Cover not available

Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 168:1 (2017) ► pp.91–128

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers

Examining attitudes and preferences

 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
 | KU Leuven
Published online: 5 October 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.04bon
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of comprehensive feedback on learners’ grammatical accuracy during text revision and in new writing tasks in light of proficiency level. It also sought to determine to what extent learners’ proficiency level plays a role in their feedback preferences and attitudes towards the feedback. The participants were 52 low proficiency and 39 high proficiency foreign language university learners, who were randomly assigned to a direct corrective feedback, a metalinguistic feedback with rule reminders, and a self-correction group. All learners wrote four compositions and completed a questionnaire after the treatment to elicit their attitudes towards the feedback and their feedback preferences. Results showed that the treatment effectively enhanced both low and high proficiency learners’ immediate grammatical accuracy and accuracy improvement. Also, a relation between proficiency level and learners’ attitudes towards the feedback as well as an association between proficiency level and learners’ feedback preferences were found.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature background
    • Direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic feedback
    • The effects of comprehensive corrective feedback
    • Learner factors
  • The current study
  • Method
    • Participants and instructional context
    • Target linguistic features
    • Design and procedures
    • Materials
      • Learner profile sheet
      • Placement test
      • Writing tasks
      • Questionnaire
      • Interview
      • Coding and analysis
  • Results
    • Immediate accuracy
    • Accuracy improvement
    • Learners’ attitudes
      • Quantitative results
      • Qualitative results
    • Learners’ feedback preferences
  • Discussion
    • Grammatical accuracy
    • Attitudinal engagement
    • Feedback preferences
  • Conclusion
  • References
References (78)
References
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquee, 13(2), 95–127.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Belcher, D., & Liu, J. (2004). Conceptualizing discourse/responding to text. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 3–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). A reflection on “the language learning potential” of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development (Vol. 961). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & van den Bergh, H. (2014). Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 321, 83–100. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were…. System, 37(4), 600–613. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd edition). Princeton, NJ: Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (Second edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Leeuw, E. D., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diab, N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 241, 16–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diab, R. L. (2005a). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction and teacher feedback on writing. TESL Reporter, 38(1), 27–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005b). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case study. TESL Canada Journal, 23(1), 28–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1). Retrieved from [URL].
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193–204. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., James Hartshorn, K., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39(2), 229–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (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). New York NY: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Groenendijk, T., Janssen, T., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2013). Learning to be creative. The effects of observational learning on students’ design products and processes. Learning and Instruction, 281, 35–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamouda, A. (2011). A study of students and teachers’ preferences and attitudes towards correction of classroom written errors in Saudi EFL context. English Language Teaching, 4(3). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 207–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J. S., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141–163. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (1988). The Impact of Teacher Written Feedback on Individual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Interpersonal aspects of response: Constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Incecay, V., & Dollar, Y. K. (2011). Foreign language learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 151, 3394–3398. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, C. (1998). Errors in Language Use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 144–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46(1), 108–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). “You cannot ignore”: L2 graduate students’ response to discipline-based written feedback. In Feedback in ESL writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 266–285). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 66–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, Thompson A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). Second Language Learners’ Beliefs about Grammar Instruction and Error Correction. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Situating the learning-to-write and writing-to-learn dimensions of L2 writing. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language (Vol. 311, pp. 3–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McMartin-Miller, C. (2014). How much feedback is enough?: Instructor practices and student attitudes toward error treatment in second language writing. Assessing Writing, 191, 24–35. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murphy, L., & Roca de Larios, J. (2011). Feedback in second language writing: An introduction. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Nunan, D. (1986). Communicative language teaching: The learner’s view. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learner’s preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–415. < >
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. < >
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1998). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. System, 16(3), 355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sampson, A. (2012). “Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing.” System, 40(4), 494–504. < >Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback: USA: Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244–258. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202. Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures: Effects of written feedback and revision. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3–4), 285–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced language proficiency. In Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Beuningen, C., 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, 1561, 279–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Second Language Writing: Effectiveness of comprehensive CF. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (19)

Cited by 19 other publications

Brown, Dan, Qiandi Liu & Reza Norouzian
2026. Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research 30:3 ► pp. 1357 ff. DOI logo
Huang, Zhiyun & Zhanhao Jiang
2026. Text mining of syntactic complexity in L2 writing: an LDA topic modeling approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 64:1 ► pp. 523 ff. DOI logo
Hamano-Bunce, Douglas
2025. The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research 29:6 ► pp. 2460 ff. DOI logo
Obanos-Gil, María Puy & Izaskun Villarreal
2025. Collaborative Writing and Written Languaging: Effects on Accuracy. In Investigating Attention to Form and Individual Differences:Research with EFL Children [Second Language Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Htaw, Mi Chan, Daria Pipa, Namkang Sriwattanarothai, Chailerd Pichitpornchai, Reto Gubelmann, Sabine Seufert, Christina Niklaus & Siegfried Handschuh
2024. 2024 IEEE 7th Eurasian Conference on Educational Innovation (ECEI), ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Mamad, Abderrahim & Tibor Vígh
2024. EFL/ESL Teachers’ and Students’ Perceptions and Practices of Written Feedback in a Higher Education Context. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development 26:2 ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Mamad, Abderrahim & Tibor Vígh
2024. Student perspectives on preferences and reported instructor practices of written feedback in the Moroccan EFL university context. Heliyon 10:11 ► pp. e31694 ff. DOI logo
Rastgou, Ali
2024. Cyclical interplay between L2 writing, WCF processing and rewriting: Explaining modification and consolidation in L2 development. Journal of Second Language Writing 63 ► pp. 101078 ff. DOI logo
罗, 艳荣
2024. Application of Focused Written Corrective Feedback in College English Writing Classrooms: A Practical Exploration Based on Diagnostic Assessment. Advances in Education 14:10 ► pp. 1111 ff. DOI logo
Lira-Gonzales, Maria-Lourdes & Hossein Nassaji
2023. The Differential Effects of Focused and Comprehensive Corrective Feedback on Accuracy of Revision and New Writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review 79:1 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Lu, Ying
2023. Written Corrective Feedback: How can it influence adult ELLs writing performance?. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences 8 ► pp. 825 ff. DOI logo
Thi, Nang Kham, Marianne Nikolov & Krisztián Simon
2023. Higher-proficiency students’ engagement with and uptake of teacher and Grammarly feedback in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 17:3 ► pp. 690 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy, Na Luo & Pauline Mak
2022. Diagnostic Assessment of Written Accuracy: New Directions for Written Corrective Feedback in Secondary Writing Classrooms. In Assessing the English Language Writing of Chinese Learners of English, ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Yamashita, Taichi
2022. The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Man, Deliang, Meng Huat Chau & Beibei Kong
2021. Promoting student engagement with teacher feedback through rebuttal writing. Educational Psychology 41:7 ► pp. 883 ff. DOI logo
Nowbakht, Mohammad & Thierry Olive
2021. The Role of Error Type and Working Memory in Written Corrective Feedback Effectiveness on First-Language Self Error-Correction. Written Communication 38:2 ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
Pawlak, Miroslaw
2021. Corrective Feedback, Developmental Readiness, and Language Proficiency. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 733 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2019. Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching 52:4 ► pp. 524 ff. DOI logo
Bonilla López, Marisela, Elke Van Steendam, Dirk Speelman & Kris Buyse
2018. The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class. Language Learning 68:3 ► pp. 813 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue