The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing.

By J. Bitchener, Stuart Young, Denise Cameron. 2005

1,056 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9985a9d63630ced5ea495f387f65ef2ef9783cab

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. C. V. Beuningen
3. K. Karim
4. N. Storch
5. Icy Lee
6. Younghee Sheen
7. R. Ellis
8. D. Ferris

In Literature and Literary Theory

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

Citations in the corpus

• The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? (2009, result): “The results resemble those of Bitchener et al. (2005) in that they also show that the no-feedback group, too, improved their writing accuracy.”
• Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures (2014, methodology): “All the experimental groups received one feedback treatment as some studies have shown that a one-shot written CF treatment led to improvement in accuracy in new pieces of writing (e.g., Bitchener et al., 2005; Hartshorn et al., 2010; Sheen, 2007).”
• Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. (2010, methodology): “In studies where the feedback was focused (e.g. Bitchener et al., 2005), the researchers used the percentage of correct usage of the targeted structure.”
• Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy (2019, background): “Ferris suggests that errors with verb tense and form are treatable since they occur in a ‘patterned, rule-governed way’ (1999, p. 6), and research on oral CF as well as studies on written CF lend support to this claim (e.g. Bitchener et al., 2005; Yang & Lyster, 2010).”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, background): “Similarly, Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005) employed multiple outcome measures such as the accuracy rates of preposition, tense, and article usage, all of which are tied to a larger construct of grammatical accuracy.”
• The Role of Grammarly in Assessing English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Writing (2018, background): “According to Bitchener, Young, and Cameron (2005), indirect corrective feedback is where the students are given indications (highlighted parts) by their teacher on errors that have been made by the students.”
• The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback (2009, background): “These structures were targeted because students across English language proficiency levels experience difficulty in the use of the English article system (Butler 2002; Bitchener, Young, and Cameron 2005).”
• Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback (2011, background): “Short, to-the-point explanations are more effective (Bitchener et al. 2005) than lengthy, didactic ones (Tseng and Tsai 2007).”
• The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately (2007, methodology): “…(.14/.127) .311/.249 (.132/.127) .409 Means are accuracy scores Polio et al. (1998) revision Correction 34 .268/.219 (.127/.122) .336/.279 (.144/.141) Bitchener et al. (2005) prepositions Conferences 19 82.21 (7.03) 84.79 (8.92) .324 Means are accuracy scores Corr only 17 83.71 (10.56) 75.79…”