Abstracts
Abstract
An increasing number of studies have explored the effects of collaborative writing on written outcomes; however, few studies have examined the influence of collaborative processing of feedback. This study addresses this gap by focusing on learner engagement. While collaborative writing involves co-authoring a text, which requires negotiation and idea sharing, collaborative processing of feedback focuses on jointly interpreting and responding to feedback. Utilizing a mixed-methods design, this study examined 24 learners of French as a Foreign Language (FFL) over an 8-week period. It compared their engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) when processed individually versus in pairs. The findings provide insights into how different feedback processing modes influence learner engagement and highlight the potential benefits of collaborative feedback processing. The instructor provided indirect WCF, and learners revised their essays with think-aloud sessions. The study examined cognitive and behavioral engagement through writing analysis and used think-aloud reports examining affective engagement. Results indicated that learners’ cognitive engagement varied between individual and collaborative processing, with individuals employing fewer high-depth and low-depth processing strategies. However, affective engagement was found to be independent of task completion mode, and behavioral engagement did not differ between individual and collaborative processing of WCF.
Keywords:
- Written corrective feedback,
- engagement,
- individual written corrective feedback processing,
- collaborative written corrective feedback processing
Résumé
Un nombre croissant d’études a examiné les effets de l’écriture collaborative sur la production de textes; cependant, peu de recherches ont analysé l’influence du traitement collaboratif de la rétroaction. Cette étude comble cette lacune en se concentrant sur l’engagement des apprenants. Alors que l’écriture collaborative implique la corédaction d’un texte, nécessitant négociation et partage d’idées, le traitement collaboratif de la rétroaction corrective se focalise sur l’interprétation et la réponse conjointes à cette rétroaction. En adoptant une démarche mixte, cette étude a analysé le comportement de 24 apprenants du français langue étrangère (FLE) sur une période de huit semaines. L’étude a comparé l’engagement des apprenants face à la rétroaction corrective écrite (RCE), lorsqu’elle était traitée individuellement versus en binômes. Les résultats apportent des éclairages sur la manière dont les différentes modalités de traitement de la rétroaction influencent l’engagement des apprenants et mettent en évidence les bénéfices potentiels du traitement collaboratif de la RCE. L’enseignant a fourni une rétroaction indirecte, et les apprenants ont révisé leurs essais lors de séances de réflexion à voix haute. L’étude a examiné l’engagement cognitif et comportemental des apprenants à travers l’analyse de leurs productions écrites, ainsi que leur engagement affectif à partir des rapports de réflexion à voix haute. Les résultats indiquent que l’engagement cognitif varie selon le mode de traitement, avec une utilisation moindre de stratégies de traitement à profondeur élevée ou faible en contexte individuel. Cependant, l’engagement affectif s’est révélé indépendant du mode d’achèvement de la tâche, et l’engagement comportemental n’a pas différé entre le traitement individuel et collaboratif de la rétroaction.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
- Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (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), 1-17.
- Chen, W., Liu, D., & Lin, C. (2023). Collaborative peer feedback in L2 writing: Affective, behavioral, cognitive, and social engagement. Frontiers in Psychology, 14.
- Dobao, A. F. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40-58.
- Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
- Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.
- Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
- Kim, H. R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written corrective feedback? Insights gained from think‐alouds. TESOL Quarterly, 53(4), 913-938.
- Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255.
- Kim, Y., & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12(2), 211-234.
- Kormos, J. (2014). Differences across modalities of performance. In H. Byrnes, & R. Manchón (Eds.), Task-based language learning: Insights from and for L2 writing (pp. 193-216). John Benjamins.
- Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. A. (2022). 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(4), 651-673.
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The amount and usefulness of written corrective feedback across different educational contexts and levels. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1333
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., Nassaji, H., & Chao Chao, K. W. (2021a). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in a French as a foreign language classroom. Journal of Response to Writing, 7(2), 37-73.
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., Nassaji, H. et Chao, K. W. (2021b). L’impact de la rétroaction par les pairs entraînés au moyen d’un blogue pour améliorer l’écriture en français langue seconde (FLS). Formation et profession, 29(1), 1-18
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., Nassaji, H. et Chao Chao, K. W. (2024). Les facteurs influençant la profondeur de traitement de la rétroaction corrective écrite des apprenants de français langue étrangère. La Revue de l'AQEFLS, 37(1). https://doi.org/10.7202/1111723ar
- Lira-Gonzales, M.-L., & Valeo, A. (2023). Written corrective feedback and learner engagement: A case study of a French as a second language program. Journal of Response to Writing, 9(1), 5-46.
- Manchón, R. M., Nicolás-Conesa, F., Cerezo, L., & Criado, R. (2020). L2 writers’ processing of written corrective feedback. In W. Suzuki, & N. Storch (Eds.), Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 241-263). John Benjamins.
- Storch, N. (2021). Theoretical perspectives on L2 writing and language learning in collaborative writing and the collaborative processing of written corrective feedback. In R. Manchón, & C. Polio (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and writing (pp. 22-34). Routledge.
- Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166-185). Oxford University Press.
- Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 285-304.
- Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity, accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532209104670
- Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364-374.
- Zhang, Z. V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90-102.
- Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24.
10.7202/1111723ar