10.30495/jntell.2023.1979589.1044

Metalinguistic Feedback Use in Grammar Retention: A Case of Iranian High School Students

PDF
  • Jafar Ezadpanah1,
  • Firooz Sadighi*1,
  • Leila Akbarpour1,
  1. Department of English Language, Shiraz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shiraz, Iran

Revised: 2023-02-07

Accepted: 2023-01-01

Published in Issue 2023-01-01

Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Ezadpanah, J., Sadighi, F., & Akbarpour, L. (2023). Metalinguistic Feedback Use in Grammar Retention: A Case of Iranian High School Students. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 2(1), 57-70. https://doi.org/10.30495/jntell.2023.1979589.1044
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 202

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of Explicit Oral Feedback (EOF) in the form of Metalinguistic
Feedback (Explanation) on Iranian high school students’ retention of grammatical structures. For this to achieve, the
performance of the learners as a result of Explicit Oral Feedback, was studied. Sixty homogeneous Iranian EFL
female high school students were randomly assigned to experimental and control groups. Afterward, a grammar test
was administered to see the effect of corrective feedback. The statistical techniques employed to measure such
effects, were a series of independent samples t-tests and two one-way ANOVAs. The results indicated a significant
effect of oral metalinguistic feedback on grammar retention over time. It is hoped that this study can help teachers
to use corrective feedback strategies effectively in the process of instruction for correcting EFL learners’ grammatical
errors as well as retaining grammatical structures overtime

Keywords

  • Grammatical structures,
  • : Explicit feedback,
  • Retention,
  • Metalinguistic oral feedback
PDF

References

  1. References
  2. Alajmi, A. (2014). The effect of written corrective feedback on Omani students’ accuracy in the use of
  3. English prepositions. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(1), 1-11.
  4. Alharbi, S. (2016). Effect of teachers’ written corrective feedback on Saudi EFL university students’
  5. writing achievements. International Journal of Linguistics, 8(5), 15-29.
  6. Al Zoubi, S. M. (2018). The impact of exposure to English language on language acquisition. Journal of
  7. Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 5(4), 151-162.
  8. Andres, C. P. J., & Villafuerte Holguín, J. S. (2022). Meaningful Learning in English as a Foreign
  9. Language Classrooms: A culinary experience as Comprehensible Input. Education Quarterly
  10. Reviews, 5(1), 16-27.
  11. Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of Second
  12. Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363.
  13. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language
  14. Writing, 17(1), 102-118.
  15. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language
  16. development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.
  17. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with
  18. written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(1), 207-217.
  19. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international
  20. students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431.
  21. Chandler, J. (2009). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and
  22. fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 267-296.
  23. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition
  24. of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 339-368.
  25. Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective Feedback and Teacher Development, L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
  26. Ferris, D. (2004). The ‘‘grammar correction’’ debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go
  27. from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1),
  28. -62.
  29. Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be?
  30. Journal of second language writing, 10(3), 161-184.
  31. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive
  32. corrective feedback on ESL students’ writing. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 519-539.
  33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
  34. Karim, Kh., & Nassaji, H. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback: A critical synthesis of past
  35. and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52.
  36. Metalinguistic Feedback Use in Grammar Retention …
  37. Krashen, S., & Mason, B. (2020). The optimal input hypothesis: Not all comprehensible input is of equal
  38. value. CATESOL Newsletter, 5(1), 1-2.
  39. Lee, J. F. (2018). Comprehensible input. The TESOL encyclopedia of English language teaching, 1-7.
  40. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie
  41. and T.K. Bathia (eds) Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic
  42. Press.
  43. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
  44. communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
  45. Lyster, R., & K. Saito. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A Meta-Analysis. Studies in Second
  46. Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
  47. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral feedback in second language classroom: Ameta-analysis.
  48. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
  49. Lee, A., & Lyster, R. (2016). The effects of corrective feedback on instructed L2 speech perception.
  50. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(1), 35-64.
  51. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning,
  52. (2), 309-365.
  53. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback in
  54. System. System, 84(1), 93-109.
  55. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative
  56. meta‐analysis. Language learning, 50(3), 417-528.
  57. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step By Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS Program
  58. (5th ed.). London, UK: McGraw-Hill Education.
  59. Patrick, R. (2019). Comprehensible Input and Krashen's theory. Journal of Classics Teaching, 20(39),
  60. -44.
  61. Rassaei, H. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 Development. System,
  62. (1), 98-109.
  63. Rassaei, E., Moinzadeh, A., & Youhanaee, M. (2012). The effect of corrective feedback on the
  64. acquisition of implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. The Journal of Language Teaching and
  65. Learning, 2(1), 59-75.
  66. Sadat, T., Zarifi, A., Sadat, A., & Malekzadeh, J. (2015). Effectiveness of direct and indirect corrective
  67. feedback on Iranian EFL learners' accuracy and retention of conditional sentence types I, II & III.
  68. Theory and practice in language studies, 10(5), 2023-2028.
  69. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL
  70. learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255-283.
  71. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and
  72. metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite
  73. article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286-306.
  74. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ progressing, uptake, and retention of corrective
  75. feedback on writing: case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334.
  76. Izadpanah, Sadighi, & Akbarpour- JNTELL, Volume 2, Issue 1, Spring 2023
  77. Taguchi, N. (2018). Contexts and pragmatics learning: Problems and opportunities of the study abroad
  78. research. Language Teaching, 51(1), 124-137.
  79. Tayebibipour, F. (2019). The impact of written vs. oral corrective feedback on Omani parttime vs. full-time college students’ accurate use and retention of the passive voice.
  80. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(1), 50-160.
  81. Venditti, E. (2021). Using Comprehensible Input in the Latin Classroom to Enhance Language
  82. Proficiency. Journal of Classics Teaching, 22(43), 22-28.
  83. Yu, W. (2022). Explicit vs. Implicit Corrective Feedback: Which is More Effective? Advances in Social
  84. Science, Education and Humanities Research, 653(1), 647-650.
  85. Zhang, L. J., & Rahimi, M. (2014). EFL learners’ anxiety level and their beliefs about corrective feedback
  86. in oral communication classes. System, 42(1), 429-439