The impact of timing in written corrective feedback on collaborative writing and L2 accuracy development

Abstract

This study examines the impact of written corrective feedback (WCF) timing on the collaborative writing process and writing accuracy development of adult learners of French as a second language. Forty-eight learners were divided into three groups to complete a collaborative writing task in pairs. The first group received immediate WCF via Google Docs while writing, the second group received delayed WCF one week later with 10 minutes allocated for error correction, and the third group performed the writing task without receiving any feedback. All discussions during the collaborative writing were recorded and analyzed for language-related episodes (LREs). Writing accuracy was assessed through pretests, immediate posttests, and delayed posttests using story-retelling tasks. The findings revealed that the delayed feedback group engaged in more extensive discussions about linguistic forms compared to the other two groups. In terms of writing accuracy, the immediate feedback group showed the most significant improvements over time.

References

1. Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An open for replication study: The role of feedback timing in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 942–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12300
2. Aubrey, S., & Shintani, N. (2021). L2 writing and language learning in electronic environments. In R. M. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 282–296). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429199691-29
3. Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
4. Canals, L., Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Malicka, A. (2021). The relative effectiveness of immediate and delayed corrective feedback in video-based computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 29(1), 242-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211052793
5. Cho, H., Kim, Y. J., & Park, S. (2022). Comparing students’ responses to synchronous written corrective feedback during individual and collaborative writing tasks. Language Awareness, 31(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1937194
6. DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 83–104). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986-5
7. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex.
8. Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge University Press.
9. Ellis, R., Li, S., & Zhu, Y. (2019). The effects of pre-task explicit instruction on the performance of a focused task. System, 80, 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.10.004
10. Fu, M., & Li, S. (2021). The associations between implicit and explicit language aptitude and the effects of the timing of corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(3), 498-522. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000012
11. Fu, M., & Li, S. (2022). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 2–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000388
12. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3–30). Erlbaum.
13. Henderson, C. (2021). The effect of feedback timing on L2 Spanish vocabulary acquisition in synchronous computer-mediated communication. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819832907
14. JASP Team (2023). JASP (Version 0.17.3) [Computer software]. https://jasp-stats.org
15. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
16. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Erlbaum.
17. Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
18. Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/MODL.12315
19. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2015.08.011
20. Long, M. H. (2007). Problems in SLA. Erlbaum.
21. Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.
22. Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190599190032
23. Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
24. Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
25. Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
26. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
27. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00115.x
28. Storch, N. (2008). Metatalk in a pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410802146644
29. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
30. Storch, N. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language learning in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of written corrective feedback. In R. M. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 22–34). Routledge.
31. Storch, N., & Alshuraidah, A. (2020). Languaging when providing and processing peer feedback. In W. Suzuki, & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 112–128). John Benjamins.
32. 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
33. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410612700-34
34. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320-337.
35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
36. Yamashita, T. (2021). Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75–93. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73434
37. Yamashita, T. (2022). Effectiveness and inclusiveness of locally adapted human-delivered synchronous written corrective feedback for English referential articles. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 37(5-6), 1074-1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2022.2068612