This article was downloaded by: [Kyungpook National University]

On: 16 March 2015, At: 15:44

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20

The effects of computer-mediated

synchronous and asynchronous direct
corrective feedback on writing: a case
study
a

Natsuko Shintani
a

Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Published online: 12 Jan 2015.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Natsuko Shintani (2015): The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and
asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study, Computer Assisted Language
Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400

The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous

direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study
Natsuko Shintani*

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Faculty of Education, University of Auckland, New Zealand

This case study investigated the characteristics of computer-mediated synchronous
corrective feedback (SCF, provided while students wrote) and asynchronous
corrective feedback (ACF, provided after students had finished writing) in an EFL
writing task. The task, designed to elicit the use of the hypothetical conditional, was
completed by two Japanese university students in either the SCF or ACF condition.
The writing process was video-recorded using the screen-capture function. An
interview involving stimulated recall was conducted immediately after the writing
session to investigate the two writers perceptions about the feedback they received.
The main findings were that (1) SCF created an interactive writing process similar in
some respects to oral corrective feedback; (2) both the SCF and ACF promoted
noticing-the-gap, but self-correction was more successful in the SCF condition;
(3) focus on meaning and form took place contiguously in the SCF condition while it
occurred separately in the ACF condition; and (4) both types of feedback facilitated
metalinguistic understanding of the target feature, reflecting the unique features of
writing (i.e., its slow pace, its permanency and the need of accuracy). These
differences were confirmed by analyzing compositions written by 15 similar learners
who received either type of feedback.
Keywords: written corrective feedback; synchronous and asynchronous feedback;
second language writing; revision of writing; uptaking

Introduction
Synchronous and asynchronous corrective feedback
Traditionally, written corrective feedback (CF) occurs only after a learner completes writing (delayed feedback) while oral CF generally occurs immediately or shortly after learners have committed an error. Oral CF research (e.g., Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006;
Lyster, 2004), stemming from the cognitive interactionist SLA perspective, has therefore
shed light on the theoretical underpinnings of immediate CF (see Lyster, Saito, & Sato,
2013). However, web-based word editing programs such as Google Docs allow teachers
providing learners with synchronous corrective feedback (SCF) (i.e., immediate CF) as
well as asynchronous corrective feedback (ACF) (i.e., delayed CF). SCF takes place
online while the students are in the process of composing their texts. That is, both students
and teacher are online at the same time, enabling the teacher to observe the students composition process and provide instant corrections of their linguistic errors. In contrast, ACF
occurs after students have completed a piece of writing. Specifically, the teacher provides
feedback on completed computer-composed pieces of writing that students have submitted electronically. The timing of ACF feedback, thus, corresponds to traditional written
CF involving a pencil-and-paper writing activity.
*Email: n.shintani@auckland.ac.nz
2015 Taylor & Francis

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

N. Shintani

The majority of studies on computer-mediated feedback in second language (L2) writing have involved asynchronous feedback using a wiki (i.e., a Web page that can be
revised by multiple users) (e.g., Castaneda & Cho, 2012; Lee, Cheung, Wong, & Lee,
2013; Li & Zhu, 2013; Wang, 2014). These studies focused on peer feedback in collaborative writing, and showed positive effects of drawing learners attention to form during
writing tasks on L2 development. Interestingly, however, except for a few studies that
explored students perceptions about feedback in distance education (Ypsilandis, 2002),
there does not appear to be any study that has investigated asynchronous error corrections
on L2 writing by teachers in a computer-mediated environment.
There are also only a few studies that have investigated synchronous interactions
involving teachers (Klc kaya, 2013; Kim, 2014; Ko, 2012). These studies typically contrasted a synchronous environment with a face-to-face teaching condition by focusing on
the communicative strategies used in teacher student interactions (Guichon, B
etrancourt,
& Pri
e, 2012) or peer interaction (Kim, 2014; Ko, 2012). These studies revealed that the
interactions which take place in a synchronous environment differ from those in a faceto-face envionment. Few studies have investigated the synchronous condition as an
opportunity for providing feedback on L2 writing. One such study is by Kim (2010) who
explored L2 learners responses to synchronous feedback in three conditions
(1)
teacher feedback, (2) peer review and (3) collaborative writing
over a semester.
Students end-of-term reflections on the experience indicated that the synchronous characteristics of Google Docs, such as the potential for immediate feedback and revisions,
promoted their writing skills. Aubrey (2012) explored university EFL learners perspectives on asynchronous and synchronous feedback, and reported that teacher-led feedback,
regardless of whether it was synchronous or asynchronous, was preferred to peer feedback. These studies point to the potential usefulness of SCF in L2 writing.
Inspired by these studies, Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming) conducted a study comparing the effects of synchronous and asynchronous feedback on the accurate use of the
hypothetical conditional structure. A total of 68 university students in Japan were divided
into three groups: the SCF, the ACF and the comparison groups. Each group completed
two narrative writing tasks using Google Docs. The SCF and ACF groups received direct
correct feedback on the target feature, while the comparison group did not. The SCF
group received synchronous feedback in the form of corrections to grammatical errors as
students were writing, while the ACF group received feedback after completing the task.
Both groups were asked to revise their text the SCF online as they received the feedback and the ACF offline after having received feedback on their completed writings.
Gains in the accurate use of the target feature were measured by Text Reconstruction
Tasks conducted as pre-, post- and delayed post-tests. The results showed that both experimental groups significantly improved on the two post-tests while the comparison group
did not. Only the SCF group outperformed the comparison group on the delayed posttest, however. Shintani and Aubrey attributed this superiority of SCF over ACF to the
cognitive processes the two types of feedback triggered. They argued that the SCF condition prompted three of the key processes involved in acquisition internalization, modification and consolidation (Williams, 2012) which took place contiguously. In contrast,
the ACF provided little opportunity for consolidation. Apart from Shintani and Aubrey
(forthcoming), there has been no research comparing the effects of ACF and SCF.
The current study is a follow-up to Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming). It employed a
qualitative analysis to examine the process features of writing in SCF and ACF conditions, and aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the different effects the two types
of feedback had on grammatical accuracy in new pieces of writing.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Descriptive studies on written corrective feedback

Of relevance to the present study, however, are qualitative studies investigating L2 writing (e.g., Qi & Lapkin, 2001; Sachs & Polio, 2007; Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). These
have examined (1) what learners do when they are writing an original text; (2) what they
do with the feedback they are given when they revise their writing; and (3) what use they
make of feedback when producing a new piece of writing. These studies involved two
types of data: self-reports where learners think-aloud as they write (Qi & Lapkin, 2001;
Sachs & Polio, 2007) or the interactions that arise as learners complete a writing task collaboratively (Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). The collected data were analyzed in terms
of language related episodes (i.e., segments where the learners focused explicitly on specific language items) to identify which linguistic forms were attended to, whether the
learners sought explanations for their linguistic choices, and whether the linguistic problems were successfully resolved.
One of the main findings of these studies was that what learners attended to while
writing or engaging in the CF impacted their production at a later stage either within
the same piece of writing or in a new piece of writing. Qi and Lapkin (2001), for example,
reported that the noticing which occurred in the first stage of a writing activity triggered
noticing in subsequent stages, and that providing reason for the self-corrections they
made had an impact on the final written product. Sachs and Polio (2007) also found that
learners were more likely to make a change when they provided a reason for a change or
when they employed metalanguage to discuss the feedback they had received. Storch and
Wigglesworth (2010) reported that extensive engagement with feedback in the second
stage led to higher levels of uptake (i.e., providing the correct form for the corrected
errors) than when the learners individually completed the same task with no reference to
the original composition (Stage 3).
Another key finding of these self-report studies is that learners differ in how they
respond to written CF. Qi and Lapkin (2001) noted that the learners L2 proficiency
affected their ability to make use of the feedback. The learner with a relatively lower level
of L2 proficiency experienced difficulty identifying the nature of the gap between his
original text and the text in the reformulated version, especially when the change involved
grammatical form. The case studies in Storch and Wigglesworth (2010) reported that
retention of a correction (i.e., the correct use of a feature in a delayed writing task) was
influenced not just by the learners level of engagement with the feedback, but also by
other factors such as the learners beliefs, their attitudes toward the form of the feedback
they received and their personal goals. For example, uptake and retention of corrections
were more evident when the learners goal was to improve accuracy than when their goal
was to improve content or organization. It was clear that personal factors influenced the
type of strategies the learners adopted in dealing with the feedback and also their willingness to accept the feedback and their likelihood of retaining it (p. 328).
Many of these studies used think-aloud protocol to investigate the moment-bymoment decisions learners make as they revise following CF. However, thinking-aloud
potentially affects the actual process of revision and thus does not show how learners typically handle the feedback they receive. In this respect, these studies dealing with traditional written CF differ from oral CF studies that are able to document how learners
respond to feedback as they receive it, and what use they make of this feedback in their
subsequent production. However, by video-recording the computer screen while the students write, it is possible to obtain a record of the moment-by-writing process as the students handle the online feedback either SCF or ACF as illustrated in Figure 1.

N. Shintani

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Figure 1. Example of SCF.

The study reported below is an attempt to investigate the processes involved in dealing with online CF provided via SCF, and in what ways these processes differ from those
involved in responding to ACF. In addition, the study made use of self-report through
stimulated recall to investigate whether there were differences in the learners own perceptions on the two types of feedback.

Cognitive processes involved in direct SCF and ACF

Polio (2012) made the point that one limitation of written CF is that it is removed from
actual meaningful use (p. 383) (i.e., not contingent) as it only occurs after the learner
has finished composing. While this is true for ACF, it does not apply to SCF, which is
provided while the learner is in the process of composing a meaningful text. SCF provides
the learners with negative evidence (i.e., it indicates they have made an error) and, in the
case of direct SCF, positive evidence (i.e., it shows them what is grammatically correct)
while they are formulating sentences to express their ideas. In this respect, direct SCF is
similar to recasting in oral CF and involves similar but not identical cognitive processes.
Long (1996, 2007) argued that a recast facilitates form function mapping because
(1) it conveys needed information about the target language in context (Long, 2007,
p. 77, italicized in original); (2) the learners are vested in the exchange, as it is their message that is at stake, and so will probably be motivated and attending (pp. 77 78); (3)
learners understand all or part of the interlocutors response because it is a reformulation
of their own utterances; and (4) it allows learners to form a cognitive comparison by comparing their own form with the appropriate form side by side.
All four points are applicable to SCF. However, it (1) does not occur in ACF if in
context refers to real-time events. Arguably, it also (2) does not apply in ACF as learners
have completed the composing process and may or may not be motivated to attend to the
corrections that are provided afterwards. If Long is right, then SCF is more likely to
engage with the cognitive mechanisms responsible for acquisition.
A similar conclusion is supported by the principle of transfer appropriate processing.
This claims that the conditions under which a language is learned will determine the conditions under which it can be used (Lightbown, 2008; Segalowitz, 2003). Thus, feedback
provided while students are writing is more likely to result in learning that can be subsequently deployed than feedback that is provided after a learner has completed a piece of
writing. The contextualized feedback that occurs in SCF is potentially more usable than
the decontextualized feedback in ACF.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

SCF holds another potential advantage over ACF. As with oral CF, feedback that is
provided while learners are formulating writing can be utilized to help avoid making the
same error later in the text. In oral CF and in SCF, the effect of feedback on the same error
is cumulative, enabling learners to produce the correct form while engaged in the same
activity. The resulting correct production can be seen as practice that can help learners
achieve greater control over the form (DeKeyser, 2007). This cycle of erroneous production followed by correction and then, potentially, production of the correct form, which
can be seen as a form of hypothesis testing, is a feature of both oral CF and SCF. In ACF,
however, each part of the cycle is separate with no opportunity for learners to benefit
immediately from the corrections they receive. The likelihood is that learners will repeat
the same errors as they write.
There are, however, differences between direct SCF and oral recasts, reflecting differences in the nature of writing and oral production. Williams (2012) identified three features that are unique to writing compared to oral production: (1) its slower pace, (2) the
permanency of the record and (3) the need for and the opportunity for greater precision in
language use. As writing takes place at a slower pace than oral production, learners have
time to process the SCF they receive and are not pressured to respond to the feedback
immediately. Thus, as Williams pointed out, learners have greater opportunity to noticethe-gap than in oral communication. The additional time that learners have to process
SCF compared to oral recasts allows learners the opportunity to reflect on the corrections
they receive and to construct an explicit representation of the grammatical features. SCF
can provide similar opportunities but is not demanding on learners working memory
because the feedback constitutes a permanent object. Oral recasts are demanding on
working memory because they require the learner to compare their output with an interlocutors reformulation in real time. Additionally, because writing requires greater precision than speaking, learners are more likely to be attentive to the online corrections they
receive. Such corrections, unlike recasts, are inevitably explicit in nature. In this respect,
SCF and ACF are alike.

Research question
The current study investigated the differences in the process features of L2 writing that
SCF and ACF involve to consolidate the findings by Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming).
The research question addressed in this study was:
In what ways do L2 writers differ in their use of and responses to synchronous and asynchronous computer-mediated written feedback?

The study attempted to answer the research question by (1) descriptively reporting on
the two learners writing process in SCF and ACF conditions and then (2) looking at the
differences that manifested in (1) in a larger sample.

Method
Instructional context
Participants
Participants were second-year university students attending an intensive English course in
a private university in Japan. The course involved three 90 minute classes a week

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

N. Shintani

involving a mixture of form-focused and meaning-focused activities which aimed at developing the students oral and written English production skills. The class that the
participants were recruited from had 25 students who had obtained 420 450 in the
TOEFL paper-based test. Two male Japanese learners Masaki and Koji (pseudonyms)
voluntarily participated in the first part of this study.
Masaki was 19 years old, a second-year law student. He had obtained a TOEFL score
of 430 in the paper test before participating in this study. He started to learn English as a
school subject in junior high school at the age of 12. He did not receive any additional
outside-school instruction in English and he had never been overseas. He reported that
English was always his favorite subject at school.
Koji was 19 years old, a second-year student, majoring in German. His TOEFL score
was 450. He started to learn English as a school subject in junior high school at the age of
12. His English learning experience apart from the school was only at an entrance exam
preparation class during high school. He had never been overseas. He reported that
English was not the best but always one of his favourite subjects.
The second part of the study involved another class from the same course at the university. The class consisted of the students with similar proficiency levels (i.e., scores of
420 450 in the TOEFL paper-based test). The students were randomly assigned to either
the SCF group (n D 8) or the ACF group (n D 7).1
Target structure
The feedback focused on the hypothetical conditional, which expresses the hypothetical
outcome of an event that did not occur in the past. The decision to focus on this structure
was made because it is considered to be difficult to learn due to syntactic and semantic complexity (Celce-Murcia & Larsen-Freeman, 1999). Izumi, Bigelow, Fujiwara, and Fearnow
(1999) argued that the difficulty of this structure lies in the fact that it requires learners to
encode two functions: hypotheticality and past time reference. They noted that it is the
most difficult of the three conditional sentence types because it requires an additional
marker of pastness in the form of the past perfect to distinguish it from unreal conditional
sentences. Thus, attempts to produce a hypothetical conditional sentence can result in multiple errors. In this respect, it constitutes an ideal target structure for this study. Also, previous
studies (e.g., Shintani, Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014) have shown that CF can have a positive effect
on helping learners to achieve greater accuracy in the use of the hypothetical conditional.
Instruments and procedures
The composition task consisted of two parts: a pre-task which the learners completed at
home and a main task which they completed during an individual session with the
researcher. Two days before the treatment session, the participants received the pre-task
sheet and were instructed to write five English sentences that described five events that
had changed their life. They completed the pre-task at home and then brought the sheet to
the individual session. The main task involved the participants writing about their life
events and explaining what would have happened if these life events had not occurred. In
other words, the task was designed to provide contexts for the production of five sentences using the hypothetical conditional. The instructions for the pre-task and main task are
shown in Appendix 1.
In this study, the online interface Google Docs was used for real-time editing.
Google Docs is a file storage and synchronization service provided by Google, which

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

enables user cloud storage, file sharing and collaborative editing. SCF took place as
shown in Figure 1. When the student completed the sentence (in the first box), the teacher
highlighted the part with the error (i.e., did not meet) and provided the correct form in
the comment box, had not met. Meanwhile, the student had already begun to write the
next sentence (in the second box), but chose to return to the previous sentence to correct
the error (in the third box).
The main writing task took place individually in a small meeting room at the university.
Two tables were positioned about 2 meters apart. A computer (Mac Air) was set on each of
the tables for the researcher a Japanese speaker and the participant. At the beginning
of the session, Google Drive was opened, providing the learners with a blank document.
This was shared online with the researcher, thus enabling the researcher to view and write
on the Google Docs document. The participants then completed the main composition task
using Google Docs. The learners were allowed to see their pre-task sheet while they were
writing. Masaki and Koji received direct error corrections only on the grammatical errors
they made as they attempted to formulate hypothetical conditional sentences.
In the SCF condition, as the student wrote, the researcher used the comment box function available on Google Docs to provide focused, direct CF. When the researcher noted
the student had made an error, she first highlighted the part of the text containing the error
and then provided the correction in a comment box (see Figure 1). Before starting the
task, Masaki was told he should revise his writing as he received feedback. He was given
25 minutes to complete the task.
In the ACF condition, Koji was given 20 minutes to complete the writing task without
any interruption from the researcher. When he had finished the task, his completed text
was automatically saved on the Google Drive of the researcher. The researcher then corrected any errors in the hypothetical conditional using the comment box function on
Google Docs. Thus, the format for providing the feedback looked the same as in the SCF
condition. The student opened the corrected text five minutes later and was asked to
revise his text by correcting the errors indicated by the researcher. He was given five
minutes to revise his text. Thus, Koji had the same time (25 minutes) as Masaki to complete the whole task.
The writing process for the tasks was video-recorded using the screen capture function
of Mac Air in the researchers computer.
The 15 participants 8 for the SCF group and 7 for the ACF group in another class
received the same pre-task two days before the main task, which was completed during
regular class time. Direct CF was provided by two researchers one provided SCF to the
eight students and the other provided ACF to the seven students (see Shintani & Aubrey,
forthcoming, for detailed procedures). The 15 participants written documents were saved
as Google Docs, which allowed the researcher to retrieve the process of corrections/
revisions of writing.
Interview
An interview was conducted immediately after the two learners (Masaki and Koji) had
completed the task. The participants were asked to choose which language they wished to
use, but they both elected to speak in Japanese.
A stimulated recall was employed in the interview by playing the video-recordings of
the students writing captured by the computer monitor. The researcher and each participant watched the video data together. When the video showed either the learner making a
change in his text or feedback being provided, the researcher paused the video and asked

N. Shintani

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

the learner to verbalize what they were thinking about at that moment. The researcher also
asked questions such as, Why did you do that?, Did you notice the correction? to
elicit their thoughts during the writing. Following the stimulated recall, the researcher
asked the participants about their perceptions of the writing task and the feedback they
received. The interview was audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis.
Data coding and analysis
A detailed transcript of their attempts to compose hypothetical conditional sentences was
prepared based on the two participants screen-video-recorded compositions (see below).
Both Masaki and Koji attempted five hypothetical conditional sentences in their compositions. These attempts were analyzed in detail. The interview data were transcribed first
and the learners comments on their hypothetical conditional sentences were identified.
To report the interview data, L1 utterances (Japanese) were translated into English by the
researcher.
To report the writing process in the SCF condition, a transcript of Masakis attempts
was prepared (see Excerpt 1 for an example). The transcript had two columns. In the first
column, the learners attempts to produce hypothetical conditions together with any revisions he made were recorded. In the second column, the researchers synchronous feedback was noted. Masakis errors are shown as underlined while the researchers
corrections are presented using square parentheses. The turns that took place were numbered. Thus, Masakis first attempt at producing a hypothetical conditional sentence was
turn (1), the researchers feedback was turn (2) and Masakis subsequent attempt to revise
following the feedback was turn (3).
For the ACF condition, there was no online correction. Thus, the transcript of Kojis
attempts at producing hypothetical conditional sentences consisted of a single column.
However, his turns were also numbered when he attempted to self-correct online
(see Excerpt 6 for an example). The revisions that Koji made after he had received feedback
are shown in Table 1. Column 1 recorded his initial attempts at producing hypothetical
conditionals. Column 2 shows the changes he made in his rewritten text. The final written
products of both students can be found in Appendix 2.
The compositions by the 15 learners were analyzed using Google Docs revision history function, which allows viewing of the multiple stages of the compositions in the
document with all the revision records made in each of the stages in a different color. In

Table 1. Masakis correction in the SCF condition.

if-clause

Main-clause

Sentence

Attempt

Type of
correction

Result of
correction

1
2
3
4
5

Error
Error
Error
No error
Error

Other
Other
Self
Nil
Self

Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful

Attempt

Type of
correction

Result of
correction

Error
Error
No error
Error
No error

Other
Other
Nil
Self
Nil

Successful
Successful
Successful

Note: Attempt D the learners first attempt of the sentence: Error D the attempt included an error; No error D the
attempt was error-free; Other D other-correction; Self D self-correction; Nil D no correction.

Computer Assisted Language Learning

the process of coding, learners attempts at hypothetical conditional sentences were first
identified. Then, each sentence was coded in terms of (1) erroneous sentence; (2) self- or
other-correction; and (3) successful or non-successful revision.
Results
Hypothetical conditional sentences by Masaki (SCF condition)
Excerpt 1 shows Masakis first attempt to write a hypothetical conditional sentence.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Excerpt 1. Hypothetical conditional sentence 1 in the SCF condition.

Learners attempt/revision
1
2
3
4
5

Online feedback

If I didnt fail, I was very happy. But my heart

is weaker than now.
If I didnt fail [hadnt failed the exam]
If I hadnt failed the exam, I was very happy
But my heart is weaker than now. . .
I was [would have been] very happy.
If I hadnt failed the exam, I would have been
very happy

The sentence contained errors in both the if-clause and the main clause where he used
the simple past tense (line 1). After Masaki completed this sentence and started to write
the next sentence, the researcher provided feedback (line 2). Noticing the correction,
Masaki immediately revised his error (line 3). In the stimulated recall session, he commented, kore wa kateihou dattana to omotte, sono toori ni naosimashita (I thought this
was the conditional, so I revised it as suggested). While he was revising this error, the
researcher provided feedback on the main clause (line 4). Masaki attended to the feedback
and successfully revised his error (line 5). In the stimulated recall, he commented, a,
kokomo kateihou dakara would ga iruyona tte (I need would here because its hypothetical conditional). For this sentence, the errors in the if-clause and main clause were
both corrected by the researcher. His comments made use of metalanguage (e.g.,
hypothetical conditional), indicating that he was accessing his explicit knowledge of
the hypothetical conditional form to make sense of the researchers corrections.
His second attempt at a hypothetical conditional sentence also included errors but
demonstrated some improvement (Excerpt 2).
Excerpt 2. Hypothetical conditional sentence 2 in the SCF condition.
Learners attempt/revision
1

If I could have practiced tennis, I would get

along well with another club members.

If I could have practiced [had been

able to practice] tennis,
. . . I would get [have got] along well
with another club members.

3
4

Online feedback

If I had been able to practice tennis, I would

have got along well with another club members.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

10

N. Shintani

It again included errors in both clauses: the past modal and the perfect aspect (could
have practiced) in the if-clause and the past modal with no perfect aspect (would get)
in the main clause (line 1). In the stimulated recall, he reported, ueno bun wo mite,
kateihou dakara korede iito omotta (Looking at the above sentence, I thought this
would be correct for the conditional). After he started writing the next sentence, the
researcher provided feedback on the errors in both clauses (lines 2 and 3). In the stimulated recall, he explained why he did not attend to the correction immediately by commenting, a, mata naosareteru tte omotte, chotto konobun owattekara naosoukanato
(I noticed that it was corrected again but I thought I would finish this sentence first).
Masaki, then, returned to the sentence containing errors and revised them successfully
(line 4). He commented a kokowa could iranaindakke, tte. de, koko wa kakodakara
have got ka tte (I didnt need could here, and then it should be have got here
because its about the past).
Masakis second sentence included a modal verb and the perfect tense, demonstrating
improvement from sentence 1, which included only the simple past tense. Masakis report
showed that he utilized the information provided by the first instance of CF, but that it did
not lead to an error-free sentence.
Up to this point, there was no sign of any self-correction. However, self-correction
appeared in the next sentence (Excerpt 3).
Excerpt 3. Hypothetical conditional sentence 3 in the SCF condition.
Learners attempt/revision
1
2
3

Online feedback

If i ga
If i had been able to enter the college,
If i had been able to enter the college, I would have been very happy.

In the if-clause Masaki started to write ga for the verb phrase but deleted it and restarted the sentence with had been able to, which was the correct form. Masaki recalled
saisho gave up tte kakou toshite, demo, daigaku wo akirametara, jyanaiyona tte
omotte, daigaku ni hairetara ni shinaito tte omotte, de, hairetara dakara been able to
enter de iikanato (I started to write gave up but then realized that saying that if I gave
up the college did not make sense. I thought I needed to say entering the college and so it
should be been able to enter). In his answer to the researchers question kakutoki ueno
bun wo mita (Did you check the previous sentences when you wrote this?), he commented, hai, had been able to practice no tokoro wo tsukatte kaita kanji desu (Yes, I
utilized the part had been able to practice).
He then continued by formulating the verb in the main clause correctly. He commented, ue wo chekku shite, kokowa would to have to kakobunshi dana tte
omoimashita (I checked the above sentence and thought I need would, have and PP
here). This suggests that Masaki was busy working on how to formulate hypothetical conditional sentences while at the same time monitoring the grammatical form required. He
was able to self-correct his error by consulting the record of his previous revision.
In the next attempt (Excerpt 4), he provided the correct form in the if-clause but his
main clause still had the same errors as in the second sentence (i.e., he failed to use the
past perfect tense (line 1)).

Computer Assisted Language Learning 11

Excerpt 4. Hypothetical conditional sentence 4 in the SCF condition.

Learners attempt/revision

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

1
2
3

Online feedback

If I had failed the examination again, I would be able to have

If I had failed the examination again, I would have been able to have
If I had failed the examination again, I would have been able to have
confidence to me never.

He commented, mata kono pata-n to omotte, chotto ue wo mite, demo kakutokiwa

naiyou no koto wo kanngaete kaiteita to omoimasu (I thought it was the same pattern
again, so looked at the previous sentence above quickly, but when I wrote it I was mainly
thinking about the content I was writing). Immediately after completing the verb phrase
in the main clause, he noticed his error and self-corrected it successfully (line 2). He commented, have tte kaita tokoro de, have iruyona tte omotte, modotte naohimashita
(When I wrote have, I noticed that I also needed have here and corrected it). When
asked ueno bun wo chekku shita (Did you check the above sentence?), he answered
tabun (I think so). After self-correcting, he completed the sentence (line 3).
Excerpt 4 and the stimulated recall comments indicate that he was also focusing on
the message he wanted to express while at the same time monitoring the verb form that
had been corrected previously. He self-corrected his error in the if-clause and produced
the correct form in the main clause more easily than in Sentence 3.
In his last sentence (Excerpt 5), he first used the past auxiliary had followed by the
past verb form went (line 1) in the if-clause, but then immediately replaced went
with been (line 2), which was the correct form.
Excerpt 5. Hypothetical conditional sentence 5 in the SCF condition.
Learners attempt/revision
1
2
3

Online feedback

If i hadnt went
If i hadnt been
If i hadnt been to Malaysia, my thought would not have changed.

He commented, went janai been danatte (Not went, but been). He continued
his sentence and completed the main clause correctly. He recalled that naretekita kanji
(I felt I started to get used to it) and that konotokiwa, ue wo minakatta to omou (I do not
think I looked at the previous sentences this time).
Masaki also indicated how his attention shifted between meaning and form:
kaiterutokiwa, mazu naiyou wo kangaete, de, kakinagara bunpoumo chekku suru toiu
kanji deshita (When I started writing, I first thought about the content and then I checked
grammar while I was writing). He also commented, hokano bunpou no kotowa amari
kinishite nakattakamo (I might not have thought about other grammatical points).
Table 1 summarizes Masakis attempts to write the five hypothetical conditional
sentences.
In the first two sentences, the CF initiated by the researcher enabled him to notice the
error and revise it successfully. This seems to have led him to self-correct the errors in
the same structure in the following three sentences. He also demonstrated progress from

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

12

N. Shintani

the first sentence (where he used the past tense in both clauses) to the second sentence
(where he used a modal verb and the perfect aspect). As Izumi el al. (1999) pointed out,
the hypothetical conditional is a complex structure that requires learners to master several
aspects of the target form to achieve complete accuracy. Initially, Masaki was dependent
on the researchers corrections, but later he was able to use his previous attempts and the
revisions he made to self-correct new sentences. His ability to produce correct sentences
was clearly progressive. The learners stimulated recall data also indicated that he became
less dependent on the researchers corrections of a previous error as he repeatedly produced sentences with the same structure.
At the end of the interview session, Masaki commented on the usefulness of SCF by
saying that bunpouno kiokuga aimaina tokitokani tasuketemoraeru node sorewa sugoku
iinato omoimasu (It was helpful because I had help when I was not sure about the grammar), especially because onaji machigai wo kurikaesanakute sumu (I dont have to
repeat the same errors). However, Masaki also made some negative comments: kaiteru
tochuu ni naosareruno wa sukoshi shuuchuu dekinai kanjiwa arimasukedo (It was a little
distracting as corrections were made while I was writing). He also commented, jisho wo
hiku hitsuyou ga naikara, rakudakedo, ukemini natteshimau kamo (It is easier but might
make us receptive because we dont have to look it up the dictionary).

Hypothetical conditional sentences by Koji (ACF condition)

In order to describe the writing process chronologically, Kojis process in the ACF condition was reported in two phases: (1) the process of his original composition and (2) his
revisions when he received ACF on his errors later.
Kojis five attempts at hypothetical conditional sentences in his original composition
show that even though he did not receive any feedback, he engaged in some self-correction.
Excerpt 6 shows Kojis first attempt at making a hypothetical conditional sentence.
Excerpt 6. Hypothetical conditional sentence 1 in the ACF condition.
Learners attempt/revision
1
2

If i didt move to Osaka, I will

If i didt move to Osaka, I would make different friends.

Koji used the simple past tense (didt move, misspelled form of didnt) in the
if-clause and the future marker will in the main clause (line 1). Then, he deleted will
and restarted the sentence. This time he used the past modal would but failed to provide
the past participle (line 2). In his stimulated recall, he reported, moshi, oosaka ni hikkosanakattara dounatte itakanato kangaete imashita (I was thinking what would have happened if I hadnt move to Osaka). When the researcher pointed out the correction he had
made, he stated, shitenakattara, dakara kateihoukana to. dakara would wo tsukaimashita
(It means hadnt done it so it should be conditional. So I used would here).
In Sentence 2 (Excerpt 7), he started with using don (a part of dont) in the ifclause but immediately replaced it with didt (misspelling of didnt). In the main
clause, he used the past modal (would) plus simple aspect (be) with the wrong negation form in line 3.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 13

Excerpt 7. Hypothetical conditional sentence 2 in the ACF condition.

Learners attempt/revision

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

1
2
3

If I don
If I didt travel to America,
If I didt travel to America, I would be not so interested in movies.

Koji explained that korewo kaiterutokiwa, naiyouni shuuchuu shiteimashita (I was

focusing on the content when I was writing this part). In his recall, he said, kateihou
dakara kakokeikanato. nantonaku would wo tsukawanaito ikenaito iukoto wa
oboeteitanode (I thought it should be the past tense because its hypothetical. I used
would because I vaguely remembered it was needed). This comment indicates that
although he had not received any feedback, he noticed gaps in his formulation of hypothetical conditional sentences. However, he was not able to self-correct successfully.
His following attempts indicate that his main focus was on the use of the modal auxiliary would. In Sentence 3 (Excerpt 8), he self-corrected his main clause by replacing
the past tense lost with would lose (line 3). In Sentence 4, he self-corrected dont
into wouldnt. No correction was made in Sentence 5.
Excerpt 8. Hypothetical conditional sentences 3, 4 and 5 in the ACF condition.
Sentence
Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

Learners attempt/revision
1
2
3
1
2
3
1

If I passed it,
If I passed it, I lost
If I passed it, I would lose the chance to effort.
If I didn enter TMU,
If I didn enter TMU, I dont
If I didn enter TMU, I wouldnt enjoy the school life.
If they didt live alone, I would not be lonly.

TMU: pseudonym of the university.

He recalled, bunpou wa kinishitetandesukedo, tabun korede iikana to omotte onaji

pata-n de kaiteimashita (I was attending to grammar but I thought this would be correct
so I repeated the same pattern).
After completing the task, Koji received direct CF on his hypothetical conditional
errors and then revised them based on the feedback (Table 2).
He took approximately five minutes to revise his text. Although he corrected most of
the errors, he failed to successfully revise one sentence (Sentence 3). He accidentally
deleted would in his main clause when he replaced lose with have lost. In the stimulated recall, he indicated that he did not attend to the sentence carefully. He said chanto
mitemasen deshita (I did not carefully look at it). When asked whether he had checked
the sentence was correct after he had made the revision, he answered no and explained
that saisho dake mite, aa koreka tte omotte, ato wa onaji machigai nanode, kikaitekini
naoshite imashita ne (I looked carefully only at the first part and I understood my error,
so I attended the rest only mechanically). He also commented naoshiteru tokiwa,

14

N. Shintani

Table 2. ACF on Kojis sentences.

Sentence
Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Sentence 3
Sentence 4

Sentence 5

ACF

Revision

If I didt move [hadnt moved] to

Osaka, I would make [have made]
different friends.
If I didt travel [hadnt travelled]
to America, I would be not
[wouldnt
have been] so interested in movies.
If I passed [had passed] it, I would
lose [have lost] the chance to effort.
If I didn enter [hadnt entered]
TMU, I wouldnt enjoy [have
enjoyed] the school life.
If they didt live [hadnt lived] alone,
I would not be [have been] lonly.

If I hadnt moved to Osaka,

I would have made different friends.
If I hadnt traveled to America,
I wouldnt have been so interested
in movies.
If I had passed it, I have lost
the chance to effort.
If I hadnt entered TMU,
I wouldnt have enjoyed
the school life.
If they hadnt lived alone,
I would not have been lonly.

naiyouwa hotondo kangaete inakattadesune (I corrected errors without thinking about

the content of the text).
Table 3 summarizes Kojis writing/revising process of the five sentences in his original composition and revision.
Kojis self-corrections in his original text indicated that he did notice the gap between
his production and the correct form of the hypothetical conditional. His corrections (e.g.
correcting the tense and adding a past modal) suggest that he was noticing-the-gap, which
enabled him to improve the accuracy of his sentences (Swain, 2005). However, he clearly
lacked full knowledge of the correct form of the hypothetical conditional and thus was
forced to rely on his vague understanding of how to formulate the verbs correctly
Table 3. Kojis correction in the SCF condition.
if-clause
Sentence

Attempt

Type of
correction

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4
Sentence 5

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Self
Self
Nil
Nil
Nil

Sentence 1
Sentence 2
Sentence 3
Sentence 4
Sentence 5

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Other
Other
Other
Other
Other

Main-clause
Correction

Attempt

Original composition
Unsuccessful
Error
Unsuccessful
Error
Error
Error
Error
Revision
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful
Successful

Error
Error
Error
Error
Error

Type of
correction

Result of
correction

Self
Nil
Nil
Self
Nil

Unsuccessful

Other
Other
Other
Other
Other

Successful
Successful
Unsuccessful
Successful
Successful

Unsuccessful

Note: Attempt D the learners first attempt of the sentence: Error D the attempt included an error; No error D the
attempt was error-free; Other D other-correction; Self D self-correction; Nil D no correction.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 15

Table 4. Attempts and errors by SCF learners.
Erroneous/correct sentences

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Attempts

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

5
5
5
5
4
3
5
4

E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E

C
E
E
E
E
C
E
E

C
E
E
E
C
C
C
C

C
C
E
C
C
NA
C
C

C
C
C
C
NA
NA
C
NA

Notes: Sentence 1, Sentence 2: hypothetical conditional sentences; E D erroneous sentence; C D correct

sentence; NA D no attempt was made.

(as he indicated in his stimulated recall reports). Kojis self-correction was not successful,
and all the five hypothetical conditional sentences in his original composition included an
error of one kind or another: use of the simple past tense in the if-clause and omission of
perfect tense in the main clause. Koji had the opportunity to correct his errors when revising. However, as discussed, this did not always occur when he was primarily focusing on
meaning. Also, his retrospective report indicated that his correction strategy was
mechanical as he focused on form rather than on the meaning the forms conveyed. This
was very different from Masaki, whose attention seemed to move back and forth between
the meaning and form of the sentence.
Compositions in the class
Table 4 shows the number of attempts for the hypothetical sentence by each of the SCF
learners, and the accuracy of each sentence. Five students wrote all the required five
hypothetical sentences while three wrote three or four sentences. All the students first
attempts included errors (Sentence 1), followed by gradual reduction of errors and correct
sentences at the end of their composition.
As shown in Table 5, the SCF students composition involved various patterns of selfand other-corrections. There were ten occasions of learner self-correction
five
Table 5. Corrections and revisions in the writing task for the SCF group.
Student
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

Self-F ! Other-S
Other-S
Other-S
Other-S
Other-S
Self-F ! Other-S
Other-S
Other-S

C
Other-S
Self-S
Other-S
Self-F ! Self-S
C
Other-S
Self-F ! Other-S

C
Self-S
Self-F ! Self-S
Other-S
C
C
C
C

C
C
Self-S
C
C
NA
C
C

C
C
C
C
NA
NA
C
NA

Notes: Self-/Other- D self-correction/other-correction; S D successful revision; F D unsuccessful revision; C D

correct attempt; NA D no attempt was made.

16

N. Shintani

Table 6. Attempts and errors by ACF learners.

Erroneous sentences
Student

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Attempts

Sentence 1

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

4
5
5
4
5
5
4

E
E
E
E
E
E
E

E
E
E
E
E
E
E

C
E
E
E
E
E
E

C
E
E
E
E
E
E

NA
E
E
NA
E
E
NA

Notes: Sentence 1, Sentence 2: hypothetical conditional sentences; E D erroneous sentence; C D correct

sentence; NA D no attempt was made.

successful and five unsuccessful. Three of the unsuccessful self-corrections were followed by successful other-corrections. On two occasions, learners made multiple
corrections the first unsuccessful but the second successful (Students 3 and 5). All the
other non-corrected erroneous sentences were corrected by the researcher and successfully revised by the learners.
Table 6 shows the number of attempts in the composition task and the accuracy of
each hypothetical sentence for the ACF group. All of the students produced either four or
five hypothetical conditional sentences. All of the seven students started with an erroneous sentence repeated until the end of the composition with the exception of Student 9,
who produced the correct form in the last two sentences.
As Table 7 shows, four out of seven students self-corrected their errors during the
writing task. Student 9 successfully self-corrected the errors in Sentences 1 and 2 and subsequently produced correct forms in Sentences 3 and 4. All the other self-corrections did
not lead to accurate revision.
Immediately after the students completed the task, the researcher provided CF on the
remaining errors, which were all successfully revised by the individual students in the
revision session.

Table 7. Corrections and revisions in the writing task for the ACF group.
Student

Sentence 1

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Self-S
E
E
Self-F
E
Self-F
E

Sentence 2

Sentence 3

Self-S
E
E
Self-F! Self-F
E
E
Self-F

C
E
E
E
E
E
E

Sentence 4

Sentence 5

C
E
E
E
E
Self-F
E

NA
E
E
NA
E
Self-F
NA

Notes: Self-/Other- D self-correction/other-correction; E D erroneous sentence; S D successful revision; F D

unsuccessful revision; C D correct attempt; NA D no attempt was made.

Computer Assisted Language Learning 17

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Discussion
The essential difference between SCF and ACF lies in the timing of the feedback
namely, whether it is immediate or delayed. This difference resulted in a number of differences in the writing process in this study.
First, the ACF resembled traditional written CF as it was entirely reactive, whereas
the SCF constituted an interactive process between the student and the researcher. In
SCF, there is an opportunity for the three processes involved in acquisition internalization, modification and consolidation (Williams, 2012) to take place contiguously in a
cyclical manner. The SCF learner was able to notice the erroneous form while writing
when he received the direct CF, which provided an opportunity for internalization of the
correct form of the structure. The learner was then able to revise the error immediately
(modification), but also had subsequent opportunities to produce the same structure in
new sentences (consolidation). The analyses of both Masakis and the eight students
writing processes illustrate how partially acquired knowledge of a grammatical structure
was consolidated as the learners used the feedback and their online revisions when making new attempts at producing the structure (Housen & Kuiken, 2009). In the interview,
Masaki reported that he appreciated the immediate feedback because it enabled him to
address the uncertainty he felt about how to produce target-like hypothetical conditional
sentences. This occurred because noticing-the-gap (Swain, 1995) took place while he
was writing and the SCF provided him with input just when it was needed. The interview
data also indicated that he was aware that the cyclical process enhanced his fluency in
producing the accurate form of this complex grammatical feature.
In the ACF condition, feedback was only provided after the learner had completed the
composition. While there was an opportunity for internalization and modification in the
revision session, the opportunity for consolidation was limited as Koji did not need to produce the target structure in new sentences. In his original composition, Koji did notice his
errors sometimes and he did attempt self-corrections; however, these corrections were not
successful he only ended up repeating the same error. It was not until the revision session that he was able to successfully correct them. This was also evident in the analysis of
the seven ACF compositions: six out of the seven students were not able to produce the
correct form by themselves due to the lack of full knowledge of the target structure and
repeated errors throughout the compositions. Repeating errors in this way might
have consolidated a faulty understanding of how to compose hypothetical conditional
sentences.
Second, in the SCF condition, focus on meaning and form took place contiguously; in
the ACF condition, focus on meaning and form occurred separately. The interview data
indicated that Masaki shifted his attention back and forth between meaning (i.e., what he
wanted to say) and form (i.e., how to say it). The shift was not as rapid as in oral production because of the slow pace of writing (Williams, 2012), but it required the learner to
pay brief attention to form while his overall attention was on meaning. This was not the
case for the ACF condition: Koji reported that in the revision session his attention was no
longer on meaning and that he ended up revising the errors mechanically. In other
words, the SCF condition created a window of opportunity, which Doughty (2001)
argues constitutes the ideal conditions for helping learners to map forms onto the meanings they are struggling to express.
Doughty, however, was referring to the role played by recasts in oral interaction;
direct SCF differs from oral recasts. Oral interaction takes place rapidly with little opportunity for learners to reflect on the feedback they receive. In contrast, writing takes place
at a slow pace and results in a permanent record (Williams, 2012). Thus, the learner has a

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

18

N. Shintani

linguistic object available and the time to inspect it. This is what seems to have been
important in the SCF condition. Masakis shift from other-correction to self-correction as
he attempted to produce new hypothetical conditional sentences was possible because the
feedback he had received on his previous attempts was accessible at any time. He had sufficient time to refer to the feedback on his previous attempts and to use this to try to selfcorrect his errors on new sentences. The importance of being able to use the feedback at
his own pace is reflected in his comment about the second sentence he attempted:
I noticed that it was corrected again but I thought I would finish this sentence first.
Processing oral recasts is demanding on working memory, but processing written direct
feedback in SCF is much less so (as suggested in Williams, 2012). In other words, the
window of opportunity is greater, affording learners more time to make the cognitive
comparisons which Long (2007) considers so important for learning.
SCF differs from oral recasts in another important way. Recasts are generally considered to constitute an implicit form of feedback, while written feedback is inevitably
explicit (Polio, 2012); this holds true for SCF. SCF invites conscious and deliberate attention, as was evident in both Masakis actions (immediate revision) and his reflective comments. Masaki invariably attempted to revise following feedback and did so in full
consciousness and with developing awareness of how to construct the complex verb
forms required. This was evident in the eight SCF students successful immediate revisions after receiving other-correction (i.e., CF from the researcher) while they were writing. Implicit oral recasts do not always result in attempted uptake (Lyster & Ranta,
1997). In this respect, then, SCF is like ACF both invite conscious processing and cater
to awareness at the level of understanding. Writing, by its very nature, requires precision
of expression and is likely to draw on metalinguistic knowledge (Williams, 2012).
The case study of Masaki indicated that SCF was very effective in promoting conscious analysis. The stimulated recall data illustrates how Masaki was able to offer reasons for the corrections he made (e.g., Sentence 1: I need would here because its
conditional, Sentence 2: I didnt need could here, and then it should be have got
here because its about the past). Previous studies (Sachs & Polio, 2007; Storch &
Wigglesworth, 2010) have shown that learners are more likely to uptake feedback and
make use of it in later writings, when they have made an effort to understand it. This can
occur in ACF as these studies demonstrated but is perhaps even more likely in SCF,
as found in Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming).
Conclusion
The current study provided some novel insights into the role of CF in L2 writing. In particular, it addressed how the timing of feedback influences the process of writing and the
potential for language learning. It highlighted the potential advantages of SCF using an
online program. SCF has potential advantages over both oral CF and traditional written
feedback (i.e., ACF). SCF, like oral CF, provides opportunities for noticing linguistic
forms in context, delivers input when it is needed, and allows learners to use the information in their subsequent output. Like ACF, SCF allows learners time to attend to feedback
and thus makes it easier for them to carry out cognitive comparisons and to use their
explicit understanding in subsequent production (i.e., uptake). Both SCF and ACF are far
less demanding on working memory than oral CF.
SCF caters to the kind of development that sociocultural theory claims takes place
(i.e., other regulation gives way to self-regulation). Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) showed
that scaffolded oral CF encouraged learners relying initially on the other-corrections to
move on to self-correction. Although the SCF in the present study was different from that

