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

This thesis imparts the outcomes of a seven-week long quasi-experimental study that explored whether or not L2 learners who received intensive and highly focused indirect feedback on one type of treatable error - either the third person singular -s, plural endings -s, or definite article the - eventually become more accurate in the post-test as compared to a control group that did not. The paired-samples t-test comparing the pre-test and post-test scores of both groups demonstrates that the experimental group did no better than the control group after they received indirect corrective feedback. The independent samples t-test measuring the experimental and control group's accuracy shows no significant difference between the two groups. Effect sizes calculated, however, do indicate that, had the sample sizes been bigger, both groups would have eventually become more accurate in the errors targeted, although this would not have been because of the indirect feedback.

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.

I denna kvalitativa intervjustudie har fyra gymnasielärare delat med sig av sina uppfattningar om användningen av skrivande och skriftlig korrigerande feedback som ett sätt att utveckla elevers grammatiska korrekthet. Studien visar att deltagarna anser att det är viktigt att integrera grammatikundervisningen med skrivande då det bland annat möjliggör individualisering. Vidare framkommer det att det finns ett större fokus på att rätta lokala fel än globala, och att omfattningen av feedback bör baseras på elevers kunskapsnivå. Lärarnas feedbackstrategier påverkas också av elevers kunskapsnivåer, men även felets komplexitet. Slutligen betonar lärarna att för att den skriftliga korrigerande feedbacken ska vara effektiv behöver eleverna få tid till att bearbeta den.

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.

Previous studies have shown that written corrective feedback (CF) addressing errors can help students to improve their language accuracy. In order to improve students' vocabulary skills, studies suggest that less explicit corrective feedback methods are more successful than more explicit ones. This small-scaled study tried to investigate what CF methods are used by three teachers concerning vocabulary errors in students' written assignments, what method is preferred by the teachers and the students in their classes and why, whether the students have to post-edit the essays after the teacher has given them feedback and finally, whether the students and their teachers believe they improve their vocabulary after the given feedback. The results show that all teachers used a varied set of corrective feedback types. The written corrective feedback method preferred by teachers in this study are underline and underline and describe. The method preferred by students are underline and describe and direct correction. In order for the feedback to be effective, the students need to work with the given corrective feedback. / Tidigare studier har visat att skriftlig korrigerande feedback som gäller språkfel kan hjälpa eleverna att förbättra sin språkriktighet. Studier tyder på att de mindre explicita korrigerande feedbackmetoderna är mer framgångsrika, när det gäller att förbättra elevernas ordförråd. Den här studien undersökte vilka feedbackmetoder på vokabulärfel i skriftliga texter tre lärare använder, vilken metod som föredras av lärarna och deras elever, om eleverna bearbetar sina texter utifrån lärarens feedback och slutligen, om eleverna och deras lärare tror att eleverna lär sig ny vokabulär utifrån lärarens feedback. Resultaten visar att alla lärare använde en varierad uppsättning av korrigerande feedbackmetoder. Den skriftliga korrigerande feedbackmetod som föredras av lärarna i denna studie är understrykning och understrykning med förklaring. Den metod som föredras av eleverna är understrykning med beskrivning och direkt korrigering. För att feedback ska vara effektiv måste eleverna bearbeta den feedback de fått av läraren.

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.

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.