2013
DOI: 10.5539/elt.v6n8p85
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Corrective Feedback (CF) and English-Major EFL Learners’ Ability in Grammatical Error Detection and Correction

Abstract: Corrective feedback (CF), the implicit or explicit information learners receive indicating a gap between their current, compared to the desired, performance, has been an area of interest for EFL researchers during the last few decades. This study, conducted on 139 English-major prospective EFL teachers, assessed the impact of two CF types (implicit vs. explicit) on students' ability to detect and correct some "common" grammatical errors (definite and indefinite article, subject-verb agreement, prepositions, sp… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the impact on their overall language skills may not be long-lasting, offering CF on every writing assignment and encouraging students to make the necessary corrections cultivates a habit of selfcorrection that will benefit their L2 proficiency in the long run. Also, the findings are congruent with a significant number of studies (Grami, 2005;Sampson, 2012;Asassfeh, 2013;Al Wossabi, 2019). Furthermore, if each instructor develops a strategy for providing feedback that meets their needs, this study could have pedagogical value for teachers and students (Straub, 1997).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Although the impact on their overall language skills may not be long-lasting, offering CF on every writing assignment and encouraging students to make the necessary corrections cultivates a habit of selfcorrection that will benefit their L2 proficiency in the long run. Also, the findings are congruent with a significant number of studies (Grami, 2005;Sampson, 2012;Asassfeh, 2013;Al Wossabi, 2019). Furthermore, if each instructor develops a strategy for providing feedback that meets their needs, this study could have pedagogical value for teachers and students (Straub, 1997).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Ji (2015) clarifies that regardless of any type of error corrections made or feedback given by educators to learners, its significance must be considered as it guides students' attention to language form. Previous researchers have conducted studies on some aspects pertaining to error feedback in students' writing (Fathman & Walley, 1990;Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994;Assassfeh, 2013). In general, the most common corrective feedback (CF, henceforth) can be categorized into two: direct feedback and indirect feedback (Walz, 1982;Bates, Lane & Lange, 1993;Ferris & Hedgcock, 1998;Eslami, 2014).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…is evidence emerges from the growing body of literature that has looked into the error responsiveness of a narrow number of linguistic features, namely one (e.g., Bitchener, 2008), two (e.g., Ahmadi, Maoon & Mehrdad, 2012), three (e.g., Bitchener, Young & Cameron, 2005), or five (e.g., Asassfeh, 2013). Other studies that include in their design a comparison between highly selective CF and mid selective CF have also contributed to the research base of selective CF (e.g., Farrokhi & Sattarpour, 2012).…”
Section: Merits Of a High-mid Selective Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%