اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 406 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,323 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,804,383 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 3,247,731 |
The Impacts of Direct, Indirect, and Metalinguistic Feedback Strategies on Iraqi Students’ Writing Performance in EGP Courses | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 4، آبان 2025، صفحه 127-153 اصل مقاله (511.34 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2025.21507.2477 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Mohammad - Zohrabi* 1؛ Nava Nourdad2؛ Israa Abbas Alsaadi3 | ||
| 1Department of English Language, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, | ||
| 2Department of English Language, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz | ||
| 3PhD Student, Department of English Language, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 07 بهمن 1403، تاریخ بازنگری: 27 اسفند 1403، تاریخ پذیرش: 07 فروردین 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Written corrective feedback comprises an error treatment intervention that aims to apprise language learners of the existence of errors in their written work, enables them to self-correct their written output, prompts them to use complex grammatical structures, and empowers them to cast aside their writing task inhibitions. The present study used a mixed-methods design to examine the utility of written corrective feedback in foreign language context of Iraq. To this end, in the quantitative phase, the researchers selected 104 nursing students in four English for general purposes classes of a public university in Iraq as the participants. Furthermore, they assigned the learners to three experimental groups including direct, indirect, and metalinguistic groups and a control group. The researchers provided the experimental groups with their pertinent corrective feedback during 14 treatment sessions. Nonetheless, they used the traditional product-oriented writing instruction method in the control group. In addition, in the qualitative phase, the researchers randomly selected 10 students in each of the experimental groups and probed their perspectives on their relevant treatment using a researcher-developed semi-structured interview protocol. Based on the results, all of the examined WCF strategies ameliorated nursing students’ writing performance. However, direct and metalinguistic WCF strategies were more efficacious than the indirect strategy. Moreover, the qualitative findings indicated that the participants had a preference for direct and metalinguistic WCF strategies. The results can have practical implications regarding the use of written corrective feedback strategies in Iraqi context. Keywords: Direct, Indirect, and Metalinguistic Feedback Strategies | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Direct؛ Indirect؛ Metalinguistic Feedback Strategies | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abbaspour, E., Atai, M. R., & Maftoon, P. (2020). The effect of scaffolded written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality: An activity theory perspective. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 30, 177-196.
Allan D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Oxford University Press.
Almasi, E., & Tabrizi, A. (2016). The effects of direct vs. indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 74–16.
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. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to “Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008)”. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.06.001
Bitchener, J. (2018). Direct versus indirect grammar feedback. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-8). John Wiley & Sons
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning, 34, 21-42.
Creswell. J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th Ed.). Sage.
Dobakhti, L., & Khalili, A. (2024). A contributory study of the factors in British and Iranian English instructors’ teacher immunity. Applied Research on English Language, 13(2), 125-148. https://doi.org/10.22108/are.2024.141099.2264
Ekiert, M., & Di Gennaro, K. (2021). Focused written corrective feedback and linguistic target mastery: Conceptual replication of Bitchener and Knoch (2010). Language Teaching, 54(1), 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444819000120
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009a). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ellis, R. (2009b). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1, 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2005). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Fahmi, M. A., & Cahyono, B. Y. (2021). EFL students’ perception on the use of Grammarly and teacher feedback. Journal of English Educators Society, 6(1), 18-25.
Ferris, D. R. (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
Gharanjik, N., & Ghoorchaei, B. (2020). The impact of metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ acquisition of the hypothetical conditional. AJELP: Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 8(2), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol8.2.3.2020
Gundersen, E., & Lee, L. (2011). Pre-intermediate select readings. Oxford University Press.
Guo, Q., Feng, R., & Hua, Y. (2021). How effectively can EFL students use automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) in research writing? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2312–2331. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1879161
Hajebi, M. (2018). Enhancing writing performance of Iranian EFL university students in the light of using computer-assisted language learning. International Linguistics Research, 1(2), 47–51. https://doi.org/10.30560/ilr.v1n2p47
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2022). Comparative effects of direct and metalinguistic computer-mediated feedback on L2 learners’ writing ability and willingness-to-write. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 9(4), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2022.17200.2064
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020a). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020b). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
Kashef, S. H., & Khalili, A. (2023). Perspective chapter: English for academic purposes teacher education: Prerequisites, predicaments, and perquisites. In D. Ortega-Sánchez (Ed.), Education annual volume 2023 (pp. 299-309). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.112400
Khalili, A., Dobakhti, L., & Zohrabi, M. (2024a). Scrutinizing the predicting factors in native and nonnative English instructors’ teacher immunity. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 15(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.22055/rals.2023.43835.3061
Khalili, A., Kashef, S. H., & Khalili, F. (2022a). Interlinking corrective feedback with EAP writing instruction: An advantageous endeavor? ESP Today, 10(2), 286-309. https://doi.org/10.18485/esptoday.2022.10.2.5
Khalili, A., Zafarani, P., & Gholami, J. (2024b). Learning-oriented assessment in the context of Iran: Teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Language Testing, 14(2), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2024.433024.1317
Khalili, A., & Zohrabi, M. (2024). Predictors of New Zealander and Iranian English teachers’ productive and maladaptive teacher immunity. Journal of Language Horizons, 8(3), 97-124. https://doi.org/10.22051/lghor.2024.46117.1892
Khalili, A., Zohrabi, M., Dobakhti, L., & Gholami, J. (2025). Convenience editing in medical sciences: Professional expertise vis-à-vis linguistic virtuosity. Language Related Research, 16(1), 161-189. https://doi.org/10.48311/LRR.16.1.7
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.
Koltovskaia, S. (2020). Student engagement with automated written corrective feedback (AWCF) provided by Grammarly: A multiple case study. Assessing Writing, 44, 100450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100450
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (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 Press.
Luquin, M., & García Mayo, M. P. (2021). Exploring the use of models as a written corrective feedback technique among EFL children. System, 98, 102465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102465
Mak, P. (2019). From traditional to alternative feedback: What do L2 elementary students think? International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 109-129. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12250
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100469
Mapunda, G., & Kyara, E. (2023). “You must be crazy!” Teacher corrective feedback and student uptake in two Tanzanian secondary schools. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 10(4), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.18556.2188
Merkel, W. (2018). Role reversals: A case study of dialogic interactions and feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39(1), 16-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.11.007
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 University Press.
Mohammadnia, Z., & Khalili, A. (2014a). An investigation of the existence of a threshold level for the vocabulary. Iranian EFL Journal, 10(6), 590-608.
Mohammadnia, Z., & Khalili, A. (2014b). Linguistic focus of language related episodes in intermediate and advanced EFL learners’ group-based interactions: A case study. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(2), 127-133. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.2p.127
Mohammadnia, Z., & Khalili, A. (2014c). An investigation of the differential effects of visual input enhancement on the vocabulary learning of Iranian EFL learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 3(4), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.4p.69
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Routledge.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help in the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135
Ohta, A. (2001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rezaee, A. A., Norouzi, M. H., & Aryaeian, N. (2024). Iranian EFL teachers’ cognition of corrective feedback as an element of classroom management: A qualitative study. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 11(2), 2-24. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.18807.221
Saadi, Z., & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2053–2063. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.11
Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263107070039
Santos, M., López Serrano, S., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge University Press.
Shaqaqi, M., & Soliemani, H. (2018). Effects of asynchronous and conventional paper-and-pen metalinguistic feedback on L2 learners’ use of verb tense. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(3), 72-55. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.10230.1269
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
Shirkhani, S., & Omidi, S. (2024). Written corrective feedback on intermediate EFL learners’ formulaic errors: The impact of a teacher awareness-raising program. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 11(3), 79-100. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2023.19517.2278
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Talatifard, S. (2016). The Effect of reactive focused corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching, 4(3), 40–48.
Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16(2), 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S02722631000 12870
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J. (2010a). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(2), 329-335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.014
Truscott, J. (2010b). Further thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(4), 626-633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.10.003
Vali̇zadeh, M., & Soltanpour, F. (2021). Focused direct corrective feedback: Effects on the elementary English learners’ written syntactic complexity. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(1), 132–150. https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911207
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
Wang, Z., & Han, F. (2022). The effects of teacher feedback and automated feedback on cognitive and psychological aspects of foreign language writing: A mixed-methods research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.909802
Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004
Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A. (2023). The philosophy of teacher immunity: EFL teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 17(45), 330-346. https://doi.org/10.22034/jpiut.2024.59889.3664
Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A. (2024a). A cross-cultural study into the utility of diverse written corrective feedback strategies in medicine students’ ESP writing courses. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 12(2), 150-169. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijscl.2024.2025600.3436
Zohrabi, M., & Khalili, A. (2024b). A study of the predictors of English and Persian language learners’ psychological well-being. Literary Arts, 16(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.22108/liar.2024.140835.2360 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 188 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 33 |
||