Keywords
depth of processing
think-alouds
heritage language learners
third language learners
How to Cite
Number of views: 318
Number of downloads: 566
Abstract
This study compares the processing of three different types of written corrective feedback (WCF) by heritage language (HL), second language (L2), and third language (L3) learners who wrote and revised three short essays and received a different type of WCF for each essay (i.e., direct, coding, or underlining). Comparison of pre- and post-feedback texts and analysis of think-alouds served as the basis for determining whether one type of feedback promoted higher depth of processing (DoP) and whether this processing was mediated by error type and language background. The findings indicate that feedback type did interact with DoP, and that this interaction was in some ways mediated by learner background and error type. This research serves as a first step toward understanding how these three learner groups are impacted by these commonly used feedback types and is therefore important to drive evidence-based pedagogical decisions.
References
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (2019, March). Facts & figures: College students are more diverse than ever. Faculty and administrators are not. https://www.aacu.org/aacu-news/newsletter/2019/march/facts-figures
Bialystok, E. (2001). Metalinguistic aspects of bilingual processing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 169-181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000101
Birdsong, D., Gertken, L. M., & Amengual, M. (2012). Bilingual language profile: An easy-to-use instrument to assess bilingualism. COERLL, University of Texas at Austin. https://sites.la.utexas.edu/bilingual/
Bowles, M. A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856338 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856338
Bowles, M. A. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge: What can heritage language learners contribute? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247-271. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000756 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000756
Bowles, M. A., & Montrul, S. (2017). Instructed heritage language acquisition. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 488-502). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-27 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-27
Caras, A. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 186-198). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-13
Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the national heritage language survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(1), 44-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01118.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01118.x
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46(1), 71-86. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000218 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000218
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/10.4324/9781315165080-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-12
DeRobles, G. (2019). The effects of type of written corrective feedback and level of proficiency on processing and accuracy in heritage language learners of Spanish. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University).
Gatti, A., & O’Neill, T. (2017). Who are heritage writers? Language experiences and writing proficiency. Foreign Language Annals, 50(4), 734-753. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12291
Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2010). Factors influencing oral corrective feedback provision in the Spanish foreign language classroom: Investigating instructor native/nonnative speaker status, SLA education, & teaching experience. (Doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University). https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/553240/gurzynski-WeissLaura.pdf?sequence=1
Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z. (2022). Written corrective feedback: Short-term and long-term effects on language learning. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 213-225). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-23
Kim, H. R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think‐alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913-938. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.522 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.522
Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887074 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887074
Leow, R. P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95-118). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.56.05leo
Leow, R., P., & Manchón, R. M. (2022). Directions for future research agendas on L2 writing and feedback as language learning from an ISLA perspective. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 299-311). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-31
Looney, D., & Lusin, N. (2019). Enrollments in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, summer 2016 and fall 2016: Final Report. Modern Language Association. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599007.pdf
Manchón, R. M., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Writing to learn in FL contexts: Exploring learners’ perceptions of the language learning potential of L2 writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (pp. 181-207). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.13man DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.31.13man
Manchón, R. M., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L., & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback: Depth of processing via written languaging. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching (pp. 241-265). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.11man DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.11man
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7, 125-142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728904001464
Montrul, S., & Slabakova, R. (2003). Competence similarities between native and near-native speakers: An investigation of the preterite-imperfect contrast in Spanish. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 351-398. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000159 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263103000159
Mrak, A. (2020). Developing writing in Spanish heritage language learners: An integrated process approach. Dimension. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1249861
Park, E. S., & Kim, O. Y. (2019). Learners’ use of indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self- correction. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 214-228). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165080-15
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three- stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7
Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle, Y. (2022). Learners’ engagement with written corrective feedback 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. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-11 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-11
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
Suh, B. R. (2010). Written feedback in second language acquisition: Exploring the roles of type of feedback, linguistic targets, awareness and concurrent verbalization (Doctoral dissertation. Georgetown University).
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 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
Suzuki, W. (2017). The effect of quality of written languaging on second language learning. Writing & Pedagogy, 8, 461-482. https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.27291 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.27291
Valdés, G. (2000). Introduction. In Spanish for native speakers. AATSP professional development series handbook for teachers K-16, Volume 1 (pp. 1-20). Harcourt College.
Yanguas, I., & Lado, B. (2012). Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language? Foreign Language Annals, 45(3), 380-399. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01198.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2012.01198.x
Zamora, C. (2022). The secret is in the processing: Categorizing how heritage learners of Spanish process. In M. A. Bowles (Ed.), Outcomes of university Spanish heritage language instruction in the United States (pp. 81-102). Georgetown University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv296mt6k.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv296mt6k.9
Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564
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.