In:Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes
Edited by Rosa M. Manchón and Julio Roca de Larios
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 5] 2023
► pp. 60–81
Chapter 3Overview of methodological procedures in research on written corrective
feedback processing
Published online: 23 October 2023
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.03coy
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.5.03coy
This chapter offers a critical overview of the methods
used in research on written corrective feedback processing. Broadly framed
within interventionist and non-interventionist strands of research on the
grounds of whether or not feedback and other task or participant-related
variables are controlled by the researcher, we describe the research
designs, participants, data collection tools, and analytical units used in
studies on feedback processing. Our purpose in doing so is twofold. Firstly,
we aim to take stock of the ways in which process research has evolved in
line with changing theoretical and empirical developments in the field of L2
writing studies. Secondly, we intend to offer an appraisal of the
methodological procedures used in existing research. Finally, we suggest
future directions for a more inclusive research agenda that can respond to
the challenges of new digital and curricular L2 writing scenarios and
establish greater uniformity in its analytical approaches.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Overview and assessment of methodological procedures
- Methodological approaches in WCF processing research
- Research designs
- Research designs in interventionist studies
- Research designs in naturalistic studies
- Populations studied
- Data collection procedures
- Concurrent data collection procedures
- Think-aloud
- Oral languaging
- Note-taking
- Eye tracking, digital screen capture, and keystroke logging
- Nonconcurrent data collection procedures
- Stimulated recall
- Written languaging
- Questionnaires and interview data
- Data analysis procedures
- Operationalization and coding of WCF processing
- Conclusions and future directions
Acknowledgements References
References (71)
Adams, R. (2003). L2
output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL
development. Language Teaching
Research, 7(3), 347–376.
Adrada-Rafael, S., & Filgueras-Gómez, M. (2019). Reactivity,
language of think-aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the
processing of reformulated
feedback. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 199–211). Routledge.
Andringa, S., & Godfroid, A. (2020). Sampling
bias and the problem of generalizability in Applied
Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 40, 134–142.
Bowles, M., & Gastañaga, K (2022). Heritage,
second and third language learner processing of written corrective
feedback: Evidence from
think-alouds. Studies in Second
Language Learning and
Teaching, 12(4), 677–698.
Buckingham, L., & Aktug-Ekinci, D. (2017). Interpreting
coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students’ approaches to
revision. Journal of English for
Academic
Purposes, 26, 1–16.
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.
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The
development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of
feedback. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher
Education 43(8), 1315–1325.
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher
feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback
literacy. Teaching in Higher
Education, 28(1), 150–163.
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.
Chong, S. W. (2020). Reconsidering
student feedback literacy from an ecological
perspective. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher
Education, 46(1), 1–14.
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.
(2020). Exploring
young learners’ engagement with models as a written corrective
feedback technique in EFL and CLIL
settings. System, 95, 1–14.
Coyle, Y., Cánovas Guirao, J., & Roca de Larios, J. (2018). Identifying
the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing
and feedback processing tasks with model
texts. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 42, 25–43.
DeKeyser, R., & Prieto Botana, G. (Eds.). (2019). Doing
SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling
methodological demands and pedagogical
applicability. John Benjamins.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting
second language writing using multimodal
feedback. Foreign Language
Annals, 49(1), 58–74.
(2022). Reexamining
feedback on L2 digital
writing. Studies in Second Language
Learning and
Teaching, 12(4), 575–595.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written
corrective feedback for individual L2
writers. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22(3), 307–329.
Fukuta, J., Tamura, Y., & Kawaguchi, Y. (2019). Written
languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback
always effective? Language
Awareness, 28(1), 1–14.
Galbraith, D., & Vedder, I. (2019). Methodological
advances in investigating L2 writing processes: Challenges and
perspectives. Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition, 41(3), 633–645.
García Hernández, F. J., Roca de Larios J., & Coyle, Y. (2017). Exploring
the effect of reformulation on the problem-solving strategies of
young EFL
writers. In M. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Learning
foreign languages in primary school: Research
insights (pp. 193–222). Multilingual Matters.
García Mayo, M. P., & Loidi Labandibar, U. (2017). The
use of models as written corrective feedback in EFL
writing. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 37, 110–127.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2016). Stimulated
recall methodology in applied linguistics and L2
research. Routledge.
Hafner, C. A., & Ho, W. Y. J. (2020). Assessing
digital multimodal composing in second language writing: Towards a
process-based model. Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 47.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating
and being mediated: learner beliefs and learner engagement with
written corrective
feedback. System, 69, 133–142.
(2019). Written
corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction
between the context and individual
learners. System, 80, 288–303.
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring
learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese
tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of
Second Language
Writing, 30, 31–44.
(2019). Learner
engagement with written feedback: A sociocognitive
perspective. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback
in second language writing: Contexts and
issues (2nd
ed., pp. 247–264). Cambridge University Press.
Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2021). Student
feedback literacy and engagement with feedback. A case study of
Chinese undergraduate
students. Teaching in Higher
Education, 26(2), 181–196.
Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output,
noticing, and learning: an investigation into the role of
spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing
task. Language Teaching
Research, 11(4), 459–479.
Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing
and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2
writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 21(4), 332–347.
Kim, Y., & Belcher, D. (2020). Multimodal
composing and traditional essays: Linguistic performance and learner
perceptions. RELC
Journal, 51(1), 86–100.
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.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student
engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF)
provided by Grammarly: A multiple case
study. Assessing
Writing, 44, 100450.
(2019). From
SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular/pedagogical
perspective. In R. P. Leow (Ed.), The
Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom
learning (pp. 483–491). Routledge.
Leow, R. P., & Manchón, R. M. (2021). Expanding
research agendas: Directions for future research agendas on writing,
WCF, language learning and
ISLA. In R. M. Manchón & C. Polio (Eds). The
Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and
writing (pp. 299–311). Routledge.
Leow, R. P., Grey, S., Marijuan, S., & Moorman, C. (2014). Concurrent
data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2
learning: A critical overview. Second
Language
Research, 30(2), 111–127.
Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. A. (2022). WCF
processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of
linguistic item, and L2
performance. Studies in Second
Language Learning and
Teaching, 14(2), 653–675.
López-Serrano, S., Roca de Larios, J., & Manchón, R. M. (2019). Language
reflection fostered by individual L2 writing tasks: Developing a
theoretically motivated and empirically based coding
system. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 41(3), 503–527.
Manchón, R. M., & Leow, R. P. (2020). An
ISLA perspective on L2 learning through
writing. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing
and language learning: Advancing research
agendas (pp. 335–356). John Benjamins.
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: A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 241–265). John Benjamins.
Moradian, M. R., Hossein-Nasab, M., & Miri, M. (2020). Effects
of written languaging in response to direct and indirect corrective
feedback on developing writing
accuracy. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging
in language learning and teaching. A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 267–286). John Benjamins.
Nash, R. A., & Winstone, N. E. (2017). Responsibility-sharing
in the giving and receiving of assessment
feedback. Frontiers in
Psychology, 8, 1519.
Oskoz, A., & Elola, I. (2020). Digital
L2 writing literacies. Directions for classroom
practice. Equinox.
Park, E. S., & Kim, O. Y. (2019). Learners’
engagement with 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. 212–226). Routledge.
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.
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring
the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing
task. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 10, 277–303.
Ranalli, J. (2021). L2
student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for
learning and issues of trust. Journal
of Second Language
Writing, 52, 100816.
Roca de Larios, J., & Coyle. Y. (2021). 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.
Roca de Larios, J., García Hernández, F. J., & Coyle. Y. (2021). A
theoretically-grounded classification of EFL children’s formulation
strategies in collaborative
writing. Language Teaching for Young
Learners, 3(2), 300–336.
Ryan, K., Hamrick, P., Miller, R. T., & Was, C. A. (2017). Salience,
cognitive effort, and word learning: Insights from
pupillometry. In S. Gass, P. Spinner, & J. Behney (Eds.), Salience
in second language
acquisition (pp. 187–200). Routledge.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’
uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision
task. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The
role of consciousness in second language
learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.
(2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language
instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
Shintani, N. (2015). The
effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct
corrective feedback on writing: A case
study. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 29(3), 1–22.
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.
Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2
learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective
feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic
reflections. Language
Awareness, 24(3), 233–254.
Smith, B., Pacheco, M., & de Almeida, C. R. (2017). Multimodal
codemeshing: Bilingual adolescents’ processes composing across modes
and languages. Journal of Second
Language
Writing, 36, 6–22.
Storch, N. (2018). Written
corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A
research agenda. Language
Teaching, 51(2), 262–277.
Storch, N., & Alsuraidah, A. (2020). Language
when providing and processing peer
feedback. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging
in language learning and teaching. A collection of empirical
studies (pp. 111–128). John Benjamins.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’
processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing:
Case studies. Studies in Second
Language
Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
Suh, B. R. (2020). Are
think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective
feedback study. Language Teaching
Research, 1–21.
Suzuki, W. (2017). The
effect of quality of written languaging on second language
learning. Writing &
Pedagogy, 8(3), 1–34.
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.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking
it through: Two French immersion learners’ responses to
reformulation. International Journal
of Educational
Research, 37, 285–304.
Vandermeulen, N., Leijten, M., & Van Waes, L. (2020). Reporting
writing process feedback in the classroom using keystroke logging
data to reflect on writing
processes. Journal of Writing
Research, 12(1), 109–139.
