The Impact of Explicit Corrective Feedback on Learning English

Conditional Sentences

By

Khalid Shah

M. Phil (Applied Linguistics)

Roll No 46946

Department of English Literature and Applied Linguistics

Hazara University
Mansehra
2022
 ii

The Impact of Explicit Corrective Feedback on Learning English Conditional Sentences

A thesis submitted to the Department of English

Hazara University Mansehra

in

Partial fulfilment of the requirement of degree of

MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

BY

Khalid Shah

Faculty of Arts

Department of English

Hazara University

Mansehra

2022

This copy of the thesis has been supplied on the condition that anyone consulting it is

understood to recognize that the copyright rests with the author and that neither quotations from

the thesis, nor any information derived therefrom may be published without the author’s prior

written consent.
 iii

Certificate of Supervisory Committee

It is certified that the dissertation entitled “A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Discursive
Ideologies In Pakistani And Indian Print Media About The Abolition Of Article 370 And
35a In Kashmir” submitted by Ibad Ur Rahman for the award of M. Phil Applied Linguistics
in Department of English, is based on the results of studies carried out by him in Hazara
University, under guidance and supervision during the research. The dissertation or any part of it
has not been previously submitted for any other degree.

1. Prof. Dr. Syed Manzoor Hussain Shah Convener ________

Dean, Faculty of Arts Signature

2. Dr. Mustanir Ahmad Member ________

Head, Dept. of English Signature

3. Dr. Ghani Rahman Member ________

Assistant Professor, Dept. of English Signature

4. Mr. Nazakat Awan Member ________

Lecturer, Dept. of English Signature

 iv

DEDICATION

To my family members
 v

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this work has not been submitted for any qualification at this or any other

university or learning institution. The title of the thesis “The Impact of Explicit Corrective

Feedback on Learning English Conditional Sentences” and the contents of the thesis are my

own product and no part of the thesis has been copied or cut and paste from any published source

(except the references, standard mathematical or genetic models/ equations/ formulas/ protocols

etc).

I have not presented any part of this work for any other degree.

Khalid Shah

It is certified that, to the best of my knowledge the above statement is correct.

Dr Ghani Rahman

Department of English
 vi

Hazara University Mansehra

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis titled “The Impact of Explicit Corrective Feedback on

Learning English Conditional Sentences”, submitted by Khalid Shah for the award of Master

of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics, Department of English, is based on the results of studies

carried out by him in the Hazara University, Mansehra, under my guidance and supervision

during the research. The thesis or any part of it has not been previously submitted for any other

degree.

Internal Examiner/ Supervisor: _______________

External Examiner: ________________

Dean/Chairman ________________
 vii

Dated:…..…./ …….…/………..

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I have been through a hard fight during writing this research study. It taught me about

struggle, prayer, spirit, patience, responsibility, passion, deadline, and sort of things. The struggle

would not have been possible without support, motivation, sincere favours, and constructive

ideas from the contributing parties.

I am very grateful to Allah Almighty (The creator of the Universe) for without His graces

and blessings, this study would not have been possible. Furthermore, I pay all of my respect to

the final Messenger of Allah Holy Prophet Muhammad (S. A.W) who was sent as a blessing for

the whole of humanity.

I would first of all like to thank my Mother whose unconditional and unwavering love

made me able to complete my study, and other family members whose prayers, care, and love

were a source of encouragement and inspiration for me over all my academic phase.

Finally, I feel great pleasure and honour to express my deepest sense of gratitude and

sincere feelings of reverence to my research supervisor Dr. Ghani Rahman, for not only

broadening the sphere of my knowledge but also for his efficient guidance and kind supervision

throughout this research. His valuable criticism, guidance and regular encouragement enabled

me to complete this research work.

 viii

Table of Contents

List of Tables.......................................................................................................................x
Abstract...............................................................................................................................xi
CHAPTER 1........................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................1
1.2 Explicit Corrective Feedback....................................................................................3
1.5 Problem Statement.....................................................................................................9
1.6 Aim and Objectives...................................................................................................9
1.7 Research Questions..................................................................................................10
1.8 Research Rationale..................................................................................................10
1.9 Organization of the Research...................................................................................11

CHAPTER 02....................................................................................................................12
LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................12

2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................12
2.2 Contextual Background...........................................................................................12
2.3 Historical Background.............................................................................................13
2.4 Explicit Corrective Feedback..................................................................................16
2.5 Explicit Corrective Feedback in English Medium Schools.....................................20
2.6 Long term impact of Explicit Corrective Feedback................................................24

2.6.1 The risk associated with the explicit corrective feedback................................26

2.7 Theoretical Framework............................................................................................27

2.7.1 Language acquisition theory: The Nativist Theory..........................................27

 ix

2.8 Chapter Summary....................................................................................................30

CHAPTER 3......................................................................................................................31
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................31

3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................31
3.3 Research Approach..................................................................................................31
3.4 Research Design......................................................................................................32
3.5 Population and Sampling procedures......................................................................33
3.6 Research Variables..................................................................................................34
3.7 Experimentation and Tools......................................................................................35
3.8 Data Collection Procedure.......................................................................................37

3.9.1 Variable measurement table.............................................................................39

3.9.2 Ranking procedures..........................................................................................40

3.10 Research Ethics......................................................................................................41

3.11 Summary................................................................................................................41

CHAPTER 4......................................................................................................................43
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION.....................................................................................43

4.1 Data Analysis.........................................................................................................43

4.2 Pre-Test Result.........................................................................................................44
4.3 T test on pre-test......................................................................................................44
4.4 Post test result..........................................................................................................45
4.5 T test on Post-test in table form...............................................................................47
4.6 Discussion................................................................................................................48
4.7 Summary..................................................................................................................56

CHAPTER 5......................................................................................................................58
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................58

5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................58
5.2 Conclusion...............................................................................................................58
5.3 Recommendations....................................................................................................61
5.4 Future Implications..................................................................................................64
 x

References..........................................................................................................................66
 xi

List of Tables

Table 1: Variables measurement criteria...........................................................................39

Table 2: Ranking procedures.............................................................................................40
Table 3: Pre- test results....................................................................................................44
Table 4: Pre-Test Independent Samples t-test...................................................................45
Table 5: Post test results....................................................................................................46
Table 6: Post Test Independent Samples t-test..................................................................47
 xii

Abstract

In the current scenario, the concept of corrective feedback that can rectify an issue is

found to occupy major importance and is subject to debates with varied standpoints. However,

there are some discrepancies that are attested to the efficacy of corrective feedback and its ability

to improve the student’s grasp on subjective matters. Therefore, the main aim and purpose of this

study is to investigate the ability of corrective feedback in terms of enhancing the student’s

ability within the conditional sentencing’s context. Quantitative research design has been

selected while a quasi-experimental design has been opted for data analysis techniques.

Moreover, the findings observed that corrective feedback has considerable impact on the

student’s ability to form conditional sentences. Standard deviation for experimental groups is

higher than its counterpart group, it can be deduced that experimental groups are more reliable

citing more variance. After comparison and identifying effects on both groups, a significant

effect is seen on the control group than the experimental group. It has been seen that corrective

feedback that focuses on students' deficiencies might increase their drive to learn more about

their mistakes. In this regard, the quasi-findings experiment showed that complete corrective

feedback, whether direct or indirect, can help students improve their linguistic and verbal faults

over time.

Key Terms: Feedback, Corrective Feedback, Implicit Feedback, Explicit Feedback, English

Conditionals
 1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

There are various definitions of corrective feedback in existing literature but to simplify it,

corrective feedback is the review done by a teacher, peer or mentor of how well the student has

performed and communicates the feedback to the student about his learning or work. Students

feel motivated and encouraged after receiving positive feedback whereas, they are advised to

take negative feedback more constructively so that they can improve in future. The main aim

behind giving corrective feedback is to expect change in performance and improvement in

future. The teachers give feedback to students about how well they have written, what needs to

be changed, what can be improved, how well it can be presented and corrects students written

English errors related to grammar and wrong sentence structures. Borg (2017) defines feedback

as a kind of information which is given to the student about her/his result of an assigned learning

work often with an intention to improve this performance.

According to the research carried by Sadat et.al (2015) they were found that making

errors is part of learning process and for language teachers specifically, this has been of great

interest to identify errors and give constructive feedback on it. Student’s errors must be

corrected timely for their learning and growth. There are many methods of corrective feedback

that are used globally by teachers. Still, it entirely depends on the teachers how they want to

convey their feedback.

Corrective feedback plays a very significant part in improving both written and speaking

linguistic proficiency. Feedback is helping the learners to improve long term writing ability
 2

which is beyond the immediate composition effect. The three types of options for feedback are

conferencing, peer feedback, and written comments. Feedback is the central and crucial to all

kind of learner-centred teaching. Feedback is a very important phenomenon in the language

teaching processes as it helps the learner not only to consolidate what they have already learned

but also spurs them to learn more.

Writing is a complex task. Writing in the foreign language is a herculean job for L2

students and they need the help of L2 teachers to improve their writing proficiency. One of the

effective techniques teacher employ to better L2 learners writing proficiency is correcting their

error. To guide the learners in correcting their errors; teachers mostly use “written corrective

feedback” as a standard method. One of the study conducted by Marzban and Arabahmadi

(2013) revealed that three types of direct corrective feedback exists that can be used by teachers:

blend of direct feedback and written/oral explanation, written metalinguistic explanation and

direct feedback and finally, direct feedback only.

“Corrective feedback” on L2 students writing can take various forms. There have been

different methodologies for writing accuracy, for instance, with regard to their focus, their

explicitness, the feedback medium, the instructor which are providing the correct forms and etc.

It is believes that unfocused and focused corrective feedback and the difference between indirect

and direct corrective feedback were the two dichotomies which are receiving the attention of

researchers.

For ESL students to achieve grammatically accurate writing skill, is considered as an

important part of their academic success. The objective of the instructor is how best to support,

how best to assist students improvement, how to implement and include appropriate pedagogy
 3

and methods so that the learners can easily raise and get ahead, and the objective of the student is

to acquire this success.

1.2 Explicit Corrective Feedback

According to Lyster and Ranta (1997) explicit feedback speaks of the explicit delivery of

the accurate structure. It consists of specific grammatical information that students can refer to

when an answer is incorrect. For instance, if a student commit a mistake by stating “She go to the

school”, in such cases students are taught to use ‘s’ or ‘es’ with English third person singular

verbs ending.

The technique of explicit feedback can be during the interview the researcher corrects the

participants on their grammatical errors by responding to it then and there. It is denoted that

explicit correction are more informed and reactive approach where the instructor immediately

steps in the learning process, by providing the learner more insight on form and meta linguistic

explanation (Dabaghi, 2008).

1.3 Conditional sentences

Majority learners face the problem with meaning and form. There is always the

possibility of problem with form because the conditional sentence consists of two clauses i.e.

‘IF’ and ‘Main or Result clause’ which can be used interchangeably. According to Traugott

(1986) the ‘if clause’ contains a condition while the ‘result clause’ contains the result or

consequence. Moreover conditional sentences can be classified into real and unreal conditions.

Based on the ‘real and unreal’, conditional can further be classified into those (factual

relationship) and those that (present a predictive relationship). The conditionals (unreal) are used

to state completely hypothetical situations and situations that are assumed to be completely

opposite to known facts (Zhang, 2005).

 4

The dependent clause begins with different words such as if, unless, even if, as long as,

whether or not etc. Conditional sentences directly reflect the language users’ ability to reason

either about uncertainties or alternatives. An understanding of the behavioural and conceptual

organization involved in the interpretation and construction of such types of sentences provides

basic insights into the inferential strategies and the linguistics and cognitive processes of human

beings (Traugott, 2009). This is a fact that conditional sentences are one of the main obstacles for

learners while learning English language. Many researchers have tried their best to identify the

problems how to teach conditional easily and practically but until now there is no such

satisfactory answer to this.

Conditionals are common syntactic configurations that express possibilities,

potentialities, and causal relationships. In English, a conditional sentence is often expressed in

the form of ‘If B, then C.’ (Li, 1995). In the ‘IF clause’ the speaker states the condition while in

the main or result clause the speaker states the consequence (Traugott, 2000).

In English we have mainly four types of conditionals and there are differences with

respect to their time reference (present, past and future) and in relation with the actual world

(possible, factual, and counterfactual). It is necessary to state that each type is distinct from that

of another.

We will stay at home, if it rains.

(It is only a prediction: Future reference)

If it rained, they would cancel the game.

(Present reference: But it is not raining/Future reference; Raining is not strongly negated;

there is a possibility that it will rain).

If it were to rain, we would have to go inside the room.

 5

(Future reference: It is unlikely that it is going to rain).

If it had rained, they would all have gone.

(Past reference: But it did not rain, so they did not go).

1.4 Types of conditional sentences

Maule (1988) opposes the idea of teaching the simplest forms of conditional type 1, 2,

and 3 only. He further says that it will bring harm than good. He believes that how will a learner

express and understand the other conditional expressions if he is just taught few simple

sentences. Ur (1989), in reply to Maule (1988), says she teaches the three types of conditional

because they form the minority in actual usage, they do ‘occur frequently enough to be

considered useful’ and because ‘they are difficult.’ Hence, the researcher attempts to consider

fundamental conditional sentences as below:

1.4.1 Zero Conditional

The zero conditional is used to describe certainties, facts, and rules. In the said

conditional, both of the clauses are in the ‘simple present’ tense. Example is given below.

If he studies, he passes the exam.

1.4.2 First Conditional

In this conditional we come across with a hypothetical situation that is probably true, but

the truth of which is unproved. In this conditional, the condition is in the present indefinite tense,

while the result clause can be either in past or present tense. Example is given below.

If he studies, he will pass the exam.

1.4.3 Second Conditional

 6

The second conditional is used to express unreal situations, and imaginary events. The ‘if

clause’ is in the past tense, and the result clause contains a conditional verb modifier (like

should, would, and might), along with the main verb.

If I studied, I would pass the exam.

1.4.4 Third conditional

This type of conditional is used to express impossible past events. The past perfect tense

is used in both the main and condition clause.

If I had studied, I would have passed the exam.

Nayef and Hajjaj (1997) summarize touch three aspects in teaching conditionals: a) the

time reference of the verbs, b) forms of the verbs and c) the meaning of the condition. According

to them in both of the clauses of the conditionals the agreement of the forms of the two verbs is

actually the cause in the way of learning for the student.

According to the research study of Ford and Thompson (1986) that if-clause measure for

nearly eighty per cent of conditional sentences in their corpora, covering four functions in both

oral and written discourses, which are following.

a) Providing examples for generalizations.

b) Making inferences

c) Introducing contrasts

d) Offering options for future follow-up activities

According to the study conducted by Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia (1999), if clause

may be used for the social functions such as speak sarcastically, giving directives, and offer

command, advice, apology and instruction. Another research study of Ford (1997) in spoken
 7

discourse, which is investigated conditionals and their functions based on some sixty conditional

sentences from day to day conversations of native speakers of English, which is resulted with

several social discourse functions of conditionals:

1. Initial If-clause relates a comment to the statements said earlier, which shows that it

plays a connective role.

2. Conditional sentences may introduce new understanding to the previously spoken

sentences which focus on a single idea.

3. ‘If-clauses’ usually have a moderate tone, moving away from disagreement toward

being less confrontational by using softening hypothetical information.

4. Instead of commands ‘If-clauses’ usually state suggestions and requests. They can be

used after proposals, directives and most importantly they offer to bring about effective actions.

It can also express desirability. According to the findings of Mayes’s (1994), conditionals help us

to explore the relationship between the human mind and language reflecting the psychological

thoughts and the state of the speaker such as sorrow, cynicism, regret and disbelief.

Berent (1985) carried out a study on the order of acquisition of conditionals to investigate

learners’ difficulties. Two experiments were conducted to compare the production and

comprehension of real (type 1), unreal (type 2), and past unreal (type 3) conditional sentences for

fifty five advanced and low-advanced adult ESL (English as Second Language) learners. The

findings of the study showed that despite the complexity of structure in type three, the learners

had less difficulty in comprehension than in production.

Therefore, these methodological and theoretical problems show that learners and

instructors are faced with a problem in how to learn and teach conditionals properly, efficiently
 8

and practicality. Thus, this intent study aims to reflect the impact of explicit corrective feedback

in learning and teaching conditional sentences.

One of the big obstacles in English as a foreign or second language learning is

conditional sentences. Rdaat and Gardner (2017) argue that conditional sentences are cognitively

and linguistically complicated structures which give a number of different meanings, are

understood via a number of different structures, and are also used for a different number of

discourse purposes.

One of the causes of the complexity of stating of the “English conditional sentences” is

the dependency of one situation on the happening of that of the other one (Eskandari &

Soleimani, 2016). The variety of possible meanings includes the areas of psychological

desirability and intent, cognitive reasoning, semantic nuances and logical argument related with

counterfactual, real, or assumed incidents, concluded from or make happened by one or more of

these happenings.

Still the experts of language have not fined a simple answer how the structures of

“English conditional sentences” would be taught. Although certain proposals were made and

significant researches were done on conditionals, but still teachers and students have difficulties

in teaching and learning English conditional structures.

According to linguists every language of the world has its own methods of forming

conditional sentences and they have concluded that conditionals occur in many languages, such

as English, Classic Greek, Chinese, German, Latin, and others (Tyler, 2012). But according to

Farooq, Wahid and Hassan (2020) English learners as an (ESL) have troubles in learning

“English conditional sentences” because of the semantic complexity and syntactic complexity

embedded in conditional constructions.

 9

It is believed that the human mechanism of comprehending and constructing of English

conditional sentences “provides basic insights into the cognitive processes, linguistic

competence, and inferential strategies of human beings” (Yufrizal, 2017). Hence, the key aim of

this research is to analyse the impact of explicit corrective feedback on student’s learning of

English conditional sentences.

1.5 Problem Statement

The increasing internationalization of higher education has significantly increased the

number of lessons taught in English (Kirkpatrick, 2012). This means that students are also

increasingly submitting papers in English and those teachers must therefore formulate more and

more feedback in English (Dearden & Macaro, 2016). For this purpose, explicit corrective

feedback plays an important role. It is referred to the correction of the mistakes made by the

students more explicitly. It also includes the usage of grammatical information which the pupils

can refer to in the times when the answer to the question is incorrect. Hence, it is important to

find if the corrective feedback on learning English conditional sentences. On the other hand,

Chandler (2003) and Hyland (2003) have found that the accuracy of English writing of the ESL

students has improved through corrective feedback of teachers. However, these researches have

not identified the overall importance of corrective feedback for writing conditional sentences

amongst students 9th grade for whom English is a second language. Therefore, the current

research has been conducted and has been significant for offering findings regarding the role of

explicit corrective feedback on the grade 9 learners’ with respect to learning English conditional

sentences in the English medium schools of Upper Dir.

 10

1.6 Aim and Objectives

The key aim of the study is to find the impact of explicit corrective feedback on learning

English conditional sentences. This aim has been divided into following objectives:

1. To investigate the role of explicit corrective feedback on the grade 9 learners’

with respect to learning English conditional sentences.

2. To know how explicit corrective feedback helps the students in learning English

conditional sentences.

1.7 Research Questions

The key research questions of the study are given below:

1. What is the impact of explicit Corrective Feedback on learning English conditional

sentences?

2. How explicit corrective feedback helps the students in learning English conditional

sentences?

1.8 Research Rationale

The rationale of the study is linked with the theoretical and practical rationale and

significance. The theoretical rationale is associated with how the study has filled the gap that is

pertinent in the existing body of knowledge. It is not always easy for the teacher to provide these

papers with written feedback because the student must immediately be able to form a clear and

clear picture of what is wrong or problematic and how he or she can remedy this (Bailey &

Garner, 2010). An additional difficulty for the teacher is that the comments must also be worded

in another language. This linguistic barrier often makes the correction process even more

difficult. Moreover, for the ESL students, the grammatical accuracy is highly important
 11

especially in writing for the purpose of achieving academic success (Hartshorn et al., 2010).

However, with the help of corrective feedback, the text can be getting better, but the student or

pupil does not learn how to discover and correct a mistake himself. Moreover, teachers get

discouraged because the students and pupils keep making the same mistakes despite all the

feedback. Moreover, the previous studies have investigated regarding corrective feedback for

learning English language (Hashemnezhad & Nejad, 2012; Lyster, 2004; Ellis, Loewen, &

Erlam, 2006). However, these researchers have not focused on the explicit corrective feedback

for specifically writing accuracy of English conditional sentences.

1.9 Organization of the Research

The research study has been divided into five main sections. The first section or part has

included the introduction of the research indicating the key aim and objectives and research

questions. The second section has incorporated the review of the literature that is related with the

area of the study. The third section has included the research methods incorporating design,

method of data collection, philosophy and other sections related with the method for the purpose

of conducting this study. The fourth section has incorporated the overall data analysis and

discussion of the findings and objectives whereas section five has incorporated the conclusion

and recommendation for practice and for future studies.

 12

CHAPTER 02
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter is based on sharing the significance and comprehensive information with

regards to the Explicit Corrective Feedback, in the light of the studies conducted by other

researchers. In this chapter, an ample of data is collected so as to have a contextual building of

the research topic. This chapter has provided the details with regards to the Explicit Corrective

Feedback and its usage in the English Medium Schools. It is an extensive topic however; the

researcher has focused on the key aspects related to Explicit Corrective Feedback. Basically,

Corrective feedback refers to a normal practice in the arena of education and accomplishment.

2.2 Contextual Background

Feedback plays an important role in everyday life, but what is the best way? When the

teachers think about feedback, they will likely think about corrective feedback. Corrective
 13

feedback is used to correct and improve undesirable behaviour of a person. It is important to

indicate what the person can do to improve the unwanted behaviour (Bitchener, 2008). Only

corrective feedback, however, will have a demotivating effect on the recipient. That is why it is

important that individuals also provide positive feedback. Positive feedback keeps a person

motivated and will continue with the desired behaviour (Ellis, 2009). In addition, it ensures that

people become aware of their capacities and talents. With positive feedback it is important that

teachers emphasize the positive behaviour of the other person. When a person makes mistakes,

one can also indicate what was right (Sheen, 2011). One of the most important tasks of a good

teacher is to correct their students systematically.

2.3 Historical Background

The students make mistakes, sometimes a lot of mistakes and it is of course not necessary

to correct every mistake that has a very discouraging effect (Li, 2010). Nevertheless, it remains

important to provide regular feedback to the students for their betterment in their academic

performance. Obviously, corrective feedback is much more than just correcting mistakes (Lyster,

Saito & Sato, 2013). The students would like to know what their strengths and weaknesses are,

what they can do to make further progress, how and what progress they are making and receive a

regular pat on the back for this. In corrective feedback, the teacher provides feedback on the

content of the task that their student has completed (Bitchener & Knoch, 2010). The teacher then

points out his mistakes or points for attention and they may or may not provide the correct

solution.

Conditioning involves a process in which a person's behaviour changes as a result of

experiences he has. It is about behaviour that comes about under certain conditions and which

gradually becomes a habit - an ingrained behavioural pattern (Schulz, 2014). Conditional forms
 14

should be introduced to ESL students as soon as they are familiar with the basic past, present and

future times (Haza'Al Rdaat & Gardner, 2017). While there are four conditional forms, it is best

to start with the first conditional focusing on real situations. Once the students understand this

basic structural similarity, it is easy to proceed with the zero conditional, as well as other

conditional forms (Savage, Bitterlin & Price, 2010). It is also useful to use other conditional

names such as "true condition" for the first conditional, "unreal conditional" for the second

conditional, and "past unreal conditional" for the third conditional. It is recommended to

introduce all three forms if the ESL students are comfortable with times as the similarities in

structure will help them process the information (Hasan & Akhand, 2010). In the case of

feedback it is useful not to come up with solutions, but to teach students or pupils strategies with

which they can write better texts themselves. For example, let students or pupils tell about the

story or the situation themselves and make notes. If they compare these notes with the text they

have written themselves, they often see where things go wrong (Farrell, 2011). Another way is to

have students or pupils read their texts. This can be done one-on-one with the student or pupil as

a class or in pairs (Blažková, 2011). It means that not only the teachers check the texts, but that

the students or pupils themselves also learn how to check the content, structure and formulation

of their texts.

The focus in the first conditional is that it is used for realistic situations that will occur in

the future. Make sure to point out that the first condition is sometimes called the "real" condition.

Remind students that the first condition is the meaning of future time clauses (Sadat et al., 2015).

The main difference between the zero conditional and future time clause is that the zero is

conditional for situations that don't happen on a regular basis (Wu, 2012). In other words, use

future time clauses for routines, but use the zero conditional for exceptional situations. However,
 15

the corrective feedback for such sentenced need to be more explicit in order to keep the students

motivated for learning.

According to the study conducted by Tavakoli and Zarrinabadi (2018), it classically

includes a Learner who either receives formal or informal feedback on the basis of his level of

understanding or output on different tasks through a mediator that can be a teacher or friend. It

has been claimed by many of the researchers such as Zhao and Ellis (2020), that explicit

feedback is a highly effective type of corrective feedback. In this chapter, the impacts of the

explicit corrective feedback will be discussed on English Learners, comprehensively.

In a study (Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017), the effectiveness of corrective feedback on

gaining various grammatical features has been witnessed that support language learning and

teaching. The impact of corrective feedback has been found in the treatment of errors during

communicative activities that impact significantly linguistic features. It is necessary to involve

such pedagogic interventions that not only focus on explicit knowledge but also involve implicit

learning. The corrective feedback is considered to elicit if it involves the correct version of

utterance from the learners. Through classroom studies, the long-term effects of corrective

feedback can be analysed. Likewise, through the findings of study__, it was demonstrated that

using corrective feedback as a technique of teaching shows superiority over prior exemplification

of grammatical exceptions and structures. The explicit feedback supports the knowledge with

which learners are consciously aware. The metalinguistic labels are found associated with

explicit knowledge. The process of learning supports students’ development with the providence

of knowledge to strengthen his/her skills and areas of improvement. The interventions of

teachers play a crucial role through the deliverance of corrective feedback to learners. The

process of corrective feedback allows indicating the student’s errors during the learning process.
 16

The purpose of corrective feedback shows a degree of correctness of knowledge towards

students to improve their understandings. It not only indicates the corrections but also integrates

the assessment of their good performance. The deliverance of feedback can motivate learners or

in contradiction might demoralize them depending on the strategies a teacher adapts. The level of

motivation might influence a student to excel high level of achievement (Granena & Yilmaz,

2019).

2.4 Explicit Corrective Feedback

It is analyzed that corrective feedback is considered as the frequent practice for

achievement and learning. It mainly involves learners that involve formal as well as informal

feedback by the end of their mentors or other individuals in order to understand the performance

by evaluating different tasks. Some mentor or teacher is involved in it as an agent. In order to

deliver corrective feedback, there is a need of being non-evaluative, specific, supportive and be

on time. Explicit error correction is mainly used for explaining deliberate corrective feedback

that is considered to be more often used for writing development in languages (Zohrabi &

Behboudnia, 2017). For instance the teacher that is correcting grammar and diction for writing

assignment possess an opportunity that what was not correct and why another choice can be

more accurate.

Explicit corrective feedback mainly indicates that the utterance of the students was not

correct, the teacher have to provide correct form. Explicit feedback mainly refers the provision of

explicit factors in the proper form. It mainly includes the particular information regarding

grammar which can be referred by the students for when to answer incorrectly. For instance if

the student is starting with a simple sentence, explicit feedback is mainly used to explain the

learner the major components in details like the third person singular verb mainly needs an s and
 17

the verb that is ended by vowel needs “es” in the end. This is considered as the technique for

explicit feedback in which the interviewer corrects the participants on the basis of grammar by

responding them regarding it (Shamiri & Farvardin, 2016). It is analysed that explicit correction

are considered to have more informed reactive approach in which instructor steps in the process

of learning immediately. This also provides the learner more insights over the form as well as

explanation that is Meta linguistic (Iizuka & Nakatsukasa, 2019). Another research shows that

explicit corrective feedback is also known as explicit learning that is known as a conscious

approach in which people makes hypothesis and tests it by searching for the structure. It is

further added that explicit knowledge mainly possess the knowledge by which learners are aware

of and it is available by controlled processing. Explicit knowledge is associated with the

metalinguistic labels as these types of knowledge are not considered to be mutually exclusive,

that includes that speakers should hold the explicit and implicit representation for same linguistic

features (Banaruee, Khoshsima & Askari, 2017). In case of linguists that formulates explicit

rules on the basis of implicit knowledge for a particular language.

Corrective feedback is important in education since it reveals a learner's faults, allowing

learners to systematically eliminate those inaccuracies over time. The target language abilities

are learned via practice, and proper feedback is essential for speeding up the processing time and

improving articulation (Alsolami, 2019). The impact of intended and unintended corrective

feedback on EFL learners' knowledge of and correctness in English was studied, and it was

discovered that using both hidden and visible corrective feedback improved grammatical

accuracy and attention. Furthermore, the formal group performed better the implicit group, and

explicit corrective feedback proved to be quite effective than implicit input (Zohrabi & Ehsani,

2014). For example, whenever it comes to initiating the corrective action, teachers may rely on
 18

meta - linguistic feedback and elicitations. As opposed to corrective feedback, which are thought

to be more in the setting of natural foreign language (FL) acquisition, such corrective feedback,

which generally results in discussions, appears to be appropriate for an analytical foreign

language teaching (FLT) environment (Lochtman, 2002).

The mode of delivering feedback plays a crucial impact on students’ learning and

understanding. The best strategy to convey the feedback integrates the acknowledgment aspects

which is further followed with the corrective piece of information that needs to be improved. It

will keep students confident and motivated to seek feedback for quality improvements in their

learning. Intervening refrains students to make improvements. In explicitness, feedback varies

and facilitates in identifying the problems to promote accurateness or appropriateness during

verbal communication. The role of cognitive theories such as interaction hypothesis, output

hypothesis, and noticing hypothesis helps in the manifestation of corrective feedback. Also, the

skills acquisition theory also emphasizes learner feedback to improve real-life behavioural

learning. The purpose of cognitive theories is to support acquisition particularly during

participation in the learning process to understand the meaning, commit errors and receive

feedback (Tavakoli & Zarrinabadi, 2018). The features of these theories provide online feedback

as well as generate a window of opportunities. These theories generally sought to address the

oral corrective feedback support for the acquisition. The differences between the cognitive

feedback in input providing and output prompting are found applicable for both oral and written

cognitive feedback. Also, it enhances the metalinguistic understanding of the errors. The role of

teachers majorly points out the errors of learners need for the correctness of language output

which is technically considered as corrective feedback to improve their understandings.

 19

The time of correction is a significant element of the CF. In summary, the literature has

emphasized three main ways for correcting the time of corrections. Whenever a student makes an

error concerning the usage of the language characteristic that is the major emphasis which is also

explicit (overt) enough for the learner to recognize, the very first form indicates an urgent

intervention. According to other research, participants preferred to get specific and rapid

corrections in the middle of their talks and during teacher-student exchanges (Lee, 2013). The

second approach is temporarily halted CF, which involves practicing the rectification after the

oral remake. One of the ways that requires teachers to leave correction until the completion of

fluency sessions is delayed corrective feedback. Regardless of the existence of research

suggesting that immediate CF may not disrupt fluency work, the quick correction is

recommended in accuracy-oriented activities (Ellis, 2009). Lastly, as in third category, corrective

feedback is deferred until about the completion of a class or perhaps the next meeting, a practice

known as post-delayed CF (Pawlak, 2013). Thus according to Bitchener and Ferris, the

straightforward strategy of avoiding obvious mistake in language learning is to observe and

practice the correct model for an acceptable amount of time; tackling mistakes is entirely feasible

by reducing the amount of time between the incorrect response and the presentation of the

correct model once more (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). Consequently, there is indeed a disparity in

perceptions of the time of the correction across various groups of learners. According to Ellis and

Shintani (2014), explicitness is critical for the effectiveness of CF because learners must

understand its corrective impact. They further claimed that individuals should receive correction

if they are unable to self-correct own inaccurate statements. Explicit feedback can take place into

two distinct ways. At first, trainers can humbly point out an error that has been already made or

they can provide comprehensive metalinguistic feedback (Fawbush, 2010). The preceding
 20

correction termed as explicit correction, while on the other hand the concluding part is suitably

known as metalinguistic feedback (Zhao & Ellis, 2020). Moreover, the impact of the self-

realization that will drive from explicit correction would apparently seems that the time-outs of

metalinguistic from collaborating gave by corrections from explicit feedbacks constitute an

impeccable context for merging the unconscious and conscious processes demanded in learning.

Within the perspective of an interactional exchange on its own, such a recreation or time-out

builds a chance for students to pass through the sequence of learning (Muñoz-Pascual &

Galende, 2017). In addition to that, explicit knowledge encompasses knowledge that students

are wilfully aware of and that is usually obtainable through well-ordered processing (Kim, &

Godfroid, 2019). Explicit corrective feedback might be interrelated with the metalinguistic

labels. The implicit and explicit knowledge are not jointly exclusive; that means, presenters can

embrace explicit and implicit demonstrations of the similar feature of linguistic, as, for instance,

in the circumstances of linguists who communicate explicit procedures based on the origin of

their knowledge of implicitly in a language (Simard & Gutiérrez, 2017). Additionally,

Corrective feedback varies in respect of how explicit or implicit it is. While covering implicit

feedback, there’s not any open indicator which shows a fault has been detected, whereas in

explicit feedback, there considers the Implicit feedback which often proceeds the method of

recasts (Sato & Loewen, 2018).

2.5 Explicit Corrective Feedback in English Medium Schools  

It is analysed that in order to facilitate successful learning of the language, teachers

should perform complicated act of balancing among two major contradictory roles. It is every

important that they should establish positive affect over students so that they are able to engage

in confrontational activities for corrective feedback over the errors. There is a positive affect that
 21

is derived from the variety of teachers behaviours in which encouragement, humour, natural use

of language and personal interest are included (Granena, Yilmaz & Leow, 2019). It is added that

corrective feedback is conveyed in different ways that gains opposite message confrontation,

discouragement in potential as well as focus over forms instead of content.

It is evaluated that the notion of corrective feedback is considered as very important in L2

learning as well as teaching as it is very crucial and facilitates in provision of role for attention of

students in L2 as well as perspective of teachers in treating the error. Corrective feedback is

considered as feedback type that is mainly used by the teachers on utterance of learners in the

language that is targeted that consists of errors (Zhao & Ellis, 2020). Further it is added that in

teaching L2 the most important thing that should be followed in English medium schools is to

response towards the speech production of teachers as one of the several ways that shows the

attention for teachers to the students. Feedback is regarded as very important thing in English

communicative teaching learning activities. The students are involved in the interactions while

these activities, that helps them in empowering the students to get in touch with the language that

they are learning. In English medium schools, the English classroom interaction would lead the

students for doing best for the target language (Tavakoli & Zarrinabadi, 2018).

It is analysed that there are two main ways that are used to conduct corrective feedback in

English medium schools, one is corrective feedback in which utterance of student is interrupted

by the language teacher for providing metalinguistic explanation as well as implicit corrective

feedback is another way in which language teacher mainly interrupts the utterance of students for

giving some language input having no metalinguistic explanation (Iizuka & Nakatsukasa, 2019).

These types of feedbacks are found while the communicative activities in English classrooms in

English medium schools. If teachers uses implicit corrective feedback for the students to pointing
 22

out their errors, the feedback is easily understood by the students and they are able ti correct their

language output by themselves (Banaruee, Khoshsima & Askari, 2017).

Whereas if the students are not able to understand the implicit corrective feedback of the

teachers then they would probably preserve explicit corrective feedback by the end of teachers.

Perhaps, it is analysed that the students of English medium schools may correct their output of

language under intervention of teachers. Corrective feedback is mainly provided by the teachers

in case students are able to use target language in improper ways. The error of the students can

be improved once they get corrected (Zohrabi & Behboudnia, 2017). However, the error learners

can possess grammatical errors like incorrect use for preposition, tenses or pronoun. Teachers

working in English Medium Schools, particularly in the classes of communicating English as a

Second Language and assisting them to make conditional sentences in the class, the main

concern of the trainers is on what approach student’s errors and mistakes should be rectified and

at what degree this correction would play a part in improving their knowledge (Zhao & Ellis,

2020). Furthermore, another concern that is generally related to the feedback methods to the

students is to provide corrective feedback to nurture improvement without negatively impacting

their motivation and fluency (Nemati, Alavi & Mohebbi, 2019). Moreover, in a condition, where

teachers have to correct too many mistakes, then the learners’ fluency in writing and speaking

might get affected since they would be frightened in making errors. In addition, it may also affect

learner’s performance and confidence in the process of learning (Alsolami, 2021).

The comparative usefulness of implicit and explicit corrective feedback have been set

forth, some in the favour of error correction with the help of explicit corrective feedback, others

assisting the implicit corrective feedback approach (Lin, et al., 2020). Moreover Amoli, (2020)

narrate the advantages of the corrective feedback done by explicitly as: corrective explicit
 23

feedback decreases the form of misperception that learners who are making efforts in learning

English language may practice. In addition to that, explicit corrective feedback arranges methods

for language learners with particular information to give relief to them while resolving more

intricate errors.

Another study conducted by Ataman and Mirici, (2017) shows that explicit corrective

feedback is more effective than implicit corrective feedback as the researcher assumed that

provided implicit feedback demoralize most of the students, but when students received their

corrective feedback explicitly, they have seen more encouraged and motivated to take part in

tasks of writing conditional sentences. As observed from the analysis, the corrective feedback

helps the student to develop their learning and writing skills with the use of different process as

describe by many researchers in the above study. According to the study of the Lee (2020), the

corrective feedback tends to emphasize the writing abilities of a learner and advise them they

how they improve their quality of vocabulary. Similarly, corrective feedback develops better

written and oral communication skills, the learner tends to remember the rules or guidance which

are provided by the mentors at an initial stage as they improve the students’ abilities. The

corrective feedback towards project based learning skills enhances the ability of students to plan

successfully in decision making process. Similarly, the project learning skills generates learning

environment which help the student to achieve their perspective goals, so the corrective feedback

approach make positive contribution with respect to students’ academic achievement.

According to the studies of Lee and Ferris (2020), corrective feedback has positive effect

on the students learning abilities. The study mainly considers those students who received proper

feedback in the development of the L2 writing skills. Furthermore, the students of 8 to 9 years

old get much benefit from the intervention of corrective feedback with the help of metacognitive
 24

strategies (Carvetti & Hiebert, 2019). Furthermore, the corrective feedback helps the students to

improve their learning and writing skills. The study of Ellis (2016), show that the positive

feedback motivates the learners and these feedbacks provide an opportunities for the learners to

be more familiar with their strengths and weakness, the learners could develop their language

learning and acquisition in the weakens areas where they feel they are weak in that area. So, the

corrective feedback positively impacts the students’ abilities to form conditional sentences. The

study of Saukah and Laksmi (2017) also describe the direct and indirect corrective feedback. The

direct corrective feedback reduces the student’s confusion towards the understanding of the

topics and also helps the students when they fail to understand the meaning of error codes used

by teacher. The indirect corrective feedback is a type of writing feedback; this feedback also

helps the students to achieve their abilities in term of writing skills.

2.6 Long term impact of Explicit Corrective Feedback 

With regards to the study conducted by Banaruee, Khoshsima and Askari (2017), there

are various classifications with regards to the strategies of Corrective Feedback that have been

proposed by many researchers. Nevertheless, such classifications vary in essence. the

classification which includes six various categories named as, the clarification request, explicit

feedback, recasts, metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, as well as repetition is majorly used for

the production evaluation of the oral learners. Though while having a slight alteration, it could

even be used for the writing activities of the learners. However, in terms of explicit corrective

feedback, it can be averred that this classification is really helpful in focusing on the quality of

the words.

According to the study conducted by Granena, Yilmaz and Leow (2019), the explicit

corrective feedback is an evaluative as well as advisory kind of feedback that tends to emphasize
 25

on the writing abilities of a learner and advise them that how they can improve the quality of

vocabulary. The explicit corrective feedback is quite useful as compared to the implicit

corrective feedback. The reason is that it tends to lead towards more perfection when it comes to

accuracy and awareness of grammar. The learners tend to remember the rules or guidance that

they tend to get through their mentors as an explicit corrective feedback, as per which, they

develop better written and oral communication skills. Even, they tend to have an enhanced

speech and conversation with others.

Correcting the grammar of a learner, at an initial stage, is a must. With regards to the

study conducted by Karimi and Esfandiari (2016), writing turns out to be impressive if it is

correctly written. It is not just about having appropriate use of vocabs, but basically includes the

correct sentence structure, easy and understandable written content, proper use of tense, and so

on.

In many cases, it often happens that the learners write English correctly, using all the

necessary vocabulary, avoiding the grammatical errors, correct use of a first, second or third

person, etc. However, when it comes to speaking English, they actually make blunders. Those

blunders can be either in the form of incorrect use of tense or any wrong pronunciation, and so

on. Therefore, as per the study conducted by Shamiri and Farvardin (2016), correcting the

learners at the beginning stage helps them in enhancing their communication skills and attain

success in their forthcoming education or career life. 

The explicit correction tends to require, giving the right form explicitly like a response

with regards to the errors made by the students. For example, when an EFL, which is as a

Foreign Language, learner utters, ‘I do my homework yesterday’, the explicit corrective

feedback should be immediately provided while saying, ‘I did my homework yesterday.’ This
 26

helps the learner in remembering things if he is corrected timely. Eventually whether verbal or

written, he will focus gradually on improving his English skills. According to the study

conducted by Prayogo (2018), identifying the errors and making the students get aware of what

is right and wrong in English Language rules needs to be explicitly done as it is much effective

for the learners. In the future, he or she will apply those corrections and make them in practice

with which, they will boost up their communication skills. With regards to the study conducted

by Piantadosi and Jacobs (2016), to provide feedback to the learners is dependent on their

performance with regards to their constructive role towards awareness as well as observing the

proposition in the language acquisition.

Learning English is not a duck soup. It requires time and focuses. One has to concentrate

on the use of different forms of persons, pronunciations, tenses, and many more. However, the

long-term impact of such explicit corrective feedback is really beneficial for the learners. First of

all, they will be able to overcome the element of confusion which they tend to experience while

learning. Moreover, with regards to the research conducted by Nourbakhsh and Pourmohammadi

(2019), explicit corrective feedback lets the language learners have an ample of information

which helps them in resolving many complicated issues or errors. It includes the syntactic

structure or the use of the idiomatic expression, using metaphorical language, etc (Manuel,

2019). It is through the explicit corrective feedback that the language learners will tend to have a

greater level of input with regards to the hypotheses that might have been created.

2.6.1 The risk associated with the explicit corrective feedback

It has been discussed by many of the researches that problems in learning arise when

there is a gap among the knowledge as well as experience and, even in the representation of the

problem which is faced by the young learners while developing or learning language skills.
 27

Researchers like Plato have portrayed the example of a kid who tends to learn things at a certain

age while developing a distinctive capability of downloading from the aether (Ito, 2017). It

means that they develop those programs which are compulsorily needed for rapidly learning the

language skills exclusive to the human beings. According to the study conducted by Ito (2017), a

theoretical explanation can be provided in terms of the possibility of knowing things that are not

taught explicitly to the person. It means that one tends to have an inbuilt hardwired idea that head

towards the attainment of any knowledge which can be gained by experience.

The long-term impacts with regards to the explicit corrective feedback are not only

positive. It can be negative too if it is not understandable by the learner or not perceived by the

educator correctively. With regards to the study conducted by Tulviste and Tamm (2019), the

risk of the explicit corrective feedback is that the language teachers might misunderstand the

meaning of the students’ words or ideas and, just give feedback to him which might be not

appropriate to that or useless maybe. As per the study conducted by Pili-Moss (2019), the

comparative effectiveness of the explicit corrective feedback practices can be determined

through the prevailing aspects that can be the level of the proficiency of the second language,

used by the learner or metalinguistic mindfulness.

2.7 Theoretical Framework 

2.7.1 Language acquisition theory: The Nativist Theory

An American linguist namely Noam Chomsky had a belief that all the human beings are

born having a tendency of learning language. As per the study conducted by Omar (2018), the

core of his theories with regards to the language acquisition reveals that the human beings are

actually pre-wired for learning any language and even possess the fundamental rules for learning

the language. Most of the exclusive details with regards to any particular language structure are
 28

deeply affected by the environment, however, as per the observation of Chomsky, the human

brain is all time prepared, for quickly acquiring the language at particular phases in the

developmental procedure. This section has comprehensively all these key aspects in detail.

The view with regards to the competence of Chomsky is based on the intellectual

grammatical knowledge. According to the study conducted by Dieu (2019), the linguistic theory

is regarding an ideal speaker as well as a listener in a totally consistent speech community. The

community knows its language with perfection and is not affected by any grammatically

unrelated conditions such as memory limits, interruptions, diverting attention or interest as well

as errors in putting on the knowledge of the language into real performance.

As per Chomsky’s theory, the elementary form of language is actually in the brain of

humans. Language is a capability that is exclusive to man. They tend to observe language as the

skill of comprehending as well as speaking ideas. If two people have the similar knowledge, a

noticeable difference is there in each of the person’s capability of expressing the knowledge.

According to the study conducted by Dastpak, Behjat and Taghinezhad (2017), Chomsky

insistently contends that the brain has a unique factor which could be known as the language

aspect, having a distinct structure as well as a system.

With regards to the study conducted by Omar (2018), the value of language is not

satisfied just by acquainting some of the words or sentences. When a sentence structure is taught

to the learner, the goal must be to focus on constructing an idea, not just a sentence. According to

the research conducted by Merita and Syahroni (2019), the aim of linguistic theory is to describe

the intellectual abilities which a speaker tends to possess as per which, he makes grammatically

appropriate sentences in the language. Chomsky has considered language like a very abstract

propagative phenomenon.
 29

He averred that humans are biologically equipped with the learning capacity of a

language. Chomsky proposed the theory of a Language Acquisition Device, which is LAD.

According to the study conducted by Hopkins (2017), one of the most famous and most

methodically precise theories is the Nativist Theory. It refers that all people are born having

genes that let the people learn the language. With regards to the study conducted by Heather

(2020), the language acquisition theory claims that there is a theoretic device, a language

acquisition device, somewhere in the mind. This tool is responsible to learn a language.

It refers to an innate mechanism or procedure which tends to facilitate the learning of

language. As per Chomsky’s observation, there are countless numbers of sentences in whatever

the language it is. All probable sentences are not possible to be learned by imitation or by

reinforcing. According to the study conducted by Kwame (2017), Chomsky says that for

studying the language refers to studying a part of human nature that is in the human brain. One

of the important factors with regard to the human language is its artistic nature, uttered by

Chomsky.

With regards to the study conducted by Ambridge (2017), Noam Chomsky coined the

theory of the universal grammar. It suggests that all the languages have some of the similar rules.

For instance, each language has a particular way of asking a query or stating views regarding

something, either good or bad. Moreover, all the languages have a way of identifying the gender

or discussing that something had occurred previously or maybe in the present. If the elementary

grammar rules are the similar for all of the languages, then a learner needs just to adopt and

practice a specific set of guidelines which his friends, maybe, tend to follow for understanding

and producing an instinctive language. In simple words, it can be said that the environment of the

person tends to determine which language should be used. With regards to the study conducted
 30

by Johnsløv (2018), according to Noam Chomsky, universal grammar is a theory that is the part

of the genetic merger that is shared by all of the world’s languages.

Fundamentally, approximately all the languages in the world, tend to have nouns as well

as verbs and, even alike ways of structuring the thoughts. Every language has a limited volume

of instructions as per which, one tends to build up an unlimited number of phrases. The key ideas

from such limited rules are metaphorically, created into the brains of the people. According to

the study conducted by Kharaghani (2017), this theory of language acquisition tends to explain

in a better way than how the people are observed, facing a much more complex and difficult set

of the communication patterns rather than any other living being in the globe. It even is a

functional theory as it helps in knowing that how the learners tend to learn much quickly while

having complicated thoughts.

2.8 Chapter Summary 

In this chapter, the explicit corrective feedback has been described using literature from

various sources. Basically, corrective feedback refers to a continuous practice to achieve and

learn. It majorly includes the learners who get formal and informal feedback both, from their

mentors or some other people for understanding the performance through the evaluation of

different tasks. Explicit corrective feedback majorly specifies that the language of the learner

was incorrect and the mentor has corrected him directly, on the spot. Explicit feedback means

providing the explicit factors in the appropriate form. It involves the specific information with

regards to the grammar that can be referred to by the learners when they answer incorrectly.

The long-term impact of the explicit corrective feedback is that it helps in overcoming the

confusion which they are experienced by the learners while learning. Moreover, explicit

corrective feedback lets the learners get much information for resolving any errors, whether they
 31

are syntactic structure or the use of the idiomatic expression, etc. It is because of the explicit

corrective feedback that the learners get a greater level of input with regards to the hypotheses

that might have been created. Correspondingly, a theory has been shared in contrast to the topic.

The Nativist Theory means that everyone is born having genes that let them learn the language.

The language acquisition theory claims that there is a theoretic device namely, a language

acquisition device, somewhere inside the mind that is responsible for learning a language, with

its rules and other associated factors.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

The following chapter is an important part of the study where all major methods and

techniques used in this study are specified in this chapter. The first section of the chapter consists

of the design taken to conduct the study. Followed in the next section, the sampling techniques

and sample size for this study are given. The next section of this chapter consists of the research

variables and the research interments in the following section. Furthermore, experimentation and

tools have been discussed which would be used for the study, along with the methods used to

collect data. Lastly, the chapter consists of the research ethics undertaken while conducting this

research and the data analysis methods used to analyse the collected data.

3.3 Research Approach

The research approach gives the plans and strategies, including the extensive conventions

to the investigation of the data. There are two main research approaches that are used in the

research studies, one is the inductive approach and the other is the deductive approach.
 32

However, the main variance among these research approaches is the procedure that is applied in

creating the hypothesis according to the purpose of the research (Woiceshyn & Daellenbach,

2018). The inductive research approach does not base on the hypothesis at the initial stage;

however it has the objective to develop a new concept or theory. The inductive approach assisted

the researcher in searching different patterns for observations and development of explanations

related to the study topic which was necessary to be explored for this research. On the other

hands, the deductive research approach generates the hypothesis and after that, it is organized as

per the acquired data to achieve the outcomes. This object at analysing an existing concept is

more valid with the quantitative requirements of the research study (Liu, 2016). Since

quantitative approach design is used to conduct the study, the researcher has adopted a deductive

approach to interpreting quantitative data. The deductive approach helps the researcher to

analyse the impacts of explicit corrective feedback in terms of learning English conditional

sentences and the role of this in achieving the objectives designed for the research purpose.

3.4 Research Design

The experimental research design was used in this particular research investigation. In the

following lines, the details of this experimental research design have been discussed and

provided to the readers of the research study under consideration (Myers 2013). Theoretically,

and in light of the current research literature on experimental research design involving cohorts

of participants, two basic types of experiments are often carried out to satisfy the research

objectives of any particular research study. The first type is via experimentation, whereas the

second type is quasi-experiments. According to the current literature, the goal of both types of

studies is to investigate the underlying cause of certain events.

 33

On the one hand, there are real experiments in which all major elements that may impact

the point of observation of the phenomenon of interest are controlled (Kazdin, 2021). In its

purest form, true experiments are always favoured as the research design incorporates cohorts of

study participants. On the contrary, it is not always conceivable or even realistic to envisage the

collection of data and the effective execution of experiments while controlling for all of the

essential elements that impact the phenomenon of interest. As a result, it becomes exceedingly

difficult to conduct experiments and, even more so, it becomes advantageous to do quasi-

experimental research instead.

There are several similarities between quasi and real experiments. The first resemblance

is that the participants in the research study are subjected to some condition or form of therapy.

The second significant resemblance is that it measures a specific outcome relating to the

phenomenon of interest (Vogt, 2012). Finally, in both trials, the researchers examine if the

differences in the outcomes of the phenomena of interest are especially connected to the first

attempted therapy. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is a distinction between real

experiments and quasi-experiments. In the context of a real experiment, for example, study

participants are randomly allocated to either the control group or the treatment group. This type

of random assignment is not appropriate for quasi-experiments.

Furthermore, the treatment and control groups in a quasi-experiment were not just in the

context of the experimental treatment's reception but also in other uncertain and unknown ways

(Walser, 2014). As a result, the researcher must use statistics to account for as many of these

provinces as feasible. Another significant concern is that, because quasi-experiments control,

there may be multiple competing hypotheses that contend with the fundamental experimental

modification as the underpinning explanation for the observed outcomes.

 34

Although the researcher aims to determine influence students' conditional learning

positively, the quasi-experiment can be divided further. Non-equivalent group design and pre-

test design are considered additional design components (Bauernschuster, 2015). The researcher

has used the pre-test design in particular, where the dependent variable is examined before and

after the experiment to examine the influence of corrective feedback.

3.5 Population and Sampling procedures

The experiment's intended population would be students in grade 9, with a sample size of

100 pupils. Because the emphasis is on developing the students' conditional sentences, the

feedback would be constructive, offering insight into the formation and then instructing on verbs

for occurrences of if and would in a sentence. Corrective of a full phrase feedback mostly helps

students understand basic and complicated phrases. And complex sentences are formed by

putting basic ones together. The sample will consist of 100 students from different English

medium schools in Upper Dir. A random sampling technique will be used for the selection of

students.

