See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301283647

Supporting Second Language Writing Using Multimodal Feedback

Article  in  Foreign Language Annals · March 2016

DOI: 10.1111/flan.12183

CITATIONS READS

98 978

2 authors:

Idoia Elola Ana Oskoz

Texas Tech University University of Maryland, Baltimore County
44 PUBLICATIONS   1,016 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   1,252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Effects of collaborative writing and peer feedback on subsequent written productions using technological correction tools and not using them View project

Heritage Learner Writing Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Idoia Elola on 15 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

58 SPRING 2016

Supporting Second Language

Writing Using Multimodal
Feedback
Idoia Elola
Texas Tech University
Ana Oskoz1
University of Maryland, Baltimore County

Abstract: The educational use of computer-based feedback in the classroom is

becoming widespread. However, less is known about (1) the extent to which tools
influence how instructors provide written and oral comments, and (2) whether receiving
oral or written feedback influences the nature of learners’ revisions. This case study,
which expands existing research on computer-mediated feedback, examines how four
Spanish learners enrolled in a Spanish advanced writing course received multimodal
feedback while working on the different drafts of a narrative essay. The instructor
provided written feedback via Microsoft Word and oral feedback using screencast
software. Results indicate that the tool used affected the quantity and quality of the
instructor’s comments. When using the screencast software, the instructor provided
additional and lengthier comments on content, structure, and organization; the instruc-
tor was more explicit on form when using the coding system in Word. Although learners
revised similarly regardless of the tool being used, they tended to prefer the oral feedback
for global aspects, such as content, structure, and organization, and the written feedback
for form. However, learners agreed that no matter the mode and the tool, both ap-
proaches to feedback helped them improve their writing skills.

Key words: instructor feedback, L2 writing, learner beliefs, revisions, written and oral
feedback

Introduction
Although the role that feedback plays in acquiring a second language (L2) is not
yet completely recognized (Truscott & Hsu, 2008), learners expect to receive it
and expect instructors to provide it. In addition, recent studies in L2 contexts

1
Authors are listed in alphabetical order and contributed equally to the manuscript.
Idoia Elola (PhD, University of Iowa) is Associate Professor of Spanish and
Applied Linguistics & Second Language Studies, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.
Ana Oskoz (PhD, University of Iowa) is Associate Professor of Spanish, University
of Maryland, Baltimore County.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 49, Iss. 1, pp. 58–74. © 2016 by American Council on the Teaching of Foreign
Languages.
DOI: 10.1111/flan.12183
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
confirmed that feedback supports linguistic
learning not only from draft to draft (Ferris,
1999, 2006), but also when new pieces of
writing have been completed (Ellis, Sheen,
Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen,
2010). However, the provision of feedback
is a complex endeavor: Instructors need to
decide if revisions are needed for content or
organization, the types of error to highlight,
how explicit feedback should be, and the
way in which to offer it.
The integration of technology has ex-
panded the way in which instructors can
provide feedback to their L2 learners,
from sophisticated programs developed by
testing services (Lavolette, Polio, & Kahng,
2015) to screencasting software (Ducate &
Arnold, 2012) to the Track Changes tool
(Ene & Upton, 2014; Ferris, 2012; Ho &
Savignon, 2007; Tuzi, 2004). All of these
tools give instructors the potential to effi-
ciently provide oral or written feedback, for
example, in the form of error coding sys-
tems, written comments, or a video that can
be watched as many times as needed.
Within the framework of activity theory,
this case study explored how the medium
(video [screencast] software vs. Word) and
mode (oral or written) in which the instruc-
tor provided feedback to four fourth-year
learners mediated the production of a final
narrative essay.
Literature Review
When framed by interactionist and socio-
cultural theories, the improvement of
writing has been regarded as evidence of
language acquisition (Manch
on, 2011)
and of learning (Bitchener, 2012). The
interactionist theory sees the provision
of feedback as an essential instructional
practice—it provides negative evidence,
which raises awareness of learning gaps
and encourages the reorganization of learn-
ers’ linguistic mental processes. Perhaps
because of the emphasis on oral or “chat”
communication in the initial wave of
widespread classroom technology, the first
generation of human-computer-mediated
59
(as opposed to automated) feedback studies
analyzed types of feedback, types of
errors, and learners’ immediate responses
(Fern
andez-Garc
ıa & Mart
ınez-Arbelaiz,
2002), as well as the impact of negative
feedback within chat sessions (Morris,
2005). Some studies showed that the slower
pace of asynchronous and even synchro-
nous computer-mediated communication,
often provided by some learners in telecol-
laborative encounters (Sauro, 2009; Vinagre
& Mu~ noz, 2011; Ware & O’Dowd, 2008),
give other learners more opportunity to
focus on form (Hampel & Hauck, 2006;
Vinagre & Lera, 2008).
Similarly, sociocultural theory consid-
ers feedback to be essential; however, given
that feedback is regarded as a dialogic
process between instructors and students
(Lantolf, 2006), its main strength is its po-
tential to scaffold the learner to a higher
level if pitched at the learner’s current pro-
ficiency level. Nassaji and Swain’s (2000)
case study, for example, found that their
Korean learner was able to understand feed-
back better when the feedback was based on
the zone of proximal development (ZPD).
Oskoz (2009) also found that learner-
provided feedback in written online
synchronous interactions helped fellow
learners advance if it was within their
ZPD. More recently, Storch and Wiggles-
worth (2010), who examined the efficacy
of reformulations and coding symbols,
noted that uptake and retention appeared
to be affected not only by linguistics cues,
such as the type of error, but also by affec-
tive factors, including learners’ attitudes,
beliefs, and goals.
Hence, both interactionist and socio-
cultural theories see feedback as an
important element in teacher-learner and
peer-to-peer interactions, not only empha-
sizing the relationship between expert and
novice, but also as a way to raise awareness
and achieve higher levels of linguistic
knowledge, thereby enabling learners to
close linguistic gaps and move to the next
level (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007). The role of
technology in supporting L2 writing has
60
been studied in terms of content develop-
ment (Elola & Oskoz, 2010), the use of
reference tools and collaboration (Kessler,
2009), and the development of new genres
(Crystal, 2006); however, only recently has
research examined the effect of different
feedback tools on L2 learners’ performance
(Ducate & Arnold, 2012; Ene & Upton,
2014; Tuzi, 2004). The lack of research
on technology-mediated feedback is sur-
prising given that, as already suggested by
sociocultural theory, higher forms of mental
activity such as planning and monitoring
are mental processes that are mediated by
psychological or semiotic tools, such as
numbers or language, or with physical tools
and artifacts (Vygotsky, 1978). The rele-
vance of tools is emphasized in activity the-
ory, which considers tools and artifacts to
be “integral and inseparable components
of human functioning” (Engestr€ om, 1999,
p. 29) and where the object is seen and
manipulated within the limitations set by
the instrument (Engestr€ om, 1991). Tools
are both enabling and limiting, because
they can empower the learner toward a
desired outcome, such as revising an essay,
but they can also restrict learners’ actions
according to the limitations of the tools in
use (Kaptelinin, Kuutti, & Bannon, 1995;
Kuutti, 1996). In fact, the integration of a
new tool or artifact into a well-rehearsed
activity, such as receiving instructor feed-
back in a form other than comments written
on paper, may unsettle learners’ ideas of
how the L2 classroom should function
(Basharina, 2007). Even when, for example,
an instructor provided specific guidelines
for the steps to be carried out and provided
tools to complete the writing task, Blin and
Appel (2011) found that learners deviated
from expected procedures in applying the
tools and developed their own set of actions
to accomplish the writing task. In contrast,
in Oskoz and Elola’s (2014) study, learners’
interactions with the tools and artifacts me-
diated their evolving perceptions of a task
and helped them focus on different aspects
of the object (an essay) in a sophisticated
way. Thus, in the case of a technology-aided
SPRING 2016
written text, common tools and artifacts
such as Word (for written feedback) and
screencast software (for oral feedback)
may influence the way foreign language
learners envision the object and how they
develop it.
Feedback in the L2 Classroom
Research regarding feedback in the L2 class-
room has often examined who is providing
the feedback (instructor, peer, or a combi-
nation of both) and whether feedback fo-
cuses on the product (summative feedback)
or the process (linking feedback to new
drafts or pieces of writing). This extensive
research has examined (1) the degree of
explicitness (direct or indirect) of the feed-
back provided (Bitchener, 2008; Chandler,
2003; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Khatib
& Bijani, 2012; Truscott & Hsu, 2008);
(2) the influence, or lack thereof, of the
syntactic form of the comment (questions)
and its pragmatic shape (suggestions or di-
rectives) (Conrad & Goldstein, 1999; Elola,
2005; Ferris, 1997, 2001); (3) the mode in
which feedback is presented, either orally or
in written form (Haneda, 2004; Sheen,
2010); and (4) the medium in which feed-
back is provided—for instance, via pen and
paper, in a student-teacher conference, or
using a technological tool such as Word
or software such as screencast (Ducate &
Arnold, 2012; Tuzi, 2004).
In terms of the effectiveness of direct
feedback (when the correct target language
form with or without linguistic explanation
is provided) and indirect feedback (when
the instructor signals the error by under-
lining, circling, or enumerating the number
of errors in a specific sentence, leaving it up
to the learner to figure out how to fix the
error), results are still inconclusive. While
some studies reported an advantage for in-
direct feedback at the intermediate profi-
ciency level, other studies (Lalande, 1982;
Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986; Semke,
1984) did not find significant differences
between the two feedback types. In Farro-
khi and Sattarpour’s (2012) study with
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
high-proficiency learners, direct feedback
provided evidence of accuracy gains in
new pieces of writing, suggesting that direct
feedback may provide the best results for L2
acquisition (Ellis et al., 2008). Yet, research-
ers have also understood that indirect feed-
back engages learners in problem-solving
and reflection on their existing knowledge,
which is more likely to foster long-term
acquisition and greater written accuracy
(Bitchener & Knoch, 2010) and may be a
valuable practice activity for learners who
are advanced enough to self-correct (Chan-
dler, 2003). Indirect feedback, however, can
(1) be confusing if the error codes are unfa-
miliar (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Ferris &
Roberts, 2001) and the errors themselves
are complex (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010),
and (2) make error revision more difficult
(Chandler, 2003). Rather than considering
one type of feedback better than the other,
Ferris (2010) suggested that both direct and
indirect feedback may deliver different but
complementary results. In composition
classes where L2 writers are invited to edit
and revise their texts, indirect feedback is an
attractive choice because writers can draw
on their linguistic knowledge when at-
tempting to correct errors that have been
flagged. Furthermore, previous research on
L2 writing found that indirect feedback can
“engage student writers in guided-problem-
solving” (Ferris, 2010, p. 190), thus encour-
aging them to take more responsibility for
their own learning, which is perhaps more
valuable in the long term (Ferris, Liu,
Sinha, & Senna, 2013). In the case of
lower-proficiency writers, however, indi-
rect feedback is generally less preferred be-
cause these learners have a more limited
linguistic range to draw from. Other reasons
are related to the form of feedback com-
ments. Ferris (1997, 2001) noted, for exam-
ple, that comments formed as questions or
additions, or those related to problems of
logic, were less successful than comments
about clarification. Elola (2005) pointed out
that some functions of feedback, such as
those related to elaboration, exemplifica-
tion, or organization, were more successful
61
than feedback that challenged the writers’
ideas. Conrad and Goldstein (1999), how-
ever, did not find that the comment form
had any influence on how effective learners
revise.
Studies that have examined feedback
via the mode offered (written vs. oral) or
feedback using different types of technology
media are still quite scarce. Despite the
growing interest in the use of electronic
feedback in learners’ online written discus-
sions (Sauro, 2009; Ware & O’Dowd,
2008), few studies have focused on elec-
tronic feedback on students’ writing
(Ducate & Arnold, 2012; Ene & Upton,
2014; Tuzi, 2004). Focusing exclusively
on Word, Ene and Upton (2014) found
that most instructors’ feedback focused on
content, followed by grammar and organi-
zation, then vocabulary and mechanics;
however, their English for Academic Pur-
poses learners tended to focus more on
grammar in the context of either explicit
or implicit feedback. When comparing
oral to electronic feedback, Tuzi (2004)
found that electronic feedback was never
the primary stimulus for his freshman com-
position class L2 learners’ revisions; how-
ever, it was well used by learners to add
information or increase the impact of a
particular section. In Ducate and Arnold’s
(2012) study, which compared written
e-feedback to oral e-feedback, they found
that use of screencast was associated with a
slightly higher success rate than Word, per-
haps because, in many cases, the informa-
tion was encoded by both the instructor’s
marks and the oral comments. Despite these
conflicting results, these studies suggest
potential benefits of providing computer-
mediated feedback that could merit further
exploration.
Learner Perceptions
Given that learners’ beliefs and attitudes
are “a significant contributory factor in the
[language] learning process and ultimate
success” (Bernat & Gvozdenko, 2005, intro-
duction, para. 2), learners’ perceptions
62
cannot be ignored when addressing the role
of feedback in the foreign language class-
room (Ducate & Arnold, 2012). Although
results have been inconclusive, prior re-
search on student perceptions has generally
revealed that learners value instructor feed-
back and prefer it to other forms of feedback,
such as peer evaluation and self-evaluation
(Saito, 1994; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006;
Zhang, 1995). Because of their preoccupa-
tion with improving the accuracy of their
written texts, learners expect to have all their
errors marked by the instructor (Komura,
1999; Rennie, 2000). Furthermore, learners
value and expect feedback on their errors
(Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1999; Hedgcock
& Lefkowitz, 1996, 2012; Hyland, 2001)
in relation to form-focused (language-re-
lated) errors (Ferris, 1995) or comments
on weaknesses in content, structure, or or-
ganization (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994;
Hyland, 2001; Leki, 1991; Oladejo, 1993;
Saito, 1994). However, Lee (2007), who
conducted a study with high- and low-
proficiency learners, noted that the low-
proficiency learners appeared to develop a
less positive attitude toward error feedback
than did their high-proficiency counterparts,
requesting less focus on errors in instructor
feedback. Nevertheless, studies exploring
different degrees of explicitness have indi-
cated that learners prefer direct error feed-
back because indirect feedback does not
provide them with sufficient information
to resolve more complex errors, such as
idiosyncratic or syntactic errors (Radecki
& Swales, 1988). Other studies, however,
have shown that learners favor indirect error
feedback because it gives them clues and,
thus, a more active role in the revision pro-
cess (Arndt, 1993; Chandler, 2003; Ferris &
Roberts, 2001; Hyland, 2001; Saito, 1994).
These results illustrate that, regardless of the
learner’s proficiency and the instructor’s
feedback practices, learners’ individual dif-
ferences can also influence expectations and
reactions to instructor feedback (Lee, 2007).
This suggests that feedback provision may
have to be individualized to learners’ specific
needs.
SPRING 2016
Learners’ perceptions of the use of com-
puter-mediated feedback are still largely un-
explored. In terms of medium, when Tuzi
(2004) compared oral face-to-face feedback
to electronic feedback, he found that although
learners tended to prefer oral feedback, they
made more revisions after receiving electronic
feedback. Similarly, when comparing oral vs.
written computer-mediated feedback, Ducate
and Arnold (2012) found that learners pre-
ferred the oral screencast method. Although
there were no statistical differences in the
success rate of error correction between
both types of feedback, learners felt the in-
structor cared more about their writing and
could better understand the feedback that was
provided when using the screencast option.
Ducate and Arnold concluded that, despite
not having any marked cognitive effect, the
screencast software had a positive influence
on their learners and could be a motivational
force in the L2 classroom.
The present case study aimed to expand
existing research on computer-mediated
feedback. Although the educational use of
computer-based feedback in the classroom
is becoming widespread and popular, less is
known about how the mode (oral vs. writ-
ten) as well as the use of Screencast-O-Matic
software (“screencast” from now on) and
Microsoft Word features (“Word” from
now on) influence the manner in which
instructors provide, and learners receive,
feedback. In particular, this study posed
the following questions:
 To what extent does using Word or
screencast to provide written or oral feed-
back influence how the instructor pro-
vides feedback to students?
 To what extent does receiving oral or
written feedback using Word or screen-
cast influence students’ revisions?
Methodology
Participants and Setting
The study took place at a mid-sized univer-
sity on the East Coast of the United States.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
Of the eight students enrolled in a required
three-credit capstone advanced Spanish
writing course, four agreed to complete
questionnaires and participate in inter-
views. These four participants, whose age
ranged from 19 to 21, had completed at least
five courses in Spanish at the third- or
fourth-year level, two of which focused on
the development of grammar and writing
conventions. All of the participants were
learners of Spanish as a second language
whose first language was English. The class
met one day a week for two and a half hours.
To maintain confidentiality, each learner
was assigned a pseudonym. The instructor,
a native speaker of Spanish, had been
teaching the class for 8 years and was
very familiar with the writing curriculum
at this level.
Procedures
During the semester, learners completed
two expository essays, two argumentative
essays, and two narrative essays. The last
narrative essay was selected for analysis be-
cause learners were already accustomed to
receiving feedback using Word and
screencast.
For each essay, learners made revisions
triggered by the instructor’s feedback on the
two drafts, then submitted the final version
of the essay. Only the second draft and final
version received a grade, based on content,
structure, organization, vocabulary, editing
(punctuation and spelling), and grammati-
cal accuracy. When using Word, the in-
structor provided feedback on both global
issues in the form of written comments on
content, structure, and organization and on
local errors using abbreviations in parenthe-
ses for grammar, vocabulary, and editing).
When using the screencast software, the
instructor also offered oral comments on
issues of content, structure, and organiza-
tion and on local errors. Regardless of the
method by which feedback was provided,
the instructor first read each essay. She then
spent approximately 20 minutes providing
written feedback using Word. In contrast, it
63
took about 25 minutes to produce 12–15
minutes of screencast (video) commentary.
Two of the learners, Julie and Laura,
received the instructor’s comments on their
first draft via Word and via screencast on
their second draft; in contrast, Allan and
Sancho received comments via screencast
on their first draft and Word on their second
draft. Given that the learners were in an
advanced Spanish language class, feedback
in both treatments was given in Spanish.
Regardless of the mode of delivery,
both sets of learners received indirect, un-
focused feedback based on their individual
needs as observed in their essays rather than
focused feedback designed to address a pre-
determined particular problem in the writ-
ing of all the learners, such as the selection
of the imperfect or preterit that may have
just been studied in class and with which
learners might have ongoing issues. Indirect
feedback was chosen because it (1) engages
learners in problem solving and reflection
that may be more likely to foster linguistic
improvement and accuracy in writing
(Bitchener & Knoch, 2010), and (2) is a
viable practice for learners who are ad-
vanced enough to self-correct (Chandler,
2003). When using Word, the instructor
provided written comments on content,
structure, and organization as well as
labeled errors of form using error codes,
e.g., (arg) agreement—for incorrect sub-
ject-verb, article-noun, or noun-adjective
agreement; (prep) prepositions; (art) ar-
ticles; (conj) conjunctions; (ort) spelling
and punctuation; (rel) relatives; (asp) verb
aspect; (mod) verb mood; (per) periphrasis;
(refl) reflexive verb; (tiem) verb tense; (eng)
English; (voc) vocabulary; and (???) not
understandable.
When using screencast, the instructor
first provided comments on content, struc-
ture, and organization so as to emphasize
that structure and content are fundamental
aspects of effective written communication;
the instructor then enumerated the number
and type of errors in each sentence, address-
ing, e.g., whether an error had occurred in
the use of a verb (tense, aspect, mood) or
64
subject-verb agreement. The instructor of-
ten hovered with the cursor in the area
where the error was or indicated whether
the error occurred at the beginning, middle,
or end of a sentence.
Data Collection and Analysis
To understand the kinds of revisions that
learners made under each feedback condi-
tion, the researchers counted the type
of errors and analyzed the instructor’s
recorded comments provided via the
screencast software and Word using the
comments/coding error rubric. They then
compared the initial draft containing the
instructor’s comments to learners’ revised
versions and subsequently compared the
second drafts featuring the instructor’s sec-
ond set of comments to the final draft sub-
mitted by the learners. Each error that was
noted in the first and second drafts was
coded and then marked as successfully re-
vised, unsuccessfully corrected, or ignored.
An error was coded as successfully revised if
the error was corrected according to the
given error code. The error was coded as
an unsuccessful revision if the learner’s
modified changes were still inaccurate or
if the feedback had simply been ignored.
Feedback on content, structure, and orga-
nization was also categorized in two ways:
(1) how feedback was provided (i.e., sug-
gestions, statements, commands, questions,
disagreement, or praise), and (2) the ex-
pected revision action (deletion, addition,
change, or clarification) in order to deter-
mine whether mode or medium changed
how the feedback was expressed by the
instructor or acted on by the learners.
Both researchers participated in coding
the data. An initial interrater reliability of
94% and discrepancies were discussed until
final agreement was reached.
In addition to completing the narrative
essay, learners completed a pre-questionnaire
designed to obtain background information
(e.g., students’ origin, first language, courses
taken in Spanish) and a post-questionnaire
comprising four open-ended questions (e.g.,
SPRING 2016
What were the advantages and the disadvan-
tages in relation to feedback and revision
using Word and screencast?), twelve semi-
directed questions in which the learners
chose from a given pool of answers, and
four ranking questions (e.g., learners ranked
their preferred type of feedback from a given
pool of answers). A month after finishing the
semester, learners also participated in indi-
vidual semi-structured interviews that were
guided by a set of open-ended questions
that addressed the perceived benefits and
drawbacks of using Word and screencast to
address content, structure, organization,
grammar, vocabulary, and editing errors.
Results
The study first focused on the extent to which
providing written or oral feedback using
Word or screencast influenced how the in-
structor provided comments to students.
Feedback on Draft 1: Analyses of Text
and Instructor’s Feedback
Table 1 illustrates that there were not clear
differences in the amount of feedback that
was offered across the two different modal-
ities. Yet, although learners still received
numerous oral comments on form, oral
feedback was more frequent in the areas
of content, structure, and organization
whereas written feedback occurred more
frequently on form.
In addition to the differences in where
feedback was focused, the manner of the
instructor’s feedback (i.e., linguistic func-
tions such as suggestions, statements, ques-
tions, commands) and the type of learners’
expected revisions, such as addition/dele-
tion, also differed (Table 2). It is noticeable
that the instructor used praise and state-
ments with all four learners. Other com-
ments were conveyed using different
manners of feedback: suggestions with
Laura, Sancho, and Allan; commands
with Julie, Sancho, and Allan; questions
with Laura; and disagreement with Julie.
The medium (screencast or Word) through
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1 65

TABLE 1
Amount of Feedback Provided on Content, Structure, Organization, and
Form Errors Using Screencast and Word
First Draft Second Draft
Oral Written Oral Written
(Screencast) (Word) (Screencast) (Word)
Number of Number of Number of Number of
Comments Comments Comments Comments
Allan and Julie and Laura Julie and Laura Allan and
Sancho Sancho

Content 15 9 11 5
Structure 11 2 4 1
Organization 2 0 3 0
Form 32 54 57 54
Total 60 65 75 60

which comments were offered did not ap-
pear to affect the manner in which the in-
structor provided the feedback. Similarly,
the instructor’s most frequent feedback in
both modes was to request clarification in
aspects of the narrative.
In addition to differences in the types of
errors that were noted, two additional qual-
itative differences stood out: (1) the length
of feedback (longer versions in video), and
(2) differences in the degree of explicitness
in feedback on form. For example, Julie and

TABLE 2
Manner of Instructor’s Feedback and Learners’ Expected Revisions
First Draft Second Draft
Oral Written Oral Written
(Screencast) (Word) (Screencast) (Word)
Sancho Allan Laura Julie Laura Julie Sancho Allan

Manner of feedback
Suggestions 31% 7% 29% 10% 12.5% 67%
Statements 23% 46% 43% 25% 40% 33%
Questions 14% 12.5%
Command 38% 7% 25% 20% 25%
Disagreement 25%
Praise 8% 40% 14% 25% 30% 50% 33% 67%
Change expected
Addition 8% 17%
Clarification 25% 66% 83% 33% 14%
Change 50% 33% 67% 86% 50% 100%
Delete 17% 50% 100%
66
Sancho, whose narrative essays resembled
descriptive accounts rather than narratives,
received the same type of feedback address-
ing the genre and structure of the essay.
However, the length of the feedback varied
depending on whether the instructor was
using Word (Laura) or screencast (Sancho).
In the case of Laura, the instructor’s written
feedback in Word addressed the problems
concisely and cohesively in 130 words:1
In your story we see how, despite you
never having being abroad, you have
experienced multiculturalism through
swimming. What is not clear are the
different stages in the narration. To
some extent, I can see the background
and the plot, but where is the conflict
(remember, when Cinderella needs to
run away from the palace) and the end-
ing (when the prince puts the shoe on
her)? Perhaps, you could elaborate on
whether it was strange to share with
people from another culture some
event or action that could have created
tension with your university room-
mate. Remember, this is a narration in
which you have license to make up facts
that help you create the tension you
need to create an interesting story.
In contrast, when addressing the same
kind of key revisions, the instructor’s oral
feedback to Sancho was more elaborate,
consisting of 367 words:
This essay is more a reflection than a
narration, which was what I was asking
for; to make it into a narration, you
could focus on two components. One
of the main topics that you have here is
that there are many people who migrate
to the United States, and it seems that
the topic of education [marking in the
text] is very important for you. You say
that the United States has an education
system that is better than [in] other
countries, but be careful with this
idea because it has been shown in the
last few years that the education system
is not as good as it used to be. So be
SPRING 2016
careful with this. [. . .] What I suggest is
that you concentrate on one of these
two stories: the story of how you go to
Nigeria every year, or the story of how
you left, of how your family decided to
leave Nigeria [pointing in the text] and
come to the United States, perhaps be-
cause of the education system, to give
you a better life. And remember that
you need to have the four elements of
narration, which are the background,
plot, conflict, and denouement.2
Comparisons of the number of words,
the number of topics addressed, and the
detail in which each concern (e.g., same
genre structure problem) was addressed
demonstrated that the instructor gave
more detailed feedback on narrative issues
using screencast than using Word, includ-
ing longer explanations on content and
structure that referred not only to problems
in the current version of the essay but also to
previous comments provided.
A closer examination of feedback on
form showed that errors were more clearly
indicated in Word; errors were distinctly
marked using the error coding system,
and the type of error could thus be easily
counted. In the screencast mode, however,
the instructor was less explicit with her
indirect feedback, limiting herself to saying,
for example, “Hay dos errores de concordan-
cia en esta frase” [“There are two agreement
errors in this sentence”] (to Laura) and
sometimes marking with the cursor where
the error was or noting that there were
similar problems in other parts of the essay
(to Allan):
One of the problems that you have is
with verb tenses, and I am going to ask
you to go back to the textbook, to chap-
ter 4, where it explains complex narra-
tion and [I am going to ask you] to look
at lesson 19 and read lesson 19 closely,
in which it explains [passing pages in
the book] the use of the participle and
the perfect tense. This makes it clear
which are the tenses that you need to
use for the diverse temporal jumps in
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
the past; when to use the pluperfect in
the indicative and the present perfect in
the subjunctive; when we use the pret-
erit or the imperfect instead of the plu-
perfect in the indicative or when we use
the pluperfect in the indicative instead
of the preterit or imperfect. This is
something I want you to focus on.
Feedback on Draft 2: Analyses of the
Texts and the Instructor’s Feedback
When analyzing draft 2 and comparing it to
draft 1 (see Table 1), the researchers noted a
decrease in the amount of feedback related
to content and structure: Evidently, many
concerns from the first draft had been
addressed. However, once again, more
frequent comments were offered in the
oral mode (screencast) than in writing
(Word). An interesting point is that feed-
back on organization was only given in the
video (in both drafts) and never occurred in
the written feedback. Regarding form, feed-
back was equally present in both mediums,
reflecting the ongoing need for learners to
work on linguistic aspects of the task.
Regarding feedback manner and ex-
pected changes in the second draft, there
were some differences in how the feedback
was provided (Table 2). Learners all re-
ceived more praise than in the first draft.
Laura, Julie, and Sancho received sugges-
tions for more changes, while only Laura
and Julie received commands—in Julie’s
case, to delete information, and in Laura’s
case, to change it. Laura and Allan received
feedback in the form of statements, and Julie
was the only one who received questions.
The instructor’s choice of linguistic func-
tion used to convey her comments seemed
to be related to the type of expected solu-
tion, such as deletion and change. With
regard to the instructor’s expected correc-
tions, change, clarification, and deletion
were again the most common (see Table 2).
The instructor did not ask for additions, as
they would have been less relevant at this
stage of the composition. The anticipated
modifications seemed to be related to
67
individuals’ needs at this stage of the com-
position, rather than to the medium (Word,
screencast) through which feedback was
offered.
When comparing the instructor’s use of
Word and screencast to provide feedback on
the first and the second draft, the research-
ers noted that the instructor consistently
used these tools in similar ways. For exam-
ple, in both the first and second drafts,
feedback on form differed in the degree of
explicitness and immediacy: With Word,
the error could be clearly identified by loca-
tion (i.e., giving a sense of immediacy)
and type (e.g., subject-verb agreement),
whereas when using screencast, the error
was flagged but not always clearly located;
the instructor also mentioned grammatical
rules more frequently. In addition, the
length of the instructor’s feedback on con-
tent and structure on both drafts was longer
with screencast, and comments on organi-
zation were the only type of feedback that
appeared only in the video.
Learners’ Revisions
With regard to learners’ revisions, as shown
in Table 3, on the first draft, all learners
responded to comments on content and
structure regardless of the mode in which
they received the feedback. Learners also
corrected similar percentages of form errors
whether using Word’s Track Changes/
coding or screencast. Similarly, in the sec-
ond draft, learners also corrected all issues
of content and most issues of structure,
regardless of the mode in which they re-
ceived the feedback.
Learners’ Perceptions
Data from the questionnaires3 and the semi-
structured interviews provided a deeper un-
derstanding of learners’ perceptions about
the use of oral and written feedback using
screencast or Word. Regarding the medium,
learners’ questionnaire responses and com-
ments during the interviews revealed that
receiving feedback via screencast (orally)
68 SPRING 2016

TABLE 3
Percentages of Corrected Content, Structure, and Form Issues in First and
Second Draft
First Draft Second Draft
Oral Written Oral Written
(Screencast) (Word) (Screencast) (Word)
# of Feedback # of Feedback # of Feedback # of Feedback
Corrections Corrections Corrections Corrections
Allan Sancho Julie Laura Julie Laura Allan Sancho

Content 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Structure 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% NA 100%
Organization 100% 100% NA NA NA 100% NA NA
Form 79% NA NA 63% 100% 33% 50% 62.5%

was initially a challenge. Allan commented, frequent.” Clearly, learners perceived a

“[Students] are used to receiving papers
with corrections marked on them so that’s
what you are familiar with.” In her inter-
view, Laura noted,
The first time the instructor sent us the
video, I didn’t know how to approach it;
I didn’t know what to do with it. . . : I
just kind of . . . like sat and stared at the
screen for a while and like would listen
to it and I was, like, I still don’t know
what I am supposed to be doing . . . so I
had to go back and watch it again . . .
aah . . . and that was kind of frustrating.
In addition, in her interview, Julie
pointed out that “the video would have
taken hours if you went through it and
picked out each and every grammatical
error.”
Regarding the tone of comments, learn-
ers sometimes noted that written comments
could seem “very impersonal and rigid”
(Sancho, questionnaire). In contrast, with
screencast, learners felt “like [they were]
having a conversation with the professor”
(Sancho, questionnaire). Julie also noted
that “with the written feedback, every
once in a while the instructor would point
out, like, ‘This is good—I like this conclu-
sion statement for this paragraph,’ or some-
thing like that . . . but . . . it wasn’t as
qualitative difference in the two modes of
feedback. In terms of the quantity of com-
ments, learners pointed out differences in
the amount and specificity of the comments
that they received in each medium. When
talking about the written comments that
they had received (Word), learners felt
that because of the more limited space of-
fered by the tracked changes, they
“wouldn’t be 100% sure of the suggestion
. . . because sometimes I still didn’t quite
know what I should be doing” (Allan, inter-
view) and that the instructor “had more
space” (Julie, interview) in screencast.
With regard to the quality of com-
ments, when discussing content, structure,
and organization, learners felt that the
printed version allowed for less elaboration
“because there was such a small amount of
space, the instructor would give one or two
options, like you could do this or this”
(Julie, interview). In addition, given the
lack of space, the comments were not al-
ways clear and “not everything made sense”
(Laura, interview). However, via screencast,
Laura felt that the instructor was able to
elaborate and provide more information.
In his interview, Allan mentioned that
“[the video feedback] was a little more in
depth because it was easier [for the instruc-
tor] to provide more information speaking
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
than having to type it all out,” and Laura
also commented that “for content and stuff
like that,” it provided “a much more broad
sense of where I could fix things . . . and how
I could go back and do that.”
On the other hand, when commenting
on form, learners quickly picked up that the
instructor could offer more direct help
when providing comments on form using
Word. Learners welcomed the coding sys-
tem because “[the instructor] would put the
little grammar codes like ASP . . . next to
the words and [they] would all be in red,
nice and colorful” (Julie, interview), which
told them “exactly where [their] errors
were” (Allan, interview). Learners also felt
that they addressed the form comments bet-
ter when they were provided in Word be-
cause, for example, “I was able to print out
the recommendations and look at it side by
side with what I was thinking of for my new
version” (Julie, interview). In fact, Laura
(interview) also mentioned that when she
received the comments in Word, “it made
[her] go back and look into where else [she]
had made that mistake, even if it wasn’t
necessarily highlighted for [her].” Even
when feeling discouraged by seeing all the
coding errors on their papers (“when I saw
all of the little red marks I would just be
shocked”), learners seemed to agree that
being “able to go through [the errors] and
just highlight things” while revising made
the correction process easier.
However, when using screencast, learn-
ers felt that “with the video . . . the error was
indicated generally, but it’s not exact”
(Allan, interview). Learners were not always
able to find the error, for example, “because
in some sentences I would look at it and I
was like, I don’t know, I think maybe,
maybe it’s this one, maybe it’s this one, I
am not sure though” (Laura, interview).
Laura, who acknowledged that her “gram-
mar wasn’t very good,” found that the video
required her to do many things at the same
time (i.e., writing, listening, and thinking):
“I had to put a sheet of paper alongside my
printed essay so I could write notes that
weren’t just specific points on that essay”
69
(Laura, interview). When they talked about
grammar, learners commented how the in-
structor, using the cursor, highlighted “the
sentence where the grammatical or vocabu-
lary error was” (Julie, interview), which
helped her find the errors, and Allan noted
that “the instructor had a little cursor she
would move towards you.” However, Laura,
perhaps overwhelmed by the exertion of
having to listen for the errors and having
to mark them down on her composition,
was not aware that the instructor was using
the cursor to help the students.
Despite the difficulty in pinpointing
their grammatical errors in screencast,
learners mentioned some other interesting
benefits of this medium. In her interview,
Julie pointed out that listening to the videos
provided meaningful opportunities to de-
velop her listening skills: “We were focused
so much on writing, but that was good
listening practice, too.” Laura (interview)
also pointed out that listening to the in-
structor read the sentences out loud helped
her understand her errors, saying, “When I
heard the instructor read things on the vid-
eos, I was like . . . yeah, there has got to be a
better word for that than what I’ve chosen,”
which then encouraged her to look up dif-
ferent vocabulary.
Overall, results suggested that in gen-
eral, frequency of feedback was related to
learners’ needs and the instructor’s ease of
commenting on content, structure, and or-
ganization via screencast or Word. How-
ever, the explicitness and the quality of
the feedback differed greatly based on the
medium (Word and screencast) and mode
(written and oral). Learners’ perceptions of
these differences also revealed the influence
of the tools on how they saw their own
performance. Moreover, when comparing
both mediums, the learners all preferred
“written comments for grammar issues”
(Allan, interview) and agreed that Word
was better “for more specific things, like
grammar” (Laura, interview). Perhaps Julie
said it best in the questionnaire when
she pointed out that they would ideally
like to receive “content comments in video
70
format and grammar commentary in written
format.” Yet despite learners’ beliefs that
Word was better for error correction, results
showed a better rate of corrections when the
instructor used screencast to address lin-
guistic errors.
Discussion
It has previously been shown that tools,
with their various affordances and limita-
tions, can be used by learners or instructors
to manipulate and mediate a product
(Engestr€ om, 1991, 1999). First, this study
set out to explore to what extent two tools,
i.e., Screencast-O-Matic and Word, influ-
enced the nature of the instructor’s written
and oral feedback. The findings suggest that
overall, when providing feedback on con-
tent, structure, and organization, the in-
structor provided more frequent and
lengthier comments, elaborated more freely
on her comments, and could move the cur-
sor back and forth via screencast to high-
light different sections of the essay, thus
giving the impression of a more holistic
commentary. In contrast, although poten-
tially the instructor could have written as
much as she wanted when using Word, the
medium itself, with its comment boxes in
the sidebar, did not encourage frequent or
lengthy responses; remarks offered in this
medium tended to be more concise. The
findings suggest that the oral and written
feedback provided by the instructor was
manipulated by the limitations set by the
medium (Engestr€ om, 1991).
Furthermore, the tool used also af-
fected the degree of explicitness provided
by comments on linguistic elements. When
the instructor used screencast, although she
identified the type of error, she was less
explicit about where to find it. She did,
however, suggest strategies that helped
learners fix their own errors. When the
instructor used Word, on the other hand,
although she did not explicitly correct er-
rors, using the coding system, she indicated
both the type and location of the error.
Therefore, degrees of feedback explicitness
SPRING 2016
were also clearly related to the mode and the
medium used (Ducate & Arnold, 2012).
Once more, while both tools allowed the
instructor to provide feedback in a useful
fashion, the limitations of each tool re-
stricted her actions (Kaptelinin et al.,
1995). Finally, results show that the fre-
quency of feedback, the choice of feedback
tool, the manner in which feedback was
given (suggestions, statements, or com-
mands), and the type of revision expected
(e.g., modifying an inappropriate structure
for the narrative genre) were all influenced
by the instructor’s perception of the learn-
ers’ individual needs and personalities and
further highlight the critical need for in-
structors to investigate and understand
learners’ strengths and differences (Lee,
2007).
In addition, the study sought to better
understand learners’ reactions to the types
of feedback they received. Results show that
learners made similar numbers of changes
regardless of whether they received written
or oral feedback. These findings, which may
seem to contradict Tuzi’s (2004) study—
where learners made more revisions when
they received electronic feedback than
when they received oral feedback—may
be explained by the particular tools that
were employed. While Tuzi’s learners could
not go back to the oral conversations with
the instructor, learners in this study could
listen to the instructor’s comments in the
video as many times as they wished. There-
fore, as in Ducate and Arnold’s (2012)
study, these learners did not show a signifi-
cant qualitative difference in the number of
remedial changes they made based on the
method of feedback they had received. Al-
though learners tended to prefer the oral
feedback for global aspects such as content,
structure, and organization, and the written
feedback for form, they all agreed that both
feedback mediums helped them improve
their writing skills.
The fact that learners were generally
successful in utilizing the indirect feedback,
even when provided with different degrees
of explicitness, supports Bitchener and
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
Knoch’s (2010) suggestion that this type of
feedback can engage learners in a reflective
problem-solving activity to improve their
writing and accuracy. Except for one
learner, who acknowledged her struggle
with grammar and who felt that listening
to the instructor’s comments made the task
more difficult, the indirect feedback pro-
vided in both mediums was seen as a valu-
able exercise for learners who were
advanced enough to self-correct, corrobo-
rating previous work (Chandler, 2003). In
fact, learners in this study, despite the in-
structor giving less explicit feedback on
form via screencast than via Word, tended
to make more corrections after receiving
video feedback. This may be explained by
the strategies that the instructor used with
screencast, such as asking learners to refer
to particular pages of the book and provid-
ing longer explanations for language errors.
Although some learners expressed a view
that playing the video was a time-consum-
ing way to focus on form, they actually
preferred overall to receive feedback via
the screencast software than via Word,
also corroborating previous findings (Du-
cate & Arnold, 2012). In particular, partic-
ipants reported that screencast offered some
of the features of an actual conversation
with the instructor, they felt engaged in
a dialogue with the instructor, and they
underscored that hearing the instructor’s
voice made the feedback more personal
and therefore motivational than written
feedback.
Perhaps, as Julie mentioned, the ideal
type of feedback would combine both tools.
Learners would benefit from the immediacy
of the coding system using Word—al-
though this reduces opportunities for anal-
ysis and self-directed learning—while also
enjoying the benefits offered by more
lengthy and deeper explanations on con-
tent, structure, and organization from hear-
ing the instructor’s remarks. Indeed, using
both mediums may also be useful to address
learners’ different proficiency levels. As seen
in this study, those learners who acknowl-
edged having a lower level of grammatical
71
knowledge benefited from receiving the
written feedback while they also acknowl-
edged the advantages of more lengthy oral
explanations. Therefore, using diverse me-
diums and modes can help educators meet
learners’ diverse needs in a way that a single
medium may not.
While these findings should be inter-
preted with caution due to the limited num-
ber of advanced-level participants and the
focus on a single written genre (narration),
they also highlight the ways in which two
popular modes of feedback delivery can be
used as well as learners’ perceptions of the
efficacy of both types. Future studies could
focus on additional genres, collect data from
a larger number of participants from a vari-
ety of course and proficiency levels, delve
more deeply into learners’ need for explicit
correction—particularly at lower profi-
ciency levels—and address differences be-
tween treatable and untreatable errors as a
way to identify which degree of explicitness
in feedback most effectively results in reme-
dial action.
Conclusion
The emergence, increasing use, affordances,
and limitations of providing feedback in
diverse, technology-driven, and multimodal
ways have not been widely explored. Re-
sults of this study suggest that both Word
and screencast offer effective approaches to
engaging learners in improving their writ-
ing. Accessing both mediums allowed the
instructor to offer different kinds of feed-
back (direct, indirect), formulate that feed-
back in different ways (suggestions,
statements, commands), refer learners to
additional resources, engage them in what
they viewed as a more personalized but
infinitely repeatable coaching session, and
target the type of revisions that were needed
(using addition and deletion) based on her
knowledge of her learners’ personalities and
individual needs. Thus, rather than lan-
guage educators viewing these approaches
as two competing technology-based me-
diums, the findings demonstrate that they
72
should be viewed as complementary and
can effectively be used in tandem.
Notes
1. All instructor feedback was provided in
Spanish but is presented in English to
streamline the article.
2. Two paragraphs were omitted to stream-
line the instructor’s lengthy comments.
3. Due to the small number of participants,
no patterns emerged from either the
semi-directed questions or the ranking
questions.
References
Arndt, V. (1993). Response to writing: Using
feedback to inform the writing process. In M.
Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composi-
tion around the Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy
(pp. 90–116). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Basharina, O. K. (2007). An activity theory
perspective on student-report contradictions
in international telecollaboration. Language
Learning and Technology, 11, 82–103.
Bernat, E., & Gvozdenko, I. (2005). Beliefs
about language learning: Current knowledge,
pedagogical implications, and new research
directions. TESL-EJ, 9 [Electronic version].
Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://tesl-ej.
org/ej33/a1.html
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of
written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on “the lan-
guage learning potential” of written CF. Jour-
nal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising
linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writ-
ers with written corrective feedback. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
Blin, F., & Appel, C. (2011). Computer sup-
ported collaborative writing in practice: An
activity theoretical study. CALICO Journal,
28, 473–497.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various
kinds of error feedback for improvement in
the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writ-
ing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,
267–296.
SPRING 2016
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL
student revision after teacher-written com-
ments: Text, context, and individuals. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–179.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ducate, L., & Arnold, D. (2012). Computer-
mediated feedback: Effectiveness and stu-
dents’ perceptions of screen-casting software
vs the comment function. In G. Kessler, A.
Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across
writing contexts and tasks (CALICO Mono-
graph Series Vol. 10, pp. 31–55). San Marcos,
TX: CALICO.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Taka-
shima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an
English as a foreign language context. System,
36, 353–371.
Elola, I. (2005). The complexity of revision in
the foreign language classroom and the creation
of a FL revision model (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative
writing: Fostering foreign language and writ-
ing conventions development. Language
Learning & Technology, 14, 30–49.
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner up-
take of teacher electronic feedback in ESL
composition. System, 46, 80–95.
Engestr€ om, Y. (1991). Developmental work
research: Reconstructing expertise through
expansive learning. In M. I. Nurminen &
G. R. S. Weir (Eds.), Human jobs and computer
interfaces (pp. 265–290). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers.
Engestr€ om, Y. (1999). Innovative learning in
