See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282555570

The Effects of Teacher-Written Direct vs. Indirect Feedback on Students’

Writing

Article in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · June 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018

CITATIONS READS

68 2,076

4 authors, including:

Akbar Azizifar
Ilam University of Medical Sciences
44 PUBLICATIONS 710 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Akbar Azizifar on 09 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123

2nd GLOBAL CONFERENCE on LINGUISTICS and FOREIGN LANGUAGE TEACHING,

LINELT-2014, Dubai – United Arab Emirates, December 11 – 13, 2014

The Effects of Teacher-Written Direct vs. Indirect Feedback on

Students’ Writing
Ali Jamalinesari a*, Farahnaz Rahimib , Hsbib Gowharyb, Akbar Azizifar b
a
Department of English Language and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Ilam Branch, Ilam, Iran
b
Department of English Language Teaching, Islamic Azad University, Ilam Branch, Ilam, Iran

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.
©©2015
2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by by Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center.
Keywords: Direct Feedback, Indirect Feedback, Writing in EFL Context.

1. Introduction

Feedback is a classroom process that has been under the researchers’ microscopes since the 1970’s, and with
good cause—it’s a teacher practice that works. Consistently, researchers have found that when teachers effectively
employ feedback procedures, they positively and often powerfully impact the achievement of their students. In fact,
Bellon, Bellon, and Blank (1992) note, “Academic feedback is more strongly and consistently related to
achievement than any other teaching behavior….This relationship is consistent regardless of grade, socioeconomic
status, race, or school setting….When feedback and corrective procedures are used, most students can attain the
same level of achievement as the top 20% of students (pp. 277-278).”

* Ali Jamalinesari Tel: +5564563324

E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.018
 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123 117

For more than a decade, second language (L2) writing teachers and researchers have dynamically discussed the
value of error correction or written corrective feedback (WCF) in L2 writing instruction. Although abundant
studies, including large-scale meta-analyses have been performed, many have produced contradictory results
(Russell & Spada, 2006; Truscott, 2007). For example, some researchers such as Truscott (2007) have claimed
that WCF is a ‘clear and dramatic failure’ (p. 271). Yet an increasing amount of evidence advocates that WCF can
improve writing precision in limited contexts (Bitchener et al., 2005; Ferris, 2006; Russell & Spada, 2006; Sheen,
2007; Bitchener, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Hartshorn et al., 2010). This mounting evidence supporting focused WCF
builds an even more uncertain picture for L2 writing teachers who continue puzzled over how to construe these
contradictory results and how to distinguish the specific steps they can take to help their students write more
precisely.
Since Truscott published his 1996 article, ‘‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes,’’
argument about whether and how to give L2 students feedback on their written grammatical errors has been of
significant importance to researchers and classroom practitioners (Ferris, 1999, 2002, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 1999).
On several grounds, Truscott (1996) claimed that grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be
eliminated. From an analysis of studies by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992), he concluded that
there is no substantial research evidence that error correction ever helps student writers expand the accuracy of their
writing. For two major reasons, he explained that this finding should not be surprising. On the one hand, he argued
that error correction, as it is typically practiced, overlooks SLA insights about the gradual and complex process of
acquiring the forms and structures of a second language. On the other hand, he delineated a range of practical
problems related to the capability and willingness of teachers to give and students to receive error correction.
Moreover, he claimed that error correction is detrimental because it diverts time and energy away from the more
dynamic aspects of a writing program. Not surprisingly, these claims have since generated a considerable amount of
vigorous debate at international conferences and in published articles (Ellis, 1998; Ferris, 1999; Ferris & Hedgcock,
1998; Truscott, 1999). Supporting the case against Truscott’s decisively held stance, Ferris (1999) claimed that his
arguments were premature and overly strong given the rapidly growing research evidence pointing to ways in which
effective error correction can and does help at least some student writers, so long as it is selective, ranked and
vibrant. While recognizing that Truscott had made several convincing points regarding the nature of the SLA
process and practical problems with giving corrective feedback, Ferris maintained that the evidence he referred to in
support of his argument was not always thorough. As Chandler (2003) also points out, Truscott did not always take
into account the fact that reported differences need to be supported with statistically significant evidence. In
addition, Ferris maintained that there were equally strong reasons for teachers to continue giving feedback, not the
least of which is the belief that students have regarding its value. However, she did admit that it is essential to
consider ways of improving the practical issues underlined by Truscott.

2. Literature Review

Both teachers and students feel that teacher-written feedback is an important part of the writing process (Cohen &
Cavalcanti, 1990; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Ferris, 1995; Ferris, 2002). This is especially true for second language
(L2) writing since the goal of L2 writing is often to teach both the conventions of writing in a particular culture as
well as L2 grammatical forms (Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994; Paulus, 1999). Though L2 writing teachers are aware
of students’ perceptions of written feedback and most try to give helpful feedback to their students, teachers may not
be fully aware of how much feedback they give on local (i.e., spelling, grammar, and punctuation) and global (i.e.,
ideas, content, and organization) issues nor whether the type of feedback they feel they should give adheres to their
beliefs about written feedback. Although a significant amount of research has been done on how teachers should
provide written feedback in both L1 (Straub, 1997 ) and L2 (Ferris, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 2004) writing, less
research has examined the amount and type of revisions teachers actually recommend students make (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998; Goldstein, 2001). Those studies that have done so have demonstrated that often teacher feedback is
not text specific, can be incorrect, or may not address the issues that it intends to (Ferris, 2006; Reid, 1993).
Moreover, other research suggests that there may be a mismatch between the feedback that students want or expect
and the feedback that is actually given (Ping, Pin, Wee, & Hwee Nah, 2003).
118 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123

The written Corrective Feedback (WCF) literature (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Chandler, 2003; Ferris and Hedgcock,
2005; Polio et al., 1998] ) indicates that teachers and L2 writing researchers have favored the use of indirect
feedback (i.e., where errors are indicated and students are asked to self-correct) and placed the emphasis on the
revision process. Relatively few studies have investigated direct feedback (i.e., where learners are given the
corrections) by comparing an experimental group and a control group that did not receive any feedback. Moreover
until recently, few studies had examined the effect of focused written CF (i.e., CF directed at a single linguistic
feature). Most recent written CF studies have utilized the methodology employed in SLA research. They have
demonstrated that focused CF is facilitative of learning and thus have provided evidence to refute the critics of
written CF (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007). More specifically, the findings of Sheen’s (2007) study suggest that
written CF works when it is intensive and concentrated on a specific linguistic problem. Her study, in effect,
constituted a challenge to the traditional, unfocused approach to correcting written errors in students’ writing.
Sheen (2007) noted that L2 writing research investigating CF has suffered from a number of methodological
limitations (e.g., the lack of a control group as in Lalande, 1982; Robb et al., 1986). For this reason, research
findings to date have failed to provide clear evidence that written CF helps learners improve linguistic accuracy over
time. Thus, in her study, she examined the effects of direct, focused written CF using a methodology adopted from
SLA, which attempted to avoid the kinds of methodological problems evident in many written CF studies. An
increasing number of studies have also been investigating whether certain types of corrective feedback are more
likely than others to help L2 students improve the accuracy of their writing. In reviewing some of these studies,
Truscott (1996)reported that none of them (Kepner, 1991; Semke, 1984; Sheppard, 1992) found significant
differences across any of the different treatment groups (content comments only; error correction only; a
combination of content comments and error correction; error identification, but no correction) but when the evidence
from studies that have considered other feedback distinctions is examined, it is clear that such a conclusion should at
this stage be treated with caution. A good number of studies have distinguished between direct and indirect feedback
strategies and examined the extent to which they facilitate more accuracy (Ferris, 1995a, b; Ferris & Hedgcock,
1998; Lalande, 1982; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986). Direct or explicit feedback occurs when the teacher
recognizes an error and offers the correct form, while indirect strategies refer to situations when the teacher specifies
that an error has been made but does not provide a correction, thereby leaving the student to identify and correct it.
Additionally, studies examining the effect of indirect feedback strategies have tended to make further distinction
between those that do or do not use a code. Coded feedback points to the exact location of an error, and the type of
error involved is indicated with a code (for example, PS means an error in the use or form of the past simple tense).
Uncoded feedback refers to cases when the teacher underlines an error, circles an error, or places an error tally in the
margin, but, in each case, leaves the student to detect and correct the error. Contrary to surveys which reveal that
both students and teachers have a preference for direct, explicit feedback rather than indirect feedback (Ferris &
Roberts, 2001; Ferris, Chaney, Komura, Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Komura, 1999; Rennie, 2000; Roberts, 1999),
several studies report that the second leads to either greater or similar levels of accuracy over time (Ferris et al.,
2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982; Lee, 1997; Robb et al., 1986). However, neither the
Lalande nor the Robb et al. studies had control groups which received no correction and neither study found
statistically significant differences between the treatment conditions.
On the other hand, the studies by Lee (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001) did have control groups which
received no corrective feedback. Lee’s study of EFL college students in Hong Kong found a significant effect for
the group whose errors were underlined, compared with the groups who received no corrective feedback or only a
marginal check. Ferris and Roberts (2001) examined the effects of three different feedback treatments (errors
marked with codes; errors underlined but not otherwise marked or labeled; no error feedback) and found that both
error feedback groups significantly outperformed the no feedback control group, but, like Robb et al.
(1986), they found that there were no significant differences between the group given coded feedback and the
group not given coded feedback. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that Ferris and Roberts (2001) investigated text
revisions rather than new pieces of writing over time.
One study (Ferris et al., 2000) has investigated the effects of different treatment conditions on both text revisions
and new pieces of writing. Discussing the findings of the study, Ferris (2002) reported that direct error correction led
to more correct revisions (88%) than indirect error feedback (77%). Over the course of the semester, however, it was
 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123 119

noted that students who received indirect feedback reduced their error frequency ratios substantially more than those
who received direct feedback. Compared with this growing but far from conclusive body of research on the written
feedback strategies of teachers, virtually no research has investigated the effect of other feedback strategies, such as
teacher–student conferences, peer-editing sessions, and the keeping of error logs (Ferris, 2002). Many writing
teachers consider one-on-one teacher–student conferences to be potentially more effective than written corrective
feedback because they provide an opportunity for clarification, instruction, and negotiation (Ferris, 2002; Ferris &
Hedgcock, 1998), but the absence of published empirical research on this option means that this popularly held
belief cannot be taken as evidence of effectiveness. SLA insights (Truscott, 1996) and studies of error correction
(Chaney, 1999; Ferris, 1995a; Ferris et al., 2000; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Frantzen & Rissell, 1987; Lalande, 1982;
Sheppard, 1992) point to the fact that different linguistic categories should not be treated as if they are equivalent
because they represent separate domains of knowledge that are acquired through different stages and processes. All
of these studies which targeted specific error categories found that there were significantly different rates of student
achievement and progress across error types. Ferris (1999) introduced a distinction between ‘‘treatable’’ and
‘‘untreatable’’ errors, suggesting that the former (verb tense and form, subject-verb agreement, article usage, plural
and possessive noun endings, and sentence fragments) occur in a rule-governed way, and so learners can be pointed
to a grammar book or set of rules to resolve the error, while the latter (word choice errors, with the possible
exception of some pronoun and preposition uses, and unidiomatic sentence structure, resulting from problems to do
with word order and missing or unnecessary words) are idiosyncratic and so require learners to utilize acquired
knowledge of the language to correct the error. This distinction has been examined in two recent studies (Ferris et
al., 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001). The Ferris et al. (2000)study, for example, found that learners made substantial
progress over a semester in reducing errors in verb tense and form (‘‘treatable’’), made slight progress in reducing
lexical (‘‘untreatable’’) and noun ending errors (‘‘treatable’’), and regressed in the sentence structure
(‘‘untreatable’’) and article errors categories (‘‘treatable’’). Ferris and Roberts (2001) also reported a reduction in
verb and noun ending errors in text revisions. Additionally, whereas Ferris et al. (2000) found no reduction in article
errors, Ferris and Roberts (2001) reported some increase in the accurate use of articles. This difference in findings
for articles is not altogether surprising when one considers the complex rule structure associated with the correct
usage of definite and indefinite articles in different linguistic environments (Master, 1995). Though much work has
been done on different dimensions of feedback there is still need to study in Iranian EFL context. The aim of this
study is to investigate the effects of direct vs. indirect, individual, teacher-written feedback on students’ writing for
English foreign language learners (EFL) in context of Iran. To fulfil the above mentioned aims the following
research questions were posed:
1. Is direct teacher-written feedback on students’ writing more effective than indirect teacher-written feedback?
2. Are there any relations between teacher-written direct and indirect types of feedback on students’ writing?
3. Do students prefer direct or indirect written feedback of the teacher on their writings?

3. Methodology

3.1. Participants:

The participants of the study were 2 classes (each class 10 students) of female lower-intermediate English
language learners in a private language institute in Ilam, Iran. They attend the class every second day for 20 sessions
for each level based on a twelve-level EFL course correspond to Top Notch book series by Joan Saslow and Allen
Ascher. Every session lasts 1.5 an hour. The students were all teenagers between 13 and 17 years of age.

3.2. Procedures:

The students in both classes were given essays as homework for 10 consecutive class sessions and their errors
were analyzed and recorded separately. The focus was on common local errors in:
1. Third person singular s ending
2. Plural s ending
3. Regular and irregular past tenses of the verb
120 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123

4. Subject-verb agreement
5. Parts of speech
6. Present perfect (have/has+ past participle)
7. Passive verbs (to be + past participle)
8. Definite and indefinite articles (a ,an, the)
One class received direct written feedback and the other one received indirect
feedback. For the class which was given indirect feedback, the teacher indicated and located the errors by drawing a
line under the incorrect parts or writing short comments. Then the students were asked to revise their writings and
submit them to the teacher next session. Their revised versions were then compared with the previously recorded
errors and the improvements were checked and recorded. For the other class the teacher underlined the incorrect
forms in the students’ writings and provided them with the correct forms. They were supposed to improve in later
writings.

4. Results

Eight charts were drawn for the eight grammatical points mentioned above using Excel spread sheet software.
Tables 1 and 2 show the results for class who received indirect and indirect feedback respectively. Table 2 shows
results for class who received direct feedback. The diagrams for the class who received indirect feedback are shown
in white and the diagrams for the class who received direct feedback are shown in red. In order to calculate the
inferential statistics each of the eight above mentioned errors were assigned a score out of 20 for each class session
(10 class sessions and 10 scores) and independent sample t-test calculated.

Table 1: Number of Errors for the Class Who Received Indirect Feedback during Ten Sessions

Session 3rd S Plural S Past Sub-Verb P Speech P Perfect Passive Article

1st 15 16 18 8 13 14 13 9
2nd 10 14 12 7 10 11 8 6
3rd 8 9 10 5 9 8 5 6
4th 8 10 9 5 10 9 6 7
5th 6 7 4 3 5 6 6 5
6th 5 4 5 2 2 6 3 3
7th 5 3 3 1 3 5 1 2
8th 6 2 1 2 1 4 2 2
9th 3 2 2 2 0 2 1 0
10th 2 1 0 1 1 3 1 1

Table 2: Number of Errors for the Class Who Received Direct Feedback during Ten Sessions

Session 3rd S Plural S Past Sub-Verb P Speech P Perfect Passive Article

1st 10 9 14 11 12 11 13 9
2nd 9 10 11 9 10 11 12 8
3rd 8 9 10 7 9 9 10 6
4th 8 10 9 6 10 8 10 7
5th 7 7 9 6 9 6 8 5
6th 7 7 7 7 8 6 9 5
7th 5 5 7 5 5 7 9 5
8th 5 4 8 6 7 6 7 4
9th 4 3 5 4 4 5 6 3
10th 6 3 4 5 6 5 6 6
 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123 121

Table 3: Descriptive Group Statistics of the Direct and Indirect feedback Strategies

VAR00002 N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Var 1.00 80 14.4375 4.19114 .46858
3 2.00 80 12.6500 2.44483 .27334

Table 4: Independent Samples Test of the Direct and Indirect feedback Strategies

Levene's Test t-test for Equality of Means

for Equality of
Variances

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95%Confidence

(2taile Difference Difference Interval of the
d) Difference
Lower Upper
Var3 Equal variances 19.016 .000 3.295 158 .001 1.78750 .54248 .71605 2.85895
assumed
Equalvariances 3.295 127.185 .001 1.78750 .54248 .71404 2.86096
not assumed

5. Discussion

This study attempted to examine the effect of two different types of feedback on the writing performance of
students regarding eight grammatical errors. Students who received indirect corrective feedback performed better
than those who received direct feedback. Data evaluations indicate that students improved their linguistic accuracy
on new writing tasks better when indirect feedback strategy was applied rather than direct feedback. These findings
were completely salient. The study showed that the total accuracy of the participants varied significantly across the
ten writing sessions. In other words, there was not a steady progress in improvement from one time to another for
any grammatical category. When we are dealing with error correction many ways flow into our minds regarding
factors such as teacher’s attitude toward correction, the method of teaching, and many other factors. While there are
lots of methods for error correction, it is difficult to say which one is the best. These methods can be categorized
based on the attitudes from the most to the least effective.
The study has implications for teachers. It suggest teachers trust their observations of students' behaviors; that
teachers should consider their students' views about writing and their anticipations regarding instruction so that they
can make well-versed decisions about curriculum and teaching; and develop and teach in a way that is encouraging.
In spite of abundant research on the effectiveness of feedback, the research questions in this paper have not yet been
fully answered. There are, for example, still indecisions concerning the best methods of dealing with the influence of
context, individual differences and social factors in dealing with feedback. Further investigation is needed on the
social and cultural issues on both teacher observation and student reconsideration. Also, Long term effects of teacher
comments on student writing, the types of feedback which develop good writing skills over time, and whether
revisions to drafts show improvement in later writing situations should be studied more rigorously. As the goal of
feedback is to train autonomous writer, another important area of investigation is the need for studies into the role of
feedback in encouraging autonomous writing skills. Research into peer feedback and self-assessment might produce
valuable effects in the way feedback might lead to more autonomy.

6. Conclusion
122 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123

The aim of the study was investigating the effectiveness of direct or indirect feedback on improving students’
writings. Findings of the study offer some useful suggestions about how frequent the feedback will be given, the
type of feedback that will be given, and about what the students will be expected to do in response to the feedback.
The study has also shown that providing additional feedback on more occasions may increase the writing
proficiency level of students over the discussed errors. Most importantly, we recommend that teachers provide
discriminatory, attentive feedback on a restricted number of linguistic error categories at a time rather than feedback
on a mass of features together.

References

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.
Bellon, J., Bellon, E. C., and Blank, M. A. (1992). Teaching from a Research Knowledge Base. New York: Macmillan.
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.
Bitchener, J. (2008). ‘Evidence in support of written corrective feedback’. Journal of Second Language.
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.
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.
Ellis, R., (1998). Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reaction to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29.1, 33–53.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
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.
Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
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.
Ferris, D.R. & Hedgcock, J.S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. In
Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, B.C., March 14–18, 2000.
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.
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. Modern Language
Journal, 79, 329–344.
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.
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.
Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66.2, 140–149.
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.
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.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
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.
 Ali Jamalinesari et al. / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 192 (2015) 116 – 123 123

Reid, J. (1993). Teaching ESL writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.
Sheen, Y. (2007). ‘The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles’. TESOL
Quarterly, 41: 255–83.
Straub, R. (1997). Students' reactions to teacher comments: an exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91-119.
Rennie, C. (2000). Error feedback in ESL writing classes: What do students really want? Master’s thesis, California State University,
Sacramento.
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.
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.
Truscott, J.1996. ‘The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes’. Language Learning, 46: 327–369.
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.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13.4,
337–343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
(SSCI)

View publication stats