The Effect of Interactive Metalinguistic Feedback on the Iranian Middle School Students’ Argumentative Writing in English: A Mixed Methods Research

الموضوعات : Research in English Language Pedagogy

Aliakbar Tajik ¹ (Department of English Translation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran)
Neda Hedayat ² (Department of English Translation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran)
Neda Gharagozloo ³ (Department of English Translation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad University, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran)

تاريخ الإرسال : 22 الأربعاء , رجب, 1443 تاريخ التأكيد : 17 الأربعاء , شوال, 1443 تاريخ الإصدار : 10 الأربعاء , رجب, 1444

الکلمات المفتاحية: Co-constructed Knowledge, Metalinguistic Feedback, social learning, Dialogic interaction, Situated learning,

ملخص المقالة :

The subject of corrective feedback in writing in English has always been a contentious issue among Second Language Acquisition (SLA) researchers despite an extensive body of research investigating the matter. This mixed-methods study aimed to examine the effectiveness of Interactive Metalinguistic Feedback (IMF) on the Iranian middle school students' ability in argumentative writing. To this aim, based on a multi-stage sampling, from 5 middle schools in Varamin, six classes were selected randomly; finally, 40 EFL students were sampled from the courses as the main participants of this study. A researcher-made writing test and a self-assessment questionnaire were utilized to collect the quantitative data. The participants were grouped into Interactive Metalinguistic Feedback Class (IMFC) and Control Class (CC) and they were given a writing test as a pretest to ensure their homogeneity in terms of initial writing ability. After a 12-session treatment, a writing posttest was given to them. Furthermore, a self-assessment questionnaire was administered to collect data on students' attitudes toward the IMF in the learning-teaching process. To assemble the qualitative data, an interview accompanied by observation was conducted after the treatment to complement the quantitative results. The experimental findings of this current study revealed that IMF had a significant effect on the growth of argumentative writing ability among EFL students. The results of the qualitative part also indicated that social learning, situated learning, and dialogic interaction through IMF encouraged students to develop their writing skills as they co-constructed knowledge with others.

المصادر:

Abadikhah, S., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback on EFL learners' performance after collaborative output. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(1).

Andarab, M. S. (2019). The effect of spatial intelligence-based metalinguistic written corrective feedback on EFL learners' development in writing. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8(1), 40-45.

Bialystok, E. (1987). Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin (Utrecht), 3(2), 154-166.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217.

 DeKeyser, R. M. (2018). Age in learning and teaching grammar. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-6.

Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused meta-linguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(4), 878-883.

Effatpanah, F., Baghaei, P., & Boori, A. A. (2019). Diagnosing EFL learners’ writing ability: a diagnostic classification modeling analysis. Language Testing in Asia, 9(1), 1-23.

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21.

Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?). Journal Of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62.

Fithriani, R. (2019). ZPD and the benefits of written feedback in L2 writing: Focusing on students’ perceptions. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 19(1), 63-73.

Ganapathy, M. N., Lin, D. T. A., & Phan, J. (2020). Students’perceptions of teachers' written corrective feedback in the Malaysian ESL classroom. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(2), 103-136.

Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2005). Explaining the “natural order of l2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta‐analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 55(S1), 27-77.

Gorman, M., & Ellis, R. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners, 1(1), 57-81.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language learning. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of iranian field (in)dependent l2 learners’ writing ability. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.

Javadi, Y., & Tajik, A. (2021). The need to develop authentic materials in teaching grammar communicatively for Iranian high school students: Theoretical perspectives [In English]. Journal of Language Teaching, Literature & Linguistics (JLTLL), 4(1), 101-118.

Kantar, L. D., Ezzeddine, S., & Rizk, U. (2020). Rethinking clinical instruction through the zone of proximal development. Nurse Education Today, 95, 104595.

Loo, D. B. (2020). Is language awareness supported by grammar lessons and indirect and metalinguistic feedback? An examination of graduate students' writing across drafts. Reflections, 27(1), 1-21.

Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories (2nd ed.), London: Arnold. In: Languages.

Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura y Educación, 27(4), 839-867.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language awareness, 9(1), 34-51.

Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: The art of Socratic questioning, part III. Journal of Developmental Education, 31(3), 34-35.

Rahimi, M. (2009). The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy over time: is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Reading and Writing, 22(2), 219-243.

Rashidi, N., & Dastkhezr, Z. (2009). A comparison of English and Persian organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iranian EFL students. Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 2(1), 131-152.

Saadi, Z. K., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners' writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2053.

Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 259-291.

Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review Of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.

Silva, T. (2013). L2 writing in secondary classrooms: Student experiences, academic issues, and teacher education. Routledge.

Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-21. DOI: 10.7916/D8TT4QG7

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through. Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 78(4), 97.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. Mind in Society, 6(3), 23-43.

Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.

Wilson, J., Olinghouse, N. G., McCoach, D. B., Santangelo, T., & Andrada, G. N. (2016). Comparing the accuracy of different scoring methods for identifying sixth-graders at risk of failing a state writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 27, 11-23.

Yuan, F., & Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre‐task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied linguistics, 24(1), 1-27.