The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners’ Written Accuracy

Catherine van Beuningen · Nivja H. de Jong · Folkert Kuiken

249 citations0/0 files storedITL Review of Applied Linguistics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning Student Assessment and Feedback Second Language Acquisition and Learning

Abstract

Abstract Among scholars there is disagreement on the benefits of corrective feedback on second language learners’ written output. While some researchers advocate the usefulness of corrective feedback, Truscott claims that all error correction is unnecessary, ineffective, and even harmful, in that it diverts time and energy away from more productive aspects of writing instruction. Until now, research outcomes cannot settle this debate since only short-term effectiveness of corrective feedback could be demonstrated. Due to methodological shortcomings, results from studies that investigated long-term effects of error correction on accuracy improvement are inconclusive. By trying to overcome some of these design related drawbacks (i.e. the lack of a proper control group and time-on task differences between treatment groups), the present study intends to make a contribution to the ongoing error correction debate. The effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback was compared to the effect of two control treatments: a treatment that offered students an extra opportunity to practice their writing skills, and a treatment in which students self-corrected their errors without any available feedback. Results show that corrective feedback can be effective in improving students’ accuracy: while short-term effects were found for both direct and indirect corrective feedback, only direct feedback proved to have a significant long-term effect. Neither of the control treatments had a significant effect on students’ accuracy.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 249 citations exist upstream.

References

1995Three functions of output in second language learning 1996The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes 2003The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing 2006Feedback on second language students' writing 2001Error feedback in L2 writing classes 1999The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to truscott (1996)2007The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately 2004The “Grammar Correction” Debate in L2 Writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?)

Cited by

2010Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions 2015Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing 2012A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF 2019Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more 2018Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.