Direct versus indirect written corrective feedback proved inconclusive: DCF showed five large positive and two negative effects, ICF results were split¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The comparison of direct and indirect CF was inconclusive; the article reports a 29% chance that DCF could cause students' work to worsen over time and describes ICF results as conclusive as a coin flip. → Albatool Abalkheel & Tara Brandenburg 2020

Evidence¶

Albatool Abalkheel & Tara Brandenburg 2020¶

Albatool Abalkheel & Tara Brandenburg. (2020). Effects of Written Corrective Feedback: A Synthesis of 10 Quasi-Experimental Studies. English Language Teaching, 13(7). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n7p97

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1

Meta-analytic comparison of CF type (Table 3). For DCF, "five studies displayed a large positive effect size and two were negative"; for ICF, two studies showed large positive effects, one was insignificant, and two were negative, so the more efficient type could not be determined without examining other variables.

"The results of the more efficient type of CF proved to be inconclusive for this group of studies. For DCF, five studies displayed a large positive effect size and two were negative."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Focused written corrective feedback showed positive effect sizes in all cases, while comprehensive feedback showed negative effects for direct CF and mixed results for indirect CF — related
• In the Sheen et al. (2009) study, focused direct CF produced a large positive effect while unfocused (comprehensive) direct CF produced a large negative effect — related
• Written corrective feedback in general is inconclusive as a predictor of long-term improvement in L2 writing accuracy, with roughly 55% of studies showing positive effects — a broader claim this one bears on