The Effects of Feedback Types on Learners’ Recognition of Lexical Collocations

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of three types of feedback on Iranian EFL learners' recognition of lexical collocations. 78 pre-intermediate students from among 90 were selected to participate in this study. A KET (Key English Test) was used in order to homogenize them. A teacher-made pre-test including all 150 target lexical collocations was used to make sure that the students did not know the target lexical collocations beforehand. Then the participants were divided into three experimental groups. All groups received the same instruction during 10 sessions of treatment. However, they received different types of feedback. Each session, the teacher gave a handout including 15 English sentences to each student. There was one lexical collocation in each sentence which was written in parentheses.Students were asked to write 15 collocations within twenty minutes and then submit the paper to the teacher. Then the teacher underlined the errors and gave them back to the students. Students in group A received direct feedback from the teacher. Students in group B received indirect feedback and the last group received peer feedback on their collocational errors. At the end of the treatment, 30 multiple-choice items were used to test students' recognition of lexical collocations. The result of One-Way ANOVA procedure revealed that the group that received indirect feedback had the best performance, followed closely by the group that received peer feedback. Students in direct feedback group had the lowest performance. The findings suggest that different types of feedback have different effects on EFL learners' recognition of lexical collocations.

The Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Written Corrective Feedback on English Collocation Competency: A Quasi – Experiment

“…The findings summarise group differences in both post-tests and indicates that direct WCF group performed better than indirect WCF group. This finding refutes a finding by Zarei and Mousavi (2016) that indirect WCF group outperformed the direct WCF group. it is noteworthy that while Zarei and Mousavi (2016) investigated the effect on EFL learners, this study however focused on ESL learners.…”

“…This finding refutes a finding by Zarei and Mousavi (2016) that indirect WCF group outperformed the direct WCF group. it is noteworthy that while Zarei and Mousavi (2016) investigated the effect on EFL learners, this study however focused on ESL learners. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between indirect WCF group and the control group in all post-tests.…”

“…Thus, this study is geared towards addressing the existing gap, tapping into the grey areas. The findings of this study, along with others by Zarei and Mousavi (2016) and Jafarpour and Sharifi (2012) serve as a statistical evidence in supporting or rejecting the use of WCF as part of strategies in aiding ESL learners" collocational competence especially the high-performing ones.…”

“…al., 2008;Sheen, et. al., 2009;Truscott and Hsu, 2008) and collocational competency (Zarei & Mousavi, 2016;Jafarpour & Sharifi, 2012;Wang & Jiang, 2015b). The results of the analysis presented in previous section show that there was a significant interaction between time and the treatments.…”

“…There are several studies in the literature that discuss about the effect of WCF on learners" competency of English collocation. A study by Zarei and Mousavi (2016) investigated the effects of three types of feedback on collocational competency of EFL learners. Seventy-eight intermediate students were randomly assigned to three groups that received indirect WCF, direct WCF, and peer feedback.…”