دقت دستوری و نگارش در زبان دوم: مقایسۀ تاثیر انواع مختلف بازخورد تصحیحی الکترونیکی

مطالعۀ پیش رو به بررسی تاثیر بازخورد تصحیحی دستوری بر درستی دستوری نگارش زبان آموزان می پردازد. در این مطالعه انواع مختلف بازخورد تصحیحی با یکدیگر مقایسه شده اند تا به برتری احتمالی یکی از روش ها بر دیگری در زمینۀ ایجاد پیشرفت در درستی دستور زبان در نگارشزبان آموزان پی برده شود. به این منظور، 85 دانشجوی مقطع کارشناسی گرایش های مختلف زبان انگلیسی انتخاب و به صورت تصادفی به چهار گروه تقسیم شدند. نحوۀ ارائۀ بازخورد برای هر یک از گروه ها بدین صورت بود: گروه اول بازخورد مستقیم و گروه دوم بازخورد غیرمستقیم به صورت مشخص کردن خطی از متن که در آن اشتباه وجود داشت (بازخورد »تنها وجود اشتباه « ) دریافت کردند. نحوۀ بازخورد برای گروه سوم به صورت مشخص کردن مکان و کلمۀ دقیق اشتباه (بازخورد »وجود اشتباه و مکان اشتباه « ) بود. از گروه چهارم نیز به عنوان گروه کنترل استفاده شد. نتبجۀ به دست آمده حاکی از این بود که اگر چه تمامی سه شکل بازخورد فراهم شده در این تحقیق در بهبود درستی دستور زبانی نگارش زبان آموزان موثر بوده اند، اما تنها بازخورد مستقیم بود که از نظر آماری به پیشرفتی بارز در پس آزمون نگارش منجر شد و تفاوت مشهودی در میان سایر گروه ها دیده نشد.

Grammatical Accuracy in L2 Writing: Comparing Different Types of Electronic Corrective Feedback

Introduction The usefulness of error correction in improving students rsquo; grammatical accuracy has been the focus of attention in the past decades, and hot debates have raged on over this issue. There is yet no clear answer, to date, as to the efficacy of feedback and its various types. The aim of this study is, thus, to shed more light on the relative effectiveness of feedback per se and also the efficiency of some types of grammatical feedback, delivered electronically through MS Word software, over the others in improving students rsquo; written accuracy. Research questions Is there any effect, whatsoever, for different types of feedback (i.e. direct, indication only indication plus location) when delivered electronically in improving students rsquo; level of grammatical accuracy?Is there any priority for each of the above feedback types over the others? Method Participants The participants of this study included 85 Iranian English majors. Of the total participants, 53 were female and 32 were male. The number of females and males were 15 and 11, 13 and 6, 12 and 8 and, 13 and 7 for control group, direct feedback group, indication group and indication and location group respectively.Design and procedureThis study employed a pretesttreatmentposttest format. Of the four groups involved in the study, three were treatment groups and one was the control group. In the first treatment group, direct feedback group, the correct form of the students rsquo; grammatical errors was provided. The two other treatment groups were, however, both provided with indirect feedback. In one of them, the indicationonly group, the students were provided with an indication in the margin of the line in which the error was committed to show that an error or errors have occurred. The indication and location group was provided with feedback as to the exact word or phrase in the text that included a grammatical error.AnalysisTo answer the first research question (i.e. its three subquestions), three paired sample Ttest were used. The second research question (i.e. its three subquestions) was answered using oneway ANOVA.ResultsSignificant difference was found between the pretest and the posttest of the direct feedback group in the mean rate of errors (t=3.475; p lsaquo;.05). It means that the provision of direct written corrective feedback has been effective in improving students rsquo; level of accuracy to a statistically significant level. However, the second group of the study, the indication only group, did not show any significant improvement in accuracy from the pretest to the posttest (t=1.627; p rsaquo;.05). No significant improvement in grammatical accuracy was also observed for the indication and location group.The primary result of the analysis indicated that there was a significant difference between the four groups with respect to their improvement from the pretest to the posttest (F=6.771; p lsaquo;.001). To further investigate the details of this comparison Tukey rsquo;s post hoc measure was used. Tukey rsquo;s index indicated that there were significant differences between direct feedback group on the one hand and control group (p lsaquo;.001), indication only group (p lsaquo;.05) and indication and location group (p lsaquo;.05). It was, in fact, the direct corrective feedback group whose improvement in accuracy was statistically significantly higher than the other groups. No other significant difference was found between other pairs of the groups with respect to accuracy improvement. ConclusionAn explanation for the findings of the first question can be offered with regard to Schmidt (1990) noticing hypothesis. Among the three types of feedback offered to the groups of the study, direct feedback is apparently the most noticeable. This characteristic may lend this type of feedback to longer retention and quicker internalization. Comparison of the means of improvement for the three treatment groups clearly indicates that the direct group made the most substantial improvement of all. The second substantial improvement is made by indication and location group and the lowest improvement was made by the indication only group. This ranking of improvement is in other words a ranking of noticeability of feedback, and although not consistent with many parts of the literature, is totally consistent with some others especially Schmidt rsquo;s noticing hypothesis. The findings of the second research question can also be interpreted and justified in light of the noticing hypothesis. This point that the direct feedback turned out to make a significant difference and is significantly different from other types of feedback can be justified in light of the fact that the participants of this study were roughly (and not definitely) of the intermediate level of proficiency. For these students, getting involved in problem solving (as the indirect types of feedback requires) while at the same time involved in the quite demanding task of following the ideas might be rather overdemanding, hence distracting their attention. Also, there are many grammatical points which are yet totally unknown to intermediate students and therefore any involvement in problem solving will lead nowhere, no matter how much effort the student makes. This point is also well recognized by Ferris and Roberts (2001) who suggest that direct feedback is perhaps more efficient than indirect corrective feedback with writers of low levels of proficiency.