A response to Truscott

By Jean Chandler. 2004

115 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Literature and Literary Theory

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ffac85f2121f86c503d885b0d6629b440e41f5f9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

1. F. Oswald
2. F. Hyland
3. K. Karim
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. D. Ferris
6. Luke Plonsky
7. John Truscott
8. N. Storch

In Literature and Literary Theory

1. F. Hyland
2. John Truscott
3. K. Karim
4. Hossein Nassaji
5. D. Ferris
6. F. Oswald
7. A. Hsu
8. Luke Plonsky

Citations in the corpus

• The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately (2007, background): “…Grammar correction; Accuracy; Meta-analysis In the last decade, there has been a great deal of discussion on the value of correction in writing classes, focused primarily on the proper interpretation of relevant research (e.g. Chandler, 2004; Ferris, 1999, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 1999a, 2004).”
• The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing (2018, background): “…Truscott’s arguments in 1996 that WCF is ineffective and even harmful and the counter responses to his argument by a number of other researchers that CF is effective (e.g., Bruton, 2009, 2010; Chandler, 2003, 2004; Ferris, 1999, 2004, 2006; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999).”
• Using online corpora to develop students' writing skills (2009, background): “Providing feedback on sentence-level errors Investigations over the last 30 years into the benefits of providing students with feedback on sentence-level errors in their writing have been inconclusive, with researchers arguing strongly both for and against it (Truscott 1996, 1999, 2004; Ferris 1999,”
• Meta-analysis in Second Language Research: Choices and Challenges (2010, background): “Seeking to settle perhaps one of the most highly polemic debates in SLA (see Chandler, 2004; Ferris, 1999, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2004), two meta-analyses summarized the accumulated effects of corrective feedback on L2 writing (Poltavtchenko & Johnson, 2009; Truscott, 2007).”
• Research into practice: Written corrective feedback (2012, unknown): “…by Truscott (1996) and rebutted by Ferris (1999, 2004, 2006), and then followed up more recently by Bitchener (2008) and other researchers (e.g. Chandler 2004, 2009; Ellis et al. 2008), have continued to attract the attention of increasing numbers of researchers in the field of second language…”
• Error correction, revision, and learning (2008, background): “Fathman and Whalley (1990) and Ashwell (2000) also used uncoded correction, so this point has no bearing on our conclusion that their results do not constitute evidence of learning.”
• Future Directions in Feedback on Second Language Writing: Overview and Research Agenda (2010, background): “…correction on error can 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,…”
• SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING RESEARCH AND WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK IN SLA (2010, background): “Truscott’s hard-line approach to this persistently diffi cult question received immediate attention and led to several published journal responses (e.g., Chandler, 2003 , 2004 ; Ellis, 1998 ; Ferris, 1999 ) and heated discussions at conferences.”