اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 19 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 380 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,131 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 4,251,618 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 2,845,981 |
The Effectiveness of Oral Corrective Feedback in the Acquisition of Third-Person Singular 's' in Iranian EFL Context | ||
| Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies | ||
| دوره 12، شماره 1، فروردین 2025، صفحه 1-25 اصل مقاله (915.9 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: research paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30479/jmrels.2024.19640.2297 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Navid Bahrami Maleki؛ Ali Akbar Ansarin* ؛ Yaser Hadidi | ||
| Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 26 آذر 1402، تاریخ بازنگری: 01 اسفند 1402، تاریخ پذیرش: 20 اسفند 1402 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Focus on form through oral corrective feedback has been the center of many L2 learning investigations in recent decades. Although research has been abundantly done on the impact of different single-feedback types, not many studies have included combinational feedback strategy, especially as regards the mastery of both explicit and implicit knowledge of morpheme ‘s’ by EFL students in Iran. Therefore, the present work attempted to compare the effectiveness of unmarked recast, explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation, and mixed feedback in the expansion of knowledge of third-person singular ‘s’ in Iranian task-based language teaching context in a pretest/posttest design. To this end, forty-eight lower-intermediate learners of EFL were selected as participants. Every feedback type was supplied to an experimental group through story retelling and picture description tasks. Control group, however, was not provided with any intervention and feedback. Untimed grammaticality judgment and elicited oral imitation tests were used as measurement tools. Results of Descriptive Statistics, One-Way Between Groups ANCOVA and Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Post-Hoc Test illustrated that all types of feedback were relatively effective. Nevertheless, mixed feedback and explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation lead to overall acquisition. The insights provided might benefit EFL instructors in Iran in employing the best way(s) of corrective feedback to foster language learning in task-based teaching approach, which can promote Iranian English learners’ acquisition of third person singular ‘s’. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation؛ focus on form؛ mixed feedback؛ oral corrective feedback؛ unmarked recast | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Baleghizadeh, S., & Derakhshesh, A. (2017). Measuring the effectiveness of explicit and implicit instruction through explicit and implicit measures. Iranian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 20(1), 81-111. https://doi.org/10.29252/ijal.20.1.81
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.25
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
East, M. (2021). Functional principles of task-based language teaching. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003039709
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
Ellis, R. (2016). Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405-428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627
Ellis, R. (2021). Explicit and implicit oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 341-364). Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002a). Doing focus-on-form. System, 30(4), 419-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(02)00047-7
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002b). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00156
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Reinders, H., Erlam, R., & Philp, J. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060141
Erlam, R., & Loewen, S. (2010). Implicit and explicit recasts in L2 oral French interaction. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 877-905. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.66.6.877
Farrokhi, F. (2005). Revisiting the ambiguity of recasts. Journal of Faculty of Letters and Humanities, 48(195), 61-101.
French, M. (1988). Story retelling for assessment and instruction. Perspectives for Teachers of the Hearing Impaired, 7(2), 20-23.
García Mayo, M. P. (2018). Focused versus unfocused tasks. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1-5). Wiley-Blackwell.
García Mayo, M. P., & Milla, R. (2021). Corrective feedback in second versus foreign language contexts. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 473-493). Cambridge.
Gazella, J., & Stockman, I. (2003). Children’s story retelling under different modality and task conditions: Implications for standardizing language sampling procedures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2003/053)
Ghahari, S., & Piruznejad, M. (2016). Recast and explicit feedback to young language learners: Impacts on grammar uptake and willingness to communicate. Issues in Language Teaching, 5(2), 187-209. https://doi.org/10.22054/ilt.2017.8058
Goo, J. (2020). Research on the role of recasts in L2 learning. Language Teaching, 53(3), 289-315. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482000004X
Goo, J., & Mackey, A. (2013). The case against recasts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(1), 127-165. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000708
Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recast and prompts on second language pronunciation development: Teaching English /r/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
Hayati, A., Jalilifar, A., & Bardideh, A. (2011). A comparative study of morphosyntactic and discourse errors of intermediate and advanced EFL learners’ writing. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 47(2), 361. https://doi.org/10.2478/psicl-2011-0021
Kartchava, E. (2012). Noticeability of corrective feedback, L2 development, and learner beliefs. [Doctoral thesis, University of Montreal]. https://dam-oclc.bac-lac.gc.ca/download?is_thesis=1&oclc_number=969912986&id=fbc08be8-7d10-476c-afee-2a97ea2ef337&fileName=Kartchava_Eva_2012_these.pdf
Kartchava, E., & Ammar, A. (2014). The noticeability and effectiveness of corrective feedback in relation to target type. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 428-452. http://doi.org/10.1177/136216881351937
Kim, J., & Han, Z. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 269-297). Oxford.
Kim, H., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 1-15.
Ki3m, J., & Nam, H. (2017). Measures of implicit knowledge revisited: Processing modes, time pressure, and modality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 431-457. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000510
Lavalle, P., & Briesmaster, M. (2017). The study of the use of picture descriptions in enhancing communication skills among the 8th-grade students: Learners of English as a foreign language. Inquiry in Education, 9(1), Article 4.
Li, H. (2018). Recasts and output-only prompts, individual learner factors and short-term EFL learning. System, 76, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.system.2018.05.004
Li, S. (2013). The interactions between the effects of implicit and explicit feedback and individual differences in language analytic ability and working memory. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 634-654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12030.x
Li, S. (2018). Corrective feedback in L2 speech production. In J. I. Liontas, & TESOL International Association (Eds.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-9). Wiley-Blackwell.
Li, S., Hiver, P., & Papi, M. (Eds.) (2022). The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and individual differences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in System. System, 84(1), 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
Liao, Y., & Zhang, W. (2022). Corrective feedback, individual differences in working memory, and L2 development. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 811748. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.811748
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 361-377). Oxford.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). John Benjamin. https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.2
Long, M. (1998). Focus on form in task-based language teaching. University of Hawai’i Working Papers in ESL, 16(2), 35-49.
Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Wiley-Blackwell.
Long, M. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057
Lv, L., & Liu, C. (2022). Recast, task complexity and child learners’ L2 development. English Language Teaching, 15(9), 95-105. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v15n9p95
Lyster, R. (2015). The relative effectiveness of corrective feedback in classroom interaction. In N. Markee (Ed.), The handbook of classroom discourse and interaction (pp. 213-228). Wiley-Blackwell.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R, Saito, K., & Sato, M (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22(4), 471-497. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004022
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 407-453). Oxford.
Mapunda, G. C., & 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
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2019). Second language learning theories. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315617046
Narimani Vahedi, E., Saeidi, M., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2018). Teachers and learners’ emotional intelligence and their corrective feedback practices and preferences. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(4), 109-130. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.10405.1298
Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x
Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2020). Corrective feedback and good language teacher. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151-163). Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
Parkinson, J. (2001). Explicit teaching of grammar and improvement in the grammar of student writing. Journal for Language Teaching, 35(4), 278-293.
Rohollahzadeh Ebadi, M. (2015). The effects of recasts and metalinguistic corrective feedback on grammar acquisition of postgraduate ESL learners. [Doctoral thesis, Universiti Malaya]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268876442.pdf
Sanz, C. (2003). Computer delivered implicit vs. explicit feedback in processing instruction. In B. VanPatten (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary (pp. 241-256). Routledge.
Sarandi, H. (2017). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person ‘-s’. The Language Learning Journal, 48(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2017.1400579
Sarandi, H., & Çelik, M. (2019). The effects of explicit recasts and output-only prompts on learning L2 grammar. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 34(4), 981-998. https://doi.org/10.16986/huje.2018043537
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168804lr146oa
VanPatten, B., Keating, G.D., & Wulff, S. (Eds.). (2020). Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503986
Wang, W., & Li, S. (2021). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: A comparative study. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34(1), 35-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124
Xie, Q., & Yeung, C. (2018). An investigation of implicit vs. explicit oral corrective feedback on Chinese pupils’ use of past tense. Language Education and Assessment, 1(2), 59-75. https://doi.org/10.29140/lea.v1n2.69
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41(3), 691-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.07.020
Yu, W. (2022). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback: Which is more effective? Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 653, 647-650. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220401.123
Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2022). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on the acquisition of 3rd person -s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based study. Language Teaching Research, 26(3), 361-381. http://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820903343
Zheng, L. (2019). The effectiveness of different corrective feedback on college English learners’ acquisition of subjunctive mood. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 336, 983-991. https://doi.org/10.2991/icsshe-19.2019.239 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 243 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 113 |
||