Cover not available
Part of
Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón and Julio Roca de Larios
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 5] 2023
► pp. 315–336

Chapter 15
Methodological considerations in the analysis of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback

The affordances of online technologies

| Kansai University
| The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Providing written corrective feedback in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments has increasingly attracted the interest of both researchers and practitioners. In this chapter we reflect on our study, Shintani & Aubrey (2016), which examined the comparative effects of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on the accurate production of target grammatical features in a guided writing task. The methodological challenges we experienced related to (a) operationalizing synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback; (b) designing treatment materials and procedures; (c) testing; and (d) analyzing the data. In each decision, we tried to find a balance between experimental control and ecological validity. This chapter not only provides a window into how we overcame these challenges but also gives suggestions for research methodologies that can be used in future studies to explore the provision of written corrective feedback through online technologies.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Overview of the research in focus: Rationale, aims and methods
  • Methodological decisions, challenges, and solutions
    • Operationalization of SCF and ACF
    • Eliciting the target grammatical feature
    • Designing the treatment procedures
    • Random assignment
    • Dealing with on-site problems during data collection
    • Assessing learners’ grammatical knowledge
    • Analyzing writing outcomes
    • Analyzing writing processes
  • Methodological conclusions and implications for future studies
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.15shi
References (36)
References
Adams, R., Alwi, N. A. N. M., & Newton, J. (2015). Task complexity effects on the complexity and accuracy of writing via text chat. Journal of Second Language Writing, 29, 64–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aljaafreh, A. L. I., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aubrey, S. (2014). Students’ attitudes towards the use of an online editing program in an EAP course. Annual Research Review, 17, 45–57. Retrieved on 28 April 2023 from [URL]Google Scholar
Aubrey, S., & Shintani, N. (2021). L2 writing and language learning in electronic environments. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 282–296). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ayers, R. (2010). Learner attitudes towards the use of CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 241–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 173–187). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dao, P., Nguyen, M., Duong, P., & Tran-Thanh, V. (2021). Learners’ engagement in L2 computer-mediated interaction: Chat mode, interlocutor familiarity, and text quality. The Modern Language Journal, 105(4), 767–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. & Prieto-Botana, G. (2019). Current research on instructed second language learning: A birds’s eye view. In R. DeKeyser & G. Prieto-Botana (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom. Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 1–7). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 1–69). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis: Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 421–452. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–72). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109. [URL]Google Scholar
Kim, S. (2010). Revising the revision process with Google Docs. In S. Kasten (Ed.), TESOL classroom practice series. Effective second language writing (pp. 171–177). TESOL.Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Loschky, L., & Bley-Vroman, R. (1993). Grammar and task-based methodology. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 123–167). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2014). The internal dimension of tasks: The interaction between task factors and learner factors in bringing about learning through writing. In H. Byrnes & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning. Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 27–52). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers’ beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student’s second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Odo, D. M., & Yi, Y. (2014). Engaging in computer-mediated feedback in academic writing: Voices from L2 doctoral students in TESOL. English Teaching, 69(3) 129–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: a case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. (2019). Discussion: Balancing methodological rigor and pedagogical relevance. In R. DeKeyser & G. Prieto-Botana (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom. Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 201–215). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: a meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. -p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar