The impact of timing in written corrective feedback on collaborative writing and L2 accuracy development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of written corrective feedback (WCF) timing on the collaborative writing process and writing accuracy development of adult learners of French as a second language. Forty-eight learners were divided into three groups to complete a collaborative writing task in pairs. The first group received immediate WCF via Google Docs while writing, the second group received delayed WCF one week later with 10 minutes allocated for error correction, and the third group performed the writing task without receiving any feedback. All discussions during the collaborative writing were recorded and analyzed for language-related episodes (LREs). Writing accuracy was assessed through pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests using story-retelling tasks. The findings revealed that the delayed feedback group engaged in more extensive discussions about linguistic forms compared to the other two groups. In terms of writing accuracy, the immediate feedback group showed the most significant improvements over time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it