TABLE 4 - uploaded by Kobra Mansourizadeh
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
Research on corrective feedback has shown the beneficial effects of improving accuracy in writing though more research is being done on the effectiveness of different types of corrective feedback and the intervening variables. In line with this trend of research, this study was designed to investigate the effects of written and oral meta-linguistic...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Writing ability is essential in second language (L2) learners’ educational and professional life.
However, experiencing writing apprehension can inhibit the L2 learners’ confidence (Daly, 1975). The
objective of this study was to investigate the writing apprehension levels of ESL pre-university learners
in writing argumentative composition. 320 pre...
Mother tongue rhetoric transfer is unavoidable in ESL writings, especially for Iranian ESL learners, since Persian and English language is quite different. The paper discusses the negative transfer of mother tongue rhetoric in Iranian undergraduate ESL learners’ writings from the perspectives of choosing rhetorical structure in English and Persian...
Writing anxiety is a common problem affecting ESL learners’ proficiency. As writing skill is the most difficult skill that needs to be acquired by ESL learners, it is pertinent to manage the anxiety level to encourage learners to write. The facilitative effect of anxiety is important in enhancing writing skills, particularly among low proficiency s...
Citations
... A few studies have compared oral feedback to other feedback modalities. For instance, [20] reported that oral metalinguistic feedback was more effective than written feedback in enhancing learners' use of subject-verb agreement in English. According to [21], oral feedback was more efficient than written feedback on writing for Turkish EFL learners. ...
Despite the increasing attention devoted to digital feedback modes in teacher feedback, the impact of these diverse feedback modes on learners’ writing performance has not been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, the current study, by assigning sixty English as a foreign language (EFL) undergraduates to four feedback mode conditions: oral/spoken, electronic (e-)text, voice, and audio-visual, examined the effect of these four feedback modes on paragraph writing performance. The results obtained from the four-mode groups’ pretest-posttest writing tasks through sample paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA indicate that oral, voice and audio-visual feedback modes enhanced learners’ performance in paragraph writing. Based on the findings, useful pedagogical and research implications are offered for writing teachers and instructors.
... A few studies have compared oral feedback to other feedback modalities. For instance, [20] reported that oral metalinguistic feedback was more effective than written feedback in enhancing learners' use of subject-verb agreement in English. According to [21], oral feedback was more efficient than written feedback on writing for Turkish EFL learners. ...
Despite the increasing attention devoted to digital feedback modes in teacher feedback, the impact of these diverse feedback modes on learners’ writing performance has not been sufficiently addressed. Therefore, the current study, by assigning sixty English as a foreign language (EFL) undergraduates to four feedback mode conditions: oral/spoken, electronic (e-)text, voice, and audio-visual, examined the effect of these four feedback modes on paragraph writing performance. The results obtained from the four-mode groups’ pretest-posttest writing tasks through sample paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA indicate that oral, voice and audio-visual feedback modes enhanced learners’ performance in paragraph writing. Based on the findings, useful pedagogical and research implications are offered for writing teachers and instructors.
... Although research on the effectiveness of WCF has yielded mixed results, there is a strong consensus that such feedback has the potential to boost student linguistic knowledge (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2010;Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014;Nusrat et al., 2019;Van Beuningen et al., 2012). Most teachers also advocate corrective feedback in their writing classes to support accountability in educational programmes, as students, parents, and authorities expect or view it as an effective pedagogical practice (Chen, Nassaji, & Liu, 2016;Lee, 2009). ...
... To raise students' awareness of such strategies, teachers can, for example, encourage them to visit writing centres, learning clubs and labs and engage in formative assessment techniques such as self-and peer-editing activities (Abadikhah & Yasami, 2014;Mawlawi Diab, 2016;Naghdipour, 2021). Providing whole-class feedback on the most common errors through designing short mini-lessons of 15 to 20 minutes (Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014;Nusrat et al., 2019) after each major student submission could be another initiative to help students minimise language-related errors in their writing. In addition to contributing to the quality of their written work, this could raise students' awareness of the importance of producing linguistically correct texts in academic contexts. ...
It is generally assumed that undergraduate students’ L2 written linguistic accuracy develops naturally in academic contexts as they engage in disciplinary content. To provide evidence of linguistic accuracy development in EFL writing, this study examines university students’ ability to identify and correct linguistic errors (spelling, grammar and punctuation) in their writing and the mediational means or resources they consult to deal with such errors in disciplinary contexts. A mixed-method approach was employed to collect quantitative and qualitative data from undergraduate students (N= 60) who took a first-year essay writing course at a major university in Oman. In addition, Fourth-year, third-year, and second-year students majoring in social sciences proofread their essays written for the course final exam in the first semester of their studies. All participants were also interviewed to obtain insights into the likely resources and strategies they used to improve the linguistic accuracy of their writing. The results revealed that the length of the study was not a key factor affecting students’ written linguistic accuracy development, as fourth-year students significantly outperformed their counterparts only in identifying and fixing the surface-level spelling and punctuation errors. Furthermore, the students’ use of learning strategies and resources varied depending on individual factors such as future academic goals and career prospects. The paper concludes with a discussion of pedagogical implications and future research directions in EFL contexts.
... There is a common belief among language teachers that some form of oral feedback is constructive and essential (Roothooft, 2014). Furthermore, Mansourizadeh and Abdullah (2014) compared the impact of oral and written metalinguistic feedback on ESL students' writing. The result indicated that oral metalinguistic feedback is more effective in improving second language than written metalinguistic feedback. ...
This study was conducted to identify Iranian EFL teachers' perceptions regarding the most serious written errors made by young adult EFL learners, along with the most effective types of written corrective feedback to deal with them. Data were collected from 253 Iranian EFL teachers through a questionnaire made by the researchers and were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The results showed that the most serious errors perceived by the teachers were verb form and verb tense, and word order driven by psychological verbs. The most effective feedback types to treat these errors were (a) direct, non-negotiated feedback and (b) indirect, negotiated. The findings contribute to the research concerning the most frequently noticed errors by EFL teachers along with the most frequently employed corrective feedback strategies to address them. © 2021 Asociacion Mexicana de Maestros de Ingles MEXTESOL A.C. All rights reserved.
... This finding confirms the study that feedback, without considering the type, is influential. From another point of view, Mansourizadeh and Abdullah (2014) state that teachers help students to think on their errors and hence students reduce the errors they make, which also affirms the feedback results of the study. Thus, it is the fact that teacher's role is undeniable in managing students' errors and mistakes and to reach higher accuracy in writings (Hashim, et al., 2014). ...
... Metalinguistic corrective feedback requires teachers to provide hints or comments about the nature of the error (Ellis, 2009;Sia & Cheung, 2017). Thus, some studies have confirmed the importance of metalinguistic feedback in EFL writing (Bakri, 2015;Beuningen, 2012;Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014;Sheen, 2007). In a study, Sheen (2007) examined that a focused metalinguistic approach promoted learners" writing accuracy. ...
Learners of higher education are encouraged to write a scholarly publication in that it helps corroborate them as professionals in their fields of study. Practices in academic writing are thus indispensable to do to achieve a higher level of competency. This study explores learners" reactions towards focused metalinguistic written feedbacks provided by a lecturer. The lecturer used electronic mail to provide constructive feedback to her students. This mixed-method study involved 22 postgraduate students from an Indonesian university. In analyzing the qualitative data, the researchers employed Miles and Huberman"s qualitative data analysis approach. Meanwhile, the quantitative data, namely the basic analysis of focused metalinguistic written feedbacks were analyzed by employing Cumming"s writing approach. The findings reveal that: (1) learners revised and expanded their draft after getting back their paper; (2) lecturer"s feedbacks through email have reportedly motivated learners because such the feedbacks did not lead learners perplexity compared to the handwritten feedbacks; (3) the majority of participants used revising and responding, consulting a dictionary/grammar book, and referring to the previous composition as the ways to handle lecturer"s input.
... Giving feedback, however, is much more than just telling students what they did wrong so that they can fix it. Before giving feedback, instructors have to carefully analyze students' piece of work, and share their comments based on specific points to be addressed (Mansourizadeh & Izwan, 2014). For example, if the teacher is giving feedback on the spelling of a written essay, all observations and suggestions should be related to spelling and not grammar or composition. ...
... However, it has been proven not only that students work better after receiving feedback, but also that they highly value teachers' suggestions on any assignment (Best, Jones-Katz, Smolarek, Stolzenburg, & Williamson, 2014). In fact, students in the EFL classroom complain that sometimes, they do not know what a numerical grade really means after receiving an exam back, they usually look for the teacher to clarify their doubts regarding a bad grade (Mansourizadeh & Izwan, 2014). ...
... Corrective feedback (CF) refers to responses (often from teachers) to errors made by second language (L2) learners in their oral or written production (Lightbown & Spada, 1999;Li, 2014). CF can be oral or written (Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014), direct or indirect (Chaudron, 1988;Ellis, 2006;Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006), and implicit or explicit (Lyster & Ranta, 1997). Implicit feedback is less direct than explicit feedback in signalling to learners that an error has been committed (Ellis, Loewen, & Erlam, 2006). ...
This experimental study investigated the relative effectiveness of two broad categories of oral corrective feedback (i.e., implicit vs. explicit feedback) on primary pupils’ use of past tense. Data was collected from a primary school in Hong Kong involving 24 pupils in two experimental groups and one control group. A pre-test was given in the first week to ensure the three groups were equivalent at the beginning. Afterwards, students were asked to retell a story, during which students in one experimental group received implicit oral feedback on their use of past tense, while those in the other experimental group received explicit feedback. The control group did not receive immediate oral feedback. All three groups received an immediate post-test at the end of story retelling, and a delayed post-test two weeks later. Test scores were analysed to examine changes within each group and differences across groups. The study found both experimental groups outperformed the control group, but there was no significant difference between the two experimental groups, except that the group receiving explicit feedback tended to outperform the implicit group, especially in repairing regular verbs. The findings suggest both types of oral corrective feedback could be given to ESL learners during form-related classroom instruction.
... Similarly, a study carried out by Mansourizadeh and Abdullah (2014) compared the effects of oral and written meta-linguistic feedback in improving students' accuracy in writing, whereby students were grouped into those who received direct WCF with written meta-linguistic feedback, those who received direct WCF with oral meta-linguistic feedback and those who received direct WCF with oral meta-linguistic feedback and collaborative interactional activity. The findings revealed that learning occurred in all three conditions; therefore, it can be concluded that meta-linguistic feedback can enhance L2 students' writing skills as the feedback improves awareness of language rules and noticing, which is crucial in language learning. ...
Written corrective feedback (WCF) is widely used among writing teachers in attempt to improve students’ language accuracy in their written tasks. Experts of second language (L2) writing stated that WCF plays a significant role in language accuracy development because it is related to the development and improvement of students’ accuracy in second language writing. Corrective feedback can be grouped into direct WCF and indirect WCF. However, results in many past empirical studies were inconclusive because of variation in how the effectiveness of WCF was measured. Additionally, there is a lack of investigation pertaining to the students’ perceptions toward the feedback they received, which may reveal important factors that influence the students’ reception of the feedback that resulted in performance changes. Hence, the purpose of this study is to explore factors that contributed to the accurate use of the past tenses resulting from direct WCF and indirect WCF. Interviews were conducted with 12 students and the qualitative findings revealed the following factors: 1) learner attitudes towards feedback provided, 2) learner beliefs towards what corrections entailed, and 3) types of scaffolding. Additionally, the findings revealed the importance of teacher-student conference, the need for students to be trained over a longer period of time in relation to the use of error codes and the need for instructor to understand and implement direct and indirect feedback accordingly in their teaching. © Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. All rights reserved.
... Some studies have demonstrated the significance and effectiveness of metalinguistic feedback (Bitchener, 2008;Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014;Sheen, 2007). In Bitchener's (2008) study, there were experimental groups and one control group. ...
... In another study, Mansourizadeh and Abdullah (2014) compared the effects of oral and written metalinguistic feedback on English as a Second Language student writing. The finding suggests that oral metalinguistic feedback is more effective than written metalinguistic feedback in improving second language. ...
... Over the years, some studies have examined written corrective feedback with other collaborative aspects (Abadikhah & Ashoori, 2012;Kassim & Luan, 2014;Mansourizadeh & Abdullah, 2014). These collaborative aspects include collaborative dialogue and output tasks. ...
Giving written feedback to students is an important part of writing instruction. However, few studies have been conducted to investigate current trends of written corrective feedback in the secondary and university contexts. To identify and evaluate the current state of empirical evidence, we conducted a qualitative synthesis of published research that examined written corrective feedback in both English-as-the-first-language and English-as-the second/foreign-language settings. Four claims emerged in our analyses of 68 empirical studies published in journals from 2006-2016. Each claim is supported by empirical evidence. The claims are: (1) Individual differences play a part in the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (2) Students’ and teachers’ perceptions affect the effectiveness of written corrective feedback; (3) Giving corrective feedback through technology is beneficial to students; and (4) Written corrective feedback is more effective when it is used concurrently with collaborative tasks. This meta-synthesis study sheds light on the written corrective practice of English Language teachers across different pedagogical settings and the factors that may affect student engagement in teacher written feedback.
Keywords: written corrective feedback, secondary school, university
