The Effects of Teacher Indirect Feedback and Collaborative Revision Activity on Grammatical Accuracy of Thai College Students’ Writing


Wilai Phiewma and Watana Padgate


     This study investigated the effects of indirect feedback together with collaborative revision on the accuracy improvement of the target grammatical features found in narrative paragraph. This study was a quasi-experimental design with a pretest and immediate posttest structure using one experimental group and one control group.The participants of the study were two intact classes of second-year undergraduate students majoring in Business English at Loei Rajabhat University, Thailand These students enrolled in a Basic English Writing course offered in the first semester of the academic year 2014. After the errors of the target grammatical features in three narrative paragraphs were underlined by the teacher, one group of the students (N=30), an experimental group, corrected the errors with their partner whose English language ability level was either the same or different from theirs, and the other group of students (N=27), the control group, edited their errors individually. Research instruments were a passage correction test and a narrative writing test. The findings showed that 1) The post-test scores of both groups were not significantly different from their pre-test scores, 2) The post-test scores of the experimental group and of the control group were not significantly different from each other, and 3) The students with different levels of English proficiency seemed to benefit differently from the collaborative revision activity. The findings of this study suggested that self-revision and collaborative revision activities which were done after the errors of the target grammatical features on the pieces of writing were detected in the form of underlining resulted in neither positive nor negative effects on the grammatical accuracyof the students in this study. These findings may suggest that the students’ learning backgrounds and levels of English proficiency should be brought into consideration when the teacher plans to implement the teacher indirect feedback and collaborative revision activity to improve grammatical accuracy in a writing classroom.


Abadikhah, S., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ performance after collaborative output. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(1), 118-125.

Bennui, P. (2008). A study of L1 interference in the writing of Thai EFL students. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 4, 72-102.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.

Brooks, F., Donato, R., & McGlonem, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say “It” right?: Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 524-541.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. New York: Longman.

Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in Language Programs. NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.

Brown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs: A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York: McGraw-Hill College.

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, 267-296.

Donato, R. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453-464.

Englert, C., Mariage, T. V., & Dunsmore, K. (2006). Tenets of sociocultural theory in writing instruction research. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 208-221). New York: Guilford.

Erel, S., & Bulut, D. (2007). Error treatment in L2 writing: A comparative study of direct and indirect coded feedback in Turkish EFL context. Journal of Institute of Social Sciences, Erciyes University, 23(1), 397-415.

Fawbush, B. (2010). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback for middle school ESL learners. (Master’s thesis). Hamline University, Saint Paul, MN.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and writing corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.

Hatch, E. M. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Intratat, C. (2004). Evaluation of CALL materials for EFL students at KMUTT, Thailand. Retrieved from

Johnstone, R. (2009). Review of research on language teaching, learning and policy. Language Teaching, 42(3), 287-315.

Kassim, A., & Ng, L. L. (2014). The roles of collaborative dialogue in enhancing written corrective feedback efficacy. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 10(1), 16-30.

Khaourai, P. (2002). A Study of mistakes in English essay writing: A case study of students majoring English at Ratchapat Nakhonprathom. Journal of Passa Paritasna, 20, 137-156.

Indirect Feedback, Collaborative Revision Activity, Grammatical Accuracy Improvement
Research Articles


How to Cite
AND WATANA PADGATE, Wilai Phiewma. The Effects of Teacher Indirect Feedback and Collaborative Revision Activity on Grammatical Accuracy of Thai College Students’ Writing. Journal of Community Development Research (Humanities and Social Sciences), [S.l.], v. 10, n. 2, p. 1-10, june 2017. ISSN 2539-5521. Available at: <>. Date accessed: 31 mar. 2020.