Navid Bahrami Maleki; Ali Akbar Ansarin; Yaser Hadidi
Abstract
Focus on form through oral corrective feedback has been the center of many L2 learning investigations in recent decades. Although research has been abundantly done on the impact of different single-feedback types, not many studies have included combinational feedback strategy, especially as regards the ...
Read More
Focus on form through oral corrective feedback has been the center of many L2 learning investigations in recent decades. Although research has been abundantly done on the impact of different single-feedback types, not many studies have included combinational feedback strategy, especially as regards the mastery of both explicit and implicit knowledge of morpheme ‘s’ by EFL students in Iran. Therefore, the present work attempted to compare the effectiveness of unmarked recast, explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation, and mixed feedback in the expansion of knowledge of third-person singular ‘s’ in Iranian task-based language teaching context in a pretest/posttest design. To this end, forty-eight lower-intermediate learners of EFL were selected as participants. Every feedback type was supplied to an experimental group through story retelling and picture description tasks. Control group, however, was not provided with any intervention and feedback. Untimed grammaticality judgment and elicited oral imitation tests were used as measurement tools. Results of Descriptive Statistics, One-Way Between Groups ANCOVA and Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Post-Hoc Test illustrated that all types of feedback were relatively effective. Nevertheless, mixed feedback and explicit correction with metalinguistic explanation lead to overall acquisition. The insights provided might benefit EFL instructors in Iran in employing the best way(s) of corrective feedback to foster language learning in task-based teaching approach, which can promote Iranian English learners’ acquisition of third person singular ‘s’.
Davoud Amini; Saleh Ashrafi
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) ...
Read More
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.
Hossein Arabgary; Siros Izadpanah
Volume 3, Issue 3 , September 2016, , Pages 128-105
Abstract
The present study aimed at examining whether the turn-taking processes in focus on form and focus on forms teaching contexts were similar or different. Turn-taking refers to ‘how each of the interlocutors in an interaction contributes to the conversation’. Both lessons were designed to teach ...
Read More
The present study aimed at examining whether the turn-taking processes in focus on form and focus on forms teaching contexts were similar or different. Turn-taking refers to ‘how each of the interlocutors in an interaction contributes to the conversation’. Both lessons were designed to teach some words but they also provided opportunities for incidental acquisition by exposing them to the two target structures, namely, plural s and copula be. The FonF lesson was of planned while FonFs lesson employed present-practice-product (PPP) methodology. Forty-five beginner Iranian students were non-randomly divided into three groups of fifteen, namely, FonF, FonFs and control group. They received eight repeated lessons during six weeks. Two tests for receptive knowledge of plural-s, and one test for productive knowledge of copula-be were used to measure the acquisitions of target features in terms of the differences in interactions that takes place in the two instructional approaches and consequently opportunities for noticing of target structures. The study used a quasi-experimental design through pre-tests, immediate post-tests and delayed post-tests. Then the statistical analysis was run through one-way repeated measures ANOVAS. Conversation analysis (CA) was employed by utilizing seedhouse’s ‘form and accuracy’ and ‘meaning and fluency’ framework to investigate classroom interactions. The analysis revealed that the interaction in the two groups differed in organization of turn-taking, occurrence of different kinds of repair, and the frequency and function of private speech. Overall, it was revealed that the interaction in the FonF lesson was ‘conversational’ while that in the FonFs lesson was ‘pedagogical’.