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. 267–286

Chapter 12
Effects of written languaging in response to direct and indirect corrective feedback on developing writing accuracy

 | Lorestan University
 | Lorestan University
 | Allameh Tabataba’i University
This study examined effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) followed by languaging on grammatical accuracy in new writing tasks. Two homogeneous EFL (English as a foreign language) classes were randomly assigned to direct (n = 15) and indirect (n = 15) feedback groups. After receiving feedback, participants languaged about the reasons for the errors in their writing. Their written explanations were coded as written languaging episodes (WLEs). Results revealed that the indirect group generated more unexplained WLEs than the direct group. However, both groups made significant gains in accuracy from the pre-test to the post-test with no significant differences observed between the two groups.
Keywords: sociocultural theory, written languaging, private speech, writing accuracy, direct and indirect written corrective feedback
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • The conceptual framework of the study
    • Oral languaging and private speech
    • Written languaging
    • Empirical research on oral and written languaging
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Procedure
    • Writing tasks
    • Semi-structured interviews
    • Data analysis
    • Identification and resolution of WLEs
  • Results
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 14 August 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.12mor
References (34)
References
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Level of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DiCamilla, F., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language Science, 16(3), 347–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1995). Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 87–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gug, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and whole class teaching: Teacher-led and student-led interactional mediation of tasks. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 281–299. 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
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Negueruela, E. (2008). Revolutionary pedagogies: Learning that leads (to) second language development. In J. P. Lantolf & M. E. Poehner (Eds.), Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages (pp. 189–227). London: Equinox.Google Scholar
(2013). Internalization in second language acquisition: Special perspectives. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics (pp. 1–8). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ohta, A. S. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom learning Japanese. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J., & Bohlke, D. (2012). Four corners. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle 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
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self -revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 209–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students’ second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81–90.Google Scholar
(2012). Written languaging, direct correction and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2011). Cognitive and effective enhancement among older adult: The role of languaging. Australian Review of Applied linguistics, 36(1), 4–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–337. 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. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 5–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 5–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on second language learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistic, 156(1), 279–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., 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
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2010). Incidental microgenetic development in second-language teacher-learner talk-in-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 66–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (14th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. Problems of general psychology, including the volume Thinking and speech, R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Coyle, Yvette, Florentina Nicolás-Conesa & Lourdes Cerezo
2023. 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
Suzuki, Wataru, Masako Ishikawa & Neomy Storch
2023. 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 20 december 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.