Article published in:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 167:2 (2016) ► pp. 111–131

To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development?

This article assesses the current status of written CF research. It focuses specifically on the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 development, seeking answers to five of the most frequently asked umbrella questions: (1) Can written CF facilitate L2 development? (2) Are some types of written CF more effective than other types for L2 development? (3) Is written CF more effective for the development of certain linguistic forms and structures than for others? (4) Is focused or unfocused written CF more effective for L2 development? (5) Can individual and contextual factors moderate the effectiveness of written CF for L2 development? The article assesses the extent to which the reported findings reported in this body of research provide valid and consistent answers to these questions and suggests where future written CF research would do well to focus its attention. From the limitations and shortcomings of the available research, new approaches to answering some of the umbrella questions are suggested and recommendations for research that seeks answers to why written CF may or may not be effective for some learners are presented. Finally and most importantly, emphasis is given to the need to recognise the interactional effect of a wide range of individual and contextual factors (especially those that characterize the whole learner and his/her learning environment) on learner response to and use of written CF.
Keywords: written CF, L2 learning
Published online: 14 February 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit
References

References

Anderson, J.
(1976) Language, memory, and thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(1983) The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1993) Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J.
(2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D.
(2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
(2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
(2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010a) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010b) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
(2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruton, A.
(2009) Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, J.
(2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dekeyser, R.M.
(1997) Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practising second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C.
(2005) At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H.
(2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D.
(1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frear, D.
(2012) The effect of written CF and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Gass, S.
(1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Guenette, D.
(2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Q.
(2015) The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels. Unpublished PhD dissertation, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Kepner, C.G.
(1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J.
(2012) The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lalande, J.F.
(1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, B.
(1978) The monitor model: Some methodological considerations. Language Learning, 28, 309–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990) Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L.
(2009) Understanding second langauge acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I.
(1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. Tesol Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rummel, S.
(2014) Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished PhD dissertation. AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R.
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second lanugage instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Semke, H.D.
(1984) Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y.
(2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 169–179. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A.
(2009) Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, K.
(1992) Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
(2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W.
(2014) Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two english grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanou, C.
(2014) L2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written CF, learner factors and awareness. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Lancaster University, UK.: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Storch, N.
(2014) Investigating feedback on writing from a sociocultural theoretical perspective. Paper delivered at the AILA World Congress , Brisbane, Australia.
Truscott, J.
(1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y.P.
(2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C.G., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F.
(2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J.
(2012) The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 9 other publications

Coyle, Yvette, Josefa Cánovas Guirao & Julio Roca de Larios
2018. Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing 42 ► pp. 25 ff. Crossref logo
Jakobson, Liivi
2018. Teacher written feedback on adult beginners’ writing in a second language. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 169:2 ► pp. 235 ff. Crossref logo
Leow, Ronald P.
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo
Manchón, Rosa M.
2017. The potential impact of multimodal composition on language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 38 ► pp. 94 ff. Crossref logo
Manchón, Rosa M., Florentina Nicolás-Conesa, Lourdes Cerezo & Raquel Criado
2020.  In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 242 ff. Crossref logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Olena Vasylets
2019.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning, ► pp. 341 ff. Crossref logo
Mao, Zhicheng & Icy Lee
2020. Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing 45 ► pp. 100469 ff. Crossref logo
Papi, Mostafa, Anna Vitalyevna Bondarenko, Brenda Wawire, Chen Jiang & Shiyao Zhou
2020. Feedback-seeking behavior in second language writing: motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing 33:2 ► pp. 485 ff. Crossref logo
Pearson, William S.
2020. Predictors of citations in written feedback on ESL writing research. COLLNET Journal of Scientometrics and Information Management 14:1 ► pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 february 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.