COMPARING THE EFFECTS OF TWO TYPES OF OUTPUTPUSHING FEEDBACK ON ADULT EFL STUDENTS’ ORAL ACCURACY

Abstract

Despite growing evidence that providing immediate oral corrective feedback can help second language students speak more accurately, the way in which feedback should be given remains controversial. While a great number of studies support the use of recasts, authors such as Lyster and Saito (2010) claim that output-pushing feedback could be more beneficial for classroom learners. However, few studies have attempted to tease apart the effects of separate output-pushing feedback-types or prompts, which is why the present small-scale study compares two kinds of prompts; metalinguistic feedback and elicitation. 
Two groups of intermediate university students (n=31) received either elicitation or metalinguistic feedback while carrying out communicative speaking activities. A statistical analysis of students’ gain scores from pre- to posttest shows that metalinguistic feedback had greater effects on students’ accuracy, although these were not significant. Metalinguistic feedback was also much more successful at helping students correct their errors during the classroom intervention.