A MIXED METHODS STUDY OF THE IMPACT OF LEARNING STYLES ON LEARNERS' UPTAKE OF CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK

Authors

  • Ahmadreza Mohebbi Kharazmi University, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejel.v0i0.2924

Keywords:

corrective feedback, learning style, uptake, grammatical errors, EFL/ESL teachers

Abstract

The present unprecedented study was undertaken to explore the effect of different learning styles of EFL learners on their uptake of various corrective feedback types provided by their teachers and probe their achievements longitudinally. This study was comprised of 383 adult male students from a popular English language institute. The instruments used in this study were a 30-item perceptual learning style questionnaire developed by Reid (1995) to tap into the students' learning styles together with semi-structured interviews which were conducted to have more rational and sophisticated insights into the phenomenon. The results showed that auditory learning styles prefer to receive corrective feedback explicitly, while repetition proves to be fruitful for interpersonal styles. Furthermore, intrapersonal learning styles have an inclination to recasts, whereas kinesthetic ones have a preference for clarification requests. Logical/mathematical learning styles show a proclivity toward elicitations. Moreover, verbal learning styles have a high rate of uptake when their errors are repaired via metalinguistic feedback. Finally, visual learning styles learn the corrective feedback best when their mistakes are corrected on board. Given the revealing findings, the paper concludes by offering some pedagogical implications to EFL/ESL teachers and also suggestions for future research on under-researched areas.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Author Biography

  • Ahmadreza Mohebbi, Kharazmi University, Iran

    Ahmadreza Mohebbi (orcid.org/0000-0003-4176-2979) is an EGP/ESP instructor teaching in different state organizations and institutes. He has presented papers in international TESOL conferences. He has also published articles in various international scholarly journals. His main research expertise and focus include Cultural Linguistics, Linguistic Landscape, Discourse Analysis, Intercultural Communication, and Teaching English as an International Language.

References

Arksey, H., & Knight, P. T. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists: An introductory resource with examples. Sage.

Cassidy, S. (2004). Learning styles: An overview of theories, models, and measures. Educational psychology, 24(4), 419-444.

Conrad, S. M., & Goldstein, L. M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of second language writing, 8(2), 147-179.

Drysdale, J. (1984). Singapore, struggle for success (p. 80). Singapore: Times Books International.

Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., Olson, J., Beasley, M., & Gorman, B. S. (1995). A meta-analytic validation of the Dunn and Dunn model of learning-style preferences. The Journal of Educational Research, 88(6), 353-362.

Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses as language awareness. The modern language Journal, 94(1), 1-21.

El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2010). The impact of computer-based feedback on students’ written work. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 121-142.

Ellis, R. (1989). Understanding second language acquisition (Vol. 31). Oxford university press.

Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 335-349.

Enginarlar, H. (1993). Student response to teacher feedback in EFL writing. System, 21(2), 193-204.

Esteban, N. M., & de Larios, J. R. (2010). The use of models as a form of written feedback to secondary school pupils of English. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 143-170.

Evans, N., Hartshorn, J., McCollum, R., & Wolfersberger, M. (2010). Contextualizing corrective feedback in second language writing pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 14, 445–464.

Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short-and long-term effects of written error correction. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 81104.

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Griggs, S., & Dunn, R. (1996). Learning styles of Asian-American adolescents. Emergency Librarian, 24(1), 8-13.

Goldstein, L. (2006). Feedback and revision in second language writing: Contextual, teacher, and student variables. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, 185-205.

Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL

conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24(3), 443-460.

Hall, E., & Moseley, D. (2005). Is there a role for learning styles in personalised education and training? International Journal of Lifelong Education, 24(3), 243-255.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.

Kang, S. (1999, October). Learning styles: Implications for ESL/EFL instruction. In English Teaching Forum (Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 6-11).

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60 (2), 309-365.

Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(3), 361-386.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(2), 265-300.

Matthews, D. B., & Hamby, J. V. (1995). A comparison of the learning styles of high school and college/university students. The Clearing House, 68(4), 257-261.

Nelson, B., Dunn, R., Griggs, S. A., & Primavera, L. (1993). Effects of learning style intervention on college students' retention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development.

Pathak A, Intratat C 2012. Use of semi-structured interviews to investigate teacher perceptions of student collaboration. Malaysian Journal of ELT Research, 8(1): 1-10.

Reid, J. M. (1995). Learning styles in the ESL/EFL classroom. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, International Thomson Publishing Book Distribution Center, 7625 Empire Drive, Florence, KY 41042.

Russel, J. & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. M. Norris, and L. Ortega (eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching, XIV, pp. 133–164.

Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ Processing, Uptake, and Retention of Corrective Feedback on Writing: Case Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of HG Widdowson, 125-144.

Downloads

Published

2020-03-14

Issue

Vol 5, No 2 (2020)

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).