First-year composition courses must balance a range of writing instruction priorities including genre and audience awareness with language instruction, particularly for second-language writers. Despite the attested efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for language gains in intensive English programs, little research has investigated dynamic written corrective feedback in supporting language and discourse development among L2 first-year composition students. In the present study, pre- and post-test writing from 63 second-language first-year composition writers was analyzed for grammatical accuracy as well as lexical and syntactic complexity. Writers with dynamic written corrective feedback intervention (n = 30) failed to outperform a control group on nearly all measures, and in fact made significantly more verb errors and demonstrated significantly less syntactic complexity over time compared to the control group. Results suggest that while dynamic written corrective feedback is efficacious in some settings, it may be at cross purposes with other first-year composition discourse-based goals such as genre and audience awareness.
AbdiH (2010) Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. In: SalkindN (ed) Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE, pp. 1–8.
2.
AiHLuX (2010) A web-based system for automatic measurement of lexical complexity. In: 27th annual symposium of the Computer-Assisted Language Consortium CALICO-10, Amherst: MA USA, 8 June 2010.
3.
AiHLuX (2013) A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS university students’ writing. In: Dıaz-NegrilloABallierNThompsonP (eds) Automatic Treatment and Analysis of Learner Corpus Data. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 249–264.
4.
BiberDGrayB (2010) Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes9(1): 2–20.
5.
BiberDGrayBPoonponK (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly45(1): 5–35.
6.
BiberDNekrasovaTHornB (2011) The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. ETS Research Report Series2011(1): i–99.
7.
BirdS (2010) Effects of distributed practice on the acquisition of second language English syntax. Applied Psycholinguistics31: 635–650.
8.
CCCC (2020) Statement on second language writing and multilingual writers, May 2020 update. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting
9.
ChandlerJ (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing12(3): 267–296.
10.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
11.
ConnersRJ (2000) The erasure of the sentence. College Composition and Communication52(1): 96–128.
EcksteinGFerrisD (2018) Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first-year composition. TESOL Quarterly52(1): 137–162.
14.
EcksteinGSimsMRohmL (2020) Dynamic writing corrective feedback among graduate students: The effects of feedback timing. TESL Canada Journal37(2): 78–102. DOI: 10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1339.
15.
EvansN WHartshornK JMccollumR M, et al. (2010) Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research14(4): 445–463. DOI: 10.1177/1362168810375367.
16.
FerrisDEcksteinG (2020) Language matters: Examining the language-related needs and wants of writers in a first-year university writing course. Journal of Writing Research12(2): 299–339.
17.
FerrisDEcksteinGDeHondG (2017) Self-directed language development: A study of first-year college writers. Research in the Teaching of English51(4): 418–440.
18.
FerrisDRobertsB (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be. Journal of Second Language Writing10: 161–184.
19.
FerrisDR (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing8(1): 1–11.
20.
FerrisDR (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 Writing13(1): 49–62.
21.
FerrisDRHedgcockJ (2013) Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. New York: Routledge.
22.
FerrisDRLiuHSinhaA, et al. (2013) Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing22(3): 307–329.
23.
GallucciM (2019) GAMLj: General analyses for linear models. [jamovi module]. Available at:https://gamlj.github.io/. Accessed April 12, 2020.
24.
HartshornKJEvansNW (2012) The differential effects of comprehensive corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching3(2): 217–247.
25.
HartshornKJEvansNW (2015) The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing1(2): 6–34.
26.
HartshornKJEvansNWMerrillPF, et al. (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly44(1): 84–109.
27.
HuntKW (1970) Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first?TESOL Quarterly4(3): 195–202.
28.
jamovi project (2019) jamovi. (Version 1.0). Available at:https://www.jamovi.org. Accessed April 12, 2020.
29.
KangEHanZ (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal99(1): 1–18.
30.
KurzerK (2018) Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly52(1): 5–33.
31.
KwonS H (2009) Lexical richness in L2 writing: How much vocabulary do L2 learners need to use? English Teaching64: 155–174.
32.
LuX (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics15: 474–496.
33.
LuX (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly45: 36–62.
34.
LuX (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. Modern Language Journal96: 190–208.
35.
LuXAiH (2015) Syntactic complexity in college-level English writing: Differences among writers with diverse L1 backgrounds. Journal of Second Language Writing29: 16–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.06.003.
36.
MatsudaPK (1999) Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication50(4): 699–721.
37.
MatsudaPKSaenkhumTAccardiS (2013) Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing22(1): 68–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.10.001.
38.
OrtegaL (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics24: 492–518.
39.
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at:https://cran.r-project.org/. Accessed April 12, 2020.
40.
TaguchiNCrawfordBWetzelDZ (2013) What linguistic features are indicative of writing quality? A case of argumentative essays in a college composition program. TESOL Quarterly47: 420–430.
41.
TorruellaJCapsadaR (2013) Lexical statistics and tipological structures: A measure of lexical richness. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences95: 447–454.
42.
TruscottJ (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning46(2): 327–369.
43.
Wolfe-QuinteroKInagakiSKimH-Y (1998) Second Language Development in Writing: Measures of Fluency, Accuracy and Complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
