THE EFFICACY OF VARIOUS KINDS OF ERROR FEEDBACK FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE ACCURACY AND FLUENCY OF L2 STUDENT WRITING

By Jean Chandler. 2003

1,250 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f999cee760d25977da27e8ebb73ea6a8f732230b

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

In Language and Linguistics

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

Citations in the corpus

• A typology of written corrective feedback types (2008, background): “Most studies have investigated unfocused CF (e.g. Chandler 2003; Ferris 2006).”
• The Effect of Different Types of Corrective Feedback on ESL Student Writing. (2005, background): “As Chandler (2003) also points out, Truscott did not always take into account the fact that reported differences need to be supported with statistically significant evidence.”
• Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda (2018, result): “For example, in a classroom-based study by Chandler (2003) where students received direct and indirect feedback on consecutive pieces of writing, no significant differences between the two types of WCF were found, whereas the study by Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2008, 2012), a carefully…”
• Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance (2007, result): “Other research, however, has shown that providing local feedback on student compositions does indeed improve learners’ ability to recognize and fix their own local errors (Chandler, 2003; Fatham & Whalley, 1990), even on future compositions (Ashwell, 2000).”
• Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback. (2008, background): “More recently, Chandler (2003) explained that the greater cognitive effort expended when students are required to use indirect feedback to make their own corrections is offset by the additional delay in knowing whether their own hypothesized correction is in fact correct.”
• DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF ORAL AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN THE ESL CLASSROOM (2010, background): “Recent studies of written CF (e.g., Ashwell, 2000 ; Chandler, 2003 ; Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005 ; Polio et al., 1998 ) indicate that teachers (and writing researchers) have favored the use of indirect feedback (in the form of coding systems) and have placed an emphasis on the importance of the…”
• The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately (2007, methodology): “…(Cohen’s d) Notes Pre Post Lalande (1982) Coded 30 28.47 (8.30) 25.23 (14.19) .288 Means are error rates Explicit 30 27.73 (14.43) 32.87 (15.61) .342 Chandler (2003) Study 1 Coded + revision 15 7.8 (3.2) 5.1 (1.8) 1.080 Means are error rates Uncoded 16 6.0 (4.1) 6.9 (4.6) .207 Chandler (2003)…”
• EVIDENCE AND CONJECTURE ON THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTION: A RESPONSE TO CHANDLER (2004, background): “TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–95, Chandler says again that my negative conclusion (Truscott, 1996) was ‘‘unsupported by the data’’ (pp. 268–269). But she does not address the argument on which it was based, instead simply noting that all four groups gained in accuracy. But of course gains can be produced ”
• Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance (2016, background): “Given that a large amount of research has been conducted to specifically address issues of mechanical or grammatical accuracy (Chandler, 2003; Polio, 1997), the present study focused instead on lexico-syntactic and discourse resources.”