No abstract

value of f Moreover, bridge the program source, m regarded t in their w attitudes t correction tone; (4) w both rheto neutral ab are offered Keywords Wu, S. (2019). S ess of feedback 7239/jowr-2019 Qiandi Liu, Univ USA -Qiandi.Liu t: Earli | This arti ative Works 3.0 Part 2. All of the sentences below have a grammar error. Please circle the type of corrective feedback that you think as most helpful. 1. The children go skatting in the winter. A. The children go skatting in the winter. B. The children go skatting in the winter. sp (spelling) C. The children go skatting skating in the winter. D. The children go skatting skating in the winter.You don't need to double 't' here. Delete 'e' and add -'ing'.2. These furnitures are beautiful.A. These furnitures are beautiful. B. These furnitures are beautiful. wf (word form) C. These This piece of furnitures are is beautiful. D. These This piece of furnitures are is beautiful.Furniture is an uncountable noun; therefore, you cannot add '-s' to make it plural.3. We saw child in the playground. A. We saw child in the playground. B. We saw child in the playground. art (article) C. We saw a child in the playground. D. We saw a child in the playground.The indefinite article "a" is needed before the word "child". 4. I have my car, and my husband has theirs. A. I have my car, and my husband has theirs. B. I have my car, and my husband has theirs. pron (pronoun) C. I have my car, and my husband has theirs his. D. I have my car, and my husband has theirs his."My husband" is male and singular, so use "his" instead of "theirs".5. The student think tomorrow is a holiday. A. The student think tomorrow is a holiday. B. The student think tomorrow is a holiday. sv (subject verb agreement) C. The student thinks tomorrow is a holiday. D. The student thinks tomorrow is a holiday.The subject and verb must agree in number.

No abstract

No abstract

Corrective feedback on second language (L2) writing has remained one of the most heavily studied areas in applied linguistics, yet clear guidance for practitioners about how to provide it most effectively remains limited. Previous studies have meta-analysed written corrective feedback (WCF) research revealing conflicting findings in how WCF affects development in L2 writers’ accuracy over time. This study provides a needed update in light of a recent increase in (quasi)experimental WCF studies. It features several methodological advances by introducing a Bayesian approach to conducting a meta-analysis, which provides a more valid picture of the generalizable effects. The analysis allows distinction – for the first time at a meta-analytic level – between short-, medium-, and long-term effects of WCF. Results aggregate data from an initial 52 primary studies that utilized control groups revealing robust evidence of the durability of moderate effectiveness of WCF over time and deeper insight into the relative effectiveness of various types of WCF (e.g. direct, indirect, metalinguistic – all yielding similar effect sizes) across research contexts, writing task types, target error types, and instructional characteristics. We conclude with recommendations to help continue methodological advances in this domain.