Abstract:
This study aimed at comparing the impact of two types of teacher feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability and their verb tense consistency in L2 writing. Following the administration of a standardized language proficiency test (Preliminary English Test), sixty-two participants were selected and were randomly assigned to the control (direct-only correction) and experimental (direct metalinguistic correction) groups. The comparison of the groups on the pre-test observation confirmed the homogeneity of the subjects before the instruction. During the study, the control group (direct-only correction) received some feedback on the location of errors along with the correct form of errors. The experimental group (direct metalinguistic correction), however, received the same type of feedback plus metalinguistic comments explaining the reason behind the errors. After the treatment, both groups took a post and a delayed post-test. The results of the study showed that direct metalinguistic correction was more effective than direct-only correction in improving EFL learners’ writing ability. The study also showed that the effect of instruction lasted over time.
Machine summary:
The Comparative Effect of Direct-only Correction and Direct Metalinguistic Correction on the Improvement of EFL Learners’ Writing Ability Roxana Aminzadeh* Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch Hossein Alinezhad Islamic Azad University, Tehran North Branch Received: November 20, 2011 Accepted: February 2, 2012 This study aimed at comparing the impact of two types of teacher feedback on Iranian EFL learners’ writing ability and their verb tense consistency in L2 writing.
Interestingly, research in ESL writing has shown that learners value and prefer teachers who provide feedback in their classes (Ferris, 1995; Nelson & Carson, 1998).
In fact after Truscott’s (1996) claims about the ineffectiveness of error correction, substantial amount of studies focused on the effect of CF on students’ performance (Bitchener, Young, & Cameron, 2005; Liu, 2008; Tennant, 2001).
50 assumed In the next phase, the scores of the students on the writing pre-test were analysed to ascertain that the participants of the two groups had no significant difference in terms of their writing ability and ability of tense consistency before the treatment.
7. Descriptive Statistics of the Tense Consistency Pre-test Group N Mean SD Skewness Standard Error of The Significant Skewness Value Control 31 12.
Descriptive Statistics on Post-test Tense Consistency Group N Mean SD Skewness Standard Error of The Significant Skewness Value Control 31 12.
05, two-tailed] showed that there was a significant difference between the means of two groups on the writing delayed post-test (Table 16).