Unfocused Corrective Feedback and L2 Writing CAF: The Moderating Role of Individual Differences

Abstract

Research on written corrective feedback in second language learning has advanced, addressing uncertainties about its effectiveness. The debate now centres on the most effective way to give feedback. However, controversy persists, and research on unfocused feedback remains scarce. This quasi-experimental study examines the effects of unfocused written corrective feedback—direct, indirect, and metalinguistic—on the complexity, accuracy, and fluency of 139 English-as-a-second-language learners’ writing at an English-medium instruction university in the United Arab Emirates. It also investigates the moderating effects of individual-difference variables—language aptitude, attitudes towards written corrective feedback, and second-language proficiency—on feedback efficacy. Three experimental groups and one control group wrote essays (pre-test), revised their drafts (post-test), and composed essays on new topics (delayed post-test) over fourteen weeks. MANCOVA results revealed that participants who received direct and metalinguistic feedback showed reduced fluency compared with those in the indirect feedback and control groups. Lexical diversity was significantly lower in the indirect feedback group than in the direct and metalinguistic groups. Unfocused feedback did not yield significant gains on new writing tasks, and none of the individual-difference variables significantly moderated the effects of feedback on complexity, accuracy, and fluency measures. These findings highlight differential short-term effects of unfocused written corrective feedback on specific writing dimensions, while suggesting limited transfer to new writing tasks and limited moderating influence of learner-level variables. The results provide useful information for practitioners, who could adopt a more blended approach between focused and unfocused feedback and increase the number of treatment sessions.