Abstract
Studies that have reported delayed positive effects for written corrective feedback (WCF) have typically targeted the use of articles for first- and subsequent- mention functions, using narrowly focused corrections that lack ecological validity. Not much is known about how different grammatical features react to mid-focused and unfocused WCF options, which enjoy more ecological validity. This study investigates the delayed effect of different types of WCF on English as a foreign language (EFL) learners’ accurate use of three features of English grammar (articles, infinitive, and unreal conditional). Four groups of participants (N = 77) were treated with different feedback options (mid-focused corrections, unfocused corrections, unfocused corrections plus revision, and no corrective feedback). WCF did not produce lasting accuracy gains, nor did it help corrected students outperform uncorrected students on a delayed posttest.
- Journal
- Journal of Response to Writing
- Published
- 2017-01-01
- CompPile
- Open Access
- OA PDF Gold
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Citation data not yet available for this article.
Citation data is not available for Journal of Response to Writing. This journal's publisher does not deposit reference lists with CrossRef.
Related Articles
-
Journal of Response to Writing Apr 2026Mehrzad, Mohaddeseh; Rahimi, Mohammad; Link, Stephanie
-
Assessing Writing Jan 2026The effects of online resource use on L2 learners’ computer-mediated writing processes and written products ↗Honglan Wang; Jookyoung Jung
-
Research in the Teaching of English Aug 2025Meghan Odsliv Bratkovich; Michael B. Sherry; Homood Alharbi
-
Assessing Writing Jul 2025The impact of self-revision, machine translation, and ChatGPT on L2 writing: Raters’ assessments, linguistic complexity, and error correction ↗Minjoo Kim; Yuah V. Chon
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Apr 2025Peter A. O’Connell