Volume 171, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The current study investigated the differential effect of two types of oral feedback – graduated oral corrective feedback (GOCF) in accordance with sociocultural theory (SCT) and supplemented direct oral corrective feedback (SDOCF) in accordance with cognitive-interactionist theory (CIT) – on Iranian pre-intermediate EFL learners’ written errors. The study used a pretest-treatment-immediate posttest-delayed posttest design with three groups. Two types of tests were employed to measure the learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of English articles. The results of the repeated measures mixed-design ANOVAs and post-hoc analyses demonstrated that while both types of feedback significantly improved both types of knowledge in the immediate posttest, a clear advantage was found for the GOCF in the long term. The findings indicate that oral feedback, especially the GOCF within SCT, could be an effective means of addressing learners’ written errors and improving their implicit knowledge.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J.
    (1994) Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 465–483. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1994.tb02064.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x [Google Scholar]
  2. Allan, D.
    (1992) Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Althobaiti, N.
    (2014) Corrective feedback: A bridge between cognitive interactionist and social interactionist perspectives. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10). 950–954. 10.12691/education‑2‑10‑15
    https://doi.org/10.12691/education-2-10-15 [Google Scholar]
  4. Amirghassemi, A.
    (2015) The effect of scaffolded corrective feedback on EFL learners’ accurate use of articles and past tenses in writing. Science Journal (CSJ), 36(3), 1982–1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ammar, A., & Spada, N.
    (2006) One size fits all? Recasts, prompts and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(4), 543–574. 10.1017/S0272263106060268
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060268 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bialystok, E.
    (1981) The role of linguistic knowledge in second language use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 4, 31–35. 10.1017/S0272263100004265
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100004265 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R.
    (2012) Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203832400
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2008) The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research Journal, 12(3), 409–431. 10.1177/1362168808089924
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N.
    (2013) Written corrective feedback for SLA: Theoretical perspectives and empirical research. UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D.
    (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Byrne, D.
    (1967) Progressive Picture Compositions: Pupils’ Book. Longman: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Chandler, J.
    (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. DeKeyser, R.
    (1998) Beyond focus on form: Cognitive perspectives on learning and practicing second language grammar. InC. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.42–63). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2003) Implicit and explicit learning. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.313–348). Malden, MA: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470756492.ch11
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756492.ch11 [Google Scholar]
  16. Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
    (1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis, N.
    (2005) At the interface: How explicit knowledge affects implicit language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352. 10.1017/S027226310505014X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X [Google Scholar]
  18. Ellis, R.
    (1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (1997) SLA Research and Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2004) The definition and measurement of L2 explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2004.00255.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2004.00255.x [Google Scholar]
  21. (2009) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. InR. Ellis, S. Loewen, C. Elder, J. Philp, & H. Reinders (Eds.), Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching (pp.31–64). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691767‑004
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691767-004 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2010) A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 335–349. 10.1017/S0272263109990544
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990544 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2012) Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. 10.1002/9781118271643
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118271643 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Focus on form: A critical review. Language Teaching Research, 20(3), 405–428. 10.1177/1362168816628627
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816628627 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.
    (2005) Analyzing Learner Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takashima, H.
    (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System, 36, 353–371. 10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41, 257–268. 10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.03.004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ferris, D. R.
    (1995) Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors?CATESOL Journal, 8, 41–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1999) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1–11. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80110‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Krashen, S.
    (1982) Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (1985) The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim, J. H.
    (2004) Issues of corrective feedback in second language acquisition. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 4, 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Lalande, J. F.
    (1982) Reducing composition errors: An experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66, 140–149. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1982.tb06973.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Lantolf, J.
    (2000) Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33, 79–96. 10.1017/S0261444800015329
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800015329 [Google Scholar]
  36. Li, Sh
    (2013) The interface between feedback type, L2 proficiency, and the nature of the linguistic target. Language Teaching Research, 0(0), 1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P.
    (1998) Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In: C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lyster, R., & Mori, H.
    (2006) Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 269–300. 10.1017/S0272263106060128
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263106060128 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lyster, R. & L. Ranta
    (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37–66. 10.1017/S0272263197001034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
    (2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classroom. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1–40. 10.1017/S0261444812000365
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365 [Google Scholar]
  41. McLaughlin, B.
    (1990) Restructuring. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 113–128. 10.1093/applin/11.2.113
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.113 [Google Scholar]
  42. Nassaji, H.
    (2011) Correcting students’ written grammatical errors: The effects of negotiated versus nonnegotiated feedback. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 1(3), 315–334. 10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.2
    https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2011.1.3.2 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nassaji, H., & Swain, M.
    (2000) A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34–51. 10.1080/09658410008667135
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667135 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rezazadeh, M., Tavakoli, M., & Eslami, A.
    (2015) The effects of direct corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on EFL learners’ implicit and explicit knowledge of English definite and indefinite articles. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning, 16, 113–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Reichelt, M.
    (2001) A critical review of foreign language writing research on pedagogical approaches. Modern Language Journal, 85, 578–598. 10.1111/0026‑7902.00127
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00127 [Google Scholar]
  46. Russell, V.
    (2009) Corrective feedback, over a decade of research since Lyster and Ranta (1997): Where do we stand today?. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 6(1), 21–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Schmidt, R.
    (1990) The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–158. 10.1093/applin/11.2.129
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129 [Google Scholar]
  48. (1995) Attention & awareness in foreign language learning. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2001) Attention. In: P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp.3–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524780.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Schmidt, R., & Frota, S.
    (1986) Developing basic conversational ability in a second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portguese. In: R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp.237–326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Schwartz, B.
    (1993) On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic Behavior. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 147–163. 10.1017/S0272263100011931
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100011931 [Google Scholar]
  52. Seedhouse, P.
    (2004) The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  54. (2010b) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 201–234. 10.1017/S0272263109990507
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990507 [Google Scholar]
  55. Shintani, N., & Ellis, R.
    (2013) The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22(3), 286–306. 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011 [Google Scholar]
  56. Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W.
    (2014) Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. 10.1111/lang.12029
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029 [Google Scholar]
  57. Swain, M.
    (1985) Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, 15, 165–179.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. InG. Cook & B. Seidhofer (Eds.), Principals and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H. G. Widdowson (pp.125–144). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  60. (1998) Noticing in second language acquisition: A critical review. Second Language Research, 14, 103–135. 10.1191/026765898674803209
    https://doi.org/10.1191/026765898674803209 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255–272. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2010) Some thoughts on Anthony Bruton’s critique of the correction debate. System, 38, 329–335. 10.1016/j.system.2010.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  63. Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F.
    (2008) The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners’ written accuracy. ITL International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 156, 279–296. 10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439
    https://doi.org/10.2143/ITL.156.0.2034439 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2012) Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in Dutch multilingual classroom. Language Learning, 62, 1–41. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2011.00674.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x [Google Scholar]
  65. Vygotsky‚, L.
    (1978) Mind in society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Vygotsky, L.
    (1986) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Yang, Y. & Lyster, R.
    (2010) Effects of form-focused practice and feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 235–263. 10.1017/S0272263109990519
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error