Abstract
Written corrective feedback (CF) could pave the way for L2 development, especially when embedded in multimodality. Building on prior research, this descriptive study drew a relationship between specific types of errors that were most successfully revised and noticing measured by eye-tracking techniques. Additionally, this study furthers our understanding of the impact of indirect CF (i.e., codes accompanied by metalinguistic hints) delivered by two multimodal components: (a) a video tutorial on how to approach teachers’ comments and (b) a soundless video displaying individualized teacher feedback. To this end, three L2 learners of Spanish completed a narration in the target language, watched a tutorial on attending to CF, received indirect feedback via the personalized soundless video (i.e., option “b” above), and corrected their errors. An eye tracker recorded all ocular activity while the participants watched both recordings. The results suggested that receiving training on approaching teachers’ comments may enhance the overall success rate of revisions, especially in verb and vocabulary-related errors. Last, a detailed unfolding of the revision process unveiled by eye-tracking data accounted for (1) an explanation of why two specific types of errors were more successfully revised and (2) some pedagogical recommendations.
Highlights
In second language (L2) writing contexts, corrective feedback (CF) has widely evidenced affording statistically significant positive effects (Storch 2010) while revising and creating new writing pieces (Ashwell 2000; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Ferris 2006; Bitchener and Knoch 2010; Shintani and Ellis 2013)
The results showed that screencast CF was well received as learners reported getting more meaningful comments, having greater access to an expert, and amplifying their affective involvement, engaging more deeply in the revision process
Multimodal CF was derived by (1) an audiovisual tutorial on approaching teachers’ comments and (2) a soundless video displaying indirect CF
Summary
In second language (L2) writing contexts, corrective feedback (CF) has widely evidenced affording statistically significant positive effects (Storch 2010) while revising and creating new writing pieces (Ashwell 2000; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Ferris 2006; Bitchener and Knoch 2010; Shintani and Ellis 2013). Teacher comments can be conducive to writing and language development (Bitchener and Knoch 2010) when learners’ accountability for self-correction is upheld (Furnborough and Truman 2009) To this effect, some studies have found that indirect written CF is to be favored over direct corrections (Hamel et al 2017; Valentín-Rivera 2016, 2019). Perhaps the wide-ranging degrees of efficacy of varied strategies of indirect written CF are condition-dependent (e.g., learners’ linguistic background, proficiency level, motivation, previous experience receiving written CF) This lack of consensus could be explained by the fact that indirect written CF has not been studied as much as direct CF has (Kang and Han 2015; Shintani and Aubrey 2016). This may be due to its dynamism, accessibility, and perpetuity (Campbell and Feldmann 2017)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
