the use of written corrective...

The Use of Written Corrective Feedback

Badriah Alanazi

Table of Contents

Abstract:..................................................................................................................................3

Introduction............................................................................................................................4

Research Questions.................................................................................................................6

Literature Review....................................................................................................................7Background on WCF.........................................................................................................................7Indirect Versus Direct WCF...............................................................................................................7Indirect, Direct, and Metalinguistic WCF...........................................................................................8

Action Research.....................................................................................................................11Methodology..................................................................................................................................12Participants....................................................................................................................................12Research Trustworthiness..............................................................................................................13The Data.........................................................................................................................................14Correction of All Errors...................................................................................................................15Type of error..................................................................................................................................16The Type of Feedback Given...........................................................................................................17The Usefulness of Instructor Comments.......................................................................................19Teacher Explanation of Errors.........................................................................................................19Students’ Feelings towards Written Comments............................................................................20

Discussion and Implications...................................................................................................21

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study.............................................................23

References.............................................................................................................................24

Alanazi, Hunter 2013

2

Abstract:

The acquisition of new language is often a frustrating process to both learners and

instructors. Finding the best methods for instruction, correction, and feedback is one way this

process can be made easier and more effective, as it provide instructors with the tools to better

respond to student errors in writing or speaking. Despite being extensively studied, suggestions

for best practices in error correction in the field of language instruction still suffer from

contradictions. The goal of this research is to help clarifying through study some of these

contradictory conclusions by examining the attitudes of students and teachers about the

effectiveness of various correction methods. The methodology chosen for this study is

quantitative survey research; the researcher administered an online survey to sixty-four ESL

students and twenty-three teachers in language centers to discover their evaluations of the

different corrective feedback forms. The findings from the survey show that students and

teachers agree that some or all of student errors should be pointed out by the instructor,

regardless of the error type. Metalinguistic feedback is preferred, opposed to direct or indirect.

Students and teachers agreed that instructors’ written comments are welcomed and useful. This

research holds larger implications for the role of the instructor as a guide in the learning process.

Key Terms: Linguistic, metacognitive, metalinguistic, explicit, implicit, self-efficacy


3

Introduction

As an educator of English language to Arabic-speaking students and a foreign student

studying in the United States myself, the subject of how to find the best methods of teaching to

L2 (second language) learners is dear to me. Learning to be proficient in an L2 takes dedication

and practice. It is often a frustrating process. I want to be able to help students overcome their

anxiety and learn to enjoy learning this language, which will be of great benefit to them in their

future. Unfortunately, many of the students that come to America from my country are not

prepared well, and they have to spend, on average, at least a year learning English well enough to

be able to continue with their studies. I hope to contribute my knowledge and experience to

improve the L2 learning environment in my home country. I want to help my future students in

ways that my education was somewhat lacking when I was first learning English, and one of

these is written corrective feedback

The need to understand how to respond to student errors in writing or speaking is a

significant area of study for a variety of reasons. Although written corrective feedback in

language instruction has been studied for many years, there are still disagreements and

controversies about what the best approaches are. For me, reflective educators need to explore

this issue and choose which manner of feedback seems best for their teaching philosophy, but

also one that has been proven to better prepare L2 students for the U.S. academic culture.

Best practices for corrective feedback when teaching language, especially composition,

have been hotly debated in recent years. Language instructors are aware of the daily challenges

and frustrations when it comes to discovering the most effective ways to help students achieve

higher language ability. Teachers of language usually spend a lot time providing feedback to

students to help identify and correct errors. While feedback itself can take many forms—from


4

percentage grades to verbal praise or correction—in general, its goal is to “tell a learner that an

instructional response is right or wrong” (Kulhavy 1977, p. 211). In this way the students will

learn from their mistakes and get motivation from their successes.

This research specifically focuses on written corrective feedback (WCF), defined as the

process by which a student receives feedback within the context of his or her errors in work.

While providing WCF to students is a common practice, Van Beuningen (2010) states, “The role

of (written) corrective feedback (CF) in the process of acquiring a second language (L2) has

been an issue of considerable controversy among theorists and researchers alike” (p. 2). It is not

uncommon to see studies with conflicting outcomes. For example, Chian-Wen (2012) points out

that some scholars argue that written feedback is actually harmful because it decreases fluency,

causes anxiety and lowers confidence. Truscott and Hsu (2008) conducted a study investigating

the value of corrective feedback and claim that there was no evidence of improvement. Van

Beuningen, De Jong, and Kuiken (2011), on the other hand, counter this claim and show both

the short-term and long-term effects of teacher feedback on student writing improvement. Other

scholars like Ferris (2004) argue that error correction is necessary because most “students prefer,

need and trust teachers’ feedback” (p. 156). These different outcomes are likely due to the

various methods used in the way feedback is given. If a teacher emphasizes errors in a negative

way, for example, error correction certainly could increase anxiety in students. There are many

variables to consider, so it is difficult to make generalizations without more clarification about

the exact type of WCF used and the tone and attitude of the person doing the correcting.

Consequently, the mixed results in scholarly research related to the value of a teacher’s WCF

does not seem surprising when you consider the many factors involved in working with students


5

and their responses to a teacher’s input. Part of the way a student responds will depend on the

style and manner in which the feedback is delivered.

My goal in this study is to discover the attitudes commonly held by students and teachers

about the effectiveness of three types of WCF where teachers have corrected linguistic errors or

discourse skills in writing. The emphasis is not on measuring changes in performance that might

occur, but on the subjective feelings and attitudes that accompany the activity of corrective

teacher feedback.

This paper will take the reader first through some of the existing literature on WCF

before presenting the research project. The composition will explain the research methodology,

present the data gathered from the research surveys, and finally discuss the implications of this

data for future educational practices. Ultimately, the goal of this research is to present to the

reader the process the researcher undertook to answer her research questions regarding WCF for

the purpose of contributing to the existing literature.

Research Questions

In my study, I focused on these questions:

1. How do the teachers and the students feel about correcting all the students’ errors?

2. What types of errors do students and teachers think should be corrected?

3. What types of feedback do the students and teachers think should be given?

4. What do the students and teachers think about writing comments on the students’ paper rather

than just using marks for mechanical errors?

5. What do the students think about telling them the reasons for their errors?

6. What is the perceived value of teacher’s comments on the students writing?


6

Literature Review

Background on WCF

The three kinds of WCF explored in my study are direct, indirect, and metalinguistic. In

my research, I considered these three types of WCF because they are used by many ESL

teachers. The first type of WCF I will discuss is direct correction, which is when the error is

indicated and the correct form is provided. The second one is indirect feedback, which involves

the instructor indicating that there is an error in the text, through highlighting, for example,

without indicating the type of error or correct form. Finally, the third option is metalinguistic

correction, in which the instructor indicates the type of grammatical error, either through

abbreviations or codes, but does not provide the correct option (Norris & Ortega 2006). The

literature surrounding these types discusses the efficacy of each option under varying

circumstances and proficiency levels, which in turn yields varying conclusions (Chandler, 2004;

Ferris, 2004; Truscott, 1996). Research on WCF has usually compared the results of an

experimental and a control group in terms of overall improvement when teacher gave feedback

on a specific grammatical structure.

Indirect Versus Direct WCF

Ferris (2002) concludes that indirect WCF – indicating that there is error without

providing the correct answer or type of grammatical error – is of more benefit to the L2 learner

because it makes the student engage in forming and testing a hypothesis, drawing on deeper

processes of internal reasoning. Ferris argues direct corrective feedback is not as beneficial as

indirect feedback because indirect feedback adds requirement of additional internal

hypothesizing which helps the learners to internalize the correct forms.


7

Despite the results of Ferris’ study, there is also evidence which indicates that the

advantages of indirect feedback are not quite so conclusive. Chandler (2003) found that direct

correction, opposed to indirect, was superior to alternatives in terms of its efficacy for resulting

in accurate writing. Chandler’s thought is that the direct correction of a teacher helps students

internalize the right forms in a way that is more productive because it is immediate. In her view,

indirect feedback, requiring more internal cognitive processes, delays the student’s ability have

confirmation of his or her hypothesis of what is grammatically correct. In addition to what the

empirical evidence in her study suggests, Chandler notes that her ESL students preferred direct

feedback method. These conclusions are opposite to the suggestions of those of pedagogical

literature in conclusions that indirect WCF may be more beneficial to students than direct

methods.

Indirect, Direct, and Metalinguistic WCF

In studies of indirect, direct, and metalinguistic WCF, not only do the results vary

between researchers, the results often vary within a single study. Moreno (2004) examined the

effects of different types of corrective feedback on both oral and written production, and on

recognition of direct objects for adult Spanish learners. Moreno tested fifty-nine participants. He

selected them randomly, assigned them to one of two feedback groups, and tested them on two

different computerized tasks. While completing these tasks, the participants in the direct group

received concurrent metalinguistic feedback following either a correct or incorrect answer. The

other group, which lacked metalinguistic components, received only indirect feedback. Moreno

found that there were no significant difference in results between the two types of feedback.

Because of this, Moreno felt that it was worth noting that testing was carried out on low

proficiency level populations. This and other studies were actually contradicted by studies


8

involving more advanced learners, which points to proficiency level, among other factors, as

being significant to determining the efficacy of any type of feedback for linguistic learning.

Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) compared the effects of indirect corrective feedback

with spoken metalinguistic clues for the learning of past tense verbs. Granted, this study and that

conducted by Ellis et al. (2006) differ in that this study focuses on written corrective feedback

and Ellis et al. (2006) discusses spoken corrective feedback. However, Ellis et al. (2006) is valid

for providing insight on written corrective feedback because of the fact that generally, spoken

and written corrective feedback yield the same efficacy results. Younghee (2010) compared the

efficacy of the two across twelve ESL classes, and found that “the degree of explicitness of both

oral and written CV – rather than the medium in which the CF is provided – is they key factor

that influences CF effectiveness” (2010, p. 203). Thus, Ellis et al.’s findings, notwithstanding the

use of oral corrective feedback, lend reader research insight into this discussion of the efficacy of

various methods. Ellis et al. (2006) measured the efficacy of spoken metalinguistic clues while

this composition. In this study, participants were 34 low-intermediate adult ESL students in a

private language school located in New Zealand. The researchers divided the participants into

two experimental groups to perform two 30-minute tasks. The first group received recasts on

errors, while the second group received repetition of the wrong verb form accompanied by a

metalinguistic hint. There was control group that simply completed three tests: an oral elicitation

test, an untimed grammatical judgment test, and a metalinguistic knowledge test without any

feedback. The results of Ellis et al.’s study showed, in a post-test given the day after instruction,

that there were no significant differences between groups. When a delayed post-test was given

twelve days later, it showed a difference. In this test, the metalinguistic group outperformed the

control group on verbs in the oral test, and it outscored the recast group on new verbs on the oral


9

and grammaticality judgment tests. Ellis et al.’s study suggests that time of explicit feedback to

be taken into consideration when evaluating feedback forms. Although these differences were

not significant, the researchers contend that explicit feedback with metalinguistic clues is more

beneficial to the development of lingual knowledge. The way they were more beneficial was

shown by Fawbush (2010) in a study that repeated Ellis’s study, although in a different setting.

Fawbush’s study was conducted in the ESL department of a suburban US public middle school.

The participants’ learning level was beginner. For the study, the participants completed two

picture story tasks and were given feedback on their verbal errors just as in Ellis et al. Of the six

pupils in the recast group, four showed improvement in the ability to use regular past tense on

oral tests. The average improvement for the group was 9.7 percent. In contrast, of the five

students in the metalinguistic group, all five showed improvement. Their average improvement

was 28.6 percent despite there being no group differences. Thus, Fawbush’s study suggests the

efficacy of metalinguistic feedback as well as direct feedback over that of indirect feedback.

When a learner is able to develop metacognitive knowledge through metalinguistic

feedback, they can evaluate their performance and select strategies for improvement. This

enhances learner autonomy and self-efficacy. Chamot (2005) states that studies have shown and

“confirmed that the good language learners are skilled at matching strategies to the task they

were working on, whereas less successful language learners apparently do not have the

metacognitive knowledge about task requirements needed to select appropriate strategies” (p.

13). The knowledge comes from long-term memory that contains what “learners know about

learning” (p. 13). With this knowledge, they can direct and regulate their own learning.

Carroll and Swain (1993) also added valuable insight to the study of corrective feedback forms

with their study on the effectiveness of these on adult ESL learners’ ability to learn grammatical


10

structures and to then generalize these findings. They compared a group that received “explicit

hypothesis rejection” (where pupils were given explicit metalinguistic explanations), a group that

received indirect metalinguistic feedback (where pupils were asked if they were sure of their

responses when they made an error), and a control group of no feedback of any kind. In this

study as well, all groups receiving corrective feedback outperformed those that did not receive

any. Further, those receiving direct feedback outscored the other groups. This demonstrates the

many variations that can have an effect even within the three groups, as metalinguistic hints can

be applied to both indirect and direct feedback. From the research, it appears that a

metacognitive approach, mixed with other approaches will help student performance. The

metacognitive approach provides students with a sense of agency about their own learning and

can help empower them, which increases feelings of confidence among other things. This

reduces anxiety, and helps the students feel more positive in response to written corrective

feedback.

This research aims then to further develop the understanding around indirect, direct, and

metalinguistic feedback for ESL learners by examining more closely these categories and

variations in each.

Action Research

Methodology


11

Primary research using a quantitative approach was chosen, more specifically a

quantitative survey design study. The simple definition of the quantitative research “ is

empirical research where the data are in the form of numbers” (Punch, 2005.p.3). Also, Dörnyei

(2007) defines quantitative research as “involves data collection procedures that result primarily

in numerical data which is then analyzed primarily by statistical methods” (p.24). In quantitative

research, I used a survey research that “uses scientific sampling and questionnaire design to

measure characteristics of the population with statistical precision”. This survey research needs

respondents, which are "randomly" sampled - that means that each person in the population has a

known probability of being sampled (Sukamolson, 2007, P.4). A survey was chosen because of

the ability to gather data from many sources in a short period of time. It was also chosen because

“The assumption behind the positivist paradigm is that there is an objective truth existing in the

world that can be measured and explained scientifically” (Mateev, 2002, p. 1). It was also chosen

because it allows the research to be more objective. In addition, Quantitative research shows its

strengths when it is able to able to produce quantifiable, reliable data that can be generalizable.

Also, researchers can test specific hypotheses by using quantitative research, whereas in

qualitative research is more exploratory.

Participants

For my study, some of the participants of this study were ESL students and their teachers

in Gonzaga University. Emails were sent to public school districts in U.S.A to solicit

participation from the teachers. The ESL teacher in my daughter’s school helped me to send the

link of my survey to public schools. I have a lot of Saudi friends who studied in Eastern College

and Community Spokane College. They also helped me to pass the links of the survey to their

friends and teachers there. The contacts were via email to request the teachers’ and students’


12

participation in an anonymous survey. I also sent the link through Facebook to participants who

included any ESL student who was learning English as a second language in the United States.

Contacts at language centers were encouraged to pass on the survey to their teachers as well. All

participants were chosen because I wanted to reach as many teachers and students as possible.

All participants had an optional choice to participate in the survey. As a thank you for taking the

survey, teachers and students were provided with a link to access online materials that were

related to written corrective feedback at the end of the survey. The written corrective feedback

links were still available to teachers and students who did not wish to participate in the survey.

The first part of the research was a literature review that was conducted to discover issues

and correlational studies, if any, regarding the effectiveness related to different types of WCF.

The review would also try to uncover various viewpoints and points of contention between

different L2 scholars related to WCF.

Research Trustworthiness

In my survey, I attempted to see the effect of corrective feedback on the ESL students

and the role of the ESL teacher toward the correcting students’ errors. I looked to the students

and teachers results to see if there are any common factors so that I could make generalizations

from these results. I sent the survey to many ESL teachers and students in ESL centers in many

schools in U.S then I collected the data. Designing two surveys helps me to compare the students

and the teachers’ answers and then get the result. The questionnaires of the survey were designed

in different ways to get different responses.


13

Both surveys contained the rating scale, multiple choice, Yes/No, and open-ended items,

which were represented in the comments’ boxes. The comments’ boxes provided students and

teachers chances to write in extra answers and information or to explain their responses. My

survey develops system and rules for the data, which is collected and analyzed them “ Which

gives it more credibility” (Dörnyei, 2007, p.34).

The DataThe results of the survey show that, across the board students and teachers prefer that

instructors include feedback and metalinguistic comments on student work. The survey focused

on six important areas: 1. Whether or not respondents felt that all student errors should be

correct; 2. What type of errors the respondents felt should be corrected by the teacher; 3. What

type of feedback the respondents felt the instructor should give; 4. Whether or not the

respondents felt that instructor comments in feedback are effective; 5. Whether or not the

respondents felt that teachers’ provision of explanation of errors is important; and, finally, 6. the

respondents’ feelings in response to teachers’ comments on their work. The survey was

administered using two separate surveys – one for the instructors and one for the students. The

first four questions were identical on both surveys for the teachers and the students but the last

two more questions were for the students. Comparisons were made between the students’ and

teachers’ responses to get a sense how students responded to their teacher’s feedback, and to

determine if the teachers had a different perspective about the effectiveness of types of feedback

than did the students.


14

Correction of All ErrorsTable 1

Answers to study’s first question on whether or not the teacher should correct all the

students’ errors showed that when feedback is used, 64% of the students prefer the teachers

correct all their errors (see Table 1). Some of the students responses were: (1) “I think that

the teacher should let you know your errors, and let you correct them, to learn to not fall on

that mistake again”, and (2) “I think a student will better if he/she found some of their own

mistakes.” Sixteen percent of the students thought that not all the errors should be corrected.

A student responded the following: (1) “not all because everyone has to find his or her

errors.” 20.7% of the students felt that on correction of all students’ errors, it depends. The

students responded that (1) “it depends on the level of my errors,” and (2) “It depends on

what is my error.” On the other hand, 68% of teachers responded that not all the students’

errors should be corrected. One interesting teacher comment is the following: “As an ESL

teacher, I expect to see students' written errors (as well as hear spoken ones) because they are

an important part of the language learning process and inform me how students are making

meaning of the target language. Also, correcting all of their errors does not allow them to be


15

independent on noticing and fixing their own errors and may lessen their motivation to learn.

I believe it is more important to encourage students to take risks and not to be afraid of

making mistakes and errors, and systematically teach and train them how to identify and fix

errors.” This comment is important in showing how a teacher’s perspective will be different

than a student’s. In other words, students may find comfort in having the teachers make all of

their corrections so they can avoid making mistakes. It is also difficult and more challenging

to have to discover the mistakes themselves with perhaps just cues and hints. So, a student

may not value the same thing a teacher values. The teacher is wanting to push students to

become more independent and be able to discover errors on their own, while the students are

more comfortable with something that feels less challenging. On the other hand, the results of

this research project show that a large portion of students do want to be challenged and be

able to identify errors on their own; nevertheless, there are enough students who like having

teachers provide enough feedback that it is easy enough to understand why teachers and

students have different responses to WCF.

Type of error

Table 2a for the student


16

Table 2b for the teachers

The second question was, “How much should the teacher correct the errors in writing?” The

results show that 73% of the teachers prefer to correct only major errors. On the other hand, the

students, not surprisingly, answered according to the preferences given in their answers to the

first question. 59% of the students prefer the teacher to correct all their errors and only 28% of

the students prefer only major errors (See Table 2). The students who responded that they want

the teacher to correct all their errors said the following: (1) “I chose Major errors but giving

slight comments are always welcome”, and (2) “specify the grammar mistakes” (3) “because

when the teacher corrects all mistakes it may help to both in the future.” The student who prefers

only major errors be corrected responded, “I think he should correct the major errors because it

defines the way where our writing going, and also sometimes the repeated ones for extra help.”

The Type of Feedback Given

Table 3


17

The above table illustrates the preferences of the students and teachers with regard to

types of corrective feedback. As can be seen in the first column, the majority of students –

almost half – prefer metalinguistic feedback. The remaining half of students prefer direct

feedback, with the smallest portion responding that indirect feedback is best. The responses

from the educators are similar to those of students in that metalinguistic corrective feedback was

most preferred. In fact, the teachers preferred metalinguistic feedback to an even larger degree

than the students did. The difference in the responses between the students and teachers is

confined instead to their responses about direct and indirect feedback. Where students preferred

direct over indirect feedback, the teachers’ were opposite. Teachers had a very small preference

for direct feedback.

The results of question 3 show that the majority teachers and students prefer the

metalinguistic corrective method more than direct and indirect feedback. This form of WCF was

the preferred form by 49% of the students, while 32% of the students preferred indirect feedback.

The interesting finding was that 54% of the teachers prefer metalinguistic corrective feedback

and only 25% of them prefer indirect feedback. This result shows metalinguistic is preferred by

both teachers and students. In responses, some students claimed that (1) “this makes student

know why it's wrong and look for answer him/herself,” and that (2) “it can make me think more

about my mistake and reminds me of it because if he just gave me the answers I'll just write it I

wouldn't think about it.” Some students are aware of the need to be able to identify their own

errors over time, so they appreciate and seem to recognize the purpose of different types of

feedback.


18

The Usefulness of Instructor Comments

Table 4

Despite the fact that 65% of the participating students claimed that they always find

instructors writing comments on their papers is useful, 32% of them state that instructors writing

comments is sometimes helpful. Student responses in the questionnaire include the following: (1)

“to show how your skill is getting improvement” and (2) “we sometimes do not know what our

errors are.” 72% the participating teachers state that writing comments is sometimes useful.

Teacher comments included statements such as, “if you tend to put too many negative comments

the students will stop reading them. However if you put positive comments about the paper they

will feel better about what they write and want to do more.” There are obviously some

conflicting feelings about teacher WCF on the part of students. At times, the students seem to

appreciate the feedback; other times they admit it makes them feel anxious. However, the

teacher’s comment above reinforces the idea that too much negativity in WCF increases feelings

of anxiety, and including positive WCF seems to balance out that anxiety.

Teacher Explanation of Errors


19

Table 5

The results of this portion of this survey shows that 84% students think that it is important to

them to know the reasons for their errors, and just 11% think that sometimes they need to know

the reasons if there are many errors. It seems clear from this finding that students want more

information about why something is considered an error. Just marking an error and then having

to correct it seems inadequate to them. They want a rule or explanation that will guide them in

the future, it appears.

Students’ Feelings towards Written Comments


20

Table 6

The results of this portion of the survey show that 65% of the students like getting comments on

their work, and this helps them with learning and they like learning. 14% of students feel they do

not like written comments and also who think writing corrective feedback makes them feel bad

about their writing. For the most part, it appears that most students feel that WCF is a positive

experience for them, and they feel supported and through this process. However, 14% of students

who feel “bad” about their writing is an important finding also. They need to be reassured that

making mistakes is common and a way to learning.

Discussion and Implications

The results of this survey were validating because they supported my view of the best

way to use corrective feedback, which is to use a metacognitive approach mixed with direct

corrective feedback. My goal is to help students become more proficient, of course; however, it

is also my goal to build self-efficacy as they are learning English as a second language. I agree


21

with Chamot (2005) who claims that when a learner is able to develop metacognitive knowledge,

they can evaluate their performance and select strategies for improvement. This enhances learner

autonomy and self-efficacy. Chamot states that studies have shown and “confirmed that the

good language learners are skilled at matching strategies to the task they were working on,

whereas less successful language learners apparently do not have the metacognitive knowledge

about task requirements needed to select appropriate strategies” (p. 13). The knowledge comes

from long-term memory that contains what “learners know about learning” (p. 13).

The results of the survey clearly show that students prefer to understand where and why

they are making mistakes so they can correct them. Interestingly, although the majority of

students said they like to find the errors with some help from the teacher using a metalinguistic

approach and that learning to identify their own errors was helpful, the majority of students

wanted their teachers to correct all of their mistakes all of the time. Of course, the teachers prefer

not to correct all of the mistakes all of the time, but to provide cues as to where mistakes might

be so that they won’t overwhelm students with too many mistakes on their papers. The teachers

clearly want the students to become more and more independent in their ability to identify their

own errors, which will help prevent the errors in the future. The teachers also wanted students to

not be so afraid of making errors, they would be unwilling to take risks. Students, for the most

part, also appreciated written comments on their papers because they felt it helped them prevent

making the same mistake multiple times. Obviously, there were some differences of opinion.

For example, in the very first question, 64% of all students said they preferred the teacher to

correct all of their errors. However, teachers prefer to correct only the major errors and perhaps

give hints of where errors might have occurred, but not make an actual correction. These

findings were supported in several of the questions. Naturally, teachers have specific purposes in


22

mind when they choose what kinds of WCF they use. A majority of the teachers wanted students

to gain in confidence and competency by learning how to recognize their own errors. Some

students even were able to appreciate this purpose, but in general, students were more

comfortable with the less challenging task of allowing the teachers to make their corrections for

them. The task for the student becomes easier in making the corrections, but in the long run, they

are not as capable of finding and correcting their own errors. At least this is likely the perspective

of the teacher.

This research adds the element of student and instructor thoughts on the types of

feedback independent of the results of post-tests.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Study

This study faced many limitations. For example is the number of participants in both teachers and

students surveys is small that might weaken the strength and validity of the study. Even though both

surveys were sent to many students and teachers, I did not receive many responses. Also, some of

participants did not write any comment in box’s comments or did not complete the survey to the end.

Employing more than one method of collecting data (observations, interviews, questionnaire,

etc.) would be great that future research. Furthermore, this research would have been better if it was

applied in one English center to make ESL teachers and students understanding the perspectives of both

others.


23

References

Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical

study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 15, 357-386.

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

accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12,

267-296.

Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.

Chamot, A. (2005). Language learning strategy instruction: current issues and research. Annual

Review Of Applied Linguistics, 25112-130.

Chian-Wen, K. (2012). Different types of focused direct written feedback effects on learners'

English article acquisition: A Meta-analysis.US-China Foreign Language, 10(9), 1569-

1576.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R., (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the

acquisition of L2 grammar. SSLA, 28: 339-368.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics Oxford University Press Oxford.


24

Fawbush, B. (2010). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback for middle school ESL learners.

Unpublished MA Thesis, Hamline University. Saint Paul.

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language -writing classes. Ann Arbor: University

Of Michigan Press.

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.

Kulhavy, R. (1977). Feedback in written instruction: Review of education research winter. 47

(211-232).

Matveev, A. (2002). The advantages of employing quantitative and qualitative methods in

intercultural research. Bulletin of Russian Communication Association. 1 (1), 59-67.

Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus

corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

Norris, J., & Ortega, L. (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching.

Philadelphia; John Benjamin Publishing

Punch, K. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches (2nd

ed.). London: Sage.

Sukamolson, S. (2007). Fundamentals of quantitative research. Retrieved from

http://www.culi.chula.ac.th/

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.


25

Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal Of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N.H., & Kuiken, F. (2011). Evidence on the effectiveness of

comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1),

1-41.

Younghee, S. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL

classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.


26

the use of written corrective...

Documents