Research on corrective feedback has shown the beneficial effects of improving accuracy in writing though more research is being done on the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback and the intervening variables. In line with this trend of research, this study was designed to investigate the effects of written and oral meta-linguistic feedback on the accuracy of subject-verb agreement in the writings of 47 undergraduate students. There were three groups in the study: Written Group, Oral Group and Interactional Group. The Written Group received direct error correction in combination with written meta-linguistic feedback. The Oral Group received direct error correction in combination with oral meta-linguistic feedback and the Interactional Group received direct error correction in combination with oral meta-linguistic feedback and also was involved in an interactional activity (discussion on their errors). The results demonstrated that all three groups improved their writing accuracy in the post-test as the result of receiving meta-linguistic feedback, but the Oral Group outperformed the other two groups. The findings of this study provided further evidence in support of the significant effects of corrective feedback especially oral meta-linguistic feedback which is both practical and time-saving. 

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/3L-2014-2002-10

Keywords: corrective feedback; oral meta-linguistic feedback; written meta-linguistic feedback; second language writing; university students 

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing 21, no. 4: 348–363.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.

Bitchener, J., Young, S. and Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009).The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback, System, 37, 322–329.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.

Carroll, S. E. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error correction for improvement of the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12.3, 267–296.

Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’composition revisions. RELC Journal 15.2, 1–15.

Dlaska, A. & Krekeler, C. (2013). Does grading undermine feedback? The influence of grades on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 writing, The Language Learning Journal, DOI: 10.1080/09571736.2013.848226.

Ellis, R. (1994). Study in second language acquisition. Oxford Press.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8.1, 1–10.

Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Hashim, N. M. H. N., Alam, S.S., &Yusoff, N.M. (2014). Relationship between teacher’s personality, monitoring, learning environment and students’ EFL performance. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 14(1), 101-116.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System 31(2), 217-230.

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.

Keh, C. (1989). Feedback at the product stage of writing: Comments and corrections. Guidelines, 11 (2), 18-24.

Kubota, M. (1994). The role of negative feedback on the acquisition of the English dative alternation by Japanese college students of EFL. Institute for Research in Language Teaching Bulletin, 8, 1-36.

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

Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writing. Porthsmouth, NH: Boynton, Cook.

Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Grass and C. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newburg House.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold, 413-468.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.

Min, L. H., San, P. H., Petras, Y., & Mohamad, A. R. (2013). Novice writers in Asian academia: Insights on writing issues. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 19 (3), 47 – 60.

Polio, C., C. Fleck & N. Leder (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7.1, 43– 68.

Sachs, R. & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition , 29, 67-100.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41, 255-283.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.),Principles and practice in the study of language: Studies in honour of H. G Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles, System, 41, 691-705.