Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Written Corrective Feedback on Second Language Composition in English

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
English Language Teaching in Pakistan

Part of the book series: English Language Teaching: Theory, Research and Pedagogy ((ELTTRP))

  • 321 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, there has been growing interest in investigating the effects of written corrective feedback in the field of English as a Second Language (ESL) (Butt & Rasul, 2014). This study analyzes the effects of written feedback on errors made by ESL students in using ‘articles’ and ‘the simple past tense’. More specifically, the following types of feedback in writing have been explored: direct feedback, indirect feedback, direct/indirect feedback with written and oral meta-linguistic feedback, and no feedback. The study reports on a six-week (1.5 months) research project with 80 students from a local college in Islamabad, which is not only the capital city of Pakistan but also one of its largest cities. Through the application of Schmidt’s, (1990) ‘noticing’ hypothesis and the use of quantitative data analysis tools such as SPSS with ANOVA, the investigation reveals a considerably positive impact of written feedback on ESL students’ writing composition. A combination of direct/indirect and meta-linguistic feedback with an overall score of 62.5% proved significantly positive in comparison to direct feedback (37.5%), indirect feedback (42.5%), and no feedback (29%). These results, hence, support earlier findings (Bitchener et al., 2009; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Ferris, 1999, 2002, 2004) that L2 learners perform better when a suitable type of feedback is applied to their written work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, W., & Bricker, R. H. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers’ perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38(1), 75–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.

    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(2), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butt, M. I., & Rasul, S. (2012). Error analysis of the writing of Pakistani college students: From causes to types of rectification. Kashmir Journal of Language Research, 15(1), 1–23.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, S. J. (1999). The effect of error types on error correction and revision. Master’s thesis, California State University, Department of English. Sacramento. Communication, 3, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). Oxford University Press.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fareed, M., Ashraf, A., & Bilal, M. (2016). ESL learners’ writing skills: Problems, factors and suggestions. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 4(2), 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (1), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second Language student writing classes. University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R. (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 (1), 49–62.

    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 (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, March14–18, 2000, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frantzen, D., & Rissell, D. (1987). Learner self-correction of written compositions: What does it show us? In B. van Patten, T. R. Dvorak, & J. F. Lee (Eds.), Foreign language learning: A research perspective (pp. 92–107). Newbury House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 329–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 71–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gul, M., & Rodrigues, S. (2012). Unveiling the Focus of a Teacher’s Written Feedback on Students’ Composition Writing in Pakistan. International Research Journal, 1(3), 59–66.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kepner, C. G. (1991). An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-language Writing Skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. (2007). The place of methods in teaching English around the world. In J. Liu (Ed.), English language teaching in China: New approaches, perspectives, and standards (pp. 13–41). Continuum International Publishing Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If Only I Had More Time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, B. J. (1999). Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The effects of error logs and grammar feedback on ESL students’ final drafts. Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saeed, A., Mehmood, U. H., Muhammad, B. Q., & Maryam, I. Q. (2015). A comparative study of the effectiveness of the direct feedback and indirect feedback methods for Urdu EFL learners’ writings. Int. J. English Lit. International Journal of English and Literature, 6 (7), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.5897/ijel2014.0698

  • Skehan, P. (1998). A cognition approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (2001). Cognition and tasks. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 183–205). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in Second Language Learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the Red Pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201–234.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–110.

    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.12029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 111–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 337–343.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error Correction, Revision, and Learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback in second. Studies, 10(2), 1–27.

    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. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.

    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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. COMSATS University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Ameena Hassan

  2. Air University, Islamabad, Pakistan

    Akhtar Abbas

Authors
  1. Ameena Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akhtar Abbas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ameena Hassan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. General Civil Aviation Authority, International Aviation Consulting and Training, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Naziha Ali Raza

  2. Dubai Men's College, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Christine Coombe

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hassan, A., Abbas, A. (2022). The Impact of Written Corrective Feedback on Second Language Composition in English. In: Ali Raza, N., Coombe, C. (eds) English Language Teaching in Pakistan. English Language Teaching: Theory, Research and Pedagogy. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7826-4_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7826-4_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-7825-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-7826-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation