Less is more? The impact of written corrective feedback on corpus-assisted L2 error resolution

Abstract

The past decade has seen a sharp increase in research into L2 learners’ direct use of language corpora (typically known as ‘data-driven learning’, DDL) for error resolution in L2 writing. However, a crucial yet underexplored variable in this process is whether and how the form of written corrective feedback (WCF) provided on L2 writing facilitates effective corpus consultation for L2 error resolution. Focusing on L2 writers at the post-graduate level and using a short private online course for DDL training, we determine the impact of four WCF conditions (varying in their degree of directness) on students’ use of corpora for lexical and grammatical error resolution, and the appropriacy of error revisions made with/without corpora for these error types. The results suggest that ‘less (WCF) is more’ if learners are to make successful error revisions via corpus consultation, with more direct WCF conditions often resulting in students revising errors without consulting a corpus. However, less direct WCF conditions sometimes resulted in inappropriate revisions, as learners required additional information as to the nature and location of the specific error. Differences were also found in the effectiveness of corpus consultation for grammatical and lexical error types, with WCF a confounding factor. These results suggest that if corpora are to be used for L2 error resolution, teachers need to carefully consider whether their WCF allows for meaningful engagement with corpora to occur, and whether corpus consultation is suitable or desirable for resolving all error types.