Perceived effect of written corrective feedback on collocation competence of low-performing ESL learners: Factors contributing to success, difficulties and benefits
List of Authors
  • Abang Fhaeizdhyall

Keyword
  • Written corrective feedback, perception, low-performing ESL learners, English collocation

Abstract
  • This qualitative study investigates low-performing students’ perceptions on the effect of direct and indirect WCF in improving their collocation competence. Furthermore, their perceptions are shaped by the factors contributing to the success of WCF strategies, the difficulties faced when processing WCF, and benefits of the WCF strategies. 56 low-performing undergraduate students in a public university participated in the study, in which there are 27 students in indirect WCF group, whereas 29 students in direct WCF group. Open-ended survey instruments were used to collect the qualitative data, after every group was exposed to respective WCF treatments. The findings revealed that the students perceived feedback explicitness as the main factor that contributes to the success in improving their collocational competence. Furthermore, the students in direct WCF group perceived nature of feedback instructions, learner factors, and lecturer’s illegible handwriting as the difficulties faced when processing direct WCF whereas indirect WCF group perceived the implicit nature of indirect WCF and illegible handwriting of the lecturer as the difficulties. Moreover, perceived benefits of direct WCF include promoting autonomous learning behavior which disproves major studies that direct WCF hinders learner autonomy. In highlighting the benefits of indirect WCF, the students perceived it as promoting learner autonomy. Overall, the low-performing students in this study have different perceptions towards the roles of direct and indirect WCF in improving their collocation competence. Those who received direct WCF showed positive perceptions whereas the students who received indirect WCF showed mixed perceptions toward the strategy. The findings contribute to address the knowledge gap and provide recommendation for future studies.

Reference
  • 1. Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One Size Fits All: Recasts, Prompts, and L2 Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060268 2. Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127. 3. Al Harasi, S. N. M. (2019). The effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving the grammatical accuracy of Omani EFL learners (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sterling). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1893/29846 4. Al Shahrani, A. A. (2013). Investigation of written corrective feedback in an EFL context: beliefs of teachers, their real practices and students' preferences (Masters dissertation, The University of Melbourne). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11343/38637 5. 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 method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257. 6. Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Ruegg, R. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-23. 7. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Essex. Pearson Education Ltd. 8. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118. 9. Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York: Routledge. 10. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431. 11. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. 12. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 13. 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(3), 191–205. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 14. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. 15. Brown, A. V. (2009). Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60. 16. Brown, D. (2012). The written corrective feedback debate: Next steps for classroom teachers and practitioners. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 861-867. 17. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296. 18. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 5. 19. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication 20. DeKeyser, R. (2007). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten and J. Williams (Eds.) Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 94-113). New York, NY: Routledge. 21. Dabboub, A. E. (2019). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback-direct and indirect-on EFL learners' language accuracy, structural complexity and lexical diversity (Doctoral dissertation, Nottingham Trent University). Retrieved from http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/38102 22. Egi, T. (2007). Recasts, learners’ interpretations, and L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 249–267). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23. Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp.339-360). New York: Oxford University Press. 24. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal. 63(2), 97-107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023 25. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349. 26. Eslami, E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98(6), 445-452. 27. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. Tesol Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. 28. Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 1-10. 29. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-term and long-term effects of written error correction. In: K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 31. 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. 32. Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 33. Fhaeizdhyall, A. (2020). The Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on English Collocation Competency: A Quasi – Experiment. Journal for the Study of English Linguistics, 8(1), 94-114. 34. Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction and output: An overview. AILA Review, 19, 3-17. 35. Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners' Spelling Errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53-61. 36. Goldstein, L. (2004). Questions and answers about student written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80. 37. Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57-81. 38. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of second language writing, 16(1), 40-53. 39. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M. (2015). Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36, 1393–1420. 40. Han, Z. H. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-34. 41. Hashemnezhad, H., & Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A Case for Direct and Indirect Feedback: The Other Side of Coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 230-239. 42. Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 255-270. 43. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. 44. Irwin, B. (2017). Written Corrective Feedback: Student Preferences and Teacher Feedback Practices. IAFOR Journal of Language Learning, 3(2), 35-58. 45. Jafarpour, A. A., & Sharifi, A. (2012). The effect of error correction feedback on the collocation competence of Iranian EFL learners. Teaching English with Technology, 12(3), 3-17. 46. Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct vs. indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192(1), 166-123. 47. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. 48. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2015). ESL Students’ Perceptions of Written Corrective Feedback: What type of Feedback Do They prefer and Why?. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 4(1), 5-26. 49. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469 50. Krashen, S.D. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press. 51. Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. 52. Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 53. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312. 54. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 69-85. 55. Li, Y. (2017). Individual differences and written corrective feedback: exploring the effects of direct and coded feedback on Chinese EFL learners' writing accuracy. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Hong Kong). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10722/250752 56. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 309-365. 57. Li, S., & Li, P. (2012). Individual Differences in Written Corrective Feedback: A Multi-Case Study. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 38-44. 58. Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295. 59. Linh, D. M. (2018). The Effectiveness of Indirect Written Corrective Feedback as Perceived By Teachers and Students of a Public University in Vietnam. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 6(4), 152-162. 60. Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82-99. 61. Mubarak, M. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: A study of practices and effectiveness in the Bahrain context (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Sheffield) Retrieved from http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/4129 62. Myhill, D., Jones, S., Watson, A. & Lines, H. (2013). Playful explicitness with grammar: A pedagogy for writing. Literacy, 47, 103-111. 63. Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language learning, 59(2), 411-452. 64. Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 65. Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535– 562. 66. Nassaji, H. (2017) Negotiated oral feedback in response to written errors. In: Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (eds.) Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114-128). New York, NY: Routledge 67. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York, NY: Routledge. 68. Ng, L. L., & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor’s Direct and Indirect Feedback: How do they Impact Learners’ Written Performance?. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature®, 24(3). 69. Nusrat, A., Ashraf, F., & Narcy-Combes, M. F. (2019). Effect of Direct and Indirect Teacher Feedback on Accuracy of English Writing: A Quasi-Experimental Study among Pakistani Undergraduate Students. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 25(4), 84-98. 70. Nicolas–Conesa, F., Manchon, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848-873. doi:10.1111/modl.12592 71. O’Flaherty, D. (2016). Japanese high school students’ attitudes towards and usage of corrective feedback on their written work. The Language Teacher, 40(6), 3-8. 72. ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019). Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 35(1). 73. Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research, 20(6), 678-699 74. Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 75. Rahimi, M. (2015). Handbook of research on individual differences in computer-assisted language learning. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, an imprint of IGI Global. 76. Ruegg, R. (2015). Student uptake of teacher written feedback on writing. Asian EFL Journal, 17(1), 36-56. 77. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22(2), 63-75. 78. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–281. 79. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?. System, 49, 110-119. 80. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2013). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 81. Shirotha, F. B. (2016). The effect of indirect written corrective feedback on students’ writing accuracy. Journal on English as a Foreign Language, 6(2), 101-118. 82. Storch, N. & Wiglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32,303-334. 83. Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282. 84. Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Columbia University working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-21. 85. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. 86. Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition: Research and the classroom (pp. 91-103). Lexington, MA: Heath 87. Swain, M. (1997). The output hypothesis: focus on form and second language learning. Applying linguistics: Insights into language in education, 1-21. 88. Swain, M. (2008). The output hypothesis: Its history and its future. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 40(1), 45-50. 89. Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving Grammatical Accuracy in Thai Learners' Writing: Comparing Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430-442. 90. Tangkiengsirisin, S., & Kalra, R. (2016). Thai Students' Perceptions on the Direct Vs. Indirect Written Corrective Feedback: A Thai University Context. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(3), 161-176. 91. Tootkaboni, A. A., & Khatib, M. (2014). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7(3), 30-46. 92. Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. 93. Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. 94. Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27. 95. Van Beuningen, C., 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. 96. Wagner, J. P., & Wulf, D. J. (2016). Understanding Written Corrective Feedback in Second-Language Grammar Acquisition. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(4), 259-277. 97. Wang, T., & Jiang, L. (2015). Studies on Written Corrective Feedback: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Evidence, and Future Directions. English Language Teaching, 8(1), 110-120. 98. Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 22(1), 17-32. 99. Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235-263. 100. Yılmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134–1169. 101. Zarei, A. A., & Mousavi, M. (2016). The Effects of Feedback Types on Learners’ Recognition of Lexical Collocations. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 5(2), 150-158. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.5n.2p.150