Natalia Faradheta Putri, Giovanni Chun Long Ma


In the past years, teachers have been made to assume that corrective feedback benefits students’ writing improvement. Corrective feedback as “any information provides information on the result of behaviour. However, a growing body of research has been reinvestigating the effectiveness of corrective feedback as a result of John Truscott’s claim of its inefficiency. This paper aims to expand the related study on written corrective feedback to find corrective feedback with a significant positive effect on students’ writing performance. This experimental study obtained the data from sixty-six homogeneous L2 students which were equally divided into three groups. The first group was given explicit correction feedback, the second group was given metalinguistic clue feedback, and the last group was the control group. The result showed that the explicit correction was more effective compared to metalinguistic but the fact that the participants tend to perform better even without receiving any correction made the small effect of explicit correction to be questioned.

Full Text:



Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to student writing. Boston: Heinie.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.

Dimitrov, D.M., & Rumrill, P. D. Jr. (2003). Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work, 20(2), 159-165.

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.

Ellis, R. (2009). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. In R. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp. 31–64). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Erel, S., & Bulut, D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: A comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı, 22(1), 397-415.

Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple‐draft composition classrooms. TESOL quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11.

Ferris, D. (2006). “Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction.” (pp. 81-104) In K. Hyland & F. Hyland, Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ghariblaki, Z., & Poorahmadi, M. (2017). The Effect of Recast vs. Clarification Request as Two Types of Corrective Feedback on Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners' Structural Knowledge. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(1), 87-96.

Ko, K. & Hirvela, A. (2010). Perception of KFL/ESL Teachers in North America Regarding Feedback in College Student Writing. (Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, The Ohio State University).

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford University Press.

Lu, Y. (2010). The value of direct and indirect written corrective feedback for intermediate ESL students (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 1-19.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, pp.69-85.

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. W. (2013). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge.

Sameera, S. T. N., Amin, L. A., & Siddiqui, T. B. Effects of written corrective feedback on students of independent university, Bangladesh.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual review of applied linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Seiffedin, A. H., & El-Sakka, S. M. F. (2017). The Impact of Direct-indirect Corrective E-feedback on EFL Students' Writing Accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(3), 166.

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Fakultas Sastra
Universitas Islam Sumatera Utara (UISU)
Jln. Sisingamangaraja Teladan Barat Medan, Indonesia
Phone: +627869911  | e-mail: