The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article
Open accessOverview
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“While the findings by Shintani and Ellis (2013) suggest that metalinguistic corrective feedback does not lead to greater improvement in writing than direct corrective feedback,”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Shintani & Ellis, 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“students who receive direct corrective feedback may just correct the isolated errors, without fully understanding the errors (Shintani & Ellis, 2013).”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Shintani & Ellis, 2013
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This can lead to deeper learning since students must understand the grammatical rules in order to apply them in their own writing (Shintani & Ellis, 2013).”
From Drawing on Readerly Intuition in Sentence Level Feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Shintani & Ellis, 2013
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
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Higgs, T. V., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/328293 · Cited by 5,375
Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning
Bernhardt, E. B., & Krashen, S. D. (1989) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/326882 · Cited by 4,605
Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition
Krahnke, K. J., & Krashen, S. D. (1983) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3586656 · Cited by 4,483
The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition
Long, M. H. (1996) · Handbook of Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3 · Cited by 3,927
(1998) · Cited by 2,572
Second language acquisition and second language learning
Sang, F. (1983) · System · doi:10.1016/0346-251x(83)90013-1 · Cited by 2,177
The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes
Truscott, J. (1996) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x · Cited by 1,874
Cognition and Second Language Instruction
Robinson, P. J. (2001) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139524780 · Cited by 1,776
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Anderson, T. (2010). The effect of tiered corrective feedback on second language academic writing. Master of Arts thesis, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Retrieved from http://circle.ubc.ca.
- Mohamed, N. (2001). Teaching grammar through consciousness-raising tasks. Unpublished MA thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2013) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12029 · Cited by 260
Self-citationTwenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006 · Cited by 271
L2 student engagement with automated feedback on writing: Potential for learning and issues of trust
Ranalli, J. (2021) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2021.100816 · Cited by 184
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168818802469 · Cited by 205
Metadata
- Authors
- Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
- Affiliations
- Nanyang Technological University (SG)
- University of Auckland (NZ)
- Corresponding author
- Shintani, Natsuko
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-09
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 286-306
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2002091368
- Cited by
- 278
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 83.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
- eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Michigan State University
- College of Engineering, Michigan State University
- 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, metalinguistic explanation, explicit knowledge, tacit knowledge, ESL learners, second language writing, error correction, eye tracking, self-monitoring, rule awareness
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
