Written Corrective Feedback

Since the emergence of the process-oriented approach to second language writing instruction two main questions have been what and how error feedback should be given to the students. The question of whether teachers should provide feedback on grammar in the writing assignments of English as a foreign language students, and if so how, has been a matter of considerable debate in the field of second language writing. The present study investigated the possible effect of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on descriptive writing accuracy of Iranian intermediate EFL learners (N=39) in Hamedan Islamic Azad University. Two groups were selected: explicit corrective feedback group (N=22) and implicit corrective feedback group (N=17). They received corrective feedback on three grammatical structures. The results showed that written corrective feedback can lead to writing accuracy improvement in the short-term, but it may be unhelpful in the long-run.

This study compared the effects of teacher-provided written corrective feedback and manipulation of resource-directing dimensions of task cognitive-complexity along +/- Here and Now condition on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian EFL learners’ writing products. There were 45 participants in the study who were randomly assigned to three experimental groups. All the participants were first given a prompt for the pre-test of writing, and then each group received its own intervention (direct written corrective feedback, indirect written corrective feedback, and task manipulation) for four sessions during four weeks. Subsequently, all the groups took the pre-test prompt of writing for their post-test performance after which the data were collected for the statistical analyses and fed into SPSS. The findings of the study confirmed the significant effects of direct written corrective feedback on increasing the grammatical accuracy of learners’ writings. There were implications, then, based on the results, highlighting the role of meaningful context of task application in the classroom.

With the latest paradigm shift in SLA from Cognitivism to Sociocultural Theory (SCT), more studies are carried out to investigate the efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) through a social and cultural lens. A more recent offspring of SCT is Activity Theory which provides an explanatory framework for scrutinizing an activity in a social setting. The present study aimed at investigating the impact of Scaffolded WCF within the framework of Activity Theory on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance in terms of reduction of the learners’ writing errors with respect to the content, vocabulary, mechanics, organization, and grammar. Finally, different types of Activity Theory-based strategic mediations (i.e. artifact, rule, community, and role mediations) Iranian EFL learners employed in their writing revisions were investigated. Accordingly, 25 Iranian university-level students, through convenient sampling, were chosen to participate in the study. The treatment they received on their writings was a graduated Scaffolding WCF in their Zone of Proximal Development in the form of both peer and teacher feedback. The findings indicated that Scaffolded WCF statistically significantly contributed to the participants’ writing performance in terms of content, vocabulary, mechanics, organization, and grammar. With respect to the mediation strategies used by the learners, it was discovered that the learners benefitted from all the available mediators although with various degrees. It is hoped that the findings of this study will promise implications for promoting a teacher/learner-friendly method of providing WCF based on SCT, which can be utilized in large classes typical of Iranian EFL university courses.

Usually writing teachers feel commitment to provide their learners with corrective feedback (CF) to their linguistic errors. The study investigated whether two types of written corrective feedback, indirect focused corrective feedback and indirect unfocused corrective feedback, produced differential effects on the accurate use of grammatical forms by high intermediate EFL learners. In this study, 54 female EFL learners formed two experimental groups and one control group. One experimental group received indirect focused written CF, and the other experimental group received indirect unfocused written CF for six weeks.  The control group, nevertheless, received no particular feedback within this period. Results of performing ANOVA with post-hoc tests revealed the accuracy development of both experimental groups.  However, unfocused group achieved the highest accuracy gain scores for simple past tense forms (copula past tense, regular past tense and irregular past tense) subject-verb agreement, articles, and prepositions. It was further found that unfocused feedback can contribute to grammatical accuracy but its long-term effectiveness is not quite as significant as its short-term effectiveness. The study also suggested that unfocused written CF reflects better teacher’s objective as it views writing correction as a whole rather than as a way of practicing grammar.

This study explored the EFL teachers’ written corrective feedback (CF) techniques and their EFL students’ ability to integrate the CF while revising their texts. A total of 72 EFL students and 4 EFL teachers participated in this study. The data were collected through explicitation interviews administered to teachers and students, as well as through students’ written productions. A content analysis was carried out employing three pre-established categories: types of students’ errors (Guénette & Lyster, 2013), types of teachers’ feedback (Guénette, 2010), and types of students’ revisions (Ferris, 2006). Results showed that error identification with error code was the most frequent type of written CF used by the two teachers in the pre intermediate groups and one of the teachers in the upper intermediate group; whereas, the other teacher in the upper intermediate group used mainly direct error correction without comment when providing feedback. In addition, results showed that although students from different levels undertook revisions of their errors in different ways, most were ultimately able to correct their errors.

The present study was conducted to further improve the practice of written corrective feedback by integrating the two known feedback types (i.e. direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation). With this aim, a sample of sixty-nine high-intermediate Iranian EFL learners was assigned into different feedback groups. While the first and second groups received direct and metalinguistic explanation feedback, respectively, the third group received an integration of both. Results showed that all three types of feedback improved the learners’ accuracy, though with different degrees of success. However, the results of the delayed post-tests revealed that only the integration of Direct Corrective Feedback (DCF) with Metalinguistic Explanation (ME) had the most sustainable effect on the learners' accurate use of the articles in the long run. It is discussed that the integration of DCF and ME can enhance the corrective effect of the feedback and reduce the defects which have been associated with the practice.

This study was an attempt to examine the effects of direct (DCF), indirect (ICF) and metalinguistic (MCF) written corrective feedback and the types of responses (i.e. + /– revision) on the perception of present/past perfect tenses by Iranian intermediate EFL learners. A pretest-posttest design was utilized to conduct the study with 210 intermediate EFL learners who were randomly selected based on their scores on Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). They were assigned to 7 groups, each including 30 participants: DCF+ Revision, DCF – Revision, ICF + Revision, and ICF – Revision, MCF + Revision, and MCF – Revision, and a control group. All students were asked to take a multiple-choice test (i.e. perception test) as a pretest and a posttest. After administering the pretest and imparting the relevant treatment, the posttest was administered. Results indicated that all experimental groups improved their knowledge of past/present perfect tenses from the pretest to the posttest, the ‘DCF + Revision’ group outperformed all other groups, all of the groups doing revision (i.e. DCF / ICF / MCF + Revision) outperformed their counterparts without revision (i.e. DCF / ICF/ MCF – Revision), and the only groups whose scores were not significantly different were the ‘ICF + Revision’, ‘DCF – Revision’, and ‘MCF – Revision’ groups. The findings provide insights into new ways of helping students to improve their L2 writing skills in general and specifically teaching grammatical structures through effective combinations of written corrective feedback and follow-up revision.

Most studies on Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) have focused either on ESL or EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. However, it is still not known how teachers who teach second or foreign languages other than English will provide information on the learners’ written language production. To bridge the gap in the literature, this current study reports on an interview study investigating nine university lecturers’ beliefs and their actual practices about WCF on an assignment done by the third-year exchange student of Thai as a foreign language (TFL). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through feedback tasks and semi-structured interviews. The findings indicated that there was alignment between teachers’ beliefs of their WCF practice and their actual practice in terms of types of WCF and feedback techniques. However, the amount of feedback provided and the teachers’ time constraint, not the level of students’ ability as they thought, appeared to be the reasons for these misalignments of TFL teachers’ beliefs and practices

The present study was conducted to identify novice and experienced Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs towards the most effective written corrective feedback types and the most serious errors they might address while correcting students’ paragraphs and see whether there exist any tensions between what they believed and what they practiced through the methodology of pre-observation interview, observation, and post-observation interview. The results revealed that for novice teachers, there were fewer tensions between their stated beliefs and observed practices, yet this tension was more obvious while interviewing experienced teachers. Some implications for language teacher education will also be discussed.

Written corrective feedback (WCF) becomes an essential part of students writing development. The efficacy of WCF for EFL learners has been the subject of numerous studies. However, the studies neglected the idea of the feedback literacy. Thus, this study aimed to investigate how two English teachers provide WCF, what students expect from their teachers, and whether or not both students and teachers share common grounds seen from the feedback literacy framework. Thus, thirty EFL students and two teachers from EFL writing classes of one Indonesian Islamic university participated in this study. The data related to students' expectations of WCF and teachers' practices were gathered through open ended questionnaire, interview, and observations. Positive attitudes toward WCF were shared by students and teachers. It was discovered that students place a higher value on direct feedback rather than indirect feedback. Students perceived their learning motivation is best preserved through a positive tone of feedback, such as interaction with teachers and teachers' compliments on their strength instead comments on deficiencies. The study indicated that there was a gap between students’ expectation and teacher practices about the type and relevance of feedback. Students perceived indirect feedback as less helpful in addressing their specific writing issues. While teachers have demonstrated feedback literacy in their practices, students' readiness and ability to fully engage in feedback literacy may vary depending on their proficiency levels and developmental stages. To bridge this gap, both students and teachers need to have good literacy in feedback. The findings highlight the potential significance of further exploring the impact of cultural factors in driving WCF decisions.