Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Second Language Studies
Vol. 5:1 (2022) ► pp.58–85

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing

An exploratory application of actor-partner interdependence model

 | Iowa State University, USA
Published online: 20 August 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
Abstract
The present study investigated the relationship between one dyad member’s revision in response to written corrective feedback (CF) and the same person’s learning and the other dyad member’s learning during collaborative writing. Twenty-eight English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students at an American university were paired up and collaborated on two animation description tasks in Google Docs while receiving the researcher’s written CF on their errors on the indefinite and definite articles. Learners worked individually on an animation description task one week prior to the written CF treatment (pretest), immediately after the treatment (posttest), and two weeks after (delayed posttest). When pretest score and CF frequency were controlled for, the number of one’s revisions was not related to the same person’s or the partner’s posttest score. However, the number of one’s revisions was significantly positively related to the same learner’s delayed posttest score, but not to the partner’s delayed posttest score.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1The impact of one’s revision on the same person’s learning
    • 2.2The impact of one’s revision on another person’s learning
    • 2.3Research questions
  • 3.The present study
    • 3.1Context and participants
    • 3.2Design
    • 3.3Treatment instruments
    • 3.4Target features
    • 3.5Feedback operationalization
    • 3.6Test instruments
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Operationalization of revision
    • 4.2Test performance
    • 4.3Statistical procedures for APIM
  • 5.Results
    • 5.1Written CF and revision frequency during the treatment
    • 5.2Accuracy score on pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest
    • 5.3Actor and partner effects
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
References (84)
References
Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C. (2009). Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in German classes. In L. Lomicka, & G. Lord, The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp. 115–144). The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Collaboration two-way: Working load and co-ownership in L2 wiki writing. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yamashita, T. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75–93.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baralt, M. & Leow, R. P. (2015). Uptake, task complexity, and L2 development in SLA: An online perspective. In R. Leow, L. Cerezo & M. Baralt (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp. 3–22). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010a) and Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 405–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonilla Lopez, M., Van Steendam, E., & Buyse, K. (2017). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Y. G. (2002). Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451–480. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaudron, C., & Parker, K. (1990). Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(1), 43–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, J. (2017). The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), 367–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekanayaka, W., & Ellis, R. (2020). Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition? System, 941. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982). Language Teaching, 48(4), 531–544. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y.-H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 531, 24–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guo, Q., & Barrot, J. S. (2019). Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 261–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Henderson, C., & Jung, D. (2018). Examining timing and type of learner-modified output in relation to perception in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated chat task-based interaction. In M. Ahmadian, & P. García Mayo, Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp. 53–76). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research (37), 255–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis of acquisition of English. Korama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iizuka, T., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2019). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and feedback exposure conditions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4(1), 3–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 741, 50–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A. (2020). L2 learning and the frequency and quality of written languaging. In W. Suzuki, & N. Storch, Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 220–240). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kang, S., & Lee, J.-H. (2019). Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 451, 61–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A. (2015, February). An interactive tool for the estimation and testing the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model using multilevel modeling [Computer software]. Available from [URL]
(2018). Reflections on the actor-partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 160–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N. (2015). Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656–677. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, S., & Roshan, S. (2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 451, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, G. S., Geranpayeh, A., Khalifa, H., & Buckendahl, C. W. (2013). Standard setting to an international reference framework: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Testing, 13(1), 32–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 66–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M. (2015). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mak, B., & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nakamaru, S. (2012). Investment and return: Wiki engagement in a “remedial” ESL writing course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 273–291. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nielsen, N. M., Smink, W. A., & Fox, J. P. (2021). Small and negative correlations among clustered observations: limitations of the linear mixed effects model. Behaviormetrika, 48(1), 51–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ockey, G. J., Vo, S., & Baghestani, S. (2020). Establishing appropriate cut scores of a standardized test for a local placement context. TESOL Quarterly. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall and L. Verplaeste (eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47–71). Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J., Bridgeman, B., & Cho, Y. (2015). The Association Between TOEFL iBT® Test Scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Levels (Research Memorandum No. RM-15-06). Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., R Core Team (2020). _nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models_. R package version 3.1-149, <URL: [URL]>.
Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H. (2018). Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 713–731. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL [URL]
Révész, A., R. Sachs & A. Mackey. (2011). Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. In P. Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 203–235). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N. (2019). Potentials of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 461, 100676. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?. System, 491, 110–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T. (2018). Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user-friendly app for actor-partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 103–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 811, 135–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In Y-N. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary (pp. 129–141). Crane.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The efficacy of written corrective feedback: A critique of a meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W., Van den Bergh, H. H., & Sercu, L. (2014). The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instructional Science, 42(6), 905–927. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 69–101). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yilmaz, Y. (2016). The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yim, S., Wang, D., Olson, J. S., Vu, V., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Synchronous writing in the classroom: Undergraduates’ collaborative practices and their impact on text quality, quantity, and style. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 468–479). Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J. (2012). Articles in child L2 English: When L1 and L2 acquisition meet at the interface. First Language, 32(1–2), 38–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue