Immediate or delayed? Timing effects of metalinguistic written corrective feedback in classroom collaborative writing

Timing is a key feedback-design feature that may shape how second language (L2 learners notice, interpret, and apply written corrective feedback (WCF). With collaborative digital tools such as Google Docs, teachers can provide synchronous, anchored metalinguistic comments while learners compose, making “immediacy” a practical classroom option. Yet most timing research has been conducted in laboratory contexts, typically focusing on a single ­structure in one-to-one interaction, limiting generalizability to teacher-to-many classroom ecologies. This classroom quasi-experiment compared immediate versus delayed metalinguistic WCF in three intact L2-French classes (N = 75; CEFR B1). Learners wrote in self-selected dyads in shared Google Docs. The immediate group (n = 26) received metalinguistic comments during drafting; the delayed group (n = 24) received comparable comments on the same drafts one week later and revised in a brief, dedicated revision episode; a comparison group (n = 25) completed the same tasks without WCF during the study. Feedback targeted multiple curricular features within the same instructional cycle: noun-phrase agreement, verb-phrase agreement, and the passé composé–imparfait contrast. Development was assessed using individual writing tests administered at pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest, with accuracy indexed as errors per 100 words per target category. Overall, delayed feedback showed the most consistent short-term advantage across targets at the immediate posttest, whereas longer-term effects were smaller and target dependent. Results suggest that timing effects in technology-mediated collaborative writing are shaped by classroom workflow constraints and by the processing demands of specific linguistic targets rather than reflecting a uniform “immediate is better” principle.