WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance

Abstract

Whether type of written corrective feedback (WCF) impacts L2 learning has been investigated for decades. While many product-oriented studies report conflicting findings, the paucity of studies adopting both a process-oriented and curricular approach (e.g., Caras, 2019) underscores the call for further research on: a) the processing dimension of L2 writers’ engagement with WCF in this instructed setting (Manchón & Leow, 2020), b) from an ISLA applied perspective (Leow, 2019a; Leow & Manchón, 2022), and c) any potential relationship with subsequent performances. Also, whether type of linguistic item (e.g., morphological vs. syntactic) plays a role in the processing dimension also warrants further probing. This preliminary quasi-experimental study explored the cognitive processes of 10 adult L2 writers with minimal previous exposure to Spanish interacting with WCF (both direct and metalinguistic) on morphological and syntactic errors. Think aloud data gathered from three compositions written within the natural writing conditions of a foreign language curriculum were transcribed, coded for depth of processing (DoP) (Leow, 2015), and correlated with subsequent performances on the target items. The results revealed: 1) a higher DoP for metalinguistic WCF, 2) differences in processing of linguistic items, 3) similar DoP over time, and 4) a beneficial relationship between DoP and subsequent performances. Recommendations for future research underscore the importance of acknowledging variables within the instructed setting that may impact a pure effect of WCF on L2 development.

Ronald P. Leow's essential bookshelf: The L2 learning process in instructed second language acquisition (ISLA)

“…An exemplar of a PROCESS-oriented ISLA APPLIED study (12) Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. A. (2022a).…”

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

“…Among them, four studies (Caras, 2017;Leow et al, 2022;Ma, 2020;Shao & Liu, 2022) further complemented error codes with metalinguistic explanations or samples of rules.…”

“…Only two studies explored the development of L2 proficiency beyond evaluating the accuracy of revisions. These studies assessed the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of learners' new writings (McBride, 2023) or utilized evaluative tests administered by the educational institution where the study was conducted (Leow et al, 2022) to ascertain whether writing tasks with WCF contributed to enhancements in L2 proficiency.…”

“…Concerning the measurement of DoP, 10 out of 15 studies categorized DoP into three levels: high, medium (intermediate), and low, following Leow's (2015) framework. Two studies (Kim & Bowles, 2019;Leow et al, 2022) modified Leow's (2015) coding scheme; Kim and Bowles (2019) classified DoP into two levels: high or low, while Leow et al (2022) employed four levels of DoP: High DoP + Understanding, High DoP -Understanding, Medium DoP + Reporting, and Low DoP + Noticing. The remaining three studies (Cerezo et al, 2019;Manchón et al, 2020;Nicolás-Conesa et al, 2019) classified DoP into five levels.…”

“…The methods employed for TA practice tasks varied across studies. Four studies utilized a math calculation task (Adrada-Rafael & Filgueras-Gómez, 2019;Caras, 2017;Leow et al, 2022;Park & Kim, 2019), while three studies (Bowles & Gastañaga, 2022;Kim & Bowles, 2019;Tabari et al, 2023) incorporated a practice task similar to the actual task in which participants engaged in TA while receiving WCF. Considering the actual task participants were expected to undertake during TA, the more closely the practice task resembles the actual task, the more effectively participants may approach the latter.…”