The Theoretical Expectation of the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback From Information Processing Perspective

2018 ◽  
pp. 12-29
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Explanation ◽  
The Other ◽  
Theoretical Expectation ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Information Processing Perspective ◽  
Interactive View

Chapter 2 explains how written CF can facilitate the process of information processing in Gass' model from a micro perspective, and also in a macro view, according to McLaughlin's model, and Anderson's model. The theoretical explanation makes us to believe written CF has the potential to benefit L2 development. The other half of the chapter provides an understanding of written CF in an interactive view of SLA and leads to the conclusion that all the factors involved in the interactions between teacher and learner should be taken into consideration when providing written CF.

The Empirical Evidence of the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback From Information Processing Perspective

2018 ◽  
pp. 30-56
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Expectation ◽  
Affective Factors ◽  
Proficiency Levels ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Information Processing Perspective ◽  
English Articles ◽  
Positive Effect

The theoretical perspectives reviewed in the previous chapter have led many in the field to believe that written CF can have a positive effect on L2 learning. The recent written CF studies reviewed in this chapter confirmed the theoretical expectation. However, it needs to be noted that although more explicit written CF types, such as metalinguistic explanation, direct correction, and direct correction plus metalinguistic explanation were proved to facilitate the learning of English articles and past tense for students of different proficiency levels, more research is needed to find out the correlation between the complexity and written CF type. Furthermore, whether these types of written CF could facilitate the learning of more complex language features needs to be examined. Last but not least, learner's factors, including affective factors, learning aptitude, motivation, and so on need to be investigated regarding the extent to which they may have an impact on the effect of written CF.

Introduction to Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Keyword(s):  
Information Processing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Three Stages

In this chapter, written CF is defined, and then how written CF can contribute to each of the three stages of L2 development is presented. By comparing corrective feedback in a written context to an oral context, the conclusion is made that written context is a better platform for L2 development. After presenting the underpinning theoretical frameworks, including information processing theories and socio-cultural theories, this chapter provides the research findings up to date to prove the effectiveness of written CF provided in both of the approaches. Last but not the least, this chapter highlights the questions remained in this field, which justifies the necessity and importance of further written CF research.

The Exploration of the Effect of Scafflolded Written Corrective Feedback

2018 ◽  
pp. 65-69
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Self Control ◽  
Combined Approach ◽  
The Third ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Cultural Framework ◽  
L2 Development

This chapter reviews the written CF studies that have been conducted within a socio-cultural framework. These are three case studies, the first of which found individual learners had better self-control after receiving scaffolded written CF within their different ZPDs. The second study compared scaffolded written CF and random written CF and found scaffolded written CF resulted in better L2 development. The third study compared scaffolded written CF and the most explicit written CF (direct correction plus metalinguistic explanation) and no advantage for scaffolded written CF was reported. In the end, a combined approach of investigating written CF is proposed.

scholarly journals The Effects of Digitally Mediated Multimodal Indirect Feedback on Narrations in L2 Spanish Writing: Eye Tracking as a Measure of Noticing

Languages ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 159
Author(s):  
Laura E. Valentin-Rivera ◽  
Li Yang
Keyword(s):  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Eye Tracker ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Video Tutorial ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Development ◽  
Indirect Feedback ◽  
The Impact

Written corrective feedback (CF) could pave the way for L2 development, especially when embedded in multimodality. Building on prior research, this descriptive study drew a relationship between specific types of errors that were most successfully revised and noticing measured by eye-tracking techniques. Additionally, this study furthers our understanding of the impact of indirect CF (i.e., codes accompanied by metalinguistic hints) delivered by two multimodal components: (a) a video tutorial on how to approach teachers’ comments and (b) a soundless video displaying individualized teacher feedback. To this end, three L2 learners of Spanish completed a narration in the target language, watched a tutorial on attending to CF, received indirect feedback via the personalized soundless video (i.e., option “b” above), and corrected their errors. An eye tracker recorded all ocular activity while the participants watched both recordings. The results suggested that receiving training on approaching teachers’ comments may enhance the overall success rate of revisions, especially in verb and vocabulary-related errors. Last, a detailed unfolding of the revision process unveiled by eye-tracking data accounted for (1) an explanation of why two specific types of errors were more successfully revised and (2) some pedagogical recommendations.

The Theoretical Expectation of the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback From Sociocultural Perspective

2018 ◽  
pp. 57-64
Keyword(s):  
Self Regulation ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
Theoretical Expectation ◽  
Sociocultural Perspective ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Cultural Framework ◽  
L2 Learning ◽  
Learner Needs

This chapter explains how written CF should be provided within a socio-cultural framework. Sociocultural researchers believe learning occurs “in” instead of “by” the interaction between the learner and the teacher. When the learner needs less “other-regulation” or has better “self-regulation” during the scaffolded interaction, learning occurs. Scaffolding means that facilitation varies according to the learner's need. For the optimal facilitation of learning, scaffolding should be within the learner's ZPD. Therefore, it is fair to assume that scaffolded written CF within the learner's ZPD has the potential to facilitate the desired L2 learning.

Are think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective feedback study

2020 ◽  
pp. 136216882096716
Author(s):  
Bo-Ram Suh
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
L2 Writing ◽  
Think Aloud ◽  
Thinking Aloud ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Think Alouds ◽  
L2 Development

The use of concurrent data elicitation procedures (e.g. think-alouds, eye-tracking, response time) to investigate learners’ cognitive processing and processes is becoming more prominent in research designs as researchers seek to acquire a better understanding of how second language (L2) learners process L2 data (e.g. Martin et al., 2019; Rogers, 2019; Thinglum, 2019; for more recent studies employing concurrent procedures, see Leow, 2019). At the same time, an increasing number of studies have empirically investigated the reactivity of think-aloud protocols in second language acquisition (e.g. Medina, 2019; Morgan-Short et al., 2012). While the studies that have addressed the reactivity issue have yielded mixed findings, only a few studies (e.g. Adrada-Rafael & Filgueras-Gómez, 2019; Sachs & Polio, 2007) have addressed the written mode, particularly in the context of L2 writing that incorporates feedback. As part of a larger study of written corrective feedback, the present study investigates the possible reactive effects of think-alouds during exposure to written corrective feedback, which was provided on learners’ L2 writing, on their L2 development. Fifty-nine Korean university learners of English as a foreign language, randomly assigned to either a think-aloud or to a non-think-aloud (silent control) condition, participated in the study. L2 development was measured by a written story-retelling task and a multiple-choice receptive test. Results showed that thinking aloud while processing written corrective feedback during three feedback sessions did not affect learners’ development of receptive knowledge and their ability to produce the target structure in a new piece of writing when compared to a non-think-aloud condition.

A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners’ writing accuracy and quality

2019 ◽  
pp. 136216881987918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Rahimi
Keyword(s):  
Corrective Feedback ◽  
The Other ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Research And Practice ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Written Corrective Feedback ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
Theory Research ◽  
Esl Learners ◽  
The Impact

The impetus for the present study came from Ferris’ (2010) article discussing the gap between theory, research, and practice in written corrective feedback (WCF). To address this gap, the present study aimed at comparing the impact of focused vs. comprehensive WCF and revision on the improvement of written accuracy of learners of English as a second language (ESL), with a focus on their global linguistic errors (sentence and word); the study also examined how this improvement contributed to the students’ writing quality, defined in terms of clarity of expression and text comprehensibility. Data was collected from 78 intermediate French ESL learners randomly assigned to four different treatment groups: two groups received focused WCF and two groups comprehensive WCF; one of the focused and one of the comprehensive groups were required to revise their writing and the other two groups did no revision after WCF. A comparison was made between the error means of the four groups on three out of seven essays they wrote during a 15-week writing course: week one (T1), week eight (T2) and week 14 (T3). The results revealed that the focused groups were more successful than the comprehensive ones in reducing their words errors at T2; no significant effect was observed for revision. Also, the focused-revision group outperformed the other groups at both T2 and T3 in reducing their sentence errors. The comprehensive-revision, however, group was more successful than the other groups in improving their overall written accuracy. The results also showed that the focused-revision group made more improvement than the other three groups in their writing quality at T3.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document