Innovation in Language Learning

Teacher feedback on student writing is widely recognized as a pivotal component of writing instruction, exerting a significant impact on students’ writing development (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014; Goldestin, 2004). Previous studies have found that hedges are commonly used in ending comments, particularly as modal lexical items, imprecise quantifiers, and usuality markers in written feedback to tone down the criticism and offer suggestions (Hyland & Hyland, 2001) and could, would, might are the most frequent modal verbs in academic written feedback (Lee, 2013). The current study extends previous research (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Sperling, 1994) by analyzing the hedging devices present in feedback provided by composition teachers across different task types (e.g., Research Literacy Narrative Essay, Rhetorical Analysis Essay, Persuasive Essay, Career Readiness Essay), using the Written Feedback Corpus. Analyzing these devices in teachers’ feedback on different task types, which are the common subjects taught in composition courses to improve students' writing skills, will enhance our understanding of how writing instructors adapt their feedback to the requirements of different tasks (Sperling, 1994), potentially improving their feedback practices in composition courses in higher education. In this regard, Antconc was used to identify these devices following Hyland and Hyland’s (2001) framework. The result showed that the Career readiness essay task had the highest frequency of hedges. Additionally, specific modal verbs (e.g., would, can, could) were frequently used as hedging devices across all four task types to tone down the criticism and offer suggestions. These findings offer valuable insights for teachers wishing to work on improving their written feedback to soften criticism, offer suggestions, and foster a positive learning environment. However, it is important to keep in mind that teachers’ use of hedges may also be shaped by factors such as their personal beliefs, background, and time constraints.

Keywords: hedges, teachers’ written feedback, task types, linguistic analysis

References      

[1] Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. N., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of spoken and written English.  London: Longman.

[2] Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.    

[3] Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden, & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[4] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3587804             

[5] Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2014). Teaching L2 composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd). New York: Routledge.     

[6] Egbert, J., Larsson, T., & Biber, D. (2020). Doing linguistics with a corpus: Methodological considerations for the everyday user. Cambridge University Press.

[7] Hyland, K. (1994). Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. English for specific purposes, 13(3), 239-256.

[8] Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of written teacher feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0         

[9] Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some Input on Input: Two Analyses of Student Response to Expert  Feedback in L2. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01612.x    

[10] Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 185-212.

[.....]