Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36910773›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2023

Optimal timing of treatment for errors in second language learning - A systematic review of corrective feedback timing.

Mingfei Xu, Simin Zeng

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mingfei XuCollege of International Education, Minzu University of China, Beijing, China.
Simin ZengSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although a large body of research has developed on corrective feedback in second language acquisition (SLA) in the past 30 years, there are few empirical studies examining the relationship between feedback timing and SLA. To begin to address this gap, this study reviews the existing research on the impact of corrective feedback timing on SLA. It aims to investigate the possible influential factors that might have led to inconsistent research findings and theoretical explanations. The review was conducted according to PRISMA-statement through searches in peer-reviewed electronic databases including Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Scopus, EBSCO, which includes ERIC and the British Education Index and gray literature (doctoral dissertations in ProQuest). Twenty studies conducted and published between 2006 and 2021 were finally analyzed to reveal the current trends. The results of this review indicate that there is no definite answer to the question of when errors in L2 should be treated. The difficulty of drawing a conclusive finding can be attributed to the communicative modality examined and variations in research design, including the explicitness of feedback and various ways of measuring feedback timing. No certain theoretical framework has been applied to guide these studies and they have applied different theoretical explanations to interpret the inconsistent results. The review highlights the need to continue to investigate the effectiveness of corrective feedback under different timing conditions. In addition, it discusses some research gaps that should be addressed in future studies and suggests future research directions in the area of feedback timing.

Indexed as

corrective feedbackfeedback timinginteractionsecond language acquisitionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36910773
PMCPMC9995700

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.