“How Can I Correct What I Don't Know?”: Exploring Low-Level Learners' Incorporation and Perceptions of Written Metalinguistic Explanations

Introduction

Providing students with written corrective feedback (WCF) in their texts is a widely employed practice in language classrooms. In particular, the role of feedback in foreign language (FL) contexts, where learning to write in the second language (L2) and learning the L2 occur simultaneously, is usually twofold: it is employed not only with the aim of helping learners improve the accuracy of their L2 texts, but also with the objective of aiding the learners’ L2 development through reflection on language form (Leow, 2020; Manchón, 2011). Given that WCF is such a widespread practice and that learners generally expect and value feedback provision (e.g., Ferris, 2003; Westmacott, 2017), an ever-growing body of research has focused on the possible effects that different types of feedback techniques may have on accuracy (see Chen & Renandya, 2020 for a recent meta-analysis) and acquisition (e.g., Nicolás-Conesa, Manchón & Cerezo, 2019). Nonetheless, many questions remain unanswered, partly because certain methodological designs or populations have been under-investigated.

To begin with, many studies have been conducted under highly controlled, often decontextualized conditions. However, to conduct WCF research that is more pedagogically relevant and ecologically valid it is necessary to adopt a situated approach to feedback practices that originates from the premise that no single type of feedback will be the ‘most effective’ one (Lee, 2020). Instead, research should aim at identifying which kind of learners may benefit more from which types of feedback while taking into account possible moderating factors (e.g., learning context, individual differences, tasks characteristics, error types, among others) (Ferris, 2010; Bitchener, 2019). To achieve this aim, controlled studies should be complemented with longitudinal, classroom-based research that includes authentic text production and feedback provision within a given syllabus (Lee, 2020; Leow, 2020; Manchón & Leow, 2020). In addition, most of what we know about feedback provision and use comes from data gathered from learners at intermediate and advanced levels, while low-level learners are an under-researched group (Park et al., 2016). However, this population should receive more attention, particularly as existing research points towards low-level learners’ lack of understanding of WCF (Bitchener, 2012; 2019), which may result in low percentages of successful incorporations of such feedback into their revisions. One possible way to help elementary learners understand the nature of their mistakes is to provide more informative feedback, such as brief metalinguistic explanations of the nature of their mistakes (Bitchener, 2019).

The present exploratory study attempts to contribute to the emerging line of research of classroom-based WCF studies by investigating an under-researched population, that is, low-level EFL learners. We analyzed how an intact class of A2-level first-year students of Tourism incorporated metalinguistic feedback into the second versions of the texts they had to write for an English module. In this module, writing practice, feedback provision and the production of second drafts were fully integrated into the curriculum, so data were gathered from real tasks written by students during a four-month period. Specifically, the study first explored the extent to which they were able to successfully correct their errors when they received direct versus indirect metalinguistic explanations, and second, to what extent different types of errors benefitted from these two types of metalinguistic feedback. In addition, given the importance that students’ perceptions have in the way they approach and incorporate feedback into their texts (e.g., Westmacott, 2017), the study also investigated the kind of feedback that was perceived as more useful by the group of low-level EFL learners.