| تعداد نشریات | 60 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 2,201 |
| تعداد مقالات | 17,905 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 54,961,295 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 28,767,023 |
The Effectiveness and Rank of Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback Strategies on Written Grammatical Performance: Monolingual Persian vis-à-vis Bilingual Turkmen EFL Learners | ||
| Issues in Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 2، اسفند 2020، صفحه 245-284 اصل مقاله (1.35 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research Paper | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22054/ilt.2021.55093.535 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Maryam Moazzeni Limoudehi1؛ Omid Mazandarani* 1؛ Behzad Ghonsooly2؛ Jila Naeini1 | ||
| 1Department of English Language Teaching, Aliabad Katoul Branch, Islamic Azad University, Aliabad Katoul, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (FUM) | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Much uncertainty still exists about the possible role of myriads external and internal mediating variables such as language backgrounds and ethnicities in the process of corrective feedback (CF). To address the issue, 79 monolingual Persians and 79 bilingual Turkmens aged between 13 and 18 from two language institutes in Golestan Province, Iran participated in the study comprising three experimental and a control group each. Pretests revealed the learners’ grammatical errors based on which the experimental groups were provided with different strategies of metalinguistic CF, namely mid-focused oral metalinguistic CF (OMCF), written metalinguistic CF (WMCF), and oral/written metalinguistic CF (OWMCF) on their five most recurrent grammatical errors while the control groups received none. Following significant Kruskal-Wallis test results, the Conover’s pairwise comparison test was employed to exhibit differences among CF strategies. In monolingual Persians and bilingual Turkmens, all the experimental groups significantly outperformed the control groups. Mid-focused OMCF and OWMCF had significant effects on the reduction of Persians’ errors, but for Turkmens, all the CF strategies exerted a significant reduction of errors. The effectiveness rank of the CF strategies investigated through Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) selected OMCF as the best strategy for monolingual Persians while for bilingual Turkmens, WMCF ranked first. This ranking was highly stable for 10000 iterations changing the weights up to 50%. The outcomes of the research might be of help to EFL learners, EFL teachers of bilingual learners, syllabus designers, and materials developers, while opening doors to further pertinent studies. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Corrective feedback؛ Metalinguistic؛ Grammatical errors؛ Bilingual؛ EFL writing | ||
| مراجع | ||
ReferencesAghagolzadeh, F., & Davari, H. (2017). English education in Iran: From ambivalent policies to paradoxical practices. In R. Kirkpatrick (Ed.) English Language Education Policy in the Middle East and North Africa (pp. 47-62). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Ahmadian, M., Mehri, E., & Ghaslani, R. (2019). The effect of direct, indirect, and negotiated feedback on the linguistic accuracy of EFL learners in writing. Issue in Language Teaching (ILT), 8(1), 1-32.
Akbari, Z. (2015). Current challenges in teaching/learning English for EFL learners: The case of junior high school and high school. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 199, 394-401.
Al Mubarak, A. A. (2017). An investigation of academic writing problems level faced by undergraduate students at Al Imam Al Mahdi University-Sudan. English Review: Journal of English Education, 5(2), 175-188.
Al-Hazzani, N., & Altalhab, S. (2018). Can explicit written corrective feedback develop grammatical and lexical accuracy of Saudi EFL learners? International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 6(4), 16-24.
Almasi, E., & Nemat Tabrizi, A. R. (2016). The effects of direct vs. indirect corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 74-85.
Amin, M. Y., Saadatmanesh, S. (2018). Discovering the effectiveness of direct versus indirect corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writings: A case of an Iranian context. International Journal of Humanities and Cultural Studies, 5(2), 171-181.
Amiramini, S., Ghanbari, B., & Shamsoddini, M. R. (2015). The effect of written corrective feedback on the writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 5(1), 28-35.
Amirbakzadeh, E., & Vakil Alroaia, Y. (2020). Using foreign language learning factors in tourism development in Iran. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 8(30), 61-79.
Atai, M. R., & Mazlum, F. (2013). English language teaching curriculum in Iran: Planning and practice, The Curriculum Journal, 24(3) 389-411.
Bani Younes, Z., & Salamh Albalawi, F. (2015). Exploring the most common types of writing problems among English language and translation major sophomore female students at Tabuk University. Asian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 7-26.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback? In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 129-140).New York, NY: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. (2018). Direct versus indirect grammar feedback. In J. I. Liontas (Ed.), The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Bitchener, J., & Basturkmen, H. (2006). Perceptions of the difficulties of postgraduate L2 thesis students writing the discussion section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 5(1), 4-18.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322-329.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2015). Written corrective feedback studies: Approximate replication of Bitchener & Knoch (2010) and van Beuningen, de Jong, & Kuiken (2012). Language Teaching, 48(3), 405-414.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Toronto, ON: Multilingual Matters.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3),191-205.
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(3), 267-296.
Chen, S., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Focus on form and corrective feedback research at the University of Victoria, Canada. Language Teaching, 51(2), 278-283.
Cohen, A. D. (1975). Error correction and the training of language teachers. The Modern Language Journal, 59(8), 414-422.
Cohen, A. D. (2018). Reflections on a career in second language studies: Promising pathways for future research. L2 Journal, 10(1), 1-19.
Conover, W. J. (1999). Practical nonparametric statistics (3rd ed). New York, NY: Wiley.
Derakhshan, A., & Karimian Shirejini, R. (2020). An investigation of the Iranian EFL learners’ perceptions towards the most common writing problems. Sage Open, 10(2), 1-10.
Eastwood, J. (2003). Oxford practice grammar for intermediate (2nd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners’ essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 878-883.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R. (2010). Cognitive, social, and psychological dimensions of corrective feedback. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning, (pp. 151-65). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3),353-371.
Eslami, Z., & Derakhshan, A. (2020). Promoting advantageous ways for teachers and learners to deal with corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 19(special issue), 48-65.
Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., McCollum, R. M., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 445-463.
Ferris, D. R. (1999). The case for 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(1), 49-62.
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferris, D. R. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.
Ferris, D. R. (2011). Treatment of error in second language student writing (2nd ed). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
García-Cascales, M. S., & Lamata, T. (2012). On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 56(5-6), 123-132.
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 (ILT), 5(2), 187-209.
Guo, Q., & Barrot, J. S. (2019). Effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct correction on EFL learners’ linguistic accuracy. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 35(3), 261-276.
Hayati, A. M., & Mashhadi, A. (2010). Language planning and language-in-education policy in Iran. Language Problems & Language Planning, 34(1), 24-42.
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2),83-101.
Iranmehr, A., & Davari, H. (2018). English language education in Iran: A site of struggle between globalized and localized versions of English. Iranian Journal of Comparative Education, 1(2), 94-109.
Jafari, N., & Ansari, D. N. (2012). The effect of collaboration on Iranian EFL learners’ writing accuracy. International Education Studies, 5(2), 125-131.
Jamalinesari, A., Rahimi, F., Gowhary, H., & Azizifar, A. (2015). The effects of teacher-written direct versus indirect feedback on students’ writing. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 192, 116-123.
Kang, E., & 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.
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.
Khan, I. A. (2011). Learning difficulties in English: Diagnosis and pedagogy in Saudi Arabia. Educational Research, 2(7), 1248-1257.
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390-403.
Kruskal, W., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583-621.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 1-13.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30(4), 66-81.
Lyster, R. M., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 37-66.
Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2020). Feedback scope in written corrective feedback: Analysis of empirical research in L2 contexts. Assessing Writing, 45(1), 1-14.
McDonough, J., Shaw, C., & Masuhara, H. (2013). Materials and methods in ELT (3rd ed). London: Blackwell.
Mohammadi, G., Ghanbari, N., & Abbasi, A. (2019). The integrative effect of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ accuracy in using English articles. Applied Research on English Language, 8(4), 489-510.
Murphy, M., & Smalzer, W. R. (2009). Grammar in use for intermediate (3rd ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mustafa Abbas, A., & Mohammed Tawfeeq, H. (2018). The effects of direct and indirect corrective feedback on accuracy in second language writing. English Language Teaching, 11(6), 33-40.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (eds.) (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pohlert, T. (2014). The pairwise multiple comparison of mean ranks package (PMCMR). R package. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=PMCMR.
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). “If I only had more time:” ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43-68.
Prodromou, L. (2005). Grammar and vocabulary for first certificate. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.
R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from http://www.R-project.org
Rezaei, S., & Derakhshan, A. (2011). Investigating recast and metalinguistic feedback in task-based grammar instruction. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 655-663.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-95.
Semke, H. D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals, 17(3), 195-202.
Shafiee Sarvestani, M., & Pishkar, K. (2016). The effect of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of English article usage in L2 writing. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 3(1), 110-120.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3-4), 591-611.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 254-283.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305.
Truscott, J. (1996). Review article: The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for “The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.
Ul Hassan, M., Babar Qureshi, M., & Imtiaz Qurashi, M. (2015). Effectiveness of direct feedback method of error treatment used for Urdu EFL learners at intermediate level in Pakistan. International Journal of Linguistics, 1(1), 11-17.
Yadav, V., Karmakar, S. Kalbar, P. P., & Dikshit, A. K. (2019). PyTOPS: A Python based tool for TOPSIS. SoftwareX, 9, 217-222. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,425 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,116 |
||