The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the short-term and delayed effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback (WCF) on L2 learners’ revision accuracy and new pieces of writing (i.e., the transfer effect of feedback). Three types of feedback were compared: direct feedback and two types of indirect feedback that differed in their degree of explicitness (i.e., underlining only and underlining+metalinguistic cues). Fifty-three intermediate level learners of English as a second language (ESL) were divided randomly into four groups: One direct, two indirect, and a control group. Students produced three pieces of writing from different picture prompts and revised them over a three-week period. Each group also produced a new piece of writing two weeks later. The study included seven sessions: Writing 1, revision of Writing 1, Writing 2, revision of Writing 2, Writing 3, revision of Writing 3, and Writing 4 (delayed writing). The results showed that all the three feedback groups significantly outperformed the control group in revision tasks. Some short-term accuracy improvements were also found on new pieces of writing for direct and underlining+metalinguistic feedback, but the effects were largely non-significant.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it