The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context

By R. Ellis, Younghee Sheen, Mihoko Murakami, H. Takashima. 2008

793 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/40a152bad82e48c440cfd379bd83e13df486a15c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Language and Linguistics

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. N. Storch
3. C. V. Beuningen
4. K. Karim
5. R. Ellis
6. Icy Lee
7. Younghee Sheen
8. Kazuya Saito

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Hossein Nassaji
2. N. Storch
3. C. V. Beuningen
4. Icy Lee
5. R. Ellis
6. Younghee Sheen
7. K. Karim
8. R. Lyster

Citations in the corpus

• Artificial error generation for translation-based grammatical error correction (2016, background): “accuracy either in the short or long term (Ashwell, 2000; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 2006; Sheen, 2007; van Beuningen et al., 2012).”
• The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing (2018, methodology): “Focused feedback has been assumed to be more effective than comprehensive (or unfocused) feedback because the former directs learners’ attention more effectively to a (pre-)selected target form (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Nassaji, 2015; Sheen, 2007; Sheen et al., 2009).”
• Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures (2014, background): “This resulted in significant improvements in accuracy compared to learners who wrote multidraft papers without any WCF. Frear (2012) compared the effect of writing plus revision (with no WCF) and writing with both WCF and the opportunity to revise on gains in accuracy of two grammatical structures (”
• Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “Robb et al. (1986) found CF to have a significant positive effect on written complexity, but this study did not include a control group who did not receive CF.”
• DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM (2010, background): “However, Sheen’s ( 2007a ) fi ndings, together with more recent studies (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008 ; Ellis et al., 2008 ) provide counterevidence to Truscott’s ( 1996 , 1999 , 2007 ) claim that written grammar error correction is ineffective and even harmful and lend empirical support to…”
• Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. (2010, methodology): “Where the feedback provided was focused (e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, 2007), this enabled the researchers to use accuracy scores (% of correct usage of the targeted structure) that captured changes in response to the feedback provided.”
• Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development (2009, background): “Interestingly, recent studies (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Sheen 2007; Ellis et al., 2008) have shown that when written CF is “focused” it is effective in promoting acquisition.”
• Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy (2010, background): “Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that WCF can improve writing accuracy in limited contexts (Bitchener et al., 2005; Ferris, 2006; Russell & Spada, 2006; Sheen, 2007; Bitchener, 2008; Ellis et al., 2008; Hartshorn et al., 2010).”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, background): “…several studies have examined the efficacy of written corrective feedback as a function of its scope—focused versus unfocused—in improving L2 learners’ overall accuracy (e.g., Ellis, 2009; Ellis et al., 2008; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009; for oral feedback, see Doughty & Varela, 1998; Han, 2002).”