The main purpose of this literature review is to study the impacts of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on a student, in the case of Second Language Writing. Corrective feedback may be defined as a process in the field of education where the student receives a feedback from the teacher on his or her performance. There are two kinds of corrective feedback – direct and indirect, which will be explored in greater detail in the following sections of the report. “Direct Feedback” is that when teachers highlight the mistakes or errors to the student (Ferris & Roberts, 2001, 163). On the other hand, “Indirect Feedback” does not highlight the errors. Teachers rather indicate the errors (Ferris & Roberts, 2001, 163-164).
In the case of second language writing or SLW, corrective feedback is considered to be one of the most important aspects which determine the education or the academic progress of the concerned students. In Direct Corrective Feedback, the teacher providing the feedback provides the student with the correction. For instance, in Second Language Writing, if the student has made an error, the teacher provides him with the correct solution. On the other hand, in the case of Indirect Corrective Feedback, the student is corrected by the teacher but the correction is not provided. For instance, if a student has made an error in his or her writing, it will be pointed out to the student by the teacher. The teacher will also hint at what the mistake was, but will not point it out to the student. In other words, in this method, a student is expected to correct his or her own errors. When it comes to Second Language Writing, feedback is of the utmost importance. This is because it helps the students understand where they are going wrong. It also enables the students to understand their own mistakes and correct them and avoid them in the long run. Furthermore, it also facilitates a healthy relationship between the student and teacher, where the former is able to open up to the latter and seek help in matters related to education. From the teachers’ perspective, the topic is immensely helpful because this will help them select the best of the types of corrective feedback. It is important as well to make it understandable to students and help them improve their second language studies. Definitely, a good feedback approach will help teachers communicate the errors in an appropriate manner. Students will also be able to cope with the system. Moreover, an effective coordination between the teachers and students will happen, which eventually will impact on the overall academic performance of the teachers.
“Written corrective feedback or WCF can significantly help students in understanding their second language studies”.
According to Westmcott (2017, p. 19-20), corrective feedback is crucial as far as written work is concerned in the case of Second Language Writing. However, the question arises as to the appropriate method of providing corrective feedback. The author claims that there are two categories of corrective feedback – direct and indirect, as defined above. In the case of indirect feedback, there are numerous subcategories with regards to the kind of error. For instance, if there is a grammar error, a teacher may highlight the location of the error but not mention what the actual mistake is. This research paper focuses on intermediate learners at a Chilean university, where six students engaged in Second Language Writing were studied. The study clearly showed that students preferred indirect corrective feedback as compared to direct corrective feedback. This meant that students perceive an indirect corrective approach to be more beneficial as compared to a direct approach.
Van Beuningen, de Jongand Kuiken(2008, p. 281) have a different opinion altogether. While most students and teachers believe that corrective feedback could prove to be beneficial for students, some critics are of the opinion that corrective feedback in writing is ineffective, unnecessary and may even prove to be detrimental to the learning of a student. However, the authors in this research counter this argument and claim that direct and indirect corrective feedback could be effective for a student in both short and long terms. So far, there has very little research on the long-term impacts of direct and indirect corrective feedback, with most researches stating that the above have almost no impact on accuracy improvement. However, this research compares students who were provided direct and indirect corrective feedback against students were who were not. The results of the research showed that corrective feedback can be immensely helpful in improving the learning capacity of the student. Moreover, contrary to Westmacott (2017), this research shows that it is direct corrective feedback which has a long-term impact on the accuracy improvement of a student as compared to indirect corrective feedback.
Chandler (2003, p. 268-269) is of a different opinion and takes up the same issue from a different perspective. The author, in this case, is of the opinion that the correction of a student’s lexical and grammatical errors during the assignment would lead to a reduction of such errors. In other words, the author hypothesizes that corrective feedback would positively affect the quality and fluency of a student as far as writing s concerned. Moreover, the article also recommends ways on how the error should be pointed out. The way a teacher corrects the error of a student would determine his learning capacity. For instance, in the case of indirect corrections, the article mentions that highlighting the location of the error is important for students. The research paper also claims direct corrective feedback is the most beneficial option for students because it is faster and more convenient.
Truscott (1996, p. 328) puts forth an argument that is completely opposite of the previous pieces of research. He says that although grammar correction is one of the most integral aspects of second language writing, he believes that grammar correction (both direct and indirect) should be banned and prevented under all costs. This is because the author believes that grammar correction has no impact on learning capacity and is a waste of time and is ineffective. This is mainly owing to the kind of correction procedures that are utilized by the students. The paper also suggests that correction of grammar could have adverse effects on the student, for it could lead to negative impressions and even lower their confidence, which would hamper their ability to learn.
Seiffedin& El-Sakka, (2017) is of the opinion that over pressure on the feedback regarding the error correction may push the students towards performing under a stressed condition. He also suggests that and if the feedback is received in an unthreatening manner by electronic communication channels such as e-mails might help the student to perform in a relaxed manner. The author is so firm in his belief since the findings of the research suggest that those students have performed remarkably better who have received electronic feedback than those students who have not on their writing accuracy. The principle instrument of the study was a pre-post writing test. The research is based on a survey of forty –eight EFL students in the kindergarten section. The authors have recommended to the teachers that they should change their methods of teaching and feedbacks must be given through a combination of the direct and indirect method. He further highlights that the relationship between the students and the teachers must go beyond the lectures and connect online too.
In this regard, as per the view of Lalande (1984), the problem –solving techniques as well as the error awareness puts beneficial effects on the writing skill development. He further suggests that these techniques have helped the students from committing more grammatical mistakes and also orthographic errors. As the research is based on the detailed investigation of an experimental group of students who have extremely outperformed in eleven out of twelve non-lexical error categories. The research was conducted on two student’s groups. The first one is the control group and the other is the experimental group. The experiment was highly effective as it collected the data that clearly points towards the effectiveness of the techniques implemented to develop the writing skills of the students of German language at the intermediate level in the Pennsylvania State University. The author puts focus on the scoring of composition in a systematic manner instead of exception at such level.
The so-called written corrective feedback or the WCF has a controversial issue that has been examined in the article by Ferris et al., (2013). The author has conducted the research using the qualitative method and multiple-case study design so that the learners’ responses are individually observed and examined. It has also helped to learn about the self-reported strategies in order to utilize it. The data of the research has been collected by various questionnaires, from four of the texts per student and also markings of the errors and revision lessons. The findings of the research suggest that the techniques of WCF or one to one description of the errors are useful, as informed by the participants. However, the authors also suggest that the students’ ability to self- edit and composing is kind of limited by the formal knowledge of rules of language. At last, the article specifically recommends that the teachers must not restrict themselves and take a tuned approach to go beyond only sticking to the written texts of the students.
The knowledge of how explicit the error feedback should be is also an important concern in this regard. The article by Ferris & Roberts (2001), is highly beneficial as it demonstrates the issue in the best possible way. The main matter of concern continues as determining whether the error feedback is responsible for improving the overall quality of their writing as well as enhancing the accuracy level of the students. Although from the past have suggested that students do improve on their accuracy levels with the passage of time due to the error feedbacks received from the students. However, the one aspect that is how much explicit the feedbacks should be that plays an important role in supporting the students self-edit their texts has been less examined. The structure of the research rests on an experimental classroom of 72 ESL students of University level. These students had different abilities to self-edit their texts. The findings of the research demonstrated that the coded marking of the errors is equal to the less explicit feedback which is helpful for the students to self –edit their own texts.
In the article of Eslami (2014), the truthfulness of the debate of Truscott who published an article in the year 1996, claiming that WCF is harmful or ineffective, has been examined. Truscott’s debate did the best part by alerting the field experts of regarding satisfactory research to conduct the correction feedback process with more effective CF techniques in order the ensure the improvement of the students’ accuracy level. There were sixty –six well learned EFL students as the participants of the study. Three types of tests were being experimented in the students which include a pre-test, immediate post-test and also delayed post-test. The results showed that those students who received indirect feedbacks from their supervisors outperformed those students who received direct feedback both on the delayed post-test as well as the immediate post-test. The author argues that there is a kind of connection between the writing accuracy and the WCF. He further asserts that error feedbacks are highly important as it enables the students to utilize the scope of developing their interlanguage system. Hence, it is useful especially when the error correction is focused on the erroneous linguistic form.
On a contrary note, Ellis et al., (2008) are of the opinion that the case of the teachers is made strong who provide written corrective feedback. As far as English articles are concerned, the written CF is the most effective. The author further suggests that the written correction feedback is highly effective if it is directed towards narrowly focused or specifically focused on errors such as the grammar error or sentence structure error and many others. When a wide range of learner errors are corrected, it becomes difficult to point out the specific errors of the individuals one by one. In order to demonstrate the issue more clearly, an activity has been conducted that compares the focused CF as well as the unfocussed CF. However, it seems to be more research on the issue as there has been no particular conclusion. The experiment of the study displays that those students who received focused corrections, only had few article errors while those students who received unfocused corrections, had more errors other than article errors.
John Bitchener’s views on this topic must be included as he is also an important contributor on the WCF and second language acquisition issues. Bitchener’s article poses another perspective suggesting that those students who were the recipients of written corrective feedback immediately after the test performed far better than those students who were in the control group. The research is based on a long time observation that is 2 months on 75 ESL international intermediate students in Auckland, New Zealand. One group received written corrective feedback and the control group received no feedback. The aim of the study is to investigate whether the corrective feedback method on the ESL students comes out as an improved accuracy level among the students. The author drags the findings and perspectives of Fathman and Whalley (1990) and counters that even if corrective feedback is a valuable technique, it must not be left unnoticed that the post-test feedbacks only required a revision of the text and not a re-do of the text.
The above study aimed at exploring the studies of various scholars and focusing on their findings in order to come to a definite conclusion. The articles of the above-mentioned authors mostly support the view that the corrective feedback is of utmost importance for the students who are going through the phase of second language acquisition. As obtained from the article, there is existing evidence in favor of corrective feedback (Bitchener, 2008, 114). It was mentioned in the article that direct correction of error done by the teacher led to more accurate revisions as compared to indirect feedback (Chandler, 2003, 270). The teachers are recommended to either change or modify the techniques they apply to the feedback system and add opportunities for students to ask questions be it during in-class revision sessions and in conferences (Ferris et al., 2013, 322). These kinds of students get immediately affected by the rude expression and perform further in a stressful way. It harms their psychological status. Another finding suggests that there exist a strong linkage between writing accuracy, and written corrective feedback (Eslami, 2014, 451). They must be given the opportunity to self-edit their texts following the instruction of the supervisor. Another finding is that the immediate tests after the feedbacks display better improvement if the correction has been done with specific comments than after a long period (Ellis et al., 2008, 365). The students must be guided by the teachers and not bullied by them or insulted by them with no correction.
Conclusion
Therefore, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that written corrective feedback or WCF plays a major role in improving the accuracy level of the students of second language studies. However, the use of appropriate techniques is necessary to leverage the benefits of corrective feedback. It is advisable for teachers to use different techniques while dealing with students as they can be negatively impacted by the rude behaviors of teachers. This study has also found direct corrective feedback as the best to deal with students intending for the second language acquisition. However, there should be more research works on the topic to identify whether direct corrective feedback has an upper hand on the indirect.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
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. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
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. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452.
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307-329. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
Ferris, D., & 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. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Lalande, J. F. (1984). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Foreign Language Annals, 17(2), 109-118. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01715.x
Seiffedin, A. H., & El-Sakka, S. M. F. (2017). The impact of direct-indirect corrective e-feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 166. doi:10.17507/tpls.0703.02
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., &Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.
Westmacott, A., & Universidad Chileno-Británica de Cultura. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, 22(1), 17-32.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download