Revision-mediated and Attention-mediated Feedback: Effects on EFL Learners’ Written Syntactic Accuracy

Fatemeh Soltanpour, Mohammadreza Valizadeh


Based on the literature, revision requirement (i.e., when students rewrite their whole text based on the teacher feedback) can perhaps be a necessary intermediate step towards the development of written accuracy because learners have more time to think about and process the corrections; however, some state drawing learner’s attention can be achieved by asking them to take time to look over the received feedback and carefully examine their errors. This quantitative quasi-experimental study, which followed a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design, investigated the effects of revision mediation versus attention mediation on EFL learners’ syntactic accuracy of their argumentative essays. 83 Iranian EFL learners, studying at upper-intermediate level were assigned to three groups: comprehensive direct corrective feedback plus a revision requirement (DCF/+R), comprehensive DCF plus a time to pay careful attention to and study the errors and received feedback (DCF/+S) and the control group that received the comprehensive DCF without any extra assignment (DCF/-R,-S). Each group received three sessions of treatment. The existence of any statistically significant differences among the three groups with regard to each received treatment was investigated both in the short and long term. It was found that both revision requirement (DCF/+R) and careful attention requirement (DCF/+S) significantly outperformed the group that only received the feedback. Nevertheless, it was also proved that the group that was required to pay careful attention to and study the feedback (DCF/+S) significantly outperformed the one that experienced the revision requirement (DCF/+R). Discussion focuses on the importance of two levels of awareness: noticing and understanding.


Comprehensive direct corrective feedback, Revision, Attention, Noticing, Argumentative essays

Full Text:



Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were ... System, 37(4), 600–613.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. English Language Teaching, 63(2), 97–107.

Ellis, R. (2010). EPILOGUE: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371.

Elwood, J. A., & Bode, J. (2014). Student preferences vis-à-vis teacher feedback in university EFL writing classes in Japan. System, 42(1), 333–343.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime ...?). Journal of Response to Writing, 13(1), 49–62.

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Ed.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.

Ferris, D. R. (2014). Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. (Doctoral dissertation). New Zealand: The University of Auckland. Retrieved from

Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Extract from Research Notes, 12, 8–10. Retrieved from

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.

Guénette, D. (2012). The pedagogy of error correction: Surviving the written corrective feedback challenge. TESL CANADA JOURNAL/REVUE TESL DU CANADA, 30(1), 117–126.

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary EFL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.

Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332–347.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–230.

Hyland, K. (2013). Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(3), 180–187.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83.

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149.

Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.

Lee, I. (2005). Error correction in the L2 writing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2), 1–16.

Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 69–85.

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218.

Leow, R. P. (2006). The role of awareness in L2 development: Theory, research, and pedagogy. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(2), 125–139. Retrieved from

Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.

Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Mawlawi Diab, N. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.

Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71–89.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th ed.). Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Phakiti, A. (2010). Analysing quantitative data. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Continuum companion to research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 39–49). New York, NY: Continuum Companions.

Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389.

Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67–100.

Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2012). Summit 2: English for today’s world (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.

Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.

Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158.

Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. W. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 1–63). Honolulu, HI: University of Honolulu.

Schmidt, R. W. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283.

Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 285–304.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2015). Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing? System, 49, 110–119.

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.

Simard, D., Guénette, D., & Bergeron, A. (2015). L2 learners’ interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: Insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness, 24(3), 233–254.

Stefanou, C., & Révész, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282.

Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. Retrieved from

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.

Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging ,direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. M. Gass & C. G. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Gook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.

Van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. Retrieved from

Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2021 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the '' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.