Chapter published in:
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 241–266

Chapter 11
L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback

Depth of processing via written languaging

| University of Murcia, Spain
| University of Murcia, Spain
| University of Murcia, Spain
| University of Murcia, Spain
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.
Keywords: L2 writing, collaborative writing, depth of processing, error correction, written languaging, written corrective feedback
Article outline
  • Theoretical background
    • DoP of WCF and language learning in individual and collaborative writing conditions
    • Written languaging and WCF processing
  • Research questions
  • Method
    • Design
    • Context and participants
    • Task, treatment, and data collection procedures
      • Task
      • Treatment
      • Data collection procedures
    • Data coding and analysis
      • Analysis of written texts
      • Analysis of written languaging
      • Statistical analyses
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.11man
References
Bitchener, J.
(2012) A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (4), 348–363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
(2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., & Allen, E.
(2010) Written corrective feedback: The Practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies (IJES), 10 (2), 47–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D.
(2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W.
(2016) The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical condition in English. System, 58 , 97–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leow, R.
(2015) Explicit learning in the classroom. A student-centered perspective. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malvern, D., & Richards, B.
(2002) Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Language Testing, 19 (1), 85–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language learning (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N.
(2008) Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17 (2), 95–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 275–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) Collaborative writing. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G.
(2010) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32 (2), 303–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W.
(2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1110–1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8 (3), 461–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N.
(2007) Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16 (2), 131–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37 (2), 217–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
(2012a) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (4), 364–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Leow, Ronald P.
2020.  In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.