English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Framed in a cognitively-oriented strand of research on corrective feedback (CF) in SLA, the controlled threestage (composition/comparison-noticing/revision) study reported in this paper investigated the effects of two forms of direct CF (error correction and reformulation) on noticing and uptake, as evidenced in the written output produced by a group of 8 secondary school EFL learners. Noticing was operationalized as the amount of corrections noticed in the comparison stage of the writing task, whereas uptake was operationally defined as the type and amount of accurate revisions incorporated in the participants’ revised versions of their original texts. Results support previous research findings on the positive effects of written CF on noticing and uptake, with a clear advantage of error correction over reformulation as far as uptake was concerned. Data also point to the existence of individual differences in the way EFL learners process and make use of CF in their writing. These findings are discussed from the perspective of the light they shed on the learning potential of CF in instructed SLA, and suggestions for future research are put forward.

The Differential Effect of Two Types of Direct Written Corrective Feedback on Noticing and Uptake: Reformulation vs. Error Correction