English language teaching
Sama Ghadiri; Zia Tajeddin; Minoo Alemi
Abstract
Objective: Research on corrective feedback (CF) in L2 pragmatics instruction, especially in online teaching, is still in its infancy. To address this gap, this study sought to examine the types of CF provided by EFL teachers in online classes in response to the learners’ pragmalinguistically and ...
Read More
Objective: Research on corrective feedback (CF) in L2 pragmatics instruction, especially in online teaching, is still in its infancy. To address this gap, this study sought to examine the types of CF provided by EFL teachers in online classes in response to the learners’ pragmalinguistically and sociopragmatically inappropriate production of the binary speech acts of request and refusal.Methods: Eighteen hours of online classroom interaction data were analyzed using conversation analysis and a taxonomy that classifies feedback into implicit and explicit input-providing and output-prompting CF.Results: The findings of the study showed that explicit output prompts were largely applied by teachers as the most frequent type of CF. The teachers tended to use prompting questions and metapragmatic clues to help learners better understand request and refusal speech acts, rather than directly offering input or reformulation. In addition, because of the face-threatening nature of speech acts of refusal and request, the teachers applied explicit output prompts as corrective feedback to reinforce the accuracy of learners’ production.Conclusions: It can be concluded that the online mode of instruction can impact the explicitness of pragmatic CF. This research is of great value for teachers to employ both implicit and explicit types of CF to develop learners’ competency in pragmatics in online instruction.
English language teaching
Simin Sattarpour; Raziyeh Ghassab Sahebkar; Fatemeh Pourebrahim
Abstract
Given the significant role of corrective feedback and individual differences in the process of foreign language acquisition, in the present study we set out to investigate the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on impulsive and reflective EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Sixty learners ...
Read More
Given the significant role of corrective feedback and individual differences in the process of foreign language acquisition, in the present study we set out to investigate the effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on impulsive and reflective EFL learners’ writing accuracy. Sixty learners were selected and randomly assigned to three groups including two experimental groups and one control group. The first experimental group received indirect feedback, the second experimental group received direct feedback, and the control group received no feedback. The instrument employed in this study to determine the impulsivity or reflectivity of the participants was Barratt's impulsiveness scale. Writing accuracy was scored by the scale provided by Karim and Nassaji. The results revealed that both direct and indirect corrective feedbacks were effective in reducing the written errors of all the earners. Moreover, no significant difference was found between direct and indirect corrective feedbacks in terms of increasing writing accuracy. Although there was no significant difference between the impulsive and reflective learners’ performance, the mean scores showed that the latter seemed to benefit more from indirect type of the feedback while their counterparts showed better performance after receiving direct feedback. The findings have implications for EFL teachers and learners.
