Intro

@article{Truscott2007,

title = {The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately},

author = {John Truscott},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003},

doi = {10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003},

isbn = {1873-1422},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-12-01},

journal = {Journal of Second Language Writing},

volume = {16},

issue = {4},

pages = {255–272},

abstract = {The paper evaluates and synthesizes research on the question of how error correction affects learners’ ability to write accurately, combining qualitative analysis of the relevant studies with quantitative meta-analysis of their findings. The conclusions are that, based on existing research: (a) the best estimate is that correction has a small negative effect on learners’ ability to write accurately, and (b) we can be 95% confident that if it has any actual benefits, they are very small. This analysis is followed by discussion of factors that have probably biased the findings in favor of correction groups, the implication being that the conclusions of the meta-analysis probably underestimate the failure of correction.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{nokey,

title = {The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory},

author = {Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi},

url = {https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254

https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-02773-003},

doi = {10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254},

year  = {1996},

date = {1996-01-01},

journal = {Psychological Bulletin},

volume = {119},

issue = {2},

pages = {254–284},

abstract = {Since the beginning of the century, feedback interventions (FIs) produced negative--but largely ignored--effects on performance. A meta-analysis (607 effect sizes; 23,663 observations) suggests that FIs improved performance on average ( d  = .41) but that over one-third of the FIs decreased performance. This finding cannot be explained by sampling error, feedback sign, or existing theories. The authors proposed a preliminary FI theory (FIT) and tested it with moderator analyses. The central assumption of FIT is that FIs change the locus of attention among 3 general and hierarchically organized levels of control: task learning, task motivation, and meta-tasks (including self-related) processes. The results suggest that FI effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the hierarchy closer to the self and away from the task. These findings are further moderated by task characteristics that are still poorly understood. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}