CJAL * RCLA Manchón v
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
Foreword
Rosa M. Manchón
University of Murcia
The inquiry into corrective feedback (CF) and its effects has inspired an active
research agenda for over 40 years in second language (L2) writing studies. This research
has been primarily motivated by several key questions that have been puzzling teachers
and researchers alike, notably (i) why some L2 writers seek and benefit from CF and
others do not; and (ii) whether potential learning benefits are associated with the
feedback itself and the manner in which it is provided, and/or with what learners do
with the CF they are provided with, that is, with their interaction with and processing of
the CF. The current special issue adds to this body of work with a collection of timely
empirical studies that, as detailed below, not only are fully embedded in current
disciplinary discussion in the domain, but also represent notable initiatives to
disentangle the primary and/or moderating effect of feedback- and writer/teacher-related
variables in explaining the affordances of CF in a variety of first language (L1) and L2
instructional settings.
In this Foreword I first provide a synthetic global picture of CF research as the
necessary background in which to situate the studies in the special issue. I will then
assess the contribution the research reported in the papers make to current
understandings of CF effects. This will lead me to outlining several future research
directions on the basis of selected insights provided in the papers in the special issue.
The Global Picture
As advanced above, CF research has primarily investigated whether potential
affordances of CF result from what type of feedback is provided and how, and/or with
the manner in which L2 writers (are made to) interact with the CF they receive. Yet, the
development of scholarly work in the domain distinctively points to a rather complex
scenario resulting from the host of variables that have been theoretically predicted (see
especially Bitchener, 2019; Leow, 2015) and empirically found to moderate potential
effects of feedback types and their processing on the part of L2 writers.
Thus, original CF research primarily centered around answering questions
concerned with the differential effects of diverse CF strategies/modalities on improved
accuracy in subsequent text revisions (as reviewed in Bitchener, 2019; Crosthwaite et
al., 2022: Kang & Han, 2022; Karim & Nassaji, 2020; Mao et al., 2024). Such feedback
strategies (see Bitchener, 2021, for a comprehensive review) varied primarily in terms
of explicitness (direct/indirect CF) and/or comprehensiveness (focused-
targeted/unfocused-comprehensive CF). Researchers have more recently set to
investigate additional feedback-related variables, including the medium and mode of
feedback provision (written/oral; monomodal/multimodal; paper-based/electronic; see
Elola & Oskoz, 2022; Kartchava & Nassaji, 2021), as well as feedback timing (Quinn,
2021), that is, whether we are concerned with delayed or immediate CF, the latter
having made its way into research agendas hand in hand with the growth of digital
writing.
Yet, these 4 feedback-related dimensions (explicitness, comprehensiveness,
mode/medium, and timing), individually or combined, represent only some pieces of a
much bigger puzzle, one that, as noted above, crucially includes the dimension of L2
writers’ engagement with and processing of the CF received (see Bitchener, 2019; 2021;
CJAL * RCLA Manchón vi
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
Leow & Manchón, in press; Roca de Larios & Coyle, 2022, for comprehensive
analyses). This shift in the orientation of CF theoretical and empirical work resulted
from the recognition of the key role attributed to L2 writers’ actions and agency in
bringing about learning via their interaction with the CF received. Thus, it was assumed
that learning effects of CF were dependent on L2 writers’ engagement in explicit,
intentional, and deep processing of the CF provided. Research has accordingly explored,
first, the nature and effect of such CF processing, and, second, the potential moderating
effect of teacher-related and learner-related variables, and of the manipulation of
feedback processing conditions.
As for the nature and effects of CF processing, Leow and Manchón (in press)
distinguish three main research directions (see also Roca de Larios & Coyle, 2022),
namely: the “noticing”, “depth of processing”, and “engagement” strands. Studies in the
“noticing” strand have investigated how L2 writers interact with various types of
feedback in terms of their “noticing” (i.e., allocation of attention resources) of linguistic
elements in the CF received, as well as the effects of such noticing activity. “Depth of
processing studies” are guided by Leow’s (2015) operationalization of depth of
processing (DoP) as “the relative amount of cognitive effort, level of analysis,
elaboration of intake together with the usage of prior knowledge” (p. 14). This strand
has investigated the role of DoP in relation to CF types and processing conditions, for
instance during individual or collaborative. Finally, the fast expanding “engagement”
strand has made a priority of the manner in which L2 writers respond to feedback from
three perspectives: behaviorally, cognitively, and affectively, a line of research well
represented in the special issue, as detailed below.
As for potential moderating effects of diverse variables on how learners process
and engage with CF, special scholarly attention has been paid to the role of affective
variables (see Storch, 2021, for a review), together with the variable of feedback-
seeking behaviour (e.g., Papi et al., 2019, 2020), and teacher and students feedback
literacy (e.g., Han & Xu, 2019; see also Boggs & Manchón, 2023). Another line of
research has expanded the inquiry by investigating the interactive effects of both
processing conditions and individual variables, as done, for instance, in Ishikawa and
Révesz’s (2024) and Ishikawa and Suzuki’s (2023) investigations of the moderating
effect of language aptitude.
These diverse developments depict a rather complex picture, which necessarily
leads to the acknowledgement of the range of potential variables and potential
interactions among them in explaining CF effects, which additionally means that there
are no simple answers because there are no simple questions to be asked. This also
means that the complex questions to be asked require equally complex research designs
to be able to validly account for the range of variables found or anticipated to have an
effect and, hence, look into the independent effects of feedback-type variables on
writing processes (feedback processing) and products (text features), as well as the
interactive effects of feedback-type, feedback-processing, and learner-related variables.
The Contributions to the Special Issue in the Context of CF Research
The five contributions to the special issue make important substantive and
methodological contributions to key research directions in the extant CF research.
Substantially, the special issue collective illuminates the range of variables influencing
(i) how teachers provide feedback; and (ii) how learners (individually and
collaboratively) engage with, process, and make use of diverse types of feedback
varying in explicitness and timing. Methodologically, the special issue exemplifies
CJAL * RCLA Manchón vii
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
diverse methodological procedures, ranging from qualitative methodologies (case study)
to more quantitative, controlled studies. Specially worthy of note is the inclusion of a
variety of languages as both L1 (Catalan and Spanish) and L2 (English and French).
Thus, the special issue features three studies (all of them conducted in university
settings) that represent notable contributions to the “engagement strand” in Leow and
Manchón’s tripartite distinction of CF processing studies and do so by zooming into L1
and L2 writers’ engagement with CF as a function of relevant variables. These variables
include feedback timing —as investigated by Michaud, McDonough, and Parent in their
study of French L2 learners’ cognitive engagement with indirect CF—, and feedback
processing conditions —as done by Lira-Gonzales, Nassaji, and Chao in their
comparison of individual and collaborative cognitive, affective, and behavioral
engagement with indirect CF, again by French L2 learners. Complementing these 2
studies, Bea-Reyes and Rodríguez-Gonzalo contribute a case study in which they
provide a detailed inspection of how Spanish L1 users engage in collaborative learning
and how they exert their agency in making use of the feedback provided on their writing
as a part of a didactic sequence implemented in what the authors refer to a university
“natural classroom context”. The common theme unifying the remaining two
contributions to the special issue is the provision and affordances of CF from the
perspective of teachers and students’ practices. As done in the three CF engagement
studies, these two studies follow current trends in the domain by addressing not only
relevant “what” but also “why” questions. Thus, in their study “Written corrective
feedback at university: Detection of errors by teachers and impact of different forms of
feedback”, Birello, Comajoan-Colomé, Salguero, and Sorolla add to current research
with data from Catalan L1 writers and investigate CF effects as a function of feedback-
related (contrasting direct, indirect, and metalinguistic CF) and teacher-related variables
(teachers’ reported practices). Teachers’ and students’ practices when providing and
making use of CF are further explored in Mamad and Vígh’s study of English L2, in
which new light is shed on the role of individual differences, in this case also as
pertaining to all key agents in the process; i.e. teachers and students.
I agree with the special issue editors in their assessment of the contribution these
five studies make to current CF disciplinary discussions from the dual perspective of
illustrating “the ongoing evolution of feedback research and practice” (p. xxx), and of
underscoring “the complexity of feedback as a situated, social, and cognitively
demanding practice” (p. xxx). To this I would add some most relevant methodological
characteristics of the research reported in the five contributions, especially the variety of
L2s investigated (French L2 in Canada and Costa Rica, and English L2 in Morocco),
and the range of global methodological strategies employed, including cross-sectional
and longitudinal controlled studies, in addition to qualitative observational and case
study approaches. Of relevance is also the inclusion of L1 writing, with 2 studies of
Catalan and Spanish L1 writing. Worthy of note are also the rich array of data sources
used (data triangulation being the norm in most contributions) and the equally rich and
detailed analyses of CF provision and processing data obtained via recordings of
collaborative CF processing interactions, think-aloud protocols, retrospective
interviews, validated questionnaires, or video recordings of collaborative revision
classroom sessions.
Moving Forward
I have no doubt readers of the special issue will appreciate the rich insights
provided in the five contributions. I am going to take the liberty of selecting four
CJAL * RCLA Manchón viii
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
pedagogically-relevant insights emerging from the research reported in the special issue,
which, in my view, should be further put to the empirical test in future studies:
(a) The timing of indirect CF was found to play a crucial role in shaping university
learners’ cognitive engagement with language and their ability to improve writing
accuracy on the basis of the CF received (Michaud et al.). Future work must ascertain
whether these findings also apply to other forms of feedback, provided over time, on a
variety of tasks, and as processed by diverse learner profiles.
(b) Only the cognitive (not the affective or the behavioral) dimension of feedback
engagement was found to vary over time as a function of whether L2 writers interact
with indirect CF in individual or collaborative feedback processing conditions (Lira-
Gonzales et al.). Again, these findings ought to be further tested in studies with other
learner profiles, performing a variety of writing tasks, and receiving diverse forms of
feedback.
(c) It is argued that CF research ought to open the analytic lens and view collaborative
revision not simply as correction, but also as growth, progress, and discovery (Bea-
Reyes and Rodríguez-Gonzalo). It remains to be discovered which pedagogical
practices best foster such growth, progress, and discovery, for which group of writers,
performing which type of tasks, and with what writing-related or language learning-
related benefits.
(d) Given the attested variation in university L1 and L2 academic writing contexts
(Birello et al.; Mamad & Vígh), in teachers’ feedback provision practices as well as the
potential misalignment between teachers’ practices and students’ preferences, much
further work remains to be conducted to ascertain what works and what does not work
in diverse instructional settings that pursue the development of (academic) writing skills
—learning-to-write contexts— and/or the development of language skills via writing
—writing-to-learn-language contexts (Manchón, 2023; Manchón & Leow, 2020).
To close, the current special issue attests to the relevance and vitality of CF studies,
while also illustrating the complexities involved in explaining the mysteries of how
teachers provide feedback, and how L1 and L2 writers react to, engage with, and benefit
from the feedback provided by their teachers on their writing.
CJAL * RCLA Manchón ix
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
References
Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K.
Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing. Contexts and
issues (pp. 85-105). Cambridge University Press.
Bitchener, J. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and
teaching (pp. 207-225). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.011
Boggs, J., & Manchón, R. M. (2023). Feedback literacy in writing research and
teaching: Advancing L2 WCF research agendas. Assessing Writing, 58.
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective
feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research
on L2 WCF. Journal of Second language Writing, 58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2022). Reexamining feedback on L2 digital writing. Studies in
Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 575-595.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.3
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2019). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A
case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education,
26(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410
Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A. (2024). Written languaging, learners’ aptitude, and L2
learning through dictogloss tasks. In S. Li (Ed.), Individual differences in task-
based language learning and teaching (pp. 140-160). John Benjamins.
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W. (2023). Effects of written languaging on second language
learning: Mediating roles of aptitude. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 95–
112. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12817
Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z.H. (2022). Written corrective feedback: Short-term and long-
terms effects on language learning. In R. M. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.),
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 213-225).
Routledge.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, J. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical
synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition,
3(1), 328–352, https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Kartchava E., & Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective feedback in mobile technology-mediated
contexts. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 520-538).
Cambridge University Press.
Leow, R. (2015). Explicit learning in the classroom. A student-centered perspective.
Routledge.
Leow, R., & Manchón, R. M. (in press). Enhancing L2 learning through cognitive
feedback processing. In R. Leow, & A. M. Tabari (Eds.), Cognition in second
language writing: Connecting theory, methodology, research, and pedagogy.
Routledge.
Manchón, R. M. (2023). The psycholinguistics of second language writing. In A.
Godfroid, & H. Hopp (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 400-412). Routledge.
Manchón, R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through
writing. Implications for future research agendas. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.),
CJAL * RCLA Manchón x
Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: Special Issue, 28, 1 (2025): v-x
Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 335-355).
John Benjamins.
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language
writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4)
449–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
Papi, M., Bondarenko, A. V., Wawire, B., Jiang, C. & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-
seeking behavior in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms.
Reading and Writing, 33(2), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-
09971-6
Papi, M., Rios, A., Pelt, H., & Osdemir, E. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in
language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern
Language Journal, 103(1), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12538
Quinn, A. (2021). Corrective feedback timing and second language grammatical
development: Research, theory, and practice. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava
(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language
learning and teaching (pp. 322-340). Cambridge University Press.
Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2022), Learners’ engagement with written corrective
feedback in individual and collaborative L2 writing conditions. In R. M.
Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language
acquisition and writing (pp. 81-93). Routledge.
Storch, N. (2021). Written corrective feedback and learners’ objects, beliefs, and
emotions. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 583-597).
Cambridge University Press.

