這項為期18週的研究主要在探討網路化修訂回饋對以英文為外語的學生之寫作是否(1)有短期的效應(亦即對學生的本文修訂是否有立即的改進); (2)有長期的效應(亦即對學生之後的英文寫作是否有文法上的改進); (3) 老師的修訂回饋是否對某一類的錯誤比較有效; (4) 語料庫查詢對這些中級初階以英文為外語的學生而言，是否可以當作有效的自我修訂英文作文的工具，來改善某些英文連詞或句型結構的問題。十六位中華大學外文系二年級的學生參與此項研究，該研究進行一學期，學生從第3週開始，以3週為一個循環繳交初稿及修訂稿。老師網路化修訂回饋主要針對前一學期初步研究找出的五大類錯誤(句型結構; 動詞錯誤; 用字錯誤; 先行詞、名詞、和冠詞; 代名詞)為主。此研究從16位學生繳交的4篇初稿、4篇修訂稿，共128篇英文作文中，總計有540個經老師標示的標靶錯誤作為統計分析。除此之外，學生也在學期初有文法前測和作文前測，學期末有文法後測和作文後測，來檢視老師網路化修訂回饋對學生文法及寫作修訂正確率是否有改進。老師網路化修訂回饋主要連結有3大項: (1) 老師自製針對學生標靶錯誤的文法解說網頁; (2) 免費的網路ESL英文辭典; (3) 免費的語料庫查詢連結。此實證研究結果顯示: (1) 老師網路化修訂回饋對學生英文寫作本文的錯誤修訂有不錯的效果; (2) 老師網路化修訂回饋對學生之後的英文寫作的文法正確率則有不同的效果，用「錯誤比率」、「修訂正確率」、「文法前測比對文法後測」、「作文前測比對作文後測」當作評量基準時出現不同的結果。(3) 先行詞、名詞、和冠詞，代名詞以及動詞類的錯誤比較容易經由老師網路化修訂回饋獲得改善 (4)這些中級初階以英文為外語的學生可以經由語料庫查詢來有效的自我修訂英文寫作錯誤，尤其是將已經查詢好結果的資料連結用關鍵字置中的方式呈現給學生時效果更佳。

The main purpose of this 18-week study is to explore (1) whether web-based teacher corrective feedback (CF) has short-term effects on L2 writing (i.e., improved accuracy in their revisions of the same text); (2) whether web-based teacher CF has long-term effects on L2 writing (i.e., significant improvements in syntactical and lexical accuracy in 18 weeks when students write new pieces of writing); (3) whether web-based, focused, metalinguistic CF is more effective when targeting certain types of errors than others (i.e., are some errors more 'treatable' than others); and (4) whether concordance feedback can be an effective self-editing tool to help low-intermediate EFL learners revise certain types of errors such as collocations and sentence patterns. Sixteen university sophomores of Chung Hua University, all of whom had low-intermediate English proficiency, submitted 4 take-home writing assignments in three-week cycles, with a first draft in week 1, teacher's CF in week 2, and students' revision in week 3. Five most frequent error types (i.e., the targeted errors) were identified based on a pilot study. Altogether 128 essays (i.e., four drafts and four revisions of these 16 students) and 540 targeted errors were included in statistical analysis. In addition, a pre-test-post-test design was adopted to investigate the effect of intervention (CF and student revision) on writing accuracy. This was done by comparing data from an in-class diagnostic essay (i.e., essay pretest) and error correction practice (i.e., grammar pretest) given in the beginning of the semester to that from the semester-end essay revision and grammar posttest to see whether students could correct more targeted errors after they had been exposed to web-based teacher CF for one semester. At the same time they are also requested to revise the original essay pretest with teacher's written CF, which was then treated as an essay posttest, to investigate whether they could revise the targeted errors more effectively after they had focused on five major targeted errors for one semester. Teacher CF mainly included the following three sources: (1) grammar web pages designed by the researcher that offered grammatical explanation and sentence examples of the targeted errors; (2) online ESL learner's dictionary entries; and (3) teacher-recommended corpus search. This empirical evidence showed that (1) teacher CF had beneficial short-term effects on the immediate revisions of participants' writing drafts, especially when their prior grammar knowledge about these five error types was considered; (2) written CF had mixed impact on students' new pieces of writing and the acquisition of certain grammar structures when four indicators (i.e., error rates; successfully corrected ratios; grammar pretest vs. grammar posttest; and essay pretest vs. essay posttest) were concerned; (3) out of the five targeted error types, DNA (i.e., determiners, nouns, and articles), pronoun, and verb errors were more 'treatable' than other errors; and (4) concordance feedback was fairly effective in helping low-intermediate EFL learners revise collocations and sentence patterns, especially when they were given teacher pre-edited URL links displayed in a noticeable KWIC (key word in context) format.

Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................i	
CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….…….………	...ii
ENGLISH ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….….……………..i	ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………….……………..…v
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………….……….........viii	
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………….………......	ix
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION	1
1.1  Research Background and Issues	1
1.2  Purpose of the Study	6
1.3  Research Questions	7
1.4  Significance of the study	8
1.5  Definition of Key Terms	10
1.5.1  Web-based corrective feedback	10
1.5.2  Grammatical input enhancement	10
1.5.3  Treatable vs. untreatable errors	12
1.5.4  Direct vs. indirect feedback	13
1.5.5  Error logs	14
1.5.6  Corpora and data-driven learning (DDL)	15
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW	17
2.1  Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing	17
2.1.1  The debate of error correction	18
2.1.2  How should teachers give feedback?	24
2.1.3  Content vs. form	26
2.2  Grammatical Input Enhancement	28
2.3  Corpora and Data-driven Learning (DDL)	30
CHAPTER 3 METHOD	33
3.1  Basic Parameters	33
3.1.1  Participants, sample size, and duration	34
3.1.2  Overall proficiency level of the subjects	34
3.1.3  Settings	35
3.2  Instructional Procedures	36
3.3  Research Design	42
3.3.1  Measures	42
3.3.2  Data collection	47
3.3.3  Measurement approaches	50
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS	55
4.1 	Immediate Effects of Written CF: Errors Corrected by the Students in Their          Revisions	55
4.2 	Delayed Effects of Written CF: Impact of Written CF on students’ New Pieces of      Writing	59
4.2.1  Error rate	60
4.2.2  Successfully corrected ratio	63
4.2.3  Grammar pretest vs. grammar posttest	65
4.2.4  Essay pretest vs. essay posttest	67
4.3 	Effects of Written CF on Different Linguistic Error Domains: ‘Treatable’ vs.       ‘Untreatable’ Errors	71
4.4 	Effects of Self-help Writing Tools: Online ESL Learner’s dictionary Entries and      Corpora	76
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION	81
5.1  Issues of Research Parameters and Research Designs	81
5.2  Immediate Effect of Written CF	85
5.3  Delayed Effect of Written CF	87
5.4  Treatable vs. Untreatable Errors	92
5.5  Concordance Feedback on L2 Writing	95
5.6  Questionnaire Responses	100
5.7  Error Logs	102
5.8  Conclusion	104
5.8.1  Summary of the main findings	104
5.8.2  Pedagogical implications	109
5.8.3  Limitations of the study	111
5.8.4  Suggestions for future research	112
REFERENCES	114
APPENDICES	125
Appendix A: Grammar Web Pages Designed by the Researcher	125
Appendix B: Diagnostic Essay – Essay Pretest	162
Appendix C: Error Correction Practice – Grammar Pretest	163
Appendix D: Grammar knowledge questionnaire	165
Appendix E: Instruction of Four Essay Assignments	167
Appendix F: Error Classification System	171
Appendix G: Error Correction Practice – Grammar Posttest	174
Appendix H: Questionnaire of English Intermediate Writing	177

List of Tables

Table 1: Examples of Label on Student’s Sentence-Level Revisions	52
Table 2:	Summary of the Five Error Types Marked and the Percentage of Errors Successfully Corrected in Four Essay Revisions	56
Table 3: The Results of Successful Correction in Grammar Pretest	57
Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations of the Error Rates of the Four Essay Drafts	61
Table 5: Repeated Measure ANOVA of the Error Rates across the Four Essay Drafts	62
Table 6:	Means and Standard Deviations of Four Essay Revisions Measuring the Successfully Corrected Ratio of Five Targeted Errors	64
Table 7: Repeated Measure ANOVA of Four Essay Revisions	65
Table 8: The Result of Successful Correction in Grammar Posttest	67
Table 9: Paired Samples t test of Grammar Pretest and Grammar Posttest	67
Table 10: The Results of Essay Pretest Revisions and Essay Posttest Revisions	69
Table 11: Paired Samples t test of Essay Pretest and Essay Posttest	69
Table 12:	Errors Marked and Percentage of Errors Corrected by These 16 Students in Their Four Essay Drafts	73
Table 13: Breakdowns of Verb Errors Marked on Students’ Four Drafts	74
Table 14: Errors Successfully Corrected (%) in Essay Pretest and Essay Posttest	75
Table 15: Results of ESL Dictionary Entries Given to Students’ Essays	77
Table 16: Results of Concordance CF Given to Students’ Essays	77
Table 17:	Successfully Corrected Ratios of DNA, Pronoun, and Verb Errors in Four Essay Revisions	93
Table 18:	Successfully Corrected Ratios of Targeted Errors in Grammar Pretest and Grammar Posttest	93
Table 19:	Successfully Corrected Ratios of Targeted Errors in Essay Pretest and Essay Posttest	93

List of Figures

Figure 1. A Snapshot of Student’s Error Log on eCampus	15
Figure 2. A Corpus KWIC Display of Interested from BNCWeb	16
Figure 3. A Snapshot of an Error Type Named ‘Two Verbs’ from the Researcher’s Grammar Web Pages	39
Figure 4. A Snapshot of the Table of Contents of Grammar Web Pages for Teacher’s Corrective Feedback	40
Figure 5. An Example of a Student’s Draft with Teacher’s Web-Based Corrective Feedback 	41
Figure 6. Error Count of Five Targeted Error Types Marked in Four Essay Drafts	60
Figure 7. Snapshot of ‘appreciate’ entry from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English	78
Figure 8. A Snapshot of Pre-edited URL Link of ‘Spend’ from Compleat Lexical Tutor	98

Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257.
Bates, L., Lane, J., & Lange, E. (1993). Writing clearly: Responding to ESL compositions. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 199-208.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second 	Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to 	language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 	writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207-217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Chandler, 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.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
Claveau, V., & L'Homme, M.-C. (2006). Discovering and organizing noun-verb collocations in specialized corpora using inductive logic programming. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11, 209-243.
Cohen, A. D., & Cavalcanti, M. C. (1990). Feedback on composition: Teacher and student verbal reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 155-177). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Coniam, D. (1997). A preliminary inquiry into using corpus word frequency data in the automatic generation of English language cloze tests. CALICO, 14(2), 15-33.
Conrad, S. M. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 548-559.
Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147-179.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Deignan, A. (1999). Linguistic metaphors and collocation in nonliterary corpus data. Metaphor and Symbol, 14, 19-36.
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51, Supplement 1, 1-46.
Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83-107.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107.
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, 353-371.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy, Language Teaching Research, 14, 445-463.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form 	versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178-190). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249.
Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Teaching students to self-edit. TESOL Journal, 4(4), 18-22.
Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 33-53.
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315-339.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and 	where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?), Journal of Second 	Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris. D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it 	need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text 	analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English for Specific Purposes, 24, 321-332.
Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness raising and noticing through focus on form: Grammar task performance versus formal instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14, 385-407.
Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 323-351.
Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005). Pedagogical uses of monolingual and parallel concordances. 	ELT Journal, 59, 189-198.
Frodesen, J., & Holten, C. (2003). Grammar and the ESL writing class. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 141-161). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gabrielatos, C. (2005). TESL-EJ: Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? TESL-EJ, 8(4). Retrieved from http://writing.berkeley.edu/TESL-EJ/ej32/a1.html
Caskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
Goldstein, 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: Cambridge University Press.
Greene, L. N. (2003). Does the coupling of error log maintenance with individualized conferencing improve the writing of L2 students? Unpublished master’s thesis, 	Youngstown State University, Youngstown.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitor and Occam's razor. Applied Linguistics, 5, 79-100.
Gue ́nette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
Haswell, R. H. (1983). Minimal marking. College English, 45, 600-604.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 255-276.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptively to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback on L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62, 387-398.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. Modern Language Journal, 64, 216-221.
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The push toward communication. In T. Higgs (Ed.), Curriculum, competence, and the foreign language teacher (pp. 57-79). Skokie, IL: National Textbook Company.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics, 19, 45-72.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Ghampaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 255-286.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006a). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing: An introduction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: 	Contexts and issues (pp. 1-19). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006b). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
James, C. (1998). Errors in language learning and use: Exploring error analysis. London: Longman.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills, Modern Language Journal, 73, 305-313.
Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory and applications. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1992). Formal grammar instruction…another educator comments. TESOL Quarterly, 26, 409-411.
Kroll, B. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140-154). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lalande, J. F., II. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In F. R. Eckman, D. Highland, P. W. Lee, J. Mileham, & R. R. Weber (Eds.), Second 	Language Acquisition: Theory and pedagogy (pp. 131-150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence 	Erbaum Associates.
Lee, D. (2001). Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle. Language Learning & Technology 5(3), 37-72. 
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
Leech, G. (1997). Teaching and language corpora: A convergence. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 	1-24). London: Longman.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218.
Leki, I. (2003). A challenge to second language writing professionals: Is writing overrated? In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing (pp. 315-331). New 	York: Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M., & Pienemann, M. (1993). Comments on Stephen D. Krashen's "Teaching issues: Formal grammar instruction". Two readers react. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 	717-722.
Mackey, A. & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children’s L2 development. System, 30, 459-477.
Mackey, A. & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction in second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herring? The Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
Phinney, M. (1996). Exploring the virtual world: Computers in the second language writing 	classroom. In M. Pennington (Ed.), The power of CALL (pp. 137-152). Houston, TX: 	Athelstan.
Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186-214.
Polio, C. (1997). Measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Language Learning, 47, 101-143.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Reid, J. (1998). Responding to ESL student language problems: Error analysis and revisions plans. In P. Byrd, & J. M. Reid (Eds.), Grammar in the composition classroom: Essays on teaching ESL for college-bound students (pp. 118– 137). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Rencher, A. C. (1995). Methods of multivariate analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Renouf, A. (1997). Teaching corpus linguistics to teachers of English. In A. Wichmann, S. 	Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 	255-266). London: Longman.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
Roberts, B. J. (1999). Can error logs raise more than consciousness? The effects of error logs and grammar feedback on ESL students' final drafts. Unpublished master’s thesis, California State University, Sacramento.
Rutherford, W. (1987). Second language grammar: Learning and teaching. London: 	Longman.
Rutherford, W. E. & Sharwood Smith, M. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-282.
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners' uses of two types of written feedback on a L2 writing revision task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
Saito, H. (1994). Teacher's practices and students' preferences for feedback on second language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
Schmidt. R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schdmit, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instructions (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raising and the second language learner. Applied Linguistics, 2, 159-168.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1991). Speaking to many minds: On the relevance of different types of language information for the L2 learner. Second Language Research, 7, 118-132.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283.
Sheen. Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203-234.
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, 556-569.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103-110.
Sommers N. (1982). Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication. 33, 148-156.
Stevens, V. (1995). Concordancing with language learners: Why? when? what? CAELL 	Journal, 6(2), 2-10.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in the development. In S. Gass & G. Madden (Eds.), Input in 	second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of 	academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 267-280.
Tribble, C. (1997). Improvising corpora for ELT: Quick-and-dirty ways of developing corpora for language teaching. In J. Melia. & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), PALC '97 Proceedings, Practical Applications in Language Corpora (pp. 106-117). Lodz: Lodz University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing class. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1998). Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second 	Language Research, 14, 103-135.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes": A response to Ferris, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-12.
Truscott, J. (2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric: Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 93-108.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture of the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y.-P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in consciousness. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the development 	of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
White, L. (1990). The verb-movement parameter in second language acquisition. Language 	Acquisition, 1, 337-360.
White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., & Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12, 416-432.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275.
Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspectives on pedagogical grammar (pp. 123-139). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yoon, C. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 130-139.
Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31-48.
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 257-283.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209-222.