The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners ’ Spelling Errors

The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of indirect corrective feedback on promoting Iranian high school students’ spelling accuracy in English (as a foreign language). It compared the effect of direct feedback with indirect feedback on students’ written work dictated by their teacher from Chicken Soup for the Mother and Daughter Soul. The study was conducted at the gifted girls’ high school in Saveh, Iran. A sample of 56 high school sophomores was randomly assigned to two equal groups of 28. Group 1 (the direct feedback group) and Group 2 (the indirect feedback group) were treated differently regarding their spelling errors for five weeks. Statistical analysis based on GLMRM test revealed that indirect feedback was more effective than direct feedback in rectifying students’ spelling errors.


Introduction
English is the main language for international communication in different fields including commerce, industry, politics and education.This is the major reason why millions of language learners all over the world are striving to improve their English language proficiency.An essential component of this proficiency is improving one's ability to communicate via writing since it is crucial to effective communication and essential to employment in today's world.As for writing competency, spelling is one of the important factors necessary to be taken into consideration.To emphasize the relationship between spelling and writing, Moats (2006) expresses, "Writing is a mental juggling act that depends on automatic deployment of basic skills such as handwriting, spelling, grammar and punctuation so that the writer can keep track of such concerns as topic, organization, word choice, and audience needs" (p.12).
Poor spelling can have drastic effects on writing.It makes writing a labored activity with regular interruptions to the thought process by excessive attention to spelling (Moats, 2000, cited in El-Dakhs & Mitchell, 2011).Writers who must think too hard about how to spell use up valuable cognitive resources needed for higher level aspects of composition (Singer & Bashir, 2004, cited in Moats, 2006).Poor speller may restrict what they write to words they can spell which leads to loss of verbal power and sometimes incoherent pieces of writing (Moats, 2006).
Learning to spell English as a second/foreign language involves the correct association of spoken sounds (phonemes) and written symbols (graphemes).The correct association of phonemes involves phonological, orthographic, semantic and morphological skills on the part of the EFL/ESL student.In fact English has a very systematic set of sound-spelling correspondences (Chomsky & Halle, 1998;Schane, 1970;Venezky, 1970, cited in Baleghizadeh & Dadashi, 2011).These sound-spelling correspondences allow English teachers to combine the teaching of phonetic units with graphemic ones.After having been taught the mentioned combinations, it is often up to the students to master this spelling system.We as teachers, witness some inconsistencies, or simply put, some spelling errors in their written work.
Teachers often measure their learners' spelling ability by dictating words and sentences from students' textbooks.Obviously dictation is not the only way for measuring spelling; there are other alternatives such as multiple-choice and writing the missing letters.Bosman and Van Orden's (1997) study concerns the use of multiple-choice tests to measure the spelling performance.In a multiple-choice test the correct spelling of a word is presented together with one or more incorrect spellings and students are required to mark the correct spelling.
Having taught at high school for more than ten years, the current researcher's curiosity was raised when seeing learners making those spelling errors which had been corrected by the teacher in their previous written work.It came to mind that students did not pay attention to the teacher's corrective feedback.In other words, it was concluded that this kind of corrective feedback would not work.So the current researcher attempted to see students' contribution in correction because when everything was spoon-fed to them, students would take it for granted and did not ponder over them.Therefore, instead of providing the learners with correct forms, the researcher decided to push them to correct and produce.Pushing learners in their output rather than providing them with correct forms could benefit their interlanguage development (Allwright, 1975;Hendrickson, 1978;Virgil & Orell, 1978, cited in Amiri Dehnoo & Yousefvand, 2013, p. 25).So it is on the teacher's shoulders to provide constructive corrective feedback.
Corrective feedback refers to "any reaction of the teacher which clearly transforms, disapprovingly refers to, or demands improvement of the learner utterance" (Chaudron, 1977, p. 31, cited in Sivaji, 2012).Further, the definition by Ur (1996) explains that the recent and welcome shift of interest from language teaching to language learning affects the way feedback is perceived by both learners and teachers.However, over the last few years, the types and roles of corrective feedback have become controversial issues in the realm of language teaching and learning.
Error correction can be operationalized in terms of direct and indirect feedback.While indirect corrective feedback only consists of an indication of an error (i.e. by underlining the error or providing an error code), direct error correction identifies both the error and the target form (Bitchener et al., 2005).
Scholors in the field of SLA have worked a lot on types and effectiveness of corrective feedback like Virgil andOrell (1975) andBrown (2001), just to name a few (cited in Baleghizadeh & Dadashi, 2011).The lack of similar studies focusing especially on spelling was felt and as a result this paper will explore the gap in the Iranian context in the literature on spelling instruction.If similar studies on the strategies (circling, underlining and coded error feedback) of giving feedback on spelling errors are carried out and the same results are obtained, "autonomous and discovery learning can occupy the place of passive and parrot-like imitation of teachers' modeling in spelling instruction" (Baleghizadeh & Dadshi, 2011, p. 131).Hence, it is worth mentioning the studies carried out so far on giving feedback.Ur (1996) defines feedback as information that is given to the learner about his or her performance of a learning task, usually with the objective of improving this performance.However, debate regarding the usefulness of feedback has been prominent in recent years.Moreover, it seems necessary to mention that a cursory reading of the literature on feedback will reveal that it is widely used as an equivalent to error correction."Attitudes toward error correction have evolved from the strict avoidance of errors and thus quick and direct error correction before the 1960s, to the condemnation of error correction as something harmful in the late 1960s, and to a more critical view of the necessity and value of error correction in the 1970s and 1980s.The controversy over the topic of error correction, however, remains unresolved in the 1990s (Lee, 1997, cited in Khatib & Bijani, 2012, p. 103).

Review of Literature
Since spelling is the mechanics of writing, the current researcher was eager to draw on the techniques applied in the field of EFL/ESL writing and attempted to focus especially on spelling ability, which is part of the writing skill.Therefore, the studies done in the area of giving feedback on written works of learners can be fruitful.
Research on teacher error feedback in EFL/ESL writing classes has predominantly centered on two issues.First, does error feedback help EFL writers in any significant way?Second, assuming that a decision to correct errors has been made, which type of intervention is preferable: direct or indirect correction?These two issues, particularly the latter one which is the main concern of the present study, are the focus of literature in this paper.
Error feedback is one of the key issues in second language writing faced by both teachers and researchers.There has been controversy as to whether error feedback helps EFL/ESL students to improve accuracy and overall quality of their writing (Liu, 2008).Semke (1984) compares the effects of error correction to the effects of content-focused comments and finds that error correction has no effect on students' accuracy and a negative effect on their written fluency (cited in van Beuningen, de Jong & Kuiken, 2008). Truscott (1996), the main opponent of error correction, explains that corrective feedback on second language learners' written output is not only unnecessary and ineffective but even counterproductive because it distracts attention from much more important issues such as development of ideas (Chandler, 2003).As the last example of the group, Polio et al.'s (1998) study shows that both students who receive feedback and students who do not, are able to improve their accuracy over time (cited in van Beuningen, de Jong & Kuiken, 2008).
While some studies make claims about the ineffectiveness of error correction, a sheer number of them advocate the usefulness of it.Let us examine the consequences of some studies in this regard.Ashwell (2000), Cardelle andCorno (1981) andFerris (2003) demonstrate a positive correlation between student writing accuracy and error feedback (cited in Pan, 2010).Chandler's (2003) study reveals that teachers' feedback on students' grammatical and lexical errors results in a significant improvement in both accuracy and fluency in subsequent writing of the same type over the same semester.Bitchener (2008) indicates that corrective feedback improves learning skills of learners through error correction.He points out that teacher feedback is an integral part of students' learning and improvement (cited in Ahmad, Saeed, & Salam, 2013).Lee (2009) states that error feedback has a corrective function which improves the learner's performance in the process of education (cited in Ahmad, Saeed, & Salam, 2013).
Despite his call for the abandonment of error correction, Truscott (1999), in his response to Ferris acknowledges that many interesting questions remain open and that it would be premature to claim that research has proven error correction can never be beneficial under any circumstances (cited in Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005).
In most EFL/ESL settings the question has more to do with how to provide error correctin rather than whether or not give feedback (Brown, 2001, cited in Baleghizadeh & Dadashi, 2011).Up to now an increasing number of studies have been investigating whether certain types of corrective feedback are more likely than others to help EFL/ESL students' writing skill.A good number of them examined the relative effectiveness of varying feedback types, with the dichotomy between direct and indirect corrective feedback receiving the lion's share of researchers' attention.While direct feedback involves the teachers' identifying the learners' errors and applying direct corrections on them, indirect feedback, as the name reveals, entails teachers' signaling the error spots and requiring the students to self-correct their errors.Further categorization of indirect feedback divides it to coded and uncoded classes.Through these two types of indirect feedback, learners are provided with ample time to correct their own errors (Lee, 2003).
There is research evidence suggesting that indirect error feedback is more helpful for students' long-term writing development than direct error feedback (Ferris, 2003;Fratzen, 1995, cited in Lee, 2003).Lalande (1982) shows that students who receive indirect feedback outperform students in a direct correction group.That is because it engages them in guided learning and problem solving leading them to reflection about linguistic form (cited in Chandler, 2003).Tribble (1994) suggests that it is important for teachers not to correct learners' errors and provide the correct response immediately (cited in Khatib & Bijani, 2012).Ferris (1995) adds that students benefit more from indirect corrective feedback because they have to engage in a more profound form of language processing as they are self-editing their output (cited in van Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken, 2008).It is noted in Ferris's (2002) study that over the course of the semester students who receive indirect feedback reduces their error frequency ratios substantially more than those who receive direct feedback (cited in Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005).Baleghizadeh and Dadashi (2012) express that indirect feedback has more significant effect than direct feedback in correcting students' spelling errors.Amiri Dehnoo and Yousefvand (2013) point out that direct feedback does not improve the students' accuracy in English spelling as it is expected.
Contrary to surveys which reveal that both students and teachers have a preference for direct explicit feedback than indirect feedback (Ferris & Roberts, 2001;Komura, 1999;Rennie, 2000;Roberts, 1999), a lot more studies report that the latter leads to either greater or similar levels of accuracy over time (Ferris et al., 2000;Ferris & Helt, 2000;Fratzen, 1995;Lalande, 1982;Lee, 1997;Robert et al., 1986) just to name a few (all cited in Bitchener et al., 2005).
The studies listed in this section represent only a small fraction of the vast body of research performed on varied aspects of corrective feedback and its application in pedagogical endeavors.Though a great deal has been revealed with regard to various applications of corrective feedback in educational settings, there still seems a paucity of research in the domain of corrective feedback and its effects on spelling errors, a major gap in the literature toward which the current study is targeted.To meet the aims, the following hypothesis is formulated: Indirect corrective feedback that is underlining the spelling errors and leaving the correction to students is more effective than the direct one in improving students' spelling ability.

Participants
The study was conducted at the gifted girls' high school in Saveh, Iran.A sample of 56 high school sophomores (second-grade students) at the age of around 15 comprised the participants of this research.The subjects were randomly assigned to two equal groups of 28 as follows: -Experimental group 1 who received "direct corrective feedback" i.e. underlining the errors and providing the correct forms, -Experimental group 2 who received "indirect corrective feedback" i.e. underlining the errors and leaving the correction to the students.

Instruments
"Chicken Soup for the Mother and Daughter Soul" was the source of the dictated sentences.Since the participants had mastery of high school textbooks and their supplementary books-Cambridge English for Schools series, the researcher decided to choose the pre/post test paragraphs, each of about 70 words containing around 15 unseen vocabulary items, from the aforementioned source.Each session, one seventy-word paragraph was dictated.
The mean scores of the first two dictations were counted as pretest scores.The two-phase pretest was also considered as a selection test to select a homogenous sample of students whose performance was roughly similar.The sample selection was based on the each student's mark (mean score) obtained during the administration of the two-phase pretest.It was supposed to select those ones who got between 13.5 to 15.5-mean of the pretest scores of each group + (+/_1 S.D), on the selection test, as participants.

Research Design
To test the research hypothesis set above, pre/post experimental design with two experimental conditions, "direct error correction" and indirect error correction" was carried out with the same two groups of students on the same occasions.In fact, the study included two independent variables and two dependent ones.The independent variables were two approaches for dealing with errors and the dependent ones were students' spelling abilities in pre and post test.To achieve the objectives of this study the following procedures were conducted by the researcher.

Procedures
For the sake of this study, the students attended 5 sessions over five weeks.On the first session both groups had a dictation (referred to Appendix A).The sentences were dictated in a way that the researcher read the paragraph three times: once at a normal speed then chunk by chunk with pauses in between and for the third time at a normal speed.This style was followed in all dictation sessions.
On the following session, after 7 days interval, the EFL learners were dictated for the second time (referred to Appendix B).No corrective feedback was given on the first dictation during the interval.(The intervals between the first four sessions were the same).
The mean scores of the first two dictations were counted as pretest scores.The two-phase pretest was also considered as a selection test to select a homogenous sample of students whose performance was roughly similar.The sample selection was based on the student's mark (mean score) obtained during the administration of the two-phase pretest.As mentioned it was supposed to select those students who got between 13.5-15.5 marks, as participants, on the selection test.To meet the aim, a total of 56 high school sophomores sat the pretests.Since all 56 students' marks were within the range they were all known as subjects.
On the third session, while returning the first dictation, the researcher provided the first experimental group with direct feedback and it meant that both error detection and correction were done by her.As for the second experimental group, the errors were only indicated and underlined, but the actual corrections were left to the students.
As regards the indirect correction, the papers were returned to the students and they were asked to correct their errors based on the correct words in the source, and then hand the papers in to the researcher.In the case of the direct correction, students were reminded to see the papers and check the sentences and words they had found problematic in dictation sessions.
On the next session, the same was done with the second dictation.
Finally, without prior notice, the fifth session was held and allotted to the final dictation (referred to Appendix C).It was made up of some parts of the previous dictations which students had received feedback on before.Furthermore, this last dictation was counted as the posttest.
The final papers were corrected, too.The scale on which the students' dictations were scored was set at 20.For each single erroneous word 0.5 points were subtracted.The collected data were also analyzed through GLMRM test.

Results and Discussion
Since in the current research there are two dependent variables-students' spelling abilities in pre and post test, the repeated variance analysis test (GLMRM) has been used to examine the effect of direct and indirect feedback on improving students' spelling abilities.Also, spelling marks of the both groups (1 & 2) in two different times of pre and post test have been compared.1 shows that in pretest, mean score and S.D of the 28 students' marks in group 1 (the direct feedback group) are 14.54 and .978respectively.The same information for the group 2 (the indirect feedback group) has changed to 14.12 and 1.322 namely.In posttest, mean score and S.D of students' marks turn out to be 14.87 and 1.763 for the group 1, and 17.57 and 2.104 for the group 2.
In repeated variance analysis test, the equality of covariance matrix of dependent variables in both direct and indirect feedback groups is greatly required.To study the mentioned condition, the Box's M test table has been used: Based on the small value of Fisher statistic (F = 1.192) and the great value of significance (Sig = .311),there is no reason to reject the H0.It means that the covariance matrices of dependent variables in both direct and indirect feedback groups are equal.
Another requirement for GLMRM test is that the shape of the variance-covariance matrix of dependent variables must be spherical.It is necessary to mention that, here the dependent variable has just two levels, so it is axiomatically spherical.
After meeting the two aforementioned requirements, in order to know whether the model is statistically significant or not and also identify the interactive effect of independent variable of the group-direct and indirect feedback, on the model, the table below containing the test of Within-Subject Effects has been analyzed: .000 .000 The first row of the table 3, provides the data regarding the effect of Time as a variable on students' spelling abilities.As it indicates the value of significance in this case is 0.000 (Sig = .000),and it means that this effect is statistically significant at any level of errors.In other words, students' posttest spelling marks have improved compared to the pretest ones.In the second row, considering the interactive effect of Time and Feedback variables, the significant level is also found to be 0.000 (Sig = .000).As a result, this effect is statistically significant at any level of errors too; that is to say H0-the effect of indirect corrective feedback on improving students' spelling ability isn't significantly different from that of the direct one-is rejected.Therefore it is concluded that students' pre and post test spelling marks under the effect of direct and indirect feedback are different.Furthermore, noticing the mean scores mentioned in table 1, it is revealed that students in indirect feedback group have outperformed the students in the other group.To understand better, the results have been shown on graph form.Ellis (1994) argues that knowledge of form depends on implicit learning, whereas knowledge of meaning involves a more conscious processing.Since the ability to spell words is the knowledge of form, this argument by Ellis (1994) seems to account for the second group's achievement (cited in Baleghizadeh & Dadashi, 2011).
The second group experienced a kind of implicit feedback that according to the results was conducive to learning.
In other words, they experienced a kind of meaningful exercise in which they compared their own version with the target and correct form which in turn led to discovery learning.Therefore, studies of the error treatment led some researchers such as Allwright (1975), Hendrickson (1978) and Virgil and Orell (1975) to propose that pushing learners in their output, rather than providing them with correct forms, could benefit their interlanguage development (all cited in Amiri Dehnoo & Yousefvand, 2013).

Conclusions and Implications
Truscott's review of studies by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984) and Sheppard (1992) states that error correction does not have a significant effect on improving L2 student writing (cited in Bitchener et al., 2005).Contrary to this limited range of studies, a sheer number of them like those of Bitchener (2005), Chandler (2003), Lalande (1982, cited in Chandler, 2003) and Lee (1997, cited in Bitchener et al., 2005), just to name a few, indicate that indirect error feedback is more effective in helping EFL students improve the accuracy of their writing.
To round up the results obtained, this study shows a beneficial role of self-correction led by teachers in promoting the accuracy of spelling of high school students.The study reveals that receiving direct feedback or mere teacher feedback without the students' engagement in the revision and the correction process is not effective and desirable in improving the accuracy in such a classroom.The outcome of this study does not devalue teacher feedback but suggests its importance and value when and only when it comes in the form of indirect feedback along with students' contribution.As cited in Sivaji (2012) indirect error correction induces the learner to become self-activated and responsible for their learning process, thereby supporting the theory of Learner Autonomy proposed by Holec (1980). Further, Ferris (2002) states that indirect error correction stimulates learners' responsibility in correction, and improves their writing accuracy in the longer term (cited in Sivaji, 2012).Therefore, it is fruitful to design additional classroom activities in which students engage themselves in the process of revision and self-correction.This is possible if teachers find efficient ways of correction and students receive indirect corrective feedback.Furthermore, teachers should determine their own priorities; that is to say, the first priority should be to invite students to correct their own spelling errors because they benefit from correcting their spelling errors in such a way that they become aware of their recurring errors.
Due to the fact that spelling errors on the one hand were one of the major problems in the researcher's class, and correct spelling gives a sense of the literacy of the writer to the reader on the other hand, she conducted the study around spelling problems.
Considering the fact that teachers of both English and Farsi languages in this city (Saveh) most often use this kind of dictation and direct corrective feedback, they need to conduct an action research around this problem to see whether or not self-correction or indirect feedback really works in their classes.

Table 2 .
Box's test of equality of covariance matrices

Table 3 .
Tests of within-subjects effects