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. 292–314

Chapter 14
Setting up a coding scheme for the analysis of the dynamics of children’s engagement with written corrective feedback

Triangulating data sources

 | University of Murcia
This chapter describes the development of a coding scheme for the analysis of young English as a foreign language learners’ engagement with model texts. After outlining the theoretical rationale underlying our analytical procedure, and the methodological problems we experienced when attempting to apply constructs developed in research with adults to a younger and less proficient group of learners, I go on to explain the multiple steps involved in our process-product analysis. Careful triangulation of different measures including the children’s written texts, handwritten notes, and transcripts of their collaborative dialogue across two multi-stage tasks, enabled us to identify a series of trajectories involving diverse combinations of noticing, strategic problem-solving, and degrees of uptake. The coding categories and methodological decisions are illustrated with examples from the children’s data. Limitations in the procedure are also highlighted.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Overview of the research programme
  • Coding scheme of children’s writing and WCF trajectories
    • Uncovering children’s strategic problem-solving while writing
    • Coding the written texts of very low proficiency learners
    • Accounting for children’s noticing from model texts
    • Tracing children’s problem-solving trajectories across the multi-stage task
    • Determining the language learning potential of the trajectories
    • Verifying the connection between the trajectories and L2 writing development
  • Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.14coy
References (27)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347–376. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52(1), 63–77. 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 an L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. 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
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
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google 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
Izumi, S. (2013). Noticing and L2 development: Theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical issues. In J. M. Bergleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. Kei (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 25–38). National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 61- 82). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2007). On the temporal nature of planning in L1 and L2 composing: A study of foreign language writers. Language Learning, 57 (4), 549–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 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
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
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an 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). Cambridge University Press. 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(2), 303–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.Google 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
Torras, R. (2005). Procesos psicolingüísticos implicados en la adquisición del inglés en el contexto de la enseñanza primaria [Psycholinguistic processes involved in learning English in a primary school context]. Lenguaje y Textos, 23, 89–112. Retrieved on 28 April 2023 from [URL]Google Scholar
Torras, R., Navés, T., Celaya, M., & Pérez-Vidal, C. (2006). Age and IL development in writing. In C. Muñoz (Ed.), Age and the rate of foreign language learning (pp. 156–182). Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & 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. (2012). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–97). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, L., & Zhang, L. (2010). Exploring the role of reformulations and a model text in EFL students’ written performance. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 464–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar