The Effect of Indirect and Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on EFL Writing Accuracy in a Virtual Learning Environment: A Mixed-Methods Study
Keywords:
indirect written corrective feedback; metalinguistic feedback; grammatical accuracy; EFL writing; virtual learning environmentAbstract
This study investigates the impact of two types of indirect written corrective feedback—indirect corrective feedback (ICF) and indirect metalinguistic corrective feedback (IMCF)—on the development of grammatical accuracy in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing in a virtual learning environment. A mixed-method quasi-experimental design was implemented with 60 undergraduate students distributed across two experimental groups (one receiving ICF and one receiving IMCF) and a control group that received general written comments. Data were collected through a pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test, five writing tasks completed across the academic semester, and reflection journals. The quantitative analysis focused on error reduction and accuracy improvement across measurement points, while the qualitative analysis examined student perceptions through thematic content analysis of journal entries. Results indicate that IMCF led to greater grammatical accuracy and more effective error repair than non-metalinguistic ICF. Students in both experimental groups demonstrated improvement in self-correction ability and sustained gains at the delayed post-test stage. Qualitative findings reveal that students found metalinguistic feedback to be more beneficial for long-term writing development, though some reported difficulty in interpreting it. These findings suggest that indirect corrective feedback incorporating metalinguistic information promotes self-regulated learning and grammatical accuracy in second-language writing. The findings provide empirical support for the use of structured indirect feedback for encouraging autonomous learning and facilitating sustained grammatical acquisition in virtual EFL writing.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.25.6.43
References
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis (ETS Research Report No. RR-11-05). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners' errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(4), 161–170. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1967.5.1-4.161
Corder, S. P. (1971). Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 9(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1971.9.2.147
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97?107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2011). Macro- and micro-evaluations of task-based teaching. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in language teaching (2nd ed., pp. 212-235). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139042789.012
Ene, E., & Upton, T. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011
Erice, D., & Erta?, A. (2011). The impact of e-portfolio on foreign language writing skills. Ankara Üniversitesi E?itim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 44(2), 73–94. https://doi.org/10.1501/Egifak_0000001225
Ferreira, A. (2006). Effective positive and corrective feedback strategies in Spanish as a foreign language. Revista Signos, 39(62), 379–406. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342006000300003
Ferreira, A. (2007). Effective corrective feedback strategies for computer-assisted language learning. Revista Signos, 40(65), 521–544.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139524742.007
Ferris, D. (2013). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Gamlem, S. M., & Smith, K. (2013). Student perceptions of classroom feedback. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 20(2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2012.749212
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Longman.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Jahbel, K., Latief, M. A., Cahyono, B. Y., & Abdalla, S. N. (2020). Exploring university students' preferences towards written corrective feedback in EFL context in Libya. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(12A), 7775–7782. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.082565
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Kloss, S., & Quintanilla, A. (2024). English as second language learners' practices and experiences with written feedback. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1295260. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1295260
Kloss, S., & Quintanilla, A. (2022). The effectiveness of direct and metalinguistic written corrective feedback to deal with errors in the use of information-structuring connectors. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.15906
Kloss, S., Quintanilla, A., & Alexandre, M. (2020). The function of indirect corrective feedback in the academic rewriting of narrative texts by novice students. Nueva Revista del Pacífico, 73, 306–331. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0719-51762020000200306
Kotz, G., & Ferreira, A. (2013). Grammatical accuracy mediated by technology: analysis and automatic processing of errors. Literatura y Lingüística, 27, 217–242. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0716-58112013000100012
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. Pergamon Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Mamad, A., & Vigh, T. (2024). EFL/ESL teachers' and students' perceptions and practices of written feedback in a higher education context. Profile: Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 26(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v26n2.109141
Mohammad, T. F., & Rahman, T. A. (2016). English learners' perception on lecturers' corrective feedback. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 5(4), 10–21.
Oportus-Torres, R., Contreras-Soto, Y., Sanhueza-Campos, C., Maluenda-Albornoz, J., Perez-Villalobos, C., & Quintanilla-Espinoza, A. (2024). Self-regulated learning and engagement through emergency remote teaching in EFL undergraduate students. Frontiers in Education, 9, Article 1416507. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1416507
Ortiz, M. (2016). The use of indirect focused corrective feedback with metalinguistic clues in the acquisition of the suffix -s in the third person singular in pre-service eflteachers from a Chilean university. Folios, 44, 127–136. https://doi.org/10.17227/01234870.44folios127.136
Ortiz, M., & Ferreira, A. (2014). Proposing a wiki-based technique for collaborative essay writing. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 16(2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v16n2.38877
Pardo, V. (2020). La construcción de un corpus computarizado de errores escritos con textos de estudiantes universitarios en Colombia [The construction of a computerized corpus of written errors with texts from university students in Colombia]. Lingüística y Literatura, 41(78), 36–55. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.lyl.n78a02
Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00046-7
Rowe, A. D., & Wood, L. N. (2008). Student perceptions and preferences for feedback. Asian Social Science, 4(3), 78–88. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v4n3p78
Saeedi, Z., & Meihami, H. (2015). E-portfolio as a corrective platform towards EFL students' overall/componential writing performance. Teaching English with Technology, 15(4), 76–97. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1138433.pdf
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11–26.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13?39). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012109890-2/50031-7
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Angie Quintanilla Espinoza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
All articles published by IJLTER are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No-Derivatives 4.0 International License (CCBY-NC-ND4.0).
