Effects of Collaborative Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback on Direct and Conditional Accuracy in English Writing Instruction

Abstract

　　 This study aims to compare and examine the effects of two different methods of error correction using metalinguistic written corrective feedback: one implemented individually and the other collaboratively among learners. Sixty-four Japanese university students were divided into two groups: an individual correction group and a peer correction group. The study examined relative effectiveness using an untimed grammaticality judgment test, which measures grammatical knowledge accuracy, and an English translation test, which assesses accuracy in actual English writing. As a result, peer correction outperformed individual correction in both tests. To explore the reasons behind this outcome, language-related episodes (LREs) that occurred during collaborative correction were visualized and analyzed qualitatively. The findings indicate that peer correction offers opportunities for metalinguistic thinking, attention to linguistic forms, and awareness that may not be achieved through individual self-correction.