Written corrective feedback, learner-internal cognitive processes, and the acquisition of regular past tense by Chinese L2 learners of English

References

Benson, Susan & Robert DeKeyser. 2019. Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research 23(6). 702–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John. 2008. Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 17(2). 102–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John. 2019. The intersection between SLA and feedback research. In Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland (eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 85–105. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108635547.007Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Dana Ferris. 2012. Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203832400Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Ute Knoch. 2008. The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research 12(3). 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Ute Knoch. 2009. The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics 31(2). 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Ute Knoch. 2010. Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 19(4). 207–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John & Neomy Storch. 2016. Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783095056Suche in Google Scholar

Bitchener, John, Stuart Young & Denise Cameron. 2005. The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 14(3). 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowles, Melissa A. 2010. The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203856338Suche in Google Scholar

Caras, Allison. 2019. Written corrective feedback in compositions and the role of depth of processing. In Ronald. P. Leow (ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning: Processing and processes, 188–200. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315165080-13Suche in Google Scholar

Cerezo, Luis, Allison Caras & Ronald P. Leow. 2016. The effectiveness of guided induction versus deductive instruction on the development of complex Spanish gustar structures: An analysis of learning outcomes and processes. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(2). 265–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263116000139.Suche in Google Scholar

Cerezo, Luis, Rosa M. Manchon & Florentina Nicholas-Conesa. 2019. What do learners notice while processing written corrective feedback? A look at depth of processing via written languaging. In Ronald P. Leow (ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning: Processing and processes, 173–187. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315165080-12Suche in Google Scholar

Chandler, Jean. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Craik, Fergus. 2002. Levels of processing: Past, present… and future?. Memory 10(5–6). 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210244000135.Suche in Google Scholar

Craik, Fergus & Robert Lockhart. 1972. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11(6). 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod & Gary Barkhuizen. 2005. Analysing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Shawn Loewen & Rosemary Erlam. 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2). 339–368. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060141.Suche in Google Scholar

Ellis, Rod, Younghee Sheen, Mihoko Murakami & Hide Takashima. 2008. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36(3). 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Gass, Susan. 1997. Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Suche in Google Scholar

Karimi, Seyyed. 2016. Effects of different types of teacher written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research 3(2). 216–229.Suche in Google Scholar

Lalande, John. 1982. Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal 66(2). 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Lardiere, Donna. 1998. Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady state. Second Language Research 14(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898674105303.Suche in Google Scholar

Lardiere, Donna. 2007. Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: A case study. London: L. Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Leow, Ronald P. 1997. Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning 47(3). 467–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00017.Suche in Google Scholar

Leow, Ronald P. 2000. A study of the role of awareness in foreign language behaviour: Aware versus unaware learners. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(4). 557–584. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263100004046.Suche in Google Scholar

Leow, Ronald P. 2015. Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315887074Suche in Google Scholar

Leow, Ronald P. (ed.). 2019. The Routledge handbook of second language research in classroom learning: Processing and processes. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315165080Suche in Google Scholar

Lightbown, Patsy M. 2008. Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom second language acquisition. In Z.-H. Han (ed.), Understanding second language process, 27–44. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847690159-005Suche in Google Scholar

López, Marisela B., Elke Van Steendam, Dirk Speelman & Kris Buyse. 2018. The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class: Comprehensive feedback in the L2 writing class. Language Learning 68(3). 813–850. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295.Suche in Google Scholar

Nassaji, Hossein & Eva Kartchava (eds.). 2017. Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. London,Routledge: ESL & applied linguistics professional series.10.4324/9781315621432Suche in Google Scholar

Park, Eun Sung, Sunhee Song & Yu Kyoung Shin. 2016. To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research 20(6). 678–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815609617.Suche in Google Scholar

Plonsky, Luke & Frederick Oswald. 2014. How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning 64(4). 878–912. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12079.Suche in Google Scholar

Qi, Donald S. & Sharon Lapkin. 2001. Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(4). 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00046-7.Suche in Google Scholar

Sachs, Rebecca & Charlene Polio. 2007. Learners’ uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 29(1). 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263107070039.Suche in Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard. 2001. Attention. In Peter Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction, 3–32. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003Suche in Google Scholar

Sheen, Younghee. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41(2). 255–283. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Sheen, Younghee, David Wright & Anna, Moldawa. 2009. Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System 37(4). 556–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Shintani, Natsuko & Rod Ellis. 2013. The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(3). 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011.Suche in Google Scholar

Shintani, Natsuko, Rod Ellis & Wataru Suzuki. 2014. Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures: Effects of written feedback and revision. Language Learning 64(1). 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029.Suche in Google Scholar

Slabakova, Roumyana. 2016. Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Stefanou, Charis & Andrea Révész. 2015. Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal 99(2). 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212.Suche in Google Scholar

Storch, Neomy & Gillian Wigglesworth. 2010. Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback in writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990532.Suche in Google Scholar

Swain, Merrill. 2005. The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 471–484. New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Teddlie, Charles & Abbas Tashakkori. 2009. Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, Catherine G., Nivja H. De Jong & Folkert Kuiken. 2008. The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics 156. 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/itl.156.0.2034439.Suche in Google Scholar

Van Beuningen, Catherine G., Nivja H. De Jong & Folkert Kuiken. 2012. Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning 62(1). 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Wigglesworth, Gillian & Neomy Storch. 2012. Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In Rosa Manchón (ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives, 69–100. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781934078303.69Suche in Google Scholar

Williams, Jessica. 2012. The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4). 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Yang, Yingli & Roy Lyster. 2010. Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2). 235–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990519.Suche in Google Scholar