Although numerous studies have attested to the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) in promoting second language (L2) accuracy, the extent to which WCF contributes to acquisition is still debatable. This study thus aimed to investigate the effects of WCF on the development of Thai EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English plurals, and the extent to which learner differences in working memory capacity (WMC) moderated the efficacy of WCF. This experimental study adopted a pre–post–delayed-posttest design and was carried out over the course of a 9-month period. Seventy-five low intermediate learners were randomly assigned to the direct focused, direct unfocused and the control group. All groups completed a metalinguistic knowledge, untimed grammatical judgement, timed writing, timed oral elicited imitation, and two working memory tests. Questionnaires and interviews were also administered to explore potential variables that may moderate the effect of WCF. During treatment, participants wrote a timed essay and received feedback. After the 6-week treatment period, the immediate posttest was completed and the delayed posttest was administered three months after the posttest. The results revealed that WCF was effective in assisting learners’ plural acquisition, suggesting that WCF is beneficial especially to the development of linguistic features influenced by learners’ first language (L1). However, WMC was not found to moderate the efficacy of WCF. The explicitness of WCF, instructional context and proficiency level may have contributed to the absence of working memory effect.
AmnuaiW. (2020). An error analysis of research project abstracts written by Thai undergraduate students. Advances in Language and Literacy Studies, 11, 13–20.
2.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36, 189–208.
3.
BaddeleyA.HitchG. (1974). Working memory. In BowerG. (Ed.), Recent advances in learning and motivation (pp. 47–90). Academic Press.
4.
BensonS.DeKeyserR. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23, 702–726.
5.
BitchenerJ. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). Taylor & Francis.
6.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
7.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
8.
Bonilla LópezM.Van SteendamE.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2018). The differential effects of comparative feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850.
9.
BowlesM. (2011). Measuring implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 247–271.
10.
ChenS.NassajiH.LiuQ. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1, 1–17.
11.
Cintrón-ValentínM.EllisN. (2015). Exploring the interface: Explicit focus-on-form instruction and learned attentional biases in L2 Latin. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 197–235.
12.
CronbachL. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
13.
CronbachL.SnowR. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington.
14.
CulbertsonG.AndersenE.ChristiansenM. (2020). Using utterance recall to assess second language proficiency. Language Learning, 70, 104–132.
15.
DeKeyserR. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17, 379–410.
16.
DeKeyserR. (2012). Interactions between individual differences, treatments, and structures in SLA. Language Learning, 62, 188–199.
17.
DeKeyserR. (2021). Aptitude-treatment interaction in second language learning. John Benjamins.
18.
EllisN. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.
19.
EllisN. (2016). Salience, cognition, language complexity, and complex adaptive systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 341–351.
20.
EllisN.SagarraN. (2011). Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 589–624.
21.
EllisR. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, 1–46.
22.
EllisR. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge?: A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.
23.
EllisR. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
24.
EllisR.LoewenS.ElderC., et al. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters.
25.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
26.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
27.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
28.
ErlamR. (2006). Elicited imitation as a measure of L2 implicit knowledge: An empirical validation study. Applied Linguistics, 27, 464–491.
29.
FarrokhiF.SattarpourS. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2 (2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49
30.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
31.
FerrisD.LiuH.SinhaA.SennaM. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.
32.
FrearD.ChiuY. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
33.
GassS.MackeyA. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 180–206). Routledge.
34.
GodfroidA.LoewenS.JungS., et al. (2015). Timed and untimed grammaticality judgements measure distinct types of knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 269–297.
35.
GranenaG.YilmazY. (2018). Aptitude-treatment interaction in L2 learning: A research synthesis. Studies in English Education, 4, 803–830.
36.
GreyS.SerafiniE.CoxJ.SanzC. (2015). The role of individual differences in the study abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive language exposure. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 137–157.
37.
HousenA.PierrardM. (2006). Investigating instructed second language acquisition. In HousenA.PierrardM. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 1–27). Mouton de Gruyter.
38.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
39.
KelloggR. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In LevyC.RansdellS. (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 57–71). Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
KelloggR.WhitefordA.TurnerC.CahillM.MertensA. (2013). Working memory in written composition: An evaluation of the 1996 model. Journal of Writing Research, 5, 159–190.
41.
KimJ.NamH. (2017). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 431–457.
42.
KimY.ChoiB.KangS.KimB.YunH. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53, 176–199.
43.
KormosJ.SáfárA. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.
44.
KurzerK. (2018). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52, 5–33.
45.
LeeI. (2019). Teachers’ frequently asked questions about focused written corrective feedback. TESOL Journal, 10, 1–15.
46.
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.
47.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
48.
LightbownP. (2007). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In HanZ. (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–44) Multilingual Matters.
49.
LinckJ.OsthusP.KoethJ.BuntingM. (2014). Working memory and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21, 861–883.
50.
LiuQ.BrownD. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
51.
LongM. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press.
52.
LongM. (2014). Psycholinguistic underpinnings: A cognitive-interactionist theory of instructed second language acquisition (ISLA). In LongM. (Ed.), Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching (pp. 30–62). Wiley.
53.
LukZ.ShiraiY. (2009). Is the acquisition order of grammatical morphemes impervious to L1 knowledge? Evidence from the acquisition of plural -s, articles, and possessive’s. Language Learning, 59, 721–754.
54.
MackeyA.SachsR. (2012). Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development. Language Learning, 62, 704–740.
55.
ManchónR. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In ManchónR. (Ed.), Learning to write and writing to learn in an additional language (pp. 61–82). John Benjamins.
56.
MaoZ.LeeI. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 1–14.
57.
McDonoughK.TrofimovichP. (2016). The role of statistical learning and working memory in L2 speakers’ pattern learning. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 428–445.
58.
MichelM.KormosJ.BrunfautT.RatajczakM. (2019). The role of working memory in young second language learners’ written performances. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 31–45.
59.
MurakamiA.AlexopoulouT. (2016). L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: A learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 365–401.
60.
NematiM.AlaviS.MohebbiH. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9, 1–18.
61.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
62.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2001). Does type of instruction make a difference? Substantive findings from a meta-analytic review. Language Learning, 51, 157–213.
63.
PhoocharoensilS.MooreB.GampperC.GeersonE.ChaturongakulP.SutharojS.CarlonW. (2016). Grammatical and lexical errors in low-proficiency Thai graduate students’ writing. Language Education and Acquisition Research Network Journal, 9, 11–24.
64.
PicaT. (1991). Foreign language classrooms: Making them research-ready and researchable. In FreedB. (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 393–412). D.C. Heath.
65.
PolioC. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389.
66.
ReberA. (1967). Implicit learning of artificial grammars. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 317–327.
67.
RebuschatP. (2015). Introduction: Implicit and explicit learning of languages. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 13–22). John Benjamins.
68.
RebuschatP.WilliamsJ. (2012). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33, 829–856.
69.
RévészA. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
70.
RévészA.MichelM.LeeM. (2017). Investigating IELTS academic writing task 2: Relationships between cognitive writing processes, text quality, and working memory. IELTS Research Report. The British Council.
71.
RezazadehM.TavakoliM.Eslami RasekhA. (2015). The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistics explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 16, 113–146.
72.
RogersJ.RévészA.RebuschatP. (2016). Implicit and explicit knowledge of inflectional morphology. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37, 781–812.
73.
RuizS.RebuschatP.MeurersD. (2019). The effects of working memory and declarative memory on instructed second language vocabulary learning: Insights from intelligent CALL. Language Teaching Research, 3, 1–30.
74.
RuizS.TagarelliK.RebuschatP. (2018). Simultaneous acquisition of words and syntax: Effects of exposure condition and declarative memory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1168.
75.
SaebF. (2014). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback on the grammaticality accuracy of beginner EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(2), 22–26.
76.
SagarraN. (2017). Longitudinal effects of working memory on L2 grammar and reading abilities. Second Language Research, 33, 341–363.
77.
SagarraN.AbbuhlR. (2013). Optimizing the noticing of recasts via computer-delivered feedback: Evidence that oral input enhancement and working memory help second language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 97, 196–216.
78.
SanzC.LinH.LadoB.StaffordC.BowdenH. (2016). One size fits all? Learning conditions and working memory in ab initio language development. Applied Linguistics, 37, 669–692.
79.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
80.
SchmidtR. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In SchmidtR. (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
81.
SchmidtR. (2001). Attention. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge University Press.
82.
SerafiniE.SanzC. (2016). Evidence for the decreasing impact of cognitive ability on second language development as proficiency increases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38, 607–646.
83.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
84.
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, 286–306.
85.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64, 103–131.
86.
ShooshtariZ.VahdatS.NegahiM. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on the implicit and explicit grammatical knowledge and writing accuracy of EFL learners. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 3(5), 32–48.
87.
SkehanP. (2002). Theorizing and updating aptitude. In RobinsonP. (Ed.), Individual differences and instructed language learning (pp. 69–94). John Benjamins.
88.
SkehanP. (2016). Foreign language aptitude, acquisitional sequences, and psycholinguistic processes. In GranenaG.JacksonD.YilmazY. (Eds.), Cognitive individual differences in L2 processing and acquisition (pp. 17–40). John Benjamins.
89.
SpadaN. (2011). Beyond form-focused instruction: Reflections on past, present, and future research. Language Teaching, 44, 225–236.
90.
SpadaN.ShiuJ.TomitaY. (2015). Validating an elicited imitation task as a measure of implicit knowledge: Comparisons with other validation studies. Language Learning, 65, 723–751.
91.
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, 263–282.
92.
StorchN. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51, 262–277.
93.
StorchN.WigglesworthG. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
94.
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.
95.
SwainM. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In HinkelE. (Ed.), Handbook on research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.
96.
TagarelliK.MotaM.RebuschatP. (2015). Working memory, learning conditions, and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In WenZ.BorgesM.Mota McNeillA. (Eds.), Working memory in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary (pp. 224–247). Multilingual Matters.
97.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
98.
UllmanM. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In HickokG.SmallS. (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier Science and Technology.
99.
Van BeuningenC.De JongN.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL – Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
100.
Van BeuningenC.De JongN.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
101.
WagnerJ.WulfD. (2016). Understanding written corrective feedback in second language grammar acquisition. Journal of Education and Learning, 5, 259–277.
102.
WalkerN.MonaghanP.SchoetensackC.RebuschatP. (2020). Distinctions in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 70, 221–254.
103.
WatcharapunyawongS.UsahaS. (2013). Thai EFL students’ writing errors in different text types: The interference of first language. English Language Teaching, 6, 67–78.
104.
WilliamsJ.N. (2009). Implicit learning in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT. (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 319–353). Emerald Press.
105.
WulffS.EllisN. (2018). Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In MillerD.BayramF.RothmanJ.SerratriceL. (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language: The state of the science across its subfields (pp. 37–56). John Benjamins.
106.
YanX.MaedaY.LvJ.GintherA. (2016). Elicited imitation as a measure of second language proficiency: A narrative review and meta-analysis. Language Testing, 33, 497–528.
107.
ZhangR. (2015). Measuring university-level L2 learners’ implicit and explicit linguistic knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37, 457–486.
108.
ZhangT. (2021). The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge development. System, 99, 1–16.
