Manuscript ID : 202406031121600 Visit : 10 Page: -

Article Type: Original Research

EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions toward Corrective Feedback and Collaborative Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study

Subject Areas : آموزش زبان انگلیسی

1 - Department of Humanities, Farhangiyan University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Iran
2 - Ministry of Education

Received: 2024-06-03 Accepted : 2024-12-03 Published : 2024-11-17

Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Collaborative Writing, EFL Learners, EFL Teachers, Perceptions ,

Abstract :

Perceptions have absorbed scholarly scrutiny within the domain of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) due to their potential to significantly impact learning behaviors. Hence, this study investigated female English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward patterns of Corrective Feedback (CF) and Collaborative Writing (CW). This study involved 150 EFL female learners aged between 14 and 20 along with 40 EFL female instructors at Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Urmia, Iran. The learners filled out the adapted version of Loewen et al.’s (2009) CF scale that encompassed 24 items. Additionally, a CF questionnaire, developed by the researcher, was administered to the teachers that comprised of 14 items. Furthermore, a CW questionnaire adapted from Aghazadeh et al. (2022) involving 8 items were administered among the learners and the teachers. To supplement the quantitative data at the end of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. The outcomes demonstrated that both teachers and learners had a positive attitude toward CF and CW. The theoretical and practical implications of the study were accordingly discussed.

References:

Aghazadeh, Z., Mohammadi, M., & Sarkhosh, M. (2022). Oral and written summarizing strategy training and reading comprehension: Peer-mediated vs. individualistic task performance. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.11157

Ahmadi Shirazi, M., & Shekarabi, Z. (2014). The role of written corrective feedback in enhancing the linguistic accuracy of Iranian Japanese learners’ writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 99-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2014.20426

Akoto, M. (2021). Collaborative multimodal writing via Google Docs: Perceptions of French FL learners. Languages, 6(3), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030140

Ashoori Tootkaboni, A., & Khatib, M. (2014). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback on improving writing accuracy of EFL learners. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7(3), 30-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.529

Bozorgian, H., & Yazdani, A. (2021). Direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanation: Investigating language analytic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 65-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120976

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267- 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory and practice. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Chen, W., & Liu, G. (2021). Effectiveness of corrective feedback: Teachers’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120974

Corpuz, V. A. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers' beliefs, practices, And students' preferences. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Queenland University of Technology, Faculty of Education. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/

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 (pp. 3-18). Routledge.

Fahim, M., & Haghani, M. (2012). Sociocultural perspectives on foreign language Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 693-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.693-699

Fernández-Dobao, A. (2020). Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think?. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12446

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p53

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B

Karimi, M. (2014). The impact of teacher’s implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on learning l2 grammar by Iranian English learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(4), 223-234. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:hur:ijarbs:v:4:y:2014:i:4:p:223-234

Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.

Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and
indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students'
perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443

Khanlarzadeh, M., & Nemati, M. (2016). The Effect of written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of EFL students: An improvement over previous unfocused designs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 55-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2016.20365

Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. In Ferris, D. (2003), Response to student writing: Implications for second language students (105-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002a). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 343-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00009-0

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002b). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, M. L. Barbier, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 168-187). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x

Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL
encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-9). Wiley.

Loewen, S. Li, Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x

Mahvelati, E. H. (2021). Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher
corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 1-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995

Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.

Soleimani, M., & Modirkhamene, S. (2020). Various corrective feedback types in collaborative vs. individual writing conditions. International Journal of Research in English Education, 5(3). http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-352-en.html

Sorayaei Azar, A., & Molavi, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes toward correction of oral errors. Retrieved from www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/menu_items/other/ejsbs52.pd

Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL
and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468

Stewart, D. C. (1988). Collaborative learning and composition: boon or bane? Rhetoric Review, 7(1), 58-83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/465535

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002

Swain, M., (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000090

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zarei, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2014). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on ELF learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: From perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1(3), 1-14. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:51859033

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency
students' engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2021). Implementing collaborative writing in Chinese EFL classrooms: Voices from tertiary teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 631561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631561

Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Sub-processes, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00019-5

Full-Text:

Research Article

EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions toward Written Corrective Feedback and Collaborative Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study

Maryam Soleimani1, Zahra Aghazadeh2*

Assistant Professor, Farhangiyan University, Urmia, West Azarbaijan, Iran

2 Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics, Ministry of Education, Salmas, West Azarbaijan, Iran

*Corresponding author: zahra.aghazadeh.zm@gmail.com

(Received: 2024/06/03; Accepted: 2024/12/03)

Online publication: 2024/12/08

Abstract

This study investigated female English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward patterns of Corrective Feedback (CF) and Collaborative Writing (CW). To this end, 150 EFL female learners, aged between 14 and 20, were selected using intact group design, along with 40 EFL female instructors from Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Urmia, Iran, to participate in the study. The learners filled out the reliable adapted version of Loewen et al.’s (2009) CF scale that encompassed 24 items. Additionally, a reliable CF questionnaire that comprised of 14 items was developed by the researchers and administered to the teachers. Furthermore, a reliable CW questionnaire adapted from Aghazadeh et al. (2022) involving eight items was administered among the learners and the teachers. To supplement the quantitative data at the end of the study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants. The outcomes demonstrated that both teachers and learners had a positive attitude toward CF and CW. The findings can potentially provide valuable insights for policymakers, language planners, curriculum designers, and textbook developers who are interested in improving learners' writing.

Keywords: corrective feedback, collaborative writing, Iranian EFL learners and teachers, perceptions

Introduction

Written Corrective Feedback (WCF) in L2 writing classes has been a topic of interest for decades (Brown, 2016; Khanlarzadeh & Nemati, 2016; Li, 2018). The pivotal interest in CF is due to its function as a platform that unites shared concerns for both language instructors and researchers (Ellis, 2017). A multitude of prior investigations (e.g., Bozorgian & Yazdani, 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Mahvelati, 2021; Shen & Chong, 2022) have demonstrated that instructors’ WCF can aid EFL students in composing written texts. Moreover, language educators must possess an understanding of several factors, such as learners' beliefs, perceptions, experiences, purposes, language proficiency, as well as the types of WCF strategies, in order to effectively provide CF on their pupils' work and assist them in attending to the WCF (Han & Hyland, 2019; Zeng et al., 2020).

In Iranian EFL context, writing is often overlooked in language classes. As a result, even after ten years of study and hundreds of hours of English courses, an average language learner still remains unable to write error-free English compositions. Many Iranian EFL teachers lack experience in motivating their students to write or engage in collaborative tasks. Additionally, most teachers primarily focus on simple grammatical structures when providing feedback. To our disappointment, Iranian L2 learners struggle using complex structures correctly even at advanced levels. This challenge is often attributed to a lack of feedback and noticing provided on the part of the teacher.

Regarding Collaborative Writing (CW), according to Vygotsky's (1978) conceptualization of the zone of proximal development (ZPD), writing abilities may evolve through other people's intervention and assistance. Thus, involving the learners in CW is a method that can be employed to foster interaction within the writing class. CW and peer feedback in L2 writing deserve considerable attention due to the suggested notion that the collaborative dialogue that arises during the writing process facilitates language development (Swain, 2000). Nonetheless, the existing body of research examining the benefits of CW is limited, particularly, within the Iranian EFL context. Some writing teachers argue that requiring learners to work collaboratively is unreasonable as not everyone possesses the ability to effectively collaborate with individuals who hold differing opinions, which may lead to conflicts (Stewart, 1988).

Understanding the perspectives held by instructors and pupils regarding CF are of utmost importance since it provides valuable insights into the actual requirements of classroom instruction (Chen & Liu, 2021). Nevertheless, research on teachers' attitudes, behaviors, and students' preferences for written error correction has yielded contradictory outcomes (Ferris, 2004). Understanding teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward CF and CW, whether positive or negative, can be helpful in adjusting and matching attitudes in order to promote and enhance success in language learning. In Iran, few studies have been conducted on exploring teachers’ and learners’ attitudes toward CF (Sorayaei Azar & Molavi, 2012) Therefore, research into teachers’ and learners’ beliefs about CF and CW can provide us with valuable insights on the ways and the degree to which these perceptions can impact L2 development as a whole, with a particular emphasis on writing.

Writing is a fundamental skill for conveying information and a special tool for language development (Chastain, 1988). Assisting students in the challenging procedure of becoming proficient writers in the intended language is one of the main responsibilities of second language (L2) teachers. Producing high-quality writing is an intellectually challenging endeavor, even when composing in one's mother tongue, as it necessitates the simultaneous consideration of various factors such as the content, form, and linguistic appropriateness of the text (Kellogg, 1994). Writing a text in a language that is not one's native tongue should be regarded as a task that requires even greater effort. Indeed, in the first language (L1), generating fluent, complex, grammatically accurate statements is an automated procedure; however, this is not the case in L2 (Zimmerman, 2000). Thus, students encounter a lot of difficulties in L2 writing process. The approaches towards the presence of errors in the writing performance of language learners have been diverse over the course of the history of second language acquisition (SLA). Eventually, the studies conducted in this field acknowledged the necessity of exploring the grammatical abilities of L2 learners, since errors were perceived as an integral aspect of a learning process (Bozorgian & Yazdani, 2021).

In the realm of acquiring knowledge in a broad sense and specifically in the domain of writing, there perpetually exists the potentiality of committing errors. When encountering errors during the process of acquiring a second language, teachers face a significant challenge in rectifying students' linguistic errors through the act of error correction. The question of whether and to what extent CF can facilitate the development of proficient writing skills is a matter of considerable significance to scholars in the field (Chandler, 2003; Ferris, 2010). While teachers perceive it as a time-consuming task, students believe that addressing errors in their writing is the most crucial step towards becoming successful writers (Ferris, 2003; Ashoori Tootkaboni & Khatib, 2014; Ghandi & Maghsoudi, 2014). Nevertheless, there is still debate over the value of error correction and how it affects the enhancement of writing accuracy (Chandler, 2003; Truscott & Hsu; 2008).

Prior research has repeatedly demonstrated that in order to enhance the accuracy of their work, L2 writing students desire and appreciate teacher feedback (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991). Furthermore, it appears from Corpuz's (2011) interviews that students value their professors' practice of correcting written errors since it enables them to identify their errors and amend their writing. Additionally, studies show that in order to increase the accuracy of their L2 writing, students depend on their teachers to address their errors (Lee, 2004). According to Ferris's (1997) findings from two different investigations, every student who took part in the research favored receiving CF from their teachers in order to enhance the accuracy of their L2 writing.

In addition, the results of the teachers' interviews by Corpuz (2011) showed that in teachers’ idea, CF assists learners become better proofreaders, which improves the effectiveness of their writing. Moreover, educators exhibit a preference for providing direct CF during the initial phases of learning a language, subsequently transitioning to more indirect methodologies with the intention of expediting the learning process. In the study conducted by Sorayaei Azar and Molavi (2012), a questionnaire was distributed to a group of 13 EFL learners who were enrolled at the university in Iran. The findings indicated that individuals learning English as a foreign language possessed favorable attitudes towards the act of rectifying errors. Moreover, they exhibited a preference for the correction of phonological and grammatical errors over other categories. Additionally, it was observed that these learners expressed a stronger inclination towards engaging in self-correction as opposed to alternative methods.

Recently, there has been a surge in academic research, with several studies asserting the efficacy of CF on the writing of EFL students (Ahmadi Shirazi & Shekarabi, 2014; Karimi, 2014; Maleki & Eslami, 2013; Zarei & Rahnama, 2014). For instance, Soleimani and Modirkhamene (2020) examined the impact of various types of CF on the writing performance of advanced EFL learners under individual and peer-mediated conditions. The results revealed that CF, particularly selective one, demonstrated greater efficacy in enhancing the accuracy of students' written compositions. Additionally, it was noticed that individuals in the CW conditions demonstrated superior performance with regard to their writing accuracy development compared to those in the individual writing groups.

With regard to CW, Fernández-Dobao (2020) investigated Spanish heritage language learners’ and L2 learners' attitudes towards their interactions while completing a series of CW tasks. The results affirmed the utilization of CW assignments in heterogeneous classes. In the same vein, Akoto (2021) examined the perspectives of French foreign language learners regarding the advantages and difficulties associated with collaborative multimodal writing, as well as the factors that influence their writing processes. The outcomes revealed that collaborative multimodal writing served as a stimulating educational experience. By the same token, Zheng, Yu, and Lee (2021) explored the attitudes of EFL teachers regarding the use of CW in tertiary institutes in China. The findings demonstrated that there are discrepancies between their perceptions and their actual practices, as well as between their attitudes and their knowledge. Despite recognizing the value and feasibility of CW, a significant portion of the teachers surveyed do not utilize it in their classrooms.

It is noteworthy to mention that a limited number of studies in Iran have delved into the beliefs of both teachers and learners regarding WCF as well CW and the alignment between teachers' instructional practices and students' preferences. Thus, research into learners’ beliefs can enrich our understanding of CF and CW. Accordingly, this inquiry endeavors to tackle the subsequent research question:

RQ1: What are Iranian EFL learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward patterns of WCF?

RQ2: What are Iranian EFL learners’ and teachers’ perceptions toward CW?

Method

Participants

A group of 150 Iranian female EFL learners were selected as the initial participants, with 50 elementary, 50 intermediate, and 50 advanced ones using intact group design. These individuals whose ages varied between 14 and 20 were engaged in the process of learning English language at Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Urmia, Iran. The individuals at the elementary level possessed a minimum of one year of English language learning experience. The participants at the intermediate level had undergone a two-year period of English language learning. Moreover, the participants at the advanced level had accumulated a three-year duration of English language learning at secondary school and institution(s). Furthermore, the present study involved a total of 40 Iranian female EFL instructors whose ages ranged from 30 to 42 years. It is of utmost significance to acknowledge that the instructors possessed Bachelor of Arts, Master of Arts, and Doctor of Philosophy qualifications, and their pedagogical backgrounds varied from a span of one to twenty years.

Instruments

Learners’ Corrective Feedback Questionnaire

A questionnaire regarding learners’ attitudes toward CF prepared by Loewen et al. (2009) was used in this study. It comprised of a total of 24 items which have been formulated based on a 5-point Likert scale. Before handing in the questionnaire to the participants at all proficiency levels, the researchers estimated its reliability using Cronbach Alpha. To this end, in the pilot study, it was administered to learners (10 learners in each level) with similar characteristics to those in the main study. For the elementary learners, the questionnaire (r = 0.81) was translated into Farsi for the ease of comprehension. However, for intermediate learners (r = 0.83) and advanced ones (r = 0.80), the English version was used. This questionnaire was examined by several EFL professors to ensure its content validity. It also enjoyed convergent validity of .70. Having made sure that the questionnaire possessed appropriate qualities for use in the study, the researchers administered it in the main study.

Teachers’ Corrective Feedback Questionnaire

A researcher-made questionnaire was given to the teachers regarding their perceptions on (a) whether CF should be applied in the classroom, and (b) which correlates of CF (i.e., type of feedback, learners’ proficiency level, writing conditions) they believe to be more effective. The items of the questionnaire were prepared based on the researchers’ own experience as teachers and their view toward CF. Moreover, the researchers used and adapted some of the items in Loewen et al.’s (2009) questionnaire. To obtain reliability estimates (r = 0.87) of the questionnaire, in the pilot study, the researchers administered the questionnaire to a sample (7 teachers) of randomly selected English teachers. After determining the nature of the questions, the researchers prepared the final draft of the questionnaire. Getting the consent of Iran Language Institute as well as the teachers teaching there was another step before the questionnaire was delivered to all female teachers at the ILI. The questionnaire consisted of 14 items in 5-point Likert-scale whose responses varied from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. This survey was scrutinized by various EFL professors in order to verify its content validity. Furthermore, it also demonstrated a convergent validity of .65.

Learners’ and Teacher’s Collaborative Writing Questionnaire

The questionnaires comprised of three distinct parts, namely an introductory section, a part dedicated to demographic characteristics, as well as the main part. A clear and precise explanation was provided in the introduction regarding the issues of confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary involvement. Subsequently, the participants' characteristics such as educational level, age, and teaching experience were examined. The main part of the questionnaires was adapted from Aghazadeh et al.'s (2022) questionnaire and encompassed eight close-ended items. These items were evaluated on a five-point Likert scale, extending from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Moreover, the questionnaires were piloted with a group of English teachers (r=0.77), elementary learners (r=070), intermediate learners (r = 0.75), and advanced ones (r = 0.72). For the elementary learners, the questionnaire was translated into Farsi for the ease of comprehension. However, for intermediate and advanced learners, the English version was used. Moreover, the questionnaires were examined by several EFL professors to ensure their content validity. They also enjoyed convergent validity of .74 and .73, respectively. After verifying that the questionnaires possess suitable attributes for implementation in the investigation, we proceeded to administer them in the primary research.

Semi-Structured Interview with Learners

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews containing six items with the random samples (25%) selected from the learners in the experimental groups to triangulate the data emerging from the questionnaires. The interview questions mainly aimed at eliciting learners’ attitude toward CF, their preferred CF type, their expectations from their teachers regarding CF, and their perception of CW.

Semi-Structured Interviews with Teachers

The researchers conducted another semi-structured interview containing seven questions with seven teachers as well. As already stated, the researchers’ main purpose was to increase the dependability of the findings in the study. The questions were supposed to explore the teachers’ perceptions toward CF and its applicability and advantages, their mostly used CF type, and their attitude toward CW.

Procedure

During the study, in order to find out the learners’ attitudes toward CF and CW, the researchers asked the participants across all proficiency levels to fill out two questionnaires on CF and CW. For elementary learners, due to their low level of proficiency in English, the Farsi version of the questionnaires, which had been piloted before the main study, was administered so that the respondents would feel more comfortable in expressing their ideas precisely. However, for the rest of the participants (i.e., intermediate and advanced ones), the researchers administered the English version of the questionnaire which had been piloted to assure its reliability in order to gain an in-depth understanding of the teachers' attitudes toward CF and CW. In order to understand the teachers’ attitude, the researchers asked 40 teachers to fill out the CF and CW questionnaires. In conclusion, with respect to the qualitative component of the investigation, semi-structured interviews were conducted with both teachers and learners. To this end, the researchers randomly selected eight teachers and 30 learners (10 learners from each proficiency level) for the interview. The interviews were conducted orally and audio-recorded with the participants' consent, while the interviewers meticulously took comprehensive notes during the interview. The duration of each interview typically fell within the range of 15 to 30 minutes. Preceding the actual implementation of the interview, the interview questions underwent a comprehensive review process by two specialists, as well as a pilot test involving three teachers and three students, in order to ascertain the appropriateness of the questions for the research. Subsequently, following the transcription of the recorded interviews, the data underwent manual coding.

Research Design

The current investigation is situated within the domain of a mixed-methods framework, which integrates both quantitative and qualitative approaches for gathering and examining data. In this exploration, a collection of surveys and a sequence of semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to assess the perspectives of learners and teachers towards CF and CW.

Data Analysis

The researchers examined the items of the questionnaires in terms of their percentages to pinpoint what the participants’ perceptions toward CF and CW were. Moreover, the researchers calculated the reliability of the questionnaires in pilot study using Cronbach Alpha before distributing them to the study's final participants. Besides, the researchers interviewed a few teachers and learners to triangulate their findings, which they then qualitatively reported. The units of analysis consisted of the segments of the teachers’ and learners’ conversations at the interviews. The emerging patterns from the teachers’ conversations were coded and categorized. These emerging categories and recurring themes formed the basis for the analysis and interpretation of the data. In so doing, the transcriptions were made right after the interviews. All the data collected from the teachers and learners were compiled and filed separately under each name. As a result, the regularities or patterns that emerged from the data generated the main categories which were relevant to the research questions. In order to enhance the reliability of the data, those quotations which seemed to provide concrete evidence to support the interpretations were selected and transcribed.

Results

Learners’ Attitudes toward Patterns of CF

Regarding the students’ perception toward error correction and feedback, the students held the belief that acquiring a comprehensive understanding of grammar through formal study is imperative in order to attain proficiency in a second language (90% agreed). They asserted that they typically keep grammar rules in mind when composing in an L2 (85% agreed) and possessing extensive knowledge of grammar facilitates their comprehension of written texts (85% agreed). Most individuals prefer their instructor to provide correction when they commit errors while conversing in a second language (92% agreed), and hold the belief that their proficiency in the L2 advances when they engage in the study of its grammar (85% agreed). They disagreed with the statements that it is feasible to engage in L2 communication devoid of an understanding of grammatical principles (80% disagreed), as well as the notion that instructors ought to refrain from rectifying students' mistakes in the classroom (95% expressed disagreement). They responded if they could communicate in an L2 accurately, others will value them (85% agreed). In addition, it was observed that the students tend to appreciate receiving feedback and corrections from their peers during collaborative tasks conducted in small groups (as reported by 85% of participants).

As indicated by 80% of respondents, proficient second language learners typically possess extensive knowledge of grammatical rules. Moreover, it was widely agreed upon that familiarity with grammatical rules facilitates effective communication in a second language (90% agreed). Furthermore, it was preferred by the students that their instructor elucidates the rules of grammar (97% concurred) due to the fact that the acquisition of grammatical knowledge facilitates second language learning process (90% concurred). However, the prevailing belief among individuals was that the prioritization of engaging in real-life situations when practicing a second language supersedes the emphasis placed on practicing grammatical rules (95% expressed their agreement). In terms of the issues encountered during conversational activities, it proves beneficial for individuals to receive clarifications on grammatical rules from their instructor (with a concurrence rate of 75%). Additionally, it was mentioned that a more rigorous study of grammar should be incorporated into the curriculum of their second language course (with a concurrence rate of 70%). In their perspectives, possessing knowledge regarding grammatical rules greatly contributes to the comprehension of the discourse of others (75% concurred). The majority of the students expressed their disagreement towards the notion of disliking when they receive corrections in the classroom (90% disagreed). Moreover, they further asserted that they exhibit a preference for their teachers to rectify any grammatical errors they make in writing in an L2, as evidenced by 90% of them concurring on this matter. Moreover, there is a prevailing sense of feeling deceived amongst students if a teacher fails to rectify the written assignments they submit (75% concurred). Furthermore, it was revealed that when encountering a sentence in a L2, individuals make an effort to decipher the underlying grammar (70% concurred). Consequently, one effective method to enhance their reading proficiency lies in augmenting their understanding of grammatical principles (75% concurred). Lastly, it was widely acknowledged that second language writing is deemed substandard when it contains numerous grammatical errors (95% concurred). In sum, the upshot of the student-attitude questionnaire confirmed that, on the whole, the participants had a positive attitude toward instructors’ error correction, feedback, and grammar instruction in the classroom.

Teachers’ Attitudes toward Patterns of CF

Regarding the teachers’ perception toward error correction and feedback, the teachers believed that they like teaching grammar (90% agreed) and students’ errors should be corrected when they commit mistakes in both written and oral communication in a foreign language, as evidenced by the agreement of 85% of the respondents. They posited that an increased emphasis on the study of grammatical rules within L2 courses is necessary (with a concurrence rate of 75%), since learning grammatical principles facilitates the process of communicating in a L2 (with a concurrence rate of 85%). The majority of individuals held the belief that L2 learning advances when they dedicate their time to studying the grammatical structure of the language (80% concurred). Additionally, proficient learners of a second language typically possess an extensive understanding of various grammatical rules (75% concurred). They disagreed that teachers should correct all the errors in learners’ writings (65% disagreed); however, they believed that teachers should correct errors selectively based on learners’ level (85% agreed). According to 97% of the respondents, using a second language in authentic contexts is more crucial than memorizing grammatical rules. In addition, according to their viewpoints, the act of writing collaboratively augments learners' comprehension of grammatical concepts (95% agreed). Furthermore, an understanding of grammatical principles assists individuals in comprehending the speech of others, as agreed upon by 80% of the participants. Moreover, the respondents expressed their dissent towards the assertion that they hold an aversion towards rectifying errors made by students during classroom instruction (95% voiced disagreement). In addition, they posited that L2 writing lacks quality if it has numerous grammatical errors (96% expressed agreement). Finally, it was their firm conviction that an effective means to enhance the proficiency of learners in reading and writing lies in augmenting their understanding of grammar (90% agreed). In summary, the prevailing viewpoint among the educators was favorable with regards to the rectification of errors, provision of feedback, and grammar instruction in the classroom.

Learners’ Attitudes toward CW

Concerning the learners' attitudes toward CW, it was observed that the students preferred to work collaboratively with friends because they could learn from each other (76%). The students expressed a fondness for CW as it facilitated reciprocal assistance (80%). Additionally, they thought CW is highly advantageous as it fostered interaction and progress among them (65%). A significant proportion of the students agreed that CW proved to be an exceedingly useful approach, as it allowed them to correct each other's errors (93%) and believed that when they worked with a friend, their learning was enhanced (80%). The students derived satisfaction from working with a friend since it provided an avenue for uninhibited expression of ideas (89%). Additionally, they stated that CW played a pivotal role in reducing their stress levels and promoting the process of learning (90%). Furthermore, they confirmed that CW facilitated the exchange of ideas and mutual learning among them (78%). In summary, the prevailing sentiment among the majority of students was one of favourability towards CW.

Teachers’ Attitudes toward CW

With respect to teachers' perceptions toward CW, the teachers held the belief that students had a preference for working with a companion due to the opportunity for mutual learning (81%). The teachers asserted that students found CW appealing because it encouraged peer assistance (64%). Additionally, they observed that the students found CW to be considerably more advantageous as it fostered interaction and contributed to more significant academic progress (90%). A significant majority of the teachers concurred that CW proved highly beneficial as it enabled students to rectify each other's errors (84%) and they maintained that when students collaborated with a peer, they acquired a greater depth of knowledge (77%). These teachers acknowledged that students were inclined towards working with a friend as it afforded them the freedom to express their ideas (83%). Moreover, they proclaimed that CW served as a valuable tool, as it alleviated students' anxiety and facilitated the learning process (98%). Additionally, they verified that CW facilitated the sharing of ideas and the acquisition of knowledge from one another (92%). Succinctly, the majority of teachers exhibited a positive disposition towards CW.

Qualitative Data Analysis for the Learners’ Semi-structured Interview

In order to obtain reliable results, the researchers interviewed the learners using questions similar to those stated in the questionnaire regarding their attitudes toward CF and CW.

1) Regarding their ideas about the effectiveness of CF and the type of feedback their teachers provide, the majority of the students stated that:

· My teacher underlines the error and corrects and it is very helpful.

· My teacher writes the correct form on the error. It helps me a lot.

· She crosses the wrong grammatical structure and corrects it.

· My teacher writes the correct form of the error and it is very useful for me.

· She writes the correct form with another color, usually red, and I think it is very good for me.

However, a few students stated that:

· I do not like being corrected by my teacher.

· Teachers’ CF confuses me.

2) Regarding their preferred CF type provided by the teacher (direct or indirect), they stated that:

· I prefer my teacher to provide the correct form herself directly.

· I like her to correct my errors herself.

· When she corrects my errors herself, I can learn better.

· When it is done directly by the teacher, I can learn more.

· When my teacher corrects directly herself, I can understand more.

And a small number of the students stated that:

· I prefer indirect CF because I want to think and find the correct form myself.

3) Whether they want their teacher to provide comprehensive correction or selective one, 98% of the learners stated that:

· I expect my teacher to correct all the errors because I can learn more.

· Definitely all of them because I want to learn English fast.

· I want her to correct all my errors to improve my English more.

· When all the errors are corrected, we can progress fast.

· All the errors should be corrected.

The other 2% said that:

· I prefer selective feedback because I can learn better.

· When my teacher corrects all the errors, I get puzzled.

· Selective CF is much better since I do not know most of the grammatical points.

4) Finally, regarding their attitudes toward either collaborative or individual writings and their advantages, most of the learners mentioned that:

· I prefer to write with my friend because we can learn from each other.

· I like CW because we can help each other.

· I think CW is much better because we interact with each other and progress more.

· CW is very useful because we can correct each other while writing

· When I write with a friend, I can learn more.

· When we write together, our errors are fewer.

However, some of the students stated that:

· When I write alone, I can concentrate more.

· I do not like working with someone because I cannot express my ideas freely.

· I am used to writing alone. I cannot work collaboratively.

Qualitative Data Analysis for the Teachers’ Semi-structured Interview

To triangulate the findings, the researchers interviewed the teachers with the questions similar to those stated in the questionnaire regarding their attitudes and perceptions toward use of CF and CW.

1) The majority of the teachers were highly in favor of CF. Regarding its effectiveness in the first question, they commonly repeated that:

· Error correction helps learners be aware of their level of grammar and encourages them to improve it.

· That way, they can understand the gap between their L2 forms and the correct L2 forms and develop their L2 knowledge.

· Since there are a lot of grammatical errors, if they are not corrected, students will repeat the same errors several times.

2) Regarding teachers’ way of correcting learners’ errors, the majority of the teachers stated that:

· It depends on their level but mostly I underline the errors and write the correct form.

· I put a question mark above the error and then provide the correct form.

· I always provide them with the correct form in low levels but usually in high levels I do the indirect one.

· Depending on the learners’ level, I provide the feedback, that is, for high levels, I correct indirectly by circling or underlining; however, for low levels, I provide direct feedback.

3) With regard to either teacher correction or learners’ self-correction, most teachers stated that:

· I think it would be a good idea to underline the error and ask the learners to correct the errors themselves.

· Self-correction helps learners learn more efficiently; moreover, it arouses their responsibility in correction and improves the accuracy in the long run.

· Teachers had better act as a guide and let the learners correct themselves. This way, they are not likely to repeat it again.

4) Regarding the fourth question, that is, comprehensive or selective feedback types, the teachers believed that:

· In low levels, I provide selective feedback but for highly proficient learners, I correct all the errors.

· I prefer selective correction in order not to make learners confused.

· I mostly apply selective correction because comprehending it is easier.

5) Regarding teachers’ opinion about implementing CW and its dis/advantages, they stated that:

· It is very useful because it improves learners’ language level, reduces stress and facilitates error correction.

· It facilitates learning since learners can share ideas, learn from each other, and interact more…..

· It can strengthen learners’ language ability and provide a good chance for the learners to correct each other and can enhance self-correction, too.

However, a few teachers stated that:

· CW is not useful for learners in the same level of proficiency since they cannot help each other in an effective way.

· When writing collaboratively, there is the likelihood that one student depends on the other one and keeps silent.

· Some of the students do not know what collaborative work is.

However, all of them stated that:

· Although CW is very effective, due to the lack of time, they cannot apply CW in their classes, and it can be sometimes done in some of high and advanced classes.

Finally, all of the teachers stated that:

· CW can improve learners’ grammar more and it is more beneficial and effective……

Discussion

The analysis of the data through the questionnaires revealed that both educators and students exhibited a favorable disposition towards CF and CW. Most of the students held the conviction that CF is indispensable for achieving proficiency in a second language and expressed a preference for their instructor to provide corrections in instances where mistakes are made. Many students believed that CF is essential for mastering a second language and that knowing a lot about grammar helps their reading. Moreover, most of them like their teacher to correct them when they commit errors because the study of grammar helps in learning a second language; they believed that their second language improves most quickly if they improve the grammar of the language. In addition, they stated that people will respect them if they use correct grammar when speaking and writing in L2. They thought that CF, which improves their grammatical accuracy, helps them communicate more effectively in a second language. They also believed that writing in a second language is ineffective if it contains many grammatical mistakes.

In sum, the upshot of the student-attitude questionnaire confirmed that on the whole, the participants had a positive attitude toward the error correction, feedback, and grammar instruction in the classroom. In line with this study, prior research has consistently demonstrated that L2 writing students possess a desire, anticipation, and appreciation for teacher feedback as a means to enhance their writing accuracy (Ferris, 1995; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Komura, 1999; Leki, 1991). Furthermore, the findings of the interviews conducted by Corpuz (2011) indicate that students perceive the act of written error correction by their teachers as significant in assisting them to identify their mistakes and improve their writing. Research has also revealed that in the process of improving their second language writing accuracy, students depend on teachers for error correction (Lee, 2004).

Regarding the teachers’ perception toward CF, the teachers believed that they like teaching grammar and that students’ errors should be corrected when they make errors in writing and speaking a second language. As indicated by the teachers, CF enhances one's ability to comprehend others' speech by augmenting their understanding of grammatical principles. To summarize, the prevailing sentiment among the educators was one of optimism with regards to the utilization of CF and the teaching of grammar within the confines of the classroom. With respect to the teachers’ positive attitudes toward CF, the current investigation aligns with the findings of Corpuz's (2011) research which indicated that teachers perceive CF as beneficial in improving students' proof-reading abilities in order to enhance the efficiency of their writing. In addition, the study conducted by Sorayaei Azar and Molavi (2012) revealed that EFL learners possess highly favorable perspectives towards the correction of any errors by their teacher.

The results of semi-structured interviews, further, indicated that both teachers and learners preferred direct CF since it is more effective, comprehensible and useful for learners and lowers the degree of frustration among learners. Regarding the type of CF, most of the students expected their teachers to correct all the errors; however, the teachers emphasized and provided selective feedback in order not to confuse learners.

Taking into account the teachers’ and learners’ perceptions toward CW, both of them were strongly in favor of CW in the classes. The results of the survey indicated that the majority of students expressed strong support for the CW. Initially, students stated that CW was a novel concept to them; however, the experience boosted their sense of self-assurance and their aptitude for writing. These findings validate the previous research conducted by Storch (2005) which revealed that the majority of students who took part in her study expressed a generally favorable perception towards the CW experience.

The results of the research could potentially be explained by Vygotsky’s (1978) social constructivism stating that the primary origin of cognitive and mental activities lies in the external activities in which the learner engages. When individuals engage in social interactions, their cognitive functions become active. In other words, external activities are converted into cognitive ones by means of approximation and internalization (Fahim & Haghani, 2012). It has been contended that the collaborative construction of knowledge entails the active involvement of learners in cognitive operations, which can serve as a catalyst for second language acquisition (Swain, 2000; Swain et al., 2002). Along with these lines, it can be argued that the CW tasks provide learners with a chance to engage in meaningful communication (Kuiken & Vedder, 2002a; 2002b).

Since good writing entails the acquisition of various linguistic abilities, including grammatical accuracy, lexicon, syntax, and planning strategies like organization, style and rhetoric, writing instruction is especially important in foreign language classes (Aydin & Yildiz, 2014). The ability to write effectively is becoming more significant in today’s communication and academic settings, and, therefore, improving the writing ability of the learners is assuming an important part in L2 language education (Ghoorchaei, Tavakoli, & Ansari, 2010). One of the most important questions in applied linguistics is what makes a second or foreign language writer a proficient one. Therefore, the role of CF in the process of second language acquisition in general and writing in particular is a topic that is receiving a lot of research attention. Sheen (2010) attributed this continuing research interest in CF to “the significance it carries for both SLA theory building and language pedagogy” (p. 177). Thus, it is also important to establish whether correcting students’ written work helps to improve accuracy more than just providing them with writing practice. Until this question is addressed, the debate over corrective feedback cannot be settled. Thus, this study investigated EFL learners’ and teachers’ attitudes toward WCF and CW. The findings highlighted both the teachers’ and learners’ positive attitudes toward WCF, instruction, and CW in the classroom.

One implication is that CF in all forms can be considered an important strategy. thus, the results of this study can be considered as one step forward to support the existing theories. The Noticing hypothesis, proposed by Schmidt (1994, 2001), postulates a theory that has consequences for the application of written error correction. This theory suggests that the level of conscious attention L2 students devotes to the structure of a language can impact the development of their L2 system. Accordingly, it can be contended that the correction of written errors serves as a beneficial stimulus that directs the learners' focus towards the structure. Therefore, EFL instructors are recommended to weigh the learners' abilities and proficiency level as well as writing conditions before asking the learners to write in the classroom. In addition, CF can potentially provide valuable insights for policymakers, language planners, curriculum designers, and textbook developers who are interested in improving learners' writing. This includes determining the most effective feedback type, selecting the appropriate writing condition, emphasizing specific structures, and utilizing appropriate resources.

The significance of CW in EFL contexts is another potential pedagogical implication that can be drawn from this study. Given that students thoroughly enjoyed the CW process and felt that it assisted their L2 learning, the results of this investigation clearly demonstrate that CW may additionally serve as a valuable pedagogical tool in the learning and instruction of writing in EFL settings. This is because students were capable of generating more accurate written scripts. Moreover, teachers must ensure that the assignments they assign and the instructions they offer have the potential to optimize the possibilities for educational advancement. Teachers must place great importance on highlighting the necessity of establishing an environment of interdependence amongst the collaborators. This can be achieved by encouraging them to spontaneously provide support to one another, drawing upon their diverse strengths and abilities. Once students learn to collaborate with others, they can also pick up valuable group qualities like tolerance, collaboration, and adaptability.

Like any human creation, this investigation has certain constraints. A significant constraint of this investigation was the participants' gender, which was confined to female learners. Gender, being a crucial factor in the process of acquiring a language, has the potential to influence the results of the research. Moreover, the subjects involved in this research were individuals from Iran who were learning English as a foreign language. Other investigations can be conducted within the ESL context. Furthermore, it should be noted that the outcomes of this particular study could potentially be exclusive to the specific demographic being examined, and may not possess a universal applicability. To enhance the level of certainty in making generalizations, it is advisable to conduct additional studies using larger samples. These supplementary studies will help ensure the external validity of the present findings.

Conflict of Interests: None

References

Aghazadeh, Z., Mohammadi, M., & Sarkhosh, M. (2022). Oral and written summarizing strategy training and reading comprehension: Peer-mediated vs. individualistic task performance. Journal of Language and Education, 8(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.11157

Ahmadi Shirazi, M., & Shekarabi, Z. (2014). The role of written corrective feedback in enhancing the linguistic accuracy of Iranian Japanese learners’ writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(1), 99-118. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2014.20426

Akoto, M. (2021). Collaborative multimodal writing via Google Docs: Perceptions of French FL learners. Languages, 6(3), 140. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages6030140

Ashoori Tootkaboni, A., & Khatib, M. (2014). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback on improving writing accuracy of EFL learners. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching & Learning Language & Literature, 7(3), 30-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/jtl3.529

Aydin, Z., & Yildiz, S. (2014). Using wikis to promote collaborative EFL writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 160 –180.

Bozorgian, H., & Yazdani, A. (2021). Direct written corrective feedback with metalinguistic explanation: Investigating language analytic ability. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 65-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120976

Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267- 296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9

Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory and practice. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Chen, W., & Liu, G. (2021). Effectiveness of corrective feedback: Teachers’ perspectives. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 9(1), 23-42. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2021.120974

Corpuz, V. A. (2011). Error correction in second language writing: Teachers' beliefs, practices, And students' preferences. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Queenland University of Technology, Faculty of Education. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/49160/

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 (pp. 3-18). Routledge.

Fahim, M., & Haghani, M. (2012). Sociocultural perspectives on foreign language Learning. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 3(4), 693-699. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jltr.3.4.693-699

Fernández-Dobao, A. (2020). Collaborative writing in mixed classes: What do heritage and second language learners think?. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12446

Ferris, D. (1995). Student reactions to teacher response in multiple-draft composition classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 33-53. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587804

Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049

Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Erlbaum.

Ferris, D. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005

Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490

Ghandi, M., & Maghsoudi, M. (2014). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ spelling errors. English Language Teaching, 7(8), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n8p53

Ghoorchaei, B., Tavakoli, M., & Nejad Ansari, D. (2010). The impact of portfolios assessment on Iranian EFL students’ essay writing: A process -oriented approach. Journal of Language Studies, 10(3), 35 -51. http://journalarticle.ukm.my/2335/1/page1_21.pdf

Han, Y., & Hyland, F. (2019). Academic emotions in written corrective feedback situations.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003

Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B

Karimi, M. (2014). The impact of teacher’s implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on learning l2 grammar by Iranian English learners. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(4), 223-234. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:hur:ijarbs:v:4:y:2014:i:4:p:223-234

Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The psychology of writing. Oxford University Press.

Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and
indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students'
perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12443

Khanlarzadeh, M., & Nemati, M. (2016). The Effect of written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy of EFL students: An improvement over previous unfocused designs. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 55-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2016.20365

Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms. In Ferris, D. (2003), Response to student writing: Implications for second language students (105-128). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002a). The effect of interaction in acquiring the grammar of a second language. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 343-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(03)00009-0

Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002b). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect of group interaction on text quality. In: G. Rijlaarsdam, M. L. Barbier, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 168-187). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 285-312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001

Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x

Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL
encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-9). Wiley.

Loewen, S. Li, Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., Ahn, S., & Chen, X. (2009). L2 learners’ beliefs about grammar instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 91-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00830.x

Mahvelati, E. H. (2021). Learners’ perceptions and performance under peer versus teacher
corrective feedback conditions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, 1-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.100995

Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(7), 1250-1257. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.

Soleimani, M., & Modirkhamene, S. (2020). Various corrective feedback types in collaborative vs. individual writing conditions. International Journal of Research in English Education, 5(3). http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-352-en.html

Sorayaei Azar, A., & Molavi, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners’ attitudes toward correction of oral errors. Retrieved from www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/menu_items/other/ejsbs52.pd

Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2022). Learner engagement with written corrective feedback in ESL
and EFL contexts: a qualitative research synthesis using a perception-based framework.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468

Sheen, Y. (2010). The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 169-179.

Stewart, D. C. (1988). Collaborative learning and composition: boon or bane? Rhetoric Review, 7(1), 58-83. http://www.jstor.org/stable/465535

Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002

Swain, M., (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf, J. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000090

Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Zarei, A. A., & Rahnama, M. (2014). The effect of written corrective feedback modes on ELF learners’ grammatical and lexical writing accuracy: From perceptions to facts. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 1(3), 1-14. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:51859033

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Liu, Z. (2020). Understanding individual differences in lower-proficiency
students' engagement with teacher written corrective feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 28, 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1806225

Zheng, Y., Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2021). Implementing collaborative writing in Chinese EFL classrooms: Voices from tertiary teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, article No. 631561. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.631561

Zimmermann, R. (2000). L2 writing: Sub-processes, a model of formulating and empirical findings. Learning and Instruction, 10(1), 73-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00019-5

Appendix A

Questionnaire regarding Learners’ Attitude toward Corrective Feedback

Note: The questions below ask you what you think about corrective feedback and studying grammar rules and about your motivation for learning a second language. Read each statement and decide how strongly you agree or disagree. If a question doesn’t apply to you, you can mark not applicable.

Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
1) Studying grammar formally is essential for mastering a second language
2) I usually keep grammar rules in mind when I write in a second language.
3) Knowing a lot about grammar helps my reading
4) When I make errors in speaking a second language, I like my teacher to correct them.
5) My second language improves most quickly if I study the grammar of the language.
6) I can communicate in a second language without knowing the grammar rules.
7) Teachers should not correct students when they make errors in class.
8) I like studying grammar.
9) People will respect me if I use correct grammar when speaking a second language.
10) I like to be corrected by my classmates in small group work.
11) Good learners of a second language usually know a lot of grammar rules.
12) Knowing grammar rules helps communication in a second language.
13) I like it when my teacher explains grammar rules.
14) The study of grammar helps in learning a second language.
15) It is more important to practice a second language in real-life situations than to practice grammar rules.
16) When I have a problem during conversation activities, it helps me to have my teacher explain grammar rules.
17) There should be more formal study of grammar in my second language class.
18) Knowledge about grammar rules helps in understanding other people’s speech.
19) I dislike it when I am corrected in class.
20) When I make grammar errors in writing in a second language, I like my teacher to correct them.
21) When I read a sentence in a second language, I try to figure out the grammar.
22) I feel cheated if a teacher does not correct the written work I hand in.
23) Second language writing is not good if it has a lot of grammar mistakes.
24) One way to improve my reading ability is to increase my knowledge of grammar.

Appendix B

Questionnaire regarding Teachers’ Attitude toward Corrective Feedback

Note: The questions below ask you what you think about corrective feedback and studying grammar rules. Read each statement and decide how strongly you agree or disagree. If a question doesn’t apply to you, you can mark not applicable.

Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
1) I like teaching grammar.
2) Students’ errors should be corrected when they make errors in writing and speaking a second language.
3) There should be more formal study of grammar in second language classes.
4) Knowing grammar rules helps communication in a second language.
5) Learners’ second language improves most quickly if they study the grammar of the language.
6) Teachers should correct all the errors in learners’ writings.
7) Teachers should correct errors selectively based on learners’ level.
8) Good learners of a second language usually know a lot of grammar rules.
9) It is more important to practice a second language in real-life situations than to practice grammar rules.
10) Writing in pairs enhances learners’ grammar knowledge.
11) Knowledge about grammar rules helps in understanding other people’s speech.
12) I dislike correcting learners’ errors in class.
13) Second language writing is not good if it has a lot of grammar mistakes.
14) One way to improve learners’ reading and writing skills is to increase their knowledge of grammar.

Appendix C

Questionnaire regarding Learners’ Attitudes toward Collaboration

Instructions:

On the following page there are series of statements that represent opinions that individuals might have about collaboration. Please indicate the degree of your agreement or disagreement with each statement by ticking one of the boxes.

EFL Learners' Attitude toward Collaboration

	Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
1	I prefer to work with my friend because we can learn from each other
2	I like collaboration because we can help each other more
3	I think collaboration is much better because we interact with each other and progress more
4	Collaboration is very useful because we can correct each other
5	When I work with a friend, I can learn more.
6	I like working with a friend because I can express my ideas freely
7	Collaboration is very useful because it reduces our stress and facilitates learning
8	Collaboration helps us share ideas and learn from each other

Appendix D

Questionnaire regarding Teachers’ Attitudes toward Collaboration

Instructions:

EFL Teachers’ Attitude toward Collaboration

	Items	Strongly Agree	Agree	Disagree	Strongly Disagree	Not Applicable
1	Students prefer to work with a friend because they can learn from each other.
2	Students like collaboration because they can help each other more.
3	I think collaboration is much better because learners interact with each other and progress more.
4	Collaboration is very useful because students can correct each other.
5	When students work with a friend, they can learn more.
6	Students like working with a friend because they can express their ideas freely
7	Collaboration is very useful because it reduces students' stress and facilitates learning
8	Collaboration helps students share ideas and learn from each other

Appendix E

A Semi-Structured Interview with Learners

The following questions were used in interview with the learners.

· How do your teachers correct grammatical errors in your writing? Is it helpful?

· Do you prefer your teacher to provide the corrections in your writing directly (giving the correct word right away) or indirectly (underlining, encircling, etc)? Why?

· Do you prefer that your teacher corrects your grammatical errors in writing for you, or do you prefer to discover and correct them on your own? Why?

· Do you prefer that your teacher corrects all the errors or just the ones according to your level?

· Do you prefer to write a composition alone or with your friend?

· Which writing condition helps you enhance your grammar knowledge, individual writing or collaborative one?

Appendix F

A Semi-Structured Interview with Teachers

The following questions were used in interview with the teachers.

· In your experience as a teacher, is providing error correction effective in helping students develop and enhance their writing accuracy? Please explain.

· How do you correct grammatical errors in learners’ writings?

· Do you prefer to provide the corrections in learners’ writings directly (giving the correct word right away) or indirectly (underlining, encircling, etc)? Why?

· Is it the teacher’s job to correct errors in students’ writings? Or should it be the other way around, that is, students should correct errors for themselves? Why?

· Do you correct all the errors (comprehensive error correction) or the ones according to your students’ level (selective error correction)? Why?

· Do you apply collaborative writing in your classes? What are the advantages?

· Which type of writing is more influential in enhancing learners’ grammar knowledge, collaborative or individual?

Biodata

Maryam Soleimani has PhD in Applied Linguistics from Urmia University and she has served as the assistant professor in Farhangiyan University since 2018 and as a full-time teacher at Iran Language Institute since 2006. Her recent publications have appeared in Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching (Indexed in Scopus), Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research (Indexed in Web of Science and Scopus), Asian ESP Journal (Indexed in Scopus), PASSA (Indexed in Scopus), and International Journal of Research in English Education (ISC Indexed Journal). She is a member of editorial board in Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research as well.

Zahra Aghazadeh has Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Urmia University and she is a full-time English language instructor in Ministry of Education in Iran. Moreover, she has been teaching general English language courses for undergraduate levels at Urmia University and at Farhangiyan University for 4 years. Her recent research has appeared in Journal of Teaching English as a Second Language Quarterly (Formerly Journal of Teaching Language Skills) (ISC Indexed Journal), Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research (Indexed in Web of Science and Scopus), and Journal of Language and Education (Indexed in Web of Science and Scopus). Her main research interests are reading comprehension, collaborative learning, strategy-based instruction, first and second language acquisition, MALL, CALL, textbook evaluation, and material development. She has participated in various national and international conferences as well.

ادراکات زبان آموزان و معلمان زبان انگلیسی نسبت به بازخورد اصلاحی و نوشتن مشارکتی: مطالعه ای با روش های ترکیبی

ادراکات به دلیل پتانسیل آنها برای تأثیر قابل توجه بر رفتارهای یادگیری، بررسی های علمی را در حوزه اکتساب زبان دوم (SLA) جذب کرده اند. از این رو، این مطالعه به بررسی نگرش معلمان و زبان آموزان زن انگلیسی به عنوان یک زبان خارجی (EFL) نسبت به الگوهای بازخورد اصلاحی (CF) و نوشتن مشارکتی (CW) پرداخت. این مطالعه شامل 150 زبان آموز زن بین 14 تا 20 سال به همراه 40 مدرس زن زبان انگلیسی در موسسه زبان ایران (ILI) در ارومیه، ایران بود. زبان آموزان نسخه اقتباس شده مقیاس بازخورد اصلاحی لوون و همکاران (2009) را پر کردند که شامل 24 گویه بود. علاوه بر این، یک پرسشنامه بازخورد اصلاحی که توسط محققان ساخته شده بود، برای معلمان اجرا شد که شامل 14 گویه بود. علاوه بر این، یک پرسشنامه نوشتن مشارکتی اقتباس شده از آقازاده و همکاران (2022) شامل 8 گویه در بین فراگیران و معلمان اجرا شد. برای تکمیل داده های کمی در پایان پژوهش، مصاحبه های نیمه ساختاریافته با شرکت کنندگان انجام شد. نتایج نشان داد که هم معلمان و هم یادگیرندگان نگرش مثبتی نسبت به بازخورد اصلاحی و نوشتن مشارکتی داشتند. مفاهیم نظری و عملی مطالعه بر این اساس مورد بحث قرار گرفت.

کلمات کلیدی: بازخورد اصلاحی، نوشتن مشارکتی، فراگیران زبان انگلیسی، معلمان زبان انگلیسی، ادراکات

Links

Related Centers

Technical Support

Official pages

Share To

Article Url

EFL Learners’ and Teachers’ Perceptions toward Corrective Feedback and Collaborative Writing: A Mixed-Methods Study

Sanad