Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T04:32:37.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - The Intersection between SLA and Feedback Research

from Section 2: - Shaping Feedback: Delivery and Focus Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2019

By
John Bitchener
Edited by
Ken Hyland  and
Fiona Hyland
Ken Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Fiona Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Feedback in Second Language Writing
Contexts and Issues
 , pp. 85 - 105
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2016). The content feedback practices of Applied Linguistics doctoral supervisors in NZ and Australian universities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 105–21.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2019). Feedback delivery: Written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–31.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–17.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The Hand Book of Second language Acquisition (pp. 313–48). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–52.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–71.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–29.Google Scholar
Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written CF and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–21.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–30.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–13.Google Scholar
Kim, T. & Kim, Y. (2014). A structural model for perceptual learning styles: The ideal L2 self, motivated behaviour, and English proficiency. System, 46, 14–27.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–9.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 97(3), 634–54.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). The efficacy of written corrective feedback on second language development: The impact of feedback type, revision type, learning motivation and strategies. Unpublished PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–28.Google Scholar
Qi, G. (2015). The impact of explicitness of written CF, targeted linguistic form and proficiency level on the effectiveness of written CF: A mixed-methods study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Robb, T., Ross, S. & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. Tesol Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95.Google Scholar
Roshan, S., (2017). Written corrective feedback, individual differences and second language acquisition of the English passive voice. Unpublished PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral thesis, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. Tesol Quarterly, 41(2), 255–83.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–69.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–10.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–31. doi:10.1111/lang.12029Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. (2014). l2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written CF, learner factors and awareness. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learners’ differences and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 166–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–69.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–96.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2012). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In Manchon, R. (Ed.), L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 69–100). Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–31.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×