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]

Second language (L2) writing research has demonstrated that young learners discuss linguistic issues, make use of feedback, and show a generally positive disposition toward writing tasks. However, many issues deserve further investigation. Regarding task implementation, few studies have been conducted with young learners writing individually, and few have compared different feedback types. Also, the focus of analysis has mostly been placed on students’ discussions; little is known about aspects such as draft quality and task motivation. To address these gaps, draft quality and task motivation were measured in 75 learners (aged 10–12 years) engaged in a three-stage writing task. They were divided into a task repetition group (n = 21), a group that received feedback via direct corrections (n = 30), and a group that received feedback via model texts (n = 24). Students’ drafts improved very slightly in complexity with task repetition; they significantly improved in accuracy with direct corrections, and also in lexical diversity and text quality with models. Task motivation remained high throughout the writing cycle in the task repetition group, where students found the task easy. However, it dropped slightly with direct corrections and – especially before the final draft, with models – which students deemed conducive to learning but difficult. Some pedagogical guidelines are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]