Engaging with written corrective feedback

This paper extends a similar study by Kim and Emeliyanova (2021) by comparing the effects of self-revision (R) and peer-discussion (D) on linguistic accuracy following semi-focused direct written corrective feedback WCF. The study involved three groups of low-intermediate English as a second language (ESL) learners in a Sri Lankan university. The two experimental groups (R and D) received semi-focused WCF on ten problem-solution writing tasks. The R group (n = 30) revised each task and the D Group B (n = 31) discussed corrections for each task in pairs. A Control group (n = 31) just completed the tasks without WCF. Grammatical accuracy in all ten tasks was measured using obligatory occasion analysis. Both experimental groups (but not the Control group) improved in accuracy over the ten tasks. The R group was consistently more accurate than the D with medium effect sizes but the difference was not statistically significant. Overall, the findings echo those reported by Kim and Emeliyanova. The results are discussed in terms of the writers’ cognitive, behavioural and attitudinal engagement with WCF, drawing on findings from an exit questionnaire and interviews.