THE EFFECT OF TEACHER IMPLICIT CORRECTION THROUGH RECAST VERSUS EXPLICIT SELF-CORRECTION THROUGH ELICITATION ON IRANIAN INTERMEDIATE EFL LEARNERS’ USE OF COLLOCATIONS IN WRITING

Authors

  • Azadeh Alizadeh Vandchali Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Islamic Azad University in Rasht, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran
  • Majid Pourmohammadi Dr., Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Islamic Azad University in Rasht, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.2514

Keywords:

feedback, recast, elicitation, collocation

Abstract

Over the last decades, the vital role of corrective feedback has attracted much attention. However, few studies have considered the effects of feedback on the acquisition of specific lexical items such as collocations. To bridge this gap, the current research was conducted to investigate the effect of two types of feedback, recast and elicitation on the use of collocations in writing. The participants of the study were 45 intermediate EFL learners at Kish Air Institute, in Qaemshahr, Iran, which were homogenized by Solutions placement test. Three intact classes were used, which randomly assigned into two experimental and one control groups. Each group consisted of 15 participants. After the pretest, in the treatment phase, one experimental group received implicit feedback through recast, and the other one received explicit feedback through elicitation, and the control group received no feedback on their collocational errors. Then, the posttest was administered. Finally, the collected data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA. The findings of the current study illustrated that the two experimental groups outperformed the control one, which confirmed the effectiveness of providing feedback in the learning process. Moreover, it was revealed that the recast group performed significantly better than the elicitation group.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Author Biographies

  • Azadeh Alizadeh Vandchali, Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Islamic Azad University in Rasht, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran

    Azadeh Alizadeh Vandchali has got her MA in TEFL from Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran. Her research interests include errors and different types of feedback, linguistics, learners’ attitudes toward error correction and searching methods in order to engage learners in the learning process.

  • Majid Pourmohammadi, Dr., Department of English Language, College of Humanities, Islamic Azad University in Rasht, Rasht Branch, Rasht, Iran

    Majid Pourmohammadi is an assistant professor and faculty member at Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran. He has written some books and published many articles in several high ranking journals. His research interests mostly include TESOL and ICT.

References

Abolhasanpour F., Jabbari A. A., 2014. The effect of negative and positive evidence on acquisition of quantifiers by Iranian EFL. International Journal of English Linguistics, 4(2), 46-62. https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v4n2p46

Ammar A., 2003. Corrective feedback and L2 learning: Elicitation and recasts. 1-244. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/30002264

Ellis R., Sheen Y., 2006. Reexamining the role of recast in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 575-600.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310606027X

Ellis R., 2008. A topology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023

Ellis R., 2009. Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 2-18. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2504d6w3

Ellis R., Loewen S., Erlam R., 2006. Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368. doi: 10.1017/S0272263106060141

Ellis R., Sheen Y., Murakami M., Takashima H., 2008. The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as foreign language context. Elsevier-System, 36, 353-371. doi: 101016/j.system.2008.02.001

Finley S., 2012. The role of negative and positive evidence in adult phonological learning. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Penn, linguistic colloquium, University of Pennsylvania, 18(1), 60-68. Retrieved from: http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol18

Hedge, T., 2006. Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keshavarz M. H., 2015. Contrastive analysis, error analysis & interlanguage. Tehran: Rahnama Press.

Loewen S., Philip J., 2006. Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal, 90(2006), 536-556. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2006.00465.x

Lyster R., Ranta L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.orgcore/journals/studies-in-second-language-acquisition/article

Nassaji H., 2009. Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explicitness. Language Learning, 59(2), 411-452. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00511.x

Nicholas H., Lightbown P., Spada N., 2001. Recasts as feedback to language learners. Language Learning, 51(4), 719-758.doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00172

Sheen Y. H., 2004. Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8(3), 263-300. doi: 10.1191/1362168804lr146oa

Zoghi M., Ettehad S., 2016. A comparative study of reformulation and elicitation feedback types in teaching English verb tense. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies, 4(2), 107-114. Retrieved from www.eltsjournal.org.

Downloads

Published

2019-07-11

Issue

Vol 5, No 1 (2019)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

 

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

 

  1. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).