Protocol
Separate deep writing feedback from surface correction
Fixing commas cannot repair an argument that has no spine.
When it fits
- A draft returns covered in grammar corrections but its argument, structure or reader experience remains weak.
When to avoid it
- Short transactional messages may need little deep feedback. Match the feedback depth to the writing task.
Why it matters
Review writing in at least two passes. First inspect the deeper job: purpose, argument, organization, coherence and reader needs. Then inspect surface accuracy, wording and mechanics. When both matter, keep feedback labels distinct so the learner knows whether a change repairs meaning or form.
Steps
- State the intended reader and outcome.
- Review argument, structure and coherence.
- Revise the draft.
- Review grammar, vocabulary and mechanics.
- Produce a clean version and compare the change.
An example
Before correcting article use in a proposal, check whether the recommendation is supported and the decision path is clear.
Check your result
The learner can point to at least one deep decision and one surface decision rather than receiving an undifferentiated correction list.
Keep this limit in mind
- Short transactional messages may need little deep feedback. Match the feedback depth to the writing task.
Connected ideas
Use beforeRewrite from the feedback, not from the corrected sentence
Evidence and sources
L2 writing feedback produces different outcomes depending on whether it targets surface form, deeper organization and meaning, or combines levels.
The best sequencing of feedback passes can depend on task, proficiency and writing purpose.
Effects of feedback on second language writing: A meta-analysis · Meta-analysis summary