explicit feedback

Despite the increasing popularity of error treatment as a research subject, the effect of age as a potential learner-internal factor affecting choice of feedback is largely undertreated. Characterized by being at early stages of self-empowerment, young language learners are considerably vulnerable and in need of particular language input to meet their age-appropriate psychological demands. This study is one of the early attempts to detect the appropriate corrective feedback for children’s linguistic (grammar uptake) and personality (willingness to communicate) development. Thirty-seven young language learners ( mean age = 10.32) at two pre-intermediate classes in a non-profit language institute took part in this study. Following intact group design, they were divided into two groups of recasts and explicit feedback. Whereas in the recast group, all or part of an erroneous utterance was reformulated by teacher, correct forms were directly and explicitly provided in the explicit group in the course of a semester ( 19 sessions ´ 50 min=950 mins). A structured willingness to communicate (WTC) scale and two parallel grammaticality judgment tests were administered at pre- and post-intervention conditions; this stage was accompanied by the teacher’s formative observations using an unstructured WTC checklist and a tally chart worksheet. The results of the quantitative phase revealed higher grammar uptake for the recast group. Besides, students in the implicit group showed more WTC in both quantitative and qualitative investigations. These findings indicate that for young learners the use of a less direct way might be more effective in both raising their unconscious L2 knowledge and willingness to participate in classroom activities.

This study investigated the effects of corrective feedback (CF) and the Flipped Teaching Model (FTM) on English language learners’ overall and categorical grammar accuracy. The study was conducted at Payame-Nour University (PNU) of Mahabad, Iran. A total of 80 Iranian EFL learners participated in the study. The participants were randomly assigned into two flipped and two non-flipped groups of 20: one in each pair of groups receiving explicit and the other implicit CF. Data were collected across two time periods (pre-intervention and post-intervention). Two measures of Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) were conducted. The results revealed no significant differences in the effect of CF type in the flipped classes, and both led to the learners’ higher level of overall grammar accuracy. However, the explicit group outperformed the implicit one in the non-flipped classes. Explicit feedback in flipped and non-flipped classes led to the learners’ outperformance in acquiring specific grammatical structures, such as adjective/reduced adjective clauses, but not in others, like comparative/superlative adjectives, gerund/infinitive, word forms, word order, and apposition. These findings have implications for language educators seeking to enhance learners’ grammatical accuracy in both flipped and non-flipped classrooms, particularly in relation to the use of explicit feedback for certain types of grammatical structures.

The effect of error feedback on the accuracy of output task types such as editing task, text reconstruction task, picture cued writing task, and dictogloss task, has not been clearly explored. Following arguments concerning that the combination of both corrective feedback and output makes it difficult to determine whether their effects were in combination or alone, the purpose of the present study is to document the role of teachers’ feedback in improving the accuracy of linguistic form in output tasks and in acquiring target form. To this end, this study compared three groups of Iranian intermediate learners (N= 93), one with direct grammar feedback, the other one with indirect grammar feedback and the last one with no grammar feedback. In terms of the target form uptake from first to subsequent text reconstruction tasks, the analysis of the data obtained within ten treatment sessions indicated that the participants, who received written corrective feedback compared to those who did not, progressed significantly from the first to the subsequent output tasks. In terms of learning, the learners who had the opportunities for receiving feedback performed significantly better than those in non- feedback condition on the production and recognition post- tests although explicit feedback rather than implicit feedback led to greater learning of target form on the production test, but no significant differences were found in relative efficacy of the two written corrective feedback types as far as the result of the recognition test was concerned.