[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-589997-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":80,"doc-detail-589997-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":73,"head_meta":75,"extra_data":77,"updated_unix":79},105,"en","the-effect-of-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-on-efl-learners-written-syntactic-accuracy-article","The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’Written Syntactic Accuracy - Article","","This quasi-experimental study uses a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design to examine two comprehensive corrective feedback strategies: direct corrective feedback (DCF) and metalinguistic explanation (ME), compared with no feedback (NF), on L2 learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Ninety Turkish EFL learners were assigned to DCF, ME, and NF groups after proficiency homogeneity checks. Over five weeks, learners wrote argumentative essays, received unfocused feedback, and revised texts. Posttests and delayed posttests showed both DCF and ME outperform NF, with no significant difference between DCF and ME.",{"@graph":14,"@context":72},[15,34,55],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-effect-of-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-on-efl-learners-written-syntactic-accuracy-article/589997/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-effect-of-comprehensive-written-corrective-feedback-on-efl-learners-written-syntactic-accuracy-article/589997.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Cart","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":30},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",{"@type":56,"mainEntity":57},"FAQPage",[58,64,68],{"name":59,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":61},"What design and comparison groups does the study use?","Question",{"text":62,"@type":63},"The study uses a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design and compares direct corrective feedback (DCF), metalinguistic explanation (ME), and no feedback (NF) groups.","Answer",{"name":65,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":66},"How were participants instructed during the treatment period?",{"text":67,"@type":63},"Over five weeks, participants wrote argumentative essays, received unfocused feedback, and revised their corrected texts based on that feedback.",{"name":69,"@type":60,"acceptedAnswer":70},"What were the main results regarding syntactic accuracy?",{"text":71,"@type":63},"Both DCF and ME groups significantly outperformed the NF group on posttests and delayed posttests, but no statistically significant difference was found between DCF and ME.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":74,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":76,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":78,"site_id":7},589997,1792144204,{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":82},"success",[83,87,91,95,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":84,"show_sort_weight":85,"slug":86},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":88,"show_sort_weight":89,"slug":90},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":92,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":96,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":96,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":81,"data":131},{"doc_id":78,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":30,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":123,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},18829141979164,"https://eur-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_6f874abed73319feea01a86fa6f0fab8","Advances in Language and Literary Studies  \nISSN: 2203-4714  \n[www.alls.aiac.org.au](www.alls.aiac.org.au)  \n| The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’Written Syntactic Accuracy\u003Cbr>Mohammadreza Valizadeh*\u003Cbr>Department of Translation and Interpretation (English), Faculty of Humanities, Cappadocia University, Cappadocia, Turkey Corresponding Author: Mohammadreza Valizadeh, [E-mail: mrvalizadeh2015@gmail.com](E-mail: mrvalizadeh2015@gmail.com) |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| ARTICLE INFO | ABSTRACT\u003Cbr>This quasi-experimental study, using a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design, investigated the effects of two comprehensive corrective feedback strategies: direct corrective feedback (DCF), and metalinguistic explanation (ME) on L2 learners’written syntactic accuracy. The participants were 90 Turkish EFL learners. After ensuring their homogeneity in terms of L2 proficiency using Oxford Quick Placement Test, they were assigned to three groups: DCF, ME, and No Feedback (NF) . The treatment/control period lasted for five weeks, during which the experimental groups wrote an argumentative essay in class, received the unfocused feedback, and revised their corrected text. The participants in the NF group were provided with feedback only on content, orthography, and organization, but not on grammatical errors. Results of the posttests and delayed-posttests (after a two-week interval) revealed that both experimental groups significantly outperformed the NF group; however, no statistically significant difference was found between the DCF and ME groups. Pedagogical implications are discussed in the paper. |\n| Article history\u003Cbr>Received: October 20, 2019\u003Cbr>Accepted: December 18, 2019\u003Cbr>Published: February 29, 2020\u003Cbr>Volume: 11 Issue: 1\u003Cbr>Advance access: February 2020 |  |\n| Conflicts of interest: None\u003Cbr>Funding: None |  |\n| Key words:\u003Cbr>Comprehensive/Unfocused Corrective Feedback, Written Corrective Feedback, Direct Corrective Feedback, Metalinguistic Explanation, Syntactic Accuracy |  |\n\nINTRODUCTION  \nOutput production is a valuable source for the acquisition of second language (L2) forms because it can promote noticing, which is an essential condition for L2 acquisition (Schmidt, 1990, 1993); through producing output, learners reflect on their metalinguistic knowledge and test hypotheses about their L2 grammar (Swain, 1985, 1995) . Nevertheless, Swain (1991), Han (2002), and Havranek (2002) noted that for L2 linguistic development, output production needs tobe accompanied by corrective feedback (CF). As a matter of fact, adult L2 learning requires some degree of negative input (VanPatten, 2015) in the form of CF (Ellis & Shintani, 2014) to guide learners to notice the gap between the ideal and their existing knowledge, recognize what is lacking or wrong in their production and modify their interlanguage (Gass & Varonis, 2004; Schmidt, 1995, 2001), possibly as a result of the established explicit knowledge (DeKeyser, 2015) .  \nDespite the mentioned point, Truscott (1996) argued CF is not only ineffective but harmful; thus, providing it must be stopped. His argument yielded several counter responses from a number of researchers (Bruton, 2009a, 2010; Ferris, 1999, 2004, 2006; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999) . Whereas some of the early studies, which explored the  \nusefulness of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) versus no feedback indicated no significant advantage for feedback (see e.g., Kepner, 1991; Polio, Fleck, & Leder, 1998; Semke, 1984), a large number of the studies which explored different types of feedback concluded that their explored type of WCF was beneficial (see e.g., Benson & DeKeyser, 2019; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener, East, & Cartner, 2010; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008, 2009, 2010a; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Bonilla López, Van Steendam, Speelman,& Buyse, 2018; Chandler, 2003; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Frear & Chiu, 2015; Sheen, 2007, 2010a; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa","cbCaipd4MuPFgety","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaipd4MuPFgety","pdf",164563,"English","# Introduction\n## Background on output production and corrective feedback\n## Controversies and prior studies on written corrective feedback","[{\"question\":\"What design and comparison groups does the study use?\",\"answer\":\"The study uses a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design and compares direct corrective feedback (DCF), metalinguistic explanation (ME), and no feedback (NF) groups.\"},{\"question\":\"How were participants instructed during the treatment period?\",\"answer\":\"Over five weeks, participants wrote argumentative essays, received unfocused feedback, and revised their corrected texts based on that feedback.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main results regarding syntactic accuracy?\",\"answer\":\"Both DCF and ME groups significantly outperformed the NF group on posttests and delayed posttests, but no statistically significant difference was found between DCF and ME.\"}]","The Effect of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’Written Syntactic Accuracy - Article | PDF",1792068571,25]