Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing: Does SEMI-Feedback Suffice?

Abstract

Despite the multitude of studies on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) in helping learners improve their grammatical accuracy, SLA research has scarcely explored whether there is a reliable alternative to typical WCF. In an attempt to investigate whether there are other options to address learners' written grammatical errors, the present study employed a pre-test-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design to compare the effects of indirect focused WCF with sample enhanced motivating input (SEMI) on the accuracy with which EFL learners used English articles to express first and second mention in narrative writing tests. Using three intact intermediate classes totaling 46 EFL students who ranged in age from 15 to 18, three groups were formed: (1) a WCF group (n = 17) who received indirect focused WCF along with written metalinguistic information, (2) a SEMI group (n = 15) who received SEMI-feedback (a writing sample the focused structures of which are enhanced) along with written metalinguistic information, and (3) a control group (n = 14) who received no corrective feedback. While no difference in effectiveness was found between WCF and SEMI, both of the experimental groups outperformed the control group on the immediate and delayed posttests. The results of the study suggest that, given its high practicality, SEMI-feedback can be considered a reliable alternative to focused WCF for addressing students' grammatical errors.