analysis of pedagogical and theoretical implications

Abstract

Different researchers in the field of error correction (also known as written corrective feedback—CF) have voiced their concern and advocated for research that is conducted in under-represented settings (e.g., Lee, 2014), that investigates a feedback scope in line with common second language (L2) classroom feedback practices (e.g., Hartshorn et al., 2010), and that has a design that looks into factors beyond the end product such as learner variables (e.g., Storch & Wigglesworth, 2010). Against this background, an analysis of previous literature in light of the aforementioned concerns is called for. Specifically, emerging from precursor metanalyses (e.g., Authors, XXXX), three studies in particular (i.e., Bonilla et al., 2017, 2018, 2021) deserve a fine-grained analysis due to their design and ensuing theoretical as well as practical implications. To this end, the objective of this study is to critically analyze how Bonilla et al. (2017, 2018, 2021) —as a response to previous research concerns—widen current understanding of the L2 error correction practice and research