An Attempt to Improve Grammatical Structure Retention: Impact of Computer-mediated Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

English Language and Literature Department, Language and Literature Faculty, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

Abstract

Over the past years, the role of technology in education has been widely discussed. Despite it, ongoing debates persist regarding feedback in Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL). This study aims to fill gaps in the literature by assessing the effectiveness of focused computer feedback, including translingual feedback, correction requests, and repetitions, on short and long-term memory retention. It also seeks to determine the most effective approach for computer-mediated feedback in recalling language structures and gain insights into students’ attitudes towards it. To achieve these goals, a total of 60 intermediate Iranian English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners from Yazd University were randomly assigned to four groups, each corresponding to a different type of computer-mediated feedback. These groups, namely Meta-linguistic, Repetition, Clarification Request, and No Feedback groups, varied in specificity and format. After completing the computer-based assessment, the participants took two nearly identical multiple-choice tests three weeks apart to measure short and long-term retention, respectively. Furthermore, a questionnaire was meticulously designed and administered before and after the intervention to capture any shifts in participants’ attitudes towards computer-mediated feedback. According to the findings, the metalinguistic and repetition groups had the highest retention gains in comparison to the other groups. Furthermore, the results strongly supported the superiority of the experimental groups over the control group in terms of retention. The outcomes from the questionnaire also evidenced a positive enhancement in the participants’ attitudes towards computer-mediated feedback. Future research should explore the effectiveness of different combinations of computer-mediated feedback types. By studying the combined impact of two or more types of feedback on learners’ memory, valuable insights could be gained, moving beyond isolated feedback approaches. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Brudermann, C., Grosbois, M. & Sarré, C. (2021). Accuracy development in L2 writing: Exploring the potential of computer-assisted unfocused indirect corrective feedback in an online EFL course. ReCALL, 33(3), 1-17.  
Bush, M. D. (2008). Computer-assisted language learning: From vision to reality? CALICO Journal, 25(3), 443-470.
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and Evidence: The Raw Material of Second Language Acquisition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(03), 357-386.
Castaneda, M. E. (2005). Corrective Feedback in Online Asynchronous and Synchronous Environments in Spanish as A Foreign Language (SFL) Classes. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(02), 339-368.
Ferrara, K., Brunner, H. & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication, 8(1), 8-34.
Godwin-Jones, R. (2013). Emerging technologies: The technological imperative in teaching and learning less commonly taught languages. Language Learning & Technology, 17(1), 7-19.
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A. & Shelley, M. C. (2013). A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology-supported language learning. ReCALL, 25(02), 165-198.
Heift, T. (2003). Multiple learner errors and meaningful feedback: A challenge for ICALL systems. CALICO Journal, 20(3), 533-548.
Heift, T. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL. ReCALL, 16(2), 416-431.
Heift, T. & Rimrott, A. (2008). Learner responses to corrective feedback for spelling errors in CALL. System, 36(2), 196-213.
Heift, T. & Schulze, M. (2007). Errors and Intelligence in Computer-Assisted Language Learning: Parsers and Pedagogues. Routledge, New York.
Hoopingarner, D. (2009). Best practices in technology and language teaching. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 222-235.
Kregar, S. (2011). Relative Effectiveness of Corrective Feedback Types in Computer-Assisted Language learning. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
Kwon, H. & Lee, C. H. (2011). Learner uptake of feedback in text-based synchronous computer mediated communication (SCMC). Multimedia Assisted Language Learning, 14(2), 211-234.
Lin, L. -F. (2010). A video-based CALL program for proficient and less-proficient L2 learners’ comprehension ability, incidental vocabulary acquisition. Educational Media International, 47(3), 199-216.
Loewen, S. & Erlam, R. (2006). Corrective feedback in the chatroom: An experimental study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 19(1), 1-14.
Loewen, S. & Nabei, T. (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2 knowledge. In Mackey, A. (Ed.). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies, pp. 361-377. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lyster, R. & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
Nagata, N. (1992). A Study of the Effectiveness of Intelligent CALI as an Application of Natural Language Processing. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, PA.
Nagata, N. (1993). Intelligent computer feedback for second language instruction. The Modern Language Journal, 77(3), 330-339.
Nagata, N. (1997). An experimental comparison of deductive and inductive feedback generated by a simple parser. System, 25(4), 515-534.
Nagata, N. & Swisher, M. (1995). A study of consciousness-raising by computer: The effect of metalinguistic feedback on second language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(3), 337-347.
Rassaei, E. & Moinzadeh, A. (2011). Investigating the effects of three types of corrective feedback on the acquisition of English Wh-question forms by Iranian EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 97-206.
Rassaei, E.  (2019). Computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback, perceptual style and L2 development. System, 82, 97-110.
Sanz, C. (2004). Computer delivered implicit versus explicit feedback in processing instruction. In VanPatten, B. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, pp. 241-256. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Sauro, S. (2009). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 grammar. Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 96-120.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effects of corrective feedback, language aptitude, and learner attitudes on the acquisition of English articles. In Mackey, A. (Eds.), Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition: A Collection of Empirical Studies, pp. 301-322. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Nemat Tabrizi, A. & Moghaddam Ranjbaran, M. (2021). The effect of computer-mediated text-based and audio-based corrective feedback on the development of writing accuracy of Iranian EFL learners. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(13), 4675-4692.
Sherafati, N., Largani, F. M. & Amini, S. (2020). Exploring the effect of computer-mediated teacher feedback on the writing achievement of Iranian EFL learners: Does motivation count? Education and Information Technologies, 25, 4591-4613.
Yeh, S. W. & Lo, J. J. (2009). Using online annotations to support error correction and corrective feedback. Computers & Education, 52(4), 882-892.
Journal of Studies in Language Learning and Teaching
Volume 1, Issue 2
July 2024
Pages 289-306

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 December 2023
  • Revise Date: 29 July 2024
  • Accept Date: 13 August 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics