Developing a conceptual model of effective factors in corrective feedback used among english language learners

Document Type : Original Article


Ph.d student in educational sciences, lecturer, Lamerd Branch, Islamic Azad University, Lamerd , Iran.


The purpose of this study is to develop a conceptual model of effective factors in corrective feedback among English language learners. This research has a mixed, exploratory and inductive method. The statistical population of this study includes all university teachers and English language teachers in Lamerd who have been selected by chain reference method. In the qualitative Phase, the sampling method was purposeful and snowball sampling. And from these teachers, 14 people were purposefully and snowball selected, answered the questionnaire through semi-structured interviews. Also, in the second part of this research, after obtaining the conceptual model of the research, sampling was performed using the Cochran's formula including 384 people in terms of Google Form. The interview questions were entered in MAXQDA 2018 software and analyzed. The conceptual model of the research was then fitted by IBM Amos 24 software. The results also showed that structural rules and types of errors, teacher-related factors, learners-related factors, environmental and educational factors affect correctional feedback by 0.71, 0.87, 0.74 and 0.69, respectively.


- Alson, H. Matthew & Hergenhan, B.R. (2007). Introduction to learning theories. Translated by Ali Akbar Seif, Tehran: Doran.
- Spiritual, A., Jafari Gohar, M., Abdovi, N. (2016). Individual evaluation of the effect of corrective and reconstructive feedback on speech, structure, vocabulary and pronunciation errors. Bimonthly of linguistic essays. 6. Consecutive (34). Pp. 282-255.
- Salimi, A. (2015). Differential effect of corrective feedback on learning conditional sentences and English definition letters in language learners.2 magazine of linguistic essays.N. 5. Cons 26. pp. 259-235.
- Ghafouri, M. (2017). The role of corrective feedback in second language learning. Behavioral Science Periodical. No. 17. pp. 111-95.
- Brown, D. (2014). “The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: A meta-analysis”. Language Teaching Research. pp. 1-23.
- Chaudron, C. (2015). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching. New York: Routledge.
- Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. Second Language Journal, 1 (1), 3 -18.
- Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28, 339–368.
- Kim, J., & Z. Han. (2007). “Recasts in communicative ESL classes: Do teacher intent and teacher interpretation overlap?” In A. Mackey (Ed.).Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Li, S. (2010). “The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis”. Language Learning. 60/ 2. pp. 309-365.
- Li, S. (2014). “The associations between language aptitude and second language grammar acquisition: A meta-analytic review of five decades of research”. Applied Linguistics.36. pp. 385-408.
- Lyster, R. & K. Saito & M. Sato (2013). “Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms”. LanguageTeaching. 46. pp. 1-40.
- Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
- Mackey, A.; Gass, S. M., McDonough, K., & Goo, J. (2013). “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.
- Russell, J., & Spada, N. (2006). “The effectiveness of corrective feedback for the acquisition of L2 grammar”. In J. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.).Synthesizing Research on Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 133-162). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Schmidt, R. W. (2004). Implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious: of artificial grammarsand SLA. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 165-210), London: Academic Press.
- Scott, E. (2008). Corrective feedback in the language classroom: How to best point out language mistakes. Retrieved from corrective_feedback_ in_the_language_classroom.
- Gibbs, G., & stobart, G. (1997). Assessment and feedback: a teacher Guid to issues. (3rd edition). London: Hodder and Stoughton.
- Bruning, R., Schraw, G., & Ronning, R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.
- Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback, Review of education research, 77, 81-112.
- Scott, C. (2005). Parenting, teaching and self-esteem. Australian Educational Leader. 27(1), 28-30.
- Dinham, S. (2005). How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education. 51(3), 263-275.
- Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 35,(5),535-50.
- Lee, J. & Hong, Y. (2001). A case study of the effect of process -based feedback on the development English writing, English teaching. 56(2), 265-285.
- Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and parents. Greenwich, CT: Information a. Age Publishing.
- Pintrich, P.R., & DeGroot, E.V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance, Journal of educational psychology. 82(1), 33-40.
- Butler, D.L. & Winne, P.H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis, Review of Educational Research. 65(3), 245-281.
- Alonso, T., & Panadero, E. (2010). Effect of self-assessment scripts on self-regulation and learning .In fancia y Aprendizaje. 33 (3), 385-397.