خط مشی دسترسیدرباره ما
ثبت نامثبت نام
راهنماراهنما
فارسی
ورودورود
صفحه اصلیصفحه اصلی
جستجوی مدارک
تمام متن
منابع دیجیتالی
رکورد قبلیرکورد بعدی
Record identifier : 564855
Personal Name - Primary Intelectual Responsibility : Hajian, Ramin
Title and statement of responsibility : On the Effect of Focused Written Corrective Feedback on Acquisition of Articles [Thesis]/حاجیان، رامین;supervisor: Sasan Baleghizadeh;advisor: Mehdi Nowruzi Khiabani
Publication, Distribution,Etc. : , 2010
Language of the Item : eng
Internal Bibliographies/Indexes Note : Bibliography
Dissertation of thesis details and type of degree : Master of Arts
Discipline of degree : , Teaching English as a Foreign Language
Body granting the degree : , Allameh Tabataba'i University Faculty of Persian Literature and Foreign Languages
Summary or Abstract : هدف تحقیق: تاثیر بازخورد تصحیحی از طریق نگارش بر یادگیری حروف تعریف زبان انگلیسی است. یافته های تحقیق: نشان داد که بازخورد تصحیحی متمرکز زبانی موثرتر از بازخورد تصحیحی متمرکز فرازبانی بر تولید حروف تعریف زبان انگلیسی در بین زبان آموزان ایرانی است
: Corrective feedback has recently gained prominence in studies of ESL, EFL and other second language education contexts. It is partially due to Truscott's (1996) review of written corrective feedback (CF) studies and his controversial conclusion that written CF is ineffective and even harmful in promoting L2 acquisition. This led many researchers to investigate the issue of written corrective feedback in language learning and teaching. The study reported in this thesis set out to provide evidence that CF is effective in an EFL context. Using a pretest-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design, it compared the effects of focused direct only and direct metalinguistic written corrective feedback on the accuracy with which Iranian intermediate language learners used English indefinite and definite articles in written narratives. 57 students at the intermediate level of language proficiency at Aryanpour Language School were randomly assigned to three groups namely, direct linguistic only (G1), direct metalinguistic (G2), and control (G3). Then, all the participants were given recognition and production pretests developed by the researcher on articles and the uses formerly mentioned to ensure that the participants did not have a prior knowledge of them. In the next step, each group was treated based on its own specific methodology. After the treatment, different but parallel immediate recognition and production posttests were given to the participants in order to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. The last step was the repetition of the same recognition and production pretests as the delayed recognition and production posttests after a 3-week time interval to examine the effectiveness of the correction approaches in long term. Six separate one-way ANOVAs were employed to compare the mean scores of the three groups on the recognition and production pretests, the immediate recognition and production posttests, and the delayed recognition and production post-tests. Finally, these analyses were followed by post-hoc Scheffe tests to pinpoint the differences between the groups. The results of this study showed that the direct linguistic feedback group outperformed the control group just in the immediate and delayed production posttests. In addition, there was no significant difference between the types of feedback (i.e. direct only and direct metalinguistic) in neither the immediate recognition and production posttests nor the delayed recognition and production posttests. The results of this study have implications for language teachers, materials developers, and teacher trainers..
Topical Name Used as Subject : Corrective feedback
: Focused corrective feedback
: Direct corrective feedback
Information of biblio record : TL
 
 
 
(در صورت عدم وضوح تصویر اینجا را کلیک نمایید)