Search

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. Language teachers use global tools and techniques to give students feedback on their written work. How feedback is delivered and received by students is valued differently. The current study concentrated on how students interpret written corrective feedback and which WCF tactics they favor in writing classrooms. To examine these objectives empirically, the researchers employed a selfadministered questionnaire to collect data from 180 participants from a high secondary school in Multan, Pakistan. At the same time, 40 participants were interviewed for their opinions about written corrective feedback (WCF). Some participants expressed concerns about ambiguous feedback that confuses them about their errors, whereas most participants favored the feedback process as beneficial. The most preferred strategies were meta-linguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback that facilitated writing proficiency and language knowledge. Overall, WCF guides errors to avoid and how to adapt their writing style for composing compelling manuscripts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Language, Interaction & Acquisition / Langage, Interaction et Acquisition is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

When written corrective feedback is provided via model texts, language learners notice and incorporate features from the models into their subsequent writings. However, little is known about the accuracy of these incorporations or about the impact of model texts on draft quality. Also, model texts have often been implemented with children working in pairs but, to date, studies including individual and collaborative conditions are extremely scarce. This study examines the impact of model texts among 33 EFL children (aged 11–12) divided into a pair (N = 22) and an individual (N = 11) group. Our findings do not reveal any significant differences between pairs and individuals. The students in both conditions noticed features, mainly lexical. They incorporated around 50% of these features from the model texts into their final drafts, with an accuracy rate of 60%. Regarding draft quality, the second draft was significantly better than the first one when rated holistically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research has explored how L2 students with one specific level of English proficiency engage with teacher written corrective feedback (WCF) underpinned by a tripartite dimensional construct of student engagement in the context of Chinese public universities. Yet, scant attention has been paid to how students of differing proficiency levels engage with teacher WCF in a Chinese private college context. Based on a quadripartite construct of student engagement, this case study has explored how L2 Chinese students with high proficiency (HP) and with low proficiency (LP) cognitively, affectively, behaviorally and agentically engage with teacher WCF. Data collected from multiple sources were examined, including drafts of student essays, teacher WCF, student immediate self-retrospective verbal reports and semi-structured interviews. The study has found imbalances among the four dimensions of engagement, with relatively high affective engagement and less extensive cognitive, behavioral and agentic engagement, which was mediated by the interplay of individual factors like language proficiency, writing self-efficacy and learner belief and contextual factors like student–teacher relationship. The findings contribute to an understanding of the multifaceted and dynamic nature of HP and LP students' engagement with teacher WCF and provide some implications for both school administrators and teachers in Chinese private colleges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic Writing course has been considered as indispensable in tertiary education for its numerous implications in real, social and professional life. Accordingly, several strategies have been postulated to master writing. Apart from writing strategies, the conduct of written corrective feedback matters which can be traditional, electronic or hybrid. In this respect, this study was conducted to measure the effects of electronic written corrective feedback at TISHK International University on Language Preparatory School students in Erbil, Iraq. 50 students were chosen by employing a purposive sampling method. The study lasted for 10 weeks in 2021-2022 Academic Year. Both groups received the feedback traditionally in the first submission. However, experimental group received e-feedback, whereas control group received paper-based feedback in the second submission. Based on the collected data via writing exams, interview and questionnaire, it was figured out that experimental group students who received a traditional and electronic feedback instruction equally outperformed in terms of writing scores, motivation and submission rates. The findings of this study can have some implications for the stakeholders who are responsible for running Academic Writing courses in different countries.

This study compared the effects of computer-mediated (CM) versus pen-and-paper (P&P) writing on written accuracy and feedback processing in tasks written and rewritten collaboratively following a pedagogical treatment in two intact authentic classrooms. The study involved 32 secondary education low-proficiency English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners writing two descriptive texts collaboratively and receiving in-class training in the identification and correction of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors. Participants were provided with unfocused direct error correction (EC). Error logs were used to facilitate noticing of teacher corrections (i.e., feedback processing). Dyads were required to rewrite their texts for evidence of feedback uptake. Results indicate that writing collaboratively on the computer with the availability of the Internet contributes to increased grammatical and lexical accuracy. No differences were found between writing environments regarding feedback processing or accuracy of rewritten texts.

This study was motivated by Truscott’s (1996, 2004) scarcely empirically tested claims that written corrective feedback (WCF) processing hinders fluency in subsequent rewriting owing to learners’ purposeful avoidance of making mistakes by composing shorter texts at a higher speed. It examined the writing fluency of the texts produced by eighteen 10-11-year-old L2 English children in a digital environment. They were divided into a feedback (N = 10) and a self-correction group (N = 8). Both groups engaged in a three-stage task: writing, comparison of their texts with a model or self-editing as appropriate, and rewriting. Fluency was analyzed via five product/offline and five process/online measures. The texts and writing behaviors were recorded with Inputlog 8.0. The results partially support Truscott’s claims. The feedback group improved their fluency in all the ten measures. However, the self-editing group showed higher fluency than the feedback group in seven of the ten measures, with the corresponding Hedge’s effect sizes between groups ranging from small to large. The study enlightens our knowledge of young learners’ writing fluency and supports adopting a multidimensional approach to understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of fluency as mediated by WCF processing.

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

The current study aimed to examine the effect of written corrective feedback (WCF) provided via a messenger bot on Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ use of definite/indefinite articles. It also explored learners’ attitudes toward using the messenger bot, which worked as a medium for providing WCF on the TOEFL iBT speaking task II. Seventy male and female TOEFL candidates (mean age: 26, range: 18-34) chosen through convenience sampling participated in the study. Before the treatment, the participants in all groups were given a proficiency test and a speaking pre-test. Then, they were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: one received WCF on their errors in the use of articles through the bot (MB group, n=30); the second one received WCF in traditional classes (TF group, n=20); and the participants in the third group received no feedback and followed the normal course of instruction (NF group, n=20). Subsequently, all groups participated in a post-test The results of the mixed between-within subjects, ANOVA, showed that the MB group significantly outperformed the other two groups and there was not a significant difference between the TF and NF groups. The participants’ attitudes toward receiving WCF through the bot were elicited through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The transcribed interviews were then analyzed using the first two phases of the grounded theory, and two main themes of pedagogical applications and technological issues emerged. The implications stemming from the findings concerned the efficacy of using the messenger bot in providing corrective feedback.

Varied feedback strategies are prevalent to enhance learners` skills in an Academic Writing course. However, there has been an ongoing discussion on classifying one as the most efficient strategy. In this regard, this study investigated the impacts of metalinguistic feedback on the TOEFL IBT Independent Writing Section Score of language preparatory school students over 12 weeks using pre-test and post-test. Initially, 40 students were separated into two groups through simple random sampling method. Experimental group followed the regulations of metalinguistic feedback strategy, whereas control group students were exposed to direct feedback throughout the study. Each student wrote 6 essays to improve their writing skills. Additionally, their feedback type was arranged according to their groups. IBM SPSS 23. was employed to analyze quantitative data through independent and paired samples t test. It was measured that students in experimental group increased their success rate significantly by considering .000 p-value in independent and paired samples t test respectively. However, no significant improvement was noticed in control group. Likewise, the questionnaire and interview analysis confirmed that metalinguistic feedback was more effective than direct feedback. Findings of this study suggest that metalinguistic feedback strategy can increase students` motivation and enthusiasm so that the learners can boost their performance in Academic Writing courses.

Although research on the efficacy of written corrective feedback has received considerable attention in recent years, there is a dearth of research on learner engagement with written corrective feedback. Understanding how language learners engage with written corrective feedback is high on the agenda of feedback research because it provides a broadened perspective that feedback uptake is only one form of engagement, and that engagement with written corrective feedback is influenced by myriad contextual and individual factors. To narrow the research gap, this qualitative research synthesis examines learner engagement with written corrective feedback in English writing contexts through the lens of ecological systems theory and a perception-based framework. Focusing on 14 articles, relevant information was extracted and synthesised following three iterative stages informed by grounded theory to identify common engagement patterns and clarify relationships between factors affecting how learners engage with written corrective feedback. The results reveal the dynamic, contextualised and individualised nature of learner engagement with written corrective feedback. Pedagogical implications for practitioners are discussed to address the lingering issues around learner engagement with written corrective feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present multiple-case study, based on the multi-dimensional perspective on student engagement with Corrective Feedback (CF) proposed by Ellis (2010), set out to scrutinize students' behavioral, cognitive, and affective engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) provided by two different sources: teacher WCF and automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Writing Mentor. To this end, four Iranian EFL learners - two limited proficient and two modestly proficient writers - were selected purposefully from two sections of an academic writing course, one providing teacher WCF and the other AWCF. Participants in both sections wrote five argumentative essays during an academic term, received feedback on grammar, usage, and mechanics, and made revisions. The results demonstrated that the participants had different engagement levels and were categorized as highly engaged, moderately engaged, and minimally engaged students. In section 1, both participants who received teacher WCF were behaviorally and cognitively engaged with the feedback; however, one participant spent more time, used more resources, and showed more revision acts. Regardless of their behavioral and cognitive engagement level, they both demonstrated deep affective engagement with teacher feedback. In section 2, while one participant who received AWCF demonstrated deep and active engagement in all three dimensions, the other participant was reluctant to respond to the feedback and demonstrated a minimal level of engagement. Findings indicate that students' engagement with WCF, whether provided by a teacher or automated writing evaluation system, is influenced by students' beliefs and attitudes toward feedback and the sources of that feedback. Students' writing proficiency was not clearly or consistently related to their degree of feedback engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The potential effectiveness of various kinds of written corrective feedback (CF) has been the focus of CF investigations that did not reach firm conclusions about which methods of correction can more successfully facilitate students’ grammatical development. A good majority of the studies investigated an unfocused approach to CF while a focused approach has received far less attention. In line with this argument, the current study employed a pre-test, immediate posttest and delayed post-test design and set out to investigate the potential efficacy of unfocused and focused written CF in L2 accuracy development. The study incorporated 86 EFL students allocated to one control group and two experimental groups. Students in the focused group were corrected on irregular and regular past tense, while students in the unfocused group were corrected on a greater range of grammatical categories including irregular and regular past tense as well and learners in the control group received no written CF. Results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA and a set of ANOVAs with post-hoc evaluations revealed that in the short-term duration both treatment groups increased their accuracy but the efficacy of the focused CF found to be resilient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although studies on written feedback have confirmed the effectiveness of multiple sources of feedback in promoting learners' accuracy, much remains to be discovered about its impact on other aspects of language development. Concerns were raised with regard to the possible unfavourable impact of feedback on the complexity of students' writing which resulted from their attention to producing accurate texts. In response to this need for research, the study investigated the effects of teacher, automated, and combined feedback on students' syntactic complexity over a 13-week semester. Our data collection included 270 students' texts including their drafts and revised texts and pre-and post-test writing. Essays were analysed using the web-based interface of the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer. Regardless of feedback from multiple sources, paired sample t-test results indicate no significant differences between initial and revised texts, resulting in minimal variance between comparison pairs. Moreover, no significant differences were found between the pre-and post-writing assessment in all complexity measures. These findings suggest that providing feedback on students' writing does not lead them to write less structurally complex texts. The syntactic complexity of their revised essays varied among high-, mid-, and low-achieving students. These variations could be attributed to proficiency levels, writing prompts, genre differences, and feedback sources. A discussion of pedagogical implications is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Written corrective feedback has been a long-standing practice among second language writing instructors, yet the efficacy of this practice for long-term development of students’ writing remains uncertain. In th field of writing research, error correction in second language writing continues to be a topic of much controversy. While numerous studies have investigated the long-term effect of written corrective feedback, no consensus has been reached. Challenging the deep-rooted conviction that instructors’ correction is beneficial, this article (a) argues that the role of a writing instructor is not to serve as an editor but to help students to become autonomous self-editors of their own work, and (b) proposes an alternative approach that is designed to develop students’ self-editing skills. Through effective scaffolding and strategy training, writing instructors can develop in second language writers a habit of mind to critically read and edit their own work.

The purposes of the current study are. 1) to study the theoretical challenges in written corrective feedback (WCF) provision faced by EFL instructors of overcrowded classes and 2) to study procedural challenges in written corrective feedback provision faced by EFL instructors of overcrowded classes. The participants were divided into groups comprising a group of 30 EFL instructors of overcrowded writing classes, a group of 3 interviewees, an dan EFL instructor in an observation group. The data were triangulated using a questionnaire for challenges in providing WCF of EFL writing instructors with overcrowded classes, a structured interview form, and an observation form. The quantitative data were analyzed using percentage, mean score, and standard deviation while thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcription of the participants’ interview. Lastly, the data from the observations was analyzed using descriptive analysis. The results of the study indicated both theoretical and procedural challenges faced by EFL instructors of overcrowded classes including challenges in providing learners opportunities to write, providing effective written corrective feedback, time managing, and stress managing. The results could be used in educational management, the development of WCF, and studies in second language writing.

The potential effectiveness of various kinds of written corrective feedback (CF) has been the focus of CF investigations that did not reach firm conclusions about which methods of correction can more successfully facilitate students’ grammatical development. A good majority of the studies investigated an unfocused approach to CF while a focused approach has received far less attention. In line with this argument, the current study employed a pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed post-test design and set out to investigate the potential efficacy of unfocused and focused written CF in L2 accuracy development. The study incorporated 86 EFL students allocated to one control group and two experimental groups. Students in the focused group were corrected on irregular and regular past tense, while students in the unfocused group were corrected on a greater range of grammatical categories including irregular and regular past tense as well and learners in the control group received no written CF. Results of two-way repeated measures ANOVA and a set of ANOVAs with post-hoc evaluations revealed that in the short-term duration both treatment groups increased their accuracy but the efficacy of the focused CF found to be resilient.

This study compared the differential effects of focused and comprehensive written corrective feedback (WCF) on the accuracy of revision and new pieces of writing. It also examined whether the effects depended on feedback sub-types. Data were collected from 87 Grade 6 students in an intensive English program over seven sessions. Students were first divided into three groups: two treatment groups and one control group. The treatment groups were then divided into three subgroups based on three feedback sub-types (i.e., direct, indirect underline, and indirect metalinguistic cues). Students produced three pieces of writing, revised them, and produced new writings. Findings revealed that both focused and comprehensive feedback types improved learners' accuracy of revision and subsequent writings, and focused feedback was more effective than comprehensive feedback. The effect of both feedback types, however, varied across writing sessions. Additionally, an interaction of comprehensive feedback and feedback subtypes was found on the accuracy of revision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing upon research on the ways texts work as communication across different disciplines, this study investigated teacher and student feedback practices on three different patterns of writing: comparison-contrast essays, opinion essays, and cause-and-effect essays. The data were collected through three qualitative techniques: interviews, class observations, and an analysis of course documents and student-marked writing. The results showed that the participants did not always adhere to rhetorical features of different writing patterns when giving and responding to feedback. Rather, practices of feedback were majorly shaped by their beliefs about academic writing, assessment, and cognitive issues with rhetorical patterns. The results suggest a need for raising student and teacher awareness of the values of different patterns of writing for subject-domain studies; building a constructive alignment between writing course objectives, course assessment, and feedback practices; and involving students in the academic acculturation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Error correction has been one of the central themes in accounting for potential gains in second language (L2) writing. While a wide range of empirical studies focused on the effects of written corrective feedback (WCF) on learners' writing outcomes, few of them have specifically examined the feedback process, or its potential role as a shaping force in learner development. Underpinned by a sociocultural framework of L2 acquisition, the present study examines learner development as mutually mediated by teacher feedback and learner response during dyadic sessions of error correction. The socioculturally informed approach, dynamic corrective feedback (DCF), operates via dialogic, collaborative negotiation over errors between an expert and a novice, in which feedback is scaffolded and tailored toward learner competence. Data collected from three Chinese EFL learners' written texts and writing tutorial sessions show that learner idiosyncrasies are evident in development trajectory, and that development is not always linear but recursive. It is suggested that teachers attend to individual needs and abilities when providing feedback so as to facilitate sustainable development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Written corrective feedback in Second Language Writing is one of the most important parts in L2 Acquisition and Language Teaching. CiteSpace is a convenient and effective bibliometric analysis tool which is widely used by researchers to explore the development tends of a certain field. The Web of Science core collection database was used as the primary source for data collection. There were 272 effective articles were selected from 2001 to 2021. The hot research topics in recent 20 years and emerging trends were showed. It was found that the research of written corrective feedback has entered a period of rapid development after the accumulation of basic knowledge in the early stage. Many empirical studies have been carried out. The distribution, cooperation, development trends and hotpots of current research are presented through visual map analysis in this study. In the future, the written corrective feedback research could try to concentrate on the psychological process and feedback providers, and it is also suggested to combine interdisciplinary knowledge such as education, psychology, neurology, etc., and use new research and measurement methods to promote the development of written corrective feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic Writing course has been considered as indispensable in tertiary education for its numerous implications in real, social and professional life. Accordingly, several strategies have been postulated to master writing. Apart from writing strategies, the conduct of written corrective feedback matters which can be traditional, electronic or hybrid. In this respect, this study was conducted to measure the effects of electronic written corrective feedback at TISHK International University on Language Preparatory School students in Erbil, Iraq. 50 students were chosen by employing a purposive sampling method. The study lasted for 10 weeks in 2021-2022 Academic Year. Both groups received the feedback traditionally in the first submission. However, experimental group received e-feedback, whereas control group received paper-based feedback in the second submission. Based on the collected data via writing exams, interview and questionnaire, it was figured out that experimental group students who received a traditional and electronic feedback instruction equally outperformed in terms of writing scores, motivation and submission rates. The findings of this study can have some implications for the stakeholders who are responsible for running Academic Writing courses in different countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical data on automated writing evaluation (AWE) has been accumulating over the past several years, but previous research has concentrated on the impact of using machine feedback alone, and only a little is known about how learners view the usage of AI-assisted tools when combined with teacher feedback. More empirical evidence from instances in which machine and teacher feedback is used in combination is necessary to determine optimal approaches to incorporating AWE tools in classroom instruction. A study was conducted to assess Japanese college students' perceptions of three types of feedback when they experienced them in a certain order. Participants in two groups received Grammarly feedback on their first drafts, the teacher's indirect feedback on their second drafts, and the teacher's direct feedback on their third drafts. The questionnaire administered to the first group examined participant perceptions of the respective type of feedback, whereas the questionnaire given to the second group verified the strengths and weaknesses of each type of feedback and investigated the type of feedback participants believed was most effective in improving their writing in English. The content analysis approach was used for textual analysis of the responses to open-ended questions, and a chi-square test was performed for scale responses. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of questionnaire data revealed that, though machine feedback was favorably received, participants appreciated human direct and indirect feedback more highly for its appropriateness and reliability. Moreover, the largest number of participants rated the teacher's direct feedback as the most beneficial to their writing progress. The findings imply that machine feedback should not be used alone in writing instruction but as a supplement to teacher feedback. In addition, the participants' response suggests that using Grammarly feedback in a "form then content" sequence might be one feasible pedagogical approach in the classroom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing has garnered considerable attention over the years, particularly concerning the impact of corrective feedback (CF) on students' errors. However, in the context of Kurdish EFL students, this area of research has received limited attention, despite its potential to enhance their grammatical accuracy in writing tasks. This paper addresses this gap by examining the impact of Explicit Written Corrective Feedback (EWCF) on Kurdish EFL undergraduate students' writing accuracy in terms of subject-verb agreement (SVA). For data collection, the study employed a mixed-method approach and recruited sixty junior EFL undergraduate students who were randomly assigned to two groups: the experimental group (n=30) received EWCF on their SVA errors for five weeks, while the control group (n=30) received only implicit feedback without correction on SVA errors. Data was collected through questionnaires and pre-and post-tests, and the results revealed that EWCF was preferred by students and was more effective in enhancing their writing accuracy in terms of SVA, as evidenced in the post-test. The study has several theoretical and pedagogical implications, including the need for instructors to provide EWCF to enhance students' grammatical accuracy in writing tasks. Further, the study contributes to the limited body of research on EFL writing in the context of Kurdish students, highlighting the need for further investigation in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Online corrective feedback (OCF) is important in online teaching and learning to detect and measure students' understanding of the lesson. However, not all researchers agree to this, and continuous debates have been discussed as to whether corrective feedback helps improve language development. This study aims to identify responses to the types of online corrective feedback received by ESL learners and to determine the positive and negative responses to verbal and written corrective feedback. One hundred and fifteen ESL tertiary learners taking the report writing course participated in the study which was conducted during a 14-week semester through the online learning platform. Thereafter, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five randomly selected participants. The findings show that OCF had better responses for verbal corrective feedback than written corrective feedback although both the verbal and written feedback were found to be satisfactory as well as useful to the respondents. In effect, the OCF was able to elicit corrections of content and language. However, for both the verbal corrective feedback and the written corrective feedback, the responses were not all positive. This suggests that online corrective feedback can be effective by means of digital technologies. However, issues such as learner attitude, type of corrections and feedback given, learners' lack of confidence and language proficiency, besides internet connectivity and other issues, should be addressed. In addition, efforts to provide input in the feedback process is required on the part of the instructor and students to enable the learning objectives to be achieved. For future research, it is recommended that research be conducted on the relationship between OCF and writing performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing feedback on students' writing is considered important by both writing teachers and students. However, contextual constraints including excess workloads and large classes pose major and recurrent challenges for teachers. To lighten the feedback burden, teachers can take advantage of a range of automated feedback tools. This paper investigated how automated feedback can be integrated into traditional teacher feedback by analyzing the focus of teacher and Grammarly feedback through a written feedback analysis of language- and content-related issues. This inquiry considered whether and how successfully students exploited feedback from different sources in their revisions and how the feedback provisions helped improve their writing performance. The study sample of texts was made up of 216 argumentative and narrative essays written by 27 low-intermediate level students at a Myanmar university over a 13-week semester. By analyzing data from the feedback analysis, we found that Grammarly provided feedback on surface-level errors, whereas teacher feedback covered both lower- and higher-level writing concerns, suggesting a potential for integration. The results from the revision analysis and pre- and post-tests suggested that students made effective use of the feedback received, and their writing performance improved according to the assessment criteria. The data were triangulated with self-assessment questionnaires regarding students' emic perspectives on how useful they found the feedback. The pedagogical implications for integrating automated and teacher feedback are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared the effects of computer-mediated (CM) versus pen-andpaper (P&P) writing on written accuracy and feedback processing in tasks written and rewritten collaboratively following a pedagogical treatment in two intact authentic classrooms. The study involved 32 secondary education low-proficiency English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners writing two descriptive texts collaboratively and receiving in-class training in the identification and correction of grammatical, lexical, and mechanical errors. Participants were provided with unfocused direct error correction (EC). Error logs were used to facilitate noticing of teacher corrections (i.e., feedback processing). Dyads were required to rewrite their texts for evidence of feedback uptake. Results indicate that writing collaboratively on the computer with the availability of the Internet contributes to increased grammatical and lexical accuracy. No differences were found between writing environments regarding feedback processing or accuracy of rewritten texts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was motivated by Truscott's (1996, 2004) scarcely empirically tested claims that written corrective feedback (WCF) processing hinders fluency in subsequent rewriting owing to learners' purposeful avoidance of making mistakes by composing shorter texts at a higher speed. It examined the writing fluency of the texts produced by eighteen 10-11-year-old L2 English children in a digital environment. They were divided into a feedback (N = 10) and a self-correction group (N = 8). Both groups engaged in a three-stage task: writing, comparison of their texts with a model or self-editing as appropriate, and rewriting. Fluency was analyzed via five product/offline and five process/online measures. The texts and writing behaviors were recorded with Inputlog 8.0. The results partially support Truscott's claims. The feedback group improved their fluency in all the ten measures. However, the selfediting group showed higher fluency than the feedback group in seven of the ten measures, with the corresponding Hedge's effect sizes between groups ranging from small to large. The study enlightens our knowledge of young learners' writing fluency and supports adopting a multidimensional approach to understand the complex and multi-faceted nature of fluency as mediated by WCF processing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The current study aimed to examine the effect of written corrective feedback (WCF) provided via a messenger bot on Iranian English as a foreign language (EFL) learners' use of definite/indefinite articles. It also explored learners' attitudes toward using the messenger bot, which worked as a medium for providing WCF on the TOEFL iBT speaking task II. Seventy male and female TOEFL candidates (mean age: 26, range: 18-34) chosen through convenience sampling participated in the study. Before the treatment, the participants in all groups were given a proficiency test and a speaking pre-test. Then, they were randomly assigned to one of the three groups: one received WCF on their errors in the use of articles through the bot (MB group, n=30); the second one received WCF in traditional classes (TF group, n=20); and the participants in the third group received no feedback and followed the normal course of instruction (NF group, n=20). Subsequently, all groups participated in a post-test. The results of the mixed between-within subjects, ANOVA, showed that the MB group significantly outperformed the other two groups and there was not a significant difference between the TF and NF groups. The participants' attitudes toward receiving WCF through the bot were elicited through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The transcribed interviews were then analyzed using the first two phases of the grounded theory, and two main themes of pedagogical applications and technological issues emerged. The implications stemming from the findings concerned the efficacy of using the messenger bot in providing corrective feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Low proficiency L2 learners make frequent grammatical errors and apply inappropriate English language use and writing conventions despite learning the language for years. To reduce the grammatical and non-grammatical errors in the low proficiency L2 learners’ writing, teachers provide Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). However, a strong claim on WCF's adverse effects on L2 learners’ language development has prompted mixed responses on the WCF’s effectiveness. Numerous studies on WCF's effectiveness were conducted, and the findings showed inconclusive results. The present study aims to examine the ‘Written Languaging’ (WL) effect of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on low proficiency L2 learners’ writing accuracy. WL is a mediational tool used to enhance the WCF’s effectiveness. The study was conducted on 47 low proficiency L2 university students for five weeks to elicit WL of WCF's effects on low proficiency L2 learners’ writing accuracy, where a multiple-case research approach was used to collect and analyze the data of the study. An error ratio was applied to measure the overall accuracy of writing. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine whether WL's provision on the WCF affects the writing accuracy of the low proficiency L2 learners' new writing text. The finding shows that WL's provision on the WCF did not facilitate the low proficiency of L2 learners' writing accuracy because the L2 learners' writing accuracy could improve only with teachers' WCF. The study is significant to the pedagogical teaching of writing development for lower proficiency L2 learners, particularly in applying the mediational tool in the provision and processing of WCF and the complementary pedagogical strategy to WCF.

This study examines the validity of task-specific anxiety and self-efficacy and the joint effects of task-specific and general second language (L2) writing anxiety and self-efficacy on learning gains resulting from different task conditions formed based on two types of written corrective feedback and two types of task planning. 115 high school EFL learners in South Korea were divided into two groups and received either direct correction or metalinguistic feedback on their wrong use of English articles and past tense in their written narratives. After receiving feedback, each of the two large groups was further divided into three subgroups, each performing a second writing task under three conditions: pre-task planning, within-task planning, and no planning. The learners responded to questionnaires that aimed to measure task-specific and L2 general anxiety and self-efficacy. The results demonstrated that task-specific anxiety and self-efficacy were distinct from general L2 writing anxiety and self-efficacy and that they played different roles in L2 development under the different treatment conditions. Specifically, general L2 writing anxiety was a negative predictor of learning gains regardless of learning condition; task-specific anxiety showed a positive effect in metalinguistic explanation + within-task planning but a negative effect in all other task conditions; neither task-specific nor general L2 self-efficacy was a significant predictor of treatment effects. This study demonstrates the importance of investigating task-specific individual difference variables and shows the differential associations between general and task-specific individual difference variables on one hand and different types of task-based instruction on the other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Written corrective feedback is essential in the teaching of writing skills to help prospective teacher enhance their writing performance. Lecturers try to apply strategies in committing written corrective feedback in fully online learning. In addition, written corrective feedback can improve learners’ metalinguistics, metacognition, teachers-learners interaction, and peer connection. Consequently, the present study will be aimed at investigating English lecturers’ common practices and strategies in committing online written corrective feedback during Covid-19 pandemic at higher education. This study is classified as a qualitative study which is a descriptive qualitative study. It is chosen because the data of this study relates to opinions or attitudes in the form of lecturers’ strategies in the teaching of writing skills and online corrective feedback. The data are elaborated in the form of words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. To attain the data, researchers use interview technique. There are five English lecturers involved in the current study. The data are analyzed by using qualitative processes which are data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing or verification. The novelty of this study lies on written feedback, written corrective feedback, and online written corrective feedback. Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the teaching-learning process is done in fully online learning.

Purpose. This study adopted a mixed-method approach, including a classroom experiment and 24 in-depth interviews, to investigate the effects of two feedback techniques (coded focused and unfocused written corrective feedback) on ESL learners’ writing in a self-financed tertiary institution in Hong Kong. Methods. Three intact classes of 47 students served as the experimental and control groups; the control group only received feedback on content and organization, whereas the two experimental groups also received focused and unfocused linguistic feedback, respectively. The feedback intervention was conducted over an eight-week intensive summer course, focusing on three grammar errors (articles, singular/plural nouns and verb forms). Altogether, students wrote seven pieces, four of which were analysed for the present research. Results: The study found that students who received focused written corrective feedback (WCF) significantly outperformed the other two groups, though the effects varied across error types. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between the unfocused and control groups. In-depth interviews explored how individual learners’ metalinguistic understanding and engagement affect their intake of WCF. The results revealed that learners who received focused feedback developed a deeper understanding of the linguistic nature of specific error types. Learners with limited English proficiency were less likely to apply their linguistic knowledge to revise a task or write a new one. Conclusion. Because not all errors deserve equal attention, teachers and students should consider how feedback can be used more effectively, particularly in areas where comprehensive feedback is considered obligatory. When teaching students with limited language proficiency, it is recommended that, rather than providing a wide range of error corrections, teachers provide focused feedback complemented with carefully designed metalinguistic support.

Background: Feedback provided to learners' writing is a construct of identifying a learner's performance, and it can be identified and trifurcated as grammatical form, location in the text, and pragmatic functions. Second language researchers worldwide consider written corrective feedback (WCF) as a vital and valuable teaching tool that enables learners to improve accuracy in L2 writing. Purpose: In this context, there exists a plethora of studies that examine the efficacy of WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy. However, literature is replete with research that looks into the effectiveness of unfocused WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy especially concerning learners’ belief of the feedback type. Not much research is available demonstrating unfocused WCF's efficacy on L2 learners’ writing accuracy. Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, three intact classes were recruited and were randomly placed into two experimental groups: indirect corrective feedback, direct corrective feedback, and one control group. The participants completed three narrative writings, one each at pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test. Results: The results of the study unveiled that the WCF enabled the treatment group learners to produce text with fewer errors than the control group participants. The study also reported no relationship between the learners’ beliefs and the efficacy of WCF, meaning that the preference of learners for a particular type of feedback did not influence the efficacy of WCF. Conclusion: Based on the results of the case study, important pedagogical implications for ESL/EFL instructors are provided

Background. Writing is a complex skill, even more so, if the student does not handle the generic structure of the institutionalized practices imposed on Higher Education. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of direct and metalinguistic focused written corrective feedback (WCF) on information structuring connectors. Methods. This quantitative study compares focused WCF effectiveness in 39 subjects who are divided into three groups: the first one is the control group, which did not receive feedback, the second is the experimental group 1 that was corrected through direct WCF and the third one corresponds to experimental group 2 that received feedback through metalinguistic cues. Results. The findings indicate that WCF is effective for the experimental groups. There is a significant decrease in the number of errors of information-structuring connectors in experimental group 2, while experimental group 1 shows a reduction, but without statistical significance. As for the control group, it did not present improvements. In addition, the development of writing tasks corrected through metalinguistic WCF strategies led to textual cohesion improvement with the accurate use of connective devices. Conclusions. It is important to reflect on the use of focused feedback as part of the writing process, firstly, because writing cannot be taught without reviewing a student's writing, and secondly, considering that focused feedback supports the noticing of errors and decreases teacher correction time.

Background. Since the 1990s, teachers’ written corrective feedback (WCF) has been recognized as vital in addressing linguistic issues or product aspects of writing. However, it is necessary to go beyond error correction and focus on written feedback (WF) that concerns other areas of process writing. Still, teachers’ thinking on these issues is often an under-explored area. Purpose. This study aimed to explore EFL instructors’ perceptions and their self-reported practices of product- and process-based WF in the writing context of tertiary education. Methods. The exploratory quantitative study collected data from 51 Moroccan EFL writing instructors through a self-developed questionnaire. The questionnaire items regarding perceptions and self-reported practices were valid and acceptable for factor analysis of nine subscales covering the features of product- and process-based WF, and all of them proved to be reliable. This structure allowed several comparisons during data analysis. Results. Concerning product-oriented WF, participants perceived applying WCF and WF modes on the written text as important techniques. As part of process-based WF, most of them highly valued effective WF modes in the writing process. Regarding their self-reported practices of product-based WF, instructors stated that they often employed WF modes on the written text. Within the process-based WF, they reported using judgemental feedback and effective WF modes as their most frequent practices. The comparisons between perceptions and self-reported practices showed mismatches in four subscales, including WCF, content-based WF related to macroaspects of writing, developing evaluative judgement, and effective WF modes in the writing process. Thus, instructors admitted the importance of WF in these areas although they acknowledged applying their practices less frequently. Conclusions. This study verified the psychometric properties of a self-constructed questionnaire, which was justified to be appropriate to explore teachers’ perceptions and self-reported practices regarding WF. The results obtained from the different subscales support the effectiveness of WCF and allow the exploration of a new conceptualisation of WF as a process.

Background. Studies have shown that the collaborative processing of feedback on a jointly produced text facilitates language learning in a traditional classroom. However, it is still unknown whether there are similar learning benefits when the feedback is provided through an online modality from an expert peer during an international virtual exchange (IVE). Purpose. The present study fills this gap in the literature by investigating Japanese learners engaged in processing written corrective feedback from expert language users in the United States. Methods. Qualitative data concerning students’ perceptions of learning outcomes were collected via retrospective interviews and narrative frames, then triangulated with their first and final drafts of written texts and analyzed using activity theory (AT). Results. Findings indicate that learning benefits accrued in areas of language skills such as vocabulary, spelling, and grammar, as well as deepening learners’ reflexive awareness of themselves as language users. Conclusion. A discussion of these findings, informed by sociocultural theory and shaped by the categories of AT, brings to light some of the interactional dynamics that contributed to the creation of these outcomes. These interactional dynamics show that the learning benefits of the activity primarily resided in the peer-to-peer interactions rather than interactions with the expert-peer.

Research on written corrective feedback (WCF) has received sustained interest in the field of second language acquisition and language education. This viewpoint article extends the theoretical and conceptual discussion on WCF research by introducing the notions of “feedback literacy” and “feedback ecology”. In this article, I first review three strands of WCF research. Then, I argue for the need to shift the focus of our investigation from feedback information (focusing on impact of feedback), to feedback process (focusing on learners “and teachers” perception of feedback), to feedback ecology (focusing on learners’ and teachers’ engagement of feedback and influences of such engagement). Putting forward a “feedback ecology” conceptual framework that is informed by Ecological Systems Theory, Actor-network Theory, and Complex Dynamic Systems Theory, I suggest three research tasks for future WCF studies, highlighting the affordances of qualitative research methodologies such as narrative inquiry.

Investigations have been too limited and inconclusive to find out whether written corrective feedback improves grammatical accuracy of learners. This study aimed at investigating the comparative effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on short-term and long-term retention of the subject-verb agreement by Iranian EFL writers. The design of the study was a two group pre-post-test quasi-experimental one. The Participants were 45 male and female learners at the age range of 14 to 16. Their L1 was Turkmen and they were all taking an elementary course at a language school in Gonbad Kavoos, Iran. The participants were assigned to two experimental groups i.e. direct and indirect feedback groups, and one control group. To collect data, a pretest, post-test and a delayed post-test were given to all the groups. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was run to test the research hypotheses. The results showed that the types of corrective feedback did not have a significant positive effect on the participants’ short-term and long-term retention of subject-verb agreement. Besides, Scheffe post hoc test showed that there was a significant decline in grammatical accuracy of the indirect feedback group in the delayed posttest. The results have some implications for teaching writing in the EFL context.

This article reports on a mixed methods study that investigated the extent to which written corrective feedback (WCF) contributes to L2 learners' acquisition of regular past tense in English and the cognitive processes that underpin the corrective feedback provided. The study adopted a pretest-posttest-delayed posttest design and involved 113 intermediate-level Chinese learners of English who were assigned to four conditions: indirect WCF, direct WCF, metalinguistic WCF, and control. A picture description task and a grammaticality judgement test were used to measure gains in the target structure. To explore how learners process feedback, nine learners, three from each treatment group, were selected to produce think aloud protocols. The study found that all three types of WCF had a positive effect on the picture description task, though none of them had a clear impact on the grammaticality judgement test. In addition, indirect WCF was found to have an advantage over direct and metalinguistic WCF on the delayed posttest, when compared to the control group. Think aloud data suggested that indirect WCF induced deeper cognitive processes than the other two kinds of feedback, which may account for the superiority of indirect WCF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between students' cognitive engagement with written corrective feedback (WCF) and their revision behavior. Based on the assumption that different levels of cognitive involvement are linked to learners' use of the feedback, we investigated how different post-feedback activities (i.e., reading, copying, and explaining the feedback) would affect second language writers' behavioral engagement with WCF during the revision phase. Ninety-eight students were divided into three experimental groups and one control group. Experimental groups performed one of the three post-feedback activities before revising their original writing. The participants' revision behavior was examined by their uptake of WCF. Additionally, the change in writing quality between the first and the revised drafts was investigated. Results showed that activities that promote deeper cognitive processing generally led to higher uptake of WCF in revision. The effects of post-feedback activities, however, varied for error types. All the post-feedback activities were effective in improving the quality of writing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Varied feedback strategies are prevalent to enhance learners' skills in an Academic Writing course. However, there has been an ongoing discussion on classifying one as the most efficient strategy. In this regard, this study investigated the impacts of metalinguistic feedback on the TOEFL IBT Independent Writing Section Score of language preparatory school students over 12 weeks using pre-test and post-test. Initially, 40 students were separated into two groups through simple random sampling method. Experimental group followed the regulations of metalinguistic feedback strategy, whereas control group students were exposed to direct feedback throughout the study. Each student wrote 6 essays to improve their writing skills. Additionally, their feedback type was arranged according to their groups. IBM SPSS 23. was employed to analyze quantitative data through independent and paired samples t test. It was measured that students in experimental group increased their success rate significantly by considering .000 p-value in independent and paired samples t test respectively. However, no significant improvement was noticed in control group. Likewise, the questionnaire and interview analysis confirmed that metalinguistic feedback was more effective than direct feedback. Findings of this study suggest that metalinguistic feedback strategy can increase students' motivation and enthusiasm so that the learners can boost their performance in Academic Writing courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to determine EFL Students' problems in dealing with teacher written feedback and their strategies to deal with them. This study used a qualitative method. Data were collected using one instrument, namely interviews with 10 students who have lowest writing scores in 10 grades. The results of the study reported that there were several problems experienced by students, such as difficulty understanding teacher's comments, difficulty understanding error codes, inability to correct errors based on teacher written feedback and students' fear of asking questions. In addition, students used several strategies to deal with these problems, such as rewriting the teacher feedback with their own words, looking up the meaning of incomprehensible symbol and sentences on the internet/dictionaries and trying to be brave to ask the teacher. This study concludes that the teacher's written feedback must had several aspects namely, effective, easy to understand, easy to follow and precise. This research was expected to find out students' problems and provide solutions to improve their writing skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on peer written corrective feedback (PWCF), a pedagogic device whose potential appears still underexploited in second language teaching in Italian schools and universities. Specifically, we aim to contribute to the body of research on the benefits of PWCF as a learning activity for the development of metalinguistic reflection in peer-to-peer native/non-native online communication. Using a sample of tandem interactions between US learners of Italian and Italian learners of English, we conducted a qualitative analysis of the explanations of linguistic phenomena provided by native speakers when commenting on errors after giving corrective feedback on their non-native partners’ pieces of L2 writing. The data analysis confirmed that the feedback-discussing tasks pushed native/non-native peers to actively reflect on both source and target language, engaging in metalinguistic discussions and utilizing cross-linguistic knowledge.

The prevalence of Sociocultural Theory (SCT) as a major theory in SLA has spurred a considerable number of studies to investigate the various aspect of L2 acquisition through the lens of this theoretical framework. The present study aimed at investigating the impact of Scaffolded Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance in terms of fluency, accuracy, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Additionally, the study sought to inquire about the Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes toward Scaffolded WCF through a series of post-interviews and a questionnaire. For this purpose, 25 students who had enrolled in a university-level writing course were conveniently sampled after a homogeneity test for the study. The pedagogical treatment the participants received throughout the study was Scaffolded WCF (i.e. a ZPD-based teacher/peer corrective feedback on their writing performance). The data obtained from the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest were analyzed using a series of ANOVA and Friedman’s tests. The findings indicated that Scaffolded WCF statistically significantly contributed to the participants’ writing performance regarding grammatical complexity, fluency, accuracy, and lexical complexity. The results obtained from the attitude questionnaire and the post-interviews also revealed that the participants held a positive attitude toward the adopted approach. The findings provide promising implications for the adoption of this approach in large classes typical of Iranian university-level writing courses.