The Contribution of Teacher Feedback to Learners’ Work Revision: A Systematic Literature Review

,


Introduction
Evaluation is a complex concept that applies to all aspects of human activity.It involves identifying positive or negative elements and making comparative criticisms of their effectiveness (McAlpine, 2002).In the context of students' assessment, the primary goal is to identify learning gaps and provide feedback to help students develop critical thinking skills, acquire knowledge and skills, become responsible, and improve their academic performance (McAlpine, 2002).
One of the primary goals of a learner's assessment is feedback, the information provided to a learner to narrow the gap between the current performance and the desired goal (Sadler, 1989).Feedback is an accurate description of a learner's performance, intended to guide future performance; it is the process of helping learners to assess their performance and the quality of performance (Hattie & Timperley, 2007), to identify whether they have achieved objectives that they have set and to provide them with advice on what they can do in the future for further improvement (Dimitropoulos, 2002).The primary purpose of feedback is to help learners adjust their thinking and behavior to produce improved learning outcomes (Shute, 2008) by revising their work and improving their performance (Parkin, Hepplestone, Holden, Irwin, & Thorpe, 2012).
Revision is the act of modifying a written work at any stage of the writing process (Allal, Chanquoy, & Largy, 2004).This includes recognizing inconsistencies between the intended message and the actual written piece, determining what improvements can be made, devising a plan to implement the changes, and then executing those changes (Chanquoy, 2009).
Many researchers around the world are studying how teachers' feedback impacts the educational process.Several systematic reviews have been conducted, providing substantial evidence of various types of feedback and their effectiveness in enhancing student learning (Shute, 2008;Jonsson, 2013;Liu & Brown, 2015;Chen, 2016;Wisniewski, Zierer, & Hattie, 2020).However, none of these reviews have solely focused on the connection between

Theoretical Framework
Feedback is a critical aspect of the teaching and learning process as it can be used by learners to improve their academic performance (Taras, 2003;Molloy & Bound, 2013).It accurately describes a student's performance and is intended to guide future performance.This process helps learners evaluate their performance and its quality (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000), identify whether they have achieved their goals, and advise them on what they can do in the future to improve (Narciss, 2008).Feedback is that information given to the learner about their performance concerning learning objectives or outcomes (Wiggins, 2010).Feedback aims to help learners adjust their thinking and behaviors to produce improved learning outcomes (Shute, 2008), bridging the gap between actual performance levels and desired learning goals (Lizzio & Wilson, 2008).
Feedback is an essential part of the teaching dialogue between teachers and learners or among learners themselves, and it should not be approached as a separate practice (Dale, 2006).Effective feedback should meet the following criteria: a) it must be specific, proactive, friendly, continuous, systematic, and timely (Wiggins, 2010); b) it should clarify what constitutes good performance; c) it should encourage reflection and self-evaluation among learners; d) it should offer high-quality feedback to learners; e) it should encourage peer and learner-teacher dialogue, positive motivation, and self-esteem through assessments; f) it should provide opportunities for action; and g) it should provide teachers with information to improve their teaching (Dale, 2006;Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006;Wiggins, 2010).
Feedback is a powerful tool that helps in improving assignments and understanding concepts.Revision involves identifying discrepancies between intended and current goals, making necessary changes to written assignments, and achieving desired improvements.These changes can be major or minor and may or may not affect the overall meaning of the task (Fitzgerald, 1987).Overall, revision is the act of improving a task to enhance its quality (Haar, 2006).
Researchers have identified four different aspects of revision in the classroom.These include correction, growth and discovery, rhetorical goal setting and function, and affirmation of identity (Fitzgerald, 1987;Allal, Chanquoy, & Largy, 2004;Haar, 2006).
According to Faigley and Witte's (1981) research, there are two types of text revision based on the learner's intervention: surface revisions, which refer to changes in the form of the text that don't affect its meaning (such as spelling, additions, and deletions), and macrostructure revisions, which include changes in the text's micro or macrostructure (such as restructuring and reconstruction).Whalen and Menard (1995) expanded on this by identifying three levels of revision: linguistic (at the word and sentence level), textual (at the level of text macrostructure and coherence), and factual (at the level of factual text function).

Purpose and Research Questions
The primary purpose of the present study is to investigate, through the literature review methodology, the results of the contribution of teacher feedback to the revision of learners' work at all levels of education in different countries, as published in research from 2012 to 2022 to draw valuable conclusions, to identify any gaps that exist and make suggestions for further research.
The purpose of this literature review is to provide answers to the following research questions: -Which subjects have studies focused on regarding the impact of teachers' feedback on the revision of learners' work?The work is divided into five sections.Firstly, a review of past research in the field and how it contributes to scientific knowledge is presented.Secondly, a detailed description of the methodology used for the review is provided, including the search, evaluation, and selection process for the studies analyzed.The third section presents the analysis results, which aim to answer the research questions.Following that, the discussion and critical interpretation of the research results are presented, along with conclusions and their comparison to previous research.Lastly, a summary of the research findings is provided, along with suggestions for future research in the field.
Also, numerous studies have examined the practical applications and theory of revision (Hayes & Flower, 1986;Adams, Turkington, Wilson, & Wong, 2010;Addams & Allred, 2015), the revision strategies employed in written tasks (Somers, 1980;Cho & MacArthur, 2010;Bean, 2011;Butler & Britt, 2011), the connection between revision and cognitive, educational processes (Hayes & Flower, 1986;Hayes, 1985Hayes, , 1996Hayes, , 2004) ) and metacognitive processes (Butterfield, Hacker, & Albertson, 1996).Shute (2008), in her article, reviews feedback studied in general, focusing on formative feedback exploring whether it is non-evaluative, supportive, timely, and specific if provided as information to a learner, the type (verifying the accuracy of the answer, explanation of the correct answer, hints, worked examples) and time of implementation (immediately after the answer or after some time).One hundred eighty articles, theses, abstracts, books, and conference proceedings were investigated.This study concludes that formative feedback should be about the student's accuracy in a problem or task and should focus on specific errors and misconceptions.Finally, several variables were shown to interact with the success of formative feedback in promoting learning (individual student characteristics, aspects of the task).
In his 2013 article, Jonsson analyzed research on how learners in higher education use feedback.The study looked at one hundred and three different studies from 1990 to 2010 to understand why some learners don't use feedback and what factors influence the use of feedback.The research found that feedback must be useful to be effective.However, learners may struggle to use feedback constructively if they lack strategies for doing so or don't fully understand academic discourse.
In their methodological synthesis, Liu and Brown (2015) studied how corrective feedback affects writing in a second language.They looked at thirty-two published studies and twelve doctoral theses from 2004-2014.However, they found that many of the studies had methodological limitations, like not reporting enough research details or using mixed types of feedback that made it hard to compare results.
Chen (2016) addressed the technology-supported provision of feedback to learners by their co-learners (peers) in an ESL writing classroom and its positive or negative effects on learners.Initially, ninety-five studies were identified from 1990 to 2010 that dealt with specific feedback in ESL, focusing on twenty articles that dealt with computer-based peer feedback to learners.Subsequently, comparative reviews of the characteristics, advantages, disadvantages, and differences between synchronous and asynchronous interaction for this type of feedback were conducted using Glaser and Strauss's (1967) grounded theory of constant comparison.Based on the findings, several major themes are identified, and implications for pedagogy, group dynamics, and training for future research on this type of feedback are discussed.Wisniewski, Zierer, and Hattie (2020) conducted a thorough meta-analysis of four hundred and thirty-five empirical research studies on learner feedback and its effects on learning from 1960 to 2016.The study aimed to replicate and expand on previous research on visible learning from meta-synthesis.The overall results showed that feedback has a medium effect on learner learning, based on a random effect model.However, due to significant differences in the data, feedback cannot be seen as a consistent form of treatment.A moderator analysis revealed that the impact of feedback is significantly influenced by the conveyed information content.Additionally, feedback had a more significant effect on cognitive and motor skills outcomes than on motivational and behavioral outcomes.The study concluded that feedback is an essential aspect of teaching research and practice, but it is necessary to interpret different forms of feedback as independent measures.

Contribution of This Review
Previous reviews have provided valuable information about feedback, including its types, effectiveness, and impact on learners.However, none of them have specifically examined the relationship between feedback and the revision of students' work.This review aims to fill that gap by focusing on studies conducted between 2012 and 2022 that explore how feedback contributes to work revision across different educational levels, from primary to tertiary education.

Method
This systematic review was conducted using the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement by Page et al. (2021).This is a new guideline for reporting systematic reviews that replaces the 2009 statement.It includes updated reporting guidance for the stages of identification, separation, eligibility screening, and final selection of studies.Figure 1 displays the flow chart of this process, along with the number of surveys at each stage.

Identification of Records
The studies' search process took place between November 2022 and January 2023.Below is information about the keywords and the electronic databases searched.
The keywords or phrases used were "Feedback" AND "Revision", OR "Feedback" AND "Student Revision" OR "Student Writing Revision*", OR "Teacher's Feedback*" AND "Students' Revision*", OR "Feedback *" AND "Students' Revision*" AND Education*".English terms were used because the majority of literature in this field is published in English.The search using Greek terms did not yield significant results.
Regarding the rationale for choosing the above terms: Initially, we used the terms "Feedback" and "Revision" to limit the entries to studies related to feedback and revision.Also included were "Teacher's Feedback* and "Students' Revision*" to focus researchers on research related to the terms.However, along with the terms "Feedback*" AND "Students' Revision*," the term "Education*" was also included because many studies were related to various fields of medicine as well as nursing science.Finally, the asterisk symbol was also used in the abovementioned terms to include as many studies as possible which contained terms with the same letters.
This systematic review was conducted in the following seven bibliographic databases: ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Scopus, IEEEXplore, SAGE Journals, ResearchGate, and Google Scholar.This phase aimed to broaden the scope of the search compared to previous systematic reviews in the field, so IEEEXplore and Scopus, two of the largest databases, covering a wide range of topics, were used.In addition, ScienceDirect and SpringerLink, which include topic sections relevant to the subject under investigation in the social sciences and humanities, as well as IEEEXplore and SAGE Journals, were searched.Google Scholar was also used, despite its limitations in search capabilities.

Screening and Adequacy of the Records
The search based on the above resulted in 520 records, of which 141 had duplicates, which were removed.The remaining 379 records proceeded to level 1 screening, where titles and abstracts were analyzed based on the selection criteria (Table 1).To ensure the internal consistency of the procedure, a small number of the same studies were evaluated, and Cohen's kappa coefficient was calculated (Figure 1).During this process, 175 studies were excluded.

Table 1. Inclusion/exclusion Criteria of Studies in the Systematic Review
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria Studies written in English and Greek.
Studies written in a language other than English.Application in the field of education.
Studies that do not concern the application in the field of education.Reference to the contribution of feedback to the revision of learner work.
Studies that do not report on the contribution of feedback to learners' revision of work.

Reporting information in the abstract
Reviews/theoretical studies Publication year from 2012-2022 Out of the 204 studies reviewed, 48 required payments to access and were excluded from further consideration.The remaining 156 studies were evaluated based on three criteria: -Does the research clearly describe the context of the contribution of feedback to the revision of learner work?(Field of knowledge, type of research).
-Does the research clearly describe the methodological design used?(Type of data collected, sample of participants).
-Does the research clearly describe the data collection method and research tools used?After this evaluation, 76 studies were selected for the systematic review because they met all three criteria.The consistency of the selection process was also assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient (Figure 1).

Data extraction and Synthesis
During the data extraction stage, each study was assigned an identification code (ID).Based on the scheme provided in Table 2, the data were extracted and documented in a shared spreadsheet.Afterward, the results were analyzed and summarized to address the research questions raised in this review.
At the data extraction stage, each study was given an identification code (ID).Data were extracted based on the scheme in Table 2 and recorded in a shared spreadsheet.This was followed by the analysis and summary of the results, to answer the research questions raised in the context of the present review.

Results
The majority of studies analyzed (N=72 out of 76, or 94.7%) were sourced from journal articles, while a smaller number came from conferences (N=3, or 3.9%) or book chapters (N=1, or 1.4%).Interestingly, there was a higher number of studies published in 2020 and 2021.One study that will officially be published in 2023 was also included in the analysis as it was available online.The complete list of studies analyzed can be found in the Appendix of the review, and Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of studies by type and year of publication.Additionally, Table 3 provides a coding of the studies by year.Taiwan (1) P003 Portugal (1) P028 Cyprus (1) P021 Botswana (1) P022 Ethiopia (1) P026 Myanmar (1) P075 Australia (1) P078 Pakistan (1) P088 South Korea (1) P091 Turkey (1) P135 Saudi Arabia (1) P127 Oman (1) P138 Germany (1) P139

Ρ002, Ρ106
When feedback is combined with self-assessment, it can lead to improved text quality through revisions.

Ρ006
Both direct and indirect feedback play a crucial role in helping learners significantly improve their work through revision.
Ρ002, Ρ007, Ρ020, Ρ041, Ρ050, Ρ093, Ρ100, Ρ120 Providing corrective feedback, whether it is written or unwritten, can enhance the accuracy of a learner's work and encourage them to make significant revisions.

Ρ046, Ρ038, Ρ056, Ρ063, Ρ127
Critical informational or non-informative feedback encourages learners to revise their work unlike affirmative informational feedback which acts negatively.

Ρ018, Ρ040, Ρ056, Ρ110
Learners show a positive attitude towards thorough feedback.Ρ143 Feedback helps learners to revise and successfully correct their mistakes.
Ρ024, Ρ038, Ρ118 Coevals have the ability to provide feedback to their peers.Ρ034 Providing students with feedback from their co-students (peers) had a moderate impact on revision.

Ρ053
Asynchronous auditory feedback aids in the practice of reviewing the stories of learners with emotional/behavioral disorders.

Ρ027
Receiving a combination of audio-visual and text-based feedback has a marginally statistically significant effect on learners' revision of texts.
Research on primary education has revealed that providing teacher feedback has a positive impact on students' ability to revise their work and make corrections.The study found that both critical feedback and all types of written teacher feedback were effective in encouraging successful revisions, as opposed to confirmatory informational feedback.Corrective feedback was also found to improve accuracy and lead to significant revisions in student work.In addition, online feedback was found to contribute to successful revisions, and asynchronous auditory feedback was particularly helpful for students with emotional/behavioral disorders.The Figure 4 in the survey displays the frequency with which these findings were identified.

Figure 4. Results for the Contribution of Feedback to the Revision of Student Work in Primary Education
In secondary education, feedback plays a crucial role in helping students improve their work during the revision process.Studies have shown that providing corrective feedback to students leads to improved accuracy and significant revisions in their work.Written feedback from teachers of all kinds encourages successful revisions, especially when combined with revision instruction.Both direct and indirect feedback can contribute to meaningful revisions, and students readily accept and acknowledge the helpfulness of written feedback.Critical feedback is especially effective in encouraging revisions, compared to confirmatory informational feedback.Online feedback systems can also contribute to successful revisions, and students are generally receptive to using them.Peer feedback can be particularly beneficial, as students are accepting of feedback from their peers and revisions are more successful when feedback comes from classmates rather than teachers.Figure 5 shows the frequency with which these findings were identified in the studies.
In higher education studies, feedback plays a crucial role in helping learners improve their work.Research shows that when feedback is combined with revision instruction, it reinforces meaningful revision behavior.Both direct and indirect feedback can significantly contribute to the substantial revision of learners' work.Learners accept written feedback and acknowledge its contribution to revising their work.Unlike confirmatory informational feedback, critical feedback successfully encourages learners to revise their work.Feedback helps learners to revise and successfully correct mistakes, and e-feedback contributes to the successful revision of learners' work.Providing learners with feedback from their peers significantly benefits learned revisions of work, and all types of written teacher feedback encourage successful learners' revisions.Feedback combined with self-assessment contributes to the possibility of improving the quality of the text through revision.The feedback that includes suggestions and questions, rather than direct corrections, makes significant changes in text revisions.Feedback also helps to revise and assimilate improvement strategies and to reflect on motivation.Receiving a combination of audio-visual and text-based feedback has a marginally statistically significant effect on learners' revision of texts.Feedback time affects the review process, and learners show a positive attitude towards thorough feedback.

Discussion
There has been no research conducted in Greece from 2012 to 2022 on the impact of teacher feedback on trainee work, while there have been 76 studies done internationally.The majority of these studies were conducted in Asia (n=44), followed by America (n=20), with fewer studies in Europe, Africa, and Oceania (n=12).The countries with the highest number of surveys were the USA and China, with 18 and 11 studies, respectively.
Most studies used action research (n=41), followed by mixed (n=20) and qualitative (n=12), with only a few using quantitative methods (n=3).The sample size for most surveys was between 51 to 100 participants, with the next most common being 31 to 50 people.For action research, the number of participants ranged from 30 to 268, while for mixed studies, it was 28 to 210.Qualitative research samples ranged from 2 to 189 participants, and for quantitative research, it was 90 to 3,204 participants.
The majority of studies (n=44) focused on higher education, followed by secondary education (n=23), with the least amount of research conducted in primary education (n=9).However, there was one survey conducted simultaneously in primary and secondary education.
When conducting surveys, self-reports are the most frequently collected type of data.This is because researchers can easily use standardized research instruments to gather this information (Lim et al., 2019).Self-reports are generally reliable and can be used to measure learner performance in educational studies and interventions (Yeager et al., 2016).However, self-reports on factual questions, such as grade point averages and test scores, may not always be completely accurate, especially when they come from students (Rosen, Porter, & Rogers, 2017).The primary way of collecting data is through quasi-experimental intervention.This research design has many advantages, including: a) higher external validity, as it can be more applicable to real-world situations, especially in social sciences; b) better control over targeted hypotheses, as non-randomized control or comparison groups can lead to more controlled and efficient dependent variables; and c) it can be combined with other methodologies, relying on statistical analysis and alternative explanations from natural experiments, which saves time in determining outcomes of interest to researchers (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison 2008;Robson, 2010;Campbell & Stanley, 2015).This research examines the impact of teacher feedback on learners' work revision and their ability to achieve specific learning objectives in primary education.The study reviews six international research studies on language learning and related skills such as grammar, spelling, and writing (Silva, Almeida, & Farroupas, 2016;Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016;Yim et al., 2017;Sewagegn & Dessie, 2020;Wang et al., 2020;Lira-Gonzales & Nassaji, 2022).Additionally, two studies focus on English as a foreign language (Zabihi & Erfanitabar, 2021) and as a second language (Woo et al., 2013), and one study examines special education (McKeown, Kimball, & Ledford, 2015).The research results demonstrate that feedback helps learners revise and correct mistakes (Silva, Almeida, & Farroupas, 2016;Philippakos & MacArthur, 2016), and that critical informational or non-informative feedback encourages learners to revise their work instead of confirmatory informative feedback (Sewagegn & Dessie, 2020).Furthermore, electronic feedback and asynchronous auditory feedback lead to successful revisions of learners' work (Woo et al., 2013;Yim et al., 2017;Wang et al., 2020), while learners with emotional/behavioral disorders benefit from asynchronous auditory feedback (McKeown, Kimball, & Ledford, 2015).Finally, learners accept and value written feedback when revising their work (Sewagegn & Dessie, 2020).

Conclusion and suggestions
This review analyzed 520 research projects across seven bibliographic databases.Using the revised PRISMA 2020 statement by Page et al. (2021), duplicate studies were removed, and two-level checks were performed.In the end, 76 studies were included in this literature review.These studies, conducted from 2012 to 2022, primarily focus on higher education and secondary education, with fewer studies on primary education.All investigations included in this review were conducted internationally, with none recorded in Greece.The investigations are mostly in Asia, followed by America, with the USA and China having the most studies.
The systematic review covered research published between 2012 to 2022, with a majority of the studies published between 2020 to 2022.Action research was the main focus, which involves investigating the impact of feedback on work revision.The sample size for action research ranged from 30 to 268 participants, while mixed research ranged from 28 to 210 participants, qualitative research from 2 to 189 participants, and the few quantitative surveys had between 90 to 3,204 participants.However, most surveys did not provide details on the gender ratio of the participants.Performance data was the most collected information, followed by mixed data and self-report data.In most studies, researchers used two research instruments, with quasi-experimental intervention being the primary method of data collection.This systematic review primarily covers research on English as a second or foreign language, with over one-third of the studies focused on academic writing, including writing texts, essays, and scientific arguments, primarily in higher education.However, more research is necessary on language learning and skill development, such as grammar, spelling, and writing comprehension.
Most of the research on teacher feedback and student work revision in primary education pertains to language learning and specific skills, such as grammar, spelling, and text writing, with less emphasis on English as a foreign language.The research shows that feedback, in its various forms, aids in the successful correction of mistakes in students' work, particularly those with emotional/behavioral disorders, as it motivates them and highlights the importance of revisions.Students acknowledge the feedback process and its crucial role in improving their work.
In secondary education, most research focuses on learning the local language, followed by research on English as a foreign language and academic writing.Studies have shown that providing various forms of feedback is crucial in reviewing students' work.Electronic feedback methods and systems are particularly effective, and students recognize the importance of feedback in revising their work.Peer feedback is also beneficial, as peers are often able to provide valuable insights.However, while peer feedback has a positive impact on learners' revision of work, its effect is only moderate according to one study.
Research in higher education has focused on how feedback contributes to learners' revision of their work, primarily in academic writing and secondarily in English as a foreign second language.Studies show that feedback helps learners correct mistakes, adopt improvement strategies, and reflect on their motivation.When combined with self-assessment, it also improves the quality of their work.Successful implementation of the revision process depends on timing and proper teaching of revision techniques.Specific types of feedback, such as direct-indirect, written, audio-visual, corrective, critical, and scrutinizing, have been found to encourage significant changes in learners' revisions.Trainees generally have a favorable attitude towards providing feedback and contributing to the review process.Electronic and peer feedback have also shown significant benefits in learners' revisions, according to several studies.However, limitations of the research include the number of studies examined, specific search engine usage, inaccessibility of some studies, and focus on the contribution of feedback to the review of trainees' work.
To further research, it is suggested to study the impact of feedback on students' assignments at both theoretical and practical levels.This includes exploring how feedback relates to other variables, such as self-assessment, and how it can improve student performance by enhancing their receptivity to criticism and accurate prediction of their performance.Additionally, comparative studies should be conducted to examine how feedback affects trainees and teachers in different levels of education within the Greek education system.Lastly, empirical research in primary education in Greece is recommended to investigate the effects of teacher feedback on learners' task revision, attitudes, and beliefs, and to identify the benefits, difficulties, and practical application conditions.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.Flow Diagram of the Systematic Review Based on the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines(Page et al., 2021)

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Distribution by Type and Year of Publication

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Distribution Based on the Number of Studies' Participants

Figure 5 .
Figure 5. Results for the Contribution of Feedback to the Revision of Student Work in Secondary Education

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.Results for the Contribution of Feedback to the Revision of Student Work in Higher Education What are the characteristics of study participants and sample sizes used in research on the contribution of teachers' feedback to the revision of learners' work?-What kinds of data are typically collected in surveys on the impact of teachers' feedback on learners' work revision?-What research tools are commonly used in surveys on the contribution of teachers' feedback to the revision of learners' work?5th: What is the contribution of the teacher's feedback to the revision of the learners' work?

Table 2 .
Collected Data

Table 4 .
Country of Origin of Studies

Table 5 .
Cognitive Scope of the Research

Table 6 .
Level of Education and Status of the Participants

Table 7 .
Providing Information about the Study Sample

Table 8 .
Type of Data Collected by Studies

Table 9 )
most of the research is action research (53.9%) followed by mixed methods research (26.3%).

Table 9 .
Type of ResearchAfter analyzing 76 studies, six categories of research tools were found: experimental intervention, questionnaire, performance recording, observation, interview, and document reviews.The majority of studies (52.7%, N=40) used two research tools, with experimental intervention being the most commonly used tool.Table10displays the distribution of surveys based on the tools used and the combinations of those tools.

Table 10 .
Combination of Research Tools in the Studies

Table 11 .
Electronic, Digital and Online Tools-media

Table 12 .
Results of Studies on the Contribution of Feedback to Revision of Student Work and Study CodeResults of studies on the contribution of feedback to revision of student work Study code Receiving feedback is essential in order to revise and implement strategies for improvement, as well as reflect on one's motivation.