Students’ Uptake of Written Corrective Feedback Using Error Correction Codes in EFL Writing

This study investigates how English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students respond to Written Corrective Feedback (WCF), particularly when it is provided in the form of coded error feedback in their writing. Written corrective feedback is widely used in second language writing instruction to help learners identify and correct linguistic errors, yet students’ ability to interpret and effectively apply such feedback varies considerably. Understanding how learners engage with coded feedback can provide valuable insights into the role of feedback in supporting language development.
Using a qualitative research design, data were collected from 10 university-level EFL students who were asked to revise their written drafts after receiving coded feedback from their instructor. The feedback consisted of standardized error codes indicating specific grammatical or language-related issues. The study analyzes the students’ original and revised drafts in order to examine how they interpreted the feedback and to what extent they were able to successfully revise their errors.
The findings indicate that when students clearly understand the meaning of the feedback codes, they are generally able to make accurate revisions, suggesting active engagement with language rules and the development of self-editing strategies. However, cases of partial or incorrect revisions reveal that some learners experience difficulty interpreting the codes or applying them appropriately. In addition, uncorrected errors in the revised drafts may reflect factors such as limited motivation, lack of confidence, or unclear feedback. These findings support previous research (e.g., Hyland & Hyland, 2006) highlighting the importance of context-sensitive feedback practices. The study recommends combining focused WCF with opportunities for teacher guidance, discussion, or peer collaboration to improve learners’ understanding and uptake. Overall, the study emphasizes the pedagogical value of WCF in EFL writing instruction and calls for more interactive feedback practices and further research on its long-term effects and learner-related variables.

Engagement, Autonomous learning, Scaffolding, Awareness

1. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2023). Written corrective feedback for L2 development: Current perspectives and new directions. Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2019). Written corrective feedback: What does it promise? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Second Language Acquisition, Vol. 96. Multilingual Matters. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Evans, C., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2010). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 38(3), 329-343. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Ferdouse, F. (2011). Use of error codes as a device of written feedback: Students’ perspectives (Master’s thesis, Stamford University, Bangladesh). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Ferris, D. R. (2018). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students (2nd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2021). Written corrective feedback: The story continues. Language Teaching, 54(1), 1-24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Khah, Y. A., & Farahian, M. (2016). A comparative study of the impact of metalinguistic feedback and explicit correction on the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Studies in Education, 6(2). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lee, I. (1998). The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 255-278. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69-85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Lee, I. (2013). Second language writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lee, I. (2022). Student perceptions of written corrective feedback: Does multiple feedback overwhelm? Language Teaching Research, 26(4), 559-577. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2018). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-7). Wiley. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Oxford, R., & Shearin, J. (1994). Language learning motivation: Expanding the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 12–28. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Polio, C., & Shea, M. (2020). L2 writing and feedback: Multiple perspectives and goals. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 5-31. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Rasool, S., Qian, X., & Aslam, M. (2024). Learner perceptions of focused written corrective feedback in EFL contexts. Journal of Language Teaching and Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners’ writing. System, 40(4), 494–504. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Sheen, Y. (2020). Written corrective feedback and learner engagement: A case study. In R. Ellis & S. Loewen (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 345-357). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Tarone & T. Candlin (Eds.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2020). Focus on form through collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. In A. Mackey & E. Marsden (Eds.), Advancing methodology and practice: The IRIS repository of instruments for research into second languages (pp. 209-221). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2018). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 63-72. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. 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. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study