Published July 29, 2020 | Version v1
Book chapter Restricted

L2 Writers' Processing of Written Corrective Feedback. Depth of Processing via Written Languaging

Authors/Creators

  • 1. ROR icon Universidad de Murcia

Contributors

  • 1. Universidad de Murcia

Description

In this study we investigated (i) whether levels of depth of processing (DoP) are mediated by writing conditions (individual vs. collaborative writing), and (ii) the relationship between DoP and accuracy measures in the texts produced before and after processing feedback. Participants (118 intermediate EFL learners) were invited to complete a picture-based problem-solving task in either individual or collaborative writing conditions, in both cases with and without the availability of feedback. Findings show that access to feedback (rather than writing conditions) was the key variable that mediated both DoP and improvements in global accuracy. We discuss these findings from various perspectives, including methodological considerations for future languaging research.

Files

Restricted

The record is publicly accessible, but files are restricted. <a href="https://zenodo.org/account/settings/login?next=https://zenodo.org/records/18247652">Log in</a> to check if you have access.

Additional details

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación
Research Grant FFI 2016-79763- P
Fundación Séneca - Agencia de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Región de Murcia
Research Grant 20832/PI/18

Dates

Available
2020

References

  • Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on "the language learning potential" of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL: International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 129–140). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10 Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 Caras, A. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In R. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 186–198). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-13 Cerezo, L., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2019). What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In R. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 171–185). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-12 Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., & Allen, E. (2010). Written corrective feedback: The Practitioners' perspectives. International Journal of English Studies (IJES), 10(2), 47–77. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119191 Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics with International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 45 (3), 215–240. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2007.010 Grosbois, M. (2016). Computer supported collaborative writing and language learning. In F. Farr & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language learning and technology (pp. 269–280). New York, NY: Routledge. Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: The role of metanotes as a mediator of second language learning. Language Awareness, 22(3), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.683435 Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W. (2016). The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical condition in English. System, 58, 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.008 Knouzi, I., Swain, M., Lapkin, S., & Brooks, L. (2010). Self-scaffolding mediated by languaging: Microgenetic analysis of high and low performers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00227.x IT0506Leow, R. (2015). Explicit learning in the classroom. A student-centered perspective. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887074 Leow, R. (2019). Theoretical underpinnings and cognitive processes in instructed SLA. In R. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 15–27). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-2 Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 Malvern, D., & Richards, B. (2002). Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19(1), 85–104. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532202lt221oa Manchón, R. M., & Vasylets, O. (2019). Language learning through writing: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. In J. W. Schwieter & A. Benati (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of language learning (pp. 341–362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108333603.015 Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written corrective feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039 Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644 Storch, N. (2011). Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000079 Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954 Storch, N. (2016). Collaborative writing. In R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language writing (pp. 387–406). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Storch, N. (2018). Collaborative writing. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0395 Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(3), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.27291 Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16(2), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.2167/la392.0 Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2009). Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37(2), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.10.001 Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00006-5 Swain, M., Lapkin, S., Knouzi, I., Suzuki, W., & Brooks, L. (2009). Languaging: University students learn the grammatical concept of voice in French. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00825.x Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012a). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012b). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–99). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303.69