Writing in a Task-Based Individualized Curriculum: Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback

Abstract

The effects of written corrective feedback have been extensively investigated for various domains of instructed second language acquisition with many studies demonstrating clear benefits (e.g. Riazi, Shi & Haggerty, 2018). However, there are still many unresolved questions about how written corrective feedback is best applied in classroom contexts (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 1995; Benson & DeKeyser, 2018). Studies have found conflicting results in terms of what types of written corrective feedback may be more effective and lead to greater language learning (e.g., Bitchener, 2018; Ferris, 2006; Hartshorn et al., 2010; Manchón, 2011). There is a clear need for research targeting how learners process different types of written corrective feedback in order to address why certain types are more effective and how these feedback types are shaped by different learning contexts (Caras, 2019; Leow, in press; Manchón, 2018; Suzuki, 2017).

Building on previous research, this study investigated the processing and effectiveness of unfocused direct written corrective feedback and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback with metalinguistic codes and examples. The study was conducted in a Chinese foreign language course with thirty-eight L2 Chinese beginners randomly divided into the two feedback conditions. Thirty-eight participants wrote three compositions over four weeks in the task-based curriculum. The study investigates two different grammatical targets, the particle le and classifiers, to explore the effects of linguistic target on written corrective efficacy. Think-aloud protocols and quantitative analyses of accuracy scores were triangulated to assess participants’ processing of written corrective feedback and their performances.

The study found that the indirect-feedback-with-metalinguistic-explanations group exhibited greater depth of processing overall when compared to the direct written corrective feedback group. The indirect-feedback-with-metalinguistic-explanations group demonstrated significantly higher mean accuracy in the delayed posttest for the patterned, rules-based target of the particle le. Think-aloud responses and focus group data suggest that the problem-solving challenge inherent in indirect feedback with metalinguistic explanations may have caused students to exert themselves more and was connected to achieving awareness at the level of understanding (Schmidt, 1990), while direct written corrective feedback was frequently only processed at the level of noticing (Leow, in press). This study provides insights into the effects of direct written corrective feedback versus indirect feedback with metalinguistic explanations. The dissertation concludes with implications for classroom practices and future research.