The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A typology of written corrective feedback types
Abstract
As a basis for a systematic approach to investigating the effects of written corrective feedback, this article presents a typology of the different types available to teachers and researchers. The typology distinguishes two sets of options relating to (1) strategies for providing feedback (for example, direct, indirect, or metalinguistic feedback) and (2) the students' response to the feedback (for example, revision required, attention to correction only required). Each option is illustrated and relevant research examined.
Overview
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.
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- 2003, JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 12, 267, 10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 · DOI · Paper page
- 1989, GUIDELINES, 11, 1
- 2001, JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 10, 235, 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X · DOI · Paper page
- 2001, JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 10, 161, 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X · DOI · Paper page
- 2007, JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING, 16, 40, 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 2006, LANGUAGE TEACHING, 39, 83, 10.1017/S0261444806003399 · DOI · Paper page
- 1982, MODERN LANGUAGE JOURNAL, 66, 140, 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x · DOI · Paper page
- 1997, SYSTEM, 25, 465, 10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6 · DOI
- 1986, TESOL QUARTERLY, 20, 83, 10.2307/3586390 · DOI · Paper page
- 2007, STUDIES IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION, 29, 67
- 2007, TESOL QUARTERLY, 41, 255, 10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x · DOI · Paper page
- 1996, LANGUAGE LEARNING, 46, 327, 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development
Ellis, R. (2009) · L2 Journal · doi:10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054 · Cited by 659
“In the case of written CF, the key distinction is between direct, indirect, and metalinguistic forms of correction (see Ellis, 2009).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe 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
Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing
Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100775 · Cited by 222
The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate
Polio, C. (2012) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 · Cited by 209
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000103 · Cited by 165
Metadata
- Authors
- Ellis, R.
- Venue
- ELT Journal
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-05-23
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 97-107
- ISSN
- 0951-0893 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4526
- OpenAlex
- W2077408241
- Cited by
- 872
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 93.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A typology of written corrective feedback types. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/elt/ccn023
- The paper
- Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
