1887
Volume 169, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:
Zoom in
Zoomout

Teacher written feedback on adult beginners’ writing in a second language, Page 1 of 1

| /docserver/preview/fulltext/itl.17013.jak-1.gif

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.17013.jak
2018-11-13
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Afitska, O.
    (2015) Role of focus-on-form instruction, corrective feedback and uptake in second language classrooms: some insights from recent second language acquisition research. The Language Learning Journal, 43, 57–73. 10.1080/09571736.2012.701320
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2012.701320 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P.
    (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02064.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x [Google Scholar]
  3. 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, 227–258. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00027‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkinston, D.
    (2011) Introduction. Cognitivism and second language acquisition. InD. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.1–23). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203830932
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203830932 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachman, L. F.
    (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benatti, A.
    (2013) Proficiency. InP. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp.520–523). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernstein, R.
    (1983) Beyond objectivism and relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bitchener, J.
    (2012) A reflection on the ‘language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2, 348–363. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2016) To what extent has the published written CF research aided our understanding of its potential for L2 development?ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 167, 111–131. 10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.167.2.01bit [Google Scholar]
  10. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R.
    (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832400
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2009) The value of focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204–211. 10.1093/elt/ccn043
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn043 [Google Scholar]
  12. (2010a) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214. 10.1093/applin/amp016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2010b) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095056
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, A. L.
    (1994) The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23, 4–12. 10.3102/0013189X023008004
    https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023008004 [Google Scholar]
  16. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G.
    (2015) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Elements of the sociology of corporate life (13th ed.). Farnham: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carlsen, C.
    (2012) Proficiency level- a fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics, 33, 1–24. 10.1093/applin/amr047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amr047 [Google Scholar]
  18. Celce – Murcia, M.
    (1991) Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459–480. 10.2307/3586980
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586980 [Google Scholar]
  19. Chaiklin, S.
    (2003) Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context. InA. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives (pp.39–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  21. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Daniels, H.
    (2001) Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. DeKeyser, R.
    (2014) The philosophy of science and the social-cognitive dichotomy in research in language learning and teaching. InJ. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 365–386.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Eisenstein Ebsworth, M.
    (2014) Features of feedback. The conversation continues. Writing & Pedagogy, 6, 187–194. 10.1558/wap.v6i2.187
    https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i2.187 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, R.
    (2012) Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. InR. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (3rd ed.), (pp.151–165). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.
    (2009) Analysing learner language (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferris, D. R.
    (2007) Preparing teachers to respond to student writing. Journal of second Language Writing, 16, 165–193. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. (2012) Technology & corrective feedback for L2 writers: Principles, practices, & problems. InG. Kessler, A. Oskoz, & I. Elola (Eds.), Technology across writing contexts and tasks (pp.7–29). San Marcos, TX: CALICO Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (2014) Responding to student writing: Teachers’ philosophies and practices. Assessing Writing, 19, 6–23. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., & Rabie, B.
    (2011) “The job of teaching writing”: Teacher views of responding to student writing. Writing and Pedagogy, 3, 39–77. 10.1558/wap.v3i1.39
    https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v3i1.39 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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, 161–184. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00039‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  32. Firth, A., & Wagner, J.
    (1997) On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal, 81, 285–300. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1997.tb05480.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05480.x [Google Scholar]
  33. (2007) Second/foreign language learning as a social accomplishment: Elaborations on a reconceptualized SLA. Modern Language Journal, 91, 800–819. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00670.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00670.x [Google Scholar]
  34. Fristedt, P. E.
    (2008) Gadamer’s hermeneutic holism (Unpublished PhD dissertation), University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
  35. Furnborough, C., & Truman, M.
    (2009) Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 30, 399–418. 10.1080/01587910903236544
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910903236544 [Google Scholar]
  36. Gadamer, H. -G.
    (1975) Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Gascoigne, C.
    (2004) Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 71–76. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2004.tb02174.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02174.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldstein, L. M.
    (2008) Teacher written commentary in second language classrooms (4th ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Granott, N.
    (2005) Scaffolding dynamically toward change: Previous and new perspectives. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 140–151. 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2006.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gregg, K. R., Long, M. H., Jordan, G., & Beretta, A.
    (1997) Rationality and its discontents in SLA. Applied Linguistics, 18, 539–559. 10.1093/applin/18.4.538
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/18.4.538 [Google Scholar]
  41. Guénette, D.
    (2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N.
    (1992) Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 255–276. 10.1016/1060‑3743(92)90006‑B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B [Google Scholar]
  43. Hendrickson, J. M.
    (1980) The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–221. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1980.tb05188.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05188.x [Google Scholar]
  44. Hulstijn, J. H.
    (2012) The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 422–433. 10.1017/S1366728911000678
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000678 [Google Scholar]
  45. (2014a) Epistemological remarks on a social-cognitive gap in the study of second language learning and teaching. InJ. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 375–380.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. (2014b) The Common European Framework of Reference for Language: A challenge for applied linguistics. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 165, 3–18. 10.1075/itl.165.1.01hul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.165.1.01hul [Google Scholar]
  47. (2015) Language proficiency in native and non-native speakers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.41
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.41 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hulstijn, J. H., Alderson, J. H., & Schoonen, R.
    (2010) Developmental stages in second- language acquisition and levels of second-language proficiency: Are there links between them?InI. Bartning, M. Martin & I. Vedder (Eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development: Intersections between SLA and language testing research. Eurosla Monographs Series, 1, 11–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hulstijn, J. H., Young, R. F., & Ortega, L.
    (2014) (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 361–421. 10.1017/S0272263114000035
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263114000035 [Google Scholar]
  50. Hyland, F.
    (2001) Providing effective support: investigating feedback to distance language learners. Open Learning, 16, 233–247. 10.1080/02680510120084959
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510120084959 [Google Scholar]
  51. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
    (2010) Interpersonal aspects of response: constructing and interpreting teacher written feedback. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing. Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp.206–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Hyltenstam, K., & Abrahamsson, N.
    (2003) Maturational constraints in SLA. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.539–588). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch17
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch17 [Google Scholar]
  53. Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
    (2007) Processability theory applied to written and oral Swedish. InF. Mansouri (Ed.), Bilingualism and theory-driven second language acquisition research (pp.81–84). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Jakobson, L.
    (2015) Holistic perspective on feedback for adult beginners in an online course of Swedish. Apples-Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9, 51–71. doi:  10.17011/apples/urn.201512174094
    https://doi.org/10.17011/apples/urn.201512174094 [Google Scholar]
  55. Johnson, K.
    (1988) Mistake correction. ELT Journal, 42, 89–101. 10.1093/elt/42.2.89
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/42.2.89 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jordan, G.
    (2004) Theory construction in second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.8
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.8 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kang, E., & Han, Z.
    (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18. 10.1111/modl.12189
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kartchava, E.
    (2013) The place of corrective feedback within the major SLA theories. US-China Foreign Language, 11, 136–151.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Keßler, J. -U., & Liebner, M.
    (2011) Diagnosing L2 development. InM. Pienemann & J. -U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook (pp.133–148). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/palart.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1 [Google Scholar]
  60. Keßler, J. -U., Liebner, M., & Mansouri, F.
    (2011) Teaching. InM. Pienemann & J. -U. Keßler (Eds.), Studying processability theory. An introductory textbook (pp.149–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/palart.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/palart.1 [Google Scholar]
  61. Keßler, J. -U., & Plesser, A.
    (2011) Teaching grammar. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Lantolf, J.
    (1996) SLA theory building: “Letting all the flowers bloom!” Language Learning, 46, 713–749. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01357.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01357.x [Google Scholar]
  63. (2000) Introducing sociocultural theory. InJ. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.1–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. (2011) The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition: Sociocultural theory, second language acquisition, and artificial L2 development. InD. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp.24–48). New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2014) The sociocultural perspective. InJ. H. Hulstijn, R. F. Young, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Cognitive and social approaches to research in second language learning and teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36, 368–374.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Lantolf, J. P., & Johnson, K. E.
    (2007) Extending Firth and Wagner’s (1997) ontological perspective to L2 classroom praxis and teacher education. Modern Language Journal, 91, 877–892. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00675.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00675.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E.
    (2011) Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language Teaching Research, 15, 11–33. 10.1177/1362168810383328
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383328 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lantolf, J. & Zhang, X.
    (2015) Response to Pienemann’s critique of Zhang and Lantolf (2015). Language Learning65, 752–760. 10.1111/lang.12122
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12122 [Google Scholar]
  69. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2007) Reflecting on the cognitive-social debate in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 773–787. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00668.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00668.x [Google Scholar]
  70. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H.
    (1999) An introduction to second language acquisition research (10th ed.). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lee, I.
    (1997) ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System25, 465–477. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00045‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6 [Google Scholar]
  72. (2013) Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46, 108–119. 10.1017/S0261444812000390
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000390 [Google Scholar]
  73. (2014) Feedback in writing: Issues and challenges. Assessing Writing, 19, 1–5. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  74. Li, S.
    (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00561.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x [Google Scholar]
  75. Liu, Q., & Brown, D.
    (2015) Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  76. Long, M.
    (2007) Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Markee, N.
    (2009) Toward an ethnomethodological respecification of second-language acquisition studies. InE. Tarone, S. Gass & A. Cohen, (Eds.), Research methodology in second language acquisition (pp.89–118). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Morton, J., Storch, N., & Thompson, C.
    (2014) Feedback in the supervision of postgraduate students: Insights from the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 8, 24–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M.
    (2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34–51. 10.1080/09658410008667135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135 [Google Scholar]
  80. O’Donnell, M. E.
    (2014) Peer response with process-oriented, standards-based writing for beginning-level, second language learners of Spanish. Hispania, 97, 413–429. 10.1353/hpn.2014.0083
    https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2014.0083 [Google Scholar]
  81. Ortega, L.
    (2005) Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. Modern Language Journal, 89, 317–327. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2005.00307.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00307.x [Google Scholar]
  82. (2012) Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing – SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 404–415. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  83. Packer, M. J., & Goicoechea, J.
    (2000) Sociocultural and constructivist theories of learning: Ontology, not just epistemology. Educational Psychologist, 35, 227–241. 10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3504_02 [Google Scholar]
  84. Pawlak, M.
    (2014) Error correction in the foreign language classroom. Heidelberg: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑38436‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38436-3 [Google Scholar]
  85. Pienemann, M.
    (1985) Learnability and syllabus construction. InK. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.23–76). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. (1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/sibil.15
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.15 [Google Scholar]
  87. (2010) A cognitive view of language acquisition: Processability theory and beyond. InP. Seedhouse, S. Walsh, & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualising ‘learning’ in applied linguistics (pp.69–88). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230289772_5
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230289772_5 [Google Scholar]
  88. (2015) An outline of processability theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning, 65, 123–151. 10.1111/lang.12095
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12095 [Google Scholar]
  89. Pienemann, M., Johnston, M., & Brindley, G.
    (1988) Constructing an acquisition-based procedure for second language assessment. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 10, 217–243. 10.1017/S0272263100007324
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100007324 [Google Scholar]
  90. Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J. -U.
    (2014) Processability Theory. InS. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp.228–246). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Polio, C.
    (2012) The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375–389. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  92. Raskin, J. D.
    (2008) The evolution of constructivism. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 21, 1–24. 10.1080/10720530701734331
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10720530701734331 [Google Scholar]
  93. Rothman, J., & VanPatten, B.
    (2013) On multiplicity and mutual exclusivity. The case for different SLA theories. InM. P. G. Mayo, M. J. G. Mangado & M. M. Adrián (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp.243–256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aals.9.15rot
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.9.15rot [Google Scholar]
  94. Schönström, K.
    (2010) Bilingualism in school-aged deaf pupils: Processability in Swedish and narrative structure in Swedish and Swedish sign language (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Stockholm University.
  95. Semke, H. M.
    (1984) The effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1984.tb01727.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1984.tb01727.x [Google Scholar]
  96. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  97. (2011) Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. London: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑0548‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0548-7 [Google Scholar]
  98. Skehan, P.
    (1998) A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Stokes, D. J.
    (2007) Meaningful writing for beginners. Hispania, 90, 543–550. 10.2307/20063563
    https://doi.org/10.2307/20063563 [Google Scholar]
  100. Storch, N.
    (2010) Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 29–46. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181 [Google Scholar]
  101. (2014) Investigating feedback on writing from a sociocultural theoretical perspective. Paper delivered at the AILA World Congress, Brisbane, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
    (1995) Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371–391. 10.1093/applin/16.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  103. Thorne, S. L.
    (2005) Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 393–409. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2005.00313.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00313.x [Google Scholar]
  104. Valsiner, J.
    (1998) The guided mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Van Beuningen, C.
    (2010) Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 1–27. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171
    https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171 [Google Scholar]
  106. Vyatkina, N.
    (2010) The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 671–688. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2010.01108.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2010.01108.x [Google Scholar]
  107. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Wells, G.
    (1999) Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511605895
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605895 [Google Scholar]
  109. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G.
    (1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100. 10.1111/j.1469‑7610.1976.tb00381.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x [Google Scholar]
  110. Yi, U., Baker-Smemoe, W., & Evans, N. W.
    (2014) The rhetoric revision log: A technique for teaching rhetorical features in ESL writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 6, 337–363. 10.1558/wap.v6i2.337
    https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.v6i2.337 [Google Scholar]
  111. Zhang, X., & Lantolf, J.
    (2015) Natural or artificial: Is the route of L2 development teachable?Language Learning, 65, 152–180. 10.1111/lang.12094
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12094 [Google Scholar]
  112. Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R.
    (2006) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA worlds?TESOL Quarterly, 40, 35–58. 10.2307/40264510
    https://doi.org/10.2307/40264510 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.17013.jak
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error