The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta‐Analysis

Abstract

This study reports on a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. By establishing a different set of inclusion/exclusion criteria than previous meta-analyses and performing a series of methodological moves, it is intended to be an update and complement to previous meta-analyses. Altogether 33 primary studies were retrieved, including 22 published studies and 11 Ph.D. dissertations. These studies were coded for 17 substantive and methodological features, 14 of which were identified as independent and moderator variables. It was found that (a) there was a medium overall effect for corrective feedback and the effect was maintained over time, (b) the effect of implicit feedback was better maintained than that of explicit feedback, (c) published studies did not show larger effects than dissertations, (d) lab-based studies showed a larger effect than classroom-based studies, (e) shorter treatments generated a larger effect size than longer treatments, and (f) studies conducted in foreign language contexts produced larger effect sizes than those in second language contexts. Possible explanations for the results were sought through data cross-tabulation and with reference to the theoretical constructs of SLA.

Counterpoint Piece: The Case for Variety in Corrective Feedback Research

“…Engaging all groups in these tasks served to level the playing fi eld for comparisons between CF and no-CF groups and also to ensure that those receiving CF were at a similar level in their knowledge of the target feature. As Li ( 2010 ) argued, because the no-CF group, which engaged in the same instructional activities, served as a control group, any differences detected among the recast, prompt, and no-CF groups "must be due to the presence or absence of feedback" (p. 319).…”

Feedback Used in Classrooms with Native English and Non-Native English Teachers

“…Through setting comprehensive variables, the results demonstrated that learners perceived implicit feedback better than explicit feedback; feedbacks given during foreign language contexts were more effective than second language context; native teachers tended to provide more effective feedback than other teachers or computers. However, there were still some factors suggested by Li (2010) that needed to be studied, such as learners' age, proficiency, classroom context and even interlocutor types.…”

“…Results suggested that when the teaching focus was more on form and the function of recast was prominent, recast could lead to more learner responses and repairs; meanwhile the distributions of corrective feedback and learner uptake didn't necessarily depend on classroom contexts. Li (2010), conducting a meta-analysis to 33 primary studies, testified the effectiveness of corrective feedback. Through setting comprehensive variables, the results demonstrated that learners perceived implicit feedback better than explicit feedback; feedbacks given during foreign language contexts were more effective than second language context; native teachers tended to provide more effective feedback than other teachers or computers.…”

“…Flourishing and prosperous findings were presented during different phases. For example, recast was testified as the most frequently used corrective feedback by different studies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Ellis et al, 2001;Panova & Lyster, 2002;Suzuki, 2004); teachers tended to use varied types of teaching strategies (Lyster & Ranta, 1997); there were both similarities and differences between feedback types observed in different studying contexts (Heift, 2004;Sheen, 2004;Suzuki, 2004;Li, 2010); teachers would better take learners' proficiency level into consideration when providing feedback (Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Sara, 2010;Parviz, 2012). However, review of early studies, few set foot in the effects of one variable -teacher types, on corrective feedback, learner error and uptake.…”

“…Corrective feedback, which plays a scaffolding role in classroom interaction process, has been the focus and prominence of many SLA researchers for the past few decades (Chaudron, 1977(Chaudron, , 1986(Chaudron, , & 1988Doughty, 1994a;Long, 1996;Lyster & Ranta, 1997;Panova & Lyster, 2002;Suzuki, 2004;Li, 2010). Numerous studies, investigating feedback features and effectiveness, derived from Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996) which stated that implicit negative feedback, triggering interactional modification, could facilitate learners' comprehension, and Output Hypothesis (Swain, 1985), which asserted that corrective feedback, eliciting modified output, could complete the whole language mastery process.…”