Views: 203
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 17. Number 3, September 2026 Pp.42-57
American University of Sharjah, Department of English, Sharjah,
United Arab Emirates
University of Essex, School of Language, Literature, and Media, UK
Research on written corrective feedback in second language learning has advanced, addressing uncertainties about its effectiveness. The debate now centres on the most effective way to give feedback. However, controversy persists, and research on unfocused feedback remains scarce. This quasi-experimental study examines the effects of unfocused written corrective feedback—direct, indirect, and metalinguistic—on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of 139 English-as-a-second-language learners’ writing at an English-medium instruction university in the United Arab Emirates. It also investigates the moderating effects of individual-difference variables—language aptitude, attitudes towards written corrective feedback, and second-language proficiency—on feedback efficacy. Three experimental groups and one control group wrote essays (pre-test), revised their drafts (post-test), and composed essays on new topics (delayed post-test) over fourteen weeks. MANCOVA results revealed that participants who received direct and metalinguistic feedback showed reduced fluency compared with those in the indirect feedback and control groups. Lexical diversity was significantly lower in the indirect feedback group than in the direct and metalinguistic groups. Unfocused feedback did not yield significant gains on new writing tasks, and none of the individual-difference variables significantly moderated the effects of feedback on complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures. These findings highlight differential short-term effects of unfocused written corrective feedback on specific writing dimensions, while suggesting limited transfer to new writing tasks and limited moderating influence of learner-level variables. The results provide useful information for practitioners, who could adopt a more blended approach between focused and unfocused feedback and increase the number of treatment sessions.
Craven, L. & Jabbari, N. (2026). Unfocused Corrective Feedback and L2 Writing CAF: The Moderating Role of Individual Differences. Arab World English Journal, 17(3): 42-57
Almohawes, M. (2025). Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education, 10, Article 1532729. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1532729
Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2019). Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295
Chaudhary, A. (2022). The efficacy of continuous corrective feedback on writings of Saudi EFL students. Arab World English Journal, 13(4), 386–397. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol13no4.25
DeKeyser, R. M. (2015). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 94 –112). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition, teacher education and language pedagogy. Language Teaching, 43(2), 182–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444809990139
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In F. Hyland & K. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Granena, G., & Long, M. H. (2013). Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research, 29(3), 311–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658312461497
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hartshorn, K. J., & Pack, A. (2026). The effects of artificial intelligence-based dynamic written corrective feedback on second language writing and user sentiment. RELC Journal, 57(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882251405498
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
Li, S. (2015). The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 385–408. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu054
Mahmood, R. Q. (2021). Kurdish EFL learners’ perceptions towards written corrective feedback and its types: An investigative study. Arab World English Journal, 12(4), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol12no4.7
Mao, Z., Lee, I., & Li, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback in second language writing: A synthesis of naturalistic classroom studies. Language Teaching, 57(4), 449–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444823000393
Meara, P. (2005). LLAMA language aptitude tests: The manual. Lognostics.
Michaud, G., & McDonough, K. (2025). Task-based language teaching and the timing of written corrective feedback: The role of language aptitude and working memory. System, 130, 103622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2025.103622
Morris, P. E., Bransford, J. D., & Franks, J. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(77)80016-9
Nicolás-Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/329249
Razmi, M. H., & Ghane, A. (2024). The impact of written corrective feedback on students’ writing performance, self-efficacy, and anxiety. Journal of Writing Research, 16(2), 271–321. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2024.16.02.04
Roehr-Brackin, K. (2020). LLAMA language aptitude tests. In S. Li, P. Hiver, & M. Papi (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences (pp. 417–432). Routledge.
Roothooft, H., & Bueno-Alastuey, M. C. (2026). Students’ beliefs about written corrective feedback in two foreign language contexts. Language Awareness, 35(2), 511–531. https://doi-org.uniessexlib.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/09658416.2025.2522107
Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 66-84. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.38.1.04rum
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students’ preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i2.633
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Sinha, T. S., & Nassaji, H. (2022). ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12378
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K. (2019). The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
Suzuki, Y., & DeKeyser, R. (2017). The interface of explicit and implicit knowledge in a second language: Insights from individual differences in cognitive aptitudes. Language Learning, 67(4), 747-790. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12241
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02
Dr Laurence Craven is an Assistant Professor at the American University of Sharjah with a PhD in Applied Linguistics from the University of Essex. He has taught academic writing and communication in Japan, Spain, and the UAE. His research interests include corrective feedback, teaching writing and speaking, and AI and Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0739-2871
Dr Nasser Jabbari is an Assistant Professor in the School of Language, Literature, and Media at the University of Essex (UK), holding a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from Texas A&M University (USA). With over two decades of teaching experience across diverse contexts, he explores second-language learning through digital games and social media and is currently researching the affordances and futures of GenAI in language education. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-2265