Introduction to the Special Issue
2025-09-24
Marilisa Birello, Llorenç Comajoan-Colomé, Tania Salguero
Feed status
5 parsed articles
Last update: Not fetched
2025-09-24
Marilisa Birello, Llorenç Comajoan-Colomé, Tania Salguero
2025-09-24
Gabriel Michaud, Kim McDonough, Mariane Parent
This study examines the impact of written corrective feedback (WCF) timing on the collaborative writing process and writing accuracy development of adult learners of French as a second language. Forty-eight learners were divided into three groups to complete a collaborative writing task in pairs. The first group received immediate WCF via Google Docs while writing, the second group received delayed WCF one week later with 10 minutes allocated for error correction, and the third group performed the writing task without receiving any feedback. All discussions during the collaborative writing were recorded and analyzed for language-related episodes (LREs). Writing accuracy was assessed through pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests using story-retelling tasks. The findings revealed that the delayed feedback group engaged in more extensive discussions about linguistic forms compared to the other two groups. In terms of writing accuracy, the immediate feedback group showed the most significant improvements over time.
2025-09-24
Maria-Lourdes Lira-Gonzales, Hossein Nassaji, Kuok-Wa Chao Chao
An increasing number of studies have explored the effects of collaborative writing on written outcomes; however, few studies have examined the influence of collaborative processing of feedback. This study addresses this gap by focusing on learner engagement. While collaborative writing involves co-authoring a text, which requires negotiation and idea sharing, collaborative processing of feedback focuses on jointly interpreting and responding to feedback. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, this study examined 24 learners of French as a Foreign Language (FFL) over an 8-week period. It compared their engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) when processed individually versus in pairs. The findings provide insights into how different feedback processing modes influence learner engagement and highlight the potential benefits of collaborative feedback processing. The instructor provided indirect WCF, and learners revised their essays with think-aloud sessions. The study examined cognitive and behavioral engagement through writing analysis and used think-aloud reports examining affective engagement. Results indicated that learners’ cognitive engagement varied between individual and collaborative processing, with individuals employing fewer high-depth and low-depth processing strategies. However, affective engagement was found to be independent of task completion mode, and behavioral engagement did not differ between individual and collaborative processing of WCF.
2025-09-24
Abderrahim Mamad, Tibor Vígh
This study aimed to investigate university students’ preferences for and reported instructor practices of written feedback (WF) and how these align with instructors’ perceptions and self-reported practices in EFL writing classrooms. An 80-item survey was conducted with 13 instructors and their 210 students at a Moroccan university. The findings revealed that instructors’ perceptions aligned with students’ preferences for judgmental WF on the written text and all process-based WF subscales. However, instructors considered WF modes on the written text more important than students. In terms of practices, instructors reported employing certain WF practices (judgmental WF on the written text, content-based WF related to textuality standards, and macroaspects of writing) more often than students reported. The study emphasizes the importance of aligning classroom WF practices with students’ preferences to enhance writing performance.
2025-09-24
Marilisa Birello, Llorenç Comajoan-Colomé, Tania Salguero