Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-fb4gq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T06:38:08.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis

from Part II - Methodological Approaches in the Study of Corrective Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2021

By
Dan Brown
Edited by
Hossein Nassaji  and
Eva Kartchava
Hossein Nassaji
Affiliation:
University of Victoria, British Columbia
Eva Kartchava
Affiliation:
Carleton University, Ottawa
Get access

Summary

This chapter introduces the methodological tools of research synthesis in the context of corrective feedback (CF) research and highlights findings in this area generated by synthetic approaches. Meta-analysis, the most common approach to research synthesis in applied linguistics, has quickly gained much popularity in CF research, with at least twenty meta-analyses conducted on CF by the time of this publication (more than in any other area of applied linguistics research). The chapter describes the value of research synthesis to CF research and how meta-analyses have helped consolidate findings in this domain and provided insight into the range of moderating variables that may influence the effectiveness of CF. Methodological synthesis, a type of research synthesis used for taking inventory of methodological approaches, has also provided guidance for future advancements in designing research methodology in this domain, which are explored. The chapter concludes by summarizing the contributions of research synthesis within CF research and provides cautious guidance in the interpretation of findings in synthetic research.

Keywords

Corrective feedbackmeta-analysisresearch synthesissecond lamnguage learningsecond language teaching
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching , pp. 164 - 184
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T. & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2-writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL iBT Re-search Report No. TOEFLiBT-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., Young, S. & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T. & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to Meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436–458.Google Scholar
Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38, 491–498. DOI:10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001.Google Scholar
Chandler, J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397.Google Scholar
Chen, T. & Lin, H. (2012, March). Effects of peer feedback on EFL/ESL writing improvement: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Roundtable on Linguistics and Languages (GURT), Georgetown University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cobb, M. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of task-based interaction in form-focused instruction of adult learners in foreign and second language teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.Google Scholar
Cooper, H. (2010). Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis: A Step-by-Step Approach (4th edn.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V. & Valentine, J. C. (eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.), New York: Russell Sage Foundations.Google Scholar
Derrick, D. J. (2016). Instrument reporting practices in second language research. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 132–153. DOI:10.1002/tesq.217.Google Scholar
Duppenthale, P. (2002). Feedback and Japanese high school English language journal writing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (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(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1977). The effects of error correction treatments upon adequate and accurate communication in the written compositions of adult learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kang, E. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Kao, C. W. & Wible, D. (2011). The distinction between focused and unfocused grammar feedback matters: A meta-analysis. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Ames, IA, October.Google Scholar
Keck, C. M., Iberri-Shea, G., Tracy-Ventura, N. & Wa-Mbaleka, S. (2006). Investigating the empirical link between task-based interaction and acquisition: A meta-analysis. In J. M. Norris and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 91–131). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Jang, J. & Plonsky, L. (2015). The effectiveness of second language pronunciation instruction: A meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 345–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x.Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W. & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Liu, Q. & Brown, D. (2015). A methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265–302. DOI:10.1017/S0272263109990520.Google Scholar
Mackey, A. & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey, (ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407–451). New York: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S. & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second language research: Narrative and systematic reviews, and recommendations for the field. Language Learning. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1111/lang.12286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, E., Thompson, S. & Plonsky, L. (2018). A methodological synthesis of self-paced reading in second language research. Applied Psycholinguistics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. C. (2003). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
Miller, P. C. and Pan, W. (2012). Recasts in the L2 classroom: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 56, 48–59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.07.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2015). Interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535–562.Google Scholar
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P. M. & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719–758.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (eds.). (2006). Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2007). The future of research synthesis in applied linguistics: Beyond art or science. TESOL Quarterly, 41(4), 805–815.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2015). Research synthesis. In Paltridge, B. & Phakiti, A. (eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics: A practical resource (pp. 225–244). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oswald, F. L. & Plonsky, L. (2010). Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 85–110.Google Scholar
Papaioannou, D., Sutton, A., Carroll, C., Booth, A. & Wong, R. (2009). Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: Consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 27, 114–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00863.x.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2012). Replication, meta-analysis, and generalizability. In Porte, G. (ed.), Replication Research in Applied Linguistics (pp. 116–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2013). Study quality in SLA: An assessment of designs, analyses, and reporting practices in quantitative L2 research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(4), 655–687.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. (2014). Study quality in quantitative L2 research (1990–2010): A methodological synthesis and call for reform. Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 450–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Brown, D. (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(2), 267–278.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gass, S. (2011). Quantitative research methods, study quality, and outcomes: The case of interaction research. Language Learning, 61(2), 325–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Gonulal, T. (2015). Methodological synthesis in quantitative L2 research: A review of reviews and a case study of exploratory factor analysis. Language Learning, 65(Suppl. 1), 9–36.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Kim, Y. (2016). Task-based learner production: A substantive and methodological review. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 73–97.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2012). How to do a meta-analysis. In A. Mackey, , Gass, S. M., Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (eds.), Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide (pp. 275–295). Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Plonsky, L. & Oswald, F. L. (2014). How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64(4), 878–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poltavtchenko, E. & Johnson, M. D. (2009). Feedback and second language writing: A meta-analysis. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of TESOL, Denver, CO, March.Google Scholar
Porte, G. (ed.). (2012). Replication research in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Riazi, M., Shi, L. & Haggerty, J. (2018). Analysis of the empirical research in the journal of second language writing at its 25th year (1992–2016). Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J. & Borenstein, M. (eds.). (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Russell, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega, (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103–110.Google Scholar
Sok, S., Kang, E. Y. & Han, Z. (2018). Thirty-five years of ISLA on form-focused instruction: A methodological synthesis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. DOI:10.1177/1362168818776673.Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2010). Critical feedback on written corrective feedback research. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 29–46. DOI:10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119181.Google Scholar
Thirakunkovit, S. P. & Chamcharatsri, P. B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: Implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140–170.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yousefi, M. & Nassaji, H. (2018). The effect of computer-mediated vs. face-to-face instruction on L2 pragmatics: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Cognitive and Language Sciences, 12(7), 620–624.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2013). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University.Google Scholar
Ziegler, N. (2016). Synchronous computer-mediated communication and interaction: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 553–586.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×