It is quite likely that when you learned a FL, writing was a rather mechanical process, whereby you produced a piece of writing that was 'corrected' by the teacher. He or she probably collected in the homework, marked it and then returned it to you, telling you where you had gone wrong, perhaps with a few comments, or none at all. In this section of the module, you will be asked to see the tutor as being rather more involved, along with the students, in improving the piece of writing in its draft stages, so as to lead to a satisfactory outcome. A more collaborative and less teacher-imposed method is often needed, which maintains the student's self-esteem, yet encourages a greater degree of learner autonomy and personal development, and a greater ability to self-evaluate. As Cox (1995) notes, marking policy can play a crucial part in encouraging linguistic growth by establishing a sense of dialogue, and not only concerning itself with the superficial features of writing, or the technical correction of errors.

Your department will probably have a marking policy of its own that you will need to take account of. In considering such policies, Thomas (1993) asks the following reflective questions. You may like to compare these with the way in which you mark your students' writing.

Many of these questions, based around the issue of managing assessed writing, challenge traditional assumptions about how feedback is provided. For example, correction does not only need to be provided by the tutor. It may be preferable for students to comment on each other's writing, though your students might reasonably expect at least some individualized input in terms of correction from you from time to time. (See also 9.4.3.) Meanwhile, by according greater rights to the students to comment on their marks and on the corrected texts, marking and correction become more collaborative and less teacher-centred.

Thomas (1993) outlines a wide range of types of marking and feedback available when looking at written work. These may range from simply ticking an item or putting a cross to devising a series of coded abbreviations in the margin to indicate particular types of error. The codes could be devised by the tutor or by the students (see Module 14, section 14.2.5 for examples).

Whatever the approach to marking, it is important that your students understand it fully and feel comfortable with it. Hedge (2000) discusses the importance of openness and transparency regarding the exact policy used, so that students are aware of the principles and expectations. If your department has its own standardized policy document that tutors are asked to circulate to students at the start of the course, this will explain what the student has to achieve to reach a certain mark or grade. If not, it is wise to inform the students of the procedure through your own documentation. For instance, it may be that not all work will be handed in to the tutor, and often, writing will be developed through a process of 'conferencing': that is, as the class writes, the tutor talks with individual students about work in progress. This circulated policy document might also articulate the need for students to be willing to work collaboratively, and to be positive and helpful in peer correction.