# data[].attributes.body
Introduction

Second language acquisition is a complicated assignment where everybody can observe lots of difficulties simultaneous with error treatment from various approaches and methods in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) research, the history of interaction in meaning-focused instructions gained significant importance in learning a second language (L2). The hypothesis claims when L2 learners interact with each other or with native speakers, they try to use a series of interactional techniques and adjustments to make the communication comprehensible and to negotiate the meaning.

Input-providing and output-prompting strategies

Input-providing and output-prompting strategies have a significant difference on the observational uptake rates and the rates of uptake at input-providing and mostly at output-prompting. The trainers push language learners in order to make them retain language forms that have been learned and saved in long-term memory. In addition, the necessity of producing output after output-prompting strategy obliges learners to produce more uptake and in fact be more sensitive to their own production. Such a requirement is less in place in the case of input-providing negotiation strategies. It seems quite plausible to assume that uptake moves on the part of learners in prompts look more to be an obligatory one, whereas in input-providing ones, such moves tend to be more optional and the learner is less compelled to take this move or could simply ignore it. When comparing input-providing strategy with no feedback group, we find that input providing group outperformed no feedback group in grammar learning, even though the impact of input-providing was less than output-prompting strategy.

Conclusion

Input-providing and output-prompting  are very helpful strategies in improving grammatical accuracy of the L2 learners that instruct trainers and teachers how to use focus on form options in teaching process and encourage them to draw more attention to output-prompting ones along with other focus on form interventions to lead their students to enhance linguistically competence.
Ali Alattwani
GS54752

# data[].attributes.body
Research question 1:  The results of Chi-square analysis on the distribution of uptake moves and no uptake moves revealed that there is a significant difference among group (χ 2 =17.82; df =2; p value=0.0001, p< 0.05). In other words, depending on the types of feedback instruction in young learners' classes, observable uptake rates were found to differ across groups significantly. Uptake took place in output-prompting and input-providing groups more than twice as many as it did in the no-feedback group. When the two experimental groups were compared, despite the observable discrepancy between the uptake rates, Chi-square analysis did not provide any significant difference between them (χ 2 =0.1; df =1; p value=0.75, p> 0.05).

Research question 2: From the results,  there are significant differences between the three occasions (pretest, immediate post test, and delayed post test) in the output-prompting group; furthermore, it is found that there are significant differences among the three occasions (pretest, immediate post test, and delayed post test) in the no feedback group. Then, the second null hypothesis that claimed there is no significant difference in the relative effects of input-providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies on young EFL learners’ grammar learning in the short and long run was rejected and the results showed that output-prompting group outperformed input-providing and no feedback groups in terms of grammar learning across time.

Research Question 3:  From the analysis, it can be concluded that input-providing and output-prompting groups have both made a better improvement compared to control group in terms of grammar retention based on the immediate and delayed post test results. However, the performance of output-prompting group is witnessed to be better than the other two groups on both immediate and delayed post tests.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Role of Implicit & Explicit Corrective Feedback in Persian speaking EFL Learners’ Awareness of and Accuracy in English Grammar

# data[].attributes.subject
The Role of Implicit & Explicit Corrective Feedback in Persian speaking EFL Learners’ Awareness of and Accuracy in English Grammar

# data[].attributes.body
1.0 Introduction

Many studies have examined the effectiveness of certain types of error treatment methods, there has been little research conducted to examine the effect of different types of corrective feedback on EFL learners’ grammar accuracy and awareness through eliciting repeated performances. The present research was designed to investigate the effect of implicit and explicit corrective feedback on EFL learners’ awareness of and accuracy in English grammar. So, discussion the idea of errors and corrective feedback is a controversial issue and research in this area has a long history. One of the main reasons is that these two terms are ambiguous and have been defined in different ways. Another reason is that findings of the research on the effect of corrective feedback on the learning process have been conflicting, mainly due to the widely varying learner populations, types of writing and feedback types provided and various research designs used (Hyland, 2006). Over the last few years, the role played by corrective feedback in language acquisition has become a highly important issue. From an interactionist view, corrective feedback is an important means of establishing the significance of reader responses in shaping meanings and it is seen as an important developmental tool moving learners through multiple drafts towards the capability for effective self-expression (Probst, 1989).

It has long been assumed by teachers of a second or foreign language and by researchers working in the area of corrective feedback that corrective feedback provision by the teachers helps students to acquire correct linguistic forms and structures. As a result, they have been concerned with discovering the most effective ways of providing corrective feedback so that students improve the accuracy of their (written performance). Although so much research done in the field confirms the positive effects of corrective feedback, many other studies claim that the research designs were not rich.

