UPSI Digital Repository (UDRep)

The effect of focused and comprehensive written corrective feedback on writing accuracy A comparative study

AVAILABLE Article 516 Views
Scan QR Code to share or view item link:

Digital Assets & Download Files
Login required to access this item.
General Information Cached
Title
The effect of focused and comprehensive written corrective feedback on writing accuracy A comparative study
Type
Article
Main Author
Iqbal, Arshad
Additional Authors
  • Saad, Mohammad Azannee
Subject
LB Theory and practice of education
Language Code
eng
Bibliographic Details
Place of Production
Tanjong Malim
Publisher
Fakulti Bahasa dan Komunikasi
Year of publication
2023
Degree Type
Not related
Corporate Name
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

Abstract

Abstract: Although a vast body of research has investigated the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on students’ writing accuracy, there is relatively fewer studies that compared the effectiveness of focused and comprehensive written corrective feedback. Determining the relative efficacy of feedback focus is crucial for writing instruction as it can make error correction less tedious for the teacher and more manageable for the learner. Writing teachers need to know whether students can better internalize a selected number of error categories at a time or cope with feedback provided on all errors simultaneously. This research reports a quantitative study that compared the effectiveness of focused and comprehensive corrective feedback on Saudi Arabia English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners’ essay writing accuracy. Written essays were collected from 18 Foundation Year, Health Sciences students where they were divided into two experimental groups (N=6) and one control group (N=6). A pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design was employed to measure the effects of the two types of written corrective feedback on learners’ writing accuracy. The results showed that focused written corrective feedback was not significantly more effective than comprehensive written corrective feedback although it caused lower error means on both the selected error categories as well as on total errors. The results suggest that students and teachers need not view the two types of feedback as mutually exclusive as far as their relative effectiveness is concerned. Keywords: comprehensive written corrective feedback, English as a Foreign Language, focused written corrective feedback, writing accuracy  

References

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

Bonilla Lopez, M., Van Steendam, E., Buyse, K., & Speelman, D. (2021). Comprehensive corrective feedback in foreign language writing: The response of individual error categories. Journal of Writing Research, 13(1), 31–70. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2021.13.01.02

Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopus-indexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934

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

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6

Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing, Second Edition. University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Composition Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804

Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (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

Greenhouse, S. W., & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24(2), 95-112.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251

Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006

Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469

Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of Linguistic Accuracy in Second Language Writing Research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.31997003

Rahimi, M. (2019). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819879182

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written

correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms.

Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369

 

 

 


Installed and configured by Bahagian Automasi, Perpustakaan Tuanku Bainun, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris
If you have enquiries, kindly contact us at pustakasys@upsi.edu.my or 016-3630263. Office hours only.