Teaching English Language

Teaching English Language

The effects of written corrective feedback on L2 writing skill and grammatical accuracy through digital technology

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Muhlise Coşgun Ögeyik 1
Sibel Özçelik 2
1 Trakya Univeristy Faculty of Education
2 Istanbul Technical University
10.22132/tel.2025.477858.1691
Abstract
This study investigated the effectiveness of indirect written corrective feedback in improving overall writing performance. In this quasi-experimental study, the lessons were carried out on online platforms. Google Classroom, which allows the use of Google documents, was used to assign and collect the weekly writing tasks. The participants were a total of thirty-six Turkish university students enrolled in a General English preparatory class at the School of Foreign Languages at a Turkish University. While the experimental group received indirect feedback through error correction codes, the control group received direct feedback, which is a common and traditional way of providing written corrective feedback. The results indicated that the scores of both groups, regardless of the feedback type, significantly increased from the pre-test to the post-test. However, the findings showed no significant difference between the two groups. It was also seen that the first and the second post-tests were not significantly different in terms of the mean total scores, and both groups retained their gains in the second immediate post-test. Overall, the study results displayed that through written corrective feedback trails, either direct or indirect, the students’ writing performance was developed. The findings also indicated that such trails were useful for improving the level of accuracy in writing performance. The study findings may have certain implications for writing courses in foreign language teaching process. It can be suggested that using corrective feedback in writing courses may boost students’ enthusiasm for producing texts in the target language.
Keywords
written corrective feedback
direct and indirect feedback
comprehensive corrective feedback
Al-Rubai'ey, F., & Nassaji, H. (2013). Direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback: A matter of suitability rather than superiority. In M. Mahmoud, & R. Al Mahrooqi (Eds.), Issues in TEFL in the Arab World (pp. 203-231). Muscat, Oman: Sultan Qaboos University Press.
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, 191-205.
Blanca, M. J., Alarcón, R., Arnau, J., Bono, R., & Bendayan, R. (2017). Non-normal data: Is ANOVA still a valid option? Psicothema, 29(4), 552-557.
Cangür, Ş., Sungur, M., & Ankaralı, H. (2018). The Methods Used in Nonparametric Covariance Analysis. Duzce Medical Journal, 20(1), 1-6. doi:10.18678/dtfd.424774
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 2-18.
Faraji, M. N., Dowlatabadi, H. R., Moelaie, B., Rahmanpanah, R. (2023). Investigating ESP Needs Analysis in Iranian Universities: The Case of Social Sciences Students. Teaching    English Language, 17(2), 103-133.
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, 49-62.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Field, A. (2018). Discovery statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. London, UK: Sage Publications LTD.
Gholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A., & Marzban, A. (2014). An investigation of meta-linguistic corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 316-320.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merril, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of Dynamic Corrective Feedback on ESL Writing Accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hirvela, A. R. (2004). Connecting Reading & Writing in Second Language Writing Instruction. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K., & Anan, E. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of error: The effects of first language and experience. System, 34(4), 509-519.
Javan Amani, Z., Sadeghi, K., & Alavinia, P. (2024). Combined effect of the phase of explicit             instruction and feedback timing on task performance and grammar acquisition.           Teaching English Language, 18(2), 69-92.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: a critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.
Kéry, M., & Hatfield, J. S. (2003). Normality of raw data in general linear models: The most widespread myth in statistics. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, 84(2), 92-94.
Larson-Hall, J. (2016). A guide to doing research in second language acquisition with SPSS and R. New York, NY: Routledge.
Liu, Y. (2008). The Effects of Error Feedback in Second Language Writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
Lopez, M. B., Steendam, E. V., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850.
Mizumoto, A., & Takeuchi, O. (2018). Modeling a prototypical use of language learning strategies: Decision tree-based methods in multiple contexts. In R. L. Oxford, & C. M. Amerstorfer (Eds.), Language Learning strategies and individual learner characteristics: Situation strategy use in diverse contexts (pp. 99-122). New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Moscal, B. M., & Leydens, J. A. (2000). Scoring Rubric Development: Validity and Reliability. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(10). doi:https://doi.org/10.7275/q7rm-gg74
Nicklin , C., & Plonsky, L. (2020). Outliers in L2 research in applied linguistics: A synthesis and data re-analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 26-55. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190520000057
Olejnik, S. F., & Algina , J. (1984). Parametric ANCOVA and the rank transform ANCOVA When the data are conditionally non-normal and heteroscedastic. Journal of Behavioral and Educational Statistics, 9(2), 129-149.
Olejnik, S. F., & Algina, J. (1985). A Review of Nonparametric Alternatives To Analysis of Covariance. Evaluation Review, 9(1), 51-83. doi:10.1177/0193841X8500900104
Ricci, V. (2005). Fitting Distributions with R. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Ricci-distributions-en.pdf
Rousseau, J. -J. (2018). Essay on the Origin of Languages. In J. Rousseau, & V. Gourevitch (Ed.), Rousseau: The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings (pp. 257-310). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning Teaching: The Essential Guide to English Language Teaching. Oxford, UK: Macmillan Education.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective Feedback in Language Teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.
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, 556-569.
Shielzeth, H., Dingemanse, N. J., Nakagawa, S., Westneat, D. F., Allegue, H., Teplitsky, C., & Araya-Ajoy, Y. G. (2020). Robustness of linear mixed‐effects models to violations of distributional assumptions. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 11(9), 1141-1152.
Shooshtari, Z., Bavizade, Kh., & Jalilifar, A. R. (2024). Incorporating feedback timing into learning and         retention of vocabulary and morpho-syntax: Focus on Iranian EFL      learners in a computer-mediated communication context. Teaching English                 Language, 18(1), 59-97.
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145.
Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken , F. (2012). Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners' Written Accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
ZamelStorch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. IJES, 10, 29-46.
 Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A., (2024). A cross-cultural study into the utility of diverse written corrective feedback strategies in medicine students’ ESP writing courses. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 12(2), 150-169. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijscl.2024.2025600.3436
Teaching English Language
Volume 20, Issue 1
January 2026
Pages 139-177

  • Receive Date 10 September 2024
  • Revise Date 09 December 2024
  • Accept Date 11 April 2025