On the Differential Effects of Computer-Mediated and Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Accuracy
محورهای موضوعی : language teachingمیر ایوب طباطبایی 1 , کامه خاصه خان 2 , نگین قویدل نیا 3 , صمد رمزی 4
1 - Payam-e-Noor University, Instructor, Salmas, Iran
2 - Department of English, Salmas Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Salmas, Iran
3 - Department of English, Salmas Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Salmas, Iran
4 - Payam-e-Noor University, Instructor, Salmas, Iran
کلید واژه: Corrective feedback, EFL learners, Writing Accuracy, Metalinguistic Feedback, computer-mediated feedback,
چکیده مقاله :
The present study investigated differential effect of two types of feedback namely, computer-mediated and metalinguistic, on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. To this end, based on Nelson Proficiency Test (300 A), 69 Iranian advanced EFL learners, including 45 males and 24 females, aged between 17 and 24, learning English in language institutes in Salmas, were selected randomly out of the total population of 121 EFL learners and then divided into three groups. The participants in the two experimental groups received metalinguistic and computer-mediated feedback separately while those in the control group received no feedback. The analyses of the results obtained through a pre-test and a post-test indicated that both feedback types significantly influenced learners’ writing accuracy. However, analysis of the participants’ performances on the post-test demonstrated that metalinguistic group outperformed computer-mediated one. Thus, the effect of metalinguistic feedback was more than that of computer-mediated feedback. In addition, both of them were more influential than no-feedback instruction. The findings of the present study can be fruitful for syllabus designers and EFL teachers.
یکی از مهم ترین عواملی که در دهه های اخیر مورد بحث و گفت و گو قرار گرفته است و می تواند زبان آموزانرا در یادگیری هر چه موثرتر یاری نماید، تأثیر بسزای دریافت بازخورد در کلاس های زبان است. برای دستیابیبه مهارت کافی در جنبه های مختلف زبان مقصد (از جمله مهارت نوشتاری)، تصحیح خطا و دریافت بازخوردکمک چشمگیری در رسیدن به اهداف زبان آموزان دارد. این تحقیق اثرات دو روش کامپیوتری و فرا زبانیبازخورد را بر روی دقت نوشتاری زبان آموزان ایرانی مورد بررسی قرار داده است. بر اساس نمرات حاصل از آزمون69 زبان آموز بزرگسال در سطح پیشرفته، شامل 45 مذکر و 24 مونث، بین سنین 17 ،( نلسون (فولر و کو ، 1976و 24 سال که در حال یادگیری زبان انگلیسی در سطح پیشرفته در آموزشگاههای شهرستان سلماس بودند در اینتحقیق شرکت کردند. شرکت کنندگان به سه گروه تقسیم شدند. دو گروه آزمایشی بازخورد کامپیوتری و فرازبانیدریافت نمودند و در گروه کنترل هیچ گونه بازخوردی فراهم نشد. بررسی نتایج بدست آمده از پیش آزمون و پسآزمون نشان داد که هر دو نوع بازخورد تاثیر بسزایی در دقت نوشتاری زبان آموزان دارد. هرچند بازخوردکامپیوتری دردقت نوشتاری زبان آموزان تاثیرداشت، شرکت کنندگان در گروه فرازبانی آزمون نهایی را با موفقیتبیشتری پشت سر گذاشتند. در نتیجه تاثیربازخورد فرازبانی نسبت به کامپیوتری چشمگیرتر بود. در پایان اینتحقیق بحث ها و نتایج ارائه شده است.
References
Adams, R. H., & Strickland, J. (2012). the Effects of Computer-Assisted Feedback Strategies in Technology Education: A Comparison of Learning Outcomes. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 4(3).
Azizi, M., Behjat, F. & Sorahi, M. (2014). Effect of metalinguistic teacher corrective feedback on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(6), 54-63.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Chastain, K. (1988). Developing second language skills: theory and practice. Orlando. Florida: Harcout Brace Jovanovich.
Cohen, A. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines, 11(2), 1–9.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Errasti, M. P. S. (2003), Acquiring writing skills in a third nguage: The positive effects of bilingualism. International Journal of Bilingualism, 7, 27-42.
Fahim, M. & Montazeri, M. (2013). The impact of ‘Metalinguistic’ corrective feedback on EFL learners’ levels of lexical resource and grammatical range and accuracy in their oral proficiency. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (7), 1776-1782.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case of grammar correction in L2 writing classes: a response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11.
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, 49–62.
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.
Hosseini, S. B. (2012). Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Correct Use of Prepositions: Is it really effective? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39 (2), 83-101.
Karakas, A. (2011). Motivational Attitudes of ELT Students Towards Using Computers For Writing And Communication. Teaching English with Technology, 11(3), 37-53.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312
Li, Y. (2000). Linguistic characteristics of ESL writing in task-based e-mail activities. System, 28(2), 229-245.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429–448.
Lindbom-Ylanne, S., & Pihlajamaki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay wriying process? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 17-30.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R.J. (2000). The effects of peer versus teacher comments in both electronic and traditional modes on ESL writers’ revisions. Paper presented at the 34th Annual TESOL Convention, 14-18 March, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
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.
Milton, J. (2006). Resource-rich web-based feedback: Helping learners become independent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nezami, S. H. (2012). A study of errors, corrective feedback and noticing in synchronous computer mediated communication. (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-88411.
Rahimpour, M. (2008). Implementation of task- based approaches to language teaching. Research on Foreign Languages Journal, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 41, 45- 61.
Rahimpour, M., & Nariman-Jahan, R. (2011). The effects of planning on writing narrative task performance with low and high EFL proficiency. English Language Teaching, 4 (1),120- 127.
Rami F. M. (2012). Feedback on the Feedback: Sociocultural Interpretation of Saudi ESL Learners’ Opinions about Writing Feedback. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 3-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p3
Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective Feedback in a Computer-Mediated Communicative Context and the Development of Second Language Grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93.
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.).
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23, 103 110.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-83.
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.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University.
Tatawy, M. (2002). Corrective Feedback in Second Language Acquisition. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 2 (2). Retrieved on-line from: http://journals.tc library.org/index.php/tesol/article/view/160/158.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and Conjecture on the Effects of Correction: A Response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337- 343.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Tuzi, F. T. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revision of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217-235.
Vahdani Sanavi, R., & Nemati, M. (2014). The Effect of Six Different Corrective Feedback Strategies on Iranian English Language Learners’ IELTS Writing Task 2. Journal of Language and Translation, 1(7), 67-7.
Yeha, Sh., & Lob, J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882–892.
