The Role of Direct Metalinguistic and Indirect Feedback Timing in Enhancing Willingness to Communicate (WTC) of Iranian EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی : Research Paper
Elham Dehdari
1
(Department of English language, Islamic Azad University, Sarab branch, Sarab, Iran)
Nasser Ghafoori
2
(Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University,Tabriz,Iran)
Saeideh Ahanghari
3
(Department of English Language, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University
Tabriz, Iran)
کلید واژه: Feedback timing, WTC, Meta-linguist feedback, Indirect feedback ,
چکیده مقاله :
This study tried to inspect and compare any possible effects of immediate and delayed metalinguistic and indirect feedback on the level of WTC of Iranian EFL learners in task performance. This research was a quasi-experimental work with 120 Participants (63 males and 57 females) who were divided into four groups: 30 students as the direct-immediate feedback group, 30 students as the direct-delayed feedback, 30 students as the indirect-immediate feedback, and 30 students as the indirect-delayed feedback. Different instruments were utilized to collect the required data, including the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), the WTC scale (McCroskey, 1992), and a set of two-way exchange tasks. After homogenizing the participants, based on the OPT test, the participants took the WTC scale as a pretest. As the treatment, the indirect immediate feedback group participants reformulated the errors into the correct form as soon as they committed errors. In the indirect delayed feedback group, the teacher noted the errors and the student’s name to provide feedback for that specific student. In the direct metalinguistic immediate feedback group, the participants were provided with both explanations and examples of the correct form of errors they committed. In the metalinguistic delayed group, the teacher wrote notes on the error types and the students’ names to provide explanations andcorrect examples for specific students. The WTC scale was readministered in the post-test and the scores were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyze the pre-and post-test data. The result of the data analysis showed there was an interaction between the timing and the type of feedback regarding their effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ WTC.
در این مطالعه سعی شده است اثرات احتمالی بازخورد فوری و تأخیری فرازبانی و غیرمستق یم بر سطح WTC زبان آموزان ایران ی در انجام تکال یف بررسی و مقای سه شود. این پژوهش یک کار نیمه تجربی با 120 شرکت کننده )63 مرد و 57 زن( بود که به چهار گروه 30 دانش آموز به عنوان گروه بازخورد مستقی م فوری، 30 دانش آموز به عنوان بازخورد مستق یم با تاخیر، 30 دانش آموز به عنوان گروه غ یرمستق یم تقس یم شدند. بازخورد فور ی، و 30 دانش آموز به عنوان بازخورد غ یرمستقی م با تاخ یر. ابزارهای مختلفی برای جمع آوری داده های مورد نی از استفاده شد، از جمله آزمون قرارگیری آکسفورد(OPT (، مق یاس WTC( مک کراسکی ، 1992(، و مجموعهای از وظای ف مبادله دو طرفه. پس از همگن سازی شرکت کنندگان، بر اساس آزمون OPT ، شرکت کنندگان مقیاس WTCرا به عنوان پیش آزمون گرفتند. به عنوان درمان، شرکت کنندگان گروه بازخورد فوری غیرمستقیم به محض اینکه مرتکب خطا شدند، خطاها را به شکل صحیح دوباره فرموله کردند. در گروه بازخورد تأخ یر غیرمستق یم، معلم خطاها و نام دانش آموز را یادداشت می کند تا برای آن دانش آموز خاص بازخورد ارائه کند. در گروه بازخورد فور ی فرازبانی مستقی م، هم توضیحات و هم نمونه هایی از اشکال صح یح اشتباهاتی که مرتکب شدند به شرکت کنندگان ارائه شد. در گروه تاخیری فرازبانی، معلم یادداشت هایی در مورد انواع خطاها و نام دانش آموزان نوشت تا توضیحات و مثال های صحیح را برای دانش آموزان خاص ارائه دهد. مقی اس WTC مجدداً در پس آزمون اجرا شد و نمرات ثبت شد. برای تجزیه و تحل یل داده های پیش آزمون و پس آزمون از آنالیز واریانس دوطرفه استفاده شد. نتا یج تجزیه و تحل یل داده ها نشان داد که بین زمان بندی و نوع بازخورد در رابطه با تأث یر آن ها بر WTC زبان آموزان ایران ی زبان انگل ی سی متوسط، تعامل وجود دارد.
Allwright, R. (1975). Problems in the study of the language teacher’s treatment of learner error.
In M. Burt & H. Dulay (Eds.), On TESOL ‘75: New directions in language learning,
teaching, and bilingual education (pp. 96–109). Washington, DC: TESOL
Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2000). The role of gender and immersion in communication
and second language orientations. Language learning, 50(2), 311-341.
Cao, Y. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language
classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39(4), 468-479.
Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to
communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48(4), 789-814.
Cao, Y., & Philp, J. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison
of behavior in whole class, group and dyadic interaction. System, 34(4), 480-493.
Chastain, K. (1971). The development of modern-language skills: theory to practice (Vol. 14).
Philadelphia: Center for Curriculum Development.
Chaudron, C. (1977). Teachers' priorities in correcting learners' errors in French immersion
classes. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Clément, R., Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second
language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of language and social
psychology, 22(2), 190-209.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Dörnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition. AILA review, 19(1),
42-68.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners.
Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Educational
linguistics, crosscultural communication, and global interdependence, 96-108.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 206–257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji
& E. Kartchava (Eds.). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning:
Research, theory. applications, implications (pp. 3-18). Abingdon: Routledge.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
Fanselow, J. F. (1977). The treatment of error in oral work. Foreign language annals, 10(5), 583-
593.
Freiermuth, M., & Jarrell, D. (2006). Willingness to communicate: can online chat help?
International journal of applied linguistics, 16(2), 189-212.
Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a
Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and
Teaching, 6, 161–183.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 11 (47), 2023 Islamic Azad University of Najafabad
The Role of Direct Metalinguistic and Indirect Feedback Timing … 69
Gass, S. (2003). Differential effects of attention. Language learning, 53(3), 497-546.
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory,
research, and practice. Modern language journal, 387-398.
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. The
modern language journal, 55(8), 494-498.
Kang, S. J. (2005). Dynamic Emergence of Situational Willingness to Communicate in a Second
Language. System, 33, 277-292.
Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2015). EFL teachers' beliefs about oral corrective feedback and
their feedback-providing practices across learners' proficiency levels. Journal of Teaching
Language Skills, 7(2), 39-68.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence.
Studies in second language acquisition, 25(1), 37-63.
Li, S., Zhu, Y., & Ellis, R. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the
acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276-295.
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. TESOL, 77, 278 294.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie and T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the
decision to speak as a volitional process. The modern language journal, 91(4), 564-576.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second
language communication. Journal of language and social psychology, 15(1), 3-26.
MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate,
social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in
second language acquisition, 23(3), 369-388.
MacIntyre, P. D., Burns, C., Jessome, A. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second
language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate.
The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81-96.
MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness
to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545-562.
MacIntyre, P., Baker, S., Clément, R., & Donovan, L. (2003). Talking in order to learn:
Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. Canadian Modern
Language Review, 59(4), 589-608.
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2006). Pushing the methodological boundaries in interaction
research: An introduction to the special issue. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
28(2), 169-178.
Mackworth, N. H. (1950). Researches on the measurement of human performance. Researches on
the Measurement of Human Performance, 21(2) 56-79.
McCroskey, J. C. (1992). Reliability and validity of the willingness to communicate scale.
Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate and interpersonal
communication. Personality and interpersonal communication, 2, 129-156.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). Increasing teacher influence through immediacy.
Power in the classroom. Communication, control, and concern, 45, 200-211.
International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 11 (47), 2023 Islamic Azad University of Najafabad
70 Dehdari, E., Ghafoori, N., & Ahangari, S., Vol. 11, Issue 47, 2023, pp. 55-70
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., Daly, J. A., & Falcione, R. L. (1977). Studies of the
relationship between communication apprehension and self-esteem. Human
communication research, 3(3), 269-277.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning:
Linking theory, research, and practice. London: Bloomsbury.
Peng, J. E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the
Chinese EFL classroom context. Language learning, 60(4), 834-876.
Peng, K. R. (2010). An exploratory cross-sectional study of inter language pragmatic
development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 27-67.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R., & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for second
language instruction. Multilingual Matters, 9(2) 45-66.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language
Teaching Research, 14(2), 183-206.
Rosa, E. M., & Leow, R. P. (2004). Awareness, different learning conditions, and second
language development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 269-292.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching (3rd
ed.). UK: MacMillan.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
Spada, N. (2006). Communicative language teaching: Current status and future prospects. In J.
Cummins & C. Davison (Eds.), Kluwer handbook of English language teaching (pp.259
276). Amsterdam: Klewer Publications
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In Handbook of research in
second language teaching and learning (pp. 495-508).
Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL
context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54-66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk‐Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and effect
on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language
learning, 54(1), 119-152.
Zadkhast, M., & Farahian, M. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed corrective feedback
on Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 6(6), 28-39.
Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of the
teacher on learners' willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288-295.
Zarrinabadi, N., & Tanbakooei, N. (2016). Willingness to communicate: Rise, development,
and some future directions. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(1), 30-45.
Zhang, H., Song, W., Shen, S., & Huang, R. (2014). The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback
on learners’ motivation, collaboration, and course satisfaction in a second language
writing course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6)20-33.
