





































Microsoft Word - GRHE-V2N3-p104


Global Research in Higher Education 
ISSN 2576-196X (Print) ISSN 2576-1951 (Online) 

Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe 

104 
 

Original Paper 

Can Formative Assessment and Corrective Feedback Improve 

L2 Learners’ Performance on English “Comparative Forms”? 

The Case of Low-Proficiency Level EFL Learners 

Alqahtani Mofareh A1*  
1 King Khaled Military Academy, Civilian Studies, English Department, Riyadh Saudi  

* Alqahtani Mofareh A, King Khaled Military Academy, Civilian Studies, English Department, Riyadh 

Saudi 

 

Received: June 20, 2019       Accepted: July 1, 2019            Online Published: July 18, 2019 

doi:10.22158/grhe.v2n3p104               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/grhe.v2n3p104 

 

Abstract 

This study aims to examine the impact of formative assessment with corrective feedback as one of the 

effective tools that improve the performance of students who study English as a second language (L2 

learners). More specifically, it contributes to research on the complex relationship between the 

attitudes and practices of English language teachers and students regarding the way they understand 

and practice the basics of formative assessment and corrective feedback when checking students’ 

achievement. In order to achieve this goal, the study investigated this matter in light of the following 

guiding questions: What are the effects of corrective and formative feedback in improving students who 

are learning English as a second language level L2 learners? How might teachers provide effective 

assistance to their students during this stage? 

To address these questions, A total of 58 subjects were divided into a control group (n=29) and an 

experimental group (n=29). All the subjects were second-year cadets at a military academy. Both 

groups were given a pre-test prior to the teaching of English “comparative forms”. The purpose of the 

pre-test was to make sure that the two groups were homogenous. The pre-test was then followed by the 

teaching of English “comparative forms” in both groups. The experimental group was given a 

formative assessment where each subject also received one-on-one corrective feedback. Finally, a 

post-test (summative assessment) was given to both groups. 

After collecting and analyzing the data, it was found that providing a formative assessment and 

corrective feedback has a positive impact on improving students’ level of accurate understanding 

accurately and student writing as well as correct reading. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

105 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Definitions of Terms 

▪ Formative: 

Serving to form something, especially having a profound influence on a person’s development. 

▪ Assessment: 

The action or an instance of making a judgment about something: the act of assessing something: 

APPRAISAL. 

▪ Corrective: 

Tending to correct or rectify generally used to refer to something that is intended to improve a 

situation. 

▪ Feedback: 

The transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the 

original or controlling source. 

▪ L2 learners  

The students learning a Second Language, non-native language, foreign language, it is a process of 

acquiring language capacity after another language (or languages) have already been learned 

natively. 

▪ EFL Learners 

EFL is an abbreviation for (English as a Foreign Language) This is mainly used to talk about students 

(whose first language is not English) learning English while living in their own country (For example, 

a Chinese person learning English in China). 

Keywords 

assessment, feedback, formative, summative, teaching English as a foreign language 

 

1. Introduction 

Formative assessments stand in contrast to summative assessments. On the one hand, summative 

assessments are used to evaluate the achievement of students at the end of a course, program, semester, 

or school year. That is, the final grade of students is determined based on their performance in 

summative assessments. Formative assessments, on the other hand, are used to help teachers identify 

whether students have any difficulties or learning needs during the course, program, semester, or 

school year. Thus, formative assessments ultimately aim at improving students’ performance on 

summative assessments. 

Formative assessment refers to a wide variety of methods that teachers use to conduct in-process 

evaluations of student comprehension, learning needs, and academic progress during a lesson, unit, or 

course. Formative assessments help teachers identify concepts that students are struggling to 

understand, skills they are having difficulty acquiring, or learning standards they have not yet achieved 

so that adjustments can be made to lessons, instructional techniques, and academic support. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

106 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The usual goal of formative assessment is therefore to collect detailed information that can be used to 

improve instruction and student learning while it is happening. What makes an assessment “formative” 

is not the design of a test, technique, or self-evaluation, per se, but the way it is used—i.e., to inform 

in-process teaching and learning modifications. 

1.1 Review of the Relevant Literature 

In this regard, a number of previous studies concerning with the subject matter of the current research 

were examined or addressed, the most important of which are: 

 Maddalena Taras (2008) found that there was a general consensus among practitioners on the 

understanding of the term “formative assessment”. Eighty per cent (40/48) of lecturers 

mentioned it to be “developmental” and/or “for learning” (2 did not reply). The definition of 

formative assessment also reflected the etymological meaning of assessment, however: only 

28 per cent (14/48) mentioned “feedback”. Formative assessment is argued, however, to be 

properly understood as summative assessment plus feedback, such as some form of correction.  

 Ehsan Rassaei, Ahmad Moinzadeh, Manijeh Youhanaee (2012) carried out a study in which the 

impacts of two types of feedback-related evidence which are believed to be crucial in second 

language (L2) development were compared. Positive evidence provides learners with the 

correct and target-like structures or what is acceptable in L2 while negative evidence indicates 

learners clearly what is unacceptable. One framework for investigating the roles of positive 

and negative evidence is based on research on their role in corrective feedback in L2 

acquisition. Corrective feedback is defined as a teacher’s reactive move that invites a learner 

to attend to the grammatical accuracy of the utterance which is produced by the learner (Sheen, 

2007), and Rassaei et al. (2012) found that corrective feedback giving explicit negative 

evidence was superior to other types. Carroll and Swain (1993), studied the effects of four 

different types of feedback: explicit hypothesis rejection, explicit utterance rejection, 

modeling/implicit negative feedback, and indirect metalinguistic feedback. Findings showed 

that the group receiving explicit hypothesis rejection outperformed all the other groups, 

providing evidence again that explicit correction played more a important role in learning 

correct grammatical generalizations than implicit correction. 

 Lyster and Ranta (1997) categorized corrective feedback into six different types when 

investigating four immersion classrooms at the primary level: explicit correction, recast, 

clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, and repetition. They found that 

teachers used recast (55%) the most out of the six different types of feedback, followed by 

elicitation, clarification requests, metalinguistic feedback explicit correction, and repetition of 

errors (5%). However, recast, which is often positive and implicit, was the least likely to lead 

to uptake in student responses to feedback, whereas elicitation led to student responses the 

most successfully. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

107 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

1.2 Objectives of the Study 

I aim to demonstrate the effectiveness in EFL teaching of formative assessment with corrective 

feedback in improving the performance of L2 learners learning comparative forms. Objectives are 

therefore: 

1) To determine the effect of using formative assessment on later summative assessment of the 

attainment of students at the end of a course that has been instructed in a systematic way. 

2) To study the effectiveness of the formative assessment in helping teachers to assess the 

students’ status and whether they need extra help in the classroom. 

3) To verify the existence of effective corrective feedback methods to help students improve their 

performance through formative assessment. 

1.3 Importance of the Study 

Formative assessment is an important process that used by teachers and students during instruction that 

provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to improve students’ achievement of 

intended instructional outcomes therefore formative assessment takes place during instruction. 

Meanwhile feedback also focused on the conditions and principles of effective feedback that will have 

most effect on student learning where it explain how the use of written feedback from lecturers can 

improve student outcomes and grades from one assessment task to the next one therefore it has been 

determined by many experts as a very important and vital tool that much helpful for the students to 

improve their skills and minimize the related errors. 

1.4 Research Hypothesis  

Based upon the above-mentioned arguments, the following hypothesis can be formulated: 

1) Corrective feedback as a part of formative assessment plays an important role in the final 

summative performance of EFL learners. 

