Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners

References

• Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543–574.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language acquisition of the “passé compose” and the “imparfait”. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 226–243.10.1111/modl.2001.85.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Banaruee, H. (2016). Recast in writing. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Banaruee, H., & Askari, A. (2016). Typology of corrective feedback and error analysis. Isfahan: Sana Gostar Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., & Askari, A. (2017). Corrective feedback and personality type: A case study of Iranian L2 learners. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(2), 14–21. doi:10.5296/gjes.v3i2.11501
   Google Scholar
• Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431.10.1177/1362168808089924
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bohannon, J. N., Padgett, R. J., Nelson, K. E., & Mark, M. (1996). Finding relations between input and outcome in language acquisition. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 556–559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braidi, S. M. (2002). Reexaming the role of recasts in native-speaker/non-native speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1–42.10.1111/lang.2002.52.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, D. H. (2007). First language acquisition. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson ESL.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, H., Jeon, K. S., MacGregor, D., & Mackey, A. (2006). Learners’ interpretation of recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209–236.
   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(3), 267–296. doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiang, K. (2004). An investigation into students’ preferences for and responses to teacher feedback and its implications for writing teachers. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 3, 98–115. Retrieved from http://edb.org.hk/HKTC/download/journal/j3/10.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 155–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139524551.015
   Google Scholar
• Doughty, H., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114–138). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length, and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511–537.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575–600. doi:10.1017/s027226310606027x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33–53. doi:10.2307/3587804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, practice. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161–184.10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
   Google Scholar
• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.10.2307/356600
   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, 63–80. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamp-Lyons, L., & Condon, W. (2000). Assessing the portfolio: Principles for practice, theory and research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 543–572.10.2307/3588240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141–163.10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4
   Google Scholar
• Hendrikson, J. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 264–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33–54.10.1177/136216880000400103
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (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
• Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75, 305–313.10.1111/modl.1991.75.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khatib, M., Rezaei, S., & Derakkhshan, A. (2011). Literature in ESL/EFL classroom. English Language Teaching, 4(1), 201–208.
   Google Scholar
• Khoshsima, H., & Banaruee, H. (2017). L1 interfering and L2 developmental writing errors among Iranian EFL learners. European Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(4), 1–14. doi:10.5281/zenodo.802945
   Google Scholar
• Knoblauch, C., & Brannon, L. (1984). Rhetorical traditions and the teaching of writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook.
   Google Scholar
• Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York, NY: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Lalande, J. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.10.1111/modl.1982.66.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465–477.10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6
   Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285–312.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164.10.1016/j.jslw.2007.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203–218.10.1111/flan.1991.24.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linn, R., & Miller, M. (2005). Measurement and assessment in teaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(4), 536–556. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in l2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51–81.10.1017/S027226319800103X
   Google Scholar
• Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399–432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59(2), 453–498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269–300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. doi:10.1017/s0272263197001034
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459–477.10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00049-0
   Google Scholar
• Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses and red herrings. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.10.1111/modl.1998.82.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250–1257.
   Google Scholar
• Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411–452. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. doi:10.2307/3588241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Philp, J. (2003). Constrains on “noticing the gap”. Non-native speakers’ noticing of recast in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 99–126. doi:10.1017/s0272263103000044
   Google Scholar
• Pienemann, M. (1998). Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Studies in Bilingualism (Vol. 15). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin. doi:10.1075/sibil.15
   Google Scholar
• Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511667190
   Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2010). Who wants feedback and does it make any difference? In A. M. Stoke (Ed.), JALT2009 Conference Proceedings (pp. 683–691). Tokyo: JALT.
   Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2014). The effect of assessment of process after receiving teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.998168
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2015a). The influence of assessment of classroom writing on feedback processes and product vs. on product alone. Writing & Pedagogy, 7(2–3). doi:10.1558/wap.v7i2-3.16672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2015b). Student uptake of teacher written feedback on writing. Asian EFL Journal, 17(1), 36–56.
   Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(2), 275–300. doi:10.1558/wap.33157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87–102. doi:10.1080/09571736.2014.958190
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Semke, H. (1984). The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.10.1111/flan.1984.17.issue-3
   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
• Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.10.1177/003368829202300107
   Google Scholar
• Sommers, N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156.10.2307/357622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.10.1111/lang.1996.46.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122.10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
   Google Scholar
• Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343.10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
   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(4), 255–272. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270–275.10.1016/j.jslw.2009.05.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zabihi, S. (2013). The effect of recast on Iranian EFL learners’ writing achievement. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 2(6), 28–35. doi:10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.2n.6p.28
   Google Scholar
• Zacharias, N. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38–52. doi:10.1177/0033688206076157
   Google Scholar
• Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79–101. doi:10.2307/3586773
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar