The purpose of this study was to test the effect of one approach to writing pedagogy on second-language (L2) writing accuracy. This study used two groups of L2 writers who were learning English as a second language: a control group (n = 19) who were taught with traditional process writing methods and a treatment group (n = 28) who were taught with an innovative approach to L2 writing pedagogy. The methodology for the treatment group was designed to improve L2 writing accuracy by raising the linguistic awareness of the learners through error correction. Central to the instructional methodology were four essential characteristics of error correction including feedback that was manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant. Core components of the treatment included having students write a 10-minute composition each day, and having teachers provide students with coded feedback on their daily writing, help students to use a variety of resources to track their progress, and encourage students to apply what they learned in subsequent writing. Fourteen repeated measures tests using a mixed model ANOVA suggest that the treatment improved mechanical accuracy, lexical accuracy, and certain categories of grammatical accuracy. Though the treatment had a negligible effect on rhetorical competence and writing fluency, findings suggest a small to moderate effect favoring the control group in the development of writing complexity. These findings seem to contradict claims from researchers such as Truscott (2007) who have maintained that error correction is not helpful for improving the grammatical accuracy of L2 writing. The positive results of this study are largely attributed to the innovative methodology for teaching and learning L2 writing that emphasizes linguistic accuracy rather than restricting instruction and learning to other dimensions of writing such as rhetorical competence. The limitations and pedagogical implications of this study are also examined.

Providing written feedback is a time-consuming part of an English teacher’s work life and there are many ways in which feedback can be provided. According to the Swedish National Agency of Education (2011), teachers must provide their students with feedback. Studies have been conducted investigating feedback provision and teachers’ feedback practices, but few studies have shed light on the students’ perception of feedback, especially in Swedish, and even Nordic, contexts. This study investigated students’ perception and use of teacher feedback on written assignments in an EFL (English as a foreign language) classroom in mid-Sweden. The study investigated both student perception of feedback, with specific focus on WCF (written corrective feedback), and students’ use of the feedback. The method used for data collection was a semi-structured internet survey containing 21 questions. The participants were 30 upper secondary school students. The results of the study showed that students mostly perceived feedback as important and useful, especially when it contained concrete tips and proposals for text improvement. They regarded CF and WCF as important as they wanted to become aware of what errors they made to avoid making those in future writing. Nevertheless, they reported that too extensive feedback (unfocused CF) was not preferred. Both positive and negative feedback were considered useful for future writing and a large majority read the feedback they received every time. Feedback provided together with a grade was also read by the students, as they wanted to have information about strengths and weaknesses in the text as well as motivation for the grade. To conclude, feedback was mostly perceived as important and useful, and the students used it to improve their writing.