English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ noticing of written corrective feedback (WCF) has a positive impact on their writing development. However, the effect of EFL learners’ noticing when receiving various sources of input, including model texts, the teacher’s written recasts, peers’ compositions, and the implementation of the sociocognitive transformative approach, on their writing performances in terms of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) has not been explored. A class of 27 English majors, all intact, participated in the study. A pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest design was employed to understand the effectiveness of the semester-long treatment conditions and learners’ noticing in various learning contexts on the three performances. The class was divided into two subgroups using different picture prompts for the three tests. The noticing log and the focus group interviews were employed as online and offline measures to understand students’ noticing in various learning contexts. Results showed that students’ accuracy in errors divided by the number of words, error-free T-unit, and error-free T-unit per T-unit was significantly enhanced. Regarding fluency, the number of words and the number of T-units also achieved significance. However, syntactic complexity did not change substantially, manifesting trade-off effects between CAF. Students noticed content the most frequently, regardless of learning contexts. They noticed grammar and expressions second most frequently in peer discussion and written recasts. It is suggested that the treatment conditions raised learners’ awareness of the discrepancies in their writing ability in both linguistic and non-linguistic aspects such as content, and the gap between their interlanguage and the target language provided by various sources of input, which may have led to their more attention to accuracy and increased knowledge of vocabulary and expression, hence contributing to the enhancement of long-term accuracy and fluency.
ArmstrongK.M. (2010). Fluency, accuracy, and complexity in graded and ungraded writing. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 690–702.
2.
AgrestiA.CoullB. A. (1998). Approximate is better than “exact’ for interval estimation of binomial proportions. American Statistician, 52(2), 119–126.
3.
Ashoori TootkaboniA.PakzadianM. (2021). Exploring the effects of pre-task planning time on EFL learners’ narrative writing. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 13, 1–19.
4.
AtkinsonD. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 86, 525–545.
5.
AtkinsonD. (Ed.). (2011). Alternative approaches to second language acquisition. Taylor & Francis.
6.
AyounD. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the passé composé and imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226–243.
7.
AyounD. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition of aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 31–55.
8.
BanarueeH.Khatin-ZadehO.RueggR. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5, Article 1455333.
9.
Bardovi-HarligK. (1992). A second look at T-unit analysis: Reconsidering the sentence. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 390–395.
10.
Bardovi-HarligK.BofmanT. (1989). Attainment of syntactic and morphological accuracy by advanced language learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 11, 17–34.
11.
BarnawiO.Z. (2010). Promoting noticing through collaborative feedback tasks in EFL college writing classrooms. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 22, 209–217.
12.
BarrotJ.S. (2014). A macro perspective on key issues in English as second language (ESL) pedagogy in the postmethod era: Confronting challenges through sociocognitive-transformative approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 23, 435–449.
13.
BarrotJ.S. (2015). A sociocognitive-transformative approach to teaching writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 113–122.
14.
BarrotJ.S. (2016). Using Facebook-based e-portfolio in ESL writing classrooms: Impact and challenges. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 29, 286–301.
15.
BarrotJ.S. (2018). Using the sociocognitive-transformative approach in writing classrooms: Effects on L2 learners’ writing performance. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 34, 187–201.
16.
BarrotJ.S.GabineteM.K. (2019). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in the argumentative writing of ESL and EFL learners. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 59, 209–232.
17.
BergsleithnerJ.M.FrotaS.N.YoshiokaJ.K. (2013). Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt. National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of Hawaii.
18.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
19.
Canovas GuiraoJ.C. (2011). The use of models as a written feedback tool in primary education. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
20.
Canovas GuiraoJ.C.de LariosJ.R.CoyleY. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52, 63–77.
21.
CastelliP.A. (2011). An integrated model for practicing reflective learning. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15, 15–30.
22.
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.
23.
ChoeY.RyuJ.JeonM. (2022). Effects of pre-task planning and source texts on Korean EFL College learners’ summary writing. Journal of Asia TEFL, 19, 109–124.
24.
CoyleY.de LariosJ.R. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, Article 102374.
25.
CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2014). Does writing development equal writing quality? A computational investigation of syntactic complexity in L2 learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 66–79.
26.
DegtevaO. (2011). Impact of recasts on the accuracy in EFL learners’ writing. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Girne American University, Kyrenia, Cyprus.
27.
DoughtyC. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
28.
DyeJ.F.SchatzI.M.RosenbergB.A.ColemanS.T. (2000). Constant comparison method: A kaleidoscope of data. The Qualitative Report, 4, 1–9.
29.
EllisR. (2008). Studies in second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
30.
EllisR.YuanF. (2004). The effects of planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in second language narrative writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 59–84.
31.
EllisR. (2019). Task preparedness. In WenZ.AhmadianM. J. (Eds.), Researching L2 task performance and pedagogy: In honour of Peter Skehan (pp. 15–38). John Benjamins.
32.
EvansN.W.HartshornK.J.CoxT.L.De JelT.M. (2014). Measuring written linguistic accuracy with weighted clause ratios: A question of validity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 33–50.
33.
García MayoM.D.LabandibarU.L. (2017). The use of models as written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110–127.
34.
GooJ. (2020). Research on the role of recasts in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 53(3), 289–315.
35.
Gunnarsson-LargyC. (2012). The development of complexity, accuracy and fluency in the written production of L2 French. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA (pp. 247–276). John Benjamins.
36.
HanaokaO. (2007a). Noticing from models and reformulations: A case study of two Japanese EFL learners. Sophia Linguistica: Working Papers in Linguistics, 54, 167–192.
37.
HanaokaO. (2007b). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.
38.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W.MerrillP.F., et al. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
39.
HartshornK.J.RiceS.H.EcksteinG.EvansN.W. (2023). Dynamic written corrective feedback frequency and its effects on ESL writing fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Feedback Research in Second Language, 1, 7–32.
40.
HousenA.KuikenF. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 461–473.
41.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.). (2012). Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA. John Benjamins.
HwangH.J. (2022). A study on the role of models and reformulations in L2 learners’ noticing and their English writing. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association, 22, 426–436.
44.
IwashitaN.BrownA.McNamaraT.O’HaganS. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct?Applied Linguistics, 29, 24–49.
45.
JacobsH.L.ZinkgrafS.A.WormuthD.R.HartfielV.F.HugheyJ.B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.
46.
KamiyaN. (2025). What characteristics of recasts facilitate accurate perception when overheard by true beginners?Language Teaching Research, 29, 416–449.
47.
KangE.Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, Article 102196.
48.
KaoC.W.ReynoldsB.L.ZhangX.WongM.P. (2025). The effectiveness of unfocused corrective feedback on second language student writers’ acquisition of English article, prepositional and verb tense usages. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, 1–11.
49.
KhezrlouS. (2020). The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3, 31–54.
50.
KormosJ. (2011). Task complexity and linguistic and discourse features of narrative writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 148–161.
51.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2007). Task complexity and measures of linguistic performance in L2 writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45, 261–284.
52.
KuikenF.VedderI. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 48–60.
53.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2006). The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics, 27, 590–619.
54.
Lázaro-IbarrolaA. (2023). Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: Noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 329–359.
55.
LeemanJ. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.
56.
LuX. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 36–62.
57.
LuquinM.García MayoM. D. P. (2020). Collaborative writing and feedback: An exploratory study of the potential of models in primary EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 2(1), 73–100.
58.
LuquinM.García MayoM.P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, Article 102465.
59.
LuquinM.García MayoM.P. (2024). A longitudinal study of the effects of model texts on EFL children’s written production. System, 120, Article 103190.
60.
MaftoonP.ShiraziM.A.DaftarifardP. (2010). The effect of recast vs. self correction on writing accuracy: The role of awareness. BRAIN: Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2, 17–28.
61.
MeleroR.M.García MayoM.D.P. (2022). The impact of models and reformulations on EFL primary school children’s noticing and written output. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 6, 29–56.
62.
MezirowJ. (2008). An overview on transformative learning. In SutherlandP.CrowtherJ. (Eds.), Lifelong learning (pp. 24–38). Routledge.
63.
