Despite the current widespread use of Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) feedback, many issues regarding its efficacy still remain unresolved. Recent studies mainly focus on correctly detected errors with a lack of attention on the comprehensiveness of error detection, or error coverage. Error coverage is interesting because little is known about the capacity of AWE systems to fully detect common second language (L2) errors. It is also important to investigate the potential effect of such capacity on student uptake and retention, which are important constructs in fostering L2 writing development. To this end, the present study compared teacher feedback and AWE error coverage in L2 writing classes. The findings suggest that both the AWE system and the teacher demonstrated low error coverage across grammar, usage, and mechanics error categories. However, they indicated differences in the types of errors they identified most frequently. The AWE system flagged more mechanical errors, whereas the teacher provided twice as many corrections for grammar errors, including wrong/missing words, prepositions, and incorrect word forms. While the AWE system performed moderately in flagging articles and comma errors, it struggled with more nuanced grammatical errors, suggesting it may not be a reliable standalone tool for addressing specific needs of L2 learners’ writing challenges. Interestingly, coverage was positively associated with successful uptake, with students utilizing a wider variety of revision acts (i.e., change, add, delete, remove) on AWE errors identified compared to errors not identified. However, error coverage did not correlate with short- or long-term retention of accuracy, implying that retention may result from the interplay of error coverage with other factors. Findings provide implications for writing teachers regarding the employment of AWE systems and for AWE developers regarding the future optimizations of the AWE systems.

This study explored a way to help Japanese university students write longer essays while maintaining grammatical accuracy. Participants were three groups of students enrolled in a one-year EFL course in consecutive academic years (N = 111), and the number of words they wrote in 30 minutes and the number of errors made per 100 words were compared. To improve the participants’ grammatical accuracy, comprehensive coded feedback (e.g., Bonilla, et al., 2018, 2021; Hartshorn, et al., 2010) and selective metalinguistic explanation (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Sheen, 2007) were provided on the 12 paragraphs/essays they submitted. The first, sixth, and last essays were analyzed to assess their verb tense and mechanical errors. Regarding the length of writing, the first group kept writing about 150 words, the second group was encouraged to increase the length of writing at their own discretion, and the third group was systematically guided to write longer essays by following a prescribed guideline. The ANOVA results showed that the two groups that wrote longer essays significantly outperformed the short-essay group in the length of writing without sacrificing grammatical accuracy. The correlation analyses produced evidence against a possible trade-off between accuracy and fluency (Lambert & Kormos, 2014; Skehan, 2009).

The present study evaluated the effects of a combined form of written corrective feedback (WCF) on English as a foreign language (EFL) students’ writing accuracy. The combined WCF consisted of unfocused error-code WCF and focused metalinguistic explanation. Different forms of WCF were administered to two groups of Japanese EFL students in two consecutive years, and the effects of the feedback were compared based on the number of grammatical errors that the students made before and after receiving feedback. The original version (single combined WCF) provided metalinguistic explanation only once for each of eight target grammatical forms, whereas the intensive version (repeated combined WCF) provided metalinguistic explanation repeatedly. The results showed that combined WCF facilitated the students’ accurate use of the target forms overall, and repeated combined WCF was more effective than single combined WCF, but its efficacy weakened over time. Repeated combined WCF had a positive effect on students’ accurate use of verb tense and the avoidance of informal usage; single combined WCF had a significant effect only on verb tense. Repeated combined WCF also served to reduce the total number of errors, including errors for which no metalinguistic explanation was given, implying that coded WCF had its own contribution to the students’ writing accuracy.

It has been suggested that students experience more autonomy in the feedback process when they communicate feedback preferences to their teacher or peers. However, little is known about what kinds of feedback students request when given this autonomy. Furthermore, when student writers supply feedback requests, it is unknown to what extent readers act in accordance with such feedback requests while providing feedback. In this study, Japanese university students made feedback requests to teacher and peer reviewers, and I evaluated the feedback requests and the feedback subsequently received. The findings indicate that the most common feedback requests were about the content and successful communication of ideas. The next most common requests concerned grammar and vocabulary, and the least prioritized requests involved organization and academic style. When students requested feedback on content, grammar, and academic style, readers increased feedback on those areas; however, feedback on other areas correlated weakly with the requests given.

Error correction for English language learners’ (ELL) writing has long been debated in the field of teaching English to speakers of other languages (TESOL). Some researchers say that marking all errors in students’ papers with written corrective feedback (WCF) is not manageable, while others think it is manageable. This study examines the manageability of the innovative dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) strategy, which has a more comprehensive approach to error feedback, and asks what factors influence the manageability of the strategy (including how long marking sessions take on average) and what suggestions experienced teachers who use DWCF have. The strategy has shown to be highly effective in previous studies, but its manageability has been questionable. A qualitative analysis of the manageability of DWCF was conducted via interviews of experienced teachers that have used DWCF and the authors’ experiences and reflections using the strategy. The results indicate that this strategy can be manageable with some possible adaptions while avoiding common pitfalls.

This paper reports beliefs and preferences of second-language (L2) students regarding effective writing feedback strategies, especially conferences for oral and written feedback. Guiding the study were these questions: 1) Do L2 university students prefer to receive direct or indirect teacher feedback on written-language problems? 2) Do the students prefer to receive (a) written feedback (WF) only or (b) oral feedback (OF) in one-on-one conferences as well as WF? 3) In the case of 2(b), do the students prefer to receive OF during or after WF? The study employed mixed methods involving quantitative surveys of 30 Canadian university students from two English for academic purposes (EAP) writing classes and qualitative interviews with 11 of those surveyed. Results demonstrate that the students preferred direct feedback more on grammar, vocabulary, register, and clear expressions than on spelling, punctuation, and mechanics. They also preferred direct feedback more at the course beginning than at the end. More importantly, the students preferred coursework-based conferencing (Eckstein, 2013), particularly simultaneous oral-written feedback (SOWF), a conferencing format that allows students and teachers to negotiate and dialogue while teachers mark assignments. This paper details the reasons for student preferences and discusses the advantages and feasibility of a simultaneous oral-written feedback approach (SOWFA).

The purpose of the present study is to examine the resources for responding to grammatical issues in student writing that are available to writing teachers. The study analyzes two sets of data: (a) the position statements issued by the Conference on College Composition and Communication, the Council of Writing Program Administrators, and the National Council of Teachers of English, and (b) the best-selling writing-teacher preparation materials. The results are discussed through the theoretical lens of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998) in order to portray how the field of composition studies—as a community of practice— models responding to linguistically diverse students, whether L1, L2, or international students. The results show that the expectations set by position statements are not met by writing-teacher preparation materials. Thus, teachers are lacking resources to know how to respond to students’ grammar rhetorically in the context of writing. Based on these findings, I discuss implications for responding practices and propose future avenues for research on preparing teachers to respond to student writing.

In this project, I investigated student perceptions of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF), a specific method of providing accuracy feedback, in developmental writing classes for multilingual students. Via a quasi-experimental design using treatment and control sections of a developmental writing program’s three levels, I collected and contrasted survey data from a total of 145 students. I then interviewed three students (one international and two generation 1.5) representing a range of perceptions of DWCF. Participants generally appreciated and valued DWCF, especially as a complement to a grammar textbook, and students of classes that used DWCF reported higher scores on most survey items, such as quality of grammar feedback and general class instruction. I also present students’ pedagogical suggestions for better integration of DWCF in writing classes.

This article reports on a study focused on understanding the relationship between teachers’ emotional responses and the larger contextual factors that shape response practices. Drawing from response and emotion scholarship, this article proposes affective tensions as a way for understanding the tug and pull that teachers experience between what they feel they should do (mostly driven from a pedagogical perspective) and what they are expected to do (mostly driven by an institutional perspective) in a contextual moment. The case study of Kim, a community college instructor, offers an analysis of two affective tensions that emerged from her think-aloud protocol (TAP): responding to grammar/sentence errors over content and responding critically to students she likes. Kim’s case reveals the underlying affective tensions between individual emotions, cultural constructions, and institutional contexts that are negotiated while she responds to student writing. This article concludes with suggestions for identifying emotions and affective tensions that both influence and paralyze writing teachers’ response practices.

Studies that have reported delayed positive effects for written corrective feedback (WCF) have typically targeted the use of articles for first- and subsequent- mention functions, using narrowly focused corrections that lack ecological validity. Not much is known about how different grammatical features react to mid-focused and unfocused WCF options, which enjoy more ecological validity. This study investigates the delayed effect of different types of WCF on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ accurate use of three features of English grammar (articles, infinitive, and unreal conditional). Four groups of participants (N = 77) were treated with different feedback options (mid-focused corrections, unfocused corrections, unfocused corrections plus revision, and no corrective feedback). WCF did not produce lasting accuracy gains, nor did it help corrected students outperform uncorrected students on a delayed posttest.

Welcome to the second issue of our third year of publication. As the journal has become more established, we are seeing a wide range of fascinating research and teaching work related to response to writing in both first and second language contexts. This issue is no different. In this issue, we present two research articles, two teaching articles, and a book review. In the first piece, “L2 Learners’ Engagement with Direct Written Corrective Feedback in First-Year Composition Courses,” Izabela Uscinski examines how second language learners of English engage with feedback from their college writing teachers. Uscinski draws on Svalberg’s (2009) definition of engagement, suggesting that it “encompasses not only the cognitive realm, but also affective and social.” To better understand how writers make use of written corrective feedback and whether it leads to meta-awareness and noticing of language structures, she recruited eight Chinese-L1 first-year college students taking a stretch composition course at a university in the United States. She asked the students to meet with her when they had received grammar feedback from their teachers and recorded the computer screen as they revised their essays. Playing back the recordings, she then asked the students to discuss what they had done and why.

The debate over the efficacy of written teacher comments has raised a variety of questions for consideration by both researchers and practitioners. Teachers can use written comments, in Vygotsky’s (1978) framework, to scaffold the development of student writing. By reflecting on his or her own commenting process, a teacher can assess and modify his or her comments as well as the method by which the comments are delivered. This study examines how four second-language (L2) students responded to comments on a series of three papers. The results show that students overwhelmingly followed the strategy training given during class on how to respond to teacher’s comments; however, the strategies used to make changes did not always result in a positive revision. While students believed they followed the teacher’s suggestions, they did not always pay attention to the paper as a whole, which resulted in problems with coherence or grammar, and even instances of plagiarism. Results indicate that strategy training does not guarantee an outcome of successful revision. This suggests that revision will be more effective for student paper development if understood as part of the creative process of writing rather than mere error correction. Based on these results, several proposals are made for modifying the comment process.

This article introduces the idea of grammar agreements as a way to offer a more “finely tuned approach” to grammar feedback in the L2 classroom (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, p. 307). These agreements offer students options for how the teacher will respond to writing done in their first-year composition classes. The authors offer suggestions for both why grammar agreements are a useful tool in the L2 writing classroom (and possibly beyond) and how to implement grammar agreements effectively.