Writing conferences are one-on-one feedback sessions that enable teachers and students to engage in constructive interactions to improve students’ writing. While interacting individually, a teacher can use various feedback strategies to improve the quality of a student’s writing. This study examined how a secondary English teacher elicited students’ self-correction of writing issues during EFL writing conferences conducted in Korean (L1) as part of an after-school English program at a Korean high school. One English teacher and five first-year students participated in writing classes for two weeks during the winter vacation. Their conversations were video-recorded and analyzed using Conversation Analysis. Findings revealed that the teacher elicited the student’s selfcorrection through four key strategies: (1) metalinguistic clues, (2) building on initial corrections, (3) leveraging morphological knowledge, and (4) guiding students through a stepwise construction of sentence elements. This study can enhance our understanding of corrective feedback in secondary EFL writing conferences and offer insights for improving teacher-student feedback interactions.

This study investigated features of L2 classroom-based teacher-student writing conference and student subsequent revision from the perspective of languaging. A non-native teacher and four non-native students participated in the writing conference about two tasks of summary and critical review in an intact college ESL composition classroom. Eight video-recorded conference sessions were analyzed regarding discourse topics (language use vs. content/rhetoric), and configuration of negotiation and scaffolding. Discourse topics were found to interact with task types as more issues about content and rhetoric were addressed for critical review. Configurations of negotiation and scaffolding were found to be similar in both tasks. Scaffolding was dominant in language use talks while negotiation and scaffolding were balanced in content/rhetoric talks. As for making meaning and student revision, the quality of negotiation was more critical than the quantity. Non-extensive scaffolding also led to successful revision along with students’ background knowledge and classroom instruction. The findings demonstrate dynamics of writing tasks, conferences, and student revision.