Effects of Feedback Timing and Willingness to Communicate on the Acquisition of Simple Past Form

Document Type: Research Paper

Authors

1 Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University

2 Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran

Abstract

A remarkable body of empirical research within form-focused language teaching framework has examined the tripartite dimensions of corrective feedback, i.e., linguistic, contextual and individual aspects, in isolation. Nonetheless, a holistic understanding of the role of oral corrective feedback (CF) in the acquisition of L2 forms seems to rely on uncovering how these dimensions function in interaction with each other. The present study aimed to examine the differential effects of immediate and delayed feedback in the acquisition of English simple past form, and the hypothesized moderating effect of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) on the effectiveness of feedback timing. Sixty pre-intermediate-level Iranian EFL learners participated in an experiment as members of immediate and delayed feedback groups, and each learner was differentiated as either high-WTC or low-WTC, based on the result of WTC questionnaire. The pedagogical gains were assessed with a grammaticality judgment test at three different points of time, pre-test, post-test and delayed post-test. The results of a Two-way ANCOVA showed no significant difference between immediate and delayed CF in short-term and long-term acquisition. Despite the insignificant interaction effect witnessed between feedback timing and WTC, the findings demonstrated that learners with high-WTC in both groups outperformed slightly in comparison to low-WTC learners. The results are interpreted in light of the number and duration of feedback treatment sessions as well as the instruments used for measuring the acquisition outcome. It is suggested that further studies be conducted concerning the interactions between instructional, interactional and learner-internal aspects of CF functioning.

Keywords


Article Title [Persian]

اثر زمان ارائۀ بازخورد تصحیح گرانه و میل ارتباطی فراگیران در یادگیری شکل گذشته ساده

Authors [Persian]

  • داود امینی 1
  • صالح اشرفی 2
1 دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان
2 دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران
Abstract [Persian]

تعدادتعداد قابل توجّهی از پژوهش های تجربی انجام شده در چارچوب آموزش زبان از طریق تمرکز بر فرم زبانی، تلاش نموده اند تا هریک از ابعاد سه گانۀ موضوع بازخورد تصحیح گرانه یعنی جنبه های زبانی، بافتی و فردی را بطور جداگانه مورد بررسی قرار دهند. این در حالیست که به نظر می رسد هرگونه فهم جامع از نقش بازخورد تصحیح گرانه در فراگیری فرم زبان دوم منوط به واکاوی نحوۀ کارکرد هریک از ابعاد مذکور در همکاری با یکدیگر است. هدف ار تحقیق حاضر بررسی تاثیرات متمایز بازخورد فوری و بازخورد تأخیری در فراگیری شکل زمان گذشته ساده در زبان انگلیسی از یک سو و اثر تعدیل کنندگی عامل میل ارتباطی در زبان دوم از سوی دیگر بوده است. به این منظور تعداد 60 نفر از فراگیران ایرانی سطح پیش متوسط زبان انگلیسی در دو گروه بازخورد فوری و بازخورد تأخیری مورد آزمایش قرار گرفتند. هر یک ازشرکت کنندگان بر اساس نتایج پرسشنامۀ میل ارتباطی در زبان دوّم از حیث ارتباطی با برچسب پرمیل و یا کم میل مشخص گردیدند. دستاوردهای فراگیری شکل گذشتۀ ساده به کمک آزمون تشخیص گرامری بودن جملات در سه نقطۀ زمانی پیش آزمون، پس آزمون و پس آزمون مؤخّر اندازه گیری گردید. نتایج آنالیز کوواریانس دوطرفه تفاوتی بین بازخورد فوری و بازخورد تأخیری در یادگیری کوتاه مدت و یا بلند مدّت نشان نداد. از سوی دیگر علیرغم اینکه اثر تعاملی بین زمان ارائۀ بازخورد تصحیح گرانه و میل ارتباطی زبان آموزان به نصاب آماری نرسید، نتایج حاکی از برتری نسبی زبان آموزان با میل ارتباطی بالا در قیاس با زبان آموزان با میل ارتباطی پایین بود. نتایج بدست آمده با توجه به تعداد و مدّت زمان جلسات مربوط به ارائۀ تیمار بازخوردی و نیز ابزار بکاررفته جهت اندازه گیری محصول نهایی آموزش مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. در این مقاله بر انجام پژوهش های بیشتر در زمینۀ نحوۀ تعامل جنبه های آموزشی، ارتباطی و درونی فراگیران تأکید شده است.

Keywords [Persian]

  • زمان ارائۀ بازخورد تصحیح گرانه
  • تمرکز بر شکل زبان
  • تفاوتهای فردی
  • بازخورد شفاهی تصحیح گرانه
  • میل ارتباطی
Arroyo, D. C., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). An Open for Replication Study: The Role of Feedback Timing in Synchronous Computer‐Mediated Communication. Language Learning, 68(4), 942-972.

Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 354-380.

DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.

Ellis, R. (2017). Position paper: Moving task-based language teaching forward. Language Teaching, 50(4), 507-526. 

Farahani, A. & Salagegheh, S. (2015). Iranian EFL teachers’ and learners’ perspectives of oral error correction: Does the timeline of correction matter? Latin American Journal of Content and Language Integrated Learning, 8(2), 184-211.

Farmani, R., Akbari, O., & Ghanizadeh, A. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed error correction on Iranian EFL learners’ motivation. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 2(3), 76-88.

Fu, T., & Nassaji, H. (2016). Corrective feedback, learner uptake, and feedback perception in a Chinese as a foreign language classroom. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 159-181.

Gałajda, D. (2017). Communicative behavior of a language learner: Exploring willingness to communicate. Cham: Springer Verlag.

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Helping learners become independent writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 185-205). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lavolette, E. H. (2014). Effects of feedback timing and type on learning ESL grammar rules Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, Michigan, US.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language Learning60(2), 309-365.

Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji and E. Ekartchava. Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143-158), New York: Routledge.

Li, S., Ellis, R. & Zhu, Y. (2016). The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. Modern Language Journal, 100, 276–295.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition26(3), 399-432.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition32(2), 265-302

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching46(1), 1-40.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition23(3), 369-388.

Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 119-131). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1992). An instructional communication program for in‐service teachers. Communication Education, 41(2), 216–223.

Nader, K., & Einarsson, E. O. (2010). Memory reconsolidation: An update. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 27-41.

Nakata, T. (2014). Effects of feedback timing on second language vocabulary learning: Does delaying feedback increase learning? Language Teaching Research, 9(4), pp. 416–434.

Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research20(4), 535-562.

Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal101(2), 353-368.

Ölmezer-Öztürk, E., & Öztürk, G. (2016). Types and timing of oral corrective feedback in EFL classrooms: Voices from students. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language), 10(2), 113-133.

Pallant, J. (2016). Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS program (6th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill Education.

Pawlak, M. (2012). New perspectives on individual differences in language learning and teaching. London: Springer.

Pawlak, M. (2017). Individual difference variables as mediating influences on success or failure in form-focused instruction. In E. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. Szymańska-Czaplak, and M. Szyszka (Eds.). At the crossroads: Challenges of foreign language learning (pp. 75-92). London: Springer.

Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Canada.

Quinn, P. G. & Nakata, T., (2017). The timing of oral corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji and E. Ekartchava. Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 51-64), New York: Routledge.

Rahimi, A., & Vahid-Dastjerdi, H. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 45-54.

Ranta, L. & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. M. Dekeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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

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

Sarandi, H. (2017). Mixed corrective feedback and the acquisition of third person ‘-s’. The Language Learning Journal, 1-12.

Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching: A guidebook for English language teacher (2nd ed.). Oxford: Macmillan.

Shabani, K. & Safari, F. (2016a). The effect of immediate and delayed error correction on accuracy of EFL learners’ oral production. Journal of Studies in Education6(3), 93-112.

Shabani, K., & Safari, F. (2016b). Immediate vs. delayed corrective feedback (CF) and accuracy          of oral production: The role of anxiety. Theory and Practice in Language Studies6(11),       2222-2230.

Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning58(4), 835-874.

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, 296–319.

Siyyari, M. (2005). A comparative study of the effect of implicit and delayed, explicit focus on form on Iranian EFL learners’ accuracy of oral production. Unpublished MA thesis. Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Spada, N., & Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 181-207.

Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N. (2018). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 247-259. 

Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effect of implicit/explicit and immediate/ delayed corrective feedback on learners' performance in tailor-made test. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Yu, S., Wang, B., & Teo, T. (2018) Understanding linguistic, individual and contextual factors in oral feedback research: A review of empirical studies in L2 classrooms. Educational Research Review, 24, 181-192.

Zadkhast, M., & Farahian, M. (2017). The impact of immediate and delayed corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature6(6), 28-39.