Effects of synthesised coded corrective feedback on primary level students’ grammatical awareness and self-correction skills
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15282/Keywords:
Coded corrective feedback, Indirect coded corrective feedback, Metalinguistic corrective feedback, Written coded corrective feedbackAbstract
Written corrective feedback (WCF), especially direct and indirect corrective feedback, has been studied repeatedly to solve students’ problem of inaccurate writing. The indirect coded corrective feedback (ICCF), which is a more balanced method, is also not exempted from solving this particular problem. Although many ICCF studies have found beneficial impacts, it still lacks understanding, especially on younger students. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of ICCF that was synthesised with two classes of errors (omission and mis-formation) adapted from the Surface Strategy Taxonomy to determine its effects on primary school students’ grammatical awareness and self-correction skills in English writing. This quasi-experimental study was conducted on 60 students (experimental, n = 30; control, n = 30) from an English language centre in Selangor, Malaysia. The results revealed that only the experimental group made significant short-term and long-term improvements in their grammatical awareness and self-correction skills, and they also statistically outperformed the control group. Hence, the ICCF method is more effective than the traditional classroom method in immediately enhancing and retaining students’ grammatical awareness and self-correction skills for up to 4 weeks. The theoretical and pedagogical implications of this study.
References
Alharbi, A. T. (2022). Grammatical awareness and language performance: Examining gendered differences among Saudi EFL (English as a foreign language) learners. F1000Research, 11, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.109455.1
Alizain, M. R. (2019). Promoting grammar awareness through task activities. Journal of Applied Linguistics (ALTICS), 1(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.36423/altics.v1i1.329
Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skills. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369
Anggunsari, P., & Wahyuni, S. (2023). Direct written corrective feedback for tenth graders recount text: Adequate practice to boost sentential accuracy. Journal of English Teaching, 9(3), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.33541/jet.v9i3.4934
Awang, M. C., Lateh, H. M., Mahmud, N., & Nasir, N. S. M. (2021). Exploring young ESL learners’ narrative writing performance: Implications for teachers and learners. International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics, 11(1), 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.15282/ijleal.v11.6481
Balegh, M. M. (2023). The effects of coded and non-coded corrective feedback on developing accuracy of Iranian EFL students’ written performance. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 11(8), 11–71. https://doi.org/10.20431/2347-3134.1108003
Bitchener, J. (2019). The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 85–105). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108635547.007
Boggs, J. A. (2019). Effects of teacher-scaffolded and self-scaffolded corrective feedback compared to direct corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in English L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100671
Budianto, S., Sulistyo, T., Widiastuti, O., Heriyawati, D. F., & Marhaban, S. (2020). Written corrective feedback across different levels of EFL students’ academic writing proficiency: Outcomes and implications. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(2), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i2.16569
Chow, C. H., & Soo, R. S. (2025). The effects of coded corrective feedback on students’ writing performance: A scoping review. MEXTESOL Journal, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.61871/mj.v49n3-4
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.
Dabboub, A. E. (2019). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback-direct and indirect-on EFL learners’ language accuracy, structural complexity and lexical diversity (Publication No. 27767129) [Doctoral dissertation, Nottingham Trent]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
DeKeyser, R. (2020). Skill acquisition theory. In B. VanPatten, G. D. Keating, & S. Wulff (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (3rd ed., pp. 83–104). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986
Doi, M., Separ, F. M., & Wanggai, F. F. I. (2021). The effect of indirect coded versus indirect non-coded corrective feedback on improving students’ grammatical accuracy of EFL writing class. Edukatif: Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 3(2), 619–630. https://doi.org/10.31004/edukatif.v3i2.365
Dulay, H., Burt, M., & Krashen, S. (1982). Language Two. Oxford University Press. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED227699
Ekinci, M., & Ekinci, E. (2020). Using error correction codes to improve writing success of EFL learners. International Journal of Language Academy, 8(4), 282–293. https://doi.org/10.29228/ijla.45324
Fahimi, Z., & Rahimi, A. (2015). On the impact of self-assessment practice on writing skill. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 730–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.082
Ferdouse, F. (2012). Learning from mistakes: Using correction code to improve student’s writing skill in English composition class. Stamford Journal of English, 7, 62–86. https://doi.org/10.3329/sje.v7i0.14463
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
Ferris, D. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173290
Gholaminia, I., Gholaminia, A., & Marzban, A. (2014). An investigation of meta-linguistic corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 316–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.214
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' Writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
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
Knowles, L. (2025). The inconclusive effectiveness of indirect, coded and direct written corrective feedback on EFL student writing. Coded and direct written corrective feedback on EFL student writing. English Language Teaching, 18(9), 12–21. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5386816
Lee, E. Y. C., & Sim, T. S. (2019). Written corrective feedback on the use of conjunctions among Malaysian ESL learners. AJELP: The Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 7(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol7.1.2.2019
Lestari, I. A., Juliansyah & Pratama, Y. (2020). Grammatical errors in students’ writing descriptive study on Grade 7 students. Journal of English Language and Culture, 11(1), 23–38. http://repository.unsada.ac.id/id/eprint/1996
Masrul, M., Erliana, S., Rasyidah, U., & Wicaksono, B. H. (2024). The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on accuracy and fluency of university students' English writing. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 388. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p388
Mehat, S. Z., & Ismail, L. (2021). Malaysian tertiary ESL students’ writing errors and their implications on English language teaching. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i3.14504
Mujtaba, S. M., Parkash, R., & Nawaz, M. W. (2020). Do indirect coded corrective feedback and teachers short affective comments improve the writing performance and learners uptake? Reading & Writing Quarterly, 36(1), 34–47. https://abjol.org.et/index.php/ajbs/article/view/254
Muth’im, A., & Latief, M. A. (2014). The effectiveness of indirect error correction feedback on the quality of students’ writing. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 5(2), 244-257. https://awej.org/images/AllIssues/Volume5/Volume5Number2June2014/19.pdf
Nia, Z. A., & Valizadeh, M. (2021). A comparison of the effects of revision-mediated and attention-mediated indirect coded feedback on EFL learners’ written syntactic accuracy. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 9(4), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i4.4093
Ogawa, Y. (2021). Written corrective feedback in EFL: Combining error codes and metalinguistic explanation. Journal of Response to Writing, 7(1), 94–125. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol7/iss1/4/
Pham, A. L. (2021). The effects of indirect feedback on grammatical errors in EFL learner writing. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 6(6), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v6i6.3971
Rizkiani, S., Bhuana, G. P., & San Rizqiya, R. (2019). Coded vs uncoded corrective feedback in teaching writing descriptive text. Eltin Journal: Journal of English Language Teaching in Indonesia, 8(1), 55–66. http://e-journal.stkipsiliwangi.ac.id/index.php/eltin/article/view/1533
Salimi, A., & Valizadeh, M. (2015). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback on the accuracy of learners writing in pre-intermediate level. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.116
Saukah, A., Dewanti, D. M. I., & Laksmi, E. D. (2017). The effect of coded and non-coded correction feedback on the quality of Indonesian EFL students’ writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 247–252. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8127
Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of Classic 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721–737). National University of Singapore, Center for Language Studies. https://nflrc.hawaii.edu/PDFs/SCHMIDT%20Attention,%20awareness,%20and%20individual%20differences.pdf
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
Selvarajoo, P. C. B., Thomeeran, H., Anbalagan, G. A., Mohd Ghazali, N. H., & Mohd Mokhtar, M. A. (2023). Written corrective feedback in an ESL Malaysian primary classroom: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 12(2), 831–852. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i2/17087
Sherpa, S. Z. (2021). Effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on Bhutanese learners’ grammatical accuracy over time. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 14(1), 574–603. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1284550
Singh, C. K. S., Singh, A. K. J., Razak, N. Q. A., & Ravinthar, T. (2017). Grammar errors made by ESL tertiary students in writing. English Language Teaching, 10(5), 16-27. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n5p16
Soodmand Afshar, H., Ranjbar, N., & Yenkimaleki, M. (2025). Written corrective feedback in language education: A qualitative meta-synthetic study. Teaching English Language, 19(1), 119-158. https://www.teljournal.org/article_220770.html
Suh, B. R. (2014). The effectiveness of direct and indirect coded written feedback in English as a foreign language. 어학연구 (Language Research), 50(3), 795–814. https://s-space.snu.ac.kr/handle/10371/93751
Taguchi, N. (2007). Task difficulty in oral speech act production. Applied linguistics, 28(1), 113-135. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml051
Tang, C., & Liu, Y.-T. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.12.002
Tawfeeq, H. M., & Abbas, A. M. (2018). The role of written corrective feedback in improving Kurdish EFL university students’ writing. Journal of University of Human Development, 4(4), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.21928/juhd.v4n4y2018.pp61-74
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
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. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171
Wondim, B. M., Bishaw, K. S., & Zeleke, Y. T. (2024). Effectiveness of teachers' direct and indirect written corrective feedback provision strategies on enhancing students’ writing achievement: Ethiopian university entrants in focus. Heliyon, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24279
Zareil, A., & Rahnama, M. (2013). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on EFL learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: From perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1(3). https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijsell/v1-i3/v1-i3-ijsell_1.pdf
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 The Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
