The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Screencast Feedback on the Writing Accurateness and Self-Efficacy of EFL Learners

Negahi, Mohammad; Mardani, Mahdi; Goldust, Mehdi

Volume 11, Issue 2 (7-2026) IJREE 2026, 11(2): 59-79 | Back to browse issues page

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Negahi M, Mardani M, Goldust M. (2026). The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Screencast Feedback on the Writing Accurateness and Self-Efficacy of EFL Learners. IJREE. 11(2),
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-1066-en.html

The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Screencast Feedback on the Writing Accurateness and Self-Efficacy of EFL Learners

Mohammad Negahi ^*

, Mahdi Mardani

, Mehdi Goldust

Department of English, Be. C., Islamic Azad University, Behbahan, Iran.

Abstract: (745 Views)

This quasi-experimental study juxtaposes the efficiency of direct and indirect unfocused screencast feedback on the writing exactitude and self-efficacy of EFL students. Three classes participated: direct feedback, indirect feedback, and no-feedback control class. The study employed a pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test design. Direct feedback provided corrected forms, while indirect feedback indicated error locations. Unfocused feedback was chosen for its ecological validity in real classroom settings. 97 third-year undergraduate students participated, divided into three groups. The Oxford Quick Placement Test ensured homogeneity among groups. Data was collected using the Second Language Writer Self-Efficacy Scale (L2WSS) and a Writing Test (WT). The L2WSS measured self-efficacy, and WT assessed writing accuracy. Both instruments showed high reliability. The study used argumentative writing tasks for the WT, with topics varied for the pre-, post-, and delayed post-tests. Data analysis was performed via SPSS 21, with MANOVA used to determine class differences. Rules of normality and homogeneity of variance were tested and met. Outcomes showed significant differences among classes post-treatment, with the feedback groups outperforming the control class. The study concludes that both varieties of unfocused screencast feedback are effective in improving writing accuracy, but no noteworthy difference between direct and indirect feedback was found.

Keywords: direct and indirect unfocused screencast, feedback, writing, self-efficacy, EFL learner

Full-Text [PDF 677 kb] (195 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: General

References

1. Abdou seddik. M. E. (2026). The digital mediation of teacher's feedback: investigating the efficacy of screen-cast video feedback on EFL learners' writing revision and self-efficacy. Journal of English Language and Education, 11(3), 103-114. [DOI:10.31004/jele.v11i3.2200]

2. Ali, A. D. (2016). Effectiveness of using screencast feedback on EFL students' writing and perception. English Language Teaching, 9(8), 106-121. https://doi.org/ 10.5539/eltv9n8p106 https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n8p106 [DOI:10.5539/eltv9n8p106]

3. Amirian, S. M. R., Edalati Bazzaz, V., Ghaniabadi, S., & Zareian, G. (2025). Probing into the contribution of self-efficacy, l2 grit, and foreign language classroom enjoyment to oral presentation anxiety of university students. IJREE, 10(4), 102-123. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-1017-en.html

4. Anson, C. M., Dannels, D. P., Laboy, J. I., & Carneiro, L. (2016). Students' perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing: Exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378-411. [DOI:10.1177/1050651916636424]

5. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on 'the language learning potential' of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 [DOI:10.1016/j. jslw.2012.09.006]

6. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203832400]

7. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431. [DOI:10.1177/1362168808089924]

8. Bruning, R., Dempsey, M., Kauffman, D. F., McKim, C., & Zumbrunn, S. (2013). Examining dimensions of self-efficacy for writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(1), 25-38. [DOI:10.1037/a0029692]

9. Cunningham, K. J., & Link, S. (2021). Video and text feedback on ESL writing: Understanding attitude and negotiating relationships. Journal of Second Language Writing, 52, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100797 [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100797.]

10. Ducate, L., & Arnold, N. (2012). Computer-mediated feedback: Effectiveness and student perceptions of screen-casting software versus the comment function. In G. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (vol. 10) (pp. 31-56). San Marcos, TX: CALICO

11. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001]

12. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183 [DOI:10.1111/ flan.12183]

13. Esfandiari, S., & Heydari, A. (2024). Investigating the relationship between EFL learners' sense of self-efficacy and their pedagogical success: different proficiency levels in focus. IJREE, 9(4), 56-70. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-932-en.html

14. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [DOI:10.4324/9781410607201]

15. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written correct SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990490]

16. Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of errors in second language student writing (2nd ed.). University of Michigan Press. [DOI:10.3998/mpub.2173290]

17. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184. https://doi. org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X]

18. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006 [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006.]

19. Golparvar, S. E., & Khafi, A. (2021). The role of L2 writing self-efficacy in integrated writing strategy use and performance. Assessing Writing, 47, 100504. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2020.100504]

20. Grigoryan, A. (2017). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83-128. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/journalrw/vol3/iss1/5

21. Harper, F., Green, H., & Fernandez-Toro, M. (2015). Using screencasts in the teaching of modern languages: Investigating the use of Jing® in feedback on written assignments. The Language Learning Journal, 46(3), 277-292. [DOI:10.1080/09571736.2015.1061586]

22. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12189]

23. Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003 [DOI:doi.org10.1016/j.jslw.2012. 09.003]

24. Kourosh Khanshan, S., Yousefi, M. H., & Kashef, S. H. (2025). Investigating teachers' self-efficacy, instructional practice and self-reflective practice: The case of tertiary level teachers. IJREE, 10(3), 103-121. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-694-en.htmlju

25. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 [DOI:10.1016/j. system.2019.05.006.]

26. Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 5-33. https://doi. org/10.1558/japlv4i1.5 [DOI:10.1558/japl.v4i1.5]

27. Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66-81. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011]

28. Locke, T., & Johnston, M. (2016). Developing an individual and collective self-efficacy scale for the teaching of writing in high schools. Assessing Writing, 28, 1-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2016.01.001]

29. Mao, S. S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2019). Investigating written corrective feedback: (Mis)alignment of teachers' beliefs and practice. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 46-60. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2019.05.004]

30. Mitchell, K. M., McMillan, D. E., Lobchuk, M. M., Nickel, N. C., Rabbani, R., & Li, J. (2021). Development and validation of the situated academic writing self-efficacy scale (SAWSES). Assessing Writing, 48(January), 100524. [DOI:10.1016/j.asw.2021.100524]

31. Moafian, N., & Ghafournia, N. (2025). Iranian EFL learners' academic self-efficacy, metacognitive reading strategies, and reading comprehension achievement: Exploring the relationships and predicting roles. IJREE, 10(2), 79-98. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-984-en.html

32. Murray, D. M. (2004). A writer teaches writing (Rev. 2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle/Thomson.

33. Polio, C. G. (1997). Measure of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101-143. [DOI:10.1111/0023-8333.31997003]

34. Rahimi, M. (2021). A comparative study of the impact of focused vs. comprehensive corrective feedback and revision on ESL learners' writing accuracy and quality. Language Teaching Research, 25(5), 687-710. [DOI:10.1177/1362168819879182]

35. Schoonen, R., Gelderen, A. V., Glopper, K. D., Hulstijn, J., Simis, A., Snellings, P., & Stevenson, M. (2003), First language and second language writing: The role of linguistic knowledge, speed of processing, and metacognitive knowledge. Language Learning, 53, 165-202. [DOI:10.1111/1467-9922.00213]

36. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283. [DOI:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x]

37. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners' explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286-306. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011]

38. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303-334. [DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990532]

39. Sun, T., & Wang, C. (2020). College students' writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System, 90, [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2020.102221]

40. Teng, L. S., Sun, P. P., & Xu, L. (2018). Conceptualizing writing self-efficacy in English as a foreign language context: scale validation through structural equation modeling. TESOL Quart., 52, 911-942. https://doi: 10.1002/tesq.432 [DOI:10.1002/tesq.432]

41. Treglia, M. O. (2008). Feedback on feedback: Exploring student responses to teachers' written commentary. Journal of Basic Writing, 27(1), 105-137. https://doi:10.37514/JBW-J.2008.27.1.06 [DOI:10.37514/JBW-J.2008.27.1.06]

42. Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41. https://doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x]

43. Waddington, J. (2019). Developing primary school students' foreign language learner self-concept. System, 82, 39-49. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2019.02.012]

44. Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.005]

45. Young, P. (2000). I might as well give up: Self-esteem and mature students' feelings about feedback on assignments. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(3), 409-418. https://doi:10.1080/030987700750022325 [DOI:10.1080/030987700750022325]

46. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance: An introduction and an overview. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203839010]