IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/eltjnl/v18y2025i9p12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Inconclusive Effectiveness of Indirect, Coded and Direct Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writing

Author

Listed:
  • Lawrence Knowles

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) on the writing of EFL students at a Japanese university. WCF as a research topic has matured over the past several decades, drawing scrutiny in the process. The emergence of communicative language instruction, which sought to destigmatize grammatical errors while de-emphasizing error correction, prompted some critics to argue for an abandonment of WCF while others enumerated its shortcomings. The experiment in this paper investigates the effectiveness of three types of WCF – Indirect, Coded, and Direct – on sentence-initial conjunctions (SICs) in 110 first-year students in a semester-long English course. Results showed that while the error rates of all three groups steadily dropped over the length of the experiment, the rate of the comparison group, which received no WCF on the targeted error, dropped the most. The discussion section proposes several explanations for the results while concluding that although WCF can be beneficial, it is not necessary. The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about the effectiveness of WCF and bears practical implications for those instructors who question whether providing WCF represents the best use of their time.

Suggested Citation

  • Lawrence Knowles, 2025. "The Inconclusive Effectiveness of Indirect, Coded and Direct Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Student Writing," English Language Teaching, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 18(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:18:y:2025:i:9:p:12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/download/0/0/52071/56687
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/0/52071
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:eltjnl:v:18:y:2025:i:9:p:12. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.