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning 19

in Aljaafreh and Lantolf, it also led to an increasing shift from other- to self-correction
over the course of writing. In this way, we can see evidence of learning taking place in
flight, so to speak, in SCF.
Some limitations of the current study should be acknowledged. Clearly the findings of
the study are not generalizable to all contexts as only one-shot compositions of 17 students
were analyzed. The study did not investigate the learners use of the target structure in a new
piece of writing. Thus, this study does not show if the two types of CF resulted in learning as
measured by independent use of the target structure. However, in Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming), evidence demonstrating the superiority of SCF over ACF in this respect is presented. Also, the current study only investigated one grammatical feature, the hypothetical
conditional, which is considered to be relatively salient and complex (see Izumi et al., 1999).
Focusing on different grammatical features might lead to different results. Additionally, correcting multiple features in one piece of writing might lead to different levels of attention by
learners (see Shintani et al., 2014). This study did not investigate these aspects.
In future research, it would be interesting to investigate different ways of providing SCF.
In this study, the researcher provided SCF only after the learner had completed a sentence.
However, it would also be possible for the feedback to be made available more clearly
online, i.e., while the student is still writing the sentence. This would make the feedback
closer in nature to oral CF. It would also be interesting to investigate whether SCF and ACF
have any differential impact on learners implicit knowledge, for example, by investigating
whether the feedback leads to greater accuracy in spontaneous oral production.
Finally, the study demonstrated that computer-mediated synchronous error correction
has potential pedagogical benefits for L2 writing. Shintani and Aubrey (forthcoming) has
demonstrated that SCF is feasible by one teacher with a relatively small classroom. It
might be also possible to train L2 learners to provide SCF on their peers writing. Various
writing tasks using Google Docs can be designed involving either individual or collaborative writing. Future research can explore the impact SCF as well as computer-mediated
written CF in general has in classroom pedagogy.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank all the participants in this study. I am also grateful to Scott Aubrey and Kwansei Gakuin University for helping with the data collection. Finally, my gratitude goes to the helpful
comments from the anonymous reviewers and for the guidance of the editor. This research was supported by Language Learning Small Grants Research Program.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Note
1. The rest of the 22 students in the class (n D 7) were assigned as a comparison group for another
part of the project.

Notes on contributor
Natsuko Shintani is a senior lecturer at Faculty of Education, University of Auckland. Her research
interests encompass roles of interaction in second language acquisition, task-based language teaching, error correction on writing, and meta-analysis as a research tool. She has also worked on several
meta-analysis studies.

20

N. Shintani

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

References
Aljaafreh, A.L.I., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4),
465 483.
Aubrey, S. (2012). Students reactions to using technology in an EAP writing class. Paper presented
at the 9th International Far Eastern English Language Teachers Association (FEELTA) Conference at Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia.
Castaneda, D.A., & Cho, M.-H. (2012). The role of wiki writing in learning Spanish grammar.
Computer Assisted Language Learning. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.
2012.670648
Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book. New York, NY: Heinle &
Heinle Publishers.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and
second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339 368. doi:10.1017/
S0272263106060141
Guichon, N., B
etrancourt, M., & Pri
e, Y. (2012). Managing written and oral negative feedback in a
synchronous online teaching situation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 181 197.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461 473.
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects
of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
21(3), 421 452.
Klc kaya, F. (2013). Computer-based grammar instruction in an EFL context: Improving the effectiveness of teaching adverbial clauses. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1 16. doi:10.1080/
09588221.2013.818563
Kim, H.Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and
face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 26 43.
Kim, S. (2010). Revising the revision process with Google Docs. In Kasten, S. (Ed.), TESOL classroom practice series (Effective Second Language Writing Chapter 18). Alexandria, VA:
TESOL Publications.
Ko, C.-J. (2012). Can synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) help beginning-level
foreign language learners speak? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 217 236.
Lee, C., Cheung, W.K.W., Wong, K.C.K., & Lee, F.S.L. (2013). Immediate web-based essay critiquing system feedback and teacher follow-up feedback on young second language learners
writings: An experimental study in a Hong Kong secondary school. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 39 60.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using
wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61 82.
Lightbown, P.M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom language acquisition. In Z.-H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27 45). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Long, M.H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.C.
Ritchie, & T.K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413 468). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Long, M.H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399 432. doi:10.1017/S0272263104263021
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19(1), 37 66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms.
Language Teaching, 46(1), 1 40.
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction
debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375 389.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning 21

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(4), 277 303.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67 100.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C.J. Doughty, & M.H. Long (Eds.),
Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382 408). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (forthcoming). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment.
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners
accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103 131.
doi:10.1111/lang.12029
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners processing, uptake, and retention of corrective
feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(Special Issue 02), 303 334.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B.
Seidelhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: studies in honor of H.G.
Widdowson (pp. 125 144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of
research in second language (pp. 471 483). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wang, Y.-C. (2014). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for advancing
innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning.
doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.881386
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321 331.
Ypsilandis, G.S. (2002). Feedback in Distance Education. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
15(2), 167 181.

Appendix 1. Task instruction

1. Pre-task instruction

(Translation: Write five sentences that explain five events that changed your life drastically. Write
in English.)
2. Main task instruction

(Translation: Referring to the homework about the five events that changed your life, explain what
would have happened if it hadnt occurred (or if you hadnt done that). Provide both an explanation
of each event and what would have happened if the event hadnt occurred. Write in English.)

Appendix 2. Final written products

Masaki
I failed the examination when I was a junior high school student. The occurrence made me very sad.
If I hadnt failed the exam, I would have been happy. But my heart would be weaker than now. I
practiced tennis alone when I was alone when I was a high school student. My club members didnt
have no minds to practice tennis. So I had to practice tennis alone..If I had been able to practice tennis, I would have got along with another club members. I failed the examination when I was a high
school student. I must be a student who failed my college entrance examinations and is studying
again. If I had been able to enter the college, I would have been very happy. I could enter the K,G. I
was very happy. If I had failed the examination again, I would have been able to have confidence to
me never. I went to Malaysia last year. The occurrence changed my thought about Japan. If I hadnt
been to Malaysia, my thought would not have changed.

22

N. Shintani

Koji
When I was 10 years old, I move from Saitama to Osaka. If I hadnt moved to Osaka, I would have
made different friends. When I was 8 years old, I traveled to America. If I hadnt traveled to America, I wouldnt have been so interested in movies. I fail this college entrance exam. If I had passed
it, I have lost the chance to make an effort. I entered TMU . If I hadnt enter TMU, I wouldnt have
enjoyed the school life. My brother and sister live alone.
If they hadnt lived alone, I would not be lonely.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:44 16 March 2015

TMU: pseudonym of the university