چکیده:
Takestan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan, Iran The effect of error feedback on the accuracy of output task types such as editing task, text reconstruction task, picture cued writing task, and dictogloss task, has not been clearly explored. Following arguments concerning that the combination of both corrective feedback and output makes it difficult to determine whether their effects were in combination or alone, the purpose of the present study is to document the role of teachers’ feedback in improving the accuracy of linguistic form in output tasks and in acquiring target form. To this end, this study compared three groups of Iranian intermediate learners (N= 93), one with direct grammar feedback, the other one with indirect grammar feedback and the last one with no grammar feedback. In terms of the target form uptake from first to subsequent text reconstruction tasks, the analysis of the data obtained within ten treatment sessions indicated that the participants, who received written corrective feedback compared to those who did not, progressed significantly from the first to the subsequent output tasks. In terms of learning, the learners who had the opportunities for receiving feedback performed significantly better than those in non- feedback condition on the production and recognition post- tests although explicit feedback rather than implicit feedback led to greater learning of target form on the production test, but no1 Corresponding Author. Email: mohammadhassannejad@yahoo.com significant differences were found in relative efficacy of the two written corrective feedback types as far as the result of the recognition test was concerned.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Among many methods and strategies like input, enhanced input (Han, Park & Combs, 2008; Jensen & Vinther, 2003; Spada, Lightbrown & Rawnta, 1992) interaction enhancement, (Mackey, 2006; Muranoi, 2000), task repetition (Gass & Mackey, 1999) and processing instruction (VanPatten, 2002) which were designed in order to catch learners' attention to form, the impact of output in second language acquisition has also been considered recently.
In other words, by advent of a theory that emphasized the important role of focusing on the target form in language learning, researchers gave their attention to written corrective feedback more than before (Yoshida, 2008).
Negative feedback, which may take place with varying degrees of explicitness or implicitness, may draw learners’ attention to the language forms they have produced and help them to notice the gaps in their L2 knowledge or to become aware of specific linguistic forms in the subsequent input (Izumi & Bigelow, 2000; Gass, 1997, 2003; Long; Pica, 1994; Schmidt, 1995, 2001; Swain & Lapkin, 1995).
Results of production test scores on the explicit, implicit, and no correction To address the second research question concerning the effect of written corrective feedback (explicit VS implicit), on the learning of target form, a one – way ANOVA test performed on pre – test scores revealed no significant differences among the groups, F (2, 92) = .
Results of recognition test scores on the explicit, implicit, and no correction To address the second research question concerning the effect of written corrective feedback (explicit VS implicit), on the learning of target form, a one – way ANOVA test on recognition pre – test scores revealed no significant differences among the groups, (F (2, 92) = .