3.6 Research Variables

The study focuses on the effect of explicit corrective feedback on the development of

conditional phrases in particular. The researcher used a quantitative study design to better

analyse the impact of explicit remedial measures. Comments on condition sentence learning

result in the study design chosen as the design of an experimental quasi-research study. The

design specifically investigates the influence of the independent variable by altering it; in this

case, the researcher would manipulate the variable of corrective feedback (Goldfarb, 2014). The

primary emphasis would be on giving constructive comments on sentence fragmentation, parallel

 35

construction, and subject-verb agreement. The explicit concept of feedback can also centre

around providing feedback on run-on phrases, which are most common in agreements with two

or more separate provisions. Corrective feedback would teach students how to connect sentences

closely related to the topic to make their writing more fluid. Corrective feedback will also

provide light on basic phrases, including a comma and a word such as: and, but, so, still, which

are commonly used to create conditional sentences.

3.7 Experimentation and Tools

True experiments (RCT) are regarded as the gold standard in medical, epidemiological,

and other research when carried out correctly. This is primarily because randomisation in RCTs

(randomised controlled trials) is expected to eliminate selection bias and other internal and

external validity (Rambachan, 2020). However, RCT or a genuine experiment will have several

fundamental issues prohibiting it from being employed in many circumstances.

1. A real experiment is quite expensive.

2. It requires a significant amount of time to execute and oversee.

3. It is unethical in a variety of scenarios. For example, if one wants to examine the

effect of smoking on health in an experiment, one cannot force people to smoke.

4. There is a compliance problem in real-world experiments. There is no assurance

that people will listen to what is spoken to them.

A quasi-experimental design is similar to a real experiment but lacks randomisation.

There are several challenges to internal validity, including selection bias (owing to confounding

factors), which implies that causation and association are distinct in quasi-experimental design

(Collins, 2014). It is easier and less expensive to implement a quasi-experiment than a real
 36

experiment. There are also numerous algorithms to handle such data, such as regression

discontinuity, instrumental variable, etc. Previously, researchers and professionals employed

experimental design in various areas, including manufacturing, processes and operations, and

even research and development environments, and it is most commonly used for: Specifying

goods and processes, as well as important input and output variables. If/when the process is

activated as a specified manufacturing process, these are often utilised for Statistical Process

Control (SPC). Validation of requirements and input/output variables if the process has been in

place for a time (Aaby 2016). This is generally done when a process has been operating for a

long period with no improvement/monitoring effort. Seeking a process optimum often focuses on

process yield or lowering total process costs per unit out.

The most frequent technique is to start with a screening experiment (Factorial or Fraction

Factorial) to define or validate the input and output variables. In this situation, the researcher's

goal is to determine which variables truly provide information about the process. The following

experiment is a Response Surface Method (RSM) experiment that visually describes a process

window. It resembles a map with highs and lows (Hills & Valleys) where minimums,

maximums, and optimums may be found (Leatherdale, 2019).

For example, in user design and experience research, quasi-experiments are used to

evaluate some aspect of a product, service, or software from the user's point of view. For

example, a multi-factorial design might investigate how to interface modifications impact

people's perceptions and interactions with the product. Overall, the expert experimenting may

have numerous independent variables, each with multiple conditions. These are paired with only

a few dependent variables pointing to key user metrics/qual data. Most studies are

counterbalanced to account for carryover effects.

 37

The primary distinction between RCTs and quasi-experimental techniques is the random

assignment: RCTs are real experiments since individuals are allocated on a simple, random basis

to control the treatment and the control group (Annema, 2012). Certainly, special care and

attention have been expended in eliminating selection bias, with subjects in both groups usually

being very similar observationally to each other at the baseline; this may be achieved by

randomising the treatment across subjects present in the same geographical area).

As a result, RCTs provide the underlying probability to account for unseen biases in

addition to the current ones. In contrast, with other quasi-experimental approaches, random

assignment is not carried out largely because it is not credible in such situations (for instance,

when it is given that the government has a roll-out strategy for the intervention) (Pynegar, 2018).

As a result, randomisation must be purposefully and artificially produced (such as using

statistical measures and methods). However, the control group should never be regarded as a real

counterfactual. The important assumption, however, must be that randomisation is done

effectively and appropriately. Because the assignment is random, there is no selection bias, and

there are no risks to internal and external validity in this regard. In this approach, there is no need

to be concerned about the presence of confounding variables.

The experimental test has been conducted to examine whether the explicit corrective

feedback influences on student’s learning pertaining to English conditional test. The test was

mainly conducted among the students where there were two groups formed. The first group were

those students that were associated with the pre-test or also referred to as control group in which

there was no explicit corrective feedback provided to the students. The second group were those

students that were associated with the post-test or also referred to as experimental group in which

the students were provided with the explicit corrective feedback.

 38

3.8 Data Collection Procedure

There are two main procedures followed by researchers when collecting data. Primary

data and secondary data are the two types of data collection methods (Paradis, 2016). Primary

data refers to new data that has not been used before, while secondary data is collected from pre-

existing studies.

Secondary data can be found in books, journals, articles and other credible sources, while

secondary data is collected through interviews, surveys and questionnaires. For the following

research primary data, the collection method is taken into account since data collected is from

students who will be given tests and collected through these tests.

3.9 Data Analysis Procedure

For the purpose of explaining the quasi experiment results, it is required to foremost

mention the criteria that have been set for determining the ranking procedure for the students

based on their assessment and are as follows:

 39

3.9.1 Variable measurement table

Table 1: Variables measurement criteria

Variables Point Criteria

Concept of run-on phrases 1 Concept of run-on phrases is vague and makes frequent

mistakes

2 Similar consistency of mistakes but shows slight

understanding

3 Frequent errors showing some major uncontrolled

 40

patterns

4 Occasional errors

5 Few errors without any run-on phrases

1 There is no comprehension of connecting sentences

2 Recurrent mistakes in forming sentences

Concept of connecting
3 Frequency of mistakes lessens
sentences
4 Marked improvement in sentence structure

5 Less to no mistakes while forming sentences

1 No familiarity with basic phrases

2 There is familiarity but no fluency

3 Some form of fluency and familiarity with basic

Fluency of basic phrases
phrases

4 Speech is coherent and basic phrases are used

5 There is marked improvement in fluency

In terms of the variable measurement table, it is regarded to determine and present some

type of measurement that are considered to be in numeric value and is more commonly used in

an event where quantitative analysis is required and warrants statistical interpretation of the data.

Referring to table 1, which concerns itself with variables and their corresponding criteria that are

allotted with points ranging from 1 till 5. Point 1 is considered to be negative feedback regarding

the variable whereas Point 5 is considered to be marked improvement in that respective variable.
 41

3.9.2 Ranking procedures

Subsequent to the variable measurement criteria is the ranking procedure and is depicted
as follows:

Table 2: Ranking procedures

Student’s Proficiency Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5

Concept of run-on 8 15 20 30 35
phrases

Concept of Connecting 5 11 15 21 35
sentences

Fluency of basic 5 10 16 21 29
phrases

Total 18 36 51 72 99

In terms of the ranking procedures as elucidated in table 2, it denotes the overall

proficiency of the students, three criteria of the independent variables are adjudged against the

dependent variable i.e. corrective feedback. The maximum score is stated to be 99 and the five

criteria are regarded to be classified into respective stages. Stage 1 consists of those students that

have merited a score less than 10. Subsequently, as per the ranking criteria, any student that

scores less than 15 but more 10 finds itself in stage 2. Consequently, any score above 15 but less

than 35 is allotted stage 4 and lastly, points more than 35 warrants a stage 5 classification

accordingly.

3.10 Research Ethics

While undergoing research, ethical considerations and laws need to be followed to

preserve the integrity and quality of the research. The research uses literature from pre-existing
 42

studies to support the research argument. Hence data taken from books, articles, journals and

other sources will be appropriately cited and referenced.

All credit will be given to their respective authors to ensure no cheating and copying of

others work. Furthermore, the study aims to collect data from students of grade 9; the identity of

these students who participate will be kept confidential. Their responses will be only for this

study, and nothing further will be done to these responses. Moreover, there will be no alterations

in the responses obtained to ensure the integrity and quality of the study. The sources of the

study will be cited in an effective manner and copy pasting of material will be avoided to avoid

any plagiarism issues. Credentials of respondents will be kept and ensured that no information of

respondents is breached.

3.11 Summary

This chapter discusses the research approach, design, methods, and data analysis

techniques. This research study follows the quantitative research design. A quasi-experimental

design, such as a non-equivalent comparison group design, is a form of experiment in which

participants are randomised to treatment or comparison groups to understand that the assignment

is not random. Many factors must be considered in a quasi-experimental design, such as the

threads to internal and external validity, which include but are not limited to instrumentation,

maturation, selection bias, history, and so on. This research follows all the ethics while

researching so it cannot harm anyone. The next chapter of findings and discussion will give a

comprehensive discussion of the outcomes.

Many differences and similarities between true experiments and quasi-experiments have

been presented as theoretical evidence in this chapter to demonstrate why the quasi-experimental
 43

design is more appropriate in this research than conventional research designs underpinned by a

non-experimental philosophy of research.

 44

CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Data Analysis

In this study, the researcher examines the impact of corrective feedback on students

of experimental group in comparison with students of control group taught through

conventional lecture method. Quasi experimental research design is applied with sample

consisting of 100 students. 50 students are male and 50 female.50 Male students are further

divided into 25 students of control group and 25 students of experimental group. Each class

comprises of 25 students. In the same manner, female students are divided into two groups.

Control group consists of 25 students and 25 students each. Experimental group is taught

through corrective feedback whereas control group is taught through conventional manner.

There are two types of test that are conducted which is pre-test and post-test. The pre-test is

concerned with both the groups that are not provided with the corrective feedback whereas

the post-test is based on providing corrective feedback to the experimental group for

determining whether there is a difference on scoring. Groups of students of experimental

group are formulated. Text related to their part for English conditionals is handed over to

students. Moreover, students are briefed about corrective feedback. Whereas, control group

is taught through traditional way by explaining conditional sentences. Quantitative data is

collected through the conduct of two tests, i.e. pre-tests and post-tests. The two hypotheses

tested are as under:

a. There is a significant difference in student’s understanding of conditional

sentences between experimental and control group.

 45

4.2 Pre-Test Result

Table 3: Pre- test results

Std.
Std. Error
Group N Mean Deviation Mean
Pre-Test Score Experimental Group 50 42.82 4.516 0.639
Control Group 50 42.64 5.454 0.771

Table 3 represents the pre-test results for both the group which are experimental and

control. The purpose of pre-test is to determine the scores of both groups in which the corrective

feedback is not undertaken in both the groups. As per the results, it is determined that the mean

score of experiment group was 42.82 whereas the mean score of the control group was 42.64.

Hence, there is no major change in both the groups which indicates that it is relevant to apply the

corrective feedback for drawing out the appropriate results. The standard deviation for

experimental group is 4.516 while the standard deviation for control group is 5.454 which

demonstrate the increase or decline of score by these units.

4.3 T test on pre-test

According to the study conducted by Mishra et al. (2019), T-Test is regarded to be an

inferential statistical method that is required for the objective of determining any difference

between the two main groups, which can be deemed significant. In terms of significant, it is

found to denote the impact it levies on the results and the subsequent scope of the study.

Moreover, it is stated by Xu et al. (2017), a T-Test is also considered in a quasi-experimental

method based on its capability to test the respective hypothesis of this research and helps the

researcher to assess the difference that may exist between the selected variables respectively.
 46

Table 4: Pre-Test Independent Samples t-test

Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of
Equality of Variances Means
Sig.
(2- Mean 95% Confidence
taile Differen Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t df d) ce Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Pre- Equal
Test variances
Score assumed 0.136 0.713 0.18 98 0.85 0.18 1.001 -1.807 2.167
Equal variances not assumed 0.18 94 0.85 0.18 1.001 -1.808 2.168

Table 4 reflects to the pre-test independent sample t-test which is applied for determining

whether there is a statistical difference between the two groups in respect to the academic scores.

The first aspect that is examined is the Levene’s test for equality of variance which measures the

assumption of homogeneity. Since under the Levene’s test, the significance value is higher i.e.

0.713, it can be demonstrated that the variances between control and experimental group is

equal. Based on the Levene’s tests, the equal variance assumed is investigated where the

significance value (Sig, 2-tailed) is evaluated. The significance value is computed as 0.85 and is

above 0.05. Therefore, this indicates that there is no significant difference between the two

groups in the pre-test score which demonstrates that both experimental and control group have

the same academic scores. Therefore, on this basis of the results of pre-test, the explicit

corrective feedback on learning English conditional sentence can be applied on one of the group

for examining its influence which is further examined in the post test.

4.4 Post test result

The post-test is that a specific result that is concentrated on determining the impact of

explicit corrective feedback after it is provided to the experimental group. The appropriateness of

applying the corrective feedback can be reflected to pre-test results as both groups scored almost
 47

same scores. Therefore, the explicit corrective feedback is provided to the group examining its

examine where the following are the results:

Table 5: Post test results

Group Statistics

Group N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Post Test Score Experimental 5 62.0000 4.42165 0.62532

Control 43.7000 4.67844 0.66163

As per the findings observed in table 3, the analysis has been conducted on two groups i.e.

control group and experimental group where the latter group are those that are provided with

teacher’s intervention whereas the former group is not provided with any intervention from the

teachers. The mean values of both experimental and control groups are found to be 62 and 43.7

while the standard deviation is 4.42 and 4.68 respectively. Regarding the standard deviation,

Delacre (2017) states that the notion of standard deviation refers to the variability is incurred by

the data set, which in this case is the control and experimental groups. Since standard deviation

for experimental groups is higher than its counterpart group, it can be deduced that experimental

groups are more reliable citing more variance.

 48

4.5 T test on Post-test in table form

Table 6: Post Test Independent Samples t-test

Levene's Test for

Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Sig. Difference
(2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. T Df tailed) Difference Difference Lower Upper
Post- Equal 0.005 0.942 20.10 98 0.000 18.30000 0.91037 16.49340 20.10660
Test variances 2
Score assumed
Equal 20.10 97.689 0.000 18.30000 0.91037 16.49333 20.10667
variances 2
not
assumed

Considering the table 4 that contains independent samples test, Roitman et al. (2017)

states that it is a comparison between two groups for the purpose of assessing the possibility of

any evidence that can be obtained, associated with population’s mean. Such association is

subjected to statistical evidence and in this case, the groups i.e. control and experiment groups,

significance values will be observed, while not assuming equal variances respectively.

Considering the Levene’s test, Soave and Sun (2017) state that it is a test that solely concerns

itself with the similarity of variance. Table 4 represents the results of independent sample t-test

where the purpose is to determine whether there is a significant difference among the students

that has gone through corrective feedback. The first component to examine the Levene’s test for

equality of variance which measures the assumption of homogeneity. Since under the Levene’s

test, the significance value is higher i.e. 0.942, it can be interpreted that the variances between

control and experimental group is equal. Based on the Levene’s tests, the equal variance assumed

is investigated where the significance value (Sig, 2-tailed) is evaluated. The significance value is

computed as 0.000 and is below 0.05. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected which suggests
 49

that there is a significant difference between the experimental and control group. It is validating

that by providing corrective feedback to students is effectively translated to much required

success such as fluency in sentence structure, firm grasp of basic phrases.

4.6 Discussion

Ellis, Loewen, and Erlam (2006) has highlighted that corrective feedback possesses an

influence on learning through explicit knowledge. Certainly, as a whole, the feedback seems to

have a larger effect on the experimental group, even though this could be merely reflecting on

the point that the students influenced maximum levels of explicit corrective feedback at the

beginning of the learning. Moreover, it is conceivable that the providence of intervention

increased learners' attentiveness to the targets in grammar, as a result supporting them to keep a

track of their accomplishments by using knowledge explicitly.

The outcomes of the growth analysis are similar to the interpretations of Ataman and

Mirici (2017). When the intensity of the learner is low, they will find it difficult to self-correct

their errors; for that reason, providing explicit corrective feedback is an effective method.

Although Yüksel, Soruç and McKinley, (2021) indicated that explicit corrective feedback is

more favourable for the advanced level of students, the contributors of this research study are the

students of 9th grade and appear to have aided from the corrective feedback sessions explicitly as

seen through the results of writing exam. Proceeding further, Sato and Loewen, (2018) indicated

that reliable corrective feedback shared among the students in a vibrant way ultimately advances

students' language acquisition. The research discovered that written explicit corrective feedback

encourages students and helps in developing their skills of writing. In addition to that, the

considerable changes in the designs and purposes of these studies need to be reserved in an

attempt to take a broad view of the verdicts. On the other hand, the outcomes point out the
 50

benefits for explicit corrective feedback over implicit corrective feedback in research studies in

which the treatment and behaviours involved production.

Lee, (2019) affirms that whenever a teacher stays silent and ignores the act of a student’s

error, then there is a possibility that the student may perhaps adopt that error. Furthermore, the

marks of the control group decreases which points out that when the instructor does not give

corrective feedback, learners might internalize their mistakes which will make their work vague.

On the other hand, Kim, (2020) stated that learners should be selected to give a chance to

experiment the language in a natural way by making mistakes which will sooner or later lead to

the development and fluency of a language. If the professor interrupts the learners while they are

functioning on a written exertion, they possibly will get concerned that will cause them to create

them to create even more blunders. Therefore, in this research study, learners were delivered

with corrective feedback.

According to Ha, Murray and Riazi, (2021), corrective feedback is valuable for the

students as it will help them to understand their faults and make efforts to correct it. Even

though, it would not stop them from creating those similar mistakes in a new and different piece

of script. On the other hand, this certain study discovered that the learners in the Experimental

group surpassed those in the Control group in regards to the progress. Moreover, tests

implication and intervention on Experimental group through corrective feedback does lead the

way to language acquisition, and it is surely of great assistance for learners besides the fact that it

helps in making them attentive in identifying their existing errors but also ceasing them from

creating the similar errors in different written works.

Ataman and Mirici, (2017) clearly demonstrated the findings by considering reviews on

corrective feedback from reflections of students. In their study, it was found out that all learners
 51

found corrective feedback to be effective, and not a single student indicated that they faced

complications with anxiety, motivation and self-esteem. These learners did not encourage the

continuance of any kind of emotional or psychological constraints if they have to experience any.

On the contrary, Ai, (2017) put it affirming that corrective feedback facilitates learning any kind

of language by improving students' motivation, inspiration, and declaring linguistic accuracy, all

learners were extremely motivated towards the corrective learning. Zhao and Ellis, (2020) stated

that the group of students that are acknowledged with prompt responses, which counted in

metalinguistic feedback respond to their tasks in a better way. Zhao and Ellis (2020) also

demonstrated some indications which show a comparison among the two categories of explicit

corrective feedback that will display that the comprehensive metalinguistic feedback works

better.

Zheng, and Yu, (2018) has reinforced providing corrective feedback in her whole career.

She embraces the similar view as Han, (2017) believing that lower grade students are unable to

identify their errors and have difficulty in self-correcting themselves; hence, giving explicit

corrective feedback is a useful tool for teaching. Nevertheless, it is also identified that with the

corrective feedback procedure, some of the students were still unable to recognize their errors.

Thus, it can be determined from the study of Kim and Bowles (2019) that Corrective Feedback

does help in leading a way to language acquisition.

According to Bonilla López, Van Steendam and Buyse, (2017), the students with lower

levels of proficiency should be delivered with explicit corrective feedback. On the other hand,

with the students of higher grade, Ha, Murray and Riazi, (2021) has the opposite view as

suggesting that the only native errors which influence the single components in a written

sentence must be amended. As a higher grade, students can self-reflect on themselves while
 52

writing components. Furthermore, Tsao, Tseng and Wang, (2017) favoured explicit corrective

feedback and determined it as a motivating factor among students. Moreover, Karim and Nassaji,

(2019) assumed that at the time when teachers delivered students corrective feedback, they could

find their errors effortlessly. In addition to that, Storch, (2018) believed that Corrective Feedback

is not that effective meanwhile mistakes are unavoidable and the teacher's to-go approach should

be to correct those errors immediately.

In the analysis section, the results have observed that experimental group that received

intervention were better off than those in the control group Such results are found in the study of

Sato and Thompson (2020), which showed that in US, the education standards received better

intervention for both teaching quality and student’s achievement, the study also state that these

standards work only for certain groups to improve the language standards of education.

Furthermore, the developmental stages of teaching quality also address the problem of

intervention stability, which was related to the materials presented in the intervention program.

Also the teaching skills help the students to focus the materials or content of the intervention.

With respect to the dynamic model the intervention program improve both the teaching quality

and student achievement (Kyriakides & Creemers, 2017). The better standards of education

improve both the education and teaching quality as was defined by educational effectiveness

Research (EER), in the dynamic model (Creemers & Kyriakides, 2017).

According to the study of Azkiyah and Ven der werf, (2018), the teachers play an

important role in education. It works in education based evidence information to improve the

student’s ability in learning through corrective feedback, and this information serves as a

knowledge base for the improvement of education standards. Furthermore, Corrective feedback

is considered as feedback type that is mainly used by the teachers on utterance of learners in the
 53

language that is targeted that consists of errors Azkiyah (2017) states that for controlling

student’s characteristics in learning, teachers should play an important character both in terms of

quality and quantity as it provide maximized opportunities for students to learn. The better

education standards provide several activities for students learning, which emphasis the students’

towards achieving their academic goals in learning. The study also state that for the intervention

of education standards, the teaching and learning process are primary source of learning.

According to the study of Esmaeilimotlagh and Asadollahi Kheirabadi (2018), the experimental

group received better intervention towards control group. The study conducted a survey report by

considering 1580 students for which 445 students were in the control group. While the

experimental group include 474 students (intensive training), and the second experimental group

include 661 students (Non-intensive training). So the experimental group received better

intervention towards control group. The project based learning process helps the students to

improve their practical thinking skills in research and decision making procedures. This learning

approach also develop scientific learning skills in students, so the scientific learning skills

develop abilities for students to debate their ideas by posing questions towards the other

members (Mahasneh & Alwan, 2018). The study of Miller and Krajcik (2019) also stated that

project based learning skills enhance the ability of students to plan successfully in decision

making process. Similarly the project learning skills generates learning environment which help

the student to achieve their perspective goals, so this approach make positive contribution for the

students’ academic achievement. Young children face difficulties in expressing verbally. The

reciprocal teaching helps the students to express verbally themselves. As a results the reciprocal

teaching empower the students to develop their own tools for learning also the experimental

group received better intervention towards control group in learning (Batini & Toti 2021). The
 54

study of Mann (2018), also show that these learning approach help the students to direct their

own thinking for learning process. The students of 8 to 9 years old get much benefit from the

intervention with the help of metacognitive strategies (Carvetti & Hiebert, 2019).

Corrective feedback is considered to be a frequent practice for learning the quality and

quantity of education in English medium. Some teachers are involved in this process as an agent

to deliver corrective feedback. The corrective feedback involves learners to gain formal as well

as informal feedback by their mentors or other individuals pertaining to their performance by

evaluating different tasks. The study of Sakiroglu (2020), state that corrective feedback is

important in education because it allow learners to systematically eliminate those inaccuracies

over time. The proper feedback is essential for speeding up the targeting languages abilities via

practice. The study also finds that using both visible and hidden corrective feedback improve

grammatical accuracy and attention in education sectors.

The explicit corrective feedback reactive approach helps the learners to steps in the

process of learning immediately. Also there are two ways to conduct corrective feedback. One is

the explicit corrective feedback in which the language teacher provides metalinguistic

explanation to students. While the second is the implicit corrective feedback approach where the

teacher does not provide metalinguistic explanation to the students. Also the corrective feedback

helps the people to make hypothesis and improve their writing and learning skills (Zhao & Ellis,

2020). The corrective feedback is an advisory kind of feedback that improves the learner quality

of vocabulary. The corrective feedback leads towards more perfection when it comes to accuracy

and awareness of grammar (Yilmaz & Granena 2019). Zhao and Ellis (2020) show that the

explicit and implicit corrective feedback have been set forth in the favour of correction error with

the help of explicit corrective feedback, others assisting the implicit corrective feedback. Also
 55

the explicit corrective feedback arranges the method for language learners to resolve the intricate

errors in learning. Furthermore, the study of Shamiri and Farvardin (2016) suggested that the

teacher must provide correct form of learning to students through corrective feedback. The

explicit feedback corrects the grammar vocabulary of the students. It mainly includes the

relevant information regarding grammar which also referred the students to answer correctly.

The corrective feedback tries to make use of the target language for the learners. It also helps in

the identification of the problems in terms of appropriateness or accurateness while verbally

communicating. Thus, the corrective feedback develops those programs which are needed for

rapidly learning the language skills to the human beings. The study also shows that the corrective

feedback includes the learners who get formal and informal feedback from their friends and

some other people for understanding the performance of the learner through different tasks.

(Bryfonski & Ma, 2020).

Language awareness, for example, has been proposed as a factor influencing students'

capacity to recover from corrective feedback (e.g., Ellen III, Wang and Ferris, 2019; Han and

Hyland, 2019). Despite receiving formal grammar training in high school, the majority of pupils

said they still had trouble applying grammatical structures correctly. They felt that by doing so,

they would be able to recognise and correct their mistakes (Carvetti & Hiebert, 2019). Most

students said that it should be the instructor's responsibility to correct their mistakes, and that if

he or she does not, they would assume that either what they wrote is right or that their teacher is

uninterested in their growth (Kyriakides & Creemers, 2017).

Some students preferred direct corrective feedback since it includes an indication of the

issue as well as the proper solutions for those issues’ other students, on the other hand, valued

indirect feedback since it encouraged them to engage in more language learning when self-
 56

revising and correcting their work. The findings of this study demonstrate that corrective

feedback can increase learners' reliability while revising the very same texts. This expands on

earlier research that has demonstrated the usefulness of written corrective feedback (Bitchener,

2019; Ekiet & Gennaro, 2021; Zabihi & Erfanitabar, 2021; Ellis et al., 2018; Sheen, 2017,

2010b; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Shintani et al., 2014). The current study's findings, on the other

hand, demonstrated that corrective feedback can have a considerable impact on learners' writing

correctness. To put it another way, the benefit of corrected feedback has previously been proven

in previous studies, the current study adds to the modest body of evidence.

Indirect written feedback, on the other hand, is simply one aspect of a remedial method,

and instructors cannot rely on it entirely. When the three versions were compared, it was

discovered that implicit written input should be combined with instructor oral feedback to get

greater outcomes in the development of students' writings. That is, analysing the three factors for

each student and present the results shows that students were able to correct verb, article,

spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors using the teacher's codes, whereas word choice

and sentence structure errors required the teacher's oral feedback to be illustrated to the students

and thus corrected.

This study identifies that the students of the control group have been compared with the

experimental group in order to decide which group reserved more understanding in the context of

conditional sentences. However, after comparison and identifying effects on both groups, a

significant effect is seen on the control group than the experimental group. Many studies disclose

that there is shown a positive influence of corrective feedback on students’ writing and students’

ability to form conditional sentences (Wahyunqi, 2017). Moreover, corrective feedback response

on student’s writing skills is proved to be an effective method in order to increase their claims of
 57

writing that is not conceivable to discharge corrections overall as it is determined by the

correction’s quality; if the corrective feedback is consistent and clear, it would work. Besides

this, according to Zhang and Hyland (2018), state that the value of the teacher is an essential

feature in the efficacy of feedback. While on the other hand, Majlesi (2018) affirms that the

manner in which teacher’s direct feedback and the perception of students on corrective feedback

also affects the efficiency of corrective feedback. In addition to that, it is also demonstrated that

compatible corrective feedback that is provided in a way that shows the errors clearly helps in

improving students’ language acquisition and writing skills (Sato & Loewen, 2018). Moreover,

this research study also rooted out that explicit corrective feedback in a written form supports

learners to improve their skills of writing and form informing conditional sentences (Abrar, et

al., 2018). Conclusively, although this research study gets hold of convincing data that shows

corrective feedback performed explicitly assisted learners to increase their language acquisition

and writings.

4.7 Summary

This chapter is designed to test the impact of corrective feedback on learning English

conditional sentences. The effect could be seen through considering these three variables that is

concepts of run-on phrases, the concept of connecting sentences, Fluency of basic phrases. In

addition to that, this chapter analysed two groups named the control group and experimental

group whereas the experimental groups are those that are provided with teacher’s intervention

whereas the control group is not provided with any intervention from the teachers. Thus the data

of the research suggests the application of quasi-experiment results, therefore, in this study

quantitative research design have been adopted. In addition to that, apart from this, from the

analysis of the following study, it is identified that corrective feedback plays a substantial role in
 58

impacting the ability of a student in order to formulate conditional sentences. Besides this, this

chapter identifies that experimental group have the better understanding than the control group

towards constructing the conditional sentences. Moreover, the following chapter demonstrates,

in order to improve the student’s ability, corrective feedback has to be formed in checking

conditional sentences.
 59

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter has been developed to conclude the study by providing a brief of findings

along with a relevant conclusion. Moreover, this chapter has provided recommendations

effectively and it will lead to future implications of the study to be provided. This chapter is

important as it provides a summary of the overall study that has been conducted.

5.2 Conclusion

In concluding this study, corrective feedback is a technique for correcting and improving

a person's undesired behavior. Only corrective feedback, on the other hand, will motivate the

recipient. Positive reinforcement keeps a person motivated and encourages them to keep doing

what they're doing. English Second Language (ESL) students should be exposed to conditional

forms as soon as they have a fundamental understanding of the past, present, and future

sentences. Students want to know what their strengths and limitations are, what they can do to

improve, how and what progress they are making, and how often they will be praised for it. It is

more vital to teach students or learners how to write better texts than it is to teach them how to

come up with solutions. The zero conditional is different from the specified time sentence in that

it is conditional for non-recurring situations. Corrective feedback for such sentences should be

more visible to keep students motivated to learn. The main goal of this study is to see how

explicit corrective feedback affects students' understanding of conditional phrases in English.

In this study, the experimental research design was adopted. The details of this

experimental research design are explored and presented to the readers of the research study
 60

under consideration in the following paragraphs. The target audience for the experiment would

be ninth-grade students, with a sample size of 100 students. The criticism would be positive

because the emphasis is on the students' conditional statements. Since the data is gathered from

students who will be given tests and collected through these tests, the collecting technique is

taken into consideration.

The students in the control group were compared to the students in the experimental

group in order to determine whether group had higher knowledge in the context of conditional

phrases. However, after comparing and detecting effects in both groups, the control group had a

greater influence than the experimental group. Many studies have revealed that corrective

feedback has a favorable impact on students' writing and their ability to generate conditional

sentences (Wahyuni, 2017). Furthermore, corrective feedback on students' writing skills has been

shown to be an effective method for increasing their claims of writing. It is not possible to

discharge corrections in general because the quality of the correction is determined by the

correction; however, if the corrective feedback is consistent and clear, it will work.

The growing globalization increased the demand for higher education that has resulted in

a large increase in the number of English-taught classes. It is critical to determine if the

corrective feedback on learning English conditional sentences is effective. The study's main goal

is to see how explicit corrective feedback aids students in learning conditional phrases in English

among 9th graders. It is not always possible for the teacher to offer written comments on their

papers or assignments for assessments. Grammatical precision is extremely crucial for ESL

pupils. The writing may improve with the aid of correction feedback, but the learner does not

learn how to recognize and correct the mistake. According to the findings of this article's

examination, corrective feedback assists students in improving their learning and writing abilities
 61

through the usage of many processes described by numerous researchers in the study. According

to Lee's study (2020), corrective feedback tends to stress a learner's writing talents and advise

them on how to enhance their vocabulary quality. Similarly, corrective feedback improves

writing and vocal communication skills, and the learner is more likely to retain the guidelines or

direction supplied by mentors at the outset as their talents grow.

The experimental research design was employed in the following research. The purpose

of this type of research is to figure out what is causing certain events. The criticism would be

helpful because the focus is on helping students improve their conditional phrases. To properly

analyze the impact of specified remedial interventions, the researcher adopted a quantitative

study design.

The outcomes of the analysis are similar to the interpretations of Ataman and Mirici,

(2017). For example, their study argued that when the intensity of the learner is low, they will

find it difficult to self-correct their errors. For that reason, providing explicit corrective feedback

is an effective method. Further, corrective feedback is valuable for students as it will help them

to understand their faults and make efforts the correction of them. Going ahead, this study found

that all learners found corrective feedback effective, and not a single student indicated that they

faced complications with anxiety, motivation, and self-esteem. Additionally, students' language

awareness is an important component of their ability to learn from corrective feedback. Despite

receiving formal grammar training in high school, the majority of pupils said they still had

trouble applying grammatical structures correctly. The study’s results indicated that some

students prefer direct corrective feedback since it includes an indication of the issue as well as

the proper forms. Additionally, students were able to use their teacher's codes to correct verb,
 62

article, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors. Moreover, word choice and sentence

structure errors required the teacher's oral feedback to be illustrated.

Furthermore, this study has found that explicit corrective feedback establishes a

technique for language learners to remediate complex learning faults. For the learners, corrective

feedback tries to employ the target language. It also aids in the detection of issues with

appropriateness or accuracy while speaking vocally. According to the findings, remedial

comments can have a significant influence on writing accuracy. The results of this study show

that it is possible to improve dependability while rewriting the same texts. This study adds to

previous research that has shown the value of written corrective feedback in the acquisition of

English. These results are found in earlier researches that have demonstrated the usefulness of

written corrective feedback (Bitchener, 2019; Ekiet & Gennaro, 2021; Zabihi & Erfanitabar,

2021; Ellis et al., 2018; Sheen, 2017, 2010b; Shintani & Ellis, 2013; Shintani et al., 2014).

5.3 Recommendations

The current study has put an effort to study the impact of corrective feedback on students

learning English. Therefore, outcomes suggested that one key difficulty for language education

in FL settings is this: Which faults should be addressed on the compositions of student writers?

Up to this point, research has established a distinction between providing feedback on sentence-

level language corrections for local and mechanical problems such as correcting grammar,

spelling, and vocabulary, and providing feedback on global issues that influence meaning and

organization. Interestingly, there has been no definitive evidence on whether the feedback should

be form-based or content-based up to this point, and the classic writing-to-learn strategy, which

is more practical. As a result, a new strategy has been arisen those advocates for the development

of accuracy and fluency in learners. Going ahead, according to proponents of this strategy, the
 63

intention-expression mismatch (what learners intend to say vs. what they write on the page) that

concerns proponents of the form-focused approach may be mitigated by higher student writing

involvement. Comparing the effect size of the different forms of corrective feedback is

challenging. While examining the impact of corrective feedback, several specific moderators

should also be considered. Culture, age, gender, and proficiency are only a few examples of

these characteristics. Further study should look at the role of learner variables and corrective

feedback in facilitating learning.

Further, it has been seen that corrective feedback that focuses on students' deficiencies

might increase their drive to learn more about their mistakes. In this regard, the quasi-findings

experiment showed that complete corrective feedback, whether direct or indirect, can help

students improve their linguistic and verbal faults over time. Interestingly, according to the

results of the data, some respondents believe that written corrective feedback is insufficient, and

they stressed the significance of further explanation and conversation about their mistakes to

avoid repeating them in the future. Furthermore, results have shown that some learners were able

to properly cope with comments by the teacher's guidance throughout the revision. Not

surprisingly, the special software that interprets learners' written texts can give corrective

feedback (Ware and Warschauer, 2016). Therefore, the current study recommended that there

should be further study on aspects. This program offers comments on both grammar and

language use. Asynchronous feedback is when students receive corrected feedback on their work

while conversing with their teacher through a computer (e.g., email) (Hyland & Hyland, 2016a).

While talking about teachers’ roles, teachers must possess a wide range of abilities to

offer effective feedback. Furthermore, the instructor should begin the writing course by doing a

diagnostic examination of the students' requirements, and then communicate to and model for
 64

students the topics they should focus on and how best to offer feedback. Additionally, teachers in

a big number of classes may seek out and recommend their students to outside resources.

Interestingly, many universities and colleges, for example, provide writing centers on campus

staffed by experienced tutors where students can seek further personalized assistance. Teachers,

on the other hand, must assume the main responsibility for ensuring that their students obtain

suitable outside assistance under this system. However, learners' ideas and attitudes regarding

corrective feedback, which may be translated into their behavior in dealing with corrective

feedback, were among the characteristics that boosted and/or impeded students' ability to gain

from written corrective feedback. Therefore, the conclusions from the scientific data revealed

that both negative and good events shaped some learners' attitudes and beliefs. For example,

some students have had poor experiences with instructor corrective feedback in the past, leading

them to believe that incorrect corrective feedback indicates a low level, and hence it is best to

avoid reading it.

With these concerns in mind—the preferable CF choice and the lack of attention paid to

learners' non-rule-governed errors—this section aims to offer some recommendations and

directions for future study by identifying adjustments to two common constraints in the present

research. The first involves adding certain micro contextual factors to form-oriented CF choices,

and the second involves extending targeted mistakes from rule-governed to non-rule-governed

categories. Many researches have looked at the relative efficacy of direct and indirect CF has

wondered if specific types or mixtures of categories are more helpful than others. In essence, this

research has placed far too much focus on whether the various kinds of CF have any substantial

differences in their effects on learners' accuracy development, rather than on how to draw on

specific language learning boosting characteristics. As a result, the true worth of CF has yet to be
 65

discovered. Contextual variables are now widely recognized and emphasized as one of these

learning mediation elements, thanks to a convergence of theoretical and empirical results. On the

theoretical side, usage-based models argue that the fabric of the situations in which language

development occurs is deeply entwined with that development and merits scrutiny. Further

empirical research that attempts to study the extent whereby these and other micro contextual

elements might improve the efficiency of CF are urgently encouraged to obtain new insights into

L2 teaching practice (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012).

Teachers should think about how to frame each writing job in a way that motivates

students and reduces anxiety. Extrinsic variables can motivate learners to take the additional

steps they need to succeed, while extreme task anxiety might keep them from expressing their

present knowledge. As a consequence, teachers can motivate students by supporting them in

obtaining concrete evidence of their improvement (for example, by correcting students' flaws).

Such research is critical in furthering our understanding of the role of corrective feedback in

many circumstances.

Therefore, the current study has suggested that by increasing the sample size and

considering different models and variables this notion can be studied. Also, to get more insight

information and accurate results, it is suggested that future researchers should consider

qualitative and quantitative research strategies.

5.4 Future Implications

This research is beneficial for future researchers as it will increase the scope and will

cause different variables to be identified. Moreover, this study will be a base for future studies

and will cause the impact of explicit corrective feedback on learning English conditional

sentences to determine in different regions. Moreover, it will cause relevant policies to be

 66

developed and will help English language scope in countries to increase in an effective and

efficient manner. Moreover, this study conducts in-depth analysis of the English Conditional

sentences and it will lead to different frameworks and strategies to be developed and will cause

future studies to improve.

 67

References

Aaby, P. (2016). Does oral polio vaccine have non-specific effects on all-cause mortality?

Natural experiments within a randomised controlled trial of early measles vaccine. BMJ

Open, 6(12), 33-56.

Abrar, M., Mukminin, A., Habibi, A., Asyrafi, F. & Marzulina, L. (2018). " If our English isn't a

language, what is it?" Indonesian EFL student teachers' challenges speaking English. The

Qualitative Report, 23(1), 129-145.

Ai, H. (2017). Providing graduated corrective feedback in an intelligent computer-assisted

language learning environment. ReCALL, 29(3), 313-334.

Ambridge, B. (2017). Syntactic categories in child language acquisition: innate, induced, or

illusory? Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science, 7(2) 567-580.

Annema, W., & Tietge, U. (2012). Regulation of reverse cholesterol transport-a comprehensive

appraisal of available animal studies. Nutrition & Metabolism, 9(1), 1-18.

Ataman, D.S., & Mirici, H. (2017). Contribution of corrective feedback to English language

learners' writing skills development through workfolio based tasks. International Journal

of Curriculum and Instruction, 9(1), 1-30.

Azkiyah, S. (2017). Educational effectiveness research as the knowledge base of improving

education. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 25(3), 1019-1038.

