Comparing Explicit Oral and Written Corrective Feedback to Boost Learners’ Grammar
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه زبان و ترجمه
Jafar Izadpanah
1
(Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran)
فیروز صدیقی
2
(دپارتمان زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی (وتحد شیراز) ، شیراز، ایران)
Leila Akbarpour
3
(Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran)
کلید واژه: attitudes, grammar, Oral feedback, written feedback, correction,
چکیده مقاله :
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of explicit oral and explicit written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ correction of grammatical structures and their attitudes towards C.F.. For this to achieve, the performance of the learners as a result of two types of feedback, namely, Explicit Oral Feedback (EOF) and Explicit Written Feedback (EWF) in the form of metalinguistic feedback (error code and explanation), was studied. Sixty homogeneous Iranian EFL female high school students were randomly assigned to oral and written experimental groups. Afterwards, a grammar test was administered to see the effect of the two types of corrective feedback. The statistical techniques employed to measure such effects were a series of independent paired samples t-tests to analyze the data. The results indicated a significant impact of EOF and EWF groups on correcting grammatical structures, although the EOF outperformed the EWF group.Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with five randomly selected students from each experimental group to check their attitudes about the corrective feedback they had received. The students considered EOF more beneficial than EWF.Implications of using these kinds of feedback in EFL classes and avenues for further research are discussed.
این پژوهش بر روی زبان آموزان ایرانی برای مشخص کردن تاثیر بازخورد صریح شفاهی و کتبی در تصحیح ساختارهای دستوری و نگرش آنها نسبت به بازخورد های مذکور انجام شد. برای این منظور، عملکرد زبان آموزان در واکنش به دو نوع بازخورد، یعنی بازخورد صریح شفاهی و بازخورد صریح نوشتاری در قالب بازخورد فرا زبانی (کد نویسی و توضیح برای اشتباهات دستوری)، مورد مطالعه قرار گرفت. شصت دانش آموز دختر دبیرستانی همگن به طور تصادفی به دو گروه آزمایش شفاهی و کتبی تقسیم شدند و سپس یک آزمون دستور برای پی بردن به تاثیر دو نوع بازخورد از دانش آموزان گرفته شد. برای اندزه گیری چنین تاثیراتی یک سری از آزمون های t مستقل به عنوان تکنیک های آماری برای تجزیه و تحلیل داده ها بکار گرفته شد. نتایج نشان داد که هر کدام از این دو نوع بازخورد تاثیر قابل توجهی در تصحیح ساختارهای دستوری و کاهش اشتباهات دستوری داشته اند، اگر چه بازخورد صریح شفاهی تاثیر قابل ملاحضه تری نسبت به بازخورد صریح کتبی داشته است. مصاحبه های نیمه ساختارمند نیز با انتخاب پنج دانش آموز از هر گروه آزمایش به طور تصادفی برای یافتن نظر آنها در مورد بازخورد صریح شفاهی و کتبی انجام شد. دانش آموزان بازخورد صریح شفاهی را مفید تر و موثر تر از بازخورد صریح کتبی تشخیص دادند. بکارگیری این نوع بازخوردها در کلاسهای آموزش زبان انگلیسی جهت تقویت مهارت های زبان انگلیسی موثر خواهد بود و همچنین در این پژوهش پیشنهادات بیشتری راجع به بررسی بازخوردها داده شده است.
Almasi, E., &Tabrizi, A. R. N. (2016). The effects of direct vs. indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 74-85.
Alvira, R. (2016). The impact of oral and written feedback on EFL writers with the use of screencasts. profile Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 18(2), 79-92.
Bitchener, J, Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12 (3).
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written C.F. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348–363.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005).The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Cepni, S. B. (2016). A replication study. Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing; two approaches compared. Procedia social and behavioral sciences, 232, 520-528.
De Cuir-Gunby, J. T., Marshall, P. L., & McCulloch, A. W. (2011). Developing and using a codebook to analyze interview data: An example from a professional development research project. Field methods, 23(2), 136-155.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types, ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development, L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R.,& Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268.
Esmaeili, Z.,&Afshar, N. (2017). The role of recast feedback vs. metalinguistic feedback on second language speaking proficiency. American International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 17(1), 47-53.
Ewert, D. E. (2009). L2 writing conferences: Investigating teacher talk. Journal of Second language writing, 18(4), 251-269.
Freedman, S. W. (1981). Evaluation in the Writing Conference: An Interactive Process.
Fotos, S. (1994). Integrating grammar instruction and communicative language use through grammar consciousness-raising tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(3), 323-351.
Goldstein, L. M., & Conrad, S. M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. Tesol Quarterly, 443-460.
Hashemian, m., &Farhang-ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on the grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners’ writing ability. Journal of research in applied linguistic, 9(2), 142-159.
Karim, Kh., &Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159-174.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Grass and C. Madden (Eds.). Input in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newburg House.
Long, M. H. (2006). Problems in SLA. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lyster, R. &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R.,& K. Saito. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265– 302.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral feedback in the second language classroom: Ameta-analysis. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40.
Lee, A.,&Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35–64.
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 1-13.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309–365.
McNamara, E. (1999). Positive pupil management and motivation: A secondary teacher’s guide. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Ortiz, M., Díaz, C., &Inostroza, M. J. (2020). Effect of metalinguistic feedback on Chilean preservice teachers’ written use of the third person singular suffix-s. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics,11(1), 3-20.
Pirhonen, N. (2016). Students’ perceptions about the use of oral feedback in EFL classrooms. Master’s thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä.
Rassaei, H. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety, and L2 Development. System, 98, 98-109.
Rezaadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., &EslamiRasekh, A. (2015). The effect of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English language teaching and learning, 16, 113-146.
Richards, J.C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers’ and students’ attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.
Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage
Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching: A guidebook for English language teachers. Oxford: Macmillan Education.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of second language writing, 22(3), 286-306.
Sobhani, M., &Tayebipour, F. (2015). The effects of oral vs. written corrective feedback on Iranian EFLlearners’ essay writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(8), 1601-1611.
Tayebibipour, F. (2019). The impact of written vs. oral corrective feedback on Omani part-time vs. full-time college students’ accurate use and retention of the passive voice. Journal of Language Teaching and Research,10 (1), 50-160.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med, 37(5), 360-363.
Westmacott, A. (2017). Direct vs. indirect written corrective feedback: Student perceptions. Medellin. 22(1), 17-32.
William, J. G. (2003). Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(10).
Zhang, L., Zhang, y., & Ma, L. (2010). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 306-308.
Zhai,K.,& Gao, X. (2018). Effects of corrective feedback on EFL speaking task complexity in China’s university classroom. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1-13.
