Exploring the written feedback dialogue: A research, learning and teaching practice

Language Teaching Research

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 259-278

  Perpignan, Hadara ^a  

^a BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 21744455083     PISSN: 13621688     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1191/1362168803lr125oa     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Allwright, D. 1992: Integrating ‘research’ and ‘pedagogy’: appropriate criteria and practicalpossibilities. Centre for Research in Language Education, Working Paper Series, Department of Linguistics and Modern English Language, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
2. Anson, C. M., editor, 1989: Writing and response: theory, practice andresearch. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
3. Ball, S. J. 1988: Participant observation. In Keeves, J. P., editor, Educational research, methodology, and measurement: aninternational handbook, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 507-510.
4. Briggs, C. L. 1986: Learning how to ask: a sociolinguistic appraisal of the roleof the interview in social science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Burkland, J. and Grimm, N. 1986: Motivating through responding. Journal of Teaching Writing 5: 237-247.
6. Charles, M. 1990: Responding to problems in written English using a student self-monitoring technique. ELT Journal 44(4): 286-293.
7. Chaudron, C. 1984: The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal 15(2): 1-14.
8. Cohen, A. D. 1987: Student processing of feedback on theircompositions. In Wenden, A. and Rubin, J., editors, Learner strategies in language learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 57-69.
9. Cohen, A. D. 1996: Verbal reports as a source of insights into second language learner strategies. Applied Language Learning 7(1 & 2): 5-24.
10. Cumming, A. 1998: Theoretical perspectives on writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 18: 61-78.
11. Devenney, R. 1989: How ESL teachers and peers evaluate and respond to student writing. RELC Journal 20(1): 77-90.
12. Donmoyer, R. 1987: Why case studies? Reflections on Hord and Hall’s three images. Curriculum Inquiry 17(1): 91-102.
13. Donmoyer, R. 1990: Generalizability and the single-case study. In Eisner, E. W. and Peshkin, A., editors, Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 201-232.
14. Ehrman, M. 1996: Understanding second language learning difficulties. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
15. Erickson, F. 1991: Advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research designin foreign language research. In Freed, B., editor, Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
16. Ericsson, K. A. and Simon, H. A. 1980: Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87(3): 215-254.
17. Ferris, D. R. 1995: Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 29(1): 33-53.
18. Ferris, D. R. and Roberts, B. 2001: Error feedback in L2 writing classes. How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3): 161-184.
19. Freeman, D., Larsen-Freeman, D., Handscombe, J., Allwright, D. and Woods, D. 1991: Understanding Second Language Teaching. Paper presented at symposium at TESOL Conference, New York, April.
20. Guba, E. G. 1990: Subjectivity and objectivity. In Eisner, E. W. and Peshkin, A., editors, Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 201-232.
21. Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1981: Effective evaluation: improving the usefulness of evaluationresults through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Harris, M. and Silva, T. 1993: Tutoring ESL students: issues and options. College Composition and Communication 44(4): 525-537.
23. Hayes, J. and Flower, L. S. 1983: Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: an introductionto protocol analysis. In Mosenthal, P., Tamor, L. and Walmsley, S. A., editors, Research on writing: Principles and methods, New York: Longman, 207-220.
24. Hedgcock, J. and Lefkowicz, N. 1994: Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3: 141-163.
25. Hillocks, G. Jr. 1994: Interpreting and counting: objectivity in discourseanalysis. In Smagorinski, P., editor, Speaking about writing, London: Sage Publications, 185-205.
26. Hyland, F. and Hyland, K. 2001: Sugaring the pill. Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing 10(3): 185-212.
27. Ivanic I, R., Clark, R. and Rimmershaw, R. 2000: What am I supposed to make of this? In Lea, M. R. and Stierer, B., editors, Student writing in higher education, Buckingham, UK: SRHE and Open University Press, 47-65.
28. Keh, C. L. 1990: Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal 44(4): 294-304.
29. Knapp, D. 1965: A focused, efficient method to relate compositioncorrection to teaching aims. In Allen, H. B. and Campbell, R. N., editors, Teaching English as a second language: a book ofreadings, New York: McGraw-Hill, 213-221.
30. Laurillard, D. 1993: Rethinking university teaching. London: Routledge.
31. Lincoln, Y. and Guba, E. G. 1985: Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
32. Oxford, R. 1990: Language learning strategies: what every teacher shouldknow. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
33. Postman, N. 1988: Conscientious objections: stirring up trouble about language, technology and education. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
34. Ramanathan, V. and Atkinson, D. 1999: Ethnographic approaches and methods in L2 writing research: a criticalguide and review. Applied Linguistics 20(1): 44-70.
35. Reid, J. 1994: Responding to ESL students’ texts: the myths of appropriation. TESOL Quarterly 28(2): 273-292.
36. Schofield, J. W. 1990: Increasing the generalizability of qualitativeresearch. In Eisner, E. W. and Peshkin, A., editors, Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 201-232.
37. Seliger, H. W. and Shohamy, E. 1989: Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38. Smagorinsky, P. 1994: Think-aloud protocol analysis: beyond the blackbox. In Smagorinsky, P., editor, Speaking about writing: reflections on researchmethodology. London: Sage Publications, 3-19.
39. Stake, R. 1978: The case-study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher 7: 5-8.
40. Straub, R. 1995: Teacher response as conversation: more than casual talk, an exploration. Rhetoric Review 14(2): 374-398.
41. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1990: Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures andtechniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
42. Truscott, J. 1996: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46(2): 327-369.
43. van Lier, L. 1994: Forks and hope: pursuing understanding in different ways. Applied Linguistics 15(3): 328-346.
44. Wolcott, H. F. 1990: On seeking - and rejecting - validity in qualitativeresearch. In Eisner, E. W. and Peshkin, A., editors, Qualitative inquiry in education: the continuing debate, New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 201-232.
45. Woods, D. 1996: Teacher cognition in language teaching: beliefs, decision-making and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.