L2 learners' interpretation and understanding of written corrective feedback: insights from their metalinguistic reflections

References

• Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, W., & Bricker, R. H. (2010). The effects of direct and indirect speech acts on native English and ESL speakers' perception of teacher written feedback. System, 38, 75–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and second language writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2007). Best practices in promoting motivation for writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur & J. Fitzgerals (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 202–221). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowles, M. A. (2008). Task type and reactivity of verbal reports in SLA: A first look at an L2 task other than reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 359–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowles, M. A. (2010a). Concurrent verbal reports in second language research. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 111–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowles, M. (2010b). The think-aloud controversy in second language research. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bruton, A. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were... System, 37, 600–613.
   Web of Science ®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, 267–296.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders (Research Rep. No. 13). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teacher of English.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21, 193–204.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in L2 writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14, 445–463.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrokhi, F., & Sattarpour, S. (2012). The effects of direct written corrective feedback on improvement of grammatical accuracy of high-proficient L2 learners. World Journal of Education, 2, 49–57.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, L. (2001). The effects of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235–249.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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 (pp. 81–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitzgerald, J. L., & Mulford, H. A. (1987). Self-report validity issues. Journal of studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 48, 207–211.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godfroid, A., & Schmidtke, J. (2013). What do eye movements tell us about awareness? A triangulation of eye-movement data, verbal reports, and vocabulary learning scores. In J. M. Bergsleithner, S. N. Frota, & J. K. Yoshioka (Eds.), Noticing and second language acquisition: Studies in honor of Richard Schmidt (pp. 183–205). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i, National Foreign Language Resource Center.
   Google Scholar
• Goring-Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gouvernement du Québec, ministère de l'Éducation, du loisir et du sport. (2004). Programme de formation de l'école québécoise, deuxième cycle du secondaire. Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.
   Google Scholar
• Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies on feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). The written corrective feedback practices of pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian Modern Language Review, 69, 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guénette, D., & Simard, D. (2013, March). Written corrective feedback: Learners' perspective on treatability of errors and corrective feedback strategies. Communication presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, Dallas, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Hanaoka, O. (2007). Output, noticing, and learning: An investigation into the role of spontaneous attention to form in a four-stage writing task. Language Teaching Research, 11, 459–479.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 332–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, L. S. (2010). Do different modalities of reflection matter? An exploration of adult second language learners' reported strategy use and oral language production. System, 38, 245–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255–286.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B. J., & Richter, L. (2004). What if we're wrong? Some possible implications of systematic distortions in adolescents' self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Journal of Drug Issues, 4, 951–970.
   Google Scholar
• Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landis J. R., & Koch G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2009). Ten mismatches between teachers' beliefs and written feedback practice. ELT Journal, 63, 13–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leki, I. (1990). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow, R. P. (1997). Attention, awareness, and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 47, 467–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow, R. P. (1999). Toward operationalizing the process of attention in second language acquisition: Evidence for Tomlin and Villa's (1994) fine-grained analysis of attention. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 133–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow, R. P. (2001). Attention, awareness and foreign language behavior. Language Learning, 51, 113–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leow, R. P. (2006). The role of awareness in L2 development: Theory, research, and pedagogy. Indonesian Journal of English Language Teaching, 2, 125–139.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66.
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research: Methodology and design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2012). Exploring L2 writing-SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & O'Donovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 277–289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qi, D., & Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 277–303.
   Google Scholar
• Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, E., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and L2 development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 269–292.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosa, E., & O'Neill, M. D. (1999). Explicitness, intake, and the issue of awareness: Another piece to the puzzle. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 511–556.
   Google Scholar
• Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.
   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, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3–32). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R. (2010, December 2–4). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010(pp. 721–737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
   Google Scholar
• Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 102–110.
   Google Scholar
• Simard, D. (2004). Using diaries as a way of promoting metalingusitic reflection among elementary school students. Language Awareness, 13, 34–48.
   Google Scholar
• Simard, D., & French, L. (2011). Lien entre l'objet des verbalisations langagières d'élèves de sixième année du primaire et leurs productions écrites en anglais langue seconde [Relationship between the object of grade six learners' verbalizations and their written productions in English as a second language]. Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 14, 141–169.
   Google Scholar
• Simard, D., French, L., & Fortier, V. (2007). Elicited metalinguistic reflection and second language learning: Is there a link? System, 35, 505–529.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62, 1110–1133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), The handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners' response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 285–304.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2006). ‘Oh, I get it now!’ From production to comprehension in second language learning. In D. M. Brinton & O. Kagan (Eds.), Heritage language acquisition: A new field emerging (pp. 301–319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Sze, C. (2002). A case study of the revision process of a reluctant ESL student writer. TESL Canada Journal, 19, 21–36.
   Google Scholar
• Tocalli-Beller, A., & Swain, M. (2005). Reformulation: The cognitive conflict and L2 learning it generates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15, 5–28.
   Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Beuningen, C. G. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296.
   Google Scholar
• van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction: Theory and research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Y.-F. (2010). Students' reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202–1210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar