The Effect of Lexical-Temporal-Indicator Prompt vs. Metalinguistic Prompt on The Field-Dependent EFL Learners’ Past Tense Acquisition

This study investigated the efficacy of lexical-temporal-indicator (LTI) prompt vs. metalinguistic prompt among field-dependent (FD) learners in their acquisition of past tense. To this end, four intact classes at Iran Language Institute (ILI) with a total number of 86 teenage learners at elementary level were selected. A Group Embedded Figures Test was utilized to specify field-dependent learners. A pretest with a focus on past tense was used to ascertain that the learners were not familiar with the targeted feature. Two groups out of four classes with an equal number of FD learners (n=17, n=17) received LTI and metalinguistic prompts as their treatments respectively. The one-month treatment was administered for the first 20 minutes of eight sessions. Then, an immediate parallel post-test was administered to compare the performance of the two groups. The findings revealed that FD learners receiving LTI prompt did better than those receiving metalinguistic prompt. Based on the findings, it can be concluded that LTI prompt is more favored than metalinguistic prompt by FD learners. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n3s2p482

[1]  Helen Basturkmen,et al.  The effectiveness of implicit and explicit error correction on learners’ performance , 2009 .

[2]  Diane Larsen-Freeman,et al.  Grammar: Rules and Reasons Working Together. , 2000 .

[3]  Sina Soltanabadi Farshi,et al.  The Effect of Two Types of Corrective Feedback on EFL Learners’ Writing Skill , 2015 .

[4]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[5]  Younghee Sheen.  Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings , 2004 .

[6]  Craig Chaudron,et al.  Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and Learning. , 1988 .

[7]  B. Kumaravadivelu,et al.  Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod , 2005 .

[8]  Ute Knoch,et al.  The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback , 2009 .

[9]  S. P. Corder.  THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNER'S ERRORS , 1967 .

[10]  Teo Kok Seong,et al.  Teacher's Verbal Feedback on Students' Response: A Malaysian ESL Classroom Discourse Analysis , 2010 .

[11]  Susanne Rott,et al.  Input and Output in Establishing Form-Meaning Connections , 2004 .

[12]  Flora Efaf Soltani,et al.  The Role of Reactive Form -Focused Oral Feedback in the Devalopment of Iranian EFL Learners'Grammatical Accuracy in Writing Skill , 2013 .

[13]  R. Lyster,et al.  CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK AND LEARNER UPTAKE , 1997, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[14]  Manfred Pienemann,et al.  Is Language Teachable? Psycholinguistic Experiments and Hypotheses , 1989 .

[15]  Saeideh Ahangari,et al.  Exploring the Teachers’ Use of Spoken Corrective Feedback in Teaching Iranian EFL Learners at Different Levels of Proficiency , 2011 .

[16]  R. Hamilton.  The Insignificance of Learners' Errors: A Philosophical Investigation of the Interlanguage Hypothesis. , 2001 .