Document Type : research paper
Authors
English Department, Khorram Abad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorram Abad, Iran
Abstract
Written corrective feedback has been extensively investigated with regard to its effectiveness, comparison of its different types, and perceptions about its effectiveness. However, few studies have addressed the types of errors receiving corrective feedback (CF) and still much fewer have focused on formulaic errors as targets of CF. Thus, the current study compared formulaic and non-formulaic errors as targets of CF in learner writings. In addition, it examined the CF types provided to these errors. Finally, it sought the effect of a teacher awareness-raising program on teachers' attention to formulaic versus non-formulaic errors and on the CF types used to correct these errors. To achieve these purposes, eight English language teachers from four language institutes were selected through convenience sampling. First, during two sessions, the teachers asked the learners to write two compositions on two writing topics. Next, an awareness-raising program for teachers was run to raise the teacher's awareness level about formulaic and non-formulaic errors and CF types for correcting such errors. Then, the learners were asked to write two other compositions each in one session. The results showed that before the treatment, non-formulaic errors received considerably more CF than formulaic errors and that the percentage of direct CF was more than other CF types. In addition, the study showed that the awareness-raising program for teachers influenced their attention to formulaic errors. The findings of this study indicate that teachers need awareness-raising about the importance of formulaic sequences and about the need for correcting formulaic errors whenever possible.
Keywords
Abbaspour, E., Atai, M. R., & Maftoon, P. (2021). Exploring the impact of scaffolded written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing quality: A sociocultural theory study. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 8(4), 53-84. https://doi.org/ 10.30479/jmrels.2020.12116.1508
Ajabshir, Z. (2014). The effect of implicit and explicit types of feedback on learners’ pragmatic development. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 463-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.441
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2017). Acquisition of L2 pragmatics. In Bardovi-Harlig (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 224-245). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-13
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370-380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Foster, P. (2013). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the taskbased language production of native and non-native speakers. In P. Foster (Ed.), Researching pedagogic tasks (pp. 75-93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838267-11
Fukuya, Y. J., & Zhang, Y. (2002). Effects of recasts on EFL learners’ acquisition of pragmalinguistic conventions of request. Second Language Studies, 21(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.5070/l4151005079
Gholami, L. (2021a). Incidental corrective feedback provision for formulaic vs. Non-formulaic errors: EFL teachers’ beliefs and practices. Language Awareness, 31(1), 21-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1943421
Gholami, L. (2021b). Incidental reactive focus on form in language classes: Learners’ formulaic versus nonformulaic errors, their treatment, and effectiveness in communicative interactions. Foreign Language Annals, 54(4), 897-922. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12546
Gholami, L. (2021c). Oral corrective feedback and learner uptake in L2 classrooms: Non-formulaic vs. formulaic errors. Language Teaching Research, 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211021560
Gholami, L. (2022a). The Efficacy of Incidental Attention to Formulaic and Nonformulaic Forms in Focus on Form. The Modern Language Journal,106(2), 449-468. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12781
Gholami, L. (2022b). Incidental focus-on-form characteristics: Predicting learner uptake. Formulaic vs. non-formulaic forms. Vigo InternationalJournal of Applied Linguistics, (19), 67-102. https://doi.org/10.35869/vial.v0i19.3760
Gholami, L., & Gholami, J. (2018). Uptake in incidental focus-on-form episodes concerning formulaic language in advanced adult EFL classes. Language Teaching Research, 24(2), 189-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818783442
Gholami, L., Karimi, M. N., & Atai, M. R. (2017). Formulaic focus-on-form episodes in adult EFL communicative interactions. System, 68, 72-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.06.015
Glaser, K. (2018). Enhancing the role of pragmatics in primary English teacher training. Glottodidactica. An International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 119-131. https://doi.org/10.14746/gl.2018.45.2.06
Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2022). Comparative effects of direct and metalinguistic computer-mediated feedback on L2 learners’ writing ability and willingness-to-write. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 9(4), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2022.17200.2064
Hatami, S. (2015). Teaching formulaic sequences in the ESL classroom. TESOL Journal, 6(1), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.143
Holden, C., & Sykes, J. M. (2013). Complex L2 pragmatic feedback via placebased mobile games. In N. Taguchi & J. M. Sykes (Eds.), Technology in interlanguage pragmatics research and teaching (pp. 155–184). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.36.09hol
Hosseiny, M. (2014). The role of direct and indirect written corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL students’ writing skill. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 668-674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.466
Hudson, J., & Wiktorsson, M. (2009). Formulaic language and the relater category - the case of about. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Quali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Distribution and historical change (pp. 77-95). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.82.04for
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261444806003399
Ishihara, N. (2011). Co-constructing pragmatic awareness: Instructional pragmatics in EFL teacher development in Japan. TESL-EJ, 15(2), 1-16. https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume15/ej58/ej58a2/
Karatepe, Ç. İ. Ğ. D. E. M., & Civelek, M. (2021). A case study on EFL teachers’ views on material adaptation for teaching pragmatics. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (23), 894-910. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.953259
Kennedy, M. M. (2016). How does professional development improve teaching?. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 945-980. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626800
Kim, T. E. (2011). Corrective feedback that an automatic writing evaluation system can and cannot provide. English Teaching, 66(1), 111-140. https://doi.org/10.15858/engtea.66.1.201103.111
Koike, D. A., & Pearson, L. (2005). The effect of instruction and feedback in the development of pragmatic competence. System, 33(3), 481–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.06.008
Kuiper, K. (2004). Formulaic performance in conventionalized varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use (pp. 37–54). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.9.04kui
Maleki, A., & Eslami, E. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback techniques on EFL students’ control over grammatical construction of their written English. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 3(7),1250-1257. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.3.7.1250-1257
Meihami, H., Husseini, F., & Sahragard, R. (2018). Portfolio-based writing instruction as a venue to provide corrective feedback on EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 5(3), 136-119. http://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.10657.1333
Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.14
Ngai, P., & Janusch, S. (2018). Professional development for TESL teachers: A course in transcultural pragmatics. TESL-EJ, 22(3), 1994-2012. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1195948
Nguyen, T. T. M., Do, T. T. H., Nguyen, T. A., & Pham, T. T. T. (2015). Teaching email requests in the academic context: A focus on the role of corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 24(2), 169-195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2015.1010543
Niemi, H. (2015). Teacher professional development in Finland: Towards a more holistic approach. Psychology, Society & Education, 7(3), 279-294. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.519
Nipaspong, P., & Chinokul, S. (2010). The role of prompts and explicit feedback in raising EFL learners’ pragmatic awareness. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 5(5), 101-146.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588241
Reinders, H., & Mohebbi, H. (2018). Written corrective feedback: The road ahead. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 6, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2018.06.01
Reynolds, B. L., & Teng, M. F. (2021). Innovating teacher feedback with writing activities aimed at raising secondary school students' awareness of collocation errors. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 11(3), 423-444. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2021.11.3.6
Rose, K. R. (1997). Pragmatics in teacher education for nonnative‐speaking teachers: A consciousness‐raising approach. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 10(2), 125-138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319709525246
https://doi.org/10.1080/07908319709525246
Rott, S. (2009). The effect of awareness-raising on the use of formulaic constructions. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H., Ouali, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (pp. 405-422). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.83.09rot
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.09.002
Shirkhani, S., & Tajeddin, Z. (2017). Pragmatic corrective feedback in L2 classrooms: Investigating EFL teachers’ perceptions and instructional practices. Teaching English Language, 11(2), 25-56. https://doi.org/10.22132/tel.2017.53182
Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). A national plan for improving professional development. Oxford.
Stengers, H., & Boers, F. (2015). Exercises on collocations: A comparison of trial-and-error and exemplar-guided procedures. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 2(2), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2015.1104030
Stengers, H., & Boers, F. (2015). Exercises on collocations: A comparison of trial-and-error and exemplar-guided procedures. Journal of Spanish Language Teaching, 2(2), 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/23247797.2015.1104030
Sykes, J, & Dubreil, S. (2019). Pragmatics learning in digital games and virtual environments. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), Routledge handbook of SLA and pragmatics (pp. 387–399). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-25
Taguchi, N. (2011). Teaching pragmatics: Trends and issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 289-310. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190511000018
Vásquez, C., & Harvey, J. (2010). Raising teachers’ awareness about corrective feedback through research replication. Language Teaching Research, 14(4), 421-443. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810375365
Vasquez, C., & Sharpless, D. (2009). The role of pragmatics in the master's TESOL curriculum: Findings from a nationwide survey. TESOL Quarterly, 43(1), 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00225.x
Vellenga, H. (2011). Teaching L2 pragmatics: Opportunities for continuing professional development. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 15(2), 1-27.
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A. (2013). Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. https://doi.org/10.26686/wgtn.12749645
Wray, A. (2017). Formulaic sequences as a regulatory mechanism for cognitive perturbations during the achievement of social goals. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9(3), 569-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12257
Wray, A. (2018). Concluding question: Why don’t second language learners more proactively target formulaic sequences? In Understanding formulaic language (pp. 248-269). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315206615
)