Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers

In this study, the controversial issue of written corrective feedback (WCF) is examined through a longitudinal (16-week semester) multiple-case study approach. Ten L2 writers (from “Generation 1.5” backgrounds) in a developmental ESL writing class at a U.S. university wrote four in-class texts, revised them after receiving WCF, and participated in retrospective interviews after each of the first three writing and revision sessions. Data collected included student background questionnaires (N = 10), four student texts (originals plus revisions) per participant (N = 40), recordings and field notes from interviews with participants (N = 30), and recordings and notes from an end-of-semester interview with the classroom teacher. Analyses focused primarily on students’ descriptions of their own self-monitoring processes as they revised marked papers and wrote new texts and individual and contextual factors that appeared to influence their writing development. Students found the techniques used in the study (focused WCF, revision, and one-to-one discussion about errors) useful, but formal knowledge of language rules played a limited and sometimes even counterproductive role in their self-editing and composing. Our findings suggest that teachers should take a more finely tuned approach to corrective feedback and that future research designs investigating WCF should go beyond consideration of only students’ written products.

► This study examined effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) on L2 learners. ► We completed a 16-week multiple-case study with ten student participants. ► Students made a range of errors and showed varying degrees of change over time. ► Formal knowledge played a limited role in students’ self-editing strategies. ► High-stakes timed writing kept students from utilizing knowledge gained from WCF.