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¶

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? One study generated mixed results: a large positive effect size for the Focused DCF group versus a large negative effect size for the Unfocused DCF group. → 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-analysis result for Sheen et al. (2009), an 80-participant college study comparing focused DCF, unfocused DCF, and control conditions over 9 weeks, measured by accuracy of a/the in writing (Table 2 reports d = 0.3211 focused, -0.4473 unfocused).

"One study generated mixed results with a large positive effect size for the Focused DCF group, whereas a large negative effect size was demonstrated for the Unfocused DCF group (Sheen et al., 2009)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Direct versus indirect written corrective feedback proved inconclusive: DCF showed five large positive and two negative effects, ICF results were split — related
• 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 — a broader claim this one bears on
• The Van Beuningen et al. (2011) study of comprehensive CF showed overall negative effect sizes across high and low proficiency groups — related