Cover not available

In:Writing and Language Learning: Advancing research agendas
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 56] 2020
► pp. 95–118

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 5
L2 writing-to-learn

Theory, research, and a curricular approach

 | Georgetown University
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo
Abstract
Given the current contextual focus on the cognitive processes employed during L2 written production in ISLA with a focus on L2 writing-to-learn in relation to written corrective feedback (WCF), this chapter provides (1) a description of the curricular context in which the writing-to-learn perspective lies, together with its associated learning outcomes and assumed pedagogical ramifications derived from empirical research; (2) a succinct review of theoretical underpinnings postulated to account for cognitive processes employed during the phase of addressing WCF; (3) a critical report of L2 WCF studies premised on these underpinnings, their curricular association, and potential pedagogical extrapolations; and (4) a curricular approach that involves potential directions for future research premised on understanding and promoting such processes during this writing process in relation to L2 development.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Writing in the L2 curriculum
  • Theoretical underpinnings for WCF
    • Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis
    • Swain’s Output Hypothesis
    • Skill Acquisition Theory
    • The model of the L2 learning process in ISLA
  • Empirical studies
    • Direct and indirect feedback
    • Unfocused and focused feedback
  • A curricular approach and future directions
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (85)
References
Adrada-Rafael, S., & Filgueras-Gómez, M. (2019). Reactivity, language of think aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 201–213). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aghajanloo, K., Mobini, F., & Khosravi, R. (2016). The effect of teachers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) types on intermediate EFL learners’ writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7, 28–37.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caras, A. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 188–200). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cerezo, L., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2019). What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of second language writing, 12(3), 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., Cánovas-Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing. Written Communication, 7, 482–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 94–112). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63, 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godfroid, A., Boers, F., & Housen, A. (2013). An eye for words: Gauging the role of attention in L2 vocabulary acquisition by means of eye tracking. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 483–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2017). L2 instructor individual characteristics. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 451–467). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harklau, L. (2002). The role of writing in classroom second language acquisition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 329–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karimi, S. H. (2016). Effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(2), 216–229.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kassim, A., & Ng, L. L. (2014). Investigating the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written work. English Language Teaching, 7, 119–130. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 7, 305–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leeman, J. (2007). Feedback in L2 learning: Responding to errors during practice. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 111–137). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leow, R. P. (1999). The role of attention in second/foreign language classroom research: Methodological issues. In J. Gutiérrez-Rexach & F. Martínez-Gil (Eds.), Advances in Hispanic Linguistics: Papers from the 2nd. Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 60–71). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading. Hispania, 84, 496–509. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: What does the research suggest? The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2, 117–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019a). ISLA: How implicit or how explicit should it be? Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical/curricular issues. Language Teaching Research, 23, 476–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019b). From SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 485–493). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Cerezo, L. (2016). Deconstructing the “I” and “SLA” in ISLA: One curricular approach. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 43–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Martín, A. (2017). Enhancing the input to promote salience of the L2: A critical overview. In S. M. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.) Salience in SLA (pp. 167–186). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). Cognitive differences and ISLA. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 396–417). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
López, M. B., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class: Comprehensive feedback in the L2 writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2009). Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011a). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices (pp. 44–64). Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011c). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 3–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L. & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback: Depth of processing via written languaging. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching (pp. 241–265). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). Writing-to-learn in instructed language learning contexts. In E. A. Soler & M. P. S. Jordá (Eds.), Intercultural language use and language learning (pp. 101–121). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J. & Murphy, L. (2009). The temporal dimension and problem-solving nature of foreign language composing: Implications for theory. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 102–129). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. B. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Williams, J. (2016). L2 writing and SLA studies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 567–586). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2011). Reflections on the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of second language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 237–250). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Park, E. S., & Kim, O. Y. (2019). Learners’ use of indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 214–228). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C., & Lee, J. (2017). Written language learning. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 299–317). New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Coyle, Y., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2016). Focus on writers: Processes and strategies. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), The handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 267–286). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., Manchón, R. M., & Marín, J. (2008). The foreign language writer’s strategic behaviour in the allocation of time to writing processes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 30–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shepherd, R. P., Daily O’Meara, K., Snyder, S. E. (2016). Grammar agreements: Crafting a more finely tuned approach to corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 2(1), 43–57.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ understanding and use of two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1),103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110–1133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8, 461–482. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, W. & N. Storch (Eds.). (2020). Languaging in language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). The Output Hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on written corrective feedback: Theoretical perspectives, empirical evidence, and future directions. English Language Teaching, 8, 110–120.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270–275. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (27)

Cited by 27 other publications

Manchón, Rosa M. & Lourdes Cerezo
2025. Writing as Language Learning. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Cristina Sanz
2025. Individual Differences and L2 Writing. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Cristina Sanz
2025. Individual Differences and L2 Writing. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Belén C. & Hossein Nassaji
2025. The Effect of Indirect Error Correction Strategies on Complex Target Forms in Young Chilean L2 Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Obanos-Gil, María Puy & Izaskun Villarreal
2025. Collaborative Writing and Written Languaging: Effects on Accuracy. In Investigating Attention to Form and Individual Differences:Research with EFL Children [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Rkiki, Anass, Bendaoud Nadif, Sana Sakale & Samikshya Bidari
2025. Integrating Corrective Feedback in EFL Classrooms. The Journal of Quality in Education 15:25 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Roothooft, Hanne, Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola & Bram Bulté
2025. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research 29:3 ► pp. 1311 ff. DOI logo
Zahari, Musril, Arita Marini, Desy Safitri, Leola Dewiyani & Uyu Muawanah
2025. Optimizing student writing performance in higher education: A quantitative study of teacher feedback and classroom environment. Social Sciences & Humanities Open 11 ► pp. 101286 ff. DOI logo
Borràs, Judith & Sonia López-Serrano
2023. “How Can I Correct What I Don't Know?”. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Cerezo, Lourdes & Florentina Nicolás-Conesa
2023. Are Two Heads Always Better Than One?. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P.
2023. Ronald P. Leow's essential bookshelf: The L2 learning process in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). Language Teaching ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M.
2023. Writing and Language Learning. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Julio Roca de Larios
2023. The study of L2 writing processes. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
Maxim, Hiram H.
2023. Developing advanced L2 German writing: A functionally oriented longitudinal study. The Modern Language Journal 107:4 ► pp. 965 ff. DOI logo
McBride, Sophie & Rosa M. Manchón
2023. Analysing L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback via written languaging and think-aloud protocols. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Carrie Xin, Neomy Storch & Ute Knoch
2023. Greater coverage vs. deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Masatoshi Sato & Yizhou Wang
2023. Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Bowles , Melissa A. & Kacie Gastañaga
2022. Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Garcés-Manzanera, Aitor
2022. affordances of rubrics in L2 writing in Higher Education. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional de Humanidades 11:Monográfico ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Garcés-Manzanera, Aitor
2022. The affordances of rubrics in L2 writing in Higher Education. HUMAN REVIEW. International Humanities Review / Revista Internacional De Humanidades 13:6 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
González-Cruz, Belén, Lourdes Cerezo & Florentina Nicolás-Conesa
2022. A classroom-based study on the effects of WCF on accuracy in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated collaborative writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Issa, Bernard I., Bryan Koronkiewicz & Mandy Faretta‐Stutenberg
2022. Second‐language writing in university‐level basic language programs: A survey of student and instructor beliefs. Foreign Language Annals 55:2 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P., Rosa M. Manchón & Charlene Polio
2022. Writing. In Research methods in instructed second language acquisition [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 3], ► pp. 305 ff. DOI logo
Leow , Ronald P., Anne Thinglum & Stephanie A. Leow
2022. WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 651 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Yvette Coyle
2022. Introduction to the special issue on L2 writing and feedback processing and use in pen and paper and digital environments: Advancing research and practice. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 541 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P. & Meagan Driver
2021. Cognitive Theoretical Perspectives of Corrective Feedback. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue