Handwritten vs. Digital feedback: Which Is the Most ‎Effective in Improving the Writing Accuracy of Kuwaiti ‎Undergraduate University Students?‎

Ahmed Samir Abdulghaffar Elsayed, Sameh Mohamed Ali Hassan


The current experimental study attempted to investigate which medium of providing indirect corrective feedback, digital /traditional handwritten feedback, could help Kuwaiti undergraduate university students improve their writing accuracy. Moreover, it attempted to examine Kuwaiti undergraduate students’ preferences regarding the aforementioned mediums of providing written corrective feedback. To reach this end, an amalgamation of qualitative and quantitative methods was utilized. The subjects of the present study were 75 Kuwaiti undergraduate students who were randomly divided into three groups, two experimental and one control group. While the control group received no feedback, each of the experimental groups received indirect comprehensive corrective feedback via different mediums. The first experimental group received indirect digital written comprehensive feedback via Google Classroom. On the other hand, the second experimental group was provided with indirect handwritten comprehensive feedback. In addition to completing an online survey, all the participants had to generate five writing tasks in twelve weeks. Error ratio was used to measure the short and long term accuracy gains. SPSS program was utilized to analyze the data. The findings of the current study showed that providing written comprehensive feedback digitally has a significant impact on improving the grammatical and the non-grammatical accuracy of the participants during the revision tasks. Regarding the short term effects, while providing digital corrective feedback was found effective in improving the grammatical accuracy gains, providing traditional handwritten feedback was found to have a significant importance in improving the non-grammatical accuracy gains of the understudies of the current study. Concerning the long-term effects, providing corrective feedback digitally was found to have a long term effect on the grammatical accuracy gains of the participants. Conversely, neither of the utilized mediums in providing corrective feedback had any long-term impact on the non-grammatical accuracy gains of the subjects of the current study. More importantly, the participants of the current study reported that the digital medium of providing feedback is more effective in enhancing their grammatical and non-grammatical accuracy gains than the traditional medium.


digital, handwritten, comprehensive feedback

Full Text:



AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective ‎feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Language Learning & ‎Technology, 18(1), 76-95.‎

Al-Olimat, S. I., & AbuSeileek, A. F. (2015). Using computer-mediated corrective ‎feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English ‎with Technology, 15(3), 3-30.‎

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft ‎composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best ‎method? Journal of second language writing, 9(3), 227-257.‎

Asiri, I. M. (1999). University EFL teachers' written feedback on compositions and ‎students' reactions.‎

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of ‎second language writing, 17(2), 102-118.‎

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language ‎acquisition and writing. Routledge.‎

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to ‎language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, pp.193–‎‎214. ‎

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.‎

Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., & Spitzer, B. ‎‎(2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate ‎students prefer and why?. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1-‎‎23.‎

Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Ryan, T., Mahoney, P., Boud, D., Phillips, M., & Molloy, E. ‎‎(2018). Technology and feedback design. Learning, Design, and Technology, ‎Michael J Spector, Barbara B Lockee, and Marcus D. Childress (Eds.). Springer ‎International Publishing, Cham, 1-45.‎

Edeiken-Cooperman, N., & Berenato, C. L. (2014). Students' Perceptions of Electronic ‎Feedback as an Alternative to Handwritten Feedback: One University's ‎Inquiry. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(1), 79-85.‎

Elashri, I. I. E. A. F. (2013). The Impact of the Direct Teacher Feedback Strategy on the ‎EFL Secondary Stage Students' Writing Performance. Online Submission.‎

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).‎

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), 353-371.‎

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL ‎composition. System, 46, 80-95.‎

Farshi, S. S., & Safa, S. K. (2015). The effect of two types of corrective feedback on EFL ‎learners’ writing skill. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 26-30.‎

Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to ‎Truscott (1996). Journal of second language writing, 8(1), 1-11.‎

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, ‎and where do we go from here?(and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal ‎of second language writing, 13(1), 49-62.‎

Ferris, D. R., Hedgcock, J., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2013). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, ‎process, and practice. Routledge.‎

Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does ‎it need to be?. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.‎

Hadiyanto, S. (2019). the effect of computer-mediated corrective feedback on the ‎students' writing. Language-Edu, 8(2).‎


Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' ‎writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83-101.‎

James, C. (2013). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. ‎Routledge.‎

Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 ‎written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18 ‎

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to ‎the development of second-language writing skills. The modern language ‎journal, 75(3), 305-313.‎

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern ‎Language Journal, 66(2), 140-149.‎

Li, M. M. (2009). Adopting varied feedback modes in the EFL writing class. US-China ‎Foreign Language, 7(1), 60-63.‎

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐‎analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.‎

Littleton, C. E. (2011). The role of feedback in two fanfiction writing groups. Indiana ‎University of Pennsylvania.‎

Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus ‎traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for academic Purposes, 2(3), ‎‎193-227.‎

Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated ‎communicative context and the development of second language ‎grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.‎

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on ‎EFL writing quality. TESOL quarterly, 20(1), 83-96.‎

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the ‎acquisition of L2 grammar. Synthesizing research on language learning and ‎teaching, 13, 133-164.‎

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 ‎grammar. Language learning & technology, 13(1), 96-120.‎

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language ‎aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.‎

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of ‎research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 593-610.‎

Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of educational research, 78(1), ‎‎153-189.‎

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing ‎classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of second language writing, 8(2), 111-122.‎

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing ‎classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of second language writing, 8(2), 111-122.‎

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write ‎accurately. Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.‎

Tuzi, F. (2001). E-Feedback's Impact on ESL Writers' Revisions.‎

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic ‎writing course. Computers and composition, 21(2), 217-235.‎

Van Beuningen, C. G. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback ‎in second. Studies, 10(2), 1-27.‎

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.‎

Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student ‎perceptions. Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 22(1), 17-32.‎

Yeh, S. W., & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and ‎corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882-892.‎


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research