Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics (IJAL)
Poorebrahim, Fatemeh
Unknown Affiliation
Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
INDIRECT WRITTEN CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK, REVISION, AND LEARNING Poorebrahim, Fatemeh
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol 6, No 2 (2017): Vol. 6 No. 2, January 2017
Publisher : Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.17509/ijal.v6i2.4843

Abstract

Corrective feedback, the necessity of providing it, and how it should be provided has been one of the hot topics in the area of ELT. Amid continuing controversies over whether providing feedback helps L2 learners improve their writing accuracy, many research studies have been undertaken to compare the relative effectiveness of different types of feedback. However, the difference between two types of indirect corrective feedback, namely indication and indication plus location, have not been properly examined yet. Motivated to narrow this gap, this study is designed to compare two groups of Iranian learners, each revising their papers based on one of the aforementioned options. For data analysis, a series of independent samples t tests were employed. The results revealed that the difference between the two groups in their reduction of errors from the original draft to the revision of each task followed a growing trend and became significant. Nonetheless, the difference in accuracy of new pieces of writing fell short of significance. Finally, it was found that error reduction in revision stage cannot be considered as learning. The results of the study, discussed in relation to that of others, implicate that the purpose for which feedback is provided is essential in determining the type of feedback; more explicit feedback is better for revising purposes while more implicit feedback is good for learning purposes.
Bilingualism, monoliteracy, and third language writing: A case from Turkish-Persian context in Iran Poorebrahim, Fatemeh; Afsharrad, Mohammad; Ghonsooly, Behzad
Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics Vol 10, No 2 (2020): Vol. 10, No. 2, September 2020
Publisher : Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.17509/ijal.v10i2.28608

Abstract

Studies on third language (L3) acquisition have shown that biliteracy has a facilitative effect on L3 writing. By comparing performances of bilinguals and monolinguals in subsequent language (English) writing, this study attempts to find whether being bilingual but not biliterate is of help to L3 writing. To this end, 52 Turk-Fars bilingual and 57 Fars monolingual females participated in the study. Data were collected through the participants’ compositions and think-aloud protocols. A series of Mann Whitney U tests were employed to compare the groups’ total writing scores and scores in different components of writing. The results of the study revealed that bilinguals performed better than monolinguals in total writing, organization, and mechanics. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in content, discourse, syntax, and vocabulary of their compositions. This indicates that being bilingual without necessarily being biliterate is of help to L3 writing. Moreover, it was found that English language was the most frequently used medium of thought while writing in English. The findings of this study indicate the need for developing localized bilingual education systems so that bilinguals can take maximum advantage of their background languages in the process of L3 learning.
Co-Authors Ghonsooly, Behzad Mohammad Afsharrad, Mohammad