Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners

Mahnaz Azizi; Fatemeh Behjat; Mohammad Amin Sorahi

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

| Peer-Reviewed

Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners

Mahnaz Azizi, Fatemeh Behjat, Mohammad Amin Sorahi

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 6-1)

Received: 10 September 2014 Accepted: 12 September 2014 Published: 25 November 2014

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study was set out within the process-oriented framework to identify the extent to which the metalinguistic corrective feedback contributed to writing performance of the Iranian EFL learners better, and also to compare the effectiveness of two types of metalinguistic feedback, error codes feedback and description feedback on students’ writing improvement. The participants were 69 female students at a high school in Eghlid, Iran. At the beginning of the course, students were randomly assigned to the control, no-feedback, group and two experimental groups, one receiving error code feedback and one receiving description feedback. During the course, the teacher provided different forms of corrective feedback (explanation, error code, no feedback) on students’ writings. All the writings produced throughout the term were scored using the Writing Rating Scale developed by Gassner et al. (2007). The first writing assignments were used as the pretest and the last writing assignments were used as the posttest, which were then compared through three paired t-tests. Then, to see if the mean difference is significant, ANOVA and a post-hoc Sheffe test were run. An independent t-test was also performed between the posttests of the description and error code groups to determine which mode of metalinguistic feedback is more effective. Results showed that the metalinguistic TCF, especially description mode, had a positive influence on the writing improvement of the Iranian EFL students.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 2, Issue 6-1) This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovations in Foreign Language Teaching
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
Page(s)	54-63
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2014. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Description, Error Code, Metalinguistic, Teacher Corrective Feedback (TCF)

References

[1]	Anson,C.(1989).Response styles and ways of knowing. Inc. Anson (Ed.), Writin and Response (pp. 332-365). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
[2]	Arndt, V. (1992). Response to writing: Using feedback to inform the writing process. In M. N. Brock & L. Walters (Eds.), Teaching composition around the Pacific Rim: Politics and pedagogy (90-116). Avon, UK: Multingual Matters.
[3]	Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257.
[4]	Bitchener, J. (2008).Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
[5]	Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
[6]	Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-205.
[7]	Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to assess higher-order thinking in your classroom. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
[8]	Butler, D. L. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and involvement. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 1-14.
[9]	Carroll,S. &Swain,M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empiricalstudy of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies of Second Language Acquisition,15, 357-386.
[10]	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.
[11]	Cohen, A. (1989). Reformulation: A technique for providing advanced feedback in writing. Guidelines, 11(2), 1-9.
[12]	Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97-107.
[13]	Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63 (2), 97-107.
[14]	Ellis, R., Loewen, S., &Erlam, R.(2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback andthe acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
[15]	Ferdouse, F. (2011). Learning from mistakes: Using correction code to improve student’s writing skill in English composition class.
[16]	Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues, (pp.81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[17]	Ferris, D. R., & B. Roberts. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing 10, 161-84.
[18]	Gassner,O., Mewald, C. &Sigott, G. (2007). Testing reading: Specifications for the E8 standards reading tests. LTC Technical Report 2,Language Testing Centre, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt. Retrieved on 3rd August, 2014 from: http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/ltc/inhalt/346.htm (link is external)
[19]	Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 63-80.
[20]	Goldstein, L., & Conrad, S. (1990). Student input and the negotiation of meaning in ESL writing conferences. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 443-460.
[21]	Guénette, D.(2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40-53.
[22]	Hedgcock, J., &Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287-308.
[23]	Hedge,T. (1998). Writing: Resource book for teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[24]	Hyland, F. (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-286.
[25]	Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[26]	Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International journal of English studies, 10 (2), 171-182.
[27]	Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185-212.
[28]	Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39 (2). 83-101.
[29]	Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44 (4), 294-304.
[30]	Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75 (3), 305-313.
[31]	Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[32]	Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140-149.
[33]	Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for teaching. System, 25(4), 465-477.
[34]	Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
[35]	Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.
[36]	Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response, In B.Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp. 57-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[37]	Lockhardt, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.
[38]	Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[39]	Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
[40]	Magno, C., &Amarles, A.M. (2011). Teachers’ feedback practices in second language academic writing classrooms. The International Journal of Educational andPsychological Assessment, 6 (2), 21-30.
[41]	Milton,J.(2006).Resource-richweb-basedfeedback helpinglearnersbecomeindependentwriters’inK.Hyland&F.Hyland(eds.). FeedbackinSecond LanguageWriting:ContextsandIssues.Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.
[42]	Naidu, B. (2007). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold.
[43]	Nicol, D., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
[44]	Polio, C., Fleck C.,&Leder, N. (1998). ‘If I only had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (1), 43-68.
[45]	Rahimi, M. (2009).The role of teacher’s corrective feedback in improving Iranian EFL learner’s writing accuracy over time: Is learner’s mother tongue relevant? Springer, 22, 219-243.
[46]	Rassaei, E., & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English Wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-106.
[47]	Robb,T.,Ross, S., &Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedbackonerroranditseffect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83-93.
[48]	Ryan, K. (1997). Lecturer comments and student responses. Directions in Teaching and Learning, 69, 5-13.
[49]	Sachs, R., & Polio, C. (2007). Learners’ use of two types of written feedback on an L2 writing task. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 67-100.
[50]	Sadler, D. (1983) Evaluation and improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education, 54(1), 60-79.
[51]	Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFLlearners’ writing. System, 40, 494-50.
[52]	Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-83.
[53]	Schmidt, R. (1993). Interaction, acculturation and the acquisition of communicative competence. In N. Wolfson& E. Judd, (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and languageacquisition (pp. 137-174). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[54]	Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[55]	Trupe, A. L. (2001). A process approach to writing. Retrieved on 29 July, 2014 from http://www.bridgewater.edu/WritingCenter/Resources/Process.htm.
[56]	Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327-369.
[57]	Varnosfadrani, A. D., &Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance. System, 37, 82-98.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mahnaz Azizi, Fatemeh Behjat, Mohammad Amin Sorahi. (2014). Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(6-1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mahnaz Azizi; Fatemeh Behjat; Mohammad Amin Sorahi. Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(6-1), 54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mahnaz Azizi, Fatemeh Behjat, Mohammad Amin Sorahi. Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(6-1):54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18,
  author = {Mahnaz Azizi and Fatemeh Behjat and Mohammad Amin Sorahi},
  title = {Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {6-1},
  pages = {54-63},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  abstract = {This study was set out within the process-oriented framework to identify the extent to which the metalinguistic corrective feedback contributed to writing performance of the Iranian EFL learners better, and also to compare the effectiveness of two types of metalinguistic feedback, error codes feedback and description feedback on students’ writing improvement. The participants were 69 female students at a high school in Eghlid, Iran. At the beginning of the course, students were randomly assigned to the control, no-feedback, group and two experimental groups, one receiving error code feedback and one receiving description feedback. During the course, the teacher provided different forms of corrective feedback (explanation, error code, no feedback) on students’ writings. All the writings produced throughout the term were scored using the Writing Rating Scale developed by Gassner et al. (2007). The first writing assignments were used as the pretest and the last writing assignments were used as the posttest, which were then compared through three paired t-tests. Then, to see if the mean difference is significant, ANOVA and a post-hoc Sheffe test were run. An independent t-test was also performed between the posttests of the description and error code groups to determine which mode of metalinguistic feedback is more effective. Results showed that the metalinguistic TCF, especially description mode, had a positive influence on the writing improvement of the Iranian EFL students.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners
AU  - Mahnaz Azizi
AU  - Fatemeh Behjat
AU  - Mohammad Amin Sorahi
Y1  - 2014/11/25
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 54
EP  - 63
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
AB  - This study was set out within the process-oriented framework to identify the extent to which the metalinguistic corrective feedback contributed to writing performance of the Iranian EFL learners better, and also to compare the effectiveness of two types of metalinguistic feedback, error codes feedback and description feedback on students’ writing improvement. The participants were 69 female students at a high school in Eghlid, Iran. At the beginning of the course, students were randomly assigned to the control, no-feedback, group and two experimental groups, one receiving error code feedback and one receiving description feedback. During the course, the teacher provided different forms of corrective feedback (explanation, error code, no feedback) on students’ writings. All the writings produced throughout the term were scored using the Writing Rating Scale developed by Gassner et al. (2007). The first writing assignments were used as the pretest and the last writing assignments were used as the posttest, which were then compared through three paired t-tests. Then, to see if the mean difference is significant, ANOVA and a post-hoc Sheffe test were run. An independent t-test was also performed between the posttests of the description and error code groups to determine which mode of metalinguistic feedback is more effective. Results showed that the metalinguistic TCF, especially description mode, had a positive influence on the writing improvement of the Iranian EFL students.
VL  - 2
IS  - 6-1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Mahnaz Azizi

English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran
Fatemeh Behjat

English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran
Mohammad Amin Sorahi

English Department, Abadeh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadeh, Iran

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Mahnaz Azizi, Fatemeh Behjat, Mohammad Amin Sorahi. (2014). Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 2(6-1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Mahnaz Azizi; Fatemeh Behjat; Mohammad Amin Sorahi. Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2014, 2(6-1), 54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Mahnaz Azizi, Fatemeh Behjat, Mohammad Amin Sorahi. Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(6-1):54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18,
  author = {Mahnaz Azizi and Fatemeh Behjat and Mohammad Amin Sorahi},
  title = {Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {2},
  number = {6-1},
  pages = {54-63},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.s.2014020601.18},
  abstract = {This study was set out within the process-oriented framework to identify the extent to which the metalinguistic corrective feedback contributed to writing performance of the Iranian EFL learners better, and also to compare the effectiveness of two types of metalinguistic feedback, error codes feedback and description feedback on students’ writing improvement. The participants were 69 female students at a high school in Eghlid, Iran. At the beginning of the course, students were randomly assigned to the control, no-feedback, group and two experimental groups, one receiving error code feedback and one receiving description feedback. During the course, the teacher provided different forms of corrective feedback (explanation, error code, no feedback) on students’ writings. All the writings produced throughout the term were scored using the Writing Rating Scale developed by Gassner et al. (2007). The first writing assignments were used as the pretest and the last writing assignments were used as the posttest, which were then compared through three paired t-tests. Then, to see if the mean difference is significant, ANOVA and a post-hoc Sheffe test were run. An independent t-test was also performed between the posttests of the description and error code groups to determine which mode of metalinguistic feedback is more effective. Results showed that the metalinguistic TCF, especially description mode, had a positive influence on the writing improvement of the Iranian EFL students.},
 year = {2014}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Effect of Metalinguistic Teacher Corrective Feedback on Writing Performance of Iranian EFL Learners
AU  - Mahnaz Azizi
AU  - Fatemeh Behjat
AU  - Mohammad Amin Sorahi
Y1  - 2014/11/25
PY  - 2014
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 54
EP  - 63
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18
AB  - This study was set out within the process-oriented framework to identify the extent to which the metalinguistic corrective feedback contributed to writing performance of the Iranian EFL learners better, and also to compare the effectiveness of two types of metalinguistic feedback, error codes feedback and description feedback on students’ writing improvement. The participants were 69 female students at a high school in Eghlid, Iran. At the beginning of the course, students were randomly assigned to the control, no-feedback, group and two experimental groups, one receiving error code feedback and one receiving description feedback. During the course, the teacher provided different forms of corrective feedback (explanation, error code, no feedback) on students’ writings. All the writings produced throughout the term were scored using the Writing Rating Scale developed by Gassner et al. (2007). The first writing assignments were used as the pretest and the last writing assignments were used as the posttest, which were then compared through three paired t-tests. Then, to see if the mean difference is significant, ANOVA and a post-hoc Sheffe test were run. An independent t-test was also performed between the posttests of the description and error code groups to determine which mode of metalinguistic feedback is more effective. Results showed that the metalinguistic TCF, especially description mode, had a positive influence on the writing improvement of the Iranian EFL students.
VL  - 2
IS  - 6-1
ER  -

Copy | Download