An Investigation of Formative Feedback and its Impact on Student Writing

(1)

Degree Project with Specialization in English Studies in

Education

15 Credits, First Cycle

An Investigation of Formative Feedback

and its Impact on Student Writing

En undersökning av formativ återkoppling och inverkan

på studenternas skrivande

Guuled Hassan

Master of Arts/Science in Education, 300 Credits English Studies in Education

January 13 2020

Examiner: Damon Tutunjian Supervisor: Anna Wärnsby

DEPARTMENT OF CULTURE, LANGUAGES AND MEDIA

(2)

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my wonderful supervisor Anna for being helpful throughout the period of time I have spent writing this paper. I would not be able to do it without her. She has helped my throughout all the challenges I have faced while writing this paper, and for that I will always be thankful.

(4)

4

Abstract

This study investigates formative feedback comments given by instructors and the potential effects of the comments on students writing development. This research topic is examined from the perspective of the Swedish curriculum for English at upper secondary school and draws from international studies to identify potential implications for the Swedish context. Writing is an essential skill for students to acquire and instructors are responsible for guiding students in their efforts. However, it is unclear what types of comments may lead to students writing development. This paper has methodically included relevant research within the subject, and through synthesis identified several patterns in instructor comments which lead to student engagement and uptake of feedback. Research encourages instructors to be mindful of the tone of their comments as many negative comments may discourage and overwhelm students, resulting in them not engaging with the received feedback. The amount of comments on a students’ draft can also determine the students' engagement with the feedback comments. Also, research calls for instructors to familiarize students with the learning requirements and the metalanguage associated with the feedback process. Lastly, multiple studies included in this synthesis encourage the use feedback aids and alternative modes of feedback to support student development and accommodate students who do not respond to traditional feedback delivery methods.

(5)

5

1. Introduction

The position of English as a lingua franca has been further solidified with the arrival of the digital age. Consequently, English is now one of the core subjects in the Swedish national curriculum for secondary and upper secondary school. The curriculum sets the goal of giving “individuals opportunities to participate in different social and cultural contexts, as well as in global studies and working life” (Skolverket, 2011). The Swedish curriculum for English is the framework which determines how students are to develop their language skills, teachers are to assist students’ in their development according to the learning requirements, and prepares students for life after upper secondary school. The curriculum for English at upper secondary school also provides assessment guidelines for teachers in Sweden and is the main tool for teachers in guiding students towards further education.

Students must have at least a passing grade in the mandatory English courses to be eligible for university. Furthermore, Sweden has been ranked second in the Education First English proficiency index (2019). However, Lowe and Cook identify that students who enroll at university struggle to bridge the gap to higher education (2003). They suggest that this is because the habits and routines students have formed in upper secondary school follow them when they transition into higher education. Lowe and Cook report negative study habits, such as a lack of study skills, poor commitment and difficulty with academic study, in students who fail who fail in their academic endeavors. However, positive formations of these habits are facilitated, among other things through formative feedback, which allows students to become autonomous learners. The feedback that students receive should, therefore, be geared to promote writing development, feedback uptake and student engagement.

Formative feedback often aims at encouraging further development in students learning. It is widely practiced in many different forms across different countries and levels of education. In this paper, I focus on formative feedback in relation to the practice of writing; I investigates what types of formative feedback promote writing development, encourage feedback uptake and student engagement with feedback. This study will have a focus on asynchronous delivery of feedback, and

(6)

6

how these findings can be interpreted in the Swedish context. The reasoning for this is that the types of formative feedback that are discussed in the included research articles are asynchronous in nature.

Written formative feedback comes in many different forms as teachers may choose to focus on different aspects of student writing, such as surface-level or deep-level writing features. Depending on the learners’ level of confidence and proficiency and the texts purpose, the teacher choice of comments can be beneficial or detrimental to student development. For example, instructors must offer just enough feedback since too many comments on learner texts can leave weak learners overwhelmed by the amount of feedback (Court, 2012). Multiple studies show (Carless, 2006; Pineteh, 2014) that second language (L2) learners feel they do not receive useful feedback from instructors on their texts; although, this perception of the feedback is not shared by the instructors who gave them. This is evidence of a gap between instructors’ and students’ perceptions of feedback. Furthermore, many upper secondary school students are for the first time being asked to write formal texts. The national curriculum for English at upper secondary school requires students to be able to process, create structure, and adapt their writing for different purposes (Skolverket, 2011). This is a process which should be carefully guided with detailed, timely, and precise feedback if instructors wish for students to develop motivation to improve their writing skills (Court, 2012).

The significance of this topic is linked to the importance of the development of English L2 proficiency in so many people around the world. In Sweden, we have mandatory English lessons in schools, and grades in the subject are a requirement for admission to university in Sweden. Also, it is to be noted that high English proficiency is a requirement for many national and international jobs. As teachers, our goal is to prepare students for adult life, and for higher education (for those who aspire to continue studying). Our ability to provide effective feedback on student writing is crucial for student motivation and development. However, naturally, there are disagreements amongst scholars and educators about which types of comments are most effective for students learning to write academic texts. This is a crucial development problem for teachers to find some answers too if we wish to support learners writing. Therefore, I have conducted a literature review and a subsequent discussion of this topic. The discussion is based upon the following questions: what types of feedback comments promote writing development and the encouragement of student engagement with instructor feedback, what types of comments are considered negative for feedback uptake, and lastly identify possible uses for the finding in the Swedish context.

(7)

7

2. Aim and Research Questions

This study explores the effects of asynchronous formative feedback on academic writing assignments and the effect the feedback has on students’ development of academic writing skills. This is done through discussing and answering the following research questions:

● What types of comments promote writing development and can promote engagement with feedback?

● What types of comments are considered negative for feedback uptake? ● How can the research findings be related to the Swedish school context?

(8)

8

3. Method

Throughout the search process, I made several deliberate choices to narrow down the search results and find relevant articles which examine instructors’ formative feedback on student writing, and the effects that formative comments may have on writing development. The primary method used for finding relevant articles has been through electronic searches in educational databases. I have also included sources found via scouring the reference lists of relevant electronic articles. After having found relevant sources, I conducted a research synthesis where the sources are discussed in relation to one another, and the curriculum for English.

3.1. Search Delimitation

When first starting the search process, I primarily used Libsearch as it provides results from several databases. In addition, it was easy to find sources relevant to feedback in relation to writing in this database. I made searches using the keywords Formative Feedback and Writing development and set the limitation for peer-reviewed texts only: this search resulted in 325 results. The search was further limited to articles published in academic journals, and articles published between the year 2000 and 2019. This search yielded 280 results. From this search, I found 3 relevant articles for the synthesis. These articles also guided my further searches for additional sources. In all the searches, the following keywords were used in different combinations: Formative feedback, Writing development, Teacher

feedback, Draft revision, Academic Writing. Table 1 provides information on why I have chosen these

particular key words to guide my searches.

Table 1. Motivation for the key words used

Search word Motivation

Formative

feedback Formative feedback is often associated with scaffolding which occurs in draft based writing process and is an accurate description of the feedback comments which this study sets out the investigate.

(9)

9

Writing

development This is the impact or result which is desired from commentary on students writing. This search word was often coupled with formative or teacher feedback. Academic

writing I found that many of the studies which touched on the topic of tutor feedback comments and their impact on writing development, were often set in the context of undergraduate academic writing courses. Also, these courses often use a draft based writing format.

Teacher feedback

Used in combination with draft revision as I wanted to find specific studies which set out to examine the tutor comments.

Draft revision The draft-based writing process allows for tutor comments on the drafts. This process when studied also allows for the researchers to see any differences which may occur between the drafts and how comments may have impacted the text.

3.2. Inclusion Criteria

I decided to include sources which were conducted on university students, keeping in mind that the findings and implications could be applicable to upper secondary students. Studies conducted at universities abroad have also been included as it gives further insight on the different feedback practices used, and the effects it has on students writing. Furthermore, I have chosen to focus on feedback delivered asynchronously as feedback delivered via this method allows for detailed responses. In addition, studies which present the use of aids and alternative methods of feedback of interest when looking for sources. I have only selected studies that touch upon how feedback affects student writing.

3.3. Exclusion Criteria

I have disregarded studies which did not put emphasis on the feedback process. Furthermore, I have chosen to overlook studies which predate the year 2000. This is due to advancements in technology allowing for a more detailed and timely method of feedback, such as recorded feedback. I have chosen to disregard studies which focus on instant forms of feedback, such as face to face conference with the writer. Studies examining creative writing have also been disregarded as this study seeks to discover how feedback affects students processing of language and text structure in their own writing in a formal context (Skolverket, 2011). The inclusion and exclusion criteria let me

(10)

10

narrow the number of articles for the synthesis from 280 articles to the six presented and discussed in the next section.

(11)

11

4. Results

In this section of the paper each empirical study is first presented separately, the summaries are then followed by a synthesis, where patterns within the studies will be identified and discussed in relation to the research questions, the Swedish curriculum and writing in the English communicative classroom.

In a study focusing on the writing of British first-year university students who were native speakers of English, Wingate (2010) examined the lack of enough writing support for students entering university studies. Therefore, Wingate (2010, p.520) called for writing support to be embedded into regular university teaching, as writing assignments in this context are often discipline specific and students often needed assistants in writing the types of texts which are most relevant to them. In her study, Wingate divided the students into different categories which depended on the level of improvement within the students’ paper drafts: high, moderately, and low achieving students. This was done to clarify whether certain comments either promote individual writing development. The study was conducted through the analysis of comments on learners’ and interviews with the participants. The text analysis focused on identifying different variables in the instructors’ comments such as, how many comments, what types of comments lead to either improvements or deterioration, how texts changed from draft to draft, and if comments varied based on how well a student had performed in a draft (Wingate, 2010). In complement to the text analysis of the comments, the interviews aimed to gauge student engagement with the feedback received under the assumption that students with high engagement would be able to remember what the instructors had commented on (Wingate, 2010).

Firstly, Wingate (2010) found that there was a correlation in improvements in students’ drafts, and their engagement with tutor comments. The study showed that moderately improved students had addressed the comments given to them and that the comments no longer appeared in subsequent drafts, or that aspect of the text had later garnered a positive comment from the instructor (Wingate, 2010). Furthermore, Wingate also highlights a considerable difference in style between the comments aimed at students with different levels of achievement: lower achieving students often received imperative comments, while higher achieving students often received comments using

(12)

12

hedging devices such as tend to and occasional (2010). Secondly, five themes were identified in the analysis of the interview data found in this study: awareness of feedback, action, program choice, writing at school, and anxiety. When students were asked about their recollections of the feedback they had received, there was a considerable difference in feedback perception between those students who had not improved their writing during the courses, and those who had. The students who mostly received negative comments on their writing had little to no recollection of the comments. On the other hand, students who had improved moderately and the high achievers could with great accuracy recall the comments they had received. Students in these categories also appreciated the feedback and thought it had helped them to improve their drafts (Wingate, 2010).

Court (2012) conducted a study examining an independent TESOL course with an embedded drafting/redrafting process. Similar to Wingate (2010), this study was also situated in a university setting, but gave further insight into the drafting process of non-native English. However, the participation in this study had a broader range than the study by Wingate (2010), and included full-time university students, members of the local community, and university lecturers. The group was more diverse and, therefore, their exposure to academic writing varied. Similarly to Wingate (2010), Court’s study included instructor feedback throughout the drafting process as support for the participants. The study, which was conducted over two academic years, evaluated student drafts and had students answer questionnaires (Court, 2012).

The results indicated that most of the participants had improved upon redrafting their writing; further, the questionnaire revealed that students found redrafting to be time consuming albeit rewarding for their understanding of the topic (Court, 2012). The results from Court’s study suggest that “there is positive evidence for the uptake and use of feedback, leading to improved versions of the students' work and strengthening the case for the provision of feedback at an early stage”. Court explained that those whose grades decreased in this study had selectively chosen what feedback comments to address and suggests that students may have done this as some comments “were cognitively less challenging and easier to put right than others”.

Carless (2006) also delved into the issues associated with the feedback process, and focused on the different perceptions of the process, approaching the issue from the perspective of both the students and instructors. The study used a greater variety of methods than Court’s and Wingate’s

(13)

13

studies: a large-scale questionnaire, small-scale ended survey at an education institute, open-ended interviews with university staff and university students, and lastly interviews conducted in Cantonese with students to gain further insights (Carless, 2006). The study was conducted in Hong Kong, and the participants were spread across 8 universities in the city.

Carless (2006) identified several issues relating to the feedback process, issues which affect both instructors and students, for example, lack of time for instructors, large classes, and insufficient or too complicated comments. Furthermore, Carless identified interesting patterns in the use of feedback in the learning process. For example, students saw great value in tutor feedback on drafts and outlines as it provided an opportunity for immediate revision. However, some students were anxious to be judged on uncompleted work and, therefore, looked less positively on opportunity to receive feedback on drafts rather than on a finished paper. Furthermore, the interviews showed that many students were interested in the feedback comments and were willing to engage with the feedback. On the other hand, some students also felt that it was difficult to interpret instructor comments and make use of them in future assignments. Carless also pointed out the emotional burden that comments may have on students’, as negative comments may discourage students from engaging with instructor feedback. This notion of negative comments discouraging students in their writing is similar to what both Wingate (2010) and Court (2012) have found. However, while the causes of some students’ disengagement with feedback were not addressed by neither Court nor Wingate, Carless (2006) concludes that students and instructors have different perceptions of elements of feedback such as details of feedback, usefulness of feedback, and the fairness of the grading. Court, therefore, suggests that the feedback and assessment processes should be more transparent as it will not only benefit students in their current assignments, but help them acquire skills required for lifelong learning.

Cheng’s study (2019) also takes place in Hong Kong. Unlike Carless’ (2006) study, Cheng (2019) sets out to monitor student responses to instructor feedback by exploring the effects of automated tracking of their responses to feedback on draft revisions. Cheng identified if and how students addressed instructor comments by using a program which tracked and mapped instructor comments and student responses to them. Cheng had students upload revised drafts of their texts together with a pre-revision version with the comments included to allow the system to analyze and identify student responses to feedback. Furthermore, students who took part in the study were asked to

(14)

14

respond to a questionnaire on the usefulness of the systems’ feedback on their revision. The questionnaire aimed to examine students' level of “agreement with statements regarding the helpfulness of automated analysis”. This was complemented with focus group interviews that showed that participants valued the helpfulness teacher feedback as it played a major role in helping them diagnosing and correcting problems in their writing.

The results from this study showed that the system could not only support students in reflecting on the quality of their revisions, but also likely prompted improvements in their revised texts (Cheng, 2019). Furthermore, Cheng suggested that automated tracking could be useful for teachers in understanding their own feedback practices, and the feedback practices of other teachers as well.

Pineteh (2014) investigated the writing challenges faced by students in a post-apartheid South Africa. In this study, the students were not a homogeneous group: some were non-native speakers of English, and some, although native speakers often used vernacular varieties of English. Pineteh motivated the significance of this study through arguing that the university demographics in South Africa had experienced a major shift to include an increased number of students from marginalized communities. Unsurprisingly, students from these communities may not have the same prerequisites for higher education as their middle-class counterparts. Pineteh investigates the writing challenges of undergraduate students at CPUT, and why these students were challenged by academic writing activities, and what the possible strategies for addressing the students writing problems may have been. The data collection from this study consisted of interviews with twenty second-year students, and a course reflection from 100 students. Furthermore, the study included interviews with communications instructors at the university to gain further insight into the challenges which students face when engaging in the academic discourse that higher education demands.

Student interviews revealed that they often were confusion about the organization of texts, and the expression of external ideas; instructor interviews confirmed that their lack of language skills prevented students from writing at a level expected from a university student (Pineteh, 2014). Furthermore, Pineteh revealed a gap between the ability of students from middle-class urban backgrounds, and those from rural under-resourced schooling backgrounds. Pineteh identified two key issues: differences in schooling and rural students often having English as their second or third languages. Rural schools often differed from the urban schools in teaching methods, making use of

(15)

15

parroting and learning language through the use of rules, while students from more privileged schooling backgrounds where allowed to “practice writing assignments using secondary literature”. As a result, students from more privileged backgrounds were better suited to deal with complex tasks in academic writing. In Pineteh’s study, student educational background was a clear factor affecting student writing performance. Therefore, pedagogically compensating for student backgrounds to stimulate writing development could possibly encourage students to be more positive to feedback and increase their uptake of feedback.

Morra and Asis (2009) situated their study on the effects of instructor feedback on EFL students’ text revision in a teacher training and translation studies programs at a university in Argentina. Much like Wingate (2010) and Court (2012), this study set out to investigate the impact of instructor comments but they compared the impact of margin comments, audio comments, and no instructor comments on student texts across multiple drafts. Morra and Asis (2009) hypothesized that audio feedback would be more effective in encouraging students to reformulate their writing at a macro level. This study included 89 students, and two instructors. Unlike the studies discussed above, focusing mostly on students’ and instructors’ perceptions of feedback, this study was an experiment with different student groups receiving different types of feedback; there was a control group as well. All students received the same writing instruction during a six week period, and the teachers were given specific instructions on how to comment on the drafts: the teachers being asked to comment on macro level features such as content and organization on the first draft, and both macro and micro features on the second draft. Following the six-week instruction period, students were given the task of writing a short opinion paper, which was followed up by a questionnaire aimed at revealing student perception on the feedback received. The students produced two drafts followed by a final version of the paper.

Morra and Asis (2009) found that although the teachers participating in the study had been briefed on how to apply feedback for the purpose of this study, there were instances of feedback which they found to be unnecessary. Furthermore, all student groups involved have improved their writing in general; however, the group which had received audio feedback was the only group to increase micro-level errors in their texts. Also, in the questionnaire, 87% of the students in the experimental groups reported to have understood the feedback comments which they had received and indicated that the type of feedback they had received, written or audio, was helpful for their revision. The

(16)

16

students who had received audio feedback had almost all expressed a preference for audio feedback, in comparison to other forms of feedback. These students stated that audio feedback allowed for a “shortened distance” between the instructor and themselves and made them experience the feedback as dialogical. In addition, the questionnaire had also revealed that even 56% of students in the control group, who received no instructor comments, found the opportunity to revise their texts to be beneficial to their writing. Morra and Asis emphasize the positive sentiment which the control group had expressed about the opportunity to make use of self-revision. Morra and Asis further suggested that the different modes of feedback could be effective depending on which method is applied, and that instructors should test the suitability of the feedback modes in their given pedagogical contexts to ensure that feedback accommodates students who respond better to alternative modes of feedback.

(17)

17

5. Discussion

The studies above identify the amount and the corrective focus of feedback as factors that may discourage feedback uptake, student engagement and writing development. Wingate (2010), Carless (2006), and Court (2012) agreed on the difficulties that students face when attempting to implement feedback and revise their writing. Wingate found that students who had been unsuccessful in earlier drafts may be further discouraged when met with many critical comments in the subsequent drafts. Furthermore, Carless (2006) suggested that students are emotionally invested in their writing, and, as a result, negative comments can become a burden. Since formative assessment should be a process which encourages students to value their efforts (Lundahl, 2012), instructors should moderate and monitor their feedback in particular on drafts from low-achieving students. Wingate (2010) found the tone of instructors’ comments important as it can influence to what degree students engage with the feedback. Furthermore, several studies stressed the importance of not overwhelming students with too many comments in the drafting process. Court (2012) called for caution from instructors due to the negative effects that many draft comments can have on students. Ziv (1980, p. 25) called for instructors to comment in an empathic manner on student texts, suggesting that instructors should be aware of the emotional burden feedback may put on students.

The negative or corrective nature of feedback may lead to students not understanding feedback they receive, which may result in discouraging students from engaging with the feedback received. This may stem from instructors and students not sharing the metalanguage concerning writing and the feedback process, or from students not having the preparation required due to a lack of exposure to different text types in their previous educational experience. For example, the participants in Pineteh (2014), who came from schooling backgrounds which had not prepared them for writing at university, expressed confusion in response to the instructor comments they had received on their writing. The issue, as described in Pineteh (2014), regarding the students with poor writing skills seems to be referring to what Ask (2005) described as academic discourse. Ask (2005) described academic discourse to be knowledge building, carefully presented, and detailed in its methodology. Furthermore, academic writing is found to be clear, objective, critical, analytical, and adapted to the prevailing writing standards (Ask, 2005). Ask (2005) argues that this type of methodical writing was not encouraged enough in upper secondary education that instead promotes vague investigative text type, often called essay. As a result, when students start studying at universities, they find themselves

(18)

18

unequipped to deal with the new types of texts they are expected to produce. This is evident in Ask’s own study and the studies presented above. Lowe and Cook (2003) also acknowledged that students who are newly enrolled at university find it difficult to bridge the gap to higher education, indicating that the routines, and structures which students have formed in upper secondary school follow them into higher education. These skills are facilitated by teachers, and the instruction that learners receive is crucial not only for their development, but also for their understanding of how to conduct an analysis and to critically evaluate new knowledge (Lowe & Cook, 2003).

On the other hand, there are several encouraging methods of feedback that instructors can employ to stimulate feedback uptake, student engagement and writing development. These can come in the form of structured writing interventions in disciplinary courses and contextually motivated modes of feedback. Wingate (2010) suggested that writing support should be embedded in regular teaching at university. This idea was shared by Court (2012), who also claimed that embedding writing support for first-year students can facilitate the development of their writing skills. This support is particularly important in heterogeneous student groups to even the odds between students from different backgrounds (Pineteh, 2014). Furthermore, Morra and Asis (2009) expanded upon how writing support can be used to further accommodate different students and support their individual writing development paths. They suggested that different modes of feedback can be used, as different students may respond differently to alternative types of feedback delivery. Cheng (2019) suggested that the automated tracking of feedback could aid teachers in understanding how their feedback practices affect student’s draft revision, and aid students in making sense of the feedback received. These types of feedback could therefore be used in the Swedish context as it would also help students develop their reception of spoken language, as required by the curriculum (Skolverket, 2011).

Instructors must also be mindful of multiple factors to make the feedback process more transparent and promote uptake of feedback among their students. Carless (2006) encourages that instructors make students more familiar with how feedback comments will relate to the assessment of their work. This indicates that teachers should work with making the students more knowledgeable of the learning requirements and what they implicate. Also, multiple studies suggest that teachers should deliver positive, clear, and concise comments to further accommodate students who need additional support in the writing process (Court, 2012; Pineteh, 2014).

(19)

19

Although writing is one of the four language skills trained in all school years, the core content in the curriculum for English 6 in particular underlines the importance of the ability to produce academic texts for different purposes and adapted to different audiences (Skolverket, 2011). The studies presented above illuminate the writing process of students from non-native and various socio-economic backgrounds, and give insight into possible challenges for students from similar backgrounds as their strive to be admitted to higher education programs. These studies are valuable for teachers at upper secondary schools in Sweden, as they identify possible challenges and solutions for bridging the gap between upper secondary school and university writing.

(20)

20

6. Conclusion

In conclusion, in agreement with the Swedish curriculum and the research described in this study, instructors should offer corrective and encouraging feedback to all students to ensure that all students may be motivated to engage with feedback in their revisions. For students to engage with feedback, it should be understandable; therefore, instructors should be mindful of the language used in their feedback. Furthermore, students should be introduced to different text types as prompted by the curriculum, and instructor comments should be consistent with the text type which students produce. Also, instructors should work on integrating writing instruction into disciplinary courses. Lastly, instructors should work with implementing different modes of feedback to accommodate individual students, as student engagement with feedback is highly important.

Based on previous research, this study identified several factors that may increase feedback uptake, student engagement and writing development. I suggest that future research should investigate the differences in impact of audio and written on student writing in the Swedish context. In numerous studies, instructors indicate time constraints as major hinders for offering comprehensive feedback on student writing. Recording the feedback rather than writing it may save time and encourage instructors to give more and more dialogical feedback. This is something which should be further investigated as the research included in this study has clearly encouraged the exploration of different modes of feedback to accommodate individual students.

(21)

21

References

Ask, S. & Lindgren, M. (2005). Den skrivande studenten Idéer, erfarenheter och forskning från Textverkstaden

vid Växjö universitet. Växjö universitet.

Carless, D. (2006). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572132

Cheng, G. (2019). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draft revision: evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive

Learning Environments, 1–23. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2019.1655769

Court, K. (2012). Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 38(3), 327–345. doi:

10.1080/0309877x.2012.706806 EF EPI

2019 - EF English Proficiency Index. (2019). Retrieved 6 January 2020, from https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/

Lowe, H., & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the Gap: Are students prepared for higher education? Journal of

Further and Higher Education, 27(1), 53–76. doi: 10.1080/03098770305629

Morra, A. M., & Asís, M. I. (2009). The Effect of Audio and Written Teacher Responses on EFL Student Revision. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 39(2), 68–81. doi:

10.1080/10790195.2009.10850319

Dansky, z N. (1980). The Effect of Teacher Comment's on Four College Freshman, 11–31. Pineteh, E. A. (2014). The Academic Writing Challenges of Undergraduate Students: A South

African Case Study. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1). doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v3n1p12 Skolverket. (2011). Läroplan Engelska Gymnasiet.

Wingate, U. (2010). The impact of formative feedback on the development of academic writing.

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 519–533. doi: