the effects of written corrective feedback: a critical

doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949

Instructed Second Language Acquisition

isla (print) issn 2398–4155isla (online) issn 2398–4163

isla vol 3.1 2019 28–52©2019, equinox publishing

Article

The effects of written corrective feedback : a critical synthesis of past and present research

Khaled Karim and Hossein Nassaji

Abstract

This paper presents a critical synthesis of research on written corrective feed-back (WCF) and its effects on second language (L2) learning over the past four decades. WCF is an essential component of L2 teaching. However, whether WCF helps has been an issue of considerable debate in the literature. While many researchers have stressed its importance, some others have expressed doubt concerning its effectiveness. The controversy over the effectiveness of WCF was heightened when Truscott argued in 1996 that error correction is ineffective and harmful and others who strongly countered his argument that feedback is effective (e.g. Chandler 2003; Ferris 1999). This article provides an in-depth synthesis and analysis of this area of research, examining key issues and find-ings as well as the various contentions and concerns raised regarding the effects of WCF. The article concludes with implications for future research and with insights about how to move forwards.

keywords: feedback; written corrective feedback; second language writing; feedback effectiveness; error correction; direct and indirect feedback; focused feedback; comprehensive feedback

Affiliations

Khaled Karim: United Arab Emirates Universityemail: [email protected] Nassaji: University of Victoria, Canadaemail: [email protected]

mailto:https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949?subject=

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

The effecTs of wriTTen correcTive feedback 29

Introduction: what is corrective feedback?

Various terms have been used in the L2 literature to define corrective feed-back. Some of the most frequently used terms are: ‘corrective feedback’, ‘negative evidence’ and ‘negative feedback’. The term ‘corrective feedback’ has been mainly used in the field of language teaching and the other two in language acquisition and cognitive psychology, respectively (Schachter 1991). Nassaji and Kartchava (2017) defined corrective feedback as a response to the learner’s erroneous output with the aim of improving the accuracy of the targeted form. Corrective feedback can include a wide variety of responses, ranging from implicit (e.g. indirect feedback without providing the correct form) to explicit (e.g. direct feedback that provides the correct form). Chaudron (1988) used the term ‘treatment of error’ and defined it as teachers’ reaction to an error with an attempt to inform the learner about the error. Long (1996) categorised the input learners receive as positive or negative evidence. Positive evidence provides learners with examples of what is grammatical and acceptable in the target language (TL). Negative evidence, on the other hand, provides information about what is ungrammatical. In this view, corrective feedback is a kind of negative evidence. Although there are different definitions, in a sense, they all refer to the information that indicates directly or in directly to the learner that there is something wrong with their output. Thus, they have the purpose of prompting a change in the learner’s interlanguage system. Corrective feedback can be both oral and written. Oral feedback is in the form of oral utterances in response to oral errors, whereas written feedback is in the form of written responses to written errors. Our focus in this paper is on written feedback.

The role of written corrective feedback

Corrective feedback is widely used by L2 teachers in various language classrooms. However, its role in language learning has been highly con-troversial. Much of this debate is rooted not only in inconsistent research results, but also in the different views on the role of error correction in both second language acquisition (SLA) and the L2 writing literature. In SLA, different theories have viewed the role and importance of corrective feed-back differently. According to the nativist view, for instance, acquisition is driven by positive evidence, and corrective feedback plays little or no role in acquisition (e.g. Carroll 1995; Cook 1991; Krashen 1982, 1985). Others, however, have argued that L2 learners cannot develop native-like accuracy in an L2 based on mere exposure to positive evidence or models of gram-matical input. Their view supports the importance of negative feedback

30 khaled karim and hossein nassaji

and attention to form in L2 development (e.g. Doughty and Varela 1998; Long 1996; Nassaji 1999; Pica 2002; VanPatten 1990; Williams 2005).

While the field of SLA research on corrective feedback has examined the extent to which negative feedback facilitates the acquisition of a target feature, in the field of L2 writing research has often been concerned with the extent to which written feedback enhances the quality of a written text (Ferris 2010). Many L2 writing researchers have argued that L2 accuracy is an important goal of L2 writing instruction (e.g. Bitchener 2017; Chen and Nassaji 2018; Ferris 2006; Hyland and Hyland 2006). Within this area, while corrective feedback is considered to be generally helpful, there is dis-agreement among both researchers and practitioners regarding the degree to which it can help L2 writing development. The debate regarding the usefulness of error correction heightened when Truscott made his known remarks in 1996 that corrective feedback in L2 writing is not only inef-fective but also harmful, and several researchers responded to Truscott’s claim and argued in favour of written corrective feedback (Ferris 1999, 2006; Bruton 2009, 2010; Chandler 2009).

This paper aims to provide a critical synthesis and analysis of the studies on corrective feedback in L2 writing over the past few decades. To facilitate our review, we discuss the studies under four categories: a) the effective-ness of feedback in general; b) the effectiveness of different types of feed-back; c) the effectiveness of focused versus unfocused feedback; and d) the effectiveness of feedback on revision accuracy versus overall L2 writing ability. Key findings of studies in each of these areas as well as various con-tentions and concerns raised will be identified and addressed.

The effectiveness of feedback in general

Many studies over the years have investigated the question of whether feedback has any effect. Most of these studies were published between 1982 and 2004, and examined the effect of feedback versus no feedback. While some of these studies reported no significant effect (e.g. Kepner 1991; Polio, Fleck and Leder 1998; Rob, Ross and Shortreed 1986; Semke 1984), the majority concluded that error correction was indeed effective (e.g. Fathman and Whalley 1990; Ferris 1997; Lalande 1982; Sheppard 1992). Tables 1 and 2 provide a list of these studies and a summary of their key findings. As can be seen, out of the fifteen key studies, ten showed that feedback leads to improvement of grammatical accuracy on L2 writing (Table 1) and five indicated no effect (Table 2). Based on these findings, one may conclude that feedback has an important impact on L2 writing.


Tabl

e 1:

Ear

ly s

tudi

es th

at fo

und

evid

ence

in s

uppo

rt o

f the

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

WCF

.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

Met

hods

Find

ings

1La

land

e (1

982)

60 in

term

edia

te-le

vel

stud

ents

of G

erm

an a

t an

Am

eric

an u

nive

rsity

.

Gro

ups:

two

cont

rol a

nd tw

o tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s. Co

ntro

l gr

oups

rece

ived

dire

ct C

F an

d tr

eatm

ent g

roup

rece

ived

in

dire

ct C

F. Th

ere

was

no

real

con

trol

gro

up.

Task

: ess

ay w

ritin

g.

The

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

s ou

tper

form

ed th

e co

ntro

l one

s.

2Fa

thm

an

and

Wha

lley

(199

0)

72 in

term

edia

te E

SL

stud

ents

enr

olle

d in

co

mpo

sitio

n cl

asse

s at

two

diffe

rent

col

lege

s.

Gro

ups:

four

gro

ups.

Gro

up1

rece

ived

no

feed

back

; Gro

up

2 re

ceiv

ed o

nly

gram

mar

feed

back

; Gro

up 3

rece

ived

co

nten

t fee

dbac

k; a

nd G

roup

4 re

ceiv

ed C

F on

gra

mm

ar

and

cont

ent.

CF o

n gr

amm

ar w

as in

the

form

of u

nder

linin

g on

ly.

Both

gra

mm

ar a

nd c

onte

nt fe

edba

ck fo

und

to b

e m

ore

effec

tive.

Gra

mm

ar fe

edba

ck

was

foun

d to

be

mor

e eff

ectiv

e th

an c

onte

nt

feed

back

alo

ne a

s ge

nera

l con

tent

feed

back

di

d no

t ind

icat

e th

e er

rors

to th

e st

uden

ts.

Stud

ents

who

rew

rote

thei

r ess

ays

with

out

rece

ivin

g fe

edba

ck a

lso

impr

oved

bot

h in

flu

ency

and

con

tent

.

3Sh

eppa

rd

(199

2)

26 u

pper

-inte

rmed

iate

US

colle

ge fr

eshm

en s

tude

nts.

Gro

ups:

two

grou

ps. O

ne re

ceiv

ed h

olis

tic c

omm

ents

and

th

e ot

her r

ecei

ved

dire

ct C

F on

gra

mm

ar a

nd li

ngui

stic

co

mpl

exity

.Ta

sk: e

ssay

writ

ing

(nar

rativ

e, e

xpos

itory

and

per

sona

l ex

perie

nce)

.

Both

gro

ups

gain

ed im

prov

emen

t on

the

mea

sure

of t

he c

orre

ct u

se o

f ver

bs. N

o im

prov

emen

t was

foun

d on

the

othe

r m

easu

re, i

.e. s

ente

nce

boun

darie

s. H

olis

tic

com

men

ts g

roup

did

bet

ter t

han

the

feed

back

gro

up in

term

s of

gra

mm

atic

al

accu

racy

and

ling

uist

ic c

ompl

exity

.

4Fe

rris

(199

7)

Shel

tere

d ES

L co

mpo

sitio

n co

urse

: 47

adva

nced

ESL

st

uden

ts.

Thre

e gr

oups

rece

ived

thre

e ty

pes

of te

ache

r fee

dbac

k:

com

men

ts in

the

form

of q

uest

ions

, req

uest

s an

d im

pera

tives

.Ta

sk: e

ssay

ass

ignm

ents

(fou

r diff

eren

t tas

k ty

pes

– pe

rson

al,

narr

ativ

e, e

xpos

itory

and

per

suas

ive)

. 160

0 m

argi

nal a

nd

end

com

men

ts w

ritte

n on

firs

t 110

dra

fts

wer

e ex

amin

ed.

Long

er fe

edba

ck h

ad a

gre

ater

effe

ct o

n th

e re

visi

ons

than

sho

rt o

r gen

eral

com

men

ts.

Mar

gina

l req

uest

s fo

r inf

orm

atio

n an

d gr

amm

ar c

omm

ents

hel

ped

stud

ents

writ

e be

tter

dra

fts.


Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

Met

hods

Find

ings

5Le

e (1

997)

14

9 fir

st-y

ear e

lect

rical

en

gine

erin

g st

uden

ts a

t H

ong

Kong

Pol

ytec

hnic

U

nive

rsity

.

Two

grou

ps re

ceiv

ed in

dire

ct C

F in

the

form

s of

und

erlin

ing

and

tick

mar

ks (e

rror

-free

sen

tenc

es w

ere

tick

mar

ked)

, and

on

e gr

oup

rece

ived

no

CF.

Task

: err

or c

orre

ctio

n fr

om a

text

(a n

ewsp

aper

art

icle

abo

ut

‘stra

y an

imal

s’ w

as a

dapt

ed fo

r the

stu

dy, o

n w

hich

the

thre

e co

nditi

ons

of th

e er

ror c

orre

ctio

n ta

sk w

as b

ased

).

Und

erlin

ed e

rror

s w

ere

mor

e su

cces

sful

ly

corr

ecte

d th

an e

rror

s th

at w

ere

eith

er n

ot

mar

ked

or o

nly

indi

cate

d by

a c

heck

mar

k in

th

e m

argi

n.

6A

shw

ell

(200

0)50

Eng

lish

writ

ing

stud

ents

at

a Ja

pane

se u

nive

rsity

.Th

ree

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

s re

ceiv

ed in

dire

ct C

F on

form

(c

onsi

sted

of u

nder

linin

g an

d ci

rclin

g of

err

ors)

and

als

o on

con

tent

(org

anis

atio

n, p

arag

raph

ing,

coh

esio

n an

d re

leva

nce)

. The

con

trol

gro

up d

id n

ot re

ceiv

e an

y CF

. Ta

sk: f

our w

ritin

g as

sign

men

ts in

one

sem

este

r.

No

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s w

ere

foun

d be

twee

n th

e th

ree

feed

back

gro

ups.

How

ever

, all

thre

e fe

edba

ck g

roup

s ou

tper

form

ed th

e co

ntro

l gro

up in

form

al

accu

racy

.

7Fe

rris

and

Ro

bert

s (2

001)

72 E

SL s

tude

nts

at a

n A

mer

ican

uni

vers

ity.

Two

grou

ps re

ceiv

ed c

oded

and

unc

oded

feed

back

re

spec

tivel

y, a

nd o

ne g

roup

rece

ived

no

feed

back

.Ta

sk: 5

0-m

inut

e in

-cla

ss d

iagn

ostic

ess

ays

and

self-

editi

ng.

CF g

roup

s si

gnifi

cant

ly o

utpe

rfor

med

the

no-fe

edba

ck g

roup

. How

ever

, the

re w

ere

no

sign

ifica

nt d

iffer

ence

s be

twee

n th

e co

ded

and

unco

ded

feed

back

.

8Li

zott

e (2

001)

55 E

SL s

tude

nts

(leve

l 4

Engl

ish

com

posi

tion)

at a

n A

mer

ican

uni

vers

ity.

One

gro

up’s

erro

rs w

ere

loca

ted

for s

elf-

corr

ectio

n. T

here

w

as n

o co

ntro

l gro

up.

Task

: Ess

ay w

ritin

g (d

escr

iptiv

e, n

arra

tive

and

opin

ion)

.

Stud

ents

redu

ced

erro

rs in

thei

r writ

ing

sign

ifica

ntly

ove

r one

sem

este

r. Th

e st

uden

ts

also

mad

e si

gnifi

cant

gai

ns in

flue

ncy.

9Ch

andl

er

(200

3)

31 h

ighe

r- in

term

edia

te/

adva

nced

stu

dent

s (m

usic

m

ajor

at a

n A

mer

ican

co

nser

vato

ry).

One

trea

tmen

t gro

up re

ceiv

ed in

dire

ct C

F, an

d th

e co

ntro

l gr

oup

rece

ived

no

CF.

Task

: Hom

ewor

k as

sign

men

t (au

tobi

ogra

phic

al w

ritin

g an

d bo

ok re

view

s).

Stud

ents

in th

e co

ntro

l gro

up d

id n

ot

impr

ove

in a

ccur

acy.

Writ

ing

accu

racy

im

prov

ed s

igni

fican

tly in

the

expe

rimen

tal

grou

p. B

oth

grou

ps s

how

ed a

sig

nific

ant

incr

ease

in fl

uenc

y ov

er th

e se

mes

ter.

10G

asco

igne

(2

004)

25 p

ost-

seco

ndar

y le

vel

L2 F

renc

h st

uden

ts a

t an

Am

eric

an u

nive

rsity

(nat

ive

spea

kers

of E

nglis

h).

Repl

icat

ion

of F

erris

’s (1

997)

stu

dy.

Task

: In-

clas

s w

ritin

g as

sign

men

ts (d

escr

iptiv

e te

xts)

.Te

ache

r com

men

tary

on

stud

ents

’ writ

ing

help

ed th

em im

prov

e th

eir w

ritin

g.


Tabl

e 2:

Stu

dies

that

did

not

find

pos

itive

evi

denc

e in

sup

port

of t

he e

ffect

iven

ess

of W

CF.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

Met

hods

Fi

ndin

gs

1Se

mke

(1

984)

14

1 fir

st-y

ear G

erm

an s

tude

nts

at a

n A

mer

ican

uni

vers

ity.

The

cont

rol g

roup

rece

ived

onl

y co

mm

ents

bu

t no

erro

r cor

rect

ions

. One

gro

up re

ceiv

ed

dire

ct fe

edba

ck o

nly.

Ano

ther

gro

up re

ceiv

ed

corr

ectio

n w

ith c

omm

ents

(on

both

form

and

co

nten

t), a

nd a

third

gro

up re

ceiv

ed c

oded

fe

edba

ck.

Task

: wee

kly

free

writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent

Ther

e w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

in a

ccur

acy

acro

ss tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s. St

uden

ts’ p

rogr

ess

was

en

hanc

ed b

y w

ritin

g pr

actic

e al

one.

2Ro

bb,

Ross

and

Sh

ortr

eed

(198

6)

134

Japa

nese

col

lege

fres

hmen

stu

dent

s.Fo

ur g

roup

s: d

irect

, cod

ed, u

ncod

ed a

nd th

e nu

mbe

r of e

rror

s pe

r lin

e.Ta

sk: c

ompo

sitio

n as

sign

men

ts (d

escr

iptiv

e,

narr

ativ

e an

d ex

posi

tory

ess

ays)

ove

r one

ac

adem

ic y

ear.

All

four

gro

ups

impr

oved

in a

ccur

acy

but n

o st

atis

tical

ly s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

wer

e fo

und

betw

een

the

four

gro

ups

on a

ny o

f the

thre

e m

easu

res

(com

plex

ity, a

ccur

acy

or fl

uenc

y).

3Ke

pner

(1

991)

60 in

term

edia

te S

pani

sh s

tude

nts

at a

n A

mer

ican

col

lege

.Tw

o tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s re

ceiv

ed W

CF (m

essa

ge-

rela

ted

com

men

ts a

nd s

urfa

ce e

rror

cor

rect

ion)

an

d th

ere

wer

e tw

o co

ntro

l gro

ups

who

did

not

re

ceiv

e su

ch fe

edba

ck.

Task

: jou

rnal

ent

ries

on e

ight

topi

cs.

CF g

roup

dis

play

ed a

ccur

acy

impr

ovem

ent m

ore

than

the

cont

rol g

roup

by

15%

, but

acc

ordi

ng to

Ke

pner

it w

as n

ot a

sig

nific

ant i

mpr

ovem

ent a

nd

WCF

did

not

hel

p st

uden

ts a

void

sen

tenc

e-le

vel

erro

rs.

4Po

lio, F

leck

an

d Le

der

(199

8)

64 E

SL s

tude

nts

at a

n A

mer

ican

un

iver

sity

.Th

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

up re

ceiv

ed c

orre

ctio

ns

on g

ram

mar

and

wor

d fo

rm e

rror

s an

d th

e co

ntro

l gro

up re

ceiv

ed n

o fe

edba

ck.

Task

: ess

ay w

ritin

g.

Ther

e w

ere

no s

igni

fican

t diff

eren

ces

in a

ccur

acy

betw

een

WCF

and

con

trol

gro

up (f

rom

the

first

w

eek

to th

e en

d of

the

sem

este

r).

5Fa

zio

(200

1)11

2 gr

ade

5 st

uden

ts in

four

Fre

nch-

lang

uage

cla

ssro

oms

in M

ontr

eal (

66

fran

coph

one

and

46 m

inor

ity s

tude

nts)

Thre

e gr

oups

rece

ived

cor

rect

ion,

co

mm

enta

ries

and

a co

mbi

natio

n of

the

two

on g

ram

mat

ical

acc

urac

y, re

spec

tivel

y.Ta

sk: j

ourn

al w

ritin

g.

Non

e of

the

thre

e gr

oups

impr

oved

in th

eir

accu

racy

. Faz

io, h

owev

er, c

oncl

uded

that

the

lack

of

impr

ovem

ent p

roba

bly

was

due

to th

e sh

ort

trea

tmen

t tim

e.


However, although the majority of the past studies show a positive effect for corrective feedback, most suffer from significant research design flaws. One major problem of early studies is the lack of a control group (Bitchener 2008; Ferris 2008; Storch 2010). That is, while these studies examined the improvement of the learners who received feedback, they did not compare the writing of these students with those who did not receive feedback. It is quite clear that without a control group it is difficult to determine whether the effect shown is because of error correction or other factors (see Table 3 for studies that used and did not use a control group). In addition, early research measured the effects of feedback on revision accuracy only (Ferris 2010). That is, they investigated the effectiveness of feedback on students’ modification of the same error in the same paper without measuring improvement of accuracy in new pieces of writing. Although the ability to revise or edit a text is also an important process in the development of L2 writing skills, ability to revise does not provide evidence that learners are also able to transfer their knowledge to new contexts or to their subsequent writings. Another problem with revising is that students may simply repeat the teachers’ correction without any understanding of the feedback, par-ticularly if they have received direct correction. Thus, students may revise the text by using the correct form, but it is not clear whether they can use the same form accurately if they want to express new ideas. Finally, even if revision may help improve accuracy in writing, it may not help improve complexity of L2 writing, which is also an important component of L2 writing ability (Truscott 2007).

In addition, in most early studies feedback is provided in an unfocused rather than a focused manner. That is, feedback is delivered on every error made by students instead of on certain errors only. One problem with feed-back on every error is that learners do not receive tailored feedback and therefore may not know in what area they need more help. Too many cor-rections can also overwhelm the learner and thus may negatively affect the influence of the feedback. However, when the feedback is directed towards a few errors, learners may be more likely to attend to the feedback and consequently learn from it (Ellis et al. 2008).

Table 3: Studies with and without control group.

Studies without control group Chandler 2003; Fazio 2001; Ferris 1997; Robb, Ross and Shortreed 1986

Studies with control group

Ashwell 2000; Fathman and Whalley 1990; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Kepner 1991; Lalande 1982; Lee 1997; Polio, Fleck and Leder 1998; Semke 1984


Many recent studies (2004 to 2018) have attempted to address some of the above issues of early research. For example, they have adopted a research design that has both a treatment and a control group. This is a significant improvement on previous studies’ research designs and, for the same reason, these studies have also gone beyond examining the effect of feedback in general to investigating whether these effects differ among feedback types or what type of feedback is more effective. This research has also explored the effectiveness of feedback in terms of its focus, exam-ining the extent to which learners respond differently to feedback target-ing all errors versus some errors. Some recent studies have also examined not only whether WCF has any effects on revision but also on new pieces of writing. Therefore, they have tried to address the important question of whether learners are able to transfer the knowledge they gain through feedback to new contexts. We will examine this research in the subsequent sections.

The effectiveness of different types of feedback

Many recent studies have examined and compared not only the effective-ness of feedback in general, but also whether these effects vary across different types of feedback. Two major types of feedback have received much attention: direct and indirect feedback (Ferris 2002, 2006; Ferris and Roberts 2001). Direct feedback refers to feedback strategies that provide the correct form. Indirect feedback, however, indicates that an error has occurred but does not provide the correction. Lira Gonzales and Nassaji (2018) found that L2 teachers used at least four ways of providing indi-rect feedback such as underlining the error, providing comments about the error in the margin, using codes indicating the type of error, colour coding the error.

While there seems to be a consensus on the beneficial effects of feedback in general, there has been a controversy on what type of feedback is more effective (Nassaji 2016). Some researchers, for example, have argued that direct feedback is more effective as it clearly indicates how the error should be corrected (e.g. Bitchener 2008; Bitchener, Young and Cameron 2005; Ellis et al. 2008; Nassaji 2015; Sheen 2007). Others, however, have con-tended that indirect feedback is superior to direct feedback as it engages students in problem-solving and hence helps them to become independent learners (Ferris 2003, 2006). Still others have argued that different types of corrective feedback contribute to language learning differently, and there-fore their use should be considered more as a matter of suitability than superiority (e.g. Al-Rubai’ey and Nassaji 2013; Chen, Nassaji and Liu 2016).


Research that has compared the effectiveness of different types of feed-back has shown mixed results (see Table 4). Ferris and Roberts (2001), for example, found no significant difference in accuracy between two types of indirect feedback: underlining and underlining with codes. Chandler (2003), on the other hand, found significant accuracy gains in groups who received underlining as indirect feedback, but not in groups who received underlining plus codes. Sheen (2007) found that the direct metalinguistic feedback had a stronger effect than the direct feedback only on delayed post-tests. Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005) found superiority in the combination of direct oral metalinguistic feedback and direct written feedback over direct written feedback alone. However, there was no overall effect on accuracy improvement for feedback types when the three error categories (i.e. prepositions, past simple tense and definite articles) were considered as a single group. Bitchener’s (2008) study demonstrated that the two groups that received written or oral metalinguistic feedback along with direct feedback outperformed the group which received direct feed-back only. However, in Bitchener and Knoch’s (2008) study, no difference was observed between the three treatment groups (direct CF, written and oral metalinguistic explanation, and direct CF only). Shintani, Ellis and Suzuki (2014) found a stronger effect for the direct feedback over the metalinguistic one. In a very recent study, Suzuki, Nassaji and Sato (2019) investigated the effects of feedback explicitness on two target structures – English indefinite articles and past perfect tense. In their study, both direct and indirect types of feedback helped learners to improve the accuracy of both target structures in revision; however, the effect of feedback explicit-ness was found to be partially significant on the revision of the past perfect tense but not on new pieces of writing (see Table 4 for more details).

Of course, the mixed findings or variation in results about the effect of feedback should not be taken as an indication of lack of support for corrective feedback; rather, they should be taken as evidence of the com-plexity of corrective feedback and the various factors that may influence its effectiveness (Nassaji 2017a). Indeed, in a recent meta-analysis, Kang and Han (2015) found that the efficacy of written corrective feedback was influenced greatly by factors such as context as well as learners’ level of lin-guistic knowledge. The mixed findings about the effects of different types of feedback could also be due to the different types of errors, feedback intensity (e.g. Ferris and Roberts 2001), the assessment tools to measure the effectiveness of feedback, and also how feedback has been operation-alised (Bitchener 2008; Ellis et al. 2008; Ferris 2006; Sheen 2007).


Tabl

e 4:

A s

umm

ary

of k

ey s

tudi

es th

at in

vest

igat

ed th

e di

ffere

ntia

l effe

cts

of d

iffer

ent t

ypes

of W

CF.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

Met

hods

Find

ings

Bitc

hene

r, Yo

ung,

and

Ca

mer

on

(200

5)

Thre

e tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s: d

irect

onl

y;

dire

ct +

stu

dent

–res

earc

her 5

-min

ute

indi

vidu

al c

onfe

renc

es; a

nd a

no

feed

back

gr

oup

(rec

eive

d fe

edba

ck o

n th

e qu

ality

an

d or

gani

satio

n of

thei

r con

tent

). Ta

rget

st

ruct

ures

: pre

posi

tions

, the

sim

ple

past

te

nse

and

the

defin

ite a

rtic

le.

The

thre

e tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s re

ceiv

ed W

CF a

nd/

or s

tude

nt–t

each

er c

onfe

renc

e af

ter e

ach

piec

e of

writ

ing,

and

the

cont

rol g

roup

rece

ived

no

feed

back

.

Lear

ners

in th

e ex

plic

it w

ritte

n fe

edba

ck

+ co

nfer

ence

gro

up o

utpe

rfor

med

the

othe

r tw

o gr

oups

sig

nific

antly

in a

ccur

acy

perf

orm

ance

of s

impl

e pa

st te

nse

and

defin

ite a

rtic

les,

but n

ot p

repo

sitio

ns.

Shee

n (2

007)

91 s

tude

nts

form

ed in

to th

ree

grou

ps:

dire

ct-o

nly

corr

ectio

n gr

oup;

dire

ct

met

alin

guis

tic c

orre

ctio

n gr

oup;

and

a

cont

rol g

roup

. Tar

get s

truc

ture

: Eng

lish

defin

ite a

nd in

defin

ite a

rtic

les.

Qua

si-e

xper

imen

tal s

tudy

with

a p

re-t

est–

trea

tmen

t–po

st-t

est–

dela

yed

post

-tes

t des

ign.

Bo

th tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s pe

rfor

med

muc

h be

tter

than

the

cont

rol g

roup

on

the

imm

edia

te p

ost-

test

s, bu

t the

dire

ct

met

alin

guis

tic g

roup

per

form

ed b

ette

r tha

n th

e di

rect

-onl

y co

rrec

tion

and

the

cont

rol

grou

p in

the

dela

yed

post

-tes

ts.

Bitc

hene

r (2

008)

Four

gro

ups:

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck w

ith

writ

ten

and

oral

met

alin

guis

tic e

xpla

natio

n;

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck w

ith w

ritte

n m

etal

ingu

istic

exp

lana

tion;

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck o

nly;

the

cont

rol g

roup

. Tar

get

stru

ctur

e: re

fere

ntia

l ind

efini

te ‘a

’ and

re

fere

ntia

l defi

nite

‘the

’.

All

stud

ents

wer

e gi

ven

the

task

as

a pr

e-te

st.

Two

wee

ks la

ter,

the

thre

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups

rece

ived

a tr

eatm

ent w

ith fe

edba

ck, a

nd th

en a

ll fo

ur g

roup

s w

ere

imm

edia

tely

giv

en th

e w

ritin

g ta

sk w

ith a

diff

eren

t pic

ture

(im

med

iate

pos

t-te

st).

Two

mon

ths

late

r, th

ey w

ere

give

n th

e w

ritin

g ta

sk

agai

n w

ith a

diff

eren

t pic

ture

(del

ayed

pos

t-te

st).

The

stud

ents

who

rece

ived

dire

ct

corr

ectiv

e fe

edba

ck w

ith w

ritte

n an

d or

al

met

alin

guis

tic fe

edba

ck, a

nd th

e gr

oup

that

re

ceiv

ed d

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

onl

y ou

tper

form

ed th

e co

ntro

l gro

up.

Bitc

hene

r an

d Kn

och

(200

8)

Thre

e tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s: d

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

and

writ

ten

and

oral

met

alin

guis

tic

expl

anat

ion;

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck a

nd

writ

ten

met

alin

guis

tic e

xpla

natio

n; d

irect

fe

edba

ck o

nly;

and

one

con

trol

gro

up.

Targ

et s

truc

ture

: ind

efini

te a

rtic

le ‘a

’ and

de

finite

art

icle

‘the

’.

All

of th

e st

uden

ts w

ere

give

n a

task

as

a pr

e-te

st.

One

wee

k la

ter,

the

thre

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups

rece

ived

a W

CF tr

eatm

ent,

and

then

all

four

gro

ups

wer

e im

med

iate

ly g

iven

this

writ

ing

task

with

a

diffe

rent

pic

ture

(im

med

iate

pos

t-te

st).

Then

, 7

wee

ks la

ter,

they

wer

e gi

ven

the

writ

ing

task

aga

in

with

a d

iffer

ent p

ictu

re (d

elay

ed p

ost-

test

).

Stud

ents

who

rece

ived

WCF

opt

ions

ou

tper

form

ed th

ose

who

did

not

rece

ive

WCF

. Lev

el o

f acc

urac

y w

as re

tain

ed o

ver 7

w

eeks

. The

re w

as n

o di

ffere

nce

amon

g th

e re

sults

of t

he th

ree

trea

tmen

t gro

ups.


Bitc

hene

r an

d Kn

och

(200

9b)

Thre

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups:

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck a

nd w

ritte

n an

d or

al m

etal

ingu

istic

ex

plan

atio

n; d

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

and

w

ritte

n m

etal

ingu

istic

exp

lana

tion;

dire

ct

corr

ectiv

e fe

edba

ck o

nly.

Tar

get s

truc

ture

: re

fere

ntia

l ind

efini

te ‘a

’ and

refe

rent

ial

defin

ite ‘t

he’.

All

of th

e st

uden

ts w

ere

give

n a

task

as

a pr

e-te

st.

One

wee

k la

ter,

the

thre

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups

rece

ived

a W

CF tr

eatm

ent a

nd th

en th

ey w

ere

give

n th

e w

ritin

g ta

sk w

ith a

diff

eren

t pic

ture

(im

med

iate

pos

t-te

st).

Two

wee

ks la

ter,

they

wer

e gi

ven

the

writ

ing

task

with

a d

iffer

ent p

ictu

re

(del

ayed

pos

t-te

st).

The

writ

ing

task

was

giv

en

agai

n 2

and

6 m

onth

s la

ter.

All

grou

ps s

igni

fican

tly in

crea

sed

thei

r ac

cura

cy a

fter

the

trea

tmen

t. N

o di

ffere

nce

in e

ffect

upo

n ac

cura

cy w

as fo

und

amon

g th

e gr

oups

.

Shin

tani

and

El

lis (2

013)

Thre

e gr

oups

: dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck

(DCF

); m

etal

ingu

istic

exp

lana

tion

(ME)

; and

co

ntro

l gro

up. T

arge

t str

uctu

re: E

nglis

h de

finite

art

icle

.

In S

essi

on 1

, par

ticip

ants

com

plet

ed a

bac

kgro

und

ques

tionn

aire

, the

err

or c

orre

ctio

n te

st (E

CT)

and

th

e fir

st w

ritin

g ta

sk. I

n Se

ssio

n 2,

the

expe

rimen

tal

grou

ps re

ceiv

ed C

F, re

vise

d th

eir o

rigin

al w

ritin

g an

d pr

oduc

ed a

new

pie

ce o

f writ

ing.

Tw

o w

eeks

la

ter,

the

grou

ps c

ompl

eted

a th

ird p

iece

of

writ

ing,

the

exit

ques

tionn

aire

and

the

sam

e EC

T as

in S

essi

on 1

.

DCF

had

no

effec

t on

the

accu

rate

use

of

the

targ

et fe

atur

e, i.

e. it

ben

efite

d ne

ither

im

plic

it no

r exp

licit

know

ledg

e. M

E le

d to

ga

ins

in a

ccur

acy

in th

e EC

T an

d in

a n

ew

piec

e of

writ

ing

com

plet

ed im

med

iate

ly

afte

r the

trea

tmen

t but

not

in a

sec

ond

new

te

xt c

ompl

eted

2 w

eeks

late

r.

Mirz

aii a

nd

Alia

badi

(2

013)

Stud

ents

wer

e ra

ndom

ly a

ssig

ned

to tw

o ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups:

dire

ct fe

edba

ck g

roup

(D

FG) a

nd in

dire

ct fe

edba

ck g

roup

(ID

F).

The

two

grou

ps w

ere

give

n a

pre-

test

and

wro

te a

15

0-w

ord

appl

icat

ion

lett

er in

25

min

utes

. Bo

th g

roup

s m

ade

an im

prov

emen

t dur

ing

the

stud

y; h

owev

er, D

FG p

artic

ipan

ts m

ade

sign

ifica

nt im

prov

emen

ts c

ompa

red

to th

e ID

F. D

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

was

mor

e eff

ectiv

e th

an in

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck

in th

e co

ntex

t of g

enre

-bas

ed in

stru

ctio

n on

lett

ers

of jo

b ap

plic

atio

n.

Al-R

ubai

’ey

and

Nas

saji

(201

3)

Two

inta

ct E

nglis

h as

a fo

reig

n la

ngua

ge

(EFL

) cla

sses

par

ticip

ated

. Ta

rget

str

uctu

re: E

nglis

h ar

ticle

s.

Each

cla

ss w

rote

four

ess

ays

and

was

pro

vide

d w

ith W

CF o

n th

eir w

ritte

n er

rors

, with

one

cla

ss

rece

ivin

g di

rect

feed

back

and

the

othe

r rec

eivi

ng

indi

rect

met

alin

guis

tic fe

edba

ck.

Ove

rall,

the

resu

lt sh

owed

no

sign

ifica

nt

diffe

renc

e be

twee

n th

e di

rect

and

indi

rect

m

etal

ingu

istic

CF

grou

ps.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

Met

hods

Find

ings


Gho

lam

inia

, G

hola

min

ia

and

Mar

zban

(2

014)

An

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

(ins

truc

tor u

sed

met

alin

guis

tic c

ode

corr

ectio

n) a

nd o

ne

cont

rol g

roup

(rec

eive

d w

ritte

n er

ror

corr

ectio

n w

ith u

nder

linin

g of

the

erro

r and

pr

ovis

ion

of th

e co

rrec

t for

m).

Firs

t, a

Nel

son

test

was

use

d to

elic

it 60

ho

mog

enou

s st

uden

ts fr

om 9

1 vo

lunt

eers

. The

n,

a pa

ragr

aph

writ

ing

pre-

test

was

adm

inis

tere

d to

bot

h gr

oups

. Aft

er th

at, s

tude

nts

rece

ived

ten

sess

ions

of t

reat

men

t with

feed

back

. Aft

er th

e te

n se

ssio

ns a

pos

t-te

st w

as a

dmin

iste

red.

Part

icip

ants

in th

e ex

perim

enta

l gr

oup

outp

erfo

rmed

the

trad

ition

ally

in

stru

cted

con

trol

gro

up in

thei

r pos

t-te

st.

Met

alin

guis

tic c

ode

corr

ectio

n le

t the

le

arne

rs b

ecom

e m

ore

sens

itive

to m

ista

kes

and

erro

rs th

roug

h se

vera

l dra

ft a

ttem

pts.

Shin

tani

, El

lis a

nd

Suzu

ki

(201

4)

ESL

stud

ents

wer

e ra

ndom

ly a

ssig

ned

into

fiv

e gr

oups

: met

alin

guis

tic e

xpla

natio

n (M

E); d

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

(DCF

); M

E w

ith re

visi

on; D

CF w

ith re

visi

on; a

nd

a co

mpa

rison

gro

up (o

nly

com

plet

ed a

ne

w p

iece

of w

ritin

g). T

arge

t str

uctu

re:

hypo

thet

ical

con

ditio

nal a

nd in

defin

ite

artic

le ‘a

/an’.

In W

eek

1, a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

ompl

eted

a w

ritin

g ta

sk. I

n W

eek

2, D

CF a

nd M

E gr

oups

rece

ived

fe

edba

ck a

nd p

rodu

ced

a ne

w p

iece

of w

ritin

g.

The

DCF

+ R

and

ME

+ R

grou

ps re

vise

d or

igin

al

writ

ing

and

prod

uced

a n

ew w

ritin

g ta

sk. T

he

com

paris

on g

roup

onl

y pr

oduc

ed n

ew w

ritin

g. In

W

eek

4, a

ll gr

oups

com

plet

ed a

third

writ

ing

task

, an

d in

Wee

k 5

a ba

ckgr

ound

que

stio

nnai

re.

All

type

s of

feed

back

wer

e eff

ectiv

e fo

r the

hy

poth

etic

al c

ondi

tiona

l but

not

for t

he

inde

finite

art

icle

. The

effe

ctiv

enes

s of

the

DCF

was

foun

d to

be

long

er la

stin

g th

an th

e m

etal

ingu

istic

exp

lana

tion.

Abu

Seile

ek

and

Abu

alsh

a'r

(201

4)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e ra

ndom

ly a

ssig

ned

to a

no

feed

back

con

trol

gro

up a

nd fe

edba

ck

grou

ps w

ith th

ree

trea

tmen

t con

ditio

ns:

com

pute

r med

iate

d CF

usi

ng ‘t

rack

cha

nges

’; re

cast

feed

back

; and

met

alin

guis

tic

feed

back

.

Four

trea

tmen

ts: 1

) ‘tr

ack

chan

ges’

feat

ure

of M

icro

soft

Wor

d; 2

) rec

ast f

eedb

ack;

3)

met

alin

guis

tic fe

edba

ck. S

tude

nts

then

rece

ived

ba

ck th

eir c

orre

cted

ess

ays

and

revi

sed

thos

e.

The

stud

ents

who

rece

ived

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

abo

ut e

rror

type

s de

liver

ed v

ia

com

pute

r per

form

ed s

igni

fican

tly b

ette

r th

an th

ose

who

did

not

rece

ive

corr

ectiv

e fe

edba

ck.

Suzu

ki,

Nas

saji

and

Sato

(201

9)

Four

gro

ups:

dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck

with

met

alin

guis

tic e

xpla

natio

n (D

CF

+ M

E); d

irect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

onl

y (D

CF);

indi

rect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

with

m

etal

ingu

istic

exp

lana

tion

(ICF

+ M

E); a

nd

indi

rect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

onl

y (IC

F). T

arge

t st

ruct

ures

: Eng

lish

inde

finite

art

icle

and

the

past

per

fect

tens

e.

In W

eek

1, a

ll pa

rtic

ipan

ts c

ompl

eted

the

first

text

reco

nstr

uctio

n ta

sk. I

n W

eek

2, th

ey

revi

sed

thei

r firs

t dra

fts.

In W

eek

4, a

ll gr

oups

co

mpl

eted

ano

ther

(sim

ilar t

o th

e in

itial

one

) tex

t re

cons

truc

tion

task

as

a de

laye

d po

st-t

est.

Both

dire

ct a

nd in

dire

ct ty

pes

of fe

edba

ck

help

ed le

arne

rs to

impr

ove

the

accu

racy

of

bot

h ta

rget

str

uctu

res

in re

visi

on, b

ut a

si

gnifi

cant

effe

ct o

f fee

dbac

k ex

plic

itnes

s w

as p

artia

lly fo

und

in th

e re

visi

on fo

r th

e pa

st p

erfe

ct b

ut n

ot in

new

pie

ces

of

writ

ing.


The effectiveness of focused versus unfocused feedback

With respect to feedback types, a distinction has been made between focused and unfocused feedback. Focused WCF is provided on one spe-cific type or only a few types of errors at a time (e.g. correcting article or preposition errors only). Unfocused feedback is provided on all or most errors. Focused feedback has been assumed to be more effective than unfo-cused feedback because the former draws learners’ attention to form more effectively than the latter (e.g. Bitchener and Knoch 2008; Ellis et al. 2008; Nassaji 2015; Sheen 2007; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009). Ellis and colleagues (2008), for example, argued that, ‘learners are likely to attend to correction directed at a single (or limited number of ) error type(s) [focused CF] and more likely to develop a clear understanding of the nature of the error and correction needed’ (p. 356).

Several studies (e.g. Ellis et al. 2008; Frear and Chiu 2015; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009; Shintani and Ellis 2013) have compared the effective-ness of focused feedback vs unfocused feedback (see Table 5), and the results of these studies are mixed. For example, Ellis and co-workers’ (2008) findings showed no difference between the effectiveness of focused and unfocused feedback in improving accuracy in the use of English articles. On the other hand, Sheen, Wright and Moldawa’s (2009) study found that focused feedback was more effective.

However, the number of studies in this area is still too small to allow a firm conclusion. Furthermore, there could be several reasons that may explain the discrepancies in the findings of the current studies. One reason could be that they have focused on different grammatical forms. Research has suggested that the type of grammar structure may mediate the effectiveness of feedback (e.g. Bitchener, Young and Cameron 2005; Ferris 2006; Ferris and Roberts 2001; Van Beuningen, De Jong and Kuiken 2012). Second, if they have focused on the same target feature, it has been a grammatical feature that has been complex to learn, such as English articles. If so, and if focused feedback has sometimes not shown an effect for such errors (Ellis et al. 2008), it is not clear whether it was because of the nature of the target form or the type of feedback. Also, there have been differences in the way focused and unfocused feedback have been defined. For example, some studies have defined focused feedback as feedback on certain categories of errors (Bitchener, Young and Cameron 2005; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009), while others have focused on a single category of errors (Ellis et al. 2008; Sheen 2007; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009).


Tabl

e 5:

A s

umm

ary

of k

ey s

tudi

es th

at in

vest

igat

ed th

e eff

ectiv

enes

s of

focu

sed

feed

back

vs

unfo

cuse

d fe

edba

ck.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

sM

etho

dsFi

ndin

gs

Ellis

et a

l. (2

008)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e di

vide

d in

to tw

o ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups

(focu

sed

corr

ectio

n n

= 18

, and

unf

ocus

ed c

orre

ctio

n n

= 18

) and

a

cont

rol g

roup

n =

13.

Qua

si-e

xper

imen

tal

desi

gn w

as u

sed.

Tar

get s

truc

ture

s: E

nglis

h ar

ticle

s ‘a’

and

‘the’.

In e

ach

trea

tmen

t ses

sion

, the

stu

dent

s w

ere

aske

d to

writ

e a

narr

ativ

e of

a s

tory

read

w

ith th

e te

ache

r. Th

e ex

perim

enta

l gro

ups

rece

ived

CF,

and

the

cont

rol g

roup

rece

ived

si

mpl

e ge

nera

l com

men

t or q

uest

ions

but

no

cor

rect

ions

. Thi

rdly

, the

re w

as a

n ex

it qu

estio

nnai

re a

nd a

n er

ror c

orre

ctio

n po

st-

test

at W

eek

6. L

astly

, at W

eek

10 th

ey w

rote

a

narr

ativ

e as

pos

t-te

st.

Both

gro

ups

impr

oved

from

pre

-tes

t to

post

-te

sts.

All

thre

e gr

oups

incr

ease

d th

e ac

cura

cy

of th

eir u

se o

f art

icle

s fr

om th

e pr

e-te

st to

Po

st-t

est 1

. How

ever

, whe

reas

the

focu

sed

grou

p co

ntin

ued

to g

ain

in a

ccur

acy

betw

een

Post

-tes

t 1 a

nd P

ost-

test

2 a

nd th

e un

focu

sed

grou

p m

aint

aine

d th

e sa

me

leve

l of a

ccur

acy,

th

e co

ntro

l gro

up’s

accu

racy

dec

lined

on

both

an

err

or c

orre

ctio

n te

st a

nd o

n a

test

invo

lvin

g a

new

pie

ce o

f nar

rativ

e w

ritin

g.

Shee

n, W

right

an

d M

olda

wa

(200

9)

Ther

e w

ere

four

gro

ups:

focu

sed

WCF

gro

up

(FCG

); un

focu

sed

WCF

gro

up (U

G);

writ

ing

prac

tice

grou

p (W

PG);

and

cont

rol g

roup

(C

G).

Targ

et fo

r FCG

gro

up: E

nglis

h de

finite

an

d in

defin

ite a

rtic

les.

Targ

et fo

r the

UG

gr

oup:

cop

ular

‘be’,

regu

lar p

ast t

ense

, irr

egul

ar p

ast t

ense

and

pre

posi

tion.

Qua

si-e

xper

imen

tal d

esig

n w

ith a

pre

-tes

t–tr

eatm

ent–

post

-tes

t–de

laye

d-po

st-t

est w

as

used

.

The

focu

sed

WCF

gro

up (F

CG) a

chie

ved

the

high

est a

ccur

acy

gain

sco

res

for b

oth

artic

les

and

the

othe

r fou

r gra

mm

atic

al s

truc

ture

s (c

opul

ar ‘b

e’, re

gula

r pas

t ten

se, i

rreg

ular

pas

t te

nse,

pre

posi

tion)

, fol

low

ed b

y W

PG, U

G a

nd

CG.

Frea

r and

Chi

u (2

015)

56 fe

mal

e an

d 11

mal

e un

iver

sity

-leve

l Ch

ines

e le

arne

rs o

f Eng

lish

in a

Tai

wan

ese

colle

ge p

artic

ipat

ed in

the

stud

y.

Part

icip

ants

wer

e di

vide

d in

to fo

cuse

d in

dire

ct, u

nfoc

used

indi

rect

and

a c

ontr

ol

grou

p.

On

Day

1, s

tude

nts

took

a w

ritte

n pr

e-te

st.

Aft

er 1

wee

k it

was

retu

rned

to th

em a

nd o

n th

at d

ay tr

eatm

ent g

roup

s co

mpl

eted

a W

CF

sess

ion.

On

the

sam

e da

y, a

ll th

ree

grou

ps

com

plet

ed th

e im

med

iate

pos

t-te

st, a

nd 2

w

eeks

late

r all

thre

e gr

oups

und

erto

ok th

e de

laye

d po

st-t

est.

Both

the

focu

sed

indi

rect

WCF

and

the

unfo

cuse

d in

dire

ct W

CF g

roup

s ou

tper

form

ed

the

cont

rol g

roup

in th

e tw

o po

st-t

ests

; ho

wev

er, t

here

wer

e no

diff

eren

ces

in a

ccur

acy

betw

een

the

two

WCF

gro

ups.


Feedback effects on revision accuracy versus overall L2 writing ability

A few recent studies have attempted to address the effectiveness of feed-back not only on revision but also on new pieces of writing (e.g. Bitchener and Knoch 2008; Ellis et al. 2008; Hartshorn et al. 2010; Karim and Nassaji 2018; Liu 2008; Lopez et al. 2018; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009; Storch and Wigglesworth 2010; Truscott and Hsu 2008; Van Beuningen, De Jong and Kuiken 2008, 2012). Truscott and Hsu (2008) and Liu (2008) are among the first studies that addressed the effects of feedback on new pieces of writing. Their results found accuracy gains on the revised texts but not on the new texts. Van Beuningen, De Jong and Kuiken (2008) is another such study that investigated the effects of feedback on new pieces of writing. These authors found improvement in accuracy on revised texts only from direct and indirect feedback, but on the later version or new text, only direct feedback was reported to have resulted in improved accu-racy. In a more recent study, Hartshorn and colleagues (2010) tested the effects of an instructional methodology, which they referred to as ‘dynamic WCF’ (as clarified by Hartshorn and co-workers, dynamic WCF reflects what the individual learner needs most and is meaningful, timely, constant and manageable for both student and teacher), on ESL writing accuracy. The treatment group received the ‘dynamic WCF’ and indirect feedback in the form of coded symbols; in addition, the most frequent types of errors were addressed by the teachers in class. The authors found relatively higher accuracy gains in the treatment group than the contrast group as a result of providing their dynamic feedback, but they didn’t find any significant effect of the dynamic feedback on rhetorical competence, writing fluency and writing complexity.

Karim and Nassaji (2018) and Lopez and colleagues (2018) are two of the most recent studies that also investigated the effects of feedback on new writings. Findings in Karim and Nassaji (2018) revealed that CF did not have any significant delayed transfer effects. Short-term transfer effects on grammatical accuracy, however, were found for direct CF and underline + metalingustic feedback but it was not significant. Findings in Lopez and co-workers’ (2018) study displayed that direct corrections and metalin-guistic codes were effective for improving learners’ immediate grammati-cal and non-grammatical accuracy during text revision, and only direct correction proved to be beneficial in new writing after four weeks. (See Table 6 for more studies.)

Studies examining the effect of feedback on new pieces of writing provide some evidence for the effect of feedback on L2 learners’ ability beyond that reflected in revision accuracy. However, as can be seen, there are significant variations in their findings. This is partly due to the


Tabl

e 6:

A s

umm

ary

of re

cent

stu

dies

that

inve

stig

ated

the

effec

tiven

ess

of fe

edba

ck o

n ne

w p

iece

s of

wri

ting

and

ove

r tim

e.

Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

sM

etho

dsFi

ndin

gs

Liu

(200

8)12

firs

t-ye

ar c

ompo

sitio

n co

urse

st

uden

ts a

t a S

outh

wes

tern

un

iver

sity

in U

SA p

artic

ipat

ed in

the

stud

y. T

hey

wer

e ra

ndom

ly d

ivid

ed

into

two

grou

ps: A

(dire

ct W

CF) a

nd

B (in

dire

ct W

CF),

with

six

stu

dent

s in

eac

h.

Stud

ents

in G

roup

A re

ceiv

ed d

irect

cor

rect

ion:

er

rors

wer

e un

derli

ned

and

corr

ecte

d. S

tude

nts

in

Gro

up B

rece

ived

indi

rect

cor

rect

ion:

err

ors

wer

e on

ly

unde

rline

d. B

oth

grou

ps s

ubm

itted

a s

econ

d dr

aft

afte

r rev

isin

g th

e er

rors

. At t

he e

nd o

f the

sem

este

r, a

ques

tionn

aire

sur

vey

was

don

e to

find

out

stu

dent

s’ pr

efer

ence

of C

F.

Both

dire

ct a

nd in

dire

ct fe

edba

ck h

elpe

d st

uden

ts s

elf-

edit

thei

r tex

ts. D

irect

feed

back

re

duce

d st

uden

ts’ e

rror

s in

the

imm

edia

te

draf

t, bu

t it d

id n

ot im

prov

e st

uden

ts’ a

ccur

acy

in a

diff

eren

t pap

er. I

ndire

ct fe

edba

ck h

elpe

d th

e st

uden

ts re

duce

mor

e m

orph

olog

ical

er

rors

than

sem

antic

err

ors.

Trus

cott

and

H

su (2

008)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e di

vide

d eq

ually

in

to tw

o gr

oups

(con

trol

and

ex

perim

enta

l). E

xper

imen

tal g

roup

s re

ceiv

ed fe

edba

ck o

n tw

o in

-cla

ss

writ

ing

assi

gnm

ents

.

Dat

a w

ere

colle

cted

from

an

in-c

lass

writ

ing

assi

gnm

ent d

urin

g W

eeks

12–

14 o

f ins

truc

tion.

O

n W

eek

12, s

tude

nts

wer

e gi

ven

pict

ures

and

to

ld to

writ

e a

narr

ativ

e (N

arra

tive

1). O

n w

eek

13,

narr

ativ

es w

ere

retu

rned

(exp

erim

enta

l gro

up w

ith

erro

rs u

nder

lined

, con

trol

gro

up w

ith n

o m

arks

) and

re

vise

d by

stu

dent

s (re

vise

d N

arra

tive

1). O

n W

eek

14,

stud

ents

wer

e gi

ven

anot

her w

ritin

g ta

sk, N

arra

tive

2.

Stud

ents

who

had

thei

r err

ors

unde

rline

d pe

rfor

med

bet

ter o

n th

e re

visi

ons

than

th

ose

who

did

not

. No

mea

ning

ful d

iffer

ence

w

as fo

und

in e

rror

rate

s fr

om N

arra

tive

1 to

N

arra

tive

2.

Van

Beun

inge

n,

De

Jong

and

Ku

iken

(200

8)

Ther

e w

ere

four

diff

eren

t tre

atm

ent

grou

ps. T

wo

wer

e ex

perim

enta

l gr

oups

: dire

ct c

orre

ctiv

e fe

edba

ck

and

indi

rect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

; and

tw

o w

ere

cont

rol g

roup

s: p

ract

isin

g w

ritin

g (p

ract

ice)

and

revi

sion

w

ithou

t fee

dbac

k (s

elf-

corr

ectio

n).

In W

eek

1, s

tude

nts

took

a p

rofic

ienc

y te

st. O

ne w

eek

late

r, th

ey re

ceiv

ed fe

edba

ck a

nd re

vise

d th

eir t

exts

. Th

ey th

en re

ceiv

ed th

e tr

eatm

ent (

writ

ing

two

new

te

xts,

self-

corr

ectin

g er

rors

with

feed

back

, and

sel

f-co

rrec

ting

erro

rs w

ith n

o fe

edba

ck).

Whi

le s

hort

-ter

m e

ffect

s w

ere

foun

d fo

r bot

h di

rect

and

indi

rect

cor

rect

ive

feed

back

, onl

y di

rect

feed

back

pro

ved

to h

ave

a si

gnifi

cant

lo

ng-t

erm

effe

ct. N

eith

er o

f the

con

trol

tr

eatm

ents

had

a s

igni

fican

t effe

ct o

n st

uden

ts’

accu

racy

.

Stor

ch a

nd

Wig

gles

wor

th

(201

0)

48 s

tude

nts

from

a la

rge

Aust

ralia

n re

sear

ch u

nive

rsity

par

ticip

ated

in

the

stud

y. T

he m

ajor

ity o

f the

m w

ere

grad

uate

stu

dent

s (n

= 4

0).

In S

essi

on 1

, lea

rner

s w

orke

d in

pai

rs to

com

pose

a

text

bas

ed o

n a

grap

hic

prom

pt. F

eedb

ack

was

pr

ovid

ed in

the

form

of r

efor

mul

atio

ns (d

irect

fe

edba

ck) a

nd e

ditin

g sy

mbo

ls (i

ndire

ct fe

edba

ck).

In

Sess

ion

2 (D

ay 5

), th

e le

arne

rs re

view

ed th

e fe

edba

ck

and

rew

rote

thei

r tex

ts.

Editi

ng fe

edba

ck e

licite

d m

ore

lang

uage

re

late

d ep

isod

es (L

REs)

than

refo

rmul

atio

ns

and

thes

e LR

Es te

nded

to re

late

dire

ctly

to th

e fe

edba

ck p

rovi

ded.

The

leve

l of e

ngag

emen

t w

as fo

und

to b

e m

ore

exte

nsiv

e w

ith e

ditin

g fe

edba

ck th

an in

resp

onse

to re

form

ulat

ions

.


Stud

ies

Part

icip

ants

and

set

ting

sM

etho

dsFi

ndin

gs

Har

tsho

rn e

t al

. (20

10)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e di

vide

d in

to

trea

tmen

t (n

= 28

) and

con

trol

(n =

19

) gro

ups.

Thre

e di

ffere

nt te

ache

rs

taug

ht th

e tr

eatm

ent g

roup

and

two

teac

hers

taug

ht th

e tr

eatm

ent g

roup

st

uden

ts.

Both

trea

tmen

t and

con

trol

gro

ups

perf

orm

ed

pre-

test

(pro

mpt

ed a

nd ti

med

writ

ing

task

s) in

a

com

pute

r lab

. Tre

atm

ent g

roup

rece

ived

inst

ruct

ion

utili

sing

dyn

amic

WCF

and

wro

te 1

0-m

inut

e co

mpo

sitio

ns e

very

day

, and

con

trol

gro

up re

ceiv

ed

trad

ition

al in

stru

ctio

n an

d w

rote

four

mul

ti-dr

aft

pape

rs.

Test

resu

lts d

emon

stra

ted

that

alth

ough

rh

etor

ical

com

pete

nce,

writ

ing

fluen

cy, a

nd

writ

ing

com

plex

ity w

ere

larg

ely

unaff

ecte

d by

the

dyna

mic

WCF

ped

agog

y, s

igni

fican

t im

prov

emen

t was

obs

erve

d fo

r writ

ing

accu

racy

.

Van

Beun

inge

n,

De

Jong

and

Ku

iken

(201

2)

Four

Dut

ch s

econ

dary

sch

ools

with

m

ultil

ingu

al s

tude

nt p

opul

atio

ns

part

icip

ated

in th

e st

udy.

The

y w

ere

divi

ded

into

two

expe

rimen

tal

trea

tmen

ts a

nd tw

o co

ntro

l co

nditi

ons.

The

expe

rimen

tal g

roup

s re

ceiv

ed d

irect

and

in

dire

ct fe

edba

ck. N

ine

diffe

rent

ling

uist

ic e

rror

ty

pes

wer

e ta

rget

ed. T

hey

wer

e cl

assi

fied

unde

r th

ree

supe

rord

inat

e ca

tego

ries:

(a) l

exic

al e

rror

s; (b

) gr

amm

atic

al e

rror

s; a

nd (c

) ort

hogr

aphi

cal e

rror

s.

Both

dire

ct a

nd in

dire

ct c

ompr

ehen

sive

WCF

le

d to

impr

oved

acc

urac

y no

t onl

y du

ring

revi

sion

but

als

o in

new

text

s.

Lope

z et

al.

(201

8)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e ra

ndom

ly

assi

gned

to o

ne o

f five

gro

ups:

di

rect

cor

rect

ion

of g

ram

mat

ical

er

rors

; met

alin

guis

tic fe

edba

ck w

ith

code

s fo

r gra

mm

atic

al e

rror

s; d

irect

fe

edba

ck o

n gr

amm

atic

al a

nd n

on-

gram

mat

ical

err

ors;

met

alin

guis

tic

feed

back

with

cod

es fo

r gra

mm

atic

al

and

non-

gram

mat

ical

err

ors;

and

a

cont

rol g

roup

.

The

entir

e da

ta c

olle

ctio

n pr

oces

s to

ok 6

wee

ks.

In S

essi

on 1

of W

eek

1, th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts to

ok a

pr

ofici

ency

test

and

als

o w

rote

the

initi

al te

xt (p

re-

test

). In

Ses

sion

2, t

hey

revi

sed

the

initi

al te

xt th

at

rece

ived

feed

back

. In

Sess

ion

3, th

ey w

rote

a n

ew

text

. Tw

o da

ys la

ter i

n Se

ssio

n 4,

the

sam

e pr

oced

ure

as S

essi

on 2

was

repe

ated

. And

4 w

eeks

late

r in

Sess

ion

5, p

artic

ipan

ts p

rodu

ced

a ne

w te

xt (d

elay

ed

post

-tes

t).

Dire

ct c

orre

ctio

ns a

nd c

odes

wer

e eff

ectiv

e fo

r en

hanc

ing

lear

ners

’ imm

edia

te g

ram

mat

ical

an

d no

n-gr

amm

atic

al a

ccur

acy

durin

g te

xt

revi

sion

, but

a lo

ng-t

erm

adv

anta

ge (4

wee

ks

afte

r fee

dbac

k pr

ovis

ion)

was

onl

y fo

und

for

dire

ct c

orre

ctio

ns.

Karim

and

N

assa

ji (2

018)

Part

icip

ants

wer

e ra

ndom

ly d

ivid

ed

into

four

gro

ups:

dire

ct; u

nder

line

only

; und

erlin

e +

met

alin

guis

tic; a

nd

cont

rol.

Part

icip

ants

pro

duce

d th

ree

piec

es o

f writ

ing

from

di

ffere

nt p

ictu

re p

rom

pts

and

revi

sed

them

ove

r a

3-w

eek

perio

d. O

n W

eek

6, a

ll CF

gro

ups

prod

uced

a

new

text

from

a n

ew p

ictu

re p

rom

pt.

All

the

thre

e fe

edba

ck g

roup

s si

gnifi

cant

ly

outp

erfo

rmed

the

cont

rol g

roup

in

revi

sion

task

s. So

me

shor

t-te

rm a

ccur

acy

impr

ovem

ents

wer

e al

so fo

und

on n

ew

piec

es o

f writ

ing

for d

irect

and

und

erlin

ing

+ m

etal

ingu

istic

feed

back

, but

the

effec

ts w

ere

larg

ely

non-

sign

ifica

nt.


different ways in which they have provided feedback. Among the studies that have examined the effect of feedback on new pieces of writing, some have provided feedback on several errors (i.e. unfocused corrective feed-back) (Hartshorn et al. 2010; Karim and Nassaji 2018; Liu 2008; Lopez et al. 2018; Truscott and Hsu 2008; Van Beuningen, De Jong and Kuiken 2008, 2012), while others have focused on single errors (i.e. focused feedback) (Bitchener 2008; Bitchener and Knoch 2008; Bitchener and Knoch 2009, 2010; Bitchener, Young and Cameron 2005; Ellis et al. 2008; Sheen 2007; Sheen, Wright and Moldawa 2009). There are also other factors such as how learners react to feedback and their degree of involvement. Storch and Wigglesworth (2010), for example, found that students who engaged with the feedback more extensively showed a higher level of uptake than those who did not. Thus, they argued, the effectiveness of feedback depends not only on the type of feedback but also ‘the complex and dynamic interaction of linguistic and affective factors’ (p. 329).

Conclusion and directions for future research

In this paper, we have examined both past and present research regarding the effectiveness of WCF in L2 writing. We addressed four main areas: a) impact of WCF in general; b) the effects of different types of corrective feed-back; c) the effect of focused versus unfocused feedback; and d) the effects of WCF on revision versus new pieces of writings. We have discussed the designs, the methodology used and the key findings of major research in each area. We have also identified and discussed possible methodological limitations that could have resulted in the differing findings regarding the effectiveness of different types of written feedback.

In this section, we point out gaps in existing written corrective feedback research and provide a number of directions for future research.

One direction for future research is to conduct studies that use feedback in ways that are more representative of what goes on in L2 classrooms. As noted earlier, most of the current studies that have examined the effective-ness of WCF have used focused feedback, that is, feedback that targeted a limited number of grammatical structures (see also the meta-analysis by Kao and Wible (2014) that confirmed this). Although focusing feedback on a single or a limited number of preselected errors may be effective, the applica-bility of the results of such studies are questionable as L2 writing teachers do not usually correct only one error at a time. As reviewed, there are currently a handful of studies. However, the number of these studies is too limited to yield a meaningful conclusion. Therefore, there is a need for more studies that examine the effect of feedback when provided on a wide range of errors.


Another direction for future research is to conduct studies that measure long-term effects of the feedback. Most of the current feedback studies, and particularly those that have shown a positive effect for feedback, have mea-sured the short-term effect of the feedback. These studies have often been cross-sectional, in which data are collected from the learners at single points of time (Nassaji 2017b). Although such studies are insightful, they cannot provide evidence for how feedback affects L2 development over time. Even those that have examined the effects of feedback on new pieces of writing have measured effectiveness either immediately or after a short interval. This suggests a clear need for research that examines the longer-term effects of feedback on both the accuracy of revision and new pieces of writing. To find out whether feedback has long-term effects, more long itudinal research studies that can track feedback effectiveness over time would be needed (cf. Bitchener and Knoch 2010). Such studies can also be conducted by using research designs that include more than one delayed post-test, and if pos-sible after a longer interval than the one or two weeks typically used in previ-ous research. Another option would be using time series designs in which the effects of the feedback are measured at different times both before and after the treatment. A time series design is useful as it allows researchers to determine how and if the effect of feedback is maintained over time.

Another avenue for future research is to conduct studies that focus not only on language accuracy but also on the overall quality of writing. As Hyland and Hyland (2006) pointed out, the aim of feedback and instruc-tion on L2 writing should be to help students become skilled writers and also those who are able to improve their own writing. Thus, it is important to find out if feedback plays any role in promoting the quality of writing, which includes not only grammatical accuracy but also the generation of ideas as well as how well they are presented and organised.

There is also a need for more multivariate research that investigates the relationships among the various factors that may affect the efficacy of feedback. As noted earlier, research has shown an effectiveness of WCF in general. However, the results have been highly variable. This might be because the effectiveness of feedback interacts with many factors including the type of target structure, the context of feedback, learners’ developmen-tal readiness, the nature, type and purpose of the writing. An important difference, for example, is that between second and foreign language con-texts. Ferris (2010) pointed out that in foreign language contexts, learners are seldom required to write extensively and therefore they may not be as motivated to learn from feedback as second language learners. This could then lead to a decreased effectiveness of the feedback. EFL learners are also more form-oriented (Sheen 2004) and hence may pay more attention to


the language forms targeted by the feedback than students whose primary focus is on meaning (Ellis, Basturkmen and Loewen 2001).

Differences in context may also lead to learners’ variable performance. L2 learners, who are in the process of acquiring new linguistic forms, may perform well or display higher accuracy on one occasion but may fail to do so on other similar occasions (Bitchener, Young and Cameron 2005). Such contextual variation in performance suggests a need for comparative studies in different contexts and with different learners.

Feedback effects may also vary depending on other learner-related factors such as learners’ attitude, motivation and learning style. Some studies on oral feedback have examined the effect of some of these factors. Sheen (2008), for example, examined the effect of language anxiety and found that the low anxiety learners benefited more from feedback than high anxiety learners. However, fewer studies have examined the effects of different vari-ables and their interactions in written feedback. This suggests a need for studies that examine the interrelationships among multiple variables. Such studies are useful as they would shed light on the complexity of the feedback and therefore they can add to the results of single factor studies.

Finally, most studies have used ‘one-shot’ research designs, where feed-back is provided only on one occasion or on a single text. In such studies, it is possible that if the feedback is not effective it might be because learners have not received a sufficient amount of feedback, and that an increase in the duration and extensiveness of the feedback may lead to enhanced learning (Nassaji 2016, 2017a). Thus, studies that use feedback in multiple rather than one or two sessions are needed (see Karim and Nassaji 2018).

About the authorsKhaled Karim is an Assistant Professor in the department of Linguistics at United Arab Emirates University (UAEU), Abu Dhabi, UAE. His primary research interests focus on second language acquisition, written corrective feedback, and L2 writing strategies. His publication includes articles on written corrective feedback, L1 influence on L2 writing, Bengali loanword phonology, and ESL teachers’ perceptions of communicative language teaching.

Hossein Nassaji is Professor of Applied Linguistics in the Department of Linguistics at the University of Victoria, Victoria, BC. He has published numerous articles in the areas of second language acquisition, corrective feedback, form-focused instruction, vocabulary acquisition, and task-based instruction. His most recent books include Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning (Blooms-bury, 2015), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (with E. Kartchava; Routledge, 2017), Perspectives on Language as Action (with M. Haneda; Multilingual Matters, 2019), and The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teach-ing, Grammar Teaching Volume, (Wiley-Blackwell, 2017).


Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Professor Alessandro Benati and Professor Elena Nuzzo, editors of Instructed Second Language Acquisition, and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments on earlier drafts of this article.

ReferencesAbuSeileek, A. and Abualsha’r, A. (2014) Using peer computer-mediated corrective

feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning and Technology 18: 76–95.

Al-Rubai’ey, F. and Nassaji, H. (2013) Direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback: a matter of suitability rather than superiority. In M. Mahmoud and R. Al Mahrooqi (eds) Issues in TEFL in the Arab World 28–43. Muscat, Oman: Sultan Qaboos Uni-versity Press.

Ashwell, T. (2000) Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composi-tion classroom: is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9: 227–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8

Bitchener, J. (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 102–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J. (2017) Why do some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback? In H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (eds) Corrective Feedback in Second Lan-guage Teaching and Learning 129–40. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10

Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal 12: 409–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System 37: 322–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006

Bitchener, J. and Knoch, U. (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: a ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31: 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016

Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D. (2005) The effect of different types of correc-tive feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 9: 227–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001

Bruton, A. (2009) Designing research into the effect of error correction in L2 writing: not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing 18: 136–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.005

Bruton, A. (2010) Another reply to Truscott on error correction: improved situated designs over statistics. System 38: 491–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001

Carroll, S. (1995) The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker and M. Smith (eds) The Current State of Interlanguage: Studies in Honor of William Rutherford 73–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73.08car

Chandler, J. (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006


https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016






https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73.08car

https://doi.org/10.1075/z.73.08car


the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12: 267–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Chandler, J. (2004) A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 345–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.001

Chandler, J. (2009) Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing 18: 57–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.002

Chaudron, C. (1988) Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524469

Chen, S. and Nassaji, H. (2018) Focus on form and corrective feedback at the University of Victoria. Language Teaching 51(2): 278–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800006X

Chen, S., Nassaji, H. and Liu, Q. (2016) EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education 1: 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

Cook, V. (1991) Second Language Learning and Second Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.

Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998) Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition 114–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H. and Loewen, S. (2001) Pre-emptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35: 407–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. and Takashima, H. (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36: 353–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001

Fathman, A. K. and Whalley, E. (1990) Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom 178–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016

Fazio, L. (2001) The effects of corrections and commentaries on journal writing of minority- and majority-language minorities. Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 235–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X

Ferris, D. (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31: 315–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049

Ferris, D. (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8: 1–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6

Ferris, D. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. (2003) Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (ed.) Exploring the Dynamics of Second Language Writing 119–40. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.010

Ferris, D. (2004) The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005

Ferris, D. (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland and F. Hyland (eds)

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9



https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524469

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524469

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800006X

https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800006X

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y

https://doi.org/10.2307/3588029


https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X

https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524810.010



Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. (2008) Feedback: issues and options. In P. Friedrich (ed.) Teaching Academic Writing 93–124. London, UK: Continuum.

Ferris, D. (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Ferris, D. R. and Helt, M. (2000) Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, March 11–14, 2000, Vancouver, BC.

Ferris, D. and Roberts, B. (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 161–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

Frear, D. and Chiu, Y. (2015) The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written cor-rective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System 53: 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006

Gascoigne, C. (2004) Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals 37: 71–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02174.x

Gholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A. and Marzban, A. (2014) An investigation of meta-lin-guistic corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia – Social and Behav-ioral Sciences 116: 316–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.214

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D. and Anderson, N. J. (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accu-racy. TESOL Quarterly 44: 84–109. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writing. Lan-guage Teaching 39: 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

Kang, EunYoung and Han, Zhaohong (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: a meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal 99: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189

Kao, C. and Wible, D. (2014) A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of grammar correc-tion in second language writing. English Teaching and Learning 38: 29–69.

Karim, K. and Nassaji, H. (2018) The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students’ writing. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469

Kepner, C. G. (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal 7: 305–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x

Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985) The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Harlow: Longman. Lalande, J. F. (1982) Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language

Journal 66: 140–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.xLee, I. (1997) ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implica-

tions for college-level teaching. System 25: 465–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00045-6

Lira Gonzales, M. and Nassaji, H. (2018) Teachers’ written corrective feedback and stu-dents’ revision in the ESL classroom. Paper presented at the American Association

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X


https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02174.x


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.214

https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469



https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00045-6

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00045-6


for Applied Linguistics Conference, 24–27 March, Chicago, USA.Liu, Y. (2008) The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Work-

ing Papers in SLA and Teaching 15: 65–79.Lizotte, R. (2001) Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents 27:

7–17.Long, M. H. (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisi-

tion. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition 413–68. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3

Lopez, M. B., Steendam, E. V., Speelman, D. and Buyse, K. (2018) The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning 68: 813–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295

Mirzaii, M. and Aliabadi, R. B. (2013) Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing Research 5: 191–213. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.2

Nassaji, H. (1999) Towards integrating form-focused instruction and communicative interaction in the second language classroom: some pedagogical possibilities. Cana-dian Modern Language Review 55: 385–402. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.3.386

Nassaji, H. (2015) The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning: Linking Theory, Research, and Practice. London: Bloomsbury.

Nassaji, H. (2016) Anniversary article: interactional feedback in second language teach-ing and learning: a synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research 20: 535–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940

Nassaji, H. (2017a) The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal 101: 353–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387

Nassaji, H. (2017b) Diversity of research methods and strategies in language teaching research. Language Teaching Research 21: 140–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1362168817693696

Nassaji, H. and Kartchava, E. (2017) The role of corrective feedback: theoretical and pedagogical perspectives. In H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (eds) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Research, Theory, Applications, Implica-tions ix–xv. New York: Routledge.

Pica, T. (2002) Subject-matter content: how does it assist the interactional and linguis-tic needs of classroom language learners? http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/40; https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00133

Polio, C., Fleck, C. and Leder, N. (1998) ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4

Robb, T., Ross, S. and Shortreed, I. (1986) Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly 20: 83–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390

Schachter, J. (1991) Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research 7: 89–102.

Semke, H. (1984) The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17: 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x

Sheen, Y. (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research 8: 263–300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3

https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295

https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.2

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.3.386

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940



https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817693696

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168817693696

http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/40

https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00133

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4

https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390


https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa

https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa


Sheen, Y. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language apti-tude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41: 255–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x

Sheen, Y. (2008) Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning 58: 835–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x

Sheen, Y. (2010) The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32: 169–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507; https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990489

Sheen, Y., Wright, D. and Moldawa, A. (2009) Differential effects of focused and unfo-cused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37: 556–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002

Sheppard, K. (1992) Two feedback types: do they make a difference? RELC Journal 23: 103–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107

Shintani, N. and Ellis, R. (2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feed-back and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite articles. Journal of Second Language Writing 22: 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011

Shintani, N., Ellis, R. and Suzuki, W. (2014) Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning 64: 103–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

Storch, N. (2010) Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. Interna-tional Journal of English Studies 10(2): 29–46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181

Storch, N. and Wigglesworth, G. (2010) Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion 32: 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532

Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H. and Sato, K. (2019) The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System 81: 135–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017

Truscott, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46: 327–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x

Truscott, J. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Jour-nal of Second Language Writing 16: 255–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003

Truscott, J. and Hsu, A. Y. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 17: 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H. and Kuiken, F. (2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156: 279–96. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu; https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439

Van Beuningen C. G., De Jong, N. H. and Kuiken, F. (2012) Evidence on the effective-ness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62: 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x

VanPatten, B. (1990) Attending to form and content in the input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 12: 287–301. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177

Williams, J. (2005) Form-focused instruction. In E. Hinkel (ed.) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning 673–91. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl-baum Associates.



https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00480.x

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990489


https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107


https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029

https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181

https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532





https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.156.24beu

https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439

https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009177

the effects of written corrective feedback: a critical

Documents