Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences

Published by: Kowsar

Efficacy of Electronic Versus Traditional Type of Metalinguistic Feedback in Correct Use of Prepositions: An Experimental Study

Zahra Ahmadpour Kasgari 1 , * , Meimanat Abedini Baltork 2 and Sirus Mansoori 3
Authors Information
1 University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2 Department of Education, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
3 Department of Education, Ardakan Banch, Islamic Azad University, Ardakan,Iran
Article information
  • Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences: 9 (4); e69552
  • Published Online: December 30, 2018
  • Article Type: Research Article
  • Received: April 18, 2018
  • Revised: October 14, 2018
  • Accepted: October 28, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijvlms.69552

To Cite: Ahmadpour Kasgari Z, Abedini Baltork M, Mansoori S. Efficacy of Electronic Versus Traditional Type of Metalinguistic Feedback in Correct Use of Prepositions: An Experimental Study, Interdiscip J Virtual Learn Med Sci. Online ahead of Print ; 9(4):e69552. doi: 10.5812/ijvlms.69552.

Abstract
Copyright © 2018, Interdisciplinary Journal of Virtual Learning in Medical Sciences. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Background
2. Objectives
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Fort K, Guillaume B. PrepLex: Un lexique des prépositions du français pour l'analyse syntaxique. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles-TALN 2007. 2007.
  • 2. Hermet M, Désilets A, Szpakowicz S. Using the web as a linguistic resource to automatically correct lexico-syntactic errors. LREC. 2008.
  • 3. Habash Z. Common errors in the use of English prepositions in the written work of UNRWA [dissertation]. Birzeit University, Jerusalem; 1982.
  • 4. Yilmaz Y. The role of exposure condition in the effectiveness of explicit correction. Stud Second Lang Acq. 2015;38(1):65-96. doi: 10.1017/s0272263115000212.
  • 5. AbuSeileek A, Abualsha'r A. Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Lang Learn Technol. 2014;18(1):76-95.
  • 6. Ene E, Upton TA. Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System. 2014;46:80-95. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011.
  • 7. Gholaminia I, Gholaminia A, Marzban A. An investigation of meta-linguistic corrective feedback in writing performance. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;116:316-20. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.214.
  • 8. Shintani N, Ellis R. The comparative effect of direct written corrective feedback and metalinguistic explanation on learners’ explicit and implicit knowledge of the English indefinite article. J Second Lang Writ. 2013;22(3):286-306. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2013.03.011.
  • 9. Tafazoli D, Nosratzadeh H, Hosseini N. Computer-mediated corrective feedback in ESP courses: Reducing grammatical errors via email. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;136:355-9. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.341.
  • 10. Evans C, Waring M. Applications of styles in educational instruction and assessment. In: Zhang LF, Sternberg RJ, Rayner S, editors. Handbook of intellectual styles: Preferences in cognition, learning, and thinking. Springer Publishing Company; 2012.
  • 11. Bitchener J, Knoch U. The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: A ten month investigation. Appl Linguist. 2009;31(2):193-214. doi: 10.1093/applin/amp016.
  • 12. Abdollahzadeh S. The effect of metalinguistic corrective feedback on EFL learners’ grammatical accuracy. J Lang Teach Res. 2015;7(1):185. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0701.21.
  • 13. Barekat B, Mehri M. Investigating the effect of metalinguistic feedback in l2 pragmatic instruction. Int J Linguist. 2013;5(2). doi: 10.5296/ijl.v5i2.3032.
  • 14. Azizi M, Behjat F, Sorahi.M . Effect of metalinguistic teacher corrective feedback on writing performance of Iranian EFL learners. Int J Lang Linguist. 2014;2(6):54-63. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.s.2014020601.18.
  • 15. Simuth J, Sarmany-Schuller I. Cognitive style variable in e-learning. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2014;116:1464-7. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.417.
  • 16. AbuSa’aleek AO. Analyzing recent research in computer mediated corrective feedback from the period 2008-2014. Int J Appl Linguist Engl Lit. 2016;5(1):178-91.
  • 17. Khodi A, Abbasi Sardari S. The effect of metalinguistic corrective feedback on students’ writing performance. Int J Educ Investigat. 2015;2(4):102-8.
  • 18. Lyster R, Ranta L. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Stud Second Lang Acq. 1997;19(1). doi: 10.1017/s0272263197001034.
  • 19. Kowal M, Swain M. 14 from semantic to syntactic processing. How can we promote it in the immersion classroom? In: Johnson RK, Swain M, Long MH, editors. Immersion education: International perspectives. Cambridge University Press; 1997. 284 p.
  • 20. Gass SM, Mackey A. Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. 175-199. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2007.
  • 21. Kolb DA. Learning style inventory: Technical manual. In: Kolb DA, editor. Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Boston: Prentice-Hall; 1984.
  • 22. Gardner RC, Tremblay PF, Masgoret AM. Towards a full model of second language learning: An empirical investigation. Modern Lang J. 1997;81(3):344-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1997.tb05495.x.
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments