unfocused feedback

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.

The study aimed at investigating the efficacy of written corrective feedback (CF) in improving Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy. It compared the effects of focused and unfocused written CF on the learners’ grammatical accuracy. 75 EFL students formed a one control and two experimental groups. The focused feedback group was provided with error correction in tenses. The unfocused feedback group was provided with error correction in tense, articles, spelling, pronouns, vocabulary, and prepositions. The results indicated a significant improvement in accuracy for the two experimental groups from pretest to posttest. The outcomes demonstrated that giving written CF was effective, which enhanced learners' grammatical accuracy, and that focused and unfocused written CF were not of differential significant effect in such manner. The results on the construct of the attitudinal questionnaire indicated learners’ preference in two experimental groups for the interactional activities, error correction, and the different type of CF techniques. The mean scores on each content area of the questionnaire suggested that learners in the focused group scored higher than the other groups in their attitudes toward the errors to be corrected.