MujtabaS.M.BarrotJ.S.ParkashR.NawazM.W. (2023). Combining sociocognitive-transformative approach and form-focused instruction: Effects on L2 learners’ complexity, accuracy and fluency in writing. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 29, 180–194.
64.
NakataniY. (2010). Identifying strategies that facilitate EFL learners’ oral communication: A classroom study using multiple data collection procedures. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 116–136.
65.
NassajiH. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101, 353–368.
66.
NguyenH.M.ChuT.A. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A review of research. Reflections, 31, 858–870.
67.
NguyenL.Q.NguyenB.T.T.PhuongH.Y. (2024). Exploring the use of model texts as a feedback instrument in expository writing: EFL learners’ noticing, incorporations, and text quality. Assessing Writing, 62, Article 100890.
68.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Measurement for understanding: An organic approach to investigating complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
69.
OrtegaL. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518.
PasaribuA. N.PasaribuT. K.SiahaanR. B.SitompulD. S. (2024). Challenges for Indonesian EFL students in English academic writing. English Review: Journal of English Education, 12(2), 527–536.
72.
PereraK. (1984). Children’s writing and reading: Analyzing classroom language. Blackwell.
73.
PuL.HengR.CaoC. (2022). The effects of genre on the syntactic complexity of argumentative and expository writing by Chinese EFL learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1047117.
74.
QiD.S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
75.
RassaeiE. (2015). Journal writing as a means of enhancing EFL learners’ awareness and effectiveness of recasts. Linguistics and Education, 32, 118–130.
76.
RassaeiE. (2024). Recasts, foreign language anxiety and L2 development during online mobile-mediated interaction. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168824123804
77.
RezaeiA.ValeoA. (2023). Investigating the impact of task complexity on uptake and noticing of corrective feedback recasts. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 1271–1300.
78.
RichardsJ.PlattJ.PlattH. (1992). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Longman.
79.
RobinsonP. (2007). Criteria for grading and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García MayoM.D.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Multilingual Matters.
80.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
81.
SatoR. (2012). The effects of written feedback in the form of recasts. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 9, 27–50.
82.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
83.
SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
84.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
85.
SkehanP. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
86.
SkehanP. (2001). Tasks and language performance. In BygateM.SwainM.SkehanP. (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching, and testing (pp. 167–186). Routledge.
87.
SkehanP. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30, 510–532.
88.
SkehanP. (Ed.). (2014). Processing perspectives on task performance: Volume 5. John Benjamins.
89.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1997). Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research, 1, 185–211.
90.
SkehanP.FosterP. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.
91.
StorchN. (2009). The impact of studying in a second language (L2) medium university on the development of L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 103–118.
92.
UymazE. (2019). The effects of peer feedback on the essay writing performances of EFL students. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 11, 20–37.
93.
Van PattenB. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287–301.
94.
WachaR.C.LiuY.T. (2017). Testing the efficacy of two new variants of recasts with standard recasts in communicative conversational settings: An exploratory longitudinal study. Language Teaching Research, 21, 189–216.
95.
WeiY.SulaimanN.A.IsmailH.H. (2024). Academic English writing challenges in a blended EFL and ESL learning environment: Insights from Chinese international high school students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 23, 275–293.
96.
WigglesworthG.FosterP. (2008). Measuring accuracy in second language performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of teachers of english to speakers of other languages (TESOL) Convention, New York City, New York.
97.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 445–466.
98.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Technical report#17). University of Hawaii Press.
99.
WuZ.QieJ.WangX. (2023). Using model texts as a type of feedback in EFL writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1156553.
100.
XuZ.ZhangL.J.ParrJ.M. (2023). Incorporating peer feedback in writing instruction: Examining its effects on Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners’ writing performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 61, 1337–1364.
101.
YangL.ZhangL. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ writing performance. Language Teaching Research, 14, 464–484.
102.
YuS.LeeI. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49, 461–493.
103.
ZhaoR.ZhuangY.ZouD.XieQ.YuP.L. (2023). AI-assisted automated scoring of picture-cued writing tasks for language assessment. Education and Information Technologies, 28, 7031–7063.
