Corrective feedback on second language (L2) writing has remained one of the most heavily studied areas in applied linguistics, yet clear guidance for practitioners about how to provide it most effectively remains limited. Previous studies have meta-analysed written corrective feedback (WCF) research revealing conflicting findings in how WCF affects development in L2 writers’ accuracy over time. This study provides a needed update in light of a recent increase in (quasi)experimental WCF studies. It features several methodological advances by introducing a Bayesian approach to conducting a meta-analysis, which provides a more valid picture of the generalizable effects. The analysis allows distinction – for the first time at a meta-analytic level – between short-, medium-, and long-term effects of WCF. Results aggregate data from an initial 52 primary studies that utilized control groups revealing robust evidence of the durability of moderate effectiveness of WCF over time and deeper insight into the relative effectiveness of various types of WCF (e.g. direct, indirect, metalinguistic – all yielding similar effect sizes) across research contexts, writing task types, target error types, and instructional characteristics. We conclude with recommendations to help continue methodological advances in this domain.
*Al-AhmadS.Al-JarrahR.S. (2015). The impact of direct corrective feedback type on the linguistic accuracy of EFL students’ writing. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 17, 8–36.
2.
*Al AjmiA.A.S. (2015). The effect of written corrective feedback on Omani students’ accuracy in the use of English prepositions. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6, 61–71.
3.
AlbertJ. (2009). Bayesian computation with R. 2nd edition.Springer.
4.
AljaafrehA.LantolfJ. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483.
5.
AmrheinH.R.NassajiH. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why?Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 95–127.
6.
AndringaS.GodroidA. (2020). Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, 134–142.
7.
AshwellT. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–257.
8.
BiaoG. (2013). Bayesian methods in health economics. CRC Press.
9.
BiberD.NekrasovaT.HornB. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2 writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Research Report No. TOEFLiBT-14. Educational Testing Service.
10.
*BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
11.
*BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2009). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193–214.
12.
*BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
13.
*BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
14.
BonillaL.M.B.Van SteendamE.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2017). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers: Examining attitudes and preferences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168, 91–128.
15.
*BonillaL.M.B.Van SteendamE.SpeelmanD.BuyseK. (2018). The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68, 813–850.
16.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Wiley.
17.
*BrownD. (2017). The interaction between grammatical knowledge and explicitness in L2 written corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA.
18.
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, 267–296.
19.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
20.
CrosthwaiteP. (2017). Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 56, 315–343.
21.
DegtevaO. (2011). Impact of recasts on the accuracy in EFL learners’ writing. Unpublished MA thesis, Girne American University, Karmi, Cyprus.
22.
*DiabN.M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter?Assessing Writing, 24, 16–34.
23.
*DiabN.M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55–65.
24.
*DlaskaA.KrekelerC. (2017). Does grading undermine feedback? The influence of grades on the effectiveness of corrective feedback on L2 writing. The Language Learning Journal, 45, 185–201.
25.
*EkiertM.di GennaroK. (2021). Focused written corrective feedback and linguistic target mastery: Conceptual replication of Bitchener and Knoch (2010). Language Teaching, 54, 71–89.
26.
*EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371.
27.
*EvansN.W.HartshornK.J.Strong-KrauseD. (2011). The efficacy of dynamic written corrective feedback for university-matriculated ESL learners. System, 39, 229–239.
28.
*FazioL.L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority-and majority-language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235–249.
29.
FerrisD. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–10.
30.
FerrisD. (2004). The ‘grammar correction’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . .?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.
31.
FerrisD. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short and long-term effects of written correction. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge University Press.
32.
FerrisD. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181–201.
33.
*FrearD.ChiuY. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24–34.
34.
GassS.LoewenS.PlonskyL. (2021). Coming of age: The past, present, and future of quantitative SLA research. Language Teaching, 54, 245–258.
35.
GoldsteinL.ConradS. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443–460.
36.
GormanM.EllisR. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1, 57–81.
37.
GuénetteD. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40–53.
38.
*GuoQ. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed-method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
39.
HanY. (2019). Written corrective feedback from an ecological perspective: The interaction between context and individual learners. System, 80, 288–303.
40.
