Literature ReviewIn this section, I will review the current literature on written CF. I will start with several definitions of written CF and the possible facilitating role of CF in language learning. Then, I will end this section with a review of previous studies carried out in the field of CF. Definition of Written Corrective Feedback (CF) Written corrective feedback has been defined in certain ways. In his controversial article, Truscott (1996) defined it as "the correction of grammatical errors with the aim of improving a student's ability to write accurately" (p. 331), defining a parameter focused solely on the grammatical characteristics of a piece of student text. writing. Similarly, Ellis (2009, 2012) explained that feedback on writing takes three different forms: feedback on content, on organization, and on language or linguistic errors. The third type of these forms is what he calls written CF. Ellis further classified written CFs, on the basis of strategies for providing them, into several types: direct (providing learners with the correct form), indirect (giving indications of errors made, but not giving corrections), metalinguistic (informing learners of the nature of their errors). and/or giving a metalinguistic explanation), targeted (corrections targeted at limited types of errors only), untargeted (corrections given for any type of errors made), electronic (indicating errors made and providing links to resources which provide correct examples/explanations of incorrectly used grammatical features), and rephrasing (without altering the content, teachers rewrite the incorrect parts of learners' writing and then ask them to compare the original and modified versions) . Similarly, Polio's (2012) definition of written CF is also underlined on the forms....... middle of sheet...... among learners who received the written CF were successful to produce texts with better linguistic precision during revision sessions, but failed to demonstrate a learning effect in a new piece of writing. Based on this result, Truscott and Hsu (2008) concluded that improvements made during review sessions could not be considered a predictor of learning, casting doubt on the acceptability of the result of studies focused on L2 writing with emphasis on revisions. , Bruton (2009) reviewed the study and managed to point out the possible reason why no improvement was made in the post-test. He claimed that the study participants had already shown good performance since the pre-test, so expecting them to make much improvement was simply out of the question. In other words, it was possible that the result would be compromised by the ceiling effect..