This study examined the role of error-type and working memory (WM) in the effectiveness of direct-metalinguistic and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on self error-correction in first-language writing. Fifty-one French first-year psychology students volunteered to participate in the experiment. They carried out a first-language error-correction task after receiving WCF on typographical, orthographic, grammatical, and semantic errors. Results indicated that error-type affected the efficacy of WCF. In both groups, typographical error-correction was performed better than the others; orthographic and grammatical error-correction were not different, but both were corrected more frequently than semantic errors. Between-group comparisons showed no difference between the two groups in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors, while semantic error-correction was performed significantly better for the direct group. Results revealed that WM was not involved in correcting typographical, orthographic, and grammatical errors in both groups. It did, however, predict semantic error-correction only in response to direct-metalinguistic WCF. In addition, the processing component of WM was predictive of semantic error-correction in the direct WCF group. These findings suggest that error-type mediates the effectiveness of WCF on written error-correction at the monitoring stage of writing, while WM does not associate with all WCF types efficacy at this stage.
AmmarA. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 183-210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168807086287
2.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
BaddeleyA. D. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
5.
BaddeleyA. D. (2007). Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford University Press.
6.
BaddeleyA. D.HitchG. J. (1974). Working memory. In DornicS. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47-89). Academic Press.
7.
BealC.BonitatibusG. J.GarrodA. C. (1990). Fostering children’s revision skills through training in comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 275-280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.275
BitchenerJ. (2009a). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008).”Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(18), 276-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.001
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
12.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
13.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
14.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
15.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effective of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
16.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
CobenH. (1998). One false move (BenitaP., Trans.). Delacorte Press.
19.
ConwayA. R. A.JarroldC.KaneM. J.MiyakeA.TowseJ. N. (2007). Variation in working memory: An introduction. In ConwayA. R. A.JarroldC.KaneM. J.MiyakeA.TowseJ. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 3-17). Oxford University Press.
20.
ConwayA. R. A.KaneM. J.BuntingM. F.HamrickD. Z.WilhelmO.EngleR. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(5), 769-786. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772
21.
ConwayA. R. A.KaneM. J.EngleR. W. (2003). Working memory capacity and its relation to general intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(12), 547-552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.005
22.
CowanN. (2005). Working memory capacity. Psychology Press.
23.
DanemanM.CarpenterP. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450-466. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6
24.
DanemanM.StaintonM. (1993). The generation effect in reading and proofreading: Is it easier or harder to detect errors in one’s own writing?Reading and Writing, 5(3), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027393
25.
EllisR. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
26.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-268. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
27.
EneE.UptonT. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.05.005
28.
EngleR. W.KaneM. J.TuholskiS. W. (1999). Individual differences in working memory capacity and what they tell us about controlled attention, general fluid intelligence and functions of the prefrontal cortex. In MiyakeA.ShahP. (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 102-134). Cambridge University Press.
29.
EvansW. S.CaplanD.OstrowskiA.MichaudJ.GuarinoA. J.WatersG. (2015). Working memory and the revision of syntactic and discourse ambiguities. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(1), 136-155. https://doi.org/10.1037/cep0000037
30.
FerrisD. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
31.
FerrisD. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written error correction. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
32.
FerrisD. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
33.
FerrisD. R.LiuH.SinhaA.SennaM. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
34.
FerrisD. R.RobertsB. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
35.
FoinA.LangeE. (2007). Generation 1.5 writers’ success in correcting errors marked on an out-of-class paper. CATESOL Journal, 19(1), 146-163.
36.
GathercoleS. E.AllowayT. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide. Sage.
37.
GoldschneiderJ. M.DeKeyserR. M. (2001). Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition in English”: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00147
38.
GoldsteinL. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Helping learners become independent writers. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185-205). Cambridge University Press.
39.
GuénetteD. (2010). La rétroaction corrective à l’écrit: Pratiques et croyances, deux réalités parallèles? [Written corrective feedback: Practices and beliefs, two parallel realities?]Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 935-966.
40.
HackerD. J.PlumbC.ButterfieldE. C.QuathamerD.HeinekenE. (1994). Text revision: Detection and correction of errors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 65-78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.65
41.
HayesJ. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellL. S. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 1-27). Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
HayesJ. R.ChenowethN. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts?Written Communication, 23(2), 135-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306286283
KelloggR. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC. M.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications (pp. 57-71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
46.
KelloggR. T.WhitefordA. P.TurnerC. E.CahillM.MertensA. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 159-190. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.1
LarigauderieP.GuignouardE.OliveT. (2020). Proofreading by students: Implications of executive and non-executive components of working memory in the detection of phonological, orthographical, and grammatical errors. Reading and Writing, 33(4), 1015-1036. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-10011-6
51.
LeeserM. J. (2007). Learner-based factors in L2 reading comprehension and processing grammatical form: Topic familiarity and working memory. Language Learning, 57(2), 229-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2007.00408.x
52.
LevyB. A. (1983). Proofreading familiar text: Constraints on visual processing. Memory & Cognition, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197655
53.
LevyB. A.Di PersioR.HollingsheadA. (1992). Fluent rereading: Repetition, automaticity, and discrepancy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(5), 957-971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.18.5.957
54.
LiS.RoshanS. (2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003
55.
LopezM. B.Van SteendamE.BuyseK. (2017). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91-128. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.04bon
56.
LopezM. B.Van SteendamE.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295
57.
MatthewsP. H. (2007). Concise dictionary of linguistics. Oxford University Press.
58.
McCutchenD. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3501_3
59.
McCutchenD.FrancisM.KerrS. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 667-676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.4.667
60.
MiyakeA. (2001). Individual differences in working memory: Introduction to the special section. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 163-168. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.163
61.
OliveT. (2004). Working memory in writing: Empirical evidence from the dual-task technique. European Psychologist, 9(1), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.9.1.32
62.
OliveT. (2012). Working memory in writing. In BerningerV. (Ed.), Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology (pp. 485-503). Psychology Press.
63.
OliveT. (2014). Toward a parallel and cascading model of the writing system: A review of research on writing processes coordination. Journal of Writing Research, 6(2), 141-171. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2014.06.02.4
64.
OliveT.KelloggR. T.PiolatA. (2001). The triple task technique for studying the process of writing. In OliveT.LevyC. M. (Eds.), Contemporary tools and techniques for studying writing (pp. 31-58). Kluwer Academic.
65.
PawlakM. (2014). Error correction in the foreign language classroom: Reconsidering the issues. Springer.
66.
PilottiM.ChodrowM.ThorntonK. C. (2004). Error detection in text: Do feedback and familiarity help?Journal of General Psychology, 131(3), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.131.3.242-267
67.
PilottiM.MaxwellK.ChodorowM. (2006). Does the effect of familiarity on proofreading change with encoding task and time?Journal of General Psychology, 133(3), 287-299. https://doi.org/10.3200/GENP.133.3.287-299
68.
PiolatA.MedardS. (1998, July2-4). Effects of the reading span and of the spelling level of writers on the revision of spelling problems [Poster presentation]. 1998 European Conference on Writing and Learning to Write at the Dawn of the 21st Century, Poitiers, France.
69.
PiolatA.RousseyJ.-Y.OliveT.AmadaM. (2004). Processing time and cognitive effort in revision: Effects of error type and of working memory capacity. In AllalL.ChanquoyL.LargyP. (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 21-38). Kluwer Academic.
70.
QiD. S.LapkinS. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277-303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7
71.
RobbT.RossS.ShortreedI. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
RosenV. M.EngleR. W. (1998). Working memory capacity and suppression. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3), 418-436. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2590
74.
RousseyJ. Y.PiolatA. (2008). Critical reading effort during text revision. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 765-792. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701696135
75.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
ShaftoM. A. (2015). Proofreading in young and older adults: The effect of error category and comprehension difficulty. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(11), 14445-14460. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph121114445
78.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
79.
ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
80.
SpadaN.LightbownP. M. (2010). Second language acquisition. In SchmittN. (Ed.), An introduction to applied linguistics (pp. 108-123). Hodder Education.
81.
StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212
82.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
TruscottJ. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
UnsworthN.EngleR. W. (2007). The nature of individual differences in working memory capacity: Active maintenance in primary memory and controlled search from secondary memory. Psychological Review, 114(1), 104-132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.1.104
88.
UnsworthN.HeitzR. P.SchrockJ. C.EngleR. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 498-505. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720
89.
Van BeuningenC.de JongN. H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu
90.
Van BeuningenC.de JongN. H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
93.
WatersG. S.CaplanD. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49(1), 51-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/027249896392801
94.
WhiteL. (1991). Adverb placement in second language acquisition: Some positive and negative evidence in the classroom. Second Language Research, 12(3), 223-265. https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100700205
