Indirect Written Corrective Feedback Research Articles

A Quasi-Experimental Study Investigating the Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Students' Writing Accuracy

It has been widely recognized that writing is one of the most critical micro-skills in language teaching and learning. Consequently, numerous researchers in English Language Teaching (ELT) have investigated the impact of written corrective feedback (WCF) on students' writing proficiency. The research on this topic has produced mixed and inconclusive results, indicating a lack of consensus on the efficacy of WCF. This study examines WCF's impact on the writing accuracy of S4 students at the School of Arts and Humanities in Meknes. To achieve this objective, a quasi-experimental case study design was employed. Research instruments included pre-tests and post-tests administered to control and experimental groups to measure students' writing achievements with and without WCF. Additionally, a questionnaire was distributed to 64 students and 30 teachers to explore their preferences for WCF techniques. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with teachers to identify challenges that prevent them from providing direct WCF. The results indicated that the control group showed lower achievement scores than the experimental group, suggesting a disadvantage in learning writing without WCF. The questionnaire results revealed a mismatch between teachers' and students' preferences for WCF techniques; students preferred direct WCF, while teachers favoured indirect WCF. Insights from the interviews indicated that most teachers are reluctant to provide direct WCF due to large class sizes. In conclusion, this paper offers several pedagogical implications for stakeholders, teachers, and students at the School of Arts and Humanities in Meknes to improve writing skills' teaching and learning.

The relative effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on L2 learning: The moderating role of field dependence/independence

The current study investigated the relative effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on the learning of regular past tense, and the extent to which learning outcomes were related to individual variation in field dependence/independence (FDI). Fifty-nine Chinese intermediate second language (L2) learners of English were randomly assigned to two treatment groups and a control group. The two treatment groups carried out three written dictogloss tasks and received direct WCF and indirect WCF, respectively, on their erroneous use of regular past tense. The control group performed the same writing tasks but received feedback on the content of their writing. To evaluate the effect of treatment, a grammaticality judgement task and a picture description task were administered as the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest. The Group Embedded Figures Test was used to measure learners’ FDI orientation. The results showed that both treatment groups outperformed the control group on the posttests, but no significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups. In addition, the results suggested that FDI was related to learning outcomes as measured by the picture description task. Field independent learners had an overall advantage over field dependent learners, especially where indirect WCF was provided.

Assessing the Impact of Written Corrective Feedback Strategies on the Writing Proficiency of Senior High School Students

Written corrective feedback (WCF) in enhancing writing proficiency has been the subject of numerous studies, but few studies have examined students' perceptions about the value of feedback on their written errors. This study aims to investigate the effects of direct WCF, indirect WCF, and metalinguistic explanation on the past simple tense acquisition of senior high school learners in Pakistan. Much research has been conducted involving adults, while little has been done to consider senior high school students in this regard. This study has been aimed to explore the effects of direct WCF, indirect WCF and metalinguistic explanation on the writing performance of senior high school students in Pakistan. Students were divided into four groups, each with one type of feedback, including group four as the control group with no feedback. All four groups had written narration on a given picture and were treated by mentioned feedback. After that, results were compared to look for effective feedback type. After writing task, a survey and interview were conducted to explore students’ perceptions about WCF and WCF strategies. The study found that learners want feedback from their teachers and prefer direct feedback and Metalinguistic explanation. This research has been planned to help learners in their early stage through WCF learn a second language and form a strong linguistic base that will help them construct grammatically correct sentences and compositions.

THE EFFECTS OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON FRENCH WRITING SKILLS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Written corrective feedback (WCF) in second-language writing studies has been conducted over the last two decades to investigate whether it has a positive or negative impact on students' writing skills. Teachers can use direct WCF or indirect WCF strategies to provide this feedback. However, conflicting views still exist on which WCF strategy is most effective in improving second language writing skills. This study aims to examine the effects of implementing direct and indirect written corrective feedback on the enhancement of French writing skills. The research employed a quantitative approach utilizing a static-group pre-test and post-test design. The participants in this study consisted of fifty-six students enrolled in the French Language Education Study Program at a public university in Bandung, Indonesia. They were divided into two experimental groups, referred to as the direct and indirect written corrective feedback groups. They were assessed through a writing test for French narrative texts. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS, employing normality and homogeneity tests, as well as the N-Gain test and Mann-Whitney U test which aimed to determine the average differences and their significance. The findings indicated that the direct written corrective feedback group exhibited a significantly greater improvement (N-Gain score: 0.3229) compared to the indirect written corrective feedback group (N-Gain score: 0.1174). Nonetheless, the statistical analysis utilizing the Mann-Whitney U test found no significant difference in the N-Gain scores between the two WCF classes (p0.05). The results of this research are expected to contribute to second language writing studies and provide insights for teachers in teaching writing in French as a foreign language.

The Effect of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Accuracy and Fluency of University Students' English Writing

This research aimed to determine the effect of WCF (Written Corrective Feedback), direct and indirect, on overall accuracy, error types, and overall accuracy and fluency in pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test in rewritten text. The research questions examined the potential links between the direct & indirect WFC, grammar & non-grammar errors, and standpoint of feedback for accuracy and fluency. A total of 100 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students from the University of Pahlawan Tuanku Tambusai in Indonesia were involved in the research. The findings revealed significant variations among the three experimental groups in the proportions of both effectively and unsuccessfully rectified errors. as well as the proportions of uncorrected and deleted errors in both grammar and non-grammar categories. The cohort that received the Direct WCF had the most significant enhancement in accuracy. This study showed that offering direct WCF (written corrective feedback) can enhance participants accuracy gradually over an extended period of time (long term). Indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) can enhance participants' fluency in terms of overall word count. while direct WCF can improve participants' fluency in terms of t-units over a longer period of time.

Online teacher written corrective feedback outside of class time: (In)effectiveness and task engagement

This study examines a common pedagogical approach whereby students view teacher feedback outside of class time. Facilitated through Moodle, it aimed to investigate not only the effect of written corrective feedback (WCF) on learning outcomes, but importantly, how frequently students review the feedback they receive. The study was conducted at a Japanese Women’s University in Tokyo (age: M = 19.6, SD = 0.6). Over a 15-week semester, students were required to write weekly homework assignments. These were then marked by the researcher and returned via Moodle, with students encouraged to read their feedback before attempting the next assignment. In line with existing research in the field, a no-WCF control group was compared against treatment groups that received indirect WCF with meta-linguistic explanations. Further to this, using an online system such as Moodle allowed the provision of linked grammar resource pages through basic HTML code embedded within the WCF itself. At the end of the semester student texts were analysed to measure improvement. When pre-test and post-tests were compared there were no significant differences within groups or between groups on measures of fluency and accuracy. However, what sets this study apart from others that have investigated student engagement, is the use of online activity logs which in combination with survey data allowed the investigation of actual study habits rather than merely those that are self-reported. The results of which give better insight and valid explanations for the outcomes of the study and call into question the efficacy of take-home feedback.

Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in learning writing: The students' perception

This study was carried out based on the hottest issue regarding the role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF). The role and use of direct WCF and indirect WCF have been debated issues among second language acquisition and writing researchers. The controversial issue regarding the necessity of feedback started from Truscott’s comment that direct written corrective feedback does not improve students’ writing skills. This research explored the students’ perception of direct WCF and indirect indirect WCF. Qualitative descriptive was applied in this research involving 30 students as the subject. A questionnaire and interview were carried out as the instruments in collecting data. An interactive model that included data collecting, coding, data display, and conclusion or verification was employed for the data analysis. The findings suggested that direct written corrective feedback had a beneficial impact because 99.91% of students said they preferred it.

Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions

This study examined the combined effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) and think-aloud protocols (TAPs) as two types of pedagogical intervention for improving the revision quality of second language (L2) writing. With a quasi-experimental design, it explored whether TAPs trigger deeper processing of WCF under two WCF-type conditions: direct or indirect WCF. Participants were 80 high-intermediate learners of English as a second language (ESL) at a US university who were divided into (1) direct WCF+TAPs; (2) direct WCF-only; (3) indirect WCF+TAPs; and (4) indirect WCF-only. The impacts of the interventions were gauged by changes in seven subsystems of complexity–accuracy–lexis (CAL) between the first and final drafts of narrative essays. Results showed differential impacts of the four conditions depending on the linguistic dimensions, including some negative impacts of TAPs. Participants’ comments during TAP sessions were used to triangulate the interventions’ effects. We conclude that WCF and TAPs promoted different types of processing; while WCF contributed to the potential restructuring of learners’ interlanguage systems, TAPs triggered learners’ higher-order thinking and served as a self-reflection tool to make strategic decisions in revising the text.

EFL Learners’ Attitude towards Teacher’s and Peers’ Written Corrective Feedback

This research was aimed at revealing EFL learners’ attitude toward their teacher’s and peers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) on their composition in the context of teaching and learning English as a foreign language (EFL). Fifty-nine students were involved in this research. The questionnaire on a three-point Likert scale – showing options of agree, neutral, and disagree – was used to collect the research data. Further, the result of data analysis showed that: (1) the learners generally showed positive attitude toward both the teacher’s and peers’ WCF; (2) they felt challenged and encouraged when their teacher or their peers always corrected the errors they had made in their composition; (3) they indicated more positive attitude toward direct than toward indirect WCF; (4) they expected their most frequent errors in their composition to be corrected; (5) they preferred their global errors to be corrected than their local errors.; and (6) they preferred their errors to be corrected by their teacher than by their peer. Based on the findings, it can then be concluded that WCF is generally needed by EFL learners when learning to write composition. It needs to be provided with such considerations as what types of correction techniques are used (direct and/or indirect), which errors are prioritized to correct (the most frequent); and who should correct the errors (teachers are preferred against peers).

The Students’ and Teachers’ Preference of Written Corrective Feedback

Previous research mainly shows students’ improvement of composition benefits from Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). According to the five types of WCF mentioned by Ellis, containing direct WCF, indirect WCF, metalinguistic WCF, focused and unfocused WCF and reformulation, the paper reviews previous literature to help teachers adjust their WCF method to students’ preferences. The paper’s main findings are: 1) teachers’ preference for WCF is inconsistent with students’ preferences; 2) students prefer detailed and explicit feedback such as direct WCF; 3) teachers prefer indirect WCF to encourage students to reflect on their mistakes. This paper contributes to improving the teaching method of WCF.

Written Corrective Feedback: How can it influence adult ELLs writing performance?

Previous research on teacher feedback focused on investigating the connection between L2 development and Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) given to adult learners, measuring the effectiveness of WCF given by teachers. However, these studies mainly ignored the importance of analyzing the cause of mixed results and summarizing different types of feedback outcomes, and results were inconclusive due to the various divisions of WCF types in this area. This study systematically divides WCF into five types, reviewing their positive and negative outcome. Also, it tries to explain why the same division of WCF has different results about its outcomes in various studies. This article reviews previous literature to provide a comprehensive and critical view of the field of WCF. Based on previous research, this paper finds that different kinds of WCF can contribute to various outcomes. Direct Written Corrective Feedback improves linguistic accuracy significantly without a convincing long-term impact, while Indirect Written Corrective Feedback may outperform it in this aspect. Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback (MWCF) and Reformation benefits the acquisition of explicit knowledge and help students understand grammar rules deeply. Besides, many studies demonstrate that both Focus Written Corrective Feedback (FWCF) and Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback (CWCF) can help students correctly use their targeted grammatical rules, but CWCF may reduce students’ motivation. Future studies should pay more attention to control variables during the experiment process and systematically compare the different outcomes of WCF. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the efficacy of WCF and inspires researchers to provide guidance about feedback for pedagogical practices.

The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning

ABSTRACT The present study examined the relative effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on L2 learning and the mediating role of language anxiety in the effectiveness of these two types of WCF. Forty-five Chinese L2 learners of English were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: direct WCF (n = 15), indirect WCF (n = 15), and control (n = 15). The learners performed two text reconstruction tasks designed to elicit the past counterfactual conditional over two treatment sessions. The treatment effect was assessed by a grammaticality judgement task and a picture-cued production task before and immediately after the treatment. Language anxiety was measured by the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale. The results showed that both treatment groups performed better than the control group on the two assessment tasks, but no significant differences were found between the two treatment groups. In addition, the results suggested that the effect of indirect WCF was mediated by individual differences in language anxiety.

