International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their ...ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/wceis_2017.4._complete.pdf · Vidyasagar College Devi Ahilya University Indore (MP-

International Journal on

New Trends in Education and

Their Implications (IJONTE)

October 2017

Volume: 8 Issue: 4

ISSN 1309-6249

http://ijonte.org

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications October 2017 Volume: 8 Issue: 4 ISSN 1309-6249

Copyright © International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications / www.ijonte.org

i

Contact Addresses

Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya, Gazi Üniversitesi, Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Bölümü Teknik Okullar Ankara/Türkiye E. Mail: [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Uğur Demiray, Anadolu Üniversitesi, İletişim Bilimleri Fakültesi, Yunusemre Kampüsü, 26470 Eskişehir/Türkiye E. Mail: [email protected] Phone: +905422322167

Abstracting & Indexing International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications (IJONTE) is currently indexed, abstracted and listed starting with the first issue in:



ii



iii

Sponsors

Editors Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya, Gazi University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Ugur Demiray, Anadolu University- Turkey Associate Editors Assoc. Prof. Dr. Beyhan Zabun, Gazi University- Turkey Assoc. Prof. Dr. Fatih Gurbuz, Bayburt University- Turkey Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ilknur Istifci, Anadolu University- Turkey Assist. Prof. Dr. Nazan Dogruer, Eastern Mediterranean University- TRNC Assist. Prof. Dr. Ramadan Eyyam, Eastern Mediterranean University- TRNC Dr. Ufuk Tanyeri, Ankara University, Turkey

Assistant Editor PhDc. Ipek Menevis, Eastern Mediterranean University- TRNC

Editorial Board Prof. Dr. Ali H. Raddaoui, University of Sfax- Tunisia Prof. Dr. Abdul Hakim Juri, University of Kuala Lumpur- Malaysia Prof. Dr. Ahmet Pehlivan, Cyprus International University- TRNC Prof. Dr. Ali Simsek, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Antoinette J. Muntjewerff, Amsterdam University- Netherlands Prof. Dr. Antonis Lionarakis, Hellenic Open University- Greece Prof. Dr. Augustyn Bańka, Nicolaus Copernicus University- Poland Prof. Dr. Boriss Misnevs, Transport and Telecommunication Institute- Latvia Prof. Dr. Charlotte Nirmalani (Lani) Gunawardena, University of New Mexico- USA Prof. Dr. Christine Howe, University of Cambridge- United Kingdom Prof. Dr. Cevat Celep, Kocaeli University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Cleborne D. Maddux, University of Nevada- USA Prof. Dr. Coskun Bayrak, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Danièle Moore, Simon Fraser University- Canada Prof. Dr. Emine Demiray, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Erol Yildiz, Alpen-Adria University- Austria Prof. Dr. Esmahan Agaoglu, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Francis Glasgow, Guyana University- South America Prof. Dr. Gonca Telli Yamamoto, Okan University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Gul Nurgalieva, Joint-stock company,"National Center of Information"- Kazakhstan Prof. Dr. Harold Bekkering, University of Nijmegen- Netherlands Prof. Dr. H. Ferhan Odabasi, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Heli Ruokamo, University of Lapland- Finland Prof. Dr. I. Hakki Mirici, Hacettepe University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Jim Flood, Open University- United Kingdom



iv

Prof. Dr. Jozef Gašparík, Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava- Slovakia Prof. Dr. Kiyoshi Nakabayashi, Kumamoto University- Japan Prof. Dr. K. M. Gupta, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology- India Prof. Dr. Liliana Ezechil, University of Piteşti- Romania Prof. Dr. Manuel Alberto M. Ferreira, Lisbon University Institute- Portugal Prof. Dr. Marie J. Myers, Queen's University- Canada Prof. Dr. Mehmet Durdu Karsli, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Mehmet Kesim, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Meral Aksu, Middle East Technical University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Min Jou, National Taiwan Normal University- Taiwan Prof. Dr. Modafar Ati, Abu Dhabi University- United Arab Emirates Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abolgasem Artemimi, Zawia Engineering College- Libya Prof. Dr. Mufit Komleksiz, Cyprus International University- TRNC Prof. Dr. Mustafa Cakir, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Nedim Gurses, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Paul Kawachi, Bejing Normal University- China Prof. Dr. Ramesh C. Sharma, Indira Gandhi National Open University- India Prof. Dr. Richard C. Hunter, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign- USA Prof. Dr. Roberta E. (Bobby) Harreveld, Queensland University- Australia Prof. Dr. Rozhan M. Idrus, School of Distance Education, University Sains- Malaysia Prof. Dr. Santosh Panda, Indira Gandhi National Open University- India Prof. Dr. Selahattin Gelbal, Hacettepe University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Sharif H. Guseynov, Transport and Telecommunication Institute- Latvia Prof. Dr. Tamar Lominadze, Georgian Technical University- Georgia Prof. Dr. Tanja Betz, Goethe University- Germany Prof. Dr. Tony Townsend, University of Glasgow- United Kingdom Prof. Dr. Ugur Demiray, Anadolu University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Valentina Dagiene, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics- Lithuania Prof. Dr. Xibin Han, Tsinghua University- China Prof. Dr. Yavuz Akpinar, Bogaziçi University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Yoav Yair,The Open University of Israel- Israel Prof. Dr. Yuksel Kavak, Hacettepe University- Turkey Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya, Gazi University- Turkey Assoc. Prof. Dr. Carlos Machado, Vrije University- Belgium Assoc. Prof. Dr. Danny Bernard Martin, University of Ilinois at Chicago- USA Assoc. Prof. Dr. Demetrios G. Sampson, University of Piraeus- Greece Assoc. Prof. Dr. Irfan Yurdabakan, Dokuz Eykul University- Turkey Assoc. Prof. Dr. Natalija Lepkova, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University- Lithuania Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nigel Bagnall, The University of Sydney- Australia Assoc. Prof. Dr. Rositsa Doneva, Paisii Hilendarski University of Plovdiv- Bulgaria Assoc. Prof. Dr. Piet Kommers, University of Twente- Netherlands Assoc. Prof. Dr. S. Raja, ASL Pauls College of Engineering and Technology- India Assoc. Prof. Dr. Shivakumar Deene, Karnataka State Open University- India Assoc. Prof. Dr. Steve Wheeler, University of Plymouth- United Kingdom Assist. Prof. Dr. Katherine Sinitsa, International Research and Training Center- Ukrania Assist. Prof. Dr. Roxana Criu, Cuza University- Romania Assist. Prof. Dr. Zdena Lustigova, Charles University- Czech Republic Dr. Carmencita L. Castolo, Polytechnic University- Philippines Dr. Hisham Mobaideen, Mu'tah University- Jordan



v

Dr. Simon Stobart, University of Teesside- United Kingdom Dr. Ufuk Tanyeri, Ankara University, Turkey



v

Dear IJONTE Readers,

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications- IJONTE appears on your screen now as Volume 8, Number 4. In this issue it publishes 2 articles.

Our journal has been published for over eight years. It has been followed by many people and a lot of articles have been sent to be published. 500 articles have been sent to referees for forthcoming issues. They will be published according to the order and the results. Articles are sent to referees without names and addresses of the authors. The articles who get positive responses will be published and the authors will be informed. The articles who are not accepted to be published will be returned to their authors. We wish you success and easiness in your studies. Cordially, 1st October, 2017 Editors Prof. Dr. Zeki Kaya, Gazi University, Ankara- TURKEY Prof. Dr. Ugur Demiray, Anadolu University, Eskisehir- TURKEY



vi

ARTICLES 01. EFFECT OF INTEGRATED FEEDBACK ON TEACHER MORALE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS……………………………………………………………………..1 Nilesh Kumar Patel- INDIA 02. EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE CORRECT USE OF PREPOSITIONS………………………………………………………….13 Seyed Behrooz Hosseini- IRAN

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications October 2017 Volume: 8 Issue: 4 Article: 01 ISSN 1309-6249


1

EFFECT OF INTEGRATED FEEDBACK ON TEACHER MORALE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS Nilesh Kumar Patel Vidyasagar College Devi Ahilya University Indore (MP- INDIA Abstract Integrated feedback based on student evaluation of teachers and teachers' self evaluation was taken as treatment in the present study. Teacher morale of secondary school teachers was dependent variable in the study. The present study was Experimental in nature and Non Equivalent Control Group Design suggested by Campbell and Stanley (1963) was adopted for study. Sample of the study comprised of 77 secondary school teachers and 220 students of 4 English medium and CBSE affiliated schools of Indore city. It was sampled purposively. Null hypotheses were formulated and ANCOVA was used for testing of the null hypotheses. Pre- teacher morale and Intelligence were taken as covariates. Interactional effect of treatment with Intelligence, Gender, Job satisfaction and Experience of teachers were also studied. The treatment was found effective on Teacher Morale of secondary school teachers. The study has great uses for teachers, students and school administrators. Keywords: Student Evaluation of teachers, Teachers’ self evaluation, Teacher morale, Integrated feedback, Evaluation of teachers. INTRODUCTION In the present scenario most of the teachers and educational institutions are facing problems about maintaining the status of teaching and qualitative improvement in teaching-learning process. These problems are occurring due to changing needs and expectations of the society. Rapid changes and innovations in the information and communication technology are also imposing this type of problems because most of the pupils get the curricular related information early before classroom teaching in satisfactory manner and then they (students) rate their teachers indirectly. Teachers and educational institutions do not come to know what are happening in students' mind and what perceptions students have about teachers' performance. In this way we can say that the students are tending to evaluate their teachers work in informal ways. If we think about administration related perspectives, main interest of every administration is on whether the teaching- learning process was fruitfully completed or not and for this purpose every administration wants to evaluate their teachers. In both of the cases i.e. at students' point of view and administration point of view teachers are expected to do their job according to the needs of best possible learning outcomes. That's why evaluation of teachers is in practice (formally or informally). Many institutions in the United States have included teaching as a component of their Tripartite Mission Research Teaching and Extension) since their inception. Until recent years, however, excellence in teaching has seldom been rewarded. Due to public perceptions of poor teaching and pressure from state government and federal government leaders, the teaching roll at the universities has been magnified (Rudd, Baker, Hoover, 1996). Universities are struggling to identify and reward good teaching. In Indian context the same problem of public perceptions about poor teaching may be easily seen. Therefore it is suggested to adopt the same solution here also i.e. adopting evaluation of teaching performance for the sake of improvement. Thinking about the administration related perspectives of teachers' evaluation, most of the self financial educational institutions pre: suggesting teachers' evaluation for promotion and salary increment purposes. On the other hand many educational institutions, government and non-government agencies of education are suggesting teachers' evaluation because they are aware about qualitative improvements in teaching-learning



2

process. This is a positive approach because the expected end-products of these practices are improvements in the teaching-learning process. But for this sake some kind of malpractices came to the fashion, like evaluation of teachers on the basis of the results of the students' or on the basis of students' achievement. This type of teachers' evaluation should not be considered as a valid source of getting information about teaching performances of teachers', because the main purpose of evaluation of students' achievement is differ in sufficient manner. In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the Conference on College, Composition and Communication (1991) C. Gould suggested that Peer Evaluation, Student Evaluation and Self Evaluation are all valid forms of evaluating teaching performances. Soderberg (1986) stated that when evaluating teachers at the delivery phase of instructions, students are the most qualified to accomplish this task. Accepting the importance of student evaluation of teachers The Universities of British Columbia (Vancouver) has approved "A Policy of Student Evaluation of Teaching" (May 16th, 2007). Concluding these efforts made earlier researcher found three ways of successful improvement of instructions, which are Student-evaluation of teachers, Self- evaluation of teachers and Peer-evaluation of teachers respectively. The term Self-evaluation of teacher refers to the process of collecting and analyzing relevant information about the teacher himself or herself. The fundamental involved in this process is that teachers should also see themselves as learners. In many of the European countries Self-evaluation of the teachers is in major practice. Some of the Indian educational institutions have also adopted this type of evaluation. Guru Nanak Dev University (GNDU) Amritsar became the first Indian University to adopt "Manual for self-study" derived by National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC). University Grant Commission (UGC) in its "Schemes of Autonomous Colleges" has also suggested the colleges to adopt Self-appraisal of teachers as common programme. According to Richard M. Felder and Rebecca Brent (North Carolina State University) in the article How to Evaluate Teaching (2004) "Students are in better position than anyone else to judge certain aspects of teaching, such as how clear, interesting, respectful and fair a course instructor is, and they are the only ones who can say how an instructor has influenced their attitude towards the course subject their motivation to learn it and their self-confidence." McKeachie (1997) supported student evaluation of teachers' with considering it as the single most valid source of data on teaching. The University of British Columbia (UBC) had approved a policy on student evaluation of teaching while considering its importance. After reviewing the theoretical contributions made earlier the researcher felt the need of more studies in the context of teacher evaluation at secondary level in many directions. Jones (1983) conducted a study on student rating of teaching and found that teachers' personality as perceived by students was still very significantly related to rating of teaching quality. It was argued that "there is a proper state of affairs which does not undermine the validity of student ratings." in another study conducted by Centra (1972) it was found that teachers generally evaluated their teaching somewhat differently from the way their students evaluated it. Nasser and Fresko (2006) concluded a study with a suggestion of using student ratings and instructors predictions to motivate teaching improvement. An attempt made by Sharma & Passi (1976) the interaction effect of the different techniques of feedback and the effect was found not to be significant. Chiplunker (1980) found that few items reflecting Job satisfactions of teachers needed to be included in the tool of self assessment of teachers. Mishra (1983) also found significant and positive behavioural changes in teachers as a result of receiving feedback. Mishra (1985) found that the teaching behaviour of the teachers could be changed in a positive direction by giving feedback information in the way of self rating and class rating. Mishra, Brundaban and Patel (1990) found that after giving feedback, the teachers became more indirect and less direct in their behaviour; the students began to like them more. In an attempt, Prokosh (1990) noted the change in both, directly observed measures as well as in the perceptions of the teaching assistants and their students. Appleton (2000) in his study found that the teachers who received feedback, there were significant changes in pupil ratings in their classes, indicating more satisfaction and friction. It also revealed that giving the teachers feedback as well as information may enhanced pupil engagement. Chandel (1981) found that the relationship between self-rating and students' rating was not significant, but in another study Balchandran (1981) found that student rating and self



3

rating of teaching were positively and significantly related. Moreover the study revealed that the self rating was significantly higher than the students' ratings. Mishra (1983) found that the self rating was most effective source of feedback but student rating were also effective in changing behaviour. A study conducted by Prabhune, Marathe and Sohani (1984) researchers found that all the three strategies of giving feedback (College supervisor, self and peers feedback) were equally effective. Mishra (1985) found the difference between feedback effect by self rating and class-rating was highest for language teachers. Mishra (1985) concluded that female teacher were highly susceptible to behaviour change through feedback. Significant differences were found between the subgroups of male & female, arts and science in their teaching efficiency through self evaluation in a study conducted by Narayanappa and Akhtar (2000). LaForge (2003) found that students rate male teachers higher than they rated female teachers. Bentley and Rempel (1963) in a study found that the I.Q. level played an important role in comparing of teachers on the basis of Teacher morale. Mahatma (1980) in a study concluded that the authentic aspect of actual classroom was significantly related to teachers’ classroom behaviour (Which represents the level of Teacher morale). An attempt made by Jain (1982) it was found that Gender is not significantly related to any dimension of Teachers' morale. Teven (2007) suggested that the teachers should maintain appropriate classroom behaviour. After a detail study of these entire researches and findings the researcher came to know that improvement of teaching is an important need of the educational systems, therefore more works are needed to contribute in these perspectives. The researcher has selected Integrated feedback based on student evaluation of teachers and teachers' self evaluation as treatment. The researcher found in the researches discussed earlier that Teacher morale might have some influences on teaching-learning process, but enough studies were not found in the chosen area of study. Therefore Teacher morale was included in this effort of study. Statement of the problem: The problem was worded as “Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of Secondary School Teachers” Definition of the Terms used in the Title Integrated Feedback: Integrated Feedback refers to the feedback based on the information collected from student evaluation of teachers and teacher’s self evaluation. Student evaluation of teachers: The process in which students help their teacher to improve his/her (teachers') classroom performance by giving information about their classroom teaching and classroom behaviour. Teachers' self evaluation: The process by which, teachers refine their skills through reflecting upon element of their own instruction. Teacher morale: The mental or emotional conditional (as of enthusiasm, confidence and loyalty) of a teacher with regard to the academic function or task at hand. Research Objectives: Researcher formulated following objectives for the study. 1. To study the effect of Integrated feedback on Teacher morale by considering Intelligence as

covariate. 2. To study the effect of Integrated feedback, Intelligence and their interaction on Teacher morale

by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. 3. To study the effect of Integrated feedback, Gender and their interaction on Teacher morale by

considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. 4. To study the effect of Integrated feedback, Job satisfaction and their interaction on Teacher

morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. 5. To study the effect of Integrated feedback, Experience and their interaction on Teacher morale

by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate.



4

METHODOLOGY Sample: The present study was experimental in nature. The sample of the study comprised of 77 secondary school teachers belonging to four different schools of Indore city. These schools were selected by purposive sampling technique and all the teachers teaching in secondary classes during 2014 – 15 were taken as sample. The treatment was assigned randomly. 5 students of each secondary class taught by the teachers were also taken as sample in the present study. These students were selected randomly from each class taught by the secondary school teachers of experimental group and control group. There were 220 students in the sample. The schools had comparable management and teacher recruitment policies respectively and comparable quality of education being imparted to their students. Students’ clientele too were almost similar in their parental socio-economic and cultural backgrounds. There were thirty two male teachers and forty five female teachers taken in the sample of the study. Experimental Design: The present study was Experimental in nature and Non Equivalent Control Group Design suggested by Campbell and Stanley (1963) was adopted for study. There were two groups of schools; one of which was randomly designated as Experimental Group and the other one as Control Group. Both the groups were pre-tasted by administering Teacher morale Test, Intelligence Test and Job satisfaction Scale on the teachers. The treatment was provided to sampled secondary school teachers of Experimental Group in the form of Integrated Feedback based on Student Evaluation of Teachers and Teachers’ Self Evaluation. The effect of treatment was analyzed by post administered Teacher morale Test. Tools: The variables to which the data were collected were Teacher morale, Job satisfaction and Intelligence of teachers. Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices test was used to assess intelligence and Job satisfaction Questionnaire was used to measure Job satisfaction. Teacher morale was studied by Teacher morale scale developed by Jamal & Raheem. Procedure of Data Analysis: One way ANCOVA was used to study the first objective and 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA is used to study the rest 4 objectives. RESULTS 1. Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering Intelligence as covariate. The first objective was to study the effect of Integrated Feedback from Student Evaluation of Teachers and Teachers' Self Evaluation in terms of Teacher morale by considering Intelligence as covariate. There were two levels of Integrated Feedback namely Integrated Feedback and no feedback. First level of Integrated Feedback was taken as experimental group and second level was taken as control group. There were 40 secondary school teachers in experimental group and 37 in control group. The data were analyzed with the help of ANCOVA. The results are given in table no 1.1. Table 1.1: Summary of ANCOVA for Teacher morale by considering Intelligence as covariate

Source df

SSy.x

MSSy.x Fy.x Sig.

Integrated Feedback 1 1294.476 1294.476

Error 74 5110.827 69.065

Total 75

18.743

0.000



5

From table 1.1 it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for Integrated Feedback is 18.743 whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.000, therefore it is significant at 0.01 level of significance. This shows that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of Experimental group significantly differ from Control group when Intelligence was taken as covariate. Thus the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Integrated Feedback from student evaluation of teachers and teachers’ self evaluation on Teacher morale by considering Intelligence as covariate’ was rejected at 0.01 level of significance. Table 1.2: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of experimental group and control group

Group Adjusted Mean

Experimental Group 127.0

Control Group 118.8

Further from table 1.2 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group i.e. 127.0 was found to be significantly higher than the adjusted mean score of control group i.e. 118.8. Hence it can be concluded that Integrated Feedback provided to the secondary school teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of secondary school teachers, when Intelligence was taken as covariate. 2. Effect of Integrated Feedback, Intelligence and their interaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. The second objective was to study the effect of Integrated Feedback, Intelligence and their interaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. There were two levels of Integrated Feedback namely Integrated Feedback and no Feedback. First level of Integrated Feedback was taken as experimental group and second level was taken as control group. There were 40 secondary school teachers in experimental group and 37 in control group. On the basis of Intelligence the subjects were divided into two levels namely above average and below average. There were 42 teachers were in above average level and 35 were in below average level. The data were analyzed with the help of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA. The results are given in table no. 2.1 Table 2.1: Summary of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA for Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate

Source df SSy.x MSSy.x Fy.x Sig.

Integrated Feedback 1 1110.178 1110.178 20.625 0.000

Intelligence 1 39.973 39.973 0.743 0.392

Integrated Feedback* Intelligence 1 5.743 5.743 0.107 0.745

Error 72 3875.618 53.828

Total 75

Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 2.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for Integrated Feedback is 20.625 whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.000, therefore it is significant at 0.01 level of significance. This shows that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group differ significantly from control group when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Thus, the null hypothesis that



6

‘There is no significant effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale when pre- Teacher morale was taken as covariate’ was rejected at 0.01 level of significance. Table 2.2: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of experimental group and control group

Group Adjusted Mean


Control Group 119.0

Further from table 2.2 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group i.e. 126.7 was found to be significantly higher than the adjusted mean score of control group i.e. 119.0. Hence it can be concluded that Integrated Feedback provided to the secondary school teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of secondary school teachers when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of Intelligence on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 2.1 it can be seen that the adjusted F- value for Intelligence is 0.743, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Intelligence on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. It can thus be concluded that the Teacher morale of secondary school teachers’ is independent of Intelligence of secondary school teachers when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Intelligence on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 2.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for the interaction between the Integrated Feedback and Intelligence is 0.107, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Intelligence on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. Thus it can be concluded that the Teacher morale of secondary school teachers’ is independent of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Intelligence when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. 3.0 Effect of Integrated Feedback, Gender and their interaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. The third objective was to study the effect of Integrated Feedback, Gender and their interaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. There were two levels of Integrated Feedback namely Integrated Feedback and no Feedback. First level of Integrated Feedback was taken as experimental group and second level was taken as control group. There were 40 teachers in experimental group and 37 teachers in control group. On the basis of Gender the subjects were divided in to two levels namely male and female. There were 32 male and 45 female teachers. The data were analyzed with the help of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA. The results are given in table no. 3.1. Table 3.1: Summary of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA for Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate


Integrated Feedback 1 1062.529 1062.529 19.643 0.000 Gender 1 15.155 15.155 0.280 0.598

Integrated Feedback * Gender 1 8.301 8.301 0.153 0.696

Error 72 3894.719 54.093

Total 75



7

Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 3.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for Integrated Feedback is 19.643 whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.000, therefore it is significant at 0.01 level of significance. This shows that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group differ significantly from control group when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Thus, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale when pre- Teacher morale was taken as covariate’ was rejected at 0.01 level of significance. Table 3.2: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of experimental group and control group

Group Adjusted Mean


Control Group 119.1

Further from table 3.2 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group i.e. 126.8 was found to be significantly higher than adjusted mean score of control group i.e. 119.1. Hence it can be concluded that Integrated Feedback provided to the secondary school teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of the secondary school teachers, when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of Gender on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 3.1 it can be seen that the adjusted F- value for Gender is 0.280, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Gender on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. It can thus be concluded that the Teacher morale is independent of Gender of secondary school teachers when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Gender on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 3.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for the interaction between the Integrated Feedback and Gender is 0.153, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Gender on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. Thus it can be concluded that the Teacher morale is independent of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Gender when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. 4.0 Effect of Integrated Feedback, Job satisfaction and their interaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. The fourth objective was to study the effect of Integrated Feedback, Job satisfaction and their interaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. There were two levels of Integrated Feedback namely Integrated Feedback and no Feedback. First level of Integrated Feedback was taken as experimental group and second level was taken as control group. There were 40 teachers in experimental group and 37 teachers in control group. On the basis of Job satisfaction the subjects were divided in to two levels namely high and low. There were 45 teachers in high Job satisfaction level and 32 teachers in low Job satisfaction level. The data were analyzed with the help of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA. The results are given in table no. 4.1.



8

Table 4.1: Summary of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA for Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate



Job satisfaction 1 235.313 235.313 4.601 0.035

Integrated Feedback * Job satisfaction 1 0.239 0.239 0.005 0.946

Error 72 3682.295 51.143

Total 75

Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 4.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for Integrated Feedback is 18.715 whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.000, therefore it is significant at 0.01 level of significance. This shows that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group differ significantly from control group when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Thus, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate’ was rejected at 0.01 level of significance. Table 4.2: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of experimental group and control group

Group Adjusted Mean


Control Group 119.0

Further from table 4.2 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group i.e. 126.2 was found to be significantly higher than that of control group i.e. 119.0. Hence it can be concluded that Integrated Feedback provided to the teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of the secondary school teachers, when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of Job satisfaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 4.1 it can be seen that the adjusted F- value for Job satisfaction is 4.601, whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.035, therefore it is significant at 0.05 level of significance. This shows that the adjusted mean score of high Job satisfaction teachers differ significantly than that of low Job satisfaction teachers. Thus the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Job satisfaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was rejected at 0.05 level of significance. Table 4.3: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of High Job satisfaction level and Low Job satisfaction level

Group Adjusted Mean

High Job satisfaction 124.5

Low Job satisfaction 120.7

Further from table 4.3 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of high Job satisfaction level teachers i.e. 124.5 was found to be significantly higher than that of low Job satisfaction teachers i.e. 120.7.



9

Hence it can be concluded that the Integrated Feedback provided to the high Job satisfaction teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of secondary school teachers when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Job satisfaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 4.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for the interaction between the Integrated Feedback and Job satisfaction is 0.005, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Job satisfaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. Thus it can be concluded that the Teacher morale is independent of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Job satisfaction when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. 5.0 Effect of Integrated Feedback, Experience and their interaction on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. The fifth objective was to study the effect of Integrated Feedback, Experience and their interaction on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. There were two levels of Integrated Feedback namely Integrated Feedback and no Feedback. First level of Integrated Feedback was taken as experimental group and second level was taken as control group. There were 40 teachers in experimental group and 37 teachers in control group. On the basis of Experience the subjects were divided in to two levels namely above average and below average. There were 39 teachers in below average Experience and 38 teachers in above average Experience level. The data were analyzed with the help of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA. The results are given in table no. 5.1 Table 5.1: Summary of 2X2 Factorial Design ANCOVA for Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate



Experience 1 19.347 19.347 0.361 0.550

IntegratedFeedback * Experience 1 44.096 44.096 0.823 0.367

Error 72 3859.702 53.607

Total 75

Effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 5.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for Integrated Feedback is 18.295 whose level of significance with df (1, 74) is 0.000, therefore it is significant at 0.01 level of significance This shows that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group differ significantly from control group when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Thus, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Integrated Feedback on Teacher morale when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate’ was rejected at 0.01 level of significance. Table 5.2: Adjusted mean scores of Teacher morale of experimental group and control group

Group Adjusted Mean

Experimental Group 126.8 Control Group 119.4



10

Further from table 5.2 it can be seen that the adjusted mean score of Teacher morale of experimental group i.e. 126.8 was found to be significantly higher than that of control group i.e. 119.4. Hence it can be concluded that Integrated Feedback provided to the teachers was found to be effective in terms of Teacher morale of the teachers, when pre Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of Experience on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 5.1 it can be seen that the adjusted F- value for Experience is 0.361, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of Experience on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. It can thus be concluded that the Teacher morale is independent of Experience of secondary school teachers when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. Effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Experience on Teacher morale of secondary school teachers by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate. From table 5.1, it can be seen that the adjusted F-value for the interaction between the Integrated Feedback and Experience is 0.823, which is not significant even at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis that ‘There is no significant effect of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Experience on Teacher morale by considering pre-Teacher morale as covariate’ was not rejected. Thus it can be concluded that the Teacher morale of secondary school teachers is independent of interaction between Integrated Feedback and Experience when pre-Teacher morale was taken as covariate. BIODATA AND CONTACT ADRESS OF AUTOR

Nilesh Kumar Patel is a teacher educator and visiting team member of Nation Council for Teacher Education (A Statutory Body of Government of India), New Delhi, India. Presently he is working as principal in Vidyasagar College, Indore(MP). He is Head of the Department and Academic counselor in study centre of Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), India for M. A. (Education), B. Ed., PGDEMA & PGDELM courses. He is Ex- Member of ‘Faculty of Education’, Devi Ahilya University, Indore (India). He holds M. Sc. (Mathematics), M. Ed. degrees from School of Studies, Devi Ahilya University, Indore (India) and

NET (Education) Certificate from University Grant Commission, New Delhi (India). His main research interests are – Teacher Education and Educational Psychology. Nilesh Kumar Patel 422, Pallar Nagar, Airport Road Indore, MP (INDIA) – 452005 E. Mail: [email protected] REFERENCES Abraham, A. (1994). Job satisfaction and teacher effectiveness: A study on college teachers. Indian Journal of Psychometry and Education, 25, 1-2. Abrami,, P. C. (1989) How should we use student ratings to evaluate teaching?. Research in Higher Education, 30 (2), 221–227. Abrami, P. C, D'Apollonia, S., and Cohen, P.A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 219-231.



11

Abrami, P. C.,Marilyn, H. M. & Raiszadeh, F. (2001). Business students’ perceptions of faculty evaluations. The International Journal of Educational Management, 15(1), 12–22. Abrami,, P. C., D’Apollonia, S. & Rosenfield, S. (1997). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: what we know and what we do not, in R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds) Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice, pp. 321–367 New York: Agathon Press. Aigner, D. J. and Thum, F. D.(1986). On student evaluation of teaching ability. The Journal of Economic Education, 17, 243-265. Airasian, P. W. and Gullickson, A. ( 1994). Examination of teacher self-assessment. Journal of Personnel Education in Education, 8(2), 195-203. Aleamoni, L.M. (1976). Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of instruction. National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Journal, 20(l), 16-21. Angelo, T. and Cross, P(1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francesco: Jossey-Bass. Bailey, G. D. (1981). Teacher self-assessment: A means for improving classroom instruction. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Balachandran, E.S. (1981). Teaching effectiveness and student evaluation of teaching (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Madras University, Madras. Basow, S. A., & Silberg, N. T. (1987). Student evaluations of college professors: Are female and male professors rated differently? Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (3), 308-314. Basow, S. A. (1995). Student evaluations of college professors: When gender matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(4), 656-665. Blackwell, J. L.(1983). A statistical interpretation of student evaluation feedback: A comment. Journal of Economic Education, 14, 19-25. Buchanan, D. & Jackson, S. (1997). Self-evaluation for teachers and student teachers: A Framework for professional development. Great Britain: Kogan Page. Carroll, J. G. (1981). Faculty self-evaluation. In J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of teacher evaluation (pp. 180-200). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Centra, J. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Cohen, P.A. (1981). Student Ratings of Instruction and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of Multi section Validity Studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281-304. D’Apollonia, S. & Abrami, P. C. (1997), Navigating student ratings of instruction, American Psychologist, 52(11), 1198–1208. Hobson, S. M. & Talbot, D. M. (2001), Understanding student evaluations. College Teaching, 49 (1), 26-31. Johnson, B. L. (1997). An organizational analysis of multiple perspectives of effective teaching: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 69-87.



12

Mackenzie, N. (2007). Teacher morale: More complex than we think?. The Australian Educational Researcher, 34 (1), Retrieved from www.aare.edu.au/aer/online/0701g.pdf Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197. National Council of Educational Research and Training (2005). National Curriculum Framework. New Delhi : NCERT. Patel N. and Joshi B. (2015). A comparative study of job satisfaction of secondary school teachers. Anweshika, 10(3), 15-22. Rauf et al. (2013). Relationship between Morale and job satisfaction of subject spacialists teaching in higher secondary schools of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The Dialogue, 3(1), 69-83. Sharma, N. (2011). A survey of teachers’ opinion on the students’ evaluation of teachers. International Journal of Educational Research and Technology, 2(1), 57-61. Theal, M. and Franklin, J (Eds) (1990). Student rating of instruction issues for improving practices. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc. Wilson, R. (1986). Improving faculty teaching: Effective use of student evaluations and consultants. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 196-211.



13

EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND THE CORRECT USE OF PREPOSITIONS Seyed Behrooz Hosseini IAU South Tehran Branch- IRAN Abstract This study investigates the effectiveness of explicit and implicit written corrective feedback on increasing the correct use of prepositions. To this end, sixty Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners were randomly assigned to two experimental groups, receiving explicit and implicit feedback, respectively; and one control group receiving no feedback. Each group included twenty participants. The homogeneity test of KET preceded the treatment. Prior to the treatment, a pre-test was administered to gain insight into the participants’ current command of English prepositions. After the treatment, the same set of tests was administered as post-test to assess the probable increase in the correct use of prepositions for the experimental groups compared to the control group. Analysis of the results through a one-way ANOVA revealed that the experimental groups who received explicit and implicit corrective feedback significantly outperformed the control group in terms of the correct use of prepositions. The comparison of the experimental groups reported no statistically significant relationship. The results of this study indicate that language learners benefit from teacher-provided feedback in improving their grammatical accuracy in writing. Furthermore, more research is merited as there is a lot to investigate in this field. Keywords: Corrective feedback, explicit, implicit, Noticing Hypothesis. INTRODUCTION According to Erel and Bulut (2007), “Research on foreign and second language writing has mostly been based on why and how to respond to student writing” (p. 2). Most EFL and ESL teachers are of the opinion that responding to students’ writing through appropriate corrective feedback (CF) is an inseparable part of any writing course and students require teacher feedback on their errors (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Feedback in writing is also considered as an important aspect to the development of students’ language perception so that they can perform effectively in producing the language. With regard to the ever-increasing interest in the teacher-provided CF and its pedagogical benefits, a growing body of research has investigated the potential efficacy of written CF (WCF) and the way student errors are treated in language learning environments. This error treatment, according to Chaudron (1988: 150) can be viewed as “any teacher behavior following an error that minimally attempts to inform the learner of the fact of error” . Lightbown and Spada (1999: 1717-172) define feedback as “Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect; this includes various responses that the learners receive” . This feedback encompasses the gap between what the learner has learned and his/her competence and the attempts made to bridge these gaps (Furnborough & Truman, 2009). The effectiveness of feedback has been controversial regarding whether error correction is beneficial to the learning process or not. On the one hand, CF has proved to be effective in promoting language learning (Sheen, 2007; Lee, 1997); yet on the other hand, as Truscott (1996: 328) claimed, it could be obstructive or even detrimental to learning. In an extreme view on CF, Truscott argued that the application of CF on learners’ writing should be totally avoided as it hinders and harms writing development. According to Truscott, “grammar correction has no place in writing courses and should be abandoned” . In line with Truscott, Kepner (1991) also found that feedback is not effective for developing accuracy in writing.



14

More recent studies support the positive contributions of CF to language learning and in particular to writing skills (e.g., Bitchener & Knoch, 2008; Sheen, 2007). Gass (1997) stated that CF enables learners to notice the ‘gap’ between their interlanguage and the target language resulting in more focused and accurate learning. Additionally, in accordance with general research on language learning, CF studies have specifically focused on the ways CF can alter and promote “learning processes” and “linguistic competence” (Sheen, 2010b, p. 204). Soori and Abd. Samad (2011) also cite Yates and Kenkel (2002) and mention that the main concern nowadays is not to whether provide CF for the learners but rather “when and how to provide feedback on the students’ errors” (p. 349). As cited in Rezaei, Mozaffari, and Hatef (2011), Schmidt’s (1990, 1995, 2001: 22) Noticing Hypothesis suggests that “noticing is a prerequisite of learning, continuing that conscious attention must be paid to input in order for L2 learning to proceed.” ; thus, CF provides learners with clues indicating what is wrong and draws their attention to erroneous forms. Grammar accuracy and writing improvement have also been shown to benefit from feedback. CF on learners’ writing will help them avoid the possibility of future errors and promote accuracy of their writing with more focus on meaning (Ashwell, 2000). According to Ferris (2010: 188), “the studies on written CF … examine whether written CF facilitates long-term acquisition of particular linguistic features and if so, how”. Soori and Abd. Samad also refer to Russell and Spada (2006: 350) and state that they “investigated the impacts of corrective feedback on second language grammar learning. The outcomes of this study revealed that corrective feedback was helpful for L2 learning.”. Furthermore, Erel and Bulut (2007) refer to various studies (e.g., Ferris & Roberts, 2001: 398) for “motivating” and “encouraging” effects of WCF on learners and state that, “it is believed ... that if a teacher indicates a written grammatical error on a student’s paper and provides the correct form in one or another way, the student will realize the error and will not repeat it in his/her future writings”; consequently, “the ability of writing accurately will be improved”. Additionally, Ferris and Roberts’s (2001) experiment with different types of WCF substantiated the efficacy of CF on improving learners’ structural accuracy. As stated by Erel and Bulut, numerous studies (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Leki, 1991; Chandler, 2003: 398) show the effectiveness of CF in promoting learners’ writing skills as well as grammatical accuracy: Teachers believe that correcting the grammar of student writers’ work will help them improve the accuracy of subsequent writing. Research evidence on error correction in L2 writing classes shows that students who receive error feedback from teachers improve in accuracy over time. There is also research evidence which proves that students want error feedback and think that it helps them improve their writing skill in the target language. Similarly, Leki (1991) and Zhang (1995) in their studies found out that the learners themselves greatly appreciate teacher-provided CF; this clearly shows that “L2 students have positive attitudes towards written feedback” (Kaweera & Usaha, 2008: 86). Ferris (1997) also found that CF provided by teachers led to the development of learners’ writing skills. It is also noteworthy that, “many scholars and researchers agree that feedback is essential and has a positive effect on students’ writing. Thus, feedback on writing can be selected as a means of helping students to make revision and can help students improve their writing skills” (Kaweera & Usaha, 2008:85). According to Lyster and Ranta (1997), different types of CF have been identified including explicit, metalinguistic, elicitation, repetition, recast, translation, and clarification requests (see Appendix A for brief definitions and examples of CF strategies proposed by Lyster and Ranta, 1997, cited in Sauro, 2009, p. 99). According to Rezaei et al. (2011:22), “all of these techniques are placed in an explicit-implicit continuum” . Findings on Written Corrective Feedback



15

In order to further explore the issue of CF in writing development, numerous researchers have focused on the effectiveness of different types of CF in dealing with learners’ errors (e.g., Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Chandler, 2003; Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Bitchener, 2008). These studies have focused on the continuum ranging from explicit (direct) to implicit (indirect) CF. Ferris (2002: 19) defined explicit feedback as one “when an instructor provides the correct linguistic form for students (word, morpheme, phrase, rewritten sentence, deleted word[s] or morpheme[s]”. ıimplicit feedback, on the other hand, “occurs when the teacher indicates that an error has been made but leaves it to the student writer to solve the problem and correct the error”. Sheen, Wright, Moldawa (2009:567) support direct and indirect CF and their contributions to writing improvement by stating that “…CF may enhance learning by helping learners to (1) notice their errors in their written work, (2) engage in hypotheses testing in a systematic way and (3) monitor the accuracy of their writing by tapping into their existing … grammatical knowledge” . According to Ellis’s (2008) and Bitchener’s (2008) findings, explicit CF provides learners with direct information as to what has gone wrong especially if learners are not proficient enough to come up with a solution to the problem. Explicit CF has also proved to enhance the acquisition of certain grammatical structures (Sheen, 2007). As opposed to explicit CF, indirect CF does not provide learners with overt indicators to erroneous parts, nor does it provide the corrected structures; instead, some clues or hints attract their attention to the problematic areas (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). It has also been argued that explicit CF, by nature, does not involve learners in deep internal processing as it is the case in implicit CF; therefore, indirect CF is more probable to result in long-term learning than direct CF (Ferris & Roberts, 2001). Ferris (2002) argues that direct CF is more preferable over indirect CF when dealing with lower-level learners as they have not yet acquired enough grammatical knowledge to self-correct their errors. Recent studies on CF also support the positive contribution of feedback to writing improvement (e.g., Chandler, 2003; Bitchener & Knoch, 2009; Bitchener, 2008). In an earlier study, Lalande (1982) showed that indirect CF had better results than direct CF in language learning. As opposed to Lalande’s (1982) findings, Chandler (2003) investigated different types of WCF, including direct and indirect types; she concluded that, direct CF had significant effects on the improvement of learners’ writing grammar accuracy. Liang (2008) conducted an experiment with different groups of participants receiving different types of WCF as well. Results of this study showed that both direct and indirect CF helped learners to promote certain aspects of their writing. As stated by Campillo (2003), Lightbown and Spada (1990: 210) examined and “analysed the effect of explicit corrective feedback in an intensive communicative classroom. … Their results corroborated the hypothesis that the teaching of formal aspects … contribute to the learners’ linguistic accuracy”. Spada and Lightbown (1993) later conducted another study similar to their previous study demonstrating that “explicit corrective feedback increased linguistic accuracy” (Campillo, 2003,: 211). Another study was undertaken by White, Spada, Lightbown, and Ranta (1991) comparing the performance of learners who received feedback with those who didn’t receive any feedback; the groups exposed to explicit teaching and feedback showed a higher level of linguistic accuracy than the control group. Likewise, alongside with explicit CF, “implicit corrective feedback has also been widely investigated and can be implemented in different ways” (Campillo, 2003,:211). Kim and Mathes (2001) examined the effectiveness of explicit and implicit CF; their findings revealed that the both types were quite effective in diminishing the chances of error repetition in the future. In a survey conducted by Ancker (2000), it was concluded that most of the surveyed learners supported the teacher-provided CF. Nabel and Swain (2002) also investigated the degree of learners’ awareness towards CF provided by the teacher. Numerous studies (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Panova & Lyster, 2002) have revealed that recasts are the most frequently used type of CF. Lyster and Ranta (1997) also conclude that recasts are beneficial as they reduce the possibility of interruption in the flow of communication of meaning.



16

Campillo (1993: 212) also argues that, “nevertheless, not all corrective feedback techniques have been regarded as equally effective”. He also refers to some recent studies (e.g., Lyster, 1998) and states the need “to explore the effect of combinations of corrective feedback, as opposed to isolated techniques” in a way that learners “can benefit from different ways of providing corrective focus on form” (Guenette, 2007:47). In conclusion, the literature on WCF indicates some inconsistencies in the research and studies so far. Zamel (1985:84) refers to Hendrikson in the early 1980s and says that “current research tells us very little about ESL teachers’ responses to student writing. We know that teachers respond imprecisely and inconsistently to errors”. Later on, Ferris (2004: 49) emphasizes the little progress in this field and states that “we are virtually at Square One, as the existing research base is incomplete and inconsistent, and it would certainly be premature to formulate any conclusions about this topic” . The present brief survey of the related literature reveals that, as stated by Kim and Mathes (2001), Loewen (2002), and Lyster (2004), most investigation in this field have so far primarily dealt with the impact of recasts and meta-linguistic types of corrective feedback in ESL contexts. In addition, Dabaghi Varnosfadrani (2006) refers to various studies (e.g., Havranek & Cesnik, 2003; Muranoi, 2000:35) and states that not enough studies “have investigated the effectiveness of error correction in EFL contexts” . Therefore, the aim of the present study is to investigate the extent to which explicit and repetition implicit CF might be effective in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ correct use of prepositions and the following research question was proposed: Q1. Does written corrective feedback have any significant effect on increasing Iranian EFL learners’ correct use of prepositions? One of the main reasons why this study focused on prepositions is the fact that, according to Kassim and Ng (2014), “a good number of studies have focused on articles in written work and it has been suggested that examining CF efficacy on other linguistic forms could provide insights on the role of corrective feedback in language learning”. Additionally, Ferris (2006:120) regarded prepositions as ‘untreatable’ errors and idiosyncratic; thus, this study embarked upon finding whether CF is effective in improving the correct use of prepositions as there are no systematic rules on which learners can depend to correct their errors. METHOD Participants The participants of this study consisted of adult pre-intermediate EFL learners from Iran Language Institute (ILI) in Tehran aged between 16 and 24 whose mean age was 22. The reason for selecting pre-intermediate learners was that it was assumed that since they were post beginners, they were already familiar with the basics of EFL syntax. In order to make sure of the learners’ homogeneity, Key English Test (KET, 2009) developed by Cambridge University was administered prior to the treatment. Out of the subject pool, sixty participants (N=60) were randomly identified as two experimental groups and one control group. Each group consisted of twenty participants (N=20). The experimental group 1 received explicit CF, the experimental group 2 received implicit repetition CF, and the control group received placebo feedback. Instruments The participants of this study were presented with their regular course books developed by the ILI. The pre-intermediate course books at the ILI comprise of eight units and each unit is further divided into two sections and every section is covered in one session lasting for an hour and forty-five minutes. Session one covers conversation, grammar, and vocabulary. Session two covers reading, grammar, and listening. Classes are held twice weekly. The total of twenty-one sessions covers the whole term for each of the three pre-intermediate levels at the ILI. Prior to the treatment, the participants received the pre-test of prepositions. Then, they received the written treatment. At the



17

end of the treatment, the same set of tests was administered as post-test. Pre-test and post-test items were as follows: 1. Prepositions: 1.1. Seventeen independent sentences containing 28 gaps (Neylor & Murphy, 1996; Murphy, Altman, & Rutherford, 1989). 1.2. Nine independent sentences each including three possible choices (Galbarczyk & Szmerdt, 2001). 1.3. Nine independent sentences each containing a gap to be filled with appropriate prepositions (Walker & Elsworth, 2000; Murphy, Altman, & Rutherford, 1989). Procedure Prior to the treatment, the participants were presented with the pre-test to provide the researcher with a clear picture of their current level of proficiency on prepositions. Then, they were told that they were supposed to write at least one paragraph or maximum two consisting of 150 to 200 words at the beginning of each session. From the second session on, they were required to write on a topic in line with their regular course book contents provided by the researcher in the classroom. All the participants in the three groups received the same topic every session. The total of twenty writing topics was provided for the participants during the experiment. The experimental group 1 received explicit CF, i.e., the instructor indicated that an error had been made, identified the error and provided the correction, to which repetition was required by the participants as modified output. The experimental group 2 received implicit repetition CF, i.e. the instructor utilized emphatic stress by underlining the erroneous part(s), to which reformulation by the participants was required as modified output. It is noteworthy that the role of the emphatic stress was thoroughly explained to the participants as it required the participants to grammatically correct the underlined parts by adding, deleting, changing, and modifying the surrounding or within words. It was also emphasized that the underlined words had nothing to do with spelling mistakes. In order to make sure of noticing the teacher-provided CF, the participants of the experimental groups were obliged to provide their modified output as an independent piece of writing after having written on the next topic The control group received placebo feedback, i.e., “topic relevant response that does not contain the target form in the same context”, for example: “student: In Sweden the global warming is a problem. Native speaker: Many people believe it's a problem everywhere” (Sauro, 2009:104) to which no modified output was required. The teacher-provided CF for the experimental groups mainly focused on the correct use of prepositions. Other grammatical deviations were not brought to their attention. At the end of the treatment, the participants of the three groups were presented with the same sets of tests as the post-test assessing the extent to which the treatment was successful in enhancing the experimental groups’ ability over the control group’s to correctly apply prepositions. This study was conducted within the period of 10 weeks in the summer semester of 1393(2014) at the ILI in Tehran. RESULTS In order to investigate the effectiveness of the treatment in increasing the learners’ correct use of prepositions, two one-way ANOVAs were run on the scores of the pre-test and post-test, respectively. Differences among the experimental and control groups’ means were considered significant at the p=.05 level of significance. Analysis of the Results on the Pre-Test of Prepositions In order to investigate the relationship among the participants’ scores on the pre-test of prepositions prior to the treatment, a one-way ANOVA was run. The results of the one-way ANOVA showed no



18

statistically significant difference at the p=.05 level of significance for the three groups: F (2, 57) =.748, p=.478. The descriptive statistics on prepositions are shown in the following table. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on Prepositions

Groups N Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Minimum score

Maximum score

Experimental 1 (Explicit) 20 32.80 2.726 .610 28 38 Experimental 2 (Implicit) 20 32.50 2.351 .526 28 39 Control 20 33.50 2.856 .639 30 39

The differences between the groups’ mean scores on prepositions prior to the treatment are presented in the following figure.

Fig 1: Group means on prepositions With regard to the analysis of the results, it became apparent that there was no statistically significant difference among the participants of the three groups in terms of their current proficiency in the correct use prepositions prior to the treatment; therefore, their homogeneity was guaranteed. Analysis of the Results on the Post-Test of Prepositions In order to investigate the relationship among the participants’ scores on the post-test of prepositions after the treatment, another one-way ANOVA was run. The results of the one-way ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups in terms of the correct use of prepositions at the p=.05 level of significance: F (2, 57) =12.078, p = .000. The descriptive statistics on prepositions are shown in the following table. Table 2: Descriptive Statistics on Prepositions

Groups N Mean

Std. Deviation Std. Error

Minimum score

Maximum score

Experimental 1 (Explicit) 20 35.85 1.531 .342 33 39 Experimental 2 (Implicit) 20 37.35 2.084 .466 33 40 Control 20 34.25 2.291 .512 31 39



19

Additionally, to find out where the difference(s) lie regarding the mean scores of the three groups, post-hoc comparisons through the Tukey HSD tests were also carried out. The following table summarizes the results of the post-hoc tests. Table 3: Post-hoc Tests Results on Prepositions

Groups Groups

Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.

Experimental 2 (Implicit) -1.500 .631 .053 Experimental 1 (Explicit)

Control 1.600* .631 .037

Experimental 1 (Explicit) 1.500 .631 .053 Experimental 2 (Implicit)

Control 3.100* .631 .000

Experimental 1 (Explicit) -1.600* .631 .037 Control

Experimental 2 (Implicit) -3.100* .631 .000

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 3 shows that the mean differences between the experimental group 1 (M=35.85, SD=1.531) and the control group (M=34.25, SD=2.291), and the experimental group 2 (M=37.35, SD=2.084) and the control group were statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference between the experimental groups since the level of significance was .053 > .05. The differences between the groups’ mean scores on prepositions are presented in the following figure.

Fig 2: Group means on prepositions DISCUSSION Given the limited range of studies, the present study sought to expand the base by investigating the effect of different types of CF on the accuracy of the targeted linguistic error categories in learners’ pieces of writing. The results of the study revealed that both the experimental groups who had received corrective feedback, i.e., explicit and repetition implicit, significantly outperformed the control group in terms of the correct use of prepositions after the treatment. The present findings are in contrast with the claims made by Truscott (1996) regarding the ineffectiveness of teacher-provided feedback. The results also confirm the outcomes of numerous other studies supporting the



20

effectiveness of CF in helping learners to improve their accuracy (Chandler, 2003; Ellis et al., 2008; Ferris, 2006). Explicit CF showed significant results. As stated by Kassim and Ng (2014), explicitly requiring learners to correct their errors “will provide ‘rich evidence’ for the learners to be aware of the errors committed and that a more focused attention to that particular error may lead to a more enhanced learning” (p.121). In line with earlier studies (e.g., Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1996), Ellis (2010) supports the role of explicit instructions in language learning which contribute to the development of learner’s knowledge. Vyatkina’s (2010) study also indicated that explicit CF led the learners towards making more successful revision. In another study conducted by Bitchener, Young and Cameron (2005), it became apparent that providing learners with explicit CF resulted in improved accuracy in prepositions, past simple tense, and definite article. Bitchener and Knoch (2010b) revealed clear evidence of the greater effectiveness of explicit forms of written CF. Additionally, Sheen, Wright, and Moldawa (2009) corroborated the superiority of explicit CF in increasing the accuracy of learners’ writing. Furthermore, Sampson’s (2012) study revealed that implicit CF is effective in increasing the cognitive engagement and social interaction. Erel and Bulut (2007) also showed that employing implicit CF resulted in making fewer errors. Lalande (1982) explained that indirect feedback requires learners to engage in guided learning and problem solving and; therefore, promotes the type of reflection that is more likely to foster long-term acquisition. But as SLA researchers of language production have found, learners must first ‘notice’ (Schmidt, 1990) that an error has been made. Once the error has been noted, indirect feedback has the potential to push learners to engage in hypothesis testing—a process which Ferris (2002) has suggested that may induce deeper internal processing and promote the internalization of correct forms and structures. Ellis (2006) also found that implicit CF is effective in terms of L2 acquisition. Researchers have also investigated the issue of efficacy in terms of both direct and indirect feedback. As stated earlier, direct feedback provides learners with the correct structures whereas indirect feedback informs learners of the errors without providing the correct form. Storch and Wigglesworth (2010a) maintain that indirect CF may be more effective than direct CF in facilitating learners’ uptake and retention of linguistic structures. According to Ferris and Roberts (2001), direct CF is appropriate for learners with lower proficiency levels and it is unlikely to lead to long term acquisition. It is also suggested that indirect CF is more likely to help learners to improve their structural accuracy due to deeper processing of the CF (e.g., Ferris, 2006; Lalande, 1982). CONCLUSION In this study, the impact of written corrective feedback on increasing the correct use of prepositions was investigated. On the basis of the results, it became evident that explicit and implicit CF was effective in increasing the correct use of prepositions. As stated by Ellis (2008:355), “the effectiveness of direct and indirect feedback is likely to depend on the current state of the learners’ grammatical knowledge”. Therefore, in order to benefit from the most suitable forms of corrective feedback based on learners’ grammatical competence, researchers have long since sought to provide evidence and plausible answers to the questions proposed by Hendrickson (1978) but so far, have not been successful in drawing a clear picture of different aspects of CF. These five questions on CF have been the basis for most of the ongoing studies in this field. According to Hendrickson (1978:389), CF generally should aim at answering the following questions: “1. Should learner errors be corrected? 2. If so, when should learner errors be corrected? 3. Which learner errors should be corrected? 4. How should learner errors be corrected?



21

5. Who should correct learner errors?”. The findings of the present study also provide further implications as to the positive contributions of written CF to second and foreign language learning. In conclusion, it is believed that the findings of this study are motivating since the way teachers react to learners’ language production errors play a vital role in their future learning. Interested researchers are also encouraged to experiment on different aspects of the language using various or combinations of feedback techniques as there is still plenty of room for further research in this field. BIODATA AND CONTACT ADDRESS OF THE AUTHOR

Seyed Behrooz Hosseini has an M.A. in TEFL from IAU South Tehran Branch. He also holds a B.Sc. in software engineering. He has published numerous scholarly articles on language learning and teaching in international journals. He has been teaching English as a foreign language in Iran for many years. His main areas of research interest include CMC, CALL, e-learning, and the related fields.

Seyed Behrooz Hosseini IAU South Tehran Branch- IRAN E. Mail: [email protected] REFERENCES Adams, A. (1962). Where is THE? Some Contrastive Pattern Practices Language Learning, 12(1), 57-67. Ancker, W. (2000). Errors and corrective feedback: updated theory and classroom practice. Forum, 38 (4), 20–28. Retrieved June 21, 2007 from http://exchanges.state.gov/forum/vols/vol38/no4/p20.htm Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–258. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102–118. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204–211. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010b). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207– 217.



22

Campillo, P. S. (2003). An Analysis of Implicit and Explicit Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy. Journal of English and American Studies, 27, 209–228. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dabaghi, V. A. (2006). A Comparison of the Effects of Implicit/Explicit and Immediate/Delayed Corrective Feedback on Learners’ Performance in Tailor-Made Tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auckland University, New Zealand. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. In K. Bardovi-Harlig & Z. Dornyei (Eds.), Themes in SLA Research (AILA Review 19, pp. 18-41). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. Ellis, R. (2010). Does explicit grammar instruction work? National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics, 2, 3-22. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in English as a foreign language context. System, 36(3), 353–371. Erel. S., Bulut, D. (2007). Error Treatment in L2 Writing: A Comparative Study of Direct and Indirect Coded Feedback in Turkish EFL Context. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi Sayı, 22, 397–415. Faghih, E., & Hosseini, S. B. (2012, January). Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Correct Use of Definite/Indefinite Articles. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 9(1), 21–36. Fathman, A., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fazio, L. (2001). The effect of corrections and commentaries on the journal writing accuracy of minority- and majority- language students. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 235-249.

Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. Ferris, D. R. (2002). Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime . . . ?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 84-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



23

Ferris, D. R (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA: Intersections and practical application. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Roberts, B. J., & McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. In Colloquium presented at International TESOL Convention, Vancouver, B.C., 14–18. Furnborough, C., & Truman, M. (2009). Adult beginner distance language learner perceptions and use of assignment feedback. Distance Education, 30, 399-418. Galbarczyk, M., & Szmerdt, D. (2001). Opportunities: Elementary. London: Longman. Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Guenette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(1), 40–53. Havranek, G., & Cesnik, H. (2003). Factors affecting the success of corrective feedback. In S. Foster-Cohen & A. Nizegorodzew (Eds.), EUROSLA Yearbook, 1, 99-122. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. Modern Language Journal, 80, 287–308. Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387–398. Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. In K. Croft (Ed.) Readings on English as a second language (pp. 153–173). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop. Hosseini, S. B. (2012, October). Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback and the Correct Use of Prepositions: Is It Really Effective? Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 13(4), 95–111. Hosseini, S. B. (2013, January). The Impact of Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Corrective Feedback in Increasing Iranian EFL Learners’ Correct Use of Present Tenses. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their Implications, 13(1), 138–153. Kassim, A., & Ng, L. L. (2014). Investigating the Efficacy of Focused and Unfocused Corrective Feedback on the Accurate Use of Prepositions in Written Work. English Language Teaching, 7(2), 119-130. Kaweera, C., & Usaha, S. (2008). The Impact of Different Types of Teacher Written Feedback on EFL University Students’ Writing. KKU Res J (GS), 8(2), 83– 94. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. Kim, H-R., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit feedback. The Korean TESOL Journal, 4(1), 57–72. Retrieved June 21, 2007, from http://www.kotesol.org/files/u1/KTJ2001.zip



24

Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: An experiment. The Modern Language Journal,

66(2), 140–149. Lee, L. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing. System, 25(4), 465–477. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24(3), 203–218. Liang, Y. (2008). The effects of error feedback in second language writing. Second Language Acquisition and Teaching, 15, 65–79. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus on form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429–448. Loewen, S. (2002). Attention to Grammar in Incidental Focus on Form. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University, New Zealand. Lu, Y. (2010). The value of direct and indirect written corrective feedback for intermediate ESL students. Unpublished Dissertation, Auckland University of Technology. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity on L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(1), 51–81. Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26(3), 399-432. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37–66. Master, P. (1995). Consciousness raising and article pedagogy. In D. Belcher, & G. Braine (Eds.), Academic writing in a second language: Essays on research and pedagogy. Ablex Publishing Corporation: Norwood, NJ. Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50(4), 617-673. Murphy, R., Altman, R., & Rutherford, W. E. (1989). Grammar in Use: Reference and Practice for Intermediate Students of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nabel, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: A case study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11(1), 43–63. Neylor, H., & Murphy, R. (1996). Essential Grammar in Use Supplementary Exercises. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4), 573–595. Rezaei, S., Mozaffari, F., & Hatef, A. (2011, March). Corrective Feedback in SLA: Classroom Practice and Future Directions. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1), 21–29.



25

Roper, W. J. (1977). Feedback in computer assisted instruction. Programmed Learning and Educational Technology, 14(1), 43–49. Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. D. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing Research on Language Learning And Teaching (pp. 133–164). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sampson, A. (2012). Coded and uncoded error feedback: Effects on error frequencies in adult Colombian EFL learners' writing. System, 40, 494-504. Sauro, S. (2009, February). Computer-mediated corrective feedback and the development of L2 Grammar. Language Learning and Technology, 13(1), 96–120. Retrieved April, 19, 2010, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol13num1/sauro.pdf Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–158. Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R, Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 1–63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language acquisition (pp. 3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. Sheen, Y. (2010b). Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 203–234. Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556–569. Soori, A., & Abd. Samad. A. (2011). The Efficacy of Immediate and Delayed Corrective Feedback in the Correct Use of English Definite and Indefinite Articles. Journal of American Science, 7(4), 349–354. Spada, N., & Lightbown, P.M. (1993). Instruction and the development of questions in L2 classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 205–224. Storch, N. & Wigglesworth, G. (2010a). Learners’ processing, uptake and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Case studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 1-32. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. Vince, M., & Emmerson, P. (2003). Language Practice: First Certificate with Key. London: Macmillan. Vyatkina, N. (2010). The Effectiveness of Written Corrective Feedback in Teaching Beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 671-689. Walker, E., & Elsworth, S. (2000). Grammar Practice for Elementary Students. London: Longman. White, L., Spada, N., Lightbown, P. M., Ranta, L. (1991). Input enhancement and L2 question formation. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 416–432.



26

Yates, R., Kenkel, J. (2002). Responding to sentence-level errors in writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 29–47. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79–101. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222. Appendix A Characteristics of Lyster & Ranta's (1997) categories of corrective feedback



27

Documents

International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their ...ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/wceis_2017.4._complete.pdf · Vidyasagar College Devi Ahilya University Indore (MP-