Direct Versus Indirect Grammar

Feedback
JOHN BITCHENER

­Framing the Issue

This entry discusses the potential of direct, indirect, and metalinguistic written
corrective feedback (CF) to facilitate second language (L2) development.
Written CF refers to the feedback that teachers (and sometimes other native
speakers of the target language) give second language learners on the accuracy
of the target language used in their written texts. In some of the early literature,
written CF has also been referred to as error/grammar correction. Over the past
40 years, our understanding of the purpose of providing written CF has
evolved: in the early literature, the primary purpose was to provide feedback
so that L2 learners could edit their own texts. This focus characterized many of
the early revision written CF studies. In more recent years, the interface
between L2 writing and L2 acquisition has generated a body of theoretical and
research literature about the potential of written CF to facilitate L2 develop­
ment/learning/acquisition. In the literature, the terms L2 development, learning,
and acquisition have sometimes been used interchangeably even though each
has its own defining characteristics. In this entry, the term L2 development is
used because it refers to the developmental stages in the learning or acquisition
of an L2 from the point when written CF is provided to the point when a learner
demonstrates through a modified or accurate use of the L2 that the develop­
ment process has begun.
Written CF can be provided to L2 learners in several ways. Direct feedback or
direct error correction refers to some form of explicit correction of linguistic form
or structure above or near the linguistic error. It may involve the crossing out of an
unnecessary word, phrase, or morpheme, the insertion of a missing word, phrase,
or morpheme, or the provision of the correct form or structure. Indirect feedback
or indirect written CF refers to that which indicates an error has been made but it
does not provide a correction. It may take the form of underlining or circling an
error (thereby indicating and locating the error) or recording in the margin the

The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, First Edition.

Edited by John I. Liontas (Project Editor: Margo DelliCarpini).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0055

eelt0055.indd 1 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 2 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback

number of errors in a given line (thereby indicating only that an error has been
made somewhere in the line of text). In recent years, metalinguistic explanation
has been discussed as a separate category of written CF. It may include ­grammatical
explanations/rules as well as examples of accurate L2 use and may be provided by
assigning each error a number and, at the bottom of the page of text or at the end
of the full text, presenting the metalinguistic explanation(s)/example(s) beside the
relevant number assigned to the error category in the learner’s text. Metalinguistic
explanation can also be provided in the form of an error code (e.g., PT for Past
Tense).
It can be seen, then, that each of these types of written CF occupies a specific
place on the explicit spectrum. At the least explicit end of the spectrum, we would
expect to find indirect written CF options. Arguably, at the most explicit end of the
spectrum we would expect to find either direct error correction and/or meta­
linguistic explanation. If metalinguistic explanation is provided, it is most often
accompanied by direct error correction, so this combination would be considered
the most explicit form of written CF. Given these different approaches to provid­
ing written CF, it is not difficult to understand why teachers, as well as researchers
and theorists, have been interested in finding out whether or not one type of
­written CF is more effective than another for L2 development.

­Making the Case

To understand the extent to which different types of written CF have the poten­
tial to facilitate L2 development, it is important to (1) consider whether or not a
theoretical case can be made to support the assumption that written CF in gen­
eral as well as specific types of written CF can play this role, and (2) examine
what the research evidence has revealed. Prior to Truscott’s (1996) call for the
abandonment of written CF, teachers had generally assumed to some extent at
least that it was a worthwhile practice and that L2 learners would develop their
L2 knowledge as a result. However, Truscott’s theoretical, empirical, and peda­
gogical claims against the practice highlighted the absence of a sufficiently
developed theoretical case and of research evidence for or against the effective­
ness of the practice.
Perhaps the most complete theoretical case in support of the practice can be
found in Bitchener and Storch (in press), a case which is situated within SLA
perspectives on the cognitive processing of explicit information (provided in the
form of written CF). The central goal of L2 learning is the acquisition of native or
near-native speaker competence, but as Krashen (1985) explains, acquired compe­
tence is different from learned competence. It is generally agreed that acquired
competence draws upon implicit, unconscious L2 knowledge, but it is more con­
troversial whether learned competence, resulting from a conscious development
of explicit L2 (afforded by explicit written CF), can be converted to implicit
knowledge. If it can be converted, as many “interface” theorists suggest, it can be
hypothesized to play a role. On the other hand, non-interface theorists maintain

eelt0055.indd 2 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback 3

that conversion is not possible. Skill acquisition theories are useful for explaining
how explicit L2 knowledge can be proceduralized through meaningful, contextu­
alized practice over time (that is, through the process of consolidating new L2
knowledge gained from written CF) to a point where it is converted to implicit,
acquired knowledge.
Various SLA theorists explain the specific cognitive, information-processing
stages that need to occur if written CF is to help learners progress from the
point where they receive the feedback to the point where they are able to mod­
ify accurately the grammatical error that it has targeted and produce new,
accurate output in new pieces of writing. They explain that the learner must (1)
attend to the written CF input, (2) notice with awareness and understanding the
difference between their inaccurate output and what the feedback is saying, (3)
internalize and (4) integrate the new knowledge in order to produce accurate L2
output. If new accurate output is produced, it is likely that the learning process
has been successfully initiated. Ongoing opportunities for using the same
grammatical form or structure are needed if the learner is to consolidate the
knowledge and work toward automatizing that use as native speakers do. It
has been hypothesized that this computerized model of the development pro­
cess can be interrupted by the presence of individual and contextual factors
and that these are likely to also interact in different ways with the type of writ­
ten CF a learner receives. Before we consider the potential effect of different
types of written CF on the development process, it is important to examine the
empirical research that has investigated whether or not these theoretical claims
are valid.
To determine empirically whether or not written CF can help learners pro­
duce modified and new, accurate uses of the L2 on a range of occasions after
the first accurate use has been identified, a pre-test, treatment, post-test research
design has most often been employed. Once a pre-test piece of writing has
identified the grammatical error to be targeted, written CF (the treatment) is
provided on the error categories. An immediate post-test piece of writing is
then examined to see if the feedback has enabled the learners to produce accu­
rate uses of the targeted grammatical forms or structures. Any number of post-
test pieces of writing can then be examined over time to see whether the initial
level of improved accuracy in the immediate post-test has been retained and
therefore whether or not new knowledge is in the process of being consoli­
dated. To determine whether or not any improved accuracy is, in fact, the result
of written CF, the written texts of learners who do not receive written CF are
examined, and if there is a significant difference between those who received
the feedback and those who did not, ­written CF is considered to have been
effective.
The research (Sheen, 2007; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Ellis, Sheen,
Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009; Bitchener &
Koch, 2010a, 2010b; Frear, 2012; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Rummel, 2014; Shintani,
Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014; Stefanou, 2014; Qi, 2015) has found consistently that written
CF on certain targeted grammatical forms/structures at least is effective. However,

eelt0055.indd 3 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 4 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback

the researchers are not claiming that written CF will always be effective. Only a
few grammatical categories of error have been investigated: functional uses of the
English article system, simple past tense and present perfect, prepositions,
and hypothetical conditional. Whether or not more complex forms/structures and
more idiosyncratic, item-based forms/structures (i.e., those that are not governed
by rules) are equally “treatable” with written CF is not yet known. Nevertheless, it
can be claimed from this evidence that written CF has the potential to facilitate L2
development. Only one study (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a) has examined its effec­
tiveness over an extended period (10 months), so more longitudinal studies are
needed to confirm (1) its effect on consolidating what is being learned, and (2) the
extent to which learners are able to use the L2 knowledge automatically (without
conscious attention).
L2 teachers have always been interested in finding out whether or not certain
types of written CF may be more effective than others. As a result, this question
has dominated the written CF research agenda for more than 40 years. From a
theoretical point of view, it is an important question to ask because if noticing with
understanding is a condition of L2 development, it might be argued that certain
types of written CF (e.g., more explicit types) will provide learners with better
understanding of why their errors are not target-like and of how they can be cor­
rected. Those who believe that the less explicit, indirect written CF types (e.g.,
underlining) are more effective suggest that these types invite the learner to
“engage in guided learning and problem solving” (Lalande, 1982), that is, they
invite the learner to do the work and determine what needs to be modified when
an error has been made. To benefit from this type of written CF, learners need to
draw on their existing knowledge of the linguistic form or structure in question
(stored in their long-term memory), consider it together with the new written CF
input in their working memory, and form a hypothesis about what constitutes
accurate L2 output. If this is the case, it would seem that indirect written CF may
be more beneficial for learners with partially acquired knowledge, whereas for
learners without that level of knowledge it would seem that more explicit written
CF in the form of either direct error correction or metalinguistic explanation, or
both, would be more instructive.
Those more in favor of direct error correction suggest that it can (1) reduce the
type of confusion that learners may experience if they do not understand how to
respond to indirect types of written CF, (2) provide them with information to
help them resolve more complex errors, (3) offer more explicit feedback on
hypotheses that learners may have tested, and (4) be more immediate. While this
type of feedback may be more helpful for lower-proficiency learners with less
developed knowledge in their long-term memories, it may not always be the
most beneficial for more advanced learners who, to consolidate and automatize
their use of L2 forms/structures, need to be challenged to see if they can draw
upon their partially developed knowledge to formulate a hypothesis about what
may be a correct form or structure. Because the provision of direct error correc­
tion alone does not inform a learner about why an error has occurred and what
is needed to correct the error, written CF in the form of metalinguistic

eelt0055.indd 4 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback 5

information may be more instructive for learners who have little or no partially
stored knowledge to draw upon. Considering these arguments, it would seem
that some learners might be more likely to develop their L2 knowledge better if
they are given more explicit types of written CF while others might benefit more
from less explicit types.
Studies that have investigated whether or not certain types of written CF are
more effective than others in contributing to the development of L2 knowledge
have tended to compare (1) direct error correction and less explicit types, (2)
direct error correction and direct error correction combined with more explicit
types, and (3) metalinguistic explanation and other types of written CF. The
findings of the first group of studies (Lalande, 1982; Semke, 1984; Chandler,
2003; Van Beuningen, De Jong, & Kuiken, 2008, 2012) are inconclusive. The first
three have been critiqued for design and/or execution flaws so need to be read
with caution. Although the fourth study (pilot and main study) reported an
advantage for direct error correction, the findings of one study are not sufficient
evidence from which to draw conclusions. In the second group of studies
(Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Sheen, 2007; Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener &
Knoch, 2008, 2010a; Stefanou, 2014), the findings are again inconclusive. Some
of these studies report no difference between feedback types, while others
report an advantage for direct error correction combined with other more
explicit types of written CF. These differences are more the result of intervening
variables across the studies than design or execution flaws. Thus they under­
score the need to hold variables constant if further research is to find out whether
a particular variable, including a particular type of written CF, is more effective
than another. In the third group of studies (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010b; Shintani
& Ellis, 2013; Rummel, 2014; Shintani et  al., 2014; Qi, 2015), the findings are
again inconclusive, for the same reasons as those assigned to the ­second group
of studies. In the third group, it was particularly noticeable, when metalinguis­
tic information was provided with one or more additional types of written CF,
that the combinations of types may have prevented the individual effect of one
variable within the combination being revealed. In considering whether or not
one type of written CF might be more effective than another or others, the jury
is out until the issues identified here are taken into consideration by future
researchers.
Additionally, individual differences (both cognitive and affective/motivational)
may also have a mediating effect on the type of written CF that is most helpful for
an individual’s L2 development. For example, learners who have a strong feeling
about which type of feedback is most helpful for them may respond negatively if
different types of written CF are given. For example, they may decide not to attend
to the feedback at all. Recent theoretical thinking and empirical evidence have also
shown that individual cognitive factors such as language analytic ability and
grammatical sensitivity, as well as individual contextual factors such as learners’
beliefs about written CF, may also interact with different types of written CF and
mediate its effectiveness. Given that the available research evidence on different
types of written CF has not revealed findings that can be generally applied, it is

eelt0055.indd 5 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 6 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback

not clear what advice can be given to teachers when making decisions about g
­ iving
written CF.

­Pedagogical Implications

In many respects, pedagogical advice for teachers depends on whether written CF

is being considered for a class of students in lockstep mode, for groups of students
whom the teacher has identified as having similar feedback needs, or for individ­
ual students with a diverse range of individual needs. The key factor that needs to
be considered is the basis upon which particular types of written CF are decided
for implementation. Is the advice to be drawn from theoretical argumentation as
well as from the findings of empirical research? Given the limited consistency in
the findings of many written CF studies, it would seem important to consider
theoretical possibilities.
From the available research, it is clear that written CF has the potential to
facilitate the development of simple rule-based forms/structures such as those
already examined in the research (e.g., certain functional uses of the English
article system, simple past tense). It may also be effective in targeting some
more idiosyncratic forms and structures (e.g., prepositions with particular func­
tions like those indicating place, direction, and so on); but it needs to be under­
stood that one native speaker/writer may choose a different preposition to
another native speaker/writer. When more complex rule-based errors (e.g.,
hypothetical conditional) require the encoding of more than one function (e.g.,
hypotheticality and past time reference for the hypothetical conditional), learn­
ers with a limited attentional capacity and a less developed long-term memory
may need more explicit written CF (e.g., both direct error correction and meta­
linguistic explanation) than more advanced learners. For item-based errors,
indirect types of written CF would seem to be appropriate, in the first instance,
for learners at any proficiency level to see if they can self-correct. If they are
unable to do so, direct error correction would then seem to be appropriate. Thus
it can be seen that the relationship between the focus of the written CF, the type
of written CF that is given, and the proficiency level of the learner needs to be
considered.
When individualized written CF is provided, other factors or variables may
further influence the teacher’s decision about the type of feedback to provide.
For instance, if a learner has developed a strong personal belief in the value of
a certain type of written CF, it may be that the learner will only attend to the
feedback if the preferred type is given. In such circumstances, teachers may
want to explain why they believe a different type may be more effective, but, at
the end of the day, it needs to be realized that learners may only attend and
process the feedback if it is their preferred type. Knowledge of the prior learn­
ing experiences of learners may guide teachers in the decisions they make about
what type of written CF to provide. Providing written CF on specially selected
grammatical errors to small groups of learners can reduce the workload for the

eelt0055.indd 6 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback 7

teacher, especially if metalinguistic feedback is provided on only a few error

categories. Providing metalinguistic feedback on a wide range of error catego­
ries can be a daunting process but, if the teachers prepare such information over
time and store it electronically, it will be available for students at their point
of need.
Finally, as a general modus operandi, two key pieces of advice would be: (1) to
discuss with the students what written CF approach is considered most helpful for
them (and this will involve explaining why), and (2) to implement a graduated
approach, beginning with indirect written CF to see if they can self-correct by delv­
ing into their long-term memory and applying the knowledge stored there when
hypothesizing in their working memory what form/structure is required. If learn­
ers are unable to self-correct, one can then provide direct error correction and see if
they are able in subsequent writing tasks to produce the forms/structures accu­
rately. If they are not able to do this, it would suggest that a more instructional
approach might be needed. This would involve the provision of metalinguistic
information that may be as brief as an explanation/rule, be more detailed with
an  example or examples, or be more extensive with detailed explanations and
examples.

SEE ALSO: Correcting Errors; Error Analysis; Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar
Knowledge; Grammar and Second Language Writing; Written Versus Spoken
Grammar

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and
international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–31.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to
language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–17.
Bitchener, J, & Storch, N. (in press). Written corrective feedback for second language development:
Theoretical and empirical justifications. Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.
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), 267–96.
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), 353–71.
Frear, D. (2012). The effects of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese
learners’ acquisition of English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Auckland,
New Zealand.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London, England: Longman.

eelt0055.indd 7 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM

 8 Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback

Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language

Journal, 66, 140–9.
Qi, G. (2015). The extent to which written corrective feedback facilitates EFL learners’ acquisition of
English past tense and prepositions indicating space (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written corrective feedback and the effect those
beliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Semke, H. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on
ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–83.
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused
written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System,
37(4), 556–69.
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. doi:10.1016/j.
jslw.2013.03.011
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),
103–31. doi:10.1111/lang.12029
Stefanou, C. (2014). L2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written
corrective feedback, learner factors and awareness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
Lancaster University, England.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46(2), 327–69.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect
corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics,
156, 279–96.
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.

Suggested Readings

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2011). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and
writing. London, England: Routledge.
Journal of Second Language Writing, (2012). Exploring L2 Writing–SLA Interfaces. Special
Issue Papers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–436.

eelt0055.indd 8 11/2/2017 7:22:30 PM