Keywords
feedback processing
L2 accuracy
pen-and-paper writing
written corrective feedback
How to Cite
Number of views: 544
Number of downloads: 795
Abstract
This study compared the effects of computer-mediated (CM) versus pen-and-paper (P&P) writing on written accuracy and feedback processing in tasks written and rewritten collaboratively following a pedagogical treatment in two intact authentic classrooms. The study involved 32 secondary education low-proficiency English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners writing two descriptive texts collaboratively and receiving in-class training in the identification and correction of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors. Participants were provided with unfocused direct error correction (EC). Error logs were used to facilitate noticing of teacher corrections (i.e., feedback processing). Dyads were required to rewrite their texts for evidence of feedback uptake. Results indicate that writing collaboratively on the computer with the availability of the Internet contributes to increased grammatical and lexical accuracy. No differences were found between writing environments regarding feedback processing or accuracy of rewritten texts.
References
Abrams, Z. I. (2019). Collaborative writing and text quality in Google Docs. Language Learning and Technology, 23, 22-42. https://doi.org/10125/44681
Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., & Cumo-Johanssen (2010). Using a storybased approach to teach grammar. In J. L. Shrum & E. W. Glisan (Eds.), Teachers’ handbook: Contextualized foreign language instruction (pp. 216-244, 4th ed.). Heinle Cengage Learning.
Alharbi, M. A. (2019). The role of an instructor’s asynchronous feedback in promoting students’ interaction and text revisions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n3p23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v9n3p23
Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 85-105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.007
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
Cánovas Guirao, J., Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2015). The use of models as a written feedback technique with young EFL learners. System, 52, 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.04.002
Cerezo, L., Manchón, R. M., & Nicolás-Conesa, F. (2019). What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 173-187). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-12
Chan, S., Chan, C., Derbie, A. Y., Hui, I., Tan, D., Pang, M., Lau, S., & Fong, K. (2017). Chinese calligraphy writing for augmenting attentional control and working memory of older adults at risk of mild cognitive impairment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, 58(3), 735-746. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170024
Cheung, Y. L. (2015). A comparative study of paper-and-pen versus computer-delivered assessment modes on students’ writing quality: A Singapore study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0229-2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0229-2
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correc-tion and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 3, 451-485. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2020). Exploring young learners ‘s engagement with models as a written corrective technique in EFL and CLIL settings. System, 95, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102374
Coyle, Y., Nicolás-Conesa, F., & Cerezo, L. (in press). Overview of methodological procedures in extant research on written corrective feedback processing. In R. M. Manchón & J. Roca de Larios (Eds.), Research methods in the study of writing processes. John Benjamins.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antón, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotskian perspective. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 53, 609-633. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.53.4.609 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.53.4.609
Elabdali, R. (2021). Are two heads really better than one? A meta-analysis of the L2 learning benefits of collaborative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100788
Ellis, N.C. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002024
Hartshorn, K. J., & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(2), 6-34. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol1/iss2/2
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Lee, H. K. (2004). A comparative study of ESL writers’ performance in a paper-based and a computer-delivered writing test. Assessing Writing, 9, 4-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2004.01.001
Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing to learn: Theory, research, and a curricular ap-proach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95-117). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo
Li, J. & Cumming, A. (2001). Word processing and second language writing: A longitudinal case study. International Journal of English Studies, 1(2), 127-152.
Manchón, R. M (2014). The distinctive nature of task repetition in writing. Implications for theory, research and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13-41. https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12795/elia.2014.i14.02
Manchón, R. M., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L., & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 241-263). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.11man DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.11man
Nicolás-Conesa, F., Manchón, R.M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). 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. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Owston, R.D., Murphy, S., & Wideman, H. H. (1992). The effects of word processing on students’ writing quality and revision strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(3), 249-276.
Pearson, W. S. (2022). A typology of the characteristics of teachers’ written feedback comments on second language writing. Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2024937 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.2024937
Pennington, M. C. (1996). Writing the natural way: On computer. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 9(2-3), 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822960090205 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0958822960090205
Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2022). Learners’ engagement with WCF in individual and collaborative L2 writing conditions. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 81-93). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-11
Saeed, M. A., & Al Qunayeer, H. S. (2020). Exploring teacher interactive e-feedback on students’ writing through Google Docs: Factors promoting interactivity and potential for learning. The Language Learning Journal, 50(3), 360-377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2020.1786711
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/APPLIN/11.2.129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699954
Storch, N. (2018). Research timeline: Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40-59. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444818000320 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320
Storch, N. (2022). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language learning in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of WCF. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 81-93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-4
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110-1133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). Continuum.
Vasylets, L., Mellado, M. D., & Plonsky, L. (2022). The role of cognitive individual differences in digital versus pen-and-paper writing. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 721-743. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.9
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012a). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback? Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374. https://10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012b). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69-99). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303.69 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303.69
Zhang, M., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49. 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753
Zhang, M., Gibbons, J., & Li, M. (2021). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A systematic review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100854 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100854
Zhi, M., & Huang, B. (2021). Investigating the authenticity of computer- and paper-based ESL writing tests. Assessing Writing, 50, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100548 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100548
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
1.1 The Author hereby warrants that he/she is the owner of all the copyright and other intellectual property rights in the Work and that, within the scope of the present Agreement, the paper does not infringe the legal rights of another person. The owner of the copyright work also warrants that he/she is the sole and original creator thereof and that is not bound by any legal constraints in regard to the use or sale of the work.
1.2. The Publisher warrants that is the owner of the PRESSto platform for open access journals, hereinafter referred to as the PRESSto Platform.
2. The Author grants the Publisher non-exclusive and free of charge license to unlimited use worldwide over an unspecified period of time in the following areas of exploitation:
2.1. production of multiple copies of the Work produced according to the specific application of a given technology, including printing, reproduction of graphics through mechanical or electrical means (reprography) and digital technology;
2.2. marketing authorisation, loan or lease of the original or copies thereof;
2.3. public performance, public performance in the broadcast, video screening, media enhancements as well as broadcasting and rebroadcasting, made available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them;
2.4. inclusion of the Work into a collective work (i.e. with a number of contributions);
2.5. inclusion of the Work in the electronic version to be offered on an electronic platform, or any other conceivable introduction of the Work in its electronic version to the Internet;
2.6. dissemination of electronic versions of the Work in its electronic version online, in a collective work or independently;
2.7. making the Work in the electronic version available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, in particular by making it accessible via the Internet, Intranet, Extranet;
2.8. making the Work available according to appropriate license pattern Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) as well as another language version of this license or any later version published by Creative Commons.
3. The Author grants the Publisher permission to reproduce a single copy (print or download) and royalty-free use and disposal of rights to compilations of the Work and these compilations.
4. The Author grants the Publisher permission to send metadata files related to the Work, including to commercial and non-commercial journal-indexing databases.
5. The Author represents that, on the basis of the license granted in the present Agreement, the Publisher is entitled and obliged to:
5.1. allow third parties to obtain further licenses (sublicenses) to the Work and to other materials, including derivatives thereof or compilations made, based on or including the Work, whereas the provisions of such sub-licenses will be the same as with the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) Creative Commons sub-license or another language version of this license, or any later version of this license published by Creative Commons;
5.2. make the Work available to the public in such a way that members of the public may access the Work from a place and at a time individually chosen by them, without any technological constraints;
5.3. appropriately inform members of the public to whom the Work is to be made available about sublicenses in such a way as to ensure that all parties are properly informed (appropriate informing messages).
6. Because of the royalty-free provision of services of the Author (resulting from the scope of obligations stipulated in the present Agreement), the Author shall not be entitled to any author’s fee due and payable on the part of the Publisher (no fee or royalty is payable by the Publisher to the Author).
7.1. In the case of third party claims or actions for indemnity against the Publisher owing to any infractions related to any form of infringement of intellectual property rights protection, including copyright infringements, the Author is obliged to take all possible measures necessary to protect against these claims and, when as a result of legal action, the Publisher, or any third party licensed by the Publisher to use the Work, will have to abandon using the Work in its entirety or in part or, following a court ruling in a legal challenge, to pay damages to a third party, whatever the legal basis
7.2. The Author will immediately inform the Publisher about any damage claims related to intellectual property infringements, including the author’s proprietary rights pertaining to a copyrighted work, filed against the Author. of liability, the Author is obliged to redress the damage resulting from claims made by third party, including costs and expenditures incurred in the process.
7.3. To all matters not settled herein provisions of the Polish Civil Code and the Polish Copyright and Related Rights Act shall apply.