The Importance of Written Feedback and Grading in English Composition: A Comparative Study of U.S. and Nepali ESL Practices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.66121/wkh0me44Keywords:
ESL Composition, Written feedback, Grading practice, Process-oriented pedagogy , Culturally responsive TeachingAbstract
This paper investigates the role of written feedback and grading in English composition by comparing U.S. and Nepali ESL practices. In U.S. classrooms, feedback is process-oriented, emphasizing rhetorical awareness, revision, and formative assessment, while grading often incorporates alternatives like contract systems. Nepali ESL instruction, however, remains largely product-oriented, emphasizing grammar, structure, and examination results. Using survey data from 30 students and 10 instructors, the study reveals that Nepali learners value structural guidance, grammatical accuracy, and model essays more than idea-centered feedback, highlighting a gap between global pedagogical ideals and local learner needs. Results also show that grades are seen as strong motivators when paired with constructive commentary. The findings recommend culturally responsive adaptations, such as integrating annotated models, balancing formative and summative assessment, and gradually introducing process-oriented strategies, to enhance ESL writing instruction in Nepal.
Downloads
References
Almohawes, M. (2025). Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1532729. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729
Banstola, P. R. (2024). An Observational Study on Peer Feedback Practices in University Level English Language Classrooms in Nepal. Janapriya Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 13(1), 41-55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/jjis.v13i1.75522
Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 181–199). De Gruyter Mouton. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
Horner, B., Lu, M. Z., Royster, J. J., & Trimbur, J. (2011). Language difference in writing: Toward a translingual approach. College English, 73(3), 303–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/25790477 DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ce201113403
Inman, J., & Powell, P. (2018). In the absence of grades: Dissonance and desire in course contract grading. College Composition and Communication, 69(2), 247–272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc201829783
Keating, B. A. (2019). A good development thing: A longitudinal analysis of peer review and authority in undergraduate writing. Across the Disciplines, 16(3), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2019.16.3.08 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2019.16.1.01
Li, J., Huang, J., Wu, W., & Whipple, P. B. (2024). Evaluating the role of ChatGPT in enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings: A preliminary investigation. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03755-2
Miao, J., Chang, J., & Ma, L. (2023). Research trends of written corrective feedback in L2 writing: A bibliometric analysis. Sage Open, 13(1), 21582440221135172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221135172
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2023). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 276-290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Shahi, M. B., & Chaudhary, N. R. (2024). Exploring Feedback Mechanisms in Higher Educational Governance: Learning from a Case Study. Contemporary Research: An Interdisciplinary Academic Journal, 7(2), 174-195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/craiaj.v7i2.72166
Shi, H., Chai, C. S., Zhou, S., & Aubrey, S. (2025). Comparing the effects of ChatGPT and automated writing evaluation on students’ writing and ideal L2 writing self. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2454541
Summer, N. (2011). Responding to student writing. In D. Healy (Ed.), The Norton book of composition studies (pp. 569–586). W. W. Norton & Company.
Teller, J. (2016). Are we teaching composition all wrong? The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/are-we-teaching-composition-all-wrong
Inman, J., & Powell, P. (2016). In the absence of grades: Dissonance and desire in course contract grading. Composition Forum, 34. https://compositionforum.com/issue/34/absence-of-grades.php
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201
Horner, B., Lu, M. Z., & Matsuda, P. K. (Eds.). (2010). Cross-language relations in composition. Southern Illinois University Press.
Lunsford, A. A., Brody, M., Ede, L., Moss, B. J., Papper, C., & Walters, K. (2010). Grammar and writing. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
