VOlUME 06 ISSUE 08 AUGUST 2023
1Aliakbar Tajik, PhD Candidate, 2Neda Hedayat, Assistant Professor, 3Neda Gharagozloo, Assistant Professor
1,2Department of English Translation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran
3Department of English Translation, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Islamic Azad University,
Varamin-Pishva Branch, Varamin, Iran
DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i8-59Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of interactive metalinguistic feedback (IMF) on the Iranian middle school students’ ability in argumentative writing. In order to fulfill this purpose, a mixed method design was adopted. The participants of this study were selected based on multi-stage sampling procedure in which, first 5 middle school were selected among the 35 existing high schools in Varamin and then 6 classes were selected from these schools randomly. Finally, 40 EFL students were sampled from the classes as the main participants of this study. In order to collect the required data, two sets of instruments were employed. To collect the quantitative data, a proficiency test, a researcher made writing test, and a self-assessment questionnaire were utilized. In the quantitative phase of the study, before the starting of the treatment, the participants were divided into two groups i.e., Interactive Metalinguistic Feedback Group (IMFG) and Control Group (CG) which were give the writing test as pre-test to ensure the homogeneity of them in terms of initial writing ability. Then, a 12-session treatment was offered to examine the effect of the intervention. At the end of the treatment sessions, a post test of writing was given to the participants to determine the effectiveness of treatment. Furthermore, a self-assessment questionnaire was also administered to collect data on the students’ attitudes toward the integration of IMF in the learning process. For the purpose of gathering the qualitative data as the complimentary to the quantitative results, an interview accompanied by an observation was also conducted after the treatment. The findings of this study suggested that integration of IMF had significant impact on the development of argumentative writing ability among the EFL students. It was also found that the Iranian EFL students showed positive tendencies and attitudes toward the using IMF as a teaching procedure in the classroom. They also believed that IMF could potentially provide an opportunity for effective scaffolding; situated learning, meaning construction, social learning, and dialogic interaction.
KEYWORDS:EFL students, argumentative writing, feedback, metalinguistic, interactive, mixed method
REFERENCES1) Abadikhah, S., & Ashoori, A. (2012). The Effect of Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners' Performance after Collaborative Output. Journal of Language Teaching & Research, 3(1). 34-62,
2) Abeer, A. G., & Al-Zoubi, S. M. (2018). How to Develop Writing Skill through Constructivist Design Model? International Journal of Business and Social Science, 9(5).
3) Anderson, T. (2010). The effects of tiered corrective feedback on second language academic writing (Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia).
4) Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and when second‐language learners revise when responding to timed writing tasks on the computer: The roles of task type, second language proficiency, and keyboarding skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320-340.
5) Barkaoui, K. (2016). What and When Second‐Language Learners Revise When Responding to Timed Writing Tasks on the Computer: The Roles of Task Type, Second Language Proficiency, and Keyboarding Skills. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 320-340. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12316
6) Benjamin Loo, D. (2020). Is Language Awareness Supported by Grammar Lessons, Indirect and Metalinguistic Feedback? An Examination of Graduate Students’ Writing Across Drafts. REFLections, 27(1), 1-21. Retrieved from https://so05.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/reflections/article/view/241698
7) Bialystok, E. (1987). Influences of bilingualism on metalinguistic development. Second Language Research, 3(2), 154–166.
8) Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644.
9) Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010a). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten-month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31, 193-214.
10) Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2015). Written corrective feedback for SLA: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. London: Multilingual Matters.
11) Ebadi, E. (2014). The effect of focused meta-linguistic written corrective feedback on Iranian EFL Learners’ essay writing ability. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(4), 878-883.
12) Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
13) Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition 2nd Edition-Oxford Applied Linguistics. Oxford University Press.
14) Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in second language acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.
15) 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(1), 49-62
16) Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: Teacher perspectives. Tesol Quarterly, 45(2), 207-234.
17) Ferris, T. & Roberts, R. (2001). Response to Student Writing. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
18) Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd ed.). London: Arnold.
19) Harley, B. (1989). Functional grammar in French immersion: A classroom experiment. Applied Linguistics, 10, 331-59.
20) Hashemian, M., & Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of metalinguistic feedback on grammatical accuracy of Iranian field (in) dependent L2 learners’ writing ability. Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161.
21) Hashemian, M., Farhang-Ju, M. (2018). Effects of Metalinguistic Feedback on Grammatical Accuracy of Iranian Field (In)dependent L2 Learners’ Writing Ability. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 141-161. doi: 10.22055/rals.2018.13797
22) Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 77-95
23) Ismail, S. A. A. (2011). Exploring Students' Perceptions of ESL Writing. English Language Teaching, 4(2), 73-83.
24) Kawulich, B. (2012). Collecting data through observation. Doing social research: A global context, 150-160.
25) Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of writing research, 1(1).
26) Khatib, M., & Mirzaii, M. (2016). Enhancing Iranian EFL learners’ descriptive writing skill through genre-based instruction and metalinguistic feedback. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 39-68.
27) Khatib, M., & Mirzaii, M. (2016). Enhancing Iranian EFL learners’ descriptive writing skill through genre-based instruction and metalinguistic feedback. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 35(2), 39-68.
28) Krashen, S.D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications, New York: Longman
29) Lee Krause, K. & O’Brien, D. (199). A Sociolinguistic Study of the Argumentative Writing of Chinese. Education Journal, 27, (2), 44-66.
30) Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.
31) Mary G. & Rod E. (2019). The relative effects of metalinguistic explanation and direct written corrective feedback on children’s grammatical accuracy in new writing. Language Teaching for Young Learners 1(1), 57-81
32) Mitchell R. and Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories., 2 nd ed. London: Arnold.
33) Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2015). Conceptualizing metalinguistic understanding in writing/Conceptualización de la competencia metalingüística en la escritura. Cultura y Educación, 27(4), 839-867.
34) Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9, 34-51.
35) Nystrand, M. & Graff, N. (2000). Report in Argument’s Clothing: An Ecological Perspective on Writing Instruction, National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, Report Series, University at Albany, School of Education, B-91400 Washington Avenue, Albany,1-20.
36) Olive, T., Kellogg, R. &Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669-687.
37) Olive,T., Kellogg, R. &Piolat, A. (2008). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory demands during text composition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 669–687.
38) Pourdana, N., Nour, P. & Yousefi, F. Investigating metalinguistic written corrective feedback focused on EFL learners’ discourse markers accuracy in mobile-mediated context. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 6, 7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00111-8
39) Rashidi, N. &Dastkhezr, Z. (2009). A composition of English and Persian organizational patterns in the argumentative writing of Iran EFL students, JoLIE, 2(1),131-151.
40) Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The Modern Language Journal, 98(1), 417-431.
41) Rex, L. A., Thomas, E. E., & Engel, S. (2010). Applying Toulmin: Teaching Logical Reasoning and Argumentative Writing.English Journal, 99, (6), 56–62.
42) Saadi, Z. & Saadat, M. (2015). EFL learners’ writing accuracy: Effects of direct and metalinguistic electronic feedback. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5 (10), pp. 2053-2063. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0510.11.
43) Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an Empirical Model of EFL Writing Processes: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (3), 259 - 291
44) Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning.Applied Linguistics. 11 (2), 129–158. doi:10.1093/applin/11.2.129. S2CID 16247450.
45) Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255-83
46) Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110.
47) Solhi Andarab. M. (2019). The Effect of Spatial Intelligence-based Metalinguistic Written Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Development in Writing. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 8 (1), 34-51
48) Suzuki, M. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in adult ESL classrooms. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 1-19.
49) Truscott, J. (2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337- 343.
50) Vengadasamy, R. (2002). Responding to student writing: Motivate, not criticise. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 2(1), 21-30.
51) Vyatkina, N. (2011). Writing instruction and policies for written corrective feedback in the basic language sequence. Second Language Journal, 3(1), 63-92.
52) Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53) Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978.
54) Wang, C. (2013). A study of genre approach in EFL writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 2128-2135.
55) Wang, P. (2013). Constructivism and learner autonomy in foreign language teaching and learning: To what extent does theory inform practice. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(3), 273-277.
56) Williams, J. (2012). The potential role (s) of writing in second language development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 321-331.