Abstract:
Written corrective feedback is of a crucial role in the improvement of students’ writing. Unlessperceived properly by learners, it would be a valueless item. Hence, the present study seeks toraise students’ and teachers’ awareness of the role written corrective feedback plays in enhancing students’ writing. It aims to find the appropriate type of written corrective feedback to be used so as to diagnose students’ problems in writing. The ultimate goal is to help learners become better student writers in English via the use of feedback. Thus, it is hypothesised that if
students were provided with different types of written corrective feedback, they would improve their writing both in the short and in the long run. Second, if students receive peer feedback, coded feedback, and un-coded feedback on their writing, the un-coded one proves the most effective amongst others in improving students’ writing. To test the validity of these hypotheses, two means of research are used. The first one refers to two questionnaires for both teachers of writing in the Department of Letters and Languages, Université des Frères Mentouri, Constantine1 and second year English students in the same department. The second one is an experiment for learners who are asked to write a first draft of an essay. Students are grouped into three groups. In the first group, students receive peer feedback. In the second one, they receive un-coded feedback. In the third one, students receive coded feedback. After
correction, students rewrite the same passage. Then, results of the immediate post-test compared to the results of a delayed post-test to check improvement on the long run. The results of the study show that the best type of written corrective feedback that ensures writing improvement both in the short and in the long run is un-coded teacher written feedback. Coded feedback and peer feedback show weak inconsistent improvement in writing and only short term improvements are witnessed. These results are taken into account for pedagogical recommendations and research implications.
