Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing

By Danielle Guénette. 2007

418 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/789e0bd16be3a0efbb86568ed7c95180441ed4f0

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

1. N. Storch
2. D. Ferris
3. R. Ellis
4. C. V. Beuningen
5. J. Bitchener
6. U. Knoch
7. E. Kang
8. ZhaoHong Han

In Language and Linguistics

1. C. V. Beuningen
2. Hossein Nassaji
3. Icy Lee
4. N. Storch
5. Younghee Sheen
6. R. Ellis
7. D. Ferris
8. E. Kang

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. C. V. Beuningen
2. N. Storch
3. Icy Lee
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. Younghee Sheen
6. D. Ferris
7. J. Bitchener
8. R. Ellis

Citations in the corpus

• Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies (2012, background): “These include Ferris (2003, 2004), Hyland & Hyland (2006), Guénette (2007), and Bitchener & Ferris (2012).”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, background): “Some researchers, among them Guénette (2007), have recommended that future studies be conducted over a longer term—up to several years—to assess how much feedback students need to improve their written accuracy or whether feedback is at all necessary.”
• Investigating Malaysian ESL Students' Writing Problems on Conventions, Punctuation, and Language Use at Secondary School Level (2012, background): “Gue ́nette (2007) asserted that there has been an argument about the importance of teachers’ feedback in research studies regarding second language writing. However, different points of view may exist on giving the remedial feedback to writing learners in order to improve their writing accurateness.”
• A typology of written corrective feedback types (2008, background): “(p. 83) Guenette (2007) pointed out that one of the reasons for the uncertainty lies in the failure to design corrective feedback (CF) studies that systematically investigate different types of written CF and control for external variables that are likely to impact on how effective the CF is.”
• Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “Following the methodology of oral feedback studies (e.g. Lyster, 2004; Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006), the focused CF approach targets specific, persistently problematic features only (e.g. errors in the use of English articles), leaving errors outside the focus domain uncorrected.”
• Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners (2009, background): “There are simply too many variables involved (see Guénette, 2007).”
• LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING (2010, background): “…learners respond to different forms of CF. Corrective feedback can be distinguished in terms of its directness (for a comprehensive description, see Guénette, 2007 ), which ranges from direct (e.g., writing the correct form above the incorrect form) to indirect (e.g., using editing symbols to…”