The Effect of Coded Focused and Unfocused Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing Accuracy

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Purpose. This study adopted a mixed-method approach, including a classroom experiment and 24 in-depth interviews, to investigate the effects of two feedback techniques (coded focused and unfocused written corrective feedback) on ESL learners’ writing in a self-financed tertiary institution in Hong Kong.

Methods. Three intact classes of 47 students served as the experimental and control groups; the control group only received feedback on content and organization, whereas the two experimental groups also received focused and unfocused linguistic feedback, respectively. The feedback intervention was conducted over an eight-week intensive summer course, focusing on three grammar errors (articles, singular/plural nouns and verb forms). Altogether, students wrote seven pieces, four of which were analysed for the present research.

Results: The study found that students who received focused written corrective feedback (WCF) significantly outperformed the other two groups, though the effects varied across error types. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between the unfocused and control groups. In-depth interviews explored how individual learners’ metalinguistic understanding and engagement affect their intake of WCF. The results revealed that learners who received focused feedback developed a deeper understanding of the linguistic nature of specific error types. Learners with limited English proficiency were less likely to apply their linguistic knowledge to revise a task or write a new one.

Conclusion. Because not all errors deserve equal attention, teachers and students should consider how feedback can be used more effectively, particularly in areas where comprehensive feedback is considered obligatory. When teaching students with limited language proficiency, it is recommended that, rather than providing a wide range of error corrections, teachers provide focused feedback complemented with carefully designed metalinguistic support.

About the authors

C. Deng

Polytechnic University of Hong Kong

Email: jessica.deng@cpce-polyu.edu.hk
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3986-6536

X. Wang

Polytechnic University of Hong Kong

Email: iris.wang@cpce-polyu.edu.hk
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6777-4949

S. Lin

Polytechnic University of Hong Kong

Email: sy.lin@cpce-polyu.edu.hk
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1819-470X

W. Xuan

Hong Kong Metropolitan University

Email: wxuan@hkmu.edu.hk
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2916-7432

Q. Xie

Education University of Hong Kong

Author for correspondence.
Email: qxie@eduhk.hk
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8528-6092

References

  1. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726.
  2. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
  3. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  4. Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were.. System, 37(4), 600-613. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.005
  5. Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491-498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001
  6. 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(1), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/S40862-016-0010-Y/TABLES/10
  7. Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544
  8. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2008.02.001
  9. Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229-239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2011.04.012
  10. Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge University Press. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1573950399744829184.
  11. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
  12. Ferris, D. (2004). The Grammar Correction Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime..?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2004.04.005
  13. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  14. Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
  15. Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies. Language Teaching, 45(4), 446-459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000250
  16. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
  17. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2015.06.006
  18. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JSLW.2015.08.002
  20. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6
  21. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta-Analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/MODL.12189
  22. Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing Composition Errors: An Experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/326382
  23. Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390
  24. Lee, I. (2017). Working hard or working smart. In J. Bitchener, N. Storch, & R. Wette (Eds.), Teaching writing for academic purposes to multilingual students (pp. 168-180). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315269665-11/WORKING-HARD-WORKING-SMART-ICY-LEE
  25. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ASW.2020.100469
  26. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
  27. Rahimi, M. (2021). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs.comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners' writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687-710. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182
  28. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writing Quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
  29. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
  30. Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1944-9720.1984.TB01727.X
  31. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYSTEM.2009.09.002
  32. Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000034
  33. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
  34. Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1467-1770.1996.TB01238.X
  35. van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions.International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27. www.um.es/ijes.
  36. Xie, Q. & Lei, Y. (2019). Implementing formative assessment in primary English writing classrooms: A case study from Hong Kong. The Asian EFL Journal, 23(5), 55-95.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.