Given the current contextual focus on the cognitive processes employed during L2 written production
in ISLA with a focus on L2 writing-to-learn in relation to written corrective feedback (WCF), this
chapter provides (1) a description of the curricular context in which the writing-to-learn
perspective lies, together with its associated learning outcomes and assumed pedagogical ramifications derived from
empirical research; (2) a succinct review of theoretical underpinnings postulated to account for cognitive processes
employed during the phase of addressing WCF; (3) a critical report of L2 WCF studies premised on these underpinnings,
their curricular association, and potential pedagogical extrapolations; and (4) a curricular approach that involves
potential directions for future research premised on understanding and promoting such processes during this writing
process in relation to L2 development.
Adrada-Rafael, S., & Filgueras-Gómez, M. (2019). Reactivity,
language of think aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated
feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 201–213). New York, NY: Routledge.
Aghajanloo, K., Mobini, F., & Khosravi, R. (2016). The
effect of teachers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) types on intermediate EFL learners’ writing
performance. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies, 7, 28–37.
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, 9(3), 227–257.
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects
of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense
accuracy. Language Teaching
Research, 23(6), 702–726.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence
in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 17, 102–118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written
corrective feedback in second language acquisition and
writing. London: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The
value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international
students. Language Teaching
Research, 12, 409–431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The
contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month
investigation. Applied
Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written
corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing
research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so
straightforward. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 18, 136–140.
Caras, A. (2019). Written
corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of
processing. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 188–200). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cerezo, L., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2019). What
do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written
languaging. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Routledge.
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.
Coyle, Y., Cánovas-Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (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, 25–43.
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic
and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written
Communication, 7, 482–511.
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill
acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories
in second language acquisition (2nd
ed., pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.
Ellis, R. (2009). A
typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT
journal, 63, 97–107.
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, 353–371.
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher
response to student writing: Focus on form versus
content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second
language writing: Research insights for the
classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: CUP.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The
case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott
(1996). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does
error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error
correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback
in second language writing: Contexts and
issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: CUP.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error
feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 10, 161–184.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written
corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22, 307–329.
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An
eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye
tracking. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 35, 483–517.
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). L2
instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge.
Harklau, L. (2002). The
role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second
Language
Writing, 11, 329–350.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback
on second language students’ writing. Language
Teaching, 39, 83–101.
Karimi, S. H. (2016). Effects
of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing
accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research, 3(2), 216–229.
Kassim, A., & Ng, L. L. (2014). Investigating
the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written
work. English Language
Teaching, 7, 119–130.
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, 7, 305–313.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing
composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language
Journal, 66, 140–149.
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback
in L2 learning: Responding to errors during
practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing
in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive
psychology (pp. 111–137). Cambridge: CUP.
Leow, R. P. (1999). The
role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological
issues. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach & F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Advances
in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd. Hispanic Linguistics
Symposium (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Leow, R. P. (2001). Do
learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of
written input enhancement in L2
reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509.
Leow, R. P. (2012). Explicit
and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: What does the research suggest?The
European Journal of Applied Linguistics and
TEFL, 2, 117–129.
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit
learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
Leow, R. P. (2019a). ISLA:
How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular
issues. Language Teaching
Research, 23, 476–493.
Leow, R. P. (2019b). From
SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular
perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 485–493). New York, NY: Routledge.
Leow, R. P., & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing
the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language
Learning and
Teaching, 6, 43–63.
Leow, R. P., & Martín, A. (2017). Enhancing
the input to promote salience of the L2: A critical
overview. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.) Salience
in
SLA (pp. 167–186). New York, NY: Routledge.
Li, S. (2017). Cognitive
differences and ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language
acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York, NY: Routledge.
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus
on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on form in second language
acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.
López, M. B., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The
differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class: Comprehensive
feedback in the L2 writing class. Language
Learning, 68, 813–850.
Manchón, R. M. (2009). Writing
in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M. (2011a). The
language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from
research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign
language writing instruction: Principles and
practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn
in instructed language learning contexts. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural
language use and language
learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer.
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. & Murphy, L. (2009). The
temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing: Implications for
theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing
in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and
research (pp. 102–129). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language
learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical
evidence. In J. B. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of language
learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: CUP.
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2
writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The
handbook of second and foreign language
writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Park, E. S., & Kim, O. Y. (2019). Learners’
use of indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and
self-correction. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 214–228). New York, NY: Routledge.
Polio, C. (2012). The
relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction
debate. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21, 375–389.
Polio, C., & Lee, J. (2017). Written
language learning. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge
handbook of instructed second language
acquisition (pp. 299–317). New York, NY: Routledge.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience
of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL
Quarterly, 20, 83–95.
Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2016). Focus
on writers: Processes and strategies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The
handbook of second and foreign language
writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., Manchón, R. M., & Marín, J. (2008). The
foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing
processes. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 17, 30–47.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The
role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects
of the red pen. Foreign Language
Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The
effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of
articles. TESOL
Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
Shepherd, R. P., Daily O’Meara, K., Snyder, S. E. (2016). Grammar
agreements: Crafting a more finely tuned approach to corrective
feedback. Journal of Response to
Writing, 2(1), 43–57.
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, 286–306.
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects
of written feedback and revision on learners’ understanding and use of two English grammatical
structures. Language
Learning, 64(1),103–131.
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct
written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for
generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language
Journal, 99, 263–282.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical
feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of
English
Studies, 10, 29–46.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’
processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in
Second Language
Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written
languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language
Learning, 62, 1110–1133.
Suzuki, W. (2017). The
effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing
&
Pedagogy, 8, 461–482.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative
competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language
acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (2005). The
Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook
of research in second language teaching and
learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems
in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language
learning. Applied
Linguistics, 16, 371–391.
Truscott, J. (1996). The
case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327–369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The
case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to
Ferris. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8(2), 111–122.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence
and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 13, 337–343.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error
correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 17, 292–305.
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective
feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future
directions. International Journal of English
Studies, 10, 1–27.
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-International Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence
on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language
writing. Language
Learning, 62, 1–41.
Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies
on written corrective feedback: Theoretical perspectives, empirical evidence, and future
directions. English Language
Teaching, 8, 110–120.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization
from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener
(2008). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 18, 270–275.
Cited by (19)
Cited by 19 other publications
Borràs, Judith & Sonia López-Serrano
2023. “How Can I Correct What I Don't Know?”. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 60 ff.
Cerezo, Lourdes & Florentina Nicolás-Conesa
2023. Are Two Heads Always Better Than One?. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 37 ff.
Leow, Ronald P.
2023. Ronald P. Leow's essential bookshelf: The L2 learning process in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Language Teaching► pp. 1 ff.
Manchón, Rosa M.
2023. Writing and Language Learning. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff.
2023. Greater coverage vs. deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback. Language Teaching Research
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Masatoshi Sato & Yizhou Wang
2023. Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research
Bowles , Melissa A. & Kacie Gastañaga
2022. Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 675 ff.
Garcés-Manzanera, Aitor
2022. affordances of rubrics in L2 writing in Higher Education. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades 11:Monográfico ► pp. 1 ff.
2022. A classroom-based study on the effects of WCF on accuracy in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated collaborative writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 623 ff.
Issa, Bernard I., Bryan Koronkiewicz & Mandy Faretta‐Stutenberg
2022. Second‐language writing in university‐level basic language programs: A survey of student and instructor beliefs. Foreign Language Annals 55:2 ► pp. 383 ff.
Leow , Ronald P., Anne Thinglum & Stephanie A. Leow
2022. WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 651 ff.
Manchón, Rosa M. & Yvette Coyle
2022. Introduction to the special issue on L2 writing and feedback processing and use in pen and paper and digital environments: Advancing research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 541 ff.
2022. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research
Leow, Ronald P. & Meagan Driver
2021. Cognitive Theoretical Perspectives of Corrective Feedback. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 65 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 october 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.