Teaching English Language

Teaching English Language

Written Corrective Feedback in Language Education: A Qualitative Meta-Synthetic Study

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
1 Allameh Tabataba’i University,Tehran, Iran
2 Farhangian University of Mashhad, Iran
3 Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, Iran
10.22132/tel.2024.450086.1581
Abstract
The present qualitative meta-synthetic study examines the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (WCF) studies published in six scholarly journals during a time-span of seven years. From 36 articles published about corrective feedback, 15 research studies, which directly focused on WCF, went through extensive review and qualitative content analysis to explore its efficiency in the field of Applied Linguistics. Thorough qualitative content analysis revealed four core themes: the multidimensionality of written corrective feedback, effectiveness of direct and indirect written corrective feedback, written languaging, and negotiability of written corrective feedback. It was found that WCF is multi-faceted, improves grammatical accuracy, fosters metalinguistic knowledge, helps learners to correct their errors during revision, and is negotiable between the teachers and the learners. The findings provided theoretical and practical implications for a reconsideration of WCF in the field of teaching English as a foreign language.
Keywords

Ahmadi Safa, M., Yousefi, M., & Ranjbar, N. (2019). Face in intercultural communication: A meta-synthesis. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(2), 1-18.
Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research20(4.), 498-513.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication Disorder, 36, 189-208.
Bal-Gezegin, B., Akbaş, E., & Başal, A. (2023). “Corpus Made My Job Easier”: Preservice Language Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Practices in Writing with Corpus Consultation. In New Directions in Technology for Writing Instruction (pp. 279-295). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics31(2), 193-214.
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research20(4), 436-458.
Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M. & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 395–407.
Coyle, Y., & de Larios, J. R. (2014). Exploring the role played by error correction and models on children’s reported noticing and output production in a L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition36(3), 451-485.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Dilāns, G. (2016). Corrective feedback in L2 Latvian classrooms: Teacher perceptions versus the observed actualities of practice. Language Teaching Research20(4), 479-497.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research14(4), 445-463.
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language learning: Teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 247-73.
 Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34(3), 445-474.
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against the case against recasts. Studies in second language acquisition35(1), 127-165.
Gurzynski–Weiss, L. A. U. R. A. (2016). Factors Influencing Spanish Instructors’ In‐Class Feedback Decisions. The Modern Language Journal100(1), 255-275.
Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., STRONG‐KRAUSE, D. I. A. N. E., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. Tesol Quarterly44(1), 84-109.
Hattie, J. & Timperly, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal99(1), 1-18.
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research18(4), 428-452.
Lado, B., Bowden, H. W., Stafford, C. A., & Sanz, C. (2014). A fine-grained analysis of the effects of negative evidence with and without metalinguistic information in language development. Language Teaching Research18(3), 320-344.
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016a). Effects of different types of corrective feedback on receptive skills in a second language: A speech perception training study. Language Learning66(4), 809-833.
Lee, A. H., & Lyster, R. (2016b). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition38(1), 35-64.
Lee, I., Mak, P., & Burns, A. (2016). EFL teachers’ attempts at feedback innovation in the writing classroom. Language Teaching Research20(2), 248-269.
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-55.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal97(3), 634-654.
Li, S. (2014). The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 18(3), 373-396.
 Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal100(1), 276-295.
Lyster, R. (2012). Roles for Corrective Feedback in Second Language Instruction . In C. Chapelle, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-6). Hoboken, NJ: Blackwell Publishing .
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Counterpoint piece: The case for variety in corrective feedback research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition35(1), 167-184.
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Interactional feedback as instructional input: A synthesis of classroom SLA research. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 1, 276-97.
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research20(4), 535-562.
Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199–218.
Orsmond, P., Maw, S. J., Park, J. R., Gomez, S. & Crook, A. C. (2011). Moving feedback forward: Theory to practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38, 240–252
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, England: Hodder Education.
Panadero, E. & Jonsson, A. (2020). A critical review of the arguments against the use of rubrics. Educational Research Review. Doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100329
Park, E. S., Song, S., & Shin, Y. K. (2016). To what extent do learners benefit from indirect written corrective feedback? A study targeting learners of different proficiency and heritage language status. Language Teaching Research20(6), 678-699.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language teaching research, 17, 67-89. Doi: 10.1177/1362168812459151
Ranjbar, N., & Ghonsooly, B. (2017). Peer scaffolding behaviors emerging in revising a written task: A microgenetic analysis. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research5(2), 75-90.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness–practice–feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practicing for second language use: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-60). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Rouhshad, A., Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2016). The nature of negotiations in face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication in pair interactions. Language Teaching Research20(4), 514-534.
 Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal97(3), 611-633.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34(4), 591-626.
 Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal100(1), 296-319.
Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning64(1), 103-131.
Soodmand Afshar, H. & Doosti, M. (2022).  Implementing and evaluating a peer-coached EFL teacher professional development program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 92, 1-15. Doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102096
Soodmand Afshar, H., & Ranjbar, N. (2023). Mixed methods research in applied linguistics: The status quo of the current issues and practices. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research11(1), 49-74.
Stefanou, C., & Revesz, A. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal99(2), 263-282.
Suzuki, W. (2012). Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning62(4), 1110-1133.
Thouësny, S. (2011). Modeling second language learners’ interlanguage and its variability: A computer-based dynamic assessment approach to distinguishing between errors and mistakes. Doctoral dissertation, Dublin City University.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language learning62(1), 1-41.
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research14(4), 421-443.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, W., & Loewen, S. (2016). Nonverbal behavior and corrective feedback in nine ESL university-level classrooms. Language Teaching Research20(4), 459-478.
Webb, A. & Moallem, M. (2016). Feedback and feedforward for promoting problem-based learning in online learning environments. Malaysian Journal of Learning, 13, 1–41.
Yenkimaleki, M. & Heuven, V. J. van (2022). Comparing the nativeness vs. intelligibility approach in prosody instruction for developing speaking skills by interpreter trainees: An experimental study. Speech Communication, 137, 92–102. Doi: 10.1016/j.specom.2022.01.007
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research19(5), 572-593.
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research16(1), 109-126.
Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2023). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency students’ engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education28(2), 301-321.
Volume 19, Issue 1
January 2025
Pages 119-158

  • Receive Date 27 March 2023
  • Revise Date 27 March 2024
  • Accept Date 30 April 2024