Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorAnderson, Carl Edlund
dc.contributor.authorLequerica, Stella
dc.identifier.citationAmrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students prefer and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.
dc.identifier.citationApel, K. (2011). What is orthographic knowledge? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in School, 42, 592–603.
dc.identifier.citationBailey, K. (1991). The use of diary studies in teacher education programs. In J. Richards & D. Nunan (Eds.), Second language (pp. 215–226). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
dc.identifier.citationBailey, M. (1998). Learning about language assessment. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
dc.identifier.citationBarkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25(1), 81–92
dc.identifier.citationBates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
dc.identifier.citationBeare, H., & Slaughter, R. (1993). Education for twenty first century. London, UK: Routledge.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008a). The value of focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008b). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Journal, 12(3), 409–431
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322–329.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contributions of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193–214.
dc.identifier.citationBitchener, 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.
dc.identifier.citationBolger, D. J., Minas, J., Burman, D. D., & Brooth, J. (2008). Differential effects of orthography and phonological consistency in cortex for children with and without reading impairment. Neuropsychologia, 46(14), 3210–3224.
dc.identifier.citationBrookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational Leadership, 66, 55–57
dc.identifier.citationBrown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. (Second ed.). New York, NY: Longman
dc.identifier.citationBrown, J. D. (2005). Testing in language programs. A comprehensive guide to English language assessment. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
dc.identifier.citationBruton, A. S. (2009). Improving accuracy is not the only reason for writing, and even if it were... System, 37(4), 600–613.
dc.identifier.citationBurns, D. (2010). Doing action research in English language teaching. A guide for practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
dc.identifier.citationChan, J. C. Y., & Lam, S. (2010). Effects of different evaluative feedback on students’ self efficacy in learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 37–58
dc.identifier.citationChandler, 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.
dc.identifier.citationConrad, N. J. (2008). From reading to spelling and spelling to reading: Transfer goes both ways. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 869–878.
dc.identifier.citationCouncil of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, reaching, assessment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from
dc.identifier.citationCoyle, D., Hood, P., & Marsh, D. (2010). CLIL Content language integrated learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationCronnell, B. (1985). Language influences in the English writing of the third and sixth grade Mexican American students. Journal of Educational Research, 78(3), 168–173.
dc.identifier.citationCrystal, D. (2003). English as a global language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationDe Wet, K. (2010). The importance of ethical appraisal in social science research: Reviewing a faculty of humanities research committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 301–314.
dc.identifier.citationEales, F., Wilson, J., Clare, O., & Oakes, S. (2011). Speakout: Pre-intermediate. London, UK: Pearson Education.
dc.identifier.citationEhri, L. (1986). Sources of difficulty in learning to spell and read. Advances in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 7, 121–195.
dc.identifier.citationEllis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
dc.identifier.citationEllis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 28(2), 97–107.
dc.identifier.citationEllis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citationEllis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339–368.
dc.identifier.citationEvans, W. N., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersbeger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445–463.
dc.identifier.citationFashola, O., Drum, P., Mayer, R., & Kang, S. (1996). A cognitive theory of orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish speaking children spell English words. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 825–843.
dc.identifier.citationFazio, L. L. (2001). The effects of corrections and commentaries on the journal writings of minority and majority language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235– 249.
dc.identifier.citationFerris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62
dc.identifier.citationFerris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 classes. A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11
dc.identifier.citationFerris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short and longterm effects of written correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationFerris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
dc.identifier.citationFerris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Educational Psychology, 10(1), 161–184.
dc.identifier.citationForesman, S. (2007). Fresh reads for differentiated practice. London, UK: Pearson Education.
dc.identifier.citationGass, S. M., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 282–200.
dc.identifier.citationGeorgiou, G. K., Parilla, R., & Kirby, J. R. (2009). RAN components and reading developments from grade 3 to grade 5: What underlies their relationship? Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 508–534.
dc.identifier.citationGhandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53–62.
dc.identifier.citationGoldstein, L. (2005). Teacher written commentary in second language classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
dc.identifier.citationGoldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher and student variables. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (pp. 185–205). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationGould, R., & Colleen, R. (2013). Introductory statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
dc.identifier.citationGregory, M., & Carroll, S. (1978). Language and situation: Language varieties and their social contexts. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
dc.identifier.citationGrossi, G., Murphy, J., & Boogan, J. (2009). Word and pseudoword superiority effects in ItalianEnglish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 12, 113–120.
dc.identifier.citationGudmundsdottir, G. B., & Utne, B. V. (2010). An exploration of piloting and access as action research. Educational Action Research, 18, 359–372
dc.identifier.citationGuennette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–63.
dc.identifier.citationHattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 77, 81–112
dc.identifier.citationHein, G. E. (1991). Constructivist Learning Theory. Paper presented at the Committee of Education and Cultural Action (CECA) Conference, Jerusalem, Israel. Retrieved from
dc.identifier.citationHendrickson, J. (1977). Error in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387–398.
dc.identifier.citationHendrickson, J. (1980). The treatment of written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216–221.
dc.identifier.citationHilte, M., & Reitsma, P. (2008). What type of computer assisted exercise supports young less skilled spellers in resolving problems in open and closed syllable words? Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 97–114
dc.identifier.citationHopkins, D. (1985). A teacher’s guide to classroom research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press
dc.identifier.citationHousen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473.
dc.identifier.citationHyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31, 217–230.
dc.identifier.citationHyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 77–95
dc.identifier.citationJacobson, N., Gerwurtz, R., & Haydon, E. (2007). Ethical review of interpretative research: Problems and solutions. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 29(5), 1–8.
dc.identifier.citationJoy, R. (2017). The concurrent development of spelling skills in two languages. Internal Electronic Journal of Elementary Education., 3(2), 105–121.
dc.identifier.citationKelley, K., Clark, B., Brown, V., & Sitzia, T. (2003). Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. In International Journal of Quality Health Care (Vol. 15, pp. 261–266).
dc.identifier.citationKelter, D., & Ekman, P. (2000). Facial expression of emotion. In M. Lewis & J. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 236–245). New York, NY: Guilford.
dc.identifier.citationKeltner, D., Ekman, P., Gonzaga, G. C., & Beer, J. (2003). Facial expression of emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of Affective Sciences (pp. 415–432). New York: Oxford University.
dc.identifier.citationKember, D. (2000). Action learning and action research: Improving the quality of teaching and learning. London, UK: Kogan Page
dc.identifier.citationKemp, N. (2006). Children’s spelling of base inflected and derived words: Links with morphological awareness. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(7), 737–765.
dc.identifier.citationKidd, R. (1992). Teaching ESL grammar through dictation. TESL Canada Journal, 10(1), 49–61.
dc.identifier.citationKim, S., Ubel, P., & De Vries, R. (2009). Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature, 457, 534–535.
dc.identifier.citationKirby, J. R., Desrochers, A., Roth, L., & Lai, S. S. V. (2008). Longitudinal predictors of word reading development. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Cannadien, 49(2), 103–110
dc.identifier.citationKrashen, S. D. (1984). Writing, research, theory, and application. Oxford, UK: Pergham Press.
dc.identifier.citationKvale, S. (1989). Issues in validity in quantitative research. Lund, Sweden: Studenlitteratur.
dc.identifier.citationLalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors, an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149.
dc.identifier.citationLee, J. (2008). Understanding teacher’s written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Secondary Writing, 17, 69–85
dc.identifier.citationLittlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K, A. (2011). Theories of human communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
dc.identifier.citationLong, M. (2005). Second language needs analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationLukatela, G., Popadic, D., Ognjenovic, P., & Tirvety, M. T. (1980). Lexical decision in a phonologically shallow orthography. Memory and Cognition, 8(2), 124–132.
dc.identifier.citationMaleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250–1257.
dc.identifier.citationMerriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass
dc.identifier.citationMiles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
dc.identifier.citationMohammad, A., & Benis, A. R. S. (2014). The effect on transcribing on beginning learners’ dictation. Theory into Practice, 4(11), 2203–2208.
dc.identifier.citationMoss, L. (2003). Jerome Bruner: Language, culture, self. Canadian Psychology, 44(1), 77–83.
dc.identifier.citationMurphy, E., & Dingwall, R. (2007). Informed consent, anticipatory regulation and ethnographic practice. Social Science & Medicine, 65(11), 2223–2234.
dc.identifier.citationNunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage Learning.
dc.identifier.citationOECD 2016. (2016). PISA 2015 results (volume I): Excellence and equity in education, PISA. Retrieved from
dc.identifier.citationOller, J. W. (1978). Pragmatics and language testing. In B. Polsky (Ed.), . Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics
dc.identifier.citationOuellet, G., & Senechal, M. (2008). Pathways to literacy: A study on invented spelling and its role in learning to read. Child Development, 19(4), 899–913.
dc.identifier.citationOwren, M. J., & Barochorowski, J. A. (2003). Reconsidering the evolution of nonlinguistic communication: The case of laughter. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 27(3), 183–200
dc.identifier.citationPagan, B. (2006). Positive contributions of constructivism to educational design. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 2(1).
dc.identifier.citationRaynolds, L. B., & Uhry, J. K. (2010). The invented spelling of non-Spanish phonemes by Spanish-English bilinguals and English monolingual kindergarteners. Reading and Writing, 23(5), 495–513.
dc.identifier.citationReppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationRichards, J. C. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationRichards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2002). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. (3rd ed.). London, UK: Pearson Education.
dc.identifier.citationRichardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teacher College Records, 105, 1623–1640.
dc.identifier.citationRob, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–95.
dc.identifier.citationRussel, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
dc.identifier.citationSadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119–144
dc.identifier.citationSaito, H. (1994). Teacher’s practices and student’s preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2)
dc.identifier.citationSanders, M., & Banda, G. (1997). Questioning the validity of research instruments: An essential step in educational research. Journal of the Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 1(1), 12–25.
dc.identifier.citationSantos, M., Lopez-Serrano, S., & Manchon, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. IJES, 10(1), 131–154
dc.identifier.citationSchaertel, S. A. (2012). Giving feedback: An integral part of education. Best Practice and Research: Clinical Anaesthesiology, 26(1), 77–87.
dc.identifier.citationSchmidt, R. (2001). Cognition and second language instruction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
dc.identifier.citationSchmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. Proceedings of ClaSIC, 4, 731–737.
dc.identifier.citationSchuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2, 426–442
dc.identifier.citationSemke, H. (1984). The effects of red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17, 195–202.
dc.identifier.citationSergey, L. (2008). Top languages in global information production. The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, 3(2).
dc.identifier.citationSheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–284
dc.identifier.citationSlaven, R., & Cheung, A. (2004). How do English language learners learn to read? Educational Leadership, 61, 52–57.
dc.identifier.citationStorch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46.
dc.identifier.citationTarone, E., & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner: Approaches to 130 identifying and meeting the needs of second language learners. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
dc.identifier.citationTempleton, S., & Morris, D. (2000). Spelling. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 525–543). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
dc.identifier.citationTong, X., Mc Bride-Chang, C., Shu, H., & Wong, A. .-Y. (2009). What exactly is yait anyway. The role of semantics in orthographic learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104, 239–251.
dc.identifier.citationTorto, R. T. (2014). Language in communication in a multilingual setting: A case study of a cross section of first year students of the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. Language in India, 14(12), 339–359.
dc.identifier.citationTrim, J. (1978). Some possible lines of development of an overall structure for a European unit credit scheme for foreign language learning by adults. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (1997). A problem and a non-problem for English learners. English Teaching and Learning, 22(5), 59–57.
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (1999). The case against grammar correction in L2 classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111–122
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 337–343
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272.
dc.identifier.citationTruscott, J. (2010). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
dc.identifier.citationVan Beuninge, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27.
dc.identifier.citationVan Beuninge, C. G., Dejong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1– 41.
dc.identifier.citationVerhoeven, L., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, H. R. (2006). Learnability of graphostatic rules in visual word identification. Learning and Instruction, 16, 538–548.
dc.identifier.citationWallerstein, I., Juma, C., Keller, E. F., Kocka, J., Lecourt, D., Mudimbe, V. Y., … Trouillot, M. R. (1998). Luk samfundsvidenskaberne op! Report from “The Gulbenkian Commission of the Restructuring of the Social Sciences.” Copenhagen, Denmark: Roskilde Universitetsforlag.
dc.identifier.citationWiggins, G. (1997, June). Feedback: How learning occurs. Paper presented at the American Association of Higher Education Conference on Assessment Quality, Miami Beach, FL
dc.identifier.citationWiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2006). Understanding by design. A framework for effecting curriculum assessment. Alexandria, VA: ASCD (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development).
dc.description84 páginases_CO
dc.description.abstractThis study focused on observing and analyzing the highly form-specific issue of accurate spelling by Spanish L1 learners of English with the purpose of contributing to the ongoing debate on feedback’s relative efficacy, centered upon whether errors should be corrected or not and on whether feedback is effective or not. The treatment of direct and indirect written corrective feedback (WCF) was applied to spelling errors in learners of two distinct populations. An experimental action research design was appropriate to the study’s comparison of the two types of written corrective feedback, direct and indirect, on learners’ errors to determine their relative efficacy; and this research design permitted the establishment of relationships between the feedback treatment (direct or indirect) and spelling outcomes. The results indicated no statistically significant differences between and within groups among the two populations, suggesting that there are still no simple answers regarding feedback’s effectiveness. However, although many feedback studies give limited attention to the effects of language learners’ preexisting (L1) schemata, patterns in the spelling errors produced by the participants in the present study suggest that further work on the efficacy of feedback should indeed consider such issues more explicitly, as future research should consider not merely whether feedback can be valuable but how contextual factors can affect what kind of feedback (and responding to what in the learner) may be most valuable.es_CO
dc.publisherUniversidad de La Sabanaes_CO
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.sourceUniversidad de La Sabana
dc.sourceIntellectum Repositorio Universidad de La Sabana
dc.subjectInglés -- Estudio y enseñanzaes_CO
dc.subjectInglés -- Gramáticaes_CO
dc.subjectInglés -- Ortografía y deletreoes_CO
dc.subjectPlanificación educativaes_CO
dc.titleThe effect of direct and indirect written feedback on spelling in two different populations of efl/esl learnerses_CO
dc.publisher.programMaestría en Didáctica del Inglés con Énfasis en Ambientes de Aprendizaje Autónomoes_CO
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Lenguas y Culturas Extranjerases_CO
dc.creator.degreeMagíster en Didáctica del Inglés con Énfasis en Ambientes de Aprendizaje Autónomoes_CO

Files in this item


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 InternationalExcept where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International