Effects vs. Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback on the Written Lexicogrammatical Errors of Iranian EFL Learners: Suggestions for Writing Accuracy Improvement

This study, conducted in two stages, investigates the effects versus effectiveness of second language instruction (De Graaff & Housen, 2009). Specifically, it analyzes the effect of instruction manner (indirect versus direct correction) on the learner's written lexico-grammatical errors and investigates the effectiveness of such an instruction on learning similar subjects. To that end, a pseudo-longitudinal (Kellerman, 1989) study was designed and the errors in the argumentative writings of 52 Iranian EFL learners of three proficiency levels were identified and classified and then the students were treated with indirect and direct corrective feedback (CF) over a period of six months to see if the feedback types would reduce those errors. The results show that although providing learners with the CF could lead to a reduction of the errors, direct feedback proved to be a more effective strategy. Moreover, t-test results demonstrated that the short-term impact of the CF could not last over time, a finding that confirms Truscott's (2004, 2007; 2009) claims that error correction does not have a positive effect on the development of L2 writing accuracy. The study suggests that provision of corrective feedback can merely bring about superficial and temporary changes to L2 learner's performance, not to their underlying competence and that L2 learners need extensive and sustained meaningful exposure and practice to improve their writing. Teachers need to take a more fine-tuned approach to written corrective feedback and realize that the effectiveness of corrective feedback depends on multiple factors such as error types, feedback characteristics, the learner, the teacher, and the learning context.