PERTANIKA JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES

In this study, we examined the nature of teacher Corrective Feedback (TCF) in Paper-And-Pencil and Electronic modes by exploring the form and purpose of TCF and the strategies used to mark errors in the writings of undergraduate EFL students. We also investigated possible differences between the two modes. To this end, we randomly assigned the students to the control (PAP feedback) and experimental groups (E-feedback). Taking a mixed-method research design, we analysed data which included the first drafts of students' essays of the two groups in hard and soft copy forms. We used a modified version of Analytic Model for Corrective Feedback and Error Feedback Strategies profile to identify the nature of TCF. The results showed: a) higher percentage of E-feedback compared with PAP feedback; b) make a grammar/mechanics comment/question, statement, or imperative as the most frequently used feedback type in both groups; c) underline/circle/ highlight the errors and underline/circle/highlight and categorise the errors as the most frequent feedback strategies in the control and experimental group respectively; and d) significant differences in the nature of feedback between the two modes. The findings suggested the medium (mode) by which feedback was provided affected the nature of the message given to the students. The outcome of this study is useful for writing instructors.