Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:56:15.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 2: - Shaping Feedback: Delivery and Focus Dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2019

Edited by
Ken Hyland  and
Fiona Hyland
Ken Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Fiona Hyland
Affiliation:
The University of Hong Kong
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Feedback in Second Language Writing
Contexts and Issues
 , pp. 83 - 162
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Anderson, J. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–18.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2016). The content feedback practices of Applied Linguistics doctoral supervisors in NZ and Australian universities. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 39(2), 105–21.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2019). Feedback delivery: Written corrective feedback. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Language Learning and Teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–31.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–17.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.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (1997). Beyond explicit rule learning: Automatizing second language morphosyntax. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 195–221.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. M. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), The Hand Book of Second language Acquisition (pp. 313–48). Oxford: Blackwell publishing.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–52.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd Edition). New York: Oxford University Press.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), 353–71.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Ferris, D., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 307–29.Google Scholar
Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written CF and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Frear, D. & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.Google Scholar
Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–21.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–30.Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–13.Google Scholar
Kim, T. & Kim, Y. (2014). A structural model for perceptual learning styles: The ideal L2 self, motivated behaviour, and English proficiency. System, 46, 14–27.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 390–403.Google Scholar
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–9.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2013). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 97(3), 634–54.Google Scholar
Li, S. (2017). The efficacy of written corrective feedback on second language development: The impact of feedback type, revision type, learning motivation and strategies. Unpublished PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 113–28.Google Scholar
Qi, G. (2015). The impact of explicitness of written CF, targeted linguistic form and proficiency level on the effectiveness of written CF: A mixed-methods study. Unpublished doctoral thesis. AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.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), 83–95.Google Scholar
Roshan, S., (2017). Written corrective feedback, individual differences and second language acquisition of the English passive voice. Unpublished PhD thesis, Auckland University of Technology.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. (2014). Student and teacher beliefs about written CF and the effect these bliefs have on uptake: A multiple case study of Laos and Kuwait. Unpublished doctoral thesis, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Rummel, S. & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 64–82.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195–202.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), 255–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. New York: Springer.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(4), 556–69.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103–10.Google Scholar
Shintani, N. & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011Google Scholar
Shintani, N., Ellis, R. & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–31. doi:10.1111/lang.12029Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. (2014). l2 article use for generic and specific plural reference: The role of written CF, learner factors and awareness. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Lancaster University, UK.Google Scholar
Stefanou, C. & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learners’ differences and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–82.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Students’ engagement with feedback on writing: The role of learner agency/beliefs. In Batstone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 166–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. S. & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183–203.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–69.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. G., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL-Review of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–96.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), 1–41.Google Scholar
Wigglesworth, G. & Storch, N. (2012). Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. In Manchon, R. (Ed.), L2 Writing Development: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 69–100). Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Williams, J. (2012). The potential role(s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. (2012). Written Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition and Writing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–31.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–9.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010a). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–17.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, England: 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, 9, 227–58.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2009a). Designing research into the effects of error correction on second language writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(2), 136–40.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2009b). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were… System, 37(4), 600–13.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott or error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491–8.Google Scholar
Casanave, C. P. (2017). Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in Research and Instruction (2nd Ed.). Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. D. & Robbins, M. (1976). Toward assessing interlanguage performance: The relationship between selected errors, learners’ characteristics, and learners’ expectations. Language Learning, 26, 45–66.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z., MacIntyre, P. D., & Henry, A. (Eds.), (2015). Motivational Dynamics in Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eckstein, G. & Ferris, D. (2017). Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first-year composition. TESOL Quarterly. Doi:10.1002/tesq.376.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. SystemI, 36, 353–71.Google Scholar
Evans, K. (2017). Engaging undergraduate writers: A study of motivational dynamics in the second language writing classroom (PhD dissertation). University of California, Davis, USA.Google Scholar
Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14, 445–64.Google Scholar
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Strong-Krause, D. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229–39.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?) Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.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 Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. & Eckstein, G. (2017). Language matters: Understanding the writers enrolled in first-year composition. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Eckstein, G., & DeHond, G. (2017). Self-directed language development: A study of first-year college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(4), 418–40.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Evans, K., & Kurzer, K. (2017). Placement of multilingual writers: Is there a role for student voices? Assessing Writing, 32, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–29.Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.Google Scholar
Han, Y. & Hyland, F. (2015). Exploring learner engagement with written corrective feedback in a Chinese tertiary ESL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J. & Evans, N. W. (2012) The differential effects of comprehensive corrective feedback on L2 writing accuracy. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 3, 16–46.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J. & Evans, N. W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 6–34.Google Scholar
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, F. N. J. (2010) Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–108.Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–21.Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217–30.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.)(2006). Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzer, K. (2018a). Dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental ESL writing classes. TESOL Quarterly, 53(1), 5–33. Doi: 10.1002/tesq.366Google Scholar
Kurzer, K. (2018b). Student perceptions of dynamic written corrective feedback in developmental multilingual writing classes. Journal of Response to Writing, 4(2), 34–68.Google Scholar
Kurzer, K. (in press). Dynamic written corrective feedback in a community college ESL writing class setting. In S. M. Anwaruddin (Ed.), Research Utilization.Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. II (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–9.Google Scholar
Lunsford, A. & Lunsford, K. (2008). “Mistakes are a fact of life": A national comparative study. College Composition and Communication, 59(4), 781–806.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.) (2017). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning: Theory, Applications, Implications. New York: Routledge.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
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–83.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 303–34.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–69.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–22.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on students’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–72.Google Scholar
Uscinski, I. (2017). Learners’ engagement with direct written corrective feedback in first-year composition courses. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(2), 36–62.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C. (2011). The effectiveness of comprehensive corrective feedback on second language writing. Ph.D dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Van Beuningen, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Zheng, Y. & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13–24.Google Scholar

References

Aluthman, E. (2016). The effects of using automated essay evaluation on ESL undergraduate students’ writing skills. International Journal of English Linguistics, 6(5), 54–67.Google Scholar
Attali, Y., Bridgeman, B., & Trapani, C. (2010). Performance of a generic approach in automated essay scoring. Journal of Technology, Learning & Assessment, 10. Available at: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1603/1455.Google Scholar
Bai, L. & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible feedback: How do students respond? Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
Balfour, S. P. (2013). Assessing writing in MOOCS: Automated essay scoring and calibrated peer review, Research & Practice in Assessment, 8, 40–8.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.Google Scholar
Bridgeman, B., Tripani, C., & Attali, Y. (2012). Comparison of human and machine scoring of essays: Differences by gender, ethnicity, and country. Applied Measurement in Education, 25, 27–40.Google Scholar
Burstein, J., Tetreault, J., Chodorow, M., Blanchard, D., & Andreyev, S. (2013). Automated evaluation of discourse coherence quality in essay writing. In Shermis, M., & Burstein, J. (Eds.), Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation: Current Applications and New Directions (pp. 267–80). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, T. H., Lee, C. H., & Chang, Y. M. (2016). Enhancing automatic Chinese essay scoring system from figures-of-speech. Proceedings of the 20th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 28–34, Wuhan, China.Google Scholar
Chen, C. E. & Cheng, W. (2008). Beyond the design of automated writing evaluation: Pedagogical practices and perceived learning effectiveness in EFL writing classes. Language Learning and Technology, 12(2), 94–112.Google Scholar
Chen, J. F. (1997). Computer generated error feedback and writing process: A link [Electronic Version]. TESL-EJ, 2. Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej07/a1.html.Google Scholar
Choi, J. (2010). The Impact of Automated Essay Scoring (AES) for Improving English Language Learners’ Essay Writing. Doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, 2010.Google Scholar
Deane, P. (2013). On the relation between automated essay scoring and modern views of the writing construct. Assessing Writing, 18, 7–24.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. (2007). Automated Essay Scoring in an ESL Setting. Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 2007.Google Scholar
Dikli, S. & Bleyle, S. (2014). Automated essay scoring feedback for second language writers: How does it compare to instructor feedback? Assessing Writing, 22, 1–17.Google Scholar
El Ebyary, K. & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121–42.Google Scholar
Ericsson, P. F. & Haswell, R. (Eds.). (2006). Machine Scoring of Student Essays: Truth and Consequences. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Frost, K. L. (2008). The Effects of Automated Essay Scoring as a High School Classroom Intervention. PhD dissertation. Las Vegas: University of Nevada.Google Scholar
Grimes, D. & Warschauer, M. (2010). Utility in a fallible tool: A multi-site case study of automated writing evaluation. Journal of Technology, Language, and Assessment, 8(6), 1–43.Google Scholar
Hagerman, C. (2011). An evaluation of automated writing assessment, JALT Call Journal, 7(3), 271–92.Google Scholar
Hoang, G. T. L. & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Automated essay evaluation for English language learners: A case study of MY Access. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 359–76.Google Scholar
Hoon, T. B. (2006). Online automated essay assessment: Potentials for writing development. Available at: http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw06/papers/refereed/tan3/paper.html [Accessed August 9, 2006].Google Scholar
Hsieh, Y., Hiew, C. K., & Tay, Y. X. (2017). Computer-mediated corrective feedback in Chinese as a second language writing: Learners’ perspective. In Zhang, D. & Lin, C. -H. (Eds.), Chinese as a Second Language Assessment (pp. 225–48). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.Google Scholar
Kellogg, R., Whiteford, A., & Quinlan, T. (2010). Does automated feedback help students learn to write? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 42, 173–96.Google Scholar
Lee, C., Wong, K. C. K., Cheung, W. K., & Lee, F. S. L. (2009). Web-based essay critiquing system and EFL students’ writing: A quantitative and qualitative investigation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(1), 57–72.Google Scholar
Li, J., Link, S., & Hegelheimer, V. (2015). Rethinking the role of automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback in ESL writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 1–18.Google Scholar
Liao, H.C. (2015). Using automated writing evaluation to reduce grammar errors in writing, ELT Journal, 70(3), 308–19.Google Scholar
Liu, S. & Kunnan, A. J. (2016). Investigating the application of automated writing evaluation to Chinese undergraduate English majors: A case study of WriteToLearn. CALICO Journal, 33(1), 71–91.Google Scholar
Lu, A. & Li, Z. (2016). Exploring EFL learners’ lexical application in AWE-based writing. In Papadima-Sophocleous, S., Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (Eds.), CALL Communities and Culture – Short Papers from EUROCALL 2016 (pp. 295–301).Google Scholar
Luo, Y. & Liu, Y. (2017). Comparison between peer feedback and automated feedback in college English writing: A case study. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 7, 197–215Google Scholar
Matsumoto, K. & Akahori, K. (2008). Evaluation of the use of automated writing assessment software. In Bonk, C., et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on E-learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2008 (pp. 1827–32). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
Roscoe, R. D., Brandon, R. D., Snow, D. L., & MacNamara, D. S. (2014). Game-based writing strategy practice with the Writing Pal. In Pytash, K. E. & Ferdig, R. E. (Eds.), Exploring Technology for Writing and Writing Instruction (pp. 1–20). Information Science Reference: USA.Google Scholar
Schramma, E. & Srinivasan, V. (2015–16). WritingAssistant comprehensive automated feedback, EnglishHelper, Inc.Google Scholar
Shermis, M. D. (2014). State-of-the-art automated essay scoring: Competition, results, and future directions from a United States demonstration. Assessing Writing, 20, 53–76.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. (2016). A critical interpretative synthesis: The integration of automated writing evaluation into classroom writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 42, 1–16.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M. & Phakiti, A. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65.Google Scholar
Vojak, C., Kline, S., Cope, B., McCarthey, S., & Kalantzis, M. (2011). New spaces and old places: An analysis of writing assessment software. Computers and Composition, 28, 97–111.Google Scholar
Wang, F. & Wang, S. (2012). A comparative study on the influence of automated evaluation system and teacher grading on students’ English writing. Procedia Engineering, 29, 993–7.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. -J., Shang, H. -F., & Briody, P. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing, Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–57.Google Scholar
Warden, C. A. (2000). EFL business writing behavior in differing feedback environments. Language Learning, 50(4), 573–616.Google Scholar
Warden, C. A. & Chen, J. F. (1995). Improving feedback while decreasing teacher burden in ROC ESL business English classes. In Porythiaux, P., Boswood, T., & Babcock, B. (Eds.), Explorations in English for Professional Communications (pp. 125–37). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. & Grimes, D. (2008). Automated writing assessment in the classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 3, 22–36.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. & Czik, A. (2016). Automated essay evaluation software in English Language Arts classrooms: Effects on teacher feedback, student motivation, and writing quality, Computers and Education, 100, 94–109.Google Scholar
Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N. G., & Andrada, G. N. (2014). Does automated feedback improve writing quality?, Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 21(1), 93–118.Google Scholar
Yao, Y. C. & Warden, C. A. (1996). Process writing and computer correction: Happy wedding or shotgun marriage? [Electronic Version]. CALL Electronic Journal from Available at http://www.lerc.ritsumei.ac.jp/callej/1-1/Warden1.html.Google Scholar
Yu, B. -B. (2015). Incorporation of automated writing evaluation software in language education: A case of evening university students’ self-regulated learning in Taiwan. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 5(11), 808–13.Google Scholar
Yubing, Q. (2016). Pigai smart essay scoring system and its implications for teaching English writing, Journal of Applied Science and Engineering Innovation, 3(6), 217–19.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. V. & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102.Google Scholar

References

Alegría de la Colina, A. & García Mayo, M. P. (2007). Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In García Mayo, M. P. (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Aydin, Z. & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160–80.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H. (2010). Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–65.Google Scholar
Brooks, L. & Swain, M. (2009). Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation of and response to expertise. In Mackey, A. & Polio, C. (Eds.), Multiple Perspectives on Interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bui, T. H. G. (2015). Using collaboration and technology to enhance Vietnamese students’ English writing skills. Unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Australia.Google Scholar
Carson, J. G. & Nelson, G. L. (1994) Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing 3(1), 17–30.Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Lantolf, J. P. and Appel, G. (Eds.), Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Ede, L. & Lunsford, A. (1990). Singular Texts/Plural Authors. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Elola, I. & Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14(3), 51–71.Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 40–58.Google Scholar
Fernández Dobao, A. & Blum, A. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–78.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2003). Response to Student Writing: Implications for Second Language Students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Fortune, A. & Thorp, D. (2001). Knotted and entangled: New light on the identification, classification and value of language related episodes in collaborative output tasks. Language Awareness, 10(2–3), 143–60.Google Scholar
Guardado, M. & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–61.Google Scholar
Hansen, J. G. & Liu, J (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer review. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–8.Google Scholar
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 79–95.Google Scholar
Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning & Technology, 16(1), 91–109.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 114–30.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. & McDonough, K. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–34.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–76.Google Scholar
Leki, I. ( 2007). Undergraduates in a Second Language: Challenges and Complexities of Academic Literacy Development. New York: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Li, M. & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26, 61–82.Google Scholar
Li, M. & Zhu, W. (2017). Explaining dynamic interactions in Wiki-based collaborative writing. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 96–120.Google Scholar
Liu, J. & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20, 35–54.Google Scholar
Lund, A. & Smørdal, O. (2006). Is There Space for the Teacher in a Wiki? Proceedings of the 2006 International Symposium on Wikis (WikiSym’06). Odense, Denmark: ACM Press, 37–46.Google Scholar
Mak, B. & Coniam, D. (2008). Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System 36, 437–55.Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M., Roca de Larios, J., & Murphy, L. (2009) The temporal dimension and problem solving nature of foreign language composing processes. Implications for theory. In Manchón, R. M. (Ed.), Writing in Foreign Language Contexts. Learning, Teaching, and Research (pp. 102–29). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
McCarthy, S. J. & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. In Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. & Miller, N. (Eds.), Interaction in Cooperative Groups. The Theoretical Anatomy of Group Learning (pp. 17–35). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Min, H. -T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.Google Scholar
Min, H. -T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–41.Google Scholar
Mozaffari, S. H. (2017). Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21(4), 496–516.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness of peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–31.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. L. & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135–41.Google Scholar
Niu, R. (2009). Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness 18(3–4), 384–402.Google Scholar
Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (2012). Understanding the impact of social tools in the FL writing classroom: Activity theory at work. In Kessler, G., Oskoz, A. & Elola, I. (Eds.), Technology across Writing Contexts and Tasks (pp. 131–53). San Marcos, Texas: CALICO.Google Scholar
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89.Google Scholar
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30.Google Scholar
Rouhshad, A. & Storch, N. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In Sato, M. & Ballinger, S. (Eds.), Peer Interaction and Second Language Learning. Pedagogical Potentials and Research Agenda (pp. 267–90). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing 20(4), 286–305.Google Scholar
Shin, S. -Y., Lidster, R., Sabraw, S., & Yeager, R. (2016). The effects of proficiency differences in pairs on idea units in collaborative text reconstruction task. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 366–86.Google Scholar
Steinberger, F. (2017). Synchronous collaborative L2 writing with technology. Interaction and learning. Doctoral thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany. Available: https://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/21677/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning 5(1), 119–58.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–80.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–73.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative Writing in L2 Classrooms. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017a). Peer corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing. In Nassaji, H. & Kartchava, E. (Eds.), Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 66–79). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2017b). Implementing and assessing collaborative writing activities in EAP classes. In Bitchener, J., Storch, N. & Wette, R. (Eds.), Teaching Writing for Academic Purposes to Multilingual Students: Instructional Approaches (pp. 130–44). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2010). Learners’ use of first language (Arabic) in pair work in an EFL class. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 355–75.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Aldosari, A. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2007). Writing tasks: Comparing individual and collaborative writing. In del Pilar Garcia-Mayo, M. (Ed.), Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning (pp. 157–77). London: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Strobl, C. (2014). Affordances of Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative advanced writing in a foreign language. CALICO Journal, 31(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Doughty, C. and Williams, J., (Eds.), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In Byrnes, H. (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2010). Talking-it-through: Languaging as a source of learning. In Batestone, R. (Ed.), Sociocognitive Perspectives on Language Use and Language Learning (pp. 112–30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3), 320–37.Google Scholar
Tan, L., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2010). Pair interactions and mode of communication: Comparing face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 33(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Tsui, A. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–70.Google Scholar
Villamil, O. S. & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing. Context and Issues (pp. 23–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. The Development of Higher Order Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar Dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–42.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem-solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.Google Scholar
Yang, L. (2014). Examining the mediational means in collaborative writing: Case studies of undergraduate ESL students in business course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 23, 74–89.Google Scholar
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(3), 179–200.Google Scholar
Yoshida, R. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–41.Google Scholar
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19, 572–93.Google Scholar
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2016). State-of-the-Art Article. Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–93.Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×