Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArlan A. Parreno
dc.identifier.citationLEARN Journal Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, vol. 7 no. 1, January-June 2014, 1-21en_US
dc.description.abstractStudent 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.
dc.format.extent21 pagesen_US
dc.subjectCorrective feedbacken_US
dc.subjectError correctionen_US
dc.subjectStudent responseen_US
dc.subjectL2 learningen_US
dc.titleStudent response to written corrective feedbacken_US
dc.rights.holderArlan A. Parreno
mods.genreArticleen_US[Full Text] (

Files in this item


There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record