پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 31 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 499 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,854 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 7,496,406 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,595,947 |
The Influence of Explicit Written Corrective Feedback on Enhancing Linguistic Accuracy of EFL Learners at Different Proficiency Levels | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 03، شماره 01 - شماره پیاپی 5، فروردین 2025، صفحه 100-115 اصل مقاله (811.16 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2025.29160.1099 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Fatemeh Abed1؛ Shirin Abadikhah* 2؛ Zahra Ahmadpour Kasgary2 | ||
| 1MA in TEFL, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar & PhD Candidate of IAU, Qaemshahr, Iran | ||
| 2Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Peresian Literature and Foreign Languages, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 15 اردیبهشت 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 26 تیر 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 14 مرداد 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| The current study aims to investigate the influence of explicit written corrective feedback on improving linguistic accuracy of EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Two groups of elementary and intermediate students (n=18) were selected using convenience sampling. The participants were administered a pre-test, four treatments and a post-test over six sessions. During the pre-test, they completed a picture description task, a multiple-choice test and a cloze task. The second to fourth sessions involved two practice sessions, which followed the same format as the pre-test. After practice sessions, they were given written corrective feedback followed by oral explanation on the same week. The post-test, identical to the pre-test, was administered during the final session. The findings indicated that the high proficiency learners did not show a significant change with the written corrective feedback. In contrast, the low proficiency learners demonstrated significant improvements in both gain scores from pre-test to post-test and linguistic accuracy rate. It can be suggested that teachers should tailor their feedback strategies according to proficiency levels; while for low-proficient learners, providing explicit written corrective feedback in grammatical features might be beneficial, for high-proficient learners, alternative instructional approaches, such as encouraging autonomous learning, might be more effective. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Grammatical accuracy؛ Low-proficient learners؛ High-proficient learners؛ Written corrective feedback | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abadikhah, S., & Zarrabi, F. (2011). The effect of output tasks on the acquisition of English verbal morphemes. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(11), 1549-1560.
Barkaoui, K. (2024). Exploring the effects of task difficulty and learner variables on performance on picture description writing tasks. Assessing Writing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2024.100827
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. Routledge.
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
Bloor, M., Bloor, T., Forrest, R., Laird, E., & Relton, H. (1970). Objective tests in English as a foreign language. Macmillan Education Limited.
Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., & Buyse, K. (2017). Comprehensive corrective feedback on low and high proficiency writers. ITL – International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91-128. https://doi.org/10.1075/ITL.168.1.04BON
Brown, D., Liu, Y., & Norouzian, F. (2023). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 writing accuracy: A meta-analytic review. Language Teaching Research, 27(4), 567-586. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
Budianto, S., Sulistyo, T., Widiastuti, O., Heriyawati, D. F., & Marhaban, S. (2020). Written corrective feedback across different levels of EFL students’ academic writing proficiency: Outcomes and implications. 7(2), 472-485.
Chabot, J. F., & Julich, J. (2006). Sequences: Picture stories for ESL. Full Blast Production.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’ errors. Language Learning, 27(1), 29-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1977.tb00290.x
Crosthwaite, P., Ningrum, S., & Lee, I. (2022). Research trends in L2 written corrective feedback: A bibliometric analysis of three decades of Scopusindexed research on L2 WCF. Journal of Second Language Writing, 58, 100934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2022.100934
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford University Press.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Fowler, W. S., & Coe, N. (1970). Nelson English language tests. Nelson ELT.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagofically correct? Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.01.001
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1(1), 99-122.
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Jagaiah, T., Olinghouse, N. G., & Kearns, D. M. (2020). Syntactic complexity measures: Variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 33(10), 2577-2638.
Jang, S. S. (2014). Learners’ proficiency level and the efficacy of written corrective feedback on L2 acquisition. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 30(3), 27-49. https://doi.org/10.17154/KJAL.2014.09.30.3.27
Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
Kennedy, S. (2010). Corrective feedback for learners of varied proficiency levels: A teacher’s choices. TESL Canada Journal, 27.
Kim, J. H. (2004). Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-24.
Kim, Y., & Emeliyanova, L. (2021). The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research, 25(2), 234-255.
Lee, I. (2020). The long-term effect of automated writing evaluation feedback on writing development. English Teaching, 75(1), 67-92.
Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback. System, 84, 93-109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.001
Liu, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition & Teaching, 15, 65-79.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35(2), 265-302.
McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., & McCarthy, P. M. (2010). Linguistic features of writing quality. Written Communication, 27(1), 57-86.
Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432
Nicolás–Conesa, F., Manchon, R. M., & Cerezo, L. (2019). The effect of unfocused direct and indirect written corrective feedback on rewritten texts and new texts: Looking into feedback for accuracy and feedback for acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 848-873.
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.
Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning. Springer.
Shen, C., Shi, P., Guo, J., Xu, S., & Tian, J. (2023). From process to product: writing engagement and performance of EFL learners under computer-generated feedback instruction. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1258286
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, 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Xu, J., & Zhang, S. (2021). Understanding AWE feedback and English writing of learners with different proficiency levels in an EFL classroom: A sociocultural perspective. Asia-Pacific Researcher, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/S402
Yu, R., & Yang, L. (2021). ESL/EFL learners’ responses to teacher written feedback: Reviewing a recent decade of empirical studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 735101. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.735101
Zhang, T., Chen, X., Hu, J., & Ketwan, P. (2021). EFL students’ preferences for written corrective feedback: Do error types, language proficiency, and foreign language enjoyment matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 660564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.660564 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 61 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 35 |
||