Vol 8, No 4 (2022)

Introduction. The issue of whether or not teachers should correct second language learners’ grammatical errors has been hotly contested in the literature. Researchers who studied corrective feedback were particularly interested in determining what kinds of feedback may help students commit fewer errors in subsequent writing. One of the primary points of contention in this discussion is whether language teachers should provide focused (i.e., only one or a few types of grammar errors are targeted for correction) or unfocused written corrective feedback (i.e., all or most error types are corrected). Although focused feedback has been found to be more effective than unfocused feedback (Kao & Wible, 2014), focused feedback has been questioned to ecologically invalid in authentic classrooms (Xu, 2009). Because little attention has been paid to unfocused feedback effects, the present study looked into not only the short-term but also the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback.
Methods. The present study adopted the meta-analysis software Comprehensive Meta-analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) to calculate an effect size across previous studies. Several keywords were used to search for relevant studies in online databases and selection criteria were set to determine whether these studies were appropriate to be synthesized. 34 studies which met the criteria were included for analyses.
Results and Discussion. This meta-analysis revealed that unfocused grammatical feedback was effective, as assessed by immediate posttests, and that the benefits of unfocused feedback increased over time, as revealed by delayed posttests, potentially contradicting Truscott's (1996; 2007) conclusions on grammar correction. This finding needs to be carefully interpreted because only 12 out of 34 studies provided statistical data in delayed posttests. Furthermore, publication bias seemed to be minimal, and both immediate and delayed posttest effect sizes were heterogeneous.
Conclusion. It is strongly suggested that more future studies should investigate the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback. In addition, because the effect sizes obtained for unfocused feedback practices were heterogeneous, other moderating variables need to be considered such as instructional settings (Mackey & Goo, 2007; Truscott, 2004a), type of feedback (Lee, 2013), focus of feedback (Ellis, 2009), learners’ revisions (Ferris, 2010), intervention length (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010) and so on. It is essential to conduct more meta-analyses to look into the potential effects of such moderating variables.

Background. Task-based language teaching (TBLT) is still attracting considerable interest from second language teachers and researchers, partly due to unresolved issues of task sequencing and task complexity. Moreover, in spite of burgeoning attention to writing at the present stage of evolution of TBLT, the interaction of task complexity and corrective feedback in writing performance of language learners has not been explored well.

Purpose. To fill in this research gap, the present study aimed to explore the role of task complexity and task condition in learners’ gain from corrective feedback in second language writing.

Methods. A pretest-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design was adopted in this study. The participants of the study were 114 English as foreign language learners, randomly assigned to one of the five groups: four experimental groups and a control group. The four experimental groups differed in (a) whether they carried out the simple or complex version of a task (b) whether they did the writing task individually or collaboratively. They received feedback on their writing in three treatment sessions.

Results. Statistical analyses revealed that task condition played a larger role than task complexity in the linguistic performance of language learners who received feedback on their writing.

Conclusion. The findings add support to the view that selecting appropriate levels of task complexity and suitable task implementation conditions alongside providing corrective feedback enhances the different dimensions of the written performance of language learners.

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.

Background. Writing is a complex skill, even more so, if the student does not handle the generic structure of the institutionalized practices imposed on Higher Education.

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to determine the effectiveness of direct and metalinguistic focused written corrective feedback (WCF) on information structuring connectors.

Methods. This quantitative study compares focused WCF effectiveness in 39 subjects who are divided into three groups: the first one is the control group, which did not receive feedback, the second is the experimental group 1 that was corrected through direct WCF and the third one corresponds to experimental group 2 that received feedback through metalinguistic cues.

Results. The findings indicate that WCF is effective for the experimental groups. There is a significant decrease in the number of errors of information-structuring connectors in experimental group 2, while experimental group 1 shows a reduction, but without statistical significance.  As for the control group, it did not present improvements. In addition, the development of writing tasks corrected through metalinguistic WCF strategies led to textual cohesion improvement with the accurate use of connective devices.

Conclusions. It is important to reflect on the use of focused feedback as part of the writing process, firstly, because writing cannot be taught without reviewing a student's writing, and secondly, considering that focused feedback supports the noticing of errors and decreases teacher correction time.

Background. Self-regulated learning strategies play an essential role in the success of students’ learning of writing. The use of these strategies might be influenced by the student’s individual differences.

Purpose. This study was conducted to describe EFL university students’ preferences for self-regulated writing strategies. It also examined the different use of self-regulated writing strategies by considering gender, interest in English writing, and writing achievement. Further, it measured the predictive effects of self-regulated writing strategies on the students’ writing achievement.

Methods. This research applied a quantitative approach and involved 58 English students. The students were required to respond to a self-report survey using the Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Questionnaire. The students’ writing achievement was measured based on their scores in writing an argumentative essay. The data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics, an independent sample t-test, One Way Anova, and multiple regression.

Results. The results uncovered that the overall use of self-regulated writing strategies was at a high level with the social environment strategy dimension on the top rank and motive on the bottom. Further analysis showed that there is no significant difference in the use of self-regulated writing strategies based on gender, interest in English writing, and writing achievement. Meanwhile, multiple regression analysis indicated the predictive effect of self-regulated writing strategies on writing achievement. To this end, teachers need to encourage students to use self-regulated writing strategies more optimally to enhance their writing quality.

Conclusion. EFL students have invested high awareness of using self-regulated writing strategies. Along with this high awareness, students’ individual differences such as gender, interest in English writing, and proficiency level might not strongly influence the use of SRW strategies. Though not strong, the use of self-regulated writing strategies contributes to the students’ writing quality improvement.

Background: Feedback provided to learners' writing is a construct of identifying a learner's performance, and it can be identified and trifurcated as grammatical form, location in the text, and pragmatic functions. Second language researchers worldwide consider written corrective feedback (WCF) as a vital and valuable teaching tool that enables learners to improve accuracy in L2 writing. 

Purpose: In this context, there exists a plethora of studies that examine the efficacy of WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy.  However, literature is replete with research that looks into the effectiveness of unfocused WCF on L2 learners’ writing accuracy especially concerning learners’ belief of the feedback type. Not much research is available demonstrating unfocused WCF's efficacy on L2 learners’ writing accuracy. 

Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, three intact classes were recruited and were randomly placed into two experimental groups: indirect corrective feedback, direct corrective feedback, and one control group. The participants completed three narrative writings, one each at pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test.

Results: The results of the study unveiled that the WCF enabled the treatment group learners to produce text with fewer errors than the control group participants. The study also reported no relationship between the learners’ beliefs and the efficacy of WCF, meaning that the preference of learners for a particular type of feedback did not influence the efficacy of WCF.

Conclusion: Based on the results of the case study, important pedagogical implications for ESL/EFL instructors are provided

Background. Recently, there has been a growing interest in the personal attributes of raters which determine the quality of cognitive processes involved in their rating writing practice.

Purpose. Accordingly, this research attempted to explore how the rating experience of L2 raters might affect their rating of integrated and independent writing tasks.

Methods. To pursue this aim, 13 experienced and 14 novice Iranian raters were selected through criterion sampling. After attending a training course on rating writing tasks, both groups produced introspective verbal protocols while they were rating integrated and independent writing tasks which were produced by an Iranian EFL learner. The verbal protocols were recorded and transcribed, and their content was analyzed by the researchers.

Results. The six extracted major themes from the content analysis included content, formal requirement, general linguistic range, language use, mechanics of writing, and organization. The results indicated that the type of writing task (integrated vs. independent) is a determining factor for the number of references experienced and novice raters made to the TOEFL-iBT rating rubric. Further, the raters’ rating experience determined the proportions of references they made. Yet, the proportional differences observed between experienced and novice raters in their references were statistically significant only in terms of language use, mechanics of writing, organization, and the total.

Conclusion. The variations in L2 raters’ rating performance on integrated and independent writing tasks emphasize the urgency of professional training to use and interpret the components of various rating writing scales by both experienced and novice raters.

nced and novice raters. 

Background. There is a prevailing belief that unfocused written corrective feedback may not be suitable to promote students’ academic writing development.

Purpose. This perspective piece demonstrates how unfocused written corrective feedback reflects the principles of sociomateriality, which views learning as dynamic.

Perspectives. Unfocused written corrective feedback has the potential to support university students’ academic discourse socialization. This perspective is based on the observation that actual written corrective feedback in a classroom setting is varied and contextual, and not focused on any particular grammar form or writing feature.

Conclusion. Unfocused written corrective feedback represents an optimal approach to support university students’ awareness and engagement with variables found in their learning ecology. These variables can support students’ academic writing development.