The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition

Abstract

This study attempts to add new empirical evidence on the language learning (operationalized and measured in terms of several dimensions of accuracy) that may derive from accessing and processing written corrective feedback (WCF) on one's own writing. The research questions examined potential interactions between type of WCF (direct vs. indirect), type of errors (grammar vs. nongrammar), and the perspective of feedback (accuracy vs. acquisition) in a single research design. To this end, 46 English majors at a Spanish university participated in a pretest–posttest design, with 2 intervention groups (those receiving direct or indirect WCF and asked to process it via written languaging) and a control group (who wrote and rewrote their texts without the help of WCF but also engaged in languaging). The analyses conducted show (a) limited appropriation of the WCF received, (b) positive short‐term and longer term benefits resulting from the combined effect of WCF and written languaging, and (c) differential effects of type of WCF on error types. These findings are discussed from the perspective of current theory and research on the manner in which WCF may contribute to language learning in terms of the dual distinction between feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition.

Written Languaging and Engagement with Written Corrective Feedback: The Results of Reflective Teaching

“…Their finding reinforces the previous assumptions that indirect CF can be confusing (Suzuki, 2012). In contrast, direct feedback coupled with languaging can result in higher uptake, deeper processing, and more accuracy (Nicolás-Conesa et al, 2019). Comparing the relative effectiveness of self-languaging to a one-on-one conference with the teacher on L2 development, Boggs (2019) did not find any significant differences.…”

“…Second, languaging can reveal if learners fail to grasp the nature of the problem despite receiving CF, and the iterative process makes it possible for the teacher to mediate further. Direct correction of errors does not guarantee understanding and learning, as indicated in the study by Nicolás-Conesa et al (2019) where the participants could successfully correct only half of their errors in the posttest. Without understanding the underlying reason for the CF, learners are less likely to learn (Ferris, 1995b;Suzuki, 2012).…”

“…Writing accurate emails is an integral part of the program and because explicit grammar instruction is not embedded in the OSLT curriculum, teachers tend to rely on corrective feedback (CF) to remedy linguistic errors in students' writing. Even though CF can be effective in second language (L2) development (Ferris & Kurzer, 2019), some learners fail to benefit from it (Bitchener, 2017) due to low levels of cognitive engagement with the feedback (Boggs, 2019) and/ or incomprehensibility of it (Nicolás-Conesa et al, 2019). Languaging has been recommended as a technique that not only involves deep cognitive engagement (Suzuki, 2012) but can also reveal whether learners understand the CF (Swain, 2006).…”

“…Comprehension of CF has been shown to correlate with long-term acquisition (Nicolás-Conesa et al, 2019). To ascertain that learners would notice the CF and process it, they were required to write an explanation, with or without the metalinguistic terms, to indicate that they had reflected on and understood the nature of the error (Ishikawa, 2018;Qi & Lapkin, 2001;Storch, 2008;Suzuki, 2012Suzuki, , 2017.…”

Matches or Mismatches? Exploring Shifts in Individuals’ Beliefs About Written Corrective Feedback as Students and Teachers-to-be

“…Direct WCF provides the learner with a model of the correct L2 form, whereas indirect WCF offers the learner the opportunity to develop independence and problemsolving skills. Both Chandler (2003) and Nicolás-Conesa et al (2019), for example, reported the positive effects of direct WCF over the indirect form. Furthermore, a few studies (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Sheen et al, 2009) have examined the influence of direct WCF on the use of specific grammatical forms (e.g., articles, the copular verb be, past tense forms, and prepositions) and have reported noticeable linguistic gains.…”