Written corrective feedback for improving L2 writing skills has been a debatable issue for more than two decades. The aims of this meta-analysis are to (1) provide a quantitative measure of the effect of computer-generated written feedback for improving L2 writing skills and (2) verify how moderators (i.e., adopted technology, task types, and learners’ language proficiency) mitigate the effectiveness of corrective feedback provided by computer technology for developing the L2 students’ writing fluency and accuracy. A comprehensive search was performed to collect the population of computer-mediated corrective feedback (CMCF) studies. The effect sizes were calculated for 14 primary studies with L2 participants (N = 1220). The findings indicate a large overall effect of CMCF (d = 1.21). A medium overall effect was found in using automated writing evaluation (AWE) technology for writing skills, whereas a large effect size was determined in using non-AWE technology. The results further indicate a large overall effect in using CMCF for both writing fluency and accuracy. As for the proficiency level of moderators, the results indicate a large overall effect in using CMCF among beginners and intermediate learners, whereas the overall effect is small among advanced learners. Limitations and recommendations for future studies are also raised in this study.
AbuSeileekA. F. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004.
Al-OlimatS. I.AbuSeileekA. F. (2015). Using computer-mediated corrective feedback modes in developing students’ writing performance. Teaching English with Technology, 15(3), 3–30.
4.
BahariA. (2021). Computer‐mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12481.
5.
BarkaouiK. (2016). What and when second‐language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: the roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12316.
6.
BitchenerJ.FerrisD. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
7.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(03)00038-9.
8.
ChengG. (2019). Exploring the effects of automated tracking of student responses to teacher feedback in draft revision: Evidence from an undergraduate EFL writing course. Interactive Learning Environments. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1655769.
9.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
CotosE. (2014). Conceptualizing genre-based AWE for L2 research writing. In CotosE. (Ed.), Genre-based automated writing evaluation for L2 research writing (pp. 65–95). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333377_4.
11.
EbadiS.RahimiM. (2019). Mediating EFL learners’ academic writing skills in online dynamic assessment using Google docs. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(5–6), 527–555. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527362.
GaoJ.MaS. (2019). The effect of two forms of computer-automated metalinguistic corrective feedback. Language Learning & Technology, 23(2), 65–83. https://doi.org/10.125/44683.
14.
GaoJ.MaS. (2020). Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337.
15.
GuénetteD. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct?: Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001.
16.
HeiftT.HegelheimerV. (2017). Computer-assisted corrective feedback and language learning. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129–140). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-5.
17.
HigginsJ. P.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
HosseiniS. B. (2012). Asynchronous computer-mediated corrective feedback and the correct use of prepositions: Is it really effective?Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 95–111.
20.
HuangS.RenandyaW. A. (2018). Exploring the integration of automated feedback among lower-proficiency EFL learners. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2018.1471083.
21.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta‐analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189.
22.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469.
23.
KrashenS. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Pergamon Press.
24.
LaiY.-h. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x.
25.
LeeL. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Springer.
26.
LinkS.MehrzadM.RahimiM. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323.
27.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE Publications.
28.
LiS.ZhuY.EllisR. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12315.
29.
LongM. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In RitchieW.BhatiaT.K. (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413–468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012589042-7/50015-3.
30.
MohsenM. A. (2021). L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program?Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211041292.
31.
MohsenM. A.AlshahraniA. (2019). The effectiveness of using a hybrid mode of automated writing evaluation system on EFL students’ writing. Teaching English with Technology, 19(1), 118–131.
32.
MohsenMAQassemM (2021). Analyses of L2 learners’ text writing strategy: Process-oriented perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 49(3), 435–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-020-09693-9.
33.
OswaldF. L.PlonskyL. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190510000115.
34.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj: British Medical Journal. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71.
35.
PolioC.FleckC.lederN. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(98)90005-4.
36.
RanalliJ. (2018). Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(7), 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1428994.
37.
RévészA.MichelM.LeeM. (2019). Exploring second language writers’ pausing and revision behaviors: A mixed-methods study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 41(3), 605–631.
38.
SaricaogluA. (2019). The impact of automated feedback on L2 learners’ written causal explanations. ReCALL, 31(2), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095834401800006x.
39.
SarréC.GrosboisM.BrudermannC. (2019). Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1635164.
40.
SauroS. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96–120. http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf
ShintaniN.AubreyS. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317.
43.
SmithB.LaffordB. A. (2009). The evaluation of scholarly activity in computer‐assisted language learning. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 868–883. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00978.x.
44.
StevensonM.PhakitiA. (2014). The effects of computer-generated feedback on the quality of writing. Assessing Writing, 19, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.007.
45.
StorchN. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181.
46.
StroblC.AilhaudE.BenetosK.DevittA.KruseO.ProskeA.RappC. (2019). Digital support for academic writing: A review of technologies and pedagogies. Computers & Education, 131, 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.12.005.
47.
SwainM. (2004). Verbal protocols: What does it mean for research to use speaking as a data collection tool? In Chaloub-DevilleM.ChapelleC.DuffP. (Eds.), Inference and generalizability in applied linguistics: Multiple research perspectives. John Benjamins.
Van BeuningenC. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171.
51.
VittaJ. P.Al-HoorieA. H. (2020). The flipped classroom in second language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820981403.
52.
WangY.-J.ShangH.-F.BriodyP. (2013). Exploring the impact of using automated writing evaluation in English as a foreign language university students’ writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(3), 234–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2012.655300.
53.
WareP. (2014). Feedback for adolescent writers in the English classroom: Exploring pen-and-paper, electronic, and automated options. Writing & Pedagogy, 6(2), 223–249. http://doi:10.1558/wap.v6i2.223.
54.
WisniewskiBZiererKHattieJ (2019). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087.
55.
XuJ.ZhangS. (2021). Understanding AWE feedback and English writing of learners with different proficiency levels in an EFL classroom: A sociocultural perspective. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00577-7.
56.
YehS.-W.LoJ.-J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882–892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.12.014.
57.
ZhaiN.MaX. (2021). Automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback: A systematic investigation of college students’ acceptance. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1897019.
58.
ZhangT. (2021). The effect of highly focused versus mid-focused written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ explicit and implicit. System, 99, 102493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102493.
59.
ZhangZ.ZhangY. (2018). Automated writing evaluation system: Tapping its potential for learner engagement. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(3), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2018.2866150.
