Written corrective feedback is extensively used in second language writing courses. Although some think it detrimental to student learning (i.e. Truscott, 1996), much research over the last decade has proven a place for written corrective feedback in the classroom. The present report seeks to review literature on such feedback. This includes research on more recent approaches such as dynamic written corrective feedback, computer-based feedback, concordance use as feedback, and peer feedback. The report discusses pedagogical implications and areas for future research. / text

This study looks at the effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) when using them with 26 intermediate ESL learners’ writings. The study also investigates whether giving the learners the type of feedback they preferred or less preferred would influence their actual performance. WCF, a pedagogy that is often used when helping learners improve their written accuracy, has captured researchers’ attention in recent decades. Truscott (1996) claimed that WCF is ineffective and suggested teachers should abandon it. Therefore, in the early studies, researchers concentrated on examining the effectiveness of WCF, in order to justify the value of using WCF. In recent studies, researchers have proved that WCF is effective in certain contexts, and they have also investigated the value of using different types of WCF, and the value of using it over time. Moreover, in order to help learners to improve in written accuracy, recent studies in the field have also investigated whether WCF is more effective when used on a certain type of linguistic form/structure. With respect to different types of WCF, researchers in recent decades have also paid some attention to learner preference in WCF. However, the relationship between learner preference and the value of using the type of feedback learners prefer has not yet been investigated. In essence, the relationship between learner preference and their actual performance when using the type of feedback they preferred was examined in this study. The study also aimed to look at the effectiveness of WCF over time, and to investigate whether direct feedback or indirect feedback helped learners better. Furthermore, the study also aimed to investigate whether there was a certain type of linguistic form that WCF works best with. A quantitative approach was used in this study in order to show the results more clearly, and to provide statistical evidence on each finding. The study involved questionnaires, and three writing tests: pre-test, immediate post-test, and a delayed post-test. Before the learners did the pre-test, they were asked to complete a questionnaire to select their preferred type of feedback (direct feedback or indirect feedback). Based on their preferences on feedback, they were put into different groups. Group one received direct feedback; group two received indirect feedback; group three received the feedback they preferred (indirect feedback); group four received no linguistic feedback, but general commentaries on their writing were given. The participants (twenty-six students who enrolled in a general English program at AUT University) had completed the questionnaire and the three writing tests. Findings from the study revealed that, most of the learners preferred receiving direct feedback. When examining learner performance between those who received the type of feedback they preferred and those who did not, the former did not outperform than others. However, factors like different levels of scaffolding assistance may have affected the results. Other findings from the study revealed that WCF was effective overtime, especially when using it on errors of present simple tense. The study also found that indirect feedback was more effective than direct feedback. A possible factor that appeared to influence learners’ performance was identified as learners’ motivation in learning. The results of the study contribute to an understanding of the type of feedback that is most suitable for learners at intermediate level, and on which type of linguistic form WCF can work best with. Practical suggestions for pedagogy and further research are also made.

This study investigates the effectiveness of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) for intermediate learners of Korean as a foreign language (KFL) compared to traditional types of written corrective feedback. DWCF is an innovative method of providing written corrective feedback on students' writing that has primarily been used in English as a second language (ESL) settings. It aims to improve learners' linguistic accuracy and requires multilayered interaction between teachers and students. Although DWCF has been effectively used to increase linguistic accuracy in various ESL settings, it has not yet been widely applied to other language learning settings. This study demonstrates the extent to which DWCF increases the linguistic accuracy of intermediate KFL learners and determines DWCF's impact on fluency and complexity. The treatment group (n = 9) was managed with DWCF and the control group (n = 10) wrote six essays over a 12-week period. The pre- and post-test results were analyzed to determine differences in linguistic accuracy, fluency, and complexity between the two groups. A mixed-model repeated measures ANOVA revealed that the treatment group's accuracy significantly increased compared to the control group, whereas there was no significant difference in fluency or complexity for either group. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed in the conclusion.

Grammatical accuracy in second language (L2) writing is one of the key issues that English as a Second Language (ESL) learners struggle with, both in intensive English language programs and continuing after their university matriculation. Numerous instructional methodologies exist that center around the concept of error correction—how can or should ESL instructors correct grammatical errors in L2 students' writing to best facilitate improvements in written linguistic accuracy? Error correction in L2 writing has been a controversial issue for over a decade (e.g., Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1996), and in an effort to contribute to an understanding of this controversial topic, this study investigated an innovative method of error correction known as dynamic written corrective feedback (WCF). For 15 weeks, 24 students at the Brigham Young University (BYU) English Language Center (ELC) received a form of dynamic WCF dramatically modified from Hartshorn's (2008) original method with the objective of increased practicality. These students produced a 30-minute pretest and posttest essay, and researchers calculated the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of each pretest and posttest. Data from the current study is compared against data from Hartshorn (2008), which found dynamic WCF to be successful in improving accuracy after carrying out similar research. The results validate previous findings and confirm that dynamic WCF is an effective approach to error correction, even when dramatically modified.

An area of research that has witnessed an enormous surge of research studies as well as extensive debates in the field of Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), is the Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) concept and practices in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) or English as a Second Language (ESL) contexts. Over the past three decades, there has been a plethora of research studies on WCF, however, most studies had few limitations which necessitated a wider prospect into the various issues concerned with WCF. This research study, following an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, which was conducted in the Saudi context, brought a new angle into this heavily debatable area of research where a link was sought to bridge the gap between the teachers and students’ perceptions of WCF and their preferred WCF type in an EFL context taking advantage of a large number of participants to take part in a single study on WCF. Online teacher and learner questionnaires were utilised with the participation of 320, both male and female, EFL teachers, and 840 EFL male and female learners from Preparatory Year Program (PYP) at six government universities in Saudi Arabia. Then, semi-structured interviews with 10 EFL, male and female teachers and 10, male and female learners were conducted to explore their perceptions, attitudes and practices (in the case of the EFL teachers) towards this important issue in TESOL and where differences as well as agreements among the teachers and learners exist, so as to attempt to enlighten EFL/ESL professionals on various aspect of WCF as seen by both teachers and learners. Data analysis included quantitative analysis of the teacher and learner questionnaires as well as qualitative and thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews. The teachers, as well as the learners expressed high level of interest towards WCF. Similarly, the learners also believed that their overall language learning can be elevated by having a well-structured WCF which they need to be familiar with. Results of the data analysis also indicated that there are still some differences in the way teachers and learners perceive the WCF in general where teachers prefer coded WCF, whereas, learners prefer unfocussed WCF. There were positive unified agreements, however, between the EFL teachers and learners which gave the indication that there should be more discussions and research studies in order to reach a mutual understanding and a beneficial solution that aims to elevate the scope of TESOL teaching and learning. Furthermore, establishing writing centres at universities in Saudi Arabia where WCF is fully detailed for learners, may also represent an area for continued focus. Recommendations and suggestions for future research include conducting a similar research study in a different EFL context and compare the results to the outcome in this study.

The purpose of this study was to investigate to what extent written corrective feedback (WCF) is a good way to treat errors that L2 (second language) pupils make and if they attend to the comments in future written assignments. WCF is the most used response on written assignments. Some research takes the perspective that it is fruitful (Chandler 2003, Ferris 2003) while other research argues that it is inefficient and unnecessary (e.g.Truscott 1996, 1999). This study presents the findings of a survey on the topic which was conducted at a small school in the south east of Sweden. A comparison between previous research and the findings of the present survey is made and the conclusion from this is that there are limitations in the efficacy of WCF and the results suggest that the type of feedback and how it is delivered are important. It is also likely to be beneficial that pupils revise their texts in order to improve in writing English.

Dynamic written corrective feedback is a strategy that raises student awareness of the patterned errors they make in their writing. Teacher feedback provides the location and type of error made in the form of error codes. Multiple studies have shown it to significantly improve the grammatical accuracy of student writing. This research examines the effects of the frequency of teacher feedback, on student written accuracy, fluency, and complexity whether daily or every-other-day. The total number of minutes students write for is also questioned since it is directly related to the amount of feedback students receive. This is done to make the process more manageable for teachers, as well as determine the optimum volume and feedback frequency that can be processed and benefit students. Findings suggest that 20 minutes of writing a week has the potential to significantly improve accuracy no matter how the time is divided. Fluency also has the potential to improve significantly if students are writing for 5 minutes and receiving feedback daily. As previous research on daily 10-minute writing has suggested that only accuracy will improve, this study is instrumental in highlighting specific modifications that can be made to the DWCF process that increase the potential for development of both accuracy and fluency.

Performance anxiety has been a much-discussed topic in recent years, but many questions surrounding it remain unanswered. This essay investigates how written corrective feedback affects students' performance anxiety and how students and teachers attempt respond to performance anxiety in the classroom. Two questionnaires were administered to teachers and students to investigate how they give and receive feedback and how they handle negative emotions. The results show that a large majority of the students experience anxiety about written assignments and that teachers need to work more on teaching emotional regulation in the classroom to help students better deal with performance anxiety.

This study investigated the efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback (DWCF) on intermediate-high students' writing accuracy when compared to a traditional grammar instruction approach. DWCF is an innovative written corrective feedback method that requires a multifaceted process and interaction between the teacher and the students in order to help the students improve their writing accuracy. The central principle of DWCF is that feedback should be manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant. The research question was raised based on the positive effects of DWCF found in advanced-low and advanced-mid proficiency level students (Evans et al., in press; Evans, Hartshorn, & Strong-Krause, 2009; Hartshorn, 2008; Hartshorn et al., in press). Similar to previous studies, this study attempted to examine the effectiveness of DWCF in terms of proficiency level. It further explored students' perspectives and attitudes towards DWCF. Two groups of ESL students participated in this study: a control group (n=18) that was taught using a traditional grammar instruction method, and a treatment group (n=35) that was taught using a DWCF approach. The findings in this study revealed that both methods improved the intermediate-high students' linguistic accuracy in writing. However, the findings of this study suggest that the instruction utilizing DWCF is preferable to traditional grammar instruction when it comes to improving intermediate-high students' writing accuracy for two reasons: first, DWCF was slightly more effective than the traditional grammar instruction used, and second, students strongly preferred the instruction using DWCF to traditional grammar instruction. The findings of this study further validate other work suggesting the positive effects found in advanced proficiency levels. This study indicates that ESL learners benefit from manageable, meaningful, timely, and constant error feedback in improving their linguistic accuracy in writing. Furthermore, this study suggests the desirability of applying DWCF to other contexts.

Since the publication of Truscott’s paper in 1996 arguing against the effectiveness of grammar correction in second language (L2) writing, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) in the field of second language acquisition (SLA). This debate has continued due to conflicting research results from research examining short-term effects of WCF and scarcity of research investigating its long-term effects (Ferris, 2004, 2006). Using a mixed-method research design, this study investigated the effects of direct and indirect WCF on students’ revision accuracy of the same piece of writing as well as its transfer effects on new pieces of writing over time. The present study also investigated the differential effects of direct and indirect CF on grammatical and non-grammatical errors. Using a stimulated recall strategy, the study further explored students’ perception and attitude regarding the types of feedback they received. Fifty-three intermediate level English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students were divided randomly into four groups: direct, underlining only, Underlining+meta- linguistic, and a control group. Students produced three pieces of writings from three different picture prompts and revised those over a three-week period. To examine the delayed effects of feedback on students’ writing skills, each group was also asked to produce a new piece of writing two weeks later. The results demonstrated that all three feedback groups significantly outperformed the control group with respect to revision accuracy in all three writing tasks. WCF did not have any significant delayed transfer effects on improving students’ writing skills. Short-term transfer effects on overall accuracy, however, were found for Underlining+metalinguistic CF, but not for other feedback types. In terms of grammatical and non-grammatical accuracy, only Direct CF displayed significant short-term transfer effects on improving grammatical accuracy. These findings suggest that while Direct CF was successful in improving short-term grammatical accuracy, both direct and indirect CF has the potential to improve accuracy in writing. The findings also clarify that no single form of CF can be effective in addressing all types of linguistic errors. Findings from the qualitative study demonstrated that different aspects of direct and indirect CF helped learners in different ways to successfully attend to different types of CF. In the case of Direct CF, learners who successfully corrected errors believed that the explicit information or correction was useful for them. They believed that it helped them understand what errors they made and helped them remember the corrections. Learners who were successful in correcting errors from indirect CF in the form of underlining and in the form of underline in combination with metalinguistic CF indicated that these two types of indirect CF helped them notice the errors, think about the errors, guess the correct form(s) or feature(s) and also remember the correction. The findings also indicated that both grammatical and non-grammatical errors could be difficult for learners to correct from indirect CF if they do not have sufficient L2 proficiency. Findings from the qualitative study also indicated that while learners considered both direct and the two indirect CF as useful, indirect CF in the form of underlining together with metalinguistic CF was preferred by a majority of learners as it provided valuable information about the errors made as well as promoting thinking and better understanding. / Graduate / 0290 / khaledk@uvic.ca