The current study investigated the relative effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on the learning of regular past tense, and the extent to which learning outcomes were related to individual variation in field dependence/independence (FDI). Fifty-nine Chinese intermediate second language (L2) learners of English were randomly assigned to two treatment groups and a control group. The two treatment groups carried out three written dictogloss tasks and received direct WCF and indirect WCF, respectively, on their erroneous use of regular past tense. The control group performed the same writing tasks but received feedback on the content of their writing. To evaluate the effect of treatment, a grammaticality judgement task and a picture description task were administered as the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. The Group Embedded Figures Test was used to measure learners’ FDI orientation. The results showed that both treatment groups outperformed the control group on the posttests, but no significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups. In addition, the results suggested that FDI was related to learning outcomes as measured by the picture description task. Field independent learners had an overall advantage over field dependent learners, especially where indirect WCF was provided.
AbrahamR.G. (1985). Field independence–dependence and the teaching of grammar. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 689–702.
2.
AllanD. (2004). Oxford Placement Test 1. Oxford University Press.
3.
BagheriM.RassaeiE. (2022). The effects of two forms of written corrective feedback and ambiguity tolerance on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. English Teaching and Learning, 46, 19–38.
4.
BensonS.DeKeyserR. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23, 702–726.
5.
BitchenerJ. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 207–225). Cambridge University Press.
6.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
7.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
8.
BitchenerJ.StorchN. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
9.
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.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
11.
DörnyeiZ.RyanS. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge.
12.
EllisR. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
13.
EllisR. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
14.
EllisR.BarkhuizenG.P. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
15.
EllisR.LoewenS.ErlamR. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339–368.
16.
ErlamR. (2005). Language aptitude and its relationship to instructional effectiveness in second language acquisition. Language Teaching Research, 9, 147–171.
17.
EvansC.RichardsonJ.T.E.WaringM. (2013). Field independence: Reviewing the evidence. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 210–224.
18.
FrearD. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
19.
GassS.M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20.
GassS.M.MackeyA. (2020). Input, interaction, and output in L2 acquisition. In VanPattenB.KeatingG.D.WulffS. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (3rd ed., pp. 180–206). Routledge.
21.
GriffithsC.SoruçA. (2020). Individual differences in language learning: A complex systems theory perspective. Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
GuoX.YangY. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 841–858.
23.
HawkinsR.LiszkaS. (2003). Locating the source of defective past tense marking in advanced L2 English speakers. In van HoutR.HulkA.KuikenF.TowellR. (Eds.), Lexicon–syntax interface in second language acquisition (pp. 21–44). John Benjamins.
24.
HoffmanS.Q. (1997). Field dependence/independence in second language acquisition and implications for educators and instructional designers. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 222–234.
25.
IshikawaM.SuzukiW. (2023). Effects of written languaging on second language learning: Mediating roles of aptitude. The Modern Language Journal, 107, 95–112.
26.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
27.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–539.
28.
KarimiS.H. (2016). Effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3, 216–229.
29.
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.
30.
Larsen-FreemanD. (2010). Not so fast: A discussion of L2 morpheme processing and acquisition. Language Learning, 60, 221–230.
31.
LeowR.P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom. Routledge.
32.
LeowR.P.ThinglumA.LeowS.A. (2023). WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12, 651–673.
33.
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.
34.
LiS.VuonoA. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109.
35.
LimS.C.RenandyaW.A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective feedback in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. TESL-EJ, 24, 1–26.
36.
LópezM.B.van SteendamE.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850.
37.
MahvelatiE.H. (2020). Field-dependent/field-independent learners’ information processing behavior in an implicit learning task: Evidence from Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49, 955–973.
38.
OltmanP.K.RaskinE.WitkinH.A. (1971). Group embedded figures test. Consulting Psychologists Press.
39.
PithersR.T. (2002). Cognitive learning style: a review of the field dependent-field independent approach. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54, 117–132.
40.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
41.
RahimiM. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 19–48.
42.
RassaeiE. (2015). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19, 499–518.
43.
RassaeiE.RavandH. (2023). Immediate versus delayed prompts, field dependence and independence cognitive style and L2 development. International Review of Applied Linguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2022-0137
44.
RévészA. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62, 93–132.
45.
SarachoO.N. (2018). Cognitive style and the evaluation of young children’s educational programs. In SarachoO.N. (Ed.), Cognitive style and early education (pp. 43–58). Routledge.
46.
ShaoJ.LiuY. (2022). Written corrective feedback, learner-internal cognitive processes, and the acquisition of regular past tense by Chinese L2 learners of English. Applied Linguistics Review, 13, 1005–1028.
47.
ShaoJ.WuY.ZengS.HuangR. (2023). The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning. The Language Learning Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2023.2166976
48.
SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
49.
SheenY. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
50.
SinhaT.S.NassajiH. (2022). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 41–56.
51.
StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
52.
SuzukiW.NassajiH.SatoK. (2018). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145.
53.
SuzukiY.DeKeyserR. (2017). Exploratory research on second language practice distribution: An aptitude × treatment interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38, 27–56.
54.
van BeuningenC.G.de JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ILT – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
55.
WitkinH.A.DykR.FatersonH.GoodenoughD.R.KarpS.A. (1962). Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. Wiley.
56.
WitkinH.A.GoodenoughD.R. (1981). Cognitive styles: Essence and origins. International Universities Press.
57.
ZhangL.SternbergR.J. (2005). A threefold model of intellectual styles. Educational Psychology Review, 17, 1–53.
