1. education
2. english as a second language

‘ELT Voices - India’ International Journal for Teachers of English
Volume 5, Issue 1, 34-44 (2015)
ISSN: 2230-9136
(http://www.eltvoices.in)
Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL
Context
Talal M. Amara
The University of Zawia, 966 Surman Post Office, Main Road, Surman, Libya
Corresponding email address
talal.amara@yahoo.com
Article reference:
Amara, T. (2015). Rev iew of the Effectiveness of Written Correct ive Feedback in an ESL Context . ELT Voice - India, Volume,
5 (1), 34-44.
Abstract: While written corrective feedback (WCF) has frequently been identified as a common teacher practice in teaching
writing in an L2 classroom, ESL teachers pay little attention to the effectiveness of it. The role of written corrective feedback
(WCF) in English as a second language context has been a controversial topic among instructors as well as researchers.
Although WCF is a widely used, and is a common pedagogical tool in secon d language (L2) classroom, there are a number of
practical and theoretical objections to its effectiveness in writing clas sroom. Th is review is to shed light on the debate on the
effectiveness of WCF in the ESL writing classroom. It will summarize the theo retical arguments underpinning the use of
WCF in L2 classrooms. That is, the objections raised against WCF are rev iewed, and some concerns of different WCF types
are also discussed.
Over the last few years, the role p layed by corrective feedback in languag e acquisition has become a highly controversial
issue. In the field of First Language Acquisition (FLA), researchers express strong reservations co ncerning the effect that
negative evidence has on FLA, if there is any at all. In the field of Second Languag e Acquisition (SLA), however, there
appears to be a growing consensus among the majority of researchers concerning the significance of the role played by
negative evidence in the process of SLA. This literature review will focus mainly on the role played by corrective feedback in
SLA. While correct ive feedback clearly relates to both oral and written discourse, the focus of this discussion will center o n
oral p roduction, since the preponderance of research has largely focused on this aspect. In the followin g sections of this
review, the meaning of corrective feedback will be discussed, and the different theoretical stances towards its role in SLA
examined. Empirical studies that explo re the impact corrective feedback has on SLA will be reviewed, followed by a discussion of some of the issues that loom large in research in the area of corrective feedback and its role in SLA
Index Terms: SLA, WCF, FLA.
36
Amara (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context.
1. Introduction
Feedback refers to a generic sense of different procedures that are used to inform a learner if an instructional task is righ t or
wrong (Kulhavy, 1977). Feedback occurs when two d ifferent parties are engaged in an instructional procedure in wh ich one
side is viewed as the knowledge giver and the other as the knowledge receiver (i.e. output and input). This does not mean
that knowledge flows in one direction –fro m giver to receiver; rather, can it be in both directions with variance in the
amount. This notion contributes to Han’s (2001) study in which he concluded that feedback is a t wo -way interdependent
process, involving the giver and the receiver, where both are informat ion providers. Nevo (1994) says that even teachers
benefit fro m their peers’ and princip les’ feedback and evaluation to imp rove their own teaching pe rfo rmance. The feedback
receiver can also argue and positively interact with the feedback he or she receives. Hattie & Timperley (2007) define
feedback as a consequence of performance, and as informat ion provided by an agent regarding one’s performance or u nderstanding of instructions. In other words, feedback is emp loyed to reduce discrepancies that occur between current u nderstandings and performance, and a goal. Feedback allows for a co mparison b etween one’s actual outcome and a desired
outcome based on standards of performance (Mory, 2004). Feedback occurs more often when there is one correct form,
action, or performance that the feedback provider wants to see. In general, the feedback provider is not only an instructor o r
peer, but can also be a parent, self, book, and/or experience. An instructor’s or peer’s feedback can help learners correct
informat ion, whereas a book can help you clarify ideas. Parents’ feedback might provide you with both informat ion and
encouragement (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
The recent definitions of feedback are not different fro m the ones presented in early 1900s. Kulhavy and Wager (1993)
mentioned that feedback is viewed as a motivator, and provides a reinfo rcing message that would connect responses to pr ior stimuli, and provides information for learners to use in their previous responses. The question here is whether feedback
is viewed as in formation o r as reinforcement. The argument of this dichoto my is not a result of recent studies, but goes
back to the 1900s. Reinforcement feedback refers to the act of telling a learner that his or her answer is correct and, therefore, she or he is reinforced to answer correctly on the next task. The feedback here targets the correct responses rather th an
wrong ones. In contrast, the feedback as information argu ment suggests that it provides learners with information to correct
or change their prev ious responses. Mory (2004, p. 747) thinks that both ways are examp les of “open -loop versus
closed-loop”. Open-loop does not provide error-correction mechanis ms, while close-loop provides ways of correcting errors. This dichotomy is considered the foundation of the current divide among researchers (e.g. Truscott 1996, 1999; Ferris,
1999, 2004) on the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (W CF) in second language acquisition (SLA). The two research camps will be discussed later on this paper.
2. Written feedback in second language writing
Written feedback in L2 writing provides informat ion that help learners fill the gap in their knowledge and techniques of
writing. It bridges the gap between what learners composed on their writing tasks and how the co mposition should actually
be. This can be done in a number of different ways including restructuring sentences, providing a correct wo rd, crossing out
unnecessary words, underlin ing, adding a word, and so on. The definit ion of feedback is viewed under many different sit uations and settings, but, in the educational research field and SLA , it is perceived as an instructional procedure given to
inform a learner of the accuracy of a learning task. It is important at this point to identify various terms of feedback in the
literature of SLA. There is a nu mber of terms used in identifying feedback including ‘written feedback’ (Bitchener, 2008;
Bitchener and Knoch, 2008, 2009; Cramp , 2011; Cardelle &Corno, 1981; Elawar & Corno, 1985; Glover & Brown, 2006;
Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hyland, 2001; Kepner, 1991; Lee, 2008; Sachs & Po lio, 2007; Sheen, 2007; Zellermay, 1989),
‘corrective feedback’ (Ellis, 2008; Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam,2006; Ferris, 2010; El Tatawy, 2002; Han, 2001; Havranek,
2002), ‘error correction’ (Hendrickson, 1978; Lee, 2005; Truscott, 2007), ‘teacher response’ (Ferris, 1995), and‘error
feedback’ (Chandler, 2003; Ferris and Roberts, 2001; Lee, 2003; Liu, 2008). Although there are disagreements about these
ELT Voices-India Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015
37
terms (Ferris, 2010), most of these terms are used interchangeably in the literature (Lee, 2004). Feedback not only occurs to
correct a wrong action, information, or performance, but it can also occur to confirm the correct ones (Mory, 2004; Cardelle
& Corno, 1981). Feedback may not refer to one specific form, but it can refer to written form, oral form, or praise and crit icism form.
Feedback can take a form of p raise, which can effectively suppress learner errors. Praise is only g iven for
correct wo rk or performance. On the other hand, others may use crit icis m as a feedback. Criticism, though there are poss ible motivational effects, is only given to errors or wrong performance (Cardelle & Corno, 1981). Oral feedback is similar to
written feedback in that both focus on form and content. However, Sheen (2007) states a number of differences between
oral and written feedback:

Written feedback is delayed whereas oral feedback is immediate.
For instance, an instructor may not write h is
response immediately after an error occurs, but he or she may orally immediately respond to an error right after it
has been committed.

Written feedback requires less cognitive load on memory than oral feedback does. This requires an immediate
cognitive comparison, which pushes learners to use their short term memory.

Written feedback requires different pedagogical processing than oral feedback. Learners process written feedback
differently from oral.

Written feedback usually focuses on imp roving the content and organization of learners’ writing, while oral fee dback draws learners’ attention to erroneous utterances in co mmunicat ion. Yet, it can also support the written feedback in improving the overall quality of writing.
Written feedback in second language writing had not occupied much of the research until the mid -1990s. Only few studies
(Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Cardelle & Co rno, 1981; Hendric kson, 1978; Kepner, 1991; Radecki & Swales, 1988; Robb,
Ross, and Shortreed, 1986; Saito, 1994; Semke, 1984; So mmers, 1982; Zamel, 1985) were conducted during this period of
time, because writing extensively in the L2 was not a p riority for learners or practitioners. Therefore, L2 learners were not
motivated to consider teacher feedback on their writ ing. There were other reasons beyond the neglect of written feedback
such as audiolingualism theory and Krashen’s SLA theories (Ferris, 2010; Hendrickson, 1978).
3. The effectiveness of WCF in the ESL writing classroom
Written feedback has been a controversial topic in second language writing since the mid -1990s. The effectiveness of written feedback remains a controversial topic, though the gap has slightly decreased in recent years. A number of the researchers (Bitchener, 2008; Bitchener and Knoch, 2008; Chandler, 2003; Ferris,1995, 2006; Lee, 2008; Sheen, 2007) conclude
that it does help improve learners’ writing accuracy. These studies are valuable in a way that they provide evidence about
relative effects of different types of written feedback; however, they fail to provide any evidence of the effects of correct ing
to not correcting. Bitchener (2008) argues that all studies claiming the effectiveness of written feedback on learners’ writing
are not accurate because most of them did not include a control group to make a co mparison between those who received
written feedback and those who did not. When measuring only one group, the effect iveness, if any, cannot be interpreted as
a result of teacher written feedback as there are other factors involved in the learning procedure. Ferris (1999, 2004) and
Truscott (1996, 2004) agree that studies that fail to make co mparison between control groups and treatment groups do not
provide evidence of the effectiveness of the written feedback.
Earlier research (Kepner, 1991; Robb, Ross, Shortreed, 1986; Semke, 1984; So mmers, 1982; Zamel, 1985) co ncluded that
written feedback given by teachers was vague and mostly consisted of negative comments. They think t hat teacher written
38
Amara (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context.
feedback provides nothing but confusion, takes learners’ attention away fro m the lesson, and teachers misinterpret learners’
meanings, and therefore, it should not be used. Zamel (1985) argues:
ESL writ ing teachers misread student texts , are inconsistent in their reactions, make a rbitrary corrections, write contradictory comments, provide vague prescriptions, impose abstract rules and standards, respond to texts as fixed and final pro ducts, and rarely make content-specific comments or offer specific strategies for revising the text. (p. 86)
However, other studies (e.g. Hyland, 1998; Hyland & Hy land, 2001) pointed out the i mportance of building an interpersonal relationship between learners and their teachers through written feedback; an d at the same time they emphasized that
teacher written feedback should be clear, text -specific, and include praise and crit icis m through teacher-learner interaction.
The ongoing debate for the last 15 years has shown that the majority of L2 learners think that written feedback can imp rove
their writing, and they want to be corrected regularly (Farris, 1995). The debate on whether or not giving written feedback
to L2 writers is effective and helpful was more intense between Truscott (1996, 1999, 2004, 2007) and Ferris (1997, 1999,
2004). Truscott, in his controversial review art icle (1996), strongly crit icized written feedback. He d ismissed error feedbac k
as not only useless, but also as harmful to learners’ writ ing accuracy and, therefore, should be abolish ed. Truscott (1996)
argues that teachers should look more s eriously at the problems correction feedback creates. He claims that:

research supports his objection of feedback,

the lack of effectiveness is expected,

correction has a negative impact on learners, and

any research arguments to keep error correction lack
merit.
These claims are supported by previous studies (Hendrickson, 1978; Kepner, 1991; Robb, Ross, Shortreed, 1986; Semke,
1984; So mmers, 1982; Zamel, 1985), which suggested that correction had little or no effect on learner writing. Kepner’s
(1991) study examined the effectiveness of two types of written feedback and concluded that the consistent use of L2
teachers’ written erro r correct ion was ineffect ive in L2 writ ing, no matter what level of proficiency learners have. Liu (2008)
points out some weaknesses in this study. He argues that the consistent use of message-related comments used in Kepner’s
(1991) study was effective for imp roving overall quality and surface-level accuracy. Liu (2008) also points out that learners
were not required to produce a new draft using the teachers’ corrections, which engages the learners into self-edit ing. Farris
(1999) responded to Truscott’s (1996) claims and described them as premature. Ferris first identified three main problems
with the research reviews that Truscott used in his paper:

No comparison between subject groups in the previous studies.

The paradigms and teaching strategies in these studies are different.

Truscott ignores other research results that contradict his claims.
However, Farris (1999) agrees that erro r correction will not help learners if they are not de alt with carefu lly. Another criticism to Truscott’s claims is the loose definition of the terms.
In his art icle’s title, he used ‘grammar correct ion’, but he did
not specify what kind of grammatical correction he was trying to disapprove. Grammar rules vary according to their features. Some functional uses of grammar have ru le-based features while others do not. The effectiveness of grammar correction depends to some extent on the kind of grammatical rules to be corrected (Bitchener & Knoch, 2009). For ins tance, a
study on ‘definite article’ errors might give different results from another study on the use of ‘models’. Therefore, it is n ot
accurate to generalize the effectiveness of error correction of one kind of grammar ru le over the others. Truscott trie d to
ELT Voices-India Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015
39
apply the effectiveness of the grammar correction over all kinds of feedback without considering the positive impact the
teacher comment might have on learners. Ferris (1996) concludes that Truscott’s claim of eliminating this pedagogical
practice that helps learners to improve their writing accuracy is incomplete and has no conclusive evidence.
Truscott (1999) responded to Ferris’ response. He argues that Ferris’ (1999) criticisms were “unfounded and … in some
cases, even strengthening them” (p. 111). Thus, he agrees that there are some variet ies of correction in wh ich one cannot
make grammar correction in general, and that some corrections have more problems than others. He adds that the claim o f
evidence of good correction is not meaningful. As a res ponse to the variation of the research subjects, he says that when a
finding emerges fro m a nu mber of different studies, that finding must be ta ken seriously and generalized. Chandler (2003),
though, showed that teacher feedback on grammat ical errors resulted in a significant improvement in both accuracy and
fluency; which d isproves Truscott’s (1999) claims that error feedback has a negative effect on fluency. In 2007, Truscott
presented another review art icle in wh ich he included new research studies (Bitc hener et al, 2005; Chandler, 2003; Ferris,
2006) to the same old studies that he used in his 1996 study. His conclusion was less strong than it was in 1996. He co ncluded that error correction has small benefits, and has only small harmfu l effects on learne rs’ ability to write accurately.
The inclusion of new studies that have qualitative analysis and quantitative meta -analysis of their findings has slightly
changed his position on the effectiveness of written feedback. This can be an indication that his pos ition might completely
shift if mo re recent studies were included. A number of recent studies on written feedback in L2 writing has shown that
teacher written feedback does improve accuracy over time (e.g. Hyland, 2003; Chandler, 2003). Hy land (2003) condu cted a
study for 14 weeks. In the study, she observed six ESL writers in a fu ll -time English program course. She concluded that
some language errors may be treatable through feedback, and that learners highly valued feedback focusing on form. Lee
(2005) also concluded that 75.7% o f the study participants wished that their teachers would correct all errors for them,
whereas only 21.8% of t hem wished their teachers to correct some errors.
4. The effectiveness of different WCF types
In order to better understand the effectiveness of written feedback on L2 learners, it is important to dig deeper into the types
of feedback that teachers use in treating which type of error. So me studies (Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Bitc hener et al, 2005; Bitchener, 2008) most often view feedback as either direct (exp licit or overt) or indirect (imp licit or covert).
Most studies have made a distinction between direct and indirect feedback strategies (Ellis et al, 2006; Sachs & Polio, 2007;
Bitchener et al, 2005; Chandle, 2003 ). Direct feedback is the provision of the correct linguistic form or structure by the
teacher to the student above the linguistic error (Ferris, 2003). Indirect feedback is used to point out the error that a learner
has made without actually providing the correct form (Ellis, 2008). In fact, both types of feedback occur when the teacher
identifies an error and provides the correct form, but the variation occurs on how the teacher responds to the error. Ferris
(2002) describes direct feedback as a response in wh ich “an instructor provides the c orrect linguistic fo rm for students” (p.
19). This linguistic form may include crossing out of unnecessary words, phrases, or morphemes; inserting a missing word,
phrase, or morpheme; or the provision of the correct form or structure. Bitch ener and Knoch (2008) even include written
meta-linguistic explanations and spoken meta-linguistic explanations under direct feedback. Meta-linguistic exp lanation
includes the provision of grammar ru les and examp les at the end of student work. Spoken meta -linguistic e xplanation includes min i-lessons where rules and examples are explained and practiced ind ividually or in small groups. However, Ellis
(2008) made a distinction between direct feedback and meta-linguistic feedback. He categorizes the feedback as follows:

Direct feedback: providing the correct form.

Indirect feedback: indicating that an error exists but not providing correct form.

Meta-linguistic feedback: providing error codes or grammatical description.
40
Amara (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context.

The focus of feedback: correcting either all or some of the errors (focused vs. unfocused).

Electronic feedback: providing a hyperlink that provides examples of correct usage.

Reformu lation : this consists of a native speaker’s reworking of students’ entire text to make the language seem as
native-like as possible while keeping the content of the original.
As mentioned above, research studies most often categorize feedback into ‘direct’ and ‘ind irect’; therefore, the discussion
in this current paper will use these two types, though Ellis’ 2008 categories are apprec iated. The second feedback type is
‘indirect. Ferris (2002) describes indirect feedback as the one that “occurs when the teacher [implicitly] indicates that an
error has been made but leaves it to the student writer to solve the problem and correct the error” (p. 19). In other wo rds,
teachers use this type of feedback to draw learner’s attention to the error and let them find it out. It can take the form of
underlining, circling, coding, or recording in the margin the number o f errors. Coding is different f ro m the other in that it
provides learners with the type of error (e.g. ‘WW’ for wrong word, or ‘Art’ for article).
Farris and Roberts (2001) co mpared these two types of indirect feedback and they found that those who received both underlin ing and coding in revising their grammatical errors ou tperformed those who received only underlining. In general,
both groups have shown a significant improvement when co mpared with the control group who received no feedback.
Chandler’s (2003) study, though, has shown that direct feedback in which learners are g iven the correction with simple u nderlin ing is more effective. Chandler also noted that using direct feedback works best in producing accurate revision, and
that learners preferred d irect feedback. Bitchener et al., (2005) examined the effect of two types of feedback on three types
of errors (prepositions, the past tense, and the definite article). He concluded that there was a significant positive effect of
the combination of written and oral feedback in the use of the past tense and definite art icle. These findings were supported
by a recent study by Bitchener (2008) in which he found that those who received feedback in the use of the indefinite and
definite articles outperformed those who did not receive feedback. The t wo studies indicate that if direct fee dback is focused on specific types of errors, findings will more likely result in positive effects. Focused feedback is when teacher
feedback focuses on specific types of error (i.e. intensive), instead of correcting all errors (i.e. extensive) (Ellis, 2008). Th is
was supported by Bitchener and Knoch (2008) who investigated the effectiveness of targeting only two functional error
categories with written feedback in o rder to find out if such focused approached would be helpful for ESL writers. They
concluded that those who received written feedback on two functions outperformed the control group in all four post -tests.
Sheen (2007) also reached the same conclusion that written feedback targeting a single linguistic feature imp roved learners’
accuracy. When learners receive written feedback on various types of errors, they might lose track of them as a result of
shifting fro m one language layer to another (e.g. lexical, grammatical, semantic, so on). This can be really difficult and tiring for both teachers as well as learners at the low language proficiency level.
Studies suggesting that indirect feedback is more effective than direct feedback argue that indirect feedback engag es learners in guided learning and problem-solving and, therefore, pro motes noticing and attention that foster long -term acquisition
(Ferris and Roberts, 2001). Chandler (2003), however, says that three main arguments are in support of direct fee dback:
first, direct feedback is more helpful to learners as it reduces the confusion that might occur if learners do not unde rstand
what the feedback is for or what the feedback is saying. This might occur sometime after it has been given. Direct feedback
provides more linguistic descriptions that help learners to understand and remember the error later time during school year.
For instance, indirect feedback uses codes; learners might forget their meanings and references a few weeks after feedback
has been given, which is particularly problematic; if learners try to review materials fro m last year. A second argument
supporting direct feedback is that it provides learners with sufficient informat ion and explanation to resolve more related -to
issues (e.g. different usage, idio matic usages). This way, learners not only benefit fro m correcting the error itself, but also
ELT Voices-India Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015
41
they learn other things. For instance, if a learner uses ‘reply’ instead of its synonym ‘answer’ in ‘John replies the phone’,
the direct feedback not only will provide the correct word, but it will also provide an exp lanation of when each wo rd is
used along with exa mples. The third argu ment concerns the belief that feedback provides learners with mo re i mmediate
feedback on hypotheses that they may have made. Learners receive feedback on their writing not only on the sy ntactic and
grammatical errors, but also on semantic erro rs including contradiction, coherence, and amb iguity. These types of erro rs
require an immediate direct written feedback with a possibility of accompanying oral feedback.
Studies that investigated the effectiveness of different types of feedback can be viewed according to the kind of co mparison.
Many studies point to an advantage for direct over indirect correct ive feedback (Carroll and Swain, 1993; Ellis et al., 2006;
Rosa and Leow, 2004). So me other studies (Lalande, 1982; Carro ll, 2001; Carroll and Swain, 1993; Ellis et al., 2006))
compared d irect and indirect types of written feedback. Those two studies concluded that there is an adva ntage to using
indirect feedback. Other studies (Robb et al., 1986; Semke, 1984) concluded that there is no difference between direct and
indirect feedback, while Chandler (2003) concluded that there are positive findings for both direct and indirect fee dback.
On the other hand, those who compared the effectiveness of different types of indirect feedback (Fe rris et al., 2000; Ferris
and Roberts, 2001; Robb et al., 1986) found no difference between the indirect types (i.e. coded and uncoded) and direct
types of written feedback.
42
Amara (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context.
References
[1] Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative Feedback as Regulation and Second Language
Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-
Learning in the Zone of
483.
[2] Bitchener, J. (2008). Ev idence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2),
102-118.
[3] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective fee dback. ELT Journal, 63(3),
204-211.
[4] Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective fee dback. System, 37(2), 322-329
[5] Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The Effect of Different Types of Correct ive Feedback on ESL Stude nt
Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205.
[6] Cardelle, M., & Corno, L. (1981). Effects on Second Language Learning of Variat ions in Written Feedback on Homework Assignments. TESOL Quarterly,15(3), 251-261.
[7] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and imp licit negative feedback: An emp irical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.
[8] Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2
student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267-296.
[9] Cramp, A. (2011). Developing first-year engagement with written feedback. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12(2), 113-124.
[10] Elawar, M . C., & Corno, L. (1985). A Factorial Experiment in Teachersʼ Written Feedback on Student Ho mework:
Changing Teachers Behaviour a Little Rather than a Lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162-173.
[11] Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal,63(2), 97-107.
[12] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit Corrective Feedback and the Acquisition of L2
Grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
[13] El Tatawy, M . E. (2002). Correct ive Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Applied Linguistics, 2(2),
1-19.
[14] Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student Reactions to Teacher Response in Multiple-Draft Co mposition Classrooms. TES OL
Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53.
[15] Ferris, D. R. (1997). The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339.
[16] Ferris, D. R. (1999). The Case for Grammar Correction in L2 Writ ing Classes: A Response to Truscott (1996). Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
[17] Ferris, D. R. (2004). The " Grammar Correction" Debate in L2 Writ ing: Where are we, and where do we go fro m here?
(and what do we do in the meantime.?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62
[18] Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short - and long-term effects of
written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19] Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second Language Writing Research and Written Corrective Feedback in SLA . Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181-201.
[20] Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: Ho w Explicit Does It Need To Be?. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
[20] Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Ko mura, K., Roberts, B. J., McKee, S., (2000). Perspectives, pro blems, and practices in
treating written error. Co lloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, March 14–18, 2000, Vancouver,
BC.
[20] Glover, C., & Brown, E. (2006). Written feedback for students: too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be
ELT Voices-India Volume 5, Issue 1, 2015
43
effective? Bioscience Education, 7(3), 1-10
[21] Han, Z. H. (2001). Fine-tuning Corrective Feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 34(6), 582-599
[22] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
[23] Havranek, G. (2002). When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed? International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 255-270.
[24] Hendrickson, J. M . (1978). Error Correction in Foreign Language Teaching: Recent Theory, Research, and Pra ctice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
[25] Hyland, F. (1998). The Impact of Teacher-Written Feedback on Indiv idual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
[26] Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: giv ing more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1),
33-54.
[27] Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
[28] Hy land, F., & Hy land, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill Praise and crit icis m in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 185-212.
[29] Kepner, C. G. (1991). An Experiment in the Relat ionship of Types of Written Feedback to the Develop ment of Se cond-Language Writing Skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
[30] Kulhavy, R. W. (1977). Feedback in Written Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 47(2), 211-232.
[31] Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and imp lications for
practice. In J. Dempsey & G. A les (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 3–20). Englewood, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
[32] Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
[33] Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems regarding error fee dback. Assessing Writing, 8(3), 216-237.
[34] Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312.
[35] Lee, I. (2005). Error correct ion in the L2 writ ing classroom: What do students think? TESL Canada Journal, 22(2),
1–16.
[36] Lee, I. (2008). Ten mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63(1), 13-22.
[37] Liu, Y. (2008). The effect of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in SLA, 15, 65-79.
[38] Mory, E. H. (1992). The use of informational feedback in instruction: Imp lications for future research. Educational
Technology Research & Development, 40(3), 5-20.
[39] Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 745-783). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[41] Nevo, D. 1994. How can teachers benefit fro m teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education,
8(2)109-117.
[42] Radecki, P. M., & Swales, J. M. (1988). ESL Student Reaction to Written Co mments on Their Written
Work. System, 16(3), 355-365.
[43] Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of Feedback on Error and Its Effect on EFL Writ ing Quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
[44] Rosa, E. M ., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(02), 269-292.
[45] Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing rev ision task. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 29(1), 67-100.
[46] Saito, H. (1994). Teachers' Practices and Students' Preferences for Feedback on Second La nguage Writing: A Case
44
Amara (2015). Review of the Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in an ESL Context.
Study of Adult ESL Learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
[47] Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
[48] Sheen, Y. (2007). The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and language Aptitude on ESL Learners' A cquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
[49] Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to Student Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148-156.
[50] Truscott, J. (1996). The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
[51] Truscott, J. (1999). The Case for "The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Cla sses": A Response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
[52] Truscott, J. (2004). Ev idence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13(4), 337–343.
[53] Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurat ely. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 16(4), 255-272.
[54] Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to Student Writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101.