Models as written corrective feedback: Effects on young L2 learners’ fluency in digital writing from product and process perspectives


written corrective feedback
L2 writing
young learners

How to Cite

Criado, R., Garcés-Manzanera, A., & Plonsky, L. (2022). Models as written corrective feedback: Effects on young L2 learners’ fluency in digital writing from product and process perspectives. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 697–719.


This study was motivated by Truscott’s (1996, 2004) scarcely empirically tested claims that written corrective feedback (WCF) processing hinders fluency in subsequent rewriting owing to learners’ purposeful avoidance of making mistakes by composing shorter texts at a higher speed. It examined the writing fluency of the texts produced by eighteen 10-11-year-old L2 English children in a digital environment. They were divided into a feedback (N = 10) and a self-correction group (N = 8). Both groups engaged in a three-stage task: writing, comparison of their texts with a model or self-editing as appropriate, and rewriting. Fluency was analyzed via five product/offline and five process/online measures. The texts and writing behaviors were recorded with Inputlog 8.0. The results partially support Truscott’s claims. The feedback group improved their fluency in all the ten measures. However, the self-editing group showed higher fluency than the feedback group in seven of the ten measures, with the corresponding Hedge’s effect sizes between groups ranging from small to large. The study enlightens our knowledge of young learners’ writing fluency and supports adopting a multidimensional approach to understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of fluency as mediated by WCF processing.


Abdel Latif, M. M. (2009). Towards a new processbased indicator for measuring writing fluency: Evidence from L2 writers’ think-aloud protocols. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65(4), 531-558. DOI:

Abdel Latif, M. M. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34, 99-105. DOI:

Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford University Press.

Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25(1), 81-92. DOI:

Barkaoui, K. (2019). What can L2 writers’ pausing behavior tell us about their L2 writing processes? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 529-554. DOI:

Breuer, E. O. (2019). Fluency in L1 and FL writing: An analysis of planning, essay writing and final revision. In E. Lindgren & K. P. H. Sullivan (Eds.), Observing writing: Insights from keystroke logging and handwriting (pp. 191-211). Brill.

Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks, second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23-48). Longman.

Cánovas Guirao, J. (2018). The use of written models in the teaching of English in primary (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGITUM repository.

Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52(1), 63-77. DOI:

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. DOI:

Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: Generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18, 80-98. DOI:

Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.

Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1-14. DOI:

Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25-43. DOI:

Ekanayaka, W. I., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 94, 102341. DOI:

García Hernández, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Reformulation as a problem-solving space for young EFL writers: A longitudinal study of language learning strategies. In M. P. García-Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school. Research insights (pp. 193-222). Multilin-gual Matters. DOI:

García-Mayo, M. D. P., & Labandibar, U. L. (2017). The use of models as written cor-rective feedback in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110-127. DOI:

Garcés-Manzanera, A. (2021). An exploratory study of primary school children’s writing processes in digital environments: The use of models as written corrective feedback (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGI-TUM repository.

Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459-479. DOI:

Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. DOI:

Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 102196. DOI:

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. DOI:

Kellogg, R. T. (1990). Effectiveness of prewriting strategies as a function of task demands. American Journal of Psychology, 103, 327-342. DOI:

Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Erlbaum.

Kim, Y., Choi, B., Yun, H., Kim, B., & Choi, S. (2022). Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(6), 1106-1132. DOI:

Lázaro-Ibarrola, A. (2021). Model texts in collaborative and individual writing among EFL children: Noticing, incorporations, and draft quality. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 000010151520200160. DOI:

Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2013). Keystroke logging in writing research: Using Inputlog to analyze and visualize writing processes. Written Communication, 30(3), 358-392. DOI:

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

Luquin, M., & García-Mayo, M. P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, 1-13. DOI:

Martínez-Esteban, N., & Roca de Larios, J. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 143-170. DOI:

Michel, M., Révész, A., Lu, X., Kourtali, N.-E., Lee, M., & Borges, L. (2020). Inves-tigating L2 writing processes across independent and integrated tasks: A mixed-methods study. Second Language Research, 36(3), 307-334. DOI:

Mohsen, M. A. (2021). L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program? Language Teaching Research. DOI:

Palviainen, A., Kalaja, P., & Mäntylä, K. (2012). Development of L2 writing: Fluency and proficiency. AFinLA-e: Soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 4, 47-59.

Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878-912. DOI:

Révész, A., Kourtali, N. E., & Mazgutova, D. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviours and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208-241. DOI:

Roothooft, H., Lázaro-Ibarrola, A., & Bulté, B. (2022). Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research, 0(0). DOI:

Sánchez, A. (2019). External task-repetition: The role of modality, written corrective feedback and proficiency. A comparative study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Murcia). DIGITUM repository.

Schoonen, R., Snellings, P., Stevenson, M., & Van Gelderen, A. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 77-101). Multilingual Matters. DOI:

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. DOI:

Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. DOI:

Skehan, P. (2009). Modelling second language performance: Integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 510-532. DOI:

Spelman Miller, K., Lindgren, E., & Sullivan, K. P. H. (2008). The psycholinguistic dimension in second language writing: Opportunities for research and pedagogy using computer keystroke logging. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 433-453. DOI:

Stevenson, M. M. C. (2005). Reading and writing in a foreign language: A comparison of conceptual and linguistic processes in Dutch and English (Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam). UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository).

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), For H. G. Widdowson: Principles and practice in the study of language. A Festschrift on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. DOI:

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

Turner, H. M. I., & Bernard, R. M. (2006). Calculating and synthesizing effect sizes. Contemporary issues in communication science and disorders, 33, 42-55. DOI:

Van Gelderen, A., & Oostdam, R. (2002). Improving linguistic fluency for writing: Effects of explicitness and focus of instruction. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature, 2, 239-270. DOI:

Van Waes, L., & Leijten, M. (2015). Fluency in writing: A multidimensional perspective on writing fluency applied to L1 and L2. Computers and Composition: An International Journal, 38, 79-95. DOI:

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