L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback

Abstract

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.

An Output-oriented Approach to the Impact of Online Written Languaging on Form-Focused Writing Tasks

“…Several studies have echoed the mediating role of WL in L2 learners' outperformance on various types of tasks similar to the results of the study (Manchón et al, 2020;Pica et al, 2006;Storch, 2013;Suzuki & Itagaki, 2009;Swain et al, 2009).…”

“…Accordingly, L2 learners can shape and sharpen their thoughts as they talk with themselves (i.e., self-languaging) or with others (i.e., peer/pair languaging) (Lantolf et al, 2015), or in collaborative dialogues (Rafi & Pourdana, 2023). Recently, SLA researchers incorporated the languaging process as a platform for studying various aspects of L2 development (Falhasiri, 2021;Manchón et al, 2020). It has been argued that languaging enhances the memory span of L2 learners in performing cognitively complex tasks (Esfandiari & Noor, 2018), and pushes their attention to the work-in-progress (Suzuki & Storch, 2020).…”

An evaluation of a multidimensional identity measurement instrument: The heritage language speaker identity tool (HLS‐IT)

“…The results of the bottom‐up cluster analysis triangulated with qualitative accounts strikes a common ground between the two as it both honors the complex interplay between HLS experiences as expressed in case studies while also leveraging identity‐based patterns to create representative profiles that can be used in larger scale quantitative investigations of the population. For example, clusters could be used to replicate or extend empirical instructed SLA research in mixed or HLL track classrooms (e.g., Manchón et al., 2020), thus broadening the field's understanding of whether instructional interventions are received differently by different HLS cluster profiles. Through leveraging this multidimensional tool and the resulting HLS profiles, researchers will be able to explore identity‐based nuances in order to arrive at more specific findings and implications.…”

Methods of Research on Depth of Processing for Written Corrective Feedback: A Scoping Review

“…As this review focused on DoP, the terms, which were mentioned in the RQs, "process" (Caras, 2017;Ma, 2020), "cognitively process" (Shao & Liu, 2022), and "levels of processing" (Adrada-Rafael & Filgueras-Gómez, 2019;Park & Kim, 2019) were also coded as DoP. Bowles and Gastañaga (2022) worded accuracy as "accurate error revision," and Manchón et al (2020) worded "linguistic accuracy of the rewritten texts," while Ma (2020) worded "accuracy with le and classifiers." Therefore, each study was scrutinized, and those that measured the accuracy of the rewrite were coded as revision accuracy, while those that measured the accuracy regarding grammatical items were coded as accuracy of target items.…”

“…Other studies had multiple experimental groups. Manchón et al (2020) had 118 participants divided into two experimental groups, an individual and a collaborative writing condition, as well as a control group. They examined differences in error detection, accuracy of the rewritten writing, and DoP between the conditions.…”