Types of Errors to Be Corrected………………………………………………12

The Best Time for Error Correction……………………………………….…19

Teacher-, Peer-, or Self-Correction…………………………………….…….23

Corrective Feedback from Different Viewpoints…………………………..…….26

Positive Perspectives on Corrective Feedback………………………….……28

Negative perspectives on Corrective Feedback……………………………….33

Types of Corrective Feedback………………………………………..………….36

Overt Correction……………………………………………………….……..42

Recasts…………………………………………………………………….….49

Declarative and Interrogative Recasts………………………………….58

Advantages and Disadvantages of Recasts……………………………..59

Uptake…………………………..………………………………………………..63

Final Remarks……………………………..……………………………………..65

Chapter Three: Method

Introduction……………………………………………………………..………..69

Setting and Participants………………………………..…………………………69

Instruments………………………………..………………………………………70

Procedures……………………………………..…………………………………71

Data Analysis………………………………………………………………….…73

Design……………………………………………………………………..……..73

Chapter Four: Data Analysis and Results

Introduction…………………………………………..…………………………..75

Results…………………………………………..………………………………..75

Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, and Conclusion

Introduction……………………………..………………………………………..84

Summary…………………………………………………………………………84

Discussion……………………………………………………………………..…86

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..89

Pedagogical Implications………………………..……………………………….90

Limitations of the Study……………………………..……………………………92

Suggestions for Further Research……………………..…………………………93

References…………………………………………………………………………95

Appendices……………………………………………………………………….118

Appendix A: Test of Grammar…………………………………………………119

Appendix B: Reliability Calculation……………………………………………122

Appendix C: Consent form……………………………………………..………125

List of Tables

Title Page

Table 2.1 Twelve Descriptive Studies of Classroom CF in Ascending Order of CF Moves per Hour…………………………………………………………………….57

Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics for the Participants’ Homogeneity in the Pre-test..75

Table 4.2 Independent Samplest-test for the Homogeneity of the Recast and Overt Correction Groups………………………………………………………………….76

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics for the Overt Correction Group….……………….76

Table 4.4 Paired Samplest-test for the Overt Correction Group……..……………77

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics for the Recast Group…………….………………..78

Table 4.6 Paired Samplest-test for the Recast Group……………..………………78

Table 4.7 Group Statistics for the Recast and Overt Correction Groups……..……79

Table 4.8 Independent Samplest-test for the Overt Correction and Recast Groups79

Table 4.9 Percentages of the Responses……………………………………………81

Table 4.10 Chi-square Test Results……………..…………………………………81

List of Figures

Figure 2.1………………………………………………………………………..…52

Abstract

The need to make corrections is inherent in the teaching profession, but teachers are often unsure as to how much to correct, or even how to go about it. Although a large body of research examined the effectiveness of certain types of error treatment methods, there has been little research done to investigate the efficacy of different types of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ grammar accuracy through eliciting repeated performances. The main objective of the study was to see if two types of corrective feedback, overt correction and recast, could help Iranian EFL learners’ grammar achievement at the intermediate level. The study was also an attempt to see which of these two types of corrective feedback could lead to a better grammar achievement. In addition, two methods of recast, declarative and interrogative, were under investigation to figure out which method of recast Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level preferred to be used by instructors. Fifty male EFL students studying at the intermediate level at the Iran Language Institute, Yazd branch, Iran, took part in this study. They were divided into two groups who received corrective feedback through overt correction and recast. A pre-test was administered at the beginning before the consecutive process of corrective feedback provision started, and a post-test was given at the end when the process finished. The procedure of test administration and the content was the same for both overt correction and recast groups. The only difference was in the treatment, in which the errors of the overt correction group were corrected overtly, but the errors of the recast group were corrected implicitly. The results of the study indicated that both overt correction and recast as two types of corrective feedback could help Iranian language learners at the intermediate level develop their grammar knowledge over the instruction. Between-groups comparison revealed that there was no significant difference between the overt correction and recast groups with regard to their grammar performance. Additionally, a survey was conducted to explore the participants’ preferable type of recast, declarative or interrogative. A careful consideration of the percentages of declarative and interrogative recast choices showed a significant preference for interrogative recasts by the group receiving recasts in their class. The findings of this study suggested that both overt correction and recast are equally beneficial and might facilitate the process of grammar acquisition by Iranian EFL learners at the intermediate level.

Keywords: Corrective Feedback, Declarative Recasts, Grammar Knowledge, Interrogative Recasts, Overt Correction, Recasts.

Chapter One