An earlier version of this article was presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics in Denver in March 2009. I would like to thank Susan Gass for her generous help in all phases of this study. I am indebted to Shawn Loewen, Patti Spinner, Fred Oswald, and Luke Plonsky for their help with various aspects of the project. My thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers and Scott Jarvis, the associate editor of Language Learning, who provided invaluable comments on the previous versions of this article.
The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis
Article first published online: 8 FEB 2010
© 2010 Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan
Volume 60, Issue 2, pages 309–365, June 2010
How to Cite
Li, S. (2010), The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback in SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Language Learning, 60: 309–365. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
- Issue published online: 13 MAY 2010
- Article first published online: 8 FEB 2010
- Revised version accepted 26 January 2009
- corrective feedback;
- metalinguistic feedback;
- implicit feedback;
- explicit feedback;
- moderator variables
This study reports on a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. By establishing a different set of inclusion/exclusion criteria than previous meta-analyses and performing a series of methodological moves, it is intended to be an update and complement to previous meta-analyses. Altogether 33 primary studies were retrieved, including 22 published studies and 11 Ph.D. dissertations. These studies were coded for 17 substantive and methodological features, 14 of which were identified as independent and moderator variables. It was found that (a) there was a medium overall effect for corrective feedback and the effect was maintained over time, (b) the effect of implicit feedback was better maintained than that of explicit feedback, (c) published studies did not show larger effects than dissertations, (d) lab-based studies showed a larger effect than classroom-based studies, (e) shorter treatments generated a larger effect size than longer treatments, and (f) studies conducted in foreign language contexts produced larger effect sizes than those in second language contexts. Possible explanations for the results were sought through data cross-tabulation and with reference to the theoretical constructs of SLA.