Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Learner Engagement, and Teacher Practices

This systematic literature review investigates Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in Second Language Writing, focusing on three interconnected themes: effectiveness of feedback types, learner engagement, and teacher practices. Drawing on 29 peer-reviewed studies published between 2021 and 2026, the review synthesises evidence using the PRISMA framework to ensure methodological rigor and transparency. Findings reveal that WCF consistently enhances writing accuracy, fluency, and syntactic complexity, though its effectiveness varies across feedback types. Direct and metalinguistic feedback were particularly effective in promoting noticing and restructuring, while indirect and unfocused feedback required greater learner initiative. Learner-centered studies highlight the importance of perceptions, preferences, and emotional engagement, showing that supportive and autonomy-enhancing feedback fosters motivation and uptake, whereas overly critical feedback risks disengagement. Teacher-focused research emphasizes the role of scaffolding, beliefs, and contextual factors in shaping feedback practices, situating WCF as a socially mediated and pedagogical process. The implications of this review underscore the need for a holistic approach to WCF that integrates cognitive, motivational, and sociocultural dimensions. Teachers should adapt feedback strategies to learner proficiency, cultural background, and emotional needs, while institutions should encourage multimodal and dialogic practices to maximise engagement. Future research should expand longitudinal and cross-cultural investigations, explore technology-driven approaches such as AI-assisted feedback, and examine teacher cognition and institutional practices in greater depth. Collectively, this review advances the state of the art in WCF research, offering a comprehensive framework for enhancing ESL/EFL writing pedagogy.

Written Corrective Feedback, Second Language Writing, Learner Engagement, Teacher Practices, Systematic Review

1. Alkhalaf, N. A., & Alhojailan, A. I. (2024). Written corrective feedback in EFL context: Contextual and individual factors influencing students’ responses. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p260 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Azizi, M., Pavlikova, M., Novakova, K. S., & Baghana, J. (2021). The differential effects of dynamic assessment versus coded focused feedback on the process writing of EFL learners. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2021.2.273 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Cheng, X., & Liu, Y. (2022). Student engagement with teacher written feedback: Insights from low-proficiency and high-proficiency L2 learners. System, 109, Article 102880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102880 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cheng, X., Liu, Y., & Wang, C. (2023). Understanding student engagement with teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing. System, 119, Article 103176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2023.103176 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Cheng, X., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners' writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability, 13(15), Article 8192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cheng, X., Zhang, L. J., & Yan, Q. Z. (2025). Exploring teacher written feedback in EFL writing classrooms: Beliefs and practices in interaction. Language Teaching Research, 29(1), 385–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211057665 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Cheng, X. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Sustaining university English as a foreign language learners' writing performance through provision of comprehensive written corrective feedback. Sustainability, 13(15), Article 8192. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158192 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fan, N., & Ma, Y. (2025). Effects of indirect corrective feedback and teacher encouragement on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 38(2), 654–682. https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.22061.fan [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Gedik Bal, N. (2022). EFL students' perceptions of the effectiveness of corrective feedback on their written tasks. Hacettepe Egitim Dergisi, 37(3), 1116–1129. https://doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2021068382 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jinowat, N., & Wiboolyasarin, W. (2022). Investigating learner preferences for written corrective feedback in a Thai higher education context. TEFLIN Journal, 33(2), 386–402. https://doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v33i2/386-402 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kao, C. W., Reynolds, B. L., Zhang, X. F., & Wong, M. P. (2025). The effectiveness of unfocused corrective feedback on second language student writers' acquisition of English article, prepositional and verb tense usages. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), Article 1052. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05126-x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Technical Report, Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report. EBSE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Li, D. Y., & Zhang, L. (2022). Contextualizing feedback in L2 writing: The role of teacher scaffolding. Language Awareness, 31(3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1931261 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Listiani, L., Hódi, A., & Nikolov, M. (2025). Low-proficiency students' engagement with combined written and audio feedback in an EFL writing class. Educational Technology & Society, 28(4), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202510_28(4).RP07 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., & Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187. https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mujtaba, S. M., Singh, M. K. M., Zhang, T. F., Ahmed, N., & Prakash, R. (2022). Unfocused written corrective feedback and L2 learners' writing accuracy: Relationship between feedback type and learner belief. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.15919 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ni, F., & Xu, W. (2026). Beyond correction: The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in shaping EFL students’ emotions and revision behavior. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688261447967 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The prisma 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Medicina Fluminensis, 57(4), 444–465. https://doi.org/10.21860/medflum2021_264903 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Perks, B. J., Colpitts, B. D. F., & Michaud, M. (2021). The role of individual preferences in the efficacy of written corrective feedback in an English for Academic Purposes writing course. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(10), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n10.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Reynolds, B. L., & Zhang, X. (2023). Medical school students’ preferences for and perceptions of teacher written corrective feedback on English as a second language academic writing: An intrinsic case study. Behavioral Sciences, 13(1), Article 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13010013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Sadeghi, K., & Esmaeeli, M. (2024). Probing into non-native learners’ written accuracy: Does feedback type matter? RELC Journal, 55(2), 422–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882221092795 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Shalizar, R., & Rezaei, A. (2023). Examining the differential effects of focused vs. unfocused ZPD and explicit feedback on second language writing. Language Learning Journal, 51(3), 359–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2022.2042366 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Sinha, T. S., & Nassaji, H. (2022). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12378 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Subon, F., & Ali, N. A. (2022). The effects of implicit written corrective feedback on ESL learners' writing skills. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12304 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Sun, H., & Qi, W. (2022). Effects of written corrective feedback on college EFL students' writing accuracy and linguistic knowledge acquisition. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sun, H. Y., & Qi, W. B. (2022). Effects of written corrective feedback on college EFL students' writing accuracy and linguistic knowledge acquisition. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(3), 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Supiani, Yansyah, & Basthomi, Y. (2023). Indonesian university students' engagement with teacher's written corrective feedback in English as an additional language writing classroom. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2023.121334 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Tsao, J.-J. (2025). EFL students’ perceptions of reading portfolios and teacher feedback on reflective writing. Arab World English Journal, 16(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol16no1.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Valizadeh, M. (2022). The effect of comprehensive written corrective feedback on EFL learners' written syntactic complexity. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 100–115. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12052 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Valizadeh, M., & Soltanpour, F. (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners' written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911207 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Zhang, T. F. (2021). The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners' explicit and implicit knowledge development. System, 99, Article 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102493 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Zhang, X. N., & Zhang, R. H. (2023). Feedback, response, and learner development: A sociocultural approach to corrective feedback in second language writing. SAGE Open, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231157680 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study