The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students
Open accessAbstract
This article provides an overview of research that has investigated the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) on ESL student writing. In doing so, it highlights a number of shortcomings in the design of some studies and explains what needs to be done in future research so that answers to the issues that have been raised can be effectively addressed. The article reports on a two-month study (with 144 international and migrant ESL students in Auckland, New Zealand) that investigated the extent to which different WCF options (direct corrective feedback, written and oral meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback and written meta-linguistic explanation; direct corrective feedback only; no corrective feedback) help students improve their accuracy in the use of two functional uses of the English article system (referential indefinite `a' and referential definite `the'). The study found (1) that students who received all three WCF options outperformed those who did not receive WCF, (2) that their level of accuracy was retained over seven weeks and (3) that there was no difference in the extent to which migrant and international students improved the accuracy of their writing as a result of WCF.
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
Evidence in support of written corrective feedback
Bitchener, J. (2008) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 · Cited by 871
Self-citationThe influence of teacher commentary on student revision
Ferris, D. R. (1997) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3588049 · Cited by 618 · cited 2×
“Other studies (Chandler, 2000; Ferris, 1995, 1997, 2006; Ferris & Helt, 2000; Ferris et al., 2000; Lalande, 1982) that have not included a control group (see Table 2 below) are unable to claim that it was WCF alone that facilitated improvements in accuracy.”
Background
Cited by
Ferris, D. R. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990490 · Cited by 523
LEARNERS’ PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263109990532 · Cited by 398
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. (2013) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 · Cited by 278
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
The Intersection between SLA and Feedback Research
Bitchener, J. (2019) · Feedback in Second Language Writing · doi:10.1017/9781108635547.007 · Cited by 57
Self-citationZhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564 · Cited by 51
“Highly unfocused WCF is postulated to be less effective than highly focused WCF because it can easily lead to an overload of information processing (Bitchener, 2008; Sheen et al., 2009).”
BackgroundResultNemati, M., Alavi, S. M., & Mohebbi, H. (2019) · Language Testing in Asia · doi:10.1186/s40468-019-0084-9 · Cited by 25
25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: an interview with John Truscott
Mohebbi, H. (2021) · Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education · doi:10.1186/s40862-021-00110-9 · Cited by 24
ChatGPT-generated versus human direct corrective feedback on L2 writing
Muñoz Muñoz, B. C., Nassaji, H., & Bello Carrillo, F. I. (2025) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2025.103805 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
- Venue
- Language Teaching Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2008-07
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 409-431
- ISSN
- 1362-1688 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-0954
- OpenAlex
- W2103521500
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 143.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.