 

2. Method 

A total of 58 subjects were divided into a control group (n=29) and an experimental group (n=29). All 

the subjects were second-year cadets at a military academy. Both groups were given a pre-test prior to 

the teaching of English “comparative forms”. The purpose of the pre-test was to make sure that the two 

groups were homogenous. The pre-test was then followed by the teaching of English “comparative 

forms” in both groups. The experimental group was given a formative assessment where each subject 

received one-on-one corrective feedback. Finally, a post-test (summative assessment) was given to both 

groups. 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

108 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Result 

 

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Groups’ Performances in Pre- and Post-Tests 

 Pre-test Post-test 

Group M SD M SD 

Control 1.69 1.92 6.59 4.19 

Experimental 2.62 2.87 9.17 .97 

Note. Participants in each group (n=29); Maximum score on each test is 10. 

 

Table 1 above shows that the subjects in the two groups performed slightly differently in the pre-test. 

However, the high standard deviations clearly indicate the wide variation among the subjects in prior 

ability. Furthermore, the difference between the groups on the pre-test was not significant 

(t(56)=-1.4504, p=.153). Results of the post-test however show a clearly better performance in favor of 

the experimental group. The t-test result indicates a highly significant difference between the groups 

(t(56) =3.324, p=.002), supporting the efficacy of formative assessment and feedback on the learning of 

English comparative forms. Figure 1 below illustrates the post-test’s mean difference in both groups. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

109 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Figure 1. Post-Test Difference between Control and Experimental Groups 

 

Cohen’s d effect size was also computed to quantify the effect of formative assessment and feedback 

on the students’ learning of English comparative forms. Cohen’s d is operationalized by calculating the 

mean difference between two scores and then dividing the result by the pooled standard deviation. The 

results show a large effect size of formative assessment and feedback on the learning of L2 

comparative forms (Cohen’s d=.85). According to Cohen (1992), a value of 0.8 or greater is a very 

large effect. 

 

4. Discussion 

As was mentioned above, the current study was designed to determine the effect of formative 

assessment with corrective feedback on improving the performance of L2 learners learning English 

comparative forms. After collecting and analyzing the data, it was noted that providing formative 

assessment and corrective feedback in addition to instruction had a positive impact on improving 

students’ level of accurate understanding and use of comparative forms. This is therefore consistent 

with the literature which we reviewed in 1.1 above, and for example with Bitchener (2008) who 

revealed that using various kinds of formative assessment and corrective feedback in student groups 

can also lead to improvement in writing.  

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

110 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Students who received formative assessment and corrective feedback in the present study performed 

better in the post-test than the control group, which implies that greater emphasis should be placed on 

formative assessment and corrective feedback in the education and training process. On the other hand, 

however, Bitchener and Knoch (2009) reported that error correction alone, without additional feedback 

was just as beneficial as more elaborate forms of feedback (such as explicit explanation). Hence the 

question as to what precise form of feedback is the most beneficial remains to be answered. Moreover, 

we do not know what form of formative assessment and corrective feedback would have the greatest 

impact on improving the level of students at all levels of learner ability, nor which different types are 

likely to produce the best improvement in learning over the long term. 

 

5. Conclusion and Recommendations  

In conclusion, the results of the present study show that the subjects in the experimental group 

significantly outperformed the subjects in the control group. This is due to the fact that the subjects in 

the experimental group received corrective feedback in a formative assessment which ultimately aimed 

at improving their performance in the later summative assessment. Furthermore, the result of Cohen’s d 

revealed a large effect size for formative assessment with systematic corrective feedback on the 

learning of L2 comparative forms. The pedagogical implication that the findings suggest is that 

formative assessment and corrective feedback are useful strategies for promoting learning in an EFL 

context, at least with low-proficiency level second language learners. 

The researcher finally presents a number of recommendations, with the aim of contributing to and 

strengthening the understanding and use of formative assessment and corrective feedback to improve 

students’ performance, especially L2 learners, by offering suggestions based on the current study.  

