Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course

References

• Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–258. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8
   Google Scholar
• Bertin, J.-C., Gravé, P., & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2010). Second-language distance learning and teaching: Theoretical perspectives and didactic ergonomics. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Bertin, J.-C., & Narcy-Combes, J.-P. (2012). Tutoring at a distance: Modelling as a tool to control chaos. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(2), 111–127. doi:10.1080/09588221.2011.639785
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-english and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. (ETS Research Report RR-11-05). Princeton, NJ: ETS. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2011.tb02241.x
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji., & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning129–140). New York/London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandl, K. (1995). Strong and weak students’ preferences for error feedback options and responses. The Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 194–211. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1995.tb05431.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brudermann, C. (2013). Tutorat en ligne et rétroactions correctives à distance: Vers un modèle de médiation potentiellement favorable au processus d’appropriation de l’anglais langue étrangère. [Online tutoring through feedback: An online mediation proposal for improving acquisition in English as a foreign language]. Apprentissage Des Langues et Systèmes D’Information et de Communication (ALSIC), 16. doi:10.4000/alsic.2633
   Google Scholar
• Brudermann, C., Grosbois, M., & Sarré, C. (2017). Design and deployment of a language center in higher education: A complexity and quality assurance approach. In F. Kronenberg (Ed), From language lab to language center and beyond: The past, present, and future of language center design (pp. 127–144). Mobile, Alabama: IALLT.
   Google Scholar
• Causa, M., & Derivry, M. (2013). Un paradoxe de l’enseignement des langues dans le supérieur: Diversification des cours pour les étudiants et absence de formation appropriée pour les enseignants. In M. Derivry, P. Faure., & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Apprendre les langues à l’université au 21ème siècle (pp. 91–110). Paris. Riveneuve Editions. [Language Learning in the French Higher Education system - a paradoxical situation: Diversity of courses for students and lack of appropriate training for teachers. In M. Derivry, P. Faure, & C. Brudermann (Eds.), Language teaching at the university level in the 21st century].
   Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chastain, K. (1990). Characteristics of graded and ungraded compositions. The Modern Language Journal, 74(1), 10–14. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1990.tb02547.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, I.-C. (2016). Efficacy of an ICALL tutoring system and process-oriented corrective feedback. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 334–364. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.960941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, S. W. (2019). College students’ perception of e-feedback: A grounded theory perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(7), 1090–1105. doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1572067
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chukharev-Hudilainen, E., & Saricaoglu, A. (2016). Causal discourse analyzer: Improving automated feedback on academic ESL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 494–516. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.991795
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corder, P. (1967). The significance of learner’s errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 5, 161–170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Council of Europe (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., & Granger, S. (1998). Computer-aided error analysis. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 163–174. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(98)00001-3
   Google Scholar
• Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff, J. A., & Thewissen, J. (2008). The Louvain error tagging manual. Version 1.3. Centre for English Corpus linguistics. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université Catholique de Louvain.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. doi:10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms – What we know so far. In H. Nassaji, & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 3–18). New York/London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. doi:10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng, H.-H., Saricaoglu, A., & Chukharev-Hudilainen, E. (2016). Automated error detection for developing grammar proficiency of ESL learners. CALICO Journal, 33(1), 49–70. doi:10.1558/cj.v33i1.26507
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes. A response to Truscott, J. (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–10. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (2007). Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 165–193. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. J. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
   Google Scholar
• Granger, S. (2002). A bird’s eye view of learner corpus research. In S. Granger, J. Hung., & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 3–33). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Grosbois, M. (2012). Didactique des langues et technologies – De l’EAO aux réseaux sociaux. Paris: Presses Universitaires Paris-Sorbonne.
   Google Scholar
• Grosbois, M., & Sarré, C. (2016). Learning to teach for next-generation education: A careful blend of action and reflection. In C-H. Lin, D. Zhang., & B. Zheng (Eds.) Preparing foreign language teachers for next-generation education (pp. 153–174). Hershey: IGI Global.
   Google Scholar
• Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels (Doctoral dissertation). AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand. Available from TUWHERA Open theses and Dissertation database at <http://aut.researchgateway.ac.nz/handle/10292/9628>
   Google Scholar
• Heift, T., & Hegelheimer, V. (2017). Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. InH. Nassaji. & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 67–81). New York/London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. doi:10.1017/S0261444806003399
   Google Scholar
• Kim, S. H. (2010). Revising the revision process with google docs: a classroom-based study of second language writing. In S. Kasten (Ed.), Effective second language writing (pp. 171–177). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
   Google Scholar
• Kregar, S. (2011). Relative effectiveness of corrective feedback types in computer-assisted language learning (Doctoral dissertation). Florida State University, USA. Available from the DigiNole database at <https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:181099/datastream/PDF/view>
   Google Scholar
• Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140–154). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lado, B., Bowden, H., Stafford, C., & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 320–344. doi:10.1177/1362168813510382
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, C. (2019). A study of adolescent English learners’ cognitive engagement in writing while using an automated content feedback system. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1544152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. :.
   Google Scholar
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(03), 399–432. doi:10.1017/S0272263104263021
   Google Scholar
• Moreno, N. (2007). The effects of type of task and type of feedback on L2 development in CALL (Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, USA. Available from the ProQuest database at <https://search.proquest.com/docview/304874160>
   Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York/London. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Paulson, E. J., Alexander, J., & Armstrong, S. (2007). Peer review re-viewed: Investigating the juxtaposition of composition students’ eye movements and peer-review processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(3), 304–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, K. (2010). Implicit corrective feedback in computer-guided interaction. Does mode matter? (Doctoral dissertation). Georgetown University, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Polio, C. G. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47(1), 101–143. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.31997003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poussard, C. (2017). Quels lieux d’apprentissage en anglais Lansad en 2016? [What places to learn English as a non-specialist in 2016?]. Apprentissage des Langues et Systèmes d’information et de Communication (ALSIC), 20(3). https://journals.openedition.org/alsic/3121.
   Google Scholar
• Ranalli, J. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93. doi:10.2307/3586390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roussel, S. (2015). Quand l’institution prescrit « l’innovation »: Bilan et perspectives d’un cours de langues en ligne en licence d’économie [When an institution prescribes ‘innovation’: Assessment of an online language course in Economy and perspectives. ]. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langues de Spécialité, 34(2), 67–89.
   Google Scholar
• Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these beliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait (Doctoral dissertation). AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Sarré, C. (2013). Technology-mediated tasks in English for specific purposes: Design, implementation. International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 32(2), 1–16. doi:10.4018/ijcallt.2013040101
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
   Google Scholar
• Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10(3), 209–231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10(4), 361–392. doi:10.1191/1362168806lr203oa
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517–538. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.993400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevenson, M., & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19(, 51–65. doi:10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In R. Batstone (Ed.), sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 166–185). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2), 262–277. doi:10.1017/S0261444818000034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Terrier, L., & Maury, C. (2015). De la gestion des masses à une offre de formation individualisée en anglais-LANSAD: Tensions et structuration. [From managing masses to offering individualised learning in a language center: Tensions in structuring the field of languages for specialists of other disciplines]. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langues de Spécialité - Cahiers de l Apliut, 34(1), 67–89. doi:10.4000/apliut.5029
   Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(4), 251–271. doi:10.1080/09588220500280388
   Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M., & Grimes, G. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3(1), 22–36. doi:10.1080/15544800701771580
   Google Scholar
• Whyte, S. (2016). Quels spécialistes pour quelles langues de spécialité dans l’enseignement secondaire et universitaire en France? [Who are the specialists? Teaching and learning specialised language in French educational contexts]. Recherche et Pratiques Pédagogiques en Langues de Spécialité, 25(1), 10–30.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, S. (1987). Cognitive complexity and written production in English as a second language. Language Learning, 37(4), 469–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar