Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 Department of English, Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bonab, Iran

2 Department of English, Bonab Branch, Islamic Azad University, Boukan, Iran

Abstract

This study explored the effect of timing of feedback (i.e., immediate vs. delayed) and learners’ age (adolescent vs. adult) on the development of English regular past tense structure. Two intermediate classes of adolescent and adult learners were selected as the participants. Participants were asked to carry out two narrative tasks which set the context for the provision of corrective feedback. The selected target structure was the regular past tense –ed feature. The untimed grammaticality judgment test was used to measure explicit knowledge development and elicited imitation test was employed for the measurement of implicit learning. These tests were administered at the beginning of the study as pre-test, immediately after the provision of immediate feedback and again immediately after the provision of delayed corrective feedback. The results demonstrated that whereas both adolescent and adult learners improved their implicit knowledge after the delayed feedback, explicit knowledge was improved in adult learners after both immediate and delayed feedback but in delayed feedback in adolescent learners. The implications of the findings are discussed in light of theories of second language acquisition.

Highlights

Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006).Top Notch 2 with active book (2nd Edition).New York: Pearson Education ESL.

 

Keywords

Akakura, M. (2012).Evaluating the effectiveness of explicit instruction on implicit and explicit L2 knowledge. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 9-37.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998).Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. School of Education, King's College, London.

Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. ASCD: Alexandria, VA.

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010).Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.

DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and explicit learning.In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 313-348). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Diab, N. M. (2015). Effectiveness of written corrective feedback: Does type of error and type of correction matter? Assessing Writing, 24(1), 16-34.

Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998).Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doughty, C., &Williams, J. (1998).Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, R. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fiestas, C., & Peña, E. (2004). Narrative discourse in bilingual children: Language and task effects. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 155-168.

Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013).A formative assessment system for writing improvement. English Journal, 103(1), 66-71.

Garza, C. L. (1990). Family pictures: Cuadros de familia. San Francisco, CA: Children’s Book Press.

Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: Teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 63-80.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007).The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.

Heaton, J. B. (1975). Beginning composition through pictures. London: Longman Group Limited. 

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006).Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.

Khezrlou, S. (2012).The relationship between cognitive and metacognitive strategies, age and level of education. The Reading Matrix, 12(1), 50-61.

Khezrlou, S. (2018). Form-focused instruction in CALL: What do learners think? RELC, 1-17. doi: 10.1177/0033688217738820

Khezrlou, S., Ellis, R., & Sadeghi, K. (2017). Effects of computer-assisted glosses on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension in three learning conditions. System, 65, 104-116.

Kiany, Gh., Mirhosseini, S. A., & Navidinia, H. (2011). Foreign language education policies in Iran: Pivotal macro considerations. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 53(22), 49-70.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use: The Taipei lectures. United States: Heinemann Educational Books.

Lemley, D. U. (2005). Delayed versus immediate feedback in an independent study high school setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham University, United States.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.

Li, S., Ellis, R., & Zhu, Y. (2016).The effects of the timing of corrective feedback on the acquisition of a new linguistic structure. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 276-295.

Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Long, M. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 265-302.

Parr, J. M., & Timperley, H. S. (2010).Feedback to writing, assessment for teaching and learning and student progress. Assessing Writing, 15(2), 68-85.

Peterson, S. S., & Portier, C. (2014). Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Education, 42(3), 237-257.

Pienemann, M. (2012). Processability theory and teachability. Wiley: The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.

Quinn, P. (2014). Delayed versus immediate corrective feedback on orally produced passive errors in English.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Rahimi, A., & Dastjerdi, H. V. (2012). Impact of immediate and delayed error correction on EFL learners’ oral production: CAF. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1),45-54.

Rolin-Ianziti, J. (2010). The organization of delayed second language correction. Language Teaching Research, 14, 183-206.

Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for second language acquisition: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 131-164). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Saslow, J., & Ascher, A. (2006).Top Notch 2 with active book (2nd Edition).New York: Pearson Education ESL.

Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language teaching and learning (Technical Report No. 9) (pp. 1-64). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Schmidt, R. (2001). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 206-226.

Shintani, N., & Aubrey, S. (2016). The effectiveness of synchronous and asynchronous written corrective feedback on grammatical accuracy in a computer-mediated environment. The Modern Language Journal, 100(1), 296-319.

Varnosfadrani, A. D. (2006). A comparison of the effects of implicit/explicit and immediate/delayed corrective feedback on learners’ performance in tailor-made tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ.