Cover not available
Article published In:
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 169:2 (2018) ► pp.235–261

Teacher written feedback on adult beginners’ writing in a second language

Research gaps and theoretical perspectives

| University of Gothenburg
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Beginners
    • Language proficiency
    • Why is feedback on beginning L2 writing important?
  • A critical review of inquiries about teacher feedback on writing in second language research
    • Studies within the cognitive perspective
    • Scholars’ suggestions about WCF related to lower language proficiency levels
    • Studies concerning adult beginners’ writing
  • Studies within the sociocultural perspective
    • Summarizing comments
  • The relevance of teacher written feedback to some SLA theories
    • The concept of ‘readiness’
    • Processability Theory
    • Sociocultural Theory
    • Summarizing comments
  • An alternative framework for analyzing teacher feedback
    • Background: Bridging the gap debate
    • Processability Theory
    • Sociocultural Theory
    • A possible alternative to relativism
    • Summarizing comments
  • Towards a holistic approach concerning teacher written feedback
    • Teachers’ feedback practice
    • Suggested directions for further research
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.17013.jak
References (112)
References
Afitska, O. (2015). Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research. The Language Learning Journal, 431, 57–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 781, 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 91, 227–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinston, D. (2011). Introduction. Cognitivism and second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 1–23). London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benatti, A. (2013). Proficiency. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 520–523). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernstein, R. (1983). Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the ‘language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1671, 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 631, 204–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 311, 193–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 191, 207–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 231, 4–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (2015). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Elements of the sociology of corporate life (13th ed.). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Carlsen, C. (2012). Proficiency level- a fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics, 331, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Celce – Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 251, 459–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaiklin, S. (2003). Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp. 39–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google 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, 121, 267–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. (2014). The philosophy of science and the social-cognitive dichotomy in research in language learning and teaching. In J. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 361, 365–386.Google Scholar
Eisenstein Ebsworth, M. (2014). Features of feedback. The conversation continues. Writing & Pedagogy, 61, 187–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2012). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (3rd ed.), (pp. 151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2009). Analysing learner language (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of second Language Writing, 161, 165–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Technology & corrective feedback for L2 writers: Principles, practices, & problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp. 7–29). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Press.Google Scholar
(2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 191, 6–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., & Rabie, B. (2011). “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of responding to student writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 31, 39–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, A., & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 811, 285–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 911, 800–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fristedt, P. E. (2008). Gadamer’s hermeneutic holism (Unpublished PhD dissertation), University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 301, 399–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gadamer, H. -G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 371, 71–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, L. M. (2008). Teacher written commentary in second language classrooms (4th ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Granott, N. (2005). Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 231, 140–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. R., Long, M. H., Jordan, G., & Beretta, A. (1997). Rationality and its discontents in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 181, 539–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 161, 40–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 255–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 641, 216–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H. (2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 151, 422–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014a). Epistemological remarks on a social-cognitive gap in the study of second language learning and teaching. In J. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 361, 375–380.Google Scholar
(2014b). The Common European Framework of Reference for Language: A challenge for applied linguistics. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1651, 3–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. H., & Schoonen, R. (2010). Developmental stages in second- language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them? In I. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla Monographs Series, 11, 11–20.Google Scholar
Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., & Ortega, L. (2014). (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 361, 361–421. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective support: investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning, 161, 233–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2010). Interpersonal aspects of response: constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing. Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N. (2003). Maturational constraints in SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 539–588). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C. (2007). Processability theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Bilingualism and theory-driven second language acquisition research (pp. 81–84). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, L. (2015). Holistic perspective on feedback for adult beginners in an online course of Swedish. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 91, 51–71. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K. (1988). Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 421, 89–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 991, 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kartchava, E. (2013). The place of corrective feedback within the major SLA theories. US-China Foreign Language, 111, 136–151.Google Scholar
Keßler, J. -U., & Liebner, M. (2011). Diagnosing L2 development. In M. Pienemann & J. -U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 133–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J. -U., Liebner, M., & Mansouri, F. (2011). Teaching. In M. Pienemann & J. -U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook (pp. 149–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keßler, J. -U., & Plesser, A. (2011). Teaching grammar. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. (1996). SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learning, 461, 713–749. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 24–48). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2014). The sociocultural perspective. In J. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 361, 368–374.Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Johnson, K. E. (2007). Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. Modern Language Journal, 911, 877–892. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 151, 11–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. & Zhang, X. (2015). Response to Pienemann’s critique of Zhang and Lantolf (2015). Language Learning 651, 752–760. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 911, 773–787. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1999). An introduction to second language acquisition research (10th ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System 251, 465–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 461, 108–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 191, 1–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 601, 309–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 66–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Markee, N. (2009). Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. In E. Tarone, S. Gass & A. Cohen, (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp. 89–118). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C. (2014). Feedback in the supervision of postgraduate students: Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 81, 24–36.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 91, 34–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M. E. (2014). Peer response with process-oriented, standards-based writing for beginning-level, second language learners of Spanish. Hispania, 971, 413–429. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. (2005). Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 891, 317–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing – SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 404–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J. (2000). Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 351, 227–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawlak, M. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp. 23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
(1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010). A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability theory and beyond. In P. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp. 69–88). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 651, 123–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G. (1988). Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 101, 217–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J. -U. (2014). Processability Theory. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 228–246). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 375–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raskin, J. D. (2008). The evolution of constructivism. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 211, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B. (2013). On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity. The case for different SLA theories. In M. P. G. Mayo, M. J. G. Mangado & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 243–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schönström, K. (2010). Bilingualism in school-aged deaf pupils: Processability in Swedish and narrative structure in Swedish and Swedish sign language (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Semke, H. M. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 171, 195–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 411, 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. London: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. J. (2007). Meaningful writing for beginners. Hispania, 901, 543–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 101, 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Investigating feedback on writing from a sociocultural theoretical perspective. Paper delivered at the AILA World Congress , Brisbane, Australia.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 161, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 891, 393–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valsiner, J. (1998). The guided mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 101, 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 431, 671–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 171, 89–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yi, U., Baker-Smemoe, W., & Evans, N. W. (2014). The rhetoric revision log: A technique for teaching rhetorical features in ESL writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 61, 337–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J. (2015). Natural or artificial: Is the route of L2 development teachable? Language Learning, 651, 152–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 401, 35–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Jakobson, Liivi
2019. Lärares uppfattningar om responsfokus och responssätt för vuxna nybörjarstuderandes texter i svenska som andraspråk. Nordand 14:1 ► pp. 25 ff. DOI logo
Jakobson, Liivi
2020. Vuxna nybörjarstuderandes uppfattningar om skriftlig lärarrespons på skrivande i svenska som andraspråk. Educare :4 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Jakobson, Liivi
2022. A Model for Analyzing Teachers’ Written Feedback on Adult Beginners’ Writing in Swedish as a Second Language. Languages 7:2 ► pp. 74 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 august 2024. 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.