Written languaging with indirect feedback in writing revision: is feedback always effective?

References

• Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=lme4
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bygate, M. (1996). Effects of task repetition: Appraising the developing language of learners. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 136–146). London: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Bygate, M. (2001). Effects of task repetition on the structure and control of oral language. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, & M. Swain (Eds.), Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language learning, teaching and testing (pp. 23–48). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
   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
• Cunnings, I. (2012). An overview of mixed-effects statistical models for second language researchers. Second Language Research, 28(3), 369–382. doi:10.1177/0267658312443651
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533–568. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00620.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. doi:10.1093/elt/ccn023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (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
• Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1999). The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research, 3(3), 215–247. doi:10.1177/136216889900300303
   Google Scholar
• Fukuta, J. (2016). Effects of task repetition on learners’ attention orientation in L2 oral production. Language Teaching Research, 20 (3), 321–430. doi:10.1177/1362168815570142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukuta, J., & Yamashita, J. (2015). Effects of task demands on attention orientation in L2 oral production. System, 53, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gass, S., Mackey, A., Alvarez-Torres, M. J., & Fernandez-Gracia, M. (1999). The effects of task repetition on linguistic output. Language Learning, 49(4), 549–581. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishikawa, M. (2013). Examining the effect of written languaging: the role of metanotes as a mediator of second language learning. Language Awareness, 22(3), 220–233. doi:10.1080/09658416.2012.683435
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 207–226). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leow, R. P. (2015). Explicit learning in the L2 classroom: A student-centered approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Linck, J. A., & Cunnings, I. (2015). The utility and application of mixed-effects models in second language research. Language Learning, 65(S1), 185–207. doi:10.1111/lang.12117
   Google Scholar
• Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie and T. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Hossein Nasab, M. (2016). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1111/ijal.12138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518. doi:10.1093/applin/24.4.492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org/
   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), 83–96. doi:10.2307/3586390
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, P. J. (2003). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 630–678). Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki, W. (2009). Improving Japanese university students’ second language writing accuracy: Effects of languaging. Annual Review of English Language Education in Japan, 20, 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62(4), 1110–1133. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00720.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2007). ‘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 Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58(2), 439–473. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2008.00446.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Foster, P. (2011). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 61, 37–72. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00642.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavakoli, P., & Skehan, P. (2005). Strategic planning, task structure and performance testing. Planning and task performance in a second language. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Planning and task performance in a second language (pp. 239–277). Amsterdam: John Benjamins:
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (1999). Learner-generated attention to form. Language Learning, 49(4), 583–625. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar