Effects of Scaffolded and Explicit Feedback on Iranian EFL Learners' Use of Articles in Oral Productions

Document Type : Original Article


1 PhD Candidate,Islamic Azad University,Shiraz Branch,Iran

2 Associate Professor,Islamic Azad University,Shiraz Branch,Iran

3 Assistant Professor,Islamic Azad University,Shiraz Branch


This study aims to explore and compare the impacts of scaffolded and explicit feedback on Iranian EFL learners' correct use of articles in oral productions. To this end, 45 intermediate female EFL learners in three intact classes in a language institute in Behbahan, Iran were selected through convenience sampling and randomly assigned to two experimental groups of scaffolded and explicit and one control group. The research used a quantitative approach with a quasi-experimental design in the form of a pretest, treatment, posttest, and delayed posttest. While the two experimental groups received either scaffolded or explicit feedback treatment, the control group received no feedback on their errors in the use of articles. The find- ings revealed that the EFL learners in the scaffolded CF and explicit groups outperformed those of the control group concerning the accurate use of both definite and indefinite articles in their oral productions. The implications of the results are also explicated.


Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The modern language journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Althobaiti, N. (2014). Corrective feedback: A bridge between cognitive interactionist and social interactionist perspectives. American Journal of Educational Research, 2(10),  950–954. doi:10.12691/education-2-10-15
Amirghassemi, A., Azabdaftari, B., & Saeidi, M. (2013). The effect of scaffolded vs. non-scaffolded written corrective feedback on EFL learners’ written accuracy. World Applied Sciences, 22(2), 256-263.
Banaruee, H., Khatin-Zadeh, O., & Ruegg, R. (2018). Recasts vs. direct corrective feedback on writing performance of high school EFL learners. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1455333.
Bitchener, J. (2012). A reflection on ‘the language learning potential’ of written CF. Journal of  Second Language Writing, 21(4), 348-363. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.006
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in second language acquisition, 15(3), 357-386.
Chen, S., & Nassaji, H. (2018). Focus on form and corrective feedback research at the University of Victoria, Canada. Language Teaching, 51(2), 278-283.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Academic press.
DeKeyser, R. (2007). Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology: Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 52(1), 3–18. doi:10.5070/l2.v1i1.9054
Ellis, R. (2010). Epilogue: A framework for investigating oral and written corrective feedback. Studies in second language acquisition, 32(2), 335-349.
Ellis, R. (2017). Oral corrective feedback in language teaching: A historical perspective. Avances en Educación y Humanidades, 2(2), 7-22.
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.
Erlam, R., Ellis, R., & Batstone, R. (2013). Oral corrective feedback on L2 writing: Two approaches compared. System, 41(2), 257-268.
Gass, S. M. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 224-256).
Housen, A., & Pierrard, M. (2005). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (Vol. 25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: Walter de Gruyter.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (2011). Dynamic assessment in the classroom: Vygotskian praxis for second language development. Language teaching research, 15(1), 11-33.
Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 309-365. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language learning, 59(2), 453-498.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in second language acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Nassaji, H. (2020). Assessing the effectiveness of interactional feedback for L2 acquisition: Issues  and challenges. Language Teaching, 53, 3-28.
Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Rassaei, E. (2013). Corrective feedback, learners' perceptions, and second language development. System, 41(2), 472-483.
Rassaei, E. (2014). Scaffolded feedback, recasts, and L2 development: A sociocultural perspective. The modern language journal, 98(1), 417-431.
Rassaei, E. (2015). Oral corrective feedback, foreign language anxiety and L2 development. System, 49, 98-109.