A Research Synthesis of Unfocused Feedback Studies in the L2 Writing Classroom: Implications for Future Research

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
B. Reynolds, Chian-wen Kao
{"title":"A Research Synthesis of Unfocused Feedback Studies in the L2 Writing Classroom: Implications for Future Research","authors":"B. Reynolds, Chian-wen Kao","doi":"10.17323/jle.2022.16516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. The issue of whether or not teachers should correct second language learners’ grammatical errors has been hotly contested in the literature. Researchers who studied corrective feedback were particularly interested in determining what kinds of feedback may help students commit fewer errors in subsequent writing. One of the primary points of contention in this discussion is whether language teachers should provide focused (i.e., only one or a few types of grammar errors are targeted for correction) or unfocused written corrective feedback (i.e., all error types are corrected). Although focused feedback has been found to be more effective than unfocused feedback (Kao & Wible, 2014), focused feedback has been questioned to ecologically invalid in authentic classrooms (Xu, 2009). Because little attention has been paid to unfocused feedback effects, the present study looked into not only the short-term but also the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback. \nMethods. The present study adopted the meta-analysis software Comprehensive Meta-analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) to calculate an effect size across previous studies. Several keywords were used to search for relevant studies in online databases and selection criteria were set to determine whether these studies were appropriate to be synthesized. 40 studies which met the criteria were included for analyses. \nResults and Discussion. This meta-analysis revealed that unfocused grammatical feedback was effective, as assessed by immediate posttests, and that the benefits of unfocused feedback increased over time, as revealed by delayed posttests, potentially contradicting Truscott’s (1996; 2007) conclusions on grammar correction. This finding needs to be carefully interpreted because only 10 out of 40 studies provided statistical data in delayed posttests. Furthermore, publication bias seemed to be minimal, and both immediate and delayed posttest effect sizes were heterogeneous. \nConclusion. It is strongly suggested that more future studies should investigate the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback. In addition, because the effect sizes obtained for unfocused feedback practices were heterogeneous, other moderating variables need to be considered such as instructional settings (Mackey & Goo, 2007; Truscott, 2004a), type of feedback (Lee, 2013), focus of feedback (Ellis, 2009), learners’ revisions (Ferris, 2010), intervention length (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010) and so on. It is essential to conduct more meta-analyses to look into the potential effects of such moderating variables.","PeriodicalId":37020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.16516","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction. The issue of whether or not teachers should correct second language learners’ grammatical errors has been hotly contested in the literature. Researchers who studied corrective feedback were particularly interested in determining what kinds of feedback may help students commit fewer errors in subsequent writing. One of the primary points of contention in this discussion is whether language teachers should provide focused (i.e., only one or a few types of grammar errors are targeted for correction) or unfocused written corrective feedback (i.e., all error types are corrected). Although focused feedback has been found to be more effective than unfocused feedback (Kao & Wible, 2014), focused feedback has been questioned to ecologically invalid in authentic classrooms (Xu, 2009). Because little attention has been paid to unfocused feedback effects, the present study looked into not only the short-term but also the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback. Methods. The present study adopted the meta-analysis software Comprehensive Meta-analysis (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005) to calculate an effect size across previous studies. Several keywords were used to search for relevant studies in online databases and selection criteria were set to determine whether these studies were appropriate to be synthesized. 40 studies which met the criteria were included for analyses. Results and Discussion. This meta-analysis revealed that unfocused grammatical feedback was effective, as assessed by immediate posttests, and that the benefits of unfocused feedback increased over time, as revealed by delayed posttests, potentially contradicting Truscott’s (1996; 2007) conclusions on grammar correction. This finding needs to be carefully interpreted because only 10 out of 40 studies provided statistical data in delayed posttests. Furthermore, publication bias seemed to be minimal, and both immediate and delayed posttest effect sizes were heterogeneous. Conclusion. It is strongly suggested that more future studies should investigate the long-term learning effects of unfocused feedback. In addition, because the effect sizes obtained for unfocused feedback practices were heterogeneous, other moderating variables need to be considered such as instructional settings (Mackey & Goo, 2007; Truscott, 2004a), type of feedback (Lee, 2013), focus of feedback (Ellis, 2009), learners’ revisions (Ferris, 2010), intervention length (Li, 2010; Lyster & Saito, 2010) and so on. It is essential to conduct more meta-analyses to look into the potential effects of such moderating variables.
二语写作课堂中不可原谅反馈研究的研究综述:对未来研究的启示
介绍教师是否应该纠正第二语言学习者的语法错误的问题在文献中一直备受争议。研究纠正性反馈的研究人员特别感兴趣的是确定什么样的反馈可以帮助学生在随后的写作中减少错误。这场讨论中的主要争论点之一是,语言教师是否应该提供有针对性的(即,只有一种或几种类型的语法错误被纠正)或无针对性的书面纠正反馈(即,所有类型的错误都被纠正)。尽管有重点的反馈被发现比无重点的反馈更有效(Kao&Wible,2014),但有焦点的反馈在真实的课堂中被质疑为生态无效(Xu,2009)。由于人们很少关注非集中反馈效应,本研究不仅考察了非集中反馈的短期学习效应,还考察了非重点反馈的长期学习效应。方法。本研究采用荟萃分析软件综合荟萃分析(Borenstein,Hedges,Higgins,&Rothstein,2005)来计算先前研究的影响大小。使用几个关键词在在线数据库中搜索相关研究,并设置选择标准以确定这些研究是否适合合成。40项符合标准的研究被纳入分析。结果和讨论。这项荟萃分析显示,根据即时后测的评估,无重点的语法反馈是有效的,而延迟后测显示,无重点反馈的益处随着时间的推移而增加,这可能与Truscott(1996;2007)关于语法纠正的结论相矛盾。这一发现需要仔细解读,因为40项研究中只有10项在延迟后测中提供了统计数据。此外,发表偏倚似乎很小,即时和延迟后测效应大小都是异质的。结论强烈建议未来更多的研究应该调查非集中反馈的长期学习效果。此外,由于非集中反馈实践获得的效果大小是异质的,因此需要考虑其他调节变量,如教学环境(Mackey&Goo,2007;Truscott,2004a)、反馈类型(Lee,2013)、反馈重点(Ellis,2009)、学习者的修正(Ferris,2010)、干预时间(Li,2010;Lyster和Saito,2010)等。必须进行更多的荟萃分析,以研究这些调节变量的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Language and Education
Journal of Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信