Differential Effects of Written Corrective Feedback on Iranian High School Students’ Grammatical Accuracy

Publish Year: 1394
نوع سند: مقاله ژورنالی
زبان: English
View: 172

This Paper With 35 Page And PDF Format Ready To Download

  • Certificate
  • من نویسنده این مقاله هستم

استخراج به نرم افزارهای پژوهشی:

لینک ثابت به این Paper:

شناسه ملی سند علمی:

JR_TELJ-9-1_002

تاریخ نمایه سازی: 6 اردیبهشت 1400

Abstract:

Prompted by the interaction hypothesis and focus on form instruction, corrective feedback has received much attention in recent years within the interactionist framework. This study investigated the effects of three types of written corrective feedback (i.e., recast without saliency, recast with saliency, and metalinguistic feedback) on Iranian high school EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy of two structures in English: conditional sentences and relative clauses. To this end, four intact classes, comprising ۱۰۴ low-intermediate Iranian high school EFL learners, were selected and randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. The three experimental groups received recasts without saliency, recast with saliency, and metalinguistic feedback in written picture description tasks/activities. Grammaticality judgment tests were used as the instruments to collect data on the participants’ grammatical accuracy of the two structures in a pretest-posttest control group design. ANCOVA and MANOVA showed that using written corrective feedback significantly improved the participants’ grammatical gains in the experimental groups. Moreover, metalinguistic and recast with saliency feedback (i.e., explicit feedback) was more effective than the recast without saliency feedback (i.e., implicit feedback). Furthermore, there was a significant differential effect of metalinguistic feedback for the type of grammatical structure. The study concludes with several pedagogical implications.

Authors

Ali Roohani

Shahrekord University

Aliakbar Jafarpour

Shahrekord University

Hedayatallah Teimoori

Shahrekord University

مراجع و منابع این Paper:

لیست زیر مراجع و منابع استفاده شده در این Paper را نمایش می دهد. این مراجع به صورت کاملا ماشینی و بر اساس هوش مصنوعی استخراج شده اند و لذا ممکن است دارای اشکالاتی باشند که به مرور زمان دقت استخراج این محتوا افزایش می یابد. مراجعی که مقالات مربوط به آنها در سیویلیکا نمایه شده و پیدا شده اند، به خود Paper لینک شده اند :
  • Allwright, D. (1975). Problems in the study of the language ...
  • Birjandi, P., Nowrooozi, M. & Mahmoodi, Q. (2009). English book ...
  • Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An overview. In M. ...
  • Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and teaching. (4thed.). London: ...
  • De Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistic of the output hypothesis. ...
  • Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. ...
  • Edwards, L. (2007). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press ...
  • Ellis, R (2002). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30, 419-32. ...
  • Ellis, R. (2009). Implicit and explicit learning, knowledge and instruction. ...
  • Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written ...
  • Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and ...
  • Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of ...
  • Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? ...
  • Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in ...
  • Fotos, S., & Nassaji, H. (Eds.). (2007). Form focused instruction ...
  • Gass, S., (1997). Input, interaction and the second language learner. ...
  • Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in ...
  • Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2006).  Input, interaction and output: ...
  • Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008). Second language acquisition: An ...
  • Iwashita, N. (2003) Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based ...
  • Krashen, S. (1998).Comprehensible output? System, 26, 175-182. ...
  • Larson-Hall, J. (2010). A guide to doing statistics in second ...
  • Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative ...
  • Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: ...
  • Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language ...
  • Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the ...
  • Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in ...
  • Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ...
  • Lyster, R. (2002). The importance of differentiating negotiation of form ...
  • Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in ...
  • Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recast in ...
  • Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner ...
  • Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom ...
  • Mackey, A., & Gass, S. (Eds.). (2006). Pushing the methodological ...
  • Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: ...
  • Mackey, A., Philp, J., (1998). Conversational interaction and second language ...
  • Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic ...
  • Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S (2004). Current developments in research ...
  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to ...
  • Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback ...
  • Sanz, C., & Morgan-Short, K. (2004). Positive evidence versus explicit ...
  • Saxton, M. (2005). ‘Recast’ in a new light: Insights for ...
  • Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and ...
  • Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts ...
  • Yang, Y., & Lyster, R. (2010). Effects of form-focused practice ...
  • نمایش کامل مراجع