CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 55EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students' writing

Open access
Jamalinesari, Ali, Rahimi, Farahnaz, Gowhary, Hsbib, Azizifar, Akbar·2015·Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness and efficacy of teacher's direct vs. indirect feedback on students’ composition writings in an EFL context. Two classes (each class 10 students) of female intermediate students in a private English language learning institute were given writing assignments for ten class sessions. The students in every class provided with either direct or indirect feedback. The results were recorded and later analyzed. The data revealed that the class with indirect feedback improved better compared to the class with direct feedback. Moreover, the study has insights and implications for teachers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research has shown a need for more targeted error correction as focused feedback on high-frequency errors improves students' writing.

    “Research, on the other hand, has shown a need for more targeted error correction (Jamalinesari et al., 2015) as focused feedback on high-frequency errors improves students' writing (Linville, 2009).”

    From Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly (2019) · cites this paper as Jamalinesari et al., 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9.3, 227-257. · DOI
  2. 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, 191-205. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bitchener, J. (2008). ‘Evidence in support of written corrective feedback’. Journal of Second Language. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12.3, 267-296. · DOI
  5. Cohen, A.D., & Cavalcanti, M.C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. · DOI
  6. Ellis, R., (1998). Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  7. 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
  8. Fathman, A.K. & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  9. Ferris, D.R. (1995). Student reaction to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29.1, 33-53. · DOI
  10. 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. · DOI
  11. Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
  12. Ferris, D. (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. · DOI · Paper page
  13. Ferris, D.R. & Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  14. 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.), 81-104. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Goldstein, L. (2001). For Kyla: What does the research say about responding to ESL writers. In T. Silva & P. Matsuda, (eds.), on second language writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 73-90.
  16. Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of second language writing, 3, 141-163. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Ferris, D.R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in L2 writing classes. Paper presented at Proceedings of the American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Vancouver, B.C., March 11-14, 2000.
  18. 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 · Paper page
  19. 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). Cambridge: Newbury House.
  20. Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language Journal, 79, 329-344. · DOI
  21. 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. · DOI
  22. 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, 305-313. · DOI
  23. Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
  24. Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66.2, 140-149. · DOI
  25. Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood, NJ.
  26. Ping, A., Pin, V.T., Wee, S. and Hwee Nah, H. (2003). Teacher feedback: A Singaporean perspective. ITL, Review of Applied Linguistics, 139 140, 47-75. · DOI
  27. Polio, C., C. Fleck & N. Leder (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7.1, 43-68. · DOI
  28. Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
  29. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93. · DOI
  30. Sheen, Y. (2007). ‘The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles’. TESOL Quarterly, 41: 255-83. · DOI
  31. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: an exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119. · DOI
  32. Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? Master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
  33. 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.
  34. Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202. · DOI
  35. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.. · DOI
  36. Truscott, J. 1996. ‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’. Language Learning, 46: 327-369. · DOI
  37. 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. · DOI
  38. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13.4, 337-343. · DOI
  39. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. (SSCI). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A.
Affiliations
Islamic Azad University Ilam Branch (IR)
Corresponding author
Jamalinesari, Ali
ORCID
Azizifar, Akbar
Venue
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-06
Volume
192
Pages
116-123
ISSN
1877-0428 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018
OpenAlex
W914761865
Cited by
55
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
14.27
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
teacher feedback, direct feedback, indirect feedback, writing instruction, EFL writing, composition writing, writing performance, English as a foreign language

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review