In this regard, this study explores the role of grammatical, semantic and coherence/coherence direct and indirect corrective feedback in EFL learners' writing skill improvement. This study provides support for indirect corrective feedback, and it considers indirect corrective feedback as more likely to lead to long-term learning (Ferris and Roberts 2001). Research findings in the L2 writing domain indicate that written corrective feedback (WCF) is one of the most frequently used techniques in English writing teaching.
The importance of this study lies in the fact that two types of written corrective feedback (WCF) are confirmed and demonstrated, namely H2: Direct and indirect feedback have different effects on the writing skills of EFL learners with different learning styles. Experimental group 1 received “Direct corrective feedback” and experimental group 2 received “Indirect corrective feedback”.
Design and Procedures
The topics were selected based on the most common topics used for writing skill in New Interchange course books used for EFL learning in Iran English institutes. An attempt was also made not to select gender-based subjects to avoid the interference of the gender variable. Its duration was estimated by calculating the time spent by the fastest and the slowest students to write a paragraph of approximately 100 to 150 words divided by 2.
Development of the background questionnaire and the General English Proficiency Test (Transparency Test) together with their administration. Development of the Debugging Checklist and administration of the Learning Style Test (Group Imbedded Figure Test). Asking students from all 3 groups (two experimental and one control group) to write three paragraphs including about 100-150 words about three different topics, discussed in the previous paragraph, on odd days in a week.
Repeating step 3 of the procedure, that is, asking the subjects to rewrite three paragraphs of approximately 100-150 words on the same topics in the pre-test phase, on the odd days of the week, after an interval of 10 days . There were three data sources for the study: 1) the Learning Style Test (the Group Embedded Figure Test), 2) the General English Proficiency Test (the Transparency Test), and 3) Writing Paragraphs.
The First Hypothesis
Based on the Sig amount (Sig=.000) for the effect of the writing ability variable in the first row, it was concluded that this effect is significant at any error level. In other words, the score of students' writing skills in the post-test phase has improved compared to the score before the test phase. Also from the Sig amount (Sig=.000) for the interactive effect of the variables for corrective feedback and teacher writing skills in the second row, it can be observed that this effect is also significant at any time point.
In other words, there is a significant difference between these two groups, that is, based on the mentioned mean scores in Table 4, the feedback group outperformed the control group. However, based on the Sig (Sig=.258) for the interactive effect variable of improving writing skills and learning styles in the third row, we can conclude that this effect is not significant at the .05 level of error, ie. there is no significant difference between these two groups. And based on the Sig (Sig=.253) for the interactive effect variables of improving writing skills and learning styles in both the feedback group and the control group in the fourth row, we can conclude that this effect is not significant at the error level. 05, that is, there is no significant difference between these two groups.
In graph 1, you can see in the pre-test phase that there is no difference between the estimated cut-off mean scores for the writing skills of students in the teacher feedback group and those in the control group (green line graph in the first). There is also no difference between the estimated cut-off mean scores of students' writing skills depending on domain v. Regarding the next graph, you can see that there is a difference between the estimated marginal means of the independent students' writing skills post-test scores in the teacher feedback group and the control group (green line graph on the second).
There is also a difference between the estimated marginal mean scores for the field-dependent students' posttest writing skills scores in the teacher feedback group and the control group (purple line graph in the second). However, there is no difference between the estimated marginal mean scores of field-independent students and field-dependent students' posttest writing proficiency scores (between green and purple lines on the second graph).
The Second Hypothesis
However, there is a difference between the estimated marginal mean scores of the pre-test writing proficiency scores for field-independent students and field-dependent students (the difference between green and purple lines in the first chart). In the post-test phase, the mean score and standard deviation of the FD students who received direct feedback were 29.92 and 4.41, and the mean score and standard deviation of the FI students who received direct feedback in. Also according to the Sig amount (Sig= .000) for the interactive effect of writing proficiency score and direct/indirect corrective feedback variables in the second order, it can be observed that this effect is also significant at any error level.
In other words, there is no difference between the scores of FD/FI students' writing skills in the pre-test and post-test stages. And based on the Sig (Sig=.02) for the interactive effect of the variables of improving writing skills and learning styles in the direct feedback group and the indirect feedback group in the fourth row, it can be concluded that this effect is significant at the .05 error level, meaning there is a significant difference between these two groups. In other words, there is a difference between the writing skill scores of FD/FI students who received direct/indirect corrective feedback in the pre-test and post-test stages.
The graph below (Graph 2) on the left side shows the estimated marginal means of the writing skill scores of FD/FI students who received direct/indirect feedback in the pre-test phase, and the graph on the right side shows the assessment. In the first diagram above you can see that in the pre-test phase, there is no difference between the estimated marginal mean scores of FI students' writing skills in the direct and indirect feedback groups (green line in the graph of first). There is no difference between the estimated mean marginal scores of the writing skills of FD students in the direct and indirect feedback groups (purple line in the left graph) at the same stage.
However, there is a difference between the estimated marginal mean scores of the pre-test writing skill scores of field-independent learners and field-dependent learners (the difference between green and purple lines in the first diagram). Regarding the second diagram above, you can see that there is a difference between the estimated marginal means of field-independent learners writing skills post-test scores in the indirect feedback group and the direct group (green line in the second graph). There is also a difference between the estimated marginal mean scores of the field-dependent learners' post-test writing skill scores in the direct and indirect feedback group (purple line in the second graph).
There is a difference between the estimated marginal mean scores for field-independent students and field-dependent students' scores for post-test writing skills (between green and purple lines on the second graph).
The Third Hypothesis
The next table (Table 8) indicates the results of the 1-way ANOVA for the significance of the interactive effect between learning style and writing skill. Results of 1-way ANOVA for the significance of the interactive effect between learning style and writing skill. Therefore, there is a significant interaction between writing proficiency scores and learning styles of the Iranian EFL learners.
In other words, there is a significant difference between the mean scores of the FD/FI EFL learners' writing skill scores. The graph below (Graph 3) shows the estimated marginal means of the writing skill scores of the FD/FI students in the pre-test and post-test phases. The graph shows that there is a significant difference between the FD/FI students' writing skill scores in the pre-test and post-test, and the students' learning styles made a significant difference in their writing skill scores .
Estimated marginal means of FD/FI students' writing skill scores at pre-test and post-test stages. Whereas, the results of this study show that there is no significant difference between the results of the writing skills of FD/FI students who received corrective feedback for their mistakes. According to the third hypothesis of this study, there is a significant difference between the writing skill scores of FD/FI students in the pre-test and post-test, and the students' learning styles have made a significant difference in their ability of writing. points.
Therefore, it can be concluded that since EFL students' writing skills are influenced by their difference in learning styles, EFL teachers would better know their students' specific learning styles in order to provide them with those writing techniques and strategies. skills that better suit their individual learning styles. Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-concept classroom: is feedback on content followed by feedback on form the best method? In Journal of Second Language Writing.