How effective is feedback for L1, L2, and FL learners’ writing? A meta-analysis

IF 4.7 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101961

Sina Scherer , Steve Graham , Vera Busse

{"title":"How effective is feedback for L1, L2, and FL learners’ writing? A meta-analysis","authors":"Sina Scherer , Steve Graham , Vera Busse","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2024.101961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Feedback is important for writing improvement, but research suggests that not all learners benefit equally from feedback.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>This meta-analysis examined if different feedback treatments given by different feedback agents are differentially effective for first (L1), second (L2), and foreign language (FL) learners at secondary schools and universities.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Our meta-analysis included studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. We computed effect sizes for surface- and deep-level writing outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Across 200 comparisons, surface-level feedback significantly improved surface-level outcomes (g = 0.58), with higher effects for FL (g = 0.69) than for L2 learners (g = 0.34). However, such feedback may have detrimental effects on FL deep-level outcomes (g = −0.23). In contrast, deep-level feedback demonstrated positive effects on deep-level outcomes (g = 0.80), with larger effects for L1 (g = 1.26) than for FL learners (g = 0.37; non-significant). Combined surface-and deep-level feedback positively affected both deep-level (g = 0.54) and surface-level outcomes (g = 0.36) for all learners.</p><p>Instructor feedback demonstrated overall moderate benefits for both outcomes showing greater impact on FL learners (g = 0.72) than on L2 learners (g = 0.35) for surface-level outcomes. Peer feedback showed medium to large effects for deep-level outcomes (FL learners: g = 0.76; L1 learners: g = 1.46). In contrast, algorithm-based feedback showed a non-significant medium effect on FL learners' surface-level outcomes (g = 0.53), and self-feedback showed a non-significant medium effect on FL learners’ deep-level outcomes (g = 0.55). Lastly, feedback proved effective for both university and secondary school students, thereby underscoring its crucial role in fostering writing.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"93 ","pages":"Article 101961"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000884/pdfft?md5=949d784db9bbaa483d8562de446ac67a&pid=1-s2.0-S0959475224000884-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475224000884","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Feedback is important for writing improvement, but research suggests that not all learners benefit equally from feedback.

Aims

This meta-analysis examined if different feedback treatments given by different feedback agents are differentially effective for first (L1), second (L2), and foreign language (FL) learners at secondary schools and universities.

Method

Our meta-analysis included studies with an experimental or quasi-experimental design. We computed effect sizes for surface- and deep-level writing outcomes.

Results

Across 200 comparisons, surface-level feedback significantly improved surface-level outcomes (g = 0.58), with higher effects for FL (g = 0.69) than for L2 learners (g = 0.34). However, such feedback may have detrimental effects on FL deep-level outcomes (g = −0.23). In contrast, deep-level feedback demonstrated positive effects on deep-level outcomes (g = 0.80), with larger effects for L1 (g = 1.26) than for FL learners (g = 0.37; non-significant). Combined surface-and deep-level feedback positively affected both deep-level (g = 0.54) and surface-level outcomes (g = 0.36) for all learners.

Instructor feedback demonstrated overall moderate benefits for both outcomes showing greater impact on FL learners (g = 0.72) than on L2 learners (g = 0.35) for surface-level outcomes. Peer feedback showed medium to large effects for deep-level outcomes (FL learners: g = 0.76; L1 learners: g = 1.46). In contrast, algorithm-based feedback showed a non-significant medium effect on FL learners' surface-level outcomes (g = 0.53), and self-feedback showed a non-significant medium effect on FL learners’ deep-level outcomes (g = 0.55). Lastly, feedback proved effective for both university and secondary school students, thereby underscoring its crucial role in fostering writing.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

对 L1、L2 和 FL 学习者写作的反馈效果如何？荟萃分析

背景反馈对写作水平的提高非常重要，但研究表明，并非所有学习者都能从反馈中获得同样的益处。这项荟萃分析研究了不同反馈代理提供的不同反馈处理对中学和大学的第一语言（L1）、第二语言（L2）和外语（FL）学习者是否具有不同的效果。我们计算了表层和深层写作成果的效应大小。结果在 200 项比较中，表层反馈显著改善了表层成果（g = 0.58），对 FL 学习者的效应（g = 0.69）高于对 L2 学习者的效应（g = 0.34）。然而，这种反馈可能会对 FL 深层次结果产生不利影响（g = -0.23）。相反，深层次反馈对深层次结果有积极影响（g = 0.80），对 L1 学习者的影响（g = 1.26）大于对 FL 学习者的影响（g = 0.37；不显著）。表层和深层反馈相结合，对所有学习者的深层结果（g = 0.54）和表层结果（g = 0.36）都产生了积极影响。在表层结果方面，指导者反馈对两种结果都产生了中等程度的影响，对 FL 学习者的影响（g = 0.72）大于对 L2 学习者的影响（g = 0.35）。同伴反馈对深层次结果（FL 学习者：g = 0.76；L1 学习者：g = 1.46）产生了中等至较大的影响。相比之下，基于算法的反馈对 FL 学习者的表层结果（g = 0.53）显示了不显著的中等效果，而自我反馈对 FL 学习者的深层结果（g = 0.55）显示了不显著的中等效果。最后，事实证明，反馈对大学生和中学生都有效，从而突出了反馈在促进写作方面的关键作用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Learning and Instruction Multiple-

CiteScore

11.30

自引率

4.80%

发文量

109

期刊介绍： As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.