پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 926 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,634 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,435,079 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 8,850,956 |
The Effects of Implicit, Explicit, and Emergent Oral Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners' Accuracy, Fluency, and Attitude | ||
| Journal of Language Horizons | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 2، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 4، مهر 2018، صفحه 75-102 اصل مقاله (1.53 M) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2019.26029.1122 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Maryam Zarei1؛ Touran Ahour* 2؛ Zohreh Seifoori3 | ||
| 1PhD candidate, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| 2Assistant Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor of TEFL, Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| In this study it was attempted to investigate whether different CF strategies, including implicit, explicit, and emergent CF, can differently affect the accuracy and fluency of oral production among Iranian EFL learners. In addition, it explored the learners' attitudes towards how they felt about the CF types applied in the classroom. For these purposes, the researchers selected 54 homogeneous pre-intermediate learners on the basis of the PET results and randomly assigned them into three experimental groups: the Implicit group, the Explicit group, and the Emergent group. While the Implicit and Explicit groups received just implicit feedback and explicit correction for their erroneous oral production, respectively, the Emergent group took CF from implicit to explicit. Oral narrative and picture description tasks and semi-structured interviews were used to collect the quantitative and qualitative data for the study. The results of inferential statistics indicated significant differences among the feedback types in both past-tense and future-tense accuracy. Moreover, the Emergent group had a better performance compared with the other groups with respect to accuracy. However, no significant difference was revealed among the feedback types with respect to fluency. The results of the content analysis also indicated that the learners mostly preferred to receive emergent feedback and participate in the process of error correction. The findings of this study can raise researchers', teachers', and teacher trainers' awareness of the function of various CF types. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| Accuracy؛ fluency؛ emergent feedback؛ explicit feedback؛ implicit feedback؛ attitude | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| تاثیرات بازخورد شفاهی ضمنی، صریح و پیدایشی بر صحت دستوری، سلاست کلامی و نگرش زبان آموزان ایرانی | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| مریم زارعی1؛ توران آهور2؛ زهره سیفوری3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تبریز | ||
| 2استادیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تبریز | ||
| 3دانشیار گروه زبان انگلیسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تبریز | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| در این تحقیق تلاش بر آن است که دریابیم آیا استراتژی های متفاوت بازخورد تصحیحی شامل بازخورد ضمنی، صریح و پیدایشی میتوانند صحت دستوری و سلاست کلامی زبان آموزان ایرانی را به طور متفاوتی تحت تاثیر قرار دهند. علاوه بر این، نگرش زبانآموزان را نسبت به اینکه آنها چطور احساسی در مورد انواع بازخورد تصحیحی در کلاس دارند بررسی نمود. جهت تحقق این اهداف، محققان 54 زبان آموز همگن سطح پیش متوسط را بر اساس نتایج آزمونPET انتخاب کردند و آنها را به طور تصادفی در 3 گروه آزمایشی قرار دادند: گروه ضمنی، گروه صریح و گروه پیدایشی. در حالی که گروه های ضمنی و صریح به ترتیب فقط بازخورد ضمنی و تصحیح صریح برای خطاهای تولید شفاهیشان دریافت کردند، گروه پیدایشی بازخورد تصحیحی را از نوع ضمنی به طرف نوع صریح دریافت کرد. فعالیت های داستان شفاهی و توصیف تصویر و مصاحبه های نیمه ساختار یافته جهت جمع آوری داده های کمی و کیفی مطالعه بکار برده شدند. نتایج آمار استنباطی تفاوت های معناداری را در میان انواع بازخوردها از لحاظ صحت دستوری در زمان گذشته و آینده نشان داد. علاوه بر این، گروه پیدایشی عملکرد بهتری را در مقایسه با دیگر گروه ها از لحاظ صحت دستوری داشت. اما از لحاظ سلاست کلامی، تفاوت معناداری میان انواع بازخوردها مشاهده نشد. نتایج تحلیل محتوا همچنین نشان داد که زبان آموزان اکثرا ترجیح می دادند که بازخورد پیدایشی دریافت کنند و در فرایند تصحیح خطا مشارکت داشته باشند. یافته های این تحقیق میتواند آگاهی محققان، معلمان و مربیان آموزشی را در رابطه با عملکرد انواع بازخورد تصحیحی افزایش دهد. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| صحت دستوری, سلاست کلامی, بازخورد پیدایشی, بازخورد صریح, بازخورد ضمنی, نگرش | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Abukhadrah, Q. A. (2012). Arab male students' preferences for oral corrective feedback: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio University). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=ohiou1330997332&disposition=inline
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Amador, Y. A. (2008). Learner attitudes toward error correction in a beginners English class. Revista Comunicacion, 29(1), 18-28.
Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543-574. doi:10.1017/S0272263106060268
Amrhein, H. R., & Nassaji, H. (2010). Written corrective feedback: What do students and teachers prefer and why?. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(2), 95-127.
Brown, A. (2009). Students' and teachers' perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60.
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, 267-296.
Chu, R. (2011). Effects of teacher's corrective feedback on accuracy in the oral English of English-majors college students. System, 51, 51-59.
