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. 60–81

Chapter 3
Overview of methodological procedures in research on written corrective feedback processing

 | University of Murcia
 | University of Murcia
 | University of Murcia
This chapter offers a critical overview of the methods used in research on written corrective feedback processing. Broadly framed within interventionist and non-interventionist strands of research on the grounds of whether or not feedback and other task or participant-related variables are controlled by the researcher, we describe the research designs, participants, data collection tools, and analytical units used in studies on feedback processing. Our purpose in doing so is twofold. Firstly, we aim to take stock of the ways in which process research has evolved in line with changing theoretical and empirical developments in the field of L2 writing studies. Secondly, we intend to offer an appraisal of the methodological procedures used in existing research. Finally, we suggest future directions for a more inclusive research agenda that can respond to the challenges of new digital and curricular L2 writing scenarios and establish greater uniformity in its analytical approaches.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Overview and assessment of methodological procedures
    • Methodological approaches in WCF processing research
    • Research designs
      • Research designs in interventionist studies
      • Research designs in naturalistic studies
  • Populations studied
    • Data collection procedures
    • Concurrent data collection procedures
      • Think-aloud
      • Oral languaging
      • Note-taking
      • Eye tracking, digital screen capture, and keystroke logging
    • Nonconcurrent data collection procedures
      • Stimulated recall
      • Written languaging
      • Questionnaires and interview data
  • Data analysis procedures
    • Operationalization and coding of WCF processing
  • Conclusions and future directions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.03coy
References (71)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Andringa, S., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 134–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bowles, M., & Gastañaga, K (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), 677–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buckingham, L., & Aktug-Ekinci, D. (2017). Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students’ approaches to revision. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 1–16. 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. 186–198). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43(8), 1315–1325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. 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
Chong, S. W. (2020). Reconsidering student feedback literacy from an ecological perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Exploring young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective feedback technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Reexamining feedback on L2 digital writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 575–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuta, J., Tamura, Y., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2019). Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective? Language Awareness, 28(1), 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galbraith, D., & Vedder, I. (2019). Methodological advances in investigating L2 writing processes: Challenges and perspectives. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 633–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Hernández, F. J., Roca de Larios J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Exploring the effect of reformulation on the problem-solving strategies of young EFL writers. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning foreign languages in primary school: Research insights (pp. 193–222). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
García Mayo, M. P., & Loidi Labandibar, U. (2017). The use of models as written corrective feedback in EFL writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 37, 110–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2 research. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hafner, C. A., & Ho, W. Y. J. (2020). Assessing digital multimodal composing in second language writing: Towards a process-based model. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between the context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Learner engagement with written feedback: A sociocognitive perspective. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 247–264). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student feedback literacy and engagement with feedback. A case study of Chinese undergraduate students. Teaching in Higher Education, 26(2), 181–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: an investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 459–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kang, E. Y. (2020). Using model texts as a form of feedback in L2 writing. System, 89, 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & Belcher, D. (2020). Multimodal composing and traditional essays: Linguistic performance and learner perceptions. RELC Journal, 51(1), 86–100. 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, 53(4), 913–938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom. A student-centered approach. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). From SLA  >  ISLA  >  ILL: A curricular/pedagogical perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 483–491). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., & Manchón, R. M. (2021). Expanding research agendas: Directions for future research agendas on writing, WCF, language learning and ISLA. 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., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30(2), 111–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. A. (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, 14(2), 653–675. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: Developing a theoretically motivated and empirically based coding system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 503–527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An ISLA perspective on L2 learning through writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 335–356). 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: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 241–265). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moradian, M. R., Hossein-Nasab, M., & Miri, M. (2020). Effects of written languaging in response to direct and indirect corrective feedback on developing writing accuracy. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching. A collection of empirical studies (pp. 267–286). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing in the giving and receiving of assessment feedback. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1519. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2020). Digital L2 writing literacies. Directions for classroom practice. Equinox. 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(4), 375–389. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Second language writing development: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 50(2), 261–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ranalli, J. (2021). L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100816. 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
Roca de Larios, J., García Hernández, F. J., & Coyle. Y. (2021). A theoretically-grounded classification of EFL children’s formulation strategies in collaborative writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 3(2), 300–336. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ryan, K., Hamrick, P., Miller, R. T., & Was, C. A. (2017). Salience, cognitive effort, and word learning: Insights from pupillometry. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience in second language acquisition (pp. 187–200). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written 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 instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 1–22. 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
Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, B., Pacheco, M., & de Almeida, C. R. (2017). Multimodal codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes and languages. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 6–22. 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
Storch, N., & Alsuraidah, A. (2020). Language when providing and processing peer feedback. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching. A collection of empirical studies (pp. 111–128). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suh, B. R. (2020). Are think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective feedback study. Language Teaching Research, 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8(3), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky, (pp. 95–108). Continuum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ responses to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Reporting writing process feedback in the classroom using keystroke logging data to reflect on writing processes. Journal of Writing Research, 12(1), 109–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yi, Y., Shin, D. S., & Cimasko, T. (2020). Special Issue. Multimodal composing in multilingual learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 47, 1–6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar