To Correct or Not to Correct: The Impact of Written Corrective Feedback on Improving Students’ Writing about Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the impact of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) on Omani English literature students’ use of tenses. The study took place over a period of two months at a university in the Sultanate of Oman. Data was collected from pre- and post-tests of 45 students who represented three groups: control group (N=15), direct group (n=15), and indirect group (n=15). The control group received no feedback, the direct group received feedback on their pre-test, intervention 1, and intervention 2. Their feedback was given directly; i.e., errors were underlined and corrections were given immediately. Indirect group also received feedback on their pre-test, intervention 1, and intervention 2, but their feedback was given indirectly; i.e., errors were underlined but corrections were not given. Students were encouraged to explore why these words were mistakes and were encouraged to correct them. The study’s findings were consistent with previous research that has found mixed results regarding the effectiveness of WCF on second language learners’ language accuracy. However, the study provides new insights by suggesting that direct feedback is more effective than indirect feedback since only direct group posttests were found to be significantly (p=0.02) better than their pretests. The findings are not claimed to be generalizable to other populations or contexts. They lead to recommendations for further research to determine the effectiveness of written corrective feedback on other groups of second language learners in different contexts and for different student populations, especially in the Middle East.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".