Error feedback in L2 writing classes
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?
The usefulness of marking codes has been questioned by Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found that students' performance in error correction based on errors located by teachers was not significantly different when students were provided with codes or symbols.
“The usefulness of marking codes has, however, been questioned by Ferris, Pezone, Tade, and Tinti (1997) and Ferris and Roberts (2001), who found that students' performance in error correction based on errors located by teachers was not significantly different when students were provided with codes (or symbols).”
From Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think? (2005) · cites this paper as Ferris and Roberts (2001)
Treatable errors are mistakes that L2 students have a higher chance of correcting on their own in future writing.
“According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), treatable errors are mistakes that L2 students have a higher chance of correcting on their own in future writing.”
From Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing (2021) · cites this paper as Ferris and Roberts (2001)
Cites
The influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback?
Hyland, F. (2003) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2022) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
Automated written corrective feedback: how well can students make use of it?
Ranalli, J. (2018) · Computer Assisted Language Learning · doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994 · Cited by 228 · 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
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 · see citing works
Examining the impact of Grammarly on the quality of mobile L2 writing
Dizon, G., & Gayed, J. M. (2021) · The JALT CALL Journal · doi:10.29140/jaltcall.v17n2.336 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Error Correction in the L2 Writing Classroom: What Do Students Think?
Lee, I. (2005) · TESL Canada Journal · doi:10.18806/tesl.v22i2.84 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Exploring ChatGPT-supported teacher feedback in the EFL context
Han, J., & Li, M. (2024) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2024.103502 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: peers or computer program
Lai, Y. (2010) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x · Cited by 92 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Tran, T. T. T. (2025) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci15020232 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Gai, X. (2022) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
Shen, C., Shi, P., Guo, J., Xu, S., & Tian, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258286 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Schiller, R., Fleckenstein, J., Mertens, U., Horbach, A., & Meyer, J. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105163 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Pourmousavi, Z., & Mohamadi Zenouzagh, Z. (2020) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-020-00088-w · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ferris, D., & Roberts, B.
- Affiliations
- California State University, Sacramento (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ferris, Dana
- Venue
- Journal of Second Language Writing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2001-08
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 161-184
- ISSN
- 1060-3743 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1552099543
- Cited by
- 981
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 73 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 69.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Second Language Writing (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- error feedback, error correction, self-editing, second language writing, ESL learners, explicit feedback, error classification, writing accuracy, teacher feedback
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