Implementing written corrective feedback research into practice in a Japanese EFL University
writing class. Part 1: in creating a situated pedagogy - initial discovery, application and progress.
Andy Rushton

1. Introduction
Providing written corrective feedback (WCF), despite being considered by most EFL teachers to be
one of the most time-consuming parts of their jobs, is often unclear as to its efficacy in improving
written linguistic accuracy. After giving corrective feedback there is often no change between thefirst and second drafts and it surely prompts us, as teachers, to question whether students hear orunderstand the feedback they receive.
So with all the time spent correcting student L2 writing a rethink is needed as to how that time
could be more efficiently spent. Lambert [1] (2015) asserts that WCF is important because: itmatches students’ goals; it embodies active learning due to the time required for engagement with
it; it is both expected and wanted by students, and expected to be provided by teachers; and written
accuracy is more important than its spoken counterpart, because spoken errors are more readily
tolerated.
The aim of this first paper is to research WCF to date, and inform and provide ideas and techniques
for the classroom to improve its efficacy and in turn improve students’ written linguistic accuracy
adding to overall L2 development. These ideas will be implemented and reviewed in the teachingcontext of once-weekly Japanese university EFL writing classes, and suggestions for adaptations
and improvements will be made. It is hoped that in the near future a second paper can be written
providing a further account of the techniques utilized with the provision of actual data relating totheir possible efficacy in terms of error reduction.
To give a background to subsequent descriptions of pedagogical techniques employed in the Spring2019 semester, a review of the WCF literature follows. Descriptions of the techniques will beoutlined followed by an evaluation of their stand alone and complimentary efficacy addressing theissues raised by a student survey, and future improvements that could be made in the situatedpedagogy of a Japanese university EFL writing context. Here a situated pedagogy refers to teachingpractices that “unite one’s personal theory of practice with the sociocultural, institutionalised andpolitical particulars of a learning environment” ([2]Lochland, 2013). In other words, honing andadapting teaching ideas from a western pedagogy in a Japanese EFL context.
2. An overview of WCF in the literature
The past few decades have seen a proliferation of literature on WCF expand with some consistentcentral themes evolving. Perhaps the main one of these is whether or not written WCF should be－ 31 －

provided in L2 writing contexts at all ([3]Truscott, 1996). This consequently has resulted inresearch trying to ascertain a single most effective type of WCF. These methods that are
documented in the literature are situated in both cognitive and social cultural theory of mind
perspectives on WCF for L2 development, and span direct and indirect, and focused or unfocusedWCF.
2.1 Direct versus indirect corrective feedback
Direct feedback corrections are reformulated and edited into the text by a teacher; with indirect
feedback, the teacher identifies the location of the errors which cognitively engages learners toattempt self-correction and produce the correct language. Indirect feedback is further differentiatedby use of a code carrying metalinguistic information about a specific error, or feedback that is
uncoded and uses circling or underlining of text containing errors to draw it to the attention of thelearner ([4]Ferris & Roberts, 2001; [5]Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Thus far, there have been noconclusive results to define the effects of either Direct or Indirect WCF. On the one hand, direct
WCF is claimed to have more benefits in certain contexts ([6]Bitchener & Knoch, 2010), while on
the other, indirect feedback is shown to be more effective, as coded ([7]Ferris, 2006; [8]Lalande,1982) or uncoded ([9]Lu, 2010). Furthermore, other studies, however, show no differences between
direct and indirect feedback ([10]Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; [4]Ferris & Roberts, 2001).
2.2 Focused Versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback
The WCF literature further distinguishes between focused and unfocused, or comprehensive
feedback. Focused feedback corrects only one or a limited number of predetermined error types;
whereas, unfocused corrects all types of errors within the learner’s text. L2 writing researchers
continue to prefer focused feedback over unfocused because excessive feedback can be
overwhelming for both teacher (provision of feedback) and the learner (processing of
feedback), ([11]Bruton, 2009;[12]Bitchener, 2008;[10] Bitchener & Knoch, 2009, [13]Ellis, Sheen,
Murakami, & Takashima, 2008). However, the ecological validity of focused feedback in classroom
contexts has been brought into question ([14]Bruton, 2010; [15]Storch, 2010; [16]Van Beuningen,2010). [16]Van Beuningen (2010:19) states that the learning potential of comprehensive WCF
should be investigated further, and Ellis et al. [13](2008) believe that the extent to which WCF
should be focused to produce efficacy is important, determining that if WCF is beneficial dealing
with a number of different errors, it makes sense as a teacher to adopt this approach. In a Japanese
university EFL context, dealing with some errors but ignoring others would be confusing anddemotivating for learners as the teacher is viewed as an expert by learners.
Furthermore, despite this continued recommendation by scholars for focused feedback, concern has
been raised particularly by Ferris [17](2010) over the “strict limits on the number of errors” being
studied and the “narrowly defined error categories”. The majority of studies have focused on the
English article system and English past tense verbs. Both Storch[15] (2010) and Van Beuningen[16](2010), for example, have expressed doubts regarding the generalization of the effectiveness of－ 32 －

corrective feedback when so many studies are based on only a small number of linguisticfeatures. Bitchener[18] (2009) therefore calls on researchers to study a wider variety of feedback.
Results, however, are inconsistent, with some studies showing unfocused feedback facilitating
greater accuracy in L2 writing ([19]Van Beuningen et al., 2012), and others claiming focused WCF
to be ([20]Sheen et al.2009). Yet more studies show that both types of WCF improve accuracy withno major difference between them ([13]Ellis et al., 2008). According to Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum,
et al. [21](2010), these inconsistencies are likely because of three confusing uncontrollable variables
which influence L2 writing development: learner (L1 background, goals and motivation, L2
proficiency, learning style), situational (the teacher and the physical environment as well as
prevailing social, political, or economic conditions shaping the teaching and learning context) andmethodological variables (instructional design, what and teaching method).
Despite the lack of consensus as to the best type of feedback, it is clear though that some form of
WCF is better than none if not in terms of improved accuracy then student motivation. Lambert[1](2015), citing various sources from the literature, provides the following list regarding WCF andstates that students:x

believe that WCF helps improve their writing, ([22]Ferris, 1995)x

believe WCF is important for grammar errors, ([23]Hedgecock and Lefkowitz, 1996;[24]Radecki and Swales, 1998)

x

want corrective feedback on errors but also highly value teacher comments ([24]Radecki and
Swales, 1998; [25]Lee, 2008)

2.3 The cognitive perspective on WCF for L2 development
The cognitive perspective on L2 development can best be understood from what Krashen [26](1985)
referred to as acquired competence which draws on the automatic and unconsciously accessed
implicit knowledge, and learnt competence which taps into the learnt, controlled, rule-guided andaccurate explicit knowledge. Although Krashen[27] (2003) asserted that the conversion of learnt
knowledge into acquired knowledge does not happen, DeKeyser[28] (1998) stated that explicit
knowledge can be converted to implicit knowledge by means of meaningful, contextualised andconsistent practice. This conversion is best understood by skill-learning theory which likens
language learning to the learning of other skills and is characterized by the progression fromdeclarative knowledge, involving conscious processing and practice, to the final procedural stage
where knowledge is accessed unconsciously and automatically. This progression,or proceduralization can be broken down into three stages: the declarative, in which a description of
the skill is learnt, the associative, in which a preferred method for executing the skill is practiced,
and the autonomous, in which the skill becomes increasingly quicker and automatic. The theory
asserts that errors decrease as instruction, practice, and feedback increase (DeKeyser,[29] 2003,[30]2007), which allows the learner to advance from declarative to procedural knowledge andultimately, automatization. Feedback, and primarily negative evidence (highlighting what is not－ 33 －

acceptable in the L2) i.e. CF, has been shown to raise levels of grammatical accuracy ([31]Swain,
1995).
An attempt to implement skill-learning theory is Dynamic WCF ([21]Hartshorn et al. (2010) whichtakes a comprehensive indirect feedback approach with a metalinguistic error code. The code has
dual suitability in that Japanese learners, due to their adequate preexisting linguistic knowledge,
adapt easily enough especially with a bilingual description sheet. Furthermore, the recording ofspecific grammatical errors in the form of error tallies, error logs and attempts to consolidate theinput of new phrases with a new language log are made manageable. However, studies of Dynamic
WCF ([21]Hartshorn et al. 2010) have been centered on daily classes of multilingual, upperintermediate or low advanced ESL learners. The effect on lower ability, monolingual, weekly EFL
classes in a Japanese university remains to be seen.
2.4 The sociocultural theory of mind perspective on WCF for L2 development
Sociocultural theory of mind (SCT), although not a theory of L2 learning, is a psychological theory
explaining human cognitive development as it occurs in contextualized interactions between an
expert and a novice i.e. a teacher and learner, or possibly a more able peer. Differing from othertheories, it asserts that cognitive functions are first formed socially as a co-construction with anexpert, then become internalized by the individual, transformatively rather than merely imitatively.
SCT is interested in the type of assistance offered from the expert to novice (teacher to learner),with feedback constituting a form of assistance advancing the novice from their actual level to theirpotential one. This difference between these two levels is referred to as the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD). The mediational tool of language plays an especially important role ininteractional assistance between teacher and learner, as both the learner’s thoughts and decisions
about the WCF provided by the teacher become self-directed speech. This provides greater
understanding of the linguistic forms in question, potentially being internalized to be used in future
new writings. A further advantage of peer feedback is that the WCF becomes vocalized thus
enhancing L2 gains even though the L1 is used ([32]Swain, 2006, [33]2010). Furthermore, SCT
examines the variables affecting human behavior such as motivation and learning environment asa means of understanding learner response to WCF. Consequently, it is understood that feedback
varies in its effectiveness, and therefore needs to take into consideration the learners’ existing, andimportantly, potential stages of development in order to attune it to their changing needs. Thus,
WCF initially maybe direct using reformulations, then progressing to metalinguistic feedback in
the form of a correction code, and finally indirect feedback with underlining and circling, andultimately, other-regulation to self-regulation. While the teacher as expert is accepted by Japaneselearners, a more able peer situated correction process may falter due to cultural constraints.
3. The initial writing class model prior to the questionnaire
Prior to embarking on the research for this paper, the researcher/teacher had been engaged inteaching writing classes at the Japanese university in question for one semester. Past experience
with teaching writing in a different context had been confined mainly to unfocussed WCF with a－ 34 －

correction code as part of a process-product approach involving single rewrites. Due to teacherfamiliarity with the approach and suitability for the university context, it was adopted with allclasses from first to third grade students and is outlined below.
For two consecutive semesters an error correction code was implemented with the aim ofhighlighting and thereby reducing learners L2 written errors by negative feedback. A
product-process writing approach was used, namely one piece of writing was set following a
textbook model and usually started in class and then finished for homework. In the following classthis was submitted and then corrected by the teacher. In the same lesson, homework from theprevious two lessons which had been corrected was handed back to the students at the beginning ofa 90-minute lesson. For approximately the first 20 minutes of the lesson students engaged inrewriting by correcting errors highlighted with the error correction code (see Appendix).
Furthermore, the students were also encouraged to talk to the teacher if necessary to clarify any
corrections they were unsure of. This encouragement was strengthened by instrumental motivation
with students receiving extra class participation points for speaking out and engaging with theteacher. Other than this oral interaction, direct, unfocussed feedback by written metalinguistic
annotations from the correction code was the main form of correction given. However, there wereoccasions when the teacher corrected with reformulations, which on the first draft would be when it
was determined that the correct or more appropriate expression was beyond the current ability ofthe student. Simply annotating for example, “RW” (rewrite) would be a waste of time for the
student as they would more than likely not have had the L2 ability to make the correction.
Oftentimes, a middle solution was sort by providing a hint or clue, for example, the first and lastletters and then indicating how many letters were needed to complete the word or phrase. This wasoften successful, however, during a feedback interaction with the teacher, students signaled that
there were occasions when they could not understand or provide the right solution regardless of theclue given. It was because of this frequent occurrence that the teacher often decided to provide
direct feedback relying on experience to judge the necessity and appropriacy. Overall, despite nottaking an inventory of occurring errors, drawing on long term, professional experience, a generalincrease in linguistic accuracy was noted by the teacher, however, evidence of repeated errors,
regardless of the sustained corrective feedback given over two semesters, was noted.
After one and a half semesters it was decided to investigate how the approach was being received by
the students. From an experienced teaching perspective (this researcher’s), apart from some slightinitial reluctance to completing rewrites, students participated well in the classes and clear
improvements could be seen in terms of overall accuracy. As mentioned, no analysis of the actual
number or type of errors being made was carried out, therefore a precise account of improved
grammatical accuracy cannot be claimed, however, improvements were certainly noticeable at a
glance even if only by the reduced amount of corrections given. A questionnaire was administered to
students to assess the perceived efficacy, and opinions regarding the WCF with a metalinguistic－ 35 －

code already received (see appendix 1). As a result, four issues could be identified which could be
improved upon.
4. Post questionnaire areas to be addressed
The aforementioned questionnaire was distributed towards the end of the second semester for all
three grades that were receiving writing instruction from the teacher/researcher.
Four main issues were raised:
I.

Despite students agreeing to their errors being corrected with a correction code, it was notedthat at times it had been difficult to interpret and consequently a more direct approach toreviewing it more often in class activities was considered necessary.

II.

There was a preference among some learners for the teacher to provide a reformulation withlanguage which was assumed to be beyond their current ability to produce on their own
while relying solely on the correction code. This could serve as valuable L2 input which
could be acquired and hopefully recycled over time.

III.

Many students realized that they needed to be more mindful of what they had written inorder to improve self-editing ability.

IV.

Many felt their grammar was not improving sufficiently and lacked confidence that common
errors would not be repeated.

5. Pedagogical practice to address issues
5.1 Reviewing the correction code and providing model corrections
According to Lambert[1] (2015), motivation certainly has its place in writing classes because
students are often resistant to the long term process which demands both perseverance andpatience. A corrected paper with correction code annotations, some of which are unclear as to how
they should be interpreted, could easily lead to a loss of motivation and increased apathy towards
making corrections. Therefore, with the weekly classes, as well as the opportunity for students tohave the teacher on hand one-on-one, a review of WCF thinking processes was conducted in class.
This involved taking selected errors from student texts before returning them and correcting themin front of the class, eliciting student input where necessary. After two or three examples had been
completed the corrected papers were returned to the students to rewrite, calling on the teacher’s
support if required. As the semester progressed, the feedback was varied to include underlining andcircling and slowly reduce the amount of coded annotations, as suggested by a sociocultural theoryof mind perspective. As a growing understanding of each individual student’s needs and abilities
was reached, the teacher could modify and adapt this approach for each student, including more orless as required. There was, however, a marked increase in “miscorrections” (forming the wrong
conclusion as to what the error was, or correcting language which was already correct) and there
was some indication from individual students that it was perceived as beyond their current
capabilities. Knowing when and how to alter feedback approaches is difficult, and obviously－ 36 －

requires a certain amount of trial and error. In future, some actual student errors should becorrected in front of the class from underlined and circled examples in order to build familiarity
with the process and to develop awareness of frequent common errors corrected more indirectly.
Another possibility would be to have peer correction of such papers if the context allowed. (Seebelow).
Using ideas originating from Dynamic WCF and its modified form based on research by Hartshorn
et al. [22] (2010) and Eddington [34](2014) respectively, an error log and new language log was
distributed to students.
5.2 Error correction log
After students had received corrected first drafts they were instructed to begin the rewrite processby solo engagement with the correction code, and, if necessary, by requesting the help of the teacher.
In certain situations peer feedback was also possible (see below). At the commencement of thesemester, each student received a double-sided A4 error correction log which they kept with themand brought to each class. They were instructed to log the grammatical errors such as WT (wrong
tense), WF (wrong form), S/P (singular/plural), and A (article), and problems with lexis WW (wrongword) on the X line, then beneath it on the O line, the correction.

Before submitting any new writing, students were asked to consult their Error logs to review theircommon errors, and then look at their paper to try and locate anything similar which needed
correcting.
5.3 Reformulations and new language log
Prior to the questionnaire being carried out which had prompted new methods to be adopted,
reformulations had been given when the teacher felt that the students were unable to provide thecorrect word, phrase, or sentence by themselves. As a way of consolidating such language and to
give learners further opportunities to interact with it by means of recycling, a New Language Log
was implemented. The teacher provided reformulations as before, but additionally circled the－ 37 －

language with a blue highlight marker, signaling to the learner that it was for inclusion in theirpersonal New Language Log, an A4 double sided handout like this:Some refinement of this idea is needed as most classes were not strictly engaging in writing with its
academic functions. The reformulations provided were too specific to the writing in question which
severely reduced any possible recycling opportunities. Therefore, in future, more content neutral
and generic inclusions (as shown above) should be prioritized. It would provide an opportunity forstudents to try and include new language in future writing, maybe with instrumental motivation by
way of a points system for attempting to try and use it, more points if it is used correctly.
5.4 Peer correction and self-review
Using a socio-cultural theory perspective students interacted together in L1 and compared anddiscussed their error log sheets together as well as peer review of completed written assignments
before submission. Peer review had a mixed response, with some classes initially unable toparticipate in any meaningful feedback. It would seem that from a cultural perspective it was too
demanding to ask them to point out other students’ errors. One way to overcome this reticence toidentify errors was to emphasize that they were helping their partner by alerting them to mistakes
before the paper was submitted. In this way, the more errors that were discovered prior to
submission, the less red ink from the teacher’s pen would find its way on to their partner’s paper.
This had a positive effect and participation improved greatly. As a method of self-review, students
were encouraged to look over their papers before submission after reviewing their own error logs.
Corrections or alterations were often seen to be made6. Future research
It is proposed to reimplement the techniques outlined above in the following semester (Autumn
2019) making any necessary adjustments or adaptations as deemed necessary as the lessons
progress. During this period, linguistic accuracy will be measured (error-free clause ratio) toascertain whether any definite improvement in written L2 grammatical accuracy can be detected,
and therefore, whether a modified version of Dynamic WCF with lower ability learners has any
significant efficacy.

－ 38 －

7. References[1] Lambert, J. (2015) Written Corrective Feedback, Cambridge University Press webinar
https://youtu.be/AZz3Td-Hc4k (accessed September, 10th, 2019)[2] Lochland, P. W. (2013). Moving beyond communicative language teaching: A situated pedagogy

for Japanese EFL classrooms. TESOL International Association, 4(2), 261-273.
[3] Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning.
[4] Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does itneed to be? Journal of Second Language Writing.
[5] Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL

writing quality. TESOL Quarterly.
[6] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language

development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics.
[7] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- andlong-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second
language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Lalande, J. F., II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language
Journal, 66, 140–149.
[9] Lu Y. (2010). The value of direct and indirect written corrective feedback for intermediate ESL

students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New
Zealand.
[10] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct writtencorrective feedback. System.
[11] Bruton, A. (2009) Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing. System, 37, 600-613.
[12] Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing.
[13] Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused andunfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System.
[14] Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: improved situated designs

over statistics. System.
[15] Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International
Journal of English Studies.
[16] Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives,

empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies.
[17] Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA:Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
[18] Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to“Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008).” Journal of Second
Language Writing.

－ 39 －

[19] Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012), Evidence on the Effectiveness ofComprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning.
[20] Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused

written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System.
[21] Evans, N., Hartshorn, K. J., & Allen, E. (2010). Written corrective feedback:

Practitioner perspectives. International Journal of English Studies.
[22] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple draft composition

classrooms. TESOL quarterly, 29, 33–53.
[23] Hedgecock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1996) Some input on input: two analyses of student response toexport feedback on L2 writing. Modern language Journal, 80,(3)[24] Radecki, P. & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written

work. System, 16, 355-365.
[25] Lee, I. (2008). Teacher-written feedback: student reactions to teacher feedback in to Hong Kong

secondary schools. Journal of second language writing, 17, 144–164.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J.
(2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly.
[26] Krashen, S.D. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
[27] Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures.
Portsmouth, N.H: Heinemann.
[28] DeKeyser, R. M. (1998). Beyond Focus on Form: Cognitive Perspectives on Learning andPracticing a Second Language. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom
Second Language Acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[29] DeKeyser, R. (2003). Explicit and Implicit Learning. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The

Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
[30] DeKeyser, R. (2007). Introduction: Situating the concept of practice. In R. DeKeyser (Author),

Practice in a Second Language: Perspectives from Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology(Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 1-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[31] Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, &B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G.

Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[32] Swain, M. (2006) Languaging, Agency and Collaboration in Advanced Second Language

Proficiency. In: Byrnes, H., Ed., Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and
Vygotsky, Continuum, London. London: Continuum[33] Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Barstone (ed.)

Socio-cognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 112-130) Oxford: Oxford
University press.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development.
[34] Eddington, (2014) A Modified Approach to the Implementation of Dynamic Written Corrective

Feedback.

－ 40 －

8. Appendix－ 41 －