Home The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on the Grammatical Accuracy of Passive Voice Tenses
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on the Grammatical Accuracy of Passive Voice Tenses

  • Syed Muhammad Mujtaba

    Syed Muhammad Mujtaba holds a PhD in English Language Studies. He has published in reputed international journals, such as Reading & Writing Quarterly, Assessing Writing, Foreign Language Annals, and International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL). He has taught English to both undergraduate and graduate students. His research and teaching interests include L2 writing, language teaching pedagogies, corrective feedback and technology in teaching and learning English.

     EMAIL logo     and Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh

    Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh is an Associate Professor at the School of Languages, Literacies, and Translation at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Her research and teaching interests are language, literacy, and research in higher education. She has published widely in this area.
Published/Copyright: May 30, 2025
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information
Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics
From the journal Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics Volume 48 Issue 2

Abstract

Although substantial research shows the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) in treating simple grammar structures, more research is still needed to refute Truscott’s claim that WCF may not work on complex grammar structures. Similarly, a previous body of research has shown that the degree of explicitness of feedback moderates the efficacy of WCF. However, most WCF studies have systematically manipulated only direct corrective feedback. The current study was therefore conducted to fill these gaps in the literature. To this end, five intact classes of Functional English were recruited and later randomly assigned to four treatment groups: DCF, DCF+ME, ICF, and ICF+ME, and one control group that received no feedback. All the groups took part in three WCF treatment sessions, during which they wrote two different pieces: a news report and a picture description. Later, only the treatment groups received the WCF. The WCF’s effectiveness was measured by writing tests and grammaticality judgment tasks (GJT). The results demonstrated that WCF helped L2 learners improve their grammatical accuracy of passive voice tenses. The study further showed that the group that received the most explicit type of WCF fared better than the ones that received the least explicit type of WCF. Important pedagogical implications for ESL/EFL teachers are discussed.

Keywords: written corrective feedback; direct corrective feedback; indirect corrective feedback; metalinguistic explanation; passive voice

About the authors

Syed Muhammad Mujtaba

Syed Muhammad Mujtaba holds a PhD in English Language Studies. He has published in reputed international journals, such as Reading & Writing Quarterly, Assessing Writing, Foreign Language Annals, and International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (IRAL). He has taught English to both undergraduate and graduate students. His research and teaching interests include L2 writing, language teaching pedagogies, corrective feedback and technology in teaching and learning English.

Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh

Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh is an Associate Professor at the School of Languages, Literacies, and Translation at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Her research and teaching interests are language, literacy, and research in higher education. She has published widely in this area.

References

Aitken, R. (1992). Teaching tenses: Ideas for presenting and practicing tenses in English. Pearson Education.Search in Google Scholar

Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all?: Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606026810.1017/S0272263106060268Search in Google Scholar

Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702-726. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F136216881877092110.1177/1362168818770921Search in Google Scholar

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.2007.11.00410.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004Search in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J. (2016). To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development? ITL—International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167(2), 111-131. https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit10.1075/itl.167.2.01bitSearch in Google Scholar

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.10.4324/9780203832400Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp01610.1093/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.00210.1016/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.00110.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001Search in Google Scholar

Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.10067110.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671Search in Google Scholar

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course (2nd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-910.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9Search in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult?: A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(1), 1-25. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.x10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00294.xSearch in Google Scholar

DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Age in learning and teaching grammar. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt010610.1002/9781118784235.eelt0106Search in Google Scholar

Ekiert, M., & di Gennaro, K. (2019). Focused written corrective feedback and linguistic target mastery: Conceptual replication of Bitchener and Knoch (2010). Language Teaching, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481900012010.1017/S0261444819000120Search 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), Perspectives on response. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007Search in Google Scholar

Fu, M., & Li, S. (2020). The effects of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on L2 development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 44(1), 2-34. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226312000038810.1017/S0272263120000388Search in Google Scholar

Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed-method study of written CF types, error categories, and proficiency levels [Doctoral dissertation]. Auckland University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Guo, Q., & Barrot, J. S. (2019). Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 261-276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.154032010.1080/10573569.2018.1540320Search in Google Scholar

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00346543029848710.3102/003465430298487Search in Google Scholar

Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197372Search in Google Scholar

Jung, J. Y. (2019). Effects of implicit and explicit focus on form on L2 acquisition of the English passive [Doctoral dissertation]. Columbia University.Search in Google Scholar

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1218910.1111/modl.12189Search in Google Scholar

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), 28-52.10.1558/isla.37949Search in Google Scholar

Khezrlou, S. (2019). Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal, 49(5), 568-580. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2019.165676510.1080/09571736.2019.1656765Search in Google Scholar

Lee, I., Luo, N., & Mak, P. (2021). Teachers’ attempts at focused written corrective feedback in situ. Journal of Second Language Writing, 54, 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.10080910.1016/j.jslw.2021.100809Search in Google Scholar

Li, S., & Roshan, S. (2019). The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.00310.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310426302110.1017/S0272263104263021Search in Google Scholar

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481200036510.1017/S0261444812000365Search in Google Scholar

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.2020.10046910.1016/j.asw.2020.100469Search in Google Scholar

Mujtaba, S. M., Parkash, R., Singh, M. K. M., & Kamyabi Gol, A. (2022). The effect of computer-mediated feedback on L2 accuracy. Does the difference in learners’ perceptual style moderate the effectiveness of the feedback? Computers in the Schools, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2022.204189110.1080/07380569.2022.2041891Search in Google Scholar

Mujtaba, S. M., Reynolds, B. L., Parkash, R., & Singh, M. K. M. (2021). Individual and collaborative processing of written corrective feedback affects second language writing accuracy and revision. Assessing Writing, 50,10056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.10056610.1016/j.asw.2021.100566Search in Google Scholar

Mujtaba, S. M., & Singh, M. K. M. (2023). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in ESL/EFL context: A synthesis of present and past studies. MEXTESOL Journal, 47(1), 1-9.10.61871/mj.v47n1-7Search in Google Scholar

Mujtaba, S. M., Singh, M. K. M., Tiefu, Z., Nisar, A., & Rakesh, P. (2022). Unfocused written corrective feedback and L2 learners’ writing accuracy: Relationship between feedback type and learner belief. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.1591910.17323/jle.2022.15919Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.xSearch in Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar

Nassaji, H. (2016). Research timeline: Form-focused instruction and second language acquisition. Language Teaching, 49(1), 35-62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481500040310.1017/S0261444815000403Search in Google Scholar

Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-18.10.1186/s40468-019-0084-9Search in Google Scholar

Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Toronto.Search in Google Scholar

Roshan, S. (2017). Written corrective feedback, individual differences and the second language acquisition of the English passive voice [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auckland University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect those beliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Auckland University of Technology.Search in Google Scholar

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Search 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, 255-283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.xSearch in Google Scholar

Sherpa, S. Z. (2021). Effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on Bhutanese learners’ grammatical accuracy over time. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(1), 574-603.Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.1202910.1111/lang.12029Search in Google Scholar

Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00562.xSearch in Google Scholar

Stefanou, C., & Révész, 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.1221210.1111/modl.12212Search in Google Scholar

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/11918110.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181Search in Google Scholar

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.01710.1016/j.system.2018.12.017Search in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. University Press. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x10.1111/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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.00310.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Truscott, J. (2020). The efficacy of written corrective feedback: A critique of a meta-analysis [Unpublished manuscript]. Taiwan Tsing Hua University.Search in Google Scholar

Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

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(1), 279-296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.203443910.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439Search 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.xSearch in Google Scholar

Zabihi, R., & Erfanitabar, D. (2021). The revision effects of varying degrees of written corrective feedback explicitness on L2 learners’ writings. RELC Journal, 00336882211054649. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0033688221105464910.1177/00336882211054649Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, T. (2021). The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge development. System, 99, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.10249310.1016/j.system.2021.102493Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2025-05-30
Published in Print: 2025-04-28

© 2025 BFSU, FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Second Language Acquisition
  3. Asymmetry Across Stress Patterns: Production and Perception of English Word Stress by Chinese ESL Learners
  4. The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on the Grammatical Accuracy of Passive Voice Tenses
  5. An Inquiry Into the Effect of Peers on L2 Motivation Under the L2 Motivational Self System
  6. Using L1 in English-Medium Content-Based Classrooms: A Case Study of Teachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong
  7. Comparing the Effect of CHL Background on Chinese Receptive Vocabulary Breadth Between Indonesian and Thai CS/FL Learners: A Mixed-Methods Study
  8. Teacher and Learner Factors Shaping Classroom Emotions: Evidence From High School Students in Xinjiang, China
  9. Testing, Evaluation and Assessment
  10. Appropriation and Actualization of a Formative Assessment Initiative at a Chinese Local University: The Power-Process Nexus
  11. Teacher Development
  12. Facts and Fallacies About English Language Teaching: Evidence From the Literature on Job Advertisements
  13. Abstracts
  14. Chinese Abstracts
https://doi.org/10.1515/CJAL-2025-0203
Keywords for this article
written corrective feedback; direct corrective feedback; indirect corrective feedback; metalinguistic explanation; passive voice

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Second Language Acquisition
  3. Asymmetry Across Stress Patterns: Production and Perception of English Word Stress by Chinese ESL Learners
  4. The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on the Grammatical Accuracy of Passive Voice Tenses
  5. An Inquiry Into the Effect of Peers on L2 Motivation Under the L2 Motivational Self System
  6. Using L1 in English-Medium Content-Based Classrooms: A Case Study of Teachers’ Perspectives in Hong Kong
  7. Comparing the Effect of CHL Background on Chinese Receptive Vocabulary Breadth Between Indonesian and Thai CS/FL Learners: A Mixed-Methods Study
  8. Teacher and Learner Factors Shaping Classroom Emotions: Evidence From High School Students in Xinjiang, China
  9. Testing, Evaluation and Assessment
  10. Appropriation and Actualization of a Formative Assessment Initiative at a Chinese Local University: The Power-Process Nexus
  11. Teacher Development
  12. Facts and Fallacies About English Language Teaching: Evidence From the Literature on Job Advertisements
  13. Abstracts
  14. 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-2025-0203/html
Scroll to top button