The Comparative Effect Of Direct Written Corrective Feedback And Meta-linguistic Written Corrective Feedback On Learner Engagement

This study is conducted to compare the effect of direct written corrective feedback (WCF) and meta-linguistic WCF on learner engagement. The theoretical foundations in the study include constructivism theory and learner engagement. The research questions are as follows.1. How do learners cognitively engage with the direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF?2. How do learners behaviorally engage with the direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF?3. How do learners affectively engage with the direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF?The data were collected by counting the errors and error types from the original and revised compositions and by conducting interviews for three times. Data analysis included two parts:the text analysis of participants’revised compositions and the qualitative analysis of recording transcriptions. The findings are as follows:Firstly, students with meta-linguistic WCF are more active than students with direct WCF in the cognitive engagement to a large extent. For the depth of processing, the low-level and mid-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF do better in the aspect of understanding errors and the high-level learners show no significant differences in the aspects of noticing and understanding errors. For the meta-cognitive strategies, planning and monitoring are two main strategies. The learners with direct WCF aim at improving their present writing accuracy and adopt unspecific meta-cognitive strategies, which is contrary to the learners with meta-linguistic WCF. For cognitive strategies, the low-level learners with direct WCF use two kinds of cognitive strategies:relating with the previous knowledge and reasoning. And the low-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF conceptualize on details. For the mid-level learners, reasoning is adopted with direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF. And the high-level learners with direct WCF mainly use memorizing strategy and the high-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF respond to the WCF by analyzing the context.Secondly, both direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF have a positive effect on learners in general in the behavioral engagement and the mid-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF stand out. For the behavioral operations, the mid-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF have the best performance. And the direct WCF has a good immediate effect while the meta-linguistic WCF has a good delayed effect. And for the direct WCF group, five types of errors can be corrected accurately, including preposition, punctuation, word form, singular-plural and article. For the meta-linguistic WCF group, five types of errors can be corrected accurately, including sentence structure, word choice, spelling, preposition and singular-plural. For the behavioral strategies, the low-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF prefer to solve problems by means of asking peers and using dictionaries and the low-level learners with direct WCF mainly depend on the feedback and sometimes ask peers for help. And the strategies the mid-level learners adopt are extensive, including asking peers, using dictionaries, asking teachers and referring to notes and books. And the high-level learners with direct WCF adopt no strategies while the high-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF refer to many materials to solve questions.Thirdly, the same level learners with direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF have similar emotional and attitudinal reactions except the low-level learners. The low-level learners with direct WCF have an unstable emotion, keeping a complex attitude. The low-level learners with meta-linguistic WCF are pleasant throughout the process, keeping a positive attitude. The mid-level learners have mood swings but they return to calmness finally. They keep the positive attitude throughout the feedback. And the high-level learners show strong emotional reactions in the three revisions, seeming to be overwhelmed to a great extent and their attitude is complex.The findings may have some pedagogical implications:Firstly, for the low-level learners, it is better to provide direct WCF if the learners have a seriously poor English proficiency and have no interest in English. If the learner’s English is not too bad, it is good to offer meta-linguistic WCF. Secondly, for the mid-level learners, it makes little difference to provide direct WCF and meta-linguistic WCF. So teachers can provide either direct WCF or meta-linguistic WCF. Thirdly, for the high-level learners, it may be better not to provide feedback for many times and to make themselves correct errors as much as possible. Fourthly, it is a good choice to adopt the direct WCF if the errors are committed including punctuation, word form and article and it works better to adopt meta-linguistic WCF if sentence structure, word choice and spelling errors are committed. Besides, it is necessary to understand students’ individual differences and ability levels better. Lastly, it is beneficial to encourage students to talk about errors in groups.