How to use Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback in the Teaching of High Students’ English Writing

Jie Zeng

doi:10.63313/ESW.9019

Authors

Jie Zeng China West Normal University, Nanchong 637009, China Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.63313/ESW.9019

Keywords:

Direct written corrective feedback, Indirect written corrective feedback, English writing

Abstract

Writing, as an expressive skill, is a comprehensive manifestation of linguistic pro-ficiency and plays a vital role in English communication. With the rise of the pro-cess approach to teaching, research in the field of English writing instruction has shifted from a focus on outcome evaluation to an exploration of the writing pro-cess, during which teacher feedback, an indispensable part of the process, has at-tracted the attention of researchers. This paper explores the application of two primary forms of written corrective feedback (WCF)—direct and indirect—in the context of teaching English writing to high school students. Drawing upon theo-retical frameworks and empirical evidence, the study examines the effectiveness of these two feedback methods in enhancing students' writing skills. Through a comprehensive literature review, and an analysis of existing research, this paper argues that a balanced approach incorporating both direct and indirect WCF can be beneficial for high school students, promoting not only linguistic accuracy but also fostering a positive writing environment.

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 Meth-od? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.

[2] Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students' composition revisions. Relc Journal, 15(2), 1-14.

[3] Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

[4] Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.

[5] Jinshi Shao, Simin Zeng, & Yuxi Wu. (2023). The relative effects of direct and indirect writ-ten corrective feedback on L2 learning: The moderating role of field depend-ence/independence. Language Teaching Research.

[6] Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Foreign Language An-nals, 66(2), 140-149.

[7] Lightbown, P. M. , & Spada, N. (1999). How Language Are Learned. Oxford: Ox-ford Univer-sity Press.

[8] Li, J. (2011). A Case Study on the Characteristics of Teachers' Written Feedback and Stu-dents' Responses in Chinese Students' English Writing. Foreign Language World, (6), 30 - 39.

[9] R., W., & Schmidt. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

[10] 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.

[11] Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110.

[12] Truscott, J. (1996). Review article the case against grammar correction in L2 writing clas-ses. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

[13] Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurate-ly. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.

[14] YouJin Kim, Bumyong Choi, Sanghee Kang, Binna Kim, & Hyunae Yun. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning out-comes and students' perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199.