The Role of Direct Metalinguistic and Indirect Feedback Timing in Enhancing Speaking Accuracy Task Performance of Iranian EFL Learners
محورهای موضوعی :
Elham Dehdari
1
,
Naser Ghafouri
2
,
Saeideh Ahanghari
3
1 - Department of English language, Islamic Azad University, Sarab branch, Sarab, Iran
2 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad UniversityTabriz, Iran
3 - Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
کلید واژه: Feedback, meta-linguist feedback, indirect feedback, speaking accuracy,
چکیده مقاله :
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of feedback timing on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners' speaking accuracy in direct metalinguistic and indirect feedback scenarios. By utilizing a quasi-experimental design, the investigator enlisted a total of 120 participants, consisting of 63 males and 57 females, with an average age of 21.5 years. These participants were then divided into four distinct groups: a direct-immediate feedback group comprising 30 students, a direct-delayed feedback group consisting of 30 students, an indirect-immediate feedback group comprising 30 students, and an indirect-delayed feedback group consisting of 30 students. The data collection process involved the utilization of three distinct instruments: the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), a speaking accuracy test, and a series of two-way exchange tasks. Following the homogenization of participants based on the OPT test, a pretest was administered to assess their speaking accuracy. In the treatment phase, the group receiving indirect instant feedback promptly rectified errors by reformulating them into the proper form upon occurrence. In the experimental condition of indirect delayed feedback, the instructor meticulously documented the errors made by each student along with their respective names, to deliver personalized feedback to each learner. In the experimental group focused on direct metalinguistic immediate feedback, participants were presented with explanations and examples illustrating the right form of the errors they had made. In the metalinguistic delayed group, the instructor would record the nature of errors and the names of the pupils to offer explanations and provide accurate examples tailored to each student. During the post-test phase, the participants underwent a re-administration of the speaking accuracy test, and the resulting scores were duly recorded. The data that was gathered was subjected to both descriptive and inferential analysis using Two-way ANOVA. The findings from the data analysis indicate a notable interaction between the timing of feedback and the type of input about their impact on the speaking accuracy of Iranian intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners.
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the impact of feedback timing on the improvement of Iranian EFL learners' speaking accuracy in direct metalinguistic and indirect feedback scenarios. By utilizing a quasi-experimental design, the investigator enlisted a total of 120 participants, consisting of 63 males and 57 females, with an average age of 21.5 years. These participants were then divided into four distinct groups: a direct-immediate feedback group comprising 30 students, a direct-delayed feedback group consisting of 30 students, an indirect-immediate feedback group comprising 30 students, and an indirect-delayed feedback group consisting of 30 students. The data collection process involved the utilization of three distinct instruments: the Oxford Placement Test (OPT), a speaking accuracy test, and a series of two-way exchange tasks. Following the homogenization of participants based on the OPT test, a pretest was administered to assess their speaking accuracy. In the treatment phase, the group receiving indirect instant feedback promptly rectified errors by reformulating them into the proper form upon occurrence. In the experimental condition of indirect delayed feedback, the instructor meticulously documented the errors made by each student along with their respective names, to deliver personalized feedback to each learner. In the experimental group focused on direct metalinguistic immediate feedback, participants were presented with explanations and examples illustrating the right form of the errors they had made. In the metalinguistic delayed group, the instructor would record the nature of errors and the names of the pupils to offer explanations and provide accurate examples tailored to each student. During the post-test phase, the participants underwent a re-administration of the speaking accuracy test, and the resulting scores were duly recorded. The data that was gathered was subjected to both descriptive and inferential analysis using Two-way ANOVA. The findings from the data analysis indicate a notable interaction between the timing of feedback and the type of input about their impact on the speaking accuracy of Iranian intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners.
Allwright, R. & Bailey, K. M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An intro-duction to classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Bartram, M., & Walton, R. (1991). Correc-tion: Mistake Management. Language Teaching Publications.
Brooks, N. (1960). Language and language learning: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
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.
Chen, Y. (2019). The effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on writing accuracy. Language Learning, 69(3), 407-429.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner's errors. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5(1-4), 161-170.
Doughty, C. (1994). Fine-tuning of feedback by competent speakers to language learners. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics: Educational linguistics, cross-cultural communication, and global interdependence, 96-108.
Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written CF. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral CF in L2 classrooms: What we know so far. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.). CF 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 CF 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.
Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: purpose. Process, and Practice.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feed-back in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). CF, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6, 161–183.
Holley, F. M., & King, J. K. (1971). Imitation and correction in foreign language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 55(8), 494-498.
Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 387-398.
Hughes, R., & Reed, B. S. (2016). Teaching and researching speaking. Taylor & Francis.
Hunter, J. (2012). Small talk’: Developing fluency, accuracy, and complexity in speaking. ELT Journal, 66 (1), 30-41.
Karimi, M. N., & Asadnia, F. (2015). EFL teachers' beliefs about oral CF and their feedback-providing practices across learners' proficiency levels. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 7(2), 39-68.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second lan-guage development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in second language acquisition, 25(1), 37-63.
Li, X. (2015). The effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on grammar accuracy. Applied Linguistics, 36(3), 351-371.
Lindsay, C., & Knight, P. (2006). Learning and teaching English: A course for teachers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1977). Teacher feedback on learner error: Mapping cognitions. TESOL, 77, 278 294.
Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic envi-ronment 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). CF and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
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.
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.
Park, H. S. (2010). Teachers’ and learners’ preferences for error correction. Un-published Ph.D Thesis. California State University.
Praver, M., Rouault, G., & Eidswick, J. (2011). Attitudes and Affect Toward Peer Evaluation in EFL Reading Cir-cles. The Reading Matrix, 11(2), 89-101.
Redmond, M. V., & Vrchota, D. (2006). Every-day public speaking. Allyn & Bacon.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). The salience of feedback on error and its ef-fect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-96.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning, 45(2), 283-331.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2006). Teacher corrective practices in the foreign language class-room: The effect of timing. In C. Bailey & K. Barnett (Eds.), Proceedings of the Social Change in the 21st Century 2006 Conference, Queensland University of Technology: Centre for Social Change Research.
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 Psycho-linguistics, 25(2), 269-292.
Scrivener, J. (2011). Learning teaching: The essential guide to English language teaching (3rd ed.). UK: MacMillan.
Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit fo-cus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ ac-curacy of oral production. Unpublished MA thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology
Skehan, P. (2009). Modeling second language performance: Integrating complexity, ac-curacy, fluency, and lexis. Applied Lin-guistics 30(2), 510–532.
Thornbury, S. (2000). Accuracy, fluency and complexity. Readings in Methodology, 16, 139- 143.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/ explicit and imme-diate/delayed CF on learners’ perfor-mance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Auckland.
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. Zhang, Y. (2018). The effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on vocabulary learning. Journal of Second Language Learning, 7(1), 1-22.
Wang, Y. (2017). The effects of immediate versus delayed feedback on speaking fluency. Language Teaching Research, 21(3), 299-318.
