Resultsindicated that all students had the opportunity to revise their writing products (i.e. students in the Direct and Indirect coded groups) produced fewer errors in their revisions to their initial writings.
Some second language researchers, as cited in Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005), according to Truscott’s review of studies by Kepner (1991), Semke (1984), and Sheppard (1992) There is no a significant impact for error correction on improving L2 student writing. Considering this limited range of studies, the present study aimed at expanding the scope by investigating the impact of two different types of feedback on improvement of EFL students’ writing performance.
Accordingly, based on the results of this study, both types of feedback had an affective impact on the students’ writing improvement. Findings of this study were opposed to Truscott’s (1996) claim when he claimed the provision of corrective feedback on L2 writing is ineffective. The findings indicated that the overall improvement in writing of the participants in two groups differed significantly across the eight writing tasks. This was not surprising as earlier research has indicated that in the process of learning new linguistic forms may help L2 learners with accuracy on one occasion but fail to do so on other similar occasions (Ellis 1994, Pienemann 1989). Learners in both groups were more successful in their writing achievement as well. Besides, provision of corrective feedback on L2 writing should be considered as one of the main factors.
Regarding the first research question, the results showed that indirect coded feedback strategy group decreased their errors. The statistical comparisons showed a more significant difference in indirect corrective feedback group. Since there was a statistically significant increase in writing scores from pretest (M = 16.65, SD = 5.19) to posttest (M = 21.52, SD = 6.31) in indirect corrective feedbacks group with t(19) = 3.74, p = .001, p