Dan Brown

Research on corrective feedback (CF), a central focus of second language acquisition (SLA), has increasingly examined how teachers employ CF in second language classrooms. Lyster and Ranta’s (1997) seminal study identified six types of CF that teachers use in response to students’ errors (recast, explicit correction, elicitation, clarification request, metalinguistic cue, and repetition) as well as target linguistic foci (lexical, phonological, and grammatical errors). These taxonomies have remained dominant in observational studies conducted in a growing range of second language teaching contexts. Several studies have acknowledged that contextual factors may influence how teachers provide CF (e.g. Mori, 2002; Sheen, 2004) with few generalizable conclusions. The present study brings together research in this area in the first comprehensive synthesis of classroom CF research seeking to aggregate proportions of CF types teachers provide, as well as their target linguistic foci. Findings reveal that recasts account for 57% of all CF while prompts comprise 30%, and grammar errors received the greatest proportion of CF (43%). The study further identifies a range of contextual and methodological factors (i.e. moderators) that may influence CF choices across teaching contexts, such as student proficiency, teacher experience, and second/foreign language context. A clearer picture of the patterns of CF that teachers provide and the variables that influence these choices serves to complement the growing body of research investigating the efficacy of CF in second language pedagogy.

Despite an abundance of research on corrective feedback (CF) in L2 writing, answers to fundamental questions of whether and to what extent various types of CF can promote accuracy remain inconclusive. Reviewers have pointed to the methodological limitations and inconsistencies in the domain; nevertheless, such arguments are largely anecdotal rather than based on systematic inquiry of primary empirical studies. Driven by the gap, this methodological synthesis reviews the state-of-the-art research on the effectiveness of CF in L2 writing. Thirty-two published studies and twelve dissertations were retrieved and coded following meta-analytic procedures. Results revealed a number of methodological limitations such as (a) inadequate reporting of research context, methodology, and statistical analyses; (b) designs of low ecological validity (e.g., “one-shot” treatment and predominantly timed in-class writing tasks); (c) mixed kinds of feedback as treatment for a single group rendering it impossible to tease apart efficacy of an individual feedback method; and (d) a wide array of outcome accuracy measures, making it difficult to compare results across studies. We compare our findings with results in general L2 study meta-analytical research and offer suggestions to guide future written CF studies in the hopes of advancing methodological and reporting practices in the domain.

Applied linguists have turned increasingly in recent years to meta-analysis as the preferred means of synthesizing quantitative research. The first step in the meta-analytic process involves defining a domain of interest. Despite its apparent simplicity, this step involves a great deal of subjectivity on the part of the meta-analyst. This article problematizes the importance of clearly defining and operationalizing meta-analytic domains. Toward that end, we present a critical review of one particular domain, corrective feedback, which has been subject to 18 unique meta-analyses. Specifically, we examine the unique approach each study has taken in defining their domain of interest. In order to demonstrate the critical role of this stage in the meta-analytic process, we also examine variability in summary effects as a function of the unique subdomains in the sample. Because different techniques used to identify candidate studies carry assumptions about the type of research that falls within the domain of interest (e.g. published vs. unpublished), we also include a brief review of search techniques employed in a set of 81 meta-analyses of second language research. Building on the work of In’nami and Koizumi (2010) and Oswald and Plonsky (2010), the results for this phase of the analysis show that L2 meta-analysts generally rely on a stable but very limited set of search strategies, none of which is likely to yield unpublished studies. Based on our findings related both to domain definition and search techniques employed by L2 researchers, we make specific recommendations for future meta-analytic practice in the field.

Language teachers spend much of their time providing corrective feedback on students’ writing in hope of helping them improve gram- matical accuracy. Turning to research for guidance, however, can leave practitioners with few concrete answers as to the effectiveness of written corrective feedback (CF). Debate in the literature continues, reflecting dichotomies in language learning theory, inconsistent research method- ology, and inherent challenges in designing controlled classroom research (Ferris, 2004; Gue ́nette, 2007; Truscott, 2007). As the debate evolves, few teachers are waiting for concrete empirical support and instead provide written CF based on intuition, experience, and student expectations (Ferris, 2011; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). Second language and foreign language writing teachers, therefore, face the immediate challenges of assessing their students’ abilities, needs, goals, and prefer- ences with respect to written accuracy and then designing feedback to fit teaching contexts in ways that are manageable and useful. This arti- cle will identify factors that warrant consideration when teachers make decisions about the provision of written CF and highlight trends in research that provide practical insights for its design.