The Effectiveness of Feedback for L1‐english and L2‐writing Development: A Meta‐analysis

Abstract

This research project undertook a review and synthesis of previous research on the effectiveness of feedback for individual writing development. The work plan was divided into two main phases. First, we surveyed all available studies that have investigated the effectiveness of writing feedback, including both quantitative and qualitative research, for students who have learned English as a first language (L1‐English), students who have learned English as a second language (L2‐English), and students who have learned second languages other than English. The results of this survey are described in a narrative overview of previous research pertaining to the role of feedback in the development of writing proficiency. The survey also identified the major theoretical constructs used in this research domain, providing the basis for subsequent statistical analysis. Second, we built on this survey to carry out a meta‐analysis of empirical studies in this research area. The goal of the meta‐analysis was to provide a quantitative investigation of the extent and ways in which feedback has been effective, summarizing the findings of previous quantitative studies that have employed suitable statistical measures. Several analytical steps were required for the meta‐analysis: developing a coding rubric; analyzing the research design and adequacy of reporting in studies to determine if they were suitable for inclusion; coding each study for all relevant research design factors; computing effect sizes for each study; and analyzing and interpreting the general patterns that hold across this set of studies. The meta‐analysis compared the gains in writing development with respect to several different kinds of feedback. Overall, feedback was found to result in gains in writing development. Beyond that, there were several predictable findings (e.g., that written feedback is more effective than oral feedback for writing development) and several other more noteworthy trends (e.g., that peer feedback is more effective than teacher feedback for L2‐English students; commenting is more effective than error location; and in general, focus on form and content seems to be more effective than an exclusive focus on form).

Student and Teacher Preferences in Written Corrective Feedback

“…This finding is consistent with Ferris's (1999) observation that students rely on form feedback and with Prapaisit de Segovia and Hardison's (2009) observation of the prevalence of teacher-centered, non-communicative approaches to education in the Thai school system. Academics still debate whether WCF should focus on content (Biber et al, 2011), focus on form (e.g., Ashwell, 2000), or even be given at all (Truscott, 1996). In contrast with the literature, the teachers who participated in the study showed a clear preference.…”

“…These areas are categorized into form (grammar, vocabulary, and spelling) or content (content and organization). Biber et al (2011) found that WCF correlated with significant gains in accuracy, as well as that a focus on content and form yielded better writing development than only focusing on form, especially for L2 learners. Contentrelated feedback is important in developing L2 learners' writing, but it is likely that there may also be a clash between teachers' focus on content versus students' expectations for a focus on grammar.…”

“…Based on the literature, we hypothesized that teachers' and students' WCF preferences would differ significantly. The preferences of the teachers participating in the study are informed by current theory, which points toward the effectiveness of focus on content as well as focus on form (Biber et al, 2011). In contrast, the majority of students in the program have had long experience in teacher-centered, grammar-focused classrooms: "In the Thai tradition, teaching English means teaching grammar" (Foster, Fan, & Le, 2015, p. 265).…”

“…Two recent meta-analyses, Biber et al (2011) and Kang and Han (2015), on WCF found that it has a "moderate to large effect on the grammatical accuracy of L2 students' writing" (Kang & Han, 2015, p. 36). Numerous studies have shown that selective feedback has a greater effect than comprehensive feedback for certain uses (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005;Ebadi, 2014;Ellis et al, 2008;Ferris, 2002;Sheen, 2007).…”

Preliminary Experiments on Crowdsourced Evaluation of Feedback Granularity

“…A core feature of learning to write is receiving feedback and making revisions based on the information provided (Li and Hegelheimer, 2013;Biber et al, 2011;Lipnevich and Smith, 2008;Truscott, 2007;Rock, 2007). However, an important question to answer before building automated feedback systems is what type of feedback (and degree of interactivity) can best support learning and retention.…”