How to Cite
Abstract
Giving written feedback to students is an important part of writing instruction. However, few studies have been conducted to investigate current trends of written corrective feedback in the secondary and university contexts. To identify and evaluate the current state of empirical evidence, we conducted a qualitative synthesis of published research that examined written corrective feedback in both English-as-the-first-language and English-as-the second/foreign-language settings. Four claims emerged in our analyses of 68 empirical studies published in journals from 2006-2016. Each claim is supported by empirical evidence. The claims are: (1) Individual differences play a part in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (2) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions affect the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (3) Giving corrective feedback through technology is beneficial to students; and (4) Written corrective feedback is more effective when it is used concurrently with collaborative tasks. This meta-synthesis study sheds light on the written corrective practice of English Language teachers across different pedagogical settings and the factors that may affect student engagement in teacher written feedback.
Keywords: written corrective feedback, secondary school, university
References
Abadikhah, S., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners' performance after collaborative output. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 118-125.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.1.118-125
AbuSeileek, A. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319-333.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004
AbuSeileek, A. F., & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
Afraz, S., & Ghaemi, H. (2012). The effect of focused written corrective feedback of contrastive analysis on EFL learners' acquisition of verb tenses. Journal of Educational and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(4), 48-61.
Aghajanloo, K., Mobini, F., & Khosravi, R. (2016). The effect of teachers' written corrective feedback types on intermediate EFL learners' writing performance. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 7(3), 28-37.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.7n.3p.28
Ahmadi-Azad, S. (2014). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback types on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(5), 1001-1008.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.5.1001-1008
Amirghassemi, A., & Saeidi, M. (2013). The effect of scaffolded vs. non-scaffolded written corrective feedback on EFL learners' written accuracy. World Applied Sciences Journal, 22(2), 256-263.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Bakri, H. (2015). The role of individual differences in second language writing corrective feedback. Arab World English Journal, 6(4), 245-259.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2843943
Best, K., Jones‐Katz, L., Smolarek, B., Stolzenburg, M., & Williamson, D. (2015). Listening to our students: An exploratory practice study of ESL writing students' views of feedback. TESOL Journal, 6(2), 332-357.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.152
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J., East, M., & Cartner, H. (2010). The effectiveness of providing second language (L2) writers with on-line written corrective feedback. Wellington, NZ: Ako Aotearoa.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). 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., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & 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(5).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
Daneshvar, E., & Rahimi, A. (2014). Written corrective feedback and teaching grammar. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 136, 217-221.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.317
Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter. Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001
Dowden, T., Pittaway, S., Yost, H., & McCarthy, R. (2013). Students' perceptions of written feedback in teacher education: Ideally feedback is a continuing two-way communication that encourages progress. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 349-362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.632676
Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused meta-linguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 878-883.
https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.4.878-883
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353-371.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74.
https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375367
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229-239.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: The practitioners' perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47-77.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119191
Fahim, M., & Hashemnezhad, H. (2011). Corrective feedback provision: Mixed pattern vs. separate pattern. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(8), 1019-1024.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.1.8.1019-1024
Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2(2), 49-57.
https://doi.org/10.5430/wje.v2n2p49
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students' experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69(2), 129-153.
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346
Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31-44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.002
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171-182.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119251
Jafarigohar, M., & Kheiri, S. (2015). A Comparison of teacher cognition and corrective feedback between university graduates and teachers certified in English Language Teaching. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(11), 2320-2326.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0511.16
Jodaie, M., Farrokhi, F., & Zoghi, M. (2011). A comparative study of EFL teachers' and intermediate high school students' perceptions of written corrective feedback on grammatical errors. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 36-48.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p36
Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). "I just want to do it right, but it's so hard": A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19-36.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.11.001
Kassim, A., & Luan, N. L. (2014). The roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing written corrective feedback efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 10(1), 16-30.
Kim, J. (2015). The role of models and error correction in L2 young learners' noticing and Output. English Teaching, 70(2), 3-26.
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.70.2.201506.3
Kim, J. H. (2013). Learner understanding of written corrective feedback and its relationship with immediate uptake and retention in EFL Classrooms. English Teaching, 68(3), 109-129.
https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.68.3.201309.109
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
Li, S., & Li, P. (2012). Individual differences in written corrective feedback: A multi-case study. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 38-44.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n11p38
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rded). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257.
https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257
Mansourizadeh, K., & Abdullah, K. I. (2014). The effects of oral and written meta-linguistic feedback on ESL students writing. The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 20(2), 117-126.
https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2014-2002-10
Mikume, B. O., & Oyoo, S. O. (2010). Improving the practice of giving feedback on ESL learners' written compositions. International Journal of Learning, 17(5), 337-353.
https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9494/CGP/v17i05/47066
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2016). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12138
Pakbaz, R. (2014). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners' writing performance: Explicit vs. implicit. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(1), 12-17.
Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 learners' retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19-48.
Robinson, S., Pope, D., & Holyoak, L. (2013). Can we meet their expectations? Experiences and perceptions of feedback in first year undergraduate students. Journal of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(3), 260-272.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.629291
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact of Lao learners' beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64-82.
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.38.1.04rum
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
Salimi, A., & Valizadeh, M. (2015). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback on the accuracy of learners writing in pre-intermediate level. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3), 116-122.
https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.116
Santos, M., Serrano, S. L., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131-154.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011
Sarvestani, M. S., & Pishkar, K. (2015). The effect of written corrective feedback on writing accuracy of intermediate learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2046-2052.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.10
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on learners' explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 286-306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029
Siewert, L. (2011). The effects of written teacher feedback on the academic achievement of fifth-grade students with learning challenges. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1), 17-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880903286771
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237-246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214005283748
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Weaver, M. R. (2006). Do students value feedback? Student perceptions of tutors' written responses. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(3), 379-394.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500353061
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38-52.
Copyright Transfer Statement for Journal
1) In signing this statement, the author(s) grant UNIMAS Publisher an exclusive license to publish their original research papers. The author(s) also grant UNIMAS Publisher permission to reproduce, recreate, translate, extract or summarize, and to distribute and display in any forms, formats, and media. The author(s) can reuse their papers in their future printed work without first requiring permission from UNIMAS Publisher, provided that the author(s) acknowledge and reference publication in the Journal.
2) For open access articles, the author(s) agree that their articles published under UNIMAS Publisher are distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-SA (Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work of the author(s) is properly cited.
3) For subscription articles, the author(s) agree that UNIMAS Publisher holds copyright, or an exclusive license to publish. Readers or users may view, download, print, and copy the content, for academic purposes, subject to the following conditions of use: (a) any reuse of materials is subject to permission from UNIMAS Publisher; (b) archived materials may only be used for academic research; (c) archived materials may not be used for commercial purposes, which include but not limited to monetary compensation by means of sale, resale, license, transfer of copyright, loan, etc.; and (d) archived materials may not be re-published in any part, either in print or online.
4) The author(s) is/are responsible to ensure his or her or their submitted work is original and does not infringe any existing copyright, trademark, patent, statutory right, or propriety right of others. Corresponding author(s) has (have) obtained permission from all co-authors prior to submission to the journal. Upon submission of the manuscript, the author(s) agree that no similar work has been or will be submitted or published elsewhere in any language. If submitted manuscript includes materials from others, the authors have obtained the permission from the copyright owners.
5) In signing this statement, the author(s) declare(s) that the researches in which they have conducted are in compliance with the current laws of the respective country and UNIMAS Journal Publication Ethics Policy. Any experimentation or research involving human or the use of animal samples must obtain approval from Human or Animal Ethics Committee in their respective institutions. The author(s) agree and understand that UNIMAS Publisher is not responsible for any compensational claims or failure caused by the author(s) in fulfilling the above-mentioned requirements. The author(s) must accept the responsibility for releasing their materials upon request by Chief Editor or UNIMAS Publisher.
6) The author(s) should have participated sufficiently in the work and ensured the appropriateness of the content of the article. The author(s) should also agree that he or she has no commercial attachments (e.g. patent or license arrangement, equity interest, consultancies, etc.) that might pose any conflict of interest with the submitted manuscript. The author(s) also agree to make any relevant materials and data available upon request by the editor or UNIMAS Publisher.