Evidence in support of written corrective feedback

Bitchener, John

doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004

Cited by 619 publications

(738 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

601

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…With indirect feedback, the teacher brings students' attention to an error using various strategies including highlighting or underlining errors, showing the number of errors, confirmation checks and request for clarification (Bitchener, 2008). An alternative for the above-mentioned indirect WCF method is metalinguistic feedback that identifies the nature of an error.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Writing Accuracy of Intermediate Learners

Sarvestani¹,

Pishkar²

2015

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The present research examined the role of written corrective feedback (WCF) in enhancing writing accuracy of Iranian Intermediate learners. The present study is quantitative and experimental survey that measured the accuracy of using two functions of English article system, namely definite article "the" and indefinite article "a" and "an" during eight weeks using pre-test and post-test. Sixty students including (20 control group, 20 experimental group,20 experimental group) participated in the study to determine which kind of teacher written corrective feedback affects writing accuracy more. (1) Control group did not receive WCF on specific grammar errors; group (2) received direct WCF; group (3) received indirect WCF. The results of the study demonstrated that direct (WCF) affected students' performance more.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Writing Accuracy of Intermediate Learners

Sarvestani¹,

Pishkar²

2015

TPLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Without this scrutiny, learning can be impaired (Brown, 2009;Schulz, 2001). The feedback wars between Truscott (1996Truscott ( , 1999Truscott ( , 2007 and Ferris and others (e.g., Chandler, 2003;Ferris, 1999;Bitchener, 2008;Bitchener & Knock, 2008;Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005;Ellis, Sheen, & Murakami, 2008;Sheen, 2007;Russell Valezy, & Spada, 2006, among others) remain inconclusive, however, I believe that feedback can be helpful and can augment the skills of L2 writers (see also Ferris, 1995;Ferris, Pezone, Tade, & Tinti, 1997;Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, & Stratman, 1986;Hyland, 1998;Hyland & Hyland, 2006;Keh, 1990;Sommers, 1982;Elbow, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback

Mustafa

2012

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study employed informal conversational interviews and semi-structured individual interviews to capture the Saudi students' opinions about the feedback they receive, and about their perceptions on what constitutes helpful feedback. Sociocultural theory was used as the framework of this study. The findings suggest that the Saudi students do not think highly of the feedback, and that the feedback they desire is markedly different from what they receive. The students mentioned several impediments to feedback. From a sociocultural perspective, the feedback practices do not adhere to the best practices of the theory, resulting in major hindrances to the students' learning/writing development.

show abstract

“…The results showed no difference between the two types of feedback in the immediate posttest, but an advantage for metalinguistic comments over direct correction alone was found in the delayed posttest carried out two months later. While these two studies reported an advantage for direct correction in combination with metalinguistic explanation over direct correction alone, other studies (Bitchener, 2008;Bitchener & Knoch, 2008 found no such advantage.…”

Section: Studies Of Direct Written Cfmentioning

confidence: 84%

The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback and Language Analytic Ability on Chinese Learners’ Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of English Articles

Lin¹,

Xiao

2014

ELT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reports on an 8-week study that investigated the differential effects of two written corrective feedback (CF) options on 92 low-intermediate EFL students' explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles and the extent to which language analytic ability might influence the effect of written CF. The study used a pretest-treatment-posttest-delayed posttest design with three groups: a direct-only correction (DOC) group, a direct metalinguistic correction (DMC) group, and a control group. The acquisition of explicit knowledge was measured by an error correction test, and implicit knowledge was measured by a picture-cued writing test. It was found that both the DOC and the DMC benefited explicit and implicit knowledge, but no significant differences were reported in their effects on each type of knowledge. This study also showed that language analytic ability mediated the effectiveness of the DOC rather than that of the DMC. These findings are discussed from the perspective of cognitive psychology and implications and suggestions for further research are put forward.

show abstract

Evidence in support of written corrective feedback

Cited by 619 publications

References 28 publications

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Writing Accuracy of Intermediate Learners

The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on Writing Accuracy of Intermediate Learners

Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback

The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback and Language Analytic Ability on Chinese Learners’ Explicit and Implicit Knowledge of English Articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About