This study proposed a three-step writing conference in which foreign/second language (L2) students, under the guidance of their writing instructor, first fastened their attentional focus on a form-related error, analysed a collection of standard L2 samples to deduce the underlying knowledge, and then planned for their error correction as well as future learning of this knowledge. The ultimate goal of this formative assessment practice was to scaffold student engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF). Using a between-group experiment design, the present study compared the effects on the success rate of error correction and L2 uptake of the above writing conference (n = 14) against those brought about by a typical Teacher–Student (n = 12) and a typical Student–Student one (n = 12). Research participants were 38 intermediate learners of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) recruited from three intact classes at a language-learning center in Vietnam. The suggested writing conference was indeed found to yield better error correction and L2 uptake than the other counterparts. A closer look at the students’ mental engagement with WCF revealed that such engagement was moderately correlated with their L2 uptake. These findings altogether suggest that student engagement with WCF should not be taken for granted or, in other words, this engagement should be contingently supported by the writing instructor in order to foster learning from WCF.
BitchenerJ.YongS.CameronD. (2005). The effects of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.
2.
BrunerJ. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective. In WertschJ.V. (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
3.
BrutonA. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491–498.
4.
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 Writing, 12, 267–296.
5.
ChandlerJ. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 57–58.
6.
CotterallS.CohenR. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: Producing an academic essay. ELT Journal, 57, 158–166.
7.
De GuerreroM.VillamilO. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.
8.
FazioL. (2001). The effects of corrections and commentaries on journal writing of minority- and majority-language minorities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235–249.
9.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11.
10.
FerrisD.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
11.
FrearD.ChiuY. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
12.
GascoigneC. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annuals, 37, 71–76.
13.
GibbonsP. (2007). Mediating academic language learning through classroom discourse. In CumminsJ.DavisonC. (Eds.), International handbook of English language teaching. Springer international handbooks of education: Volume 15 (pp. 701–718). Springer.
14.
HanY.HylandF. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.
15.
HylandF. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.
16.
HylandK.HylandF. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
17.
KangE.Y.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
18.
KarimK.NassajiH. (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, 24, 519–539.
19.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3, 28–52.
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.
LiuY. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA and Teaching, 15, 65–79.
22.
LizotteR. (2001). Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents, 27, 7–17.
23.
LongM.H. (1996). The role of the linguistics environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.C.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Volume 4: Second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
24.
LopezM.B.SteendamE.V.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850.
NelsonG.CarsonJ. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.
27.
PolioC.FleckC.LederN. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
28.
SharpeT. (2008). How can teacher talk support learning?Linguistics and Education, 19, 132–148.
29.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
30.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
31.
SuzukiW.NassajiH.SatoK. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.
32.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
34.
TruscottJ.HsuA.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
35.
TsuiA.NgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
36.
van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
37.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Harvard University Press.
38.
WalquiA. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9, 159–180.
39.
ZhangS. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.
40.
ZhangZ. (2017). Student engagement with computer-generated feedback: A case study. ELT Journal, 71, 317–328.
41.
ZhangZ.HylandK. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.
42.
ZhengY.YuS. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.
