Search

While the literature on the effect of comprehensive corrective feedback (CF) on overall accuracy is abundant, the body of work employing such a scope to explore error treatability is not, especially when it comes to blended (cf. Ferris, 2010) design studies. Consequently, this investigation extends the analyses from the data set of Bonilla et al. (2018) to report on individual linguistic features. Specifically, to address crucial amenabilityrelated questions in need of perusal, the present blended design study explores the effect of two types of comprehensive CF (with direct correction and metalinguistic codes) on the treatability of separate grammatical and non-grammatical structures. To this end, a group of EFL learners (N = 139) were required to do editing that involved error-correction, deferred (on a draft), and focused on language as well as to produce two independent essays (in an immediate and a delayed posttest). Main results from logistic regression (to test the effect in revised essays) and mixed-effect models (to test the effect on independent essays) render seven variables that can explain correctability differences: out of those, three have also explained overall accuracy gains (cf. Bonilla et al., 2018), one has not been identified thus far, and three consolidate themselves as relevant factors under other conditions as well. Theoretical and pedagogical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study investigated the potential of comprehensive corrective feedback forms as editing and learning tools and examined their effect on learners’ cognitive and attitudinal engagement. Low‐intermediate second language writers (N = 139) were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions (direct corrections of grammatical errors, metalinguistic codes for grammatical errors, direct corrections of grammatical and nongrammatical errors, or metalinguistic codes for grammatical and nongrammatical errors) and a control group (self‐correction). Results from mixed‐effects linear models showed that although direct corrections and codes were effective for enhancing learners’ immediate grammatical and nongrammatical accuracy (i.e., during text revision), a long‐term advantage (i.e., 4 weeks after feedback provision) was only evident for direct corrections. A mental effort measure of cognitive load revealed that participants’ cognitive load was significantly lower when processing direct corrections targeting grammar issues. Questionnaire answers also yielded a significant attitudinal difference between the direct feedback groups and their metalinguistic counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the effects of comprehensive feedback on learners' grammatical accuracy during text revision and in new writing tasks in light of proficiency level. It also sought to determine to what extent learners' proficiency level plays a role in their feedback preferences and attitudes towards the feedback. The participants were 52 low proficiency and 39 high proficiency foreign language university learners, who were randomly assigned to a direct corrective feedback, a metalinguistic feedback with rule reminders, and a self-correction group. All learners wrote four compositions and completed a questionnaire after the treatment to elicit their attitudes towards the feedback and their feedback preferences. Results showed that the treatment effectively enhanced both low and high proficiency learners' immediate grammatical accuracy and accuracy improvement. Also, a relation between proficiency level and learners' attitudes towards the feedback as well as an association between proficiency level and learners' feedback preferences were found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]