Introducing new techniques to improve learner-teacher interaction receives substantial attention from the field of educational psychology. The current research aims to investigate the effect of teacher feedback on the written English accuracy of English as Second Language (ESL) students. In a quasi-experimental study, 90 participants were given three distinct forms of feedback (i.e. oral meta-linguistic, also called direct feedback; written indirect feedback and no feedback) for writing errors of three types (i.e. verb tenses, use of articles and prepositions) and were assessed three times during the study (i.e., pre-test, immediate post-test and delayed test). One-way ANOVA demonstrated that the ESL learners given direct meta-linguistic oral feedback reported fewer errors in two out of the three linguistic forms in subsequent writing in comparison with ESL learners who received indirect written feedback and those who did not receive feedback. Findings suggest that introducing oral meta-linguistic teacher feedback in the Pakistani language learning context can improve the English language learning of students.

Keywords: ESL learners; oral meta-linguistic feedback; indirect written feedback; written accuracy; direct feedback

Aljaafreh, A. L. &Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.

Bialystok, E. (1994). Representation and ways of knowing: Three issues in second language acquisition. Implicit and explicit learning of languages, 549-569.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

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

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009a). 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. & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.

Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing,19, 207–217.

Bitchener, J., S. Young. & D. Cameron. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3): 191–205.

Chandler, J. (2003). 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, 267–296.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9.

Coleman, H. & T. Capstick (2012). Language in education in Pakistan: Recommendations for policy and practice. British Council, 1_190.117, 127.

DeKeyser, R.M. (Ed.). (2007). Practice in a second language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

DeKeyser, R.M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313–348). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Doughty& Williams, 1998

Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54(2), 227-275.

Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.

Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8(1), 1–11.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The ―grammar correction‖ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

Ferris, D.R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.

Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.

Fletcher, W. & Birt, D. (1983). Storylines: Pictures sequences for language practice. Longman.

Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.

Haider, G. (2012). An insight into difficulties faced by Pakistani student writers: Implications for teaching of writing. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 17.

Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.

Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition error: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. Long, M.H. (1996). The

role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Luan, N. L. & Ishak, S. N. A. (2018). Instructor's Direct and Indirect Feedback: How do they Impact Learners' Written Performance?. 3L: Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 24(3).

Norris, J. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.

Polio, C., Fleck, C. & Leder, N. (1998). ―If only I had more time‖: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.

Rahman, T. (1990). Pakistani English: The linguistic description of a non-native variety of English, Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University.

Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality.TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.

Robins, L. S., Gruppen, L. D., Alexander, G. L., Fantone, J. C. & Davis, W. K. (1997). A predictive model of student satisfaction with the medical school learning environment. Academy of Medicine, 72 (2), 134-9.

Sarwar, M., A. Shah, H. Alam. & S. Hussian (2012). Usefulness and liking of English language as perceived by university students in Pakistan. Archives Des Sciences 65 (3), 114.

Schumann, J. H. (1978). The relationship of pidginization, creolization, and decreolization to second language acquisition. Language Learning, 28, 367-379.

Siddiqui, S. (2007). Rethinking Education in Pakistan: Perceptions, Practices, and Possibilities. Lahore: Paramount Publishing Press.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles, TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.

vanBeuningen, C., de Jong, N. H. & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning (forthcoming).

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press.85, 291.