1

Islamic Azad University

Science and Research Branch

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Master of Arts in English Language Teaching

The Relationship between Providing Corrective Feedbacks and Iranian EFL Learners' Performance on Timed-Grammatically Judgment Test

Advisor

Dr. Parviz Birjandi

Reader

Dr. Mansour Fahim

By

Zeinab Taherinejad

2010

5

Table of Contents

Chapter I: Background and Purpose

1.1. Statement of the Problem…………………………………..3

1.2. Research Questions……..…………………………………. 6

1.3. Statement of the Hypotheses…………..…………………...7

1.4. Significance of the Study……………………………..…… 8

1.5. Definition of the Key Terms…………………………..……9

1.6. Limitations and Delimitations of the Study………………... 11

Chapter II: Review of Literature

2.1. Interaction………………………………………………….. 15

2.2. Alternative View of Error Correction……………………… 17

2.3. Error Treatment……………………………………………. 21

2.3.1. Vigil and Oller (1976) model……………………... 23

2.3.2. Lyster and Ranta (1997) Scheme…………………. 24

2.3.2.1. Error…………………………………….... 25

2.3.2.2. Feedback…………………………………. 30

2.3.2.3. Uptake……………………………………. 39

2.4. Grammar…………………………………………………… 42

2.4.1. Teaching/ Learning Grammar…………………….. 43

2.4.2. Choice of Target Structure…………………………47

2.4.3. Grammatically Judgment Test……………………. 49

Chapter III: Methods

3.1. Subjects…………………………………………………….. 50

6

3.2. Instrumentation…………………………………………….. 52

3.3. Procedure…………………………………………………... 54

3.4. Design……………………………………………………… 55

3.5. Data Collection….…………………………………………. 56

Chapter IV: Results and Discussion

4.1. Results……..……………………………………………….59

4.2. Discussion………………………………………………….. 65

Chapter V: Conclusion, Implications, and Recommendations

5.1. Conclusion………………………………………………… 68 5.2. Implications…………………………………………….…...70 5.3. Recommendations…………..………………………………72

References…………………………………………………………….. 74

Appendices……………………………………………………………. 84

Appendix A: Error treatment scheme……………………………84

Appendix B: Nelson Proficiency Test………………………….. 85

Appendix C : Grammatical Judgment Test…………………….. 90

Persian Abstract………………………………………………… 92

7

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1.4.

Descriptive statistic and reliability for the grammatically 60

judgment test

Table 2.4.

Descriptive statistics for the students' performance on 62

the timed-grammatically judgment test

Table 3.4.

Levene-F test analysis for variance homogeneity 63

Table 4.4.

T-test analysis on learners' performance on 64

the timed-grammatically judgment test

Figure 4.1. 65

Mean comparison of the groups' performance

8

ABSTRACT

In recent decades, error treatment has been the main concern of educators. Enhancement of educational perspective toward language learners' errors has provided language teachers with various pedagogical tools to treat learners' errors. Lyster and Ranta (1997) developed an inclusive scheme for error treatment. Various aspects of application of error treatment scheme have been investigated in different language learning contexts, particularly ESL context. Nevertheless, solid proofs for particular case findings are still infrequent. The present research aims to recognize the relationship between corrective feedbacks and learners' performance on timed-grammatically judgment test. Prior to the start of the treatment, a Nelson proficiency test was administered to determine proficiency level of participants. For the purpose of the present study, 37 EFL elementary learners took part in communicative classes with form-focused instructions. The teachers of two intact classes applied error treatment process (Lyster & Ranta, 1997) on learners' present tense errors. The treatment period was 3weeks long, for three sessions per week. Each session was 90 minutes long. There were two groups in this study: Prompts group or experimental group and Recasts group or control group. Since language teachers commonly use recasts for treating all types of language errors, Recasts group was considered as control group. Learners' achievement was evaluated by a timed- grammatically judgment test from Loewen and Nabei (2007). The final mean score of experimental group was32.94, while the final mean score of control group was 29.42. The result of data analysis revealed that learners' who received prompts performed significantly better on timed-grammatically judgment test than learners' who received recast during the treatment (p<0.01). It is worth mentioning that variance of Recasts group and Prompts group were homogeneous (p Levene <0.05). Therefore, the result of this study can be generalized to general society of EFL Persian speaking learners at elementary level.

81

REFERNCES

Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher language awareness. Cambridge: CUP.

Andrews, S., & McNeil, A. (2005). Knowledge about language and the good

language teacher. In N. Bartels (Ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language

Teacher Education. (pp. 159-178). New York: Springer.

Ardebili Asl, A. (2004). The effect of explicit teacher correction and recasts on

grammatical accuracy f the oral performance of Iranian EFL students

with high and low level of anxiety. M. A. thesis, Science and Research

branch of Islamic Azad University in Tehran.

Bakhshi, M. (2003). The explicit and implicit feedback on second language

learners’ performance. M. A. thesis, University of Tabriz in Tabriz.

Birjandi, P. & Tabatabaee, O. (2009). The impact of gender on the incidence

and quality of form-focused episodes in task-based conversational

feedback among EFL Learners. Asian EFL Journal. 11 (4). Retrieved

from:http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_2009_pb.php

Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching.

NewYork: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Celce-Murcia, M. (1991). Grammar pedagogy in second and foreign

Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 459-480.

Chomsky, N. (1959).Review of B. F. Skinner verbal behavior. Language, 35,

82

26-58.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (1999). The Grammar Book. Boston:

Heinle & Heinle.

Cook, V. J., & Newson, M. (1997).Chomsky’s universal Grammar (2nd ed.).

Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Inc.

DeCarrico, J., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Grammar. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An

Introduction to Applied Linguistics (pp.19-34). London: Arnold.

Dunkel, A., Brill, S., & Kohl, B. (2002). The impact of self-instructional

technology on language learning: A view of NASILP. In C. A. Spreen

(Ed.), New technologies and language learning: Cases in the less

commonly taught languages (pp. 97–120).Hawaii: University of Hawaii.

Ellis, R. 1995. Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly 29,

87-105

Ellis, R. (2007). The differential effects of corrective feedback on two

grammatical structures. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction

in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 339-

360). Oxford: OUP.

Fatahi-Milasi, A., & Pishghadam, R. (2007). The interplay between explicit and

implicit knowledge of English native speakers and ESL learners. IJAL,

10 (1), 19-36.

83

Fisiak, J. (1980). Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. Oxford:

Pergamon Press Ltd.

Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communication about grammar: Task-based

approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 605-628.

Gass, S. (2005). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty and M. Long (Eds.), The

Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 487-535). Hong Kong:

Blackwell Publishing.

Gass,S., & Lewis, K. (2007). Perception about interactional feedback:

Differences between heritage language learners and non-heritage

language learners .In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in

second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 79-99).

Oxford: OUP.

Hatch, E. M. ,& Farhadi, H. (1983). Research design and statistics for applied

linguistics. Tehran: Rahnaman Publications.

Hall, J. K. (1998). Differentia teacher attention to student utterances: The

Tconstruction of different opportunities for learning in IRF. Linguistics

and Education, 9 (3), 287-311.

Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2

output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 542-572.

84

Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2001). Factors affecting the success of corrective

feedback. EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99–122.

Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Hong

Kong: OUP.

Ishida, M. (2004). Effects of recasts on the acquisition of the aspectual form

-tei-(ru) by learners of Japanese as a foreign language. Language

Learning, 54, 311-394.

Jackson, H. (1979). Contrastive analysis as a predicator for errors, with

reference to Punjabi learners of English. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive

linguistics and the language teacher (pp. 195-205). Oxford: Pergamon

Press Ltd.

James, C. (1979). The transfer of communicative competence. In J. Fisiak (Ed),

Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teacher. (pp.57-70). Oxford:

Pergamon Press Ltd.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Hong

Kong: OUP.

Loewen, S., & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective

feedback on L2 knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational

interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies

(pp. 361-378). Oxford: OUP.

85

Long, M. H. (2005). Stabilization and fossilization in interlanguage

development. In C.J. Doughty and M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of

Second Language Acquisition. (pp. 487-535). Hong Kong: Blackwell

Publishing.

Lopez, O. S. (2007). Classroom diversification: A strategic view of educational

productivity. Review of Educational Research, 77 (1), 28-80.

Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in

relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms.

Language Learning, 51 (Suppl.1), 265-301.

Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused

instruction. SSLA, 26, 399–432.

Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009).Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction.

Language Learning,59, 453-498.

Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional

counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.

Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:

Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.

Marton, W. (1979). Some more remarks on the pedagogical use of contrastive

studies. In J. Fisiak (Ed), Contrastive Linguistics and the Language

86

Teacher. (pp.185-194). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Mackey, A., Al-khalil, m., Atanassova, G., Hama, M., Logan-Terry, A., &

Nakatsukasa, K. (2007). Teachers' intentions and learners' perceptions

about corrective feedback in the L2 classroom. Innovation in Language

Learning and Teaching, 1 (1), 129-152.

Mackey A., Gass S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive

interactional feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22,

471-497.

Mackey, A., & Philip, J., (1998). Conversational interaction and second

language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern

Language Journal, 82, 338–356.

McDonough, K. (2005) Identifying the impact of negative feedback and

learners’ responses on ESL question development. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition, 27, 79–103.

McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: Repetitions,

primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56,

693-720.

Naeini, J. (2008). Error correction: An indication of consciousness-raising.

Noviatas-ROYAL, 2 (2), 120-137.

87

Naghdiani, S. (2004). The effect of explicit error correction on FI/D learners’

ability. M. A. thesis, Science and Research branch of Islamic Azad

University in Tehran.

Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with

learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57 (4), 511-548.

Nunan, D. (1989) Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom,

Cambridge, UK: CUP.

Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child

ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 519-533.

Omaggio, A. (2001). Teaching language in context. Proficiency oriented

instruction. (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Heinle & Hainle Publishers.

Ovando, M. N. (1994). Constructive feedback: A key to successful teaching and

learning. International Journal of Educational Management, 8(6), 19-22.

Panova, I. & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in

adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 573-595.

Philp, J. (1999). Interaction, noticing, and second language acquisition: An

examination of learners’ noticing of recasts in task-based interaction.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania, Australia.

88

Polio, C. & Gass, S. (1998). The role of interaction in native speaker

comprehension or nonnative speaker speech. Modern Language Journal,

82, 308-319.

Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion

students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback

sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language:

Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (pp. 141-

160). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Razmjoo, S. A., & Riazi, A. M. (2006). On the teaching methodology of Shiraz

EFL institutes. Journal of Social Sciences& Humanities of Shiraz

University,23(1), 58-70.

Reigelhaupt, F. & Carrasco R. L. (2005). The effect of training linguistics on

teaching: K-12 teachers in White Mountain Apache schools. In N. Bartels

(Ed.), Applied Linguistics and Language Teacher Education. (pp. 103-

118). New York: Springer

Rezaie, A. (2003). Iranian EFL learners noticing recast feedback target: a

study on morphology, lexis, and mophosyntactic. M. A. thesis, Iran

University of Science and Technology in Tehran.

Sajavaara, K. (1980). Psycholinguistic models, second-language acquisition and

contrastive analysis. In J. Fisiak (Ed), Contrastive Linguistics and the

89

Language Teacher. (pp.87-120). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Sindhar, S. N. (1980). Contrastive analysis, error analysis and interlanguage:

three Phases of one goal. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Contrastive linguistics and

the language teacher (pp. 207-241). Oxford: Pergamon Press Ltd.

Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in

interlanguage grammar. Second Language Research, 19 (1), 76-109.

Smith, M. S. (1974). Contrastive studies in two perspectives. In J. Fisiak (ed.),

Contrastive linguistics and the language teacher (13-20). Oxford:

Pergamon Press Ltd.

Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake in Adult ESL

Classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in

TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4 (2), 1-21.

Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t

enough. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158–164.

Swain, M. (2000). French immersion research in Canada: Recent contribution to

SLA and applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20,

199-212.

Tedick, D. J., & de Gortari, B. (1998).Research on error correction and

implication for classroom teaching. AICE, 1 (3).

90

Vahdani Sanavi, R. & Mirsaeedi, K. (2008). Error treatment predicament:

negotiated corrective feedback. Retrieved from:

http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/aljarf/Documents/English%20Language%20Tea

ching%20Conference%20%20Iran%202008/Reza%20Vahdani%20Sanav

i%20and%20Kianoosh%20Mirsaeedi.pdf

Vigil, N. A., & Oller, J. W. (1976). Rule fossilization: a tentative model.

Language Learning, 26, (2), 281-295.

White, L. (2005). On the nature of interlanguage representation: Universal

Grammar in the second language. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),

The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 19-42). Hong Kong:

Blackwell Publishing.

99

دهیچک

ن دغدغھ ھای یکی از مھمتریح خطا یر، تصحیدر دھھ ھای اخدگاه آموزشی درباره خطا زبان یر دییمعلمان بوده است. تغ

ح یآموزان موجب فراھم آمدن ابزارھای متفاوت آموزشی تصح) طرح 1997ستر و رانتا (یخطا برای معلمان زبان شده است. ل

طراحی کردند. ابعاد مختلف استقاده مار خطایجامعی برای تنھ ھای متفاوت آموزشی زبان مورد یمار خطا در زمیازطرح ت

نھ آموزش زبان یمطالعھ قرار گرفتھ است، بھ خصوص در زمل محکم ین حال، دالیسی بھ عنوان زبان دوم. با ایانگل

نھ ھای آموزشی وجود دارد. ھدف یاندکی در تعدادی از زمح خطا و عملکرد ین روشھای تصحیرابطھ بافتن یق ین تحقیا

زبان آموزان در آزمونھای قضاوت دستوری زماندار است.جھت مار یش از شروع تیمشخص شدن سطح دانش شرکت کنندگان، پ

37ق، ین تحقیل بھ ھدف ایآزمون نلسون برگزار شد. جھت ند یس تاکیزبان آموز در کالسھای مکالمھ با روش تدر

ستر و یکردند. مدرسان زبان از طرح لبردستورزبان شرکت مار خطا ھای زمان حال زبان آموزان ی) برای ت1997رانتا (

جلسھ در ھفتھ 3ھفتھ و 3مار یاستفاده کردند. زمان طول تن یقھ بوده است. دوگروه در ایدق 90بود. مدت ھر جلسھ

مار و یا گروه تبرانگیزش یمطالعھ وجود داشتند: گروه اری از مدرسان یا گروه کنترل. چون بسینی یگروه بازآفر

مار تمامی ینی برای تیزبان بھ طور غالب از روش بازآفرنی بھ یخطاھای زبان آموزان بھره می برند، روش بازآفر

ت زبان آموزان یعنوان روش کنترلی در نظر گرفتھ شد. موفقق یک آزمون قضاوت دستوری زماندار برگرفتھ از تحقیتوسط

ی ین نھایانگیری شد. می) اندازه گ2007لوون و نابی (ی ین نھایانگیکھ مي بود، در حال 94/32مار یعملکرد گروه ت

جھ بررسی داده ھا نشان داد زبان یبود. نت 42/29گروه کنترلبودند عملکرد برانگیزش ح خطاییآموزانی کھ تحت روش تصح

بھتر معناداری در آزمون قضاوت دستوری زماندار نسبت بھ ح خطا ینی تصحیداد زبان آموزانی کھ تحت روش بازآفر

انس ھر دو ی). الزم بھ ذکر است کھ وارP<0.01بودند داشتند(ن یجھ این نتی). بنابراP Levene <0.05گروه ھمگن بودند(

رانی یآموزان مبتدی امطالعھ را می توان بھ جامعھ زبان م داد. یتعم

نب طاھری نژادیز

101

دانشگاه آزاد اسالمی

واحد علوم وتحقیقات

(.M. A)پایان نامھ کارشناسی ارشد رشتھ آموزش زبان انگلیسی

موضوع

تاثیر روشھای تصحیح خطا بر عملکردزبان آموزان ایرانی در آزمونھای قضاوت دستوری زماندار

استاد راھنما

دکتر پرویز بیرجندی

استاد مشاور

دکتر منصور فھیم

نگارنده

زینب طاھری نژاد

1388-1389سال تحصیلی