[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-596219-105":59,"doc-detail-596219-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","is-less-really-more-the-case-for-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-paper-review-and-arguments","Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback - paper review and arguments","","An underexplored question with far-reaching implications for written corrective feedback (WCF) in learners’ L2 writing is whether teachers should mark many errors (comprehensive feedback) or only a few error types (focused feedback). Despite limited evidence, the paper addresses claims that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, and intimidating, and may overload attention. It critically revisits objections, draws on SLA theories and empirical findings, and proposes concrete classroom suggestions.",{"@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/is-less-really-more-the-case-for-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-paper-review-and-arguments/596219/",{"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/is-less-really-more-the-case-for-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-paper-review-and-arguments/596219.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Guten tag","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":29},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What central question does the paper examine about written corrective feedback?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Whether comprehensive written corrective feedback, which targets many error types, is preferable to focused feedback that targets one or two error types in L2 writing.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What arguments does the paper address against comprehensive written corrective feedback?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"It responds to claims that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, intimidating, and may cognitively/affectively overwhelm learners or dilute attention.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"How does the paper support its position and what does it provide for teachers?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"It draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to rebut concerns and highlights shortcomings of focused WCF, ending with recommendations to better exploit comprehensive WCF.","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},596219,1792161093,{"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":29,"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":145},687212321768,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a0010bdbe886d2fe77?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1789897067658708522","Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective  \nFeedback  \nMohammad Falhasiri  \nYork University  \nAbstract  \nAn underexplored question, and one with potentially far-reaching implications for the practice of written corrective feedback (WCF), is whether to mark a wide range of errors (comprehensive feedback) or to focus on a few error types (focused feedback) in learners’L2 writing. Despite limited evidence, it is argued that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, and intimidating; can cognitively and affectively overwhelm L2 learners and may dilute attention to WCF. This paper aims to first respond to and call into question these and other arguments against comprehensive WCF, and then it puts forward some arguments against focused WCF. In doing so, it draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to lend support to the rebuttals and arguments. Some concrete suggestions are made to help teachers fully exploit the potentials of a comprehensive feedback approach.  \nRésumé  \nUne question sous-explorée, et qui pourtant a des implications potentiellement profondes pour la pratique de la rétroaction corrective à l’écrit (RCE), est de savoir s'il faut corriger un large éventail d'erreurs (correction compréhensive) ou se concentrer sur quelques types d'erreurs (correction ciblée) lors de la rétroaction corrective des écrits des apprenants d’une langue seconde. Malgré des preuves limitées, il est fait valoir que la RCE est non systématique, inconsistante, déroutante et intimidante ; qu’elle peut cognitivement et affectivement submerger les apprenants d’une seconde langue ; qu’elle peut faire décroîtrel’attention portée à la RCE. Ceci tente de répondre et de remettre en question ces arguments, et bien d’autres, qui s’élèvent contre la RCE compréhensive, tout en apportant des arguments contre la RCE ciblée. Je m’appuierai sur les théories dominantes de l’acquisition des langueset sur les résultats de recherches empiriques pour soutenir les réfutations et les arguments avancés. Des suggestions concrètes seront apportées afin d’aider les enseignants à exploiter pleinement le potentiel de la rétroaction corrective compréhensive.  \nCanadian Journal of Applied Linguistics: 24, 3 (2021): 145-165  \nCJAL * RCLA Falhasiri 146  \nIs Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback  \nIntroduction  \nWritten corrective feedback (WCF) studies have made significant progress in answering questions surrounding its effectiveness, and the focus of inquiry has shifted from whether WCF is effective to how it can be practiced for optimal results (Bitchener, 2019) . While the controversies fueled by Truscott (1996) around its effectiveness have to a large extent settled, new debates have emerged, mainly on the scope of corrective feedback (CF) (Liu & Brown, 2015) . Some studies have investigated the effectiveness of focused written corrective feedback (FWCF), which entails the provision ofCF on one or two error types (e.g., Benson & DeKeyser, 2019; Bitchener, 2008; Li & Rowshan, 2019), whereas others have examined comprehensive, unfocused written corrective feedback (henceforth CWCF), which involves targeting a wide range of errors and as many as twenty error types (e.g., Bonilla López et al., 2018; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Nicolás-Conesa, et al., 2019 ; Van Beuningen, et al., 2012) . However, there have been only a handful of studies that compared the differential effects of these two approaches (e.g., Frear & Chiu, 2015; Mohammad Rahimi, 2019), and the findings are notoriously inconclusive. Despite divergent findings, the advocates of each approach, drawing on SLA theories and pedagogical rationale, have discussed, albeit only in passing and incoherently, why one approach is more effective than the other, with the exception of Lee (2019) whose paper addresses these arguments in depth. She critically examined the two approaches, made a case for FWCF by arguing that‘less is more’ a","cbCaiafobH6ygvzB","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiafobH6ygvzB","pdf",278294,21,"English","# Introduction\n# Defining the Constructs\n# Rebutting Arguments for Comprehensive vs Focused WCF\n# Recommendations for Teachers","[{\"question\":\"What central question does the paper examine about written corrective feedback?\",\"answer\":\"Whether comprehensive written corrective feedback, which targets many error types, is preferable to focused feedback that targets one or two error types in L2 writing.\"},{\"question\":\"What arguments does the paper address against comprehensive written corrective feedback?\",\"answer\":\"It responds to claims that comprehensive WCF is unsystematic, inconsistent, confusing, intimidating, and may cognitively/affectively overwhelm learners or dilute attention.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the paper support its position and what does it provide for teachers?\",\"answer\":\"It draws on dominant SLA theories and empirical research findings to rebut concerns and highlights shortcomings of focused WCF, ending with recommendations to better exploit comprehensive WCF.\"}]","Is Less Really More? The Case for Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback - paper review and arguments | PDF",1792082668,53]