Abstract
The present study was conducted to compare the impact of direct and metalinguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ grammatical knowledge. The participants were a convenient sample of students in two intact writing classes. The instruction provided in both groups was similar; however, the students in one group received direct feedback and the students in the other group received metalinguistic feedback in the form of error codes on writing accuracy (i.e., grammar, vocabulary, and punctuation) of their in-class written texts. Moreover, all the students took a grammar test serving as pre- and posttests before and after the treatment. In addition to the computation of gain scores, descriptive statistics and a mixed between-within subjects ANOVA were run to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics revealed that the grammatical knowledge of the learners in both groups developed as a result of the two types of feedback; nonetheless, there was not a statistically significant difference between the students’ performance on the grammar test before and after the treatment. Furthermore, although the direct feedback seemed to be more effective in improving grammatical knowledge, no statistically significant difference was found between the two groups’ gain scores on the grammar test. Accordingly, it was concluded that either of the feedback types may be employed to effectively develop EFL learners’ knowledge of grammar.
Highlights
The extent to which corrective feedback on linguistic errors can play a role in learning the target language has been an issue of interest to researchers since it is one of the framework options involved in form focused instruction (FFI) (Ellis, 2008)
Descriptive statistics revealed that the grammatical knowledge of the learners in both groups developed as a result of the two types of feedback; there was not a statistically significant difference between the students’ performance on the grammar test before and after the treatment
In order to assess the impact of the two types of feedback on the students’ grammar knowledge, a comparison was made between the direct and metalinguistic groups’ scores on the pretest and posttest grammar test
Summary
The extent to which corrective feedback on linguistic errors can play a role in learning the target language has been an issue of interest to researchers since it is one of the framework options involved in form focused instruction (FFI) (Ellis, 2008). Ellis considers it as a type of FFI which is available to teachers and researchers for instruction and investigation of its effects on second language acquisition. Truscott (1996, 1999, & 2009) has been the most vocal opponent of error correction, and has encouraged further and more methodologically appropriate research in this regard He noted that regardless of learners’ perceptions that corrective feedback is useful, it should not be given. He insisted that even though students may demand or expect corrective feedback, teachers should refrain from providing it
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
