EPILOGUE: A Framework for Investigating Oral and Written Corrective Feedback

By R. Ellis. 2010

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bd144d453470e8e3e6630976dfed5bee2562e5d3

How researchers see this paper

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

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Shulin Yu
2. Yao Zheng
3. A. Mystkowska‐Wiertelak
4. Zhe Zhang
5. C. Thorsen
6. Ken Hyland
7. Y. Lo
8. Alastair Henry

In Language and Linguistics

1. Yao Zheng
2. Shulin Yu
3. A. Mystkowska‐Wiertelak
4. C. Thorsen
5. Alastair Henry
6. Zhe Zhang
7. Ken Hyland
8. Y. Lo

Citations in the corpus

• Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning (2019, unknown): “Likewise, “engagement with feedback” (Ellis, 2010) represents a similar usage of the term of engagement.”
• Disaffection and agentic engagement: ‘Redesigning’ activities to enable authentic self-expression (2018, methodology): “For example, engagement has been used by Ellis (2010) in his conceptualization of learners’ responses to corrective feedback, and his model of engagement has been used in empirical work mapping students’ reactions to teacher corrections (e.g. Han & Hyland, 2015).”
• Teachers’ accounts of learners’ engagement and disaffection in the language classroom (2020, background): “Ellis (2010) included engagement in his model for investigating corrective feedback, pointing out that learners’ reactions to error correction engage, apart from the cognitive dimension, a behavioural response in the form of uptake or revision and an emotional one, manifested in learners’ attitudes…”
• Content familiarity, task repetition and Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in second language use (2017, background): “However, engagement has been much emphasized in recent second language acquisition studies, such as student engagement in corrective feedback (Ellis, 2010), and researchers claim that it drives learning (Philp & Duchesne, 2016).”
• Research into practice: Written corrective feedback (2012, unknown): “In general, indirect WCF is able to allow greater cognitive engagement (Ellis 2010), and it may be best to give indirect WCF to treatable errors (i.”
• Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students (2018, methodology): “Ellis (2010) has defined the concept in a broad sense that student engagement with CF refers to students’ response to the CF.”
• Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018, background): “Fredricks et al. (2004) tripartite conceptualisation of engagement has been picked up by Ellis’ (2010) who suggests it can be applied to students’ approaches to corrective feedback (CF).”