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

Abstract

For corrective feedback (CF) to contribute to second language (L2) development, some cognitive processes need to be completed. Learners need to notice and comprehend the CF, reflect on and deeply process it, and finally integrate it into their interlanguage (Gass, 1997). Written languaging (WL), which requires learners to explicitly explain to themselves why they have received CF, has been proposed as a technique which can stimulate deep cognitive processing of the written CF. In an effort to improve learners’ writing accuracy, I adopted WL, whereby upon receiving online direct corrections, learners typed their selfexplanations regarding the underlying reasons for their writing mistakes. Then, I engaged in systematic reflection and journaling during a 10-week semester to critically analyze the affordances and limitations of WL. The conclusion, drawn from my perceptions of the usefulness of WL originating from my journal writing, is that WL has the potential to not only facilitate learning for students but also can provide teachers with a rich description of learners’ cognitive and affective engagement with CF. Some recommendations are made for better implementation of this instructional technique. 
 Pour que la rétroaction corrective (RC) contribue au développement de la langue seconde (L2), des processus cognitifs doivent se produire. Les apprenants doivent remarquer et comprendre la RC, y réfléchir, la traiter profondément et pour finir, l’intégrer dans leur interlangue (Gass, 1997). La mise en langue écrite (MLE), qui exige des apprenants qu’ils s’expliquent à eux-mêmes de façon explicite pourquoi ils ont reçu de la RC, a été proposée comme une technique qui peut stimuler le traitement cognitif profond de la RC écrite. Dans le but d’améliorer la précision de la rédaction des apprenants, j’ai adopté la MLE, où, lorsqu’ils recevaient les corrections directes en ligne, les apprenants tapaient leurs propres explications sur les raisons pour lesquelles ils avaient commis des erreurs écrites. Ensuite, je me suis employé à réfléchir systématiquement et à tenir un journal pendant les 10 semaines que durait le semestre, afin d’analyser de façon critique les opportunités et les limitations de la MLE. La conclusion, tirée de mes perceptions de l’utilité de la MLE puisées dans mon journal, est que la MLE a non seulement le potentiel de faciliter l’apprentissage des apprenants, mais peut aussi fournir aux enseignants une riche description de l’engagement cognitif et affectif des apprenants eu égard à la RC. Des recommandations sont faites pour une meilleure mise en œuvre de cette technique d’enseignement.

Microgenetic analysis of written languaging attributes on form-focused and content-focused e-collaborative writing tasks in Google Docs

“…Following the SLA literature on languaging, the attributes of WL were operationally defined in terms of the quantity of WL episodes, the type of focus inhered in WL episodes, and the resolution of WL episodes (Falhasiri, 2021 ; Swain, 2006 ; Swain & Watanabe, 2013 ; Yang, 2016 ). To extract and quantify the WL episodes, we adopted Swain’s definition of languaging episodes as “any part of a dialogue where students talk about the language they are producing, question their language use, or other- or self-correct their language production” (2001, p. 287).…”

“…SLA researchers have lately shown a growing interest in the constructive role of WL in L2 learning improvement (Falhasiri, 2021 ; Ishikawa, 2018 ; Suzuki & Storch, 2020 ; Tang, 2019 ; Zhang, 2021 ). Ishikawa ( 2018 ) examined the potential of languaging to facilitate learning grammatical points by 83 Japanese EFL learners.…”

“…Moreover, by producing languaging episodes, the lower-level group improved their English grammar more than the higher-level group. In a qualitative study, Falhasiri ( 2021 ) also examined 18 EFL learners who were required to simultaneously produce WL and jot down self-reports on their writing errors after receiving teacher corrective feedback (CF) in Google Docs. The researcher reported that producing languaging episodes served the participants with a medium of self-scaffolding, and offered the researcher a tool to study the students’ engagement in processing the received CF.…”

“…Recently, second language acquisition (SLA) researchers have lately shown a growing interest in the constructive role of languaging in L2 learning improvement (Falhasiri, 2021 ; Ishikawa, 2018 ; Suzuki & Storch, 2020 ; Tang, 2019 ; Zhang, 2021 ). Originated from Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of mind (Vygotsky, 1987 ), languaging is defined as “an action - a dynamic, never-ending process of using language to make meaning”, and “to shape knowledge and experience through language” (Swain, 2006 , pp.…”

“…Even though the significant role of languaging as a facilitator of L2 learning has been capitalized, the factors that can determine the facets of languaging episodes on various writing tasks are under-researched. Furthermore, the empirical studies on languaging situated before/after the mediation on writing tasks are still in their infancy with a few research reports (Falhasiri, 2021 ; Moradian & Nasab, 2019 ; Yamashita, 2021 ). Therefore, to fill the large gap in the languaging research, the researchers in this study examined the potential interplay between written languaging and the mediation modalities in shaping the dimensions of WL episodes when the L2 learners collaborate on form-focused and content-focused writing tasks in Google Docs.…”