The effects of written corrective feedback: a critical synthesis of past and present research
Issue: Vol 3 No. 1 (2019)
This paper presents a critical synthesis of research on written corrective feedback (WCF) and its effects on second language (L2) learning over the past four decades. WCF is an essential component of L2 teaching. However, whether WCF helps has been an issue of considerable debate in the literature. While many researchers have stressed its importance, some others have expressed doubt concerning its effectiveness. The controversy over the effectiveness of WCF was heightened when Truscott argued in 1996 that error correction is ineffective and harmful and others who strongly countered his argument that feedback is effective (e.g. Chandler 2003; Ferris 1999). This article provides an in-depth synthesis and analysis of this area of research, examining key issues and findings as well as the various contentions and concerns raised regarding the effects of WCF. The article concludes with implications for future research and with insights about how to move forwards.
Author: Khaled Karim, Hossein Nassaji
AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to
support EFL learners‟ writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 76-95.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition
classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–57.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102–18.
Bitchener, J. (2017). Why do some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback?
In Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp.129-140). New York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12, 409–31.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written
corrective feedback, System, 37, 322–29.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language
development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.
Bitchener, J. Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–58.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: not so
straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 136-140.
Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs
over statistics. System, 38, 491-498.
Carroll, S. (1995). The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank,
L. Selinker, & M. Smith (Eds.), The Current state of interlanguage: studies in honor of William Rutherford (pp. 73-88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
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, 267–96.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 57-58.
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cook, V. (1991). Second language learning and second language teaching. London:
DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and
practicing second language grammar. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus
on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 42-63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, (pp.
114-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2001). Focusing on form: Towards a research agenda. In W. Renandya and N. Sunga
(Eds.), Language Curriculum and Instruction in Multicultural Societies, (pp. 123‒144).
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 407-432.
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. K. & 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: Cambridge University Press.
Fazio, L. (2001). The effects of corrections and commentaries on journal writing of minority-
and majority-language minorities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249.
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly,
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott
(1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, l-l1.
Ferris, D. (2003a). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second
language writing (pp. 119–140). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do
we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D. (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: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. (2008). Feedback: Issues and options. In P. Friedrich (Ed.), Teaching academic
writing, (pp. 93-124). London, UK: Continuum.
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32, 181-201.
Ferris, D. & 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., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error
correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied
Linguistics Conference, March 11-14, 2000, Vancouver, BC.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through
grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351.
Frear, D., and Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective
feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition, Foreign
Language Annals, 37, 71-76.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A., and Marzbanc, A. (2014). An investigation of meta-linguistic
corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 316-320.
Harley, B., & Swain, M. (1984). The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications
for second language teaching. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.),
Interlanguage (pp. 291–311). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hartshorn, K. J. Evans, N. W. Merrill, P. F. Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. & Anderson, N.
J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL wiring accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84-109.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language
Teaching, 39, 83–101.
Kang, EunYoung, & Han, Zhaohong. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback
in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language
Journal, 99, 1-18.
Kao, C. & Wible, D. (2014). A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Grammar Correction in Second Language Writing. English Teaching & Learning, 38, 29-69.
XXX Author. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect
comprehensive corrective feedback on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students’ writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
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,
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for
college-level teaching. System, 25, 465–477.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford
Lizotte, R. (2001). Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents, 27, 7-
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona working
papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition, (pp. 413-468). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lopez, M. B., Steendam, E. V., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813-850.
Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott’s ‘What’s wrong with oral grammar correction.’ Canadian Modern Language Review, 55, 457-467.
Mirzaii, M., & Aliabadi, R. B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the
context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing
Research, 5, 191-213.
Author. (1999). Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction
in the second language classroom: Some pedagogical possibilities. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 55, 385-402.
Author. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language
learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Author. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and
learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20,
classroom, American Association for Applied Linguistics. Chicago, USA.
Pica, T. (2002). Subject-matter content: How does it assist the interactional and linguistic
needs of classroom language learners? Retrieved from
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language
Learning, 47, 101–143.
Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in
linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL
writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-95.
Semke, H. (1984). The 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.
Sheen, Y. (2010).