A Comparison of the Effects of RevisionMediated and Attention-mediated Indirect Coded Feedback on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Accuracy

Abstract

This study investigated the immediate and sustained effects of revision-mediated (RICF) and attention-mediated (AICF) indirect coded corrective feedback on the written syntactic accuracy development of 50 upper-intermediate Iranian EFL learners assigned to two RICF and AICF groups. They received eight-session treatments, followed by an immediate posttest and then a delayed posttest after a four-week time interval. The collected written scripts were co-rated for syntactic accuracy by the researcher and her colleague. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS 21. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test and the paired-samples t-tests revealed that each treatment separately (i.e., revision-mediated and attention-mediated CF) had a statistically significant impact on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy both in the short and long term. Moreover, the independent samples t-tests indicated no significant difference between the effects of revision-mediated and attention-mediated CF on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy both in the short and long term. The paper provides discussion and implications.

The Contribution of Teacher Feedback to Learners’ Work Revision: A Systematic Literature Review

“…These studies include Early andSaidy (2014), Hunt-Barron andColwell (2014), Hovardas, Tsivitanidou and & Zacharia (2014), Arege (2015), Saidon, Said, Soh, and Husnin, (2018), Lee et al (2019), Fukuta, Tamura andKawaguchi (2019), Wu & Schunn (2020), Hattie, Crivelli, Van Gompel, West-Smith and Wike (2021), Kim &Emeliyanova (2021), andMcCarthy et al (2022). Additionally, eight studies have been conducted on English as a foreign language (Gao et al, 2019;Nia & Valizadeh, 2021;Afruzi et al, 2022) and as a second language (Van Beuningen et al, 2012;Poorebrahim, 2017;Singh & Tan, 2017;Karim & Nassaji, 2020;Rahimi, 2021). Furthermore, four studies have been conducted on academic writing, including writing texts, essays, scientific arguments (Zhu et al, 2020), concept maps (Dmoshinskaia, Gijlers, & de Jong, 2021a), and posters (Cutumisu, 2018;Cutumisu & Schwartz, 2018).…”

“…Regarding the contribution of feedback to the revision of learners' work in higher education, the vast majority of research is related to academic writing, i.e., the writing of texts, essays, and scientific arguments (Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch, 2012;Lam, 2013;Wakabayashi, 2013;Ruegg, 2015;Patchan & Schunn, 2016;Grigoryan, 2017;Suzuki, Nassaji, & Sato, 2019;Isnawati, Sulistyo, Widiati, & Suryati, 2019;Cui, Schunn, & Gai, 2021;Suci, Basthomi, Mukminatien, Santihastuti, & Syamdianita 2021;Han & Wang, 2021;Thi & Nikolov, 2021;Mujtaba, Reynolds, Parkash, & Singh, 2021;Huang, 2021;Alharbi, 2022;Van Meenen, Masson, Catrysse, & Coertjens, 2023), as well as eighteen studies on the subject of English as a foreign language (Yang & Meng, 2013;Nakatake, 2013;Wang, 2014;Huang, 2015;Yu & Lee, 2015;Lei, 2017;Tajabadi, Ahmadian, Dowlatabadi, & Yazdani, 2020;Li & Zhang, 2021;Cheng, 2022;Soltanpour & Valizadeh, 2018) and as a second language (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013;Razali & Jupri, 2014;Shintani, Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014;Bao, Sato, Leis, & Suzuki, 2016;Conijn, Zaanen, & Waes, 2019;Yamashita, 2021;Endley & Karim, 2022;Koltovskaia, 2020).…”

“…Corrective and critical feedback also proves effective in stimulating learners to revise their work (Ferris, Liu, Sinha, & Senna, 2013;Razali & Jupri, 2014: Shintani, Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014Soltanpour & Valizadeh, 2018;Sigott, Fleischhacker, Sihler, & Steiner, 2019;Suzuki, Nassaji, & Sato, 2019;Isnawati, Sulistyo, Widiati, & Suryati, 2019;Yamashita, 2021;Mujtaba, Reynolds, Parkash, & Singh, 2021;Cheng et al, 2021;Endley & Karim, 2022). Thorough feedback is highly appreciated by learners (Wilken, 2018), as well as specific feedback (Yu and Lee, 2015;Lei, 2017;Huang, 2021) and peer feedback confers significant benefits to their revisions (Wakabayashi, 2013;Wang, 2014;Yu & Lee, 2015;Ruegg, 2015;Patchan & Schunn, 2016;Lei, 2017;Tajabadi, Ahmadian, Dowlatabadi, & Yazdani, 2020;Pham, Huyen, & Nguyen, 2020;Abri, 2021;Cui, Schunn, & Gai, 2021;Li & Zhang, 2021;Huang, 2021;Van Meenen, Masson, Catrysse, & Coertjens, 2023). Finally, electronic feedback has been shown to be a key contributor to successful revisions (Alvarez, Espasa, & Guasch, 2012;Yang et al, 2013;Cotos et al, 2020;Koltovskaia, 2020;Pham, 2020;Suci, Basthomi, Mukminatien, Santihastuti, & Syamdianita 2021;Thi & Nikolov, 2021;…”