Exploring Language Learners’ Perceptions of Explicit Corrections and Scaffolded Corrective Feedback in the Use of Articles in Oral Productions
الموضوعات : نشریه زبان و ترجمهLotfollah Samaee 1 , احسان رسایی 2 , محمد بوالی 3
1 - PhD Candidate of TEFL, English Department, Shiraz Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - گروه زبانهای خارجی، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران
3 - استادیار، بخش زبان های خارجی، واحد شیراز، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، شیراز، ایران
الکلمات المفتاحية: Corrective feedback, EFL learners, Explicit Feedback, Oral production, Scaffolded Feedback, learners’ perceptions, Use of articles,
ملخص المقالة :
The present study explores Iranian EFL learners’ perceptions of two types of corrective feedback, i.e., explicit and scaffolded feedback in oral productions. To this end, 30 female EFL learners selected through convenience sampling from two intact classes at a language school in Behbahan, Iran, were randomly assigned into two explicit and scaffolded feedback groups. The participants were all junior and senior high school students aged 15 to 20 at the intermediate level. A qualitative approach in the form of a series of semi-structured interviews was adopted to deeply explore the language learners’ perceptions of the corrective feedback types in question. The findings of the interviews demonstrated that half of the language learners in the explicit group set great store by explicit corrective feedback, while the other half were less favourably disposed toward explicit feedback. Likewise, a significant number of language learners in both groups found the teacher’s corrective feedback distracting. However, the overwhelming majority of the language learners in the scaffolded group viewed scaffolded corrective feedback as beneficial. The implications of the findings are also elucidated.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The modern language journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Amalia, Z. D. H., Fauziati, E., & Marmanto, S. (2019). Male and Female Students’ Preferences on the Oral Corrective Feedback in English as Foreign Language (EFL) Speaking Classroom. Humaniora, 10(1), 25-33.
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers think is right and why? Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95–127-195–127.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brown, A. V. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The modern language journal, 93(1), 46-60.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language
learning and teaching (5th ed.). White
Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Dömyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methodologies: Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The modern language journal, 94(1), 1-21.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition: London: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language acquisition: A literature review: Research Division, Ministry of Education Wellington, Australia.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written
corrective feedback types. ELT
Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and
teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1).
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy: John Wiley & Sons.
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.
Elsaghayer, M. (2014). Affective damage to oral corrective feedback among students in Libyan secondary schools. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 4(6), 74-82.
Fang, X., & Xue-Mei, J. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. US-China Education Review, 4(9), 10–14.
Finn, B., & Metcalfe, J. (2010). Scaffolding feedback to maximize long-term error correction. Memory & Cognition, 38(7), 951-961.
Gamlo, N. H. (2019). EFL Learners‟ Preferences of Corrective Feedback in Speaking Activities. World, 9(2).
Gass, S. M. (2013). Input interaction, and the second language learner. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Gass, S., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perceptions of interactional feedback: Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage language learners. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, 79-99.
Gor, K., & Long, M. H. (2009). Input and second language processing. Handbook of second language acquisition, 445-472.
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (Vol. 25): Walter de Gruyter.
Kim, J.-H., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap. Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies, 269, 297.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language teaching research, 15(1), 11-33.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 60(2), 309-365.
Long, M. H. (2007). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. Problems in SLA, 15, 63.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language learning, 59(2), 453-498.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 37-66.
Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied linguistics, 27(3), 405-430.
Martin, S., & Valdivia, I. M. A. (2017). Students’ feedback beliefs and anxiety in online foreign language oral tasks. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 18.
Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues and challenges. Language Teaching, 53(1), 3-28.
Oliver, R. (2018). Negative Versus Positive Evidence. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1-8.
Papangkorn, P. (2015). SSRUIC students’ attitude and preference toward error corrections. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1841-1846.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The modern language journal, 98(1), 417-431.
Richards, K. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42 (2), 147–180.
Sa'adah, L., Nurkamto, J., & Suparno, S. (2018). Oral corrective feedback: Exploring the relationship between teacher’s strategy and students’ willingness to communicate. Studies in English Language and Education, 5(2), 240-252.
Samad, I. A., Rahma, E. A., & Fitriani, S. S. (2016). Providing Indirect Corrective Feedback: A Technique to Reduce Errors in Students’ Writing. Journal of English Education, 1(2), 133-139.
Shooshtari, Z., Jalilifar, A., & Ostadian, M. (2018). A Mixed Methods Study of Scaffolded Corrective Feedback and Motivational Scaffolding in EFL Oral Production Accuracy and Fluency. Applied Linguistics Research Journal, 2(3), 34-47.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). LEARNERS’PROCESSING, UPTAKE, AND RETENTION OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON WRITING: Case Studies. Studies in second language acquisition, 303-334.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2002). Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 285-304.
Xie, F., & Jiang, X.-m. (2007). Error analysis and the EFL classroom teaching. Online Submission, 4(9), 10-14.
Zarei, M., Ahour, T., & Seifoori, Z. (2020). Impacts of implicit, explicit, and emergent feedback strategies on EFL learners’ motivation, attitude, and perception. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1727130.