Azkiyah, S.N., Doolaard, S., Creemers, B.P., & Van der Werf, M.P.C. (2018). Students'

perspective on the impact of English teacher development programs on teaching quality

in Indonesia. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 26(1), 444-457.

 68

Bailey, R., & Garner, M. (2010). Is the feedback in higher education assessment worth the paper

it is written on? Teachers' reflections on their practices. Teaching in Higher

Education, 15(2), 187-198.

Banaruee, H., Khoshsima, H., & Askari, A. (2017). Corrective feedback and personality type: A

case study of Iranian L2 learners. Global Journal of Educational Studies, 3(2), 14-21.

Batini, F., Lpuerini, V., Cei, E., Izzo, D., & Toti, G. (2021). The association between reading and

emotional development: a systematic review. J Educ Training Stud, 9(1), 12-50.

Bauernschuster, S., & Schlotter, M. (2015). Public child care and mothers' labor supply—

Evidence from two quasi-experiments. Journal of Public Economics, 8(3), 1-16.

Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2010). The contribution of written corrective feedback to language

development: A ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 193-214.

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 17(2), 102-118.

Blažková, M. (2011). Language learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. Art,

Research, Philosophy, 168(1), 181-189.

Bonilla López, M., Van Steendam, E., & Buyse, K. (2017). Comprehensive corrective

feedback. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 168(1), 91-128.

Bryfonski, L., & Ma, X. (2020). Effects of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback on

mandarin tone acquisition in a SCMC learning environment. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 42(1), 61-88.

Cazeaux, C. (2017). Language learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. Art,

Research, Philosophy, 42(1), 223-234.

 69

Cervetti, G.N., & Hiebert, E.H. (2019). Knowledge at the center of English language arts

instruction. The Reading Teacher, 72(4), 499-507.

Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kind of errors feedback for improvement in the

accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (3),

267-296.

Collins, L.M., Dziak, J.J., Kugler, K.C., & Trail, J.B. (2014). Factorial experiments: Efficient

tools for evaluation of intervention components. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 47(4), 498-504.

Dastpak, M., Behjat, F., & Taghinezhad, A. (2017). A comparative study of vygotsky's

perspectives on child language development with nativism and behaviorism. Online

Submission, 5(2), 230-238.

Dearden, J., & Macaro, E. (2016). Higher education teachers' attitudes towards English medium

instruction: A three-country comparison. Studies in Second Language Learning and

Teaching, 6(3), 455-486.

Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2017). Why psychologists should by default use Welch’s t-

test instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 113-

124.

Dieu, T. (2019). Comparison among some viewpoints upon second language acquisition

theory. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 7(6), 358-367.

Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 131-142.

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the

acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(2), 339-368.

 70

Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit corrective feedback and the

acquisition of grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 28(2), 339-368.

Esmaeilimotlagh, M., Oveisi, K., Alizadeh, F., & Asadollahi Kheirabadi, M. (2018). An

investigation on coping skills training effects on mental health status of university

students. Journal of Humanities Insights, 2(01), 37-42.

Farrell, T.S. (2011). Exploring the professional role identities of experienced ESL teachers

through reflective practice. System, 39(1), 54-62.

Goldfarb, A., & Tucker, C.E. (2014). Conducting research with quasi-experiments: A guide for

marketers. Rotman School of Management Working Paper, 39(1), 65-77

Granena, G., & Yilmaz, Y. (2019). Language aptitude profiles and the effectiveness of implicit

and explicit corrective feedback. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Research

in Classroom Learning, 6(4), 438-451.

Granena, G., Yilmaz, Y., & Leow, R. (2019). Language aptitude profiles and the effectiveness of

implicit and explicit corrective feedback. The Routledge Handbook of Second Language

Research in Classroom Learning, 6(4), 438-451.

Ha, X.V., Murray, J.C., & Riazi, A.M. (2021). High school EFL students’ beliefs about oral

corrective feedback: The role of gender, motivation and extraversion. Studies in Second

Language Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 235-264.

Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with

Written corrective feedback. System, 69(2), 133-142.

Hartshorn, K.J., Evans, N.W., Merrill, P.F., Sudweeks, R.R., Strong‐Krause, & Anderson, N.J.

(2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. Tesol

Quarterly, 44(1), 84-109.
 71

Hasan, M.K., & Akhand, M. (2010). Approaches to writing in EFL/ESL context: Balancing

product and process in writing class at tertiary level. Journal of NELTA, 5(3), 577-88.

Hashemnezhad, H., & Mohammadnejad, S. (2012). A case for direct and indirect feedback: The

other side of coin. English Language Teaching, 5(3) 13-23.

Haza'Al Rdaat, S., & Gardner, S. (2017). An analysis of use of conditional sentences by Arab

students of English. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 8(2), 1-13.

Heather, J. (2020). The relevance of Chomsky in 21st century second language acquisition.

Academia. Literature and language, 8(12), 241-255.

Hopkins, D. (2017). An outline of nativist and behaviorist theories of language

acquisition. International Conference on Literature, History, Humanities and

Interdisciplinary Studies, 8(2), 11-12.

Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. EFL Journal,

31(2), 217-230.

Iizuka, T., & Nakatsukasa, K. (2019). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and feedback

exposure conditions. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 4(1), 13-48.

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.

Karimi, L., & Esfandiari, N. (2016). The effect of recast vs. explicit corrective feedback on

Iranian EFL learners' stress patterns learning. Theory and Practice in Language

Studies, 6(6), 1166-1174.

Kazdin, A.E. (2021). Research design in clinical psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Kim, H.R., & Bowles, M. (2019). How deeply do second language learners process written

corrective feedback? Insights gained from think‐alouds. Tesol Quarterly, 53(4), 913-938.

 72

Kim, Y., Choi, B., Kang, S., Kim, B., & Yun, H. (2020). Comparing the effects of direct and

indirect synchronous written corrective feedback: Learning outcomes and students'

perceptions. Foreign Language Annals, 53(1), 176-199.

Kirkpatrick, A., (2012). English in ASEAN: Implications for regional multilingualism. Journal

of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33(4), 331-344.

Kyriakides, L., Christoforidou, M., Panayiotou, A., & Creemers, B.P.M. (2017). The impact of a

three-year teacher professional development course on quality of teaching: Strengths and

limitations of the dynamic approach. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4),

465-486.

Leatherdale, S. (2019). Natural experiment methodology for research: A review of how different

methods can support real-world research. International Journal of Social Research

Methodology, 22(1), 19-35.

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4),

524-536.

Lee, I. (2020). Utility of focused/comprehensive written corrective feedback research for

authentic L2 writing classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(13), 110-134.

Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta‐analysis. Language

Learning, 60(2), 309-365.

Liu, L. (2016). Using generic inductive approach in qualitative educational research: A case

study analysis. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(2), 129-135.

Lyster, R. (2004). Different effects of prompts and recast in form-focused instruction. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition 26(3), 399-432.

 73

Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language

classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.

Mahasneh, A.M., & Alwan, A.F. (2018). The effect of project-based learning on student teacher

self-efficacy and achievement. International Journal of Instruction, 11(3), 511-524.

Majlesi, A.R. (2018). Instructed vision: Navigating grammatical rules by using landmarks for

linguistic structures in corrective feedback sequences. The Modern Language

Journal, 102, 11-29.

Manuel, M. (2019). Belief system towards explicit corrective feedback in efl classroom: the case

of foundation students of Oman college of health sciences. European Journal of English

Language Teaching, 102(5), 11-29.

Merita, R., & Syahroni, A.R. (2019). A second language environment. International Conference

on Language, Education, Economic and Social Science, 2(1), 32-40.

Miller, E.C., & Krajcik, J.S., (2019). Promoting deep learning through project-based learning: A

design problem. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1-

10.

Mishra, P., Singh, U., Pandey, C.M., Mishra, P., & Pandey, G. (2019). Application of student's t-

test, analysis of variance, and covariance. Annals of Cardiac Anaesthesia, 22(4), 407-

423.

Myers, J. L., Well, A.D., & Lorch Jr, R.F. (2013). Research Design and Statistical Analysis.

Routledge.

Nourbakhsh, N., & Pourmohammadi, M. (2019). The effect of implicit vs. explicit corrective

feedback on Iranian elementary efl learners’paragraph writing ability. European Journal

of Foreign Language Teaching, 12(3), 234-245.

 74

Omar, Y.Z. (2018). Syntactic theory perception on language acquisition. Journal of Faculty of

Arts, University of Benghazi, 42(3), 378-391.

Paradis, E., O'Brien, B., Nimmon, L., Bandiera, G., & Martimianakis, M. (2016). Design:

Selection of data collection methods. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 8(2), 263-

264.

Piantadosi, S.T., & Jacobs, R. (2016). Four problems solved by the probabilistic language of

thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 54-59.

Pynegar, E.L., Jones, J.P., Gibbons, J.M., & Asquith, N. (2018). The effectiveness of payments

for ecosystem services at delivering improvements in water quality: Lessons for

experiments at the landscape scale. PeerJ, 6(6), 57-70.

Roitman, H., Erera, S., & Weiner, B. (2017). Robust standard deviation estimation for query

performance prediction. International Conference on Theory of Information Retrieval,

9(13), 245-248.

Sadat, T., Zarifi, A., Sadat, A., & Malekzadeh, J. (2015). Effectiveness of direct and indirect

corrective feedback on Iranian EFL learners' accuracy and retention of conditional

sentences types I, II & III. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(10), 2023-2028.

Sakiroglu, H.Ü. (2020). Oral corrective feedback preferences of university students in English

communication classes. International Journal of Research in Education and

Science, 6(1), 172-178.

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of

corrective feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language

Learning, 68(2), 507-545.
 75

Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Metacognitive instruction enhances the effectiveness of

feedback: Variable effects of feedback types and linguistic targets. Language

Learning, 68(2), 507-545.

Saukah, A., Dewanti, D.M.I., & Laksmi, E.D. (2017). The effect of coded and non-coded

correction feedback on the quality of Indonesian EFL students’ writing. Indonesian

Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 247-252.

Savage, K.L., Bitterlin, G., & Price, D. (2010). Grammar Matters. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Schulz, K. (2014). Fake tense in conditional sentences: A modal approach. Natural Language

Semantics, 22(2), 117-144.

Shamiri, H., & Farvardin, M.T. (2016). The effect of implicit versus explicit corrective feedback

on intermediate EFL learners' speaking self-efficacy beliefs. Theory and Practice in

Language Studies, 6(5), 1066-1075.

Sheen, Y. (2011). Corrective feedback, individual differences and second language learning.

Dordrecht: Springer.

Soave, D., & Sun, L. (2017). A generalized Levene's scale test for variance heterogeneity in the

presence of sample correlation and group uncertainty. Biometrics, 73(3), 960-971.

Storch, N. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A

research agenda. Language Teaching, 51(2),.262-277.

Tavakoli, M., & Zarrinabadi, N. (2018). Differential effects of explicit and implicit corrective

feedback on EFL learners’ willingness to communicate. Innovation in Language

Learning and Teaching, 12(3), 247-259.

Tsao, J.J., Tseng, W.T., & Wang, C. (2017). The effects of writing anxiety and motivation on
 76

college students’ self-evaluative judgments of corrective feedback. Psychological

Reports, 120(2), 219-241.

Tulviste, T., & Tamm, A. (2019). Informal language stimulation rather than corrective feedback

matters in Estonian children's language performance. Learning and Instruction, 63(4),

101-121.

Vogt, W.P., Gardner, D.C., & Haeffele, L.M. (2012). When to use what research design.

Guilford Press.

Wahyuni, S. (2017). The effect of different feedback on writing quality of college students with

different cognitive styles. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 39-58.

Walser, T. (2014). Quasi-experiments in schools: The case for historical cohort control

groups. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 19(1), 66-79.

Woiceshyn, J., & Daellenbach, U. (2018). Evaluating inductive vs deductive research in

management studies: Implications for authors, editors, and reviewers. Qualitative

Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 23(12), 136-147.

Wu, M. (2012). The Probability Approach to English If-Conditional Sentences. English

Language Teaching, 5(5), 37-44.

Xu, M., Fralick, D., Zheng, J.Z., Wang, B., Tu, X.M., & Feng, C. (2017). The differences and

similarities between two-sample t-test and paired t-test. Shanghai Archives of

Psychiatry, 29(3), 184-193.

Yilmaz, Y., & Granena, G. (2019). Cognitive individual differences as predictors of

improvement and awareness under implicit and explicit feedback conditions. The Modern

Language Journal, 103(3), 686-702.

Yüksel, D., Soruç, A., & McKinley, J. (2021). Teachers’ beliefs and practices about oral
 77

corrective feedback in university EFL classes. International Journal of Applied

Linguistics, 103(3), 534-546.

Zhang, Z.V., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with teacher and automated feedback

on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36(12), 90-102.

Zhao, Y., & Ellis, R. (2020). The relative effects of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on

the acquisition of 3rd person-s by Chinese university students: A classroom-based

study. Language Teaching Research, 13(6) 168-290.

Zheng, Y., & Yu, S. (2018). Student engagement with teacher written corrective feedback in

EFL writing: A case study of Chinese lower-proficiency students. Assessing

Writing, 37(5), 143-156.

Zohrabi, M., & Behboudnia, N. (2017). The effect of explicit and implicit corrective feedback on

segmental word-level pronunciation errors. Applied Research on English Language, 6(2),

237-266.

Žukauskas, P., Vveinhardt, J., & Andriukaitienė, R. (2018). Philosophy and paradigm of

scientific research. Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, 12(3),

144-155.