Saksit SaengboonPratabjai Tatsanajamsuk2022-02-282022-02-282020b212157https://repository.nida.ac.th/handle/662723737/5543Thesis (Ph.D. (Language and Communication))--National Institute of Development Administration, 2020This qualitative multiple-case study investigated the roles of indirect asynchronous electronic feedback and direct feedback on lexical errors (calques and collocations) produced by Thai undergraduate students. The study consisted of two phases: 1) a pilot study and 2) the main study. Data collection was carried out through text analysis, interviews, and observations. The pilot study was conducted with university students who shared more or less the same characteristics as those in the main study. More specifically, six typical cases were divided into two groups receiving two different types of feedback (Group 1: direct feedback and Group 2: indirect asynchronous electronic feedback). The participants in Group 1 were asked to write English paragraphs on paper while those in Group 2, on Google Docs software. Feedback on their writing was focused on calque and collocation errors, in which the participants were required to correct the errors based on the feedback given. After the participants had completed each writing task, they were interviewed individually. Subsequently, focus-group interviews were conducted with the teacher and the participants in a bid to verify construct validity. In addition, an inter-rater commented on the participants’ original and revised drafts of in-class written texts. Thematic themes were identified based on the analysis of each participant’s writing. Findings revealed that the participants in Group 2 outperformed their counterparts in Group 1 when it came to calque error correction. However, as regards collocation errors, the participants in Group 1 outperformed their Group 2 counterparts. It should be noted that the participants in Group 2 had more difficulty understanding the teacher’s feedback and therefore found it harder to revise their writings. The participants had mixed perceptions towards the teacher’s feedback. In fact, it seems they preferred direct, indirect electronic and teacher-student conferencing feedback. In this respect, such factors as individual differences and types of feedback contributed to their ability to benefit from the teacher’s feedback. This study suggests that direct feedback is more conducive to writing improvement than indirect asynchronous electronic feedback. Given the complex nature of writing itself, negative feedback (explicit error correction) is preferred as much as extensive reading. It should be pointed out that an integration of technology in a writing class should be done carefully to make certain that EFL learners are familiar with and know how to use digital technology. Equally important is that the participants viewed the teacher feedback as multi-dimensional. That is, the feedback not only provided correction but also increased their trust on the teacher’s credibility. Moreover, individual differences in terms of their learning styles and English proficiency played important roles in their ability or inability to respond to the teacher’s feedback.553 leavesapplication/pdfengThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.e-ThesisIndirect asynchronousE-feedbackCalquestext--thesis--doctoral thesis10.14457/NIDA.the.2020.84