{"title":"系统性文献综述:英语语言环境中的直接和间接反馈策略","authors":"Jorge Villavicencio Reinoso","doi":"10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.","PeriodicalId":36332,"journal":{"name":"rEFLections","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Literature Review: Direct and Indirect Feedback Strategies in EFL Contexts\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Villavicencio Reinoso\",\"doi\":\"10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"rEFLections\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"rEFLections\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"rEFLections","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v30i3.268895","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
A Systematic Literature Review: Direct and Indirect Feedback Strategies in EFL Contexts
To date, there has been mounting research evidence on the impact of written corrective feedback. In response to this, reviews have been conducted to condense either findings or methodologies through the combined analysis of EFL and ESL studies. Although syntheses shed light on the topic, no one provides exclusive insights into EFL realities. Therefore, this systematic literature review was proposed to synthesize methodologies, findings, and research suggestions of EFL articles analyzing direct and indirect feedback, two widely debated and employed strategies in classrooms, with either a focused or unfocused scope. Through a seven-step protocol suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006), 21 EFL primary studies published between 2012 and 2022 were selected from the bibliometric dataset of Crosthwaite et al. (2022), which contains articles retrieved from the Scopus database. The papers were read through to answer five research questions on methodologies, findings, and study suggestions. The results show that most EFL studies were quasi-experimental adopting a quantitative approach with a pretest-posttest-delayed-posttest or pretest-posttest design, and the strategies significantly impinged on grammar and non-grammar aspects. Suggestions are given to further study the impact of feedback under different conditions such as targets, proficiency levels, and strategies and scope with a comparative nature.