1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Second Language Studies
  4. Volume 5, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3835
  • E-ISSN: 2542-3843
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The present study investigated the relationship between one dyad member’s revision in response to written corrective feedback (CF) and the same person’s learning and the other dyad member’s learning during collaborative writing. Twenty-eight English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) students at an American university were paired up and collaborated on two animation description tasks in Google Docs while receiving the researcher’s written CF on their errors on the indefinite and definite articles. Learners worked individually on an animation description task one week prior to the written CF treatment (pretest), immediately after the treatment (posttest), and two weeks after (delayed posttest). When pretest score and CF frequency were controlled for, the number of one’s revisions was not related to the same person’s or the partner’s posttest score. However, the number of one’s revisions was significantly positively related to the same learner’s delayed posttest score, but not to the partner’s delayed posttest score.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
2021-08-20
2024-10-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arnold, N., Ducate, L., & Kost, C.
    (2009) Collaborative writing in wikis: Insights from culture projects in German classes. InL. Lomicka, & G. Lord, The next generation: Social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning (pp.115–144). The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (CALICO).
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2018) Collaboration two-way: Working load and co-ownership in L2 wiki writing. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies, 1–24. 10.17161/iallt.v48i0.8576
     https://doi.org/10.17161/iallt.v48i0.8576 [Google Scholar]
  3. Yamashita, T.
    (2021) Corrective feedback in computer-mediated collaborative writing and revision contributions. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 75–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Baralt, M. & Leow, R. P.
    (2015) Uptake, task complexity, and L2 development in SLA: An online perspective. InR. Leow, L. Cerezo & M. Baralt (eds.), A psycholinguistic approach to technology and language learning (pp.3–22). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781614513674‑013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614513674-013 [Google Scholar]
  5. Benson, S., & DeKeyser, R.
    (2019) Effects of written corrective feedback and language aptitude on verb tense accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 23(6), 702–726. 10.1177/1362168818770921
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818770921 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bitchener
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2015) Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010a) and Van Beuningen, De Jong & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 405–414. 10.1017/S0261444815000130
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000130 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
    (2016) Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781783095056
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bonilla Lopez, M., Van Steendam, E., & Buyse, K.
    (2017) Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91–128. 10.1075/itl.168.1.04bon
     https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.168.1.04bon [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018) The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813–850. 10.1111/lang.12295
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bradley, L., Lindström, B., & Rystedt, H.
    (2010) Rationalities of collaboration for language learning in a wiki. ReCALL, 22(2), 247–265. 10.1017/S0958344010000108
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344010000108 [Google Scholar]
  13. Butler, Y. G.
    (2002) Second language learners’ theories on the use of English articles: An analysis of the metalinguistic knowledge used by Japanese students in acquiring the English article system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451–480. 10.1017/S0272263102003042
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102003042 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chaudron, C., & Parker, K.
    (1990) Discourse markedness and structural markedness: The acquisition of English noun phrases. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(1), 43–64. 10.1017/S0272263100008731
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008731 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cho, J.
    (2017) The acquisition of different types of definite noun phrases in L2-English. International Journal of Bilingualism, 21(3), 367–382. 10.1177/1367006916629577
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006916629577 [Google Scholar]
  16. Coyle, Y., & Roca de Larios, J.
    (2014) Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 36(3), 451–485. 10.1017/S0272263113000612
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000612 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ekanayaka, W., & Ellis, R.
    (2020) Does asking learners to revise add to the effect of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition?System, 94. doi:  10.1016/j.system.2020.102341
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102341 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, R.
    (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. 10.1093/elt/ccn023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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), 353–371. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D.
    (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. 10.1017/S0272263109990490
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2015) Written corrective feedback in L2 writing: Connors & Lunsford (1988); Lunsford & Lunsford (2008); Lalande (1982). Language Teaching, 48(4), 531–544. 10.1017/S0261444815000257
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444815000257 [Google Scholar]
  22. Frear, D., & Chiu, Y.-H.
    (2015) The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34. 10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006 [Google Scholar]
  23. Guénette, D.
    (2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Guo, Q., & Barrot, J. S.
    (2019) Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 261–276. 10.1080/10573569.2018.1540320
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1540320 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., & Baralt, M.
    (2015) Does type of modified output correspond to learner noticing of feedback? A closer look in face-to-face and computer-mediated task-based interaction. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(6), 1393–1420. 10.1017/S0142716414000320
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716414000320 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gurzynski-Weiss, L., Henderson, C., & Jung, D.
    (2018) Examining timing and type of learner-modified output in relation to perception in face-to-face and synchronous computer-mediated chat task-based interaction. InM. Ahmadian, & P. García Mayo, Recent perspectives on task-based language learning and teaching (pp.53–76). De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Havranek, G.
    (2002) When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?International Journal of Educational Research (37), 255–270. 10.1016/S0883‑0355(03)00004‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00004-1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Huebner, T.
    (1983) A longitudinal analysis of acquisition of English. Korama Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Iizuka, T., & Nakatsukasa, K.
    (2019) Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and feedback exposure conditions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4(1), 3–48. 10.1558/isla.38113
     https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38113 [Google Scholar]
  30. Ishikawa, M.
    (2018) Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and L2 grammar learning. System, 74, 50–61. 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.017 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ishikawa, M., & Révész, A.
    (2020) L2 learning and the frequency and quality of written languaging. InW. Suzuki, & N. Storch, Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies (pp.220–240). John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.55.10ish
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.10ish [Google Scholar]
  32. Kang, E., & Han, Z.
    (2015) The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. 10.1111/modl.12189
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kang, S., & Lee, J.-H.
    (2019) Are two heads always better than one? The effects of collaborative planning on L2 writing in relation to task complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 61–72. 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H.
    (2020) The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. 10.1177/1362168818802469
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kenny, D. A.
    (2015, February). An interactive tool for the estimation and testing the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model using multilevel modeling [Computer software]. Available fromhttps://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/APIM_MM/
  36. (2018) Reflections on the actor-partner interdependence model. Personal Relationships, 25(2), 160–170. 10.1111/pere.12240
     https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12240 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L.
    (2006) Dyadic data analysis. The Guilford Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D.
    (2010) Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41–58. 10.1080/09588220903467335
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220903467335 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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]
  40. Khezrlou, S.
    (2020) The role of task repetition with direct written corrective feedback in L2 writing complexity, accuracy and fluency. Journal of Second Language Studies, 3(1), 31-54. 10.1075/jsls.19025.khe
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.19025.khe [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H.
    (2020) Comparing the effects of direct and indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students’ perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176–199. 10.1111/flan.12443
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kim, Y., & Taguchi, N.
    (2015) Promoting task-based pragmatics instruction in EFL classroom contexts: The role of task complexity. The Modern Language Journal, 99(4), 656–677. 10.1111/modl.12273
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12273 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee, L.
    (2010) Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260–276. 10.11139/cj.27.2.260‑276
     https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.2.260-276 [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, S., & Roshan, S.
    (2019) The associations between working memory and the effects of four different types of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 45, 1–15. 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.03.003 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lim, G. S., Geranpayeh, A., Khalifa, H., & Buckendahl, C. W.
    (2013) Standard setting to an international reference framework: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Testing, 13(1), 32–49. 10.1080/15305058.2012.678526
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2012.678526 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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]
  47. Loewen, S.
    (2005) Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361–386. 10.1017/S0272263105050163
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050163 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mackey, A. & Gass, S. M.
    (2015) Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315750606
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315750606 [Google Scholar]
  49. Mak, B., & Coniam, D.
    (2008) Using wikis to enhance and develop writing skills among secondary school students in Hong Kong. System, 36(3), 437–455. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  50. McDonough, K.
    (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 79–103. 10.1017/S0272263105050047
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050047 [Google Scholar]
  51. Nakamaru, S.
    (2012) Investment and return: Wiki engagement in a “remedial” ESL writing course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(4), 273–291. 10.1080/15391523.2012.10782591
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782591 [Google Scholar]
  52. Nielsen, N. M., Smink, W. A., & Fox, J. P.
    (2021) Small and negative correlations among clustered observations: limitations of the linear mixed effects model. Behaviormetrika, 48(1), 51–77. 10.1007/s41237‑020‑00130‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41237-020-00130-8 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ockey, G. J., Vo, S., & Baghestani, S.
    (2020) Establishing appropriate cut scores of a standardized test for a local placement context. TESOL Quarterly. doi:  10.1002/tesq.3007
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3007 [Google Scholar]
  54. Ohta, A.
    (2000) Rethinking recasts: a learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in Japanese classroom. InJ. K. Hall and L. Verplaeste (eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp.47–71). Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R. J., Bridgeman, B., & Cho, Y.
    (2015) The Association Between TOEFL iBT® Test Scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Levels (Research Memorandum No. RM-15-06). Educational Testing Service.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., DebRoy, S., Sarkar, D., R Core Team
    (2020) _nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models_. R package version 3.1-149, URL: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
  57. Plonsky, L., & Ghanbar, H.
    (2018) Multiple regression in L2 research: A methodological synthesis and guide to interpreting R2 values. The Modern Language Journal, 102(4), 713–731. 10.1111/modl.12509
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12509 [Google Scholar]
  58. Polio, C.
    (2012) The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375–389. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004 [Google Scholar]
  59. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Révész, A., R. Sachs & A. Mackey
    (2011) Task complexity, uptake of recasts, and L2 development. InP. Robinson (ed.), Second language task complexity: Researching the Cognition Hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp.203–235). John Benjamins. 10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tblt.2.14ch8 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  62. 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), 556–569. 10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  63. Shintani, N.
    (2019) Potentials of writing-to-learn-language activities from second language acquisition research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 46, 100676. 10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100676
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100676 [Google Scholar]
  64. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2015) Does language analytical ability mediate the effect of written feedback on grammatical accuracy in second language writing?. System, 49, 110–119. 10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.006 [Google Scholar]
  66. 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), 103–131. 10.1111/lang.12029
     https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  67. Stas, L., Kenny, D. A., Mayer, A., & Loeys, T.
    (2018) Giving dyadic data analysis away: A user-friendly app for actor-partner interdependence models. Personal Relationships, 25(1), 103–119. 10.1111/pere.12230
     https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12230 [Google Scholar]
  68. Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A.
    (2015) Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99(2), 263–282. 10.1111/modl.12212
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12212 [Google Scholar]
  69. Storch, N.
    (2010) Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181 [Google Scholar]
  70. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2010) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. 10.1017/S0272263109990532
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 [Google Scholar]
  71. Suzuki, W., Nassaji, H., & Sato, K.
    (2019) The effects of feedback explicitness and type of target structure on accuracy in revision and new pieces of writing. System, 81, 135–145. 10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.017 [Google Scholar]
  72. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  73. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  74. (2016) The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers?InY-N. Leung (Ed.), Epoch making in English teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary (pp.129–141). Crane.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. (2020) The efficacy of written corrective feedback: A critique of a meta-analysis. Unpublished manuscript, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. P.
    (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  77. 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-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156(1), 279–296. 10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
     https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 [Google Scholar]
  78. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G. C. W., Van den Bergh, H. H., & Sercu, L.
    (2014) The mediating effect of instruction on pair composition in L2 revision and writing. Instructional Science, 42(6), 905–927. 10.1007/s11251‑014‑9318‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9318-5 [Google Scholar]
  80. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N.
    (2012) Feedback and writing development through collaboration: A socio-cultural approach. InR. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp.69–101). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9781934078303.69
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078303.69 [Google Scholar]
  81. Williams, J.
    (2012) The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321–331. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  82. Yilmaz, Y.
    (2016) The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 65–96. 10.1017/S0272263115000212
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000212 [Google Scholar]
  83. Yim, S., Wang, D., Olson, J. S., Vu, V., & Warschauer, M.
    (2017) Synchronous writing in the classroom: Undergraduates’ collaborative practices and their impact on text quality, quantity, and style. InProceedings of the 2017 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp.468–479). Association for Computing Machinery.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Zdorenko, T., & Paradis, J.
    (2012) Articles in child L2 English: When L1 and L2 acquisition meet at the interface. First Language, 32(1–2), 38–62. 10.1177/0142723710396797
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723710396797 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
Loading
The impact of one’s response to the teacher’s feedback on the same person’s and the partner’s learning in paired writing
Journal of Second Language Studies 5, 58 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
/content/journals/10.1075/jsls.21006.yam
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): actor-partner interdependence model; collaborative writing; written corrective feedback

Most Cited

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