The impact of timing in written corrective feedback on collaborative writing and L2 accuracy development

Recent research has demonstrated that written corrective feedback (WCF) has a facilitative role in second language (L2) grammar accuracy improvement. However, most of the studies explored focused WCF which targeted a couple of predetermined errors using a one-time feedback session and they disregarded learner individual variations. The present study aimed to fill the gaps in the previous WCF research by investigating the role of unfocused WCF (i.e., targeting a range of errors) offered via multiple feedback sessions on grammar accuracy improvement, and learners’ individual differences in benefiting from WCF according to their language analytic ability (LAA). The study collected the data from four intact intermediate EFL classrooms at a university. Three classes were feedback groups, and each class received different types of WCF over six weeks: direct correction (DC), coded indirect correction (CIC), and underline indirect correction (UIC). The fourth group engaged in self-editing without WCF and served as a control group. Results showed that DC and CIC led to more improved accuracy than what was obtained from UIC and self-correction. In addition, the process whereby DC and CIC led to accuracy gains differed. Learners’ LAA was found to be strongly related to both DC and CIC while no relationship was found with UIC.

Low proficiency L2 learners make frequent grammatical errors and apply inappropriate English language use and writing conventions despite learning the language for years. To reduce the grammatical and non-grammatical errors in the low proficiency L2 learners’ writing, teachers provide Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). However, a strong claim on WCF's adverse effects on L2 learners’ language development has prompted mixed responses on the WCF’s effectiveness. Numerous studies on WCF's effectiveness were conducted, and the findings showed inconclusive results. The present study aims to examine the ‘Written Languaging’ (WL) effect of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on low proficiency L2 learners’ writing accuracy. WL is a mediational tool used to enhance the WCF’s effectiveness. The study was conducted on 47 low proficiency L2 university students for five weeks to elicit WL of WCF's effects on low proficiency L2 learners’ writing accuracy, where a multiple-case research approach was used to collect and analyze the data of the study. An error ratio was applied to measure the overall accuracy of writing. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine whether WL's provision on the WCF affects the writing accuracy of the low proficiency L2 learners' new writing text. The finding shows that WL's provision on the WCF did not facilitate the low proficiency of L2 learners' writing accuracy because the L2 learners' writing accuracy could improve only with teachers' WCF. The study is significant to the pedagogical teaching of writing development for lower proficiency L2 learners, particularly in applying the mediational tool in the provision and processing of WCF and the complementary pedagogical strategy to WCF.

This study examined the formation of writing instructors' written corrective feedback (WCF) philosophies and evaluated the effectiveness of a one-shot WCF training session in facilitating teacher transformation in WCF practices, a common professional development practice to train in- service language instructors at universities. Four writing instructors, with varying levels of experience and educational background, teaching in a school of foreign languages in Türkiye volunteered for the study. Prior to the training, seven essays that the instructors provided WCF for were collected. To expand their knowledge of WCF, the instructors then participated in a one-hour WCF training program, which covered types of WCF, forms of WCF, stages of WCF, the benefits of WCF, and some helpful tips for WCF. After the training, the instructors assessed and provided WCF for an additional seven essays. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and WCF analysis of essays and analyzed using a rubric including all themes covered in the training and a thematic analysis of interview themes. The results suggested instructors' WCF philosophies were shaped by a combination of experience, school policies, and master's education. Furthermore, while the one-shot training program did not entirely transform the instructors' WCF philosophies, it had some impact on their practices.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is critical in EFL/ESL writing classrooms. This study aims to review existing research studies on the quality of WCF generated by ChatGPT and humans and to examine how WCF generated by ChatGPT can support WCF that humans give to students’ written work in higher education EFL/ESL writing contexts. To meet these goals, the researcher examined 23 studies published in 18 peer-reviewed journals from 2023-2024. The analysis results highlighted potential strengths and weaknesses of WCF generated by ChatGPT and humans. WCF generated by ChatGPT could review various aspects of writing and provide extensive descriptive feedback, yet it sometimes might experience system fatigue that affects the WCF quality. ChatGPT could also provide inaccurate WCF, give WCF that lacked human nuances, and were greatly influenced by how prompts were presented to it. Meanwhile, humans could provide aspects of WCF not accounted for ChatGPT, but their WCF might involve subjective judgment and be unclear. With these findings in mind, the researcher identified three phases of how ChatGPT can work harmoniously with humans to provide quality WCF for students in writing classrooms. Those phases were making various efforts to enhance WCF generated by ChatGPT in students’ writing in support of the feedback provided by lecturers, enhancing students’ in-depth understanding that not all ChatGPT feedback is accurate, and combining ChatGPT-based WCF, specifically on earlier drafts of students’ writing. Pedagogical implications, which highlighted the essence of working synergistically with ChatGPT and mastering prompts to generate the most helpful WCF, for EFL/ESL lecturers in writing classrooms who wish to support their feedback with ChatGPT to provide quality WCF to their students’ written work were presented. The researcher then proposed recommendations for future systematic review studies, expanding the research contexts, the scope of reviewed materials, and the research method of the reviewed articles, to address gaps and expand on the insights presented in this study.

In conventional written corrective feedback (WCF) practice, teachers spend an inordinate amount of time identifying every error in student writing. Research evidence suggests that such a comprehensive WCF approach is both undesirable and ineffective. Recent research has shown that focused WCF, where teachers respond to errors selectively, is a good practice since it is more manageable and less discouraging for students. Much of existing WCF research on focused WCF, however, has adopted the experimental or quasi-experimental design, involving a very small number of error categories, without paying attention to the real-life classroom conditions in which WCF takes place. To fill the research gap, the present study investigates how two secondary teachers select target language features for focused WCF and the issues that arise from their WCF practice. The paper provides pedagogical implications that contribute to our understanding of how teachers can go about selecting errors for focused WCF in authentic second language writing classrooms, as contrasted with experimental classrooms.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) plays an important role in second language (L2) education. While there have been many studies on the topic, the needs to understand WCF from different contexts are still needed. In the context of Indonesia, this study focused on types of English teachers’ WCF given on students’ argumentative essays, and types of WCF Indonesian secondary school students prefer as well as the reasons behind their preferences. The data were collected from twelfth-grade students’ essays (N=80) and questionnaire (N=98). To confirm the data, interview to six students were conducted. The WCFs on the essays were analyzed using a classification checklist while the questionnaire and the interviews were analyzed to understand students’ feedback preference and the underlying reasons of their preference. Findings revealed that there were different WCF styles among the three English teachers. It was also discovered that direct WCF was the most preferable type of feedback. From the findings, there seems to be a misalignment between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences regarding indirect and metalinguistic WCF. This discrepancy calls for teachers to address feedback literacy skills.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is crucial in foreign language learning, helping learners identify and rectify writing errors. However, manual WCF can be time-consuming for educators. Artificial general intelligence (AGI), exemplified by ChatGPT, offers a promising solution via automated WCF, addressing learners’ intricate linguistic demands. While effective in English learning, the suitability of AGI-powered automated WCF for other languages with complex grammar remains uncertain due to the English-centric training of many large language models. This study examines the reliability and acceptance of ChatGPT-generated WCF within a German as a foreign language (GFL) context. Through a 200-essay analysis, we explore two questions: (1) How does ChatGPT-generated automated WCF compare to teacher-provided WCF? (2) How do GFL learners respond and interact with WCF from both sources? Our findings revealed different behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagements between ChatGPT-provided WCF and teacher-provided WCF. ChatGPT has greater potential for providing diverse lexical, grammatical, structural, and content feedback, facilitating GFL learning. However, students’ emotional perceptions of ChatGPT-generated WCF vary, sometimes even negative, hindering language learning. We further explored the advantages and challenges of integrating ChatGPT-generated WCF into foreign language learning. Our findings underscore the potential of integrating AI-powered automated WCF into foreign language learning and writing development.

This study was aimed to find out the types of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) given by the English teacher to the students’ writings, the reason of the teacher in giving certain types of WCF, and the contributions of the WCF for the students. This study employed a case study design which involved one English teacher and three students from different acquisition levels. The data were obtained from documentation and interview. The types of WCF given by the teacher were classified by using the theory from Ellis (2008). The data from the interview were analyzed by using thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The results showed that the teacher used Direct WCF, Unfocused WCF, and Electronic Feedback in correcting the students’ errors. It was found that the teacher gave those types of WCF in order to make the students understand about the mistakes that they made in their writings. It was also found that high and medium achieving students stated that WCF from their teacher were beneficial for them in order to avoid the same mistakes in the future while low achieving student did not get the benefit of feedback.

Many studies have examined how written corrective feedback (WCF) can raise English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ understanding of language concepts. However, not much is known about how students’ perceptions and preferences could influence the effects of WCF. This study examined how Secondary School Certificate (SSC) students and teachers in Pakistan International School, Saudi Arabia, felt about WCF in writing classes. It aimed to identify the WCF aspects of the target language the students preferred. A questionnaire survey was distributed to 30 SSC-level EFL students and 10 teachers at the school who participated voluntarily in the study. The findings revealed that the students had sympathetic perspectives despite having preferences for WCF. They mainly believed that WCF might help them enhance their language knowledge and writing abilities. Through WCF, they learned what to avoid and how to write better. The teachers also found WCF helpful in enhancing the basic understanding of the target language. The findings showed that the students and teachers believed direct WCF to be the most effective technique for improving the former’s writing abilities, followed by indirect strategies such as underlining errors or providing codes. The research was considered relevant and pertinent as it addressed diverse aspects of WCF.

In the teaching of L2 writing, responding to student writing has often been described as the most time‐consuming enterprise for teachers. In many L2 writing classrooms, much of teacher attention is focused on providing feedback on linguistic errors, which is known as written corrective feedback (WCF) (also referred to as grammar feedback, error feedback, grammar correction, or error correction). WCF is based on an assumption that students cannot improve written accuracy if their writing is not corrected. Truscott (1996), however, argued for the ineffectiveness of WCF and total abandonment of grammar correction, which sparked a heated debate about the role of WCF in L2 writing classrooms. Since then, research on WCF has grown exponentially, and WCF has become one of the most popular research topics within the field of L2 writing. Equally, WCF has drawn the attention of L2 writing teachers who, in one way or another, share concerns about the amount of time they spend on WCF and are eager to find ways to maximize the benefits of WCF for their students. The crucial questions are: In what ways can WCF support L2 learning, and what are the implications for classroom practice? To answer the questions, this entry examines the role of WCF in L2 learning from cognitive and sociocultural perspectives. Drawing on insights from the dual perspectives, it discusses how WCF can be utilized as a pedagogical technique to facilitate L2 learning. The entry concludes with suggestions for future research.

Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) is a controversial topic among theorists and researchers in L2 studies. Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, and Takashima (2008) identify two dominant dichotomies in this regard, that is focused vs. unfocused WCF and direct vs. indirect WCF. This study considered both dichotomies in a matrix format, resulted in the recognition of four types of operationally defined WCF, and aimed at: (1) investigating the effects of four types of WCF (i.e., focused direct CF, unfocused direct CF, focused indirect CF, and unfocused indirect CF) on intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance; (2) finding out the most effective type of WCF for intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance; (3) determining learners’ attitudes toward the effectiveness of using WCF and the types which they had received. After conducting Nelson English Language Test (Test 300 D), out of 140 male and female Iranian EFL learners, 120 of them were selected as intermediate learners, aging from 14-18. The subjects were then assigned randomly to four homogeneous groups (each group including 30 participants). The pre-test and post-test both included a writing test which assessed learners’ writing performance, and then their scores were analyzed by using analytic marking scale. The results indicated that, learners outperformed in all of the four groups, validating WCF as an effective technique which can be used in EFL classes. A clear implication of the study is that WCF types (specially unfocused direct CF) should be emphasized as an essential tool for developing writing ability of intermediate EFL learners. Keywords : Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), Focused CF, Unfocused CF, Direct CF, Indirect CF, Writing Performance, Intermediate EFL Learners

The role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has been an issue of considerable controversies over past decades. This article intends to provide a critical review of the increasing number of WCF studies thus far and to inspire new perspectives for future research. It starts by briefly tracing the theoretical positions on the role of WCF in L2 instruction. Subsequently, a synthesis of empirical arguments with respect to the effectiveness of WCF, the relative merits of various WCF options, and the amenability of different error categories to WCF are presented. Based on all the evidence, two common limitations: the focus on form-oriented WCF options and the narrow range of target errors are critically discussed in the final part. It concludes by suggesting that an integration between such learning enhancing variables as micro context and written feedback, and that an extension of target structure from learners’ rule-governed errors to their non rule-governed errors should be investigated in future WCF studies so that fresh insights for WCF research could be achieved on one hand and pedagogical implications for L2 classroom instruction could be offered on the other.

Previous research mainly shows students’ improvement of composition benefits from Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). According to the five types of WCF mentioned by Ellis, containing direct WCF, indirect WCF, metalinguistic WCF, focused and unfocused WCF and reformulation, the paper reviews previous literature to help teachers adjust their WCF method to students’ preferences. The paper’s main findings are: 1) teachers’ preference for WCF is inconsistent with students’ preferences; 2) students prefer detailed and explicit feedback such as direct WCF; 3) teachers prefer indirect WCF to encourage students to reflect on their mistakes. This paper contributes to improving the teaching method of WCF.

The aim of this article is to introduce the application of languaging as the mediational tool to enhance the written corrective feedback’s effectiveness in L2 writing. Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) shows L2 learners their grammatical and ungrammatical errors in writing. It is a form of feedback that is commonly applied pedagogically in writing class. With WCF, L2 learners can improve their ability to write without errors. Nevertheless, providing WCF alone without engaging L2 learners will make the L2 learners become passive learners. They merely copy their teachers’ WCF where they can neither identify nor correct their errors. Therefore, it is recommended that L2 learners are given the opportunity to engage (to notice and understand) with the WCF. Languaging creates the opportunity for L2 learners to engage with the teachers’ WCF. Languaging is a process where L2 learners make meaning, shape knowledge and experience through language. L2 learners use language (languaging) to solve difficult task like L2 writing. When L2 learners languaging the teachers’ WCF, they should be able to improve their writing skills. This paper has pedagogical implications in L2 writing.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) is widely used among writing teachers in attempt to improve students’ language accuracy in their written tasks. Experts of second language (L2) writing stated that WCF plays a significant role in language accuracy development because it is related to the development and improvement of students’ accuracy in second language writing. Corrective feedback can be grouped into direct WCF and indirect WCF. However, results in many past empirical studies were inconclusive because of variation in how the effectiveness of WCF was measured. Additionally, there is a lack of investigation pertaining to the students’ perceptions toward the feedback they received, which may reveal important factors that influence the students’ reception of the feedback that resulted in performance changes. Hence, the purpose of this study is to explore factors that contributed to the accurate use of the past tenses resulting from direct WCF and indirect WCF. Interviews were conducted with 12 students and the qualitative findings revealed the following factors: 1) learner attitudes towards feedback provided, 2) learner beliefs towards what corrections entailed, and 3) types of scaffolding. Additionally, the findings revealed the importance of teacher-student conference, the need for students to be trained over a longer period of time in relation to the use of error codes and the need for instructor to understand and implement direct and indirect feedback accordingly in their teaching. Keywords: written corrective feedback; second language acquisition; direct-indirect feedback; past tenses; mixed methods