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 study addresses several challenges in written corrective feedback (WCF) research. First, scholars have expressed concerns that although studies of focused WCF may benefit some classrooms and may help advance second language acquisition theory, they may not represent ecologically valid methods where comprehensive feedback may be more appropriate. Second, many focused WCF studies only report on learner performance within a narrow list of linguistic features, making it impossible for others to determine any secondary benefits or detriments of the treatment. Finally, many research studies of WCF have been of limited duration, making it difficult to identify longer-term effects of various WCF methods. Therefore, this study is an attempt to address these issues by examining the effects of dynamic WCF over a 30-week period. In addition to analyzing linguistic accuracy, this study examined the effects of dynamic WCF on rhetorical appropriateness, fluency, complexity, and vocabulary development over a 30- week period. While improvements in linguistic accuracy were observed for the treatment group when compared to a control group, no other differences were found. Implications for pedagogy and future research are discussed.

In a conversation with an editor of the Journal of Second Language Writing, the question was asked, “What is the most popular topic of submitted manuscripts to the Journal?” The response was as decisive as it was quick, “That’s easy. Feedback or response to writing is by far the most commonly submitted topic.” That brief exchange triggered a number of questions that needed answers. First and foremost among those questions is, if response to writing is such a popular topic, might there be a need within our profession for another venue for such scholarship? Though the Journal of Second Language Writing is extraordinary at disseminating the highest quality research on broad aspects of second language writing, space within its pages is limited. Therefore, we determined to investigate whether there is indeed a need for another venue for quality scholarship on response to writing for international dissemination.