Document Type: Research Paper


Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran


The role of corrective feedback (CF) in language learning has recently gained prominence; however, ignoring the interwoven relationship between cognitive/affective factors, along with individual differences, may not lead to efficient results. This mixed methods research examined high/low emotional intelligence (EI) Iranian EFL learners’ CF preferences. This study was grounded in the Chaos Complexity Theory of Larsen-Freeman (1997). Considering complexity theory, learners’ modified outputs were examined to find the related EI components in teacher-learner matched/mismatched conditions. First, using Bar-on Emotional Quotient Inventory,12 teachers and 223 learners were grouped as having high/low EI. Second, learners’ CF preferences were determined through Students’ Preferences Elicitation Questionnaire, including both closed and open-ended questions. Third, utilizing an observation checklist, teachers’ CF practices and learners’ modified outputs in summery telling activity were examined to find the associations among EI components and modified output in teacher-learner matched/mismatched conditions. The quantitative analysis using a number of Chi-square tests and the complementary qualitative data analyses revealed that the high/low EI learners preferred the different CF types. The most frequent successful modified output was associated with certain EI components in the mismatched conditions of EI and CF.The findings provide pertinent implications for practitioners regarding feedback implementation and successful modified output. Furthermore, the findings refer to the necessity of future studies in this area which are discussed in the article.


Article Title [Persian]

هوش هیجانی معلمان و زبان آموزان و روش های بازخورد اصلاحی و ترجیحات آنها

Authors [Persian]

  • احسان نریمانی واحدی
  • مهناز سعیدی
  • نسرین حدیدی تمجیدی

Abstract [Persian]

نقش بازخورد اصلاحی (CF) در یادگیری زبان اخیرا به موضوع مهمی تبدیل شده است؛ با این حال، نادیده گرفتن رابطه بین فاکتورهای شناختی / عاطفی با تفاوت های فردی، ممکن است منجر به نتایج کارآمدی نشود. تحقیق ترکیبی حاضر، هوش هیجانی بالا و پایین (EI) را در مورد ترجیح انتخاب بازخورد اصلاحی بررسی کرده است. این مطالعه بر اساس نظریه پیچیدگی (Larsen-Freeman (1997) پایه ریزی شده است. با توجه به تئوری پیچیدگی، تولید زبانی اصلاح شده ی یادگیرندگان برای پیدا کردن مولفه های مربوط به هوش هیجانی در شرایط همسان / غیر همسان معلم-یادگیرنده مورد بررسی قرار گرفته شده است. ابتدا با استفاده از پرسشنامه هوش هیجانی بار، 12 معلم و 223 فراگیر با هوش هیجانی بالا / پایین گروه بندی شدند. سپس، ترجیحات بازخورد اصلاحی دانشجویان با استفاده از پرسشنامه که شامل سوالات با جواب کوتاه و بلند بود، مورد بررسی قرار گرفت. به علاوه، با استفاده از چک لیست مشاهدات، شیوه های آموزش معلمان و نتایج اصلاح یادگیرندگان در فعالیت های خلاصه گویی شفاهی مورد بررسی قرار گرفت تا ارتباط میان مولفه های مربوط به هوش هیجانی و تولید زبانی اصلاح شده ی یادگیرندگان را در شرایط همسان / غیر همسان معلم-یادگیرنده مورد بررسی قرار داده شود. تجزیه و تحلیل کمی با استفاده از از آزمون های خی دو (Chi-square) و تجزیه و تحلیل داده های کیفی به صورت مکمل نشان داد که زبان آموزان با هوش هیجانی بالا / پایین انواع مختلف بازخورد اصلاحی را ترجیح دادند. شایعترین مؤلفه موفق در ارتباط با برخی مولفه های مربوط به هوش هیجانی در شرایط عدم انطباق هوش هیجانی و بازخورد اصلاحی بود. نتایج نشانگر موارد مهمی برای معلمان در خصوص بازخورد و موفقیت تولید زبانی اصلاح شده ی یادگیرندگان وجود دارد. علاوه بر این، یافته ها به ضرورت مطالعات آینده در این زمینه اشاره دارند که در مقاله مورد بحث قرار می گیرند.

Keywords [Persian]

  • هوش هیجانی
  • بازخورد اصلاحی
  • زبان تولیدی اصلاح شده
  • نظریه پیچیدگی

Adams, R., Nuevo, A., & Egi, T. (2011). Explicit and implicit feedback, modified output, and SLA: Does explicit and implicit feedback promote learning and learner-learner interactions? The Modern Language Journal, 95, 42-63.

Al-Faki, I., & Siddiek, A. (2013). Techniques used by teachers in correcting students’ oral errors   in an Omani boys school. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(10), 1770-1783.

Anderson, R. J. (1982). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Armstrong, A. R., Galligan, R. F., & Critchley, C. R. (2011). Emotional intelligence and psychological resilience to negative life events. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 331–336.

Arnold, J., & Brown, H. D. (1999). A map of the terrain. In J. Arnold (Ed.), Affect in language learning (pp. 1–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465–487.

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. Modern Language Journal, 94(1), 1-21.

Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i): A test of emotional intelligence. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc.

Bar-On, R. (2000). Emotional and social intelligence: Insights from the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). In R. Bar-On and J. D. A. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of emotional intelligence: Theory, development, assessment and application at home, school and in the workplace (pp. 363-88). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bar-On, R., Brown, J. M., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Thome, E. P. (2000). Emotional expression and implications for occupational stress: An application of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 1107-1118.

Biber, D., Nekrasova, T., & Horn, B. (2011). The effectiveness of feedback for L1-English and L2 writing development: A meta-analysis. TOEFL IBT Research Report No. TOEFLiBT-14. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. (2001). 360-degree feedback: Accuracy, reactions and perceptions of usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 930–942.

Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2004). The emotionally intelligent manager: How to develop and use the four key emotional skills of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ciarrochi, J., & Mayer, J. (2007). Applying emotional intelligence: A practitioner’s guide. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

Dawda, D., & Hart, S. D. (2000). Assessing emotional intelligence: Reliability and validity of the Bar-On emotional quotient inventory (EQ-i) in university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 797-812.

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language learner. Mahwah, N. J.: Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (2014). Researching complex dynamic systems: ‘Retrodictive qualitative modeling’ in the language classroom. Language Teaching, 47, 80-91.

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 339–360). 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, 339-368.

Ferguson, F.J., & Austin, E.J. (2010). Associations of trait and ability emotional intelligence with performance on theory of mind tasks in an adult sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 414-418.

Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Know thyself: Competence and self-awareness. Atlantic Economic Journal, 38, 183–196.

Fineman, S. (2004). Getting the measure of emotion—and the cautionary tale of emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 57, 719–740.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Goleman, D. (2001). Emotional intelligence: Issues in paradigm building. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligence workplace: How to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and organizations (pp. 13–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 543-572.

Helzer, E. G., & Dunning, D. (2012). Why and when peer prediction is superior to self-prediction: The weight given to future aspiration versus past achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 38–53.

Hess, J. D., & Bacigalupo, A. C. (2011). Enhancing decisions and decision making processes through the application of emotional intelligence skills. Management Decision, 49, 710–721.

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.

Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294-304.

Khezrlou, S. (2018). Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC, 1-17.

Khezrlou, S.(2019). Task repetition and corrective feedback: The role of feedback types and structure saliency. English Teaching and Learning, 43(2), 213-233.

Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104-116.

Korsgaard, M. A. (1996). The impact of self-appraisals on reactions to feedback from others: The role of self-consistency and self-enhancement concerns. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 301–311.

Kostoulas, A., Stelma, J., Mercer, S., Cameron, L. J., & Dawson, S. (2018). Complex systems theory as a shared discourse space for TESOL. TESOL Journal, 9(2), 246-260.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18(2), 141-65.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2012). Complex, dynamic systems: A new transdisciplinary theme for applied linguistics? Language Teaching, 45, 202-214.

Larsen-Freeman, D. (2018). Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. Foreign Language Annals, 51, 55–72.

Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Research methodology on language development from a complex systems perspective. Modern Language Journal, 92, 200–213.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41, 217-230.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.

Lopes, P. N., Brackett, M. A., Nezlek, J. B., Schütz, A., Sellin, I., & Salovey, P. (2004). Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1018–1034.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(Special Issue 02), 265-302.

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

Mackey, A., & Oliver, R. (2002). Interactional feedback and children's L2 development. System, 30(4), 459-477.

Malone, T. W., & Lepper, M. R. (1987). Making learning fun: A taxonomy of intrinsic motivation for learning. In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr (eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction: Conative and affective process analyses (pp. 261-265). AAAL.

Motallebzadeh, K., & Azizi V. (2012). The relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ Emotional intelligence and their performance on TOEFL/PBT. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 25-36.

Nassaji, H., & Fotos, S. (2011). Teaching grammar in second language classrooms: Integrating form-focused instruction in communicative context. London: Routledge.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. London: Prentice Hall International.

Ormrod, J. E. (2004). Human learning (4257th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39–57.

Petrides, K. V., Pita, R., & Kokkinaki, F. (2007). The location of trait emotional intelligence in personality factor space. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 273–289.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill, Prentice Hall.

Pishghadam, R. (2009). A quantitative analysis of the relationship between emotional intelligence and foreign language learning. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6, 31–41

Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners’ perceptions, and second language development. System, 41, 472-483.

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

Richards, C. J., John, P., & Heidi, P. (2000). Longman dictionary of language teaching & applied            linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Saeidi, M., & Yusefi, M. (2008). The relationship between EFL learners’ emotional intelligence and critical reading. The Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 134-161.

Sanz, C., Lado, B., & Bourns, S. K. (2014). Issues in language program direction. Australia: Wadsworth.

Schumann, J. (1994). Where is cognition? Emotion and cognition in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 231–242.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.

Shehadeh, A. (2005). Task-based language learning and teaching: Theories and applications. In C.       Edwards, & J. Willis (Eds.), Teachers exploring tasks in English language teaching (pp. 13-30). U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Shipper, F., & Dillard, J. E. (2000). A study of impending derailment and recovery among middle managers across career stages. Human Resource Management Journal, 39, 331–345.

Sitzmann, T., & Johnson, S. K. (2012). When is ignorance bliss? The effects of inaccurate self-assessments of knowledge on learning and attrition. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 192–207.

Stevick, E. W. (1995). Affect in learning and memory: From alchemy to chemistry. Paper presented at the Symposium on Humanistic Language Teaching, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.

Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114).  Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vaezi, Sh., Zand-vakili, E., Mohamadkhani, A., & Fardkashani, A. (2013). Emotional intelligence and beneficial utilization of teachers’ corrective feedback (recast and elicitation): Investigating possible relations. World Applied Sciences Journal, 24(1), 64-75.

Yousefi, V. (2016). Corrective feedback preferences among Iranian EFL students. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2, 37-45.

Zhao, W. (2015).  Learners’ preferences for oral corrective feedback and their effects on second language noticing and learning motivation. Unpublished master’s thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.