Investigating the Impacts of Teacher Metalinguistic Feedback vs. Collaborative Peer Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ Writing Performance

Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice

دوره 14، شماره 28، آبان 2021، صفحه 180-199   

شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30495/jal.2021.687052

نویسندگان

Mehran Memari¹؛ Bita Asadi^{* 2}

¹English Department, Farhangian University, Ahvaz, Iran

²Department of English, Malard Branch, Islamic Azad University, Malard, Iran

چکیده

Corrective feedback refers to a teacher or student’s reaction to a learner’s target language production containing an actual or perceived error. The last three decades have witnessed a large amount of research on the impacts of various types of corrective feedback on students’ written production. Along the same vein, the present study seeks to explore the effectiveness of providing teachers’ metalinguistic feedback vs. peers’ collaborative feedback on students’ writing performance. In so doing, the present study adopted a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design including three upper-intermediate groups (i.e., two experimental and one control). The participants of the study were a total of 62 English as a foreign language (EFL) freshman students from two public universities in Tehran, Iran. The writing tasks utilized in the present study were adopted from IELTS writing Task 2. The results of one-way between groups analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that students produced significantly more lexically diverse as well as grammatically accurate language as a result of both treatments. Moreover, it was observed that collaborative peer feedback led to significantly higher lexical diversity than those of other two groups. The findings of the present study suggest that L2 teachers can opt for a combination of corrective feedback strategies to help learners improve their writing performance.

کلیدواژه‌ها

corrective feedback؛ form-focused instruction؛ lexical diversity؛ accuracy؛ metalinguistic

مراجع

Akbarzadeh, R., Saeidi, M., & Chehreh, M. (2014). The effect of oral interactive feedback on the accuracy and complexity of EFL learners’ writing performance: Uptake and retention. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 2(2), 105-126.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409-431.

Doughty, C. (1998). Acquiring competence in a second language: Form and function. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship. New York: Modern Language Association.

Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language Learning, 51(1), 1-46.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.

Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2002). Doing focus on form. System, 30(4), 419-432.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.

Ganji, M. (2009). Teacher-correction, peer-correction and self-correction: Their impacts on Iranian students’ IELTS essay writing performance. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6(1), 117-139.

Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: a framework for second language studies. Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 198-217.

Han, Z. (2002). Rethinking the role of corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. RELC Journal, 33(1), 1-34.

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.

Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416-431

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: Selected readings. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.

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

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 45-77). London: Academic Press.

Loewen, S. (2004b). The occurrence and characteristics of student-initiated focus on form. In H. Reinders, H. Anderson, M. M. Hobbs, & J. Jones-Parry, (Eds.), Supporting independent learning in the 21st century. Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference of the Independent Learning Association (pp. 86-93). Auckland: Independent Learning Association Oceania.

Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. DeBot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In C. Ritchie, T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition: Vol. 2. Second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15- 41). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

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.

Nassaji, H. (2007). Reactive focus on form through negotiation on learners’ written errors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form focused instruction and teacher education: Studies in honor of Rod Ellis (pp. 117-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nassaji, H. (2011). Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1 (3), 315-334.

Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.

Radwan, A. A. (2005). The effectiveness of explicit attention to form in language learning. System, 33(1), 69-87.

Ramírez Balderas, I., & Guillén Cuamatzi, P. M. (2018). Self and peer correction to improve college students’ writing skills. Profile: Issues in Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 179-194.

Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Eslami Rasekh, A. (2015). The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 7 (16), 113-146.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AlLA Review, 11, 11-26.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: 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, 255–283.

Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201-234.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some rules of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-53). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 370- 391.

Tai, H.C., Lin, W.C., & Yang, S.C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284-309.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wahyuni, S. (2017). The effect of different feedback on writing quality of college students with different cognitive styles. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 39-58.

Wilkins, D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Willis, D., & Willis, J. (2007). Doing task-based teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.