## Références

J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing. Contexts and issues (pp. 85-105). Cambridge University Press.

J. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 207-225). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.011

J., & Manchón, R. M. (2023). Feedback literacy in writing research and teaching: Advancing L2 WCF research agendas. Assessing Writing, 58.

P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second language Writing, 58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934

I., & Oskoz, A. (2022). Reexamining feedback on L2 digital writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 575-595. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.3

Y., & Xu, Y. (2019). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback: A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1648410

Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A. (2024). Written languaging, learners’ aptitude, and L2 learning through dictogloss tasks. In S. Li (Ed.), Individual differences in task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 140-160). John Benjamins.

M., & Suzuki, W. (2023). Effects of written languaging on second language learning: Mediating roles of aptitude. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12817

Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z.H. (2022). Written corrective feedback: Short-term and long-terms effects on language learning. In R. M. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 213-225). Routledge.

K., & Nassaji, J. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 328–352, https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949

E., & Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective feedback in mobile technology-mediated contexts. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 520-538). Cambridge University Press.

R. (2015). Explicit learning in the classroom. A student-centered perspective. Routledge.

Leow, R., & Manchón, R. M. (in press). Enhancing L2 learning through cognitive feedback processing. In R. Leow, & A. M. Tabari (Eds.), Cognition in second language writing: Connecting theory, methodology, research, and pedagogy. Routledge.

Manchón, R. M. (2023). The psycholinguistics of second language writing. In A. Godfroid, & H. Hopp (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 400-412). Routledge.

R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing. Implications for future research agendas. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 335-355). John Benjamins.

Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4) 449–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393

M., Bondarenko, A. V., Wawire, B., Jiang, C. & Zhou, S. (2020). Feedback-seeking behavior in second language writing: Motivational mechanisms. Reading and Writing, 33(2), 485–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09971-6

M., Rios, A., Pelt, H., & Osdemir, E. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 205-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12538

A. (2021). Corrective feedback timing and second language grammatical development: Research, theory, and practice. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 322-340). Cambridge University Press.

de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2022), Learners’ engagement with written corrective feedback in individual and collaborative L2 writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 81-93). Routledge.

N. (2021). Written corrective feedback and learners’ objects, beliefs, and emotions. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 583-597). Cambridge University Press.