Heritage, second and third language learner processing of written corrective feedback: Evidence from think-alouds

This study compares the processing of three different types written corrective feedback (WCF) by heritage language (HL), second (L2), and third (L3) learners who wrote revised short essays received a type WCF for each essay (i.e., direct, coding, or underlining). Comparison pre- post-feedback texts analysis think-alouds served as basis determining whether one promoted higher depth (DoP) this was mediated error background. The findings indicate that did interact with DoP, interaction in some ways learner background type. research serves first step toward understanding how these groups are impacted commonly used is therefore important to drive evidence-based pedagogical decisions.