1) There should be collaboration between students and teachers to extend the use of formative 

assessment with feedback to enhance all parts of the EFL syllabus, including reading and writing. 

2) Students have to be given more formative assessment with corrective feedback, either as 

groups or individually, because effective formative assessment and corrective feedback provide 

the learner with two types of information: verification and elaboration. 

3) L2 learners and teachers must consider formative assessment and corrective feedback as 

Scaffolding: it provides support which enables English learners to do more advanced activities 

and to engage in more advanced thinking and problem solving than they could without such help. 

4) There is an additional effective cognitive mechanism by which formative assessment and 

corrective feedback may benefit learners. It can signal a gap between their current level of 

performance and some desired level of performance or goal. Resolving this gap can motivate the 

learner to engage higher levels of effort. 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

111 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Becker, L. J., & Seligman, C. (1981). Welcome to the energy crisis. Journal of Social Issues, 37(2), 1-7. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1981.tb02623.x 

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language 

Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written 

corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 

Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2016). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on 

ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001 

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. 

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 

Brookhart, S. M. (2014). Formative assessment strategies for every classroom (2nd ed). Alexandria, 

VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). 

Brookhart, S. M. (2015). Feedback That Fits. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 54-59. 

Brookhart, S. M. S. (20016). How to Give Effective Feedback to Your Students. Virginia: Association 

for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). 

Butler, R. (2011). Enhancing and Undermining Intrinsic Motivation: The Effects of Task-Involving and 

Ego-Involving Evaluation on Interest and Performance. British Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 58(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1988.tb00874.x 

Carey, T., & Carifio, J. (2012). The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study of 

seven years of grading data. Educational Researcher, 41(6), 201-208. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12453309 

Carless, D. (2014). Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher education, 31(2), 

219-233. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572132 

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2016). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies 

in Higher Education, 36(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075071003642449 

Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the 

learning of linguistic generalization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386. 

Chandler, J. (2011). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy 

and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 

Cochrane, T. (2015). Enhancing oral presentation skills of engineering students: Technology to the 

rescue with the Virtual-I Presenter (VIP). Computers in Education Journal, 19(4), 43-52. 

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98-101. 

Connolly, M. (2016). Skills-based health education. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

112 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th 

ed.). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Danforth, S., & Smith, T. J. (2014). Engaging Troubling Students: A Constructivist Approach. 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. 

Dekker, H., Schönrock-Adema, J., Snoek, J. W., van der Molen, T., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2013). 

Which characteristics of written feedback are perceived as stimulating students’ reflective 

competence: An exploratory study. BMC Medical Education, 13(2011), 94. 

https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-13-94 

Doan, L. (2013). Is Feedback a Waste of Time? The Students’ Perspective. Journal of Perspectives in 

Applied Academic Practice, 1(2), 3. https://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v1i2.69 

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. In Head Neck. New York: Ballantine 

Books.  

Ehsan Rassaei, A. M., & Manijeh, Y. (2012). The Effect of Corrective Feedback on the Acquisition of 

Implicit and Explicit L2 Knowledge. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 

59-75. 

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition 

of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141 

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused 

written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 26(3), 353-371. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 

Evans, C. (2013). Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher education. Review of Educational 

Research, 83(1), 70-120. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654312474350 

Ferris, D. R. (2010). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott 

(1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 

Ferris, D. R. (2011). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 

31(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for 

Your Classroom (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development (ASCD). 

Gaonkar, V., & Patil, P. B. (2015). Slow Learners: Problems and Remedial Measures. In Applied and 

Community Psychology: Trends and Directions (1st ed., p. 854). New Delhi: Sarup & Sons. 

Gardner, J. (2012). Assessment and Learning (2nd ed.). London: SAGE Publications. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

113 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Ghazal, L., Gul, R., Hanzala, M., Jessop, T., & Tharani, A. (2014). Graduate Students’ Perceptions of 

Written Feedback at a Private University in Pakistan. International Journal of Higher education, 

3(2), 13-27. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p13 

Goldstein, L. M. (2010). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: 

Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006 

Hamner, H. A. (in press). Research in cognitive development. New York: Springer. 

Hamp-Lyons, L. (2006). The impact of testing practices on teaching: Ideologies and alternatives. In 

International handbook of English language teaching (pp. 487-504). Norwell, MA: Springer. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_35 

Happenstance, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H., & Thorpe, L. P. (2017). Using technology to 

encourage student engagement with feedback: A literature review. Research in Learning 

Technology, 19(2), 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/21567069.2011.586677 

Hargreaves, E. (2005). Assessment for learning? Thinking outside the (black) box. Cambridge Journal 

of Education, 35(2), 213-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500146880 

Harris, A. (2006). Improving schools in exceptionally challenging circumstances: Tales from the 

frontline. London: Continuum. 

Harris, K. L., Krause, K., Gleeson, D., Peat, M., Taylor, C., & Garnett, R. (2007). Enhancing 

Assessment in the Biological Sciences: Ideas and resources for university educators.  

Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning-Synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement-John. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332 

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2015). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 

81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 

Heritage, M. (2016). Formative Assessment: What Do Teachers Need to Know and Do? Phi Delta 

Kappan, 89(2), 140-145. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170708900210 

Hilts, P. J. (1999, February 16). In forecasting their emotions, most people flunk out. In New York 

Times. Retrieved November 21, 2000, from http://www.nytimes.com 

Irons, A. (2011). Enhancing learning through formative assessment and feedback. In Key guides for 

effective teaching in higher education series (Vol. 39). Abingdon: Routledge.  

Jolly, B., & Boud, D. (2013). Written feedback: What is it good for and how can we do it well? In 

Feedback in Higher and Professional Education (pp. 104-124). London: Routledge. Retrieved 

from http://hdl.handle.net/10453/27681 

Juwah, C., Macfarlane-dick, D., Matthew, B., Nicol, D., Ross, D., & Smith, B. (2015). Enhancing 

student learning through effective formative feedback. The Higher education Academy Generic 

Centre Enhancing, 68, 1-41. 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/grhe            Global Research in Higher Education                  Vol. 2, No. 3, 2019 

114 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Karim, B. H. H. (2015). The Impact of Teachers’ Beliefs and Perceptions about Formative Assessment 

in the University ESL Class. International Journal of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, 

2(3), 108-115. 

Kihlstrom, J. F. (2013). How Students Learn—And How We Can Help Them Principles of Memory. 

Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and a call for research. 

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 28-37. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00220.x 

Laplace, P. S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities (F. W. Truscott, & F. L. Emory, Trans.). 

New York: Dover. (Original work published 1814) Publication Manual of the American 

Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in 

communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. 

Maddalena, T. (2008). Summative and Formative Assessment Perceptions and Realities University of 

Sunderland, UK, Post print/Zeitschriftenartikel/journal article. SAGE Publications. 

Rassaei, E., Moinzadeh, A., & Youhanaee, M. (2012). The effect of corrective feedback on the 

acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. The Journal of Language Teaching and 

Learning, 2(1), 59-75. 

Rocklin, T. R. (1989). Individual differences in item selection in computerized self-adapted testing. 

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Research Association, San Francisco, CA. 

Ryerson, J. F. (1983). Effective management training: Two models (Unpublished master’s thesis). 

College of Technology, Potsdam, New York. 

Schwartz, J. (1993, September 30). Obesity affects economic, social status. In The Washington Post (pp. 

A1, A4). 

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the 

acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language 

acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press 

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ 

accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 

Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the 

acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern 

Language Journal, 99(2), 263-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 

Taras, M. (2008). Summative and formative assessment: Perceptions and realities. Active Learning in  

Higher Education, 9(2), 172-192. 

 

 


