THE EFFECT OF IMPLICIT VS. EXPLICIT CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK ON IRANIAN ELEMENTARY EFL LEARNERS’ PARAGRAPH WRITING ABILITY

Authors

  • Nasim Nourbakhsh Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran
  • Majid Pourmohammadi Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v0i0.2463

Keywords:

explicit feedback, implicit feedback, paragraph writing

Abstract

This research tried to compare the probable effects of two different kinds of corrective feedback (explicit and implicit) on Iranian elementary EFL learners' paragraph writing ability. The participants were 30 English elementary foreign language learners who were studying EFL at Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Lahijan, Iran. They were all native speakers of Persian. The study groups both included girls aged 12 to 14. In order to make sure that all the participants were at the same English proficiency level, Face to Face Written Placement Test was organized. The pretest-posttest nonequivalent-groups design which is a subcategory of quasi-experimental designs was utilized in this study. Each group included 15 participants. All of the participants in each group have expected to write a paragraph as the pretest and after treatment sessions they were required to write another paragraph as the posttest of writing. The findings showed the superiority of explicit feedback over implicit feedback during the procedure of the research.

 

Article visualizations:

Hit counter

DOI

Author Biographies

  • Nasim Nourbakhsh, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

    Nasim Nourbakhsh is an Iranian MA TEFL student at Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran. She is currently teaching English at young adult department of Iran Language Institue (ILI) in Lahijan, Iran. Her research interests include errors and correction, contrastive analysis, pronunciation and word stress, learners’ attitudes toward error correction.

  • Majid Pourmohammadi, Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Rasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, 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 journals. His research interests include TESOL and ICT.

References

Ammar A., Spada N., 2006. One Size Fits all? Recasts, Prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(4): 543-574.

Bitchener J., Knoch U., 2010a. The Contribution of Written Corrective Feedback to Language Development: A Ten Month Investigation. Applied Linguistics 31(2): 193-214.

Brown H. D., 2007. Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.), New York, Pearson Longman, USA

Chandler J., 2003. The Efficacy of Various Kinds of Error Feedback for Improvement in the Accuracy and Fluency of L2 Student Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 12(3): 267-296.

Chen J., Lin J., Jiang L., 2016. Corrective Feedback in SLA: Theoretical Relevance and Research. Canadian Center of Science and Educating, doi:10.5539/elt.v9n11p85

Ellis R., Sheen Y., 2006. Reexamining the Role of Recasts in Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, doi:10.1017/S027226310606027X

Ellis R., 2008. The study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd ed.). Oxford, Oxford University.

Ellis R., 2008. A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal 63(2) : 97-107.

Ellis R., Sheen Y., Murakami M., Takashima H., 2008. The Effects of Focused and Unfocused Written Corrective Feedback in an English as a Foreign Language Context. System 36: 353-371.

Ferris D. R., Roberts B. 2001. Error Feedback in L2 Writing Classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 161-184.

Ferris D. R., Hedgcock J. S., 2005. Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice, Abingdon, Routledge

Ferris D. R., 2006. Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Ferris D. R., 2010. Second Writing Research and Written Feedback in SLA: Intersectional and Practical Applications, doi: 10.1017/S0272263109990490

Hyland K., Annan E., 2006. Teachers’ Perceptions of Error: The Effects of First Language and Experience, doi: 10.1016/j.system.2006.09.001

Hyland K., Hyland F., 2006. Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and Issues, New York, Cambridge University Press

Panova I., Lyster R., 2002. Patterns of Corrective Feedback and Uptake in an Adult ESL Classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4): 573-595.

Russell J. Spada N., 2006. The Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback for the Acquisition of L2 Grammar, doi: 10.1075/lllt.13.09val

Sheen Y., 2007. The Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback and Language Aptitude on ESL Learners’ Acquisition of Articles. TESOL Quarterly 41: 255-283.

Truscott J., 2004. Evidence and Conjecture on the Effects of Correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing 13: 337-343.

Truscott J., 2007. The Effect of Error Correction on Learners' Ability to Write Accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing 16(4): 255-272.

Downloads

Published

2019-06-06

Issue

Vol 4, No 2 (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).