The study aims to explain the  role of implicit and explicit corrective feedback in L2 learners and the grammatical reliability and the familiarity of many grammatical structure of English language .the study was illustrate  the different methods if it positive or negative and the error’s correction through implicit and explicit in learn the structure of English Language .both implicit and explicit corrective feedback help learners to develop their awareness in the field of English grammar, on the other hand explicit is more useful than implicit one and that lead to increases the grammar accuracy .
Amjed Bashar GS 53434
Mohamed elsiddig GS55519
Samar Ahmed GS54444
Mohammad Shwada
GS 55354
Abdall NMajeed

# data[].attributes.body
The current study shows the comparison between short and long-term effectiveness of input-providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies on mastering the target structures

# data[].attributes.body
1. Are there any significant differences in the grammar-oriented oral uptake rates following input-providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies in young EFL learners’ classes?
2. Do input-providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies have any significant effects on young EFL learners’ grammar learning in short and long terms?
3. Are there any significant differences in the relative effects of input-providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies on young EFL learners’ grammar learning in short and long terms?

FINDINGS BASED ON THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS.

NO 1. input-providing and output-prompting strategies, was found to have a significant difference on the observational uptake rates and the rates of uptake at input-providing and mostly at output-prompting classes were more than those of no feedback group.

NO 2.
it is found that outpromting group outperfomed the input providing as there isnt any differences in grammar learning of the EFL learners in both short and long run.

NO 3.
output-prompting group outperformed input-providing and control group in terms of grammar learning and retention in both short and long runs .

Reihanah,Pasupathy
,Suresh,Shalini , Cao Mengdi

# data[].attributes.body
Research design (Mixed methods)
To collect the quantitative data, young learners participated in input-providing and output-prompting experimental groups with no feedbacks. Data contained learner-teacher form- focused episodes within each error-treatment move, and learners’ immediate response to their teachers’ corrective feedback coded as uptake were collected by the researcher after audio-recording of the classes and transcribing uptake moves.

Participants
64 learners with elementary level of proficiency at a private Language Institute in Iran, Tabriz. The participants were female learners from age 9 to 13. The researchers divided the remaining participants (54 students) to three experimental groups.

Data collection instruments
Young Learners English (YLE) proficiency test to homogenize EFL learners' level of language proficiency. After scoring the results of YLE, 54 female EFL learners were chosen from 64 learners and 10 were dropped. The other was a pretest to check the young learners' knowledge of the target features. They were in the form of both multiple-choice and recognition test and written test and production test. The total number of items in the tests was 40 and the allotted time for tests was 45 minutes.

Procedure:
To investigate any possible effects of input-providing and output-prompting FFI on learner's grammatical gains in young class.

Grammatical points
- yes/no question
-wh- question
- prepositions
1. students is divided according to their test score. 54 students are divided into 3 groups.
2 experimental group and 1 control group.
2. experimental groups will receive input-providing or output prompting
3. control group receive no feedback or errors made.
4. Before the treatment, they will undergo grammar pretest (10 sessions).
5. Treatment - for experimental group
- have communicative task (receive corrective feedback - input )
- It involves recast and confirmation check error correction.
Recast
a) intensive - frequently receive feedback with a planned lesson
b) extensive - is the opposite of intensive
6. The use of recast in this group is to draw student's attention to the existence of errors.
7. For control group, the task and instructions were the same for output-prompting group.
8. Difference between two experimental groups was in the types of reactions by teacher to the learners' error
9. participants in the control group received feedback on content (grammar, vocabulary, writing)
10. Treatment lasted for 10 sessions
- Audio recorded with 2 mini- sized mp3 voice recorders
- A second rater coded 10% of audio-recorded data taken randomly
- 2 post-tests in grammar were also conducted.

Qi Yaping, Aisyah, Khaleda, Qaisara

# data[].attributes.body
Chi-square was run in order to answer the first research question that investigated the difference in treatment group uptake. A repeated measure ANOVA and one-way ANOVA were run to analyse gains in each group and across groups over time, respectively. This is to examine the existence of any significant difference in the relative effects of input providing and output-prompting negotiation strategies on young EFL learner’s grammar learning in the short and long run and answer the second research question.

Loh Chun Han, Mi Xiao, Nabilah Syahmie Fadzle, Hossain Mosharraf

# data[].attributes.headline
Differences between input providing and output prompting

# data[].attributes.subject
Differences between input providing and output prompting

# data[].attributes.body
Input Providing :
- A form of corrective feedback where the learner is provided with the correct target form
- This does not require any action from the learner

Output Prompting :
- A form of corrective feedback where the learner is 'pushed' to self correct their own errors
- This requires learner to make an action by correcting the grammatical errors

(Adamma, Joe Waey, Eddy, Taleb Faleh)