The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately

By John Truscott. 2007

802 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac2a0b0bd5f03395a74223600b20d120129cb0c2

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. R. Ellis
3. Icy Lee
4. Younghee Sheen
5. D. Ferris
6. C. V. Beuningen
7. F. Hyland
8. R. Dekeyser

In Language and Linguistics

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

Citations in the corpus

• SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA (2010, background): “Written corrective feedback (CF), otherwise known as error correction or grammar correction (see Truscott, 1996 , 2007 ), has been a controversial topic in second language (L2) teaching for several years.”
• DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM (2010, background): “Truscott ( 2007 ) has consistently argued that he is only interested in the effect that CF has on implicit knowledge.”
• Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies (2012, background): “The first three themes represent different types of empirical work on written CF, while the fourth focuses on state-of-the-art essays, arguments, and one meta-analysis paper (Truscott 2007).”
• The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context (2008, methodology): “However, a number of recent studies have avoided the design flaws referred to above (although problems still remain, as Truscott (2007) has pointed out).”
• The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? (2009, background): “The majority of the studies on error feedback have compared the effect of direct and indirect feedback or the effect of different kinds of indirect feedback (see Chandler, 2000, 2003; Fazio, 2001; Ferris, 2006; Frantzen, 1995; Lalande, 1982; Robb, Ross, & Shortreed, 1986).”
• Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. (2010, background): “As Table 2 shows on page 36, most (11) of the current studies had control groups, and some (e.g. Sheen et al., 2009; Van Beuningen et al., 2008) had two types of control groups.”
• “I just want to do it right, but it's so hard”: A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices (2015, background): “…correction in L2 writing classes; nevertheless, the ultimate success of error feedback on the improvement of L2 writing remains inconclusive (for a review of these issues see especially the ongoing debates between Ferris, 1999, 2004, and Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007 and Truscott & Hsu, 2008).”
• The Power of Feedback Revisited: A Meta-Analysis of Educational Feedback Research (2020, neutral): “Miller (2003), Russel and Spada (2006), Truscott (2007), Li (2010), Kang and Han (2015) and Brown (2016) have all similarly noted that the effectiveness of corrective feedback is influenced by additional moderating variables, such as learners’ proficiency, the setting, and the genre of the task (Kang…”
• Future Directions in Feedback on Second Language Writing: Overview and Research Agenda (2010, background): “…help learners to both improve their drafts and their longer term writing ability (e.g. Ferris (1999 , 2004, 2006, 2010), Chandler (2004, 2009), Ellis et al. (2008), Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener and Knoch, (2009); and those who have argued against this (e.g. Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2009).”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, methodology): “Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007) argues that corrective feedback may help improve the grammatical accuracy of only a subsequent draft, but not of a newpiece of writing.”
• LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING (2010, background): “…extensive reviews of the available empirical research (e.g., F. Hyland & K. Hyland, 2006; K. Hyland & F. Hyland, 2006; Goldstein, 2004 , 2005 ) conclude that the fi ndings about the effi - cacy of CF are mixed and thus inconclusive (see also the debate between Ferris, 1999 , and Truscott, 2007 ).”