This study examined the combined effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) and think-aloud protocols (TAPs) as two types of pedagogical intervention for improving the revision quality of second language (L2) writing. With a quasi-experimental design, it explored whether TAPs trigger deeper processing of WCF under two WCF-type conditions: direct or indirect WCF. Participants were 80 high-intermediate learners of English as a second language (ESL) at a US university who were divided into (1) direct WCF+TAPs; (2) direct WCF-only; (3) indirect WCF+TAPs; and (4) indirect WCF-only. The impacts of the interventions were gauged by changes in seven subsystems of complexity–accuracy–lexis (CAL) between the first and final drafts of narrative essays. Results showed differential impacts of the four conditions depending on the linguistic dimensions, including some negative impacts of TAPs. Participants’ comments during TAP sessions were used to triangulate the interventions’ effects. We conclude that WCF and TAPs promoted different types of processing; while WCF contributed to the potential restructuring of learners’ interlanguage systems, TAPs triggered learners’ higher-order thinking and served as a self-reflection tool to make strategic decisions in revising the text.
Abdel LatifM.M.M. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be validly measured?Applied Linguistics, 34, 99–105.
2.
Abdel LatifM.M.M. (2018). Using think-aloud protocols and interviews in investigating writers’ composing processes: Combining concurrent and retrospective data. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42, 111–123.
3.
Abdi TabariM. (2021). Task preparedness and L2 written production: Investigating effects of planning modes on L2 learners’ focus of attention and output. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 100814.
4.
Abdi TabariM. (2022). Investigating the interactions between L2 writing processes and products under different task planning time conditions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 55, 100871.
5.
Abdi TabariM. (2023). Unpacking the effects of different lengths of pre-task planning time: L2 writing outcomes and learners’ perceptions. The Language Learning Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023.2213237
6.
Abdi TabariM.LuX.WangY. (2023). The effects of task complexity on lexical complexity in L2 writing: An exploratory study. System, 114, 103021.
7.
Adrada-RafaelS.Filgueras-GómezM. (2019). Reactivity, the language of think-aloud protocol, and depth of processing in the processing of reformulated feedback. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 199–211). Routledge.
8.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
9.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
10.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
11.
BowlesM.A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at an L2 Task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.
12.
BowlesM.A. (2010). The think-aloud controversy in second-language research. Routledge.
13.
BultéB.HousenA. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 writing complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42–65.
14.
CarasA. (2019). Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 186–198). Routledge.
15.
CerezoL.ManchónR.Nicolás-ConesaF. (2019). What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 171–185). Routledge.
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, 267–296.
17.
CohenA. (2000). Exploring strategies in test taking: Fine-tuning verbal reports from respondents. In EkbataniG.PiersonH. (Eds.), Learner-directed assessment in ESL (pp. 127–150). Erlbaum.
18.
CoyleY.Cánovas-GuiraoJ.Roca de LariosJ. (2018). Identifying the trajectories of young EFL learners across multi-stage writing and feedback processing tasks with model texts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 25–43.
19.
DeRoblesG. (2019). The effects of type of written corrective feedback and level of proficiency on processing and accuracy in heritage language learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
20.
EllisR. (2018). Towards a modular language curriculum for using tasks. Language Teaching Research, 23, 454–475.
21.
EricssonK.SimonH. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.
22.
FazilatfarA.M.FallahN.HamavandiM.RostamianM. (2014). The effect of unfocused written corrective feedback on syntactic and lexical complexity of L2 writing. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 482–488.
23.
FerrisD. (1995). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL Journal, 4, 18–22.
24.
FerrisD. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
25.
FerrisD. (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.
26.
FerrisD.RobertsB. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
27.
GraesserA.C.McNamaraD.S.LouwerseM.M.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.
28.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 6–34.
29.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W.MerrillP.F., et al. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
30.
HosseinyM. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674.
31.
HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (2012). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency: Definitions, measurement, and research. In HousenA.KuikenF.VedderI. (Eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA (pp. 1–19). John Benjamins.
32.
JakobsenA.L. (2003). Effects of think aloud on translation speed, revision, and segmentation. In AlvesF. (Ed.), Triangulating translation: Perspectives in process-oriented research (pp. 69–95). John Benjamins.
33.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
34.
KangS.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
35.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–539.
36.
KhezrlouS. (2020). The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy, and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3, 31–54.
37.
KimH.R.BowlesM. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think-alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 5, 913–938.
KyleK.CrossleyS.BergerC. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 1030–1046.
40.
LalandeJ.F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
41.
LeowR.P. (2012). Explicit and implicit learning in the L2 classroom: What does the research suggest?The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 2, 117–129.
42.
LeowR.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. Routledge.
43.
LeowR.P. (2019). From SLA > ISLA > ILL: A curricular perspective. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 485–493). Routledge.
44.
LeowR.P. (2020). L2 writing-to-learn: Theory, research, and a curricular approach. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing research agendas (pp. 95–117).
45.
LeowR.P.GreyS.MarijuanS.MoormanC. (2014). Concurrent data elicitation procedures, processes, and the early stages of L2 learning: A critical overview. Second Language Research, 30, 111–127.
46.
LeowR.P.ManchónR.M. (2022). Expanding research agendas: Directions for future research agendas on writing, language learning, and ISLA. In ManchónR.M.PolioC. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 299–311). Routledge.
47.
LeowR.P.Morgan-ShortK. (2004). To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(1), 35–57.
48.
LoewenS.SatoM. (2018). State-of-the-arts article: Interaction and instructed second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 51, 285–329.
49.
LuX. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15, 474–496.
50.
MaX. (2020). Writing in a task-based individualized curriculum: Effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
51.
ManchónR.M.LeowR.P. (2020). Investigating the language learning potential of L2 writing: Methodological considerations for future research agendas. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Writing and language learning. Advancing research agendas (pp. 336–355). John Benjamins.
52.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2010). MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 381–392.
53.
McClureE.MirM.CadiernoT. (1993). What do you include in a narrative? A comparison of the written narratives of Mexican and American fourth and ninth graders. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 4, 209–224.
54.
MichelM. (2017). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. In LoewenS.SatoM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 50–68). Routledge.
55.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555–578.
56.
ParkE.KimO.Y. (2019). Learners’ use of indirect written corrective feedback: Depth of processing and self-correction. In LeowR.P. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning (pp. 212–226). Routledge.
57.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
58.
RévészA.KourtaliN.-E.MazgutovaD. (2017). Effects of task complexity on L2 writing behaviors and linguistic complexity. Language Learning, 67, 208–241.
59.
RobbT.RossS.ShortreedI. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Journal, 20, 83–96.
60.
SachsR.PolioC. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
61.
SatoM. (2022). Metacognitive approaches to collaborative writing: Theoretical and pedagogical proposals. In LiM.ZhangM. (Eds.), L2 collaborative writing in diverse learning contexts (pp. 32–52). John Benjamins.
62.
SatoM.LoewenS. (2019). Methodological strengths, challenges, and joys of classroom-based quasi-experimental research: Metacognitive instruction and corrective feedback. In DeKeyserR.Prieto BotanaG. (Eds.), Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability (pp. 31–54). John Benjamins.
63.
SheppardK. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference?RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
64.
SkehanP.FosterP. (1999). The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning, 49, 93–120.
65.
StorchN. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29–46.
66.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
67.
SuhB.R. (2010). Written feedback in second language acquisition: Exploring the roles of type of feedback, linguistic targets, awareness, and concurrent verbalization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
68.
SuhB.R. (2023). Are think-alouds reactive? Evidence from an L2 written corrective feedback study. Language Teaching Research, 27, 1099–1119.
69.
SuzukiW.NassajiH.SatoK. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.
70.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
71.
TruscottJ. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
72.
TruscottJ.HsuA.Y.P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
73.
van BeuningenC.G.de JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
74.
van BeuningenC.G.de JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
75.
WigglesworthG.StorchN. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback?Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 364–374.
76.
Wolfe-QuinteroK.InagakiS.KimH.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. University of Hawaii Press.
77.
YangC.HuG.ZhangL.J. (2014). Reactivity of concurrent version reporting in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 24, 51–70.
78.
YangC.ZhangL.J.ParrJ.M. (2020). The reactivity of think-alouds in writing research: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from writing in English as a foreign language. Reading and Writing, 33, 451–483.
79.
YanguasI.LadoB. (2012). Is thinking aloud reactive when writing in the heritage language?Foreign Language Annals, 45, 380–399.
80.
ZamoraC. (2017). The secret is in the processing: A study of levels of explicit computerized feedback in heritage and L2 learners of Spanish. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
