73

International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research

Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 73-86, April 2023
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.22.4.5
Received Feb 24, 2023; Revised Apr 3, 2023; Accepted Apr 18, 2023

Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback in

EFL Writing: A Case of High School Students
Paul Gonzalez-Torres
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja, Ecuador

Cristhian Sarango
Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja, Loja, Ecuador

Abstract. The aim of this study is to assess and compare the effectiveness
of three types of EFL writing feedback: teacher direct, teacher indirect,
and peer feedback, while also exploring student perceptions of the
feedback they receive. For this purpose, a mixed-method approach was
used, combining a quasi-experimental and a survey design. Eighty-two
EFL learners (aged 17-18 years old) were divided into four groups (three
intervention groups who received feedback and one control group who
did not) and practised EFL writing skills for a two-month period. After
the intervention, the students from the intervention groups (62) answered
a questionnaire related to their perceptions about the feedback received.
The results of pre- and post-tests showed an improvement in EFL writing
skills in all the groups. Likewise, there was a statistically significant
difference in the results of the post-test between the groups who received
feedback and those who did not, which means that feedback was
effective. However, when comparing the three types of feedback, there
were no statistically significant differences among the intervention
groups. As for the perceptions of the feedback received during their EFL
writing practice, students believed that feedback was a positive aspect of
writing instruction. They thought that feedback was important for their
learning, and they would like to receive a combination of teacher and peer
feedback. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion around the
effectiveness of different types of feedback on EFL writing skills.

Keywords: written corrective feedback; direct feedback; indirect

feedback; peer feedback; writing skills

1. Introduction
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) is part of the curriculum in Ecuadorian high
schools. However, students face difficulties in reaching the required English
proficiency level set by the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education upon completing
high school (El Comercio, 2017). Teaching EFL is a challenging task for teachers
who often lack the necessary resources and training, particularly in public high

©Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0
International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
 74

schools (Gonzalez et al., 2015). This problem is also evident in the teaching and
learning of EFL writing skills, which are difficult for students, even in their mother
tongue.

In the context of teaching EFL writing skills, feedback is regarded as an important

part of the learning process (Shen & Chong, 2022). However, the effectiveness of
written corrective feedback depends on several factors, such as the frequency,
strategies employed, class size, and proficiency level of students (Ferris &
Hedgcock, 2014). Given the importance of feedback in the EFL teaching-learning
process, it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the strategies used to
provide feedback. It is also essential to understand students’ opinions about the
feedback they receive.

Previous studies have shown the efficacy of different forms of feedback (e.g.,
Mirzaii & Aliabadi, 2013; Saukah et al., 2017; Deng et al., 2022; Tan &
Manochphinyo, 2017; Yang et al., 2006). Other studies, however, have questioned
the effects of feedback over time (e.g., Truscott & Hsu, 2008; Karim & Nassaji,
2019). This controversy has captured the attention of numerous researchers in the
field of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) because of some diversity in the
results of the studies conducted. For these reasons, the present study focuses on
studying the effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback on L2 writing in an
Ecuadorian context; thus contributing to the debate regarding the effectiveness of
different types of feedback in EFL teaching, specifically writing skills.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Relevance of EFL writing skills
Writing is a complex process in language that requires time and effort to learn and
teach. Language programmes must acknowledge the multi-dimensional nature of
writing, given its importance as a core component of language (Harmer, 2004). In
other words, writing is a fundamental but challenging skill in language
production.

Writing is a basic building block for life, leisure, and employment. Basically, it is
a crucial skill in academic and professional success (National Commission on
Writing, 2004), which becomes even more challenging when it comes to writing
in a second or foreign language (Li, 2013). The cognitive process of writing skills
involves memory, thinking ability and verbal skills, so proficiency in writing is an
indicator of effective learning in a second language (Hyland, 2019).

As English is regarded as a universal language, the rise of globalisation and

technology have intensified the relevance of English writing (McKinley, 2022). In
the field of English as a Foreign Language (EFL), writing skills are also
challenging, although they are a fundamental component of EFL programmes. In
these programmes, grammar and vocabulary are considered essential elements in
the development of all EFL skills (Cabrera et al., 2021) since grammar allows
students to build accurate sentences (Mart, 2013), and vocabulary facilitates the
use of structures and functions that enable communication (Cook, 2013). It is
worth mentioning, however, that other elements, such as coherence, cohesion,

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 75

unity, and mechanics are also essential in writing. In addition, the purposes of
EFL writing programmes include tasks such as writing letters, stories, or reports
(Harmer, 2007).

The relevance of EFL/ESL writing has led to an increase in current research in this
field (Bui et al., 2023; Algburi & Razali, 2022). This research benefits from various
approaches that have been employed for writing (e.g., psychological, pedagogical,
linguistic, psycholinguistic) (Nation & Macalister, 2020).

2.2 Feedback on L2 writing

One of the main interests of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research is
understanding how individuals learn a second language, with the aim of aiding
learners in overcoming errors made during language acquisition. Recently, the
role of errors and their treatment has been a prominent area of research in SLA,
leading to an interest in written corrective feedback as a subject of study
(Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).

The provision of feedback in classroom assessment is deemed crucial as it offers

insights into the students' learning, performance, knowledge, or understanding.
Nonetheless, it does not always prompt self-correction and improvement among
students (Lee, 2017). According to Kim and Emeliyanova (2021), the feedback
provided is believed to be beneficial in enhancing the learners' linguistic
knowledge, thus improving their accuracy writing skills. In essence, written
corrective feedback refers to information given to students to enhance their
writing abilities (Alvira, 2016).

In terms of feedback strategies, there are various approaches that can be

employed. Lee (2017) asserts the importance of involving students in the learning
process through the use of the three main types of feedback: peer feedback,
technology-enhanced feedback, and teacher feedback.

Extensive research has been conducted on the use of peer feedback in L2, which
requires learners' training before its implementation. Peer feedback offers several
benefits, such as enhancing students' awareness of their writing strengths and
weaknesses, promoting critical thinking, and fostering learners' autonomy.
However, some drawbacks include the limited L2 proficiency of learners and the
size of the class.

In L2 contexts, the teacher is often considered the primary source of error

correction. While teacher feedback research has been conducted primarily in
university settings, our understanding of teacher feedback in L2 school contexts
is limited. This type of feedback has mainly focused on language form rather than
other aspects, such as content or organisation. Teacher feedback is the most
common method of supporting students as they attempt to apply newly acquired
knowledge (Borup et al., 2015). In this type of feedback, two primary strategies
can be identified: direct feedback and indirect feedback (Westmacott, 2017). Direct
feedback entails providing learners with the correct form, whereas indirect

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 76

feedback involves hinting at the presence of an error without explicitly providing

the correct form (Sheen, 2011).

It is important to understand the impact of different types of feedback on learners’

writing performance. In this respect, there have been studies on the effect of
different types of feedback on students’ L2 written work. In what follows, we
briefly discuss the results of this research.

Previous work on peer feedback for L2 writing has demonstrated that this type of
feedback is an aid to improve learners’ written production, provided that they
receive appropriate training in providing feedback and the strategies are
appropriate (e.g., Levi Altstaedter, 2018; Yu & Lee, 2016).

On the other hand, research on teacher feedback for L2 writing has found that
certain forms of teacher feedback can be more effective than others. For instance,
indirect feedback has been shown to be more effective than direct feedback (e.g.,
Ghandi & Maghsoudi, 2014; Tan & Manochphinyo, 2017). This may be because
amending is a more active process (Westmacott, 2017). However, some studies
suggest that direct feedback is more effective than indirect feedback (e.g., Mirzaii
& Aliabadi, 2013), while others that have found no significant difference between
these two types of feedback (e.g., Elola et al., 2017). It is worth noting that direct
feedback can yield better results than indirect feedback when students have lower
L2 proficiency levels (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2014).

With respect to indirect feedback, we can have two subtypes: coded and un-coded
feedback. Research regarding this topic has demonstrated that indirect coded
feedback could be more effective than indirect un-coded feedback (e.g., Salimi &
Valizadeh, 2015; Saukah et al., 2017).

Research has also demonstrated that focused feedback (focusing feedback on

particular linguistic features) is generally more effective than unfocused feedback
(the correction of all types of errors) (e.g., Deng et al., 2022), although a few studies
have found no difference between these two types of feedback (e.g., Frear & Chiu,
2015).

When it comes to the comparison of teacher and peer feedback, which is the focus
of our study, we address some related research in the following section.

2.3 Previous work on teacher versus peer feedback

Studies that have compared the effects of teacher and peer feedback on writing in
ESL/EFL contexts, and relevant research related to the theme of the present study
are summarised below.

Yang et al. (2006) compared peer and teacher feedback in an EFL writing class to
address the small amount of feedback provided in large classes at a university in
China. The participants included 79 Chinese students from an EFL writing class,
who were divided into two groups. Both groups worked on three rounds of multi-
draft compositions for the same writing tasks. The data for the analysis was

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 77

collected from three sources: textual and questionnaire data from both groups, as
well as video recordings and interviews with 12 students. The results revealed
that teacher feedback had a greater impact on student’s writing skills and was
more likely to be considered. Conversely, peer feedback was associated with
increased student autonomy.

Zhao (2012) conducted case study research to analyse how learners utilised and
comprehended teacher and peer feedback in an English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) writing course at a university in China. The participants involved were 18
second-year English majors who participated for 16 weeks. To investigate the use
of feedback, the researcher applied content analysis of the first and revised drafts
of 26 writing assignments (e.g., letters, poems, arguments). Recall interviews were
used to examine the learners' understanding of feedback. The findings indicated
that teacher feedback resulted in more changes in learners' subsequent drafts than
peer feedback. However, the recall interviews revealed that the students
internalised peer feedback more effectively.

Demirel and Engínarlar (2016) evaluated the effectiveness of combining teacher

and peer feedback to enhance students' writing skills when working on multiple
drafts. For this purpose, 57 Turkish learners of English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) worked on writing activities for 15 weeks. Learners in both the intervention
and control groups received different types of feedback on their drafts, after
which they revised their written work. The results showed that there were no
statistically significant differences between peer and teacher feedback in terms of
the number of revisions and writing quality. Nevertheless, a combination of the
two types of feedback was more beneficial when obtaining positive reactions from
students regarding peer feedback and self-revision.

A study aimed at comparing the effectiveness of peer feedback versus teacher

feedback for improving writing revision quality in EFL students involved 56
Chinese EFL students who were given either peer or teacher feedback before and
after a peer feedback training period (Cui et al., 2022). Over five writing
assignments, feedback conditions were changed within and between the class
sections. The findings revealed that peer reviewers were better able to provide
meaning-focused feedback than teachers were, and the quality of revisions
improved after the peer feedback training period. Additionally, it was found that
peer feedback with appropriate training can have an impact on revision
comparable to that of teacher feedback, particularly in situations where there is a
high workload.

Sun and Wang (2022) investigated the impact of teacher intervention on students'
utilisation of various forms of peer feedback and self-revision skills. They
employed a quasi-experimental design, in which two groups were exposed to
direct correction from the teacher for incorrect peer feedback or symbols denoting
inaccurate feedback, whereas the control group received no teacher intervention.
The sample consisted of 110 graduate students who were not majoring in English
and who participated for one and a half months. During the study, the students
produced two essays, conducted peer feedback, and revised their drafts based on

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 78

the received feedback. The results showed that the groups that received teacher
intervention made more accurate revisions in their subsequent essays than the
control group did.

Previous research has reported mixed findings on the effectiveness of teacher

feedback, peer feedback, or both, on EFL writing performance. However, these
studies have not been conducted in Latin-American Spanish-speaking contexts,
and specifically in Ecuador, which must meet significant challenges in EFL
teaching and learning (Ecuadorian Ministry of Education, 2023). This study aims
to address this research gap by comparing the effectiveness and students'
perceptions of two common types of teacher feedback (direct and indirect) and
peer feedback in an Ecuadorian high school setting. The results of this study will
contribute to the ongoing discussion on how to improve the EFL teaching and
learning process in Ecuador by identifying effective feedback strategies that can
be incorporated into EFL writing instruction.

Based on the above, the research questions to be answered are:

1) How effective is direct feedback, indirect feedback, and peer feedback for
improving the written production of Ecuadorian EFL learners?

2) What are the students’ perceptions of the feedback provided on their written
work?

3. Method
3.1 Setting and participants
A total of 82 senior high-school students from a public school in Ecuador
participated in the present study. Their ages ranged from 17 to 18 years old and
their English proficiency levels varied (A1, A2, and B1), based on the Common
European Framework of Reference (CEFR) (Council of Europe, 2020). These
students were enrolled in the Second Year of the Diploma Programme and were
divided into four classes, each with a similar number of students. Three of these
classes were intervention groups (62 students in total) for the three types of
feedback applied (direct feedback: 21 students; indirect feedback: 21 students;
peer feedback: 20 students). One group (20 students) was the control group that
did not receive any teacher or peer feedback.

3.2 Instruments
Students were administered a writing pre-test and post-test that consisted of short
descriptive essays (minimum 120 words and maximum 150 words) in which they
had to write about their favourite vacation (pre-test) and their favourite movie
(post-test).

Furthermore, a questionnaire was given to students from the intervention groups.

The seven items of this instrument were designed to gather information about
students’ thoughts and opinions regarding the feedback that they had received.
Before distributing the questionnaire to all students, it was tested on a randomly
selected group of 30 students from the intervention groups, and the results
showed a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha was 0.832). To

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 79

prevent any confusion among students with lower English proficiency, the
questions were translated into Spanish.

3.3 Procedure
The present study employed a mixed-method approach that integrated a quasi-
experimental design (based on pre-test and post-test) and results of questionnaire
responses. A quasi-experimental design study involves non-random sampling to
evaluate the impact of an idea, practice, or procedure on a particular outcome
(Creswell, 2015). In this instance, the students were chosen according to the class
in which they were enrolled. This means that we used purposeful sampling in the
selection of the groups of students since these students had the characteristics
required for the study.

Before starting the writing practices, students took a writing pre-test to evaluate
their writing skills at the beginning of the intervention. The pre-tests were graded
jointly by two teachers and were based on a rubric developed for the pre-test and
post-test. The score assigned was out of 10 points.

The students from the four groups, who usually took five hours of General
English a week, worked on a weekly writing activity for eight weeks. Two of those
five hours per week were devoted to practising writing informal e-mails, blog
entries and short essays (with a minimum of 120 words and a maximum of 150
words). The students from the control group did not receive any teacher or peer
feedback on their tasks; however, learners from all of the four groups participated
in short weekly sessions with the whole class in which common writing errors
were pointed out and addressed.

Owing to the relevance of grammar and vocabulary in EFL writing (Cabrera et al.,
2021; Mart, 2013; Cook, 2013) and the effectiveness of focused feedback in
comparison to unfocused feedback (Deng et al., 2022), the students from the
intervention groups received feedback on grammar and vocabulary that they
were either already familiar with or were studying in class. As focused feedback
was provided, it did not address content, mechanics, or style. In the teacher direct
feedback group, the teacher underlined the errors and indicated the correct form
using arrows and comments. In the teacher indirect feedback group, the teacher
used codes that had been previously indicated in class. These codes were related
to grammar (verbs, wrong order, prepositions, etc.) and vocabulary errors (false
cognates, misspelling, calques, incorrect meaning, etc.).

With respect to peer feedback, students received two hours of training before
providing feedback. They worked in pairs and used oral communication and a
peer feedback rubric to implement this type of feedback. The feedback was
provided in the form of indirect feedback in which students had to circle the errors
related to grammar and vocabulary. If the students who received feedback were
unsure about the error, they asked their classmate to clarify their doubts.

The intervention groups revised their drafts based on the feedback provided (by
their teacher or peer) and submitted their final products. After receiving feedback

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 80

on their drafts and revising them, students were given a qualitative grade (very
good, good, needs improvement) for each revised task.

At the end of the intervention, the students took a writing post-test, which was
used to obtain data about their progress after the writing lessons. Like the pre-
test, the post-test was graded jointly by two teachers (out of 10 points) based on a
rubric. The students in the intervention groups also answered a questionnaire
about their perceptions of the feedback received in their writing sessions after the
intervention period.

The statistical analysis of the scores obtained in the pre- and post-tests in each
group was performed by using the paired t-test, as the data came from the same
group of students. This was done to determine whether there were statistically
significant differences in the results of the pre- and post-tests in each of the four
groups.

To compare the results of the pre-tests and post-tests of the four groups, we used
one-way ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc tests in order to determine if there were
significant differences in the scores. First, we ran the one-way ANOVA with the
results of the pre-tests to compare the scores of the writing tests among the four
groups. Then, ANOVA was used to find significant differences in the scores of the
writing post-test after receiving the different types of feedback.

4. Results
4.1 Effectiveness of the different types of feedback used
Below (Table 1) we present the mean scores (out of 10 points) obtained by the
students in the pre-test for each group. There is no statistically significant
difference in the results of the writing pre-tests among the four groups (p-value >
0.05).

Table 1: Results of the pre-test

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Indirect Direct Peer feedback No feedback
teacher teacher
feedback feedback
Mean 5.4286 5.2857 5.325 5.55
Standard 1.3536 1.1244 1.4075 1.3268
deviation
p-value (ANOVA) = 0.916 F=0.17

Table 2 displays the mean scores (out of 10 points) obtained by the students in the
post-test. The p-value obtained after running the ANOVA test indicates
statistically significant differences among the four groups. However, the Tukey
post-hoc test shows statistically non-significant differences, except for Groups 2
and 4, so there is a statistically significant difference in the scores obtained by the
direct teacher feedback group and the no feedback group.

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 81

Table 2: Results of the post-test

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Indirect Direct Peer feedback No feedback
teacher teacher
feedback feedback
Mean 7.2143 7.4524 6.525 6.425
Standard 1.0905 1.1822 1.0939 1.2904
deviation
p-value (ANOVA) = 0.012328 F=3.87

In both Tables 1 and 2, it is evident that there was an improvement in mean scores
for all groups at the end of the intervention (Group 1 mean score improvement =
1.7857; Group 2 mean score improvement = 2.1667; Group 3 mean score
improvement = 1.2; Group 4 mean score improvement = 0.875). Application of the
paired t-test to compare the pre-test and post-test scores in each group showed
that the improvements from the pre-test to the post-test were statistically
significant in all four groups (p-value < 0.0001). Moreover, groups that received
teacher feedback showed higher improvements in mean scores than those who
received peer feedback or no feedback at all. However, there was no statistically
significant difference when comparing teacher and peer feedback.

4.2 Students’ perceptions of the feedback provided

After receiving feedback, the three intervention groups completed a questionnaire
based on a Likert scale containing 7 items. Table 3 shows the percentages of the
answers provided by the 42 students who received teacher feedback and the 20
students who received peer feedback (total = 62 students). The majority of
students in all three groups tended to agree or strongly agree with the statements.

As presented in Table 3, the majority of students in the three groups believed that
the feedback they received helped them improve their written production (Agree
= 42 students; Strongly agree = 12 students). They also felt comfortable with the
feedback provided on their work (Agree = 29 students; Strongly agree = 33
students) and thought that feedback had helped them identify errors they had not
noticed before in their writing (Agree = 25 students; Strongly agree = 37 students).
The students also felt motivated after realising that their work improved owing
to the corrections (Agree = 45 students; Strongly agree = 9 students), and
considered that the corrections were related to the grammar and vocabulary
studied in class (Agree = 43 students; Strongly agree = 14 students). Finally, the
students expressed a preference for combined feedback from both the teacher and
their classmates (Agree = 36 students; Strongly agree = 29 students). They
regarded this feedback as crucial to their learning process (Agree = 26 students;
Strongly agree = 36 students).

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 82

Table 3: Students’ answers to the questionnaire (percentages)

Statement Disagree Partially Agree Strongly
agree agree
1) My English written production has 0% 12.9% 67.74% 19.35%
improved because my English
teacher/classmate helped me with the
corrections.
2) I felt comfortable when my 0% 0% 46.77% 53.23%
teacher/classmate corrected my written
work.
3) The correction of errors provided by my 0% 0% 40.32% 59.68%
teacher/classmate helped me to identify
errors that I did not notice before.
4) I felt motivated when I saw that the texts 0% 12.9% 72.58% 14.52%
I wrote improved after receiving feedback
from my teacher/classmate.
5) The corrections that I received were 0% 8.06% 69.35% 22.58%
related to the grammar and vocabulary
that I have studied in the classroom.
6) I would like to receive feedback from 0% 0% 53.23% 46.77%
both my teacher and a classmate.
7) I think that the error correction provided 0% 0% 41.94% 58.06%
is important in my learning process.

5. Discussion
First of all, the EFL writing skills in the four groups under study are similar, as
demonstrated by the mean scores and p-value (>0.05) obtained in the writing pre-
test. This is an important basis for the comparability of the groups.

Once the instruction period finished, all the groups obtained higher mean scores
after the eight weeks of training, which means that the four groups improved their
use of grammar and vocabulary in EFL writing. This is reflected in the results of
the post-test. However, the intervention groups showed greater improvement in
their mean scores when the results are compared with those obtained in the pre-
test. There are statistically significant differences between the teacher direct
feedback group and the control group, which means that the direct feedback was
much more effective in this sample of students, perhaps because their English
proficiency level was low. This finding is consistent with the research conducted
by Ferris and Hedgcock (2014), which suggests that direct feedback on writing can
be more effective than other types of feedback, especially for students who
struggle with L2 proficiency. Based on these results, it is evident that teacher
direct feedback is a more effective approach for teaching students with lower
levels of English proficiency. This finding underscores the importance of tailoring
teaching approaches to the specific needs of individual students to maximize their
learning outcomes.

No statistically significant differences were found when comparing the other

groups, suggesting that the improvements after receiving indirect teacher
feedback and peer feedback are not significant in comparison with the control
group. There were no significant differences among the three types of feedback

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 83

either. These results seem to be different from other, similar studies that compare
types of feedback in which indirect feedback is more effective than direct feedback
(e.g., Ghandi & Maghsoudi, 2014; Tan & Manochphinyo, 2017), and more in line
with literature that has not found significant differences between these two types
of feedback (e.g., Elola et al., 2017). In other words, the results indicate that
indirect teacher feedback and peer feedback may not be the best alternative for
teaching students with a low English proficiency level. This has important
implications for determining the circumstances under which direct or indirect
feedback should be provided.

When it comes to comparing teacher and peer feedback, the results of the present
study are not completely aligned to studies that have found that teacher feedback
is more effective than peer feedback (e.g., Yang et al., 2006; Zhao, 2012) or studies
that favour peer feedback (Cui et ak.,2022). The results of the present study are
more in line with literature that shows no statistically significant difference
between teacher and peer feedback (e.g., Demirel & Engínarlar, 2016).

Regarding the students’ perceptions, students from the intervention groups seem
to have a positive attitude towards the feedback received on their written
production. In fact, feedback is considered helpful in improving learners’ writing
skills (Kim & Emeliyanova, 2021). Furthermore, the students would like to receive
a combination of teacher and peer feedback in L2 writing, which would be an
ideal scenario in teaching EFL writing.

Overall, this study offers valuable insights into the effectiveness of different
feedback types in improving the writing skills of students with low English
proficiency levels. The findings can assist teachers and educators in designing
effective feedback strategies for their students. However, it is important to note
that further research is needed to fully test the effectiveness of these types of
teacher and peer feedback with larger samples of high-school students across
different English proficiency levels.

Therefore, it is recommended that the feedback provided considers students'

English proficiency and that a combination of teacher and peer feedback, with
appropriate preparation, is used. Additionally, continuing research in this area
with students from different English proficiency levels and education levels can
further improve EFL writing instruction.

6. Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study suggest that receiving feedback, either from teachers or
peers, is more beneficial for improving writing skills than not receiving feedback.
Specifically, the group that received direct feedback showed a significant
improvement in their writing skills compared to the control group, indicating that
this approach may be more effective for students with lower English proficiency
levels. However, when comparing direct teacher feedback with indirect teacher
feedback and peer feedback, the improvement in writing skills was not
significant. This suggests that the students’ proficiency level may not have been
sufficient for providing peer feedback and working on the corrections given by

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 84

the teacher, especially in the case of indirect coded feedback. In terms of students’
perceptions, they hold positive opinions about written corrective feedback. They
favour receiving both teacher and peer feedback, as well as a combination of both
types of feedback. They feel that feedback is a helpful strategy that helps them
identify errors that they usually do not notice, and improves their writing skills.
Students also feel comfortable and motivated when receiving feedback related to
the content studied in the EFL classroom.

To sum up, the findings of the present study indicate that providing written
corrective feedback does help students to improve their written production in a
foreign language. Nevertheless, some factors must be taken into account when
providing this type of feedback, including class size, L2 proficiency level,
frequency, and strategies. It is also crucial to know how students feel about the
feedback received in order to determine if the teacher can continue implementing
the feedback strategies in the EFL classroom. Finally, it should be noted that the
sample size for this study was not large enough, and therefore, studies with larger
groups and a fully experimental approach would be recommended in future
studies.

7. References
Algburi, E. A., & Razali, A. B. (2022). Role of Feedback on English Academic Writing Skills
of Tertiary Level Iraqi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Students: A Review
of Literature. Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development,
11(1), 689–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i1/12168
Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of
screencasts. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(2), 79–
92. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53397
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition
and writing. Routledge.
Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication
on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 63(2), 161–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8
Bui, H. P., Nguyen, L. T., & Nguyen, T. V. (2023). An investigation into EFL pre-service
teachers’ academic writing strategies. Heliyon, 9(3), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13743
Cabrera-Solano, P., Gonzalez-Torres, P., & Ochoa-Cueva, C. (2021). Using Pixton for
teaching EFL writing in higher education during the covid-19 pandemic.
International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(9), 102–115.
https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.9.7
Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.
Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages:
Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe
Publishing.
Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Gai, X. (2022). Peer feedback and teacher feedback: a comparative
study of revision effectiveness in writing instruction for EFL learners. Higher
Education Research & Development, 41(6), 1838–1854.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 85

Demirel, E., & Enginarlar, H. (2016). Effects of combined peer-teacher feedback on second
language writing development. H. U. Journal of Education, 31(4), 657–675.
http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016015701
Deng, C., Wang, X., Lin S., Xuan, W., & Xie, Q. (2022). The effect of coded focused and
unfocused corrective feedback on ESL student writing accuracy. Journal of
Language and Education, 8(4), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.16039
Ecuadorian Ministry of Education. (2023, February 24). Lengua Extranjera [Foreign
Language]. http://educacion.gob.ec/curriculo-lengua-extranjera/
El Comercio (2017). El nivel de inglés en el Ecuador todavía es bajo [English proficiency
level in Ecuador is still low]. Retrieved from
http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-nivel-ingles-adultos-
educacion.html
Elola, I., Mikulski, A. M., & Buckner, T. E. (2017). The impact of direct and indirect
feedback on the development of Spanish aspect. Journal of Spanish Language
Teaching, 4(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.1315267
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice.
New York: Routledge.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written
corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53,
24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback
on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p53
Gonzalez, P. F., Ochoa, C. A., Cabrera, P. A., Castillo, L. M., Quinonez, A. L., Solano, L.
M., Espinoza, F., Ulehlova, E. & Arias, M. O. (2015). EFL teaching in the Amazon
Region of Ecuador: A focus on activities and resources for teaching listening and
speaking skills. English Language Teaching, 8(8), 94–103.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n8p94
Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. UK: Pearson Education.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. New York: Longman.
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical
synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1),
28–52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the
accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior.
Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234–255.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406
Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore:
Springer.
Levi Altstaedter, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language
writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 137–151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052
Li, X. (2013). The application of "three dimensional" model in the teaching design of EFL
writing. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 32–44.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p32
Mart, C. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and How? Theory and Practice in
Language Studies, 3(1), 124–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.124–129
McKinley, J. (2022). An argument for globalized L2 writing methodological innovation.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100945.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100945

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter
 86

Mirzaii, M., & Aliabadi, R. B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the
context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of
Writing Research, 5(2), 191–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.2
Nation, I.S.P., & Macalister, J. (2020). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002765
National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. New
York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Salimi, A., & Valizadeh, M. (2015). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective
feedback on the accuracy of learners writing in pre-intermediate level. International
Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3), 116–122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.116
Saukah, A., Dewanti, D. M. I., & Laksmi, E. D. (2017). The effect of coded and non-coded
correction feedback on the quality of Indonesian EFL students’ Writing. Indonesian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 247–252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8127
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in
ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based
framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Sun, H., & Wang, M. (2022). Effects of teacher intervention and type of peer feedback on
student writing revision. Language Teaching Research.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221080507
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions.
Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 17–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02.
Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving Grammatical Accuracy in Thai
Learners' Writing: Comparing Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback. The
Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430–442.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.14.3.4.430
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback
in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students' strategy use in a cooperative peer
feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005
Zhao, H. (2012). Who takes the floor? Peer feedback or teacher feedback: An investigation
of Chinese university English learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher
feedback on writing. In Innovating EFL teaching in Asia (pp. 245–252). London:
Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230347823_19

http://ijlter.org/index.php/ijlter