[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-598164-105":59,"doc-detail-598164-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","developing-autonomous-self-editors-an-alternative-approach-to-written-corrective-feedback","Developing Autonomous Self-Editors - An Alternative Approach - to Written Corrective Feedback","","Developing Autonomous Self-Editors - An Alternative Approach to Written Corrective Feedback investigates the contested role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in long-term second language (L2) writing development. The article argues that instructors should not function primarily as editors, but should scaffold learners into autonomous self-editors. Through strategy training and carefully designed support, writing teachers can build students’ habits of critical self-reading and self-editing, addressing rhetorical and linguistic errors while avoiding discouragement.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/developing-autonomous-self-editors-an-alternative-approach-to-written-corrective-feedback/598164/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/developing-autonomous-self-editors-an-alternative-approach-to-written-corrective-feedback/598164.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Mafia Boss","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":34},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why does the article challenge the traditional belief in the long-term efficacy of written corrective feedback?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It argues that despite widespread use, evidence and consensus on WCF’s long-term benefits remain uncertain in writing research, and focusing too heavily on error correction can harm broader writing development.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What role does the article propose for writing instructors in L2 writing classes?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Instructors should help students become autonomous self-editors rather than acting mainly as editors who correct errors for them.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the proposed alternative aim to support students without discouraging them?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It uses effective scaffolding and strategy training to build a habit of mind for students to critically read and edit their own work, addressing errors while reducing fear and discouragement.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},598164,1792144837,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":34,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":36,"preview_page_count":4},962090760730,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Developing Autonomous Self-Editors: An Alternative Approach  \nto Written Corrective Feedback  \nWritten corrective feedback has been a long-standing practice among second language writing instructors, yet the efficacy of this practice for long-term development of students’ writing remains uncertain. In the field of writing research, error correction in second language writing continues to be a topic of much controversy. While numerous studies have investigated the long-term effect of written corrective feedback, no consensus has been reached. Challenging the deep-rooted conviction that instructors’ correction is beneficial, this article (a) argues that the role of a writing instructor is not to serve as an editor but to help students to become autonomous self-editors of their own work, and (b) proposes an alternative approach that is designed to develop students’ self-editing skills. Through effective scaffolding and strategy training, writing instructors can develop in second language writers a habit of mind to critically read and edit their own work.  \nHow can I help my students to become better and more autonomous  \nwriters without discouraging them? This has been an important  \npedagogical question I have often pondered throughout my career of teaching second language (L2) writing and composition. To students for whom English is not their first language, developing writing proficiency isan endeavor that requires a considerable amount of time and relentless effort. Many of these students are discouraged and have a lack of confidence in their ability to write well in an academic setting. In fact,“I hate writing” and“My writing is really bad” are two very common expressions I hear from my L2 students across different levels. This lack of enthusiasm and confidence is associated, at least in part, with how we read, react, and respond to the written works of L2 writers.  \nResponding to L2 students’ papers that have serious rhetorical weak  \nThe CATESOL Journal 31.1 • 2019 • 13  \nnesses and a multitude of linguistic errors is a tedious and challenging task for a writing instructor, but what is more trying is finding a systematic and effective method of response to actively engage students in their writing and editing processes. The fact that the nature, frequency, and types of errors L2 writers make differ significantly from one student to another magnifies the challenge of finding a systematic approach to treat errors. (In this article, Iam using errors in a broad sense, referring not only to errors in grammar, usage, and mechanics but also to stylistic and syntactic issues.) While attending to errors in grammar, syntax, usage, and mechanics is critical (Connor, 1996; Ferris, 2003, 2009), heavily focusing on local issues related to language“can be counterproductive in that students become hyperconscious about writing for fear of making errors”(Beach & Friedrich, 2006, p. 230) . Thus, considering how we can address and respond to language-related errors without discouraging our students is a matter of paramount importance.  \nA common response practice among L2 writing teachers is the provision of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) . Truscott (1996), in this regard, stated that error correction is a practice that almost all teachers of L2 writing engage in. As Truscott points out, the conviction that written correction should be an integral part of L2 writing courses is deep-rooted and ubiquitous among practitioners and researchers. Empirical evidence is provided by Evans, Hartshorn, and Tuioti (2010), whose study involving 1,053 teachers of L2 writing in 69 countries reported that “99% of all respondents indicated that they do provide at least some error correction on student writing”(p. 57) . In addition, a national survey given to middleand high-school English teachers about their teaching practice revealed that teachers believed correcting students’ papers was important (Applebee & Langer, 2013) .  \nHowever, ","cbCaidVOEiIeHWZk","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidVOEiIeHWZk","pdf",330834,16,"English","# Written corrective feedback and long-term development\n## Controversy and lack of consensus\n## Instructor role: editor vs autonomous self-editor\n# Challenges in responding to L2 errors\n## Discouragement and low confidence\n## Time-consuming grading and correction workload\n# Need for an efficient, effective response method\n## Avoiding obsession with errors","[{\"question\":\"Why does the article challenge the traditional belief in the long-term efficacy of written corrective feedback?\",\"answer\":\"It argues that despite widespread use, evidence and consensus on WCF’s long-term benefits remain uncertain in writing research, and focusing too heavily on error correction can harm broader writing development.\"},{\"question\":\"What role does the article propose for writing instructors in L2 writing classes?\",\"answer\":\"Instructors should help students become autonomous self-editors rather than acting mainly as editors who correct errors for them.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the proposed alternative aim to support students without discouraging them?\",\"answer\":\"It uses effective scaffolding and strategy training to build a habit of mind for students to critically read and edit their own work, addressing errors while reducing fear and discouragement.\"}]","Developing Autonomous Self-Editors - An Alternative Approach - to Written Corrective Feedback | PDF",1792086405]