Exploring Different Oral Corrective Feedback Preferences: Role of Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligences

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Shahrekord University

Abstract

This study explored corrective feedback (CF) types and their relationship to L2 learners’ intelligence types. Participants were 60 intermediate L2 learners aged 18-29 in Isfahan, Iran. Based on their intelligence types as intrapersonal and interpersonal, the participants were divided into 2 groups. McKenzie’s MI Inventory (1999) and a researcher-designed questionnaire on CF types were employed. Spearman correlation was applied to find out the relationship between the participants’ intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences and their preferred CF. Then, multiple regression analysis was run to indicate the significant representation of the specific CF among the participants. Results revealed that there was a strong positive relationship between the participants’ intrapersonal intelligence and explicit types of CF. Regression computations indicated that the interpersonal participants showed a great significant tendency towards repetition, paralinguistic signs, clarification requests, and translation; however, conversational and didactic recasts as well as elicitation, explicit, and metalinguistic CF made a unique and significant contribution to the intrapersonal participants. Accordingly, L2 teachers should take into account their learners’ preferred CF types in their teaching and, consequently, suggest activities designed to help them make maximum use of their intelligence types. L2 teachers could also adapt their classroom activities to their learners’ intelligences and CF types to create the most productive learning environment.

Keywords

References

Ahangari, S., & Amirzadeh, S. (2011). Exploring the teachers’ use of spoken corrective feedback in teaching Iranian EFL learners at different levels of proficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1859-1868.
Ahmadian, M., & Hosseini, S. (2012). A study of the relationship between Iranian EFL learners’ multiple intelligences and their performance on writing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(1), 111-126.
Akbari, R., & Hosseini, K. (2008). Multiple intelligences and language learning strategies: Investigating possible relations. System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics, 36(2), 141-155.
Allan, D. (1992). Oxford placement test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Armstrong, T. (2009). Multiple intelligences in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brown, A. (2009). Students’ and teachers’ perceptions of effective foreign language teaching: A comparison of ideals. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 46-60.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Doughty, C. J., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. J. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 114-138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19, 18-41.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing. System, 41(2), 257-268.
Fujii, A., & Mackey, A. (2009). Interactional feedback in learner-learner interactions in a task based EFL classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47(3), 267-301.
Garcıa Mayo, M., & Pica, T. (2000). Interaction among proficient learners: Are input, feedback, and output needs addressed in a foreign language context? Studia Linguistica, 54(2), 272-279.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1989). Incorporated repairs in nonnative discourse. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.), The dynamic interlanguage: Empirical studies in second language variation (pp. 71-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Hajhashemi, K., Ghombavani, F., & Yazdi Amirkhiz, S.Y., (2011).  The relationship between Iranian EFL high school students’ multiple intelligence scores and their use of learning strategies. English Language Teaching, 4(3), 214-314.
Haley, M. H. (2004). Learner-centered instruction and the theory of multiple intelligences with second language learners. The Teachers College Record, 106(1), 163-180.
Hashemi, J. (2009). The relationship between emotional intelligence, language proficiency, and L2 learners’ writing performance in Iranian EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, Arak University, Arak, Iran.
Hashemian, M., & Adibpour, M. (2012). Relationship between Iranian L2 learners’ multiple intelligences and language learning strategies. RALs, 3(1), 26-43.
Havranek, G. (1999). The effectiveness of corrective feedback: Preliminary results of an empirical study. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère [acquisition and interaction in a foreign language]. Proceedings of the Eighth EUROSLA Conference, 2, 189-206.
Johnson, M. (2007). The effect of multiple intelligences on elementary student performance. Dominican University of California, San Rafael, CA.      
Lasagabaster, D., & Sierra, J. M. (2005). Error correction: Students’ versus teachers’ perceptions. Language Awareness, 14, 112-127.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and L2 development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25(1), 37-63.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60, 309-365.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lochtman, K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign language classroom: How it affects interaction in analytic foreign language teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 271-283.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of research on second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Marefat, F. (2007). Multiple intelligences: Voices from an EFL writing class. Pazhuhesh-e Zabanha-ye Khareji, 32, 145-162.
McKenzie, W. (1999). Multiple intelligences survey. Retrieved October 9, 2014, from the World Wide Web: http://surfaquarium.com/MI/MIInvent.htm
Moheb, N., & Bagheri, M. (2013). Relationship between multiple intelligences and writing strategies. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(4), 777-784.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms, Language Learning, 50, 617-673.
Nejad Ansari, D., & Dabaghi, A. (2010). Iranian EFL students’ writing strategies for error correction: An MI approach.  English Language Teaching journal, 3(4), 40-46.
Ohta, A. (2000). Rethinking recasts: A learner-centered examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. Verplaetse (Eds.), The construction of second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 47-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oladejo, J. (1993). Error correction in ESL: Learners’ preferences. TESL Canada Journal, 10(2), 71-89.
Oliver, R. (2000). Age differences in negotiation and feedback in classroom and pair-work. Language Learning, 50, 119-151.
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-222). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Rahimi, M., Mirzaei, A., & Heidari, N. (2012). How do successful EFL readers bridge between Multiple Intelligences and reading strategies? World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(9), 1134-1142.
Ranta, L., & Lyster, R. (2007). A cognitive approach to improving immersion students’ oral language abilities: The awareness-practice-feedback sequence. In R. DeKeyser (Ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology (141-160). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rubado, K. (2002). Empowering students through multiple intelligences. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 10(4), 233-235.
Rydahl, S. (2005). Oral feedback in the English classroom, teachers’ thoughts and awareness. Retrieved July 14, 2014, From the World Wide Web: http://kau.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:6576/FULLTEXT01
Sadeghi, K., & Farzizadeh, B. (2012).  The relationship between multiple intelligences and writing ability of Iranian EFL learners, English Language Teaching, 5(11), 136-142.
Schachter, J. (1981). The hand signal system. TESOL Quarterly, 15(2), 125-138.
Shangarffam, N., & Zand, A. (2012). Iranian foreign language learners’ multiple intelligences and their use of oral communication strategies, The Iranian EFL Journal, 8(4), 310-328.
Shearer, C. B. (2006). Criterion related validity of the MIDAS assessments. Kent, Ohio: MI Research and Consulting, Inc. www. MIResearch.org.
Sheen, Y., & Ellis, R. (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 593-610). New York: Routledge.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Nonnative speakers’ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, 49(4), 627-675.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). New York, Cambridge University Press.
Skourdi, S., Damavand, A., Viyani, A., & K, S. H. (2012). On the relationship between linguistic intelligence and vocabulary knowledge among Iranian EFL learners. Iranian EFL Journal, 8(6), 289-303.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson international edition: Pearson.
Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics and control and communication in the animal and the machine. Boston: MIT Press.
Yilmaz, Y. (2013). The relative effectiveness of mixed, explicit and implicit feedback in the acquisition of English articles. System, 41, 691-705.
Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics
Volume 7, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
November 2016
Pages 140-159

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics