CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 419EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Acquisition and LearningStudent Assessment and Feedback

LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies

Storch, Neomy, Wigglesworth, Gillian·2010·Studies in Second Language Acquisition
DOI 10.1017/s0272263109990532
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The literature on corrective feedback (CF) that second language writers receive in response to their grammatical and lexical errors is plagued by controversies and conflicting findings about the merits of feedback. Although more recent studies suggest that CF is valuable (e.g., Bitchener, 2008; Sheen, 2007), it is still not clear whether direct or indirect feedback is the most effective, or why. This study explored the efficacy of two different forms of CF. The investigation focused on the nature of the learners’ engagement with the feedback received to gain a better understanding of why some feedback is taken up and retained and some is not. The study was composed of three sessions. In session 1, learners worked in pairs to compose a text based on a graphic prompt. Feedback was provided either in the form of reformulations (direct feedback) or editing symbols (indirect feedback). In session 2 (day 5), the learners reviewed the feedback they received and rewrote their text. All pair talk was audio-recorded. In session 3 (day 28), each of the learners composed a text individually using the same prompt as in session 1. The texts produced by the pairs after feedback were analyzed for evidence of uptake of the feedback given and texts produced individually in session 3 for evidence of retention. The learners’ transcribed pair talk proved a very rich source of data that showed not only how learners processed the feedback received but also their attitudes toward the feedback and their beliefs about language conventions and use. Closer analysis of four case study pairs suggests that uptake and retention may be affected by a host of linguistic and affective factors, including the type of errors the learners make in their writing and, more importantly, learners’ attitudes, beliefs, and goals. The findings suggest that, although often ignored in research on CF, these affective factors play an important role in uptake and retention of feedback.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0272263109990532

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Affective factors affect the actions learners adopt in responding to feedback and their willingness to accept and retain feedback.

    “They suggest that not only do affective factors affect the actions adopted by learners in responding to the feedback, they also have an impact on their willingness to accept and retain the feedback.”

    From Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing (2018) · cites this paper as Storch and Wigglesworth (2010)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Storch, Neomy
ORCID
Venue
Studies in Second Language Acquisition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2010-04-23
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
303-334
ISSN
  • 0272-2631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1545
DOI
10.1017/s0272263109990532
OpenAlex
W2070186365
Cited by
398
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
98.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • Studies in Second Language Acquisition (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
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
corrective feedback, second language writing, feedback uptake, direct feedback, indirect feedback, reformulation, student attitudes, learner beliefs, emotional factors, grammatical errors, lexical errors

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