Cover not available

Article published In: Learning and Teaching L2 Writing:
Guest-edited by Daphne van Weijen, Elke Van Steendam and Gert Rijlaarsdam
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 156] 2008
► pp. 279–296

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The Effect of Direct and Indirect Corrective Feedback on L2 Learners’ Written Accuracy

 | Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam
 | Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam
 | Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication, University of Amsterdam
Published online: 1 January 2008
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
Abstract
Among scholars there is disagreement on the benefits of corrective feedback on second language learners’ written output. While some researchers advocate the usefulness of corrective feedback, Truscott claims that all error correction is unnecessary, ineffective, and even harmful, in that it diverts time and energy away from more productive aspects of writing instruction. Until now, research outcomes cannot settle this debate since only short-term effectiveness of corrective feedback could be demonstrated. Due to methodological shortcomings, results from studies that investigated long-term effects of error correction on accuracy improvement are inconclusive.
By trying to overcome some of these design related drawbacks (i.e. the lack of a proper control group and time-on task differences between treatment groups), the present study intends to make a contribution to the ongoing error correction debate. The effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective feedback was compared to the effect of two control treatments: a treatment that offered students an extra opportunity to practice their writing skills, and a treatment in which students self-corrected their errors without any available feedback. Results show that corrective feedback can be effective in improving students’ accuracy: while short-term effects were found for both direct and indirect corrective feedback, only direct feedback proved to have a significant long-term effect. Neither of the control treatments had a significant effect on students’ accuracy.
References (29)
References
Adams, R. (2003). L2 output, reformulation and noticing: implications for IL development. Language Teaching Research 7 (3), 347–376.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing 9 (3), 227–258.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beglar, D. & Hunt, H. (1999). Revising and validating the 2000 word level and university word level vocabulary tests. Language Testing 16 (2), 131–162.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (3), 267–296.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1995). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self- editors. TESOL Journal 4 (4), 18–22.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly 31 (2), 315–339.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (1), 1–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Michigan, The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (1), 49–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Chaney, S., Komura, K., Roberts, B., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at the International TESOL Convention. Vancouver, B.C.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10 (3), 161–184.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frantzen, D. (1995). The effects of grammar supplementation on written accuracy in an intermediate Spanish content course. The Modern Language Journal 79 (3), 329–344.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hajer, M. & Meestringa, T. (2004). Handboek taalgericht vakonderwijs. [The handbook of content-based second language instruction.] Bussum, Coutinho.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hazenberg, S. (1994). Een keur van woorden. De wenselijke en feitelijke receptieve woordenschat van anderstalige studenten. [A choice of words. The desired and factual receptive vocabulary of non-native students.] PhD dissertation, Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hazenberg, S. & Hulstijn, J.H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: an empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics 17 (2), 145–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hedgcock, J. & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3 (2), 141–163.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching 39 (2), 83–101.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal 75 (3), 305–313.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalande, J.F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal 66 (2), 140–149.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 203–218.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If only I had more time”: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing 7 (1), 43–68.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sachs, R. & Polio, C.G. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29 (1), 67–100.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schoonen, R. (2005). Generalizability of writing scores: An application of structural equation modeling. Language Testing 22 (1), 1–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annuals 17 (3), 195–202.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principle and practice of applied linguistics: studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson. G. Cook and B. Seidlhoffer. Oxford, Oxford University Press: 125–144.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46 (2), 327–369.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing 8 (2), 111–122. Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (4), 337–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16 (4), 255–272.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (101)

Cited by 101 other publications

Almohawes, Monera
2025. Undergraduate EFL learners’ preferences for three different types of written corrective feedback. Frontiers in Education 10 DOI logo
Fujisawa, Yoko & Natsuko Shintani
2025. Comparative effects of direct written corrective feedback and AI-generated reformulation on second language learners’ depth of processing and grammatical accuracy. System 133 ► pp. 103765 ff. DOI logo
Hamano-Bunce, Douglas
2025. The effects of direct written corrective feedback and comparator texts on the complexity and accuracy of revisions and new pieces of writing. Language Teaching Research 29:6 ► pp. 2460 ff. DOI logo
Ju, Narae, Valerie San Juan, Elizabeth Nilsen & Susan A. Graham
2025. That’s not the One I Wanted: Feedback Improves 5-Year-olds’ Communicative Perspective-Taking. Journal of Cognition and Development 26:5 ► pp. 793 ff. DOI logo
Kang, Sanghee, YouJin Kim & Minkyung Kim
2025. Examining the Effects of Synchronous Written Corrective Feedback During Computer‐Mediated Collaborative Writing: Feedback Type and Learner Perceptions. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Kao, Chian-Wen, Barry Lee Reynolds, Xiaofang Zhang & Michael Ping Wong
2025. The effectiveness of unfocused corrective feedback on second language student writers’ acquisition of English article, prepositional and verb tense usages. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 12:1 DOI logo
López-Solà, Inmaculada & Fernando Lillo-Fuentes
2025.  ‘Yes, I recall that mistake. I think about it every time I write estos now’: A case study on written corrective feedback and lexical development in L2 Spanish . Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Mau, Bo-Ren & Hui-Hsien Feng
2025. Integrating move analysis and sentence reconstruction in automated writing evaluation for L2 academic writers. Assessing Writing 66 ► pp. 100984 ff. DOI logo
Mujtaba, Syed Muhammad & Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh
2025. The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback Explicitness on the Grammatical Accuracy of Passive Voice Tenses. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 48:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Roothooft, Hanne, Amparo Lázaro-Ibarrola & Bram Bulté
2025. Task repetition and corrective feedback via models and direct corrections among young EFL writers: Draft quality and task motivation. Language Teaching Research 29:3 ► pp. 1311 ff. DOI logo
Taye, Tamirat & Gemechis Teshome
2025. The Efficacy of Direct, Indirect and Peer Feedback Error Correction Techniques in EFL Writing. Current Research Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities 8:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Uludağ, Onur
2025. The immediate and delayed effects of direct versus indirect written corrective feedback on Turkish EFL learners' accuracy development in using past counterfactual conditionals. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 12:1 DOI logo
Chingchit, Ornuma
2024. The contribution of written corrective feedback and its association with working memory on the development of EFL learners’ English plurals. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Kim, Jeungeun (Claudia) & Shaofeng Li
2024. The effects of task repetition and corrective feedback on L2 writing development. The Language Learning Journal ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lira-Gonzales, Maria-Lourdes, Hossein Nassaji, Martha L. De Tejeda, Dora Vasquez & Kiara Saenz
2024. The differential effect of oral and written corrective feedback on learners’ explicit versus implicit knowledge. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Nguyen, Chi-Duc
2024. Scaffolding student engagement with written corrective feedback: Transforming feedback sessions into learning affordances. Language Teaching Research 28:5 ► pp. 1918 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Carrie Xin
2024. Beyond accuracy gains: Investigating the impact of individual and collaborative feedback processing on L2 writing development. Assessing Writing 61 ► pp. 100876 ff. DOI logo
Rybicki, Jan-Mikael, Wilhelmiina Hämäläinen, Kari K. Pitkänen & Lauri Malmi
2024. Why students fail to revise? Analysis of written metalinguistic feedback and cognitive effort on revision success. Ampersand 13 ► pp. 100211 ff. DOI logo
Shao, Jinshi, Yuxi (Jessie) Wu, Simin Zeng & Rujing (Renee) Huang
2024. The role of feedback type and language anxiety in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback for L2 learning. The Language Learning Journal 52:4 ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
Shao, Jinshi, Simin Zeng & Yuxi (Jessie) Wu
2024. The relative effects of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on L2 learning: The moderating role of field dependence/independence. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Sippel, Lieselotte & Ines A. Martin
2024. Learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback during written telecollaboration. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Blázquez-Carretero, Miguel
2023. Building a pedagogic spellchecker for L2 learners of Spanish. ReCALL 35:3 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
Carr, Nicholas
2023. Feedback on writing through the lens of activity theory: An exploration of changes to peer-to-peer interactions. Assessing Writing 56 ► pp. 100720 ff. DOI logo
KIVRAK, Cansu
2023. Turkish EFL Learners’ Perceptions and Preferences of Written Corrective Feedback. Journal of Language Research 7:1 ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
La Russa, Francesca
2023. Effets du feedback correctif écrit direct et indirect sur la réécriture du texte et les subséquentes productions d’apprenants de l’italien LV3 au lycée. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 14:2 ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Lira-Gonzales, Maria-Lourdes & Hossein Nassaji
2023. The Differential Effects of Focused and Comprehensive Corrective Feedback on Accuracy of Revision and New Writing. The Canadian Modern Language Review 79:1 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Loncar, Michael, Wayne Schams & Jong-Shing Liang
2023. Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015-2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning 36:4 ► pp. 722 ff. DOI logo
Mahmoud, Elsayed
2023. Tertiary Students’ Perceptions Of Dynamic Written Corrective Feedback In An ESL Classroom In The UAE. Emirati Journal of Education and Literature 1:1 ► pp. 4 ff. DOI logo
Shalizar, Reza & Amir Rezaei
2023. Examining the differential effects of focused vs. unfocused ZPD and explicit feedback on second language writing. The Language Learning Journal 51:3 ► pp. 359 ff. DOI logo
Shintani, Natsuko & Scott Aubrey
2023. Methodological considerations in the analysis of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback. In Research Methods in the Study of L2 Writing Processes [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 5], ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Tabari, Mahmoud Abdi, Masatoshi Sato & Yizhou Wang
2023. Engagement with written corrective feedback: Examination of feedback types and think-aloud protocol as pedagogical interventions. Language Teaching Research DOI logo
Bagheri, Mina & Ehsan Rassaei
2022. The Effects of Two Forms of Written Corrective Feedback and Ambiguity Tolerance on EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy. English Teaching & Learning 46:1 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Hassan, Ameena & Akhtar Abbas
2022. The Impact of Written Corrective Feedback on Second Language Composition in English. In English Language Teaching in Pakistan [English Language Teaching: Theory, Research and Pedagogy, ], ► pp. 181 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Hyunae Yun, Binna Kim & Sujeong Choi
2022. Task repetition, synchronous written corrective feedback and the learning of Korean grammar: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research 26:6 ► pp. 1106 ff. DOI logo
Kılıçkaya, Ferit
2022. Pre-service language teachers’ online written corrective feedback preferences and timing of feedback in computer-supported L2 grammar instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning 35:1-2 ► pp. 62 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy, Na Luo & Pauline Mak
2022. Diagnostic Assessment of Written Accuracy: New Directions for Written Corrective Feedback in Secondary Writing Classrooms. In Assessing the English Language Writing of Chinese Learners of English, ► pp. 213 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Yiming, Neomy Storch & Janne Morton
2022. It takes two to tango: Investigating teacher-student interactions related to written corrective feedback with Activity Theory. Assessing Writing 53 ► pp. 100647 ff. DOI logo
Mujtaba, Syed Muhammad, Manjet Kaur Mehar Singh, Tiefu Zhang, Nisar Ahmed & Rakesh Parkash
2022. Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback and L2 Learners’ Writing Accuracy: Relationship Between Feedback Type and Learner Belief. Journal of Language and Education 8:4 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Shao, Jinshi & Yongcan Liu
2022. Written corrective feedback, learner-internal cognitive processes, and the acquisition of regular past tense by Chinese L2 learners of English. Applied Linguistics Review 13:6 ► pp. 1005 ff. DOI logo
Sinha, Tara Shankar & Hossein Nassaji
2022. ESL learners’ perception and its relationship with the efficacy of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 32:1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Yamashita, Taichi
2022. The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing. Journal of Second Language Studies 5:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Cao, Zhenhao
2021. Improving Young Learners’ L2 Writing Accuracy with Written Corrective Feedback: a Case Study. English Teaching & Learning 45:4 ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Xiaolong & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2021. Sustaining University English as a Foreign Language Learners’ Writing Performance through Provision of Comprehensive Written Corrective Feedback. Sustainability 13:15 ► pp. 8192 ff. DOI logo
Cheng, Xiaolong & Lawrence Jun Zhang
2022. Teachers Helping EFL Students Improve Their Writing Through Written Feedback: The Case of Native and Non-native English-Speaking Teachers' Beliefs. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo
Damen, Debby, Marije van Amelsvoort, Per van der Wijst, Monique Pollmann & Emiel Krahmer
2021. Lifting the curse of knowing: How feedback improves perspective-taking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 74:6 ► pp. 1054 ff. DOI logo
DERYA, TUZCU-EKEN
2021. TEACHER WRITTEN FEEDBACK PREFERENCES OF UNIVERSITY PREPCLASS STUDENTS IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE WRITING COURSE. i-manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching 11:2 ► pp. 55 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Effects of task repetition with written corrective feedback on the knowledge and written accuracy of learners with different prior knowledge of the structure. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:2 ► pp. 464 ff. DOI logo
Khezrlou, Sima
2021. Effects of timing and availability of isolated FFI on learners’ written accuracy and fluency through task repetition. The Language Learning Journal 49:5 ► pp. 568 ff. DOI logo
KHODADADİ, Soulmaz
2021. The effect of direct and indirect written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy in sentence completion exercises. Dil ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Dergisi 17:1 ► pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
Soleimani, Neda, Mohammad Rahimi & Michelle Mingyue Gu
2021. (Mis) Alignment of Iranian EFL Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback beliefs and practices from an Activity Theory Perspective. Cogent Education 8:1 DOI logo
van Beuningen, Catherine
2021. Focused versus Unfocused Corrective Feedback. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 300 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Lawrence Jun & Xiaolong Cheng
2021. Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 54 ► pp. 101043 ff. DOI logo
Afshari, Sajad, Azizollah Dabaghi & Saeed Ketabi
2020. Oral corrective feedback on written errors. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 171:2 ► pp. 253 ff. DOI logo
Ekanayaka, Waruni Iresha & Rod Ellis
2020. Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition?. System 94 ► pp. 102341 ff. DOI logo
Karim, Khaled & Hossein Nassaji
2020. The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research 24:4 ► pp. 519 ff. DOI logo
Kim, YouJin, Bumyong Choi, Sanghee Kang, Binna Kim & Hyunae Yun
2020. Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students' perceptions. Foreign Language Annals 53:1 ► pp. 176 ff. DOI logo
Leow, Ronald P.
2020. L2 writing-to-learn. In Writing and Language Learning [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 56], ► pp. 95 ff. DOI logo
Moradian, Mahmood Reza, Mojgan Hossein-Nasab & Mowla Miri
2020. Effects of written languaging in response to direct and indirect corrective feedback on developing writing accuracy. In Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 55], ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo
Niu, Ruiying & Xiaoye You
2020. Effects of Indirect Corrective Feedback With and Without Written Languaging on L2 Written Accuracy: A Multitask Intervention Study. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 29:4 ► pp. 343 ff. DOI logo
Pearson, William S.
2020. Research article titles in written feedback on English as a second language writing. Scientometrics 123:2 ► pp. 997 ff. DOI logo
Maryam Soleimani & Sima Modirkhamene
2020. Various Corrective Feedback Types in Collaborative vs. Individual Writing Conditions. International Journal of Research in English Education 5:3 ► pp. 24 ff. DOI logo
Wölfel, Matthias
2020. Non-distracting Feedback in Artificial Intelligence Supported Learning. In Artificial Intelligence Supported Educational Technologies [Advances in Analytics for Learning and Teaching, ], ► pp. 31 ff. DOI logo
Guo, Qi & Jessie S. Barrot
2019. Effects of Metalinguistic Explanation and Direct Correction on EFL Learners’ Linguistic Accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly 35:3 ► pp. 261 ff. DOI logo
Manchón, Rosa M. & Olena Vasylets
2019. Language Learning Through Writing: Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Evidence. In The Cambridge Handbook of Language Learning, ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
NICOLÁS–CONESA, FLORENTINA, ROSA MARÍA MANCHÓN & LOURDES CEREZO
2019. The Effect of Unfocused Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on Rewritten Texts and New Texts: Looking into Feedback for Accuracy and Feedback for Acquisition. The Modern Language Journal 103:4 ► pp. 848 ff. DOI logo
Suzuki, Wataru, Hossein Nassaji & Konosuke Sato
2019. The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System 81 ► pp. 135 ff. DOI logo
Babanoğlu, M. Pınar, Reyhan Ağçam & Nebahat Badem
2018. Yükseköğretimde Yabancı Dil Eğitiminde Açık ve Örtük Yazılı Düzeltici Geribildirim: Türkiye Örneği. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 19:3 ► pp. 104 ff. DOI logo
Bonilla López, Marisela, Elke Van Steendam, Dirk Speelman & Kris Buyse
2018. The Differential Effects of Comprehensive Feedback Forms in the Second Language Writing Class. Language Learning 68:3 ► pp. 813 ff. DOI logo
Storch, Neomy
2018. Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching 51:2 ► pp. 262 ff. DOI logo
Bonilla López, Marisela, Elke Van Steendam & Kris Buyse
2017. Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 168:1 ► pp. 91 ff. DOI logo
Moradian, Mahmood Reza, Mowla Miri & Mojgan Hossein Nasab
2017. Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 27:2 ► pp. 406 ff. DOI logo
Al-Jarrah, Rasheed S.
2016. A suggested model of corrective feedback provision. Ampersand 3 ► pp. 98 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy, Pauline Mak & Anne Burns
2016. EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research 20:2 ► pp. 248 ff. DOI logo
Park, Eun Sung, Sunhee Song & Yu Kyoung Shin
2016. To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research 20:6 ► pp. 678 ff. DOI logo
Solloway, Anthony
2016. Do Two Wrongs Make a Write(r)? Some Effects and Non-effects of WCF on Arabic L1 Students’ English Academic Writing. In Teaching EFL Writing in the 21st Century Arab World, ► pp. 189 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John & Ute Knoch
2015. Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010a) and Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching 48:3 ► pp. 405 ff. DOI logo
Gholami, Javad & Somayeh Aliyari
2015. The impact of planned preemptive focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ essay writing ability. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 10:3 ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Ji-Hyun Kim
2015. The effects of direct error correction and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English article in EFL Contexts.. English Language Teaching 27:4 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo
Kang, EunYoung & Zhaohong Han
2015. The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis. The Modern Language Journal 99:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Qiandi & Dan Brown
2015. Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 30 ► pp. 66 ff. DOI logo
Simard, Daphnée, Danièle Guénette & Annie Bergeron
2015. L2 learners' interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: insights from their metalinguistic reflections. Language Awareness 24:3 ► pp. 233 ff. DOI logo
신선애 & 송해덕
2015. The Effects of Online Peer Feedback Type on Online Interaction Centrality, Node Type, and Social Network Density. The Journal of Lifelong Education and HRD 11:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Durán, Jorge Lillo
2014. Efecto del feedback correctivo directo y metalingüistico en el proceso de escritura de una L2 en el contexto escolar: estudio piloto. Trabalhos em Linguística Aplicada 53:1 ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Esfandiar, Fatemeh, Baqure Yaqubi & Amir Marzban
2014. Learning Corrected Target Forms: Students’ Corrective Feedback through Teacher’s Written Corrective Feedback in Iranian EFL Context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies 4:3 DOI logo
Icy Lee
2014. Teachers’ Reflection on Implementation of Innovative Feedback Approaches in EFL Writing. English Teaching 69:1 ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2013. Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching 46:1 ► pp. 108 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2014. Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing 19 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2017. Teacher Feedback in L2 Writing. In Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts, ► pp. 65 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2019. Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching 52:4 ► pp. 524 ff. DOI logo
Lee, Icy
2021. Written Corrective Feedback. In Research Questions in Language Education and Applied Linguistics [Springer Texts in Education, ], ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
AbuSeileek, A.F.
2013. Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 29:4 ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Ferris, Dana R., Hsiang Liu, Aparna Sinha & Manuel Senna
2013. Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 22:3 ► pp. 307 ff. DOI logo
Nicolaidou, Iolie
2013. E-portfolios supporting primary students' writing performance and peer feedback. Computers & Education 68 ► pp. 404 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John
2012. A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing 21:4 ► pp. 348 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John
2012. Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development: Current Knowledge and Future Research. TESOL Quarterly 46:4 ► pp. 855 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John
2016. To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development?. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 167:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John
2018. Direct Versus Indirect Grammar Feedback. In The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bitchener, John
2021. Written Corrective Feedback. In The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching, ► pp. 207 ff. DOI logo
Van Beuningen, Catherine G., Nivja H. De Jong & Folkert Kuiken
2012. Evidence on the Effectiveness of Comprehensive Error Correction in Second Language Writing. Language Learning 62:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Williams, Jessica
2012. The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21:4 ► pp. 321 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Child L2 Writers [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 32], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue