Iranian EFL Learners’ Reaction to Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback

Abdolvahed Zarifi


Providing different types of corrective feedback on learners’ writing is a common practice in writing classes. Applied linguists have also invested huge attempt in investigating the impact that coorective feedback might have on developing different language skills among EFL/ESL writers. Despite the breadth of empirical research on the issue, literature has witnessed very few studies addressing the writer thought processes in dealing with the corrective feedback they recieve from their instructors. Therefore, the present qualitative study, which explores the way Iranian EFL learners respond to teacher corrective feedback, is an answer to this research need. The study included a sample of ten female high school students who were purposively selected and investigated for the cognitive process they assumed in responding to teacher written corrective feedback and their preferences for CF in writing tasks. Findings of the study have revealed that EFL learners go through a long and sophisticated thought process, reviewing, evaluating and finally accepting or ‘submiting to’ teacher corrective feedback. 



Corrective feedback; EFL Learner; Writing

Full Text:



Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., Razavieh, A. & Sorensen, C. (2006). Introduction to Research in Education (7th ed.). Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.

Belanger, J. & Allingham, P. V. (2004). Technical report: Using "think-aloud methods" to investigate the process secondary school students use to respond to their teachers' comments on their written work. University of British Columbia.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102- 118.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 267–296.

Cheng, X.(2000). Asian students’ reticence revisited. System, 28, 435-446.

Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18–41.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335– 349.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting Second Language Writing Using Multimodal Feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74

Enginalar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 192-203.

Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘grammar correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.

Ferris, D., Liu, A., Sinha, A., & Senna, M.(2013).Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Ferris, D., et. al., (2000). Perspectives, problems and practices in treating written error. Paper presented at the International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.

Ghandi, M. & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Spelling Errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53-61.

Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C.M.Levy & S. Ransdell(Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences and applications. (pp. 1-27). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erllbaum Associates.

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on output: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308.

Hyland, F.(2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.

Jourdenais, R. (2001). Cognition, instruction, and protocol analysis. in P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 354-375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kang, E.Y., & 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.

Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and application. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Li , S. ( 2010 ). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60 , 309 – 365.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: a counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lyster , R. , & Saito , K. ( 2010 ). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265 – 302.

Lyster, R., Saito, K., and Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian Perspective on Corrective Feedback in L2: The Effect of Random Versus Negotiated Help on the Learning of English Articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2012). Effects of form-focused instruction and corrective feedback on L2 pronunciation. Language Learning, 62, 595-633.

Sato, M. and Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591– 626.

Semke, H. (1984). The effect of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195-202.

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The Effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319.

Simon, P., & Simon, B. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs and practices. System 37, 380–390.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Compositions, 21(2), 217-232.

Wigglesworth, G. (2005). Current approaches to researching second language learner processes. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 98-111.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.