Directness Types and the Possible Effect on EFL Learners' Perception of Written Teacher Feedback

Document Type : Original Article


Kharazmi University of Tehran


Written Teacher Feedback (WTF) aims at improving the students' writing. Hence, the way in which it is provided for the learners should be taken into account as it makes an impact on the learners' comprehension of the presented comments (Ferris, 2003; Thonus, 2002). The current study was conducted to examine the possible effect of WTF directness types on Iranian EFL learners' ability to perceive the teachers' comments as praise or criticism and the required correction implied in them. To this end, three versions of the same essay, with direct, indirect and hedged comments indexed within them were distributed to 120 EFL learners. The results of ANOVA revealed that the directness type of the WTF would make no significant impact on Iranian EFL learners' ability to perceive the positive and negative comments and their required correction accurately. We might speculate from the findings that writing instructors should focus more on the quality of the WTF rather than its directness type in Iranian context. This would hopefully empower the learners to apply the teachers' comments to enhance the quality of their written products.


Baker, W., & Bricker, R. H. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers' perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38 (1), 75-84.
Champagne, M. (2001). Comprehension of no literal discourse: The case of violations of the maxims of quantity and indirect request. Rsicologia: Reelexao e Critica, 14, 379-385.
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 students' writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3), 267-296.
Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11 (4), 430-477.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (2), 147-179.
Eckert, P., & McConell-Ginet, S. (2003). Language and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. United States: The University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing implications for second language students. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (2), 165-193.
Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000, March). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Paper presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver.
Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16 (1), 40-53.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 185-212.
Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (2), 69-85.
Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008). Meeting in the margins: Effects of the teacher-student relationship on revision processes of EFL college students taking a composition course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (3), 65-182.
Mackiewicz, J., & Riley, K. (2002). Balancing clarity and politeness in editing sessions with non-native speakers. Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Conference, 410-422.
Riley, K., & Mackiewicz, J. (2003). Resolving the directness dilemma in document review sessions with nonnative speakers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46 (1), 1-16.
Schroder, H., & Zimmer, D. (1997). Hedging research in pragmatics: A bilbiographic research guide to hedging. In R. Markkanen & H. Schroder (Eds), Hedging and discourse: Approaches to the analysis of a pragmatic phenomenon in academic texts (pp. 249-268). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Thonus, T. (1999). Dominance in academic writing tutorials: Gender language proficiency, and the offering of suggestions. Discourse and Society, 10 (2), 225-248
Thonus, T. (2002). Tutor and student assessments of academic writing tutorials: What is “success”?. Assessing Writing, 8 (2), 110-134.
Thonus, T. (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first and second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 (3), 227-242.
Volume 2, Issue 1
April 2013
Pages 39-54
  • Receive Date: 23 November 2018
  • Accept Date: 23 November 2018