The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students

By J. Bitchener, U. Knoch. 2008

537 citations recorded by the source corpus.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bc41f35799eb212d9f14763a789d1f18b25e56be

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. Icy Lee
3. D. Ferris
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. K. Karim
6. R. Ellis
7. C. V. Beuningen
8. J. Bitchener

In Language and Linguistics

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

In Literature and Literary Theory

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

Citations in the corpus

• LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING (2010, background): “However, although some recent studies (e.g., Bitchener, 2008 ; Bitchener & Knoch, 2008 ; Sheen, 2007 ) show that targeted CF can be effective, extensive reviews of the available empirical research (e.g., F. Hyland & K. Hyland, 2006; K. Hyland & F. Hyland, 2006; Goldstein, 2004 , 2005 ) conclude…”
• The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis (2015, background): “Bitchener & Knoch (2008) SL Lg program Intermediate Focused Direct 1 English Composition 11. van Beuningen et al. (2008) SL Secondary school NA Unfocused Direct vs. indirect 2 Dutch Letter 12.”
• The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback (2009, background): “Although positive findings have been reported in three recent written corrective feedback studies (Sheen 2007; Bitchener 2008; Bitchener and Knoch 2008 ) that were conducted over a two-month period, another shortcomingoftheexistingresearchbasehasbeenitsprimaryfocusontext revision.”
• The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context (2008, background): “Bitchener and Knoch (2008) reviewed five studies that compared the effectiveness of these two types of CF (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982; Robb et al.”
• SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA (2010, methodology): “…& Roberts, 2001 ) were all completed after Truscott’s original piece (1996), and all four reported positive effects for written CF. 4 Table 1 also presents several excellent recent SLA studies on written CF (Bitchener & Knoch, 2008 ; Bitchener et al., 2005 ; Ellis et al., 2008 ; Sheen, 2007 ).”
• 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).”
• 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).”
• Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more (2019, background): “For example, the studies by Bitchener (2008, 2012), Bitchener and Knoch (2008, 2009a, 2009b) and Sheen (2007), which involved feedback on two functional uses of the article system, showed the effectiveness of focused WCF in improving students’ written accuracy.”