Effects of Receiving Corrective Feedback through Online Chats and Class Discussions on Iranian EFL Learners' Writing Quality

Document Type: Research Paper


1 Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran

2 English Department, Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran


Giving corrective feedback (CF) is an essential part of the teaching and learning process, and the way it should beneficially be done has been the focus of attention for numerous researchers especially when traditional ways of CF provision are not possible, particularly in rare situations such as outbreaks of diseases. This study investigated how different ways of giving feedback; namely, through online chats and class discussions can help language learners in benefitting from their instructors’ CF provision. To this purpose, the effects of two ways of feedback provision were tested on the participants writing quality. Three hundred and seventeen Iranian EFL learners took a TOEFL test, 132 of them (53 males and 79 females) scoring between 477 and 510 were asked to deliver a 200-word writing task. Then, they were randomly put into 4 experimental and control groups to undergo different treatments, i.e. receiving CF through online chats and class discussions for 10 one-hour sessions. After the treatment, they were required to deliver another 200-word piece of writing. The results of statistical data analysis showed that the writing quality of the participants receiving CF through online chats was significantly higher than that of those who received CF through class discussions. The findings of this research have practical implications for Iranian educational system to update its instructional methods and for the nature of teaching and learning processes and practices.


Abrams, Z. I. (2002). Surfing to cross‐cultural awareness: Using internet‐mediated projects to explore cultural stereotypes. Foreign language annals, 35(2), 141-160.

Banaruee, H. and A. Askari (2016). Typology of corrective feedback and error analysis, Sana Gostar Publications Isfahan.

Bataineh, M. Z. (2014). A review of factors associated with student’s lateness behavior and dealing strategies. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2), 1-7.

Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The Impact of Collaborative Writing on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 4(1).

Chaudron, C. (1977). Teachers' Priorities in Correcting Learners' Errors in French Immersion Classes. Working Papers on Bilingualism, No. 12.

Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge University Press.

Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners’ perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: a case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(1), 5.

Chun, A. E., Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., & Luppescu, S. (1982). Errors, interaction, and correction: A study of native‐normative conversations. Tesol Quarterly, 16(4), 537-547.

Day, R. R., Chenoweth, N. A., Chun, A. E., & Luppescu, S. (1984). Corrective feedback in native‐nonnative discourse. Language learning, 34(2), 19-45.

Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press. Ferreira, A., Moore, J. D., & Mellish, C. (2007). A study of feedback strategies in foreign language classrooms and tutorials with implications for intelligent computer-assisted language learning systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 17(4), 389-422.

Ge, G. (2005). A strategic approach to teaching English writing. CELEA Journal, 28(6), 110-116.

Ghahari, S., & Piruznejad, M. (2017). Recast and Explicit Feedback to Young Language Learners: Impacts on Grammar Uptake and Willingness to Communicate. Issues in Language Teaching, 5(2), 209-187.

Hertel, T. J. (2003). Using an e‐mail exchange to promote cultural learning. Foreign language annals, 36(3), 386-396.

Kerwin, D. (2012). The impact of digital and computer mediated communications on the academic writing of adolescents. Cortland, NY: SUNY College.

Koosha, M., & Yakhabi, M. (2013). Problems associated with the use of communicative language teaching in EFL contexts and possible solutions. International Journal of Foreign Language teaching and research, 1(2), 77-90.

Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language learning, 48(2), 183-218.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 37-66.

Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: A case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 133-148.

Ruegg, R. (2010). Who wants feedback and does it make any difference. In JALT2009 conference proceedings (pp. 683-691). Tokyo: JALT.

Ruegg, R. (2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(2).

Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87-102.

Salaberry, M. R. (2001). The use of technology for second language learning and teaching: A retrospective. The modern language journal, 85(1), 39-56.

Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language teaching research, 10(4), 361-392.

Warschauer, M. (1995). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO journal, 7-26.

Weininger, M. J., & Shield, L. (2003). Promoting oral production in a written channel: An investigation of learner language in MOO. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(4), 329-349.

Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity (No. 17). University of Hawaii Press.