Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback.

By J. Bitchener. 2008

972 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a9ca8fd80905bad870b06255e867fee36a139fe5

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. Icy Lee
2. N. Storch
3. D. Ferris
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. R. Ellis
6. K. Karim
7. C. V. Beuningen
8. Ken Hyland

In Language and Linguistics

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

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

Citations in the corpus

• The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback (2009, background): “Ofthe studiesthathavebeenconducteduntil fairlyrecently, most,interms of their design, execution, and analysis, were flawed to some extent (see Guenette 2007; Bitchener 2008 for a review of these issues) so this has meantthatfirmconclusionsabouttheefficacyofwrittencorrectivefeedback are not yet ava”
• Effects of Written Feedback and Revision on Learners’ Accuracy in Using Two English Grammatical Structures (2014, background): “There is also clear evidence from other studies (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010; Frear, 2012) that focused WCF leads to statistically significant gains in grammatical accuracy in new writing––at least in the case of English articles and regular past tense. been little investigated.”
• Motivation and feedback: How implicit theories of intelligence predict L2 writers’ motivation and feedback orientation (2017, background): “Thirty years of research on written corrective feedback (WCF) in the fi eld of Second Language Writing have shaped our current understanding of how WCF works (for reviews see Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).”
• Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback (2013, background): “In sum, while much of the research on feedback given to second language writers has focused on error correction (e.g. Ferris, 2006; Bitchener, 2008), feedback carries a heavier informational load than this, not all of which is directly pedagogic or even intentionally communicated.”
• Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy (2019, background): “The results of these more recent studies (e.g. Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener & Knoch, 2010a, 2010b; Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Sheen, 2007, 2010; Sheen, Wright, & Moldawa, 2009; Shintani, Ellis, & Suzuki, 2014; Stefanou & Révész, 2015; Van Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken, 2012) provide…”
• The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing (2018, methodology): “…the various forms of direct feedback such as direct correction only or direct correction with oral or written metalinguistic explanation (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener et al., 2005; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009a, 2009b; Sheen, 2007; Sheen et al., 2009), few studies have compared the…”
• Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more (2019, background): “…with underlines, circles, corrections and/or error codes, they are overloaded with information that lacks a clear focus, and such cognitive and information overload (Bitchener, 2008) leaves students with little attentional capacity to cope with teacher WCF (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen et al., 2009).”
• SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA (2010, background): “Recent SLA studies on written CF have argued for the superiority of direct feedback, at least for a few targeted features (Bitchener, 2008 ; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008 ; Ellis et al., 2008 ; Sheen, 2007 ), whereas L2 writing researchers have argued for the importance of indirect feedback as a means to…”
• Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies (2012, methodology): “2010 Bitchener, J. & U. Knoch (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback.”
• Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. (2010, methodology): “For example, in the Bitchener (2008) study, the WCF targeted only two uses of the English articles.”
• Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners (2009, methodology): “In contrast, other researchers (e.g., Bitchener and Knoch, 2008; 0346-251X/$ - see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd.”
• Corrective Feedback in L2 Writing: Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Insights, and Future Directions (2010, background): “Moreover, the reported accuracy gains proved to be very durable; Bitchener and Knoch (2010a), for example, showed that students who had received focused CF (only once) continued to outperform students whose errors had not been corrected over a 10-month period.”