This report describes a mixed study comparing the writing performance of 60 EFL students in three intact groups, during their first semester of an English undergraduate Program at a university in the South of Chile. Three types of focused, Indirect Written Corrective Feedback (henceforth WCF) were used: group 1, coding (n=23); group 2, brief grammatical explanation (n=22); and group 3, underlining (n=15). Feedback was given on five targeted linguistic categories. A pretest was applied before the 16-week treatment took place, as well as a posttest. Students received explicit grammar training and knowledge of genres; multiple-drafting was used in a writing portfolio based class that allowed them to see their progress over time. Frequency and standard deviation of errors were calculated for the pre and posttest. Qualitative data was collected from group semi-structured interviews and were analyzed using content analysis. Results show that 3 out of the 5 linguistic categories have a significant improvement in terms of accuracy, and there are differences among types of feedback. Interviews indicate that students are satisfied with the writing portfolio system because it allows them to keep track on their progress; they value the systematic feedback and have a positive attitude towards multiple drafting and the writing process approach.

中文翻译：

---

结合使用针对性的书面纠正反馈的策略：智利基础英语学习者的一项研究

本报告描述了一项混合研究，比较了智利南部一所大学英语本科课程第一学期的60个EFL学生在三个完整组中的写作表现。使用了三种类型的重点，间接书面纠正反馈（以下简称WCF）：第1组，编码（n = 23）；第二组，简要的语法解释（n = 22）；第3组，下划线（n = 15）。对五个目标语言类别给出了反馈。在进行16周治疗之前进行了预测试，以及进行了后测试。学生接受了明确的语法训练和体裁知识；在基于写作组合的课堂中使用了多次草稿，使他们能够随着时间的推移查看进度。在测试前和测试后计算错误的频率和标准偏差。从小组半结构化访谈中收集定性数据，并使用内容分析进行分析。结果表明，在5种语言类别中，有3种在准确性方面有显着提高，并且反馈类型之间也存在差异。访谈表明，学生对写作档案袋系统感到满意，因为它可以让他们跟踪自己的进度；他们重视系统的反馈意见，并对多重起草和写作过程方法持积极态度。访谈表明，学生对写作档案袋系统感到满意，因为它可以让他们跟踪自己的进度；他们重视系统的反馈意见，并对多重起草和写作过程方法持积极态度。访谈表明，学生对写作档案袋系统感到满意，因为它可以让他们跟踪自己的进度；他们重视系统的反馈意见，并对多重起草和写作过程方法持积极态度。