Corrective Feedback/Talkback in IELTS Writing Task 2: Different Feedback/Talkback Media in Focus

Document Type : Original Article


1 Ahvaz Faculty of Petroleum, Petroleum University of Technology, Ahvaz, Iran

2 Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran


This mixed-methods study compares the amount of feedback/talkback in IELTS Writing Task 2 depending on feedback media and whether learners' presence or absence influenced the amount of feedback/talkback. To that end, four writing situations using different feedback media were considered; each including four sessions for instruction and four sessions for giving corrective feedback/talkback to the essays from 41 IELTS candidates. Two classes used pen and paper to write their essays, while two others used Microsoft Word. Each essay was expected to receive feedback/talkback from the instructors in sessions two, four, six, and eight either synchronously or asynchronously. Having collected 160 essays, eighty for each medium, the researchers used Pearson's chi-squared test for data analysis. The results revealed that the amount of feedback/talkback in IELTS Writing Task 2 was significantly different when Microsoft Word was used than pen-and-paper, and when the process was synchronous. Furthermore, to explore the instructors' and IELTS candidates’ perceptions of feedback/talkback media used, semi-structured interviews, focus groups and reflective essays were taken from the instructors, while the IELTS candidates were invited to two focus groups and were also urged to write reflective essays on their experiences during the course of the treatment. The qualitative phase of the study, in turn, explored the perceptions of the instructors and IELTS candidates about the feedback/talkback media in IELTS Writing Task 2 in the presence or absence of the candidates. Multiple themes emerged from the data in the qualitative analysis revealing that the perceptions of the instructors and IELTS candidates were different when different media were used, and when the process was synchronous rather than asynchronous.


Amrhein, H.R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback : What do students and teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied linguistics, 13, 95-127.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Bashan, B., & Holsblat, R. (2017). Reflective journals as a research tool: The case of student teachers’ development of teamwork. Cogent Education, 4, 1-15.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch , U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1988). Transforming qualitative information:. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brice, C. (2005). Coding data in qualitative research on L2 writing: Issues and implications. In  T. P. K. Matsuda (Ed.), Second language writing research: Perspectives on the process of knowledge construction (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Buckingham, L., & Aktug-Ekinci, D (2017). Interpreting coded feedback on writing: Turkish EFL students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 26, 1-16.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
Chung, B. (2015). Corrective feedback: The perception of Korean EFL learners. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 19(2), 75-88.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll, Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Colen, K. and Petelin, R. (2004). Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary Corporation. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 9(2).
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign contect. System, 36, 353-371.
Evans, W. N., Hartshorn K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners' perspective. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 47-77.
Farid, S., & Samad, A. A. (2012). Effects of different kind of direct feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 66, 232-239.
Ferris, D & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to. Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 161-184.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press.
Hansen, C. (1995). Writing the project team: Authority and intertextuality in a corporate setting. Journal of Business Communication, 32(2).
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
Holst, J. K. (1995). Writ 101: Writing English. Wellington, NZ: Victoria University Press.
Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and Researching Writing (2nd Ed.). Great Britain: Pearson Education Limited.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input hypothesis: issues and implications. Harlow: London.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. R. Bhatia (Ed.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
Mahfoodh, O. H. (2017). I feel disappointed: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assesing Writing, 31, 53-72.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A., & Pandian, A. (2011). A qualitative case study of EFL students’ affective reactions to and perceptions of their teachers’ written feedback. English Language Teaching, 4, 14-27.
Monjezi, M., Mashhadi, A., & Maniati, M. (2021). COVID-19: Is It Time You Made the CALL?. CALL-EJ, 56-72.
Polio, C. F. (1998). If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Radecki, P. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16, 355-365.
Shao, X. (2015). On written corrective feedback in L2 writing. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 155-168.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL Learners' Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
Song, G., Hoon, L. H., Alvin, L. P. (2017). Students' Response to Feedback: An Exploratory Study. RELC,48(3), 357-372.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research:. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Teo, T., Khazaie, S., & Derakhshan, A. (2021). Exploring teacher immediacy-(non) dependency in the tutored augmented reality game-assisted flipped classrooms of English for medical purposes comprehension among the Asian students. Computers & Education, 104406.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learnig, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-14.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Zacharias, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38, 38-52.
Volume 15, Issue 2
September 2021
Pages 335-363
  • Receive Date: 01 October 2021
  • Revise Date: 20 December 2021
  • Accept Date: 23 December 2021
  • First Publish Date: 23 December 2021