The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy

References

• Aida, Y. 1994. Examination of Horowitz, Horowitz and Cope's construct of foreign language anxiety: the case of students of Japanese. The Modern Language Journal 78, no. 2: 155–168. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02026.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrade, M. and N. Evans. 2013. Principles and Practices for Response in Second Language Writing: Developing Self-Regulated Learners. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1981. Self-referent thought: a developmental analysis of self-efficacy. In Social Cognitive Development: Frontiers and possible futures, ed. J. Flavell and L. Ross, 200–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1986. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social-Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1989. Self-regulation of motivation and action through internal standards and goal systems. In Goal Concepts in Personality and Social Psychology, ed. L. Pervin, 19–38. Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist 28, no. 2: 117–148. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/effguide.html
   Google Scholar
• Beason, L. 1993. Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English 27, no. 4: 395–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J. and D. Ferris. 2012. Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bong, M. 2001. Role of self-efficacy and task value in predicting college students’ course performance and future enrolment intentions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 26: 553–570. doi: 10.1006/ceps.2000.1048
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bown, J. and C. White. 2010. A social and cognitive approach to SLA. International Review of Applied Linguistics 48: 331–353. doi: 10.1515/iral.2010.014
   Google Scholar
• Cleary, L. 1990. The fragile inclination to write: praise and criticism in the classroom. English Journal 79, no. 2: 22–28. doi: 10.2307/819094
   Google Scholar
• Chaudron, C. 1984. Evaluating writing: effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal 15, no. 2: 1–14. doi: 10.1177/003368828401500201
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. 1987. Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In Learner Strategies in Language Learning, ed. A. Wenden and J. Rubin, 31–40. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Daly, J. 1978. Writing apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research 72: 10–14. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1978.10885110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly, J. and W. Shamo. 1978. Academic decisions as a function of writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 12: 119–126.
   Google Scholar
• Eysenck, M. 1979. Anxiety, learning and memory: a reconceptualisation. Journal of Research in Personality 13: 363–385. doi: 10.1016/0092-6566(79)90001-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. 1995. Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 29, no. 1: 33–53. doi: 10.2307/3587804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. 2002. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. 2003. Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. 2006. Does error feedback help student writers?. In Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, ed. K. Hyland and F. Hyland, 81–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. and J. Hedgcock. 2005. Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D., H. Liu, A. Sinha and M. Senna. 2013. Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 22: 307–329. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D., S. Pezone, C. Tade and S. Tinti. 1997. Teacher commentary on student writing: descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing 6, no. 2: 155–182. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90032-1
   Google Scholar
• Finn, K. and M. Frone. 2004. Academic performance and cheating: moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Research 97: 115–121. doi: 10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox, R. 1980. Treatment of writing apprehension and its effects on composition. Research in the Teaching of English 14, no. 1: 39–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gardner, R. 1997. Individual differences and second language learning. In Encyclopaedia of Language and Education: Second Language Education, ed. R. Tucker and D. Corson, 33–42. Dordrecht, Germany: Kluwer Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, R., P. Tremblay and A. Masgoret. 1997. Towards a full model of second language learning: an empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal 81, no. 3: 344–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, L. 2004. Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing 13, no. 1: 63–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grabe, W. and R. Kaplan. 1996. Theory and Practice of Writing. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. 2007. Learner strategies and self-efficacy: making the connection. The Language Learning Journal 35, no. 1: 81–93. doi: 10.1080/09571730701315832
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., C. MacArthur, S. Schwartz and V. Page-Voth. 1992. Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children 58, no. 4: 322–335. doi: 10.1177/001440299205800405
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gungle, B. and V. Taylor. 1989. Writing apprehension and second language writers. In Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL students, ed. D. Johnson and D. Roen, 235–148. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. 1998. The impact of teacher written feedback on individual learners. Journal of Second Language Writing 7: 255–286. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90017-0
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. and K. Hyland. 2001. Sugaring the pill: praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 185–212. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00038-8
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 1996. Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. and F. Hyland. 2006. Interpersonal aspects of response: constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. In Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, ed. K. Hyland, and F. Hyland, 206–224. New York: Cambridge.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leki, I. 1990. Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal 3: 5–19.
   Google Scholar
• Martinez, C., N. Kock and J. Cass. 2011. Pain and pleasure in short essay writing: factors predicting university students’ writing anxiety and writing self-efficacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 54, no. 5: 351–360. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.54.5.5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, P., S. Meier and R. Rinderer. 1985. Self-efficacy and writing: a different view of self-evaluation. College Composition and Communication 36, no. 4: 465–471. doi: 10.2307/357865
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mittan, R. 1989. The peer review process: harnessing students’ communicative power. In Richness in Writing: Empowering ESL Students, ed. D. Johnson and D. Roen, 207–219. New York: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. 1996. Assessing Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Academic Outcomes: The case for specificity and correspondence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. 1997. Current directions in self-efficacy research. In Advances in Motivation and Achievement, ed. M. Maehr and P. Pintrich, 1–49. Greenwich: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. 2003. Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation and achievement in writing: a review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly 19: 139–158. doi: 10.1080/10573560308222
   Google Scholar
• Pajares, F. and M. Johnson. 1994. Confidence and competence in writing: the role of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy and apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English 28, no. 3: 313–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat-Sala, M. and P. Redford. 2010. The interplay between motivation, self-efficacy, and approaches to study. British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 283–305. doi: 10.1348/000709909X480563
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins, S., K. Lauver, H. Le, D. Davis and R. Langley. 2004. Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes?. A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 130, no. 2: 261–288. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. 2010. Aspects affecting confidence in writing. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching 21: 123–135.
   Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. and D. Koyama. 2010. Confidence in writing: the effect of feedback. Studies in Linguistics and Language Teaching 21: 137–166.
   Google Scholar
• Saito, Y. and K. Samimy. 1996. Foreign language anxiety and language performance: a study of learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate and advanced-level college students of Japanese. Foreign Language Annals 29, no. 2: 239–249. doi: 10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb02330.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scharzer, R. 1986. Self-related cognition in anxiety and motivation: an introduction. In Self-Related Cognition in Anxiety and Motivation, ed. R. Scharzer, 1–17. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. 1983. Developing children's self-efficacy and skills: the roles of social comparative information and goal setting. Contemporary Educational Psychology 8: 76–86. doi: 10.1016/0361-476X(83)90036-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. 1985. Self-efficacy and classroom learning. Psychology in the Schools 22: 208–223. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198504)22:2<208::AID-PITS2310220215>3.0.CO;2-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D. 1991. Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist 26, no. 3&4: 207–231. doi: 10.1080/00461520.1991.9653133
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schunk, D.H. and C.W. Swartz. 1993. Goals and progressive feedback: effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology 18: 337–354. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1993.1024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. 1996. The case against grammar correction. Language Learning 46, no. 2: 327–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsui, A. and M. Ng. 2000. Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?. Journal of Second Language Writing 9: 147–170. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
   Google Scholar
• Yashima, T., L. Zenuk-Nishide and K. Shimizu. 2004. The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning 54, no. 1: 119–152.
   Google Scholar
• Zacharias, N. 2007. Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal 38, no. 1: 38–52. doi: 10.1177/0033688206076157
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, S. 1995. Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, no. 3: 209–222. doi: 10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, B., A. Bandura and M. Martinez-Pons. 1992. Self-motivation for academic attainment: the role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal 29, no. 3: 663–676. doi: 10.3102/00028312029003663
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar