Which is the most effective technique for inducing learners’ attention to written corrective feedback (WCF): revision or discussion? : Approximate replication of Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020)

Abstract

Ekanayaka and Ellis (2020) investigated two ways of inducing attention to written corrective feedback (WCF) – asking learners to revise their texts following feedback individually and asking them to review the corrections through peer discussion. The current study is an approximate replication. It examined the effects of direct semi-focused WCF on 91 first year undergraduates learning English at a University in Sri Lanka over a 4 week period. The study was quasi-experimental involving two experimental groups: (1) the first group received WCF with an opportunity to revise their writing following WCF; (2) the second group received WCF with an opportunity to discuss the errors in pairs. There was also a control group that completed the writing tasks without receiving WCF or opportunity to revise/review. All three groups completed three problem solution writing tasks, one each week. The results largely matched those of Ekanayaka and Ellis. Both the experimental groups gained in accuracy in new writing more than the control group. The requirement of revision following WCF proved to be more effective than peer discussion. Students also perceived being asked to revise their writing individually as more helpful than discussing corrections in pairs. However, the effects of revising in the replication study were stronger than that in the original study.