Cover not available
Part of
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
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 August 2020
DOI logo
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. 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 (2), 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 (pp. 129–140). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
(2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 171–185). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., & Allen, E.
(2010) Written corrective feedback: The Practitioners’ perspectives. International Journal of English Studies (IJES), 10 (2), 47–77. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Suzuki, W.
(2016) The effect of written languaging on learning the hypothetical condition in English. System, 58 , 97–111. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R.
(2015) Explicit learning in the classroom. A student-centered perspective. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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: Cambridge University Press. 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 (4), 375–389. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. W.
(1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11 (2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011) Collaborative writing in L2 contexts: Processes, outcomes, and future directions. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31 , 275–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) Collaborative writing. In J. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W.
(2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1110–1133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017) The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8 (3), 461–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N.
(2007) Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16 (2), 131–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Languaging in grammar exercises by Japanese EFL learners of differing proficiency. System, 37 (2), 217–225. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
(2012a) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (4), 364–374. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 13 other publications

Bowles , Melissa A. & Kacie Gastañaga
2022. Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Carr, Nicholas
2023. Feedback on writing through the lens of activity theory: An exploration of changes to peer-to-peer interactions. Assessing Writing 56 ► pp. 100720 ff. DOI logo
Cerezo, Lourdes & Florentina Nicolás-Conesa
2023. Are Two Heads Always Better Than One?. In New Approaches to the Investigation of Language Teaching and Literature [Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design, ], ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Coyle, Yvette, Florentina Nicolás-Conesa & Lourdes Cerezo
2023. Chapter 3. Overview of methodological procedures in research on written corrective feedback processing. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Garcia, Valerie, Caitlyn Pineault & Lara Bryfonski
2023. An evaluation of a multidimensional identity measurement instrument: The heritage language speaker identity tool (HLS‐IT). The Modern Language Journal 107:1 ► pp. 353 ff. DOI logo
González-Cruz, Belén, Lourdes Cerezo & Florentina Nicolás-Conesa
2022. A classroom-based study on the effects of WCF on accuracy in pen-and-paper versus computer-mediated collaborative writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P.
2020. Chapter 5. L2 writing-to-learn. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Leow , Ronald P., Anne Thinglum & Stephanie A. Leow
2022. WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 12:4 ► pp. 651 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Chunhong & Shulin Yu
2022. Reconceptualizing the impact of feedback in second language writing: A multidimensional perspective. Assessing Writing 53 ► pp. 100630 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Julio Roca de Larios
2023. Chapter 1. The study of L2 writing processes. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
McBride, Sophie & Rosa M. Manchón
2023. Chapter 16. Analysing L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback via written languaging and think-aloud protocols. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 337 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Carrie Xin, Neomy Storch & Ute Knoch
2023. Greater coverage vs. deeper processing? Comparing individual and collaborative processing of teacher feedback. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Suzuki, Wataru, Masako Ishikawa & Neomy Storch
2023. Chapter 6. Verbally mediated data. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 2024. 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.