ABSTRACT
Written corrective feedback (WCF) has been theoretically and empirically regarded as beneficial to learning, yet its influence on writing accuracy remains inconclusive in research studies, due largely to the type of delivery and short length of students’ engagement. Addressing these issues, the study discussed in this chapter revealed the impact on accurate writing performance of the correcting phases: discovering gaps, correcting practice and revising texts. The chapter also reports learners’ responses to the three phases that they experienced. Framed by the mediated learning experience (MLE) theory, the study avoided positioning learners as passive feedback recipients, focusing instead on learners’ agency through mutual learning in the correcting process. The study adopted a mixed-methods design, initiated by a quasi-experiment, followed by the semi-structured interviews. Intact classes, each with 31 students, were assigned a collaborative group (CG) and a teacher guided group (TGG). The correcting treatment lasted for eight weeks, involving eight correcting topics, with 120 minutes for each. Results from the Mann-Whitney U tests on pre- and post-writing tasks revealed that the WCF had positive impacts on writing accuracy. However, the CG outperformed the TGG in the pre- and post-writing tasks in a between-groups design. Thematic analysis from eight students’ responses in the CG indicated both positive and negative views and their preferences. These findings might have resulted from the learning context and the power of collaborative correcting practice within which students acted as active learners, working on their gaps to improve their writing performance. The pedagogical and theoretical implications of this study are also discussed.
