پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 21 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 355 |
| تعداد مقالات | 3,969 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 5,578,517 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 3,731,190 |
Investigating the Impact of Oral and Written Corrective Feedback on the Utilization of Discourse Markers in Iranian EFL Learners' Academic Writing | ||
| Applied Linguistics Inquiry | ||
| مقاله 11، دوره 4، شماره 1، خرداد 2026، صفحه 153-164 اصل مقاله (327.29 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22077/ali.2025.9359.1146 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Saeid Najafi Sarem* 1؛ Masume Soltani2؛ Amir Hossein Lotfi3 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Ha.C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| 2M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language, Ha.C., Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran | ||
| 3M.A. in Applied Linguistics, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Kurdistan, Iran | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Discourse markers are linguistic elements that organize written or spoken communication, guiding the flow of ideas. In academic writing, their effective use enhances clarity and coherence, making it a crucial skill for learners. Corrective feedback, both oral and written, is a key strategy for improving writing by addressing errors and guiding learners toward proficiency. This study investigates the impact of oral and written corrective feedback on the use of discourse markers in academic writing among Iranian EFL learners. Seventy learners, aged 19-27, enrolled at Pardis Language Institute in Hamedan, Iran, were initially selected through convenience sampling. To ensure proficiency homogeneity, the Oxford Placement Test (OPT) was administered, and 50 upper-intermediate learners were chosen. These participants, all Persian speakers, were randomly assigned to two experimental groups of 25, with balanced gender representation. A pretest involving three academic writing tasks—a persuasive essay, a comparison essay, and a narrative task—was used to assess discourse marker usage. Over eight sessions, one group received oral corrective feedback, and the other written corrective feedback. A posttest, similar to the pretest, was conducted to evaluate progress. Data were analyzed using a scoring rubric adapted from Hamp-Lyons (1992), with inter-rater reliability calculated to ensure consistency. Results revealed that both forms of feedback significantly enhanced the use of discourse markers, with written feedback yielding more pronounced improvements. These findings highlight the essential role of corrective feedback in advancing EFL learners' writing proficiency, offering practical insights for educators and material developers. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Oral corrective feedback؛ Written corrective feedback؛ Discourse markers؛ Academic writing؛ Iranian EFL learners؛ Language proficiency | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In K. R. Rose & G. Kasper (Eds.), Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
Bitchener, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition and writing. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203832400
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12(3), 409-431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168808089924
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp016
Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456
Brown, H. D. (2018). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Chen, Y., & Lee, J. (2018). The role of discourse markers in L2 learners’ academic writing: A cognitive-functional perspective. Journal of Second Language Writing, 42, 1-14.
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Ferris, D. R. & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
Ferris, D. R. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. New Horizons in Education, 54, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1980). The cognition of discovery: Defining a rhetorical problem. College Composition and Communication, 31(1), 21-32.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387. https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198115885
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931-952. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00101-5
Geranpayeh, A. (2003). A quick review of the English quick placement test. Research Notes, 12(1), 8-10.
Grabe, W., & Zhang, C. (2016). Reading-writing relationships in first and second language academic literacy development. Language Teaching, 49(3), 339-355. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000082
Guénette, D. (2007). Is it better to give than to receive? An examination of the role of corrective feedback in SLA. Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 1-29.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1992). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Ablex.
Hanesová, D., & Theodoulides, L. (2022). Mastering transversal competences in a higher education environment: through processes of critical thinking and reflection. thinking and reflection. https://doi.org/10.24040/2022.9788055720159
Hyland, K. (2002). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(8), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00035-8
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London, UK: Continuum.
Johnson, A. P. (2024). Being and Becoming Teachers of Writing: A Meaning-based Approach to Authentic Writing Instruction. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003334798
Johnson, M. (2019). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Johnson, M. (2020). A case for integrating writing instruction in EFL programs: Overcoming barriers to academic writing. TESOL Quarterly, 54(3), 539-562.
Kim, J. H., & Park, J. H. (2017). The effect of explicit corrective feedback on the use of discourse markers in argumentative writing. English Teaching & Learning, 41(1), 23-45.
Kunnan, A. J., & Grabowski, K. C. (2019). Assessing English language proficiency. In E. Shohamy, I. G. Or, & S. May (Eds.), Language testing and assessment (pp. 135–151). Springer.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics, 159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Lee, I., Kim, J., & Park, J. H. (2020). The effects of oral and written corrective feedback on EFL learners' use of transition markers in narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100-115.
Leow, R. P., Thinglum, A., & Leow, S. A. (2022). WCF processing in the L2 curriculum: A look at type of WCF, type of linguistic item, and L2 performance. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching, 12(4), 651-673. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2022.12.4.6
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Loyens, S. M., Van Meerten, J. E., Schaap, L., & Wijnia, L. (2023). Situating higher-order, critical, and critical-analytic thinking in problem-and project-based learning environments: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 35(2), 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09757-x
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (2013). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034
Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 407-452). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pham, H. T., Petraki, E., & Nguyen, M. T. T. (2024). Effects of oral corrective feedback combined with explicit instruction on EFL learners’ recognition and production of English requests. Applied Pragmatics, 6(2), 196-227. https://doi.org/10.1075/ap.21007.pha
Raj, T., Chauhan, P., Mehrotra, R., & Sharma, M. (2022). Importance of critical thinking in the education. World Journal of English Language, 12(3), 126-133. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n3p126
Robinson‐Pant, A., & Singal, N. (2020). Beyond authorship and accountability? The ethics of doctoral research dissemination in a changing world. British Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 859-877. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v12n3p126
Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar: A meta-analysis of the research. In J. M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 133-164). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Santos, M. (2018). Oral corrective feedback and the use of cohesive devices in argumentative essays: An empirical study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 151-170.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Schourup, L. (1999). Discourse markers. Lingua, 107(34), 227-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-3841(96)90026-1
Sheen, Y. (2006). Corrective feedback, individual differences and the acquisition of English articles by second language learners. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(4), 292-311.
Shintani, N., & Ellis, R. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback on the writing accuracy of Japanese EFL learners. Language Teaching Research, 17(2), 207-221.
Smith, H. (2020). The writing experiment: strategies for innovative creative writing. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003118244
Smith, J. (2019). Writing in the EFL context: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of English Language Teaching, 33(2), 144-158.
Smith, J. (2020). Developing writing skills in EFL learners: A review of research and practices. International Journal of Language and Communication, 25(4), 405-420.
Srivastava, P., & Payer, M. (2021, July). Gramatron: Effective grammar-aware fuzzing. In Proceedings of the 30th acm sigsoft international symposium on software testing and analysis (pp. 244-256). https://doi.org/10.1145/3460319.3464814
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (2012). Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (3rd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.2173936
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of second language Writing, 16(4), 255-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
Van Beuningen, C., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, F. (2012). The effect of direct and indirect corrective feedback on L2 learners' written accuracy. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34(2), 227-245.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weir, C. J. (2005). Language testing and validation: An evidence-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230514577
Withana, T. N. (2025). ESL Learners’ Perceptions and Preferences of Written Corrective Feedback (WCF). Vidyodaya Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(01). https://doi.org/10.31357/fhss/vjhss.v10i01.08
Wu, L., & Li, Y. (2019). Discourse markers and coherence in L2 academic writing: A case study of Chinese EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(5), 1065-1077.
Zhang, L. J., & Li, X. (2019). The impact of written corrective feedback on the grammatical accuracy of ESL students in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 38, 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2018.12.003 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 223 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 98 |
||
نماد الکترونیک
سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب