系统性文献综述:英语语言环境中的直接和间接反馈策略

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Jorge Villavicencio Reinoso
{"title":"系统性文献综述:英语语言环境中的直接和间接反馈策略","authors":"Jorge Villavicencio Reinoso","doi":"10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.","PeriodicalId":36332,"journal":{"name":"rEFLections","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Literature Review: Direct and Indirect Feedback Strategies in EFL Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Villavicencio Reinoso\",\"doi\":\"10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"rEFLections\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"rEFLections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"rEFLections","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

迄今为止,关于书面纠正反馈的影响的研究证据越来越多。有鉴于此,有学者通过对 EFL 和 ESL 研究的综合分析,对研究结果或研究方法进行了综述。尽管综述阐明了这一主题,但没有一项综述提供了对 EFL 实际情况的独到见解。因此,本系统性文献综述旨在综合分析直接反馈和间接反馈的 EFL 文章的方法、研究结果和研究建议,直接反馈和间接反馈是课堂上被广泛讨论和使用的两种策略,其范围有重点和无重点之分。通过 Petticrew 和 Roberts(2006 年)建议的七步程序,从 Crosthwaite 等人(2022 年)的文献计量数据集(包含从 Scopus 数据库检索的文章)中选取了 21 篇 2012 年至 2022 年间发表的 EFL 初级研究。对这些论文进行了通读,以回答关于研究方法、研究结果和研究建议的五个研究问题。研究结果表明,大多数 EFL 研究都是采用定量方法的准实验研究,采用的是前测-后测-延迟-后测或前测-后测设计,研究策略对语法和非语法方面都有显著影响。建议进一步研究反馈在不同条件下的影响,如目标、水平、策略和范围,并进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Systematic Literature Review: Direct and Indirect Feedback Strategies in EFL Contexts
To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
rEFLections
rEFLections Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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