Although the effects of different types of written corrective feedback (WCF) have been examined in great detail, learners’ revision behavior in response to WCF has not been systematically investigated. The current study compared students’ classroom revision behaviors when they worked in pairs and when they worked individually. It further compared the effects of students’ collaborative and individual revision of teachers’ indirect WCF on accuracy development in their subsequent writing. A total of 36 learners of English as a second language (ESL) completed four timed essays over an 8-week academic session. The instructor provided indirect WCF on students’ essays, and the students revised their writing either individually (the self-correction group) or in pairs (the pair-correction group). The students’ revision behavior was analysed in terms of the correctness of revised errors. The accuracy of their writing was analysed in terms of the number of error-free T-units and the total number of errors for each 100 words. The findings indicated that the pair-correction group corrected their errors at a higher rate of accuracy than the self-correction group. Both groups showed significant improvement in the accuracy of their writing after receiving feedback during the 8-week session; however, no difference in improvement was found between the self-correction and the pair-correction groups.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
2.
BitchenerJ. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language of Writing, 17, 102–118.
3.
BitchenerJ. (2012). A reflection of ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363.
4.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback on migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
5.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback on language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
6.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
7.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
8.
DobaoA.F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.
9.
EllisR. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335–349.
10.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG. (2005). Analysing Learner Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
FerrisD.HedgcockJ. (2014). Teaching L2 composition. New York: Routledge.
12.
FerrisD.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
13.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
14.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
15.
KassimA.LuanN. (2014). The roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing written corrective feedback efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 10, 16–30.
16.
KimY. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–130.
17.
KimY. (2013). Effects of pretask modelling on attention to form and question development. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 8–35.
18.
KimY. (2015). The role of tasks as vehicles for learning in classroom interaction. In MarkeeN. (Ed.), Handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 163–181). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
19.
LantolfJ.PavlenkoA. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity Theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In BreenM. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 141–158). London: Longman.
20.
LiuQ.BrownD. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
21.
MorsaliS. (2014). The effect of written corrective feedback on the acquisition of English prepositions. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 4, 227–243.
22.
PolioC. (2012). The relevance of Second Language Acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.
23.
SatoM.BallingerS. (Ed.) (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
24.
SheenY. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
25.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
26.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 386–306.
27.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
28.
StorchN. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL classes. Language Teaching Research, 11, 143–159.
29.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
30.
SuzukiW. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110–1133.
31.
SwainM. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In ByrnesH. (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
32.
SwainM.LapkinS. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion learners working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
33.
SwainM.LapkinS. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
34.
TaguchiN.KimY. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-related episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37, 416–437.
35.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
36.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
37.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.
