Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

The relevance of second language acquisition theory

to the written error correction debate

Charlene Polio

Michigan State University, United States

Abstract

The controversies surrounding written error correction can be traced to Truscott (1996) in his polemic against written error

correction. He claimed that empirical studies showed that error correction was ineffective and that this was to be expected ‘‘given

the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning’’ (p. 328, emphasis added). Although many empirical

studies have investigated the effectiveness of written error correction, few researchers have delved into the claim that written error

correction is incompatible with theories of second language acquisition (SLA). This paper discusses written error correction from

the perspective of various approaches to SLA and what they might have to say about written error correction. In addition, studies

that are conducted within the various approaches are described. I argue that despite differences in the various approaches, some

conclusions can be drawn, most notably, that written error correction could be effective in certain conditions. Furthermore, it is also

argued that L2 writing studies done within certain approaches to SLA could move the field forward.

# 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Error correction; SLA theory; Written feedback

Introduction

The recent controversies surrounding written error correction can be traced to 1996 when John Truscott published his

polemic against written error correction stating that ‘‘grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be

abandoned’’ (p. 328). Rarely has one article in the field of language learning and teaching inspired so many empirical

studies in such a short time and forced the field to examine an entrenched practice. First, Truscott (1996) claimed that the

empirical studies showing the effectiveness of error correction were flawed. Indeed, many studies have since investigated

the effectiveness of error correction, and many researchers have pointed out the design flaws and limitations in studies that

have both supported and refuted the effectiveness of error correction. Second, Truscott claimed that such ineffectiveness

was to be expected ‘‘given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning’’ (p. 328, emphasis

added), yet few researchers have delved into Truscott’s statement regarding the nature of language learning. In other

words, little has been written to support or refute the notion that written error correction is theoretically facilitative of,

harmful to, or ineffective for language learning, whereas researchers who study oral error correction seem to support their

1

arguments within the framework of the nature of language learning (i.e., second language acquisition [SLA] theory).

E-mail address: [email protected].

1

This paper is a revised version of two talks (Polio, 2009, 2010). Recently, Bitchener and Ferris (2012) also independently addressed the issue of

written error correction with reference to SLA. I bring in their work with reference to specific theories that they discussed. In addition, Van

Beuningen (2010) also addressed some of the issues discussed here and in Williams (this volume).

1060-3743/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004

376 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

One possible reason for this paucity of research grounded in SLA theory is that researchers may not believe that

SLA theory is relevant to the issue of written corrective feedback, and this is a point worthy of discussion. For example,

some might argue that written feedback simply promotes better writing and is not intended to facilitate acquisition.

Still others might argue that SLA focuses on implicit knowledge while written corrective feedback promotes only

explicit knowledge. But most likely, writers draw on their acquired knowledge as they write, use their intuitions to edit,

and take time to apply learned rules throughout the process (see Williams, this volume). This complex interplay of the

use of explicit and implicit knowledge is addressed throughout the article and is by no means straightforward. It is also

nicely summarized in Van Beuningen (2010), who relates it to the error correction controversy.

Although I am arguing that SLA theory can be helpful in the written corrective feedback debate, this is not to say

that I am dismissing the value of studies done outside of a theoretical framework (see Gregg, 1993; Jordan, 2004 for the

opposing point of view with regard to SLA research in general). Written error correction is probably the most time-

consuming practice teachers use, and thus worth investigating at a practical level, even without reference to specific

theories. Indeed, some well-designed studies have been conducted that do not refer to any particular approach in SLA.

For example, an early study by Robb, Ross, and Shortreed (1989) found few differences resulting from four different

types of written feedback while a recent study by Van Beuningen, De Jong, and Kuiken (2012) showed a positive effect

for corrective feedback. The possible reasons for the difference in findings are numerous such as the fact that Robb

et al.’s study was a long-term study with no true control group while Van Beuningen et al.’s involved only one

2

treatment. Despite little grounding in theory, both studies were rigorously designed.

I argue here for the importance of considering SLA theory in discussions of written error correction. My specific

points in this article are: (1) some approaches have little to say about written error correction, but none predict that it is

useless or harmful; (2) some approaches predict a facilitative effect for written corrective feedback and have implicit

or explicit recommendations for how it could be used effectively; and (3) we should consider conducting more studies

guided by some of the specific approaches to SLA and develop a research agenda guided by SLA theory. The

discussion here will be organized around six current, yet not mutually exclusive, approaches to SLA, five of which

(i.e., generative theory, processability theory, skill acquisition theory, sociocultural theory, and the interaction

approach) have been invoked to address the effectiveness or lack thereof of written error correction. The sixth, usage-

based approaches, may also be relevant and has recently been applied to written language.

Defining the terms

Much has been written about the various methods used to study written error correction including some of the

design flaws in studies that have both supported and refuted the effectiveness of written error correction (e.g., Bruton,

2009; Gue´nette, 2007; Polio, 1997, 2001, 2012; Truscott, 1996, 2004, 2007; Xu, 2009). Such design issues, many of

which involve the operationalization of different variables, will not be extensively addressed. However, in order to

compare and contrast the status of written error correction across theoretical frameworks, it is crucial to define what

error correction is and consider what it means for writing to show improvement.

First, researchers have classified written error correction using a variety of taxonomies (e.g., R. Ellis, 2008). Here I

will consider any explicit attempts to draw a learner’s attention to a morphosyntactic or lexical error as error

correction. Following Norris and Ortega (2000), I will use DeKeyser’s (1995) definition of explicit and say that

something is explicit if either a rule is given or if the learner has been directed to pay attention to a specific form. Thus,

all methods of written feedback are considered explicit here including what R. Ellis has classified as direct methods,

such as correcting an error; indirect methods, such as underlining an error; or metalinguistic methods, such as coding.

In addition, I include reformulation as a type of explicit feedback. Unlike recasts in oral error correction, which are

generally considered implicit, written reformulation can be considered explicit because students, at least in

experimental studies (e.g., Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007), are told to look at the reformulations and note

what has been changed (see paper by Hanaoka & Izumi, this volume). In other words, they know that they are being

corrected and told to pay attention to those corrections. This is not to say that SLA theory predicts that all forms of

explicit correction would be equally effective, but for this paper, they are considered together.

2

Van Beuningen et al. (2012) state that their study was done with ‘‘a cognitive approach to SLA’’ (p. X) but there is no elaboration.

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 377

Second, we need to clarify what data a researcher needs to collect to show that a learner’s grammar has improved

because of error correction. Most would agree that the improvement has to be on a piece of writing as opposed to a

3

grammar test, for example. Studies may examine a writer in four different situations: (1) revising a piece of writing while

looking at corrections on a page (e.g., Fathman & Whalley, 1990); (2) revising a piece of writing after having viewed

corrections at some prior point (e.g., Sachs & Polio, 2007); (3) writing a completely new piece of writing soon after one

treatment (e.g., Van Beuningen et al., 2012); and (4) writing a completely new piece of writing after several treatments

over an extended period of time (e.g., Robb et al., 1989). From both a pedagogical and a theoretical perspective, the first

condition is the least interesting. It is obvious that a writer can look at direct corrections and copy them onto a new piece of

paper. Even if those corrections were indirect, the second piece of writing would be more grammatically accurate. Most

practitioners and researchers would also agree that what is most interesting is when there is evidence of learning on a new

piece of writing and is maintained after a longer period. What might be less obvious is the value of the second and third

types of studies, those that examine the writer revising the same piece of writing (while not looking at corrections) or the

writer writing a new piece of writing immediately after a brief treatment, in other words, studies that do not examine long-

term effects. I would argue, however, from an SLA perspective, small or short-term changes can be evidence of learning

(see, for example, the discussion in Norris & Ortega, 2003).

Similarly, examining accuracy on a task other than written text production such as a cloze or dictation, may be

4

evidence of some type of learning from an SLA perspective, but it is still not the preferred form of evidence of acquisition

in that such tasks promote the use of explicit knowledge to complete the task. And this raises an additional problem when

trying to apply SLA theories to L2 writing, namely the complex issue of the role of explicit and implicit knowledge. As

discussed later, the various SLA approaches differ with regard to the relationship between explicit and implicit

knowledge. Of course, the use of different types of knowledge will vary according to the writer and the task, but I will

assume for now that any writing task, even those completed under time constraints, can tap into both explicit and implicit

knowledge, in contrast to speaking tasks, which more often require implicit knowledge to complete fluently, and discrete

point grammar tasks, in which learners probably focus on explicit rules. The role of explicit knowledge is crucial if we

assume that written error correction leads to an increase in explicit knowledge, which I will assume it can.

Third, and most complex, is what effectiveness or improvement means from an SLA perspective. If it means greater

linguistic accuracy, then the construct needs to be defined and, for empirical purposes, operationalized. Polio (1997) and

Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, and Kim (1998) reviewed various measures of accuracy, but let us assume that finding a valid

and reliable measure of accuracy is not a problem and that it simply means that the writer makes fewer errors. The more

complicated question is what fewer errors indicates from an acquisition perspective. From a writing assessment

perspective, all other factors (e.g., sentence complexity, lexical sophistication) being equal, an essay with fewer errors

will undoubtedly be judged of higher quality. From an SLA perspective, it is necessary to look at whether or not an

approach views greater accuracy on a written text as evidence of acquisition. I use the term acquisition to refer only to

long-term changes in performance or development; changes in accuracy are by no means the same as acquisition. The

issue is far from settled and Wolfe-Quintero et al. (1998), after reviewing measures of accuracy, fluency, and complexity

concluded that ‘‘the discovery of how errors relate to development, and why measures of error seem to be different than

measures of fluency or complexity in how they relate to proficiency measures, are both important areas for future

research’’ (p. 67).

Finally, there are different ways to divide up the field of SLA. SLA theory is not monolithic nor can its theories be

neatly parceled into mutually exclusive approaches. Furthermore, because the status of the various approaches as

theories has been debated (e.g., Gregg, 1993; Jordan, 2004; VanPatten & Williams, 2007), I will use the words

approach and theory depending on what proponents of the various approaches and theories use and I will avoid a

discussion of whether or not the various approaches are theories. Mitchell and Myles (1998) divided approaches to

SLA into six categories. Norris and Ortega (2003) divided the approaches into four general categories: generative,

interactionist, emergentist, and sociocultural. Later, VanPatten and Williams (2007) divided them into nine approaches

or theories. Furthermore many, but not all, of these approaches are addressed more recently in Gass and Mackey

(2012). Most would agree that there is overlap and that these approaches are not mutually exclusive.

3

For example, one study, Sheen (2007), examined accuracy on a dictation test and an error correction test in addition to a direct writing test.

4

For example, Loewen (2005) examined the effect of oral form-focused episodes by using an error correction test because of the difficulty in

eliciting the desired structures, those on which students had previously made errors.

378 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

Table 1

Summary of approaches.

Approach Would improvement in What is the role of explicit What is the role of What studies of written error

written accuracy be knowledge in language feedback? correction have been conducted

evidence of language acquisition? within this approach?

acquisition?

Generative No. Written production is No role Probably no role but could None

not very relevant to the serve as a trigger

theory

Processability No. Written production is No role Might speed up Pilot study by Dyson (2010)

probably not relevant and development if at the right

emergence of a structure, not level

accuracy is central

Usage-based Possibly. Accuracy and Can affect what learners Can draw learners’ attention None

fluency are important, but attend to thereby affecting to forms

different measures of what features of the

accuracy may be needed language get implicitly

tallied

Skill-based Yes, but speed of production Explicit knowledge must be Can help during practice Hartshorn et al. (2010)

is also important automatized through practice

Sociocultural Yes Explicit knowledge can be Can help scaffold if pitched Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994),

used in scaffolding to the learners’ level Nassaji and Swain (2000),

Brooks and Swain (2009) and

Storch and Wigglesworth

(2010)

Interaction Yes Might be helpful if provided Essential Qi and Lapkin (2001) and Sachs

during feedback to draw and Polio (2007)

learners’ attention to form in

meaningful interaction

Below I discuss generative theory, processability theory, usage-based approaches, skill acquisition theory,

sociocultural theory, and the interaction approach. For each of the approaches I will address the following: (1) What is

emphasized as the general process of second language learning? (2) Would improvement in written accuracy be

considered evidence of language acquisition? (i.e., Are both written language and accuracy relevant to acquisition?)

(3) What is the role of explicit knowledge in language acquisition? (4) What is the role of feedback? (5) What studies

of written error correction have been conducted within the approach? The features of these six approaches are

summarized in Table 1.

Approaches to SLA

Generative theory

Generative approaches seek to describe Universal Grammar, a representation of a native speaker’s first language

mental grammar. With this grammar and the surrounding input, children learn language. An approach to SLA within

this framework maintains that Universal Grammar also constrains an L2 learner’s mental representation of

interlanguage. Truscott (1996) cites Schwartz (1986), a generativist who made the distinction between learned

linguistic knowledge and competence, in support of his characterizations regarding the nature of language learning. In

fact, a generative theory of language acquisition probably has little relevance to written error correction and vice versa

but I discuss it here because it was prominent in Truscott’s original discussion.

First, a change in written accuracy would not be evidence of acquisition within the theory. Norris and Ortega (2003)

characterize the primary methodology for generative approaches regarding acquisition as follows:

Generative linguistic studies of SLA are likely to rely almost exclusively on the Âtasks of various kinds, where

acquired means nativelike levels of rejection of illegal exemplars of the target grammar. (Italics in original, p. 727)

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 379

From a generative perspective linguistic competence is indeed distinct from performance, so generativists would

not examine written essays as evidence of acquisition. In White’s (2007) characterization of a generative approach,

however, she discusses studies that use oral production data (both spontaneous and elicited), but notes the problems

5

with such studies.

It is fairly clear that there is little role for explicit knowledge in language acquisition within a generative theory.

Truscott (1996) also suggested that there was little role for explicit knowledge citing several researchers, including

Schwartz (1986).

Thus, in discussing the effects of teaching practices, researchers must be concerned not only with whether

learning has resulted, but also what kind of learning: if it is simply an instance of pseudolearning, then the

instruction has not been successful. (p. 347)

The term pseudolearning seems to be referring to the development of explicit knowledge.

Regarding the role of feedback within generative theory, in its original conception, for L1 acquisition, input is a

trigger for change; negative evidence is irrelevant. However, from an L2 perspective White (1989) has stated that ‘‘the

precise mechanisms that lead to such grammar change are not part of the theory of UG.’’ (p. 47) and there is some

suggestion that negative evidence is needed for learning certain structures (White, 2004). Researchers in SLA, most

notably Gass (1997), have argued that universal constraints on L2 grammar do not preclude an effect of interaction,

where learners receive implicit feedback. But the bottom line is that generative theory has little to say about the role of

feedback.

It is not surprising that no studies of written corrective feedback have been done within a generative framework,

since written production seems unlikely to be a reflection of competence or the implicit knowledge that is central to

theory. In writing, a learner has more time to review and correct what has been written, thus drawing on explicit learned rules.

Processability theory

Processability theory (e.g., Pienemann, 1998, 2007; Pienemann & Johnston, 1987; Pienemann & Keßler, 2012a,b)

is also a theory of oral language. Processability theory maintains that a language processor constrains the way that a

learner can understand and produce language. These constraints result in distinct stages of development that are

common across a variety of interlanguages (the stages are described as being distinct, but a learner can be between

stages and show characteristics of more than one stage). Stages of English question development, for example, are well

documented, and Pienemann was able to determine general processing principles that could be applied not only to

English questions but word-order-related phenomena in other languages as well. Later, drawing on Levelt’s (1989)

model of language production and concepts from lexical–functional grammar, Pienemann (1998) was able to include

morphology. For example, in order to use correct subject–verb agreement, something not considered in the earlier

model, learners must match the information (i.e., number) in the noun phrase with the information in the verb phrase.

Furthermore, marking number on a noun will be easier than marking number on a verb because it involves matching

within a noun phrase as opposed to between a noun phrase and a verb phrase.

Truscott (1996) states, citing Pienemann’s work, that order of acquisition studies make it clear that learners go

through stages. This claim that learners go through stages is well attested and uncontroversial, at least for some

morphosyntactic structures. However, it is not clear that written production is relevant to this theory. Pienemann

(2007) explains that the data used to examine development can be cross-sectional or longitudinal and must contain

enough examples of the phenomenon being studied. He states, ‘‘In such studies the researcher collects naturalistic or

6

elicited speech data that form the corpus on which the study is based’’ (p. 146). Pienemann does not say why written

data is not relevant, but his theory is based on a processing model of speech (Levelt, 1989). The extent to which this

model can be applied to writing is open to discussion (Alamargot & Chanquoy, 2001), but it seems that in writing tasks,

learned rules would overtake processing constraints. In Pienemann and Keßler (2012a), the authors continue to refer to

5

She stated that judgment tasks are the most common method of trying to tap into learners’ underlying linguistic competence. She also stated that

judgment data are not privileged and that the data collection method must be tied to what is being investigated.

6

Spinner (2011) cited Pienemann saying that his theory might apply to written data during a talk.

380 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

conversational data. Furthermore, traditional measures of accuracy are not used in studies within this approach.

Instead, the emergence of a structure is seen as evidence of acquisition and a grammatically inaccurate sentence may

be evidence of a more advanced stage. For example, a sentence like Do Rebecca like hamsters? would be more

advanced than Rebecca likes hamsters? Even though the latter is grammatically correct, so it is not clear how the

theory would examine greater accuracy as opposed to stage of development.

What is extremely clear in this theory is that nothing, not frequency of a structure, interaction, output, or formal

instruction, can alter the course of development. Thus, error correction would not either. What is still debatable, of

course, is whether or not it can speed up development. Certainly, others, most notably Mackey (1999), have argued that

certain factors, in her case negotiated interaction, which can include feedback, in spoken discourse, can move learners

more quickly through the stages and also that the feedback has to be at the right developmental level for the learner

(e.g., Mackey & Philp, 1998). Bitchener and Ferris (2012) have recently suggested that following this theory, one

could argue that written corrective feedback also has to be at the right developmental level for it to be useful. In the end,

however, like generative theory, processability theory does not say much about what external factors might drive the

learning, and the theory might not even apply to written language production. Of note, however, a pilot study was

conducted within this framework by Dyson (2010) in which she examined written (and spoken) development in

response to feedback on writing. The feedback was provided in a tutoring session, so apparently involved interaction

with the learners as opposed to having them view feedback on a page. She found that the learners’ developmental level

did limit the extent to which the feedback could be used and confirmed the hypothesis that learners cannot skip stages.

Clearly, this was an exploratory study with one participant, but it is worth mentioning because there do not seem to be

other studies of written feedback within this framework.

Usage-based approach

In discussing a usage-based approach, I will refer mostly to the work of Nick Ellis because he has written most

extensively about the approach within SLA calling it emergentist or associative-cognitive CREED theory (N. Ellis,

7

2007) or a frequency-based approach (Ellis, 2012). A usage-based approach views language learning as occurring

based on what learners are exposed to in the input. N. Ellis (2007) summarizes it by saying that ‘‘Language learning is

thus an intuitive statistical learning problem, one that involves associative learning of representations that reflect the

probabilities of occurrence of form-function mappings’’ (p. 80). Therefore, language learning is not driven by innate

rules and not governed by mechanisms specific to language learning. Learners unconsciously make associations from

patterns in the input. In N. Ellis (2007), he states that several sources of data, both learner comprehension and

production data, are relevant, but he does not specifically mention written data. In a later article (N. Ellis, 2012), he

does, however, mention writing in passing, and there is no reason that frequency and form-function mappings would

not play a role in written production.

Whether or not greater accuracy in written language would be seen as evidence of acquisition under this approach is

a complex issue. Norris and Ortega (2003) characterize an emergentist usage-based approach by saying, ‘‘Acquired,

for emergentists, means fast, accurate, effortless performance attained along attested learning curves that reflect non-

linear, exemplar-driven learning’’ (p. 728). Accurate production means that the output matches the input.

Wulff and Gries (2011) expand on this idea by examining a corpus of written language from the perspective of

Ellis’s work. They explain that traditional measures of accuracy (presumably those used in error-correction studies)

may not be appropriate within the approach. They state, ‘‘Accuracy cannot be defined (exclusively) as a rule-based,

binary concept. Instead, a major component (if not the most important one) is native-like selection, a highly context-

dependent and inherently scalar phenomenon.’’ (p. 69). In their study, they examine the accuracy of non-native speaker

writing by comparing patterns of collocations to a corpus of native speaker data. It is not clear that this method could be

applied to studies of written error correction, but it is a different approach to studying acquisition in writing.

N. Ellis (2005, 2007) has been quite clear about the role of explicit knowledge in language learning. Patterns are

extracted from the input unconsciously and implicit and explicit knowledge are separate. Nevertheless, according to

Ellis, explicit learning and feedback can affect further implicit learning by drawing learners’ attention to the input.

7

In addition, Verspoor, Schmid, and Xu (2012) have recently addressed writing development from a dynamic usage-based perspective. This

approach could be particularly relevant to the error correction controversy because it addresses how accuracy develops.

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 381

Although frequency and probabilistic combinations of form-functions mappings are central, N. Ellis has clarified

what can affect these mappings (e.g., the salience or redundancy of a form). He makes it clear that associative learning

can be influenced by interaction and feedback. More precisely, he states:

The usual social-interaction or pedagogical reactions to such non-nativelike utterances involve an interaction

partner or instructor intentionally bringing additional evidence to the attention of the learner. In these ways, SLA

can be freed from the bounds of L1-induced selective attention by some means of intervention that is socially

provided (Lantolf & Thorne, 2007) and that recruits the learner’s explicit conscious processing. Thus SLA is

also dialectic, involving the learner in a conscious tension between the conflicting forces of their current

interlanguage productions and the evidence of feedback, either linguistic, pragmatic, or metalinguistic. (p. 84)

N. Ellis (2009) expands on this view and cogently argues for the role of form-focused learning. Furthermore, he

sees interaction as a way of drawing learners’ attention to forms. He claims that a variety of factors, including

correction, are a way to focus attention on features of language, which in turn affects learning. It would seem then that

drawing a learner’s attention to an error and providing a correction might help acquisition.

N. Ellis (2012) also discusses the recency of a structure as playing a role. In other words, speakers are more likely to

use a certain structure if they have just heard it, a phenomenon called priming. He explains that priming can be found

‘‘when speakers hear, speak, read, or write sentences’’ (p. 17). Note that in this case, Ellis specifically mentions

writing. One possible problem with written feedback, also discussed below with regard to the interaction approach, is

that even when students have to use the feedback for a revision task, the provided correct form is far removed from the

writer’s original attempted use, unlike in speaking where a recast is immediately given and can be immediately used. It

is possible then that written correction will be less effective than oral correction within this approach.

Skill acquisition theory

Skill acquisition theory, best represented in L2 acquisition by the work of DeKeyser (2007a, 2007b), is a general

theory from cognitive psychology that can be applied to all complex skills, not just language learning. The general idea

is that there are three stages of development: declarative, procedural, and automatic. The first involves knowledge

about a skill, the second smooth and rapid execution, and the third, faster execution, with less attention, and fewer

errors. There is an important role for explicit knowledge, for the breaking apart of the skill into smaller units or steps,

and for practice, a term explained in detail in DeKeyser (2007a). Feedback can provide explicit knowledge, help the

learner focus on problem areas, and ensure that the wrong information is not proceduralized.

Within this theory, being able to do something faster and with greater accuracy is evidence of learning and there is

no reason that the theory should preclude performance on written production tasks. Many studies done within this

approach examine not only how accurately something is done, but also how quickly. Most experimental studies of

writing do impose time constraints on the writing task, but only crude ones and not the fine-grained timing used in

reaction time studies. Nevertheless, greater accuracy would be considered a step toward acquisition.

Declarative knowledge, which can include explicit knowledge, plays a role within this theory and it must become

proceduralized through practice. Feedback, in addition, is helpful so that one does not proceduralize inaccurate

language, but DeKeyser (2007b) also states that more research is needed to determine the amount and nature of the

feedback that is helpful during practice. Nevertheless, large amounts of meaningful practice are necessary.

How these principles apply directly to writing and written corrective feedback is open to interpretation, but, one

study of written correction has been attempted to apply the principles of skill acquisition theory to writing. Hartshorn

et al. (2010) conducted a study of L2 written error correction with ESL learners and found a positive effect for written

error correction. Hartshorn et al.’s interpretation of skill acquisition theory is that ‘‘. . .proceduralization requires

extensive and deliberate practice, which then leads the learner toward greater automatization’’ (p. 87). They applied

this to written error correction saying that the tasks and feedback must be meaningful, timely and constant, and

manageable. To implement these characteristics, students wrote 10-minute essays every day. The essays were coded

for grammatical errors and returned the following day. Students had to revise and keep track of the essays and rewrite

them until they were error-free. They found that their treatment group did write more accurately (using error-free T-

units/total T-units) than a control group and that fluency, complexity, and rhetorical competence measures did not

suffer in comparison to the control group. I note also that this study has been replicated by Evans, Hartshorn, and

Strong-Krause (2011), who found similar results in a different context. These studies’ implementation of written

382 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

corrective feedback is decidedly different than that of other studies, and are two of the few that have shown an increase

in accuracy while showing that other features of the students’ writing did not suffer. While the method itself might be

hard to implement, these studies made predictions and tailored a treatment around a specific theory.

Sociocultural approach

A sociocultural approach to second language learning, described by Lantolf (2000, 2012) and Lantolf and Thorne

(2007) is based on the work of Vygotsky, who believed that mental activity is mediated through symbolic tools and that

language is a symbolic tool available to solve problems. Each learner has a zone of proximal development (ZPD) in

which learning can take place with scaffolding. Through scaffolding by another person, the learner moves to regulate

the activity alone until it becomes internalized.

Of all the approaches, the sociocultural approach could be said to be the most unequivocally related to writing Even

those who view speaking as an innate process governed by rules of Universal Grammar cannot deny that writing is a

learned, social process (cf. Pinker, 1994). Whether or not greater accuracy would be seen as evidence of acquisition is a

bit more complex. Lantolf and Thorne (2007) point out that if less assistance is needed to complete a task, as shown in

an error correction study by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994), then learning has occurred. Brooks and Swain (2009) point

out in their study of learner discussions of reformulation that learning is not the same as development. Similarly,

Lantolf and Thorne argue that learning can take place during a short-term interaction. Thus, it is possible that this

short-term learning, say from scaffolding, pushes development. Furthermore, Norris and Ortega (2003) explained that

much research within this approach does not quantitatively measure acquisition. In fact, research in this framework

investigates learning quite differently than other approaches, but see the discussion of Nassaji and Swain (2000) below.

Within this approach, explicit knowledge should be useable for certain learners. When a teacher or interlocutor is

scaffolding, the moves can take many forms, including explicitly drawing the learner’s attention to a form or providing

a rule (see, for example, the various examples in Brooks & Swain, 2009).

A few studies have addressed the issue of written corrective feedback within a sociocultural approach, but not

always using an experimental design like the majority of written corrective feedback studies. The most directly

relevant study to the issue of error correction is Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994). In their study, three university ESL

students met once a week with a tutor over the course of eight weeks. Instead of providing direct error correction for

the students to look at, the tutors used a series of prompts designed to allow the student to first self-correct the error. If

the student did not self-correct, the tutor gradually added help, for example, by pointing to the location of the error and

then noting the type of error. Aljaafreh and Lantolf showed changes over time in the amount of independence the

learner had over correcting an error, until the use of the structure became automatic, or in sociocultural terms, self-

regulated.

Another study of error correction in the form of reformulation was completed by Brooks and Swain (2009). In this

study, students participated in four tasks. First, a pair of students wrote a story collaboratively, and second, compared it

to a reformulated version. This second session was recorded for the third step, which was a variation on a stimulated

recall in which the researcher viewed the session with the participants answering questions and scaffolding where

possible. Finally, the students were asked to revise the original essay without seeing the reformulation. Brooks and

Swain noted that the participants used different sources to create a zone of proximal development: their peer, the

reformulation, and the researcher. The results showed that depending on the difficulty of the language in relation to the

developmental level of the students, these sources varied in how successful they were in helping the learners solve a

linguistic problem.

Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) studied students’ responses to two types of feedback: reformulation and error

codes. Students worked in pairs to review the feedback. The data from the pairs of students were analyzed, according

to the authors, following a sociocultural approach in which the students’ discussions were examined for evidence of

uptake from the corrections. They found that the error coding condition generated more language-related episodes

(i.e., talk focused on language). The authors also invoked sociocultural theory to explain that learners are seen as

‘‘intentional agents in their language learning activity’’ (p. 306) and that they have beliefs and goals that might affect

how they deal with the feedback. Indeed, they found some resistance to reformulation and that the students had a

higher level of engagement with the editing codes.

None of the three studies discussed above demonstrated cause–effect relationships for the participants’

collaboration regarding language errors, but all studies offer insight into the learning process. Given the number of

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 383

product-oriented studies that have shown little effect for written error corrections, such studies are extremely helpful.

Indeed, Aljaafreh and Lantolf stated, ‘‘We must bear in mind, however, that controlled experimentation, as informative

as it may be, really tells us little about how individuals react to and use, or fail to use, feedback to change their

interlanguage’’ (p. 466).

Nassaji and Swain (2000), however, did conduct an experimental pilot study on the correction of articles, assigning

one ESL student to a ZPD condition and one to a non-ZPD condition. The tutor in the ZPD condition received prompts

according to Aljaafreh and Lantolf’s system. The non-ZPD student received random prompts. The ZPD student used

articles more accurately in a posttest.

The point to consider here is whether or not more common types of non-individualized error correction would be

effective given a sociocultural view of second language learning. The answer is, probably not. Aljaafreh and Lantolf

stated:

Effective error correction and language learning depend crucially on mediation provided by other individuals,

who in consort with the learner dialogically co-construct a zone of proximal development in which feedback as

regulation becomes relevant and therefore can be appropriated by learners to modify their interlanguage

systems. (p. 480)

Interactionist perspective

The origins of the interaction approach are in work on oral interaction (Hatch, 1978a,b; Long, 1981, 1983). The

major tenets of this approach have most recently been outlined by Gass and Mackey (2006, 2007) and Mackey and

Polio (2009). These summaries all explain that this approach emphasizes the role of input, output, and feedback, all of

which occur during interaction in the L2. Most important, attention is a major component in learning. When receiving

input, the learner may pay attention to certain forms (e.g., because of stress). When producing output, the learner has to

pay attention to form (as explained by Swain (1985, 1995, 2005)) to construct an utterance. As oral interaction occurs,

the learner will receive implicit feedback in the form of negotiation and recasts, or, possibly explicit feedback in a

classroom setting. This feedback serves as a way to draw the learner’s attention to form.

Although most researchers working in this framework consider only oral language because it was based on a model

of conversational modifications, some work, such as Swain and Lapkin (1995), Swain (1998), Qi and Lapkin (2001),

and Sachs and Polio (2007), borrowed concepts from the interaction approach and applied them to writing, but never

explicitly stated that they were working within that approach. If the interaction approach is to be applied to writing, we

have to look at each of the components and claims. First, exposure (input), production (output), and feedback affect

learning. Rereading a corrected or reformulated version of one’s writing is a form of input. Rewriting a corrected essay

is a form of output. Written correction is a form of feedback that gives learners an indication of their errors. Second,

attention can aid learning. It should be easier to pay attention to form in writing than in speaking, because one has time

to do so. It should also be easier to pay attention to feedback in writing because, unlike with much oral feedback,

learners know when they are being corrected. Third, individual cognitive factors (e.g., working memory,

developmental level) can affect learning. Written error correction as practiced in the classroom most likely does not

take individual factors, such as developmental level, into account and it is difficult to imagine how it could.

Within the interaction approach, some acquisition happens incidentally but some type of focus on form is necessary

for certain types of learning. Of all the approaches, the interactionist approach is the one in which feedback is most

often studied and is a major foundational construct of the approach. Even though it does not directly address written

error correction, it has the potential to have the most implications (and support) for it. In Long’s (1996) version of what

was called the interaction hypothesis, focusing a learner’s attention on a problematic structure was helpful if it was

done using implicit focus on form (i.e., recasts and negotiation) during meaningful use of language. Thus, given the

explicit nature of written error correction and the fact that feedback is removed from the time of actual meaningful

language use (i.e., not contingent), it would seem to be of little use to second language acquisition. But just as the

definition of focus on form has expanded (Doughty & Williams, 1998; R. Ellis, 2001), so has the scope of the

interaction approach. Indeed, Mackey (2007) discusses three studies (Doughty & Varela, 1998; R. Ellis, 2007; Gass &

Lewis, 2007) in which feedback is more explicit that a recast.

Drawing on the concept of noticing, Sachs and Polio (2007) examined three different methods of written corrective

feedback (direct correction, reformulation, and reformulation with think aloud) and found that groups who received

384 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

direct correction were better at revising their essays than the other groups. They also found, from the think alouds, that

there was an association between noticing and subsequent correction. The study looked only at essay revision after

corrections had been removed, so the study did not address long-term development, only short-term learning. Within

the interaction approach, however, short-term changes in accuracy may be noteworthy (Norris & Ortega, 2003;

Mackey & Polio, 2009).

Summary of issues

Despite differences among the various theories, I believe that we can draw some conclusions regarding the effects

of written corrective feedback.

Error correction is not completely useless or harmful

Four of the approaches (i.e., usage-based approaches, skill acquisition theory, sociocultural theory, and the

interaction approach) have posited a role for feedback while two, generative and processability theories, have not.

Nevertheless, although Universal Grammar proponents have rejected the role of negative evidence in L1 acquisition, it

is possible that some forms of error correction could serve as a trigger if it can be considered as an additional form of

input. Within processability theory, it seems clear that error correction would not play a large role, and the relationship

to writing is not clear. The possibility remains that it may be seen as a way to speed up stages proposed in processability

theory. To be sure, however, explicit knowledge plays no role in acquisition in these theories, so the effects of feedback

are at most minimal, but nothing inherent in these theories suggests that error correction will be harmful.

One argument that Truscott (1996) made for written correction being harmful is that it takes time away from other

endeavors (on both the students’ and teachers’ parts) and that it might cause students to focus on accuracy at the

expense of grammatically complex sentences or more sophisticated content. It is true that some other activity on the

part of the students or the teacher could be more beneficial. Furthermore, learners’ attention to accuracy could divert

their attention from other factors, most notably complexity. However, this assumes a limited attentional capacity

model (Skehan, 1998, 2003), which is open to debate (see below).

Explicit knowledge is helpful in writing

The various approaches, as shown in Table 1, differ with regard to the usefulness of explicit knowledge in

acquisition. It appears that explicit knowledge can be at least somewhat helpful under four of the approaches, even in

speaking or rapid writing The two approaches that do not see a role for explicit knowledge generally do not consider

written language, thus they might see a role for explicit knowledge in writing. Even Krashen (1982) who took an

extreme position on the role of explicit knowledge in SLA, pointed out that in writing, writers had time to monitor and

apply knowledge from learned rules.

As mentioned earlier, I assume that writing involves the use of both implicit and explicit knowledge. Writers use

their acquired language but have time to pause and apply any explicit knowledge they might have. Thus, regardless of

one’s approach to SLA, there should be a role for explicit knowledge in writing in both L1 and L2 writing when writers

have time to access it. The extent to which a writer can use explicit knowledge depends, of course, on the learner and

the task. If we assume that written corrective feedback increases explicit knowledge, then it should help learners write

better in at least some cases.

The feedback has to be at the right developmental level for the learner

According to processability theory, feedback is unlikely to change the course of language development and might

affect only the speed of development. Furthermore, the feedback has to be at the right developmental level for the

learner. Sociocultural theory, in addition, is very clear about tailoring the type of feedback (related to the amount of

learner control) to specific learners. In the interactionist approach, one of the factors related to learning is the learner’s

level, which will affect his or her ability to pay attention to the feedback. Thus, a scattershot approach to written

corrective feedback, it seems, could be problematic. On one hand, written error correction is tailored toward students’

individual errors, but not necessarily to their developmental level in that the feedback may not be useable.

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 385

The learner has to pay attention to the feedback

Most important, the learner has to pay attention to the feedback. Usage-based, sociocultural, and interactionist

approaches all draw on the concept of attention. N. Ellis (2007, 2009) states that through explicit instruction, learners’

attention can be drawn to features in the input. In sociocultural theory, learners’ attention is focused on language

through scaffolding. The interactionist approach clearly states that the role of attention is important, if not central.

Written error correction is one way to attempt to draw learners’ attention to a problem.

These four approaches see attention to feedback as useful, whereas Truscott (1996) argued that attention to form

(presumably resulting from the feedback) was harmful in that it diverted learners’ attention from other factors in their

writing. A review of the literature on attention is beyond the scope of this paper, but a few points are important to

emphasize. First, the nature of attentional capacity has been debated, most notably by Skehan (1998, 2003) and

Robinson (2001, 2003, 2005). Skehan’s limited attentional capacity model suggests that if a learner pays attention to

one aspect of language, the others may suffer because of the limited nature of attention. In other words, if a learner pays

more attention to accuracy, fluency, and complexity could suffer. Similarly, if a learner is asked to complete a more

complex task, then attention to language will be limited. Robinson, on the other hand, has argued that certain types of

task demands do not compete with linguistic demands and that greater task complexity can lead to linguistic

improvements in production. Although not an error correction study, these two hypotheses were tested in a study of L2

writing by Kuiken and Vedder (2008). They found that more complex tasks led to improvements in accuracy, not a

decrease in accuracy.

The implications for the use of written error correction are not clear, but they suggest that more research on

attentional resources used when composing or editing is necessary and that additional attention to accuracy may not

harm complexity or fluency. Nevertheless, this diversion of resources is an extremely important point that must be

taken into consideration when designing experimental studies. In other words, studies need to consider matters of

complexity and fluency to determine if attention to accuracy is harmful to other aspects of writing.

Truscott (1996) did not address issues of attention, but a later article (Truscott, 1998) did. In this article, he

explained that the concept of attention has been debated and that the SLA term, noticing, is vague. He concluded that

noticing is useful only for developing metalinguistic knowledge and not competence. But again, in writing, one has

time to apply metalinguistic knowledge.

The learner may have to use the language very soon after the feedback

With regard to oral corrective feedback, many (e.g., Long, 2007) have argued for the effectiveness of recasts

because they immediately follow an error while N. Ellis (2012) has discussed a possible priming effect. One

possible problem with written corrective feedback, according to the interaction approach and possibly usage-based

approaches, is that it is far removed from when the student makes an error. Although written feedback can never be

as immediate as oral, except in synchronous computer-mediated discourse or a tutoring situation, one study,

Hartshorn et al. (2010), which found a positive effect for written corrective feedback, reduced the time between the

student making the error and getting and using the feedback by returning students’ writing the following day.

Of course, this proposed need for immediacy presents a practical problem for teachers, but it is worth further

investigation, perhaps using immediate computer-based feedback systems from intelligent computer-assisted

language learning.

Conclusions

What SLA theory can tell us about how to practice written corrective feedback at this point is somewhat limited but

still worth mentioning. First, at the very least, several theories agree that learners need to pay attention to the feedback.

This is probably uncontroversial among language teachers in that most teachers have students revise their essays after

providing feedback. Nevertheless, the above discussion highlights the importance of attention. Thus, correcting errors

on the final version of a paper seems essentially useless if learners do not have to do anything with the feedback. What

we need to consider is whether or not there is a better way to draw learners’ attention to the corrections other than

simply rewriting. Some teachers have students keep logs of their error types, for example. In Sachs and Polio (2007),

participants in groups who did not participate in a think-aloud group had to sit with their corrections or reformulations

386 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

for 15 minutes and look them over, which actually resulted in greater short-term gains on revisions than for those in the

think-aloud group. Sachs and Polio commented that most teachers do not make their students sit and look over

corrections before revising their essays.

Second, the issue of feedback having to be at the right level is worth returning to. A scattershot approach to

feedback may not be effective, but research on developmental levels is difficult to take into account when giving

written feedback; no teacher could or would consider a learner’s level, for example, on processability theory and give

feedback only related to that level. Probably the only way to reconcile this issue is to look toward sociocultural theory

and give individual feedback through face-to-face tutoring or to supplement written feedback with conferences where

feedback can be scaffolded according to the students’ level.

The intent of this article, however, is not to argue for immediate applications of theory to pedagogy but rather to

open a discussion about conducting research on written error correction within the framework of SLA theory such as

done in Hartshorn et al. (2010). While a skill acquisition approach definitely seems promising, so does research done

within a sociocultural approach. In the sociocultural studies discussed above, L2 writers interact with a peer or

researcher about errors in their writing (also see Wigglesworth & Storch, this volume). One issue with most, but not all,

studies framed within a sociocultural approach is that they do not show a cause–effect relationship but rather describe

interactions with the learners and how the learners progress. Bitchener and Ferris (2012) also state that sociocultural

theory could help us understand individual difference in students’ progress related to feedback. An innovative study

done in this framework was Suzuki (2012), who had students write about why they thought the instructor corrected

their errors. Drawing on Swain’s work (e.g., Brooks & Swain, 2009), he called this technique written languaging. His

technique was in some sense a way for learners to scaffold without the presence of another person, and a way for them

to focus on their own explicit knowledge.

Finally, one point that has arisen from this discussion is that what we can say about the role of SLA theory is

somewhat constrained by what we do and do not about the roles of implicit and explicit knowledge in writing and

revision; the roles of these two types of knowledge and how they may interact is a major area of difference among the

theories. Throughout this paper, I have assumed (1) that learners use both implicit and explicit knowledge while

writing; and (2) that written corrective feedback will increase explicit knowledge. While I believe these assumptions to

be true, we need to study these issues in much greater depth. Establishing a research agenda on the roles of explicit and

implicit knowledge in writing is crucial.

To elaborate, my first assumption is based on the fact that students can improve their accuracy when given

additional time (e.g., Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998). Furthermore, evidence from studies of the writing process show

that students can draw on explicit knowledge when writing (e.g., Bosher, 1998; Li & Cumming, 2001; Swain &

Lapkin, 1995). Nevertheless, we have not sorted out what explicit knowledge students can and cannot apply, and all

teachers know that students do not apply all of their explicit knowledge when writing or editing. Furthermore, several

studies of students writing while thinking aloud (e.g., Armengol & Cots, 2009; van Weijen, van den Bergh,

Rijlaarsdam, & Sanders, 2009) include examples of learners’ paying attention to form but not necessarily using

statements about explicit rules. This may be because of the researchers’ choice of examples, limitations of the think-

aloud method, or the L2 writers’ tendency to draw on intuitions over rules. DeKeyser (2003) briefly discussed the role

of explicit knowledge in editing drawing on a study by Green and Hecht (1992) but questioned their conclusions that

explicit knowledge does not play a role. As for the second assumption, I know of no studies that have researched the

role of written corrective feedback on explicit knowledge.

I end here with the statement from Truscott (1996) with which I began, that written error correction cannot work

‘‘given the nature of the correction process and the nature of language learning’’ (p. 328). He may or may not be correct

that error correction as practiced is not very effective, and I do not debate this point here. I do not think, however, that

one can argue against the effectiveness of written error correction on the basis of the nature of language learning. And

indeed, by considering the nature of language learning, we can conduct research that will show how and when written

corrective feedback can be made more effective.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank several people for their feedback and help on clarifying the points in this paper: Norman

Evans, James Hartshorn, Rosa Mancho´n, Rebecca Sachs, Wataru Suziki, Jessica Williams, and two anonymous reviewers.

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 387

References

Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). General introduction: A definition of writing and a presentation of the main models. In D. Alamargot & L.

Chanquoy (Eds.), Through models of writing. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The

Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.

Armengol, L., & Cots, J. (2009). Attention processes observed in think-aloud protocols: Two multilingual informants writing in two languages.

Language Awareness, 18, 259–276.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York and London: Routledge.

Bosher, S. (1998). The composing process of three Southeast Asian writers at the post-secondary level: An exploratory study. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 7, 205–242.

Brooks, L., & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.),

Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 58–89). New York: Routledge.

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.

DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 17, 379–410.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–

348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

DeKeyser, R. (Ed.). (2007). Practicing in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R. (2007b). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.

97–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Pedagogical choices in focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second

language acquisition (pp. 129–154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dyson, B. (2010). How can SLA theory clarify the debate about the effectiveness of corrective feedback? Paper presented at the second language

writing symposium.

Ellis, N. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27,

305–352.

Ellis, N. (2007a). The associative–cognitive CREED. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An

introduction (pp. 77–96). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ellis, N. (2009). The psycholinguistics of the interaction approach. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second

language research in honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 11–40). New York: Routledge.

Ellis, N. (2012). Frequency-based accounts of second language acquisition. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second

language acquisition (pp. 193–210). New York: Routledge.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(Suppl. 1), 1–46.

Ellis, R. (2007b). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in

second language acquisition (pp. 339–360). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching Journal, 97–107.

Evans, N., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL

learners. System, 39, 229–239.

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form vs. content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing:

Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions about interactional feedback: Differences between heritage learners and non-heritage learners. In A.

Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2006). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3–17.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in

second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (Eds.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.

Green, P., & Hecht, K. (1992). Implicit and explicit grammar: An empirical study. Applied Linguistics, 13, 168–184.

Gregg, K. (1993). Taking explanation seriously or let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics, 14, 266–294.

Gue´nette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 16, 40–53.

Hartshorn, K., Evans, N., Merrill, P., Sudweeks, R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL

writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.

Hatch, E. (1978a). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second and foreign language learning: Issues and

approaches (pp. 34–70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Hatch, E. (1978b). Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second language acquisition: A book of readings (pp.

401–435). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

388 C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389

Jordan, G. (2004). Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2008). Cognitive task complexity and written output in Italian and French as a foreign language. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17, 48–60.

Lantolf, J. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second

language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lantolf, J. (2012). Sociocultural theory: A dialectical approach to L2 research. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second

language acquisition (pp. 57–72). New York: Routledge.

Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Li, J., & Cumming, A. (2001). Word processing and second language writing: A longitudinal case study. International Journal of English Studies, 2,

127–152.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 363–386.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. In Winitz, H. (Ed.). Native language and foreign language acquisition. Vol.

379 (pp.259–278). Annals of the New York Academy of Science.

Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 5, 177–193.

Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In (Series Ed.) & W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Vol.

Eds.), Second language acquisition: Vol. 2. Handbook of language acquisition (pp. 413–468). New York: Academic.

Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 21, 557–587.

Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second

language acquisition (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings? Modern

Language Journal, 82, 338–356.

Mackey, A., & Polio, C. (2009). Introduction. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction: Second language research in

honor of Susan M. Gass (pp. 1–10). New York: Routledge.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. London: Arnold.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskyian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the

learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50,

417–528.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring L2 acquisition. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language

acquisition (pp. 717–761). New York: Blackwell.

Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Pienemann, M. (2007). Processability theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp.

137–154). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development of language proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language

acquisition research (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: National Curriculum Resource Centre, AMEP.

Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J. (2012a). Processability theory. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition

(pp. 228–247). New York: Routledge.

Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J. (Eds.). (2012b). Studying processability theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.

Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143.

Polio, C. (2001). Research methodology in second language writing research: The case of text-based studies. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda (Eds.), On

second language writing (pp. 91–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Polio, C. (2009, November). What does second language acquisition theory say about the effectiveness of written error correction? Symposium on

second language writing.

Polio, C. (2010, May). Written error correction and theories of second language acquisition. Symposium on second language writing.

Polio, C. (2012). Replication in published applied linguistics research: An historical perspective. In G. Porte (Ed.), Replication in applied linguistics:

A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If only I had more time: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.

Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing,

10(2001), 277–303.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1989). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95.

Robinson, P. (2001). Individual differences, cognitive abilities, aptitude complexes and learning conditions in second language acquisition. Second

Language Research, 17, 368–392.

Robinson, P. (2003). Attention and memory. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 631–678).

Oxford: Blackwell.

Robinson, P. (2005). Cognitive complexity and task sequencing. Studies in componential framework for second language task design. International

Review of Applied Linguistics, 43, 1–32.

C. Polio / Journal of Second Language Writing 21 (2012) 375–389 389

Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 29, 67–100.

Schwartz, B. (1986). The epistemological status of second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 2, 120–159.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–

283.

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skehan, P. (2003). Task-based instruction. Language Teaching, 36, 1–14.

Spinner, P. (2011). Second language assessment and morphosyntactic development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 529–561.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 32, 303–334.

Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, in press.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C.

Madden (Eds.), Input and second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied

linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language

acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Swain, M. (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: Erlbaum.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103–135.

Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 255–272.

VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2007). Introduction: The nature of theories. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language

acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International

Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing.

Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

van Weijen, D., van den Bergh, H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & Sanders, T. (2009). L1 use during L2 writing: An empirical study of a complex phenomenon.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 235–250.

Verspoor, M., Schmid, M., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263.

White, L. (1989). Universal grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

White, L. (2007). Linguistic theory, Universal Grammar, and second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second

language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 37–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity.

Technical report #17. Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.

Wulff, S., & Gries, S. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Second language task

.complexity: Researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61–88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins

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.

Charlene Polio is an associate professor and associate chair in the Department of Linguistics & Germanic, Slavic, Asian, & African Languages at

Michigan State University. Her main area of research is second language (L2) writing. She is particularly interested in the various research methods

and measures used in studying L2 writing as well as the interface between the fields of L2 writing and second language acquisition. She has also

published and done research in the areas of second language acquisition, foreign language classroom discourse, and behavior differences in novice

vs. experienced teachers. She is the current editor of Annual Review of Applied Linguistics and will begin as co-editor of the Modern Language

Journal in 2013.