The study investigated the effect of different types of corrective feedback on 53 English language learners' writing accuracy over 12 weeks. Students received direct written feedback, direct feedback with a conference, or no feedback. Results showed that the type of feedback and time interacted significantly, with students receiving direct written feedback demonstrating the most accuracy gains in new writing pieces from weeks 2 to 12. While feedback type alone did not significantly affect performance, the interaction between feedback type and time was significant, indicating corrective feedback's potential to improve L2 writing accuracy over time.

1. The effect of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing
Presenter: Tsui-Yu Trista Lin
Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu
Date: January 5th, 2011
1

2. Citation
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, 191-205.
2

3. Contents
Introduction
Literature review
Methodology
Results
Conclusions
Reflections
3

4. Introduction
Error correction debate in L2 writing
Truscott
(1996)
Against error
correction
Approval error
correction Ferris
(1999)
4

5. Purpose
-To investigate whether the type of feedback
given to 53 adult migrant students on three
types of error resulted in improved accuracy
in new pieces of writing over a 12 week period
5

6. Research question
-To what extent does the types of corrective
feedback on linguistic errors determine
accuracy performance in new pieces of writing
6

7. Literature Review
7

8. Literature Review
Direct
Uncoded Feedback Indirect
strategies
Coded
8

9. Feedback strategies
(Indirect)
If use past tense, do we
need the article?
(Direct) wrong
past tense – use
past simple tense
(Coded) mw
(Uncoded
)
9

10. Literature Review
10

11. Literature Review
11

12. Methodology
Participants 53 post-intermediate ESOL students
Location New Zealand
Ages Early 20 to late 50
Instrument Four times writing tasks
Analytical tool Two-way ANOVA
Period 12 weeks
12

13. Design
Group 1 Group 2 Group 3
• Full-time class • Part-time class • Part-time class
• 20 hours per week • 10 hours per week • 4 hours per week
• 19 participants • 17 participants • 17 participants
• Direct written • Direct written • No corrective
corrective feedback corrective feedback feedback
• 5-minute only • Content
conference organization and
quality
13

14. Writing tasks
Each participant completed four 250 word writing tasks during
the 12 week period, staged at week 2, 4, 8, and 12.
Each writing task was of a similar type which provided
participant the opportunity to use the targeted linguistic form.
Each participant was given 45 minutes to write about what
they had been doing since a friend left 6 months ago.
14

15. Analysis
15

16. Number and percentage of error types of first writing task
16

17. Analysis
17

18. Research diagram
18

19. Results ＊p < .005
p = .081> .005
Interaction between types and
No significant between types
time was significant
and performance
Group 1
19

20. Results ＊p < .005
Interaction between types and
time was significant
20

21. Results ＊p < .005
Interaction between types and
performance was significant
Group 1
Group 2
21

22. Results ＊p < .005
Interaction between types and
performance was significant
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
22

23. Conclusion
23

24. Reflections
24

25. Reflections
25

26. 26