The Impact of Direct, Indirect, and Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on Field Dependent and Field Independent (FD/I) EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy in an Asynchronous Learning Context
محورهای موضوعی : Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching EnglishFatemeh Jamasbi 1 , Mohammad Bavali 2 , Mohammad Ali Ayatollahi 3
1 - Department of Foreign Languages, Shi. C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
2 - Department of Foreign Languages, Shi. C., Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran
3 - Department of Foreign Languages, Sep. C., Islamic Azad University, Sepidan, Iran
کلید واژه: Written corrective feedback, cognitive style, accuracy, field dependent, field independent,
چکیده مقاله :
Research on written corrective feedback in second language acquisition has advanced; however, debates continue about the most effective type of feedback. The current study examines the impact of unfocused direct, indirect, and metalinguistic written corrective feedback on the syntactic accuracy of 104 upper-intermediate Iranian EFL university students. Another critical aspect of this study involved examining the potential influence of cognitive style (FD/I) on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. This quasi-experimental study incorporated a pretest, seven treatment sessions, and immediate and delayed posttests. To investigate, a mixed-design Analysis of Variance (SPANOVA) was employed to examine the interaction between the between-group factors, including corrective feedback at four levels (direct, indirect, metalinguistic, and no feedback) and cognitive styles at two levels (FD/I), and the within-group factor, time at three levels (pre-intervention, post-intervention, and two-week delayed intervention). The results indicated that both direct and metalinguistic feedback types are more effective than no feedback. However, indirect feedback did not appear to have a significant impact compared to the absence of feedback. The three-way interaction among time, feedback, and cognitive style was non-significant for accuracy scores, indicating that the combined influence of these factors and accuracy scores was not significant. The findings of this study have significant implications for educators seeking to enhance their students' writing abilities in terms of syntactic accuracy.
Research on written corrective feedback in second language acquisition has advanced; however, debates continue about the most effective type of feedback. The current study examines the impact of unfocused direct, indirect, and metalinguistic written corrective feedback on the syntactic accuracy of 104 upper-intermediate Iranian EFL university students. Another critical aspect of this study involved examining the potential influence of cognitive style (FD/I) on the efficacy of written corrective feedback. This quasi-experimental study incorporated a pretest, seven treatment sessions, and immediate and delayed posttests. To investigate, a mixed-design Analysis of Variance (SPANOVA) was employed to examine the interaction between the between-group factors, including corrective feedback at four levels (direct, indirect, metalinguistic, and no feedback) and cognitive styles at two levels (FD/I), and the within-group factor, time at three levels (pre-intervention, post-intervention, and two-week delayed intervention). The results indicated that both direct and metalinguistic feedback types are more effective than no feedback. However, indirect feedback did not appear to have a significant impact compared to the absence of feedback. The three-way interaction among time, feedback, and cognitive style was non-significant for accuracy scores, indicating that the combined influence of these factors and accuracy scores was not significant. The findings of this study have significant implications for educators seeking to enhance their students' writing abilities in terms of syntactic accuracy.
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J. (2017). Why do some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback? In H. Nassaji and E. Kartchava (eds) Corrective Feedback in Second Language Teaching and Learning 129–40. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10
Bitchener, J. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 207-225). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.011
Bitchener, J., & Ferris D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.
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, 267–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
Eckstein, G., Sims, M., & Rohm, L. (2020). Dynamic written corrective feedback among graduate students: The effects of feedback timing. TESL Canada Journal, 37(2), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v37i2.1339
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT journal, 63, 97-107.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. In R. Ellis & G. Barkhuizen (Eds.), Analysing learner language (pp. 5-21). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M. and Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System 36, 353–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049
Ferris, D. R. (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. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(02), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0272263109990490
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (2013). Anticipating a post task activity: the effects on accuracy, complexity, and fluency of L2 language performance. Canadian Modern Language Review. 69(3), 249-273.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. H. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.06.006
Gas, S., M. & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 180-206.
Goo, J. (2012). Corrective feedback and working memory capacity in interaction-driven L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(3), 445-474.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.1-22). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1071/9781108635547.003
Kang, N. & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99 (1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
Lantolf, J. & Pavlenko, A. (2001). (S)econd (L)anguage (A)ctivity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In M. P. Breen (ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning: New Directions in Research (pp. 141-158). London: Longman.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research: Staking out the territory. TESOL. Quarterly, 25, 315-350. 10.2307/3587466
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology: A framework for understanding research. In D. Larsen-Freeman & L. Cameron (Eds.), Complex systems and applied linguistics (pp. 1-15). Oxford University Press.
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634-654.
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in system. System, 84, 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Li, L., & Yang, W. (2022). Understanding the effects of written corrective feedback strategies on L2 English writing development: A meta-analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 56(1), 17-49.
Lim, J. M. H., & Renandya, W. A. (2020). Written corrective feedback: Recent trends and future directions. Language Teaching, 53(3), 335-346.
Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. B. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamins Publishing.
Mackey, A., Adams, R., Stafford, C., Winke, P. (2010). Exploring the relationship between modified output and working memory capacity. Language Learning, 60(3), 501-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00565.x
McLaughlin, B. (1990). “Conscious” versus “unconscious” learning. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 617–634. https://doi. org/10.2307/3587111
Mirzaii, M. and Aliabadi, R., B. (2013). Direct and indirect written corrective feedback in the context of genre-based instruction on job application letter writing. Journal of Writing Research 5, 191–213. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2013.05.02.2
Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 82–99. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002.
Nassaji, H. (2015). The Interactional Feedback Dimension in Instructed Second Language Learning: Linking Theory, Research, and Practice. London: Bloomsbury
Nassaji, H. (2016). Anniversary article: interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: a synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20, 535–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Modern Language Journal,101, 353–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/ modl.12387
Nicolás-Conesa, F., Manchón, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effects of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12592
Polio, C. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 375-389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.004
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68.
Révész, A. (2012). Working memory and the observed effectiveness of recasts on different outcome measures. Language Learning, 62(1),93-132.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093./applin/11.2.129
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
https:// doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Shintani, N. & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1991). French immersion and its offshoots: Getting two for one. In B. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 91-103). Lexington Books.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J. (2022). Working memory in the modular mind. New York: Routledge.
Truscott, J. and Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17: 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119171
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Witkin, H.A., Oltman, P.K., Raskin, E. R. (1971). Group embedded figures test. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263101263050
Xu, F. (2009). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in Chinese-as-a-foreign-language classrooms: A study of form-focused instruction. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong).
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586
