Reactivity, Language of Think-Aloud Protocol, and Depth of Processing in the Processing of Reformulated Feedback

How Deeply Do Second Language Learners Process Written Corrective Feedback? Insights Gained From Think‐Alouds

“…This issue, known as reactivity, has been researched extensively in both psychology and SLA, the overall consensus being that the use of think‐alouds does not generally have a sizable effect on results as compared to control participants who do the same task silently (Bowles, ). Most similar to this study, Adrada‐Rafael and Filgueras‐Gómez () found no significant difference in the performance of silent and think‐aloud groups in their composition‐comparison‐revision task, and Sachs and Polio () found that thinking aloud had a small, but significant, effect on their learners’ performance.…”

“…Two more recent studies have also investigated L2 learners’ processing of reformulations (Adrada‐Rafael & Filgueras‐Gómez, ; Yang & Zhang, ) using composition‐comparison‐revision tasks. Yang and Zhang () investigated the impact of integrated pair discussions, reformulations, and a model text at the comparison stage for their L2 English learners.…”

“…This design, although pedagogically relevant, does not enable the effects of any one component to be teased apart and therefore will not be discussed further. Adrada‐Rafael and Filgueras‐Gómez () examined first language (L1)‐English, L2‐Spanish learners’ processing of reformulations, but the focus was on how the language of verbalization (L1 or L2) affected the depth of processing as revealed by think‐alouds. The study did not find any difference in the quality of the processing when the intermediate‐level learners thought aloud in their L1 versus their L2.…”

“…Because reformulations appeared to promote a higher depth of processing, especially on non‐surface errors, it might be tempting to conclude that reformulations are superior to direct corrections; however, the results should be interpreted with caution, both because there were no measures of learning and because the participants were advanced proficiency students enrolled in an English for academic purposes curriculum. Therefore, the findings might not be able to be generalized to all settings, because the effectiveness of reformulations may differ based on the complexity of target structures, the learners’ proficiency level, or the curricula (e.g., Adrada‐Rafael, ; Adrada‐Rafael & Filgueras‐Gómez, ; Hanaoka & Izumi, ). Other pedagogical concerns could be raised in applying the technique in actual classrooms, such as finding an expert reformulator other than a teacher particularly in an EFL setting (e.g., Cohen, , ).…”

“…A handful of L2 studies to date have examined how learners process one particular type of written corrective feedback: reformulations (Adrada‐Rafael & Filgueras‐Gómez, ; Qi & Lapkin, ; Sachs & Polio, ; Yang & Zhang, ). The present within‐subjects study went a step further, using think‐alouds to compare how learners of English as a second language (ESL) processed two types of feedback, reformulation and direct correction, and examined whether there was a relationship between type of feedback, error type, and depth of processing.…”