Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 13. Number 4 December 2022                                     Pp. 386 -397

Full paper PDF

The Efficacy of Continuous Corrective Feedback on Writings of Saudi EFL Students

Anjum Chaudhary
English Language Centre
Umm Al-Qura university, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Received:9/13/2022           Accepted:11/28/2022                 Published: 12/15/2022


The present study aims to investigate the perceptions of EFL students on Corrective Feedback (C F) and to assess the efficacy of continuous explicit Corrective Feedback on the writings of the preparatory year female students of Umm Al Qura University in Saudi Arabia. The sample consisted of eleven students from an entire class who volunteered for the study. To reach the study’s objectives, an online survey was conducted to gain insight into how EFL students felt about receiving CF. Also, class observations and semi-structured interviews were exercised to get in-depth information on CF. Furthermore, to estimate the efficacy of continuous explicit Corrective Feedback, pre-Corrective Feedback, and post-Corrective Feedback performances in writing tasks were compared. In addition, the T-test value was also calculated using SSPS software. The findings demonstrated that students see CF favorably, and a comparison of their performances before and after receiving explicit CF demonstrated the feedback’s beneficial effects. The study seems significant to practicing teachers and learners as the study takes a practical and principled approach. Also, it brings up to date with current thinking and perception on error correction in language learning.
Keywords: corrective feedback, efficacy, explicit corrective feedback, pre-corrective feedback, post-corrective
feedback, Saudi EFL students

Cite as: Chaudhary, A. (2022). The Efficacy of Continuous Corrective Feedback on Writings of Saudi EFL Students.
Arab World English Journal, 13 (4) 386 -397.


Almuhimedi. R.A., & Alshumaimeri. Y.A. (2015) Effective Error Correction in Grammar Classes:     A Students’ Perspective. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 5(6),127-138, DOI:

Al-Wossabi, S.A.N. (2019). Corrective Feedback in the Saudi EFL Writing Context: A New Perspective. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 9 (3), 325-331, DOI:

Asassfeh, S.M. (2013). Corrective Feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL Learners’ Ability in Grammatical Error Detection and Correction. English Language Teaching, 6(8), 85-94, DOI:

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, 12(3),267 – 296, DOI:

Chaudhary, A. & Al Zahrani, S. (2020).  Error Analysis in the Written Compositions of EFL Students: A Classroom Study. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2),357-366, DOI:

Diab, R. (2006). Error correction and feedback in the EFL writing classroom: Comparing instructor and student preferences. English Teaching Forum, 3, 12-14, DOI:

Ferris, D. R. (1996). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29 (1), 33-53. DOI

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11, DOI:

Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165-193, DOI:

Grami, G.M. (2005). The effect of teachers’ written feedback on ESL students’ perception: A study in a Saudi ESL university-level context. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, 2, 1-12, DOI:

Huntley, H. S. (1992). Feedback strategies in intermediate and advanced second language compositions. A discussion of the effects of error correction, peer review, and student-teacher conferences on student writing and performance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 809)

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313, DOI:

Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14(2), 112-127, DOI:

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annal, 24(3), 203-218, DOI:

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A Meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365, DOI:

Long, M. (1990). The least second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24 (4), 649-666, DOI:

Pakbaz, R. (2014) The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Writing performance: Explicit vs. Implicit. International Journal of Language and Linguistics. Special Issue: Teaching English as a Foreign/Second Language, 2(5), 12-17, DOI: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020501.12

Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL student reaction to written comments on their written work. The system, 16(3), 355-365, DOI:

Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. The system, 40(4), 494-504, DOI:

Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364, DOI:

Straub, R. (1997). Students’ Reactions to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119. DOI:

Su, T & Tian, J. (2016). Research on Corrective Feedback in ESL/EFL Classrooms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(2), 439-444, DOI:

Thi, N. K., Nikolov, M., & Simon, K.  (2022) Higher-proficiency students’ engagement with and uptake of teacher and Grammarly feedback in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching0(0),1-16, DOI:

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369, DOI:

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 111-122, DOI:

Tseng, C.H. (2018). Delayed Effect of Teachers’ Error Correction on EFL Students’ Ability in Self-Correction in Writing: A Case Study. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(4) 159-165, DOI:

Received: 9/13/2022  
Accepted: 11/28/2022 
Published: 12/15/2022 

Anjum Chaudhary is an Assistant Professor at the English Language Centre, Umm Al Qura University, Makkah. She got her doctorate in English (2005) from CCS University, India. Her research interests focus on Applied linguistics, ELT, Discourse analysis, and English Literature. She has presented papers at seminars and published articles in different international journals. ORCID ID: