Publication: Student Response to Written Corrective Feedback
Submitted Date
Received Date
Accepted Date
Issued Date
2014
Copyright Date
Announcement No.
Application No.
Patent No.
Valid Date
Resource Type
Edition
Resource Version
Language
en
File Type
No. of Pages/File Size
ISBN
ISSN
2630-0672 (Print), 2672-9431 (Online)
eISSN
DOI
Scopus ID
WOS ID
Pubmed ID
arXiv ID
item.page.harrt.identifier.callno
Other identifier(s)
Journal Title
LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network
Volume
7
Issue
1
Edition
Start Page
End Page
Access Rights
Access Status
Rights
Rights Holder(s)
Physical Location
Bibliographic Citation
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Title
Student Response to Written Corrective Feedback
Alternative Title(s)
Author(s)
Author’s Affiliation
Author's E-mail
Editor(s)
Editor’s Affiliation
Corresponding person(s)
Creator(s)
Compiler
Advisor(s)
Illustrator(s)
Applicant(s)
Inventor(s)
Issuer
Assignee
Other Contributor(s)
Series
Has Part
Abstract
Student response, in terms of attention/awareness, actions, and attitudes, to written corrective feedback (WCF) is believed to influence the effectiveness of such feedback. To determine how Thai university students respond to WCF and whether there were differences in their responses to three common types of WCF, a survey was conducted. Three sections of a foundation academic English course were involved, each receiving consistent focused WCF – one section with direct corrective feedback, another with indirect corrective feedback, and the third with coded corrective feedback – in their paragraph compositions throughout one semester. A questionnaire with items on attention/awareness, actions, and attitudes regarding the WCF they received was administered at the end of the semester. Findings indicate that students paid attention to/were aware of the WCF and that they acted in similar ways upon receiving their writings. They also had positive attitudes towards WCF. However, this study revealed that coded corrective feedback entailed a significantly higher level of attention/awareness and significantly more positive attitudes than the direct and indirect types. Although the findings may suggest that using coded corrective feedback is a better approach than direct correction or indirect correction, its efficacy on second language learning/acquisition needs further investigation.