The Effects of Oral, Written Feedback Types on EFL Learners' Written Accuracy: The Relevance of Learners' Perceptions

Abstract

A great deal of studies have shown that corrective feedback (CF) has a great significance in SLA. Generally, feedback is provided in response to learners’ errors. Different types of corrective feedback can be given in treating learners’ error. Also, Learners' perception regarding feedback provision is another important factor that must be taken into account while providing CF. In this study, the effects of different types of feedback on learners' written accuracy considering the relevance of learner's perception and three feedback types including oral, written, and oral / written were investigated. The data was collected through writing tasks and the perception questionnaire from among three different groups. This study showed that effects of different feedback types were different from each other based on available data. The result showed that the group that received oral + written feedback outperformed than two other groups. Although the differences between oral and written groups was not significant, their written accuracy improved to some extent. Findings revealed that students’ perception toward feedback was positive.

Key Words: written accuracy, learner's perception, oral feedback, written feedback, SLA

Full text

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
The Effects of Oral, Written Feedback Types on EFL
Learners' Written Accuracy: The Relevance of Learners'
Perceptions
Sajjad Rezazadeh*
Department of English Language and Literature, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
Sajjadrezazadeh94@gmail.com Tel: 09146069253
Saleh Ashrafi
Department of English Language and Literature, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
saleh.ashrafi@live.com
Mahta Foozunfar
Department of English Language and Literature, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
Foozunfarmahta@yahoo.com
Abstract
A great deal of studies have shown that corrective feedback (CF) has a great
significance in SLA. Generally, feedback is provided in response to learners’ errors.
Different types of corrective feedback can be given in treating learners’ error. Also,
Learners' perception regarding feedback provision is another important factor that
must be taken into account while providing CF. In this study, the effects of different
types of feedback on learners' written accuracy considering the relevance of learner's
perception and three feedback types including oral, written, and oral / written were
investigated. The data was collected through writing tasks and the perception
questionnaire from among three different groups. This study showed that effects of
different feedback types were different from each other based on available data. The
result showed that the group that received oral + written feedback outperformed than
two other groups. Although the differences between oral and written groups was not
significant, their written accuracy improved to some extent. Findings revealed that
students’ perception toward feedback was positive.
Key Words: written accuracy, learner's perception, oral feedback, written feedback, SLA

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Introduction
Language learning is often accompanied with making mistakes and errors. This can
be affirmed by language teachers and learners that are involved in the process of
language education. Hendricson (1987) believed that making errors and mistakes are
natural process of language learning. The mentioned issue occurs to learners who
learn second, foreign even first languages. Thereupon, this issue is significant and
demands teachers' endeavor to improve language learning procedure. Conduction of
research regarding that also seems necessary and important, which can contribute to
the clarification of some vague domains in language education field particularly
feedback.
Since making mistake arises in language learning process by learners, giving
corrective feedback to learner's mistake and error by language teacher can be
beneficial and efficient. Mc Donough, (2005) claims that corrective feedback can
contribute to language learning through including it in language education procedure
correctly. Meanwhile, writing skill as one of the main skills is not exceptional
regarding mentioned issue, and cannot be achieved completely as product by language
learners by themselves. Accordingly, learners' writings can be accurate linguistically
and pragmatically through their practices of writing skill and teachers' feedback on
written products. Moreover, being proficient in this skill requires sufficient education,
and is not simple based on learners' experiences and researchers' investigations. It is
also believed that the capability to convey thought and concept explicitly and
communicate efficiently is an arduous and difficult aspect of language learning

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
particularly in writing process. Hence, it is expected that teachers and learners figure
on this main skill overmuch in language courses.
Statement of problem and purpose of the study
In addition to attention to writing skill and necessity of giving corrective feedback on
learners' written products, providing different feedback types including written, oral,
and oral + written are modules which can be considered in writing courses by
language teachers because of learners' differences and their perceptions toward
provision of various feedback types. Therefore, it is necessary to consider individual
differences among language learners, and satisfy different learners to achieve
optimum education. Diab (2005) stated that learners' views regarding feedback and
error correction are significant factors in developing their writing skills; and these
should be considered by language teachers. It can be stated that teachers or learners'
viewpoints cannot be efficient separately; those can be utilized beside each other as
complementary factors for the improvement of language learning process. But this
can be observed that learners' perceptions and attitudes are neglected by language
teachers in writing courses. Therefore, it is expected that language teacher and
learners interact with each other to achieve desirable outcomes regarding educational
purposes.
In spite of conducting numerous researches regarding feedback and its effects
including positive and negative ones on writing, there are some scopes which need to
be attended more and more. Hence, this study aims to notify the involved teachers
regarding the mentioned issues; it also manifests the saliency of this matter and its

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
influence on learners' writing accuracy. At last this can be understood, which giving
feedback is necessary and important in writing courses, and this demands carrying out
studies on domains which are unknown and questionable; and these vague points
cannot be discovered unless interested teachers concentrate on learners beside
teaching materials.
Research questions
The current study aimed to find answers to the following research questions:
Q1: Which feedback type i.e., written, oral, and oral + written is more effective in
improving learners' written accuracy?
Q2: What are learners' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of provided feedback
types in written performance?
Review of Related Literature
Written Accuracy
Language learners should learn the correct use of writing norms, when they
commence writing activities in language courses. This demands adequate time of that
course to teach this main skill. The significance of accuracy in writing is more than
speaking, because the lack of accuracy may be led to reader's misinterpretation of
writer's product. This issue is originated from inexistence of interaction between
reader and writer in real situation. Writing accuracy is defined as free from errors and
mistakes while using language to communicate in written form (Wolfe-Quintero K,

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Inagaki S&Kim HY, 1998). Therefore the mentioned definition indicates that writer
should use language system correctly, and it should include correct use of grammar,
vocabulary, punctuation, and so on in written product; because accuracy construct
demonstrates learner's developmental proficiency in process of language learning
(Eliss, 2008, 2010). Moreover, the absence of adequate focus on that can be led to the
slow progress in higher levels of education (Ferris, 2002). This can be seen that
university students have fundamental problems in writing skill components
particularly written accuracy.
Hence this can be understood that the rules of written language particularly
grammatical features have a significant role in writing instruction, and demands
teachers' and learners' further attention toward those. Meanwhile, there are certain
techniques and strategies, which can be utilized from the teacher side to overcome the
noted issues. Learners can also learn the mechanics of the language, when they are
going to use those in their written products (Baker, Scott, Russell, Steve, 2003). Allen
(2003) also contends that grammar teaching through evaluation of learners' written
products is more impressive and efficient than discussing it abstractly. This implies to
the main point, that grammar education should be done in context to be helpful.
Accordingly, language teachers can provide corrective feedback on learners'
written products, which seems to have the beneficial effect on learners' progress.
Researchers believe that the use of learners' writing as the basis for grammatical
concepts instruction be the most effective way of contribution to learners for
improving their grammatical accuracy through giving feedback (Chin, 2000). Thus
language learners also believe that the learning of writing skill and its rules are

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
complex and difficult, that teacher's feedback regarding their writings can be helpful
in this regard.
Oral and Written Feedback
Corrective feedback can be provided in distinct types depending on different learners
and situations; oral, written, and oral + written feedback types can be utilized by
teachers to improve learners' written accuracy. Selection of feedback type for
providing is teacher's incumbency that can be done with learners' collaboration to
attain determined purposes.
Oral feedback as one type is provided orally, which is accompanied with
interaction between feedback giver and receiver. This feedback type can be given to
one learner, number of learners, and all learners as whole, before, during, and after
writing tasks (Brookhart, 2008). This type can be provided promptly and frequently to
the language learners (Clark, 2003). Learners can be notified of their deficiency
instantly through interaction, and this is a positive factor for its utilization.
Written feedback type is not unlike oral type, but feedback is provided on
written products through writing instead of speaking. Learners receive teacher's
feedback after doing writing tasks, that teacher writes correct forms and gives
information about errors and mistakes made. Harmer (2004) divided written feedback
to two categories: responding and correcting. Responding category concerns with
content and writing out line; teacher's focus is to generic issues and gives comments
generally regarding those. Correcting category focus be pointing and determining
structural errors and mistakes made particularly.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Moreover, views about oral and written feedback types are different among
scholars and researchers as were mentioned. Polio (2012) claimed that "written error
correction is probably time consuming practice, teachers use" (p. 376). Hyland (2003)
also states that written feedback may be ineffective since it can be understood
imperfectly and incorrectly from learners' side. Raimes (1983) also opines that oral
feedback can be efficient way of feedback provision because of interaction between
learner and teacher; this can also be led to comprehensive understanding that can
contribute to the learners' achievement. It can be stated that different characteristics
among learners demand different types of feedback provision. Jordan (2004) deems
that written feedback is appropriate for visual learners, whereas oral feedback can be
suitable to auditory learners. Further studies have also shown which a combination of
oral and written feedback types can be appropriate solution particularly" treatable
types of linguistic" such as the articles and verb tenses (Bitchener, J., 2005, p. 202).
Anyhow the efficiency of feedback types depends on different learners and distinct
situations.
Teacher's and Learners' Perceptions about Feedback
One of the particular subject matters which has attracted more attention is teacher's
and learners' perceptions about the usefulness of written corrective feedback (e.g.
Amrheine & Nassaji, 2010; Brown, 2010; Diab,2005; Karim & Nassaji, 2015;
Montgomery & Baker, 2007;Simard,D. Guenette,D., &Bergeron, 2015). There are
more unknown and questionable issues regarding this matter; although several studies
have been conducted regarding different aspects of that. Teacher's feedback provision

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
can have further impact on learners' perceptions regarding feedback; therefore unclear
and inaccurate feedback giving may have negative effect on learners and their
motivations toward learning (Zumbrunn, Sharon, Sarah Maars, Caitlin Mewborn,
2016). Moreover, Harward (2014) also discussed that an appropriate feedback type
can increase learners' effort and motivation to learn the target language. This cannot
be achieved at all unless language teachers attend to learners' perceptions by
considering individual differences that exist among learners. Birenbaum (2007) also
indicates the importance of studying learners' preferences that "students are aware of
the factors that debilitate/facilitate their learning and this awareness influences their
instruction and assessment preferences" (p. 753). In addition, language learners can be
information source for teachers and researchers to make improvements in language
education process. Teachers should be sensitive toward learners' attitudes regarding
language education particularly correction feedback; they can interact with learners to
know about their preferences regarding feedback provision. Zhu (2010) contends that
"both teachers and students should adopt a reasonable approach to handle the error-
correction problem effectively and appropriately in order to adapt their preferences in
learning and teaching" (p. 128).
Methodology
This research is quasi experimental study, which consists of three types of variables:
1) Dependent Variable, 2) Independent variable, 3) Covariate variable. Feedback
types as the independent variable were selected, manipulated, and measured by the
researcher in current study. The dependent variable was written accuracy in this

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
research, which is perceived to be affected by the independent variable, i e., feedback
types. The covariate as a variable may affect the outcome in research conduction, and
that can increase the result accuracy. Learners' perceptions regarding different
provided feedback types was the covariate variable in this study.
This research was conducted in West Azarbaijan Jahad Daneshgahi, Khoy
branch in 2018. In the present study Top Notch books were utilized for teaching,
based on learners' proficiency level. Conversation classes met twice a week, each
session lasted for 90 minutes. The participants of this research consisted of 32
learners of English as a foreign language. Participants took part in three classes
separately; and the number of participants was 10, 10, and 12 respectively in each
class. All of them had studied English as foreign language for 6 to 8 semesters in
English department of Jahad Daneshgahi. The subjects were male learners whose ages
ranged from 12 to 16 with pre intermediate proficiency level. It should also be added,
that their first language was Turkish (Azarbaijani). Since the sampling procedure was
based on availability, the selection of participants was convenience type originally.
The utilized instruments for data collection of the current research included: a)
controlled writing tasks, and b) questionnaire regarding learners' perceptions toward
the feedback type. The writing tasks were controlled since the tasks obliged learners
to use grammatical structures. Therefore learners had to use determined grammar
points for completing their writing tasks. The teacher also attended to the grammatical
accuracy when he provided corrective feedback for each learner's written product.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Moreover, one questionnaire was utilized to investigate learners' perceptions
regarding the provided feedback by the teacher. The questionnaire consisted of the
number of affirmative statements, to explore learners' attitudes and perceptions about
the feedback type that they had received during research process. Items of the
questionnaire were borrowed from Sakali (2007), and attuned to the conducted
research. A five points Likert scale was utilized, and points were from 1 to 5. These
numbers stood for the degree of learners' agreement and disagreement regarding
statements about the provided feedback. Learners' proficiency level was measured
through giving examination and interviewing; and all of them were in pre-
intermediate level of proficiency based on institution regulations. The process of
research commenced after selection of the research subjects.
Data Analysis and Results
At first four assumptions including reliability of covariates, correlation among
covariates, linearity between dependent variable and covariate, and homogeneity of
regression slopes were tested. Then test of equality of variances, test of between-
subject effects, and post-hoc analysis was done to achieve results regarding to this
research. Preliminary mentioned assumptions were checked and there was no
violation of those except the curvy linearity of the relationship between questionnaire
of learners’ perceptions toward feedback as one of the covariates of the study and the
dependent variable. Therefore, it was dropped from the main analysis.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
According to the table 1, the highest mean regarding written accuracy belongs to
oral + written feedback group (M=74.9425). The second and third highest means belong
to oral (M=57.8020) and written (M=54.4920) feedback groups respectively.
Feedback
groups
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Number
Oral
57.8020
7.32089
10
Written
54.4920
12.35204
10
Oral + Written
74.9425
3.91621
12
A one way between-groups analysis of covariance was conducted to compare the
effectiveness of three types of feedback (oral, written, and oral + written). It was
revealed that there was a significant difference in mean scores of post-task, F (2, 28)
=28.205, p=.000 among three feedback groups whilst adjusting for Pre-Task scores.
Furthermore, the partial Eta Squared value (.668) for feedback indicates that 66.8% of
variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variable. Post hoc
tests showed that there was significant difference in mean scores of post-task between
oral and oral + written groups (p=.000). There was also significant difference in mean
scores of post-task between written and oral + written groups (p=.000).
A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was also conducted to
compare means between three feedback groups in their perceptions toward feedback.
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of three feedback groups

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
According to the descriptive statistics shown in table 1, the highest mean belongs to
oral + written (M=34.5833). The second and third highest means belong to written
(M=29.4000) and oral (M=27.6000) groups.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of three groups' perceptions about feedback types
Feedback groups
Mean
Standard Deviation
Number
Oral
27.6000
3.77712
10
Written
29.4000
3.23866
10
Oral + Written
34.5833
3.52803
12
The purpose of the current research was to scrutinize influences of the different
feedback types on learners' written accuracy; and their perceptions regarding the
provided feedback types were surveyed too. Having been analyzed this study collected
data the achieved results were stated in previous section of this chapter. The results are
discussed by considering the mentioned research questions; those are also compared
with previous researches results. Analyzing the data, the initially-stated questions are
answered here.
Discussion
It was mentioned that the three feedback types including oral, written, and oral
+ written were provided for errors and mistakes made by learners in their written
outputs. The result of analyzed data related to first question led to the finding that the
written accuracy of the group that received oral + written was 75.53; and this is the
mean of subjects' scores regarding accuracy of their written outputs. The achieved

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
results also showed that written accuracy of groups that received oral and written
feedback types were 57.08 and 54.49 respectively. Therefore it can be seen that oral +
written feedback type was the most effective among the three feedback types on
learners' written accuracy since oral + written group written accuracy was higher than
other groups that receive oral or written feedback types. When this research
result is compared with the findings of other researches, it can be seen that some
similarities and dissimilarities exist between those. Hyland (2003: 178) referred to
ineffectiveness of written feedback since it can be understood imperfectly and
inaccurately by learners. Raimes (1983: 145) also believed that oral feedback can be
effective way of feedback provision because of interaction that exists between teacher
and learner. Although the result of the current research revealed that oral feedback
group's written accuracy was slightly higher than the group that received written
feedback; the amount of written accuracy of oral group was not great enough to
conclude that oral feedback influence surpasses the written feedback. On the other hand
some scholars believe that written corrective feedback can be more effective because
learners have adequate time for noticing their gaps in outputs (Adams, 2003; Santos et
al, 2003; Manchon, 2011). Lyster (2004) and Sheen (2010) also deemed that since
giving feedback in oral form is available to other learners, this may lead to obscurity of
its provision. It is evident that these scholars' beliefs are against the previously
mentioned beliefs; but in contrast to the current research results, although the written
group's written accuracy was lower than the oral group's, but that difference is not
much originally that can be lead to conclusion that written feedback provision is less
effective than oral feedback. Therefore what is inferred of these claims and beliefs is

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
that the mentioned points are advantages and disadvantages of oral and written
feedback types originally. It can also be added that discrepancy of results between the
current research and other researches may be related to learners' individual differences
factor in each research. Bitchener et al (2005, 202) claimed that combinations of oral
and written feedback types can be suitable and acceptable solution by considering the
mentioned points. So the result of this research is in line with Bitchenre's view.
Learners that received oral + written feedback based on the current research, their
written accuracy improved more than other groups that received oral or written
feedback types.The efficiency of oral + written which was substantiated by this study,
could be due to the main reason that oral + written feedback type includes both types
together which can satisfy different learners; and learners can benefit the advantages of
both types.
Analyzed data indicated that the three groups that received different feedback
types differed from each other regarding their perceptions about the provided feedback
type, since there are individual differences among them originally. The questionnaire
consisted of statements that measured effectiveness of the provided feedback.
Therefore according to the result of the current study, the mean of the group's
perceptions scores about the oral + written feedback type was 34.58, which showed the
highest degree of agreement. While the mean of perception of groups that received
written and oral feedback types, were 29.4 and 27.6 respectively. As the result
revealed, the difference between perceptions of these two groups about provided
feedback types were lower than oral + written group (It should be noted that complete
score for questionnaire score was 40). Guenette (2007) states that conducting studies

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
about learners' attitudes and preferences is necessary and important to reveal vague
facets of feedback provision.
Accordingly, this research question concentrated on the significant factor which
is usually neglected in writing courses. This is also evident that teacher's awareness
about learners' perceptions can be lead to the provision of feedback that is based on
their views; and can meet their needs and direct them in the right path.
Conclusion
This study investigated the effects of oral, written, and oral + written feedback types
on learners' written accuracy in their written outputs. It also attended to the learners'
perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the feedback types provided toward errors
made by them. This research was conducted based on Input, Output, and Noticing
hypotheses that confirm feedback provision and its positive consequences on learners'
improvement of written accuracy. According to the results of this research, written
accuracy of the group that received oral + written feedback type was more than groups
that received oral or written feedback type.
Since this type of feedback consists of oral and written feedback types together.
It can also be concluded that the mentioned feedback type can satisfy the majority of
the learners in the language course and learners can benefit advantages of both types
simultaneously. The difference of efficiency of oral and written feedback types
regarding learners' written accuracy was not significant between the two groups; since
some learners prefer one type more than other and providing one type can satisfy some
of learners not all learners. However those groups' written accuracy was improved to

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
some extent. In addition, oral + written group's perceptions regarding that type of
feedback displayed the degree of agreement that was the most among three groups
with different feedback types; and oral and written groups' perceptions were positive
regarding the provided feedback types as well. This can be inferred that providing the
comprehensive feedback type is necessary regarding learners' written accuracy. At last
the significant point that was revealed by conduction of this research was that, feedback
provision was not disagreed completely with all subjects involved in the study. Hence,
it can be concluded that correction feedback is accepted by learners in addition to
teachers, and providing that by considering learners' perceptions is necessary in
language education particularly writing courses to improve learners' written accuracy
originally.
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: Implications for IL development.
Language Teaching Research, 7(3), 347-376.
Allen, R. (2003). "Expanding writing's role in learning: teacher training holds key to change".
Curriculum Update. Alexandria: Association for supervision and curriculum development, summer, 1_8.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and
teachers prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2), 95-127.
Baker, S., Russell G. & Steve G. (2003). "Teaching expressive writing to students with learning
disabilities: Research- based applications and examples". Journal of Learning
Diasabilities, 36(2), 109_ 123.
Birenbaum, M. (2007). Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test
anxiety and learning strategies. Higher Education, 53, 749-768.
Bitchener, J. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Borg, S. (2012). Current approaches to language teacher cognition research: A methodological
analysis. In R. Barnard & A. Burns, Researching language teacher cognition and
practice: International case studies, 27 (11-29). Bristol. England: Multilingual
Matters.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36 (2), 81-
109. Doi: 10.1017/S0261444803001903.
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria Va.:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chin, B.A. (2000). The role of grammar in improving student's writing. Salier Oxford
Language Arts, 6, 12. Retrieved from http://www.uwplatt.edu/~ciesield/
graminwriting.htm.
Diab, R. L. (2005). EFL university students’ preferences for error correction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 44, 53-55.
Diab, R. L. (2005). Teachers’ and students’ beliefs about responding to ESL writing: A case
study. TESL Canada Journal, 23 (1), 28-44.
Eliss, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 32,355_349.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed). Oxford University
Press.Ferris, D.R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Guenette, D. (2007). ‘Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of
feedback on writing’. Journal of Second Language Writing 16: 40–53.
Harmer, J. (2004). How to teach writing. Harlow: Longman.
Harward, Stan, Nancy P., Byran K., Jennifer W., Brad W., Timothy ,G. Morrison, Sharon, B.,
Sue S., Linda ,P.(2014). Writing instruction in elementary classrooms: why teachers
engage or do not engage students in writing. Literacy research and instruction 53:
205−224.
Hendricson, J. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research,
and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition 26 (3), 399-432.
Manchón, R. M. (2011). Writing to learn the language: Issues in theory and research. In R. M.
Manchón (Ed.), Learning‐to‐write and Writing‐to‐learn in an Additional Language
(61‐82). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners‟ responses
on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 70-103.
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions,
teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 16 (2), 82-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002.
Phipps, S., & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tension between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs
and practices. System, 37 (3), 38.390.doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.03.002
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error
correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389.
doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004.
Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition 32(2), 169-179.
Sakalı, R. B. (2007). Investigating changes in students' writing feedback perceptions Bilkent
University.
Santos, M., López-Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types
of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs.
error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131-154.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., S. Inagaki and H.-Y. Kim. (1998). Second language development in
writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity.(No. 17). Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawai’i, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center
Zhu, H. (2010) an analysis of college students’ attitudes towards error correction in EFL
context. English Language Teaching, 3, 127-130.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Zumbrunn, Sharon, Sarah Mars, Caitlin Mewborn (2016). Toward a better understanding of
student perceptions of written feedback: a mixed methods study. Reading and
Writing.29.2: 349−370

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018
Authors Biographies
Sajjad Rezazadeh was born in Khoy, Iran in 1984. He received the B.A., degree in English
Language Teaching from Azarabadegan University of Urumia and got M.A. degree in
English Language Teaching field in Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University of Tabriz in Iran.
He has been teaching English in West Azarbaijan Jahadeh Daneshgahi institute for five
years. He is really interested in feedback and individual differences issues.
Saleh Ashrafi was born in Tabriz, Iran in 1989. He received the B.A., degree in English
Language and Literature from Islamic Azad University of Tabriz. He is continuing his
studies in M.A. level in English Language Teaching field in Azarbaijan Shahid Madani
University of Tabriz in Iran. His field of interest includes teacher education, feedback
timing and task based language teaching. He has presented papers in two international
conferences on ELT in Istanbul and Dubai and also published two articles in International
Journal of Humanism and Cultural studies and Daw international science journal. He has
been teaching English in Voice of Tabriz institute for more than five years.
Mahta Foozunfar was born in Tabriz, Iran in 1996. She received the B.A., degree in English
Language and Literature from Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University of Tabriz in Iran and
she is currently M.A. candidate in ELT. She has been teaching English for more than one
year and she is really interested in teaching methodology and young learner studies.

Language on English National Conference
nd
Proceedings of the 2
Studies: Applied Linguistics Perspectives on EFL
29-30 April 2018