The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate
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?
Providing corrective feedback can be very time consuming and technical.
“providing corrective feedback can be very time consuming and technical (Polio, 2012).”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Polio, 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 100 · Cited by 209
- Authors
- Polio, C.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Polio, Charlene
- ORCID
- Polio, Charlene
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 375-389
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1990988568
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 76.40
- 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 › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
- Keywords
- second language acquisition theory, second language writing, language learning
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
