The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten

Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition
Author(s): FLORENTINA NICOLÁS-CONESA, ROSA MARÍA MANCHÓN and LOURDES
CEREZO
Source: The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 103, No. 4 (Winter 2019), pp. 848-873
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/45286641
Accessed: 11-09-2023 03:51 +00:00

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations, Wiley are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Modern Language Journal

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Effect of Unfocused Direct and
Indirect Written Corrective Feedback
on Rewritten Texts and New Texts:
Looking into Feedback for Accuracy
and Feedback for Acquisition
FLORENTINA NICOLÁS-CONESA, 1 ROSA MARÍA MANCHÓN,2 and LOURDES CEREZO3
1 University of Murcia, Faculty of Education, Campus deEspinardo, 30100 Murcia, Spain Email : florinc@um.es
2 University of Murcia, Faculty of Arts, Campus de la Merced, 30071 Murcia, Spain Email: manchon@um.es
3 University of Murcia, Faculty of Arts, Campus de la Merced, 30071 Murcia, Spain Email: lourdesc@um.es

This study attempts to add new empirical evidence on the language learning ( opera tionalized and mea-
sured in terms of several dimensions of accuracy) that may derive from accessing and processing written
corrective feedback (WCF) on one's own writing. The research questions examined potential interac-
tions between type of WCF (direct vs. indirect), type of errors (grammar vs. nongrammar), and the per-
spective of feedback (accuracy vs. acquisition) in a single research design. To this end, 46 English majors
at a Spanish university participated in a pretest-posttest design, with 2 intervention groups (those re-
ceiving direct or indirect WCF and asked to process it via written languaging) and a control group (who
wrote and rewrote their texts without the help of WCF but also engaged in languaging) . The analyses
conducted show (a) limited appropriation of the WCF received, (b) positive short-term and longer term
benefits resulting from the combined effect of WCF and written languaging, and (c) differential effects
of type of WCF on error types. These findings are discussed from the perspective of current theory and
research on the manner in which WCF may contribute to language learning in terms of the dual distinc-
tion between feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition.

Keywords: feedback for accuracy; feedback for acquisition; unfocused feedback; written languaging; error
types

THIS ARTICLE SEEKS TO CONTRIBUTE TO
the growing theoretical and empirical work on
the manner in which writing and written correc-
tive feedback (WCF) processing may contribute
to improving writing skills and to language learn-
ing (see Bitchener & Storch, 2016; Manchón 8c
Cerezo, 2018, for overviews). This potential con-
tribution is closely linked to two features of the
The Modern Language Journal, 103, 4, (2019)
DOI: 10.1 1 1 l/modl.12592
0026-7902/19/848-873 $1.50/0
© National Federation of Modern Language Teachers
Associations
[Correction added on 14th November 2019 after
first online publication: In Tables 5-7 (pp. 858-859),
the column header was corrected with "Unsuccessful
Corrections"]
study: its ecological validity and its focus on the
efficacy of unfocused WCF on overall measures of
accuracy as well as on distinct error types. Thus,
given several calls for greater ecological validity in
the research domain (Rang 8c Han, 2015; Storch,
2010), our study was conducted in a real class-
room. Additionally, the study intended to shed
light not only on short-term uptake of WCF, but
also on its potential retention (i.e., learning) over
time. Following Storch 8c Wigglesworth (2010),
uptake in this study refers to appropriation of the
WCF received in terms of changes (errors success-
fully corrected) in rewritten texts, whereas reten-
tion refers to the "long-term impact of feedback"
(p. 310), manifested in our case in a reduction in
error-making over time (in terms of both global
percentage of errors and error categories) .

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fiorentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 849
The design, therefore, included the analysis of
texts rewritten after receiving WCF (the most fre-
quent approach in WCF studies to date), and the
creation of two new pieces of writing 1 week and
3 weeks after having received and processed WCF.
Following Bitchener and Ferris's (2012) recom-
mendations, we investigated the effects of WCF on
overall measures of accuracy as well as on specific
error types.
The study was theoretically and pedagogically
motivated. From the theoretical angle, it intended
to test the effects of WCF in terms of the dual
distinction between feedback for accuracy and
feedback for acquisition (Manchón, 201 la) . From
a pedagogical angle, and as a secondary aim,
its findings might be useful in designing peda-
gogical interventions in instructional settings in
which second language (L2) users simultaneously
develop their L2 writing abilities (they learn to
write) and engage in writing practice as a means
to improve their L2 competencies (they learn the
L2 through writing; Manchón, 2011a, 2011b). Of
particular pedagogical significance was the ques-
tion of which errors benefit from which type of
WCF in the short term as well as the longer term,
a key pedagogical concern we shall come back to
at different points in the article.
In what follows, we review several research
strands that are relevant to our own study in terms
of the aims pursued and methods employed.
REVIEW OF RELEVANT RESEARCH
Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition
The aims of the study are linked to the er-
ror correction debate, associated primarily with
Truscott (1999, 2007) and Ferris (1999, 2004).
While there is general agreement that WCF re-
sults in greater grammatical accuracy in imme-
diate revisions (with diverse sets of variables
mediating potential effects), the empirical evi-
dence is differentially assessed for longer term
language-learning effects. The debate has re-
cently been reinterpreted as a dichotomy between
feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisi-
tion (Manchón, 2011a). Feedback for accuracy
entails the provision of WCF to encourage accu-
racy in learners' use of the L2 shortly after feed-
back processing, whereas feedback for acquisition
aims at fostering long-term language learning by
involving students in feedback processing, detec-
tion of errors, self-reflection on errors (hence en-
couraging noticing with understanding) , and new
output. The distinction is closely linked to the
dichotomy between uptake and retention intro-
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
duced earlier, and it should also be linked to Nor-
ris and Ortega's (2003) caution regarding "the
extent to which accuracy in production of L2
forms should be taken as reflection of IL [inter-
language] development" (p. 737). We are fully
aware of their claim regarding the nonlinear re-
lationship between accuracy of production and
L2 development and simply adopt the distinc-
tion between feedback for accuracy and feedback
for acquisition as a heuristic to look into short-
term and longer term potential learning effects of
WCF, which, nevertheless, is also related to Norris
and Ortega's distinction between emergence and
accuracy.
In terms of feedback for accuracy, some stud-
ies have shown the beneficial effects of feedback
to improve the accuracy of revised texts (e.g.,
Ferris 8c Roberts, 2001; Truscott & Hsu, 2008;
Van Beuningen, de Jong, 8c Kuiken, 2008). Rang
and Han's (2015) recent meta-analysis offers a
clear picture of extant empirical work in the do-
main: WCF (direct and indirect, focused and un-
focused) can lead to improved accuracy, although
the observed effects are low to moderate. How-
ever, as rightly noted by Truscott (2007), writers'
incorporations of teacher corrections when revis-
ing a text (equivalent to uptake, as defined be-
fore) cannot be equated with the autonomous
production of correct L2 forms in new texts
(or retention, as defined before), which would
be indicative of the effectiveness of WCF for
acquisition.
From theoretical, empirical, and applied per-
spectives, the key issue of debate is whether im-
proved accuracy in revised texts can be taken
as evidence of short-term learning, which could
eventually lead to consolidation of targeted L2
forms. Truscott and Hsu (2008) concluded that
successful error reduction of revised texts in their
English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) setting was
not a predictor of L2 development (i.e., decrease
of errors in new texts), while Van Beuningen, de
Jong, and Kuiken (2012) found that unfocused
feedback led to increased accuracy in an L2 con-
text not only during revision but also in new
pieces of writing.
Another issue that has been the focus of
scrutiny in WCF research is whether diverse forms
of feedback are more propitious for uptake or
retention. The main distinction investigated (see
Liu & Brown, 2015) is between direct and in-
direct WCF, that is, between providing learners
with the correct form or leaving them to pro-
vide the correct form themselves, with or without
metalinguistic (ML) support from the teacher or
researcher.
850 The Modern Language Journal 103 (2019)
The effectiveness of different feedback types
in the short or long term has been researched
in both unfocused and comprehensive stud-
ies (those targeting more than a few selected
error types in research settings) and focused
research (those targeting one or two specific
errors) . Regarding unfocused WCF, recent stud-
ies have shown that direct WCF is more effec-
tive than other, less explicit1 WCF types. Vyatk-
ina (2010), for example, examined the effects of
three kinds of WCF with varying degrees of ex-
plicitness (direct, indirect with coding, and in-
direct without coding) in beginning learners of
German. The participants received feedback in
consecutive treatments (five 2-draft compositions
of 70 words). Results showed a slight advantage
for direct feedback in immediate revisions but no
advantage for any of the three WCF types in the
long term (16 weeks). Qualitative data suggested
that "more implicit feedback types (coded and un-
coded) may be confusing for learners and prompt
them to make wrong guesses" (Vyatkina, 2010,
p. 17). In Chandler's (2003) study with 20 inter-
mediate English second language (ESL) learners,
direct feedback and underlining were found to
be more effective than error codes. In contrast,
Ferris (2006) found that ESL university students
benefitted from the feedback they received on 15
common error categories over a semester, and in-
direct WCF resulted in an increase in accuracy
and in better long-term results than direct feed-
back. According to Ferris, these results confirmed
the value of guided learning and problem-solving
(Lalande, 1982) provided by less explicit forms
of WCF. The conclusions drawn about indirect
and direct feedback in Ferris's research should
be taken with caution because indirect feedback
was provided incidentally by teachers and did not
form part of the research design at all. On bal-
ance, thus, there are no firm conclusions about
the relative merits of both feedback types on ac-
curacy and language learning.
In the previously mentioned studies, the
participants received feedback in consecutive
treatments rather than in one session, which
disallows comparing these findings with studies
involving only one-shot feedback treatment. To
date, the few unfocused studies involving one-
shot feedback treatment have reported conflict-
ing findings about the effectiveness of different
feedback types. Thus, Truscott and Hsu (2008)
did not find unfocused indirect feedback effec-
tive for shortterm development (1 week) in high
intermediate EFL learners, while Van Beunin-
gen et al. (2008, 2012) showed in an L2 setting
the effectiveness of unfocused direct and indirect
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
feedback in the short term (1 week) and in the
long run (4 weeks) . However, since none of these
studies yielded significant differences between
the effectiveness of unfocused direct and indi-
rect feedback, no firm conclusions can be drawn
about the potential of unfocused WCF for L2
development.
As for focused WCF, some one-shot feedback
studies conducted with ESL learners (Bitchener,
2008; Bitchener 8c Knoch, 2008, 2010a; Sheen,
2007) and EFL students (Stefanou, 2014) exam-
ined the effects of various combinations of ex-
plicit feedback types (direct error correction and
oral or written ML comments or explanations) .
Mixed findings were reported in L2 contexts,
and no differences between feedback groups were
found in the study conducted in an EFL set-
ting. Another group of one-shot feedback stud-
ies compared the effectiveness of ML feedback
to direct or indirect WCF in ESL (Bitchener &
Knoch, 2010b; Shintani 8c Ellis, 2013) and EFL
settings (Guo, 2015; Rummel, 2014; Shintani,
Ellis, 8c Suzuki, 2014). Again, mixed findings were
reported in L2 contexts, whereas in FL settings,
explicit WCF (direct and written ML feedback)
groups outperformed those receiving less explicit
feedback types (underlining and error codes;
Guo, 2015) and direct feedback groups outper-
formed other treatment groups (e.g., ML: Shin-
tani et al., 2014; indirect feedback and written ML:
Rummel, 2014). Conflicting findings have been
reported even by the same group of researchers
in different settings: Whereas Shintani and Ellis
(2013; ESL) found an advantage for ML feedback
compared to direct feedback, the results in Shin-
tani et al. (2014; EFL) showed an advantage for
direct WCF over ML feedback.
In sum, studies on different types of focused
WCF have reported mixed findings. The conflict-
ing results obtained in WCF studies justify the rele-
vance of examining potential variables mediating
its effectiveness, as discussed next.
Variables Mediating Potential Effects of Written
Corrective Feedback
The available research shows that potential
short- or longer term effects of WCF are mediated
by a host of feedback-, task-, and learner-related
factors. These are the three main sets of inde-
pendent variables targeted in empirical studies to
date, but they have not always been explored si-
multaneously and in their interrelationships, an
important issue to be borne in mind, as explained
later. Although some of these sets of variables were
not targeted in our own study, in what follows we
Florentina Nicolás-Cortesa et al. 851
offer a brief review of the relevant research to bet- is that more treatable errors are more amenable
ter situate our own investigation. to error correction than less treatable errors
(Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, Young, 8c Cameron,
Feedback-Related, Varìables. These include (a)
2005; Ferris, 2006; Ferris 8c Roberts, 2001; Sheen,
type of WCF, namely direct/indirect or focused/
2007; Shintani 8c Ellis, 2013; Shintani et al., 2014) .
unfocused feedback (as reviewed in Bitchener 8c
Importantly, for our current purposes, Van Be-
Storch, 2016; Rang 8c Han, 2015) with or without
uningen et al. (2012) have more recently studied
ML explanations (cf. Ellis 8c Shintani, 2013; Shin-
the aforementioned interaction between types of
tani et al., 2014), and (b) frequency of the WCF,
error correction and types of error by grouping
that is, whether feedback is provided on one or
errors in their L2 Dutch participants' written out-
several occasions (see Rang 8c Han, 2015, for a re-
put in "three superordinate categories: (a) lexical
view) . Divergent findings are typically attributed
errors: word choice; (b) grammatical errors: word
to a presumed interaction between the feedback
form (e.g., verb tense, singular/ plural), word or-
provided and the target linguistic structure, which
der, incomplete sentences, and addition or omis-
points to the relevance of looking into the inter-
sion of a word; and (c) orthographical errors:
action of potentially relevant variables when ascer-
spelling, punctuation, and capitalization" (p. 12).
taining short- or longer term WCF effects.
However, in discussing the effectiveness of unfo-
Task-Related Varìables. The variables investi- cused WCF in relation to error types, the authors
gated so far include type of texts written or task basically referred to grammatical (i.e., category
conditions, that is, whether task completion and [b]) and nongrammatical (i.e., categories [a] and
WCF processing was undertaken individually or [c] and pragmatic errors). They concluded "that
collaboratively (see Bitchener 8c Storch, 2016). both grammatical and nongrammatical errors are

Learner-Related Variables. The variables that amenable to CF, but they benefit from different
types of corrections: Direct correction is better
have been found to mediate the efficacy of
suited for grammatical errors and indirect correc-
WCF include L2 proficiency (with a general ten-
tion is better suited for nongrammatical errors"
dency for greater positive effects as proficiency in-
(Van Beuningen et al., 2012, pp. 32-33). Their
creases; see review in Rang 8c Han, 2015), gram-
overall conclusion was that distinct error types are
matical sensitivity together with knowledge of
amenable to WCF, although learners benefitted
metalanguage (Stefanou 8c Révész, 2015), and in-
from different types of feedback. This assertion
ductive language learning capacity (Sheen, 2007) .
has nevertheless been questioned by Bitchener
Some researchers (e.g., Ferris, 2002) claim that
and Ferris (2012), who have noted that investi-
direct feedback is more beneficial to low L2
gating broad error groups will not help discover
proficiency students, while indirect feedback is
the specific error types that benefit from receiving
more effective in advanced learners, as low L2
WCF; for that reason, they recommended look-
proficiency learners may lack the ML aware-
ing into the effects of unfocused WCF on specific
ness to interpret indirect feedback (Ferris, 2004;
error types. We followed this recommendation in
Hyland 8c Hyland, 2006).
our own study. We developed a more fine-grained
Given the array of variables mediating potential
coding scheme for specific error types than that
effects of WCF and the likely interaction among
of Van Beuningen et al. (2012), as detailed in the
them, future research on the effects of WCF must
Method section.
go beyond single univariate designs and must ex-
plore them in relation to error types.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Written Corrective Feedback and Error Types

Ferris (1999) introduced the distinction be-
tween treatable, or rule-governed, errors (e.g.,
verb tenses or plurals), and untreatable, or id-
iosyncratic, errors (e.g., lexical choices or incor-
rect word order) and suggested that untreatable
errors might be best addressed by using direct
WCF, while indirect WCF seems to be more ap-
propriate for addressing treatable errors. Once
again, research is not conclusive on that point, al-
though, as could be expected, a general finding
While many studies have shown that focused
WCF can lead to L2 development, few have inves-
tigated the potential longer-term effects of unfo-
cused WCF or its effects on revision (feedback for
accuracy) and on new texts (feedback for acquisi-
tion). Moreover, available findings on the relative
effectiveness of direct and indirect WCF are still
inconclusive, and studies investigating the value
of unfocused WCF for different error types have
been relatively scarce. Following Bitchener and
Storch 's suggestion (2016) that further work is
needed on the "potentially moderating effect of

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
852 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
both cognitive and noncognitive factors/variables
on a learner's (...) use of written CF in revised
and new pieces of wridng" (p. 128), the present
study is an attempt to examine "the potential com-
plex interaction of variables" (p. 129) that may
contribute to the effectiveness of different WCF
types. Accordingly, the following research ques-
tions guided our study:
RQ1. Do different types of unfocused WCF
(direct and indirect) lead to differences
in overall measures of accuracy in rewrit-
ten texts?
RQ2. Do different types of unfocused WCF
(direct and indirect) lead to differences
in accuracy regarding error types in
rewritten texts?
RQ3. Do different types of unfocused WCF
(direct and indirect) lead to differ-
ences in overall measures of accuracy in
posttests and delayed posttests?
RQ4. Do different types of unfocused WCF
(direct and indirect) lead to differences
in accuracy regarding error types in
posttests and delayed posttests?
METHOD
In order to shed light on the likelihood of L2
development through WCF, we followed Bitch-
ener and Ferris's (2012) proposal that the design
of WCF studies ought to involve four or more
tasks: A pretest, rewriting of the pretest, a posttest,
and a delayed posttest. Our study involved rewrit-
ing a previously produced text (Narrative Topic
1: pretest) after receiving one of two forms of
WCF (direct or indirect) as compared to a con-
trol group that received no WCF. In addition, all
participants wrote two new texts at different time
intervals. Taking into account the characteriza-
tion of explicitness of WCF introduced earlier, the
two forms of WCF provided differed in terms of
their explicitness: The direct WCF was more ex-
plicit given that the correction was provided (see
Appendix A) , whereas in the case of indirect WCF,
the exact location of each error together with a
ML code indicating its nature were provided.
We opted for unfocused WCF due to the du-
bious ecological validity of research on focused
WCF (Storch, 2010): Focused WCF laboratory
studies may satisfy the rigor of researchers but
may not be relevant to current pedagogy (Bruton,
2009), to the needs of classroom teachers (Evans,
Hartshorn, & Allen, 2010), or to L2 learners them-
selves. This decision makes the study more repre-
sentative of real classroom practice (Liu & Brown,
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
2015), and differentiates it from earlier work
that was more illustrative of laboratory-type con-
ditions. Furthermore, following previous recom-
mendations (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012), we also
addressed the focused-unfocused issue alongside
questions such as the interaction between error
categories and WCF types (direct and indirect) .
We did so by investigating which type of WCF, di-
rect or indirect, led to greater error reduction
in terms of broad error categories (e.g., gram-
mar vs. nongrammar errors) and specific error
types (e.g., verb tense, article usage, word choice,
or prepositions). As such, we also followed re-
cent recommendations to opt "for studies that
investigate the effects of WCF (...) on different
structures that vary not just in terms of whether
they are rule based but also in their complexity"
(Shintani et al., 2014, p. 109).
Participants and Setting
Participants were 46 (13 males and 33 females)
first-year EFL undergraduates (mean age = 18)
enrolled in a semester-long composition course
as part of their degree in English Studies. On
average, they had been learning EFL for about
12 years prior to entering university and, ac-
cording to the Oxford Placement Test (OPT; Al-
lan, 2004), their proficiency corresponded to a
B1 Threshold-Independent User (intermediate level) .
We selected that level so that learners could pro-
cess the feedback they received and also engage
with it during the languaging session.
Participants were divided into groups of simi-
lar L2 proficiency and writing ability on the ba-
sis of the results obtained in the OPT, the over-
all percentage of errors on the pretest, and the
number of words written in the first essay (see
Table 1).
Design and Data Collection Procedures
A mixed design with one intrasubject factor
(time, with four values: pretest, rewriting, posttest,
and delayed posttest) and one intersubject fac-
tor (WCF, with three values: unfocused direct
WCF, unfocused indirect WCF, and no feedback)
was used. This resulted in two treatment groups
and one control group (CG): The treatment
groups received either unfocused direct (direct
group [DG]) or indirect WCF (indirect group
[IG]); the CG received no feedback prior to
rewriting their texts. Because of ethical consider-
ations, the CG received WCF after completing the
study.
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 853
TABLE 1
Initial L2 Proficiency Level (Oxford Placement Test Score), Errors, and Number of Words in the Pretest

IG (»=15) DG (n = 14) CG(»=17) v Kruskal-Wallis ........

95% CI 95% CI 95% CI Tesť
M (SD) LCL UCL M (SD) LCL UCL M (SD) LCL UCL p rj2
L2 profi- 130.27 122.04 138.49 130.50 121.77 139.23 129.47 122.14 136.80 .96 .00
ciency (14.85) (15.11) (14.25)
Errors 12.43 9.84 15.02 13.11 11.16 15.06 13.27 10.99 15.54 .64 .02
(total (4.68) (3.38) (4.42)
percent-
age)
Number of 337.53 290.36 384.70 349.21 299.37 399.05 342 301.85 382.15 .78 .01
words (85.18) (86.32) (78.09)
Note. IG = indirect group; DG = direct group; CG = control group; M = Mean; SD = standard deviation; CI =
confidence interval; LCL = lower confidence limit; UCL = upper confidence limit.
aThe effect size for Kruskal-Wallis Tests was computed by dividing Chi square value by N- 1.

Data collection occurred in five stages (see
Figure 1) over 5 weeks during which partici-
pants wrote their first text (pretest) , received WCF
(treatment groups) or no feedback (CG), lan-
guaged about their errors in their original texts
(with or without the availability of WCF for the
intervention and control groups, respectively),
rewrote their initial text (rewriting) and, finally,
wrote two more texts on two new topics (posttest
and delayed posttest) . The essays were composed
under individual writing conditions to encourage
self-reflection processes about the feedback re-
ceived before rewriting their texts and writing up
new texts. We are aware that this data collection
procedure may have resulted in an unintended
practice effect but saw no other way of collect-
without disrupting the class dynamics. Other ad-
ditional reasons for using languaging were the re-
ported reactivity of think-aloud protocols to inves-
tigate WCF processing (see Sachs 8c Polio, 2007;
Wigglesworth 8c Storch, 2012), the scarce investi-
gation on written languaging to investigate WCF
(Suzuki, 2012, 2016), and the alleged suitability
of languaging to delve into cognitive activity. The
potential combined effect of WCF and languag-
ing in our data is certainly a concern, given that
we did not include a group that received WCF and
did not engage in languaging; however, our de-
sign did allow us to disentangle the potential ef-
fect of WCF given the existence of a control group
that languaged about their errors but received no
WCF.

ing data to test the effect of the feedback on new
pieces of writing. This is an important method-
ological consideration in classroom-based studies
that look into the effect of WCF on learning and
one that is undoubtedly compensated by the eco-
logical validity of research conducted in real class-
rooms with real students.
As just mentioned, the intervention and con-
trol groups differed in whether or not they re-
ceived WCF but they all rewrote their texts af-
ter having engaged in written languaging, which
refers to "the process of making meaning and
shaping knowledge and experience through lan-
guage" (Swain, 2006, p. 98). As detailed elsewhere
(Cerezo, Manchón, 8c Nicolás-Conesa, 2019), our
choice of written languaging resulted from practi-
cal and methodological considerations. From the
first angle, as our study was conducted in a real
classroom, written languaging allowed us to col-
lect data from a large number of participants
Our data collection protocol followed Truscott
and Hsu's (2008) advice that the interval be-
tween revised and new texts should neither be
too short (to avoid fatigue) nor too long (so
as not to "overwhelm the effects of the single
episode of error correction and revision," p. 295).
The study was intentionally similar in time span
to that of previous studies (i.e., Shintani & El-
lis, 2013; Shintani et al., 2014; Stefanou, 2014;
Truscott 8c Hsu, 2008; Van Beuningen et al.,
2008, 2012) to facilitate the comparison of results.
The English-for-academic-purposes (EAP) course
lasted 16 weeks and the participants received dif-
ferent types of feedback, and hence data collec-
tion with a larger interval was precluded. During
the study, the teacher (a research-team member)
and the English language teacher deliberately re-
frained from providing grammar instruction or
any other language feedback on the students'
texts.

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
854 The Modern Language Journal 103 (2019)
FIGURE 1
Timing and Order of Data Collection
Note. WCF = written corrective feedback; Ss = students. Time spent on task is indicated in parentheses.
Three narrative tasks were used (see
Figure 1): Narrative Topic 1 (pretest), Narra-
tive Topic 2 (posttest), and Narrative Topic 3
(delayed posttest). Participants had 50 minutes
to plan and write each text, as this is the regular
procedure for essay writing in language courses
in the participants' degree studies. As they had no
access to external resources, the time allocated
to plan and write the amount of text required
(about 300 words) proved adequate. All partici-
pants managed to produce a text within the word
limits indicated. Additionally, this 50-minute pe-
riod allowed time both for data collection and for
the participants' task involvement and resulting
problem-solving behavior while composing in a
real classroom environment, a time condition
that has been posited to be closely linked to po-
tential language-learning outcomes of L2 writing
and feedback processing (Bitchener & Storch,
2016; Manchón & Cerezo, 2018).
The three prompts were slightly different so
that the tasks could be considered new ones but,
at the same time, they were sufficiently similar to
allow comparisons (see Appendix B) : Participants
were requested to narrate personal experiences,
ranging from a negative experience (Narrative
Topic 1; pretest), to a positive one (Narra-
tive Topic 2; posttest), to an experience that
made them change their opinion about someone
(Narrative Topic 3; delayed posttest). All tasks
were related to personal experiences to avoid the
influence of prior knowledge on the quantity or
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
quality of writing, to guarantee similar levels of
difficulty in terms of content, and to facilitate
comparability across tasks. The tasks were not
counterbalanced, and we acknowledge this as
a potential limitation of the study. However, as
noted by one reviewer, the writing task is affected
by topics, and we did take measures to control
topics for the three prompts.
After having written the first text (Narrative
Topic 1; pretest), the two feedback groups re-
ceived unfocused feedback (direct or indirect).
During the languaging session, all participants
had 50 minutes to go over their errors and process
feedback (feedback groups) or to identify their
own errors so as to reflect on them (CG). The
participants were given the following instructions
based on Suzuki (2012): "Have a look at your es-
say and identify your errors. Why is each linguistic
form incorrect? Explain it."
In all three cases (DG, IG, CG), the languaging
session consisted of copying each error from the
pretest on a separate piece of paper, providing a
correction (already given in the feedback, for the
DG) , a ML code (already given in the feedback,
for the IG), and a ML explanation (not present
in the feedback provided to either of the two feed-
back groups) .
To assure ecological validity, and in con-
trast to previous studies (e.g., Truscott 8c Hsu,
2008; Van Beuningen et al., 2008, 2012), our
participants had access to their original texts
without corrections during the rewriting of the
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 855
pretest. In addition, rewriting the original texts
while looking at teacher feedback could have re-
sulted in an exercise of merely identifying the er-
ror and changing it without showing understand-
ing of the error or the feedback, at least in the
case of the DG. It was expected that during the
rewriting session (50 minutes; 2 days after the lan-
guaging session), the participants could identify
in their original uncorrected essays the errors that
they remembered from the languaging session so
as to rewrite their texts more accurately. One week
after having rewritten their texts, all participants
wrote a new text (Narrative Topic 2; posttest).
Two weeks after the posttest, all participants com-
posed another new text (Narrative Topic 3; de-
layed posttest) .
Data Coding and Analysis Procedures
Contrary to what is often the case in ap-
plied linguistics, two coders (experienced EFL
teachers, one of them being one of the re-
searchers) coded all the errors together for all
coding schemes to ensure maximum reliability
(100%), bearing in mind the highly detailed cod-
ing schemes employed. In cases of disagreement
between raters, errors were discussed until con-
sensus was reached.
Two types of coding were implemented (see Ap-
pendix C) : a broad coding, partially based on Van
Beuningen et al. (2012), distinguishing grammar
(morphological and syntactic) and nongrammar
errors (lexis, spelling, punctuation, and other mi-
nor errors); and a narrow coding, partly based
on Ferris et al. (2013) and partly data-driven. Fol-
lowing Van Beuningen (2011), we further dis-
tinguished among errors targeted in the WCF
that were successfully corrected (equated with up-
take), uncorrected, unsuccessfully corrected, and
deleted.
As in previous studies (e.g., Truscott 8c Hsu,
2008; Van Beuningen et al., 2008, 2012), we com-
puted the error rate percentage for the three
pieces of writing: (total number of errors/ total
number of words) x 100. For the rewritten texts,
we computed the error correction percentage:
(number of errors successfully corrected, unsuc-
cessfully corrected, uncorrected, or deleted/ total
number of corrected errors) x 100. The compu-
tation of the number of errors per 100 words was
an objective measure of analysis that allowed us to
compare our results with the findings of previous
research. T-units were not used in our study be-
cause their validity to measure linguistic accuracy
has been questioned (Skehan 8c Foster, 2007).
This measure does not control for the number
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of errors (just one or multiple errors) included
in each T-unit or the length of T-units. As a re-
sult, short clauses are considered disproportion-
ately accurate in contrast to long clauses. For the
analysis of error types (broad and narrow coding) ,
we used the raw number of errors within each task
and group.
As for languaging, we developed a coding
scheme (see Appendix D) based on Leow's (2015)
operationalization of depth of processing so as
to distinguish learners' cognitive effort when pro-
cessing the WCF received (intervention groups) ,
or when reflecting on their own self-identified er-
rors (CG). Five different levels of analysis were
specified. These levels distinguished students'
awareness of errors at the level of noticing (Level
1 ) , at the level of reporting (Levels 2 and 3) and at
the level of understanding (Levels 4 and 5) . Three
researchers set up these levels through iterative
analysis of the data. One researcher coded all the
languaging data on two separate occasions, which
resulted in an intrarater reliability of .78 (Cron-
bach's alpha).
We conducted nonparametric statistics
(Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wil-
coxon Signed Rank test, and Friedman tests)
given our small sample and the nonnormal dis-
tribution of the data. Kruskal-Wallis tests were
conducted to compare the percentage of errors,
the number of error types, and the decrease of
errors across the three groups. When significant
differences across the three groups were found,
Mann-Whitney U tests were used to find possi-
ble significant differences between two specific
groups. Friedman tests were conducted to com-
pare the decrease of errors across tests within
each group. Subsequently, Wilcoxon Signed Rank
tests were used to find if there were significant
differences between specific tasks within each
group.
RESULTS
RQ1: Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective
Feedback and Overall Accuracy in Rewńtten Texts
There were statistically significant differences
among the three groups in the percentage of er-
rors successfully corrected and left uncorrected
(see Table 2), as well as a trend toward signifi-
cance in the percentage of errors unsuccessfully
corrected. As expected, the two treatment groups
corrected more errors successfully than the CG,
although no significant differences between the
two feedback groups were found (see Table 3).
In addition, the CG had significantly more
856 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)

1* O O l>IU
IS A% •*
.52
s Eř^ "f
COcdTt«
cmHcoo ^ rH CM
Š
2 00 CD C^f

ķO A ■«. O O O iT3 U

ö g;
g
(D

'G
OpS
O

ĒČ G
CG

-, Tfi
pJ CD m
-, CM Oí CN
O Oy G
U

S u
d Ů S ^ 2 fe >

OC^I IO .J>
, CO
IO IG
J>(M(M

o»_) ii CD
^ CM
2O TfSCOCO
IIH.
O . ^ , Mjî CO l-H
III
•J H lO (J
""
¿ X> u^
'i
U CD
O

mmN

O s^co
u * s^co
^ iri
CO O CSC lO flj
|s00C 1>
s c03
ug
u *Q
CM X

CD
od
^ cd^ h ^ hc c§
03 1% 00 CO
^ O l-H O
u
Um
2 00 i> p

, ^ * "il
u
ú «I
, ^ §8 g S S « I

ub
%

^ §§§ i
ič G
J

H-,-,OhOí
m l>
oí CO
o H- I
HI
'''1

^"f 'G
D CN
y CDCDTř
CM H 5
03 'G

G
O
•-Hm»oCM
o cmm8:oo
s

cG
a
03 hJ
io
, *C CO "«f l> ai C/3

^ ^ CM O
J co (M <D
U ai, 03
-riCM
coCN 00 <j
r-H- G 111 I
Č
2
C/3

C/3
11
g» V -
C- oo i> i.
fi CO (M OJ II
O r>T ci ai ^ *""! •- i
S
ïr

1
b «-H
CMXOiS
O
Ē
G
C

«<CO 1-1 O IO Tf b^.

Q ^ §, r>T C ci ai C 2°, S *""! U •- i
(U
G

m co <U
O Tť
irir-H U G •S
!
-G oo iri Ģ
^ <U
cd
.52
cd
S
G ^ If) CM r-H Z
cr cl ^ ^ 1-J o CM OJ
oo » o co oí .. 1
G
O
'G r, CTI -t< io CO CM u
1
r, ^ CM CM CD ^

8
mB
G 0
cd
.z

ič O
C/3

O J*!
C /3
C/3

•a. o! Sì g 2
Dh

u
U
•s G 2

jj 00 rHqCM -1 CM 2
°.
^ ggu§I
n -1 co 5c
C/3

•a «Ž

2
" a.
^ ►-> co m -f cm
►-> ID -F M r-H 0 a

S
¿3
x X

#
1 G
oaNN11u»
^ j cm m m co H
Oh
'C S

íá j S I 5 * 8
o a N N , 1 , 1 7 1 u "5 » „
1 o "5
u
C/3

<u

Q
1

-5-
r} IfJ Ô S CO
~ ~*-»»
id
X .S

00 03 ^ 0 S s S3 .s
C/3

eS OJ

G
HH g"
g,tFC CO
C ^'T SJ .g
fe ^ 0 g SS gl
io oco^ u Ł...o
S

^ io
^ co
coco oo
co'G
AJ

M* »-H
O
•G II £•
u rn 'G
fS
u QS Ë Q-
«5 Q Ti jss -
£
CM CD -¡F CM H* G ®
Oh ^ O
S &* 3
s r>CM
lO -FCM
CD TřCD
O Ou<fļ
U ï G -G P ^
ã be W)
ws .SeS fe 2
§gë«i
ê
G Cj C M
O
•G u
Cj 2 C 5 C+-C
Ë ë 8 .s «
ca
U e2 <U CÄ3 u c«wii 11 ^
•G o
o Ti G -G N
CA73 CA O.
o *Ū 1-1

C Geo U o ÎS Ti G S w
G

Ë
«I w w
(M O
iv « .2A w u « P, w P ,*0
A C 73 w Geo I .2 P, fc w P I ,*0 II g •e h 3 u u u c« 11 5¿¿
o S H u r n G3
3Ï P caEHCOWHO^G 4JtaS'G aŁ â> o S S § H u s «j r n
il S öl! s
il H W
HW llg!ĚIglla P caEHCOWHO^G il taS'G 4J HU a cgsa

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al 857

¡P J
uncorrected errors than either the IG or the DG,
1 M oficiNHpqqo
CM

and the IG corrected more errors unsuccessfully

than the CG (see Table 3).

uJ o
- ^ ^av
D

§0 © © H©h ©
© DI©H DI r-I CO
Tf r- I CO
H 00 Tf
Tf yG
G

RQ2 : Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective T3

cC

î:
_U 2
Feedback and Error Types in Rewritten Texts
H t^coooirioif-icOTîi ^ ^ £
We found significant differences among the
three groups in the successful correction of both ^*5._)HiNOOOiHNCitO 3
grammar and nongrammar errors and in the
grammatical errors left uncorrected (see Table 4) .
l-l rH J
. cor-ioe^r^co-^CM II 11
« cor-ioe^r^co-^CM ori evi ^ aí • • * * II 11

Regarding successful correction of grammar IlcomqqnPOWO

g <5 d Tf co d m .G
en p
errors, both feedback groups were significantly
O
U ^^ oo^cû03^ooct>i> qj
^ - 1 eu
ihDO«^00(N^ y
better than the CG (IG vs. CG: U = 71.50,
)2 ^ ifi w iri w rH co dì G
Z = -2.13, p = .03, r = .38; DG vs. CG: U = 13

29.50; Z = -3.56, p < .001, r - .64). However, ce

e

the DG benefitted significantly more than the IG 000(0^tifì<0<N CJ o

r tOifliOrtlNHiflTt .

UJ
from the feedback received regarding grammar CM CM

„
(U= 57.50, Z = -2.08, p = .04, r = .39) since

**
Í3
JD

the DG participants successfully corrected nearly H. ifjCMint^oowop

(ÛCO^OOiflND mII
y TřrHMřiíNCfiWrt .J
half of the grammatical errors for which they had

¿5
- P ' <u
received feedback (49.56%), whereas the IG suc-
cessfully corrected 41.78% of their grammatical
errors (see Tables 5 and 6) . Both feedback groups 1-1
05 (J OiflmOTfOCOfM U
J ai i> »n ^ ' i-i
' 1-1

successfully corrected verb tenses, prepositions,

II QOiNOODcOWin^
g óoí^^t^ooéoo^Ç"53e
and verb forms, as well as unnecessary articles or
missing articles. In addition, the DG also tended O ^ ©co©^©©©i> ^
to successfully correct sentence structure errors. ^ h oi oi 00 H N H H g
The two feedback groups were also signifi-
II

U^
cantly better than the CG in the successful cor- tûWCOiOMWOOif) řA
iCOtOHHCOHH <J
rection of nongrammar errors (IG vs. CG: U ■W, ,-H _ r-t g <u

= 6.0, Z = -4.61, p < .001, r = .81; DG vs. e

2
II "1p
Hj OíOO^iflOffiOOf
j HNXheoOrtiû i)
cr

CG: U = 5.5, Z = -4.52, p < .001, r = .81).

Most of the nongrammar errors corrected suc-
P OOOH*i«WN
cessfully by all the groups were related to lexis a
(wrong words), spelling, and punctuation (see *5
6 (j6 JoqoHwoìCto
hmcooocoHOioiO5
Tables 5-7). P d N iri iri r-i ^
As for uncorrected errors, the CG left signifi-
" (MCM^COr^CDOCCO Q
^KS'^t^a>oi03aqa>oqi>
co dì iri iri ' >-h i-i 'y^ ,,
cantly more uncorrected errors about grammar
in comparison with the two feedback groups (CG M ^ cor^coi>i>©cor^
w H^OI^NOHO O .. KK
vs. IG: U= 48.50, Z= -2.99, p < .001, r= .53; »OÓSOÓWW-hh ÇJ
CG vs. DG: U = 58.50, Z = -2.41, p = .02, r = 2
a
e
X o
.43); such errors pertained to prepositions, arti- <Moa>i>Tt«ox>m Jrr
¡s
cles, word form, and verb tenses (rule-based er- c u

rors; see Tables 5-7) . £ S

-3

g & o3 £ £ O
II

I
OC
RQ3: Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective G
1g-iHI-IuI°
(-i - osESErtErtĘ H - u VT
Feedback and Accuracy in Posttests and Delayed C/3

2 Ē Í Ē «E S5 o
(-i b osESErtErtĘ eÍSÍESSÍ
<ü

Posttests Ř
S 2 Í o 2 o S o 2 o o fe
u
OZOZOZOZ ZT u
A Friedman test indicated that all groups re- Ê §
duced the percentage of errors across the three W -3
G

times of data collection in a statistically significant m "8 3 «« u

ISI2i§o
O
^U
manner: IG, x2(2) = 10.13, /> = .01; DG, x2(2) = rvi QJ

21, p < .001; CG, x2(2) = 10.71, p < .001 (see

3 rvi -g
I Hnuoüihío ™ -2»
Figure 2). n U c/îuPiuPuQu
¡5á U c/îuPiuPuQu Hnuoüihío <i -2» <i

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
858 The Modern Language Journal 103 (2019)
OO 1% Tf is 00 H f» rf CM X h ©©©©©© 10 © oo cm ® ©
^ (O ' CO CO cf) ' « (Û ' OO I> © ' OO ' CM © go h h © ' co ' HH oo CO Tf nq ' © hh
£ ' r-i r-i ' HH' ' lÔ © ' ' H4 « gc H HH ' ' H lô CO ' HH ifi
fc fc

tí U
-o T3
fc fc

J¿ rfc
"w 13
Q Û
k, N t H Tř M M» W H Tř Ifi k, Tf Tf CM hh -<f CO 00 © CM CO © IO

o m m oo ^ h « en o t t H
^~ Tf
Tf ocm
© ' 't-»
cvir>;«-H
» co h<eoo
w »ai ^^ ^^ o®®©®®
oo ©
CM hhen
«O © CM eo o 00
lii m
GOo hen
h®O
*H Vi
<3 C nS C
8 .2 SO
u -ö U 'S
uu
u ti uu
5 fc
CO
së
su Du
hh CO CM 60
k, © co © cm oo © Tf © © cm cm ©
h CM CO
k, O 1> tú O 60 CM 00 © CO Tf © «s|

rf* nO CM X CM CO IO CM O nO GM © © Tf Tf © X © Hl h X ^ (N H

tí
fc r-H ^ CM IH ^
cO ^°° iri
rH oó
ifì 6(O»o
Tpco
ifiNbj©Clno
OX«-iCOhh'
h ©
kl
C
PN^©
ri ©
H© © HH
*Tft^ © I>
OO Tf©CM
fc HH r-H 60 CM HH 60
CMCM
HH©

-ö T3
u
fc
u U
1)

fc fc
o O
u u

J~ r» ifì
h IO
w Hen
IO h
O CM © Tf
N© X H-
coI cm £
3 «m h (N hJr»h©Tf
©O CO ©
t hh CMTfCO
60 ©
© CM
hh ©
CO00hH
IO

2 X ifl O if) ® O X X h X CM l* 2 oo Tf Tf oo © © no © © © © ©
o ^ Tf cm © Tf © © > ^ ifì ai te O ^ P IO © © © CO ©
•ao tj
•a ^ ©HH
ai © Tf
Tf coCM
oo h HH
w X òTf
hh tj HH HH f IN H Tf
•a O ^ Tf CM CM CO 00 00 ci ri CO 0C HH H

fc fc
o
u a
s

C/3 ^ mm
1

C/3 hH hh
8
ir V
í/5

u
H U «M
U r, r, ©
r-Hcm
CMco
CO©hh
©CM
cmCM
-i J>
© CM
co ©
CO©CO H r» Tf^HCOCMI%© X IN H IO Tf N
II
1-H
^ HH Tf Tf ri CM CM © hH © Tf CM 60 hh
e II

e
Q*
0 a*

6 w 1-1 U C 60 hh CM
J bc £ 2 BC 2
O Lr CO © CO CM -h Tf CM © I> CO CO CM 0 fc O Lr X CM H X © X IO © 00 00 CM
u
OJ
u £ Lr «N co X n- co co m © © 1-1 cm j> ^h -H fliļ_ C Lr '■S CM © © HH © © 60 © © © HH ©
u U Pm W
2
G
S
¿3 ¿3
X X

č EÏ

u
e
•a u
e
t> u
c
•a cuu
t>
e c
OJ

?
e

fc a
C

fc
O O

lH 'c? ,U u "e'
t« O c^u « .U
"e' O g
1

V) o -fc oIHX
1
G

^e U-»H G

c/5
hT^ u
tí? o C O T3
C/5

Ç =I§iI
1 t« -sill O c . hT
<L> <L>

tí? V) 1 -H o e § .8 T3 -»H S 6
t Ē o * 2 C 'S O T3 §
ř? 6

2 fc ¿¿ ^
fc g _T
g -o Ih
13 PP
u u
^ "Sa 2 fc«4H
fc «4Hoo"go-
"go- C
C -o
. -ofcfc
T3UU
fc

u s -eil _T I £ s M
fc

s0 -e
U 2
3 "B
I . Slii ss
„-o
c •§-S §s C^ ïuu sl-p§ cÄG iŁ ? T êî „-o S Ä I
Uh Uh
O O

O
'■ã
r9 oüSw2-?So o g g1
C

1g:aI§!i¡i§11
« -â
* Ķ «u2¿¿^Cu<üOb0C2uZ il ï 1 g s a ! s g i ¡ i I io ! g I

zI« ■SS.JīStSāflSsS
r9 * Ķ «u2¿¿^Cu<üOb0C2uZ :Sg|8ëir?^ôoië5 oüSw2-?So g g1
ag
3y
HU
2 'u a. © "P fc "-»aj'S 5 © u ^ "3
Z ^ Ci > > X O H ^ X fc O H
I 2 'u ^ '§ï"ê!g|'l!s.§|l a. © "P fc O "-»aj'S ^ 5 © u O ^ "3
n •Sīllg-S'lllā'Sl
« f2»«£ofS
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al 859
Tř oi (û ai w o o oí o N w w FIGURE 2
^ ^ Ol ' m W 00 00 Ifl N N 00 00 (O O
2 ^ ^ ' w oi (N w eó r-* oi ^H' 'en Percentage of Errors Across Time
Ê [Color figure can be viewed at
M
T3 wileyonlinelibrary.com]
u

jy
ID

® Cł <rf n © 00 <N n to Iii Ol (£> M N

© n io <3 «©(Min®--!»
.1 " ^ I-í
<2 e
" C^î lft 60 ^
l> " <3 "«1 " 60 tO rH Cvļ CO to

U -3
8 .s -3

uu
sË
DO
^ h eM M n
k, ^ © CO l> CM © <M ^ O ^ O h K)

y> W 00 W ^ 00 ^ Ol Cl ^ Cl tO
y>
2 g©co35 © <3
oo i>
© i> « ri
©w d -in
h (oteto
^tetê
M
C oó^Hr-H
cm <£) cm^ ,-H Note. IG = indirect group; DG = direct group; CG =
T3

ä control group.
u

^ ) cm cu
Ë
O
Importandy, no statistically significant differ-
G r, ^ 00 r-HOlO^ to O) tß ^ Ifl
u

r ^ ) ^ co in m w eo m in w m co h h ences were found among groups in the percent-

age of errors, in the number of words written
in any of the tests (see Table 8), or in the de-
crease of the percentage of errors across tests (see
C
0ma> i>
bmcu riai oo
^N^ co
w to
cotocooutohio Table 9) . It should be noted that all the scores of
•3 cm co oó ' ' <<* ©co^^'iô the pretest represent the error scores before the
1
rewriting session. We show in Table 8 the num-
â
ber of words across tests for clarification purposes,
S
8 since a possible reduction in the number of words
V
i-H

o k, h to io t(* co c 5 ^ ^ w § could influence the number of errors made by

II

s participants in each group.

Oh All groups reduced their overall percentage of

¡
errors from the pretest to the posttest, and from
0 »2 the pretest to the delayed posttest (see Table 10).

â
G
üH U E n T* n CO
B O r» Ol 00 CO CO ifl (O Tř Tf CO ^ © H
üH E r» ^ Tf 00 O Tf lfl oo N 00 to m IN N
CU W
RQ4: Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective
ô Feedback and Error Types in Posttests and Delayed

o ^
'ń Posttests
X

•3
U t)
tj
č

C
3 2?
g c No significant differences among groups were
s found in the mean number of grammar or non-
grammar errors made in any of the tests (see
1 u
«¿"e5
O ^¿y
£ Table 11). There were no significant differences
p O u„ ^ £
.S
&
V
<0
fi
& -tí-tí
Oc
^ O §o'Cü'C
-g cc «
among groups in the decrease of nongrammar
errors across time. However, significant differ-

St £ Ss 'S^ 4'EI ¿I i
&
p fi S Ē I Oc i -5 o 'C § ences among groups were found in the decrease

-e
(m

of grammar errors across time (see Table 12) and,

o Si
■§s5 Ís2» 4ìif§gl i ii
ê

? -M e sä fi,
m rather crucially, the statistical difference applied
Uh

only to the treatment groups (see Table 13). The

¡6
O

G
reduction of grammar errors in nearly all error
**ê
Wu .SfoyuCr^ I ^Sci1»
¡6 <3 I .SfoyuCr^ -M s g 5 S Í ê 1 I I -Sii e s
3Ē OïS^C^oÛliofiÎ^Z ^Sci1» types was significantly larger in the DG (pretest:
J2 2 "tj o. o "O ï ^ © "S £ 3 u ^ 'S
5y .trž H 2 CJ *2 oj ä o 4ü o« 3 2 o
5 "tj •öw'Sfec^-SöPüCÄS o. 2 o ^ © "S £ 3 u ^ 'S 335; delayed posttest: 183) compared to the IG
H <J Z <3 H &i > CJ ;£ c/3 oj O ä h o ^ t/5 o« Of 3 O 2 H o (pretest: 292; delayed posttest: 271; see Table 14).

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
860 The Modem Language Journal 103(2019)
1
3U
1*
T
iE
% «
£
C- C^I
c« CNļ O f-H
OO i- iOrHO
i- i O
cm o r-
c- o o

u o
E "f
¿2 -®L03
cOOí
00 00 O Tf
l> r-i I> 5c -o

î£ II^ U
CC
c

t Tf co oo Tf
co oj
u
o

03
j S *ntí
Mrļ
iE^ in
u

sIIÖtí
Ē
l6^ co
^ ^c4OHÕh
W3

rj ®î m co i-,

e
řS

p rj J 2 m » r>: co i-, ^
y¡

sge
g #2^H^Hglissi Ttii^oj
i
a
M

^ 2 ^^ w
w ^ow

5! _<N<OC^inint-»2°£25
_ ^ ^ ^ ^^ J-H U
fc OOiNpHOOtDlM^SS. OJ
^hc(ÌHNH^O)OI
25 2 & 2 28 2 o* <o ^ SO
w w ^ CO N W ^
O
II

rj o m •- 1
hJ

1 co 0> <0 u

^mmcc O
U^^^
O
II <S
p id ^ ^ CM O ^

00(J rr.
_j rr.
. 03 - 1oju
2 <N
oo _ 1- H

Ç- J 3 oá «5 g
•Ç0, _ r-H CV|

¿~~~§
2
C/3

(S

n
X „^ n„ ~^ M
co^tr.
~ "t~ oí ~ ©tiu "
C/3

^ oo
^ 2 d 2 d oo ín ti "
1
2
1 . " .- I
fr O) w m g w o C

^ o
íS cr

w ^ co m co t¿5

Q fe
OJ

G
tí
II

n1 GM Tf QO
00Oh
C/3

O CM ^
U tí
'o

►X id cm X o
C/3

£5 O) i3
l-H
sIlUo^ O
fS

£O
CD

I O)
J Tf If) 03 S
io JUOl
00 ^to^ CO 0 «c/3
c/3
O-,

« -g
*c
u C/3

C/3

V Oh
g
Q

co
? ^O^ u
-wuC
8

o §00
Ć/3

o O feo
'S O
O ^"~"
2"_c oo
^ Cl
" cio Cl
H Tf
H ooTf
_ "~" Tf ai Tf <ji Tf o tío ocum 3cuļj3 t-<
t-< ļj be
c
I

'O
Lh
O
J

fr ^ ^ êEE * §
u
OJ

Xi
S
Ê

Z
o
w co w co O u
Tfr-HCN¡ÜCO^COt>.CS1 w g tí
Lh

T5 a£u O

G C/3

t«
tí o« ^ OJ
OJ

£
3*

g I I <u
J3 J3
lililíteteuuto
O d otoO JŠ t* wiS I) i o

«t* O
wiSUe
G
t r<y JŠ OJ Oh
tí 8 H-> "tí
<4-1
^ Dh O QÛ,l d o Ph O Q « O CU Ue aj § OJ
•- P 4-1
O
'C 4-1 tí
tí ^ C tí
HJ tí
0ow
C ^ "tí

iâ I^ I*8
C/3

.5 tí OH

1o C«ÏÎc«
0J O

s°
2 -S
bo
Il S as oj
oo £
W fí tí 3
tí o; tí 3 g G
5 HH
O oju oj
CQ b
< OJ
U Ph Ph
u
H Oh
SI H Oh HQ

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 861
3^S
•2 9(N O9CM®coPiO P
CO 9
f"»
1-
i*
¡2 -,•«-.-Ht^CMCOTfCM
Tf o oo co en o-,

^ O
3 v'
ļ? *. S8

U
NH ce
Tj
o I
iCMt^Tft^cOCM Oí

P 0> "
u

O II
□ lO 00 CO O rH rH U
►=(CM
Ol CM
CMCM
OHCM»o'CM
CM>- fi
iU
en co

^ CM CM
II
(I ^ Sq ^ $ Ol Ol g
3 j ® 2 2 :: 2 ^ §<
tí
u

^
U5
^ a> CM
I ?g»£2>SäS°gS§Sg« .*

u
^ ¿ iq co

IO ^
v

HH U*
cu

G
<u

j Tf
CO CM cOrfìfì
co 00
cO ^e
T3

rj Is» Tf
enCMiri
^ rH H CM co eni hh
i><U0

QË
^ CM i-H i-

"O -U-T
tí
II «, §§
3vv
2 ^ W Tf QiUf->.11
2
CA

(S O

e
Q
^Ili H»qcMifìcoi>p2
CM 00 _i 11
ã s j 00 CO CO CM O QQ ÇJ
T3
U

So
Ćn
N ^ co CO
N^
8
II
S 9£929Ín9oo9ÊÍ°l£ S
^'''*'
G
O
X
0 J' ^oi^ooSoo^^^^^^ ' ' ' * ' C
T3
ce
1

fcS o
e

o3
o

niniqcq^coio
r^- co co oo en || "
vi

_j "

p s fe
cu
ex
3
^ 00 00 CA

^ IO
2 (S -"J «CMcoCMid-h co io i-H
.-< CM co ncoUUn
O CA

d* Q
G
G

ë
i
«-« i t>« 00 © if) lO O^
8 »-I ,-H H C
h
Il
" "9 Ï^COrnScOt-rH
*d co cri cmi ©ai^ fi
SIl ^rH S
ž 'S
M
a

9o
9?o
CA

0
- V II
___O
CA
CA -o II

8 §
u
§ ^5oò^«q®gq§flq^ ¿T
CA
CU

(X •fi
y ddÔMCOcûNUODflîW^ fa-
¡§! h^CM>"h^h3h2,h!£, g
e G
CA

"fi
2
§ be
a fe
en
m 'G 00 *■>
u
0 N CM CO W
I I .fa I g

Pn c3 c3 c3 .'l
cu
T3 Oh
ff 'C

ç-i-i-ia
II
u
e CA
O

"icicle
g Gi Io sS oI !2SIo 3
a-
(D (U

O Q
8

P
cu
ix CA
Oh

O Z O Z O Z fe
<U

1 ît» uI £
tu

I Ł .§ !
w -o 'S
fa
Uh
u 'S
O
5 g. .s
G
Uh
O fi

S Sa ^'gsa ^S
hH O s I ii
ïï S
II

¡I 2iS^
co co
ā|
?I JßCU
H Ü OH
îi ^^ ^^ 11 J3 Ou
H H G Oh
o3QQoQ.
£ <<

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
862 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
CM ^ co x © ^w X--H
X CVI
f-i
c- © ^ © ©

Vi

tS
Vi

_ rH co m
•äh _ O CO cvi

_ m in m o
rt; o H a

2
Vi

©©©
uo o »- j
Ł) ^ cvi r-í rH j
u
III
S

3s 2ss2 V5 C/5
c

H 00
Uh CU CU
S
s
O
_WVi 'C H "Ū
aj Vi ÛJ vi
CU

O 3 cd 3 (73
s _ B 3 Vi aj 3 Vi ÛJ &
ÇQ Vi TÎ <rrļ
3

'C O O O O 2
Cd OhÛPhÛ
$
Vi
CU ¿¿¿i o
Oh

o2222
Ë </> C/J C/3 C/5 Vi

2
T3
O W <U O <ü o
W Uh Uh Uh Uh I
G
cd Pm Pm Pu PU
<
V)

o
in oo o S
cu g
3 2
O
Uh M
Uh
o©
O ^ in r-
^OI 0>
X IIIIIIII
rH (JU
cd
tuo
c S
o
O.
3
O
Vi
Uh
<u
O 10
& Uh

Uh
X 1
S "5
fc
3
Z
11

M
Uh O
G
O 0
Uh V
(U o.
X) 3 3
Ē 2
u lo
3
o

rH
o •-^
Z O
<u Um

O 1
■S
cd
G
3
Cvi •- O Uh cd I CO §

a^
•£ fe O O g II
fe OU. o
rH <U
O & Uh & g
3 1 ÇsgI aI p" S S ^ T*
S Uh
Ch U 2
2 cIO2
2 oc ss I p" fe S S r ^ "2Ž
< OJ
HO w Z HU

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 863
?wM<y
jT)CM
^ 0 (¿
jT)I>^ XH O!NrHO OO 1>
M Tf I> TfLO
LO CM
Tf 00
X ©rM-^O^
rH
O 2 ^ 00 2©
CM rHCM hh
£s
Q tor,r,toomo
<U o
cm xXX 00 m
i> r-H Tfi>OwOo O
Tfco
co CO
co CO

^ co^ Ox Hcm
x> rf lo
c£>x aix ©LO CObJ>
o ©io mGM
h© ©
^ £ CM CM --h' OI> LO ^ LO J> cri l> ^

U CM rM (M
Il U r-> oi M rH I- I r- ( Tf CM i- I
5
r* I cor.LOTfLOoîCMx Tf
r* Utototo o oTfloCD
ooWooMn
lo (N
o hh
»
O
LOiol>OCM
Tf1HI>CiXCM
© CM COCO
© CO CM00CO
CM©©
*¿ H O ^ O CM O l> X CO CO ^
*ß »-H CM CM r- i i- i CM LO i-H i-T

rH ^ t-H CO
w

Oír,.
to OìXCO
Tf oo OCOTfLO
lOCO Tf Tf X Tf O i-CM
(
K

X CM X (Û m CM
LO 1> X CO LO LO © CO D O X ©
7 «> oLO
w
coX> CM LOO) X ©l> rM O O ©
CMcoCMcm cm^ ai
CM CM CMai(No ^

rH rH
JS «

tor-H
XXTf rHCMrf
CMTf xa ^LO COLO X
<u o
Q to r, X CM CO CM I> CM

l> X
rHhHq rH
Tf0> Tf § N CM
CO CM
LO co
2§

£ fr
^ CMtc
1-1 © aór^odaÌLO
Tf 2co
© i>
LOcm co
Il Q¿ CM CM , - ( 1- H Tf CM CM

w CM
-OS to
i-H CM
ce
O Li Tf CM rH rH rH O X LO CM © X LO
X Li to CM LO I> CM LO Tf LO O CO lO CM

£s;
« o 5I
co co co xx i-H 2© xxx 2
CO Tf rH ļ> X X ©O I> 1-H O ©
*i
ftoo
CMi> i>
CM Tf,-hph
Tf i> ** co ai co Tf ^
lOrHCM
^ e.toXCM
CMCi h
O)COO X LO
ł- I LO LOCOLOXf-H
XX X co
LO CM H ^X fifi
CM

so
so 11 3u
a

a CO
Tf CO OX LO
I-ILO
rHTf 2Tf
00 lC
,-ho iH,- ©i 0«4h
ex 2

7 'K ^OÌlOCMX I>CM CM ©

co Tf io CO ^ t ^^ M
cu CM CM *- I CM LOrHCM ^
fi

2
o

§ II
•O

Q to Lr
to to
LrCM
l> aCOCM
COa rH
TfXo CO
H dt^OCMLO
X O co X
CM ^h X_iHH _
fi
a
OC

gu
ooo oo©o x2 x^ cm a io oo
2 5^
¡a

^^^ ©(U
^oopLOioq CM rn ,-h
S

M
Se

u
to1-HXCMrHrH
CM O LO LO LO LO 1- I CM „ II^ „
Tf 00 Tf CM
£

^ tori- Tf o O ,-h ,-h Tf o CM LO LO Tf CO • -

CM rH ^3
CA

Oto CM O LO X rH CM CM O rH O X Tf X ^3 fi-1

¿1 to, o
&

^ woxo ocoqqcm
TfÖa©00© oo »oot^ o 2^^ fi
u fe

coCO
f-î lo Ö i>CO
q 00
Tf rH Tf
CO ufi
£ rHCMCMr-trH^H X CM -fi
Ê
W
Im
O

to,toxax cmXX
h Tf
LO cm a i>xx
i""» omo
CA

co (O xa CM h1
<U

CM rH X ¿¿
bo

ch
ch O o
S o .. fe
^_r fa2 ¡ bo
S
c
D
fi

2
2

-e ^_r fa t
d
(X
"Ö

fi5 g 2 "g S 2 S g ctrSSg Oo;Sht.h

T3
q T3 q
Q* gf-N2CvS CCv
_ ¿3Cprt_Ł S?5 ?5 ŁS Oo;Sht.h H^X-^C
ö Ü CV fi fi ^
g
CA
-T T3 O H^X-^C fi tn
T* -Sá °rĶ Q* SWËË^^P f-N prt . S -T T3 S 'S S S i 2 O OOeguS* tn Ü CV
T* 2 u
" °rĶ t lia^lsgg-ggigli-s SWËË^^P . S S 'S S i 2 »'S OOeguS* g 'S g j «
31
H Hto
s? to
-s s-s Sl§ SISIFI i 1 'g f. i

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
864 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
The DG reduced errors related to árdeles, prepo-
sitions, and verb forms. The IG slightly reduced
errors related to articles and word form. All the
errors that both feedback groups reduced across
tests were rule based.
DISCUSSION
We will discuss our findings using the dual dis-
tinction of feedback for accuracy and feedback for
acquisition mentioned at the outset as well as in
the title of the article.
Feedback for Accuracy
Two main sets of data are worth reporting and
interpreting. First, our results reinforce previous
findings (cf. Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Truscott 8c
Hsu, 2008; Van Beuningen et al., 2008, 2012) on
the role of WCF (direct and indirect) in improv-
ing the overall accuracy of rewritten texts: Our
treatment groups improved the accuracy of their
texts (including both grammar and nongrammar
errors) in a statistically significant manner as com-
pared with the CG. Given that both the feedback
and control groups engaged in written languag-
ing, the observed effects can be attributed to the
WCF received. However, the type of WCF pro-
vided was found to influence the depth of pro-
cessing observed in the participants' written lan-
guaging data, the overall finding being that direct
WCF resulted in deeper processing (Cerezo et al.,
2019) . Accordingly, as astutely observed by one re-
viewer, our study does shed light on the combined
effect of WCF plus languaging. Given also that
all three groups were attending the EAP course,
the differences observed can be safely attributed
to the combined effect of WCF plus languaging
(intervention groups) or writing plus languaging
(CG). In any case, we would like to argue that
research in this domain that pursues ecological
validity has to be able to accommodate the out-
comes of conducting research in real classrooms
(which is where we would ultimately be interested
to know more about any language-learning po-
tential that may derive from writing and WCF) as
compared to the strictures and controls required
and expected in more experimentally controlled
conditions of laboratory-type studies. This is, in
effect, one of the more evident outcomes of the
most recent disciplinary debate in this domain
(Manchón, 2020).
Importantly, no significant differences were
found between the two feedback groups in the
overall uptake of the WCF received. This result
is in line with the findings of recent unfocused
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
studies on feedback (Van Beuningen et al., 2012).
However, our study advances knowledge regard-
ing the beneficial effect of WCF versus no feed-
back in rewritten texts by showing what gets cor-
rected, what does not get corrected, and why. As
an overall statement, L2 writers do not appropri-
ate all the WCF they are provided with. In fact, re-
gardless of the type of WCF received, only around
half of the total percentage of errors made in the
pretest and targeted with unfocused direct or indi-
rect WCF were successfully corrected (IG: 45.15%;
DG: 51.03%). This tendency in our data for a lim-
ited appropriation of WCF may reflect the learn-
ers' L2 proficiency level, which may determine
students' depth of ML reflection (Sheen, 2007)
when processing feedback and the corresponding
retention of error corrections, as previous studies
conducted with EFL learners at low L2 proficiency
levels obtained similar results (Nicolás-Conesa,
Roca de Larios, 8c Monteverde, 2017). Psycholin-
guistic readiness, as noted by one reviewer, is an-
other potential explanation, although our data do
not allow us to provide any kind of robust specu-
lations in this respect.
Our findings further corroborate the overall
conclusion in Rang 8c Han's (2015) recent meta-
analysis that the observed effects of WCF stud-
ies are low to moderate, probably because not
all the feedback provided is noticed and under-
stood by learners. An obvious implication for fu-
ture research would be to investigate in detail the
diverse options that apparently emerge when L2
writers receive and process WCF, crucially includ-
ing situations in which the provision and process-
ing of WCF is an iterative process rather than just
a one-off event in the language-learning and writ-
ing experience of additional language learners
and users.
In addition to limited appropriation of the
WCF received, our data also show that different
types of errors appear to benefit differentially
from distinct types of WCF. Specifically, the DG
showed significantly higher uptake of WCF re-
lated to grammar errors than the IG. This finding
contrasts with Van Beuningen et al. 's (2012) re-
search, which reported no significant differences
between the two feedback groups. However, Van
Beuningen et al. noted the same tendency regard-
ing performance of the DG. Our IG participants
may have experienced greater difficulties in un-
derstanding the corrections due to the implicit
nature of indirect WCF compared to the more
explicit corrections given to the DG, as was also
found by Vyatkina (2010) . This might also explain
why the IG provided significantly more wrong cor-
rections than the CG.
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 865
To sum up, in terms of feedback for accuracy,
our study sheds light on the possible reasons
why different types of feedback are better than
no feedback for the improvement of accuracy
of rewritten texts. Whether this applies to writ-
ers of different proficiency levels, to tasks differ-
ent from those used in our study, or to situations
in which writing and rewriting after receiving
WCF are iterative processes rather than isolated
learning events are empirical questions worth
adding to future research agendas.
Feedback for Acquisition
All three groups reduced their overall percent-
age of errors across new tasks and there were no
significant differences in such overall reduction
of errors among groups. These findings are in
contrast with previous studies (Van Beuningen
et al., 2008, 2012). Given that our design did
not include a group that engaged in repeated
writing over time but did not engage in written
languaging, our data does not allow us to offer
firm conclusions on the potential effect of mere
writing practice over time, an area of research
that certainly needs further investigation from
the perspective of task repetition in the envi-
ronment of writing (see Bygate, 2018; Manchon,
2014a, 2014b).
The contrast between our findings and those
reported in Van Beuningen et al. (2008, 2012)
might be related to differences in design, particu-
larly in terms of participants' characteristics and,
especially, the nature of the writing tasks. Van Be-
uningen et al. 's adolescent participants wrote a
short email (120 words) to a friend in 20 minutes
following previous explanations given by the re-
searcher. In contrast, our university participants
were asked to write three narrative tasks about
different personal experiences (300 words) in a
50-minute class session. Thus, there were differ-
ences in the type of tasks used (email versus nar-
rative tasks), the length of the essays (short vs.
long texts, and shorter texts are likely to result in
fewer overall errors and error types; Liu 8c Brown,
2015), and the time allotted for task completion
(20 minutes vs. 50 minutes) . Taken together, these
task-related differences might explain higher re-
tention of overall L2 corrections for the feed-
back groups across tasks in Van Beuningen et al. 's
(2008, 2012) research. Future research agendas
should therefore focus on the interaction of the
effects of WCF as well as the tasks and task condi-
tions/instructions used.
Another important contribution of the present
study pertains to the nature of the feedback pro-
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
vided and the consequent data analyses imple-
mented. The study participants received feedback
on a large variety of error types captured in 19 er-
ror codes. In as much as restricted forms of unfo-
cused WCF (as in Van Beuningen et al. 's 2008 and
2012 studies) actually approximate the type of fo-
cused feedback targeted in some previous studies,
it is less suited to answering one of the key ques-
tions in writing pedagogy: Which errors benefit
from error correction, when, and why?
We stated previously that all three groups of
writers reduced the number of errors with no sig-
nificant differences among groups in the num-
ber of grammar or nongrammar errors made
in the pretest, posttest, and delayed posttest.
However, greater improvements were observed in
the data of the participants that received direct
WCF, who significantly reduced the number of
grammar errors from the pretest to the delayed
posttest compared to the IG. These findings re-
fute Truscott's (2007) contention that the effec-
tiveness of feedback is restricted to nongrammar
errors and suggest that direct feedback is effec-
tive in the long run for grammatical errors com-
pared to indirect feedback, a significant expan-
sion of Lalande's (1982) conclusion that indirect
feedback encourages students' problem-solving
and results in long-term development. Our con-
tention (reinforced by the languaging data, as
mentioned before) is that the explicitness of di-
rect feedback helped the participants in the direct
feedback group to better understand the errors
in the languaging session and retain the correc-
tions for the writing up of new texts. In fact, the
errors that were reduced across tests were rule
based (e.g., articles, prepositions, verb forms).
This proposal is in line with views of some SLA re-
searchers, who note the advantages of providing
clear information about specific targeted struc-
ture (s) (e.g., Bitchener 8c Knoch, 2010b; Cerezo
et al., 2019; Manchón, 2011b). Although the su-
periority of direct WCF over indirect WCF is
well established (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Guo, 2015;
Sheen, 2007) , the effects of unfocused WCF await
clarification. Here, our study offers empirical ev-
idence that contradicts Truscott's claim (2004)
that grammar correction cannot lead to learning.
Additionally - and we would argue, importantly -
the current study offers new insights into the
potential effectiveness of unfocused direct WCF
when writing up new texts. Previous studies had
just shown the effect of (a) feedback on the over-
all accuracy of revised texts (e.g., Ferris 8c Roberts,
2001; Truscott & Hsu, 2008), (b) focused feed-
back on the overall level of accuracy in new texts
(e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener 8c Knoch, 2008),
866 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
or (c) unfocused direct feedback on the over-
all level of accuracy in new texts or on gram-
matical accuracy compared to a practice group
(Van Beuningen et al., 2012) but not to unfo-
cused indirect WCF group. Our study is the first
to find evidence for the possible superiority of
unfocused direct WCF on the retention of cor-
rections on grammatical errors from a pretest
to a delayed posttest compared to the effects
of unfocused indirect WCF in the same writing
conditions.
We would argue that the languaging session
(50-minute session) made possible the notic-
ing (i.e., detection) and retention of corrections
needed for language learning (see Bitchener &
Storch, 2016) and more specifically for grammar
learning, since the retention of corrections was re-
stricted to grammar (i.e., rule-based) errors in the
long term. This tendency may not hold for lexis
because most of the lexical errors in both feed-
back groups were related to an untreatable error
(wrong selection of words) , which could be more
difficult to process and retain when unfocused
feedback is provided. Perhaps previous studies
were unable to detect the effects of unfocused di-
rect feedback over indirect feedback for the re-
tention of grammar corrections across time due
to the nature of the feedback processing session:
These studies often included a rewriting session in
which learners were provided with their original
texts and the subsequent corrections. As a result,
learners simply had to copy their corrected essays
onto a new piece of paper on the same day (20-30-
minute session) that they received feedback (e.g.,
Truscott 8c Hsu, 2008; Van Beuningen et al., 2008,
2012). This may have precluded the kind of elab-
orate noticing of errors (i.e., noticing with under-
standing) purported to lead to acquisition (feed-
back for acquisition; Manchón, 2011a).
If the tendency observed in our data were sup-
ported by other studies that include a feedback
processing session, it might be possible to arrive
at an answer to the pedagogically relevant ques-
tion mentioned at the outset of the article, that is,
which errors benefit the most from which type of
WCF. Our data distinctly point to the advantage
of unfocused direct WCF over unfocused indirect
WCF for grammar errors across time after a rewrit-
ing session in which students use their original
essays without corrections. Furthermore, the suc-
cessful uptake of grammar corrections would ap-
pear to facilitate long-term acquisition provided
there is a languaging session that makes possible
the noticing of errors. These findings coincide
with those reported in previous studies about the
effectiveness of focused WCF for the retention of
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
grammar in the long term in ESL (e.g., Bitchener
8c Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007) and EFL settings
(e.g., Guo, 2015; Stefanou, 2014). Additionally,
our findings could be taken into consideration in
future studies that follow Bitchener and Ferris's
(2012) recommendation, mentioned in the intro-
ductory section, to investigate the effects of WCF
not only on overall measures of accuracy across
time, but also on specific error types within gram-
mar and nongrammar categories.
CONCLUSION
In line with the study's theoretical and peda-
gogical motivation, we conclude with comments
along these two dimensions. From the perspec-
tive of theory and research, our study disaggre-
gates the effects of WCF in terms of the dual dis-
tinction of feedback for accuracy and feedback
for acquisition and in the directions for future
research that might signal. Our data show that
(a) writers appropriate only part of the feedback
they are given, and hence only part of the WCF
received is effectively incorporated into rewrit-
ten texts, and (b) the combined effect of unfo-
cused direct WCF plus languaging is significantly
more beneficial for grammar learning in terms of
immediate uptake and the decrease of grammar
errors across time in new written texts (delayed
posttest) compared to unfocused indirect WCF
with languaging. It follows that one direction for
further studies is to investigate the interaction of
task-, learner-, and feedback-related variables,
bearing in mind learners' elaborate noticing
of errors that can lead to language learning.
These interactions should be explored in ped-
agogically relevant and ecologically valid con-
texts where providing and processing feedback
are part and parcel of the language and writ-
ing learning experience of L2 learners. Such
research also has to find ways of counteract-
ing the threats to validity that naturally emerge
in research looking into feedback for acquisi-
tion in pedagogically relevant and ecologically
valid ways, always bearing in mind that, as noted
in an earlier section, we need to acknowledge
in full the nature of classroom-based research
in our search for robust ways of providing
valid answers to the empirical questions in the
domain.
From the perspective of pedagogy, three main
implications derive from both the design and the
results of our study. The first addresses the nec-
essary balance between targeting a range of er-
rors in the WCF provided to L2 users and guard-
ing against unnecessary burdens on students'
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 867
WCF processing capacity. A related point might
be that focused feedback might be more appro-
priate for long texts, whereas unfocused WCF
might be more successfully appropriated when
provided on shorter texts (see also recent dis-
cussion of various combinations in Lee, 2017).
Finally, it is worth reiterating the pedagogical
relevance of the finding that unfocused direct
WCF appears to be more beneficial than indirect
WCF for the appropriation of WCF on grammar
in terms of immediate uptake and longer term
retention.
We would not like to finish without acknowl-
edging the limitations of our research, especially
the practice effect that our design might have en-
tailed, and the use of only one type of task. It is
hoped that future studies can take into consider-
ation these limitations as well as our findings and
their interpretation when designing new studies
that can shed further light on the theoretical and
applied dimensions of the effects of WCF from
the dual perspective of feedback for accuracy and
feedback for acquisition.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was financed by the Spanish Ministry of
Economy and Competitiveness (research grant FFI2016-
79763-P) and by Fundación Séneca, Murcia, Spain (re-
search grants 19463/PI/14 and 20832/PI/18).
NOTE
1 Explicitness in this context refers simply to whether
or not the correct form is explicitly provided, a relevant
clarification to be made given that WCF (as opposed
to some forms of oral corrective feedback) is always ex-
plicit, as discussed in the relevant literature (see, e.g.,
Polio, 2012).
REFERENCES
Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written cor-
rective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writ-
ing , 17 ; 102-118.
Bitchener, J., 8c Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feed-
back in second language acquisition and writing New
York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., 8c Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written
corrective feedback for migrant and international
students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bitchener, J., 8c Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of
written corrective feedback to language develop-
ment: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguis-
tics, 31, 193-214.
Bitchener, J., 8c Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguis-
tic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with writ-
ten corrective feedback . fournal of Second Language
Writing 19, 207-217.
Bitchener, J., 8c Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feed-
back for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual
Matters.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., 8c Cameron, D. (2005). The ef-
fect of different types of corrective feedback on
ESL student writing, fournal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 191-205.
Bruton, A. (2009) . Designing research into the effects of
grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straight-
forward. fournal of Second Language Writing, 18,
136-140.
Bygate, M. (Ed.). (2018). Learning language through task
repetition. Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Ben-
jamins.
Cerezo, L., Manchón, R. M., 8c Nicolás-Conesa, F.
(2019). What do learners notice while process-
ing written corrective feedback? A look at depth
of processing via written languaging. In R. Leow
(Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language
research in classroom learning (pp. 171-185). New
York: Routledge.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of er-
ror feedback for improvement in the accuracy and
fluency of L2 student writing, fournal of Second Lan-
guage Writing, 12, 267-296.
Ellis, R., 8c Shintani, N. (2013). Exploring language peda-
gogy through second language acquisition research. Lon-
don: Roudedge.
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., 8c Allen, E. (2010). Written cor-
rective feedback: Practitioners' perspectives. Inter-
national Journal of English Studies, 10, 47-77.
Ferris, D. R. (1999) . The case for grammar correction in
L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996).
Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language
student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (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.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student
writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term
effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland 8c
F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writ-
ing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., 8c Senna, M. (2013). Writ-
ten corrective feedback for individual L2 writers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307-329.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B.J. (2001). Error feedback in L2
writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
868 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of vmtten CF for L2 de-
velopment: A mixed-method study of vmtten CF types, er-
ror categories and proficiency levels (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). Auckland University of Tech-
nology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Hyland, K., 8c Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second
language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39,
83-101.
Kang, E., 8c Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written cor-
rective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy.
Modern Language Journal, 99, 1-18.
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An
experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-
149.
Lee, I. (2017). Working hard or working smart. Com-
prehensive versus focused written corrective feed-
back in L2 academic contexts. In J. Bitchener, N.
Storch, 8c R. Wette (Eds.), Teaching writing for aca-
demic writing to multilingual students (pp. 168-180) .
New York: Routledge.
Leow, R. (2015). Explicit learning in the classroom. A
student-centered perspective. New York: Routledge.
Liu, Q., 8c Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis
of research on the effectiveness of corrective feed-
back in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writ-
ing, 30, 66-81.
Manchon, R. M. (2011a). The language learning po-
tential of writing in foreign language contexts:
Lessons from research. In M. Reichelt 8c T. Chi-
masko (Eds.), Foreign language writing: Research in-
sights (pp. 44-64). West Lafayette, IN: Parlour
Press.
Manchon, R. M. (2011b). Writing to learn the lan-
guage: Issues in theory and research. In R.
M. Manchon (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-
to-learn in an additional language (pp. 61-82).
Philadelphia/ Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchon, R. M. (2014a). The distinctive nature of task
repetition in writing. Implications for theory, re-
search, and pedagogy. ELIA, 14, 13-41.
Manchon, R. M. (2014b). The internai dimension of
tasks: The interaction between task factors and
learner factors in bringing about learning through
writing. In H. Byrnes & R. M. Manchon (Eds.),
Task-based language learning: Insights from and for
L2 writing (pp. 27-52). Philadelphia/ Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Manchon, R. M. (Ed.). (2020). Writing and lan-
guage learning: Advancing research agendas. Philadel-
phia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Manchon, R. M., 8c Cerezo, L. (2018). Writing as lan-
guage learning. The TESOL encyclopedia of English
language teaching (pp. 1-6). New York: Wiley.
Nicolás-Conesa, F., Roca de Larios, J., 8c Monteverde,
M. A. (2017). The language learning potential of
writing through EFL students' processing of feed-
back. Porta Linguarum, 2, 187-200.
Norris,J., 8c Ortega, L. (2003). Defining and measuring
SLA. In C. Doughty 8c M. Long (Eds.), The hand-
book of second language acquisition (pp. 717-761).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language ac-
quisition theory to the written error correction de-
bate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-
389.
Rummel, S. L. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about
written CF and the effect those beliefs have on uptake:
A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Auckland University
of Technology. Auckland, New Zealand.
Sachs, R., 8c Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types
of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Sheen, Y. H. (2007). The effect of focused written cor-
rective feedback and language aptitude on ESL
learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly,
41, 255-284.
Shintani, N., 8c Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect
of direct written corrective feedback and metalin-
guistic explanation on learners' explicit and im-
plicit knowledge of the English indefinite article.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-306.
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of
written feedback and revision on learners' accu-
racy in using two English grammatical structures.
Language Learning, 64, 103-131.
Skehan, P., 8c Foster, P. (2007) . Complexity, accuracy, flu-
ency and lexis in task-based performance: A meta-
analysis of the Ealing Research. In S. A. Van Daele,
F. Kuiken, M. Pierrard, 8c I. Vedder (Eds.), Com-
plexity, accuracy and fluency in second language use,
learning and teaching (pp. 207-226). Brussels: Con-
tactforum.
Stefanou, C. (2014). L2 article use for generic and specific
plural reference: The role of written corrective feedback,
learner factors and awareness (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
Stefanou, C., 8c Révész, A. (2015). Direct written correc-
tive feedback, learner differences, and the acquisi-
tion of second language article use for generic and
specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal,
99, 263-282.
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written correc-
tive feedback research. International Journal of En-
glish Studies, 10, 29-46.
Storch, N., 8c Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' pro-
cessing, uptake, and retention of corrective feed-
back on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-
tion, 32, 303-334.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correc-
tion, and second language writing revision. Lan-
guage Learning, 62, 1110-1133.
Suzuki, W. (2016). The effect of quality of written lan-
guaging on second language learning. Writing &
Pedagogy, 8, 461-482.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency, and collabora-
tion in advanced second language proficiency. In
H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The
contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 85-108).
London: Continuum.
Truscott,J. (1999). The case for "The case against gram-
mar correction in L2 writing classes": A response
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al 869
to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, £,111-
122.
Truscott, J. (2004) . Evidence and conjecture: A response
to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13,
337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on
learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Sec-
ond Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., 8c Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008) . Error correction, revi-
sion, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writ-
ing, 17, 292-305.
Van Beuningen, C. G. (2011). The effectiveness of compre-
hensive corrective feedback in second language writing
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation) . University of
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
APPENDIX A
Example of Direct Correction
This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., 8c Kuiken, F.
(2008). The effect of direct and indirect correc-
tive feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. ITL
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-
296.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., 8c Kuiken, F.
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of compre-
hensive error correction in second language writ-
ing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41.
Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written correc-
tive feedback in teaching beginning German. For-
eign Language Annals, 43, 671-689.
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012) . What role for col-
laboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 21, 364-374.
870 The Modem Language Journal 103(2019)
Example of Indirect Correction

APPENDIX B

Writing Prompts
Narrative Topic 1: Write about something negative that happened to you, something that went wrong.
Narrative Topic 2: Write about an experience of success that you had in your life.
Narrative Topic 3: Write about an experience that made you change your opinion about somebody.

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al. 871
APPENDIX C

Examples of Error Coding

Broad and Narrow Coding of Grammar and Nongrammar Errors

Broad Coding Narrow Coding Explanation Examples

Grammar Verb tense Verb tense is incorrect My face LOOKS so sad ... ("LOOKED")
errors
Verb form Verb form is incorrect . . . started TO GIVE . . . ("GIVING")
Word form Word form is incorrect . . . three WORSE months . . . ("WORST")
including wrong . . . my STRENGTHS decreased . . .
genitive use ("STRENGTH")
... to my beach'S house ... ("BEACH")
I remember OTHER day . . . ("ANOTHER")
Article Article is missing, . . . but THE most of them . . . (unnecessary
unnecessary, or article)
incorrect ... in A near future . . . (wrong article, "the")
... XXX teachers couldn't ... (missing article,
"the")
Plural Noun plural marker is ... all THIS things ("THESE")
missing, unnecessary, ... IRRELEVANTS things ("IRRELEVANT")
or incorrect . . . people that IS important ("ARE")
...at NIGHTS ("NIGHT")
Preposition Preposition is missing, . . . called TO my uncle . . . (unnecessary
unnecessary, or preposition)
incorrect . . . ON the third year . . . (wrong preposition,
"in")
. . . playing XXX one hour . . . (missing
preposition, "for")
Word order Word order incorrect . . . the doctors found IN MY LEG a bad thing . . .
for the sentence (" . . . a bad thing IN MY LEG")
(except when We spent THERE five days . . . ("five days
affecting sentence THERE")
structure)
Sentence Sentence structure I did THE BETTER THAT . . . (instead of, e.g., "I
structure error did my best")
... despite of HIM ILL ... (instead of, e.g., "his
being ill" or "the fact that he was ill")
Pronoun Pronoun is missing, . . . what you know WHAT is the . . . (unnecessary
unnecessary or pronoun)
incorrect . . . didn't say NOTHING to us (wrong
pronoun, "ANYTHING")
... XXX is hard (missing pronoun, "IT")
Conjunction Conjunction is missing, . . . AND unfortunately . . . (unnecessary
unnecessary or conjunction)
incorrect . . . there was a time THAT . . . (wrong
conjunction, "WHEN")
. . . family, XXX my friends . . . (missing
conjunction, "AND")
Determiner Determiner is missing, ... was under MY control (unnecessary
unnecessary or determiner)
incorrect . . . for THIS reason (wrong determiner,
"THAT")
. . . had XXX money (missing determiner,
"SOME")

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
872 The Modern Language Journal 103 ( 201 9)
Broad Coding Narrow Coding Explanation Examples
Nongrammar Wrong word (Lexis) Wrong word/expression . . . deep REMEMBERS . . .
errors Word meaning incorrect for ( "MEMORIES" )
the sentence or necessary . . . that WRONG experience . . .
word is missing ("NEGATIVE")
. . . start BY ZERO . . . ("FROM
SCRATCH")
. . . the TRAVEL of my dreams . . .
("TRIP")
Word choice (Lexis) Word choice not exactly ... be able to KNOW anything . . .
wrong but could be clearer ("UNDERSTAND")
or more appropriate ... a BIG effort . . . ("GREAT")
I didn't improve ANYTHING . . . ("AT
ALL")
Spelling Spelling or spacing error ... an EPILECTIC . . . ("EPILEPTIC")
A owl appeared . . . ("AN")
Punctuation Commas, full stops, ... to suffer bullying, every day . . .
semi-colons, capital (should be full stop, not comma)
letters ... a machine, which . . . (unnecessary
comma)
. . . today; Now . . . (no capital N in
"Now")
Apostrophe (Other Incorrect or missing . . . our parent's permission . . .
errors) apostrophe ("PARENTS' permission")
Referent (Other Pronoun reference is vague I don't like IT ... (it's
errors) or unclear unknown/unclear what "it" refers to)
Oral language (Other Language more appropriate WELL, I didn't sleep . . .
errors) to oral speech than formal PLUS, you couldn't choose . . .
writing

errors) ("because he started")

Redundant (Other Redundant language . . . because OF he started . . .

... we had a TRAFFIC accident ("an

accident")
When I was a little girl, WHEN I WAS 7
years old ... ("When I was 7 years
old...")

APPENDIX D

Examples of Students' Languaging and Coding

Error Correction Error Type Students' Languaging Coding

It sounded too TRUE Word choice REAL. I don't know Level 1: Level of
good to be REAL what is wrong here noticing (error
transcription alone)

York "arrived in" reporting (error

I CAME to New ARRIVED IN Wrong word CAME; I should write Level 2: Level of

transcription +
error correction)

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Florentina Nicolás-Conesa et al 873
Error Correction Error Type Students' Languaging Coding
I NEVER WAS with I WAS NEVER Word order I NEVER WAS with her. Level 2: Level of
her The order of the reporting (error
sentence is wrong. transcription + error
category)
After THIS THESE Determiner I made mistakes in the Level 3. Level of
situations SITUATIONS use of determiners: I reporting (error
wrote "this" instead of transcription + error
"these." correction + error
category)
The two girls I WAS I HAD BEEN Tense The two girls I WAS with Level 4. Level of
with that morning that morning. Wrong understanding (error
verb tense because it is transcription^- error
an event that category + MLE)
happened in the past.
I should have used
past perfect.
I thought about my TO SIT Verb I thought about my final Level 4. Level of
final option, which option , which WAS understanding (error
was SITTING in a SITTING in a park: I transcription + error
park should have written TO
correction
SIT after the verb
+ MLE)
to be.

She has been my FOR 11 years Preposition SINCE 11 years: The Level 5. Level of
best friend SINCE preposition is wrong. understanding (error
I I years The correct transcription + error
preposition is FOR, correction + error
because it refers to the category + MLE)
duration of the action.

Note. MLE = metalinguistic explanation.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the
end of the article.

This content downloaded from 168.195.52.137 on Mon, 11 Sep 2023 03:51:20 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms