Efficacy Of Corrective Feedback Research Articles

Contributions of Computerized Dynamic Assessment and Digitalized Feedback to L2 Learners’ Grammar Acquisition: Technology-Enhanced Learning Facilitation Theory

As an integral part of dynamic assessment, computerized dynamic assessment (CDA) offers learners computer-assisted automated mediation. Accordingly, the possible efficacy of corrective feedback seems to be enhanced with new technologies, such as artificial intelligence tools, that offer automatic corrective feedback. Using technology-enhanced learning facilitation theory, this study examined, in this respect, the combined effect of CDA and digitalized feedback (DF) on L2 learners' grammar acquisition. Under a quantitative methodology and in an Iranian language institute, the study used a pretest-posttest quasi-experimental design with a control group to evaluate how CDA with DF affected language learners' grammar acquisition. The statistical analyses using t-tests and ANCOVAs revealed that compared to the control group, the experimental group that underwent CDA with DF showed notable increases in both comprehension and production of conditional type 1. The results underlined how well the theory of technology-enhanced learning facilitation helps recognize and produce the target grammatical feature. Emphasizing the significance of including individualized instruction, dynamic assessment, and DF in language teaching and learning methods, implications for language teachers, syllabus designers, materials producers, and policymakers are offered.

The Effectiveness and Efficacy of Corrective Feedback in Foreign Language Learning Classroom based on the Context of China

Early studies show that corrective feedback plays an important role in second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) classrooms [1] . On the one hand, some studies show that feedback types including explicit and implicit feedback affect learners language learning, usually speaking and writing outcomes, either positively or negatively. According to Sherwood Smith (1993) , positive input enhancement is tended to make certain forms more salient, through color-coding or boldfacing in the case of written input, and International stress and features in the case of oral input. While negative input enhancement is intended to flag certain forms as incorrect, primarily through the use of interaction feedback. One the other hand, other studies fail to report such effects (citation needed). This paper conducts a systematic review on the effectiveness and efficacy of feedback types in the SL/FL classroom by summarizing and synthesizing a number of relevant studies in second language writing/speaking/listening. Results show that explicit feedback facilitates the scaffolding of conceptual knowledge in FL learners writing process compared with implicit feedback, thus indicating that explicit feedback demonstrated a larger effect size than implicit feedback. This study provides compelling evidence for the effectiveness of corrective feedback and will shed some new light on foreign language teaching and learning in the context of China.

Effect of Teachers’ Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Oral Accuracy in English Speaking Lessons

Corrective feedback plays a vital role in contributing to the success of English language teaching and learning at all levels owing to its essential functions in developing learners’ English capacity. However, the ongoing debate on how effective corrective feedback is still remains controversial among educational scholars. This empirical study examined the effects of teachers’ corrective feedback on learners’ English oral accuracy at a higher education institution. The study used a before-and-after approach with the involvement of 47 law major sophomores at lower intermediate level who were divided into control and experimental groups. Specifically, the experimental group included two batches, including 16 participants companions receiving the explicit correction and metalinguistic feedback, and 15 learners provided with recast and clarification requests. In addition, there were 16 participants in the control group who were given no form of corrective feedback during English speaking lessons. The results indicate that the efficacy of corrective feedback is clearly acknowledged thanks to the contrastive analysis of the outcome in the learners' performance on the post-tests. In particular, the results of the explicit corrective feedback slightly outweighed the results of the control group receiving implicit feedback in terms of improving learners’ accurate usage of grammar, vocabulary, and pronunciation. The findings emphasise the importance of teachers’ corrective feedback in helping students improve their English competency.

The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback on L2 Writings of EFL Students

Errors have been perceived as problems within the process of teaching and learning a language. However, especially in writing, learners are able to benefit from their errors with the help of corrective feedback. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of explicit corrective feedback in Turkish EFL learners’ writing. The participants of the study were 43 intermediate level Turkish EFL students at a private university in Turkey. There were one experimental, 21 students, and one control group, 22 students. As the data collection both groups were administered a pre-test, a post-test and a delayed post-test as a paper and pencil tests. The experimental group received explicit corrective feedback with extended comments on their errors, and the control group received no feedback. Their errors were only underlined without providing correction. The number of errors that each group made in the writings was compared to each other. In order to ensure the reliability and validity, the participants were administered a 5 Likert scale questionnaire after the writing sessions. The results revealed that the experimental group who received explicit corrective feedback made fewer errors than the control group who did not receive feedback on their L2 writings. Besides that, the experimental group made fewer mistakes in their tests compared to the previous ones. Thus, the findings of the questionnaire revealed that students had a positive view about corrective feedback their L2 writings especially if it has extended comments.

日本語中上級学習者の作文に対する内容、言語形式を改善させる ー教師の訂正フィードバックー

日本語中上級学習者の作文に対する内容、言語形式を改善させる ー教師の訂正フィードバックー

Learners’ Proficiency Level and the Efficacy of Written Corrective Feedback on L2 Acquisition

This study aimed to investigate whether an individual learner difference factor of proficiency level mediates the efficacy of written corrective feedback (CF) on L2 acquisition. In a quasi-experiment conducted to attain this end, three types of written CF (i.e., indirect CF, direct CF, and metalinguistic CF) were considered, and English article errors were targeted for the written CF. EFL college students were formed into eight groups distinguished by proficiency level (i.e., higher and lower) and the type of CF to receive. They carried out three narrative writing tasks for written CF treatments and went through pretest, immediate and delayed posttest sessions. At each session, two subtests were administered to measure explicit and implicit knowledge, respectively. The results revealed that the efficacy of CF was mediated by learners’ proficiency level. However, the mediating effect was limited: proficiency level mediated the efficacy of indirect CF, but had no impact on that of direct CF and metalinguistic CF. In addition, the mediating effect emerged only for explicit knowledge, not for implicit knowledge. The results indicate that the proficiency level of learners constitutes a significant factor to be considered for the effective practice of written CF.

The Efficacy of Corrective Feedback and Textual Enhancement in Promoting the Acquisition of Grammatical Redundancies

Many second language acquisition researchers (e.g., Doughty & Williams, 1998; R. Ellis, 2007; Long, 1996, 2007; Lyster, Lightbown, & Spada, 1999; Russell & Spada, 2006) have advocated the use of negative feedback to promote learner noticing of errors and the internalization of correct forms. At the same time, the true efficacy of this practice is uncertain, for it not only entails additional linguistic input but may generally enhance otherwise non‐salient language features as well (Leeman, 2003). This study examined the development of the à/au/en/aux distinction before French toponyms among 136 2nd‐semester university French learners randomly assigned to an interactive, computer‐based reading lesson featuring either textually enhanced or unenhanced target forms and one of four types of corrective feedback: meaning‐focused, implicit form‐focused, non‐metalinguistic explicit form‐focused, or metalinguistic explicit form‐focused. Learners in all treatment groups showed continuous improvement in mean target item accuracy. However, no differences were observed between any of the conditions. These findings suggest no benefit for highlighting or repeated correction and explanation, at least for the structures in question. Thus, instructors who feel the need to teach these types of necessary grammatical redundancies should perhaps focus on maximizing learners’ opportunities to process them through meaningful interaction rather than concentrate on the forms themselves.

Teachers' Intentions and Learners' Perceptions about Corrective Feedback in the L2 Classroom

The efficacy of corrective feedback provided during classroom interaction is the topic of much current debate in the second language (L2) literature, and innovative methodology is needed in order to explore this complex issue. Several studies have investigated learners' perceptions about corrective feedback (Egi, in press; Kim & Han, in press; Mackey et al., 2000; Roberts, 1995); however, the degree of overlap between teachers' intentions and learners' perceptions about corrective feedback and the factors influencing such overlap are little understood. The current research investigated perceptions about feedback in Arabic foreign language classrooms. Corrective feedback was provided during authentic lessons on a range of linguistic targets (e.g. phonology, morphology/lexis and syntax) in a number of different ways (e.g. explicit feedback and implicit feedback, including declarative/interrogative recasts and negotiation). Shortly after the language classes, the teachers and their students viewed video clips of feedback episodes and provided comments about the episodes. These comments were analysed for evidence as to whether or not the learners understood the intentions of the teachers who provided the corrective feedback. The results demonstrated that learners' perceptions and teachers' intentions about the linguistic target of corrective feedback overlapped the most when feedback concerned lexis and was provided explicitly. Also, the linguistic targets of the feedback were perceived more accurately when feedback was directed at the learners themselves rather than at their classmates.