Cucchiarini, C., Strik, H., & Boves, L. (2002). Quantitative assessment of second language learners' fluency: Comparisons between read and spontaneous speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2862-2873.
Derwing, T., Munro, M., & Thomson, R. (2008). A longitudinal study of ESL learners' fluency and comprehensibility development. Applied Linguistics, 29, 359-380.
Dilans, G. (2010). Corrective feedback and L2 vocabulary development: Prompts and recasts in the adult ESL classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 66(6), 787-815.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R (1993). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL Quarterly, 27, 91-113.
Ellis, R. (2009a). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
Ellis, R. (2009b). The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity, and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics, 30 (4), 474-509. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349.
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. (2006). Reexamining the role of recasts in second language acquisition. SSLA, 28, 575-600.
Eskey, D. E. (1983). Meanwhile back in the real world: Accuracy and fluency in second language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 315-323.
Farrokhi, F., Zohrabi, M., & Chehr Azad, M. H. (2017). The effect of the corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' speaking accuracy and breakdown fluency. Journal of Language Horizons, 1(2), 107-129.
Frear, D., & Chiu, Y. (2015). The effect of focused and unfocused indirect written corrective feedback on EFL learners' accuracy in new pieces of writing. System, 53, 24-34.
Gerngross, G., & Puchta, H. (1996). Do and understand. London, England: Longman.
Gholami, J., & Talebi, Z. (2012). The effects of implicit and explicit feedback on EFL learners' grammatical accuracy: The case of regular past tense in English. IJPSS, 2(6), 1-25.
Han, Y. (2010). The effect of implicit and explicit feedback: A study on the acquisition of Mandarin classifiers by Chinese heritage and non-heritage language learners (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida). Retrieved from ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0041959/00001
Hedge, T. (1993). Key concepts in ELT: Fluency. ELT Journal, 47, 275-277.
Iwashita, N., Brown, A., McNamara, T., & O’Hagan, S. (2008). Assessed levels of second language speaking proficiency: How distinct? Applied Linguistics, 29, 24-49.
Jafarpour, A. A., & Hashemian, M. (2013). Impact of recasts and prompts on the learning of English third person singular marker by Persian learners of English. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(2), 23-36.
Jang, S. S. (2011). Corrective feedback and language anxiety in L2 processing and achievement. English Teaching, 66(2), 73-99.
Jin, L. (2012). Sociocultural theory-guided college-level Mandarin Chinese hybrid course design. The IALLT Journal, 42(1), 30-50.
Jong, N. D., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(20), 533-568.
Khorshidi, E., & Rassaei, E. (2013). The effects of learners' gender on their preferences for corrective feedback. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(4), 71-83.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In
B. Van Patten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 197-221). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Latham-Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., & Seligson, P. (2014). American English File 2 (2nd ed.). England: Oxford University Press.
Lennon, P. (1990). Investigating fluency in EFL: A quantitative approach. Language Learning, 40, 387-417.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effect on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 429-448.
Long, M. H. (2006). Recasts in SLA: The story so far. In M. H. Long (Ed.), Problems in SLA (pp. 75-116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46 (1), 1-40.
Mohamed, H. M. R. (2011). The beliefs of teachers and adult learners about oral corrective feedback and actual classroom practice of French as a foreign language in Egypt (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal). Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/55647462.pdf
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57(4), 511-548.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158. doi:10.2307/3587808
Oladejo, J. A. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners' preferences. TESL, Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Ortega, L. (2013). Understanding second language acquisition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Pawlak, M. (2013). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on eliminating pronunciation errors. In E. Waniek-Klimczak & L. R. Shockey (Eds.), Teaching and researching English accents in native and non-native speakers (pp. 85-101). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Perdomo, B. (2008). Effectiveness of recasts in the teaching of EFL. The Asian EFL Journal, 10(2), 155-166.
Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. London, England: Longman.
Roothooft, H. (2014). Oral corrective feedback: Its effects on the acquisition of English, teaching practices and teachers' and students' beliefs (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Navarra). Retrieved from http://dadun.unav.edu/ handle/10171/40462
Roothooft, H., & Breeze, R. (2016). A comparison of EFL teachers' and students' attitudes to oral corrective feedback. Language Awareness, 25(4), 318-335.
Ryan, L. (2012). Students' attitudes towards corrective feedback in the second language classroom. Unpublished manuscript, Trinity College, University of Dublin, Ireland.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591-626.
Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar instruction and corrective feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258.
Segalowitz, N. (2003). Automaticity and second languages. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.),
The Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 382- 408). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Segalowitz, N., & Freed, B. (2004). Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisition: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26, 173-199.
Segalowitz, N., & Lightbown, P. (1999). Psycholinguistic approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 43-63.
Sheen, Y. (2010). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203-234. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990507
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second-language learning. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the implementation of task-based instruction. Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 38-62.
Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. England: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seildhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). England: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J., & Hickmann, M. (1987). Problem solving in social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 250-266). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Wiggleworth, G. (2008). Measuring accuracy in second language performance. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Teachers of English to Speakers of other Languages (TESOL), New York.
Wiggleworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26(3), 445-466.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., & Ma, L. (2010). A brief analysis of corrective feedback in oral interaction. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 306-308. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 718 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 969 |
||