*HartshornK.J. (2008). The effects of manageable corrective feedback. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University, Denver, CO, USA.
41.
*HartshornK.J.EvansN.W. (2015). The effects of dynamic written corrective feedback: A 30-week study. Journal of Response to Writing, 1, 6–34.
42.
HartshornK.J.EvansN.W.MerrillP.F., et al. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL Quarterly, 44, 84–109.
43.
HedgesL.V. (1981). Distribution theory for glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107–128.
44.
HeiftT.RimrottA. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36, 196–213.
45.
HigginsJ.P.ThompsonS.G. (2002). Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1539–1558.
46.
HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.). (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge University Press.
47.
*JhowryK. (2010). Does the provision of intensive and highly focused indirect corrective feedback lead to accuracy? Unpublished thesis, University of Northern Texas, Denton, TX, USA.
48.
*JiangL.XiaoH. (2014). The efficacy of written corrective feedback and language analytic ability on Chinese learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. English Language Teaching, 7, 22–34.
49.
KangE.HanZ. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 1–18.
50.
KaoC.W.WibleD. (2011). The distinction between focused and unfocused grammar feedback matters: A meta-analysis. Second Language Research Forum. Ames, IA, USA, 13–16October, 2011.
51.
*KarimK.EndleyM.J. (2019). Should feedback be direct or indirect? Comparing the effectiveness of different types of WCF on L1 Arabic writers’ use of the English prepositions. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 12, 68–84.
52.
KarimK.NassajiH. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3, 28–52.
53.
*KarimK.NassajiM. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24, 519–539.
54.
*KassimA.NgL. (2014). Investigating the efficacy of focused and unfocused corrective feedback on the accurate use of prepositions in written work. English Language Teaching, 7, 119–130.
55.
KimY.EmeliyanovaL. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25, 234–255.
56.
KlineR.B. (2013). Beyond significance testing: Statistics reform in the behavioral sciences. American Psychological Association.
57.
KrollB. (1990). What does time buy? ESL student performance on home versus class compositions. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 140–154). Cambridge University Press.
58.
KruschkeJ. (2014). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Academic Press.
59.
LeeI. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1–7.
60.
LiS. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309–365.
LiuQ.BrownD. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.
63.
LiuQ.WuS. (2019). Same goal, varying beliefs: How students and teachers see the effectiveness of feedback on second language writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11, 299–330.
64.
MaoC.LeeI. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 1–14.
65.
MohebbiH. (2021). 25 years on, the written error correction debate continues: An interview with John Truscott. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 3, 1–8.
66.
MorrisS.B.DeShonR.P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125.
67.
*MubarakM. (2013). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: A study of practices and effectiveness in the Bahrain context, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
68.
*MuñozC.A. (2011). The effects of two methods of error correction on L2 writing: The case of acquisition of the Spanish preterite and imperfect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
69.
*NakazawaK. (2006). Efficacy and effects of various types of teacher feedback on student writing in Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
70.
*NematiM.AlaviS.M.MohebbiH. (2019). Assessing the effect of focused direct and focused indirect written corrective feedback on explicit and implicit knowledge of language learners. Language Testing in Asia, 9, 7.
71.
NorouzianR. (2020). Sample size planning in quantitative L2 research: A pragmatic approach. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42, 849–870.
72.
NorouzianR. (2021). Interrater reliability in second language meta-analyses: The case of categorical moderators. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43, 896–915.
73.
NorouzianR.De MirandaM.PlonskyL. (2018). The Bayesian revolution in second language research: An applied approach. Language Learning, 68, 1032–1075.
74.
NorouzianR.De MirandaM.PlonskyL. (2019). A Bayesian approach to measuring evidence in L2 research: An empirical investigation. Modern Language Journal, 103, 248–261.
75.
NorrisJ.OrtegaL. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50, 417–528.
76.
NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In NorrisJ. M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3-50). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
77.
*NusratA.AshrafF.KhanS.AzizS.JabeenR. (2019). Is indirect written feedback valuable? A study targeting ESL university students in Pakistan. International Journal of English Linguistics, 9, 340–350.
78.
*PariyantoCahyonoB.Y. (2016). The efficacy of comprehensive corrective feedback in improving grammatical accuracy of EFL learners’ writing. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3, 51–59.
79.
ParkE.S.SongS.ShinY. 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 Research, 20, 678–699.
80.
*ParreñoA. (2015). Written corrective feedback impact on grammatical accuracy in L2 writing: A quantitative and qualitative look. Writing and Pedagogy, 7, 279–303.
81.
*PashazadehA. (2017). The effect of mid-focused and unfocused written corrections on the acquisition of grammatical structures. Journal of Response to Writing, 3, 56–82.
82.
PlonskyL. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In PorteG. (Ed.), Replication research in applied linguistics (pp. 116–132). Cambridge University Press.
83.
PlonskyL.BrownD. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (or why 18 meta-analyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31, 267–278.
84.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2015). Met-analyzing second language research. In PlonskyL. (Ed.), Advancing quantitative methods in second language research (pp. 106–128). Routledge.
85.
*PolioC.FleckC. (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43–68.
86.
*RahimiM. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant?Reading and Writing, 22, 219–243.
87.
RanalliJ. (2018) Automated written corrective feedback: How well can students make use of it?Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31, 653–674.
88.
RayJ.W.ShadishW.R. (1996). How interchangeable are different estimators of effect size?Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1316–1325.
89.
RöverC. (2020). Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package. Journal of Statistical Software, 93, 1–51.
90.
*RummelS.BitchenerJ. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact Lao learners’ beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 66–84.
91.
RussellJ.SpadaN. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In NorrisJ.M.OrtegaL. (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). John Benjamins.
92.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
93.
*SeiffedinA.H.El-SakkaS.M.F. (2017). The impact of direct-indirect corrective E-feedback on EFL students’ writing accuracy. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7, 166–175.
94.
ShadishW.R.CookT.D.CampbellD.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton.
95.
*SheenY. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.
96.
*SheenY. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 203–234.
97.
*SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37, 556–569.
98.
*ShintaniN.EllisR. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 286–306.
99.
*SobhaniM.TayebipourF. (2015). The effects of oral vs. written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ essay writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5, 1601–1611.
100.
*StefanouC.RévészA. (2015). Direct written corrective feedback, learner differences, and the acquisition of second language article use for generic and specific plural reference. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 263–282.
101.
StorchN. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51, 262–277.
102.
*SunS.H. (2013). Written corrective feedback: Effects of focused and unfocused grammar correction on the case acquisition in L2 German. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA.
103.
TangC.LiuY. (2018). Effects of indirect coded corrective feedback with and without short affective teacher comments on L2 writing performance, learner uptake and motivation. Assessing Writing, 35, 26–40.
104.
*TanveerA.MalghaniM.KhosaD.KhosaM. (2018). Efficacy of written corrective feedback as a tool to reduce learners’ errors on writing. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8, 166–180.
105.
ThompsonB. (2006). Foundations of behavioral statistics: An insight-based approach. Guilford Press.
106.
TrochimW.M. (2005). Research methods: The concise knowledge base. Atomic Dog Publishing.
107.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
108.
TruscottJ. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272.
109.
TruscottJ. (2019). The effectiveness of error correction: Why do meta-analytic reviews produce such different answers? In LeungY.-n. (Ed.), Epoch making in English language teaching and learning: A special monograph for celebration of ETA-ROC’s 25th anniversary (pp. 129–141). Crane.
*TruscottJ.HsuA.Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292–305.
112.
*Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. Available at: http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/74795 (accessed January 2023).
113.
*Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
114.
ViechtbauerW. (2007). Approximate confidence intervals for standardized effect sizes in the two-independent and two-dependent samples design. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 39–60.
115.
*WagnerJ. (2016). An explanation of the effectiveness of written corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
116.
*WangX. (2017). The effects of corrective feedback on Chinese learners’ writing accuracy: A quantitative analysis in an EFL context. World Journal of Education, 7, 74–88.
117.
*YuC.ChengY. (2017). The effect of focused direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanations on EFL learners’ accurate use of English articles. English Teaching and Learning, 41, 31–64.
118.
*ZhangX. (2017). Reading–writing integrated tasks, comprehensive corrective feedback, and EFL writing development. Language Teaching Research, 21, 217–240.
