Home Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on College EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy and Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on College EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy and Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition

  • Haiyang Sun

    Haiyang SUN is an associate professor at the Department of Foreign Languages, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests range from language testing, second language acquisition, to cross-cultural communication and teacher education.

         and Wenbo QI

    Wenbo QI is an English teacher at Fengtai School of the High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China. Her research interests focus on second language acquisition.
Published/Copyright: August 21, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
From the journal Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 45 Issue 3

Abstract

Set at the interface between second language acquisition and second language writing, this study examines how different types of written corrective feedback (WCF) influence the writing accuracy of Chinese college students learning English as a Foreign Language (EFL) and whether WCF facilitates the students’ grasp of the focused linguistic knowledge. The participants (n = 60) were divided into direct correction group (n = 20), indirect error-coding group (n = 20) and metalinguistic explanation group (n = 20). The three groups wrote four essays in two months and received WCF for the first three essays on the five targeted error types, namely tense errors, confusion of different forms of a word, word (articles, prepositions, etc.) missing, errors in subject-verb agreement and inappropriate verb-noun collocations. The results show that all three types of WCF improved students’ writing accuracy but none of them had any statistical advantage, and the metalinguistic WCF was more effective than the other two forms in facilitating the acquisition of the targeted linguistic features. These results shed some light on teaching and consolidation of language points through writing in EFL contexts.

Keywords: written corrective feedback; feedback for accuracy; feedback for acquisition; writing accuracy; explicit knowledge

About the authors

Haiyang Sun

Haiyang SUN is an associate professor at the Department of Foreign Languages, the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences. Her research interests range from language testing, second language acquisition, to cross-cultural communication and teacher education.

Wenbo QI

Wenbo QI is an English teacher at Fengtai School of the High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China. Her research interests focus on second language acquisition.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the anonymous reviewers, the editor in chief, and the copy editors of the Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics for their constructive suggestions on revising our paper.

References

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8Search in Google Scholar

Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Heinle & Heinle.Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.10.1177/1362168808089924Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009a). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009b). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.10.1093/elt/ccn043Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.10.1093/applin/amp016Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095056Search in Google Scholar

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), 191-205.10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar

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), 267-296.10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9Search in Google Scholar

Cosgun Ögeyik, M. (2018). The comparative effectiveness of noticing in language learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56(4), 377-400.10.1515/iral-2016-0049Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, R. (2002). Methodological options in grammar teaching materials. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 155-179). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

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), 353-371.10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.10.1177/1362168810375367Search in Google Scholar

Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. F. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.10.2307/3587804Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.10.1017/S0272263109990490Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (3rd edition). Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.10.4324/9781410611505Search in Google Scholar

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-XSearch in Google Scholar

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, 24-34.10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006Search in Google Scholar

Han, Y., & Ellis, R. (1998). Implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge and general language proficiency. Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 1-23.10.1177/136216889800200102Search in Google Scholar

Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, 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. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.21378110.5054/tq.2010.213781Search in Google Scholar

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163.10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4Search in Google Scholar

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.xSearch in Google Scholar

Kurzer, K. (2018). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 52(1), 5-33.10.1002/tesq.366Search in Google Scholar

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.xSearch in Google Scholar

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524-536.10.1017/S0261444819000247Search in Google Scholar

Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lunsford, A. A., & Lunsford, K. J. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life”: A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781-806.10.58680/ccc20086677Search in Google Scholar

Manchón, R. M. (2011). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts: Lessons from research. In T. Cimasko & M. Reichelt (Eds.), Foreign language writing instruction: Principles and practices. Parlor Press.Search in Google Scholar

Mawlawi Diab, N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.10.1016/j.asw.2015.02.001Search in Google Scholar

Mclaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Muranoi, H. (2008). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673.10.1111/0023-8333.00142Search in Google Scholar

Nicolas-Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848-873.10.1111/modl.12592Search in Google Scholar

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375-389.10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004Search in Google Scholar

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, 136216881987918. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216881987918210.1177/1362168819879182Search in Google Scholar

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. A. N. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-96.10.2307/3586390Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.10.1093/applin/11.2.129Search in Google Scholar

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.xSearch in Google Scholar

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), 556-569.10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306.10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Search in Google Scholar

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131.10.1111/lang.12029Search in Google Scholar

Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282.10.1111/modl.12212Search in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.xSearch in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003Search in Google Scholar

Vafaee, P., Suzuki, Y., & Kachisnke, I. (2016). Validating grammaticality judgment tests: Evidence from two new psycholinguistic measures. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(1), 59-95.10.1017/S0272263115000455Search in Google Scholar

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), 1-41.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.xSearch in Google Scholar

Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 270-275.10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.005Search in Google Scholar

Yang, H., Gui, S., & Yang, D. (2005). An analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ errors based on CLEC. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, H., & Weir, C. (1998). Validation study of the National College English Test. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix. Pretest and Posttest Items

Items used in the pretest

  1. Choosing the right dictionary depends what you want to use it for.

  2. He keeps silent and had been leaning against the wall for a long time.

  3. They don’t think it could make their families stable and their own life easily.

  4. Every wizard has to find the only magic wand that fit him well.

  5. Don’t think in the old way and try to make some new ideas.

  6. A math problem was being discussed when I enter the classroom.

  7. On Mid-Autumn Day, many people would go back home to reunion with their families.

  8. Recalling such time always make me think of my high school life.

  9. Lily has an open mind and likes to receive new ideas.

  10. It seemed that she suddenly see the light she had dreamed to see.

  11. They must show their enthusiasm for job and devote themselves to it.

  12. The teacher taught well, but the students didn’t learn a lot of knowledge from him.

  13. It’s pleasure for him to dedicate his energy and even his life to his research work.

  14. How to reduce the waste of food remain a problem in China.

  15. She felt terrible ashamed for not telling others the truth.

Items used in the posttest

  1. China is a large country with a population accounting for one fifth of world population.

  2. As I have said above, this kind of behavior, which was supposed to help us, just make things worse.

  3. A person who has this kind of cancer has no chance to recovery and suffers from extreme pain.

  4. It is no doubt that we should carry out a plan that help the poor children.

  5. The problem is that the person who did real contribution couldn’t get the reward.

  6. Many people threw their trash here and there, and our environment becomes dirty.

  7. I kept reassuring them but deeply in my heart I knew we had no hope.

  8. The beautiful sculptures of Luis Jimenez has received acclaim not only in New Mexico, but also in New York.

  9. Many resources will be used to build a simple plastic bag.

  10. Some children become dependent on their parents because they were not able to make decisions on their own.

  11. Give the children some freedom and they will have better knowledge of how to be independent.

  12. Therefore, we must take action to enlarge our awareness of protecting the endangered animals.

  13. People were usually curious when they first arrived a foreign country.

  14. The use of the new materials bring lots of benefits not only to us, but also to the future generations.

  15. I failed the mid-term examination, which made me great disappointed.

Published Online: 2022-08-21
Published in Print: 2022-08-26

© 2022 BFSU, FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Early Bilingual Vocabulary Development Among Low-SES Ethnic Minority Learners in China: The Case of Uyghur and Kazak Children
  3. “Even I Can Do It”: Chinese Ethnolinguistic Minority Learners’ Investment in Creative Writing and Its Impact
  4. Research on the Students’ Attitudes Towards Multilingualism: Li Minority Students in Hainan
  5. Teaching Chinese to Ethnic Minority Students in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review
  6. Language Education for Ethnolinguistic Minority Students in China: A Review
  7. On Identity, Motivation, and Multilingual Education in Asian Contexts
  8. Teacher Development
  9. Motivational Practices in Foreign Language Teaching: From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory
  10. English Teachers’ Beliefs About Multilingual Awareness in L3 Learning and Their Teaching Practice in Chinese EFL Context
  11. Cross-Cultural Communications
  12. Developing Students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence Through Threads of Personal Experiences: A Reflective Approach
  13. Second Language Writing
  14. Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on College EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy and Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition
  15. Discourse Analysis
  16. Exploring Generic Features in China-Africa Corporate Advertising: A Critical Genre Analysis
  17. Abstracts
  18. Chinese Abstracts
https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0310
Keywords for this article
written corrective feedback; feedback for accuracy; feedback for acquisition; writing accuracy; explicit knowledge

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Early Bilingual Vocabulary Development Among Low-SES Ethnic Minority Learners in China: The Case of Uyghur and Kazak Children
  3. “Even I Can Do It”: Chinese Ethnolinguistic Minority Learners’ Investment in Creative Writing and Its Impact
  4. Research on the Students’ Attitudes Towards Multilingualism: Li Minority Students in Hainan
  5. Teaching Chinese to Ethnic Minority Students in Hong Kong: A Systematic Review
  6. Language Education for Ethnolinguistic Minority Students in China: A Review
  7. On Identity, Motivation, and Multilingual Education in Asian Contexts
  8. Teacher Development
  9. Motivational Practices in Foreign Language Teaching: From the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory
  10. English Teachers’ Beliefs About Multilingual Awareness in L3 Learning and Their Teaching Practice in Chinese EFL Context
  11. Cross-Cultural Communications
  12. Developing Students’ Intercultural Communicative Competence Through Threads of Personal Experiences: A Reflective Approach
  13. Second Language Writing
  14. Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on College EFL Students’ Writing Accuracy and Linguistic Knowledge Acquisition
  15. Discourse Analysis
  16. Exploring Generic Features in China-Africa Corporate Advertising: A Critical Genre Analysis
  17. Abstracts
  18. Chinese Abstracts
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2022-0310/html
Scroll to top button