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. 337–363

Chapter 16
Analysing L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback via written languaging and think-aloud protocols

Methodological considerations

 | University of Murcia
 | University of Murcia
This chapter provides a reflection on the methodological decisions taken in a study that investigated the affordances of diverse data collection procedures for inspecting depth of processing of written corrective feedback, namely think-aloud protocols, written languaging, and a combination of both. We will start by formulating the overall aims and the specific questions guiding the study and by providing a synthetic account of the rationale behind our aims and methods. In the main part of the chapter, we will report (i) the main challenges and problems experienced when analysing the data as well as the solutions adopted; and (ii) the kind of data on feedback processing provided by the three data collection procedures used in the study. We will close with methodological conclusions for future studies intended to shed light on depth of processing of written corrective feedback.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Overview of the global research program and of the study: Rationale, aims, and methods
    • Rationale
    • Research questions
    • Methods
      • Participants and context
    • Tasks and procedures
    • The writing task
  • Data coding considerations: Challenges faced and decisions taken when developing a coding scheme for DoP of feedback
    • Operationalizing DoP
    • Setting up a coding scheme of DoP
      • Data and unit of analysis
      • Analysis of the think-aloud protocols
      • Analysis of the written languaging tables
    • Setting up a coding scheme for the global data
  • Nature of the data provided in different processing conditions and  affordances for inspecting DoP
  • Relevant methodological conclusions and implications for future studies
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.16mcb
References (23)
References
Adrada-Rafael, S., & Filgueras-Gómez, M. (2019). Reactivity, language of think-aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 199–211). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the language learning potential of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 348–363. DOI logoGoogle 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, 111–131. DOI logoGoogle 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. Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing. Contexts and issues (pp. 85–105). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caras, A. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 188–200). 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
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45, 215–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H. R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 4, 913–938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R., & Manchón, R. M. (2021). Directions for future research agendas on L2 writing and feedback as language learning from an ISLA perspective. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 299–311). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Suh, B-R. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing, written corrective feedback, and language learning in individual writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 9–21). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2023). The psycholinguistics of L2 writing. In A. Godfroid & H. Hopp (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition and psycholinguistics (pp. 400–412). Routledge.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing. Implications for future research agendas. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 335–355). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L., & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback: Depth of processing via written languaging. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching (pp. 241–265). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, E. S., & Kim, O. Y. (2019). Learners’ engagement with indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 212–226). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2021). Learners’ engagement with written corrective feedback in individual and collaborative L2 writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 81–93). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, A. J., Manchón, R. M., & Gilabert, R. (2020). The effects of task repetition across modalities and proficiency levels. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 121–144). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step toward second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar