Feedback can be given in many different forms, and the type that is written and strives to either correct students written errors or support their overall writing ability is suitably enough referred to as written corrective feedback (WCF) of which there are two main types of: indirect and direct WCF. We know that second language writers meet many obstacles, be that lack of motivation and vocabulary or misspellings and phrasal issues; nonetheless, teachers thought processes about what type of feedback to give on what type of error is of importance for the continuation of the development of sound feedback approaches. Therefore, we intend to investigate English teachers perceptions on the WCF they give with the help of the following research questions: What are primary school English teachers’ perceptions about WCF in order to promote their ESL students writing development? What are primary school English teachers’ perceptions regarding their choice between written direct CF or written indirect CF on their ESL students written production?To investigate these questions we wrote an interview guide, and conducted interviews with seven teachers in 4th to 6th grade, asking about their perceptions on the development of writing in English as a second language and how they would describe their corrective feedback and their thought process on what type to give and when to give it on their student’s writing. Our findings showed that all teachers acknowledged two types of students in their ESL classroom: the high proficiency and the low proficiency. The low proficiency need more direct, clear and specific corrections on most of their writing whilst the high proficiency benefit from more indirect CF in order to make use of their metacognitive thinking skills. The findings also revealed that teachers choose to use indirect or direct CF based on the activity and whether the purpose is to learn grammar or not. If the focus is grammar, they would choose direct CF, and if it was to write a fictional story, they would give more indirect CF in order to not stifle the student’s creative process and “take the fun out of it”. Our study points to a need of more research within the field of feedback in general, since there is not much evidence showing what approaches are the most beneficial. Another issue is that there are practically no guidelines for teachers to follow, telling them what type to choose and for what activities. This is something for future research to dig deeper into.

The study investigated the impacts of different strategies of providing teacher written corrective feedback on first semester ESL/EFL students’ writing accuracy and writing quality. Four feedback strategies (indirect feedback, direct feedback, indirect feedback followed by direct feedback with explicit corrective comments, and no feedback) were employed in this study. One hundred twenty-one EFL freshman university students were randomly assigned into four feedback groups (IF, DF, IDECC, NF). Students in each group produced two narrative essays. Teacher feedback was provided in two segments for the first essay and students made two revisions based on the feedback. The errors on each stage of students’ writing were marked and counted to be compared among each stage of the writing and between groups. The results of data analysis showed that the mean number of errors in all three treatment groups decreased in each writing stage. All three treatment groups outperformed the no-feedback control group in each stage of writing in terms of grammatical accuracy and writing quality. There was no difference in the mean number of errors among three treatment groups in the first and second revisions. However, the IDECC group, who received indirect feedback followed by direct feedback with explicit corrective comments, outperformed all other groups in the second revision and in the new essay. The results also showed that the mean number of errors of all three treatment groups decreased in the new essay indicating that there was a long-term effect of teacher corrective feedback on the new essay. The results of the study suggest that providing teacher corrective feedback was effective in reducing students’ grammatical errors on their essays. All three treatment groups also gained in writing quality scores in the new essay indicating that, to a certain extent, there was an effect of teacher corrective feedback on writing quality. The findings are discussed in the context of the related literature. Areas of future research are discussed and practical implications are suggested. / Ph. D.

With the rise of English as the go-to language in the world, it has also become an important subject in the Swedish education system, aimed at preparing students for the English requirements expected of them in higher education and business. However, communication and content have become the main focus in the classroom, with grammar and accuracy being judged as variably important from teacher to teacher. This has led to students feeling confident in speaking, but lacking the skills needed to create accurate and coherent texts, the effects of which are detrimental to their credibility and can have serious negative effects in the workplace. The aim of this paper is to investigate the efficacy of different methods of corrective feedback (CF) aimed at improving grammatical accuracy in student writing. Eight studies were selected, looking at different methods of CF. The results showed that CF is indeed effective, but that many factors such as language proficiency, previous experience, scope of CF and error type influence the outcome of the CF. The implications of this are very relevant to the English classroom in Sweden as the classroom is not homogenous and teachers must take care to become aware of each student’s individual needs, prior knowledge and preferences in order to maximize the effectiveness of the CF. Future research could explore the effects of Dynamic CF and peer-reviewing, providing students with many opportunities to write and revise short texts while simultaneously actively engaging with language form.

This study explores the concept of feedback from various perspectives in psychology and cognitive science. Specifically, the theories of ecological psychology, situated and Distributed Cognition, Cognitive Systems Engineering and Embodied cognition are investigated and compared. Cognitive Systems Engineering provides a model of feedback and related constructs, to understand human behavior in complex working environments. Earlier theories such as ecological psychology, considered feedback as direct perception. Situated cognition clearly inherits ideas from ecological psychology, whereas distributed cognition provides a deeper understanding of feedback through artifact use. Cognitive Systems Engineering provides a systematic view of feedback and control. This framework is a suitable perspective to understanding feedback in human-machine settings.

The study aims to examine (1) the extent to which EFL learners in upper secondary school use feedback comments from teachers and peers to revise their texts and how the usage patterns vary by type of feedback approach, (2) how the students use feedback to revise their texts and how the usage patterns vary by type of feedback approach, and (3) What positive or negative effects the type of feedback approach has on students’ revisions. Moreover, the study aims to investigate the extent the type of feedback approach affects students’ usage patterns in their revisions. The findings will provide a basis for discussions about the possible qualities of written feedback that could be included to help students improve their writing skills. Content analysis of 28 argumentative essays written by first-year upper secondary students in Sweden is used to identify the type of feedback provided by teachers and peers and the type of revisions made by the students. Using the identified types of feedback and revisions, a text analysis was adopted to examine the frequency of feedback and revisions, and how students used it to revise their text. Furthermore, the results are presented and compared to different relevant studies (e.g., Baker, 2016; Lee; 2008) and theories such as Krashen's (1985) input hypothesis and Swain's (2005) output hypothesis, to draw some insights into the effects of feedback on students' revisions. The results show that students utilized corrective feedback on the micro level more than the macro level – especially indirect corrective feedback on the micro level. The students used most of the feedback to revise their errors on the micro level such as grammar, spelling, and punctuation; however, a few revisions were made on the macro level where students improved their text by restructuring their arguments and ideas. Finally, the findings indicate that formative feedback had a positive effect on students' revisions both on the macro and micro level where students improved the coherence and cohesion of their texts in the final draft. Therefore, if formative feedback is applied in the appropriate context, it may help students develop their writing abilities.