The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is feedback pedagogically correct?
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
RECASTS, REPETITION, AND AMBIGUITY IN L2 CLASSROOM DISCOURSE
Lyster, R. (1998) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226319800103x · Cited by 718
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00038-8 · Cited by 521
Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback?
Hyland, F. (2003) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6 · Cited by 411
Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task
Qi, D. S., & Lapkin, S. (2001) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00046-7 · Cited by 383
Cited by
Error correction, revision, and learning
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 · Cited by 414
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990532 · Cited by 398
The Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback in Improving L2 Written Accuracy: A Meta‐Analysis
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015) · The Modern Language Journal · doi:10.1111/modl.12189 · Cited by 385
Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775 · Cited by 222
The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate
Polio, C. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 · Cited by 209
The Effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: a meta-analysis.
Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011) · ETS Research Report Series · doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x · Cited by 175
Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing studies
Ferris, D. R. (2012) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444812000250 · Cited by 108
Potential of automated writing evaluation feedback
Cotos, E. (2011) · CALICO Journal · doi:10.11139/cj.28.2.420-459 · Cited by 95
The grass is not always greener: Teacher vs. GPT-assisted written corrective feedback
Lin, S., & Crosthwaite, P. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103529 · Cited by 86
The Intersection between SLA and Feedback Research
Bitchener, J. (2019) · Feedback in Second Language Writing · doi:10.1017/9781108635547.007 · Cited by 57
Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback to Improve L2 Writing Skills: A Meta-Analysis
Mohsen, M. A. (2022) · Journal of Educational Computing Research · doi:10.1177/07356331211064066 · Cited by 56
Mahalingappa, L., Hughes, E. M., & Polat, N. (2018) · Language and Education · doi:10.1080/09500782.2017.1417996 · Cited by 30
25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott
Mohebbi, H. (2021) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Guénette, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-03
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 40-53
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146437619
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 125.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
