Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?

Diab, Nuwar Mawlawi

doi:10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001

Cited by 62 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, despite including revision in their design, not all blendeddesign studies have reported findings from the L2 writing standpoint. For example, Diab (2015) concurred with Polio (2012) in that feedback is useless if learners are not required to do something with it. Therefore, Diab's 57 English as a second language (ESL) learners, who were assigned to two experimental groups (direct corrective feedback plus metalinguistic corrective feedback or metalinguistic corrective feedback only), had a chance to correct their errors after having received feedback.…”

Section: Background Literature Blended Design Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Her findings showed a significant decrease in pronoun errors on the immediate posttest and in lexical errors on the delayed posttest for participants who received direct plus metalinguistic feedback. Notwithstanding the significant evidence for the role of corrective feedback as a learning tool, Diab (2015) did not report on revision, which remains relevant from a L2 writing stance.…”

Section: Background Literature Blended Design Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…To date, our knowledge of learners' attitudes toward written corrective feedback has been largely based on descriptive studies (e.g., Incecay & Dollar, 2011). Although "written feedback is more than marks on a page" (Hyland & Hyland, 2006, p. 84), few experimental feedback studies (e.g., Diab, 2015) have taken into consideration affective variables, such as learners' attitudinal engagement 2 with specific treatment to further understand feedback outcomes. Consequently, whether or not L2 learners feel that comprehensive corrective feedback is "unpleasant" (Truscott, 1996, p. 352), "overwhelming" (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012, p. 117), "confusing" (Sheen et al, 2009, p. 567), "discouraging" (Truscott, 2001, p. 93), or "demotivating" (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012, p. 128), it is a practice in much need of further scrutiny.…”

Section: The Cognitive and Affective Load Of Comprehensive Correctivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the potential of comprehensive corrective feedback forms as editing and learning tools and examined their effect on learners’ cognitive and attitudinal engagement. Low‐intermediate second language writers (N = 139) were randomly assigned to four experimental conditions (direct corrections of grammatical errors, metalinguistic codes for grammatical errors, direct corrections of grammatical and nongrammatical errors, or metalinguistic codes for grammatical and nongrammatical errors) and a control group (self‐correction). Results from mixed‐effects linear models showed that although direct corrections and codes were effective for enhancing learners’ immediate grammatical and nongrammatical accuracy (i.e., during text revision), a long‐term advantage (i.e., 4 weeks after feedback provision) was only evident for direct corrections. A mental effort measure of cognitive load revealed that participants’ cognitive load was significantly lower when processing direct corrections targeting grammar issues. Questionnaire answers also yielded a significant attitudinal difference between the direct feedback groups and their metalinguistic counterparts. Open Practices This article has been awarded an Open Materials badge. Study materials are publicly accessible in the IRIS digital repository at https://www.iris-database.org. Learn more about the Open Practices badges from the Center for Open Science: https://osf.io/tvyxz/wiki.

show abstract

Section: Background Literature Blended Design Studiesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Background Literature Blended Design Studiesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Cognitive and Affective Load Of Comprehensive Correctivementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, Abualsha'r and AbuSeileek (2014) found that the students who received corrective feedback delivered via computer about error types while writing essays performed significantly better than those who did not receive any corrective feedback whatsoever. Mawlawi Diab (2015) found that students receiving direct error correction and metalinguistic feedback outperformed students receiving only metalinguistic feedback. For example, the students who received direct error correction made fewer pronoun and lexical errors.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China

Chen

Nassaji

Liu

2016

Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a growing body of research has examined the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) for improving L2 learners' grammatical accuracy, fewer studies have investigated the extent to which different educational settings would influence learners' perceptions and preferences of WCF. This paper reports on an exploratory study that investigated learners' perceptions and preferences of WCF in an EFL setting. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 64 intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and advanced English learners across three proficiency levels (intermediate, advanced-intermediate, and advanced) in a major provincial university of Mainland China. Through extensive written questionnaires, the study explored these learners' perceptions and preferences of the various dimensions of WCF. The results showed that although the participants tended to have a neutral opinion on the role of explicit grammar instruction, overall they expressed a favourable attitude towards error correction. In particular, they held a strong preference for extended comments on both content and grammar of their written work. The qualitative data further indicated that the participants wanted to take more initiatives in the revision process of their writing with less interference from teachers. Overall, the findings confirm the value of WCF for EFL learners outside English-speaking countries. The findings also highlight the significance of individual and contextual factors in the ongoing debate over the effectiveness of WCF.

show abstract

“…Researchers in this study found that both improve writing; however, affective comments also reinforce a positive mindset and increase motivation for writing. Comparative studies in a similar line have explored different dimensions of wcf, such as whether wcf should include metalinguistic comments (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, Lillo & Sáez, 2017, the impact of focusing on specific errors (Diab, 2015;Muñoz & Ferreira, 2017;Salami & Raouf-Moini, 2013), the effect of automated feedback (Dikli & Bleyle, 2014;Milton, 2006) and the differences in perception and impact with respect to the feedback given by teachers, peers, or computers (Chong, 2017;Han & Hyland, 2019;Lai, 2009;Miao et al, 2006;Yu & Hu, 2017), among others.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal

Cárcamo¹

2020

Profile: Issues Teach. Prof. Dev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although several investigations have been carried out in recent years on written corrective feedback (WCF), there is a lack of agreement about its definition and the effect on students’ writings of different types of feedback. This may be due to the lack of systematicity regarding the characterization of WCF used in those studies. This article seeks to review the concept of WCF in studies in the field and to systematize the various aspects considered in a typology, which includes specification, focus, scope, source, mode of delivery, and notes. The resulting typology should help improve the effectiveness in the comparison of WCF studies and serve as a reference for teachers interested in expanding their practices.

show abstract

Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?

Cited by 62 publications

References 31 publications

The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class

The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class

EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China

Classifying Written Corrective Feedback for Research and Educational Purposes: A Typology Proposal

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About