work teams: Analyzing cycles of knowledge
creation in practice. In Y. Engestr€
om, R. Miet-
tinen, & R. Punam€aki (Eds.), Perspectives on
activity theory (pp. 377–404). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The
effects of direct written corrective feedback
on improvement of grammatical accuracy of
high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of
Education, 2, 49–57.
Fern
andez-Garc
ıa, M., & Mart
ınez-Arbelaiz,
A. (2002). Negotiation of meaning in nonna-
tive speaker-nonnative speaker synchronous
discussions. CALICO Journal, 19, 279–294.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to
teacher response in multiple-draft composi-
tion classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
Foreign Language Annals
VOL. 49, NO. 1
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher
commentary on student revision. TESOL
Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar
correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8, 1–10.
Ferris, D. R. (2001). Teaching writing for
academic purposes. In J. Flowerdew & M.
Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on En-
glish for academic purposes (pp. 298–314).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help
student writers? New evidence on the short-
and long-term effects of written error correc-
tion. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feed-
back in second language writing (pp. 81–104).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing
research and written corrective feedback in
SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
32, 181–201.
Ferris, D. R. (2012). Technology and correc-
tive feedback for L2 writers: Principles, prac-
tices, and problems. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz,
& I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing
contexts and tasks (CALICO Monograph Series
Vol. 10, pp. 7–29). San Marcos, TX: CALICO.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M.
(2013). Written corrective feedback for indi-
vidual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22, 307–329.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error
feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit
does it need to be? Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10, 161–184.
Hampel, R., & Hauck, M. (2006). Computer-
mediated language learning: Making meaning
in multimodal virtual learning spaces. The
JALT CALL Journal, 2, 3–18.
Haneda, M. (2004). The joint construction of
meaning in writing conferences. Applied Lin-
guistics, 25, 178–219.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feed-
back on feedback: Assessing learner receptiv-
ity in second language writing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some
input on input: Two analyses of student re-
sponse to expert response in L2 writing. Mod-
ern Language Journal, 80, 287–308.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (2012). Explor-
ing the learning potential of writing
73
development in heritage learning potential
of L2 writing. In R. M. Manch
on (Ed.), Learn-
ing-to-write and writing-to-learn in an addi-
tional language (pp. 209–236). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face
and computer-mediated peer review in EFL
writing. CALICO Journal, 24, 269–290.
Hyland, F. (2001). Providing effective sup-
port: Investigating feedback to distance lan-
guage learners. Open Learning, 16, 233–247.
Kaptelinin, V., Kuutti, K., & Bannon, L.
(1995). Activity theory: Basic concepts and
applications. In B. Blumenthal, J. Gornostaev,
& C. Unger (Eds.), Human-computer interac-
tion (pp. 189–201). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention
to form in autonomous wiki-based collabora-
tive writing. Language Learning & Technology,
13, 79–95.
Khatib, M., & Bijani, H. (2012). Evaluating
the effectiveness of various types of error feed-
back on students’ L2 writing quality. Iranian
EFI Journal, 8, 102–116.
Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error
correction in ESL classrooms (Unpublished
master’s thesis). California State University,
Sacramento.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential
framework for human-computer interaction re-
search. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and con-
sciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition
errors: An experiment. Modern Language Jour-
nal, 66, 140–149.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and
second language learning: State of the art. Stud-
ies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 67–109.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocul-
tural theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams
(Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition:
An introduction (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lavolette, E., Polio, C., & Kahng, J. (2015).
The accuracy of computer-assisted feedback
and students’ responses to it. Language Learn-
ing & Technology, 19, 50–68. Retrieved
June 15, 2015, from http://llt.msu.edu/
issues/june2015/lavolettepoliokahng.pdf
Lee, L. (2007). Fostering second language
oral communication through constructivist
 74
interaction in desktop videoconferencing.
Foreign Language Annals, 40, 635–649.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL
students for error correction in college-level
writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24,
203–218.
Manch
on, R. M. (Ed.). (2011). Learning-to-
write and writing-to-learn in an additional lan-
guage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Morris, F. (2005). Child-to-child interaction
and corrective feedback in a computer-medi-
ated L2 class. Language Learning & Technol-
ogy, 9, 29–45. Retrieved July 1, 2015, from
http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num1/morris/default.
html
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A
Vygotskyian perspective on corrective feed-
back in L2: The effect of random versus nego-
tiated help on the learning of English articles.
Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL:
Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal,
10, 71–89.
Oskoz, A. (2009). Learners’ feedback in online
chats: What does it reveal about students
learning? CALICO Journal, 27, 48–68.
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2014). Promoting for-
eign language collaborative writing through
the use of Web 2.0 tools. In M. Gonz
alez-
Lloret & L. Ortega (Eds.), Technology and
tasks: Exploring technology-mediated TBLT
(pp. 115–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Radecki, P., & Swales, J. (1988). ESL student
reaction to written comment on their work.
System, 16, 355–365.
Rennie, C. E. (2000). Student preferences re-
garding grammar instruction and feedback in
university-level ESL courses (Unpublished
master’s thesis). California State University,
Sacramento.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I., (1986).
Salience of feedback on error and its effect
on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly,
20, 83–93.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and
students’ preferences for feedback on second
language writing: A case study of adult
ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11,
46–70.
View publication stats
SPRING 2016
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated correc-
tive feedback and the development of L2
grammar. Language Learning & Technology,
13, 96–120.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen.
Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written
corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32, 169–179.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010).
Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention
of corrective feedback on writing: Case stud-
ies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32,
303–334.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008). Error
correction, revision, and learning. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on
the revisions of L2 writers in an academic
writing course. Computers and Composition,
21, 217–235.
Vinagre, M., & Lera, M. (2008). The role of
error correction in online exchanges. In F.
Zhang & B. Barber (Eds.), Handbook of re-
search on computer-enhanced language acquisi-
tion and learning (pp. 326–341). Hershey, PA:
IGI Publishing.
Vinagre, M., & Mu~ noz, B. (2011). Computer-
mediated corrective feedback and language
accuracy in telecollaborative exchanges. Lan-
guage Learning & Technology, 15, 72–103.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, P. D., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feed-
back on language form in telecollaboration.
Language Learning & Technology, 12, 43–63.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006).
A comparative study of peer and teacher feed-
back in Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective
advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing
class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4,
209–222.
Submitted September 11, 2015
Accepted December 18, 2015