DIRECT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON
ENHANCING WRITING SKILLS AMONG
LOWER SECONDARY EDUCATION STUDENTS
AT A PUBLIC INSTITUTION IN ZUMBA
RETROALIMENTACIÓN CORRECTIVA DIRECTA
PARA MEJORAR LAS HABILIDADES DE ESCRITURA
EN ESTUDIANTES DE EDUCACIÓN SECUNDARIA INFERIOR
EN UNA INSTITUCIÓN PÚBLICA EN ZUMBA
Luis Lenin Armijos Rivera
Universidad Nacional de Loja, Ecuador
Jhimi Bolter Vivanco Loaiza
Universidad Nacional de Loja, Ecuador
pág. 8011
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i1.16453
Direct Corrective Feedback on Enhancing Writing Skills Among Lower
Secondary Education Students at a Public Institution in Zumba
Luis Lenin Armijos Rivera1
luis.l.armijos@unl.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1535-3074
Universidad Nacional de Loja
Ecuador
Jhimi Bolter Vivanco Loaiza
jhimi.vivanco@unl.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3742-6038
Universidad Nacional de Loja
Ecuador
ABSTRACT
This action research assesses the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback (DCF) on enhancing
writing skills among lower secondary education students at a public institution in Zumba during the
2024-2025 academic year. It was focused on four stages: planning, acting, developing, and reflecting.
The research instruments used to collect data were a pretest, posttest, questionnaire, and field notes.
Both tests were employed to measure students’ knowledge on writing skills before and after the action
process. Meanwhile, the questionnaire and field notes documented students’ perceptions towards DCF.
The participants of this study were 26 lower secondary students. They were chosen by convenience
sampling. The results demonstrated that DCF helps learners to identify mistakes, which leads them to
improve their writing production and become competent language users in terms of writing. Future
research should incorporate large samples in order to generalize results.
Keywords: active writers, identification of mistakes, feedback, rewrites, writing production
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: luis.l.armijos@unl.edu.ec
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v9i1.16453
Direct Corrective Feedback on Enhancing Writing Skills Among Lower
Secondary Education Students at a Public Institution in Zumba
Luis Lenin Armijos Rivera1
luis.l.armijos@unl.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1535-3074
Universidad Nacional de Loja
Ecuador
Jhimi Bolter Vivanco Loaiza
jhimi.vivanco@unl.edu.ec
https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3742-6038
Universidad Nacional de Loja
Ecuador
ABSTRACT
This action research assesses the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback (DCF) on enhancing
writing skills among lower secondary education students at a public institution in Zumba during the
2024-2025 academic year. It was focused on four stages: planning, acting, developing, and reflecting.
The research instruments used to collect data were a pretest, posttest, questionnaire, and field notes.
Both tests were employed to measure students’ knowledge on writing skills before and after the action
process. Meanwhile, the questionnaire and field notes documented students’ perceptions towards DCF.
The participants of this study were 26 lower secondary students. They were chosen by convenience
sampling. The results demonstrated that DCF helps learners to identify mistakes, which leads them to
improve their writing production and become competent language users in terms of writing. Future
research should incorporate large samples in order to generalize results.
Keywords: active writers, identification of mistakes, feedback, rewrites, writing production
1 Autor principal
Correspondencia: luis.l.armijos@unl.edu.ec
pág. 8012
Retroalimentación Correctiva Directa para Mejorar las Habilidades de
Escritura en Estudiantes de Educación Secundaria Inferior en una
Institución Pública en Zumba
RESUMEN
Este estudio de investigación acción evalúa la efectividad de la retroalimentación correctiva directa
(RCD) en la mejora de las habilidades de escritura entre los estudiantes de educación secundaria inferior
en una institución pública en Zumba durante el año académico 2024-2025. Esta investigación se centró
en cuatro etapas: planificación, actuación, desarrollo y reflexión. Los instrumentos de investigación
utilizados para recopilar datos fueron: un pretest, posttest, cuestionario y notas de campo. Ambas
pruebas se emplearon para medir los conocimientos de los alumnos sobre habilidades de escritura antes
y después del proceso de acción. Mientras tanto, el cuestionario y las notas de campo documentaron las
percepciones de los estudiantes hacia la RCD. Los participantes de este estudio fueron 26 estudiantes
de secundaria inferior, seleccionados por muestreo por conveniencia. Los resultados demostraron que
la RCD ayuda a los estudiantes a identificar errores, lo que mejora su producción escrita. Futuras
investigaciones deberían incorporar muestras más grandes para poder generalizar los resultados.
Palabras clave: escritores activos, identificación de errores, retroalimentación, reescrituras, producción
escrita
Artículo recibido 10 diciembre 2024
Aceptado para publicación: 15 enero 2025
Retroalimentación Correctiva Directa para Mejorar las Habilidades de
Escritura en Estudiantes de Educación Secundaria Inferior en una
Institución Pública en Zumba
RESUMEN
Este estudio de investigación acción evalúa la efectividad de la retroalimentación correctiva directa
(RCD) en la mejora de las habilidades de escritura entre los estudiantes de educación secundaria inferior
en una institución pública en Zumba durante el año académico 2024-2025. Esta investigación se centró
en cuatro etapas: planificación, actuación, desarrollo y reflexión. Los instrumentos de investigación
utilizados para recopilar datos fueron: un pretest, posttest, cuestionario y notas de campo. Ambas
pruebas se emplearon para medir los conocimientos de los alumnos sobre habilidades de escritura antes
y después del proceso de acción. Mientras tanto, el cuestionario y las notas de campo documentaron las
percepciones de los estudiantes hacia la RCD. Los participantes de este estudio fueron 26 estudiantes
de secundaria inferior, seleccionados por muestreo por conveniencia. Los resultados demostraron que
la RCD ayuda a los estudiantes a identificar errores, lo que mejora su producción escrita. Futuras
investigaciones deberían incorporar muestras más grandes para poder generalizar los resultados.
Palabras clave: escritores activos, identificación de errores, retroalimentación, reescrituras, producción
escrita
Artículo recibido 10 diciembre 2024
Aceptado para publicación: 15 enero 2025
pág. 8013
INTRODUCTION
This research focuses on the use of direct corrective feedback to enhance the writing skills of tenth
graders. Providing feedback to students in order to help them improve their writing practice is a regular
action by teachers. It is useful because it is a tool that enables learners to identify mistakes in any part
of their writing performance. This allows them to correct punctuation, vocabulary, grammar, or
language use; this contributes to enhancing the writing performance leading students to get a good
quality of writing. In today’s world, writing effectively in English has become a necessary skill for
learners and professionals (Ahmad, 2020). This is particularly true in countries where English is not the
official language, but it is used in some important contexts such as academic and professional ones.
Referring to the Ecuadorian context, it is indispensable to remark that English is a mandatory subject.
For this, the Ministry of Education (MinEduc) has created some specific standards to ensure that
learners learn properly and achieve some specific English levels. In fact, lower secondary students are
expected to be able to write simple sentences and paragraphs using basic words and expressions, as well
as achieve an A2.1 English proficiency level (MinEduc, 2016).
However, in Ecuador the students from lower secondary education do not have a good basis of English,
therefore they struggle with the development of the writing skill, even though it is established in the
National Curriculum for English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This curriculum is focused on helping
students from the tenth grade achieve the required English level established by MinEduc and improve
their writing performance (MinEduc, 2016). This group of learners deals with different writing aspects
which block them from producing effective writing activities. They struggle with this productive skill
for some reasons. Wondim et al. (2024) mention that writing is a complicated cognitive task as it
requires the mastery of multiple language skills, such as organization, grammar, and idea clarity.
Because of its complexity, many learners find it difficult to master. They also state that personal interests
and educational experiences can impact students’ writing production. Indeed, the lack of the
development of writing activities affects directly to the mastery of students’ writing skills. It is evident
that as much students write, as better writers they become. What is more, Masrul et al. (2024) posit that
the lack of feedback on writing performances constitute the one of the main obstacles for students to
INTRODUCTION
This research focuses on the use of direct corrective feedback to enhance the writing skills of tenth
graders. Providing feedback to students in order to help them improve their writing practice is a regular
action by teachers. It is useful because it is a tool that enables learners to identify mistakes in any part
of their writing performance. This allows them to correct punctuation, vocabulary, grammar, or
language use; this contributes to enhancing the writing performance leading students to get a good
quality of writing. In today’s world, writing effectively in English has become a necessary skill for
learners and professionals (Ahmad, 2020). This is particularly true in countries where English is not the
official language, but it is used in some important contexts such as academic and professional ones.
Referring to the Ecuadorian context, it is indispensable to remark that English is a mandatory subject.
For this, the Ministry of Education (MinEduc) has created some specific standards to ensure that
learners learn properly and achieve some specific English levels. In fact, lower secondary students are
expected to be able to write simple sentences and paragraphs using basic words and expressions, as well
as achieve an A2.1 English proficiency level (MinEduc, 2016).
However, in Ecuador the students from lower secondary education do not have a good basis of English,
therefore they struggle with the development of the writing skill, even though it is established in the
National Curriculum for English as a Foreign Language (EFL). This curriculum is focused on helping
students from the tenth grade achieve the required English level established by MinEduc and improve
their writing performance (MinEduc, 2016). This group of learners deals with different writing aspects
which block them from producing effective writing activities. They struggle with this productive skill
for some reasons. Wondim et al. (2024) mention that writing is a complicated cognitive task as it
requires the mastery of multiple language skills, such as organization, grammar, and idea clarity.
Because of its complexity, many learners find it difficult to master. They also state that personal interests
and educational experiences can impact students’ writing production. Indeed, the lack of the
development of writing activities affects directly to the mastery of students’ writing skills. It is evident
that as much students write, as better writers they become. What is more, Masrul et al. (2024) posit that
the lack of feedback on writing performances constitute the one of the main obstacles for students to
pág. 8014
carry out good writing practices. In fact, when feedback is offered to the students, they have plenty of
opportunities to master the writing skills at their pace.
Based on the previous information, this research work emphasis on the incorporation of direct corrective
feedback (DCF) as a solution to enhance students’ writing skills. DCF has been considered as a valuable
strategy to improve learners’ writing performances; this has been demonstrated by various researchers.
Anggunsari and Wahyuni (2023) found that DCF helped learners to enhance their writing productions
since they were precise when using the language to get accurate written works. They demonstrated that
students who developed writing with DCF obtained better learning outcomes than the ones of the control
group. Furthermore, Agustiningsih and Andriani (2021) demonstrated that DCF was a useful strategy
that allowed the creation of comfortable learning settings for leaners which led to significantly improve
their writing productions. Additionally, Kara and Abdulrahman (2022) found that DCF is effective as
it enabled leaners to identify and recognize written mistakes and correct them. It gave them chances to
enhance their performances in their writings. Overall, these authors postulate that the incorporation of
DCF during the English lesson to enhance the writing production is undoubtably necessary and effective
due to the fact that it provides students with corrections on their mistakes. It permits them to express
better their ideas on writing tasks.
Lastly, this research study is directly focused on the academic context. In this sense, the general
objective of this reseach work is to enhance writing skills through direct corrective feedback among
lower secondary education students at a public institution in Zumba. The main research question of this
research work is: How can direct corrective feedback enhance writing skills among lower secondary
education students at a public institution in Zumba? From it, two specific questions arise (a) What is
the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback on enhancing writing skills among lower secondary
education students? What are the students’ perceptions when receiving direct corrective feedback to
enhance their writing skills? Direct corrective feedback is a powerful tool to promote effective writing
practices as it provides students with plenty of opportunities to personalize their learning and optimize
the learning process; guaranting in this way the development of good writing products.
carry out good writing practices. In fact, when feedback is offered to the students, they have plenty of
opportunities to master the writing skills at their pace.
Based on the previous information, this research work emphasis on the incorporation of direct corrective
feedback (DCF) as a solution to enhance students’ writing skills. DCF has been considered as a valuable
strategy to improve learners’ writing performances; this has been demonstrated by various researchers.
Anggunsari and Wahyuni (2023) found that DCF helped learners to enhance their writing productions
since they were precise when using the language to get accurate written works. They demonstrated that
students who developed writing with DCF obtained better learning outcomes than the ones of the control
group. Furthermore, Agustiningsih and Andriani (2021) demonstrated that DCF was a useful strategy
that allowed the creation of comfortable learning settings for leaners which led to significantly improve
their writing productions. Additionally, Kara and Abdulrahman (2022) found that DCF is effective as
it enabled leaners to identify and recognize written mistakes and correct them. It gave them chances to
enhance their performances in their writings. Overall, these authors postulate that the incorporation of
DCF during the English lesson to enhance the writing production is undoubtably necessary and effective
due to the fact that it provides students with corrections on their mistakes. It permits them to express
better their ideas on writing tasks.
Lastly, this research study is directly focused on the academic context. In this sense, the general
objective of this reseach work is to enhance writing skills through direct corrective feedback among
lower secondary education students at a public institution in Zumba. The main research question of this
research work is: How can direct corrective feedback enhance writing skills among lower secondary
education students at a public institution in Zumba? From it, two specific questions arise (a) What is
the effectiveness of direct corrective feedback on enhancing writing skills among lower secondary
education students? What are the students’ perceptions when receiving direct corrective feedback to
enhance their writing skills? Direct corrective feedback is a powerful tool to promote effective writing
practices as it provides students with plenty of opportunities to personalize their learning and optimize
the learning process; guaranting in this way the development of good writing products.
pág. 8015
METHODOLOGY
The approach of this research was a mixed method because it enabled to collect quantitative and
qualitative data. The quantitative data was used to compare the scores of the students after and before
the intervention. The study adopted an action research design. As described by Sáez and Cortés (2021),
this research design aims to enhance educational practice through reflective cycles and can vary
according to the predominant paradigm, ranging from technical to critical perspectives. The focus on
the action research approach involved using a cycle that includes stages such as planning, acting,
developing, and reflecting (Mertler, 2021).
This study used the action research cycle which consists of four stages: planning stage, acting stage,
developing stage and reflecting stage (Mertler, 2021). In the planning stage, there has been identified
the research problem, and a proposal focused on writing skills was carried out. It also involved the
administration of the pretest to the sample under study which was chosen using the convenience
sampling. This test was validated by four experts in the English language subject. Then, in the acting
stage, the proposal was implemented throughout eight weeks. It comprised different writing activities
where students received direct feedback using three types of correction such as cross-outs, rewrites, and
additions. It was done to address the problem. Next, in the developing stage, the research instruments
were administered to the population involved in the study to collect data regarding the intervention plan.
Finally, in the reflecting stage, the gathered data was analyzed and discussed to assess the efficacy of
the intervention as well as to write the respective conclusions of the research study.
The participants involved in this study were 26 lower secondary students. They were chosen by
convenience sampling because the researcher had easier access to the institution (Creswell, 2012). They
were between 14 to 15 years old. This group of students was immersed into direct corrective feedback.
This study was conducted after getting the approval and informing the students that the collected
information would be kept confidential and anonymous.
The collection sources and techniques used in this research work to collect data are described as follows.
To gather quantitative data, the testing technique with the instruments of a pre-test and post-test were
used.
METHODOLOGY
The approach of this research was a mixed method because it enabled to collect quantitative and
qualitative data. The quantitative data was used to compare the scores of the students after and before
the intervention. The study adopted an action research design. As described by Sáez and Cortés (2021),
this research design aims to enhance educational practice through reflective cycles and can vary
according to the predominant paradigm, ranging from technical to critical perspectives. The focus on
the action research approach involved using a cycle that includes stages such as planning, acting,
developing, and reflecting (Mertler, 2021).
This study used the action research cycle which consists of four stages: planning stage, acting stage,
developing stage and reflecting stage (Mertler, 2021). In the planning stage, there has been identified
the research problem, and a proposal focused on writing skills was carried out. It also involved the
administration of the pretest to the sample under study which was chosen using the convenience
sampling. This test was validated by four experts in the English language subject. Then, in the acting
stage, the proposal was implemented throughout eight weeks. It comprised different writing activities
where students received direct feedback using three types of correction such as cross-outs, rewrites, and
additions. It was done to address the problem. Next, in the developing stage, the research instruments
were administered to the population involved in the study to collect data regarding the intervention plan.
Finally, in the reflecting stage, the gathered data was analyzed and discussed to assess the efficacy of
the intervention as well as to write the respective conclusions of the research study.
The participants involved in this study were 26 lower secondary students. They were chosen by
convenience sampling because the researcher had easier access to the institution (Creswell, 2012). They
were between 14 to 15 years old. This group of students was immersed into direct corrective feedback.
This study was conducted after getting the approval and informing the students that the collected
information would be kept confidential and anonymous.
The collection sources and techniques used in this research work to collect data are described as follows.
To gather quantitative data, the testing technique with the instruments of a pre-test and post-test were
used.
pág. 8016
It was with the purpose to determine the effectiveness that direct corrective feedback has over the
writing skills. The pretest was administered at the beginning of the intervention plan and the posttest at
the end of it. Both tests were applied to the same group of learners by the researcher in a controlled
learning setting. Besides a questionnaire was applied in order to know the students´ perceptions toward
DCF.
The tests consisted of 4 questions each one had a score of 2.5. They evaluated vocabulary, punctuation,
grammar and language use. Besides, the questionnaire had 8 statements design with the liker scale
(disagree, neutral, and agree).
It is important to say that the researcher validated the instruments using construct and content validity.
For content validity the research asked four experts in the area. Additionally, the Iken’s V formula was
applied using Jamovi, yielding a value greater than 0.7, which confirms the validity of the instruments.
RESULTS
Table 1 Pretest. Descriptive measures for writing skills.
Writing aspects N Mean SD Min Max
Vocabulary (2,5) 26 0.96 0.692 0.00 2.50
Punctuation (2,5) 26 1.09 0.648 0.00 2.50
Grammar (2,5) 26 1.27 0.620 0.50 2.50
Language use (2,5) 26 0.79 0.764 0.00 2.00
Total (10) 26 4.12 2.031 0.50 8.00
Table 1 displays the scores of 26 students obtained in the pretest. The test was applied at the beginning
of the implementation of the intervention plan. It was applied in order to measure the students’
performance on writing skills (vocabulary, punctuation, grammar, and language use). As shown in the
table, students got a mean score of 4,12 /10 (SD 2,031). As demonstrated before, the total mean score
was low. Students’ scores ranged from 0.50 to 8.00. Based on this critical situation, the teacher-
researcher considered developing an action research study with this group of students with the purpose
to help them to enhance their writing skills.
The lowest score obtained by the tenth grader students was on “language use” with a mean of 0,79/ 2,5
(SD 0,764). The range of the scores in this writing aspect was from 0 to 2 points, which reflects that
any student got the maximum score of 2,5 points.
It was with the purpose to determine the effectiveness that direct corrective feedback has over the
writing skills. The pretest was administered at the beginning of the intervention plan and the posttest at
the end of it. Both tests were applied to the same group of learners by the researcher in a controlled
learning setting. Besides a questionnaire was applied in order to know the students´ perceptions toward
DCF.
The tests consisted of 4 questions each one had a score of 2.5. They evaluated vocabulary, punctuation,
grammar and language use. Besides, the questionnaire had 8 statements design with the liker scale
(disagree, neutral, and agree).
It is important to say that the researcher validated the instruments using construct and content validity.
For content validity the research asked four experts in the area. Additionally, the Iken’s V formula was
applied using Jamovi, yielding a value greater than 0.7, which confirms the validity of the instruments.
RESULTS
Table 1 Pretest. Descriptive measures for writing skills.
Writing aspects N Mean SD Min Max
Vocabulary (2,5) 26 0.96 0.692 0.00 2.50
Punctuation (2,5) 26 1.09 0.648 0.00 2.50
Grammar (2,5) 26 1.27 0.620 0.50 2.50
Language use (2,5) 26 0.79 0.764 0.00 2.00
Total (10) 26 4.12 2.031 0.50 8.00
Table 1 displays the scores of 26 students obtained in the pretest. The test was applied at the beginning
of the implementation of the intervention plan. It was applied in order to measure the students’
performance on writing skills (vocabulary, punctuation, grammar, and language use). As shown in the
table, students got a mean score of 4,12 /10 (SD 2,031). As demonstrated before, the total mean score
was low. Students’ scores ranged from 0.50 to 8.00. Based on this critical situation, the teacher-
researcher considered developing an action research study with this group of students with the purpose
to help them to enhance their writing skills.
The lowest score obtained by the tenth grader students was on “language use” with a mean of 0,79/ 2,5
(SD 0,764). The range of the scores in this writing aspect was from 0 to 2 points, which reflects that
any student got the maximum score of 2,5 points.
pág. 8017
The aforementioned results show that students did not perform well in writing when using the language
appropriately to communicate ideas naturally. Additionally, students got a mean score of 0,96/2,5 in
the aspect of “vocabulary” (SD 0,692). That explains why students got scores from 0 to 2.5. This
demonstrated that almost all students did not have a good vocabulary range to express ideas properly in
written ways. It is relevant to indicate that nobody reached a score of 2.5 in the evaluated aspects of
writing.
In “punctuation”, students got a total mean score of 1,09/ 2,50 (SD 0,648). Lastly, in “grammar”
students achieved a mean score of 1,27/2,5 (SD 0,620). These results demonstrated that learners’ writing
performance was a little better in both punctuation and grammar. Considering these results, it was
determined that students need improvement in the four writing aspects.
Table 2 Posttest. Descriptive measures for writing skills
Writing aspects N Mean SD Min Max
Vocabulary (2,5) 26 2.25 0.255 2.00 2.50
Punctuation (2,5) 26 1.85 0.394 1.50 2.50
Grammar (2,5) 26 1.94 0.432 1.00 2.50
Language use (2,5) 26 2.27 0.291 1.50 2.50
Total (10) 26 8.31 1.158 6.50 10.00
Table 2 shows the results obtained in the posttest on writing skills (vocabulary, punctuation, grammar,
and language use). The total mean score is 8,31/ 10 which is superior to the minimum level required for
the MinEduc which is 7/10. The mean scores range from 6,50 to 10, which are better than those obtained
in the pretest.
The lowest score was in “punctuation” with a total mean score of 1.85 (SD 0.394). The maximum score
learners achieved in this aspect was 2.50, and the minimum score was 1.50. Comparing this result with
the one gotten in the pretest, where the mean score was 1.09, it is crucial to postulate that students had
a potential improvement in the use of punctuation marks within sentences. In fact, students become
more capable of using the punctuation marks correctly to enhance the clarity of their writing activities.
Referring to “grammar”, students achieved a mean score of 1.94 (SD 0.432). The maximum was 2.5,
and the minimum was 1. This indicates a remarkable improvement in grammar, as in the pretest the
mean score was 1.27.
The aforementioned results show that students did not perform well in writing when using the language
appropriately to communicate ideas naturally. Additionally, students got a mean score of 0,96/2,5 in
the aspect of “vocabulary” (SD 0,692). That explains why students got scores from 0 to 2.5. This
demonstrated that almost all students did not have a good vocabulary range to express ideas properly in
written ways. It is relevant to indicate that nobody reached a score of 2.5 in the evaluated aspects of
writing.
In “punctuation”, students got a total mean score of 1,09/ 2,50 (SD 0,648). Lastly, in “grammar”
students achieved a mean score of 1,27/2,5 (SD 0,620). These results demonstrated that learners’ writing
performance was a little better in both punctuation and grammar. Considering these results, it was
determined that students need improvement in the four writing aspects.
Table 2 Posttest. Descriptive measures for writing skills
Writing aspects N Mean SD Min Max
Vocabulary (2,5) 26 2.25 0.255 2.00 2.50
Punctuation (2,5) 26 1.85 0.394 1.50 2.50
Grammar (2,5) 26 1.94 0.432 1.00 2.50
Language use (2,5) 26 2.27 0.291 1.50 2.50
Total (10) 26 8.31 1.158 6.50 10.00
Table 2 shows the results obtained in the posttest on writing skills (vocabulary, punctuation, grammar,
and language use). The total mean score is 8,31/ 10 which is superior to the minimum level required for
the MinEduc which is 7/10. The mean scores range from 6,50 to 10, which are better than those obtained
in the pretest.
The lowest score was in “punctuation” with a total mean score of 1.85 (SD 0.394). The maximum score
learners achieved in this aspect was 2.50, and the minimum score was 1.50. Comparing this result with
the one gotten in the pretest, where the mean score was 1.09, it is crucial to postulate that students had
a potential improvement in the use of punctuation marks within sentences. In fact, students become
more capable of using the punctuation marks correctly to enhance the clarity of their writing activities.
Referring to “grammar”, students achieved a mean score of 1.94 (SD 0.432). The maximum was 2.5,
and the minimum was 1. This indicates a remarkable improvement in grammar, as in the pretest the
mean score was 1.27.
pág. 8018
This improvement indicates that learners have become more proficient in grammatical usage, applying
correct grammar structures to make their written tasks more consistent. Considering this information, it
is of paramount importance to highlight that the students showed better writing practice when building
well-structured sentences which led to the creation of clearer and more effective conveyance of written
information.
In terms of “vocabulary”, students achieved a mean score of 2.25 (SD 0.255). The maximum score in
this aspect was 2.5, and the minimum score was 2. This indicates a significant improvement in
vocabulary, as in the pretest the mean score of this aspect was 0.96. This improvement points out that
learners have greatly enhanced their vocabulary usage, being able to use effectively a good range of
words in their writing performances. These results reflect that the students increased their abilities to
use different and precise vocabulary in their writing tasks with the aim of contributing to a richer and
more expressive communication.
Lastly, in the aspect of “language use”, learners got a mean score of 2.27 (SD 0.291). The maximum
score in this aspect was 2.5; meanwhile, the minimum score was 1.50. Compared to the mean score of
the pretest, which was 0.79, this indicates that in the posttest students showed a considerable
improvement in language use, which was the highest improvement among all aspects. This
improvement suggests that learners have significantly enhanced their ability to use language effectively
and appropriately. This collected data helped to determine that students increased their proficiency in
constructing sentences that are grammatically correct, the ideas of the writing tasks are coherent, and
show cohesion which enables them to create effective written performances.
Based on the previous results, it is evident that students got higher scores in the posttest; it is after they
developed writing skills with the support of the DCF which is a powerful strategy to enhance their
writing production. In fact, these results contributed to determining that DCF is effective to enhance
students’ writing practice.
This improvement indicates that learners have become more proficient in grammatical usage, applying
correct grammar structures to make their written tasks more consistent. Considering this information, it
is of paramount importance to highlight that the students showed better writing practice when building
well-structured sentences which led to the creation of clearer and more effective conveyance of written
information.
In terms of “vocabulary”, students achieved a mean score of 2.25 (SD 0.255). The maximum score in
this aspect was 2.5, and the minimum score was 2. This indicates a significant improvement in
vocabulary, as in the pretest the mean score of this aspect was 0.96. This improvement points out that
learners have greatly enhanced their vocabulary usage, being able to use effectively a good range of
words in their writing performances. These results reflect that the students increased their abilities to
use different and precise vocabulary in their writing tasks with the aim of contributing to a richer and
more expressive communication.
Lastly, in the aspect of “language use”, learners got a mean score of 2.27 (SD 0.291). The maximum
score in this aspect was 2.5; meanwhile, the minimum score was 1.50. Compared to the mean score of
the pretest, which was 0.79, this indicates that in the posttest students showed a considerable
improvement in language use, which was the highest improvement among all aspects. This
improvement suggests that learners have significantly enhanced their ability to use language effectively
and appropriately. This collected data helped to determine that students increased their proficiency in
constructing sentences that are grammatically correct, the ideas of the writing tasks are coherent, and
show cohesion which enables them to create effective written performances.
Based on the previous results, it is evident that students got higher scores in the posttest; it is after they
developed writing skills with the support of the DCF which is a powerful strategy to enhance their
writing production. In fact, these results contributed to determining that DCF is effective to enhance
students’ writing practice.
pág. 8019
Table 3 Normality test Shapiro Wilk-Pretest/Posttest writing skills
Shapiro-Wilk
N W p
Pretest (Total) 26 0.952 0.252
Posttest (Total) 26 0.902 0.017
The p-values of the Shapiro-Wilk indicates that the results show that the p value for the pretest (0,225)
is normal, and the posttest (0.017) is non normal. This justifies the use of a non-parametric test which
is the Wilcoxon test for analyzing the differences.
Table 4 W of Wilcoxon
Statistic p
Pretest Posttest W de Wilcoxon 0.00 < .001
Table 4 indicates that the p-value (0.01) which means the improvement observed in the posttest
compared to the pretest is highly. This strongly suggests that the intervention had a positive effect on
students’ writing performance.
Questionnaire Results
Table 5 Frequency on statements of the questionnaire about students’ perceptions on direct corrective
feedback
STATEMENTS Disagree Neutral Agree
The direct corrective feedback you receive facilitates your
written production.
0 % 17 % 83 %
Direct corrective feedback helps you to learn from mistakes. 3 % 30 % 67 %
Direct corrective feedback permits you to identify writing
mistakes easily.
0% 3% 97 %
When receiving direct corrective feedback, you have
opportunities to internalize the correct use of language.
0% 27% 73%
Direct corrective feedback enables you to reduce grammatical
mistakes in your written tasks.
7 % 13% 80%
You understand how to write better when applying cross-out
on your written tasks.
0% 10 % 90 %
Table 3 Normality test Shapiro Wilk-Pretest/Posttest writing skills
Shapiro-Wilk
N W p
Pretest (Total) 26 0.952 0.252
Posttest (Total) 26 0.902 0.017
The p-values of the Shapiro-Wilk indicates that the results show that the p value for the pretest (0,225)
is normal, and the posttest (0.017) is non normal. This justifies the use of a non-parametric test which
is the Wilcoxon test for analyzing the differences.
Table 4 W of Wilcoxon
Statistic p
Pretest Posttest W de Wilcoxon 0.00 < .001
Table 4 indicates that the p-value (0.01) which means the improvement observed in the posttest
compared to the pretest is highly. This strongly suggests that the intervention had a positive effect on
students’ writing performance.
Questionnaire Results
Table 5 Frequency on statements of the questionnaire about students’ perceptions on direct corrective
feedback
STATEMENTS Disagree Neutral Agree
The direct corrective feedback you receive facilitates your
written production.
0 % 17 % 83 %
Direct corrective feedback helps you to learn from mistakes. 3 % 30 % 67 %
Direct corrective feedback permits you to identify writing
mistakes easily.
0% 3% 97 %
When receiving direct corrective feedback, you have
opportunities to internalize the correct use of language.
0% 27% 73%
Direct corrective feedback enables you to reduce grammatical
mistakes in your written tasks.
7 % 13% 80%
You understand how to write better when applying cross-out
on your written tasks.
0% 10 % 90 %
pág. 8020
When the teacher rewrites your sentences, words or phrases,
you successfully comprehend the grammatical structures and
vocabulary usage in context.
0% 0% 100%
You understand word formation better when adding suffixes,
prefixes or sentences when adding articles or prepositions.
4% 13 % 83%
Table 5 displays the results obtained from the questionnaire regarding the level of acceptance of direct
corrective feedback on enhancing writing skills. These results are detailed below.
In the first statement, 83% of students agreed that direct corrective feedback facilitates written
production. This suggests that most of students find this type of feedback useful for improving their
writing ability. Meanwhile, 17% were neutral and 0% disagreed with this statement. It is supported by
the information collected from the field notes which shows that students felt motivated and enthusiastic
to develop writing activities after receiving DCF on their written tasks. It is that DCF helps students
become active writers at the time they outperform their writing skills. Referring to the second statement,
it indicates that 67% of students agreed that direct corrective feedback helps them to learn from their
mistakes, while 30% remained neutral and just 3% disagreed. This indicates that while the majority see
a clear benefit, there is a small portion that is not fully convinced. The data gathered from field notes
helps to confirm this situation since it was noticed that learners had chances to identify mistakes and
correct them by being cognizant about them by checking those mistakes to get readable pieces of
writing. In statement three, it was found that 97% of learners agreed that direct corrective feedback
makes it easy to identify writing mistakes. This shows a near-unanimous consensus on the clarity this
type of feedback provides. Only 3% of students were neutral with this statement. These results were
validated through the field notes which helped to determine that when students saw their mistakes
highlighted in their written works, it was easy to correct them to get meaningful written tasks. Focusing
on statement four, it is crucial to remark that 73% of learners agreed that direct corrective feedback
helps them internalize the correct language usage. This suggests that most find this type of feedback
effective in learning and remembering language rules. While 27% of them were neutral. In the field
notes, it was pointed out that the positive impact of DCF enabled learners to recognize mistakes
immediately as well as reinforce the correct use of the language in context.
When the teacher rewrites your sentences, words or phrases,
you successfully comprehend the grammatical structures and
vocabulary usage in context.
0% 0% 100%
You understand word formation better when adding suffixes,
prefixes or sentences when adding articles or prepositions.
4% 13 % 83%
Table 5 displays the results obtained from the questionnaire regarding the level of acceptance of direct
corrective feedback on enhancing writing skills. These results are detailed below.
In the first statement, 83% of students agreed that direct corrective feedback facilitates written
production. This suggests that most of students find this type of feedback useful for improving their
writing ability. Meanwhile, 17% were neutral and 0% disagreed with this statement. It is supported by
the information collected from the field notes which shows that students felt motivated and enthusiastic
to develop writing activities after receiving DCF on their written tasks. It is that DCF helps students
become active writers at the time they outperform their writing skills. Referring to the second statement,
it indicates that 67% of students agreed that direct corrective feedback helps them to learn from their
mistakes, while 30% remained neutral and just 3% disagreed. This indicates that while the majority see
a clear benefit, there is a small portion that is not fully convinced. The data gathered from field notes
helps to confirm this situation since it was noticed that learners had chances to identify mistakes and
correct them by being cognizant about them by checking those mistakes to get readable pieces of
writing. In statement three, it was found that 97% of learners agreed that direct corrective feedback
makes it easy to identify writing mistakes. This shows a near-unanimous consensus on the clarity this
type of feedback provides. Only 3% of students were neutral with this statement. These results were
validated through the field notes which helped to determine that when students saw their mistakes
highlighted in their written works, it was easy to correct them to get meaningful written tasks. Focusing
on statement four, it is crucial to remark that 73% of learners agreed that direct corrective feedback
helps them internalize the correct language usage. This suggests that most find this type of feedback
effective in learning and remembering language rules. While 27% of them were neutral. In the field
notes, it was pointed out that the positive impact of DCF enabled learners to recognize mistakes
immediately as well as reinforce the correct use of the language in context.