacher participant who demonstrated the theme of building
positive student to teacher relationships in the written feedback and response. She said,
Uhhh…well I have some things good use of counterargument and rebuttal and any time
you can be complimentary you can build confidence and at least let students know you
appreciate their efforts and some of the things they are doing but you know I am also
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 236
aware of some of things you need to work on and we are going to work together on it…so
I try to put it in those kinds of terms…lets do this…lets work on this or see me about
this…I try to make it a collective effort between myself and the student….so it’s not just
all like….”you need to do this and you need to fix this.” Rather, it is both him and I
fixing the issues….so it’s a team kind of….ya…
EW demonstrated that he recognized the writer’s abilities and noted that she considered the ways
she could build confidence and be complimentary in crafting her written feedback she provided
to students. EW recognized that she is aware of the student’s abilities and areas of growth. EW
demonstrated a sense of connectedness with her student writer noting they are “going to work
together” on the growth areas. Her connectedness with the student is exemplified in her response
noting “I try to make a collective effort.” EW even notes that language that focuses solely on the
student and shifts the responsibility to solely the student does not demonstrate this capacity of
building positive student to teacher relationships. Rather, she notes that it is a “team effort.” EW
reveals a strong sense of connectedness in her written feedback between herself and the student.
Finally, I offer JP as a teacher participant who demonstrated the theme of building
positive student to teacher relationships in the written feedback and response. He said,
Well, like I mentioned her argument was strong. She has struggled to be clear and I think
a lot of it has to do with her own nature. She is kind of a quiet student. She does not
really talk in class. I am aware that she has a slight speech impediment…I mean this
makes her very shy to talk in class. But, over the semester I have seen her clarity in
arguments grow. So I write feedback here: “strong argument...continue to do this in other
writing assignments. Also, here: “I know you have been struggling with evidence but this
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 237
is really great to support your argument..” Like I just want to make sure I connect and
stop and validate her growth.
JP demonstrated a strong understanding of the student as an individual here. JP noted that this
student is a “quiet student” with a “speech impediment.” Recognizing her shyness in class, JP
crafted written feedback that validates her voice in writing. He demonstrated a sense of
connectedness when he notes that he wants to make sure he “connect[s] and stop[s] and
validate[s] her growth.” This strong sense of the student as an individual and a sense of
connectedness reveals how JP crafted written feedback that would build positive student to
teacher relationships.
These teacher participants noted areas in both their response and written feedback that
they considered how they might build positive student to teacher relationships. It was more their
consideration when crafting the written feedback and approach to the written feedback than the
actual written feedback that demonstrated this. However, these three teachers revealed how that
consideration manifested in the creation of the written feedback to demonstrate how the theme of
building positive student to teacher relationships.
Conclusion
Overall, this second finding area revealed what teachers actually did in the written
feedback they provided to students and their approaches given the actual student samples. I
opened this section noting that teachers both used written feedback to student writing and
recognize its importance to student growth in academic writing as an overall frame for the actual
written feedback the teacher participants provided to students. The findings revealed that
teachers use of written feedback had various approaches in actual practice. Teachers used written
feedback to note areas where students are doing well and areas of growth in academic writing.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 238
Additionally, teachers used written feedback in the form of questions to push on student thinking
in their academic writing. Next, teachers used “macro” comments on student papers that
responded to the writing task overall noting its overarching features of success of areas of
growth. Teacher participants used the written feedback as well to comment on student ideas
crafting written feedback in the form of statements creating the dialogic situation between
writing teacher and writing student.
Content and form feedback are an essential part of any discussion of written feedback to
student writing and traditionally have been studied for their utility and effectiveness (Ferris,
1997). I noted the overall use of teacher written feedback given their noted focus on either
content or form written feedback. Then, I provided the findings given the various levels of
student writing samples: (a) struggling writer, (b) typically developing writer, and (c) advanced
writer. The findings between the noted focus of teachers and their actual written feedback to
student writing was discussed noting either accuracy, inaccuracy or somewhat accuracy between
what they noted as their focus for the written feedback and what actually manifested in the
writing samples. Finally, I concluded the finding area noting areas where the teacher participants
demonstrated a misunderstanding or manifestation of the major themes of CRP from Brown-
Jeffy and Cooper (2011) in their written feedback and discussion of student work samples.
Revised Conceptual Framework
The original conceptual framework provided in chapter two was my tentative theory
headed into the field to collect data. I offer a revised conceptual framework that came out of the
findings of my data and analysis. Maxwell (2013) notes that the conceptual framework is a
critical model to map out the directionality of the study to outline the investigation. Additionally,
the conceptual framework is the, “…system of concepts, assumptions, expectations and beliefs,
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 239
and theories that informs…research” (Maxwell, 2013 p. 39). In revising the conceptual
framework, I referred to the conception of the framework noted by Miles and Huberman (1994)
as a framework that, “…explains…the main things…studied—the key factors, concepts, or
variables—and the presumed relationships among them” (as cited in Maxwell, 2013 p. 39).
The original conceptual framework posited did not parallel the findings from the data and
analysis. The narrative and figure that follows details the revised conceptual framework.
The bodies of literature remain central to the revised conceptual framework as well. I
remain drawing upon ideology as central to the written feedback English teachers provide to
students. While most of the elements from the original elements from the tentative conceptual
framework are present, I have altered the relationships between these elements.
I continue to contend that teachers are exposed to culturally relevant pedagogy and
culturally relevant teaching that not only helps students feel success but helps them maintain and
develop their cultural competence and develop a critical consciousness that helps them learn how
to overcome and combat social inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1995). However, I cannot continue
to contend that this exposure becomes espoused with or a part of their actual ideology. Recalling
that teacher ideology
more often than not manifests itself in the inner histories and experiences that give rise to
questions of subjectivity as they are constructed by individual needs, drives, and
passions, as well as the changing material conditions and social foundations of a society.
(Darda, Torres, & Boltadano, 2002, as cited in Bartolomé, 2004, p.75).
Thus, a critical element of ideology of teachers is the changing nature of the ideologies they
hold. I can no longer assert that there is a direct relationship between the exposure of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching and the teachers’ actual ideology.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 240
Moreover, I have not made teacher ideology a closed concept. Rather, I offer that teacher
ideology is ever “constructed” as a result of influences, drives, passions, and conditions (Darda
et al., 2002, as cited in Bartolomé, 2004).
That all being stated, instruction remains a manifestation and product of a teachers’
ideology (Milner, 2010). However, how that instruction manifests alters as a result of the matters
that contribute to the teachers’ held ideology. Writing instruction then may manifest in different
ways given the altering of the teachers’ ideological stances. Written feedback is an essential
component and part of any effective writing instruction (Sherry, 2017) Thus, the relationship
between writing instruction and written feedback to student writing remains direct and
intentional as written feedback is a traditional practice in writing instruction (Ferris, 1993;
Sherry, 2017).
The findings revealed mixed manifestation of the tenets and themes of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching. Thus, I contend that written feedback to
student writing may or may not reflect these tenets and themes. I remain hopeful that there is an
opportunity to develop this capacity in writing instruction as additional research is needed on, .”..
how to prepare teachers to provide feedback on students’ writing that is culturally relevant and
treats’ students home cultural/linguistic practices as a resource” (Sherry, 2017 p. 350). I have not
included “Teaching to the Whole Child” (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011) for it did not manifest in
the interviews I crafted and findings were not present to speak to this theme.
Overall, I contend that this relationship between ideology and instruction is fluid and not
as direct as I had originally posited. Thus, the revised conceptual framework manifests in a less
vertical, intentional manner and demonstrates the manifestation of this fluidity.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 241

Figure 5. Conceptual framework revised as a result of the study of written feedback to student
writing and its manifestation of the themes and tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and
Culturally Relevant Teaching.

Summary of Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand how urban high school English
Language Arts teachers believed they use written feedback on student writing to contribute to
their proficiency in academic writing. Understanding that these teachers are situated in urban
contexts, I sought to contextualize this question in the tenets and themes of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching. Thus, the written feedback was examined through
the lens of noting how teachers believe their written feedback was a manifestation of academic
achievement, cultural competence, and sociopolitical critique and consciousness. Findings
revealed both manifestations of misunderstandings. Likewise, the written feedback was
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 242
contextualized in the themes of student identity and culture, developmental appropriateness, and
building positive student to teacher relationships. Akin to the tenets of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching, manifestations and misunderstandings were
revealed. The teachers’ actual written feedback from student samples revealed a variety of
findings in terms of how the teachers used written feedback. It would be remiss to discuss
written feedback to student writing without findings that discussed content-based feedback and
form-based feedback as these are traditional explorations in the literature on written feedback to
student writing. Findings revealing overall use of written feedback to student writing were
discussed as well as findings regarding the particular student subgroup. A final area discussed
the themes of Brown-Jeffy and Cooper (2011) and the misunderstandings and manifestations of
the authors’ central themes in the responses and actual written feedback to student writing.
Thus, I summarize the overall findings below in the areas of what the teachers believed
about their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing and what actually
manifested in the written feedback they provided to students:
Finding Area 1: What teachers believed about their writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing
Theme 1: Various teachers noted in their responses that they believed their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing was a manifestation of academic
achievement.
Theme 2: Teachers noted how they believed their written feedback to student writing and
writing instruction was a manifestation of how they engender cultural competence in their
students.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 243
Theme 3: Although the least represented of the central tenets of CRP/CRT, few teachers
did note how they believed their writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing was a manifestation of the tenet of sociopolitical critique and consciousness.
Theme 4: Despite the representation of some teachers believing that their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing were manifestations of the critical
tenets of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching, various
teachers demonstrated misunderstandings of these tenets.
Theme 5: Thus, several teachers demonstrated a misunderstanding of the tenet of
academic achievement in their beliefs about their writing instruction and written feedback
to student writing.
Theme 6: Additionally, teachers demonstrated a misunderstanding of the tenet of cultural
competence in their beliefs about their written feedback to student writing and written
feedback.
Theme 7: Finally, some teachers demonstrated a misunderstanding of the tenet of
sociopolitical critique and consciousness in their beliefs about their written feedback to
student writing and written feedback.
Theme 8: The beliefs of various teacher participants revealed their conscious or
unconscious exclusion of students’ identity and culture from their written feedback and
writing instruction.
Theme 9: Rather, many teacher participants’ beliefs about their writing instruction
revealed that they approached writing instruction and written feedback to student writing
from relatively traditional means.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 244
Finding Area 2: What teachers actually did in their written feedback to student writing
Theme 1: Teachers noted the importance of using written feedback to student writing
and validate their use of written feedback.
Theme 2: Several teacher participants used written feedback to indicate areas of growth
in academic writing.
Theme 3: Various teacher participants used written feedback to craft questions to push
on student thinking in their academic writing.
Theme 4: Some teacher participants noted that they use “macro” comments on student
writing. These “macro” comments noted overall performance on the individual writing
task.
Theme 5: A selection of teacher participants used written feedback that commented on
student ideas. These were statements rather than questions and formed a dialogue
between writing teacher and writing student.
Theme 6: The overall use of content-based and form-based written feedback was
discussed across teacher participants and student writing samples. This revealed an
overall noted focus on content-based feedback across teacher participants.
Theme 7: The teacher participants noted that their written feedback to the “struggling
writer” student samples was more often than not on content-based feedback.
Theme 8: The teacher participants noted that their written feedback to the “typically
developing writer” student samples was a mixed approach of both content-based and
form-based feedback.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 245
Theme 9: The teacher participants noted that their written feedback to the “advanced
writer” student samples was also significantly a mixed approach of both content-based
and form-based feedback.
Theme 10: The stated focus versus the actual written feedback found that four teacher
participants were accurate between their noted focus in feedback in relation to the actual
written feedback provided to the students. On the other hand, two teachers were
inaccurate between their noted focus in feedback in relation to the actual written feedback
provided to students. Four teacher participants were somewhat accurate in their noted
focus in feedback in relation to the actual written feedback provided to students.
Theme 11: Three teacher participants demonstrated that in their response and in the
actual written feedback the theme of building positive student to teacher relationships
manifested.
The overall discussion provided in this chapter sought to understand the beliefs and
practices of the teacher participants in their writing instruction and written feedback to student
writing. These findings then are separated into what arouse from the discussions of their beliefs
and what was revealed from their actual written feedback to student writing.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 246
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This dissertation examined 10 teacher participants’ written feedback to student writing
and how that feedback along with writing instruction reflected tenets and themes of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) and Culturally Relevant Teaching (CRT). A qualitative interview and
document analysis-based study was used to address the following research question:
How do urban high school English teachers believe they use written feedback on
historically marginalized students’ writing tasks to contribute to their students’ ability to
become proficient in academic writing?
To contextualize this study three major bodies of literature were explored. Teacher ideology in
urban context was explored initially. Given that ideology is a complex set of ideas that attempts
to rationalize or construct a particular social context (Bartolomé, 2008), then teachers’ beliefs
and assumptions are tied to the approach and delivery of instruction and practice (Milner, 2010).
The traditional and recent literature of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy grounded this study as well.
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy maintains that teachers of historically marginalized groups must
approach instruction where students experience academic success, develop and/or maintain
cultural competence, and develop a critical consciousness through which they challenge the
status quo of the current social order (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Finally, the literature of secondary
writing instruction and written feedback was provided to contextualize how teachers have
typically approached these areas.
A qualitative research design with interviews and document analysis was used to
understand teachers’ written feedback to student writing. I used purposeful sampling of 10 high
school English Language Arts teachers from urban high schools. I selected teachers who were
known to be particularly effective writing teachers using the community nomination approach
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 247
(Cooper, 2003). The teacher participants were asked to bring three student writing samples on
which they had provided written feedback. I requested student samples that were of one
struggling writer, one typically developing writer and one advanced writer as deemed by the
teacher participants. Two interviews were used for each teacher participant. The initial interview
focused more on the beliefs about the teacher participants practice and the follow up interview
focused on what teachers did in their practice of written feedback to student writing with the
student samples as the basis of the discussion.
Summary of Findings
The findings were split into two areas with themes. The first area of the findings
pertained to what the teachers believed they did in their writing instruction and written feedback
to student writing. The second area of findings regarded what teachers actually did in their
writing instruction and written feedback to student writing. I discuss the summary of findings
each in turn.
Teacher Participants’ Beliefs About Their Writing Instruction and Written Feedback
Overall, teachers did not demonstrate in their beliefs about their writing instruction and
written feedback to student writing that it was sufficiently reflective of the major tenets of
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching. However, to some extent few
teacher participants demonstrated that their beliefs about their writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing was a manifestation of how the relevant literature of CRP/CRT
discusses academic achievement. Likewise, few teachers demonstrated that their written
feedback to student writing and writing instruction was a manifestation of cultural competence as
it is traditionally defined. Sociopolitical critique and consciousness manifested in a limited
fashion in the teachers’ beliefs about their writing instruction and written feedback to student
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 248
writing. Teachers often spoke about this tenet either with misunderstanding or in an approaching
manner suggesting they attempt to develop the consciousness with their students but there was
not clear evidence that they equip students with tools to overcome those social structures that
perpetuate inequities. Thus, I found that teachers more often than not demonstrated
misunderstanding of the tenets of CRP/CRT. Various teachers’ beliefs about their writing
instruction and written feedback to student writing did not reflect that their approaches help
students achieve academically. Other beliefs did not speak with clarity about how teachers
develop or maintain cultural competence in their writing instruction and written feedback to
student writing. Socio-political critique and consciousness were more often than not absent in the
teachers’ beliefs about their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing
demonstrating a clear misunderstanding. Finally, there was a significant amount of teachers who
noted that they excluded student culture and identity from their writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing. These findings were consistent with the literature that written
feedback to student writing is more often than not disconnected from the cultural/linguistic
particularities of student writers (Sherry, 2017).
Teacher Participants’ Actual Writing Instruction and Written Feedback to Student
Writing in Practice
All teacher participants noted that believed written feedback is an important practice and
confirmed that they used written feedback on student writing. Various teacher participants noted
that they used written feedback to indicate where students had done well at certain points in their
writing tasks. Many teacher participants used written feedback to note areas of growth in
academic writing. In framing questions in the written feedback, certain teachers pushed on
student thinking in their academic writing. Several teacher participants used a common practice
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 249
in written feedback known as “global comments” that note areas of overall performance on
students’ writing tasks (Connors & Lunsford, 1993). The use of statements to respond students’
ideas in their writing was also found in various teachers’ written feedback. Content-based and
form-based written feedback is a traditional exploration in empirical studies around written
feedback to student writing. Findings in this area revealed that overall teachers noted a focus on
content-based feedback. Content-based feedback was more prevalent for struggling writers
which is not prevalent in the literature that notes that written feedback to lower writers is
typically form-based (Ferris, 2003). A mixed approach of both content-based written feedback
and form-based feedback was more prevalently noted for typically developing writers. Likewise,
for advanced writers a mixed approach of both form-based feedback and content-based feedback
was provided. These findings were what the teachers noted were there focus. They were
compared with the actual written feedback. Four teacher participants were accurate between the
noted feedback and the actual written feedback provided to students. Inaccuracy between noted
feedback and actual written feedback was demonstrated in two teacher participants. For four
other teacher participants somewhat accuracy between noted focus and actual written feedback to
student writing was demonstrated. Written feedback that builds positive student to teacher
relationships and student to teacher connectedness that recognize students’ individuality was
evidenced (Brown-Jeffy & Cooper, 2011). For three teacher participants, they demonstrated that
in their responses and in the actual written feedback this theme manifested.
Implications and Recommendations
The interviews conducted and documents analyzed as part of this qualitative study with
10 English Language Arts teachers from urban high schools revealed understandings that can
inform policy, practice, and suggest areas for future research. In this section, I offer the ways in
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 250
which the implications from this study can inform policy for teacher education, practice in pre-
service education and in-service professional development. The implications from the findings
also note areas for additional research.
Implications and Recommendations for Practice and Policy
In this section I will present the implications and recommendations for practice, policy,
and research. For practice, I discuss implications for pre-service teacher education and in-service
teacher education. For policy, I provide implications for university teacher preparation policy
and professional development policy for in-service teacher education. Finally, I provide the
implications for future research in studying written feedback to student writing.
Practice
The findings contribute to potential implications in pre-service teacher education and in-
service teacher professional development. Implications are discussed each in turn.
Pre-service teacher education. Responding to student writing is a critical pedagogical
practice that is challenging. Pre-service English teachers are often not provided with adequate
time to integrate written feedback into their fieldwork experiences (Sherry, 2017). Despite
preparation in both writing pedagogies and courses on culturally relevant pedagogy, pre-service
English teachers often revert to more traditional practices of writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing (Sherry, 2017). Thus, a primary implication for pre-service teacher
education is time for teachers to practice written feedback to student writing on students’ writing
of historically marginalized groups. This practice should include reflection time to consider how
that writing is culturally responsive. Pre-service English teachers should reflect on their written
feedback and revise written feedback for its potential to develop a sense of critical consciousness
that contributes to students’ ability to combat and alter social structures that perpetuate inequities
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 251
(Ladson-Billings, 1995). Additionally, pre-service English teachers should reflect on how their
written feedback contributes to students’ maintenance and growth of their cultural competence as
well as how that written feedback helps student achieve academically by feeling academic
success (Ladson-Billings, 1995). More explicit connections between the tenets of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy and writing instruction including written feedback to student writing should
be made in pre-service teacher education (Sherry, 2017).
For pre-service English teachers to develop effective practice in written feedback to
student writing, they must have practice in writing feedback that considers students cultural and
linguistic practices as a resource rather than a deficit (Sherry, 2017). The implications from this
study are that teachers more often than not do not consider the outside lives of students in terms
of their identity, culture and linguistic patterns in the written feedback they write to students.
Thus, pre-service English teachers should in engage with and reflect on the use of written
feedback.
Research indicates that Pre-service English teachers revert to traditional practices when
they actually begin to respond to student writing focusing on language conventions rather than
idea or development or purpose (Sherry, 2017). Although, the findings here imply an overall
focus content-based feedback to student writing continued emphasis on content-based feedback
for development of ideas should be a focus in preparing teachers to respond to student writing.
While only ten teachers were studied in this dissertation, it is likely that pre-service English
teachers might not consistently focus on areas of content and the approaches for content-based
feedback discussed in this study
Overall, the connection between teachers’ ideological systems and their practice should
be continued to be explored in pre-service English teacher education. Teachers are often able to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 252
recognize systematic racism and inequities and students’ identity and culture; however, their
instructional practices may not reflect actions to combat these societal issues (Phillip, 2011). The
findings revealed many misunderstandings of the themes and tenets of Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching. Thus, although teachers may hold beliefs and
assumptions about students of historically marginalized groups and believe in the success for
these students, these ideological beliefs do not manifest in culturally responsive ways. These
practices and reflection of practices should be explored and developing in Pre-service English
teacher education.
In conclusion, for pre-service English teacher education candidates should practice and
reflect on response to student writing that is culturally responsive and inclusive of students’
cultural and linguistic patterns. More than practice, explicit reflection of written feedback for
these elements should be implemented.
In-service teacher professional development. The findings from this study reveal
implications for in-service teacher professional development. The 10 teacher participants in this
study are all active high school English Language Arts teachers at urban high schools. While
there were only 10 participants in the study, it is likely that these findings reveal prevalent
practice for in-service English teachers’ written feedback to student writing. For in-service
teacher education, I offer two implications for in-service English teachers: professional
development for Culturally Relevant Practice and reflection.
First, professional development that includes Culturally Relevant Pedagogical practices
should be implemented in urban schools. These professional developments should go beyond
just presenting material or discussing content that is typically associated with the literature of
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. Rather, in-service English teachers should engage in professional
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 253
developments around specific instruction and practices in writing instruction and written
feedback to student writing that: (1) help students feel academic success, (2) maintain and
encourage growth of cultural competence, and (3) develop a critical consciousness that questions
social structures that perpetuate social inequities. Professional development should center on
actual practices in English Language Arts would complete these tenets.
I contend that professional developments should center on study of written feedback to
student writing. Teachers should examine their own written feedback to student writing for its
cultural relevance to the students. Teachers should consider how the written feedback builds
positive teacher to student relationships, is developmentally appropriate, and demonstrates that
teachers have considered and included students’ identity and culture in how they craft written
feedback. This could be completed in professional learning community with other English
teachers that collective examine their written feedback to student writing to see trends and
approaches to written feedback and collectively examine how their feedback practices are or are
not manifestations of the tenets and themes of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy.
This study’s underpinning was teachers’ beliefs and assumptions and how those influence
their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing. To understand ideology and
beliefs and overcome barriers to Culturally Relevant Pedagogical practice, teachers should
engage in reflection of their practices and beliefs. While reflections reveal that the teachers feel a
certain way about their students, their instruction, and their practice, teachers approach actual
practice—including written feedback—often does not reflect or parallel those beliefs (Sherry,
2017). Therefore, the actual practice needs to be examined in light of understanding that one’s
beliefs and assumptions to not arise.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 254
Overall, in-service teacher education for English teachers should focus on Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy in practice of writing instruction and written feedback to student writing. A
critical understanding is that examining the bridge between ideology and practice is challenging
(Bartolomé, 2004; Philip, 2004). Thus, the work examining ideology for manifestation in
practice must be an ongoing endeavor. In disrupting traditional practices of providing written
feedback to student writing and their current comfort level with their own practice, would assist
with their ability to adopt more culturally relevant practices with respect to written feedback to
student writing that would reflect or be curtailed to the needs of their population of students.
Policy
Implications for policy are discussed in terms of university teacher preparation programs
and district-level approach to professional development.
University teacher preparation. Despite the prevailing evidence to the contrary, the
primary assumption is that teachers learn most of what they need to know about teaching before
they actually enter their in-service positions (Elmore, 2002). If this assumption is the case, then
the preparation of teachers in their teacher education programs is the critical space for teachers to
learn and practice in Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and Culturally Relevant Teaching practices.
While Culturally Relevant Pedagogy is a prevailing pedagogical stance in many urban teacher
education programs (Milner, 2003), it is likely that many teachers do not demonstrate that this
translates in their practice as demonstrated in the findings of this study.
I contend the university teacher preparation programs should ensure that they provide
pre-service teachers with opportunities to understand one’s own positionality and assumptions
prior to practice. There is a need to learn to be conscious of one’s own assumptions and to
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 255
confront them in real ways (Loughran, 2006). In being clearer about one’s own assumptions and
beliefs teachers will be able to recognize how they manifest or do not manifest in practice.
Next, I assert that university teacher preparation programs build in critical reflection
during their actual practice—especially when providing feedback written feedback to students
writing. By critical reflection I mean the type of reflection that involves taking in the broader
historical, socio-political, and moral context of schooling (Valli, 1990), such that teachers in
teacher education programs become, “…reflective practitioners come to see themselves as agents
of change, capable of understanding not only what is, but also working to create what should be
(Jay & Johnson, 1999). If pre-service teachers do engage in critical reflection of their practices,
they will see opportunity to respond to students in ways that their feedback that manifests themes
and tenets of culturally responsive pedagogy.
Pre-service teachers need practice responding to student writing in culturally responsive
ways. Mentor teachers tend to reserve the work of responding to student writing to themselves
rather than share it with their pre-service mentees (Sherry, 2017). Thus, teacher education
programs should ensure that they find effective writing mentor teachers as well as teacher
mentors that are known to share their practice.
District-level professional development policy. School systems use a more or less
standard model for handling issues of professional development, and this model is largely at
odds with the consensus about effective practice (Elmore, 2002). The findings from this study
suggest that critical reflection of practice should not only be confined to pre-service teacher
education but to in-service teacher professional development (Gay & Kirkland, 2010). I assert
that professional developments should center on critical reflection of practice. To reiterate, this
type of practice does not just consider context but actually acts on it to make change (Jay &
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 256
Johnson, 1999). Thus, more than reflection of practice, professional development should be on-
going to ensure that the action is actually taken on the reflection (Elmore, 2002).
The findings reveal a disconnect between beliefs/assumptions and actual practice.
Improving instructional practice requires a change in beliefs, norms and values about what is
possible to achieve as well as in the actual practices that are designed to bring achievement
(Elmore, 2002). If practice does actually change beliefs/assumptions (Guskey, 1989), then
districts should provide professional developments that focus on Culturally relevant approaches.
When teachers see the success of culturally relevant pedagogical practices, they will be adopted
and non-effective practices will be abandoned. Guskey (1989) noted that a key determinant of
enduring change in instructional practices is demonstrable results in terms of students’
performance. Activities that are demonstrably successful tend to be repeated while those that are
not successful, or for which there is no tangible evidence of success, are dropped (Guskey, 1989
p. 445).
Overall, districts should implement critical reflection for change in practice in their
professional developments. Moreover, professional developments that are centered on Culturally
Responsive practices should be implemented, practiced, and coupled with reflection.
Implications for Future Research
There are implications for research given the findings presented in this study. Sherry
(2017) notes that future research is needed in the area of preparing teachers to provide feedback
on students’ writing that is culturally relevant and treat students’ home cultural/linguistic
practices as a resource. Across the findings, there were teachers who demonstrated
misunderstandings of the tenets and themes of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy as they would
manifest in writing instruction. Thus, more studies on how writing and responding in culturally
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 257
relevant ways benefits student achievement in academic writing would contribute to
understanding the findings presented here in this study.
Some teachers held beliefs about the potential and possibility of student performance in
academic writing. However, in the written feedback to student writing the teachers did not
respond in ways using Culturally Responsive ways to support growth in academic writing.
Further research should examine how teachers’ beliefs and ideology manifest in the written
feedback teachers provide to students. Moreover, future research should examine why perhaps
even when teachers hold Culturally Responsive beliefs or ideologies these do not manifest in the
way teachers approach their writing instruction and written feedback to student writing.
One finding noted that teachers consciously did not integrate students’ identity and
culture. Research in the future should focus on why teachers might not consider such elements
when crafting written feedback to student writing. Examining teachers’ held beliefs about their
writing instruction and written feedback to student writing poses another opportunity for future
research in the area interrogated in this dissertation.
This study focused on the teacher participants’ beliefs about and actual written feedback
practices. I cannot separate the teachers’ identity from the study. Fifty percent of the teachers in
the study were Caucasian, two Asian, and two Latinx, and one African American. Findings
revealed a misunderstanding of Culturally relevant pedagogy and actual practices. After all, little
is known about teachers’ racial influences in the teacher and learning process (Milner, 2003).
The findings might have been different with a more significant population of teachers of
historically marginalized groups. Future research in the area of teacher identity into actual
process is recommended.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 258
I find that content-based and form-based written feedback should be explored in relation
to culturally responsive approaches. This research should seek to understand how teachers use of
content-based feedback and form-based feedback can be culturally responsive in ways that the
traditional literature on Culturally Relevant pedagogy.
Another area of research might include teacher professional learning communities
perhaps pairing English teachers with other English teachers to critically examine each other’s
written feedback. In noting trends and responses in written feedback, the teachers could
collaboratively pair to assist each other noting opportunities where the written feedback could be
a manifestation of more culturally relevant written feedback that allows students feel academic
success for academic achievement, develops the students’ cultural competence, and engenders a
critical consciousness in the students.
One of the critical limitations of this study was the relation between instruction and
written feedback to student writing. Further research should examine writing instruction in
relation to the written feedback. Building on that concept, culturally relevant pedagogy in
relation to culturally relevant written feedback to student writing should be examined as well.
Moreover, research should have teachers go through a similar process of examining
written feedback to understand the need for such practice. Perhaps not to the extent of a
dissertation; however, a smaller scale task that has teachers examining theirs and other teachers’
practice for written feedback to student writing should be examined.
Conclusions
This study explored teachers’ belief about their written feedback to student writing and
how they believed that written feedback contributed to students’ proficiency in academic writing.
This exploration was situated in the literature, tenets, and themes of Culturally Relevant
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 259
Pedagogy. The findings revealed some manifestation of the tenets and themes of Culturally
Relevant Pedagogy in written feedback to student writing. Additionally, the findings revealed
misunderstandings of these tenets and themes. Teachers approached written feedback to student
writing in various ways. Practices in written feedback to student writing and writing instruction
that are more reflective of the tenets and themes of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy are needed.
Writing instruction and written feedback for historically marginalized students should be
grounded in the context of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy and manifest in practice.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 260
References
Applebee, A. N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school (No. 21). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
student writing composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form
feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2004). Critical pedagogy and teacher education: Radicalizing prospective
teachers. Teacher Education Quarterly, 97-122.
Bartolomé, L. I. (2008). Introduction: Beyond the fog of ideology. In Ideologies in
Education: Unmasking the Trap of Teacher Neutrality (pp. ix-xxix). New York:
Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Bartolomé, L. I., & Balderrama, M. V. (2001). The need for educators with political and
ideological clarity: Providing our children with “the best.” In The best for our
children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students, 48-64.
Beck, S. W., Cavdar, D., & Wahrman, A. (2018). Learning to teach writing through
dialogic assessment. English Education, 48(5), 305-336.
Bennett, S. V. (2012). Effective facets of a field experience that contributed to eight
preservice teachers’ developing understandings about culturally responsive
teaching. Urban Education, 48(3), 380-419.
Bifuh-Ambe, E. (2013). Developing successful writing teachers: Outcomes of
professional development exploring teachers’ perceptions of themselves as writers
and writing teachers and their students’ attitudes and abilities to write across the
curriculum. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 12(3), 137-156.
Bijami, M., Pandian, A., & Singh-Mehar, M. K. (2015). The relationship between
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 261
teacher’s written feedback and student writing performance: Sociocultural
perspective. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 49(1), 1-8.
Bogden, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative Research for education: An introduction
to theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Brannon, L., & Knoblauch, C. H. (1982). On students’ right to their own texts: A model
of teacher response. College Composition and Communication, 33, 157-166.
Brice, C. (1995). ESL writers’ reactions to teacher commentary: A case study. Meeting
of TESOL: Reports-Research/Technical (143)—Speeches/Conference Papers.
2-23.
Brown-Jeffy, S., & Cooper, T. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally
Relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65-84.
Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2004). Engaging factors of hegemony and historicity of knowledge
In The Literacy Curriculum and Bilingual Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang
Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Qualitative research and design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Connors, R. J. & Lunsford, A. A. (1993). Teachers’ rhetorical comments on student
papers. College Composition and Communication, 44(2), 200-223.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for grounded theory (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for
education: The right way to meet the “highly qualified teacher” challenge.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 262
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33), 25-43.
Delpit, L. (1995). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. In Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
DeMarrais, K. (2004). Qualitative interview studies: Learning through experience.
Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dweck, C. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist,
41(1), 1040-1071.
Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative
for professional development in education. Washington, D.C.: The Albert
Institute. http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/Bridging_Gap.pdf
Ferris, D. R. (1995). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision.
TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second-language
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S. Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student
writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing,
6(2), 155-182.
Freedman, S. W. (1987). Response to student writing. (NCTE Research Report No. 23).
Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Freire, P. (1987). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: The Continuum International
Publishing Group.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 263
reflection in preservice teacher education. Theory Intro Practice, 42(3), 181-187.
Gunn, A. A., Bennett, S. V. Shuford-Evans, L. Peterson, B. J. & Welsh, J. J. (2013).
Autobiographies in Preservice Teacher Education: A snapshot tool for building
a culturally responsive pedagogy. International Journal of Multicultural
Education, 15(1), 2-20.
Guskey, T. R. (1989). Attitude and perceptual change in teachers. International Journal
of Educational Research, 13(4), 439-453.
Graham, P. L. & Perrin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing
of adolescents in middle and high schools. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation
of New York.
Haberman, M. (1990). The pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Kappan, 9(2),
81-87.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective
practice for teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 73-85.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1992). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory Into Practice, 34(3), 159-165.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy: a.k.a. the remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74-135.
Loughran, J. (2006). Making the tacit explicit. In Developing a pedagogy of teacher
education (pp.13-29). New York: Rutledge.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 264
Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. Qualitative research and design (4
th
ed.). San Francisco:
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data:
Toward shared craft. Educational Researcher, 13(5), 4-12.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A
methods sourcebook (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Milner, R. M. (2003). Reflection, racial competence, and critical pedagogy: How do we
prepare pre-service teachers to pose tough questions? Race and Ethnicity and
Education, 6(2), 193-208.
Milner, H. R. I. (2010). A diversity and opportunity gaps explanatory framework. In
Start where you are, but don’t stay there: Understanding diversity, opportunity
gaps, and teaching in today’s classrooms (pp. 13-44). Cambridge: Harvard
Education Publishing Group.
Milner, H. R. I. (2011). Culturally relevant pedagogy in a diverse urban classroom.
Urban Review, 43(1), 66-89.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C. Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2005). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. In Gonzalez,
N., Moll, L.C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in
households, communities, and classrooms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 72-
75.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for English language
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 265
arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Washington, D. C.: Authors.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social future.
Harvard Education Review, 66(1), 1-29.
Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (1997). The big picture: Language and learning in hundreds of
English lessons. In Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning
in English classrooms (pp. 30-74). New York: Teachers College Press.
Philip, T. M. (2011). An “ideology in pieces” approach to studying teachers’
sensemaking about race, racism, and racial justice. Cognition and Instruction, 29
(3), 297-329. Doi: 10.1080/07370008.2011.583369.
Rist, R. C. (2000). Student social class and teacher expectations: The self-fulfilling
prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(3), 257-301.
Sherry, M. B. (2017). Prospective English teachers learn to respond to diversity in
students’ writing through the student writing archive project (SWAP).
English Education, 49(4), 347-376.
Schleppegrell, M. J., & O’ Hallaron, C. L. (2011). Teaching academic language in L2
secondary settings. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 31(1), 3-18.
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). Teaching English by design: How to create and carry out
instructional units. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writers. College Composition and
Communication, 33(2), 148-156.
Straub, R., & Lunsford, R. F. (1995). Twelve readers readings: Responding to college
student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 266
Valli, L. (1990) Moral approaches to reflective practice. In Clift, R. T., & Pugach, M. G.
(Eds.) Encouraging reflective practice in education: An analysis of issues and
programs. New York: Teachers College Press.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 267
Appendix A: Initial Interview Protocol
Initial Interview Protocol

Interviewer: _______________
Interviewee: _______________
Courses Taught: ___________________________________________________
Courses Currently Teaching: _________________________________________
Years Teaching: ______
Start Time: _____ End Time: ______
Introduction:
I am Steven Rivas, a graduate student in the Doctor of Educational Leadership program with an
emphasis in Leading Instructional Change, and I am completing a qualitative study as part of the
requirements of my dissertation and for the degree.

The focus of my study is written feedback to student writing and the teachers’ perceptions of that
feedback. I seek to understand how those teachers perceive written feedback contributes to their
students’ growing proficiency as writers. I am also interested in how that feedback reveals tenets
and ideas of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. This study is close to me as I am an English teacher
and want to contribute to the field of writing instruction.

I want to ensure you that I will not identify you, your organization, your district or the like by
name. Pseudonyms for all the aforementioned will be used to ensure confidentiality. While I will
be taking notes, I would like to record to facilitate our discussion and ensure that your words are
transcribed accurately at a later date. Would that be acceptable?

Interviewee says: Yes, that is acceptable to record.

This initial interview will take approximately 45 minutes to an hour. Do you have any questions
before we begin?

Interviewee says: Yes or No…if no allow time for questions and request if I can record
questions…

May I record these questions of concern?

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 268
Interview Questions

First I want to ask you some questions about your background, training, and philosophy about
writing instruction and written feedback.

1. How long have you been teaching writing?

2. Tell about your teacher preparation/training as a writing teacher.

3. Tell me about your philosophy about learning to write.

4. Tell me about your philosophy about providing written feedback to student writing.

Transition: I have just asked you about your background and philosophy of teaching writing. I
am now going to focus more on specific questions that regard feedback.

5. Describe any differences in the kinds of feedback you give to students in a regular English
class versus in an advanced class.

6. Describe any differences in the kinds of feedback you give to students in a regular English
class versus an Honors class.

7. Now describe any differences between Honors and AP classes.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 269

8. Tell me about how you expect your students to use your written feedback.

9. Walk me through a writing assignment from beginning to end. For example, thinking about a
recent writing assignment, how did you introduce it to your students? What was the
progression of the assignment (did they write in class, did they submit drafts, did you provide
feedback along the way, etc.)?

10. Tell me about what you do with the feedback in class. How, if at all, do you believe it
supports your students writing development?

Transition: Thank you for discussing your specific feedback. I want to now transition in a way
back to your beliefs about that feedback in practice.

11. What kind of feedback do you believe is important to provide through a conversation with a
student? Think of a recent conversation you had with a student that reflects those things.

12. What do you believe is important to provide in writing versus in conversation? Tell me about
how you decide what to provide in writing versus what you provide in conversation.

Transition: Thank you for discussing your beliefs. I want to now discuss some more about your
practice of assessing writing as well as some instruction.

13. Do you use writing rubrics? When do you provide the students with the rubric? What is
included in the content of the rubric?
a. Maybe you might walk me through a rubric you used this semester (if you used one)?
Tell me how you constructed it, how you expect the students to use it, etc.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 270

14. Think about a recent writing assignment that you think is pretty typical of the way you assign
writing.
a. How many drafts, if any, did students complete?
b. How, if at all, did the feedback change over the course of multiple drafts? (In terms of
quantity and focus?)

Transition: Thank you for providing those instructionally minded responses. I want to know now
about your experience in teaching writing and make some connections between your writing
instruction and the demographics of your students. I want to understand the connection between
these two ideas.

15. What do you find is the most challenging part? Tell me about a specific example that
demonstrates that challenge.

16. What do you believe is the easiest part about teaching writing? Describe an example of that
to me.

17. What do you believe are the most important things to teach your students as writers? Tell me
about how you approach those things.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 271
18. How do you think students’ culture plays into their writing?

19. As a teacher of writing with African American and Latinx students, what do you believe the
importance of written feedback is?

20. How, if at all, might your feedback differ for students who are not of African American
and/or Latinx?

21. How, if at all, do you integrate students’ culture or backgrounds into how you respond to
student writing? Think about a recent example and tell me about that.

22. How might African American students or Latinx student benefit, in your beliefs, from
becoming proficient writers in academic writing?

23. Tell me about how you think your written feedback/writing instruction helps students achieve
academically?

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 272

24. Tell me about how, if at all, your written feedback helps students become more culturally
competent?

25. Tell me about how, if at all, you believe your written feedback helps students critique society
and become active participants in their society?

26. As my last question for today, I always like to ask, what, if anything, have we not talked
about that you believe would help me understand your approach to teaching writing and
providing written feedback to students?

Some potential probes:
• You said “________________” could you elaborate more on that idea…
• That is great. Have you thought about _________________?
• While you mention “_________________.” could you tell me more about_____?
• Can you walk me through _____________ in further detail?
• What were your thoughts when __________ happened? Please, tell me more.
• Had _________ happened instead of _________, how might you ____________?
• Great! I really appreciate that response. Could you tell me more about how/when
________?

Concluding Remarks:

I want to thank you for your time today and for all the great ideas you gave to me. Your
responses are greatly appreciated. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
Again, thank you for your time today and have a great rest of your day.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 273
Appendix B: Follow Up Interview Protocol
Follow-Up Interview Protocol

Interviewer: _______________
Interviewee: _______________
Courses Taught: ___________________________________________________
Courses Currently Teaching: _________________________________________
Years Teaching: ______
Start Time: _____ End Time: ______
Introduction:
Welcome back to the second interview. I have collected the first set of responses from you and
have several student artifacts as well with names removed from the students’ papers to protect
their confidentiality.

I will restate the following statements for the purposes of formality:

Thank you for being a part of the follow up interview for my study.

I am Steven Rivas, a graduate student in the Doctor of Educational Leadership program with an
emphasis in Leading Instructional Change, and I am completing a qualitative study as part of the
requirements of my dissertation and for the degree.

The focus of my study is written feedback to student writing and the teachers’ perceptions of that
feedback. I seek to understand how those teachers perceive the written feedback contributes to
the growing proficiency of their students’ writing. I am also seeking to understand how that
feedback reveals tenets and ideas of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in practice. This study is
close to me as an English teacher myself and to contributing to the field of writing instruction.

In this follow up interview, we will focus on the three student samples you have provided me
that have written feedback. The questions I ask will be focused on guiding a discussion around
those samples.

While I will absolutely be taking notes, I would like to record to ensure that I can engage in a
discussion with you and ensure that your words are accurately transcribed at a later date. Would
that be acceptable?

Interviewee says: Yes, that is acceptable to record.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 274
This follow up interview will take approximately 45 minutes to an hour as well. Do you have any
questions before we begin?

Interview Questions:

1. Before we get started on today’s interview, I wanted to check in and see if you had anything
you wanted to share with me that you have been thinking about since your first interview.
There doesn’t have to be anything. I just wanted to make sure I asked!

Transition: If not, I asked you to identify one student who you think has struggled to develop as a
writer, one you see as developing “typically,” and one who you believe is an advanced writer.
My questions today are focused on the written feedback you provided to each of those students.

2. Let’s start with the student (let’s call him/her student A) who you believe has struggled to
develop as a writer (not a student who is an English learner).
a. Tell me about that student as a writer.
b. Now tell me about teaching that student.

3. Let’s look at student A’s work.
a. Tell me about the lesson/unit/learning experiences that generated this writing task.
b. Tell me about the feedback here. Overall, what guided your feedback for this
particular student?
c. Show me feedback that you believe was “developmentally appropriate”? Tell me
about your decision to provide that feedback in that way.
d. Show me feedback that you believe helped build (or further) a positive student-
teacher relationship between you and this student? Tell me about your thinking
behind providing this feedback.
e. Tell me about some feedback that you believe integrated the student’s culture or
outside of school life? Tell me about your thinking behind providing this feedback.
f. Where do these writing tasks play into the writing process? For example, how did
your feedback change over the course from first to final draft?
g. Looking back at the feedback, where did you place your focus: content (ideas, logic,
etc.) or form (mechanics, grammar, usage, syntax)?
i. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on content.
ii. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on form.
h. Tell me about how you believe this feedback will/did assist this writer towards
becoming more proficient in academic writing.

4. Transition: Now let’s move to the student who you believe has developed as a writer in a
way that you would say is typical. Let’s call this student student B.
a. Tell me about that student as a writer.
b. Now tell me about teaching that student.

5. Let’s look at student B’s work.
FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 275
a. Tell me about the lesson/unit/learning experiences that generated this writing task.
b. Tell me about the feedback here. Overall, what guided your feedback for this
particular student?
c. Show me feedback that you believe was “developmentally appropriate”? Tell me
about your decision to provide that feedback in that way.
d. Show me feedback that you believe helped build (or further) a positive student-
teacher relationship between you and this student? Tell me about your thinking
behind providing this feedback.
e. Tell me about some feedback that you believe integrated the student’s culture or
outside of school life? Tell me about your thinking behind providing this feedback.
f. Where do these writing tasks play into the writing process? For example, how did
your feedback change over the course from first to final draft?
g. Looking back at the feedback, where did you place your focus: content (ideas, logic,
etc.) or form (mechanics, grammar, usage, syntax)?
i. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on content.
ii. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on form.
h. Tell me about how you believe this feedback will/did assist this writer towards
becoming more proficient in academic writing.

6. Transition: Finally, let’s look at the student who you believe is an advanced writer. Let’s
refer to this student as student C.
a. Tell me about that student as a writer.
b. Now tell me about teaching that student.

7. Let’s look at student C’s work.
a. Tell me about the lesson/unit/learning experiences that generated this writing task.
b. Tell me about the feedback here. Overall, what guided your feedback for this
particular student?
c. Show me feedback that you believe was “developmentally appropriate”? Tell me
about your decision to provide that feedback in that way.
d. Show me feedback that you believe helped build (or further) a positive student-
teacher relationship between you and this student? Tell me about your thinking
behind providing this feedback.
e. Tell me about some feedback that you believe integrated the student’s culture or
outside of school life? Tell me about your thinking behind providing this feedback.
f. Where do these writing tasks play into the writing process? For example, how did
your feedback change over the course from first to final draft?
g. Looking back at the feedback, where did you place your focus: content (ideas, logic,
etc.) or form (mechanics, grammar, usage, syntax)?
i. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on content.
ii. Tell me about your approach to providing feedback on form.
h. Tell me about how you believe this feedback will/did assist this writer towards
becoming more proficient in academic writing.

FEEDBACK TO STUDENT WRITING AND CRP 276
8. Last question: I always like to ask this question before I finish. What, if anything, have we
not talked about today or during our first interview that you believe I should know about your
approach to teaching writing and the way you use written feedback with African American
and Latinx students?

Concluding Remarks:

I want to thank you for your time today and for all the great ideas you gave to me. Your
responses are greatly appreciated. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
Again, thank you for your time today and have a great rest of your day.

_____________________________Recording Finished___________________________

Some potential probes:
• You said “________________” could you elaborate more on that idea…
• That is great. Have you thought about _________________?
• While you mention “_________________.” could you tell me more about_____?
• Can you walk me through _____________ in further detail?
• What were your thoughts when __________ happened? Please, tell me more.
• Had _________ happened instead of _________, how might you ____________?
• Great! I really appreciate that response. Could you tell me more about how/when
________?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

How do teacher beliefs shape the approaches used to support low-income, Black, White, and Latino students in Advanced Placement English?

PDF

The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy in an elementary school for indigent native peoples

PDF

The effect of opportunity gaps: the charge for culturally relevant pedagogy in middle school social studies classes

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

The importance of teacher motivation in professional development: implementing culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Changing pedagogy to promote the success of international students

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools

PDF

Examining teacher pre-service/credential programs and school site professional development and implementation of culturally relevant teaching of BIPOC students

PDF

Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices for elementary classroom teachers in third through fifth grade in Los Angeles County urban schools

PDF

Uncovering dominant ideology: an action research project aimed to uncover dominant ideology to enact culturally relevant pedagogy in the classroom

PDF

Culturally relevant pedagogy strategies for preservice teachers in urban classrooms

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers' perceptions and impact in their dual language immersion classroom

PDF

Teacher practices and student connection: high school students' perceptions of the influences of teacher pedagogy and care on their sense of connection

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

The importance of the implementation process to achieve equity in the classroom through culturally relevant pedagogy

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to increase access and engagement in STEM for historically underrepresented and marginalized populations

PDF

A community cultural capital approach: bilingual teachers’ perceptions and impact in their dual immersion classrooms

PDF

Addressing the education debt: how community college educators utilize culturally relevant pedagogy to support Black and Latinx student success

PDF

Cultural proficiency to provide equity for African American and other students of color: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Rivas, Steven Michael (author)

Core Title Examining urban high school English language arts teachers’ written feedback to student writing and their perceptions and applications of culturally relevant pedagogy

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/16/2020

Defense Date 10/19/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag content-based feedback,culturally relevant pedagogy,culturally relevant teaching,form-based feedback,OAI-PMH Harvest,written feedback to student writing

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor DeRoss, Lisa Regan (committee chair), Slayton, Julie Michelle (committee chair), Carbone , Paula Marie (committee member)

Creator Email smr47494@gmail.com,stevenri@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-259761

Unique identifier UC11673855

Identifier etd-RivasSteve-8124.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-259761 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RivasSteve-8124.pdf

Dmrecord 259761

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rivas, Steven Michael

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA