Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Direct corrective feedback has been shown to be effective for improving students' accuracy.
“It has been shown to be effective for improving students' accuracy (Bitchener, 2008).”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Bitchener, 2008
Cites
The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning1
SCHMIDT, R. W. (1990) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129 · Cited by 4,910 · cited 1× · see citing works
“But as SLA researchers of oral L2 production have found, learners must first ‘‘notice’’ (Schmidt, 1990) that an error has been made.”
BackgroundThe influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other studies (Chandler, 2000; Ferris, 1995, 1997; Ferris, Chaney, Komura, Roberts, & McKee, 2000; Lalande, 1982) that have not included a control group have nevertheless claimed that corrective feedback is beneficial to students who receive it.”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Faculty feedback: Perceptions and practices in L2 disciplinary writing
Hyland, K. (2013) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.003 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Stop! Grammar time: University students’ perceptions of the automated feedback program Grammarly
ONeill, R., & Russell, A. (2019) · Australasian Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.14742/ajet.3795 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
“Highly unfocused WCF is postulated to be less effective than highly focused WCF because it can easily lead to an overload of information processing (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundResultPerikos, I., Grivokostopoulou, F., & Hatzilygeroudis, I. (2017) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-017-0139-y · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Yousofi, R. (2022) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2022.2142446 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Nemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-019-0084-9 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Guo, X. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2445177 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
ChatGPT-generated versus human direct corrective feedback on L2 writing
Muñoz Muñoz, B. C., Nassaji, H., & Bello Carrillo, F. I. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103805 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback
Kaler, M. J., Vroom, J., & Richter, C. (2022) · Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie · doi:10.31468/dwr.913 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“It has been shown to be effective for improving students’ accuracy (Bitchener, 2008).”
Background
- Authors
- Bitchener, J.
- Affiliations
- Auckland University of Technology (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Bitchener, John
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 102-118
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967961930
- Cited by
- 871
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 59 · 2016: 58 · 2015: 69 · 2014: 75 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 39
- FWCI
- 248.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- written corrective feedback, ESL writing, direct corrective feedback, article system, definite and indefinite articles, second language acquisition, low-intermediate learners
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
