Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effects of Two Forms of Written Corrective Feedback and Ambiguity Tolerance on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy

兩種形式的書面修正性回饋與模糊容忍度對英語為外語學習者寫作正確度之影響

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
English Teaching & Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The current study examines the effects of two forms of written corrective feedback (CF) and also learners’ ambiguity tolerance (AT) on L2 writing accuracy. To this end, 54 Iranian EFL learners enrolled in three intact classes participated in the study and served as two experimental groups as well as a control condition. The participants of the three conditions first took a writing task as pre-test. They were also asked to answer a questionnaire which was employed to measure the participants’ ambiguity tolerance (AT). During three treatment sessions, the participants of one experimental group received direct written CF from their teacher in response to their writing errors while the learners of the second experimental group were provided with indirect written CF that required them to self-correct their errors. The participants of the control group received no CF for their errors. Data analysis revealed that both types of written CF were effective for promoting the learners’ writing accuracy. Moreover, the findings indicated that the participants benefited more from direct feedback than indirect feedback although the difference was not statistically significant. These findings highlighted the value of teacher’s direct correction as well as learners’ self-correction. Finally, the results did not provide evidence for the moderating effects of learners’ AT on written CF effectiveness. Implications for language teachers and suggestions for further studies are presented in the study.

摘要

本研究探討兩種形式的書面修正性回饋(CF)以及學習者的模糊容忍度(AT)對第二語言寫作正確度的影響。54名來自三個班級的伊朗英語為外語學習者參與了本研究, 其中兩個班級為實驗組, 一個班級為控制組。三組的學生首先接受了一個寫作測驗作為前測, 並回答了一份問卷來評估他們的模糊容忍度。在三組中,一組實驗組的學生得到老師對他們寫作錯誤的直接書面修正性回饋; 另一組實驗組則得到間接書面修正性回饋, 要求他們自我糾正寫作錯誤; 控制組就寫作錯誤則沒有得到任何修正性回饋。資料分析結果顯示兩種形式的修正性回饋都能提高學生的寫作正確度。此外, 研究結果也顯示, 相較於間接回饋, 學生從直接回饋受益更多, 但兩者間的差異在統計上並未達顯著。研究結果突顯出老師直接修改與學生自我糾正的價值。最後, 研究結果並未能支持學習者的模糊容忍度對於書面修正性回饋的成效有任何調節效果。本文提出了對語言老師的教學啟示和對未來研究的建議。

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Adapted from “A Knight’s Tale” (www.bogglesworldesl.com)

  2. “Adapted from “A Knight’s Tale” (www.bogglesworldesl.com)

  3. Permission was obtained from www.bogglesworldesl.com

  4. permission was obtained from www.bogglesworldesl.com

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Atef-Vahid, S., Kashani, A. F., & Haddadi, M. (2011). The relationship between level of ambiguity tolerance and cloze test performance of Iranian EFL learners. LiBRI. Linguistic and Literary Broad Research and Innovation, 2(2), 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baleghizadeh, S., & Dadashi, M. (2011). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on students’ spelling errors. Profile Issues in Teachers Professional Development, 13(1), 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Başöz, T. (2015). Exploring the relationship between tolerance of ambiguity of EFL learners and their vocabulary knowledge. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4th ed.). New York: Pearson Education Company.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality., 30(1), 29–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chapelle, C., & Roberts, C. (1986). Ambiguity tolerance and field independence as predictors of proficiency in English as a second language. Language Learning, 36(1), 27–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dewaele, J.-M., & Shan Ip, T. (2013). The link between foreign language classroom anxiety, second language tolerance of ambiguity and selfrated English proficiency among Chinese learners. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 3(1), 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dewaele, J. M., & Wei, L. (2013). Is multilingualism linked to a higher tolerance of ambiguity? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: learner responses as language awareness. The modern language Journal, 94(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ehrman, M. E. (1999). Ego boundaries and tolerance of ambiguity in second language learning. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 68–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ehrman, M., & Oxford, R. (1990). Adult language learning styles and strategies in an intensive training setting. Modern Language Journal, 74(3), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ellis, R. (1997). The Study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ely, C. M. (1995). Second language tolerance of ambiguity scale. In J. Reid (Ed.), Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Erten, I. H., & Topkaya, E. Z. (2009). Understanding tolerance of ambiguity of EFL learners in reading classes at tertiary level. Novitas-royal, 3(1), 29–44.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 445–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fazio, L. L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self- editors. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Furnham, A. (1994). A content, correlational and factor analytic study of four tolerance of ambiguity Questionnaires. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(3), 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Guo, X., & Yang, Y. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ acquisition of third-person singular form and the mediating role of cognitive style. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9566-7.

  34. Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jiang, L., & Xiao, H. (2014). The efficacy of written corrective feedback and language analytic ability on Chinese learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. English Language Teaching, 7(10), 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kamran, S. K. (2011). Effect of gender on ambiguity tolerance of Iranian English language learners. Journal of Education and Practice, 2(11), 25–33.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kamran, S. K., & Maftoon, P. (2012). An analysis of the associations between ambiguity tolerance and EFL reading strategy awareness. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 188–196.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Keshavarz, M. H., & Assar, M. (2011). Reading comprehension ability and metacognitive awareness of reading strategies among high, mid and low ambiguity tolerance EAP students. Iranian Journal of Applied Language Studies, 1(2), 71–108.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lee, E. K. (1999). The effects of tolerance of ambiguity on EFL task-based writing. The SNU Journal of Education Research, 9, 117–131.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback. In Liontas, J. et al. (eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching. Blackwell, 1–10.

  43. Marzban, A., Barati, H., & Moinzadeh, A. (2012). An investigation into ambiguity tolerance in Iranian senior EFL undergraduates. English Language Teaching, 5(1), 76–85.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Oxford, R. L. (1999). Anxiety and the language learner: new insights. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in Language Learning (pp. 58–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rahimi, M. (2015). The role of individual differences in L2 Learners’ retention of written corrective feedback. Journal of Response to Writing, 1(1), 19–47.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rassaei, E. (2015a). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. Language Teaching Research. System, 49, 98–109.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rassaei, E. (2015b). Recasts, field dependence/independence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different L2 outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1), 93–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Soleimani, A. (2009). Differences in listening comprehension among high-, middle-, and lowambiguity tolerant Iranian EFL learners. Islamic Azad University, Bandarabbas, Iran: Unpublished master’s thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–253). Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

  62. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition (pp. 97–114). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Toth, P. D. (2006). Processing instruction and a role for output in second language acquisition. Language learning, 56(2), 319–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171–195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. White, C. (1999). Expectations and emergent beliefs of self-instructed language learners. System, 27(4), 443–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Foreign Languages, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

    Mina Bagheri

  2. Faculty of English Language Studies, Majan University College, Muscat, Oman

    Ehsan Rassaei

Authors
  1. Mina Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehsan Rassaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ehsan Rassaei.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Appendix. Sample story used as the testing instrument

Appendix. Sample story used as the testing instrument

A Knight’s Tale4

Once upon a time, there was a cowardly knight. One day, the knight was riding past a cave. The knight thought that the cave might contain something dangerous. Sure enough, an ogre came out of the cave. The ogre pulled out a large club. The club was covered with sharp pointy spikes. The knight took one look at the ogre with the large club and turned his horse and ran away as fast as he could.

The next day, the knight came to a bridge. There was something strange about the bridge so the knight stopped his horse before crossing the bridge. Sure enough, a troll jumped onto the bridge and started walking towards the knight. The troll had a large pointy spear. The knight took one look at the troll with the long spear and turned his horse and ran away as fast as he could.

About a week later, on a dark stormy night, the knight was walking past an old castle. The castle looked empty so the knight entered a gate and went inside to sleep. As soon as he got inside the knight saw a ghost floating in the middle of the room. The ghost turned towards the knight and started to head towards him. The knight turned and ran away of course. But, there outside the castle blocking the gate was the troll and the ogre. The ogre, the troll, and the ghost surrounded the knight and pulled him off of his horse. That was it for the knight. Footnote 4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagheri, M., Rassaei, E. The Effects of Two Forms of Written Corrective Feedback and Ambiguity Tolerance on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy. English Teaching & Learning 46, 19–38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00082-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42321-021-00082-6

Keywords

關鍵詞

Search

Navigation