The impact of metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ acquisition of the hypothetical conditional

  • Behrooz Ghoorchaei Department of English, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
  • Nourollah Gharanjik Department of English, Farhangian University, Iran
Keywords: grammar accuracy, L2 writing, meta-linguistic, written corrective feedback

Abstract

Recent studies have shown the efficacy of written corrective feedback (WCF) in improving ESL/EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy. Using a quasi-experimental design, this study investigated the effectiveness of metalinguistic explanation (ME) corrective feedback as a form focused instruction on Iranian high school students’ use of the hypothetical conditional in their writing. Fifty high school students were given the Oxford placement test. Based on the results, 34 of them were chosen to be homogenous in terms of language proficiency. Then the students were randomly assigned into two groups, an experimental and a control group. The experimental group received the treatment (ME) after each guided writing practice while the control group did not. The results of independent samples t-test showed that the students in the experimental group significantly outperformed the control group in the accurate use of the targeted feature. The results have some implications for EFL teachers, teacher educators, and learners.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-18.

Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. London: Routledge.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-31.

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.

Doughty, C. J. (2008). 10 Instructed SLA: Constraints, Compensation, and Enhancement. The handbook of second language acquisition, 27, 256.

DeKeyser, R. (1994). How implicit can adult second language learning be? Consciousness & Second Language Learning: Perspectives on Form-Focused Instruction. AILA Review, 11.

DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(03), 379-410.

Ellis, N. (2005). At interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305-352.

Ellis, N.C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. In C. Sanz & R. Leow (Eds.), Implicit and explicit language learning (pp.35-47). Washington, DC: Georgetown University press.

Esfandiar, F; Yaqubi,B & Marzban,A ( 2014). Learning Corrected Target Forms: Students’ corrective feedback through teacher’s written corrective feedback in Iranian EFL context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(3), 504-512.

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. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language writing.8 (1), 1-11.

Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2008).Second language acquisition: An introductory course. (3rd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207-241.

Guo, Q. (2015). The effectiveness of written CF for L2 development: A mixed-method study of written CF types, error categories and proficiency levels (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology).

Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners’ writing ability. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161.

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M., & Fearnow, S. (1999). Testing the output hypothesis. Effects of output on noticing and second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(3), 421-452.

Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The Revision and Transfer effect of Direct and Indirect Comprehensive Corrective Feedback on ESL Students’ Writing. Language Teaching Research,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469../10

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), 55-68.1

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford, U. Pergamon.

Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second‐language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278.

Montazeri, M., & Salimi, E. A. (2019). Assessing motivation to speak (MTS) and willingness to communicate through metalinguistic corrective feedback. Learning and Motivation, 68, 101594.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2019.101594.

Nickel, T. (2002). Online learning activities: beginning an international collaboration. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 3(1).

Polio, S. (2012). The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 375-389.

Roohani, A., Jafarpour, A., & Teimoori,H. (2015). Differential Effects of Written corrective Feedback on Iranian High School Students’ Grammatical Accuracy. TELL, 9(1), 29-59.

Roshan, S. (2017). Written corrective feedback, individual differences and the second language acquisition of the English passive voice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University of Technology. Auckland, New Zealand.

Rummel, S., & Bitchener, J. (2015). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback and the impact LAO learners' beliefs have on uptake. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 38(1):64-82.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. Consciousness in second language learning: Aila Review, 11, 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language learning, 64(1), 103-131.

Tayebipor, F. (2019). The Impact of Written vs. Oral Corrective Feedback on Omani part-time vs. Full time College Students’ Accurate Use and Retention of the Passive voice. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 150-160
doi:10.17507/jltr.1001.17.

Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369.

Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255-272.

Truscott, J. (2010). Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38(2), 329-335.

Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classrooms. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.
Published
2020-11-19
How to Cite
Ghoorchaei, B., & Gharanjik, N. (2020). The impact of metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ acquisition of the hypothetical conditional. AJELP: Asian Journal of English Language and Pedagogy, 8(2), 27-38. https://doi.org/10.37134/ajelp.vol8.2.3.2020