A Research Synthesis of Unfocused Feedback Studies in the L2 Writing Classroom: Implications for Future Research
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 or most 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. 34 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 12 out of 34 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.
Downloads
References
Ammar, A., & Spada N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, Prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to overgeneralization form a narrow focus: a response to Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 276-279.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 406-431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics,. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009).Introduction to meta-analysis. U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2005).Comprehensive Meta-Analysis [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
Bruton, A. (2009). Designing Research into the effects of grammar correction in L2 writing: Not so straightforward. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 136-140.
Chandler, J. (2004). A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 345-348.
Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 57-58.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998).Communicative Focus on Form. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63, 97-107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Fazio, L.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. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-11.
Ferris, D. (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 mean time…?), Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-210. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis. London: SAGE Publications.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on corrective feedback and modified output in NN-NN interaction. System, 29, 267-287.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1-18.
Kao, C.W. (2022) (Online first). Does one size fit all? The scope and type of error in direct feedback effectiveness. Applied Linguistics Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0143
Kao, C.W. & Wible, D. (2014). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of grammar correction in second language writing. English Teaching & Learning, 38, 29-69.
Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. Routledge: New York.
Lee, I. (2013). Research into practice: Written corrective feedback. Language Teaching, 46, 108-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444812000390
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Lim, S.C., & Renandya, W.A. (2020). Efficacy of written corrective in writing instruction: A meta-analysis. TESL-EJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 24, 1-26.
Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007).Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Norris, J.M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417-528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00136
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). If I only had more time: ESL learners' changes in linguistic.
Reynolds, B.L., & Teng, M.F. (2021). Innovative Approaches in Teaching English Writing to Chinese Speakers. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar: A Meta-analysis of the Research. In J.M. Norris and L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Shao, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). Written corrective feedback, learner-internal cognitive processes, and the acquisition of regular past tense by Chinese L2 learners of English. Applied Linguistics Review, 13, 1005-1028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0131
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059x
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Silva, T., & Wang, Z. (Eds.). (2020). Reconciling translingualism and second language writing. Routledge.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb0138.x
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, 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2004a). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337-343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
Truscott, J. (2004b). The effectiveness of grammar instruction: Analysis of a meta-analysis. English Teaching & Learning, 28, 17-29.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J. (2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 59-60.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1-41. doi:10.111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x.
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.
Copyright (c) 2022 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.
