Effects of Asynchronous and Conventional Paper-and-Pen Metalinguistic Feedback on L2 Learners' Use of Verb Tense

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

Payam Noor University

Abstract

Although L2 researchers agree that written corrective feedback (WCF) improves L2 learners' grammatical accuracy, few systematic studies have investigated the effect of computer-mediated feedback on improving L2 learners' grammatical accuracy. This study was an attempt to investigate the comparative effects of two types of WCF (asynchronous computer-mediated and conventional paper-and-pen metalinguistic feedback on intermediate L2 learners' use of verb tense. The participants were 49 L2 learners chosen via convenience sampling whose ages ranged from 18-25. They were in 3 intact settings in Simin Institute in Tehran. They were assigned into 3 groups: 2 experimental and 1 control. To measure the participants' knowledge of verb tense before treatment, a pretest was administered. In the next step, the experimental groups received metalinguistic feedback in separate settings whereas the control group did not receive any treatment. Finally, a posttest was used to measure the participants' knowledge of verb tense after the treatment. Though the ANOVA findings suggested that both types of WCF resulted in the improvement of the participants' verb tense accuracy, the effect of computer-mediated asynchronous feedback on the use of verb tense was more profound. In a conclusion, WCF had a significant effect on the verb tense accuracy of intermediate L2 learners.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

تاثیرات بازخورد غیرهمزمان و مرسوم کاغذ و خودکار فرازبانی بر استفاده صحیح گذشته ساده زبان اموزان انگلیسی

Authors [Persian]

  • مهسا شقاقی
  • حسن سلیمانی
Abstract [Persian]

اگرچه پژوهشگران با تاثیر بازخوردهای اصلاحی نوشتاری در بهبود دقت گرامری زبان آموزان موافق هستند، تاکنون پژوهش های محدودی در مورد بازخورد رایانه محور غیرهمزمان و مرسوم فرازبانی بر دقت نوشتاری زبان اموزان انگلیسی در یک تکلیف نوشتاری جدید انجام شده است. این مطالعه با هدف بررسی اثرات تطبیقی دو نوع بازخورد اصلاحی رایانه محور غیرهمزمان و مرسوم فرازبانی بر دقت نوشتاری زبان اموزان انگلیسی سطح متوسط انجام شده است. شرکت کنندگان 49 زبان آموز سطح متوسط ایرانی در زبانکده سمین تهران بودند که از طریق نمونه گیری آسان انتخاب شدند و سن ان ها بین 18-25 بود. ان ها در 3 گروه مجزا در این مطالعه شرکت کردند. آنها به 3 گروه تقسیم شدند: 2 آزمایش و 1 کنترل. برای اندازه گیری دانش زبان اموزان از فرم های زبان دوم قبل از تیمار، پیش آزمونی برگزار شد. در مرحله بعد، گروه های آزمایشی بازخورد فرازبانی را در محیط های جداگانه دریافت کردند، در حالی که گروه کنترل هیچگونه تیماری دریافت نکرد. در نهایت، پس ازتیمار، برای اندازه گیری دقت نوشتاری شرکت کنندگان پس آزمونی استفاده شد. اگرچه یافته های ANOVA نشان داد که هر دو نوع بازخورد اصلاحی منجر به بهبود دقت نوشتن شرکت کنندگان شد، تأثیر بازخورد رایانه محور غیرهمزمان بر روی دقت دستورالعمل آنها بیشتر بود. به طور خلاصه، بازخورد اصلاحی تاثیر قابل توجهی بر دقت دستوری زبان آموزان سطح متوسط در نوشتن تکالیف جدید آنها داشت. یافته ها برای معلمان، یادگیرندگان و دانش پژوهان مفید است.

Keywords [Persian]

  • بازخورد غیرهمزمان
  • بازخورد رایانه محور
  • دقت دستوری
  • بازخورد فرازبانی
  • بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتار
 

Bitchener, J. (2009). Measuring the effectiveness of written corrective feedback: A response to overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(4), 276-279.

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

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.

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.

Castaneda, D. A., & Cho, M. H. (2013). The role of wiki writing in learning Spanish grammar. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(4), 334-349.

Celce-Murcia, M., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/L2 teacher's course. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Chandler, J. (2000). The efficacy of error correction for improvement in the accuracy of L2 student writing. Paper presented at the AAAL Conference, Vancouver, Canada.

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, 267-296.

Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused meta-linguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 5(4).

Ellis, N. (2007). The associative-cognitive creed. In B. van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 77-96). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107.

Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353-371.

Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58-74.

Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2018). Synchronous and asynchronous teacher electronic feedback and learner uptake in ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 1-13.

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), 1-10.

Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

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. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201.

Ferris, D. R., Liu, H., Sinha, A., & Senna, M. (2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307-329.

Frear, D. J. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners' acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40-53.

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.

Hashemnezhad, H., & Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for (in)direct feedback: The other side of coin. English Language Teaching Journal, 5(3), 230-239.

Lee, C., Cheung, W. K. W., Wong, K. C. K., & Lee, F. S. L. (2013). Immediate web-based essay critiquing system feedback and teacher follow-up feedback on young second language learners' writings: An experimental study in a Hong Kong secondary school. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 39-60.

Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82.

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

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Mackey, A. (2006). Feedback, noticing, and instructed second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(3), 405-430.

Rassaei, E. (2014). Recasts, field (in)dependence cognitive style, and L2 development. Language Teaching Research, 19(4), 499-518.

Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety, and L2 development. System 49, 98-109.

Rassaei, E. (2017). Video chat vs. face-to-face recasts, learners’ interpretations and L2 development: a case of Persian EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2), 133-148.

Rassaei, E. (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System. (In Press)

Rassaei, E., Moeinzadeh, A., & Youhannaee, M. (2012). Effects of recasts and metalinguistic corrective feedback on the acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. The Journal of Language Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 58-74.

Révész, A. (2011). Task complexity, focus on L2 constructions, and individual differences: A classroom‐based study. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 162-181.

Roohani, A., Jafarpour, A., Teimoori, H. (2015). Differential effects of written corrective feedback on Iranian high school students' grammatical accuracy. Teaching English Language, 9(1), 25-59.

Tabatabaei, M. A., Khan, K. K., Gavidelnia, N., & Ramzi, S. (2017). On the differential effects of computer-mediated and metalinguistic corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' writing accuracy. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(20), 151-168.

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

Truscott, J. (1999). The case for the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111-122.

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., & Hsu, Y. (2008).Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 292-305.

Sachs, R., & Suh, B.-R. (2007). Textually enhanced recasts, learner awareness, and L2 outcomes in synchronous computer-mediated interaction. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 197-227). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sagarra, N. (2007). From CALL to face-to-face interaction: The effect of computer-delivered recasts and working memory on L2 development. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 229-248). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13, 96-120.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835-874.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 301-322). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 2, 593-610.

Sheen, Y., Wright, D., & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.

Shintani, N. (2016). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(3), 517-538.

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer‐mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319.

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, 286-306.

Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2014). Tracking learning behaviors in the incidental acquisition of two dimensional adjectives by Japanese beginner learners of L2 English. Language Teaching Research, 18(4), 521-542.

Shintani, N., Ellis. R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners' understanding and use of two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103-131.

Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Teachers college, Columbia University working papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-19.

van Beuningen, C. (2010). Corrective feedback in L2 writing: Theoretical perspectives, empirical insights, and future directions. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 1-27.

van Beuningan, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of (in)direct corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279-296.

van Beuningan, C., de Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classroom. Language Learning, 62(1), 1-41.

Wang, Y. C. (2015). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 499-512.

Yilmaz, Y. (2012). The relative effects of explicit correction and recasts on two target structures via two communication modes. Language Learning, 62, 1134-1169.

Yilmaz, Y., & Yuksel, D. (2011). Effects of communication mode and salience on recasts: A first exposure study. Language Teaching Research, 15, 457-477.