Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds

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 un...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Studies in second language learning and teaching 2022-12, Vol.12 (4), p.675-696
Main Authors: Bowles, Melissa A, Gastañaga, Kacie
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cognitive Processes
College Students
Comparative Analysis
depth of processing
Educational aspects
Error Correction
Feedback
Feedback (Psychology)
Feedback (Response)
Foreign languages learning
Heritage language
heritage language learners
Language
Language and Literature Studies
Learning outcomes
Multilingualism
Native Language
Protocol Analysis
Second Language Learning
Second languages
Spanish
Study and teaching
think-alouds
third language learners
Third language learning
Written communication
written corrective feedback
Written Language
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:2083-5205
2084-1965
DOI:10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.7