The interplay between learner autonomy and indirect written corrective feedback in EFL writing

AbstractThis study investigated the relationship between learner autonomy (LA) and indirect written corrective feedback (IWCF) in an EFL writing classroom in Vietnam. Forty‐one intermediate EFL learners from a class of a foundation writing course volunteered to participate in the study. During the course, the teacher provided IWCF in response to the learners' errors and encouraged them to revise, edit, and correct those errors using a set of procedures. The study revealed that the learners with higher autonomy were more successful in correcting errors and in producing error‐free modified pieces of writing than those with lower autonomy. This indicated that there could be a considerable mediating effect of LA on the efficacy of IWCF. It was also found that there seemed to be positive changes in the awareness and learning practices of the learners towards a more autonomous learning at the end of the course. The study suggests that IWCF can be very effective in an autonomy‐supportive learning environment and that IWCF could help EFL learners to be more autonomous in language learning. Various implications are also discussed.

Written corrective feedback strategies: A systematic review

In the last few decades, written corrective feedback (WCF) in Second language acquisition(SLA) has held great importance for L2 researchers. Technically, WCF consists of different forms, scopes, and tones compared to oral feedback and types and strategies. Truscott’s claim (1996) about the practicality of grammatical corrections became the reason for many researchers to investigate the matter more in detail. As WCF is directly related to teachers and students, it is equally significant to consider the psychology of learners who adopt feedback that when, where, and how much feedback they can process according to their capability. All these aspects assisted researchers in broadening their range of research to plan vibrant research designs to cover all mechanisms involved in the feedback process. Not only the question of debate is teachers’ and students’ perception about WCF but also the effects of different WCF strategies. The present paper aims to bring forth the rational, systematic review of the recent studies from 2018 till 2022 conducted on written corrective feedback strategies, specifically direct and indirect feedback type followed by a metalinguistic explanation as to the most frequent way of providing feedback by teachers. The data displayed the learners’ inclination towards direct written corrective feedback as the preferred type over indirect WCF. This paper will assist new researchers planning to explore this varied domain to understand what learners perceive, prefer, and how any WCF type influences them.

고급 한국어 학습자의 서면 오류수정 피드백 수용 양상 연구

This study aims to explore how do Korean learner writers receiving direct written corrective feedback(WCF), indirect WCF describe their strategies for applying feedback to existing texts on subsequent texts. in order to do it, Data collected from multiple sources, including 13 Korean learners’ written texts, Survey results, interviews, and Written revision. and explored how korean learners behaviorally, strategically and affectively engage with WCF. The amount of successful uptake in indirect written corrective feedback, 46.59% was significantly lower than in direct written corrective feedback(98%). In indirect WCF, the highest amount of successful student uptake occurred in the subcategory on grammar and the lowest on Vocabulary. Different learners had different attitudes toward feedback. Findings suggest that teachers need to have a thorough understanding of students’ backgrounds and beliefs and that they should carefully plan their WCF strategies to enhance students’ engagement with WCF. (Seoul National University)

Investigating EFL Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices about Written Corrective Feedback: A Large-scale Study

An increasing number of studies have examined teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding written corrective feedback (WCF) in recent years. However, the sample size in these previous studies tends to be small. Through questionnaires and teacher interviews, the present study explored the WCF beliefs and practices of 2,012 EFL teachers in Beijing, China. It found that the majority of teachers regarded error correction as a responsibility shared by both teachers and students, and they preferred selective WCF and integrative use of direct and indirect WCF methods. Also, they tended to have confidence in the effectiveness of their WCF. As for their practices, they would mostly underline the errors and point out the types or underline all errors with types indicated. In addition, most teachers would give feedback directly, and the number of teachers for and against delivering feedback on recurring errors seemed to be even. This study indicates the necessity of offering in-service EFL teachers training on WCF.

Minding the gap

This study investigates how different ways of receiving peer written corrective feedback (WCF) affect learners’ opportunities to actively engage in negotiation of form in tandem virtual encounters. Two types of WCF are compared, namely direct WCF plus oral metalinguistic explanation and indirect WCF plus oral prompt. During a telecollaboration programme between Italian students of English and US students of Italian, the participants (n = 16) were given several tasks to complete in dyads, including that of providing feedback on written compositions produced by their partner in the target language. The eight dyads were divided into two groups which received the same instructions for the activities, with the exception of instructions on how to provide WCF to their partner. The data of six dyads – three from each group – were analysed with regard to the quality of language-related episodes. The data analysis showed that indirect WCF plus oral prompt was more effective in leading the NNSs to actively engage with negotiation of form during the discussion phase. This result will be discussed together with other findings which emerged from the analysis, with the aim to provide useful insights on how to promote focus on form when implementing peer-review activities in telecollaboration programmes.

Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision

Although substantial evidence exists showing written corrective feedback (WCF) helps second language (L2) learners improve their writing accuracy, there is a paucity of research that has examined L2 writing accuracy in connection with both revision behavior and processing of WCF. Using a quasi-experimental research design, 44 learners from four Academic and Professional Writing courses were divided into two groups: individual processing (n = 20) and collaborative processing (n = 24). The participants completed four timed writing tasks and received indirect WCF from a course teacher that used different error codes to target nine error types. The participants processed the WCF individually or collaboratively before revising. Participants’ revision behavior (the number of errors successfully resolved, unresolved, and abandoned) and writing accuracy (total number of errors and total number of errors by error type) were analyzed and compared. The results showed the collaborative processing group’s performance in terms of resolved, unresolved, and abandoned errors was superior to the individual processing group. While both groups exhibited improvements in overall accuracy, the collaborative processing group produced fewer verb and word choice errors after collaboratively processing three rounds of WCF. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of L2 writing teachers’ pedagogical practices.

WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN WRITING SKILL: A BRIEF REVIEW

<p>The study presented here includes collectively selected research papers that emphasize written corrective feedback, particularly Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback. Writing is considered the most challenging task for students because writing needs the student's creativity to form ideas of their minds into a form of a text. Some difficulties that EFL students in writing usually find are the lack of the knowledge to choose the appropriate vocabulary, and they also have some problems in grammar and syntax. To overcome these, Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) has been used widely to show students grammatical errors in EFL students' writing works and help EFL students minimize their errors. The Written Corrective Feedback also shows students' performance in enhancing their writing accuracy. Five selected research papers have been selected to give some enlightenment about the effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback. The feedback was given by EFL teachers and lecturers who teach in Indonesia, China, Iran, Malaysia, and Thailand. The method that is used in this literature review study is thematic analysis design. These are divided into five themes. The themes are Participants, Treatment, The Treatment Length, Instruments and Writing Prompt, and The Effectiveness of The Written Corrective Feedback. The findings reveal various results in the use of Direct Written Corrective Feedback and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback.</p>

A preference analysis and justification of Arabic written corrective feedback among instructors and undergraduates

There has been extensive discussion on the need to use corrective feedback in writing within foreign language learning. Essentially, corrective feedback is one of the important tools in improving students’ skills in learning a language. This study aims to find out the preference and justification of written corrective feedback (WCF) through the use of Google Docs among instructors and students in a higher learning institute. The effects of the direct and indirect feedback with metalinguistic comments were also studied to determine their suitability in teaching and learning the Arabic language. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected to (1) identify the preferred type of feedback among instructors and students, (2) identify justification of the preferred feedback type, and (3) examine post-test score differences between types of written correction feedback. Two questionnaires were adapted and distributed to 93 first-year students and four instructors of Arabic language for Academic Writing. Two instructors and five students were interviewed to find out their justification of the preferred types of WCF. A total of 50 respondents were divided into two groups according to the type of WCF provided, and post-test scores between the types of feedback were compared to determine if there was any significant difference between the types of feedback. The findings show that instructors prefer indirect WCF with metalinguistic comments while students prefer direct corrective feedback with metalinguistic comments. Post-test scores indicate that higher scores were achieved by students who received indirect feedback with metalinguistic comments. This indicates that students are able to process indirect feedback that is supplemented with metalinguistic comments. Moreover, an online learning environment provides more opportunities for instructors to highlight the students’ errors more clearly.