The Interplay between Corrective Feedback, Motivation and EFL Achievement in Middle and High School Education

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Introduction. Despite the fact that error correction has significant and long-term effects on facilitating language learning and development, there has not been any research that investigates its influence on learners' motivation within the classroom context of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Purpose. This research aims to examine the impact of written and oral corrective feedback on students' motivation and achievement within this EFL context.

Method. For this quantitative study, the questionnaire has been used to collect the data from 160 middle and high school students in central Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Results. The findings indicated that the respondents generally like to be corrected and they are moderately to highly motivated to speak and write in English as a foreign language. Furthermore, learners with positive attitudes towards the received feedback feel significantly more motivated to keep learning than those with negative attitudes.

Conclusion. The study is expected to provide teachers with suggestions on how to transform their classrooms into an environment conducive to the development of higher levels of writing and speaking motivation and how to provide corrective feedback that will positively influence students' EFL achievement.

About the authors

E. Ahmetovic

International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Author for correspondence.
Email: emnijeta00@gmail.com

S. Becirovic

International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Email: senad.becirovic@ibu.edu.ba

V. Dubravac

International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Email: vildana.dubravac@ibu.edu.ba

A. Brdarevic-Celjo

International Burch University, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Email: amna.brdarevic.celjo@ibu.edu.ba

References

  1. Ahmetović, E., Bećirović, S., & Dubravac, V. (2020). Motivation, anxiety and students' performance. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 9(2), 271-289. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2020.2.271
  2. Al-Darei, I. S. & Ahmed, A. M. (2022). The effect of feedback type in the e-learning environment on students' achievement and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(3), 694-705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1111527
  3. Al-Rubai'ey, F., & Nassaji, H. (2013). Direct and indirect metalinguistic feedback: A matter of suitability rather than superiority. In M. Mahmoud & R. Al Mahrooqi (Eds.), TEFL in the Arab World (pp. 28-43). Sultan Qaboos University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
  4. Akram, M., & Ghani, M. (2013). Gender and language learning motivation. Academic Research International, 4(2), 536-540.
  5. Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227-257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.484
  6. Bećirović, S. (2023). Digital pedagogy: The use of digital technologies in contemporary education. Springer.
  7. Bećirović, S., & Brdarević-Čeljo, A., (2018). Exploring and assessing cross-cultural sensitivity in Bosnian tertiary education: Is there a real promise of harmonious coexistence? European Journal of Contemporary Education, 7(2), 244-256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2018.2.244
  8. Bećirović, S., Dubravac, V., & Brdarević-Čeljo, A. (2022). Cooperative learning as a pathway to strengthening motivation and improving achievement in an EFL classroom. SAGE Open, 12(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221078016
  9. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191-205. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.08.001
  10. Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
  11. Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783095056
  12. Bitchener, J. (2017). Why some L2 learners fail to benefit from written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 129-40). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621432-10
  13. Boscolo, P., & Gelati, C. (2013). Best practices in promoting motivation for writing. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (2nd ed., pp. 202- 222). The Guilford Press.
  14. Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Asotić, M. (2017). The influence of social context, grade level and gender on the use of language learning strategies in primary schools. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(12), 7-14.
  15. Brdarević-Čeljo, A., Bećirović, S., & Bureković, M. (2018). The use of imaginative conditional clauses by Bosnian university-level English-majoring students. The Journal of Linguistic and Intercultural Education, 11(2), 25-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29302/jolie.2018.11.2.2
  16. Brdarević-Čeljo, A., Ahmetović, E., & Bajić, E. (2021). Variations in attitudes towards codeswitching and codeswitching frequency among multilingual speakers. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. Advance online publication. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2021.1983580
  17. Brdarević-Čeljo, A., Bećirović, S., & Dubravac, V. (2021). An examination of perceived reading strategy use among university level students. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 10(3), 595-608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/ejced.2021.3.595
  18. Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Dubravac, V. (2022). Engleski u BiH: Između uglađenog i ležernog [English in B&H: Posh or casual?]. Multidisciplinary Academic Publishing.
  19. Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 436-458. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814563200
  20. Bruton, A. (2010). Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491-498. 10.1016/j. system.2010.07.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001
  21. Byrne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  22. Chandler, J. (2009). Response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 57-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.002
  23. Calderón, N. (2013). EFL learner and teacher perspectives on corrective feedback and their effect on second language learning motivation [Unpublished Master's thesis]. McGill University.
  24. Chen, S., Nassaji, H., & Liu, Q. (2016). EFL learners' perceptions and preferences of written corrective feedback: A case study of university students from Mainland China. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(5), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-016-0010-y
  25. Chen, S., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Focus on form and corrective feedback at the University of Victoria. Language Teaching, 51(2), 278-83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144481800006X
  26. Choi, S. (2013). The effects of written corrective feedback on second language writing focused on the English writing system [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Digital Dissertations.
  27. Chua, Y. P. (2013). Mastering research statistics. McGraw-Hill Education.
  28. DeKeyser, R.M. (1993). The effect of error correction on L2 grammar knowledge and oral proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 501-514. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-4781.1993.TB01999.X
  29. Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). University of Nebraska Press.
  30. Delić, H., Bećirović, S., & Brdarević Čeljo, A. (2018). Effects of grade level and gender on foreign language learning process in Bosnian high schools.International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 5(6), 83-89. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15739/IJEPRR.18.010
  31. Dervić, M., & Bećirović, S. (2019). Native and non-native EFL teachers dichotomy: Terminological, competitiveness and employment discrimination. Journal of Language and Education, 5(3), 114-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.9746
  32. Doughty C., & Long M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7(3), 50-80. http://dx.doi.org/10125/25214.
  33. Doughty, C. J., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02042.x
  35. Dörnyei, Z. (2000). Motivation in action: Towards a process-oriented conceptualization of student motivation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(4), 519-538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158281
  36. Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Routledge.
  37. Dörnyei, Z., & Csizer, K. (1998). Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Results of an empirical study. Language Teaching Research, 2(3), 203-229. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/136216898668159830
  38. Dörnyei, Z., & Ushioda, E. (2011). Teaching and Researching Motivation (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  39. Dubravac, V., Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Bećirović, S. (2018). The English of Bosnia and Herzegovina. World Englishes, 37(4), 635-652. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12347
  40. Dubravac, V., Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Begagić, M. (2018). The presence of the British and American English variety among the first-year students at the University of Zenica. In A. Arnaut (Ed.), Saznanje, Zbornik radova 7. međunarodnog naučno - stručnog skupa: Obrazovanje, jezik, kultura: tendencije i izazovi [Cognition, Proceedings of the 7th International Scientific and Expert Meeting: Eduation, Language, Culture: Tendencies and Challenges] (pp. 518-528). University of Zenica.
  41. Dubravac, V., & Latić, E. (2019). The plasticity of students' language learning beliefs: Interplay of gender, grade and educational level. Journal of Language and Education Education, 5(4), 36-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2019.9732
  42. Dubravac, V., & Skopljak, N. (2020). Foreign and multilingual language play on social sites as an identity marker. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 15(1), 61-79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2019.1701678
  43. Ellis R., (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
  44. Ellis, R. (2010). A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 335-349. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263109990544
  45. 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(3), 353-371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.02.001
  46. Evans, N. W., Hartshorn, K. J., & Tuioti, E. A. (2010). Written corrective feedback: Practitioners' perspectives.International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 47-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.10.2.119191
  47. Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  48. Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
  49. Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA.Intersections and practical applications. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181-201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490
  50. Ferris, D., & 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X
  51. Flynn, S. (1996). Nature of development in L2 acquisition and implications for theories of language acquisition in general. In S. Flynn & W. O'Neill (Eds), Linguistic theory in second language acquisition (pp. 277-294). Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100009050
  52. Gardner, R. (2011). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher and the researcher. Foreign Language Education, 6(1), 1-18.
  53. Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1992.tb00714.x
  54. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing statistical assumptions. Statistical Associates Publishing.
  55. Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition, an Introductory Course, (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  56. Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 104-129). Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/b.9781405132817.2005.00001.x
  57. Gooch, R., Saito, K., & Lyster, R. (2016). Effects of recasts and prompts on L2 pronunciationdevelopment: Teaching English /ɹ/ to Korean adult EFL learners. System, 60, 117-127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.06.007
  58. Graham, S., Harris, K., & Hebert, M.A. (2011). Informing writing: The benefits of formative assessment. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act report. Alliance for Excellent Education.
  59. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In S. Graham, C.A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 3-25). The Guilford Press.
  60. Guilloteaux, M.J., & Dörnyei, Z. (2008). Motivating language learners: A classroom-oriented investigation of the effects of motivational strategies on student motivation. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 55-77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00207.x
  61. Ha, X. V., Nguyen, L. T., & Hung, B. P. (2021). Oral corrective feedback in English as a foreign language classrooms: A teaching and learning perspective. Heliyon, 7(7), e07550. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07550
  62. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Education International.
  63. Hamidun, H., Hizvari, Sh., & Othman, N. F. (2012). Enhancing student's motivation by providing feedback on writing: the case of international students from Thailand.International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 591-594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2012.V2.179
  64. Hamzić, U., & Bećirović, S. (2021). Twice-exceptional, half-noticed: The recognition issues of gifted students with learning disabilities. MAP Social Sciences, 1(1), 13-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2021.1.1.13
  65. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
  66. Hartshorn, K. J., Evans, N. W., Merrill, P. F., Sudweeks, R. R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson, N. J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOLQuarterly, 44(1), 84-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2010.213781
  67. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01612.x
  68. Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
  69. Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667251
  70. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing (vol. 39). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
  71. Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar learning in English and French L2: Students' and teachers' beliefs and perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 44(4), 465-492. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2011.01143.x
  72. Kalaja, P., & Barcelos, A. M. F. (Eds.). (2003). Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches. Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4751-0
  73. Kang, E., & Han, Z. (2015). The efficacy of written corrective feedback in improving L2 written accuracy: A meta-analysis. Modern Language Journal, 9(1), 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12189
  74. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2018). The revision and transfer effects of direct and indirect comprehensive corrective feedback on English-as-a-second-language (ESL) students' writing. Language Teaching Research, 3(1), 29-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818802469
  75. Karim, K., & Nassaji, H. (2019). The effects of written corrective feedback: a critical synthesis of past and present research. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(1), 28-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.37949
  76. Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/328724
  77. Kim, H., & Mathes, G. (2001). Explicit vs. implicit corrective feedback. The Korea TESOL Journal, 4(1), 1-15.
  78. Kovačević, F., Brdarević-Čeljo, A., & Bećirović, S. (2018). Opportunities and challenges facing Bosnian high-school EFL learners. European Researcher. Series A, 9(4), 298-306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2018.4.298
  79. Krashen, S. (1982). Newmark's Ignorance Hypothesis and current second language acquisition theory [Unpublished manuscript].
  80. Laličić, A., & Dubravac, V. (2021). The role of reading in English language classrooms. MAP Social Sciences, 1(1), 23-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2021.1.1.23
  81. Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). What do students think about the pros and cons of having a native speaker teacher? In E. Llurda (Ed.), Non-Native language teachers (pp. 217-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-24565-0_12
  82. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(4), 285-312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.08.001
  83. Lee, E. J. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
  84. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals, 24, 203-218. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x
  85. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
  86. Li, S., & Vuono, A. (2019). Twenty-five years of research on oral and written corrective feedback. System, 84, 93-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.05.006
  87. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
  88. Lopez, M. B., Steendam, E. V., Speelman, D., & Buyse, K. (2018) The differential effects of comprehensive feedback forms in the second language writing class. Language Learning, 68(3), 813-850. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12295
  89. Lyster, R., Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). A response to Truscott's 'What's wrong with oral grammar correction'. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.55.4.457
  90. Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990520
  91. Lyster R., Saito K., & Sato M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444812000365
  92. Mašić, A., Edda P. E., & Bećirović, S. (2020). The Relationship between Learning Styles, GPA, School Level and Gender. European Researcher. Series A, 11(1), 51-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13187/er.2020.1.51
  93. Nassaji, H. (2015). The interactional feedback dimension in instructed second language learning: Linking theory, research, and practice. Bloomsbury.
  94. Nassaji, H. (2016).Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 535-562. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816644940
  95. Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. The Modern Language Journal, 101(2), 353-368. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12387
  96. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (2020). Corrective feedback and good language teachers. In C. Griffiths & Z. Tajeddin (Eds.), Lessons from good language teachers (pp. 151-163). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774390.015
  97. Ogrić-Kevrić S., & Dubravac V. (2017). Students' and teachers' perceptions on skills acquisition and error correction treatment in Bosnian EFL context. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 3(9), 187-194.
  98. Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
  99. Papi M., Rios A., Pelt H., & Ozdemir E. (2019). Feedback-seeking behavior in language learning: Basic components and motivational antecedents. The Modern Language Journal, 103(1), 205-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12538
  100. Patra, I., Alazemi, A. F., Al-Jamal, D., & Gheisari, A. (2022). The effectiveness of teachers' written and verbal corrective feedback (CF) during formative assessment (FA) on male language learners' academic anxiety (AA), academic performance (AP), and attitude toward learning (ATL). Language Testing in Asia. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-022-00169-2
  101. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If I only had more time': ESL learners' changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 43-68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4
  102. Polz, E., & Bećirović, S. (2022).Competency based teaching and learning. Multidisciplinary Academic Publishing.
  103. Plonsky, L., & Brown, D. (2015). Domain definition and search techniques in meta-analyses of L2 research (Or why 18 metanalyses of feedback have different results). Second Language Research, 31(2), 267-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658314536436
  104. Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. learning to teach in higher education. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079312331382498
  105. Ribo, R., & Vildana D. (2021). The influence of the English language on BCS with the focus on the business register. MAP Education and Humanities, 1(1), 20-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2373.2021.1.1.20
  106. Robb, T., Ross, S., & Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), 83-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586390
  107. 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). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.13.09val
  108. Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
  109. Saito, K. (2021). Effects of corrective feedback on second language pronunciation development. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in language learning and teaching (pp. 407-428). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108589789.020
  110. Schachter, J. (1991). Corrective feedback in historical perspective. Second Language Research, 7(2), 89-102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/026765839100202
  111. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in the foreign language classroom: Students' and teachers' views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343- 364. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1996.tb01247.x
  112. Schulz, R. A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role of grammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. The Modern Language Journal, 85(2), 244-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00107
  113. Schunk, D. H., Meece, J. R., & Pintrich, P. R. (2014). Motivation in education: Theory, research and applications (4th ed.). Pearson.
  114. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
  115. Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23(1), 103-110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/003368829202300107
  116. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111- 122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6
  117. Ünlü, A (2016). Adjusting potentially confounded scoring protocols for motivation aggregation in organismic integration theory: An exemplification with the relative autonomy or self-determination index. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00272
  118. Ünlü, A. (2019). Self-determination motivation theory in R: The software package SDT. Archives of Psychology, 3(9). https://archivesofpsychology.org/index.php/aop/article/view/131.
  119. Wang, W. & Li, S. (2020). Corrective feedback and learner up take in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: A comparative study. Language, Culture, and Curriculum, 34(1), 1-16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124
  120. 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(2), 235-263. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990519
  121. Yaman, A., & Bećirović, S. (2016). Learning English and media literacy. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2(6), 660-663.
  122. Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers' choice and learners' preference of corrective feedback types. Language Awareness, 17(1), 78-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2167/la429.0
  123. Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19(1), 79-101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3586773

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.