EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Effects of Direct and Metalinguistic Electronic Feedback

Abstract

Abstract-The present study investigated the effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback (Efeedback) on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward computer assisted language learning (CALL). Twenty nine students in two intact English writing classes comprised the participants of the study. A mixed-method design was used for data collection and analysis. In addition to the instruction provided similarly in both classes, based on random assignment, the students in one group received direct electronic corrective feedback (DECF) using Ginger software. In the other class, the students received metalinguistic electronic corrective feedback (MECF) in the form of error codes provided through Markin4 software. Results revealed that the use of E-feedback developed the learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward CALL. However, there were no significant differences between the final overall writing accuracy scores of the DECF and MECF groups and their gain scores. Regarding writing accuracy components (i.e., structure, vocabulary, and punctuation), although the MECF group obtained higher scores in three components, a statistically significant difference between the two groups was found only in terms of vocabulary gain scores. Finally, in the interviews, the students in both groups referred to some barriers in the implementation of CALL in their context as well as some of its merits.Index Terms-writing accuracy, corrective feedback, direct and metalinguistic feedback, electronic feedback, CALL

The Impact of Direct-indirect Corrective E-feedback on EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy

“…Also, Bitchener and Knoch (2010) emphasized the importance of written corrective feedback on improving language accuracy of advancedL2 learners. Moreover, Saadi and Saadat (2015) revealed that the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on writing accuracy was significant in favor of post tests.…”

“…The integration of technology and foreign language learning shows itself in electronic feedback (Farshi &Safa, 2015). Several types of technologies have been implemented in FL writing classes to investigate their role in increasing the efficiency of the process of feedback (Saadi & Saadat, 2015). The last decade has witnessed a huge interest in the study of electronic email in general (Trenchs, 1996), and e-feedback via e-mail as one of the most prevalent applications of computers in writing classes in particular (e.g., Nagata, 1997;Tuzi, 2004).…”

Exploring an Automated Feedback Program ‘Grammarly’ and Teacher Corrective Feedback in EFL Writing Assessment: Modern vs. Traditional Assessment

“…Corrective feedback is an inevitable teaching strategy in an ESL/EFL classroom, especially ESL/EFL writing [1]. Furthermore, e-feedback, such as 'Grammarly', could develop learners' writing accuracy and attitudes toward CALL (Computer Assisted Language Learning) [34].…”

Contextualized Grammar in EFL Students’ Writings: A Case for Corrective Feedback

“…A rational explanation for the obtained results can be the fact that both groups, irrespective of the mode of feedback, similarly received systematic corrective feedback, thus, both groups rather equally improved in grammatical accuracy in writing. Additionally, both groups received the same content via the same instructor in the same allocated time, which reflected in the equality of both groups concerning the results (Saadi, & Saadat, 2015). A sensible acceptable interpretation of such result is that the noticing hypothesis is the main guided theory of the corrective feedback in general.…”