Within the four language skills, writing seems to be the most challenging skill for EFL learners simply because it is a skill that must be learned well.

The focus of this action research was selected to be developing students’ writing skills, because according to the results of the external summative assessment, majority of students could not cope well with the writing assignments. By analyzing the high-school students works we detected some common mistakes that most students made in writing formal essays. Learners might go off-topic providing irrelevant information; superficial coverage of the subject and poor organization made the content unclear; due to insufficient evidence and unclear reasoning their arguments appeared to be weak and not extended, and they also found it difficult to support their claims. Miller & Pessoa (2016) also ascertained that many students at secondary and post-secondary levels, particularly L2 writers, struggle with writing arguments.

To identify the best approaches in encouraging students to strengthen their writing skills, the results of the previous studies were referred to. Researchers acknowledge the significance of argumentative writing in academic context (Lee & Deakin, 2016). In his work Schleppegrell, noted that “the construction of a well-organized text” is particularly important to argumentative writing (2006, p. 136). Hirvela (2017) identified that if learners are effectively engaged in arguing, it will lead them to thinking, searching, and learning.

Majority of researchers found feedback as the best way to encourage learners to enhance their writing. Hyland & Hyland (2006) indicated that feedback is a main form of ESL/EFL writing programs across the world. Ismail, Hassan & Maulan (2008) determined that even minimal feedback will help learners to do self-revision and self-correction.  It was also proven that L2 students who receive written corrective feedback on their errors are able to improve the accuracy of their writing compared with those who do not receive error feedback. (Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005).

Taking into consideration the results of the previous and latest research works, providing students with oral and written corrective feedback was selected to tackle the problem. Therefore, the purpose of the study was to investigate ESL students’ perceptions and attitudes towards oral and written feedback they received for their essays aimed at developing argumentation skills as well as their reasons they made in response to feedback.

The study addresses the following research questions:

1. What is the relationship between feedback and learners’ uptake in writing?
2. How effective is written and oral feedback in encouraging students to develop their argument-building skills in essay writing?
3. What are the most effective ways of feedback that encourage students to develop their argument-building skills?

Brown’s words clearly underscore the fact that a teacher should be necessarily there if learning is to take place. That is possibly why Brown (2001, p.340) contends that “we are still exploring ways to offer optimal feedback to student writing.” Shintani & Ellis (2013) revealed that uncoded feedback leaves the student to diagnose and correct the error himself. Ahmadi, Maftoon & Mehrdad, (2012) found that in EFL writing classes it is advised to incorporate both feedback types, keeping in mind that there is no single feedback strategy which works for all students, in all situations and with all the variety of errors. Hyland & Hyland, (2019) disclosed that providing feedback to students, whether in the form of written commentary, error correction, teacher-student conferencing, or peer discussion is recognized as one of the ESL writing teacher’s important tool.

Based on research two forms of feedback were considered: written corrective feedback as explicit, implicit and uncoded and oral feedback - Teacher-Student conferencing, Peer review, Whole class discussion.

A mixed-methods design was adopted for data collection in the present study. Both quantitative and qualitative data are integrated to address the research aims previously outlined – surveys (to collect quantitative data) and focus group discussions of students with reviews of documents (as the primary source of qualitative data). As most types of oral feedback was completed by a teacher in the classroom, the role of teacher observation was essential in encouraging students to improve their argument-building in writing. Throughout this study, teachers observed learners in the classroom to collect relevant information and data regarding the effectiveness of oral and written types of feedback. Teachers’ field notes allowed to avoid bias and to record details objectively. Moreover, document analysis was conducted based on learners’ essays (collected, read, reviewed and returned to) to identify if learners demonstrated any significant changes regarding the layout and argumentation in their written works. To gain more qualitative data, a focus group discussion (FGD) with 5 students was conducted towards the end of the data-gathering period to investigate learners’ views, perceptions, and beliefs surrounding feedback in essay writing. Focus group discussion enabled the exploration of the meanings of survey findings that cannot be explained statistically, and demonstrated the range of views on a topic of interest. Concerning quantitative data, a four-item questionnaire was used to obtain the learners’ attitudes toward various corrective feedback modes. It is a closed-form questionnaire containing four multiple-choice items to which 24 participants were requested to respond by choosing one of the given corrective feedback modes that they prefer to receive.

In conclusion, each type of feedback was acknowledged effective for students in the classroom. It is not important what type of feedback is given, but it is more important how useful given feedback is for students. Nevertheless, participants of this study found oral feedback more advantageous and fruitful in terms of learning and attainment. Both whole-class discussions and teacher-student conferences were helpful, still, learners gave preference to the latter in enhancing their understanding of argument-building in essays. One-on-one interactions through writing conferences provided opportunities for students to showcase their writing styles, while teachers could recognize their students’ strengths and weaknesses. Peer review was not always conducted successfully due to learners’ different language competence. Though learners valued the significance of both explicit and implicit feedback in dealing with language mistakes, among written corrective feedback uncoded feedback was considered better than other types of feedback. It enabled them to reconsider errors, self-correct and present evidence. Students pointed out that though uncoded feedback is less positive to get, through self-revision they are more aware about their mistakes, and self-correction will facilitate them to remember and avoid the same mistakes further. Overall, oral feedback combined with written feedback would be more acceptable and practical for greater performance in essay writing. There are a few limitations of this study that should be considered when interpreting the results. The study has been based on questionnaires and classroom observations of one school only. So, to get a better picture of the situation, teachers’ and students’ interviews might have been included. Involving a larger number of participants for the survey might have supported receiving better statistical data either. Teacher Training and collaboration play a vital role in encouraging teachers to use efficient techniques and different approaches to feedback, also when and how to give feedback in their classrooms.

Ahmadi, D., Maftoon, P., & Mehrdad, A. G. (2012). Investigating the effects of two types of feedback on EFL students’ writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 2590-2595. Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts. PROFILE Issues in Teachers' Professional Development, 18(2), 79-92. Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing: Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey. Englewood Cliff. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of second language writing, 14(3), 191-205. Hirvela, A. (2017). Argumentation and second language writing: Are we missing the boat? Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 69–74 Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge university press. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language teaching, 39(2), 83-101. Ismail, N., Maulan, S., & Hasan, N. H. (2008). The impact of teacher feedback on ESL students’ writing performance. Academic Journal of Social Studies, 8(1), 45-54. Küçükali, E. (2017). The effect of oral vs. written feedback in EFL writing. Journal of applied linguistics and language research, 4(7), 47-67. Lee, J. J., & Deakin, L. (2016). Interactions in L1 and L2 undergraduate student writing: Interactional metadiscourse in successful and less-successful argumentative essays. Journal of second language writing, 33, 21-34. Mansourizadeh, K., & Abdullah, K. I. (2014). The effects of oral and written meta-linguistic feedback on ESL students writing. 3L, Language, Linguistics, Literature, 20(2). Miller, R. T., & Pessoa, S. (2016). Where's your thesis statement and what happened to your topic sentences? Identifying organizational challenges in undergraduate student argumentative writing. Tesol Journal, 7(4), 847-873. 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(3), 286-306 Schleppegrell, M. J. (2006). The challenges of academic language in school subjects. Språket och kunskapen, 47-69. Suh, J. (2005). Peer feedback interactions in EFL compositions: Written feedback versus oral feedback. ENGLISH TEACHING (영어교육), 60(3), 91-116.