Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners’ Opinions About Written Corrective Feedback: Impacts on the Perception and Production of Present Perfect and Past Perfect Tenses
محورهای موضوعی : نشریه تخصصی زبان، فرهنگ، و ترجمه (دوفصلنامه)Shahyad Mohammadnia-Afruzi 1 , Behrang Mohammad-Salehi 2
1 - Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English, Babol Branch, Islamic Azad University, Babol, Iran
2 - Assistant Professor in TEFL, Department of English, Izeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Izeh, Iran
کلید واژه: Direct Feedback, Indirect Feedback, Metalinguistic Feedback, Revision, Written Corrective Feedback,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study aims to investigate Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ attitudes towards three types of written corrective feedback (WCF) (direct, indirect and metalinguistic +/– revision) on perception and production of present/past perfect tenses. Two-hundred and ten participants were randomly assigned to six experimental groups and one control group based on Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). Regarding different types of feedback +/– revision, two tenses were presented to each experimental group. Next, a pretest-posttest design was applied. A questionnaire containing two parts were administered to the learners in these groups. Then, the statistical procedure of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare students' perceptions regarding feedback provision. Based on the results obtained from the questionnaire it was shown that the six groups receiving +/– revision feedback had positive attitudes towards feedback provision. The findings of this study might come in handy for helping students improve their writing quality and particularly use feedback as a facilitating technique in acquiring tenses in English.
The present study aims to investigate Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ attitudes towards three types of written corrective feedback (WCF) (direct, indirect and metalinguistic +/– revision) on perception and production of present/past perfect tenses. Two-hundred and ten participants were randomly assigned to six experimental groups and one control group based on Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT). Regarding different types of feedback +/– revision, two tenses were presented to each experimental group. Next, a pretest-posttest design was applied. A questionnaire containing two parts were administered to the learners in these groups. Then, the statistical procedure of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare students' perceptions regarding feedback provision. Based on the results obtained from the questionnaire it was shown that the six groups receiving +/– revision feedback had positive attitudes towards feedback provision. The findings of this study might come in handy for helping students improve their writing quality and particularly use feedback as a facilitating technique in acquiring tenses in English.
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Burke, D., & Pieterick, J. (2010). Giving students effective written feedback. McGraw Hill Open University Press.
Denton, P. (2013). The power of our words: teacher language that helps children learn. Northeast Foundation for children.
Ekinci, M. & Ekinci, E. (2024). Using error correction codes to improve writing success of EFL learners. International Journal of Language Academy, 8(4), 282-293. http:// dx.doi.org/10.29228/ijla.45324
Ghaffari, A., & Akbari, O. (2018). The relationship between EFL learners’ attitude, self-efficacy and their writing achievement. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 3(1), 61-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v0i0.217
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically, correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Haider, G. (2012). An insight into difficulties faced by Pakistani students’ writers: Implications for teaching of writing. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 2(3), 17-27.
Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
Harward, S., Peterson, N., Korth, B., Wimmer, J., Wilcox, B., & Morrison, T. G., Simmerman, S., & Pierce, L. (2014). Writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Why teachers engage or do not engage students in writing. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53(3), 205-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2014.896959
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2019). Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues. Cambridge University Press.
Ishikawa, M. (2018). Written languaging, learners’ proficiency levels and grammar learning. System 74, 50-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.017
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Longman.
Lantolf, J. P., & Aljaafreh, A. (1995). Second language learning in the zone of proximal development: A revolutionary experience. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 619-623.
Lawrence, M. S. (1972). Writing as a thinking process. University of Michigan Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic.
Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2017). “I feel disappointed”: EFL university students’ emotional responses towards teacher written feedback. Assessing Writing, 31, 53-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2016.07.001
Mulati, D. F. (2018). Do students need teacher written corrective feedback? A case study at secondary school. Proceedings of 2nd English Language and Literature International Conference (ELLiC), Universitas Muhammadiyah, Indonesia.
Nouraey, P., & Behjat, F. (2020). Students’ attitude towards written error corrections: A study in an Omani EFL context. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 9(3), 210-218. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.23.2020.93.210.218
Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology: A textbook for teachers. Prentice Hall International.
Rasool, U., Mahmood, R., Zammad Aslam, M., Barzani, S. H. H., & Qian, J. (2023). Perceptions and preferences of senior high school students about written corrective feedback in Pakistan. Sage Open, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231187612
Saragih, N, A., Madya, S., Siregar, R.A., & Saragih, W. (2021). Written corrective feedback: students’ perception and preferences. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching (IOJET), 8(2), 676-690.
Shen, R., & Chong, S. W. (2023). 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, 48(3), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2072468
Soori, A., Kafipour, R., & Soury, M. (2011). Effectiveness of different types of direct corrective feedback on correct use of English articles among the Iranian EFL students. European Journal of Social Sciences, 26(4), 494-501.
Tasdemir, MS., & Yalcin Arslan, F. (2018). Feedback preferences of EFL learners with respect to their learning styles. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1481560. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2018.1481560
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-69.
Valizadeh, M., & Soltanpour, F. (2020). The Effect of Individualized Technology-Mediated Feedback on EFL Learners' Argumentative Essays.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Riber, A. S. Carton & N. Minik (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol 1: problems of general psychology (pp. 237-285). Plenum Press.
Zacharia, N. T. (2007). Teacher and student attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 38(1), 38-52. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033688206076157
Zahida, R. Farrah, M. & Zaru, N. (2014). The impact of three types of written feedback on the motivation and writing skill of English major students at Hebron University. Al-Najah Univ. J. Res. (Humanities), 28(5), 1275-1297. http://dspace.hebron.edu:80/xmlui/handle/123456789/75
Zhang, C. (2016, May 27-29). An investigation into teacher written feedback on English writing. Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Education, Management and Computer Science, Shenyang, China. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/icemc-16.2016.170
Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2018). Feedback as an assessment for learning tool: How useful can it be? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1120-1132. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434481
Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing Writing, 37, 13-24. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.03.001
