Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/103856
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorCollege of Professional and Continuing Educationen_US
dc.creatorDeng, Cen_US
dc.creatorWang, Xen_US
dc.creatorLin, Sen_US
dc.creatorXuan, Wen_US
dc.creatorXie, Qen_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-01-10T02:41:01Z-
dc.date.available2024-01-10T02:41:01Z-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/103856-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherNational Research University "Higher School of Economics"en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2022 National Research University Higher School of Economicsen_US
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Chunrao, D., Xiang, W., Shuyang, L., Wenhui, X., & Qin, X. (2022). The Effects of Coded Focused and Unfocused Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing Accuracy. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 36-57 is available at https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.16039.en_US
dc.subjectWritten corrective feedbacken_US
dc.subjectFocused feedbacken_US
dc.subjectUnfocused feedbacken_US
dc.subjectCoded feedbacken_US
dc.subjectIndirect feedbacken_US
dc.subjectL2 writingen_US
dc.subjectMetalinguistic feedbacken_US
dc.titleThe effects of coded focused and unfocused corrective feedback on ESL student writing accuracyen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage36en_US
dc.identifier.epage57en_US
dc.identifier.volume8en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.17323/jle.2022.16039en_US
dcterms.abstractPurpose: This study adopted a mixed-method approach, including a classroom experiment and 24 in-depth interviews, to investigate the effects of two feedback techniques (coded focused and unfocused written corrective feedback) on ESL learners' writing in a self-financed tertiary institution in Hong Kong.en_US
dcterms.abstractMethodology: Three intact classes of 47 students served as the experimental and control groups; the control group only received feedback on content and organization, whereas the two experimental groups also received focused and unfocused linguistic feedback, respectively. The feedback intervention was conducted over an eight-week intensive summer course, focusing on three grammar errors (articles, singular/plural nouns and verb forms). Altogether, students wrote seven pieces, four of which were analysed for the present research.en_US
dcterms.abstractResults: The study found that students who received focused written corrective feedback (WCF) significantly outperformed the other two groups, though the effects varied across error types. Meanwhile, no significant differences were found between the unfocused and control groups. In-depth interviews explored how individual learners' metalinguistic understanding and engagement affect their intake of WCF. The results revealed that learners who received focused feedback developed a deeper understanding of the linguistic nature of specific error types. Learners with limited English proficiency were less likely to apply their linguistic knowledge to revise a task or write a new one.en_US
dcterms.abstractConclusion: Because not all errors deserve equal attention, teachers and students should consider how feedback can be used more effectively, particularly in areas where comprehensive feedback is considered obligatory. When teaching students with limited language proficiency, it is recommended that, rather than providing a wide range of error corrections, teachers provide focused feedback complemented with carefully designed metalinguistic support.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of language and education, 2022, v. 8, no. 4, p. 36-57en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of language and educationen_US
dcterms.issued2022-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000906796800005-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85151358681-
dc.identifier.eissn2411-7390en_US
dc.description.validate202401 bcvcen_US
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.description.fundingSourceNot mentionen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.description.oaCategoryCCen_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Deng_Effects_Coded_Focused.pdf1.17 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

79
Last Week
3
Last month
Citations as of Nov 9, 2025

Downloads

35
Citations as of Nov 9, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

3
Citations as of Dec 19, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

1
Citations as of Dec 18, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.