Effectiveness of Teacher and Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: A Case of High School Students


  • Paul Gonzalez-Torres
  • Cristhian Sarango


written corrective feedback; direct feedback; indirect feedback; peer feedback; writing skills


The aim of this study is to assess and compare the effectiveness of three types of EFL writing feedback: teacher direct, teacher indirect, and peer feedback, while also exploring student perceptions of the feedback they receive. For this purpose, a mixed-method approach was used, combining a quasi-experimental and a survey design. Eighty-two EFL learners (aged 17-18 years old) were divided into four groups (three intervention groups who received feedback and one control group who did not) and practised EFL writing skills for a two-month period. After the intervention, the students from the intervention groups (62) answered a questionnaire related to their perceptions about the feedback received. The results of pre- and post-tests showed an improvement in EFL writing skills in all the groups. Likewise, there was a statistically significant difference in the results of the post-test between the groups who received feedback and those who did not, which means that feedback was effective. However, when comparing the three types of feedback, there were no statistically significant differences among the intervention groups. As for the perceptions of the feedback received during their EFL writing practice, students believed that feedback was a positive aspect of writing instruction. They thought that feedback was important for their learning, and they would like to receive a combination of teacher and peer feedback. This study contributes to the ongoing discussion around the effectiveness of different types of feedback on EFL writing skills.




Algburi, E. A., & Razali, A. B. (2022). Role of Feedback on English Academic Writing Skills of Tertiary Level Iraqi English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Students: A Review of Literature. Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 11(1), 689–702. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v11-i1/12168

Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v18n2.53397

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

Borup, J., West, R. E., & Thomas, R. (2015). The impact of text versus video communication on instructor feedback in blended courses. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 161–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9367-8

Bui, H. P., Nguyen, L. T., & Nguyen, T. V. (2023). An investigation into EFL pre-service teachers’ academic writing strategies. Heliyon, 9(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13743

Cabrera-Solano, P., Gonzalez-Torres, P., & Ochoa-Cueva, C. (2021). Using Pixton for teaching EFL writing in higher education during the covid-19 pandemic. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(9), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.20.9.7

Cook, V. (2013). Second language learning and language teaching. Routledge.

Council of Europe (2020). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment – Companion volume. Council of Europe Publishing.

Creswell, J. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Gai, X. (2022). Peer feedback and teacher feedback: a comparative study of revision effectiveness in writing instruction for EFL learners. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(6), 1838–1854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541

Demirel, E., & Enginarlar, H. (2016). Effects of combined peer-teacher feedback on second language writing development. H. U. Journal of Education, 31(4), 657–675. http://dx.doi.org/10.16986/HUJE.2016015701

Deng, C., Wang, X., Lin S., Xuan, W., & Xie, Q. (2022). The effect of coded focused and unfocused corrective feedback on ESL student writing accuracy. Journal of Language and Education, 8(4), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.16039

Ecuadorian Ministry of Education. (2023, February 24). Lengua Extranjera [Foreign Language]. http://educacion.gob.ec/curriculo-lengua-extranjera/

El Comercio (2017). El nivel de inglés en el Ecuador todavía es bajo [English proficiency level in Ecuador is still low]. Retrieved from http://www.elcomercio.com/tendencias/ecuador-nivel-ingles-adultos-educacion.html

Elola, I., Mikulski, A. M., & Buckner, T. E. (2017). The impact of direct and indirect feedback on the development of Spanish aspect. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 4(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2017.1315267

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. (2014). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New York: Routledge.

Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006

Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p53

Gonzalez, P. F., Ochoa, C. A., Cabrera, P. A., Castillo, L. M., Quinonez, A. L., Solano, L. M., Espinoza, F., Ulehlova, E. & Arias, M. O. (2015). EFL teaching in the Amazon Region of Ecuador: A focus on activities and resources for teaching listening and speaking skills. English Language Teaching, 8(8), 94–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n8p94

Harmer, J. (2004). How to Teach Writing. UK: Pearson Education.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching. New York: Longman.

Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28–52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949

Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168819831406

Lee, I. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer.

Levi Altstaedter, L. (2018). Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052

Li, X. (2013). The application of "three dimensional" model in the teaching design of EFL writing. English Language Teaching, 6(2), 32–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n2p32

Mart, C. (2013). Teaching grammar in context: Why and How? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 124–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.1.124–129

McKinley, J. (2022). An argument for globalized L2 writing methodological innovation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100945

Mirzaii, M., & Aliabadi, R. B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing Research, 5(2), 191–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.2

Nation, I.S.P., & Macalister, J. (2020). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003002765

National Commission on Writing. (2004). Writing: A ticket to work…or a ticket out. New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.

Salimi, A., & Valizadeh, M. (2015). The effect of coded and uncoded written corrective feedback on the accuracy of learners writing in pre-intermediate level. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 4(3), 116–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.4n.3p.116

Saukah, A., Dewanti, D. M. I., & Laksmi, E. D. (2017). The effect of coded and non-coded correction feedback on the quality of Indonesian EFL students’ Writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 247–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8127

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Dordrecht: Springer.

Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468

Sun, H., & Wang, M. (2022). Effects of teacher intervention and type of peer feedback on student writing revision. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221080507

Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Íkala, Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura, 22(1), 17–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v22n01a02.

Tan, K. E., & Manochphinyo, A. (2017). Improving Grammatical Accuracy in Thai Learners' Writing: Comparing Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 14(3), 430–442. http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2017.

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students' strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005

Zhao, H. (2012). Who takes the floor? Peer feedback or teacher feedback: An investigation of Chinese university English learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing. In Innovating EFL teaching in Asia (pp. 245–252). London: Macmillan. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230347823_19