nirwana ar


Several researchers have investigated the effects of corrective feedback (C.F.)

 Several researchers have investigated the effects of corrective feedback (C.F.) on learners' linguistic competence. Still, there was an opportunity to research some effects of WCF on students' linguistic errors by comparing six types of C.F. (direct, indirect, metalinguistic, reformulation, focused, and unfocused C.F.). Single-subject experiment design with alternating treatment design was beneficial in assessing the relative effectiveness of six types of C.F. Linguistic errors categories on vocabulary, language use and mechanics were targeted in C.F. The results of research findings for five weeks study and six students for one group or thirty-six students in the Muhammadiyah University of Makassar showed that direct C.F. had the most significant effect in reducing students' linguistic error and improving students' writing quality in vocabulary, language use and mechanics than the other types of C.F. and direct C.F. also could be suggested for using long-term to the teacher and students at a low intermediate proficiency level.


writing quality; linguistic errors; corrective feedback, writing instruction

Full Text:



Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback in New Zealand. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D.R. (2012). Writing corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. (New York).

Bitchener. J. & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback in New Zealand. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002

Corder, S. P. (1974). Error Analysis. In J. P. B. Allen and S. Pit Corder (eds.) Techniques in Applied Linguistics (The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics:3), London: Oxford University Press (Language and Language Learning), pp. 122-154.

Diab, N.M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does the type of error and kind of correction matter? in Lebanon. Assessing Writing, 24, 16-34.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97-107. DOI:10.1093/elt/ccno23

Eslami. E. (2014). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback techniques on EFL students' writing in Iran. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 445-452. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro. 2014.03.438

Ferris, D.R. (2011). Treatment of Error in Second Language Student. Writing Second Edition. USA. 1.

Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. (1998). Teaching ESL composition. Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.

Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing in the United Arab Emirates. System, 53, 24-34.

George, H.V. (1972). Common errors in language learning. Rowley, Massachusetts.

Harmer, J., 1991. The Practice of English Language Teaching. New York: Logman Inc.

Heaton, J. (1988). Writing English Language Test. London: Logman Group.

Jokar, M. & Soyoof, A. (2014). The influence of written corrective feedback on two Iranian learners' grammatical accuracy in Iran. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 799-805. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.484

Montgomery, J.I. & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance in the USA. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 82-99. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002

Norman, W., Evans, K., Hartshorn, J. & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners in the USA. System, 39, 229-239. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.012

Sanayi, R.V. & Nemati, M. (2014). The effect of six different corrective feedback strategies on Iranian English language learners' IELTS writing task 2 in Iran. SAGE, 1-9 DOI: 10.1177/2158244014538271

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles in the United States. TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 255 – 283.

Ulper, H. & Cetinkaya, G. (2014). Identifying the students' corrective textual actions towards teachers' feedback in Turkey. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 227-230. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.198



  • There are currently no refbacks.

ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning and Research Journal) has been indexed by the following service (click the link for the further information):



ETERNAL (English, Teaching, Learning and Research Journal)
Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan UIN Alauddin
ISSN Print : 2477-4766 ISSN Online : 2580-5347

Jl.H.M.Yasin Limpo No. 36 Samata, Gowa, Sulawesi Selatan

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

View My Stats