Response To Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students

By D. Ferris. 2003

731 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fbf60e85bf2f64e9a1590efeb05c3886d7e5085b

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. Shulin Yu
3. N. Storch
4. D. Ferris
5. Ricky Lam
6. J. Bitchener
7. R. Ruegg
8. U. Knoch

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. Icy Lee
2. Shulin Yu
3. N. Storch
4. D. Ferris
5. J. Bitchener
6. R. Ruegg
7. Ricky Lam
8. John Truscott

Citations in the corpus

• Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance (2007, background): “One group of scholars has noted that focusing on global issues in early drafts and on local ones in second or later drafts can be beneficial for several reasons, including avoiding having to correct local issues on sentences and paragraphs that may be deleted or changed in later drafts anyway (Ferri”
• Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014) (2016, background): “Recent years have seen a surge of interest in feedback in writing in general and written corrective feedback in particular, and as a result a number of significant reviews have been published (Ferris 2003, 2010, 2012; Hyland & Hyland 2006; Bitchener & Ferris 2012).”
• To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing (2009, background): “Developing critical evaluation skills may also help students effectively review texts and see logical gaps, problems with organization, and other defects that weaken the argument of the paper on a global level (Beach, 1989; Ferris, 2003; Thompson, 2002), making students better writers and self-revie”
• Understanding teachers’ written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms (2008, background): “It is recommended that teachers provide balanced coverage in their written feedback, focusing on issues relating to content, structure, organization, language, and style (Ferris, 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006a; Zamel, 1985).”
• Critical Feedback on Written Corrective Feedback Research. (2010, background): “…of WCF was mainly between direct and indirect WCF. Direct WCF refers to the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure by the teacher (Ferris, 2003), and indirect WCF refers to feedback which simply indicates to the writer that an error has been made, usually via a symbol or an…”
• The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately (2007, result): “More importantly, the use of F or t scores from a repeated measures design such as this one leads to an overestimation (Dunlap et al., 1996). Such a calculation for the reported F score yields a d of .681, which could be only a small overestimate or could be two or three times the actual effect size”
• A Study of Students and Teachers' Preferences and Attitudes towards Correction of Classroom Written Errors in Saudi EFL Context (2011, methodology): “The questionnaire items extracted from instruments used in previous studies (Ferris, 2003; Hyland, 2003; Lee, 2005; Radecki and Swales, 1988).”
• Evidence in Support of Written Corrective Feedback. (2008, background): “Compared with earlier studies on the value of written corrective feedback for improving the accuracy of ESL student writing (see Ferris, 2002, 2003, 2006), where sometimes as many as 15 or more linguistic forms and structures were investigated, this study has heeded the example of effective SLA…”
• The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students (2008, background): “Although a number of counter claims were advanced (Ferris, 1999, 2003), pointing to a body of research that suggests positive effects particularly with respect to text revisions, it was agreed by those on both sides of the argument (Ferris, 1999; Truscott, 1999) that the existing body of evidence…”
• A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback (2010, background): “Peer review, one of the constructivist approaches to writing instruction, has been commonly adopted in both L1 and ESL/EFL teaching contexts since the early 1980s (Bartels, 2003; Bruffee, 1984; Ferris, 2003; George, 1984; Hu, 2005; Lee, 1997; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).”
• The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy (2018, background): “A great number of second language writing experts have suggested that teachers should include praise as a part of teacher feedback (e.g. Ferris 2003; Grabe and Kaplan 1996; Hyland 1996).”