اثربخشی بازخورد اصلاحی فرازبانی عمومی و فردی بر دقت دستوری زبان‌آموزان: یک بررسی مقایسه‌ای

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی(عادی)

نویسندگان

1 گروه گفتاردرمانی، دانشکده توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم توانبخشی و سلامت اجتماعی، تهران، ایران.

2 دانش آموخته گروه آموزش زبان انگلیسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه ایلام، ایلام، ایران.

چکیده

اثربخشی بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری به‌ویژه در قالب بازخورد فرازبانی، برای بهبود دقت دستوری زبان‌آموزان انگلیسی به‌عنوان یک زبان خارجی در سطوح پایین و متوسط، نسبتاً کمتر مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. مطالعه حاضر با بررسی و مقایسه تأثیر بازخورد فرازبانی عمومی در مقابل فردی، بر دقت دستوری زبان‌آموزان در نوشتار به این شکاف می‌پردازد. در مجموع ۸۵ زبان‌آموز در سطح پایین متوسط ​​در این مطالعه شرکت کردند که به سه گروه تقسیم شدند: دو گروه آزمایشی (دریافت‌ بازخورد فرازبانی عمومی یا فردی) و یک گروه کنترل (عدم دریافت بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری). اثربخشی آزمایش با استفاده از پیش‌آزمون، پس‌آزمون فوری و پس‌آزمون با تأخیر ارزیابی شد. داده‌ها با استفاده از آنالیز واریانس دوطرفه با اندازه‌گیری‌های مکرر و مجموعه‌ای از آنالیز واریانس‌ها با مقایسه‌های پس‌آزمون تجزیه‌وتحلیل شدند. نتایج نشان داد که هر دو نوع بازخورد اصلاحی نوشتاری فرازبانی در کوتاه‌مدت به‌طور قابل توجهی دقت دستوری زبان‌آموزان را بهبود ‌بخشیدند. بااین‌حال، بازخورد اصلاحی فرازبانی عمومی در مقایسه با بازخورد اصلاحی فرازبانی فردی، پیشرفت‌های پایدارتری را در دقت دستوری در درازمدت ایجاد کرد. این یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد که بازخورد فرازبانی عمومی یک رویکرد مؤثر و کارآمد برای افزایش دقت دستوری در محیط‌هایی است که انگلیسی به‌عنوان یک زبان خارجی کار می‌شود و همچنین یک راه‌حل عملی برای معلمانی ارائه می‌دهد که به‌دنبال بهینه‌سازی شیوه‌های بازخورد خود در عین تلاش برای رشد زبانی زبان‌آموزان هستند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Effectiveness of Generic and Individualized Metalinguistic Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Grammatical Accuracy: A Comparative Study

نویسندگان [English]

  • Maryam Tafaroji Yeganeh 1
  • Mehdi Aryan 2
1 Department of Speech Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (USWR), Tehran, Iran
2 Department of English Language and Literature, Ilam University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

The effectiveness of written corrective feedback (CF), particularly in the form of metalinguistic explanations (ME), for improving the grammatical accuracy of low-intermediate English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners has been relatively underexplored. The present study addresses this gap by investigating and comparing the impact of generic versus individualized metalinguistic explanations on EFL learners' grammatical accuracy in writing. A total of 85 low-intermediate EFL learners participated in the study, divided into three groups: two experimental groups (receiving either generic or individualized ME) and a control group (receiving no written CF). The effectiveness of the interventions was assessed using a pre-test, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test. Data were analyzed using a two-way repeated measures ANOVA and a series of ANOVAs with post hoc comparisons. The results indicated that both types of ME significantly improved learners' grammatical accuracy in the short term. However, generic ME produced more sustained improvements in grammatical accuracy over the long term compared to individualized ME. These findings suggest that generic metalinguistic feedback is an effective and efficient strategy for enhancing grammatical accuracy in EFL contexts, offering a practical solution for teachers seeking to optimize their feedback practices while supporting learners’ linguistic development.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • error correction
  • written corrective feedback
  • metalinguistic explanation
  • grammatical accuracy
  • EFL learners
  • generic feedback
  • individualized feedback

مراجع

Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on the relationship between error feedback and EFL writing development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(2), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.03.009
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008a). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in EFL writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.002
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008b). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089926
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language learners' development. System, 38(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.04.003
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). The effect of written corrective feedback on students' writing accuracy in an English as a second language context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.09.003
Brown, D., Liu, Q., & Norouzian, R. (2023). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback in developing L2 accuracy: A Bayesian meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221147374
Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of EFL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9
El Ebyary, K., & Windeatt, S. (2017). Evaluating the impact of in-class metalinguistic feedback on EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Language Teaching Research, 21(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168815625806
Ellis, R. (2005). Instructed second language learning: Learning in the classroom. Wiley-Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.5070/L2.V1I1.9054
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(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 6(2), 81–104. https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49021
Ferris, D. R., & Helt, M. (2000). Was Truscott right? New evidence on the effects of error correction in EFL writing classes. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 98–114). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in EFL writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Kang, E. Y., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12187.x
Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2020). The effects of written corrective feedback: A meta-analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 54(1), 5–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.541
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x
Li, S. (2020). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in second language acquisition: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 70(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12355
Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586380
Sato, M., & Ballinger, S. (2016). Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.45
Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12317
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013a). The effect of metalinguistic feedback on EFL writing accuracy: A comparison of two types of feedback. Language Teaching Research, 17(3), 292–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168813483687
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013b). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback on the acquisition of EFL grammar. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812471546
Suzuki, W. (2021). Written languaging and second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 43(3), 592–616. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263120000320
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in EFL writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "The case against grammar correction in EFL writing classes". Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Truscott, J. (2001). Grammar correction in EFL writing: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00049-6
Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effectiveness of corrective feedback. Language Learning, 54(2), 326–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00264.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A. Y. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2008). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on EFL learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.004
پژوهشهای زبانشناختی در زبانهای خارجی
دوره 15، شماره 3
آبان 1404
صفحه 229-244

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار